Designed by Albert Sutton and Charles Peter Weeks in 1905, it’s actually not the architecture of 2221 Baker Street that caught our eye. No, it was simply the composition and color of a few of the old-school styled photos. Okay, that and the beautiful bed.
∙ Listing: 2221 Baker Street (5/4) – $3,795,000 [MLS]
This is Charlie Moore’s own home the owner of Mcguire.
Interesting fact on the owner. I like the pricing strategy on this place — seems a good deal. I wonder where he is moving / what he bought????
No furniture from DWR, West Elm or Room & Board? I am shocked! Not even one Eames chair! It is so refreshing to see a home that is not staged with “the usual” furnishings.
Awesome place. Oh, to be rich. Sigh…
This house is in a great location and is a great price. I’m fairly certain this will sell for over asking, unless there’s something terribly wrong with the structure of the house.
It’s kind of interesting that this house is sandwiched between the Egyptian Consulate (currently undergoing a massive renovation) and that brick mess on the corner of Jackson and Baker, which is also currently undergoing a massive renovation.
Beautiful home, AND a great value; I could save $30 monthly on my Gold’s Gym membership if I bought this place!
WTF? Did anyone notice that this house is on one of the steepest hills in san francisco yet they photoshopped the cars to be flat with the roof line?! Check out the enlarged mls map, which has a small unphotoshopped version of the same photo. False advertising? Too funny…
I’m almost positive they changed the image today. The original picture clearly showed the hill.. They should change it back, it won’t really change people’s opinions of the house.
Jess, you are officially awesome for catching this — you can indeed verify it with google street view! The white garage door (located to the left, “under” the brick line) is completely chopped out.
The whole lowest-sixth of the facade photo is a sham! Someone mentioned this place was not staged, and I’d now like to respectfully disagree 🙂
They changed the picture back the unphoto-choped version 😉
I wish i had saved the pic… arrgg
That photo was soo stupid. Did they think people would show up and not notice the huge f-ing hill they are standing on?
Personally i think the hill adds SF charactor, but you know real estate agents…throw down some mulch and a little photoshop…no problem…
As tipster points out in the mapjack thread, you can still see the photoshopped version here : http://www.lotteandsarah.com/properties/index.htm
I wonder whether these realtors are exposing themselves to a lawsuit if a remote buyer purchases sight unseen and then is massively disappointed to find that what they bought did not match how the property was presented on the realtor’s web site.
A quick skim over the standard SFAR contract forms show no statement like “buyer acknowledges that they have personally toured the property”. There are a few places where the buyer is advised to inspect the property prior to signing, but no requirement to see it with their own eyes. Such a sight unseen buyer would rely 100% on documentation presented by others, including the fraudulent photo.
But I’m no lawyer. The realtors here might have somehow protected themselves against a suit brought by a buyer who feels that they have been deceived.
Personally I have no problem with a house on a steep street. In fact I almost prefer a steep street. However I know people who have difficulty walking and place a high value on properties that do not require climbing too many stairs or a steep sidewalk like on Baker St.
whining and kvetching aside, it will be funny to see what you guys have to say when it’s in escrow. I’m not entirely sure what the agents were trying to prove by shopping the hill away – very wacky – but let’s get back to the fact that it’s a pretty significant architectural find in San Francisco, it’s gorgeous inside, and we’re talking about a $4 Million property here, that will likely find a buyer.
@The Milkshake of Despair et al…I saw the original (photoshopped) photo & the “new” (true) photo: I am dumbfounded.
I’m no attorney either, but for anyone to attempt to deceive the public, intentionally or not, with an egregiously photoshopped photo is totally unacceptable. This is not painting the sky blue, or removing an electrical wire crossing the view outside of a window using photoshop! It may have been excusable if it was a neophyte agent, or some hack, but this is the wife of the owner of the home, who happens to be the CEO/broker of the real estate company!!!
I know of no waiver/disclaimer/disclosure that would hold up in court if a consumer were to be “injured” by such a misrepresentation. Bad call. Period.
Where’s Eliot Spitzer when we need a moral compass & strong arm of justice to make things right?…oh wait, strike that.
@movingback — I agree that any bitterness is displaced — the whole thing is pure hilarity and irony, as some posters complementing the house as not staged with the usual furniture…
But … you must admit the chopping betrays a interesting lack of confidence in the property.
@ dub dub – agreed. But to begin with, the exterior photo of the house is really terrible – you can’t tell me it was the same photographer that did the interior photos. It’s like night and day. Why they decided to ‘shop the hill from the street is beyond me. For starters, they need to do a re-shoot of the front of the house – the current photo is awful and does not do the property justice at all.
The ‘shopping also took out the garage, which seems to be an important part of any property. This kind of thing just adds to my list of realtors I would never use. And to you realtors here, yes I do have a list of ones I might use … so don’t get too squirrelly on me.
yeah, it doesn’t make much sense. photo with the garage is preferable to the one without. i like the hill also!
like realtors are so trustworth anyway.
Disclosure docs say there’s a $90K repair needed to one of the retaining walls, $22K in pest work, leaking windows, a leaking ceiling and a myriad of other repair items noted in the inspection report.
They seem adamant about an “as is” sale so make sure you factor that into your offering price!
Apparently they’re getting a lot of calls which the agent didn’t want to deal with so “Do [sic] to the high traffic of calls agent will open the property from 9:30 Am to 2:00 Pm on Friday March 14. Feel free to stop by with your clients.”
Offers are due 3/20 so not much time to get your own inspections done.
kvetching and whining, finger-pointing aside, let’s see what happens after 3/20 when it’s in escrow. That’s a few more days for a lot of you to stand on your soapboxes! 🙂
movingback – I’m not sure I understand your logic. Most of the kvetching about this property is about the dubious sales tactics. If the sellers really concealing defects from buyers, then the buyer’s perceived value will be higher than the seller’s perceived value. That difference in perception results in higher bids and a greater chance that the property sells quickly. Perhaps this is the motivation for sellers to attempt questionable sales practices ? So a high offer on 3/20 could mean that the tricks worked.
This property is located in a great neighborhood that is in high demand. Of course it will sell. I would love to live in this house though it is out of my price range.
The question is not whether this property will sell but rather whether they buyer will be treated fairly and honestly.
My prediction for 3/20 : the property will be pulled from the MLS and the sellers will wait for this little storm to blow over before relisting.
kvetching and whining, finger-pointing aside
complaining about deceptive sales practices and unethical behavior is considered “kvetching and whining” to movingback? that’s frightening.
Don’t think much of anything is going to happen from all of the drama you guys have created here. The photo has been changed back and my guess the house will be in escrow within a week or so and life at the brokerage will go on. Next topic!
I saw the house today, and the only people there were local families snooping around. It is NOT very a nice house, lots of small rooms, and an 80’s style bathroom in master bedroom. It is over-priced. Whomever buys it will definitely need to put some work into it, work that will probably never pay off if they try to sell. It is NOT on a good block, sandwitched between two construction projects, and across from apartment buildings. There is no homey feel to the block, like you get in other areas of Pac Heights. I think it will sit on the market for a while, until it comes down in price.
You whiner’s need to get a life….
It’s in contract… So, I guess the controversy is moot…
And life in San Francisco, and McGuire, goes on – as predicted!
Anon at March 15 and others that wish to sweep this under the carpet:
I had always thought of McGuire as a very ethical brokerage firm. In my opinion Mr. Moore’s behavior not only reflects poorly on his integrity but has also tainted the image of McGuire and the industry. It is disappointing when our industry leaders either feel that they are not obligated to establish and maintain basic industry codes of ethics.
While I am sure there are very qualified, hardworking and ethical individuals at McGuire it is the conduct/behavior of the ownership that will be heard the loudest in the brokerage community and by the public.
Charlie, while I understand that one method of “spin control” is to ignore the situation I personally do not believe it is going to work this time. If you and McGuire were a true industry leader this would not have happened and when it did a very public apology would have been presented.
The upside is that we all have something to talk about in our next continuing education classes.
I sure hope it was not a flipper who bought it. What a MISTAKE!
This is amazing!! Modifying a property photo like that is a flagrant violation of the spirit and intent of guidelines for real-estate agent ethics. And the bar is indeed set higher for a broker (who should know better). Calling an objection “whining” is the equivalent of saying “just be quiet and let us real-estate agents do what we want.” Why doesn’t a consumer turn this over to the Department of Real Estate and let THEM decide if it’s whining? See http://www.dre.ca.gov/cons_complaint.html
At the very least it may get the attention of the agents involved, who need a serious attitude adjustment.
By the way, the “As-Is” addendum is a whole lot of smoke and mirrors. It does not relieve the Seller or Listing Agent of their duties to fully and honestly disclose material facts about the property … such as whether the lot is level! In fact, a standard question on the MLS of most counties is whether the lot is level/upslope/downslope. It is a material fact, folks–something that addresses the value or salability of the property. Shame on McGuire! Just goes to show that fancy brokerages don’t necessarily assure ethical conduct.