The”Vintage Cow Hollow Edwardian” at 3025 Scott Street features some nice original detailing but needs some “TLC” as it did when purchased for $2,750,000 back in 2006.
Having failed to sell in 2010 when last listed for $2,100,000, today the District 7 fixer returned to the market MLS listed for $1,900,000 and with an official “one day” on the market according to those MLS based stats and industry newsletters.
UPDATE: “Apple” designation since removed as a pair of plugged-in readers note the buy in 2006 appears to have been a strategic bid by the uphill neighbor(s) to protect views and the property has reportedly been returned to the market with an easement aimed at restricting any increases in height.
And yes, the “vertical” in our headline shall remain. We’re going with prescient.
∙ Listing: 3025 Scott Street (3/2.5) 2,557 sqft – $1,900,000 [MLS]
31% below 2006 price. But the D7 median is only about 5% down from 2006. Thus proving the adage that a seller isn’t going to get someone to offer more than the prevailing market price by pointing to medians.
“I like looking at what a total fixer is going for, not the same house but generally the same shape, location and lot size. That tells me a lot about the market.” – sparky-b at January 11, 2011 2:36 PM
Does the same house, shape, location and lot size count sparky?
The question here is when did the air restriction easement that an adjacent property owns come into play.
[Editor’s Note: Good catch and “apple” designation since removed. Cheers!]
While driving through the area this morning I noticed the McLaughlin trucks unloading and figured we would be seeing this one return.
What is an air restriction easement ? Also how does one discover such an easement ?
I would imagine any easement would have to be disclosed in a title report.
Omitted from the story is the fact that it sold in 21 days @ 45% over its asking of $1.895. Oh, the buyer is the owner of 2500 Filbert, which is the adjacent home/lot. All that said, I wish them good luck with the sale.
[Editor’s Note: “Over asking!” is relatively irrelevant (especially circa 2006), but the fact that the buyer owns 2500 Filbert and has since added an easement is not. Since updated above and cheers!]
Darn, I was hoping for some less painful and costly way to discover the easement. We’re just spoiled with Teh Internets these days.
2500 Filbert owns the easement. OK, so that’s the story.
Ha, buying and then selling a property just to create an easement. That’s an expensive way to preserve your view.
I considered a similar easement-stripping technique for another albeit much larger project and with ordinary on-the-ground easements. But only if I win the lottery.
Notice too that all four properties on Filbert that abut this home share the same view loss situation. I should have mentioned that the owners are not technically the owners of 2500 Filbert, rather its to a private entity whose address is listed at 2500 Filbert. It is entirely possible that all four home owners decided to make a play at this home and all share in the eventual pain that comes from bidding 45% over asking on an as-is fixer. /wild speculation.
The cow hollow neighborhood association would never allow them to build up anyway, so I don’t think the easement really did much in the way of damage.
I’m sure it helps 2500 Filbert’s resale to eliminate that uncertainty, but I don’t think you can point to that as a reason for a 31% drop.
“The cow hollow neighborhood association would never allow them to build up anyway,”
Sure Tipster. That’s why the neighbors took no chances too, right? You’ve experience in these matters, right? Come on man. You talk way too much junk on here.
Section 3. They’d never allow it.
http://www.cowhollowassociation.org/guidelines.pdf
And people frequently buy insurance for infinitesimally small risks. Look at all the people who have earthquake insurance only for losses that run past a massive deductible that almost no one ever hits.
Me thinks a realtor trying to hide a 31% loss is the one talking junk. I’ve looked into buying a place in that area and trying to expand up to grab a view and was told that there was virtually no chance.
The CHA has allowed some pretty egregious things in recent years. And a few nice do-overs that have fared well (e.g., 1813 Greenwich).
if memory serves, this home has foundation issues.
eddy, that 1813 address isn’t in CHA boundaries, it’s on a flat block so no views would be impacted, and it was only allowed as high as the building next door. I don’t think that really applies here.
Your own link shows that well over a quarter of the structures in Cow Hollow are over three stories, Tipster. The property in question would probably logically have gone for a 3 1/2 story type master suite or similar setback. It’s well within the neighborhood character, as you probably already know. But the uphill neighbor didn’t want that to occur. So they bought the house, brooking no chances, via a huge overbid. If you can’t connect those dots … Aw who am I kidding? you can. You have. But you’d rather play your role on here.
It’s better than playing YOUR role on here. A losing game, I’m afraid.
And if all they were trying to do was to grab the air rights, why did they let it sit for 4 years? They would have stripped the air rights, fixed it up and put it right back on.
They probably just rented the place out or let friends use it. Your insertion of a flip mentality into the scenario is out of left field.
I can see the value to the uphill buyer in preserving his/her view. Basically insurance, as someone else said. But the easement does not really de-value THIS place much. What would an owner do, build this vertical structure even higher? Conceivably (hence the insurance), but unlikely. The easement certainly does not drop the value of this pace by 31% just by taking away the right to build up. Call it 5-10% max., and the rest of the decline is simply that the market has tanked. I do agree with the sentiment that the 2006 buyer “overpaid” but so did just about every 2006 buyer as we are now seeing all over town, top to bottom.
So you want to know what the next highest bid down from the 2.795M buy off a 1.895M list was? And what would have happened in today’s market had that individual done nothing, and not saddled the property with an upward expansion easement? Well I’d like to know those things too. But don’t go making a market out of this odd case.
The point on this specific place is that the buyers clearly paid a premium to secure the easement and eliminate the risk of 3025 building up and killing a view to the properties on Filbert. (Has anyone actually verified said easement?) This house had tremendous flip potential in 2006. It would still have it today.
There is some interesting back story on the developer and lot history of these parcels. A quick excerpt below, full article (worth a read) in the name link.
The attractiveness and uniformity of the Cow Hollow neighborhood is due in large part to architect and builder William Walter Rednall.
…
In September 1904 Rednall had the opportunity to buy a prime Cow Hollow view parcel from real estate developer John C. Brickell. On the northwest corner of Filbert and Scott, measuring 137’6″ by 137’6″and for an outlay of $14,500, this was too good to pass up. Rednall initially saw the opportunity to subdivide it into five lots, now 2500, 2506, 2512, 2518 and 2524 Filbert. He created a sixth lot, now 3025 Scott, a few years later from the rear 32’6″ portions of 2500 through 2518 Filbert.
Soon after their purchase, William and Carrie Rednall took a trip to St. Louis to enjoy the 1904 World’s Fair, signing the guest register in the California building in mid-October. He would later (in 1910) become a stock holder at the $200 level in the Panama-Pacific Exposition Company which sought, successfully, to secure the 1915 World’s Fair for San Francisco.
When they returned from St. Louis, Rednall started building their corner house at 2500 Filbert. He also built 2524 Filbert at the same time. He submitted the water applications for both in early February 1905. He sold 2524 Filbert in June 1905. 2506, 2512 and 2518 Filbert were all completed and sold prior to the 1906 earthquake.
“What is an air restriction easement ? Also how does one discover such an easement ?”
I don’t think this kind of air restriction easement can be enforced. I don’t think the property owner has the right to own this type of “easement” or agreement that will legally transfer with title as in a land easement. An easement has a right and value; property owners do not own the right to natural air, light, or view.
Many Board of Appeals hearings were protests of permits issued to adjacent neighbors that would have affected the appellant’s light, air, or view of a property. In most cases, the Board of Appeals had to rule in favor of the permit holder because building codes do not protect light, air, or view. I do remember one BOA scandal that involved Angela Alioto’s home on the 2600 block of Pacific Ave with her neighbor who was the head of the Boys and Girls Club of America. The neighbor, after a big legal battle with Alioto ended up suing the real estate broker for non disclosure when in actuality, this kind of agreement should not be able to be enforced.
Any Quiet Title Lawyers out there that can address this?
My my, aren’t we a defensive fluj.
I’m assuming they held it with the assumption that they could sell it for more money due to appreciation. Why else hold it for more than the time needed to add the easement?
No pictures of the inside suggests a lot of work is needed. Maybe the price will drop even more, such that these people actually had to pay the price for their easement.
@Adam, touche’ on the “Over Asking!”. But I suspect that we’re not that far off on general perspectives. Perhaps we can disagree to agree. Cheers!
Contango, I’ve proven the rustiness of my legal skills today! But reaching way back to first year property class, the enforceability may depend on whether it is a prescriptive easement (bad) or an equitable servitude (good). I have to assume that for the sums involved just to buy insurance for an unlikely event, the 2006 buyer had it properly lawyered. But who knows? I don’t think, it’s even really been confirmed there is any easement issue here!
“What is an air restriction easement ? Also how does one discover such an easement ?”
FWIW, you can generally grant “air rights” over a property. However, in that case, you are often allowing someone to build over the property. For example, a railroad can sell air rights to allow someone to build a building over the tracks. You can also typically grant a view easement for a property. I believe when people say, “under California law, views are not protected,” they are saying that absent an express easement, you don’t have a right to a view and can’t gain a view easement by adverse possession. I’d love to see the documents and language here.
You generally discover an easement by doing a title search and looking for encumbrances. For example, a typical easement on a property might be a utility easement.
A.T., I don’t think it’s a prescriptive easement, because that would be an easement obtained by adverse possession. You’d likely need an express easement here.
That’s what you call a Million Dollar View.
I am planning to buy this property. My high priced lawyers and overnight construction company will ensure that my plan to build three additional stories (to house my rap recording studio) will face no challenge.
Defensive ? LOL. I brought the case to court!
Note that if you have some rational for excluding apples from representing market pricing and then also exclude non-apples because they are not quite apples, then you have created a framework where you can exclude nearly all market transactions from being relevant to “market pricing”.
this place is cool and a substantial fixer. funky attic access and good views off the back. a cool yard and fairly good privacy.
i was salivating when it came on in ’06. i was told it was only the owners of 2500 filbert who bought it.
if i did not love my current house i would bid on this one again.
If they’ll sell it to me for $1M I promise never to restrict the view, honest!
[anon.ed] wrote:
> They probably just rented the place out
> or let friends use it. Your insertion of
> a flip mentality into the scenario is
> out of left field.
Just interest on $2,750,000 at 6% is $165,000 a year. Even if they put 50% down this place would not be a money making rental and it would be cheaper to pay for friends to stay at the Fairmont.
I would like to buy the air rights above the property without the actual property. My realtor assures me that this will double as they are not making any more air in SF. My plan is to sell it back to a future owner who wants the pride of coveted and rarely available air ownership. Perhaps we could create an “air pool” and securitize it block by block . .
Ok, clearly I need more coffee. I saw this place last year– definitely funky, but nice location and a large lot. But it was really really run-down beyond skin deep and would need a ton of time and dollars. I used to live a block from this place (love the SW corner of Filbert and Scott which I think is the seller), and I’m pretty sure this place has been empty for a while. And I thought I saw it on the market before 2010 but not sure . . .
it will be interesting to see what a fixer in a great location will sell for in this market.
Here’s a 24%-off sale in Pac Heights:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/2416-Gough-St-94123/home/1116891
I think it’s pretty safe to say the great bulk of the price decline on this Cow Hollow place is due to market factors and not some air easement that most buyers wouldn’t care about anyway.
Now you’re saying that most buyers of this fixer wouldn’t want to alter its north-facing attic roofline so that it has as many windows as possible facing directly at the Bay.
I think the fact that construction financing is extremely difficult to acquire is another reason “fixers” have gone down so much in value. If a buyer has 20% + cash for a down payment and then also has $500k + to renovate, is this really the property they would want to buy?
[anon.ed] is right. if you’ve been in this house you would know how nice the views potentially are and that the only way to get them is to put in proper access to the attic and then style it out.
you trade an ad hoc office for a north view master suite.
btw, where are these fixers that have gone down so much?
More pics added. I think this place sells quickly.
this seems to be in contract… Not surprising. A handful of long on the market d7 props are contingent. Cheers for finally clearing out excess inventory.
The question on this one will be over or under?
Shocked that 3157 Steiner St is in escrow.
Think 212 Avila can limit themselves to a half million dollar loss over their three year hold? Related question to the one above.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/212-Avila-St-94123/home/1865656
te that if you have some rational for excluding apples from representing market pricing and then also exclude non-apples because they are not quite apples, then you have created a framework where you can exclude nearly all market transactions from being relevant to “market pricing”.
Oh, quite noted. Indeed. You want to talk your talk more than you want to know things. Got it.
in escrow
Speaking of 3157 Steiner. This thing finally sold for $3,160,000. I don’t know what to say at this point. I said I’d never be shocked at these new construction sale prices, but here I am, again, totally speechless and shocked. That said, the interior is really nice and top notch; but man, that exterior. Maybe new owners will change the facade.
UPDATE: If They Weren’t Million Dollar Views Before, They Really Are Now.