Purchased in April 2005 for $1,227,000 with 95 percent leverage and 5 percent ($61,400) down, the single-family home at 1688 Dolores was briefly listed this past March for $1,050,000 before being withdrawn.
Yesterday the Noe Valley home returned to the MLS listed for “$1,050,000” as a short sale and with one day on the market once again.
∙ Listing: 1688 Dolores (2/2) 1,450 sqft – “$1,050,000” (short sale) [MLS]
Is there a doctor in the house? Does anyone have access to details on the BofA refi in July, 2007?
This is the sort of condition of a house I’d prefer to buy : in good shape though not recently remodeled. But that tiny kitchen is a deal breaker for me. Must have massive counter space !
Bizarre choice of that nighttime sodium lamp illuminated photo of the front facade. The rest of the photos seem to be done well.
This property has a steep downslope leading right to the back edge of the house. That always gives me the creeps thinking that water runoff will accumulate against and undermine the foundation. But there must have been some engineered solution for cases like this. Where does the water go ? Into a drainage trough and around the side of the house ?
3883 23rd is on the market at $1.7 having last sold in 2008 for $1.855. Should be interesting and looks like a perfect Apple.
[Editor’s Note: Already in our queue for Monday, we’ll also note 3883 23rd was listed for $1,849,000 this past January. Then $1,799,000. And then $1,749,000 before being withdrawn from the MLS after five months without a sale.]
$1.05MM for a 2 bedroom with tired baths and barbie kitchen is insane. The person(s) who paid $1.2MM in 2005 should be institutionalized.
I will forever be nonplussed by SF real estate.
the place looks smaller than 1450 sq ft.
maybe it’s because a significant portion of the square footage is that basement add on?
wow that is a micro kitchen. this place is definitely for people who never cook. that said, there are places to eat around here…
if that is a peninsula and small eat-in dinetter area then maybe you could rip out this kitchen and expand into the other side, but it’ll still be tight.
cute starter place.
Can’t believe someone paid $1.227M for this. This house needs a lot of work all over the place and is a good example of crappy houses getting good prices during the boom. This deserves a lowball closer to the 2000 price of $825K.
Unlike the 1300 sqft place that felt bigger than the stated size, this definitely feels smaller than 1450 sqft. Funny that they chose not to stage the unconnected downstairs as a bedroom (since it’s not really furnished as a bedroom), even though it legally appears to be a bedroom.
Did they forget to photograph the bedrooms? Or did I miss them somehow? Or is one empty, and the other has a ping pong table for a mattress?
“The person(s) who paid $1.2MM in 2005 should be institutionalized.”
“Can’t believe someone paid $1.227M for this.”
Ye of little memories. This was a radiologist and his stay at home wife. Not stupid. Not crazy.
Cheap, crappy, square footage inflated Beacon condos were selling for not much less, and this was an SFR in the hot Mission. Your agent called and said she heard a Google employee was about to make a bid.
That was the market back then. That WAS the market back then. We’re about 1/3 of the way down from that. Long way to go. Paint dry, grass grow, long way to go.
I looked at this place last year when it was on the market. The building itself needs lots of work, the layout is a bit chopped up and the kitchen was a disaster. It didn’t sell then at %1.05, and won’t sell now at $1.05.
In 2005 it was listed for $899k. So it sold for MORE than one-third over asking. $328,000 over asking. The avg price back then was about $1.1M for a home like this. Meanwhile this one is on busy Dolores, has a small lot, and what appears to be a taller building immediately to the south means no sun in the smallish yard. Yeah, sure, not dumb at all.
As for loans – they have 3 loans totaling $1.23M. They had a buyer in contract from the earlier listing who walked and it was apparently at or close to their $1,050,000 price so expect it to get at a similar price.
“Meanwhile this one is on busy Dolores, has a small lot, and what appears to be a taller building immediately to the south means no sun in the smallish yard.”
That’s the point. It was a crappy house then and it’s a crappy house now. And people paid good prices for crappy houses then and won’t now. This isn’t that complicated.
And people paid good prices for crappy houses then and won’t now
More correctly “some people paid….”
My point was that some crappy houses within blocks of this one, that sold within weeks of this one, sold for $200k to $400k less. the old “overpaid” argument, i know, but it’s clear some where dumber than others, and in the dumbest cases you will see the biggest depreciation, and of course get featured on SS.
“My point was that some crappy houses within blocks of this one, that sold within weeks of this one, sold for $200k to $400k less.”
Which ones? Please provide us the info and let everyone have an opinion instead of summarily dismissing things. Merely pointing out that this place went for over asking is not dispositive.
Even on the face of your claim, you’ve suggested that this house should have sold for $1.1M in 2005, and it’s listed for $1.05M now. I’ll take it.
Another interesting apple is 1632 Dolores. Sold for $1,130,000 in 3/2007 on the market for $1,149,000 today.
DBI shows no work though there are approved plans for an expansion that weren’t there before.
It will be interesting to see what it sells for.
The list price for 1688 Dolores has been reduced to $1,000,000 after 54 days on the market at $1,050,000 without a sale. Once again, purchased in April 2005 for $1,227,000 with 95 percent leverage and “just” $61,400 down.
FYI, 1688 Dolores IS a short sale and went into escrow at FULL PRICE after a few weeks on the market. We were in escrow for 6 months so it was ACTIVE CONTINGENT during that time. After 6 months, the buyer walked. The property was withdrawn for a few weeks late Sept./early October ONLY because the listing agent changed brokerages.
It is a large, lovely house. Come see for yourselves on this Sunday, January 9th from 2-4 pm.
Clearly it SHOULD HAVE SOLD at full price. The fact that the sale never CLOSED is irrelevant. It is currently LISTED for $975K.
As noted above, the short sale list price for 1688 Dolores has been reduced to “$975,000.” Once again, purchased for $1,227,000 in April 2005.
Sold for either $928k or $890k depending on which source you believe.