Purchased for $1,375,000 in March of 2017, which was “over asking!” in “hot hot hot” Bernal Heights, despite having been listed for $1,550,000 in April of 2016, prior to being reduced and touting an appraisal for $1,818,000, the sleek three-bedroom home at 519 Nevada Street, which was was taken down to the studs, expanded, and remodeled in 2016, returned to the market priced at $1,499,999 in May of 2021, a sale at which would have represented total appreciation of 9.1 percent from 2017 to 2021 or roughly 1.6 percent per year for the single-family home.

Reduced to $1,499,999 after a few weeks on the market and then to $1,399,999 after another week, the 1,636-square-foot home was then offered for rent $6,000 a month in June of 2021 and withdrawn from the MLS.

Last week, the “value-oriented home” at 519 Nevada Street returned to the market listed for $1,375,000, a sale at which would represent net appreciation of 0.0 percent over the past six years on an apples-to-apples basis. If you think you know the market for Bernal Heights and remodeled single-family starter homes, “with the price tag of a condo,” now’s the time to tell. Keep in mind that the widely misreported index for San Francisco home values is “still up 49 percent!” over the same period of time, having dropped 11 percent over the past year.

8 thoughts on “Hot Bernal Heights Home Drops to Its 2017 Price”
  1. This is another example of what I believe commenter Jeffrey Baker said a few weeks ago: this should have been a demolition rather than a meh flip. What an odd, low-slung building. It should have been demolished and made into a nice two-unit condo building that more fully took advantage of the lot. I get that Planning doesn’t want SF to become modern McMansions only. But, take advantage of the lot and make a series of 2-3 unit full floor flats. More residents, more property taxes, and yes developers make more money too. Everyone wins.

    1. Quite right. The missing 2nd and 3rd flat, or a 2nd flat and 2 more apartments, or 4 more apartments, is a real shame. Also shameful that anyone took this down to the studs but still ended up with an untrimmed white box, bargain-bin recessed lights and vents in the ceiling.

    2. The flip went fine for the flipper I think. The current owner liked it enough to by it for 1.375M. The lot is a 25×70 RH-1 lot so when the “flipper” did this in 2016 they were not going to get a permit for building more units. “Don’t hate the player, hate the game”, socketsite commenter Ice-T once said.

    3. TBH i hate everyone on this site but what you wrote sounds great and it’s a shame we aren’t making the most of what we have.

      1. sparky-b’s right that the rules in effect in 2016 were substantially different from today and if the flipper had to do it over again with the current rules, there’d likely be at least one more unit on this lot, but you really need to rethink and reevaluate what you think of as “we”.
        There’s a reason that plutocrats like Steve Mnuchin say all the time we live in a “capitalist society”. “We” aren’t in a position to maximize the number of units on this lot, “we” have to rely on the decisions of the (previous) owner, and if he or she doesn’t want to maximize the number of units, other than cajoling from planning, there’s nothing “we” can do about it.

  2. The location is super tough.

    In 2017, I understand an appeal if someone is commuting south, but so few do that anymore(relatively speaking).

    Also, if you’re competing against condos there is probably better value other places.

Leave a Reply

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