May 17, 2013
Cottage Charm In The City Listed For Under Four Hundred Grand
Set back from the street behind a flowering garden, we’ll agree. What the one-bedroom Bernal cottage at 129 Ellert Street might lack in terms of space, it makes up for in charm:
It’s already a good use of existing space, but there’s room for improvement as well.
Listed for $399,000, the cottage at 129 Ellert is one-half of a two-unit TIC.
∙ Listing: 129 Ellert Street (1/1) - $399,000 (TIC) [cbrb.com]
First Published: May 17, 2013 3:30 PM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Why is this a TIC?
Posted by: Badlydrawnbear at May 18, 2013 10:32 PM
Probably shares the lot with another building that does not have independent access (ie walk through one to get to the other).
Posted by: Jack at May 19, 2013 9:18 AM
Remember when real estate listings used to list square footage? Ah the good old days.
If you have to ask, it's too small.
Posted by: Mr. Mikey at May 19, 2013 7:44 PM
SF real estate listings have never consistently listed square footage. When it's to their advantage, the square footage is given but if the price per square foot is too high, why list it if it's not required.
I'd guess that this one is under 500 square feet.
Posted by: 94114 at May 20, 2013 8:35 AM
The white picket fence on the left actually separates the garden from a side alley. The side alley leads to another cottage at the back. Look at this view of the side entrance with 129.5 on it. No one will cross your living room to get to his place! This reduces the width of the property by a few feet though (3?). Therefore a footprint no more than 21-22 foot wide by roughly 25 feet deep give or take a foot.
It's small, but I think it's a functional 1BR. Also,It's a pretty deep lot. The front cottage appears to have 45-50 foot of garden.
The question is: will you be competing with contractors who see gold in empty spaces today? And is the TIC partner willing to allow any kind of expansion?
Posted by: lol at May 20, 2013 9:50 AM
Square footage mainly comes from tax records. Realtors need only check the box to autofill the field. However, if the number in the database appears suspect often the "Not available" box is checked. In this case, since it's a TIC, the tax records would not have the sq ft for the separate interest being sold. Not many realtors will pull our their tapes and measure a property, and make themselves a target for mistakes doing this. Not everything is a conspiracy. :-)
Posted by: formerly%whatever at May 20, 2013 10:41 AM
"Not everything is a conspiracy. :-)".
As a former real estate agent, I don't have an axe to grind against real estate agents but it is really mind-boggling how routinely square footage is missing. How about the word "approximate" or the phrase "buyer to verify"? Is that not in their vocabulary?
Posted by: 94114 at May 20, 2013 11:15 AM
I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for even approximate footage numbers to be published. What's in it for the agents? It is often easier to move a product if you can get the buyer to focus on intangibles and irrelevant information and less on objective facts. Check out just about any high end listing and you'll find flowery text describing how it could feel to live there but missing facts like footage that are straightforward to measure.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at May 20, 2013 12:46 PM
In my buying days (2009-2011), I always came to open houses with a tape to measure actual square footage. Yes, I was being an obnoxious whiner but this was a time when bears ruled the earth...
The potential for this property is the land and whatever you can do with it. Heck, there's even space for a 30-foot swimming pool on this south-facing lot! I am not sure if you could build it though.
Posted by: lol at May 20, 2013 1:25 PM
Yay! A sweet property for the non-CEO class. Nice to read about this.
Posted by: lark at May 21, 2013 11:16 AM