Having traded for $840,000 in October of 2002, the Mid-Century Diamond Heights home at 5587 Diamond Heights Boulevard returned to the market early last year listed for $799,000 and closed escrow with a reported contract price of $830,000 in March of 2012.
Having since been spruced up a bit, the four-bedroom home with nearly 2,000 square feet has just been listed for $948,000, under $500 per square foot and a sale at which would represent appreciation of 14 percent on a year-over-year, or decade-over-decade, basis.
∙ Listing: 5587 Diamond Heights Boulevard (4/3) 1,995 sqft – $948,000 [via Redfin]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by ts364

    This may seem random, but is relative pricing getting out of whack? You could have 1209 San Bruno (right next to General Hospital, 1,535 sq ft) for $879K, or scrape together another $69K ($14K at 20% down) and get this place. Is the close to the freeway/sunny weather/Mission hipster/ambulances day and night/view of the General Hospital parking garage premium almost $100/sq ft (20%)?

  2. Posted by curmudgeon

    ts364…the answer is perhaps. But there has been a trend for years now that is pumping up the values of walkable nabes versus hill nabes. The most expensive properties all used to have killer views and be “above the bum line”. Now places in the flats are selling for multi-millions. Your example is a good one of how that can lead to some “out of whack” pricing.
    Personally I think that the trend makes a lot of sense, but for folks who prefer a more bucolic environment, and who don’t mind driving everywhere, I think there’s definitely the opportunity now to seize on what’s NOT in fashion.

  3. Posted by lol

    ^ Exceptions to that rule would be NV, GP and Bernal which have high cost despite the hills. But they have their own attraction. Family-friendly, views, access to the freeway, etc…
    Diamond Heights has its own issues. There’s an invisible line between NV and DH. Under that line, people claim it’s urban chic. Over that line you’re in quasi suburbia. The same applies to Twin Peaks vs Eureka Heights.
    It doesn’t really make sense. I think it has to do with the “little boxes” 1950s architecture. Psychology is everything. This makes DH a great value I think.

  4. Posted by curmudgeon

    ^ agreed lol, about Diamond Heights/Twin Peaks. Re places like NV, Glen Park and Bernal…I would say that although those neighborhoods are currently super “hot” overall, over the past 10 year the more ped accessible areas have increased the most relative to the rest of the hood. For instance, within Bernal, Precita Park used to be considered down-market and dangerous. There is probably also additional value to being within easy walking distance to Cortland. These are just observations…I only have anecdotal data to back me up, but I think I’m correct.

  5. Posted by Zig

    If you follow the walkability/close to public transportation trend there is no reason to think that parts of the Excelsior and Mission Terrace won’t become more desired. Both have pockets with very nice homes relative to many SF S-boxes.
    Hell, there are some very nice old homes within walking distance to Grand Ave in So. City. That is way off the radar of transplants
    I guess it the issue of what can you walk to and which group you think is kind of similar to what you aspire to be who lives there.
    Myself, I have had a hard time even wrapping my mind around Bernal Heights Lower Mission being trendy let alone the Excelsior

  6. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    Mission Terrace is the next neighborhood up. Mark my words, it has everything: great availability to transit — both freeways and BART and Muni, great parks, schools and a Whole Foods coming in nearby on Ocean. It is a bit rough around the corners, but North of Alemany, crime is low and the lots are relatively large.
    Excelsior has a bit further to go.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles