268 Lombard #1 Living

A plugged-in tipster reports with respect to the condo at 268 Lombard #1:

After being owned by an artist, with sculptures adorning its decks, [268 Lombard #1] was bought in 2005 for $2.225M by an out of town owner, according to his agent and PropertyShark, and was never really lived in for 3 years.

After being listed for the same price in 2005, the author of the Stinking Rose Cookbook, Jerry DalBozzo bought the property in November 2008 for $2.207M, and has renovated the place over the course of a few months in a decidedly Mediterranean style.

We all thought this Italian chef/author was going to move in there, and were awaiting the smell of garlic filling up the air, but were surprised to see the place back on the market for $4.895M.

We’ll note the new La Cornue (not a CornuFé) in the kitchen, apparently the old Wolf wasn’t good enough.

And while not noted on its current listing, according to its listing in 2008 the condo is 2,546 square feet ($1,922 per at its current ask). It’s been on the market for 53 days.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by mikey woodz

    This might appeal to me a bit more, if the crap weather here was a bit more mediterranean!

  2. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    I’m baffled about how the seller doubled the value of this condo via the remodel. Is there a solid gold toilet in there ?

  3. Posted by brandno

    No, but I’m sure the chess set and lovely flowers are included.

  4. Posted by pacific

    I’ve walked through this place. The views are great, but the condo is not. The layout is confusing, the rooms are on the small side, and the finishes are borderline ugly, at least by my standards. I think this place should be priced closer to 3.5m, and even there, I wouldn’t want it.

  5. Posted by pacific

    And as absurd as it sounds, 2755 Fillmore is a better “value.”

  6. Posted by jason

    What a crap property website. How many pictures do I need to see of friggin potted plants.
    According to DBI building permits, $190,000 was spent in the last two years on projects such as kitchen reno, master bedroom reno, replacing solariums, etc. (Yes I know everyone lies on their DBI permits in order to keep the cost of the permit as low as possible.) But still, that’s one helluva (expected – but not likely achievable)return for relatively minor remodeling.

  7. Posted by brad

    Those are the most annoying property photos I have ever seen. I have no idea what the bathrooms really look like. Do we really need a close up of two Tifanny boxes? Of two fake starfish on the bathroom counter? Useless photos.

  8. Posted by BobN

    Love the house, I think, but hate the website.
    Though I did like the shots of the acrobatic mollusks and, of course, the parrots.

  9. Posted by eddy

    Officially nominated as candidate for worst website. Why are they hanging all those frameless pictures of the bay in front of the windows? 😉

  10. Posted by pacific

    I’d reserve “Love the house” until you see it. Agree on the 78 waste-everybody’s-time photos.

  11. Posted by PPC

    The music, slanted pictures, like the previous posters mentioned, the potted plants and Tiffany boxes are not good and rather cheesy – no offense. I like the place overall, but too high of a price and on a really steep cliff. The HOA’s ($5,400/yr.)are less expensive than I imagined, though at this price point, I guess it doesn’t really matter.

  12. Posted by ex SF-er

    this place may be a tough sell imo.
    first, the price.
    but second, this place is very taste specific, but not authentic.
    those who love authentic Mediterranean/Spanish architecture would be initially drawn to this property, but then there are some glaring “updates” that really ruin it imo. specifically, the ceilings and the windows and that country kitchen.
    the windows give a great view, but the black edging really ruins the Mediterranean feel.
    The kitchen doesn’t belong in this house IMO, but I could be wrong.
    Those not fully into the Mediterranean feel will hate the bathrooms.
    overall, there are some things to love (the views, those beams on the ceiling) and things not to love (inconsistency).
    $5M? who knows, san franciscans are crazy and will pay lots of money for things.

  13. Posted by mikey woodz

    I’d rather have a blank lot here for 3.5m than this for 5m

  14. Posted by Jeff

    Even @ $1200/oz, $2M will get you ~100lbs of gold, enough to make a rockin’ toilet.

  15. Posted by dogboy

    with the high hoa, 3.1 tops. Sorry Jerry…

  16. Posted by Carlitos Way

    At this price there better be a flat screen hanging above the fire place!

  17. Posted by ok

    this will end up in the 2’s…

  18. Posted by justme

    So, let’s see.
    1). Bought for 2.2ish, not long post peak.
    2). Let’s be generous and say half a mil in renovations.
    3). Try to double your money in a flat market. PROFIT!
    Underpants gnomes have nothing on this guy.
    Good luck with that, fella.

  19. Posted by Jim T.

    Staging should be banished. It’s ugly, in this case more than usual, kills the imagination necessary to picture yourself living there. An empty house is a treat to tour, though it rarely seems to happen anymore. I can only imagine the kickbacks that must go on in this racket.

  20. Posted by anon

    So you tour houses all the time with no intention of buying them, I take it? Then your thought process is not in line with whomever staging is aimed at.

  21. Posted by lol

    I agree staging does alter the perception of a prospective buyer. Instead of focusing on the bones, your eyes are diverted to a clutter of objects you are not buying.
    I understand the goal is to make it look like a “home” instead of what it is: a structure with electrical, plumbing and paint. When it’s a “home” the total is inevitably superior to the sum of its parts from a salesmanship point of view. That’s the whole point of staging.

  22. Posted by sfrenegade

    Someone pass the Advil. That truly awful set of photos gave me a headache. Did a drunken monkey take some of the photos?
    No idea how the price on this place increases by almost $2.7M since Nov. 2008 with this unimpressive remodel. Don’t get me wrong, there’s some nice stuff going on here, as ex SF-er said, but there’s some bad stuff too.

  23. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    dogboy wrote:

    with the high hoa, 3.1 tops. Sorry Jerry…

    I’m just interested, from an academic point of view, in how HOAs can be compared, or even if they can. HOAs are tough since there are so many things going on with them, especially in this selling price range (but I am not an expert on this price range, by any stretch of the imagination): is there an on duty concierge or door person? Does the HOA cover Homeowners Insurance? Cable TV?, Community exercise area(s)? and so on and so forth.
    Just for kicks, I went out to the MLS, searched for everything for sale in 94133, throw out SFHs and BMR units (this place is a condo even though it looks like a house), and got:
    • 1750 Taylor #205 (1/1.5) — $3,995,000; HOA Dues: $3,028.00
    • 1043 Vallejo St (3/2.5) —$2,895,000; HOA Dues: $2,531.00
    • 999 Green St #2804 (2/2.5) —$2,325,000; HOA Dues: $1,717.00
    • 1750 Taylor St #803 (2/2) —$2,275,000; HOA Dues: $2,945.00
    • 1750 Taylor St #1803 (3/3) —$2,035,000; HOA Dues: $2,488.96
    As I said, I’m definitely not an expert on this, and since this is far out of my price range, not even a well-informed consumer, but I don’t think that the $450.00 HOA for this place is all that high, relatively speaking.

  24. Posted by SocketSite

    After 171 days on the market without a sale (or reduction), the listing for 268 Lombard #1 has been withdrawn from the MLS without a reported sale.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles