As we outlined early last month:

Having very briefly held the title of the most expensive reported home sale in the history of Bernal Heights when it sold for $2,310,000 back in the first quarter of 2015, the contemporary four-level, 3,015-square-foot home at 152 Elsie Street – which features an open main floor plan, four large bedrooms, a lower-level media room, and views, but no off-street parking space or garage – returned to the market priced at $3,100,000 this past December.

Reduced to $2,999,999 at the end of February, with an interim reduction to $3,097,000 in January, and then withdrawn from the MLS in early March, the Bernal Heights home has just been listed anew, with an official “1” day on the market and an “original” list price of $2,995,000, or roughly $993 per square foot, a sale at which would be considered to be “at asking” according to all industry stats and aggregate reports.

The re-sale of 152 Elsie has now closed escrow with a contract price of $2.825 million, which is 9 percent below its list price at the end of last year but 22 percent above the price it fetched in the first quarter of 2015 on an apples-to-apples basis, with a price per square foot of $937 (versus a neighborhood average that’s been running closer to $1,000 per square foot or $1,075 for homes of a similar size).

Keep in mind that 152 Elsie is not only twice the size of the average Bernal Heights home but is in the top 1 percent for the neighborhood, albeit without a garage.

And with respect to the “most expensive home in Bernal,” that title currently belongs to the recently “remodeled” home at 225 Holly Park Circle which was transformed from a 844-square-foot shack into a 3,600-square-foot view home with a 3-car garage and quietly traded off-market for $4.865 million, or roughly $1,351 per square foot, at the end of last year having been positioned as “simply…a home for our family,” versus a speculative development, when the project was approved.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Panhandle Pro

    The seller should be happy. They shot for the moon with 3.1M, led a questionable price reduction and staging process, and ended up only 9% below. I can’t imagine paying 2.9M for a home without a garage in a hilly part of SF with seemingly dicey street parking, but hey, that’s me.

  2. Posted by jenofla

    Welp, totally undercalled it. I guess I totally underestimated the demand for a large house in Bernal, even with what seems to be major deficiencies (four stairs-only stories, no garage (even without a car, a garage is great for workshops, storage, sports equipment, and bicycles)) and covid timing. I notice the sales website mentions “secured leased parking” in its description, I wonder where that is?

    As this is a second sale at high prices, it must not be just luck. While I can’t imagine it, some buyer’s lifestyle fits the location and design. Congrats to the seller.

  3. Posted by Tony Timpa

    So $500k higher than the previous market price in 2015? This was a tough one to write, I’m sure.

    • Posted by frank

      Why tough? Seems pretty typical. 22% over 5 years. 4%/year average, but probably some good double digit or close to it appreciation from 2015-2018, then flat to slight down the rest of the way.

    • Posted by Sri

      Made me laugh. This site adores writing about homes that lost value or barely went up, so this one must have been a painful writeup indeed! Not only up $100k, but this means the seller made $1,000,000 pre tax profit? Why? Because that $500,000 profit is tax free thanks to the 2+ year rule. It also means on a $460k down payment, the seller more than DOUBLED their money and lived in the whole essentially free the whole time too. Incredible outcome.

      • Posted by filbert

        You’ll be laughing all the way to the poorhouse with those finance skills, sport. What about the mortgage payments on a $2.3M house? Taxes? Upkeep? Transaction costs? Incredible or un-credible, sport?

  4. Posted by Juan Doe

    Great analysis! This is why I read socketsite. Grateful for it thank you.

  5. Posted by Miraloma Man

    What a gruesome design. High-end Favela style?

  6. Posted by Brian M

    versus the 1950s split levels dominant in Miraloma? Taste is personal.

    • Posted by Miraloma Man

      No, not really. Most of Miraloma was built in the 1920s and 1930s, and definitely not many split levels. I think you are thinking of Sherwood Forest or Midtown Terrace. But, beside the point, am I not allowed to register an opinion regarding the design merits of said Bernal dwelling?

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles