Touting its location, location, location on “one of the most coveted blocks in Dolores Heights,” a block and a half from Dolores Park, the “one-of-a-kind home” at 352 Cumberland Street, which totals around 2,800 square feet (including two vacant studio units which front the street), was purchased for $3.75 million in September of 2014.

In addition to an open floor plan, the main residence features panoramic views from both levels of the home, not to mention its roof deck and back patio (which overlooks a terraced garden and lower deck).

And having returned to the market listed for $3.75 million last month, a sale at which would have represented apples-to-apples appreciation of 0.0 percent for the Dolores Heights property since the third quarter of 2014, the list price for 352 Cumberland Street has just been reduced by $500K to $3.25 million.

And no, there isn’t a garage.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Curious

    This is about 10x outside of my price range, but I think this seems sooo much more appealing than a lot of similarly priced Pac Heights or “East Cut” condos I’ve seen on this site. Why is Dolores Heights such a relative bargain?

  2. Posted by Dash Winters

    3.25 million. For a Florida room.

    • Posted by matteo

      it makes me want to puke every time i see the name ‘east cut’.

      • Posted by pol

        There is no area of the city called ‘east cut’

        • Posted by AJC

          It’s an old reference to the Second Street cut of 1869 which divided Rincon hill.

        • Posted by Charlie in SF

          A couple Hipsters who also happen to work at Google Maps has made it so.

          • Posted by tm

            I work in that area, and that popular story is not really accurate. You see signs saying “east cut” all over and cleaning staff with “east cut” jackets and tools.

            So, yes, it is a recent rebrand, but it’s a rebrand mostly pushed by on-the-ground spending and marketing by real estate groups, not based on Google Maps renaming the area as a recent popular article tried to imply.

  3. Posted by civ-e

    i am surprised they didn’t try to list for more than they paid in 2014, since the market has generally appreciated since then. were they somehow able to ascertain, prior to listing, that this was going to be a loss or break even at best?

  4. Posted by curmudgeon

    I actually remember when this sold in 2014, and it seemed like a weird outlier at the time. I think this seller is the victim of some irrational exuberance. Granted, there were some other weird sales going on (as there always are), like the facebook founder (not Zuck..I forget his name) who bought Droubi’s house for 7 million when it was probably worth 3.

    • Posted by grubner

      A.K.A ‘They Overpaid’. I remember a lot of that…..from 2009!

      • Posted by Ohlone Californio

        They did though. Did they not?

        • Posted by AY

          I thought sale prices reflect the market, list prices marketing? If so, they only “overpaid” if the market dropped and the property is worth less now than when it was purchased.

          • Posted by Ohlone Californio

            Feel free to continue to ascribe exactness to one case within an imbalanced market if you like. I remember thinking, “huh, that’s really a lot for that one” at the time.

          • Posted by Jasper Williams

            Not just one case, Eh? This one near 2014 prices and this one below 2013.

          • Posted by Ohlone Californio

            The Jackson property was up 6 percent. So I don’t follow. The Mint loft, yes, that’s quite a loss. I could probably cite many hundreds of YoY increases since 2013 and 2014 to 2018-19. So could you if you felt like it.

  5. Posted by mr_happyPants

    So is SS officially a RE bear or not? Has the credit cycle, in SS’s eyes hit the tipping point?

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles