The “one-of-a-kind” view home at 352 Cumberland Street, which totals around 2,800 square feet of space, including two vacant studio units which front the street, and occupies a 2,850-square-foot parcel on “one of the most coveted blocks in Dolores Heights,” a block and a half from Dolores Park, was purchased for $3.75 million in September of 2014.

Having returned to the market listed for $3.75 million in January of this year, 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 was reduced to $3.25 million in February.

And having been re-listed anew with an official “1” day on the market and a further reduced list price of $2.995 million in September, the re-sale of the Dolores Heights property has just closed escrow with a contract price of $2.7 million, representing a 28 percent drop in value since third quarter of 2014 on an apples-to-apples basis.

At the same time, the Dolores Heights home at 4085 20th Street, which was reduced below its 2015 price two months ago, has yet to record a sale.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by curmudgeon

    I remember this property sale specifically, as it seemed like a crazy price at the time. Enthusiastic buyers do get it very wrong sometimes, especially in bubbly periods. I think that is PART of the story of what happened here.

  2. Posted by markets_arent_a_panacea

    man that is a huge hit. This one, although i dont know the issue with the tenants moving in or out and when the upgrades happened, looks like it has a loss of about 10% value from 2016.

    • Posted by Chris

      639-41 35th Ave. was originally bought vacant in 2015 for $1.48m. It was upgraded and flipped in 2016 for $2.175m. So this isn’t really a good example since the buyer decided to fill the building up again with tenants, although at market rates.

  3. Posted by markets_arent_a_panacea

    yeah but I personally wouldn’t think they would have to sell it at a loss even with tenants. But i could be totally off on that assumption, but apparently, neither did the sellers when the asking price was 2.2 million.

  4. Posted by tipster

    So the sellers are all giving up and throwing in the towel.

    But don’t feel bad, click the name link for a happy story at 2867 Clay St. where the sellers sold for more than they paid. Just sold for 2.2M, and the sellers paid only 2.1M — in July of 2013! Of course, remove the realtor commissions and transfer taxes, and even 2013 sellers are losing money.

    I guess just about everyone “overpaid”.

  5. Posted by around1905

    Smart money in this town gets rid of tenants and sells places like this as tic units.

    • Posted by bilgers

      Legacy tenants with rents set decades ago are a big value hit. Getting tenants in with post 2016 market rents shouldn’t be a problem. The forecast for rents isn’t really that hot either. Rent control hurts more at the bottom of a cycle. At the top of the cycle you aren’t giving up much.

    • Posted by SocketSite

      The property was purchased, and sold, without any tenants to displace.

  6. Posted by MyOddCommentHandle

    Instead of a garage, I’d rather have a raggedy palm tree.

    Said no one ever.

    • Posted by anon2.5

      Yup, there is ample street parking in that area. Sometimes, the entire block is empty and for the taking.

    • Posted by Miraloma Man

      I would.

  7. Posted by rc

    Connected to the repo market blow up?

    • Posted by NoeEnvy

      No chance! Why would the repo market turmoil affect SF real estate values??

  8. Posted by Philip

    At least they didn’t ruin the exterior.

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles