2311 Broadway
Originally listed for $7,280,000 last October, but then relisted at $6,700,000 already “in escrow” last month, the sale of San Francisco’s “Party of Five” house at 2311 Broadway has closed escrow with a reported contract price of $6,550,000.
Purchased for $5,400,000 in October 1999 for average annual appreciation of 1.9 percent over the past ten years. And with the relisting, official industry stats will reflect a sale at 2 percent under asking (versus 10 percent under its original original list) and 34 days on the market (versus five months) for this most recent sale.
A Peek Inside The “Party Of Five” House At 2311 Broadway [SocketSite]
“Party Of Five” House (2311 Broadway) Coming Soon [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Ryan

    Every time I read these appreciation numbers, I have 2 thoughts:
    1) Comparing a peak to a valley.
    2) The mutual funds that I got talked into around 1999 are doing worse.

  2. Posted by salarywoman

    Yes, but you probably didn’t buy the mutual funds on margin.

  3. Posted by lol

    There was a sale in 96 at 1.75M. No idea if this was still an apple in 2000.

  4. Posted by SFRE

    @Ryan: Totally agree. Just a side note, if you bought the S&P 500 last year, you are doing way better compared to housing.
    @Salarywoman: Agree too.
    Its funny to remember the show…A group of kids and a carpenter in his 30s affording this place. I guess the show wouldn’t have the same effect, if it was filmed in the Mission.

  5. Posted by ex SF-er

    The mutual funds that I got talked into around 1999 are doing worse.
    many people forget that Stocks saw a “lost decade”. Of course, you must remember that this place has high holding and transaction costs, unlike a mutual fund…
    Before saying if this place was “better” or worse investment than a mutual fund I’d have to see what the holding costs of this home were over that 10 year time period compared to renting a similar domicile. if there was a premium paid by owning, this would do worse than mutual funds. If there was a premium to rent, then this would look better.
    I’d also want to look at whether or not the mutual fund threw off dividends during the last 10 years, since that is a large source of a lot of mutual fund income.
    it is one of the largest financial fallacies to think compare stocks and RE by simply looking at their purchase and sales prices, specifically because RE has so many holding costs.
    my guess: most mutual funds beat this particular home as investment after everything is calculated, AND after determining the equivalent cost to rent (so it negates the “you can’t live in your stocks” argument).
    More importantly however is to realize that stocks can go nowhere for more than a decade. It has happened before, and may happen again.
    Likewise, it is highly possible for RE valuations to go nowhere for a very very long time. it isn’t inconceivable that this place sells for around $6.5M again in 10-20 years, although I find this unlikely. it is even more conceivable that it will go for $6.5M or less in real terms (2010 dollars) in 10-20 years from now. I find that very likely.

  6. Posted by derrysf

    For what it’s worth, I believe the Party of Five premise included the kids inheriting the family home when their parents are killed in an auto accident…something like that.

  7. Posted by Fishchum

    Derrysf – you nailed it. My wife was an avid fan, and I have to admit watching both Neve Campbell and Jennifer Love Hewitt wasn’t the worst thing in the world.

  8. Posted by SFRE

    Dude, Jennifer Love Hewitt was like 15 at the time…kind of gross.

  9. Posted by tipster

    ^She wasn’t hired for her acting abilities.

  10. Posted by Fishchum

    Actually, SFRE, she was 18 when I first started watching the show with my wife. Try getting your facts straight, would you?

  11. Posted by SFRE

    My bad. I don’t know her full stats.

  12. Posted by SFRE

    Actually, I just looked up here stats.
    Born in 1979. Started acting on the show 1995. 1995-1979=16

  13. Posted by Fishchum

    Wrong again. She joined she show in the second season (1996) and I moved in with my wife in 1997 and was subjected to it on a weekly basis.

  14. Posted by SFRE

    Strange how she can join the show in the second season, yet have film credits to the 1995 season. Maybe you were watching re-runs in 1996 of 1995 episodes (see link).
    Anyway who cares, its stupid to discuss this.

  15. Posted by lars

    Is there any “celebrity” premium in this price?
    Bragging rights of saying, “oh, yeah, I live in the Party of Five house”… mind you it’s not like saying Clint Eastwood lived there, but just wondering.

  16. Posted by Joshua

    ^ I’d guess a celebrity discount, for having “Mr. Toad” tours driving-by.

  17. Posted by badlydrawnbear

    “Its funny to remember the show…A group of kids and a carpenter in his 30s affording this place.”
    Clearly the party of 5 kids benefitted greatly from Prop 13. Of course, I am assuming that the house was already (or at least mostly) paid off and the parents had some good life insurance.

  18. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    It is odd that a home can be affected by the legacy of its prior inhabitants. Even odder is when a home is affected by fictional inhabitants.
    So a production crew came out here one day to shoot some establishing shots of this house, yet the legacy lives on.
    I don’t know whether that fame resulted in any financial gain here, but it certainly helps the bottom line of the “Cheers” bar in Boston.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles