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.

Recent Articles

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

            propertymap.sfplanning.org/

      • 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?

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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