221 Danvers: The House
From the listing for 221 Danvers: “Property is still on the market. Sellers are motivated and would like to receive an offer.” We’re guessing there might be some wiggle room on the price. And damn it, we’re still fixated on that cottage out back.
∙ Listing: 221 Danvers (3/3) – $1,629,000 [Zephyr]
Got Vision? [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Anonymous

    The Cottage/Barn is cute but this price is an example of the madness we have been living in for the past four years. For 1.6 million you could get a 3bd in Kapalua (I know, since my 3bd townhouse with garage overlooking course and beach is about 800,000 and the rental income is outstanding) and another home somewhere else of your choosing. (Chicago, San Diego, Palm Desert, etc.) What is so special and unique about this property, certainly not the location. In the real world owning a home for 1.6 means that you have a position that gives you the financial freedom to many times choose where you would like to live. Are they really going to choose Dolores Heights?

  2. Posted by badlydrawnbear

    “… would like to receive an offer.”
    Hmmm … gosh what could they possibly do to generate interest in the property?
    Gosh, this is tough!
    Well I heard once, a long time ago, that sometimes sellers actually had to lower their asking price before attracting buyers.
    Nah, what am I thinking, no one cares about price!

  3. Posted by Anonymous

    Can someone tell me if this house is located in San Francisco? Where is Danvers St.? Who in the right mind pays anything over 1 million for a location one has never heard of? Is it just me that doesn’t know where this house is?
    Location, location, location!

  4. Posted by Dude

    All valid points (even Prime’s keen observation that this property is not in the Marina).
    The location is fine – I like this part of town. But just from looking at the pictures, it seems largely unspectacular. The floors are awful in most of the house, none of the cabinetry seems to have been renovated in years, and there’s no garage. So there’s a shed out back, great. Does that make it worth $1.6 million? This is a wishing price.
    Anon at 5:46am put it best: If I have the wherewithal to spend $1.6 million on a house, why would I choose this given the amount of fantastic options in that price range?

  5. Posted by Phil

    Gotta dig that industrial-grade carpet, too! A 1.6mil fixer-upper, now that’s a deal!

  6. Posted by curmudgeon

    In answer to the location question…since we all obviously have access to the internet, all you have to do is type 221 Danvers Street, San Francisco into googlemaps (or any other search engine) and you will quickly find that this property is in the Castro. Danvers is a little side street just off Caselli. I guess in real estate terms it is “Eureka Valley/Dolores Heights”, but in geographical terms it is NOT Dolores Heights, it is on the upslope of Eureka Valley west of Castro Street.
    It’s a charming neighborhood full of many beautiful homes.
    Although I’m not saying that 1.6 is a good price for a fixer, the property IS very interesting because it feels like a little “compound” with the house, the cottagy barn in back and the side yard (which could be used for parking I believe). In a city and neighborhood where most buildings are attached, this one has a little bit of space. As a place to live this could be very charming.

  7. Posted by Johnny B

    Whoever had given them the idea to price at 1.6 should be taken out to that lovely back cottage and {use your imagination}
    [Removed by Editor] I have come to notice that in the current market is seems like Zephyr has some strange plan to try and hold prices by either overpricing or not advising their sellers to reduce pricing to what might fly. Overall I think it hurts Zephyr and their agents since they wont get paid unless things sell BUT I think they are still trying to pull a larger lets save the SF market strategy.

  8. Posted by eddy

    When and for what did it last sell for…? Anyone?
    PS: I loved the response at 5:46, I laughed out loud. Haven’t laughed here since the godzilla picture. Probably my fav post of all time here.

  9. Posted by Anonymous

    Are we still on planet earth? I just scrolled through the photos on the listing site and ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!
    Talk about BIG BRASS CAJONES! Wow, I’m literally speechless. I don’t care how cool the Eureka Valley is generally (and some parts are pretty damn cool), this listing is officially “off the reservation”, even for San Francisco.

  10. Posted by old sharecropper

    Calling a shack that needs to be torn down a “Cottage, Barn” is beyond all imagination. But, calling this property “Charming” is a concern. No wonder prices have run up when an old p.o.s. like this can even be considered charming…..

  11. Posted by tipster

    Typical of fixers, the seller sees the house it once was and can’t see the house that is. The seller thinks, “If you put $0.5M into this house, (and a ton of time) it would be worth 1.6M, so let’s ask 1.6M.”
    There was a time when some buyer could be produced who would buy such homes, and by the time two years was up that it took to resture the home, the rising market would have bailed that idiot out of his stupidity. But, alas, I think such times have passed.
    A place like this could be rented for about 3200. Why someone would buy it at 4 times the prices is, of course, now not even a question on this forum. Everyone agrees this POS isn’t going anywhere.

  12. Posted by motived?

    “Property is still on the market. Sellers are motivated and would like to receive an offer.”
    Feh. Don’t TELL me they’re motivated. SHOW me they’re motivated, by, like, I don’t know, slashing the price?!?!?
    If they find a Greater Fool to buy this place at this price, I am going to cry.
    Property Shark is showing that it was purchased 4/1/1999 for $648,000

  13. Posted by Anonymous

    I’ll take the condo in Kapalua and keep the rest of the cash….please! The picture of the kitchen in this home is beyond belief. What could they be possibly thinking? 1.6 will get you a home in Sausilito with a nice view of the city at the present. To not lower the listing price by this date is insulting.

  14. Posted by tipster

    Oh, it’s clearer if you look at the PDF property description on the realtor’s web site. It’s two lots, each 29×85, with the house on one of them (and I assume, no parking) with the other lot used for parking and having the shed on the back of it.
    I’m guessing they value lot #1 with the house at $900K and lot #2 at something like $500K. And maybe 200K as a premium for having two lots together [Removed by Editor]. So they are probably thinking it might be worth 1.4K and they are $200K too high. I don’t know if these numbers are right, but it’s probably what they are thinking.

  15. Posted by Christopher

    Even at 1.4, it’s just not reasonable, the building needs major work and I suspect much of the current renovation work (think do-it-yourself in 1978) is not even close to code and will require a fortune to redo. There is a “compound” feel to it, but one will need to park your car (or two) in your compound, because street parking in this hood is tight (I know, I live one block away).

  16. Posted by Anonymous

    they owe $1,450,000 on it.

  17. Posted by curmudgeon

    they owe $1.45? Oh my they are in a world of #*$@. Assuming they were the buyers in 1999..damn..that’s a lot of crack. Or somethings. It sure isn’t showing up in the renovation of the property. Wonder if they’re deducting all that home equity interest…
    Note that I said “could be charming”….If this were sold for a real fixer upper price, someone handy could have fun with it. $1.6 clearly isn’t close to that price in todays market.

  18. Posted by Lori

    Aieee, $1.45M, that’s a lot to owe. Sounds like they pulled all the equity out of it to finance other properties. Looks like we may soon see this on the auction block at the Van Ness courthouse. But my guess is that it won’t sell for the minimum required bid.

  19. Posted by Anonymous

    Looks like the last recorded sale was for $648,000 on 4/1/99. Public records report it to be 1,124 SF built in 1900, but public records in SF generally don’t include any additions, attic areas, basements or outbuildings/cottages, so this number is often only a starting point. Site size is reported at 4,734 SF which is bigger than your standard 2,500 SF lot. Also looks like it’s been refinanced about 4 times since the purchase.

  20. Posted by Dude

    Which brings up an interesting point…how many of our fellow San Franciscans/Californians have used their homes like checkbooks to fund investments, vacations, Range Rovers, etc.? Now the ARMs are starting to adjust and they’re becoming “motivated.”
    In case anyone was still wondering why mortgage analysts are predicting a 460% increase in foreclosures in San Francisco, here’s your answer.

  21. Posted by jon jameson

    they’ve turned $648k into $1.450k. that is probably emblematic of the real estate scene in america. we’ve got a long way to go to reach bottom. i know i’m living in the past. but, somehow i think $1.6 million should buy a mansion. i’ve got a lot to learn.

  22. Posted by anon

    it’s a bit challenged in the curb appeal arena. looks like something that would rent for about 2k. s.f. is expensive, let’s say 3k. on a rental basis, 600k is way high. are the wages all that high there? $1.6 million, looks like fixed up junque. bueno suerte!

  23. Posted by Ben

    What happened???! The house is missing..

  24. Posted by Michael

    It’s not in contract, so looks like the listing was pulled. I’d guess we’ll see it again in the not too distant future…

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles