CFAH

2999%20California%20Street.jpg
While $420,000 might seem like a lot for a 613 square foot “junior one-bedroom” on the border of Pacific Heights, it’s $95,000 less than was paid for the sixth floor condo when 2999 California Street #603 was listed for $459,000 and sold for $515,000 in 2005.
2999%20California%20Street%20%23603.jpg
And yes, the bedroom was once a walk-in closet:


2999%20California%20Street%20%23603%20Bedroom.jpg
Deeded parking and designated storage are included, and it’s a nice use of space.
2999%20California%20Street%20%23603%20Kitchen.jpg
The HOA dues for the unit are $455 a month, up from $306 in 2005. And the sale will be apples-to-apples, most likely multiple offers and all.
∙ Listing: 2999 California Street #603 (0/1) 613 sqft – $420,000 [2999california603.com]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by lyqwyd

    I used to live around the corner from this building. Always wondered what it was like inside.

  2. Posted by hugh

    I live on that block too. The building is the prettiest 1920s apartment buildings I’ve seen of that style (the photo doesn’t do it justice). It towers over everything nearby too, so it might have a view.
    Still. I live in a similar apartment that would rent for about $2250 with parking. $450k is like West Village prices.

  3. Posted by Guest666

    Nice building, but has this building been retrofitted? I hope so.

  4. Posted by anon

    Describe to the website, if you would guest666 (nice name, not), the ins and outs of your knowledge regarding seven story buildings in San Francisco.

  5. Posted by Dubocian

    You know a property listing is really reaching when they have to feature a photograph of a doorknob.
    I’m guessing the sellers wanted to move up to something with a closet? Maybe someplace to put the vacuum cleaner?

  6. Posted by hugh

    @guest666:
    It’s not on this list (but mine is)…The very tentative collection of vulnerable soft-story buildings. But it looks like one.
    Interesting that it’s condos. Wonder how long it’s been that way. Always?
    http://sfpublicpress.org/softstorylist#94115

  7. Posted by Footie

    I always wondered why they painted this building a beige with pink undertones on the upper portion, and then a beige with green undertones on the base.

  8. Posted by Brian

    Really nice, price seems about right for the neighborhood and size and cleanliness.

  9. Posted by anon94123

    And it has parking so I think this should go fast.

  10. Posted by Willow

    It actually has a dining space that is larger than most new 2 bedroom condos that are coming onto the market. I like this place. Small but in a great building. Very civilized indeed! (Parking is a real bonus…)

  11. Posted by Skirunman

    Ran numbers in rent vs. buy calculator (yes, takes into account all factors including opportunity cost on down payment). With 20% down 15 year fixed loan, $3,000 all in per month. I think this would rent for $2,500 per month. Net house payment of $1,387 (tax benefits/downpayment) versus assumed rent of $2.5k with payback in 1.3 years. Seems like a great starter place for a single. Nicely staged as well.

  12. Posted by pvc

    I think your rent estimate is low. I’d say 3k+ given the current rental market. But that still just proves your point…

  13. Posted by RussianHillDweller

    I used to live in this building…there are several other large closets including a walk-in besides the big one that are now used for sleeping…I don’t know the reasons why people needed so many closets in 1929 when it was built ….20 years ago studio’s without parking were selling for about $125,000. The space and light is good but you can hear your neighbors above and below (especially above).

  14. Posted by Guest666

    @anon,
    I will readily admit I am not an expert on pre-1940 SF apartment construction. Are you? However, I am guessing this building is a reinforced concrete building. I have also noticed the multitude of garage openings on the Baker Street side which would not normally be beneficial in creating sufficient shear strength to withstand a large seismic event.
    All of that said, there may be internal shear walls of which I am unaware, or the building may have been retrofitted, or this could be a steel frame building. These would all be important points to consider in evaluating this and other buildings in SF. But to assert that someone should not question anything to do with a property unless such person is an expert in the field is ridiculous. Rather than mocking my post, perhaps you should share your detailed analysis of the seismic safety features of this building to educate me as well as others.

  15. Posted by Anon

    Because you can look up such information if you are truly curious. Musing about serious topics in a passing fashion is akin to trolling. Your next post was thoughtful and the sort of thing I personally would not have objected to.

  16. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    All Guest666 did was ask a relevant and important question. It remains unanswered.

  17. Posted by Anon

    Why do you feel the need to weigh in on everything. Obtain a life or something lol … Or Go look it up yourself … As if you care about it ither than just participating in this website

  18. Posted by The Big One

    Anon, are you the seller or his/her realtor? You seem to be very upset by people pointing out the seismic risks with this building.

  19. Posted by Anon

    Ha hahahha. No, nor did anyone “point out” anything. The inspections a potential buyer would hopefully get would do that. Where do you get the idea that these are knowledgeable posters pointing things out? they’re merely passing by and saying stuff about a tallish building they don’t really know.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Recent Articles