Purchased for $7.500 million in June of 2022, having undergone a “stunning high-quality renovation,” the 3,562-square-foot, four-bedroom home at 2773 Clay Street, across from Alta Plaza Park in the heart of Pacific Heights, returned to the market priced at $7.495 million this past November.
Positioned as the “epitome of modern elegance,” with a floor plan and finishes that “perfectly accommodates today’s lifestyle while preserving the timeless grandeur and spaciousness of classic architecture,” all new systems, and “thoughtful updates throughout,” the resale of 2773 Clay Street has now closed escrow with a contract price of $6.950 million.
And while “$1,951 per square foot!” certainly isn’t cheap, as some might say, it is 7.3 percent ($505,000) cheaper than the $2,106 per square foot the high-end home, in a rather established neighborhood, fetched 20 months ago on an apples-to-apples basis.
Anybody want to share what was spent on the renovations? Obviously the modern interior is no longer congruent with the historic exterior and much work was done.
How many years (decades?) will this time’s “white flight” away from the cities last?
White has fled from this house – or maybe it never gained entry – and I think we’re all the better for it: grey…olive…natural wood…what a glorious display of I don’t-give-a-F*#%-about-marketabilityism!
With regard to the furnishings, I can’t figure out whether the stager saw The Last Black Man in San Francisco and decided to execute something similar to the home depicted in that 2019 movie when it was put on the market or if the production designer for the film was so inured to the usual patters with these kinds of houses that he or she essentially predicted this outcome.
All except for the wood veneer work in the kitchen. Clearly, that contractor had some strongly-held aesthetic ideas that didn’t mesh well with the rest of the house in either form.
Yeah, those curved kitchen cabinets cost real money, even for this neighborhood. Definitely a specific point of view.
“And while “$1,951 per square foot!” certainly isn’t cheap, it is 7.3 percent ($505,000) cheaper”
One hates to quibble about semantics – but insofar as the Site oft gives evidence of being fussy that way, maybe it isn’t a quibble – but if it isn’t “cheap”, then it cant be ‘cheaper“; it’s “less expensive” or maybe “less-not-inexpensive.”
The grammar isn’t making this very clear. The renovation happened before the June 2022 purchase, no?
From the property offering statement:
Bold and elegant rebuild of c.1891 Victorian, with thoughtful updates and timeless finishes.
Rebuild includes new kitchen and baths, along with new mechanicals (heat, plumbing, electrical), new roof, and new foundation.
If you go out to The City’s Dept. of Building Inspection Permit Tracking System, you’ll find several permits over the past decades, but the one most recent and relevant to BobN’s question appears to have had it’s work completed and approved circa 2017:
“201512185514 REMODEL KITCHEN AND THREE BATHROOMS, RECONFIGURE GROUND FLOOR AND SMALL MODIFICATION TO FLOOR PLAN ON 2ND FLOOR. NO WORK ON FRONT FACADE, NO EXPANSION OF BUILDING FOOT PRINT. INTERIOR DEMO LESS THAN 75%.”
There was also some work described as “PARTIAL FOUNDATION REPLACEMENT & STRUCTURAL AUGMENTATION”, but nothing more recent than 2017 that I can see.
Thanks!
That’s correct.
Interesting placement of the stairway. I wonder if that was originally so far back or if it got moved.