CFAH

1773 15th Avenue
Down the street from 1915 15th Avenue (which has fallen out of contract) lies 1773. Listed in November of 2007 for $1,600,000 (amid a chorus of neighborhood high fives) the listing noted “A Must see!” and soon thereafter added “Motivated Seller! Bring in any offers!”
In December of 2007 the list price was first reduced to $1,550,000 and then to $1,499,000. In January of 2008 the list price was first reduced to $1,399,000 and then to $1,188,000. And in February the house was briefly in contract.
In early April 2008 “short sales, already have the 1st lender’s approval, and waiting for 2nd lender’s approval” was added to the notes as were two exclamation points after “Motivated Seller!!!” And two weeks later the property shed those pesky days on the market and reset the MLS clock with a new listing at $1,188,000.
Four days ago 1773 15th Avenue returned to the market once again. Now asking $949,000 and noting “an original condition property which needs some attention.” Agreed.
∙ Listing: 1773 15th Avenue (4/3.5) – $949,000 [Vanguard via Pacific Union]
What’s 140 Days On The Market And $280,000 Between Friends? [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by diemos

    Warren Buffet was once asked if there was one secret to making money and he replied, “Sell early.” If they had tried to unload this in 2005 at the height of the frenzy they might have received a juicy payday. Now they’re just going to have to settle for a nice payday.

  2. Posted by ex SF-er

    always dangerous when there are no interior pictures. that usually means it’s bad.
    I have no idea what this is worth. But I do find it intriguing that the pricing was off by $300k (their first contract was at 300k under the first list price).
    I’d guess the current problem is that people are having a hard time qualifying for loans, even if they did meet pre-approval guidelines.
    in the end, this is a MILLION dollar home. Most San Franciscans are anesthetized to these rediculous price levels, but a million dollars is a lot of money, for anybody.
    And it seems doubtful that those who really don’t think $1M is a lot of money would choose to live in this place. (it looks like a hovel to me, but I haven’t seen it in person).

  3. Posted by John

    “This is an original condition property which needs some attention. Has 3 levels of living space!”
    That leaves a lot to imagination.
    If the inspection found something serious, that would have given the buyer a reason to back out, and also they have to disclose to the future potential buyers.
    No pictures….that’s an indication of serious problems.
    1757 15th Ave, its neighbor, looks like from the same period and maybe even the same layout. It is listed at 1.33M and has been on for a while. It would be interesting to see how those two property sells.

  4. Posted by Amen Corner

    Great location near my favorite SF viewpoint, Grandview Park. The house itself looks terrible. Amazing they originally wanted 1.6m for it and even 949k seems ridiculous.

  5. Posted by paco

    good example of how the high tide lifted all boats.
    so who cares about these suburban mccrappy houses?
    (what? its in sf? oh…)

  6. Posted by sparky-the-bear

    How did it go from the top of the area to a $1M fixer. Is someone living in it and trashing it? At $1.6M you could have bought a much better house in West Portal or in Inner Sunset. This sits in the nowhere land between the two. For a $1M you can still get better houses in these nabes, but just not as big.

  7. Posted by tony

    agree; lack of pictures does not build confidence… especially when the one picture that is shown a) looks like crap and b) features what looks like cinder blocks in the ‘front yard’. super klassy.

  8. Posted by fred

    John- “If the inspection found something serious, that would have given the buyer a reason to back out, and also they have to disclose to the future potential buyers.”
    We backed out of a contract last year after our inspector said the foundation was rolling. The house had a visible crease outside where the 1st/2nd floor met, and there was a crack where the foundation met the garage floor, so there was clearly something wrong. The seller’s inspection said the foundation was fine. Someone else bought the place soon after (did not do any repairs). I believe our agent told the seller’s agent we were backing out due to the inspection but did not provide details, thus freeing the seller from having to disclose the problem to the next buyer. Tricky, eh? Always get your own inspection, and perhaps more than one!

  9. Posted by San FronziScheme

    Anyone has the pics from the 1.6M posting? It had to be squeaky clean and staged at that asking price.
    All the above comments show one thing: image is a big part of RE.
    In an up market, people had an incentive to spend to stage. And it pushed their sale prices probably higher.
    In a down market, everything goes. Some sellers will not do the basic minimum to embellish their property. Especially banks/REOs who have little budget for that.
    It will soon (1-2 years) be a great time to buy.

  10. Posted by John

    A search for the address also reveals: “currently lower level is rented out to tenants. ”
    The main and upper floor has only one bedroom. That would be another problem.

  11. Posted by Ryan

    A $651k price drop in 11 months. WOW. I guess the market isnt what we thought it was. No surprise here. Although I agree with above posters. For 1.6MM last year you could have bought some much nicer properties that needed little to NO work.

  12. Posted by Dude

    Well I, for one, really like this area. This house has a ton of potential. I think it could/should be a million dollar home once renovated. It probably has a phenomenal ocean view from the back as well. The question, as pointed out, is how much damage there is inside. Plus this would be a tough commute to almost anywhere.

  13. Posted by TB

    I saw this place on an open house ~6 months ago (I live in area).
    It was frightening, from a structural perspective.
    On the far side from the picture, facing the ocean, is a series of decks. When I walked out on the deck on the main level, I could feel the floor bend and hear it creak. When I walked out to the far corner of the deck, I could see that my weight was deflecting it down a good 3 inches.
    The whole of the lower floor was cut up into a series of tiny bedrooms, all seemingly rented out. There was a hotplate sitting in the hallway, plugged in and recently turned off.
    To make matters more, um, interesting, seemingly every available nook & cranny on the other floors had some sort of day-bed crammed in.
    About 4 doors up there is another place for sale that looks the same from the outside, only white (the interior has been remodeled), that I also caught on an open house. Same deck layout, same hideous build quality. It was on a windy day, and the whole west facade seemed very unstable. There was a hot tub (!!) perched on the upper-most deck that made my eyes go wide, only to make me shake my head when I got a good look at the “structural” underpinnings from another, lower deck.
    The whole block looks like it was built/developed around the same time (mid-70s?), and after being in two of the places, it looks like the whole ethos was “Get them up quick and sell them now!”.
    I’d hate to see how they’d handle a big shaker.
    I’m not an engineer or anything, and these are just my opinions, but still, $949,000 is $949,000 too much. I wouldn’t take it for free.

  14. Posted by John

    TB,
    “4 doors up” is 1757 15th Ave, right?
    http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/1757-15th-Ave-94122/home/1359995

  15. Posted by sf

    Imagine coming from out of town to visit your close friend, you have never been to San Francisco before, but you’ve seen the pictures and heard the stories. You arrive at THIS place, and all your dreams and hopes vanish.

  16. Posted by TB

    John, Yup, that’s the white one up the street.
    There’s one long block of them along 15th right there … if you like the design, they’re not that bad, if they were screwed together a little better I might covet the white one – or this one if I wanted to dump the $400K difference into remodeling.
    But standing on any of those decks, feeling them creak and move in the wind and looking WAY down the hill at my prospective neighbors, all I could think was, ‘One day, I’d end up riding this house downhill.’

  17. Posted by Lurker

    Now where is fluj when we need him to rationalize what has taken place here ? Sheesh.

  18. Posted by John

    If we want to talk about big price deduction, nothing beats 2645 Lincoln Way. Listed for $3M, sold for 1.9M.

  19. Posted by Dude

    @ John: I have a better apple on the edge of Bernal. 118 Cuvier, also a total fixer. Sold 11/05 for $850K. Currently on market for $398K. No joke. If it sells for asking, that’s a $450K loss of value (down 53%) in roughly 3 years.

  20. Posted by John

    Dude, redfin shows “May 15, 2008 $433,899” as last sale. Was that foreclosure?

  21. Posted by Dude

    Yup. That’s when First Federal Bank of California took it over. Prior sale was for $850K. Like this place, 118 Cuvier is a train wreck. But it’s walking distance to Glen Park BART and a 3 bedroom on a large lot.
    http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/118-Cuvier-St-94112/home/1085301

  22. Posted by West Portal

    1773 15th ave seems to be renovated and back on the market for 1.395M:
    http://www.sanfrancisco.com/realestate/mls358367
    http://177315thave.com/

  23. Posted by West Portal

    Looks like it went back to the bank on 9/24/08 for $1,049,000 and was resold on 11/21/08 for an amount that isn’t obvious from the data I see. Anyone want to shed some light on how much this potential flipper has invested?

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles