∙ Listing: 580 Diamond (1/1) – $895,000 (“Contractors Special!”) [MLS]
San Francisco real estate tips, trends and the local scoop: "Plug In" to SocketSite™
∙ Listing: 580 Diamond (1/1) – $895,000 (“Contractors Special!”) [MLS]
My boyfriend and I live on the other side of the hill on Diamond Street, and have been walking by and wondering about this place (and several others on Diamond) for a while now. The truly scary part is the below-grade garage, which is essentially open to whatever might want to scurry down there, and which seems to have been used as someone’s woodworking workshop. I really wonder what this place will go for, and what contractor is going to be willing to take on such a wreck – can you really improve on this place enough to make the investment profitable?
Zillow sez that this building was sold for $675K a mere 3 months ago. I doubt anything was done to the structure so either the 2007 buyer got an inside deal (and the seller got reamed) or the current asking price of $895k is unrealistic.
Prior to the 2007 sale this house was assessed at $63K – clearly an owner who survived on prop 13.
The city seems to have a smattering of homes like this : owner paying a paltry sum in taxes, hacking and modifying the house with glee into a personalized crib. No intent to keep up with the market’s idea of what a modern home should be. I’ve toured several “Tarzan houses” that would need a complete down to the studs remodel at minimum. If the city allowed, it would be easier to raze the structure and start anew.
This particular property has an interesting crow’s nest. If that was constructed with permits then its value is mainly in legitimizing the height of any replacement structure (though it looks as of the neighbor on the right has an even taller house)
I wonder whether the missing railing on the crow’s nest patio is so you can install a plank to walk unruly party guests out on at sword point. Arrrrrrr !
Headline: “Save a tree, chop down a house!”
I’m pretty sure it was a trust sale, i.e. previous owner defaulted on his/hers loan.
so basically the are asking for 900k for the lot (because there is no way that place is worth +1100 per square foot). And then you will have to tear the place down and rebuild for what another 900k or more and the resell the whole thing several years down the line that covers the cost of the lot, construction, taxes, and fees … who has the funds for this right now except a large developer who is going to have to fight like hell with the planning commission to tear down a SFH and put up a multi unit building.
1974 called; they want their house back. They would also like the ’69 orange VW Microbus parked in the garage.
I’d still maintain there’s a big market for “unfortunate renovation accidents” whereby the subject property is completely destroyed by a completely unforseeable incident like, say, lighting it on fire while redoing the plumbing …
Nice way to circumvent the “no-demolition” rules in SF.
A teardown on Clipper just sold for $950k, so this is being sold for the lot value.
you want to see possible teardowns? check out
http://sfarmls.rapmls.com/scripts/mgrqispi.dll?APPNAME=Sanfrancisco&PRGNAME=MLSPropertyDetail&ARGUMENTS=-N785429145,-N219141,-N,-A,-N12693269
uh, there’s a reason that there’s a drawing there and not a PICTURE.
i live on the same block, and that house has been a major subject of interest — we’re all dying to have someone buy it and do something with it. it was definitely once a beautiful house, but i think it will take 400-500K to bring it back . . .
The city seems to have a smattering of homes like this : owner paying a paltry sum in taxes, hacking and modifying the house with glee into a personalized crib. No intent to keep up with the market’s idea of what a modern home should be.
And I say more power to them! Who wants to live in a city full of houses that are all more or less identical replicas of whatever is inside the latest issue of Dwell?
Who wants to live in a city full of houses that are all more or less identical replicas of whatever is inside the latest issue of Dwell?
Me?
Me too!
Jake – I agree with you, variety is interesting and it is good that owners are allowed flexibility to do what they want. Just pointing out that there is always some small portion of the SF housing stock that is being run into the ground, marketability-wise.
Every time I go to an open house I take a look around to spot the “disheveled house”. Sometimes you can see it from the front, sometimes from the back. There’s almost always a tear down in the making within sight even in the best neighborhoods.
This property is likely being sold for (dirtValue – costToTearDown)
Me too!
Me four!
dwell, yes, me2.
Such a shame that this trash is allowed to be built and stink up the neighborhood but a Transbay tower will be beuracratized (word?) to death into something pitiful just because it is TALL.
I know it but you don’t…
[Editor’s Note: Congratulations?]
I lived just up the block from this house for many years, know the contractor-owner who built and lived in it. He’s one of SF’s own characters, obviously. I asked him once if the tower was to look for Sister Ann (ala Bluebeard); he said he just liked the idea of a tower. don’t worry kids, it will be demolished and another horrid, expensive monster condo will take over and keep changing the character of the neighborhood and all the yuppies will keep on coming. Cheers.
Poor Soul, I guess he should have consulted “tasteful” readers of DWELL and other modern style magazines so that he would fit in with the crowd. Imagine doing something as non-conformist as this house in San Francisco? How dare he! Trying to express a little individuality in a city that could really care less, and thinks that to be different is a fashion statement more than a lifestyle. Piercings, purple hair, and body ink… YES. Building your own mini-castle….NO!
On another blog there was recently an article about how many listings currently have an Eames Lounge Chair staged in some interior space. I think the blog lost count since so many homes are being designed and staged in exactly the same way. Now this is not a home for me, but I certainly don’t hate someone for enjoying their property as they wish.
Disclaimer…..I have an Eames Lounge chair myself.
While I agree this is a strange design, it is actually easily modified. Extending the upper two floors to the whole footprint should not be a problem with the planning code since it does not add to the building height, or change the footprint.
I know the story.
“There was an old woman who lived in a shoe.
She had so many children, she didn’t know what to do.
She gave them some broth without any bread,
Then whipped them all soundly and put them to bed.”
Yes, and I know how the story ends too…
“the poor old woman’s equity dropped like a rock.
the next day she went out and took out a heloc,
she took her kids on vacation club med for a day.
her poor shoe house foreclosed, and she had to walk away!”
It’s not that the house is non-conformist. it’s just done so badly..so amateurish. and so dumb looking.
I love houses like this, and I am sick and tired of Dwell-style Eames-staged interiors. Our relatively close connection to nature and its irregularities is one of the great joys of life here in San Francisco; when that is expressed in an individual’s home, it creates joy.
Yet another crisp modern Dwell-style interior only creates money, and money is boring and joyless.
SOLD as of today $935,000 Cash.
Not so fast. Now back on the market for $925K, or $10K less than it sold for 2 months ago. Good story getting better?
It looks like a permit was issued last month to construct a three story two unit building on this site.
Oddly both redfin and zillow indicate that this property only paid about $1000 in taxes for 2009. How is that possible ?