Yes, there’s a single-family home in there somewhere (and apparently another “rare opportunity”). What can we say, it is a “contractor’s” (and perhaps landscaper’s) special. And honestly, what did you expect for $299,000 in San Francisco?
∙ Listing: 1082 Jamestown Avenue (1/1) – $299,000 [MLS]
∙ A Rare Opportunity Returns In Bernal (368 Prentiss) [SocketSite]
And it’s best feature (touted on the listing): it ALREADY has fire damage, so you won’t have to push it off its foundation or start your own fire just to get a demolition permit!
I wonder if they would take the home with them if you just wanted the lot for 299k?
“Bayview Heights”???????
the lengths RE agents will go to!
Fire damage, 600 square feet, Bayview, $299K? We really are crazy out here with our real estate prices.
We’re not crazy. Does $300K get you anything better in other major cities?
http://chicago.craigslist.org/chc/rfs/445355732.html
http://atlanta.craigslist.org/rfs/444513548.html
http://portland.craigslist.org/mlt/rfs/444909287.html
http://denver.craigslist.org/rfs/445054177.html
http://philadelphia.craigslist.org/rfs/436175135.html
http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/rfs/442581708.html
http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/rfs/445427953.html
http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/rfs/445360106.html
I think ill go see it today. Dose any one how bad the fire damage is? and how much the cost will be to repair?
Dude, that list gives one a real eye opener. The Chicago listing in particular shocks me as I know that location and it is very nice. We have lost more people from our firm who after two years here have decided it is not worth the high cost of living. We pay higher than any office except New York, but between the homeless problem and housing costs, we cannot compete with recruiters for openings in other cities.
anon, funny how it’s supposedly so hard to get people to move here because of high cost of living, yet we consistently had a better economy than other areas – significantly better. Chicago may be the exception – but that’s only ONE place that may be doing a better balancing act between high pay and high cost of living. Do we have to be number one in EVERYTHING before you think that things aren’t that bad here?
This photo reminds me of the old joke Reagan used to tell–which ends, “There’s got to be a pony in there somewhere.”
We pay on average around 110k for architects (lic. with 5 yr + exp.). Do you realize how you could live in Chicago on 110k? (Our Chicago office pays about 100k) As for winter cold, with all of your extra money you can rent a condo for a month in Maui or Palm Springs which is what many people in our office there do. As for San Francisco being #1, I love it here too, but I bought in 1991 which was a different world then. You may be suprised but the secret is out about our city, sure Conde Nast lists us at the top for restaurants and hotels, but living here is different than coming here for a romantic weekend and many clients who come to visit us love to lecture me about how “dirty” and “unsafe” it is here including clients from NYC!
Please BUY THIS HOUSE since it allows you the allure of a prized San Francisco address. The rest of the world will be so envious.
Anybody who is moving away from SF because of “the homeless problem” is either reading too much CW Nevius or just plain does not like large cities.
anon, this city and region do not churn out good architects or architecture firms. However, this city and region do churn out very high paid folks in other industries, which raises the cost of living for everyone else. I agree that it makes no sense for someone to only make 10% more than Chicago to live here – your firm isn’t paying enough here to attract the top or they’re paying too much in Chicago – period. In my line of work, I make 50% more than my Chicago counterparts, and 10% more than my NYC counterparts – which is a part of the reason why I live here.
It’s to bad for us regular people that our cost of living in the Bay is much higher than our somewhat higher salaries.
My GF is from Chicago so I know a lot of people back there and I am amazed at what they pay for their nice places. Part of it is simply a supply issue as we are stuck with restrictive land use policies while Chicago seems to have endless nice mid rises, high rises and old warehouses to convert as well as a pro development culture
Our closest friend there has a 9th floor one bedroom, modest but very nice with a roof top pool and very nice common areas on a high school teacher’s salary. I can’t recall the hood but it is near to Lincoln Park and is very nice and established. One of the better ones in the city I think
Anon-watcher, why defend a listing such as this? What is the point? Herb Caen used to write at great length about when the scales finally fell from his eyes regarding the city. The brand of “San Francisco” reminds me of Hermes, very nice BUT very expensive. I was given a rather ordinary blanket on Christmas that cost about $1,000. Why?, becuase it was from Hermes. I must admit the box was amazing.
It is funny to watch how people’s reactions change sometimes when they find out the blanket was from Hermes. Some could care less. Some, like you I think, want to believe in what they are told is desirable and worth the cost. The same is true with San Francisco, Travel and Leisure said so didn’t they? “World Class” , “World’s Greatest”, “Chic”, #1, etc. This house is a dump and so is the neighborhood. The only reason for this price is that so you can say those special words “San Francisco”. I travel a lot, and I can tell you that I love it here but there are many many great cities in the world besides our little town. I did my 4th year of Arch. in Rome, worked in London, and lived in Chicago myself. Get over the brand, we live in one of many great places on our little Earth. Paying more does not make it better.
anon,
perhaps you should re-read my posts. I was not defending this property – just giving you a reason why it costs so much. I was not saying this city is better in all shapes and forms (I lived in Barcelona for three years and Amsterdam for four years – those are both better cities than SF) – I was merely telling you the reason why many people live here – the pay is higher.
If your firm is willing to pay the amounts to get people that can afford to compete with others in the area for housing – they will get the best people – your firm, based on your quotes, is not willing to do that. SF clearly costs more than 10% more than Chicago – why does your firm only pay 10% more?
This is an interesting location. Up the hill right next to the freeway there is an almost entirely new community of recently built structures, so the label “Bayview Heights” kind of fits and does to some extent describe the location. That area has a lot of newer residents and commuters. I think it was the location where the City politician had issues with pizza delivery and made a stink about it though it turned out to be a misunderstanding.
This particular place is still just a couple of blocks from some of the sketchiest parts of Bayview and is terribly close to the freeway. The in thing around there has been to build up a lot to close to its maximum potential so it ends up with a big box and little if any greenery. Bravery, deep pockets, and a tolerance for noise and craziness required.