550 Jersey
Purchased as a 1,100 square foot two-bedroom “diamond in the rough” for $700,000 ten months ago, 550 Jersey has just returned to the market as a 2,500 square foot three-bedroom “mix of modern elegance and urban sophistication” listed for $1,979,000.
550 Jersey Living
According to permits which were first filed in September 2000 before being restated and anonymously challenged after the work was completed earlier this year, the second floor was raised two feet to accommodate the addition and the foundation has been replaced.
As the facade of 550 Jersey appeared and measured before:
550 Jersey Before
∙ Listing: 550 Jersey (3/3) 2,500 sqft – $1,979,000 [Redfin]
Department of Building Inspection Complaint: 550 Jersey []

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by around1905

    OK the SF Department of Building Inspection shows that the complaint was received by by somebody called…. ‘Czarina Ysip’; the case is being handled by inspector ‘Power’.
    Love it.
    I once lived a few doors down from somebody who wound up blocking my side-looking skyline view by building their top floor addition about a foot higher than their drawings showed. Was super pissed but hard pressed to show that they did it.
    With the surrounding houses so close, and the brazen 2 feet, there is no hiding what has happened here. Totally unfair to folks who play by the rules if they get away with it. Am keeping my fingers crossed that the city makes an example of these clowns and forces them to put the house on blocks and take the foundation walls down two feet.
    Bravo Socket Site for getting the word out and warning potential buyers about what (may) lie ahead….
    [Editor’s Note: We’ll try to re-word for clarity, but please note that the permit which was originally approved back in 2000 and recently reinstated included raising the building two feet.
    From the status of the complaint: “A Correction Notice was issued on August 29, 2011 requiring a revision permit be obtained to reflect as built conditions on the roof including architectural and structural changes. Revision to be approved by Planning Department.”]

  2. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    It seems like some major down to the studs work was done here plus the floor raising. I like the end product except that slate veneer over wood front steps isn’t what comes to mind when thinking of “mix of modern elegance and urban sophistication”. Its just plain cheap. A classier solution would be to restore the original redwood staircase.
    The kitchen looks nice though it would be nice to see the whole thing.
    (And doggonit, more ham fisted HDR photo processing. Ugh)

  3. Posted by jimmythekid

    As you state in the editors note the permits to construct the new lower floor,rear expansion, and the raising of the building two feet are not at issue. There was a conflict in the architectural drawings as to the peak of the rake roof relative to the facade. This conflict has been resolved; the plans have been corrected and submitted to the city as per the request of the planning department.
    The issue pertained to 6 inches of the rake roof that had extended above the original facade. As you can see from the pictures that six inches has been removed.The building now conforms with the most restrictive interpretation of the architectural drawings.

  4. Posted by jenofla

    There’s something to be said for the humility of having a modest exterior and nice interiors…but for a second there I thought the “after” photo of the exterior was the “before” photo. Maybe it looks less rundown in person.

  5. Posted by dB

    Jenofla, I briefly had the same thought as well re: “before” and “after”…

  6. Posted by jimmythekid

    Blame city planning The facade is “historical” cannot be changed although it is brand new siding and trim material but has to look more or less identical.

  7. Posted by DanRH

    nice. great location, not too steep of a street. close to a park and 24th. not a busy street (this part anyway, I think). flat yard.
    might go over asking.

  8. Posted by LD

    Buyer Beware:
    No Certificate of Final Completion
    The roof lacks collar ties per structural permits.
    This means that the whole house is structurally compromised.
    There is a collateralized loan on the property. This is illegal.
    Multiple lenders here (up to 6) on this property are not on the actual deed.

  9. Posted by [anon.ed]

    What are your credentials, LD?

  10. Posted by SF Doc

    What a shabby remodel for 1.9! No curb appeal to boot. I’m appalled.

  11. Posted by fancy rental

    noe’s basically the only bubble left in sf. any “nice” house there with a “nice” yard in a “nice” part of noe will go fast and at a premium. as this one will. the paperwork issues mentioned by ld are probably not going to scare the noe lovers away imo.

  12. Posted by eddy

    In Escrow.

  13. Posted by sparky-b

    holy Wows. I am very suprised that place didn’t need a price drop.

  14. Posted by [anon.ed]

    wow. me too.

  15. Posted by eddy

    I stopped being surprised by these quick flip remodel jobs abot 12 months ago. Honestly, I think you could chart my sentiment if you wanted to. Now I just sort of expect it to happen.

  16. Posted by A.T.

    Going from 1100sf to 2500sf, replacing the foundation, and completely re-building the place is not exactly a quick flip remodel job. Kudos to the developer – upgrading SF’s crappy housing stock is a great thing to do. I hope it remains highly profitable so it continues.

  17. Posted by eddy

    10 Months ago this property was purchased. Take into consideration the design / planning delays and construction. That is a quick flip in my book.

  18. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    A quick, intense, and well organized flip. The developers knew what they were doing and executed well. Too bad they degraded the front entry with that tacky stairway treatment though.
    As for SF’s “crappy housing stock” it really isn’t any worse than other cities. Every city contains some run down owner occupied homes. But you can’t flip as successfully as this in every city because there isn’t always a market for such a product.

  19. Posted by no_ vally

    saw this was in escrow for a few weeks and seems to have closed…any word on where it finally priced?

  20. Posted by eddy

    Still pending

  21. Posted by eddy

    The old “In Escrow-Firm” to “Off the market / withdrawn trick”.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles