As we outlined last month, the “striking and sophisticated” four-bedroom Forest Hill home at 369 Pacheco Street, “the perfect oasis in the middle of the city,” returned to the market priced at $3.195 million three months ago, in anticipation of an “over asking” offer having been purchased for $3.3 million in October of 2021.
Featuring a classic sunken living room, carved wood ceilings, leaded glass windows, a formal dining room, a breakfast room and kitchen that open to a patio and garden, a two-car garage, and an underdeveloped attic that isn’t included in the home’s 3,211 square feet of finished living space, the list price for 369 Pacheco was reduced to $2.998 million in November.
And the resale of the single-family home in a classic San Francisco neighborhood has now closed escrow with a contract price of $2.975 million, which is officially “within 1 percent of asking!” according to all industry stats and aggregate reports but down 9.8 percent on an apples-to-apples basis. And yes, the frequently misreported index for “San Francisco” home values is “still up!” a (1) percent over the same period of time.
The sizable lower level of this place could make for some serious cash flow as an in-law unit. From the floor plans, there’s a separate entrance on the left side of the house. That would be a luxurious in-law unit. You’d need to move the W/D upstairs, which seems doable. The main unit would still have three floors of living space when you consider the attic. Heck, the plumbing might be pricey to install, but you could make a second in-law unit replacing the garage with a 300 square foot studio. There’s still two car parking in the driveway.
You’d charge your in-laws rent?
I think the real question is whether/not he’d charge a cleaning deposit.
🙂
Once you rent out that space as a separate unit you will have turned a SFR into a two unit building. As such the whole building is then subject to the San Francisco rent ordinance forever, including the new vacancy tax if your tenant eventually leaves.
Wait, you think Panhandle Pro is describing a scenario where the owner actually obeys local regulations? You sweet summer child!
I think it’s obvious that the hypothetical being described above is to put the newly-created “in-law unit” on AirBnB, VRBO or something similar. And when the regulations around short-term rental get too much for the owner to bear, putting it up on an Airbnb Alternative black market.
Credit to soccermom for guessing a trading price only 0.8 percent different from the actual selling price.
Selling for only a 9.8 percent decrease from a pandemic-era squeeze price is probably the best that could have happened given the short term hold. Well played, Mr. or Ms. Flipper!
I can tell you with 100% certainty that this wasn’t a flipper.
Going up 30 plus steps to your front door may be typical of multi-unit living, but seems excessive for a single family home.
Don’t you love our media lying to us to generate that drama and get those clicks. Keep it up SS!
The property did not trade 10% down. That’s an absolute lie, and fact. If you look up the purchase history, it was purchased previously at 2,998,000. So it’s basically a net neutral. (not subtracting 5% realtor fes etc.)
Just because people list properties with a fictional number, doesn’t mean it’s actually down “10%” when it trades. The sellers were just looking to make a bit of money or break even.
Do I list a condo for 10m dollars and sell it for 1m and it trades down 90%? Right…
Date Event Price Price/Sqft Source
01/29/2024 Sold $2,975,000 $927 SanFrancisco
01/09/2024 Relisted $2,998,000 $934 SanFrancisco
12/23/2023 Listing Removed $2,998,000 $934 SanFrancisco
11/15/2023 Price Changed $2,998,000 $934 SanFrancisco
10/13/2023 Listed $3,195,000 $995 SanFrancisco
10/13/2021 Sold $3,300,000 $1,023 SanFrancisco
What date did a sale at $2.998 million close?
Looking at the history on realtor dot com, the only place I can see the number you’re referencing is where the asking price was changed to that level in mid-November 2023. The last sale is called out as occurring in October of 2021 for $3.3 million, as described in the first ‘graph above. There’s always the possibility that the property history one of us is looking at suffers from a data entry error. But the listing on Zillow indicates the same thing.
While we couldn’t care less about clicks, we do care about accuracy and the actual trends which others tend to (dis)miss. Speaking of which, would you care to try again?
If you can afford to live in Forest Hill, you don’t want/need a tenant-unless it’s your boomerang kid.