Having hit the market listed as “the crown jewel of Piedmont” for $7.25 million last year, the restored 5,700-square-foot Edwardian on a manicured half-acre lot at 117 Sheridan Avenue has just closed escrow with a $5.225 million contract price or roughly $908 per square foot.

And having been reduced to $6.75 million this past March, to $5.98 million in July and then relisted anew for $5.25 million last month, the sale of the William Charles Hays designed home has officially closed “within 1 percent of asking” and only “two months on the market” according to all MLS-based stats and reports.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by bachman_erlich_overdrive

    Would have sold for 5.4 if they had just removed the drapes.

    • Posted by oh my

      Yeah and the delta was the cost of the drapes!

  2. Posted by Notcom

    On a strictly procedural note, I wonder how much sense it makes for residential sales to reduce the selling price to a “per sq foot” number, based on the house alone, since the property size can vary a lot (no pun intended) and presumably represents a sizable portion of that price. Oh sure, fine for condos, and probably for SF – given the postage-stamp sized yards found there – but here in the vast and wonderfully expansive Eastbay we value our “Tara” moments.

    • Posted by Amewsed

      Poor use of price per square foot metrics. Only good use in a pure commodity play.

  3. Posted by Frank C.

    What’s funny to me: $5m here, for this Piedmont house, is a mind-blowingly outstanding value compared to what 5m buys in, say, Menlo Park or Palo Alto. And you even get great schools in Piedmont…

    • Posted by SFRealist

      It’s almost as if the job markets in Piedmont and Palo Alto are not interchangeable.

      • Posted by Frank C.

        Good point, but plenty, plenty of very highly paid SFers moving to burbs now, and also, what I failed to mention was the relevance of international trophy buyers in PA and Menlo (IMO the only places in the BA where foreign purchases significantly affect prices). These trophy buyers do not want to be near the little people. You really think the location inside Oakland borders, and its population, is not a factor? Really?

        • Posted by SFRealist

          I’m going to go with the incredible concentration of high paying jobs in the immediate vicinity of Palo Alto.

          • Posted by Amewsed

            and resale value and potential appreciation.

          • Posted by Frank C.

            Uh, so it has to be that, and the race and poverty proximity (i.e. 4 sides) aspect is a complete nonfactor? If your strict economic analysis was correct, than PA and MP would have no prestige factor, and Sunnyvale, MV, LA, even RWC would be much closer in pricing to PA. (Hint: they are not)

    • Posted by jwb

      Wait until you find out what $5m buys you in Carmel, Indiana.

    • Posted by greg

      That’s all changing. Executives at east bay companies like Pixar and Tesla want to be closer to home vs driving to Walnut Creek or to the Peninsula. You’ll see the high high end in Piedmont hit the same levels as the Peninsula over the next 10 years. The problem with Piedmont is there are so many traditional homes and not enough contemporary ones.

  4. Posted by Amewsed

    Ouch. Location, location, location.

    • Posted by jwb

      What is “ouch” about this outcome? These unbelievably rich sellers just walked off with five million dollars, having been paying tax on an assessment of less than $220k for decades.

      • Posted by Amewsed

        What does being rich have anything to do with selling a product? Do you think rich people should earn less profit on any business venture because they have more money? Or perhaps they should pay more than everyone else for the same product by virtue of their income? I don’t.

        The ouch comes from having to come down from a $7.25M (with a potential wiggle room of give or take a million.) I doubt the seller and his/her agent would deliberately overprice and misread the market value of the property by $2M.

        • Posted by jwb

          Point is when you take $5 million on a basis of zero, you are not saying “ouch”, unless you get a hernia from carrying your wallet.

        • Posted by Notcom

          That might be a valid reason for “ouch”, but this site has a long list of WTF? listings that belie your (seemingly) logical premise.

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles