64 Prentiss
Built in 2009 and originally priced at $1,360,000 that year, the Bernal home atop the Heights at 64 Prentiss sold for $1,199,000 in March of 2010. The contemporary three-bedroom is now back on the market and listed for $1,099,000, apples-to-apples style.
64 Prentiss Living
Crank the volume and enjoy the sweet apple jam this morning, we’re swaying in our seats and wondering who they think they’re targeting with the tune, or any tune, for that matter.
∙ Listing: 64 Prentiss Street (3/2.5) – $1,099,000 [vrguild.net]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by eddy

    How does that music get placed on a listing in 2012?

  2. Posted by EH

    from the pix, it appears possible it was composed by the seller. that said, i like this place, but next door is that an actual mobile home? seems like that could eventually turn into an 8-storey building, if you know what i mean.

  3. Posted by EH

    ok, not a mobile home, but still.

  4. Posted by dch

    I looked at those homes (it has a twin next door) when they were first on the market – they combine the cramped, storage-free design features of high-rise condos with an inconvenient (to downtown, at least) Bernal location. Lots of freeway noise too.
    If I recall correctly, they have artificial turf – not grass – in the postage stamp back yards as well. Cannot imagine why someone paid 7 figures for this. I predict it’ll sit unsold for a while.

  5. Posted by R

    Huge garage, large master walk-in closet and two closets in the master bath is “storage-free”? How much stuff do you have?
    Valid point on the inconvenient location to downtown though, assuming you are trying to take public transportation.

  6. Posted by [anon.ed]

    “Lots of freeway noise”
    ????
    101 is 7 blocks and down a cliff. 280 is 9 or 10 blocks down a big hill.

  7. Posted by dch

    I was there and I recall intensely disliking these units. They are small and have very little storage (storage-free was an exaggeration). What space there is was poorly allocated.
    And I definitely noticed the freeway noise with the windows closed despite the realtor denying it was there at all. With the windows open it was undeniable.

  8. Posted by Fishchum

    dch, if you’re bothered by traffic noise at that location, then I’ve got news for you – you won’t find too many places in SF that will be to your liking. It’s called city living. Try West Marin if you’re looking for someplace truly bucolic.

  9. Posted by dch

    I live in the city. I like it. I remember noticing the noise here – perhaps because the realtor tried to deny you could hear anything. Why the hostility?
    I believe that I am the only one in the thread who’s seen these units – and they’re terribly designed. Why replicate the crappy aspects of a condo when you’re building a house? The noise is far from the worst problem.

  10. Posted by [anon.ed]

    I don’t know. Guess there must have been a very strong wind from the southeast that day or something. The freeways are pretty far away. It’s simply not a very noisy area.

  11. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Wind and air temperature can affect how sound carries. Cold air is amazingly good at transmitting sound for long distances.

  12. Posted by Fishchum

    Sorry, didn’t mean that as hostile. My NY roots tend to come out every now and then. I’ve seen places near this one and I agree with anon.ed – it’s not very noisy at all. Although when it comes to noise, I would never tell someone what they can or can’t hear – I always suggest they listen themselves and then decide how tolerable it is.

  13. Posted by Newbie

    My first post here. The only new information I have is that these homes are prefabs by Toby Long (Clever Designs). I accidently came across this information while browsing through his site.

  14. Posted by site-reader

    From the pictures this appears a small, cramped charmless house as dch has said. Always interesting to see folks argue about something, freeway noise, that will likely have little or no bearing based upon the other major negatives affecting a prospective buyer’s decision.

  15. Posted by R

    I think people argue because people like you say this is a “small, cramped charmless house”.
    To who?
    3 BRs in 1800+ square feet doesn’t seem that small or cramped. But maybe you live in a mansion.
    And your opinion may be that it’s charmless, but some people love this style.

  16. Posted by shza

    R, where are you getting 1800+ square feet? It looks much smaller than that in the pictures.

  17. Posted by R

    Trulia. Link below.

  18. Posted by jy196

    I saw this house and the house next door back in 2010, and I have to say that “cramped, charmless” is a pretty accurate description. You enter directly into the living room/dining room/kitchen seen in the second picture, and the long narrow living space feels like an efficient condo space rather than a house in Bernal. The kitchen is huge, but that doesn’t make up for the cramped dining/living room space. The only good thing about this house is that it is steps away from the park. I also definitely noticed the highway noise when I visited.

  19. Posted by R

    pending.

  20. Posted by R

    Sold 3/13: $1,170,000
    Down 1.5% on the almost 2 year hold.

  21. Posted by anon

    Ouch, that was an expensive 2-year mistake. Imagine the sweet pad they could have lived in for the about $8000 net a month they spent on this cramped charmless place in a lousy part of town. Live and learn!

  22. Posted by R

    Wow, that’s a great troll. Good job.

  23. Posted by anon

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. (but nobody expects anything more from you, Mr. “R”). You got the “good job” part right!

  24. Posted by [anon.ed]

    ^ I continue to find it odd that these “only after the titillation of being obnoxious online” types don’t even use their own words. You’d think they would want to at least achieve some sort of recognition that they’re clever. But it’s always regurgitating the same tropes, movie quotes, and formulaic little inside jokes. It’s all “internet only” all around derivative lame stuff

  25. Posted by anon

    Hey [anon.ed], I made a valid point that this “near-breakeven” (down just 1.5%!) sale in fact cost the owner a ton of money each month and it was a big net loss. R chimed in with the “troll” comment in an attempt to do nothing but denigrate and silence someone who disagreed with his cheerleading. And he didn’t even use the word correctly, as I pointed out. Curious that you didn’t call out your realtor buddy for being obnoxious. You going to cry to the ed. to remove comments you don’t like again?

  26. Posted by El Bombero

    I’m glad the 2010 BH buyer lost some money here. Should have been more, but then again BH is “hot, hot, hot” if you listen to certain realtors on here.

  27. Posted by R

    I can’t believe I’m taking troll bait. I must be more bored than I thought.
    1. I’m not a realtor, nor do I have anything to do with RE professionally.
    2. Not sure how I tried to “denigrate and silence someone who disagreed with [my] cheerleading” since I didn’t cheerlead. I stated facts.
    3. Troll as per Wiki: “In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community…with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response”. Clearly, you’re nonsense about ‘ouch’ and ‘cramped’ and ‘lousy party of town’ are all troll bait.

  28. Posted by [abib,ed]

    Yeah it was costly for the seller but I mean, that’s obvious too. If you hold something for two years without improvements what do you expect? A 1.5% hit plus the various costs attached is probably typical. No it was ouch, cramped, lousy, etc. Then the played out “Princess Bride” internet-kinda-guy thing. (See “hot hot hot” for more played out internet-only stuff, later on.)

  29. Posted by anon

    A 1.5% hit plus the various costs attached IS probably typical . . . in a market that has fallen a bit in the last two years. It is not typical at all in a market that has gone up. Guess we’ll just keep waiting for that market bottom. Any day now!

  30. Posted by [anon.ed]

    Yeah well if you want to call this house “the market,” then that’s another little internet-only type of thing now isn’t it? The 1.5% thing? Could have gone either way. It’s pretty silly to try to force all these pithy synopses on everything. Chill out and learn things, first, then talk. Not such a difficult thing to do, you’d think.

  31. Posted by anon

    So anoned, you’ve been properly shamed for crying so often to the ed. to delete posts, so now you’re going to simply try to talk people out of posting in the first place! LOL! As for that 1.5%, the only thing we know is the direction we actually went, isn’t it? But that unfortunate fact doesn’t support the book you and your realtor buddies try to peddle, eh? Do you think it would have gone for a two-year loss if there were other bidders in the “market”? Oh, and by the way, we’ve had about 4 1/2% inflation during that two years, so we have a real 6% decline. So much for that Bernal boom you try to claim. No need for me to learn anything as I have all the facts I need! You could use a little learning yourself, however. And then write when you have something to say rather than just because you’re so mad that everything you’ve been telling everyone is proven wrong!

  32. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    Is Bernal actually hot? I had not noticed, but I don’t pay much attention to Bernal.

  33. Posted by anon.ed

    You think you’re gloating, yet you’re talking about 1.5 percent and a prooperty that was a new house at last trade. I am not telling people not to post. Plenty of folks have interesting things to say. I am saying your posts are forced, and not even remotely savvy or thoughtful. “Bernal boom you try to claim” nah nah … Just nonsense. And nonsense aping other people’s words, at that.

  34. Posted by El Bombero

    “The 1.5% thing? Could have gone either way.”
    That’s probably right. But if it’s all the same to you, I’m glad that it went the right way. Down. Should have resulted in a bigger loss imo; maybe the 2012 buyer overpaid?

Add a Comment

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