Purchased for $285,000 in September of 2007, the 580-square-foot single-family home with a recently remodeled kitchen, bath and facade at 17 Laidley Street, which sits “within walking distance of…Billy Goat Hill, Harry Street Stairs, Upper Noe Valley Recreation Center, and Walter Haas Playground,” hit the market priced at $749,000 this past March.

Reduced to $730,000 in July and then to $657,000 last month, the “cheapest single family home in San Francisco” has just been listed anew with an official “1” day on the market and a further reduced $599,000 list price, a sale at which would now be considered to be “at asking” according to all industry stats and aggregate reports.

And in terms of sheer lot value, keep in mind that the Glen Park parcel upon which the home sits totals a substandard 614 square feet.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by MDG399

    Proof that SF housing is totally affordable….

  2. Posted by Curious

    I like it! Great location (for this price range) just a few blocks to the J, up the hill from fun stuff on Mission…

  3. Posted by Brisket

    The site is terrible, your living room window is right at street level and it stares straight into a tall cement wall. No parking and no outdoor space.

  4. Posted by kbbl

    There seems to be a seam in the roof shingles. And I’m not sure what to make of the cinder blocks. At least Google Maps street view can confirm the walls are insulated.

    • Posted by Notcom

      They’re to hold the house down from blowing away in the wind 🙂

      No, actually I think it’s pretty nice (inside at least, the lack of yard and – even more – exposure is problematic) Or at least a sensible use of resources, which seem emminently more sensible than blowing a bundle on costly finishes that won’t survive the next flip…not everyone wants – and few really need – twin sinks or a 20 seat ‘media room’.

  5. Posted by sanders

    What’s wrong with the dormer?

  6. Posted by c_q

    614 sqft lot – 580 sqft house = 34 sqft yard, which i’m guessing is that ‘patio’ in front of the entryway

  7. Posted by Notcom

    For those who are curious about its past – and let’s be honest: beyond a certain amount of snickering and overwrought replies in its defense, there isn’t a lot to talk about – it was offered for;
    $800 in 1918
    $990 in 1934
    I may be going out on a limb here, but I’m betting the head “Now Listed Below its 1918 Price” won’t be appearing any time soon.

  8. Posted by #Iownatinyhouseandilikeit

    With 20% down the mortgage would only be $2200. With property taxes, it’s still a monthly payment of less than most 1BR apartments on the market. For someone who wants security that they won’t be evicted, it’s a better deal than a rent-controlled apartment…

    • Posted by Plugger

      Would a bank write a loan on a house like this? I think the 615 sqft lot would block things, but that’s just a guess.

      • Posted by SocketSite

        Guess again. Multiple banks have provided a mortgage for the property, including Bank of America (most recently).

        • Posted by Jeffrey W. Baker

          Do you just hang around at the recorder’s office, or is there some other way you can learn these facts?

          • Posted by Brutalism's cool


      • Posted by c_q

        the only issue is if you can get a ‘conforming’ or ‘non-conforming’ mortgage. There is a max size for a lot to be conforming (5 acres, no need to worry about that in SF) but AFAIK there is no minimum lot size.

    • Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

      Yep. The key for the owners of 1BR apartments is that the overwhelming majority of leasees don’t have $120,000 sitting around as seasoned funds to make that 20% down payment, so even if they want the security that they won’t be evicted, that desired security is effectively out of reach. Hence the need for rent-controlled apartments.

      • Posted by Cynthia Gomez

        Yep. And it’s illegal to get a loan for a down payment.

        • Posted by Mark F.

          It is, although my parents got an illegal under the table loan from a developer for $500 to buy their house in 1966! They didn’t have enough for the 10%down payment.

          • Posted by kbbl

            What a relief the financial injustices that brought us suburbia weren’t only about redlining.

            Buying his first home in 1980, my dad took the more traditional route and charmed (perhaps seduced, he was coy) his realtor for some downpayment help.

  9. Posted by tipster

    No bedroom closet and no space for a dresser with only a full size bed.

    • Posted by SFrealist

      Did you see the headline (“the Cheapest Single-Family Home in San Francisco”)?

      It’s a small house. It doesn’t have all the amenities.

      • Posted by Curious

        It seems strange that they made the kitchen so large, though. I’m all for prioritizing kitchen space, but this really seems like it came at the expense of other useful amenities (e.g. a closet.) I still think this gets torn down based on the roof structural issues alone.

        • Posted by kbbl

          +1 on the roof. The snapshot of the work done last year is really entertaining — don’t think I’ve ever seen a house undergoing remodeling already have a for-sale sign on it before.

  10. Posted by JayJay78

    All it needs is a cute white picket fence along the front sidewalk to give it a cute super tiny little yard. I’m not kidding.

  11. Posted by mgsfca

    Is there an opportunity to build up?

  12. Posted by Gary Roberts

    Update : Zillow says pending at 599k (20% reduction from original listing)

    • Posted by SocketSite

      Keep in mind that Zillow’s “Pending price” is simply equal to the last list price for the property, not the actual contract price in play.

    • Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

      Well, just for comparison purposes, Redfin is showing it went into contract earlier this month at $652,000, or what they are calling 7.1% per year appreciation (although they also say their value estimate is 18.2% more than its last list price)! SFH’s are resilient, bifurcated market, prices are going to continue upward unless we all give up our cell phones, etc.

      Nice work, listing agent, high fives all around. Bottle of bub at the club on you later tonight.

  13. Posted by jimbo

    could you follow 109 cornwall. sold in 2014 for $1.08M, and currently for sale for $1.65M. they did little work to it. this part of the richmond seems to be doing really well. 210 2nd ave, a 3bdr condo just sold a few months ago for $1.85M in a 100yr old victorian

    • Posted by SocketSite

      Simply considering 109 Cornwall’s kitchen before and after, not to mention the newly renovated bedroom suite, we’d be hard pressed to consider it a “little [bit of] work,” much less an apples-to-apples sale to track. But the improvements will certainly help raise the neighborhood averages, both in terms of the overall price and price per square foot.

      • Posted by jimbo

        that couldnt be more than $50K. even if so, will be interesting to see if they get near their $600K (60%) increase of past 5 years.

        • Posted by SocketSite

          Based on the work, the overall budget was likely a “little” bit more, at least from a retail perspective.

          Regardless, if improvements were simply valued based on out of pocket costs, neither flipping nor development would yield any returns.

          • Posted by jimbo

            i live in the neighborhood so will be interesting to watch. im not a housing bull and fully expect another 10-15% correction, but the inner richmond appears to be really hot right now. maybe its the fact that the summer fog is less than half what it was just 7 years ago (<20days of fog this summer), and still somewhat less pricey than surrounding presidio heights. this is also 1 block from lake so may be marketed that way

      • Posted by SocketSite

        The resale of 109 Cornwall has closed escrow with a contract price of $1.775 million. But in addition to the aforementioned work, keep in mind that the now three-bedroom home was relisted with an additional 400 square feet of space (now 1,770 in total) for a resale price of $1,003 per square foot.

  14. Posted by SocketSite

    The sale of 17 Laidley closed escrow with a contract price of $652,000. And despite having been listed for $749,000 and subsequently reduced three times, the sale was officially 8.8 percent “over asking” according to all industry stats and aggregate reports.

  15. Posted by SFRealist

    In other words, a profit of $367K on the purchase price. If the seller put $57K (20%) down in 2007, they walk away with a profit of about $600K. Not bad. I suspect they didn’t spend $600K on the remodel.

    • Posted by SocketSite

      Definitely sign us up for one of those mortgages, where payments aren’t required and it doesn’t appear the mortgage balance is required to be paid back upon a sale as well!

      • Posted by SFRealist

        Would you also like to be signed up for a mortgage where one gets an income tax deduction? Or should we sign you up for a zero dollar rent, which is apparently your alternative?

        Seriously. If you’re not on board with this being a big investment win, please show your work.

        • Posted by SocketSite

          While certainly a good investment, your attempt at the leveraged math was particularly egregious and misleading.

          • Posted by SFRealist

            How was it egregious?

            Please, show your work about how this was not a good investment.

          • Posted by SocketSite

            For starters, when attempting to calculate the profit of a leveraged investment, it helps to take into account the cost of said leverage and the need to actually pay it back.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles