With a kitchen accent wall appropriately painted fire engine(ish) red, 2243 Greenwich has returned to the market “lender owned” and listed for $1,818,000. As we reported in 2008 when the asking price for the Cow Hollow house had been reduced to $1,695,000:
As any truly plugged-in person should know, the location of 2243 Greenwich is a bit more problematic than any of the tightly cropped listing photos might suggest.
And as such, that’s most likely why this six-bedroom Cow Hollow home sold for only $1,800,000 at the end of 2005 (and became an asterisked neighborhood comp).
And while it was briefly in escrow when it was listed for $1,745,000, it is no longer. And the price has once again been reduced. Asking $2,195,000 five months ago. Asking $1,695,000 today (5.8% below its selling price in 2005).
Despite what Redfin reports, as best we can tell the property was never actually foreclosed upon in 2009 but rather deeded back to the lender in lieu of foreclosure that October with $2,405,000 owed at the time.
∙ Listing: 2243 Greenwich Street (6/5) 2,750 sqft – $1,818,000 [Redfin]
∙ A Little Extra Perspective On The Listing Market? (2243 Greenwich) [SocketSite]
∙ A Little Extra Perspective On The Listing: 2243 Greenwich [SocketSite]
Location aside, whoever installed the vanities in the bathrooms should be taken out back and flogged. Have they heard of a tile saw?
Don’t even get me started on the kitchen.
This is going to be a challenge to sell, even as a rental.
Adobe just announced a big layoff – it looks like most of that will be concentrated in their San Francisco offices and they are usually early in the layoff cycle, though it may be more related to issues with them than any broader industry issue; Italy is blowing up, though no doubt will be kicked down the road a bit; and HSBC now says they are seeing a big uptick in US residents not paying their mortgages – the first uptick in 2 years.
Who would take a chance on this property in an environment that is clearly heading down again?
[Editor’s Note: Preforeclosure Activity In San Francisco Picks Up Speed. And now back to the property at hand…]
DILF (deed in lieu of foreclosure) makes much more sense re: my comment on an older thread about this house. The buyer pulled out $600K of OPM and wasted it, presumably. Guess they weren’t willing to wait out the short sale.
this property’s highest and best use is clearly as a home for transitioning foster youth. quick, call off the edward II.
HSBC now says they are seeing a big uptick in US residents not paying their mortgages
“Don’t 1099 Me, Bro” (aka The Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act) expires at the end of 2012. Whodathunkit?
I’m gonna respond to EBGuy’s comment here about 1099’s and foreclosures in the thread about pre-forecolsure activity.
The lot is zoned RH-2 and the width looks to be at least 30 feet. Demo the house and build two side by side 3 or 4 story townhouse type units.
as best we can tell the property was never actually foreclosed upon in 2009 but rather deeded back to the lender in lieu of foreclosure
Don’t worry, one of the big losers on the trustee deed from 2009 was Deutsche Alt-A Securities, Inc. Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2007. Through the miracle of securitization, losses were distributed across the globe. Lucky of us, or we’d have a real financial crisis on our hands. Oh, and the 2005 debacle involved latecomer (second or third lien?) Cal State 9 Credit Union (RIP).
inmycountry wrote:
> The lot is zoned RH-2 and the width
> looks to be at least 30 feet. Demo t
> he house and build two side by side
> 3 or 4 story townhouse type units.
A purchase at the current list price + demo cost + building permits + plans will cost about $2mm. You can not make any money building townhouse units (in Cow Hollow next to a firehouse) when it costs $1mm for each vacant lot…
@FAB: But I thought development was easy money!
ryan wrote:
> @FAB: But I thought development was easy money!
I have NEVER said that “development was easy money”!
With the exception of families that have been in the development business for years and have many long term connections with contractors and politicians most people lose money when they develop property.
Unless you have been developing for years it will take longer and cost more than you ever thought.
P.S. I just “fix up” property and would not even use the term “re-develop”. Fixing up well located property is easier than developing a property from scratch, but even what I do is not “easy money”…
“Don’t worry, one of the big losers on the trustee deed from 2009 was Deutsche Alt-A Securities, Inc. Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2007.”
No surprise that it was Alt-A. Those portfolios were full of non-performing crap.
I agree 100% with FAB in regards to building units on the property- one would lose a couple of million – if units were built half decent. I suggest the sellers approach the city with a very reasonable offer and the city rents it out to firefighters or lets the guys on shift live there. I just can’t see it selling, but you never know.
It’s ugly and right next to the fire station — huge minuses. But it’s not bad inside, pretty big, and (fire station aside) the neighborhood is good. It sold for $1,050,000 in 2001 as a proper reflection of the big negatives. It would sell again in that price range. The 2005 price was characteristic bubble madness.
Price Reduced: $1,790,900
Is it possible that they meant to reduce it by 271k and not 27.1k. Because, I’m not sure this place would sell at $1.54
I predict a sale at $1.05
The list price for 2243 Greenwich Street has just been reduced to $1,615,000.
Hard to even bother keeping up with this one. Although the home on the other side of the fire station did go into contract recently but I’m not following that too closely.
Reduced to 1.399.
Neighboring property just down the street on the same side of street and within 3 lots of the fire house just sold for $2.68. 2269 Greenwich. Fairly surprised. $802/psf
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/2269-Greenwich-St-94123/home/1348570