2224 Jackson

As we wrote last week, what happens when you list a big Pacific Heights property that’s in good condition, and with even better bones, for $687 a square foot while other homes in the neighborhood have been selling for north of $1,000 a foot? Yes, it sells for “way over asking!”

As we also reported at the time, “if a plugged-in tipster is correct, the contract price for the property is expected to be at least 80 percent over its list price of $2,095,000 and might just break the “two million over asking” mark.”

Today, the sale of 2224 Jackson Street closed escrow with a reported contract price of $3,801,000. Call it 81 percent, but only $1.7 million, “over asking.”

Once again, while the former single-family home is currently configured as a three-unit building, the property is being delivered vacant and will likely be renovated and returned to its roots, with or without the City’s blessing.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by eddy

    As I indicated on the prior thread I think they might have been able to squeeze a little more out of this listing had they not priced it so low. Hard to complain with the outcome of course, as getting $1245/psf in a home that is going to need over a $1m in improvements is a pretty great outcome. The 3867 Jackson property sold for $1300/psf and I wouldn’t be surprised if more than one of these bidders (and probably the “winner”) was active on the 3867 listing. So it is not inconceivable that you could have seen a higher psf outcome here as the bidding mentality (of losers) is to always bid higher. So while I think setting a low bid to generate buzz and emotional bidding is key, I think they sold themselves too short here. How many of these are going to come on the market in the next few years like this one in D7. Not too many. Someday soon there wont be any left. Hope the new owners make this a special place. Good luck to all.

    Would love to hear the thoughts of a few of the “losing” bidders for this place.

  2. Posted by MikeNSF

    This is such bull. I have no respect for realtors who purposely underprice properties in hopes of stimulating a bidding war.

    • Posted by Joshua

      The agent’s job is to produce the best economic result for her/his client. These bidding situations waste a lot of buyers’ time, but people engage in the bidding process willingly and should understand they won’t get D7 real estate for $700 psf.

      Also, agree with eddy’s previous comment that the agent/seller likely under-priced this property too much. Buyers have a hard time bidding twice the asking price.

  3. Posted by TESLA

    This is NOT a house. It is an apartment building. Apartment buildings sell for less per square foot than houses. It was priced correctly for an apartment building. The fact that people were throwing money at the Seller is not the Listing Agents fault.

  4. Posted by JIPB

    People “throwing money at the Seller” is the listing agents fault. Obviously it was not “priced correctly for an apartment building”. The building was listed at a little over half of the actual market price. The building is worth what a bona fide purchase is ready, willing and able to pay. Which was 81% higher then the listing price. This wasted a lot of time for everyone involved.

    • Posted by TESLA

      An Appraiser and a Lender would disagree with you.

  5. Posted by Conifer

    was this house originally built as a single family residence?

  6. Posted by eddy

    @tesla, the agent listing the home is responsible to know the market and the demand for properties. To imply that this was priced correctly based on apartment building comps is naive at best. Your argument might be valid if the agent here was from out of state / region. This was not the case. The listing description notes that this was formerly a SFH and proudly states, “Vacant, Exceptional, Three-Unit Building is so lovely you may want to live in it yourself!”, implying its potential for single family occupancy.

    Appraisers and Lenders don’t set the market and are historically not great at properly valuing homes in volatile markets. Not sure how anyone could credibly make the statement that this home was fairly priced. Then again, every once in a while someone comes along and steals a home before it ever gets on the market and everyone claims insider dealing. So who knows. But this home was mis-priced even by conservative estimates.

    • Posted by TESLA

      I stand by my statement.

      • Posted by eddy

        Alrighty then. Best of luck to you.

  7. Posted by Conifer

    There are many former single family houses that were chopped up and returned over the past 30 years to single family status. There is one on California Street with a magnificent Victorian interior. Is there any reliable information about the prices obtained when these legally-multi-unit but de-facto-houses are sold? Do they really sell at a discount?

  8. Posted by eddy

    The Victorian on California (assuming its the massive one I’m thinking about on the south side of the street) did sell for a bit of a discount but it was a little bit of a sleeper and hard to debate the price as being on California and on the LPH side didn’t help. My understanding is that it will be returned to its former glory and will be wonderful. Most other houses of the same ilk are usually in pretty bad shape. But as the market for these flips has shown remarkable ROI the price of the pre-remodled / combined homes has risen. So hard to say. Nevertheless, I stand by my statement that anyone that thought a fair value of this home was close to the original list was naive.

  9. Posted by Louis Bois

    I thought it was going over $4 million, so I think the buyer got at least a $200K deal.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles