After three weeks on the market in the heart of Cow Hollow, it’s a new price (now asking $1,975,000) and a few new photos for the listing of 1968 Greenwich. But it’s still the same story: purchased in May of 2005 for $2,100,000.
And yes, the infamous 2243 Greenwich a few blocks to the west remains on the market as well. Currently asking $1,545,000. Purchased at the end of 2005 for $1,800,000.
∙ A Renovated Cow Hollow Apple On The Tree: 1968 Greenwich Street [SocketSite]
∙ Listing: 1968 Greenwich (3/2.5) – $1,975,000 [MLS]
∙ A Little Extra Perspective On The Listing Market? (2243 Greenwich) [SocketSite]
∙ Listing: 2243 Greenwich (3/2.5) – $1,545,000 [MLS]
Only a 6% drop in the middle of this fiscal carnage?
That’s practically good news!!!
I think this is a very nice place. There are a few irritating things such as the incessant need for people to put islands in kitchens even when there is no room for said island, or in this case where it completely ruins any kitchen work triangle, but overall it is very cute.
Nice open floorplan, baths are nice, etc.
It seems like a nice area as well, although I don’t know that micro-neighborhood super well.
the problem here I’d guess is more market than specific property.
What does a “shared lot” mean? How is that different from a building with 2 condos in it? Is it just semantics or is there a legal difference?
[Editor’s Note: Two separate buildings on one lot. You can just make out the second smaller unit at the end of the lot behind the fence.]
It looks like one enters the back house on the shared lot on the right side of this place – the address number is visible. No offense to the back house folks, but an entry gate next to this place could get annoying. I may be wrong though.
Now THAT’S a condo.
And while we’re at it, any knowledgeable SSer’s want to comment on insuring this type of setup. I live in a similar situation (two houses on one lot, TIC to condo conversion), and we carry separate homeowner’s policies with the same company. I still feel like an accident on the grounds could open us up to a liability that the insurer might try to weasel out of (which is why we stick with the same company), but the insurance agent’s don’t have another solution.
this Cow Hollow place looks to have sold in 2001 for $1,775,000. another $200K reduction will wind it back to 2001 pricing.
taxes on this place currently run $26K+ per year! wow, eating a capital loss in excess of $250K after paying $25K+ a year in taxes (in addition to mortgage service costs) to live in a 3/2 for 3-1/2 years…. where do i sign up??
Anon 7:47pm – The WHOLE lot and both buildings were purchased for $1,775,000 in 2001. This building was sold for $2.1 mil, and the 2/1.5 cottage house in the back was sold for another $1,015,000 in 2004 for a total of over $3.1 mil.
These are two really great “condos”, even though they are both stand a lone buildings.
Trust me, you’d much rather own real estate now than lose 40% in the stock market. At least you had a nice place to live. There’s no rental stock out there that can compare. It’s all about living life to the fullest.
After four weeks on the market the asking price for 1968 Greenwich has been reduced once again. This time by $175,000. Now asking $1,800,000.
Wow. 15% UNDER the 2005 price. In the “real” SF.
So, if it sells here, this owner will lose approximately $400K in capital losses (after commission and transfer tax). That’s $10K per month, all nondeductible personal loss.
More than $60K in prop 13 tax – poof!
And how much in after tax mortgage cost? Who knows, and it really doesn’t matter.
Just keep telling yourself, rent is “throwing money away” – unlike owning in the real SF.
@anon — I bet real estate losses will become tax deductible in the future, or my name isn’t dub dub 😉