1756 North Point
Purchased for $1,920,000 in April of 2007, the three-bedroom/bath condo known as 1756 North Point in the heart of the Marina (District 7a) hit the market last week with a list price of $1,795,000. From the listing:

Tastefully renovated with a blend of chic period detailing and discriminating modern elements, elegant details abound; Marble Baths, Crown Moldings, Graceful Roman Inspired Fireplace. Chestnut Street & Marina Green are a stone’s throw away.

And while short holding periods might not make for the best real estate returns, they do make for better apples in terms of isolating movements in the market versus simply averaging a bunch of years out. As always, we’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.
∙ Listing: 1756 North Point (3/3) – $1,795,000 [MLS]

43 thoughts on “A Rather “Real” Apple On The Tree In The Marina: 1756 North Point”
  1. Congrats to the 2007 seller for finding a sucker to buy this for $1.92M.
    Condolences to the current owner may not be in order, however. Tax assessor’s office shows at least $34K in back taxes owed, nothing paid this year or last, and “tax defaulted status”. Perhaps the current owner wasn’t paying the mortgage or HOA either and enjoying the free rent. So just maybe congrats are due all around.
    Redfin shows that this was for sale from Sept through November 2008, but the MLS rules prevent showing the previous listing price to the public. It’s probably safe to say that it’s following the market down.

  2. I am just learning the SF market, so if this is a stupid question… sorry.
    What does this condo have over 1531 Beach that justifies an asking price of $350,000 more.
    Other than they (North Point) may have paid too much in the first place.

  3. definitely chasing the market down. Gotta love the cached option of Google search!
    first listed on for $2,119,000; repriced a month later at $1,995,000; now listed at $1,795,000.
    I make a prediction: next list price $1.599M at the end of February

  4. lars i cant figure it out either. my prediction is $1.5M at best. or it goes rental if they pay their taxes. or it goes to the bank. the kitchen and bath remodels are way under par for what commanded $899/sq ft in the Marina a year ago. nothing this large and multiunit commands $889/ft in the Marina today.

  5. man, that facade is dog ugly. Low ceilings, very dated bathrooms. The atrium thing is more like an airshaft whose main function would probably be to funnel cold drafts into the rest of the apt. I’m with the previous posters, can’t believe anyone ever paid close to $2M for this. It seems like $1.4ish to me.

  6. What the? Stunningly ugly facade. Just amazing what passes here — I think we don’t notice much of the ‘badness’ bc of the endless beat of the SF-fab marketing/press machine. The unfortunate addition which looks like it landed abruptly/accidentally will need a $300K correction for this to be tolerable. (imo)

  7. @Tweety, Lars, and the rest of you half wits that can’t afford to purchase your own home and sit around knocking others who can and who have. . . You guys are just a bunch of haters, reveling in the housing downturn! Why not reveal your real name and identity. You can find mine you slimeballs and I’d be happy to meet you to discuss in person.
    Let’s set the record straight;
    1) The home is rented for 7,500 per month – that means this baby isn’t going anywhere!
    2) The taxes will be paid in full next week. Taxes were paid in 2008 and will be paid again. HOA is up to date and sits with over $30K in surplus for improvements.
    3)The home isn’t being foreclosed, is up to date on mortgage payments, is not in default, so don’t get too excited bottom feeders!
    4)The lot is an extra deep lot with an enormous, fully landscaped back yard and the property is located at a premiere address. You can’t even find another property for sale on this street!
    5)Their is a light well in the middle and the home is very well appointed. Bathrooms recently remodeled, high ceilings, lots of light, and an amazing location. The neighborhood is full of $3M+ homes. Again, nothing you losers could afford.
    @LMRIM – What does this house have on 1531 Beach (what do you get for $350K)?
    -3 full baths instead of two
    -3 full bedrooms instead of 2
    (this is a 2bd/2bath unit in a 4-plex)
    -remodeled bathrooms vs. original bathrooms
    -$400 in HOA vs. $625/mo @ 1531 beach
    The home at 1756 will stay rented, it will not be foreclosed because it is a desirable property in an amazing neighborhood.
    If you think bashing properties online and trying to damage owners who you “think” are in distress, in an effort to make their properties less desirable – is a wise and profitable racket, keep it up.
    But I can tell you that this, none of you scumbags will ever get to put your disgusting mits on this property. Get a job low lifes!
    And post with your real name if you have any nuts you spinless, gutless, creeps. What if you were right and this property really was in distress? What if a family was being evicted, lives ruined? Would that get you even more excited, you depraved wackos?
    People like you make me want to vomit!
    Jonathan – The Owner

  8. A few more data points to help you understand how off base these comments are;
    Prices Estimates for 1756 North Point St.;
    Zillow – $1.711M to $1.967M
    Eppraisal – $1.926 – $2.2M
    CyberHomes – $1.571 – $1.8M
    Pirce per sq ft $889
    Price Per Sq Ft in Marina District $863/ft (redfin)
    Come on guys, do you homework BEFORE you senselessly bash. At least work with the data so you can try to be more effective at trying to dissuade others from purchasing it.

  9. Sheesh Jonathan, take it easy. If you have read this site long enough you will come to know that no property posted here escapes being bashed by at least part of the readership.
    If photos of my home were posted here it too would surely be bashed, despite the care and attention that has been put into its design.
    You can’t please ’em all. But in RE sales you only need please one.

  10. “do zillow estimates count as data?”
    But in theory they are based on the same data as everything else. Public records of sales. Their significant limitation is that they lack all of the micro fine tuning for specific details of the property that a real appraiser could bring to the determination.

  11. “I think we don’t notice much of the ‘badness'”
    Much like the beer goggle effect, everything looks like a palace of exquisite architecture when you think it’s going to go up by 20% per annum in perpetuity.
    However, once that appreciation vanishes, it’s like waking up sober, in the harsh morning light next what looked so hot the night before.

  12. Very feisty, Jonathan. If you are really the owner, I applaud you for jumping in here.
    The taxes will be paid in full next week.
    I guess we now have some additional data that the SF assessor’s online website is accurate. If you really did pay last years’ (2007-08) assessments, I suggest that you contact the assessor’s office pronto to change the information. It shows as “tax defaulted”, meaning that you were overdue as of June 30, 2008, and you would want to rectify that as part of your marketing efforts. Some people look at this.
    The home is rented for 7,500 per month
    I find that hard to believe for a number of reasons, but I’ll take your word for it.
    First, it’s astounding that you could find a sucker to pay that much in rent, and especially keep paying while you conduct open houses and individual tours since you first tried to unload this in September. Even more so, when they will have to vacate when you find a buyer. Too much uncertainty and inconvenience to make that $7500 figure credible IMO.
    Second, it’s much harder to sell a rented home than a vacant one. Potential sellers are rightly put off by the prospect of tenant issues and will want the property delivered vacant. Can we assume that you mean that you have a tenant lined up in case this doesn’t sell for a price that you can tolerate (you are already imploding more than $200K in capital loss and selling expense here).
    Third, if it is actually rented to a real tenant despite those considerations, I find it AMAZING that your tenant has the exact same “bric a brac” as the loft on the other side of town featured on the same day on SS has. Compare the “DREAM” thingy in picture 21 with the same “DREAM” thingy in picture 17 in the listing for the loft featured here:
    the rest of you half wits that can’t afford to purchase your own home and sit around knocking others who can and who have.
    But I can tell you that this, none of you scumbags will ever get to put your disgusting mits on this property. Get a job low lifes!
    I’d think at this point, you’d want to cast your net as widely as possible. Prices are going down; you bought at the peak; you are wisely trying to get out; no need to project your anger at the situation onto others. Best of luck to you!

  13. when you think it’s going to go up by 20% per annum in perpetuity.
    Nobody EVER posited that. Nice flame diemos. Gosh.

  14. “Gosh.”
    Is that you flujie? 😉 It sure sounds like you.
    It is pointless to resist. Give in to your SS addiction. Certainly my New Year’s resolution to only read SS once a day didn’t last long.

  15. Hey [Jonathan],
    I am a Real cash buyer here who wouldn’t touch your place with a ten foot pole after your post. Life is too short to deal with jerks.
    Good luck selling your place to another fool.

  16. LMRiM’s skepticism about “Jonathan” and his claims seems justified, but in the event this guy really is the owner, he’s a textbook example of how owner delusions about the value of property can prevent buyers & sellers from converging on a fair market price & concluding a transaction. Look at the pix. The ceiling is low. The bathrooms look like something out of the ’80s…”shower over tub” is never in style. The facade is hideous. On the plus side, the place is large & in a good neighborhood. But it’s not a superior property and it’s not going to sell for above current FMV in the Marina– fageddaboutit.

  17. From his hidden Tiburon lair, mild mannered Satchel McRichie has a secret identity. That identity is LMRIM — TAX CRUSADER FOR JUSTICE! This selfless superhero will let no tax assessor website stand unused in his neverending quest to bring foreclosure speculation to the forefront at a website near you. Such is the strength of his convictions, the LMRIM does not LIVE, OR EVEN WORK, in San Francisco, the city he has chosen to protect! More powerful than a biannual bill, faster than a tax assessor office update, he is LMRIM — TAX CRUSADER FOR JUSTICE!

  18. Hey “anon”, YOU wouldn’t look up the tax records of a property you were interested in? It takes about 2 minutes, and tells you a LOT about the actual situation of the owner (borrower) of the property. What is wrong with a more complete picture being presented on this site? Why wouldn’t the “professional” realtors not have this information ready at their fingertips as well?

  19. so the tax info is ok to know if it comes from a realtor?
    despite being publicly available.
    the 3% buys some sort of moral approval?
    who’s the superhero now…….

  20. The [fluj] comments used to be attributed to “anon”. Did the editor go back and replace anon with [fluj] because he/she recognized fluj’s IP address, or is this something fluj asked the editor to do on his behalf?

  21. Yeah, he did. And no, it wasn’t requested. People can change their screen names to thinly veiled personal insults on here , but [fluj] can’t be anon. Whatever.

  22. Thats kind of a bs policy if you ask me. If that is the editor’s policy, then he should be upfront about it.
    And if folks run realtors off the site, the value here diminishes because the banter would be extremely once sided and macro. In the trenches commentary is valuable. Don’t discount the little guy.

  23. Yeah, I don’t like that policy. Besides, it’s kind of fun to try to determine which “not fluj” postings are really fluj’s! It’s pretty easy, really.

  24. “The home is rented for 7,500 per month – that means this baby isn’t going anywhere!”
    Cap rate of 3% on a purchase price of $1,920,000? Bad investment. Dump it and move on if it’s not your primary residence.

  25. Jonathan (or anyone who thinks this is worth the asking price) – please show me any comp in the Marina that has sold in the last 3 or 4 months for anywhere near $889/sq ft that:
    – is a condo in a multi-unit building (no SFH comps).
    – has similar square footage as yours (remember the law of diminishing returns for square footage).
    – is on the first and garage levels (I think yours is but correct me if I’m wrong).
    – has less than a subzero/viking/wolf/thermador kitchen.
    – has average looking bathroom remodels.

  26. Interesting comments about this place. I have a few observations: I’ve found the SF property tax site to be timely and accurate. The payment status is usually updated quickly. If payments were made in 2008 as Jonathan stated, then they should show at the tax site. But the site indicates that both 07-08 payments were missed as was the recent Dec installment for the 08-09 taxes. If Jonathan pays in full this week, the payments will be reflected on the property tax site.
    As SFSal points out, if the place can be rented for $7,500 per month, the cap rate would be about 3% (or maybe less). In addition to property taxes, HOA fees, insurance and maintenance, there may also be leasing fees and/or management fees and less than 100% occupancy over the course of the year(s). Given the current market, I think $5-6K per month would be more reasonable for this property. And that would yield a cap rate of 1.5 – 2%.

  27. It’s one thing to speculate on generalities. Anonymously kicking people when they’re down is simply classless.
    [Editor’s Note: We’ve removed the context but with the sentiment we agree. Dissecting the market, an investment or a property is perfectly fair game (which includes assessing a seller’s situation) but let’s drop the personal attacks and digs.]

  28. 1. Most people who are not in distress pay their taxes on time.
    2. A place like this rents for $5500 on a good day at the peak rents last year.
    3. Maybe it was rented furnished as a short term corporate rental at one time, but it isn’t any more.
    4. How do I know? Simple, look at pictures 3 and 16 in the listing. They are both of the same dining room, furnished differently. Photo 3 has one dining room table in it, probably the owner’s, while photo 16 has the stager’s dining room table. I suspect they are both up there because the realtor and owner couldn’t agree which was better.

  29. After 33 days on the market the list price for 1756 North Point has been reduced by $100,000 to $1,695,000. Now asking $225,000 (12%) less than its purchase price in April of 2007 for this District 7 condominium.

  30. 1756 North Point disappeared for a while, but is now back. 1 DOM, lol. (It’s been for sale since September 08 at least.)
    Now asking $1,595,000, or 17% below its last sale price of $1,920,000 in April 2007. Another example of a property that hasn’t gotten the realtors’ memo that prices are only down 5-10%.
    If it sells here, after standard sorts of transaction costs, that’s at least a $420K+ capital loss, or $17,500 per month. I actually think the seller is wise to keep cutting the price to unload this. Cut your losses now, it’s only going to get worse….

  31. 1756 North Point shows “contingent”. Assuming it closes, I’ll be curious to see how much wealth was sacrificed to the bubble here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *