2299 Sacramento #10 Living
Purchased for $615,000 in 2003 and since remodeled, 2299 Sacramento #10 returned to the market in October of 2009 listed for $799,000. Reduced to $779,000 that November, it was withdrawn a month later without a reported sale.
2299 Sacramento #10 Dining
Now back on the market two years later and listed for $749,000, the light-filled 1,252 square foot condo sports some rather nice details, restored woodwork, and a Viking range in the kitchen. The listed parking space is, however, leased.
∙ Listing: 2299 Sacramento #10 (2.1) 1,252 sqft – $749,000 [Redfin]
A Parking Space (And MLS) Pet Peeve [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by kg

    Will definitely go above asking…

  2. Posted by inmycountry

    The Redfin photos showing a lot exposed brick. It looks to be a UMB with no sesmic reinforcing.

  3. Posted by [anon.ed]

    Does it? Can you show the site some credentials, inmycountry?

  4. Posted by Difference

    Leased parking $350
    HOA $532
    For some buyers that makes a difference.

  5. Posted by inmycountry

    [anon.ed] Thanks for calling me out. I guess I shouldn’t judge a book by it’s cover.
    A check of the permit history indicates the building has had work to comply with the UMB ordinance and parapet reinforcement. In the late 90’s they spent $153,000 on the entire building. They did the minimum to meet the regulation, which isn’t much really.

  6. Posted by [anon.ed]

    “In the late 90’s they spent $153,000 on the entire building. They did the minimum to meet the regulation, which isn’t much really.”
    They spent 153K on foundation work, in the ’90s, and you feel as if you’re qualified in calling it the “minimum.”
    Again, credentials, please.
    Sorry, but I’ve had it with this site planting mutant seeds and then having people build upon them. Enough.

  7. Posted by rubber_chicken

    Very nice.
    will definitely fetch more

  8. Posted by rocco

    Won’t move until it gets closer to its most recent sale price of $615K.
    And ignore [anon.ed]. Realtors will say anything.

  9. Posted by inmycountry

    Credentials:
    Survived all Bay Area earthquakes since 1957
    Survived all Thanksgiving dinners with relatives who survived 1906 earthquake and fire
    30 years of practicing architecture including working closely with structural engineers

  10. Posted by A.T.

    “30 years of practicing architecture including working closely with structural engineers”
    That’s all? And you expect us to trust your viewpoint over that of a name-shifting realtor on issues of seismic safety, a key topic on the multiple choice exam realtors have to take? Planting mutant seeds, indeed.

  11. Posted by EH

    Crimony, you queens need to get your soap fix somewhere else.

  12. Posted by embarcadero

    Look, I’m sure this building is unsafe in an earthquake. That’s a given. Even if they had done the most they could in terms of seismic reinforcement, it ain’t enough to prevent the building from becoming uninhabitable in the event of a 7.whatever earthquake.
    That said, I’m with Rocco. I’d think somewhere in terms of its 2003 price, no higher. I don’t have a car, but not having access to guaranteed parking means resale can be stickier.

  13. Posted by eddy

    This place is nice. Here is a new listing that doesn’t even come close in terms general quality of this listing:
    http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/2171-Sacramento-St-94109/unit-10/home/1323020
    Working closely with Structural Engineers is hardly a credential to judge the relative strength of UMB work performed 15 years ago based solely on a permit filing viewed online???? I assume any interested buyer would investigate this issue and if there was a concern an actual structural engineer could be called in to review the work performed. Does anyone really think this building is going to collapse in the next big earthquake? Not likely.
    #14 sold fir 850k last year.
    Here is the sales history for the building (forgive the formatting):
    Unit Sale Price SqFt $/PSF Sale Date
    #19 $233,500 3/28/1994
    #10 $284,000 11/15/1994
    #1 $163,000 844 $193.13 4/21/1995
    #18 $285,000 1252 $227.64 1/31/1997
    #19 $287,000 9/25/1997
    #4 $267,000 1335 $200.00 11/3/1997
    #15 $370,000 7/1/1998
    #6 $299,000 1252 $238.82 7/30/1998
    #5 $339,000 1270 $266.93 8/19/1998
    #10 $457,000 1252 $365.02 10/15/1999
    #17 $580,000 1380 $420.29 12/10/1999
    #14 $580,000 1252 $463.26 2/2/2000
    #1 $371,000 844 $439.57 4/7/2000
    #12 $563,000 7/18/2000
    #2 $405,000 1011 $400.59 8/9/2000
    #8 $630,000 1380 $456.52 11/29/2000
    #3 $611,000 1406 $434.57 12/28/2000
    #18 $550,000 1252 $439.30 2/26/2001
    #7 $650,000 1421 $457.42 7/5/2002
    #6 $615,000 1252 $491.21 8/1/2002
    #14 $690,000 1252 $551.12 10/24/2002
    #18 $618,000 1252 $493.61 11/15/2002
    #2 $515,000 1011 $509.40 3/21/2003
    #10 $615,000 10/9/2003
    #15 $652,000 1270 $513.39 4/15/2004
    #16 $629,000 7/8/2004
    #3 $805,000 1330 $605.26 9/14/2004
    #4 $908,000 1335 $680.15 3/15/2005
    #7 $881,000 4/7/2005
    #18 $926,000 1250 $740.80 5/24/2005
    #2 $705,000 8/1/2005
    #9 $775,000 7/13/2006
    #15 $846,000 1270 $666.14 11/9/2006
    #4 $1,001,000 1335 $749.81 11/15/2006
    #9 $842,000 1270 $662.99 3/30/2007
    #1 $648,000 844 $767.77 7/18/2007
    #12 $750,000 10/14/2008
    #18 $800,000 1250 $640.00 8/24/2010
    #14 $850,000 1252 $678.91 8/12/2011

  14. Posted by [anon.ed]

    “on’t move until it gets closer to its most recent sale price of $615K.
    And ignore [anon.ed]. Realtors will say anything.
    Posted by: rocco at December 9, 2011 1:09 PM”
    Anonymous online care-nots will say anything? Realtors? not so much.
    Dude called out an unreinforced masonry situation. Was proven wrong. Still had to have a word. Was wrong. Got called out.
    ANd then, you had your take.
    Whatever.

  15. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Even new buildings might not be habitable after the Big One. EQ code is geared towards ensuring that the building stays intact enough to evacuate. It isn’t black/white but rather a continuum of outcomes construction styles against quakes of different magnitudes. In general the newer shorter buildings with more steel are more likely to be habitable after the Big One. If you want the best survivability look for a newer one story wood framed home sitting atop stable ground. SF is one of the riskiest place in the bay area.

  16. Posted by [anon.ed]

    “That’s all? And you expect us to trust your viewpoint over that of a name-shifting realtor on issues of seismic safety, a key topic on the multiple choice exam realtors have to take? Planting mutant seeds, indeed.”
    Guy incriminates himself and you think you’re piling on, somehow. Priceless.

  17. Posted by [anon.ed]

    “30 years of practicing architecture including working closely with structural engineers”
    Thank you for that. But if that is so, then why use the word minimum to describe a 153K expenditure in the mid ’90s? That’s hardly screaming “minimum,” inmycountry. If you know something else about the property other than what is described, then fair game. But that’s not what you said, it’s not what I took your word at, and the wording of your response still seems inappropriate.

  18. Posted by cha

    Does anyone have evidence this building from 1913 suffered any damage during Loma Prieta? Many older buildings do ok in earthquakes, if they’re well built. The biggest risks are jiggling out the joists so that the floors pancake, soft story construction, or liquefaction. All of those are far more dangerous than simply having brick walls and I’d assume that the 1990s retrofit addressed the first 2, if needed. The level of hysteria on this site regarding earthquakes makes me think most of you must be from the east coast.

  19. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    cha – the ’89 quake produced shaking a couple orders of magnitude smaller than what SF is expected to endure in the near future. Surviving the Loma Prieta says a few things but not much about whether the building can survive the Big One. Concern about quake safety isn’t hysteria its just common sense. Not even lifelong California residents have experienced anything close to the Big One let alone transplants.

  20. Posted by spencer

    of note, this is just across the street from 2155 Buchanan which has a lot of apples over the past 3 yrs. 2155 Buchanan is a nicer building.
    renting for 2450 for 2b/2ba, but now looking to buy
    https://socketsite.com/archives/2008/11/a_pacific_heights_apple_hanging_on_the_tree_2155_buchan.html#c407100

  21. Posted by haightgirl

    Well if the earthquake hits, they’ll be across the street from CPMC hospital & doctors. The apartment seems great, but I rent down the block from UCSF and there is a constant parade of trucks / semi-trailers making hospital deliveries at all hours of the night so there must be a discount for the location. A few blocks away and I’d expect a higher price.

  22. Posted by Sonnyboy

    “…the minimum to meet the regulation, which isn’t much really.” As a civil engineer, I unfortunately concur 100% with inmycountry and Milkshake. When the maximum credible earthquake hits, this beautiful town is going to be a REAL mess. If the ’89 event (historically a relatively small event) had shaken just a few seconds longer we would have truly seen widespread devastation. Doesn’t keep me up at night, but I have a 2nd residence in Arizona…

  23. Posted by [anon.ed]

    “As a civil engineer, I unfortunately concur 100% with inmycountry and ”
    With regard to this specific property? Have you seen it in person?

  24. Posted by eddy

    In Escrow.
    Naysayers?

  25. Posted by inmycountry

    Following up…
    Not trying to scare anybody off…just laying out some facts.
    Although work has been performed on the building to meet the UMB ordinance, the primary structure remains brick. Meeting the requirements of the UMB ordinance does not remotely bring the building up to modern codes. The ordinance is a very modest requirement designed to prevent collapse of the building and prevent parapets from falling to the street below during an earthquake.
    Regarding my comment that doing the minimum to meet the UMB ordinance isn’t much….well, it isn’t. 153K doesn’t go very far to strengthen a building of this size. It is five stories facing Sacramento Street and six stories on Buchanan Street, as the lot slopes. The building has twenty one units plus the common areas and the parking garage. Divide the 153K by 21 units and it works out to 7.2K per unit or about the same cost as the Viking Stove in the kitchen. Keep in mind, a good portion of the 153K goes to carefully removing the finishes to install the structural improvements and then carefully replacing the finishes, meanwhile protecting the floors and contents in each unit. It’s not like an empty brick warehouse structural upgrade, where you can maneuver big steel beams in place with a crane.
    The UMB ordinance was enacted following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake to prevent collapse of masonry buildings, so occupants can egress the building. It’s not designed to make the building “seismically safe” or prevent property damage.
    How buildings will perform when the “big one” hits remains to be seen. A multitude of factors will come into play, including; type of soil, type of construction, epicenter of the earthquake, direction of the waves (horizontal or up and down) duration of shaking and of course, magnitude. An 8.0 on the Richter Scale is ten times more powerful than a 7.0 For reference, Loma Prieta was 6.9 with an epicenter sixty miles south of SF.

  26. Posted by eddy

    Sold Over Asking: 790k
    Considering that it wouldn’t sell at 779k in 11/2009 one could conclude that the market price for this condo would have been lower than 779k. A logical conclusion would be that the market in 1/2012 is stronger than it was in late 2009. At least for this property.

  27. Posted by eddy

    #18 is on the market here for roughly its 2005 sale price of 925k and 125k above its 2010 price of 800k. Previously sold for 618k in 2002 and 540k in 2001. Musical chairs anyone? I would be surprised to see this current home sell for under $1M in this market. But I’ve stopped trying to guess things as I’m basically always wrong these days. Somewhat fascinated by this building. Always liked it.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *