Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Just a humble ol' cabin



This photo looks eh, but not so awful. Some little shack in the woods, right? A hunting camp, maybe? Or... a $875,000 house? You be the judge. (By "you" I mean "real estate agent," because actually you don't get a say in the matter.)

22 comments:

Meg said...

Ah, Cole Valley. That explains the....INSANITY! Nice neighborhood, though.

Stephanie said...

Holy overpriced cabin, Batman!

IrreverendAmy said...

Wow, $875K for a "fixer/teardown." In other words, you're paying that much for a piece of land with a house on it that you have to demolish before you can build. Ah, San Francisco.

Still, this might be the most attractive photo possible.

Glory von Hathor said...

It's funny how in the ad they're trying to push the heritage angle - first on the lot, the fireplaces etc, whilst simultaneously pushing the actually-you-are-paying-for-the-land tear-it-down-yeah! angle.

Laura said...

Yeah, but it's historic, innit?

Lisa said...

heh. And it's a "one bedroom fixer/tear-down" as well.

(To be fair though, if you look at the address in Google maps, it's smack in the middle of San Francisco and is bounded by three parks and Haight Ashbury. Probably a beautiful area. No one in their right mind wouldn't tear that house down and spend a bunch on a new one.)

Aron said...

"Don't pass up the unique opportunity to buy the most historic house on this block, and tear it down!"

ege said...

"fixer/teardown"? $875,000? My bum!

Anonymous said...

For $875K, you can spend literally years at the San Francisco Planning Department in a futile attempt to tear that thing down. Historic crapshacks must be left standing at all costs!

Anonymous said...

Are you going to San Francisco? Not me not for those prices!

R2K said...

"rebuild what has been known to be the first house built on this block in 1908."

Hmm what happened just before 1908 in the Bay area...

Lets see *opens history book*

Holly said...

1908 in SF? There's no way the historic society will let you tear that heap down.

Constructively Reasonable said...

Two things

1) You said: "(By "you" I mean "real estate agent," because actually you don't get a say in the matter.)"

I can always offer to pay substantially less. If I and enough other people do that, and thus the house never sells, the price will come down. So we sort of have a say in the matter, by not buying at that price.

We also have a say because we can make fun of the listing on this website.

2) If the building is so historical, then perhaps we should appeal to the state historic landmarks board and get the building certified as a landmark... then you could pay $875k and NOT be able to tear it down! It's the worst of all worlds!

Charlotte said...

Wow, and only $300 per square foot more than the median selling price of other homes in that neighbourhood! A bargain!

The Mef thing said...

Let's all say it together now:
"Overpriced!"

"[insert your participation here]"

Good blog readers.

Carry on.

Karen said...

Ah, good 'ole San Francisco. Why it's a bargain! Some interior pic's would have been nice ... more for us to laugh at.

Anonymous said...

Good gravy, I'm sure San Fran is just a swell place to live, truly. That said? Why not take the nearly 900k to almost any other lovely place in the world, and get a house that isn't considered a scrapeoff? Yikes. Unless the air of San Francisco is known to cure a multitude of diseases simply by living in the vicinity no place is that special and wonderful. Over 900 dollars a square foot in place the buyer isn't even being encouraged to live in?

The fountain of freaking youth had better be concealed under the foundation to even come close to justifying that kind of insanity.

You Suck at Craigslist said...

Assuming you could get a guarantee that you could tear the house down, OR build something else on the lot and renovate the existing historic structure, I'd buy it if I had that kind of money.

Then again, I'd probably buy just about anything in SF if I had that kind of money. Yes, Anonymous, living in SF *is* worth it.

Marytoo said...

Another one of those houses full of long, skinny rooms and strange angles.

Suz said...

No, "You suck at Craigslist", it isn't worth it...
You could never pay me to live anywhere in CA, much less San Francisco

I much prefer my podunk town of 60,000 people and my 4 acre lot and 4000sf. house for about half the price of that...lot...

Marytoo said...

Big AMEN to Suz! My sentiments exactly.

Larkspur said...

So late to this party, I'm sure no one will read this, but OMG, I love Cole Valley. I'm with You Suck at Craigslist: with those specified conditions, I'd buy the place in a second. Yes, you'd have to be richer than God to manage it, but there are lots of richer-than-God-folks out there, even now, and for them, it'd be a solid investment.