Bernal Heights fixer upper! Just $449,000!
Bernal Heights Real Estate: 339 Crescent Ave at home-SanFrancisco.com
339 Crescent Ave
2 Bedrooms1 Bath
approx 750 Sq ft$449,000
Look at the price.Contractor’s special. Located on a level 25×100 RH-2 lot. This is a fixer not for the faint of heart. Needs extensive renovation with plenty of deferred maintenance. This is a tremendous opportunity for handy person or the savvy developer. Currently occupied but will be delivered vacant. Please make appointment. Owner reserve the right to accept or reject any or all offers.
Listing firm: Smith R.E., Michael (MLS Only); Listing agent: Michael R Smith NM.
Burbed reader Mia wanted to share this with everyone. Sure it might collapse, but just think, if it does, you instantly get a lot where you can build 2 new homes. Spend a few bucks more and boom - you’ve got $2-3 million dollars worth of real estate.
Or, I suppose, you could just clean this unit up a little and live in it. You might even be able to write a book and get a deal out of it: “Falling down in Bernal Heights - a year of instant equity”.
I’m telling yah, at $449,000, this is yet another clear sign that the bottom has been reached. Just think of all the possibilities.
Frankly, I’m surprised Mia didn’t snap this up for herself - but thanks for sharing Mia!
August 12th, 2008 at 6:10 am
Bring your own bulldozer. Are you sure this is not located in your favorite ghetto, East Palo Alto?
August 12th, 2008 at 6:31 am
The best part is that it is currently occupied. WTH. The windows are boarded up. Who is the tenant? Dracula?
August 12th, 2008 at 7:06 am
“Bring your own bulldozer”
I don’t think you’d even need a bulldozer. Just give it a good shove.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:31 am
That thing is so weird! It must have been a store at some point in its life. It looks out of place too because the two houses next to it are pristine, and obviously owned by somewhat well-off people. Looks like a perfect opportunity to shove it over and roll in a double-wide!
August 12th, 2008 at 8:39 am
In this same vein also see 139 Leese St: http://www.trulia.com/property/1066387068-139-Leese-St-San-Francisco-CA-94110
August 12th, 2008 at 8:57 am
From Calculatedrisk, on high-end foreclosures –
They include five properties each in La Jolla and Rancho Santa Fe, four in Carmel Valley, two each in Del Mar and Encinitas and one each in Bonita, downtown San Diego, Jamul, Point Loma and Poway.
The homes were purchased between August 1997 and December 2006 with prices from $635,000 to $7,450,000, according to county records.
A check of addresses, court records and employment data revealed that the owners included business executives, real estate experts, partnerships, a teacher and others. Most could not be reached, and none would speak on the record.
When I spoke at the Inman Real Estate conference last month, I suggested that real estate agents should expect increasing foreclosures in high end areas. As I’ve previous mentioned, my comments were greeted with incredulity.
But I think this will be the trend. The next wave of defaults will be from Alt-A loans, and Alt-A defaults will hit the mid to high end areas hard.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:44 am
A condemned house is more valuable in SF than a horible but historic you’ll have to fight with the planning commission on. The big issue here is the bad location. More closer to bernal park and mix in some views, then you’re talking…
August 12th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Wowsers!!!
Even for burbed standards this gem wins a medal position on the P.O. S. event.
It looks like if you slam the door a bit too hard the whole thing would crumble. So yeah, if you can get insurance for it maybe you can make some instant equity.
“tremendous opportunity not for the faint hearted” ya betcha
August 12th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Owners reserve the right to accept or reject any or all offers?
Um…… duh?
The picture is hilarious. It’s like someone was driving out playing “which one doesn’t belong” and found this house.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:16 am
>>Owners reserve the right to accept or reject any or all offers?
What this means is, the property is intentionally priced below market to encourage overbids. In the event someone offers him just the asking price, he reserves to right to refuse the offer.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Of course, because otherwise an owner would be forced to accept an offer…
August 12th, 2008 at 11:40 am
“Level lot”
August 12th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
the only tiny spot of good news about this place is that usually houses this old are constructed of redwood out here, and redwood is immune to termites (almost). The roof planks are likely not redwood and look to be falling apart (because roofs are rebuilt every so often) but I’ll bet the structure is more solid than you all think. I’ve seen some crack houses that were pressure washed and repainted with amazing results. The key is if it is redwood.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
This thing screams METH LAB!! WAH DEAL…
August 12th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Also let’s not forget this is THE ROCK, Bernal Heights. The one place in SF immune from earthquakes. If hell breaks loose, would you rather live in a just-crumbled fancy mansion, or in an old almost-crumbled-but-still-standing “fixer-upper?”
August 12th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
“One trouble spot shown by Zillow’s figures is that more than half of the people who bought Bay Area homes in 2005 and 2006 are under water, owing more than their home is worth. Of people who bought in 2007, there are 41.1 percent who are under water.”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/11/BULK1293VV.DTL
August 12th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
The article blames worldwide credit crunch on US home prices? That’s pretty funny. Nevermind that many countries such as London, Spain, France, Australia saw just as high of a run-up, or that the real cause of credit crunch is mortgage loan delinquencies, with volatile home prices a consequence of lending practices, not a cause.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Check out similar article in Bloomberg, mention’s Zillow’s data and says:
- 90% of homes with mortgages are underwater in Stockton, Modesto, Merced and Vallejo-Fairfield.
- 80% underwater in Inland Empire (Riverside-San Bernardino), Bakersfield, Yuba City, El Centro and Madera
At some point this will slop into the RBA. It may require several levels of connect-the-dots but it will hurt.
On today’s featured house, wowza. If it isn’t Dracula living there, my vote is for a grow house (weed). Oh wait, do they still have electricity?
August 12th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
@ Lionel, I would not have thought this would be the case with 2005 buyers?… 50% is a lot, that could spell big trouble for option arms?
August 12th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
on Lionel’s (#16) Zillow-related quote:
1) If Zillow says half are underwater, the actual is probably higher. (Zillow tends to overestimate more than under.
2) It appears to assume that a home worth less now than in 2005 or 2006 is automatically worth less than the mortgage on it. BAD assumption, especially in “move up” neighborhoods.
Whatever, hang on, it’s going to be a scary ride.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
I am sure neighbors are paying $50K each to get rid of this property. So, overall $449K + $50K + $50K = $559K.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Sacramento is 90% down, that means the bay area is destined to fall? Since when? You do realize that all through the 90s, places like Sacto and Roseville had houses valued at ONE QUARTER of bay area values, and in the housing bubble those same houses ran up to almost San Jose prices? There is nothing stopping those from going back from whence they came.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Another laughable listing. Ever so glad to be a renter. So much fun to watch fools drown, and right now, the water is swamping the beach. Can’t buy a better front row seat. Quick, grab this one and just wait for the tide to take you right into bankruptcy before you can yell for help!
August 12th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Man, I feel really sorry for the renter living there now! D’you suppose the new owner will live there him/herself?
August 12th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
You do realize that all through the 90s, places like Sacto and Roseville had houses valued at ONE QUARTER of bay area values, and in the housing bubble those same houses ran up to almost San Jose prices?
————
Hmmmm. So there is a “bubble”!
August 12th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
BTW, there is no interior picture. I think the agent was scared to enter inside and take pictures.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:02 am
People, you are all mean and misguided. The owner knew very well it’s not wise to have the best-looking house on the block. So conversely, having the worst-looking house ensures that the neighborhood is leveraged to the hilt, as it should be. Watch and learn folks, and cry as untold equity is realized on a pen’s stroke.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:12 am
This owner is a smart person I tell ya. “have the right to accept or reject all offers”. Yes I dare ya! Give me a bad offer and I will Eat Your Heart Out! I think the realtor missed that the owner also belongs to a gun club.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Currently occupied by who? What? A homeless or a cat? I think it is pretty safe for a mouse, and it is a heaven for cockroaches and spiders.
August 13th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Oh yeah, that “right to accept or reject all offers” business… doesn’t the standard contract with the real estate agent say that the seller has to pay the agent’s commission if an offer at the asking price is received? Seller may refuse to accept a valid offer, but how is he going to welch out of paying the agent?
August 13th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
There are still protected classes, and this is California. I don’t think the seller can choose not to sell to a gay couple, a specific racial minority, or a retired person because of their age, or women, at least not legally anyway.
They may have also amended the agreement with their agent, or they may have been dumb and not noticed.
September 18th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Currently listed at $399,000.