Rebuilt, remodeled and expanded to 3,500 square feet, the modernized single-family home at 948 Hampshire Street in the Inner Mission traded hands for $3.8 million in December of 2015.

The home’s kitchen is outfitted with a marble waterfall island, lacquer cabinetry, high-end appliances and an operable wall of glass which opens to a deck and backyard.

A floating staircase leads up to the rather sweet master suite and another two of the home’s five bedrooms, atop of which there’s a protected roof deck while the ground floor bedrooms open to a finished patio, fire pit and the aforementioned yard.

And having been listed for $3.8 million (roughly $1,085 per square foot) nine months ago, re-listed for $3.9 million in June and then reduced to $3.495 million in October, the sale of 948 Hampshire has now closed escrow with a $3.2 million contract price.

That’s roughly $914 per square foot for the high-end single-family home in the Mission and down 15.8 percent on an apples-to-apples basis since the end of 2015.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by SDSF

    This is a not particularly distinguished part of the mission right near potrero and SF general. This developer / flipper may have miscalculated the spot, but I would not want to spend north of 3M for that part of town, no matter how nice the staircase is

    • Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

      Though the most recent seller lost, the developer did just fine, selling this property for $ 3.8M in 2015.

  2. Posted by KMW

    Who bought this for 3.8 in 2015 thinking they were going to flip it 2 years later for a profit?

    • Posted by Tipster

      Public Records says it was one of the original founders of Venmo, a New York money transfer company, who sold the whole company about 5 years ago for $26M (his share is unknown) long before it became more well known.

  3. Posted by Serge

    Does anyone have a link to photos of what the interior looked like before they took it down to the studs and made it into an Apple Store? I found a few that show it gutted, but nothing before that.

    • Posted by Brian

      This property sold in July 2013. The people living in it at the time had gutted the existing structure, and the guy was planning on doing the work himself. Of course, once he realized that no one would lend money to him in the state it was in, he had little choice but to sell. It sold for $949K in cash to the developer, and they in turn took just shy of 2.5 years to “flip” it.

      The sheathing of the building (plywood) sat exposed to the elements for nearly 2 full years without protection. When we heard what the place had sold for ($3.8M) in 2015, we just chuckled and rolled our eyes – knowing full well that some tech bro paid entirely too much money for the place.

      At least they found a buyer north of $3M for the place – but building two down from it is going to sit open for quite a while, as the flip job on it was done HORRIBLY (moldings cut inches short, and “fixed” by jamming another small piece and a bunch of caulking in there, or light fixtures with escutcheons that didn’t even cover the holes cut in the ceiling for them, etc.) and will not get anywhere near what’s being asked for it.

      • Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

        Ha. When I was studying the trades, one of my instructors would look over student finish work and remark “Putty, filler and paint takes care of what the carpenter’s skills can’t”.

  4. Posted by observant neighbor

    Nearby, the ugly modern condo at 2405 Folsom also just sold ($986/sqft), down 4.5% since Oct. 2015. But around the corner from 2405 Folsom, a smaller Victorian condo with lovely original detail sold a month ago for $1285/sqft (3265 20th St.).

    Could it be that buyers are tiring of gutted Victorians and slapdash contemporary construction?

    • Posted by curmudgeon

      interesting! Would it be true!

    • Posted by SFrentier

      I don’t think it’s people not liking the design. It’s all about paying ~ $1000 psf for properties ranging in 1000-2000 sq ft, vs paying that same rate for 3000+. Folsom condo is a perfect example of this.

      The same thing happened in noe valley 10-15 years ago. When noe blew up there were plenty of $3mil+ home sales. When the Great Recession hit, the high end homes took a bigger hit than smaller noe properties.

      It’s a gentrification phenomena imo- as a neighborhood gentrifies the high end homes appear, as they are mostly flipper opportunity projects. And they sell well. But once a kink hits the sales boom, those homes are in a more precarious position (wrt holding their value) than a more budget friendly and financially preactical condo, tic or less renovated smaller home.

      I think it’s different for established north side SFH’s in the marina, pac heights, etc. Multimillion price homes are the norm there for over 15 years. They passed the gentrification hump decades ago.

      • Posted by anon2

        “than a more budget friendly and financially preactical condo, tic or less renovated smaller home.”

        Except that we’re seeing weakness in condo prices as well.

        You have to weigh the possibility of a load of complex rationalization vs a simple change in the tone of the housing market.

        • Posted by Ohlone Californio

          And you, for your part, could occasionally read a chart and accept what it displays as they usually show gains and you usually talk about something else.

          • Posted by anon2

            @Ohlone – Keep in mind that this sale actually *raises* the median in SF despite being down 16% from 2015. So that cheery chart your local realtor puts on a postcard and stuffs in your mailbox may not be telling you what you think it’s saying.

          • Posted by Ohlone Californio

            Yes I will “keep in mind.”

        • Posted by SFrentier

          “Except that we’re seeing weakness in condo prices as well.”

          Correct, but mostly for condos in newly constructed towers usually in soma, fidi, and south beach.

          I’m comparing this SFH to similar but smaller condos and non renovated SFH’s in the mish. Their decline? not so much.

          Looks like complex rationalizations win the day

          • Posted by SFrentier

            Worlds away from -16% drop…

          • Posted by anon2

            @SFrenter – Don’t miss the forest for the trees! Just a few short years ago, who would have thought that in 2018 sub 2014-15 sales would be held up as bullish examples to contrast with an even steeper price drop.

          • Posted by Ohlone Californio

            That didn’t even make any sense.

          • Posted by SFrentier

            A- it’s SFrentier, not SFrenter. Big difference
            B- huh?

          • Posted by kbbl

            OK so the market maybe has concluded we’ve reached Peak Mission. I’ve not seen other hoods rock back that much. I know at least one condo that did surprisingly well on the 2012 to 2017 range.

          • Posted by anon2

            Poorly phrased on my part.

            The point is that you should look at the big picture. You can get caught up in the tactical rhetorical battles over each individual ‘apple’ data point while missing the more significant movement of ‘the front line’, the overall state of the market.

            Not too long ago, the argument was over if anything would stop prices from their rocket-like rise. i.e. ‘Unless people stop using their smartphones, nothings going to change about the market’. Then there were leading signs of weakness and the argument was about how significant those signs were. Then some actual signs of slowing, but ‘sellers will never capitulate’. Then ‘we’ll never see 2015 pricing again’. Then just four months ago sub 2015 pricing was the vanguard of price declines. Now we have a price drop that is ‘Worlds away’ in the downward direction from those apples of just four months ago.

          • Posted by Ohlone Californio

            I don’t see how you have arrived at that take, to be honest. Doesn’t late 2014-2015 to present look like a plateau? We see anecdotes of loss, we see anecdotes of gain. We seen some areas take hits, we see other areas continue to climb. Overall the population has increased and unemployment is down as well. Big tax cuts for the very wealthy just went into play. The stock market is soaring. The year is brand new. Sorry, but any sort of general summing up at this time is going to come off as forced right now.

  5. Posted by Bobby Mucho

    After a quick search, this is the only other listing I could find that had photos of the pre-reno status. It should be no surprise that a lot of these flips are in pretty terrible condition prior to their (often gratuitous) remodels.

  6. Posted by cleverpunhere

    Five bedrooms, but three are on the top floor and two are two levels below in the basement?

    • Posted by curmudgeon

      Does anyone else find it incredibly odd that it has a very generous master bedroom, but then four tiny bedrooms? Poor choices IMHO….

      • Posted by cleverpunhere

        Totally agree–the four other bedrooms are roughly the size of the master bathroom. There are also a variety of other oddities shown on the plans. The main floor of the house has basically no storage, aside from modest kitchen cabinets. And that same floor has just one tiny 1/2 bath, which appears to open essentially next to the wall ovens. This is what happens when you try to maximize square footage over all other priorities, I think.

        Made for showing, not for living.

    • Posted by mvp

      Having bedrooms split like this seems to be the conventional wisdom these days with respect to potential international buyers. The thinking is that you will have parents or inlaws come for an extended period of time and they would be living in their own wing of the house away from the rest of the family.

  7. Posted by SFRealist

    I find these Apple store interiors very unfriendly.

    But hey that’s just my opinion man…

  8. Posted by bachman_erlich_overdrive

    People were paying stupid prices in Noe.

    If 553 Elizabeth Street sold today, my over/under would be $4.5mm, or a $2.5mm loss, closer to $1K per foot. That was the most egregious of the period IMHO.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *