3362 Jackson
As we wrote in April:

It’s no April fooling as 3362 Jackson which was purchased out of probate for $2,500,000 in July 2009 has just returned to the market completely rebuilt and listed for $10,000,000, swinging for the fences like Pat Burrell on opening day.

And just like Burrell, they hit a home run as the sale of 3362 Jackson closed escrow today with a reported contract price of $9,250,000 ($1,595 per square foot).
No April Fooling As 3362 Jackson Returns Swinging Like Pat Burrell [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Skirunman


  2. Posted by larry

    TEED FOR PRESIDENT! STAY Wealthy My Friends!

  3. Posted by eddy

    8% under asking is a home run? 😉 I’d pretty much call this a grand slam actually. I’m sure they made a fortune. Congrats to all!

  4. Posted by Walsh92663

    From what I saw on line and the comments here and elsewhere it seems like a fair price for such an amazing home. Glad to see this turn out so well. Congratulations.

  5. Posted by PT Barnum

    This is a ridiculous price — whoever the buyer is, they will at some point be very, very sorry they squandered so much on this place. It is nothing but a glorified attached house, yes? (And yes, I assume they have the money and don’t care…or don’t know any better.)
    However, as PT Barnum so prophetically stated, there is one born every minute.
    So, for the selling agent and the builder, congrats — but it isn’t that you did a great job — it is that the buyer is an idiot. Very few things, even in SF, are worth $1,595 per sq ft. You got lucky. Don’t expect it to happen again. Better save that money.

  6. Posted by amused

    ^ such anger. You might want to see someone about that.
    And it wasn’t “prophetic”, as in “seeing the future”.
    It was an observation.

  7. Posted by jimmy

    PT Barnum; so bitter. Just get Ellised out of your rent controlled apartment? Here is a concept obviously foreign to you; some of people have lots & lots of money in the Bay Area (and enjoy spending it).

  8. Posted by PT Barnum

    ^ angry? no. Bitter? not at all. I guess if two people thought these things I didn’t explain myself well. I’m just sorry for the people who bought it, that’s all. Some people have more money that brains. And, despite what you all say about “lots and lots of money in the Bay Area” – it isn’t the people who stay wealthy who do things like this. It tends to be the nouveau riche who think they need $9 million house.
    And, for jimmy, I’d bet my last dollar I’m a lot better off than you are…

  9. Posted by bubblesurfer

    PT Barnum – please stop hating the rich just because they’re rich

  10. Posted by poor ellised rent controlled pauper

    Wow – so many who have never visted socketsite or commented here, are here now???? Usually that’s for a current listing, not a post sale result.
    When people gloat they usually know they got away with something. And at $1600 per SqFt you did it in spades.
    Tell me something – if the buyer has to sell in 2 years, would you represent him? What do you say when you can’t find someone else who “enjoys spending it” to the tune of $2 mil or so less than he “enjoyed spending it”????
    But thank you for proving one thing with your comments here – we all knew money doesn’t buy you love (bimbos on bus shelters, sure) but now we also know it doesn’t buy you class.

  11. Posted by FormerAptBroker

    PT Barnum wrote:
    >This is a ridiculous price — whoever the buyer is, they
    > will at some point be very, very sorry they squandered
    > so much on this place.
    I don’t know anything about this buyer, but the kind of person that pays that kind of money wants to live on that block in Presidio Heights and is not really worried about how the price per foot compares with other sales in the city.
    Telling this buyer that they “squandered ” money on the home is like telling a guy that paid $20K for a bottle of vintage Chateau Margaux that he can get a better bottle of wine for $100 (he can) or telling a guy that paid $1 million for a vintage Ferrari that a new Camaro is faster (it is)…
    A friend from Business School paid a scary amount of money for a place in Presidio Heights in 2001. He would probably sell for a loss today, but he is happy since his kids got in to Town and Burke (and will probably get in to UHS) and he goes to parties at the homes of neighbors that others just read about in Forbes…

  12. Posted by sfrenegade

    Seems like they at least got Kilimanjaro? (to use the ridiculous analogy from the prior thread)
    I’m with FAB on this one, but also PT Barnum. It’s a stupid purchase because 1600/sqft for this condo is 1600/sqft for this condo and that’s without even considering the places you can buy in this city for north of $9M, but these sorts of people don’t care because they desire to consume. I’d say both sides are dead-on here.

  13. Posted by PPC

    Congratulations on the sale, amazing price. I have a feeling that the place to the right will be doing a remodel in the near future.

  14. Posted by Fishchum

    Wow…..congrats to the sellers on this place. Not that I’m in the market for a $9M home (condo, actually) but there is no way I’d pay this much for a place and have to share a wall with a neighbor.
    $1600 PSF? Good god. Wonder what effect this will have on neighborhood comps?

  15. Posted by [anon.ed]

    Enough with the “condo” silliness already.

  16. Posted by ex SF-er

    Enough with the “condo” silliness already.
    I agree.
    I’ll admit that I would never have guessed that somebody would pay $9.25M for this duplex. (then again, I never guess on SF valuation in the first place). However, I also really like this place, and it is in a prime nabe so why not $9.25M?
    I wonder if this trend will continue: truly elite homes selling for ever increasing amounts while the non-uber-elite homes continue to stagnate or lose value? I certainly wouldn’t be surprised myself… in fact I recall 4 years ago or so talking about the Brazilification of America. could SF turn into another Rio, with $20M duplexes just a few blocks from $200k condos and a few miles from slums?

  17. Posted by Fishchum

    OK, the “condo” crack was a bit silly….but I still maintain that it’s ridiculous to spend over $9M for a place and still have a shared wall.

  18. Posted by 47yo hipster

    Yeah, the developer rocked it. Even if it sold for $6-7 mil, still woulda profited. It’s the buy price of $2.5 mil that was killer here. Basically, smart RE investors are sowing the seeds right now (and in the last two years) by buying good properties at good prices. The good deals will make these folks wealthy. They may not comment much on asS-asS, but they are quietly confident in their decisions. Wish there was a blog for SF RE investors….
    So ummm….where’s tipster and his usual words of wit?

  19. Posted by eddy

    There are a lot of things one could say about this property and the sale price both positive and negative. One thing is clear that there is no shortage of folks with an obscene amount to spend on top end homes. And this is not a trend that I see reversing. Sure there may very well end up being a drought on folks that can stretch into an 900k 800sqft condo; and the buyer here paid a typical new car premium that would be hard to recover in a few years once its ‘used’.
    But anyone that is predicting the large scale double dip, or prices falling back to 1996 levels have to seriously stop and scratch their head. I’m going with the term Manhattanization as coined by that SF Gate article linked to by Adam on the random thread about schools. But the point of Manhattanization that often gets tied up in the Mix versus Median argument is that slowly and surely all these SFH homes are getting bought and rehabbed into very high end / moderinzed homes and the market is consuming them at a nearly 100% absorption. Even the Fillmore home that lost 25% still sold at an nice premium the second go-around. The Scott google home sold at a nice market premium (even though they lost money).
    The real test will be what happens to the home just west of this place. Sure to be another grand slam. And fully detached so we can dispatch with the condo / duplex humor. Very curious to hear who is the buyer. I’ve got a guess based on some recent market activity but I guess we’ll see.

  20. Posted by tipster

    Kudos to the “buyer’s agent” for doing exactly what was in his own interest and the interest in the seller who was paying him, by screwing “his client” right into the wall.
    The seller was lucky on a number of fronts. The biggest stroke of luck was the house next door coming on the market during the rebuild, allowing the developer to tear part of it down (as I recall from the video) to expose the view to this home. The second stroke of luck was finding a sucker for a buyer who made the mistake of getting emotionally caught up in the purchase and listening to one word his agent told him, allowing his agent to completely screw him.
    Eddy’s 8.8 estimate was right on in my opinion. The buyer’s agent screwed his client out of just under a half million dollars. Every real estate agent’s wet dream. If the buyer didn’t protect himself from an agent whose interests were aligned exactly opposite his, tough luck.
    One of a kind property, the developer knew his market, and got some lucky breaks. But you have to be smart enough to capitalize on the breaks you get and the developer did exactly that and maximized every opportunity he was presented. That’s how you make money. Good for him.
    Business is getting so bad for everyone else I know that I’m happy for the seller here. At least someone is making money.
    As for comps, this was a pretty six sigma event.

  21. Posted by Longtime-Lurker

    Tipster… are you anywhere near this big of a hater in real life? Because this is epic, yet so, so expected.
    If you spent one fifth of your negative energy on improving your situation, maybe every other post from you wouldn’t be anout how “business is so bad right now”. Of course it is, because that’s the reality you are constantly trying to create. Everything sucks, everyone is a thief, all real estate agents are Bernie Madoff on steroids who eat babies…
    Craziness. Get a hug.

  22. Posted by amused

    My goodness.
    Tippy believes that $8.8 was right, but that $9.25 was an abomination driven by an unscrupulous agent “screwing his client right into the wall.”
    Let’s play with the numbers, shall we?
    Assuming a healthy buy-side commission of 2.5%, the first $8.8M nets a commission of $220K. The “screwy” balance of $425K nets a commission of $11,250, and is the basis for the incoherent rant?
    Am I missing something?

  23. Posted by tipster

    Yes, I don’t know what went on in this case, and the buyer’s agent may be as honest as Ghandi and prevented the buyer from paying list price, but suffice it to say that this is a good opportunity to remember that every buyer should remain aware that the buyer’s agent’s interests are opposite his own, do his or her own research, evaluate your agent’s statements accordingly and recognize the risk (and some would say, stupidity) in confiding in “your” agent.

  24. Posted by amused

    ^ Even more ludicrous than your last post.
    You’re veering into tinfoil hat territory here.
    I’m half-expecting your next post to focus on how real estate agents took down the World Trade Center.

  25. Posted by lol

    Well, something that we have to acknowledge is that there are indeed quite a few people with tons of dough in SF.
    Every more generally, this type of $/sf is just another data point in the greater phenomenon of separation between the top and the bottom in RE. The successful are even more successful than before while the rest just stagnates or slowly goes down.
    I am not starting a class warfare discussion, doing decently myself. But if this wealth could trickle down somehow. That was the deal when we signed off on the tax cuts…

  26. Posted by Legacy Dude

    I don’t follow this part of town or price category at all. However, many posters who do (including realtors) took guesses at what this place would sell for on the prior thread. Seems like the consensus was between 6 and 8MM. In other words, this sale seems to be an outlier.
    Only pointing this out as many of these toys/trophies for the whimsical uber-wealthy tend to trade every 2-3 years, as the rich seem more prone to suffer from ennui than us mortals.
    Not trying to break up the back-patting party or anything, but just something to consider. If this resells for $7MM in 18 months, for example, I’m sure we’ll hear the common refrains of “They overpaid” or “Short holds are always bad ideas” and so forth.

  27. Posted by ex SF-er

    And fully detached so we can dispatch with the condo / duplex humor
    it is?
    it looks like a duplex to me. like the left half of a duplex, to be specific.
    is it just the facade that looks like a duplex, and it is somehow detached behind the facade? pretty odd. it’s the same shape, same roof line, same roof in fact, same front steps, and exact mirror image of the domicile just to it’s right.
    really really seems like a duplex to me.
    or maybe your definition of detached vs duplex is different than mine?

  28. Posted by lol

    You can have mirror houses without them being attached. All you need is a developer with 2 lots who wants to save on design costs but at the same time wants to leverage this unique situation to make a personal choice on style or function.
    For instance my house is the same as the 4 others right and left. Staircase to the right, garage / bay window to the left. All the same core layout (I have seen 3 already) suggest one single basic design. An slightly more imaginative developer could have mirrored the plans to allow for more light downstairs instead of the bay windows stuck between 2 staircases like now.

  29. Posted by [anon.ed]

    “ry buyer should remain aware that the buyer’s agent’s interests are opposite his own, do his or her own research, evaluate your agent’s statements accordingly and recognize the risk (and some would say, stupidity) in confiding in “your” agent.

    You didn’t earn the right to say “suffice it to say.” Far from it.

  30. Posted by ex SF-er

    You can have mirror houses without them being attached
    I see so-called “mirror homes” all over the country. just go to most first-ring suburbs in the nation… there are row after row of homes that are nearly identical, but they are DETACHED and share no walls.
    I clearly don’t understand your definition of “detached”. to me, detached indicates that a home has air 360 degrees around it. When 90 degrees of the house is touching another house, such as this twin home, I would not call that “detached”.
    it really does take a lot of mental gymnastics and linguistic twists to state that this property, that shares a huge wall with another property, and also shares a roof line and also physical characteristics is “detached”.
    thus, row houses and town homes and duplexes are not “detached”, although one could call them a SFH.
    from WikiPedia (I know, maybe not the authority but I’d guess it meets general consensus):
    a detached (house, home, or dwelling) means that the building does not share an inside wall with any other house or dwelling. It has only outside walls and does not touch any other dwelling. This excludes duplexes, threeplexes, fourplexes, or linked houses (which are more properly called semi-detached) as well as all row houses and most especially tower blocks which are the polar opposite as they can hold thousands of families in a single building.

  31. Posted by eddy

    The house just west, and soon to be comp is fully detatched.

  32. Posted by steve

    Are these really sharing a wall? Many SF houses have a 3-inch gap between what look to be shared walls. I’ve lived in a couple. Legend has it this is a legacy of the 1906 fire and is to permit firemen to fill the gap with water to keep entire blocks from burning down.

  33. Posted by vinny

    Applause. 🙂

  34. Posted by redseca2

    One way the rich are different:
    If that was a mere concrete sidewalk in front of a mere $800.00 per SF home, every piece would have a bright red X across provided by DPW, with instructions to replace this cracked, uneven pavement, with joints too wide to conform to ADA that is clearly a public hazard within a brief period of time, or else.

  35. Posted by ex SF-er

    We are talking about the place just east I think.

  36. Posted by someone

    Eddie and Tipster nailed it and they are NOT haters, rather practical observer of the market.
    My wife and I saw the place when it first came on the market, confused to think it’s a double lot and not two “attached” homes.
    Let’s ignore the $/sqft argument, the house is so plain if you ignore the finishes. It’s a 25″ wide lot w/o views, these can’t be worth for real more than $6M, no matter how much sqft and amenities you squeeze.
    We figured to do a good job we need to throw in $2M in construction and not expecting a dime over $6M in best case scenario made the whole thing too risky so we gave up.
    Who dares wins, but it really just a matter of luck.
    That $5M house in Noe sold in 2007 in a week b/c that Googler just landed his money, try to sell another identical house a week later and it could take 4 years.

  37. Posted by [anon.ed]

    ^ Eddy was within around 5 % or so, and stayed talking about the neighborhood, and price. Tipster did something else entirely.

  38. Posted by eddy

    Speaking of Teed / Haze, their listing on Belgrave and Washington just came on and off the market both selling in record time. Congrats guys.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles