3157 Baker Street

A plugged-in reader pegged it as the place San Francisco Giants Brian Wilson and Barry Zito once rented while we pegged it as the “Marina Mansion” seeking $13,500 a month in rent last year.

Listed for sale at $5,000,000 in 2008 and then $3,695,000 in 2010, 3157 Baker Street is now scheduled to hit the courthouse steps tomorrow afternoon with an opening bid of $2,571,939 for the 3,646 square foot five-bedroom Marina home. Don’t forget those cashier’s checks.

And no, we never should have doubted our readers who pegged 3159 Baker as San Francisco’s Top Chef home. But hey, the two Marina homes are adjacent and owned by the same persons. Well, at least for another day.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by tipster

    Wow, it’s finally starting to hit here. Just like Sacramento, Las Vegas, and Phoenix. The foreclosures are finally hitting.
    The greater resources allowed the owners to hold out longer here than there, but at some point, it just gets to be too much and people throw in the towel and give up. We appear to have hit that tipping point.
    Just like in those other cities, it starts with owners of the expensive properties in odd locations or with sub optimal layouts or some other major flaw, because that is who the market punishes first, making those owners more underwater than others. But then it spreads, just like it has elsewhere, just like it has to.

  2. Posted by Mike

    and then the world came to an end and the only one that was left wa a bitter tipster

  3. Posted by tipster

    Bitter? Thrilled!

  4. Posted by CameronRex

    I believe in karma but how can any one be ‘Thrilled!’ with what is going on in the real estate market and national economy?
    Was the real estate market ridiculously overheated? Yes
    Were many individuals irrationally swept along in the belief that property values would only go up? Yes
    But to be ‘Thrilled!’ that people are losing not just investments but their homes, their life savings? If that is not the definiation of bitter…and frankly just mean-spirited…I don’t know what is.

  5. Posted by diemos

    “While it may appear brutal to us, we must accept that this is nature’s way of maintaining balance in … the Wild Kingdom
    — Marlon Perkins, Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom

  6. Posted by A.T.

    I’m not thrilled by the crash but the bubble was more destructive, so I’m glad that the bubble is deflating. This is a necessary condition for economic strength to return.
    The point is that Mike’s read that tipster’s comments evinced bitterness was way off base. “Bitter” is thrown around here tongue-in-cheek as it was a label pinned on those who foretold this crash before it happened. That was a silly, inapplicable label then and it is now. Why would someone who avoided a terrible financial catastrophe be bitter?
    One might legitimately be thrilled at the current crash if one wants to buy a place – not so much if one wants to sell a place!

  7. Posted by Mike

    Being “Thrilled” that people are loosing money is real estate is just dist tasteful and absolutely a bitter definition. How many times have we not read the bitter comment “…I hope they enjoyed it….”
    San Francisco real estate is overprices and have always been and will be even after this correction but being “Thrilled” about whats happening now is just a weak persons “as I lost everyone else have to loose to make me feel better”

  8. Posted by Mole Man

    The correction is a good thing. All the people who kept the game going until the bitter end are responsible for their part in it. Bubbles are miserable things that everyone should avoid participating in whether they can afford the loss or get out in time or whatever else.

  9. Posted by A.T.

    I’m thrilled that my alma mater just beat the crap out of its opponent and won the Orange Bowl. I guess that really means I’m bitter . . .

  10. Posted by sfrenegade

    “‘Thrilled!’ that people are losing not just investments but their homes
    Incredible. That’s two fallacies about home ownership in one statement.

  11. Posted by Owl

    I can’t have a lot of sympathy for the ‘owners’ who think it’s horrible they can’t stay in ‘their’ home unless when they bought they purchased it with 20% down. Many of the properties you see on this site were not only purchased with virtually nothing down but then the ‘owner’ took money out with a second mortgage.
    They don’t own their house anymore than a renter owns where he’s living. He’s renting from the bank – for a much higher price and locked in for a much longer time. It’s sad for him but great and getting better for people who want to buy in the future.

  12. Posted by jose

    This house is on Richardson. (yeah the address is Baker) but the broadside view is along that mini-freeway.
    Also it was re-done very cheaply (note the tape divided lites for windows) and all that foam trim. A quick an dirty spec by the adjacent owner maybe?
    In a down market this makes sense to be undesirable for many reasons.

  13. Posted by Augustus

    This is as bad a single family residential location as can be found in northern SF. Richardson is far worse than California St, Franklin & Gough, or the Pinebush Freeway.
    No one in his or her right mind would pay $5m for these 3600 square ft. The opening bid of $2.5 is too high too.
    The fall of the value of this poorly located house says nothing much about the recession in SF real estate. Have you noticed how many PacHts houses are being renovated? Somebody has faith in the future around here.

  14. Posted by resp

    I agree with Augustus and wrote last February:
    “1. hideous remodel
    2. noisy Richardson corridor which got overpriced in the bull market.
    3. as I wrote in August about the neighboring home which never sold: “if you want to see something truly overpriced, walk down the street to 3159 Baker. what a friggin joke. $3.9M for a bigger box with zero upgrades and a noisy view of Richardson Ave from nearly every room. probably the most eggregious example of overpricing i’ve seen in D7 in awhile.”
    4. OK whats the real story here? O’Connor Trust is the owner of both 3157 and 3159, and posssibly the entire 3-lot block of Baker St. O’Connor is also the selling agent. ”
    $705/sq ft? forget it. I guess that the half of the house facing Baker is worth that and the 50% on Richardson is worth half that….so $529/sqft * 3646 = $1.93M

  15. Posted by eddy

    In Tipsters defense here I don’t think he wants to see anyone lose money, or their home (except for the evil real estate agents he loaths). I think he just wants real estate to come back into a normal equilibrium and the more bubble bursting events like this one the closer we get to that point. Happy to be corrected.
    This house is very unfortunate and very hard to predict. I suspect north of $2M, but I really have no idea. Agustusus seems to have the best comment here so far. Not much more I can add to that….

  16. Posted by Yellap

    This is not a remodel but a brand new house built on part of the property belonging to the adjacent house. I guess they were able to subdivide the original lot.
    Location, location, location.

  17. Posted by sfrenegade

    The same owners’ place in Half Moon Bay appears to have been foreclosed upon too:
    They paid $1.3M in 2005. Taken back in June for $897,277 by Triterra Inv Portfolio II via Cal Western Reconveyance Corp and then resold for $1.035M in August. Triterra has received several houses on the Peninsula through foreclosure, from Daly City to San Carlos, and some on the coast.

  18. Posted by badlydrawnbear

    I love how a post about a substantial price decline on a Prime SF property got turned into a debate over tipster’s verbage.
    I guess the debate regarding SF (or even specific neighborhoods) being immune or so special as to remain virtually unscathed is over and the reality of the 30% price declines in SF RE has finally sunk in.

  19. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    I guess I’m too young to remember Wild Kingdom. I remember that it was actually on the air, but I can’t actually remember watching it, or if they actually showed the wildebeest being taken down by a hungry cheetah in prime time without cutting away at the last minute. Or maybe they did and that was the purpose of the sponsor being a major insurance company (the mortality theme, get it?) and I’ve mentally blocked it.
    Anyway, CameronRex, I think you’re a bit confused. The people who did the arithmetic, and stayed out of the market because it was oveheated and prices were way out of wack compared to the fundamentals are the victims of the bubble, not those who participated in blowing it up and who went around saying “Buy now or be priced out forever!” right up until the big pop in 2007 and who now are losing their down payment money. The latter group are the perpetrators.
    This place was rented out, and was therefore and investment property and no one was losing their home or their life savings.

  20. Posted by Skirunman

    Just to clarify and try to get the facts straight, this is not a “price decline” as I understand this property has never sold. Therefore, no apples comparison and no 30% price decline, correct? This is a fugly (IMO) property in a bad location that has been overpriced from day one. I think it would have sold for $2.75M on open market last last year. Sold as REO will likely be closer to $2.5M and likely after bank gets it back with no bids after auction IMO.

  21. Posted by Owl

    Skirunman – If YOU had $2.5 to spend would you buy on Richardson Way? I know someone is going to buy it but to spend $2.5 for Richardson Way takes a real leap of faith that properties with intrinsic problems are going to become hot again.
    Of course I was amazed by the way prices bounced back in the Marina after the earthquake so I’ve been wrong before.

  22. Posted by jdanerson

    Where do you find that this home is listed for foreclosure / sale / in default etc. I tried to find it on a few websites (yahoo foreclosures etc), and I don’t see it. Is there a good reference site someone could point me to? Thanks.

  23. Posted by Skirunman

    Not that it is all that germane, but no, I would not buy this place for $2.5M. However, I already have a home in SF where I live and this place has no real opportunity for any ROI with improvements in IMO. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

  24. Posted by Denis

    Meanwhile, in another part of D7, did 2600 Pacific REALLY sell for 15.5 million as reported on redfin?? Huh?

  25. Posted by tipster

    I wonder if this makes more sense to recombine the lots and push the house over.

  26. Posted by eddy

    re: 2600 Pacific, that has to be a mistake. I’ve always loved that house (and am loving the renovation across the street btw); but $15M!? No way. Upon some basic research it does appear that the owner recently passed away so there could have been a trust transfer or an off-market sale, but not sure why redfin would have an off market sale listed. Very intriguing. How did you find this if I may ask?

  27. Posted by Denis

    I just saw it on Redfin… I checked recent sales and that popped up and it kind of caught me off guard. Anyway, it’s a mystery worth exploring a bit… Love their garden. I swear there’s always someone working on it.

  28. Posted by Just Looking

    I was wondering what was going on with 2600 Pacific. I saw the movers there a few weeks ago and was hoping it would end up on a brokers tour so I could get a peek inside. Definitely one of my favorite homes in PH!

  29. Posted by SocketSite

    As a plugged-in tipster notes, the foreclosure auction for 3157 Baker Street was been postponed to 02/14/11.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles