Purchased for $729,000 in August 2000, the Lower Pacific Heights condo at 1940 Buchanan resold at $800,000 in June 2004 for average annual appreciation of 2.5 percent.
Returned to the market this past January asking $879,000, as a plugged-in tipster notes the list price has since been reduced down to $799,000.
It must have been the staging (“Restaged: come for a 2nd look”).
∙ Listing: 1940 Buchanan (2/1) 1,480 sqft – $799,000 [MLS]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by abc

    Hmm, seems like not a bad price now (and 1,480 sq ft). Location isn’t horrible either. 1 bath not ideal, but I would think this would see at this price now.
    Ah, wait..just saw – parking is $300/mo. No wonder.
    Plus, fairly expensive HOA dues for a 3 unit bldg, I think.

  2. Posted by Lori

    Did they run out of budget for paint for the kitchen cabinets? Looks shabby.

  3. Posted by dr. who

    HOA’s are LOW, uncomfortably so actually (are they properly funding reserves?)
    In any case, looks like a cramped, dark, ground-ish floor unit. And w/o deeded parking? I’m shocked it went for 800k back in 2004. My guess is it goes for around 770k, not because it’s worth it (it’s not) but b/c there are enough suckers out there who will buy the realtors talk about how “it’s a great buy, it was reduced nearly 100k!”

  4. Posted by Mimi

    I’m getting depressed by the lack of light… imagine in the foggy summer.

  5. Posted by tom

    Looks very attractive to me. Lots of charm, fabulous location, liked the kitchen and space. I like the mixture of old and new. Seems like a steal to me!

  6. Posted by Dennis

    Looks very attractive to me. Lots of charm, fabulous location, liked the kitchen and space. I like the mixture of old and new. Seems like a steal to me!

  7. Posted by Rick

    I like the place a whole lot. I am surprised it did not sell at a higher price. It looks like the kind of place we all want: gorgeous kitchen, open living room and dining area, three bedrooms that they are calling two bedrooms plus a home/office. If I had not recently purchased another condo, I’d probably go for this.

  8. Posted by tipster

    ^Oh brother, here we go again with the shill poster.
    And 4 whole minutes apart! I’m sure that was a second person – not!

  9. Posted by Stu

    boy-o! Free flat-screen AND views of sutro tower.

  10. Posted by Spencer

    I have a very strong feeling that Tom, Tom, Tom, Dennis, and Rick are the same person.
    I can speak intelligently about this property as I have gone to see it twice. Once for curiousity and the 2nd time to confirm my curiousity.
    This is 3 blocks from my ever famous 2bd 2ba 1200 sq ft apt with parking that is $2150/mo. I am a potential buyer for the neighborhood because i love it, but have forever struggled with the rent vs. buy gap. This property picqued my interest, so i went to see it.
    #1) good location
    #2) located on ground floor and little light inside
    #3) condo is tiny for a 2bdr: there is no way that this condo is over 1000sqft, much less 1480. this is why i wnet back a second time to confirm only with dimensions in mind
    #4) layout is poor. you would never use this as a 2bdr, unless the 2nd bdr is for a newborn or someone who likes to sleep in a closet (for me this is really a 1bdr + office space

  11. Posted by SFBR

    Tom, Dick, Harry Shill. And Spencer.
    So what do you think it IS worth in this mkt? What would you pay for it?

  12. Posted by TDR

    Haha! Tom, Dennis, and Rick all live together in this condo in the 1 bedroom that fits them!
    Good try!

  13. Posted by sanfrantim

    what does it mean that this MLS listing has “Expired”?

  14. Posted by spencer

    “What would you pay for it?’
    as an investment, $450K.; could probably rent this out for $2000/mo
    As a place to live, nothing. I would never live in a tiny dark, 1bdr without parking

  15. Posted by SFBR

    Spencer: I agree, I wouldnt want to live in a place that is so dark and depressing either. And driving for an hour after work trying to find parking would def send me over the edge as well.
    I’ll raise you to $500K for investment only. But frankly im not even sure you could get $2,000 in rent for this place in this market. Esp without parking.

  16. Posted by sanfrantim

    …and now the listing is “Active” again, with a “Back on the Market” notation.

  17. Posted by claude

    It seems to me that so many of the comments on this and other properties come from people who cannot afford to buy property, but are confined to renting. They are often ignorant of the real estate market, envious of those who can afford to buy and clueless about the virtues of home ownership.
    The commenter who said that $342 a month is a high HOA dues is an example of someone who does not know the median HOA dues. $342 a month is low HOA dues.
    The person who said this property “isn’t a horrible location” is an example of the person who is green with envy because everyone knows that Buchanan, near Pinee is a wonderful location.
    I feel sorry for those who cannot afford to buy, but maybe you ought to move to Vacaville or Eureka where even the rents are cheap.
    We have the lowest home ownership in the country for a large metropolitan area and this is reflected in how poorly tenant-occupied properties are maintained.

  18. Posted by SFBR

    Clueless Claude. Get over yourself and stop being so condescending and presumptuous. There are people on this site who CAN afford to buy such as myself, but who choose not to as the fundamentals and economics of overpaying for a piece of crap don’t add up to good value. That’s why I rent, because it makes sense for me and my lifestyle and WALLET. Just because YOU own doesn’t make it right or even sensible for everyone else. If you’re so bullish on ownership, why dont you buy this overpriced, underwhelming, no parking property for the list and see where you end up?

  19. Posted by Molly

    We do NOT have the lowest homeownership rate in the country. NY does.
    Detroit, Cleveland and Indianapolis all have very high homeownership rates. Boston, Seattle, SF and NY are among the lowest. If you’ve been to these cities, you’d have to conclude that a high proportion of renters means a higher quality of living.
    Let’s retire the term “bitter renter” and come up with one for Claude’s ilk. “Bitter realtor.”
    Get a real job, man.

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles