Self dubbed “The Sage House,” 1813 Greenwich has returned to the market as a 3,600 square foot “state of the art” three-bedroom home asking $3,650,000.
And yes, 1813 Greenwich looked a bit different in 2006 when purchased for $1,400,000 as a 1,700 square foot three-bedroom home (but with only two baths).
∙ Listing: 1813 Greenwich Street (3/4) 3,600 sqft – $3,650,000 [MLS]
the word “butterface” comes to mind. but this really looks beautiful from the neck down. great remodel.
i shudder to think what will happen to the $2.25M of “appreciation” when all’s said and done. i.e. final price, huge remodel cost, 4+ year holding costs, selling costs.
This is a nice remodel but the price? Over $1000 psf for a 3 bedroom on Greenwich and Laguna? Seems way off. You can get 3157 Steiner, a new construction 5 bedroom 4 bath for $3.299m (and probably much less as it’s been on the market for 161 days now.) Or, 1974 Filbert, also new construction 4 bd, 3 bth 3300 sq ft for $2.95m. Or 1750 Filbert, also new construction 4 bd 3.5 bth 3400 sq ft for $2.399m (although I think there are 2 units in your backyard so this is a weird one.)
I’ll be shocked if this goes over $3 mil
2.78
Does new house smell still get $1000/sq.ft. ?
Photos look super nice, esp. upstairs and deck. Not that appealing from the outside though and price for that location close to Gough seems pretty unreasonable?? I’m not a r/e person but seems like there’s been a lot for sale in that area including a couple of new construction places within a couple blocks, that have just been sitting on the market. Not sure who the buyer is anywhere close to that price for that location. Any rough guesses as to renovation costs for something like this??
I love that they added a tree and that planter on the right side of the building.
the place itself has negative curb appeal IMO, perhaps with different colors?
the interior is quite nice, I especially like the tray ceilings. kitchen is fine too. a lot of nice details scattered around.
the closet is quite luxurious!
Pure Soviet grim impression. Very nicely done. Especially the fake concrete slab lines on the facade that reminisce of this so cherished commie blandness. I always wished I could travel back in time to Sofia 1978. Now I can for a mere 3.65M.
On the plus side, these depressing grays will look sad and tired in 3,2,1… Time for a do-over already.
That big house is sneaking up on the little house!
2007 pricing
Yup. That 2007 price is not coming back. Kudos for trying though.
Not even close to a 1000psf remodel or location. That said I’m pretty blown away at what they did with this property. I actually remember this place clearly in 2006 as I was looking around that time. It sold for around $850 psf which was a pretty good ‘deal’ back then for a SFH in D7. It wouldn’t be an outlandish price today. The house was pretty serviceable as-was but it was small and felt small. This place feels big and open. Did they demo this place and rebuild it from scratch? It didn’t really sell in 2006 at a price that would have been considered a flipper value. Interesting.
I did a tour of this house last night and I am sometimes amazed by the comments on SS from folks supposedly in the SF real estate scene. This is basically 100% new construction and in addition to the 3,600 sq. ft. of finished space there is mucho deck space and a bonus room at the garage level that is designed to be turned in to an au pair’s suite or 4th bedroom or game room. $1k/sq is the going rate in this nabe for this type of property. I predict it will sell for at least $3.5M. In fact, a little birdie told me there is already an offer on the table at just about list.
Here is more info and floor plans:
http://www.1813greenwich.com/
“I did a tour of this house last night and I am sometimes amazed by the comments on SS from folks supposedly in the SF real estate scene.”
Are you the agent or the assistant?
@mikeywoodz: No, I am not the agent, owner or developer. As I have said on SS before, I am an ex-Silicon Valley Tech guy who has been investing and developing RE in SF for the last 10 years. It is a small group in SF that does such work though, i.e. one degree of separation. Also, I like most of the work on this projoect, but I certainly would have done quite a few things differently.
Where’s the garden? I want more than decks.
I’d like to see it again so I hope it’s open this weekend. I was going to go with 850-900 psf sight unseen but even that feels high. It’s not really a great block and there are seismic issues to contend with here. At $3.6 I’d take the Scott St place on Alta Plaza in a second over this home (which will probably sell for less) or the Washington St place. If this place sells for near ask I would be very surprised.
“there are seismic issues to contend with here”
Do you mean at this particular location? Or this particular house?
Price seems definitely too high. The lot may be “unusually wide 28′” across but it’s also unusually short in depth – check out the google map – this block between Greenwich & Filbert is divided w/ Harris Plc. No yard, close neighbors, close to Lombard and Gough = no way it can get >$1000psf. $2.8 max. (nice kitchen though!)
Nice asshat.
Nice asshat. Or is that an assvisor?
“In fact, a little birdie told me there is already an offer on the table at just about list.”
Gag. Are realtors and other interested parties still doing this? As if that would motivate anyone drowning in a sea of houses to overpay for the new Ikea cabinet smell. 202 new listings, plus 161 price reductions in the last 7 days: 363. Sales: 53.
If someone actually manages to get financing for it at anywhere near list, they’ll just sell it next year for a huge loss, as is becoming the norm. So just wait a year and laugh at them when you buy it from them for 2.78. If it even fetches that next year.
Do you mean at this particular location? Or this particular house?
I mean Cow Hallow. If this is new construction than I’m sure it is a factor, and I don’t know what the JCP states about this particular section of the Cow Hallow. If it was just built over the prior structure than I’d have some more questions.
Greenwich is the demarcation line for seismic issues. North of Greenwich, is fill; south of Greenwich its rock. So yes this is a “maybe” seismic issue. We did the research when we bought in this same area but on Filbert.
I was reading an article about Citi being sued by Terra Firma for misleading them into overpaying for EMI by telling them there was a competing bid.
Regardless of the veracity of Skirunman’s comments, it makes me wonder how often that happens in real estate to get buyers to make a bid or increase their bid based on lies.
It’s a funny market . . .
OK – I have to say it. I live in this neighborhood and I have never understood the fetish with decks. I have a large deck with a bay view and the thought of going out there 10 months of the year sends shivers down my spine. It’s either raining, freezing or the chairs are covered in dirt because I haven’t even thought about going out there in months. I’ve lived here forever and don’t know of anyone who has been able to keep their plants alive for more than a season. Sure, I can make it look great and inviting for a picture but actually use it? Never!
“Greenwich is the demarcation line for seismic issues. North of Greenwich, is fill; south of Greenwich its rock.”
I don’t know about the fill vs. rock part, but Laguna and Greenwich is a liquefaction zone:
http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/liq/viewer.htm
Same with east of Pierce and most of the stuff along Steiner. And then a lot of west of Divis is a liquefaction zone too. It could be because of waterways instead of filling in the Bay, not sure. The lake that Laguna Street was named after was just east of here, and that’s a big liquefaction zone too.
Jeremy wrote:
I was thinking this, too. And we’ve seen this “look” before, at 313 Duncan. Once more and it’s officially a trend.
@Marcie, great comment and so true.
Well, marcie. Not sure what the problem is with your deck, but I have a nice big deck. that’s DECK. here in Noe V. south-facing. We use it all the time, lots of plants on it, wonderful to hang out on.
Sage wisdom included?
noearch – I think you’re in a significantly warmer micro-climate than marcie.
I can understand marcie’s opinion as most people don’t like to hang out for long periods in cool or cold weather.
Others aren’t fazed by the cold and have no problem hanging out for hours outdoors in cool weather wearing a parka, tuke, and fingerless gloves (so you can type on your laptop !) Those fresh air fiends are the minority though.
Enough with the negative drivel (constructive drivel is applauded, however). I saw it last night, too and thought it was quite stunning. I’m not a huge fan of the Pottery Barn colors on the facade, but hey, if I spent 3.65m on a house, I could probably afford the pennies (by comparison) to repaint.
PS: I’m not an agent or an assistant. I came because I just wanted to see the pretty pictures. (Why do positive comments on SS always seem to be followed by “are you the agent?” Can’t someone like it? Why does everyone have to like what you like? So much for being the city of free thinkers and diversity)
I walk this street every day and live right near here. This is a new house with a brand new foundation. I saw it when they poured the new cement and know there was nothing left from the old house. I probably have a photo of the dirt lot. Look at the map, it is on 100% solid rock, no fill. Huge garage isn’t even in the photos. I am going to go by on Sunday and check out the inside. As far as price per foot, the house two down (1809 is just as expensive per foot and not new and isn’t as nice). The last new one near here on Laguna sold for over $1000 per foot. This is the greatest neighborhood as you can walk to Polk, Union AND Polk. Only 4 blocks from Balboa!
Hey sfrenegade, you can have your own opinions, but not your own facts.
I typed in the address at the GIS web site and it shows the “Liquefaction Susceptibility” as VERY LOW.
Since you know the GIS URL, learn how to use it or don’t post misinformation…
Brahma and Jeremy,
The reason you see houses with the upper levels recessed like that is because of the set back requirements. The location of the neighbors houses relative to the street and property lines dictates how you can build and each level of the house is calculated separately. The the realities of getting permits in SF…
There was so much work done here overthe last two years. I just don’t understand why this is listed for sale above $3,000,000.
I think the obsession with $/sq feet is for why developers and contractors end up building houses no one wants (1750 Filbert and 3157 Steiner), and people build houses for themselves that they love to live in and others want to buy too. That Steiner house feels like it is on Lombard and over a grocery store and this house on Greenwich is 40% wider than that “hallway of a house” on Filbert.
Judging from the pictures, this house probably cost almost $2M to build including ~$500/sq’ plus the elevator, plus the underground full lot garage plus the decks. Even if they sell it at $3.65M, they won’t make much money, but it will be really nice to live in. That loft style one-giant kitchen/dining/living probably cost an extra $100K.
Phew, thank goodness all these unanswered questions were addressed by first_time_participants to SS all within 30_minutes.
Malci, the garage is not underground in as much as it is street level. However, it is technically partially carved into the lot. Also, the Foosball / ping pong table room is really just part of the garage area and is windowless. Not sure if you can even call it legal square footage. Maybe another_new_poster will chime in to tell us. So you probably have 5 car tandem parking here if you wanted it, but the developers chose to convert probably 400 of that space to try to try and squeeze out a few more dollars from the usable space.
Not sure this cost 2M to build. But the bigger issue is that the $1.4 plus demolition costs didn’t make this a good lot value on the buy so I wish the developers luck. Never under estimate the premium people will put on big, slick, new spaces, even if it is on a crazy lot on a sub prime street. For ~$3M I’d take either of the homes I’ve been discussing directly on Alta Plaza park in Pacific Heights. Or I’d buy something in Noe where the weather is warmer and I could use the decks. 🙂
SF_Bldr, thanks for that comment. I had no idea that the design choice was driven by setback requirements, but now that you mention it, it makes sense to me.
I don’t think they’re going to get $3.5M for it, though. Little birdies can and do sometimes mishear, or change important details in the retelling.
Having now seen it, it is much more impressive from the inside as the ceilings are very high and the finish quality is excellent. I like that each bedroom has its own bathroom plus there are two (5 total) bathrooms. Biggest kitchen island I have ever seen in a house.
Radiant floor heating is a big plus in SF and it has a “computer room’s” worth of wiring and in ceiling speakers in every room.
Also, unlike eddy said, the rec room back of the garage has two windows and a big glass door and agent said it is NOT counted in the 3600 square feet. If you count it, it is 4000 square feet. Also, the garage is very wide past the door, not tandem.
Those properties on Alta Vista will appeal to a different buyer – someone who wants an old school house with little rooms.
This thread is almost as funny as the 728 Duncan thread, where friends of the owner come on and try to talk up a property, criticize long time posters we all know and respect, and in this case, slam the cheaper properties. Nice fake-realistic touch to disagree with a minor issue like the paint colors, but then immediately point out how cheap that would be to redo. 728 Duncan never sold after two price reductions, and may end up going back to the bank.
In this case the friends didn’t try to pretend they were disinterested parties (as if we couldn’t tell immediately), but here, the friends all have more of an interest: they are developers themselves hoping to use this home as a comp for their next project.
If they can convince people to buy a done up home in a B location for an A+ price, it opens up a world of possibilities to them. Unlike the time this home was purchased, fixers in B locations are now much less expensive. They can buy them cheaply, fix them up, and sell them for high prices. So they are really pushing this one.
Anyone who buys in a B location for that price will get exactly what they deserve. This grossly violates the long held real estate rule that you don’t buy the nicest house in the neighborhood. Someone may be stupid enough to fall for it, but I doubt they’ll be happy when they sell. This town is currently littered with people who overpaid for a new home, only to get crushed at the first resale, when the home was no longer new, and the very last set of suckers, those who are caught up emotionally in buying new construction homes, were not interested.
Something tells me the little birdie is the developer himself or a close friend for whom a back room deal will be made. The developer didn’t overpay at the time, but the market shifted and they have now grossly overpaid. I doubt seriously the cost numbers too. That’s clearly just a ploy to try to get some sucker to think a B location home is worth an A+++ price.
All the stops have appeared to come out here: hold on to your wallets and watch out for a fake sale. This has all the signs of developers drawing a line in the sand. For that reason, I’d steer very clear of this one and steer clear of interpreting a “sale” at any price to mean anything other than the obvious desperation of developers trying to goose this segment of the market: new construction in B locations where their profit margins are huge.
This looks like a great A location to me. You can get much deals in Flint Michigan.
Hey tipster,
I am a long time poster too and I know your long history of postings on “developer conspiracies” and that anyone who likes a house must be getting paid. You think someone is going to falsify a purchase price higher and pay extra property tax just to prove you wrong? I guess you have delusions of self importance to go with your paranoia.
Almost every new house in Cow Hollow goes for close to $1000 per foot and the house two down at 1807 is for sale at the same price per foot and doesn’t look as new or nice, but will probably sell for about asking.
Where are these cheap tear downs in Cow Hollow that are for sale now? I can’t find any listed.
You can promote other parts of SF all you want, but if you want to be near Union Street, this appears to be the going price. With all the great new places opened on Union in the last 6 months things are getting better not worse (Des Amis, Brick Yard, Unwind, Roam).
I think the house on laguna near union sold for $750 psft: condition good but not as good, location much better. Condition can be changed. Not $1000, $750.
There are no developer conspiracies, it’s just business. Real estate is theater, and some very surprising things are done every day to mislead buyers, because there’s a lot of money involved. Buyers would never suspect.
And if a developer offers to pay 1/4 of the property tax for two years until the buyer gets it lowered, the “buyer” won’t care, but it could be worth a lot of money to the developer. It’s a 0.5% cost, but if it boosts the price of the next two or three sales by 25%, it’s smart business.
I think the house on laguna near union sold for $750 psft: condition good but not as good, location much better. Condition can be changed. Not $1000, $750.
There are no developer conspiracies, it’s just business. Real estate is theater, and some very surprising things are done every day to mislead buyers, because there’s a lot of money involved. Buyers would never suspect.
And if a developer offers to pay 1/4 of the property tax for two years until the buyer gets it lowered, the “buyer” won’t care, but it could be worth a lot of money to the developer. It’s a 0.5% cost, but if it boosts the price of the next two or three sales by 25%, it’s smart business.
2130 Filbert sold for 1k psf recently so I guess it’s not out of the ream of possibility but that home was on a better block. 1974 Filbert is on the market now for sub 1k psf and hasn’t moved. This home also has a great yard; something 1813 is lacking. I’m not so sure about where this home will end up.
Also, the house 2 doors down will not sell for asking and using it as a ‘comp’ for this home is not great logic. Also, 2130 (mentioned above) sold in 2008 for $1.3M. I guess I didn’t realize that Cow Hallow was letting homes get demolished with such frequency.
tipster
You should try getting off of your computer and visiting some houses. I still find your developer kick-back theory far fetched and possibly criminal. The city isn’t going to lower anyone’s prop 13 value once they record a purchase price.
Any comparison to 2816 Laguna (near Union)are silly. Location is better? You could smell the Bus Stop (dive bar) from there, the house was old, small rooms, zero view, no decks, creaky staircase and the garage is so small and narrow you would be lucky to fit a mid size car into it down the narrow ramp. $750/foot is the right price for that one.
3041 Laguna is a better comp and that sold for almost $1000 per foot. Similar location though feels closer to Lombard. To get a view you had to walk through the master bathroom up a fire escape to a crows nest. Narrow rats-maze of a garage level too.
(Eddy) 1974 Filbert is a narrow 20′ lot and the house feels like it is cut down the middle with lots of wasted tiny rooms. Just compare the kitchen islands and the Greenwich one must be three times the size. Also, the view deck at Filbert is a standing room only perch.
I am still waiting for any bargains in Cow Hollow you see that can be torn down and are a better deal to rebuild…
Tipster, didn’t you post some vast conspiracy about a home in Noe Valley that sold for a good price in 2006, just a week or so ago? You were convinced that there was some massive collusion between the buyer, the bank and the appraiser, just because someone happened to get a pretty good price.
Hey, they underpaid. It happens.
“The city isn’t going to lower anyone’s prop 13 value once they record a purchase price.”
Technically it would be the county assessing property taxes, so the city would never do this. But haven’t people been routinely applying for and receiving assessment adjustments since the bubble began to leak out ?
Obviously, there isn’t always collusion. But one needs to realize it exists, and be vigilant for it, and to recognize that the pattern seems to be that when some sucker truly grossly overpays, they sell it for a big loss a very short time later, so no one needs to ovepay to compete, just be patient and let the idiots lose their shirts.
Obviously, there isn’t always collusion. But one needs to realize it exists, and be vigilant for it, and to recognize that the pattern seems to be that when some sucker truly grossly overpays, they sell it for a big loss a very short time later, so no one needs to ovepay to compete, just be patient and let the idiots lose their shirts.
Can’t you just look up if this developer has 3+ other properties in Cow Hollow to test your theory.
@Milkshake
Technically there is no City of San Francisco and there is no County of San Francisco. San Francisco is a hybrid entity (which is why we have the odd combination of a mayor and a board of supervisors). Property taxes are assessed by the City and County of San Francisco.
“Technically it would be the county assessing property taxes, so the city would never do this. But haven’t people been routinely applying for and receiving assessment adjustments since the bubble began to leak out ?”
City and County of San Francisco.. essentially one thing.
And people have been appealing and getting single year adjustments, but my understanding is they revert back every year, and it never changes your prop 13 basis.
I looked at the developers website and there are some nice developments, but their finishes are paint tones are really a bit off. It shows in this place. The master bath doesn’t look like something that was built for a spec project and the colors, while bright are a bit blah. Overall, I actually like this place. Still not sure where it will end up.
Funny, I didn’t look at the developer until eddy’s comment but now I can say for sure that tipster is full of it. Also, the people posting aren’t their shills. They did Filbert street that was on here recently.
“I typed in the address at the GIS web site and it shows the “Liquefaction Susceptibility” as VERY LOW”
As you may have noticed if you read more carefully, I never once said *this* house is in a liquefaction zone. Oceangoer said that liquefaction isn’t an issue south of Greenwich. In response, I said Laguna and Greenwich is a liquefaction zone and pointed out other liquefaction zones south of Greenwich in response to Oceangoer’s comment.
If you look at my Oct 22 12:05PM comment, this is why I asked eddy if there was a seismic issue for this particular house, because to my knowledge this was not in a liquefaction zone. However, it’s worth noting that it is right between two “Very High” liquefaction zones, so you still could be at risk for fires and chaos from nearby neighbors who are in high liquefaction zones.
Read more carefully next time before accusing people of providing misinformation, Mr. Shill who posted several times with different names.
what drivel tipster. you say “one has to be vigilant” but you continually say fraud is rampant until someone calls you on it. i love how you call out the shills and reference “highly respected” opinions when you clearly only value your own opinion
sfrenegade – you ought to “write” more carefully – when you wrote “I don’t know about the fill vs. rock part, but Laguna and Greenwich is a liquefaction zone” it sure sounded like you were saying this home is on liquefaction.
as for the majority of posters here who clearly know nothing about cow hollow, this is a HIGHLY sought after location. Eddy’s opinion that 2130 Filbert is a superior location is, at best, a personal preference to be a stones throw from Fillmore. But plenty of people don’t want to be quite that close to the triangle for all the late night traffic that walks by your front door several nights a week. This is also 1 1/2 blocks to Brazen Head and 2 blocks to Union. So it’s ridiculous to call this a bad part of Cow Hollow.
i haven’t seen the place so i have no opinion on the $1,000 per SqFt price, but NEVER under estimate what people will pay for new construction in Cow Hollow. has anyone seen if it does or does not have a yard? satellite photos would suggest it might vs. the odd reference to Harris Place which appears to be a couple of doors away
http://www.mapjack.com/?a5DnWZS2bFMC
This property (pre rennovation) is the second one on the right.
Does this look like a $3.65M neighborhood to you?
“it sure sounded like you were saying this home is on liquefaction. ”
Anyone reading the thread in context would understand that I was responding to Oceangoer and that I had previously asked eddy about this. Anyone who read this thread and was interested in this house would know that it isn’t at the corner of Laguna and Greenwich, including the shill commenter.
tipster makes a good point via Mapjack that I noticed when passing by this place the other day to check it out. This does not look like a $3.65M neighborhood. It looks a bit too much like the Doelger-esque parts of the Sunset with an extra floor.
“And people have been appealing and getting single year adjustments, but my understanding is they revert back every year, and it never changes your prop 13 basis.”
So far my experience with adjustments is as follows:
Bought in Feb 2007.
2007-2008 – Property up’d by prop 13 limit. Did not request review
2008-2009 – Property up’d by prop 13 limit. Requested informal review, was denied adjustment.
2009-2010 – Requested an informal review, assessed value was lowered.
2010-2011 – Assessor’s office automatically did a review and kept assessed value the same as for the previous year.
My experience is consistent with their announcement that they are automaticall reviewing homes that had an adjustment the prior year. Which at least saved me the hassle of requesting the review. The ‘adjusted base year value’ continues to go up though, so at some point they can return it to the inflated value, but with this housing market I doubt it will be anytime since that base year value keeps getting bumped up 2% each year
I stand corrected. So it looks like they don’t necessarily revert back every year, but your prop 13 basis is still the original one.
tipster @ 14:49
Have say I agree with you there. Several old apartment buildings, preponderance of multi-unit structures… No, it really doesn’t look like a $3.5M block, nowhere close.
I live close by and know the neighborhood well. This is very convenient in that one can get to Franklin, Gough, Van Ness, Lombard etc very easily, but this is the least desirable part of Cow Hollow. Again, just a personal opinion, but this this part of Cow Hollow and this block just is not that great. There are a couple of new construction places nearby as well– people on here will know $/sq ft for those places, but they have been on the market for a while now.
All of Cow Hollow is only ~45 square blocks. If you eliminate being on Lombard/Union as well as Franklin/Gough/VanNess/Filmore for being too much traffic. And eliminate being North of Steiner because you are too far a walk to the shops/bars, then you are left with less than 6 square blocks on either Greenwich or Filbert and this house is in those 6 blocks – The best 12% of Cow Hollow!
I just looked on Redfin and unless you want to live right on Lombard, there are no single family homes under $2M in Cow Hollow. You can argue that Cow Hollow is over priced, but hard to make the case that this house is overpriced for Cow Hollow…
2834 Jackson is on the market for about the same price. Any guess which will sell first?
I’ll pick 1813 as the fist sale. The developers here may test the waters for a bit on the price and they may find a buyer. But I’m sure they want this place gone and at this point they just have to find a buyer. Price discovery should be easier on this home.
Looking at the pattern of buyers who were completely taken to the cleaners over the last 4 years, it was buyers from out of the area who didn’t do much investigation and got completely hosed.
Soi think that is to whom this home is being marketed.
Go back up and read the comments and you’ll see what I mean. Comments about how “desirable” this area is (it’s one of the ugliest blocks in all of SF), and my favorite, how buyers of a family sized home really want to be closer to bars, and so the nicer areas of cow hollow should be excluded from consideration (!) make it clear that this chatter is being made to snare the completely clueless.
In that context, you can see what a coup it was to have the WSJ article from a few months ago describing how SF prices were supposedly rising. It was directly targeted at out of area buyers.
So it appears there really *is* a bifurcated market. The out of the area buyers get completely taken for a ride, and it’s now no wonder that certain recent sellers did not use the agent who ‘advised’ them when they were buyers. It’s like the islander prices for products in Hawaii:the tourists pay one price, the locals pay another.
So I’m going to back away and let the agents and developers make their money.
So let me get this staight, tipster. You are saying that this isn’t Prime Cow Hollow (real SF) and that out of town (perhaps the French) buyers will be saving the market. Did you recently get your RE license?
The best part of Cow Hollow is west of Fillmore.
2834 Jackson is on a better street than 1813 and the house and neighborhood more real SF. If there is a bifurcated market, as tipster claims, both houses will sell to their natural owners.
“Looking at the pattern of buyers who were completely taken to the cleaners over the last 4 years, it was buyers from out of the area who didn’t do much investigation and got completely hosed.”
– Tipster, got any facts to back up this claim?
I just took a look at this place on my way home from getting a haircut, and it’s pretty spectacular. I’m not sure what you’d do with the room in the back of the garage (it’s currently staged as a “game room”) and the reverse floor plan threw me at first but I agreed with the owner (a pretty amicable fellow) that if you’re entertaining a lot (as you would want to do in this place) it made sense to have the kitchen right below the top floor room so guests could mingle between the two floors.
I’m not sure I agree with Marcie regarding the actual usage of outdoor space in the Marina. Yes, it gets it’s share of inclimate weather, but I’d kill to have even a small patch of outdoor space for whenever it is nice out.
The closet in the master space is effing huge. My only peeve is that both guest bedrooms have an en-suite bathroom, which I think is overkill. in my view, 2 guest bedrooms should be sharing one bathroom. My belief is that if you make your guests too comfortable, they’ll stick around a little bit longer than you’d like. I’m not really sure I’d use the elevator all too often, but I suppose there may be times it comes in handy.
Overall, it’s a pretty sweet place. I’m not sure it will fetch asking, but I think it’ll command a premium.
In Escrow. I’m a little surprised, but these days I’m simply not surprised by premium of these newly done homes. The interesting thing here is that this lot really is the only thing hurting this property and there are a lot of decent, or much better lots/homes that trade at good prices. They took an existing home that was pretty serviceable and did a major demo / reno and sold the place in a week (assuming it closes). I’m curious how much money was made/lost on this property but I’ll never know. Regardless, congrats to the sellers. Great comp.
Let’s see. 2.78, “gag are realtors still doing this,” a shill accusation, developer tax payment, “one of the ugliest blocks in SF,” “is a bifurcated market.”
B.S. count = 6.
A record?
^unless it was “sold” to a shill, fool.
now a sale to a shill?
That’s seven.
“Fool” ?
Interesting word choice given what I’ve pointed out. I detect sour grapes from your strong level of activity here. Thinking this is an area you actually would want to buy in, but anger that nothing is near what you thought it would be.
1771 North Point was a similarly done house on a way nicer block and sold in 2007 for $4.89. I’d guess this home (1813) on a nicer block with a yard would be in that range. There should almost be a new tiering for just totally remodeled homes. I’d have to say that the market for these turn key homes is still at or near peak pricing.
Tweet, tweet. I heard two offers and sold at list. It is really not that hard to figure out. People that buy $2M+ homes don’t care about rent/own calculations and will pay a premium for brand new and well done finishes with open, modern floor plans in desirable locations. This is consumption, not an investment. Kudos to the developer, builder, and agent. I’m sure the buyer will enjoy their new home.
I have no idea on this developer’s costs, but based on what I have seen I would estimate it could be built for $1M-1.2M (these are my costs, not “retail”) as it was a total replacement on a flat lot (some excavation/no major underpinning or tiebacks) and finishes are standard high-end, nothing wild. $1.4M purchase price and another $500k for finance/tax/contingencies/selling/misc so profit of $500k – $700k. You would also need $600k – $800k cash in to this deal to have the chance to earn this return. I’ll leave the rest of the “ROI” calculations to the reader.
I live in the neighborhood and finally got to visit the Sage house this past weekend. After visiting, I can definitely tell you the place isn’t nearly worth the $3.6M it’s being sold for. Walk through it yourself and you’ll easily notice cheap materials, shoddy construction, and poor decisions run rampant.
1. The Decks: The wood is very cheap and lacks density. Do a minor bounce on it and you can feel it give way and splinter. In fact, most of the decks aren’t even flat. If you look at them closely their already bowed (sunken in the middle) with the edges higher. Even the wood that was used to build it isn’t flush with the other boards.
2. Cabinetry: The cabinets used to build shelving and closet space in the bed rooms looks and feels like items purchased straight out of ikea. Some of the cabinetry isn’t even built to the edge of the wall but rather leaves 4-5 inch gaps between the end of the cabinet/closet and the wall.
3. Spacing and Proportions? The master suite is rather small relative to the size of the restroom and closet. For the guest bedrooms, the bathrooms are nearly 1/3 of the total size of each room. For something that costs $3.6M, the rooms are pretty small. Who also thought it’d be a great idea to put two bedrooms street side with all the noise?
Let’s sum it up:
1. cheap materials
2. shoddy construction
3. poor space utilization and efficiency (greater emphasis on common spaces than individual private spaces)
4. poor layout decision making
5. all this for $3.6M? . . . are you NUTS?!?!?!
we were told buy the agent that this remodel was a personal project of the owner. Really? I hope he enjoys living in the $3.6M house he built that no one will want to spend more than $2.2M for.
@Son: Try and keep up, it’s already in contract, and while we don’t know for what, I can assure you it’s way over your $2.2 number.
I’m fairly convinced that it will sell for asking at this point and I’m pretty sure I saw the buyer when I was there at the open house. That said, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if the buyer had second thoughts and decided to bail on this place.
son –
Not sure where you are from, but I am betting it is NOT California.
Greater emphasis on common spaces is the California way and what people want.
Luxurious sized bathrooms and closets cost more to build than rooms too.
Decking with some give is easier on the legs. I love the look of those and as new construction there is 10+ years of guarantee against splintering.
Nova Designs and Builds (the builder) is one of the top rated firms in San Francisco so your analysis of “shoddy construction” is suspect.
Sold after 9 days means someone agrees with the layout design…
You must have some axe to grind…
The sale of 1813 Greenwich closed escrow yesterday with a reported contract price of $3,650,000 (asking). Don’t forget those invitations to the house warming.
They should have asked more.
“Almost every new house in Cow Hollow goes for close to $1000 per foot and the house two down at 1807 is for sale at the same price per foot and doesn’t look as new or nice, but will probably sell for about asking.”
Joshua mentioned 1807 Greenwich above. It went for $2.3M on a $2.395M asking on December 30, which is $941/sqft per the tax records:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/1807-Greenwich-St-94123/home/563019
This was a flip of the prior sale in 2008 for $2.15M and was not an apple. There are permits for remodeling work, among other things. This house has sold many times in the last few years after being built in 1996:
Jul 22, 2005 Sold (Public Records) $1,700,000
Jun 05, 2000 Sold (Public Records) $1,885,266
Apr 30, 1999 Sold (Public Records) $1,269,000
Jul 30, 1996 Sold (Public Records) $769,000
That 2000 price is $2.411M in 2011 dollars, so it hasn’t outpaced inflation since 2000, despite the work done on it.
sfrenegade–
even though permits were taken out since the sale in 2008 I don’t think any of the work was actually done.
1865 Greenwich is a 2001 Apple SFH that hit the market having last sold for $735k for a major fixer but appears to have not been fixed at all. Listed 15 days ago @ $948k and is already in contract. Should be interesting to see where it closes. Should be a pretty good 10 year market comp if/when it closes.
1865 fell out of contract. Price lowered to $928k. Usually a strategy to panic the original bidder who probably bid that amount.
1865 went from Available to In-Escrow Firm. That was a long time. My guess the plans are now approved.
1865 Greenwich sold $850k. +15% over 10 years. Not bad. My guess is that it gets torn down and 1813’d.