Purchased for $3,100,000 just over two years ago (10/24/2005), and having recently undergone a major renovation (including the addition of a media room, fourth bedroom suite, and an arched cast stone entryway), 767 Marina Boulevard is now back on the market for $4,950,000.
If you’re seriously interested, there’s a “special evening preview” tonight (from 4-6pm). And no, this shouldn’t be considered an apples to apples comp (key words: “major renovation”).
∙ Listing: 767 Marina Boulevard (4/3.5) – $4,950,000 [MLS]
I love that the sq ft has not been verified by the agent. So for the $150k or so that she will earn in commissions for her firm, she can’t be bothered with verifying the square footage.
I have serious doubts that this place will sell for $4.95m, by the way. The house next door just sold for under $5 and it was much bigger. Also 755 Marina is staving off foreclosure according to propertysharks.
“I love that the sq ft has not been verified by the agent. So for the $150k or so that she will earn in commissions for her firm, she can’t be bothered with verifying the square footage.”
It’s more likely an issue of liability – especially when it comes to additions – than not wanting to be bothered.
Sorry, SMK – you are wrong on that one, and ExAgent is exactly right. If you have ever bought or sold in San Francisco, you would know that when it comes to SQ FT issues, it’s always a gray area when it comes to additions, and it is ultimately up to the purchaser to verify the SQ FT of a property, due to liability issues.
Well, maybe for 150k in commissions, the realtors could 1) measure the square feet accurately and fully disclose their methodology; and 2) pay for some liability insurance in the event that they misrepresented things or got them wrong.
@justathought – can’t you read? It is ultimately up to the purchaser to verify the SQ FT of a property. I would not trust what the agent said or estimated the SQ FT to be – this would be a stupid move on my part as a buyer. I am sure the agent has plenty of other things to do to justify the earning of a commission. You people need to seriously get a life.
I’ll bet it sells close to asking price, regardless of what is going on down the street.
So if there are 12 offers on a property then the 12 bidders should hire 12 architects to create 12 square footage reports ?
Thats some good old time Soviet efficiency there !
citydwell – not to go too off on a tangent, but you said that square footage couldn’t be verified because of liability. I’m of the opinion that the liability issue could easily be dealt with through insurance. Nothing in my response indicated a lack of reading comprehension — but yours did.
It would be much more efficient if the realtor were responsible for presenting accurate square footage and the methodology used to get that number and for maintaining insurance to deal with the liability issues you claim prevent them from verifying square footage.
what are you so defensive about anyways? It would be really nice if someone would take responsibility for accurately describing the property they’re earning $$$ to sell. Not sure why that’s such an offensive idea.
Square footage is a vital element in determining a property’s worth. So many metrics are based on it – sales price per sf, construction costs per sf, land costs per buildable sf. Look how much time we spend in the forum discussing things on a per square foot basis. I’m surprised that there is not a requirement that it be disclosed along with how it was determined.
At $1650 a square foot, this is the biggest joke on a pile of landfill I have ever seen in SF. I sure hope the seller doesn’t need that price, because if they do unless they find a true sucker they are going to get creamed.
Smiling Millionaire Renter: AGREED!!
Um…. Remember 745 Marina Blvd sold (last fall?) for 3.9(ish), 1 million under the asking price? It was a similar remodel with about the same square footage.
I never said there weren’t dummies…