2373 Filbert
Having been purchased for $1,400,000 in 2001 and then renovated and expanded in 2002, the 2,919 square foot single-family at 2373 Filbert sold for $2,704,000 in 2006.
2373 Filbert: Kitchen
Listed for $2,725,000 a month ago but recently been reduced to $2,595,000, a sale at asking would represent a 4 percent drop below its 2006 value for the Cow Hollow home.
∙ Listing: 2373 Filbert Street (3/3.5) 2,919 sqft – $2,595,000 []

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by wrath

    yes, except it’s actually set back in between apartment buildings – something not apparent in the photo. Oh, and that entire area between Pierce and Fillmore sits on a liquefaction tongue that reaches almost up to Vallejo.

  2. Posted by househunter

    unfortunately the place hasn’t been updated and appears very worn and obviously needs work. as well, the upstairs is too cramped and the master bathroom is tiny, but there is no space to remodel, and you would not want to spend any money at the price these people are offering since it is too expensive anyway. this place is caught in the middle: too expensive to want to remodel, and not up to date enough to command the premium price they are charging. probably needs to come down by several hundred thousand to be an acceptable price.

  3. Posted by we get it already

    Bored….don’t you ever get tired of pointing out every example of a sale that went down since 2006? We get it already. The market tanked from 2005-2008/9(ish). Almost all sales that recorded in ’06 are going to be lower than today’s sales prices.
    dont get me wrong I read because you have great intel, and I love the postings on new and upcoming developments et al but I’m so over these ‘gotcha’ postings – “someone lost a lot of money ha ha ha”
    I suppose you gotta post something to keep the ad revenue coming.

  4. Posted by tipster

    The loss on this listing seems rather tame compared to what I am seeing.
    High end getting 39% off:
    lower end asking 38% off:
    lower end getting 45% off:
    Hayes valley dropping below the 2009 “bottom”:
    While there have been a few positive surprises too, all in all, I don’t think I’d be whining about a 4% loss at asking.

  5. Posted by NJ

    tipster, a better comparison might be SFR to SFR, not SFR to condo.

  6. Posted by *

    not bored.
    i love seeing homes dropping in price!
    makes my day!

  7. Posted by Oceangoer

    As a comparison, check out the new listing for 1973 Filbert. It’s offered at $1,555,000 and is nicely located.

  8. Posted by eddy

    Sold $2,560,000; -5.3% from 2006.
    I’d say this is a pretty good outcome considering the 1 year Eureka apple down 3.8%

  9. Posted by El Bombero

    ^ I totally agree that this is a pretty good outcome. The 2006 buyers only lost about $300k after costs. Probably paid maybe double what it would have cost to rent it over the 5 years too (property taxes alone were almost $150k). Definitely less than $500k all together.
    Those numbers wouldn’t bother anyone living north of California, and besides there’s not much you can do with a spare half a buck anyway.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles