It’s a single-family home in Bernal, its list price has been reduced from $950,000 to $889,000, and it’s now advertising “All Offers Will Be Considered Seriously.”
Obviously “considered” isn’t the same thing as “accepted.” So if you’ve taken the time to make an offer that wasn’t “considered seriously enough,” perhaps you’d be so kind as to share (and save someone else some wasted effort).
∙ Listing: 247 Gates (2/2) – $889,000 [MLS]
Why doesn’t the listing include some other earth shattering information like :
– can be reached by street that you can drive on
– is habitable
– owner will accept US dollars
I got a kick out that last photo of the dystopian view out the back. I guess that they used the photo$hop “bleakify” filter on that one.
I really do appreciate the large number of photos that to a fairly good job of describing the property. Not a pro-photographer job but at least informative.
Ok, when are people going to admit that Bernal is just not that great of an area. It’s location isn’t really central, it’s transportation is OK, it’s neighboring Mission is just a political hotbed for idealistic lefties.
Get a clue people, buying @ Bernal will NOT be a good move. You are better off buying in the South Bay or Berkeley. Bernal will always be the “compromise” for those who get priced out of areas they truly want to live.
There, truth hurts.
Ah, yes, you know you’re in the presence of a real Bay Areaer when he proposes Berkeley as an alternative to living close to the idealistic lefties of the Mission.
Guess Gunderian doesn’t like those Bernal Heights poseurs getting all uppity. It’s funny, I always considered Bernal as being a neighborhood where a young family making 150 to 200K a year could get a starter home. I didn’t realize these relatively wealthy families (those making 200 a year surely must be in the top 10%) were really economic losers that had to settle for less.
And fwiw, it’s much easier to defend higher ground. A Bernal Heights home owner could easily defend his home against the rabid hordes of Mission hipsters–that is, if the hipsters ever got organized enough to charge up the hill and invade Bernal. Plus, as king of his castle, the Bernal economic loser, with the requisite pride of ownership that accompanies homeownership, will surely put politics behind him and defend his castle from the invading hipsters.
Don’t worry about the Mission hipsters charging up the hill to invade Bernal since their bicycles have a single fixed gear for the flatlands and therefore cannot make it up the hill.;)
Kudos to Fred for the hipster fixie joke.
When I was looking for homes, I mostly looked in Noe, but chose a Bernal house because I could get more home and a better view for the same price. Plus I prefer my Bernal neighborhood to most parts of Noe. To each his own, though.
This house is in a very convenient location, but even with the price reduction, it is still a pricey $889/square foot for a house that needs quite a bit of work. I suppose all of the shots of the basement are to promote the expansion potential for this house, but that costs $$$, too.
All offers will be considered seriously? I don’t think people are really going to waste their time. 889 psf in that location and in that condition is nowhere near a serious price, even with expansion potential.
If they were serious about accepting lower offers, why doesn’t the seller simply lower his price. That might signal the potential buyers that they were serious about really accepting less.
Until that happens, this just sounds like the listing agent pleading for an offer so that the sellers will know the agent at least was able to produce one, and so that the agent can argue to the sellers to reduce their price.
It’s unlikely that a home listed for an amount this far out of whack is owned by a serious seller, when the seller won’t even take the time or energy to drop the asking price. A buyer invests a lot of time and emotional energy coming up with an offer. That’s an awful lot of value to invest in a property whose seller isn’t really serious about selling.
Ok here’s my offer $200,000.
Not to start a zillow tangent/flamefest, but even they put this house at only 718.50.
And at the risk of starting another prop 13 brouhaha, its 2007 tax info: $1304. Looks like this widow can afford to move!
Finally, also according to zillow (I’m bored) under 1/4 of bernal houses have kids, median household income 67k, so maybe young impoverished 200k families aren’t moving there after all! Or at least not in droves. What is a drove, by the way?
P.S to milkshake — it’s your fault I posted this — “your distopic view of the back” comment made me look, and I’m still cracking up. Thanks!
🙂 🙂 🙂
a drove is a herd of sheep or swine…
if this clueless/clued in broker can raise $889/sq ft for a fixer in bernal then i may have to become a seller.
Please, let’s not report Zillow demographics as if they have any sort of meaning or validity.
Those basement photos are scaring me. God only knows what kind of critter and mold damage lurks below.
Guderian is 100% correct. Bernal Heights sucks!
Rampant crime, increased assaults, car break in’s and violent robberies. Streets are way too skinny for two way driving.
Restaurants are so-so. Not worth the trouble, there are other neighborhoods like 16th & Valencia that have a much better vibe.
@guderian, @ jeff –
Sorry, there are many of us that like Bernal – your opinion is just that, only your opinion, and not the same as others.
Why would anyone that wants to live in Bernal Heights consider Berkeley or the South Bay in the same thought process? It doesn’t make sense.
Last time i checked it wasn’t just the mission that was full of lefty idealists. And if you hate leftists, you’re welcome to move to >
I don’t see how 16th and Valencia or Berkeley are comparable to Bernal. As an active buyer, 16th and Valencia is deep in the heart of bars and restaurants land. Noisy. Dirty. Urban-ish. My kind of neighborhood. I have lived there for years. Bernal (the other part of the city i lived in) is quiet (except for the odd shooting or gang fight) and polite.
the streets are too narrow? You’re not one of those douchebag real estate agents who bought a hummer at the peak are you? If you drive a reasonably sized car, life isn’t that hard. I like the smaller scale. Lots of room in the streets of the Sunset. All the room you need for your H3.
Berkeley? Isn’t that on the other side of the verrazano bride. I had a friend who moved there. Never heard from them since. We occasionally talk while they’re stuck on the bridge.
Apples to apples please. Which raises the question: What is comparable to Bernal? Portero? Glen Park? Sunnyside? If i like Bernal, where else should I look?
Hey, Jeff – SFPD stats don’t back you up at all. Do a crime search centered within 1/2 mile of Cortland (yes, even including the Alemany projects – you’ll be amazed…),then do the same search for the corner of 16th and Valencia. It’s not even close. Way more crime in every category centered near 16th/Valencia. As for “vibe”, give me friendly neighbors (I know nearly everybody on my block, we all share contact info, watch each other’s houses, etc, and they wouldn’t have it any other way), walkable quality shopping and QUIET – something you will appreciate when you’re older!…blissful, and affordable. Streets too narrow? I’ll never understand this complaint.
“Streets too narrow? I’ll never understand this complaint.”
Maybe I’m paranoid but whenever I see narrow streets in hilly areas I think of the Oakland Hills fire and the poor souls who trapped trying to escape down those narrow streets and were burned, some lethally.
Steep grade + wood houses = fire risk.
Narrow streets = entrapment risk + poor firebreak.
Not that I don’t like Bernal (I do, but prefer the wider streets) nor would I exclude a house on a narrow street. However I would not put an offer on a house on a narrow street without a solid plan run to safety if woken in the middle of the night by fire and smoke.
My #1 safety concern in SF is not the bullet spewing gangstas, needles on the pavement, or drunk driving city officials. Rather its a repeat of the 1906 firestorm. I guess we’re all too young to remember that one.
Bernal didn’t burn in the 1906 fire. It’s mostly bedrock and therefore one of the safer places in SF in an earthquake.
In any event, the topography is quite different than the East Bay hills. There is little brush. It’s only a short walk down the hill, and it is unlikely one would be trapped in a fire unless one were sleeping.
@Dan – Tho indeed on bedrock, bernal wasn’t hooked up to gas/electric lines in 1906 (which helped spare it). After the quake it “gentrified”. Read more here
This brings back memories — like young idiots, we were watching whether the claremont would burn, but as you say the part in the east bay where most people died (very close to the fire’s start in temescal canyon?) is extremely hilly, very different from bernal.
For those new to SF who dare to venture out once in awhile, it’s to your left (and up) just before you enter the caldecott tunnel — that’s why the whole area lacks developed vegetation, even today.
Dan – Yes, Bernal is on bedrock but the fire risk does not necessarily depend on how sound a home’s foundation was constructed. What matters is whether a fire ignites downhill and/or upwind and whether there is a direct path for that fire to spread towards more fuel. The source of the fire could be several blocks away.
Perhaps the reason that Bernal didn’t burn is that it was sparsely built up in 1906. Today nearly 100% of the lots are built up with flammable buildings.
Or possible Bernal got lucky with no ignition at the base.
Regardless there’s no question that placing fuel (houses) in closer proximity (narrow streets) increases the risk of a firestorm. Narrow streets also make it more difficult to move firefighting equipment in place.