Having hit the market listed as “the crown jewel of Piedmont” for $7.25 million last year, the asking price for the restored 5,700-square-foot Edwardian on a manicured half-acre lot at 117 Sheridan Avenue was reduced to $6.75 million this past March and then to $5.98 million in July.
And yesterday, the William Charles Hays designed home was listed anew for $5.25 million (with an official “1” day on the market according to all MLS-based stats and reports).
God I love a snarky headline.
Indeed: who would have thought a set of quotation marks would make the difference b/w satirizing agent hyperbole and dissing a whole city.
There are several trophy properties within a stone’s throw of this place and that can’t be helping. There’s 227 Crocker which is a better location, and 6363 Estates which is on 1.33 acres, albeit in Oakland.
Yes – wait: did you just call an Oakland property a “trophy”?…bless you!! – I would think the (remarkably) small lot size is an issue: 5700sf/story >~2000-2500sf floor plates > 10% lot coverage. I know there’s no hard and fast rule – and too much property isn’t necessarily a plus either – but this seems crowded…if you really want this little of a yard you’re probably better off w/ a city house and foregoing it altogether (not that there are “city houses” in Piedmont, of course).
Notcom, I’m confused. Not arguing, just confused. The lot is one half acre or 22,000 sq ft. The house’s footprint is approximately 2,200 sq ft. The house takes up 10% of the lot. With 90% of the lot dedicated to the yard/fountain/hedge rows etc. Are you saying that this is a small yard?
To me, yes….given the price being asked. Obviously, that’s a personal opinion – not one tested by personal experience, sad to say – but backed-up, somewhat, I assume, by mention of larger properties in the post above. There’s little, if any, room for a tennis court or pool, and the neighbors are right nearby (to eavesdrop on inheritance squabbles). And I’m still in that mindset that thinks of $7 mill as “expensive”.
Of course there are probably people who want a nice and big (but not huge) house w/o having a correspondingly large garden to deal with, and this might be just right…they just don’t seem to have found this place, yet; or if they have, it’s more than they want(ed) to pay
Plenty of houses are selling in Palo Alto for $5.25M with 6,000 square foot lots, and let’s not even get started on the lot sizes for $5M properties in SF. Half an acre is a huge lot for virtually all desirable areas, and even semi-desirable areas, of the SF Bay Area.
A half acre lot is now a small yard? In California? Are you posting from suburban Atlanta?
227 Crocker is definitively a worse location, actually. Part of why it’s listed for around 1.5 M less.
Why “definitely” ?? Not, of course, that you’re position is any less legitimate than “jwb”s viewpoint that it is more so.
The market over the past several years has shown that people will pay more for a comparable house that is closer to the center of town, like the Sheridan location, which is right by Piedmont Park — versus the Crocker location, which is by the little baseball field but nothing else. When we bought a few years ago, we were unwilling to stray more than a few blocks from Oakland Ave (though not right on it either), and that has been the definite trend. The stuff that used to be super-prime up by Tyson Lake has been selling lower than comparable stuff that is more central — there have been several recently. Biggest $$ per square foot in Piedmont will be on Bonita or Hillside.
Thanks! I thought centrality might have something to do with it, tho I would think there are those who might object to (the presumably greater traffic) in a “downtown” location – if Piedmont can be thought of as really having such. The Crocker location is on a major secondary rte (Mandana/LaSalle), so perhaps it doesn’t do much better in that regard.
If you scroll in on the little map above, it looks like a small yard. Of course, for the denser parts of the bay area, on a relative scale it may not be small, but that is because the perspective in this area is really skewed. Over $5 million for just a half acre? I got a half acre up in the Sierras for $78,000 and it came with a 1800 sq ft house on it.
And the current annual tax bill for this estate is $7,207/year. The wealth heirs to the mansion pay less property tax than an owner of crap studio in Oakland (if recently purchased). Prop 13 is terrible.
In contract.
Yup just came around to mention that. Also the place I mentioned (6363 Estates) sold for 4.45M, in significantly less time of course.
I passed by the G****** the other day, and they still had the Estates manse in the window – not sure why if it sold, but anyway…- and God !! what a beautiful house.
UPDATE: Crown Jewel of Piedmont Fetches $5.225 Million