What $2 million gets you in San Francisco

[Rogar]

San Francisco is the only city I have visited where I felt totally unsafe. Did not feel that way in NYC, Bangkok, Mexico City, Chicago, etc. But SF scared me and this was a long time ago. Used to love it. Was there for weeks in the 70s where the cable cars were actually used for commuting to work and Union Square was a safe place to sit and have lunch.

I know of people who claim there is an exodus of people from San Fran due to the large homeless populations and lack of their control by local authorities. No idea if that is really the case, but I could get that impression from social media. My cousin's son lives there and paid $3.5 million for a house that might have cost $750K here at the time, judging from photos. He has a high paying job in finance.

[LDAHL]

I understand Mayor Breed has abandoned her defund-the-police policies in favor of a Dirty Harry law-and-order position. Maybe there’s something to say for the old mugged by reality adage.

[Teacher Terry]

Californians are flooding into Reno but not because of the homeless people. They come to retire because it’s so much cheaper but they are driving our prices higher in many areas. In turn our homeless population is growing. I liked San Francisco much better 25 years ago. I imagine when you live there you just stay out of the tourist areas which probably cuts down on your exposure.

[jp1]

The San Francisco house is perfectly fine structurally. My God it is really nice inside! It has an original Victorian door original floors original plaster and original woodwork.

Our close friends lived in a kitchen that looked very much like that for more than a decade.


The absence or presence of finishes does not indicate in any way structural soundness.

Nobody spending $2m on a house is going to live in it if it looks like this does. And no one would live in it like that has anywhere near the money to pay that much.

[LDAHL]

I know any number of people who overextended themselves buying a place who then needed to skimp on what went into it.

[jp1]

If this purchaser's budget is strained from the purchase then they made a bad decision because there are much better houses available, even in san francisco, for $2M.

Like this one just a few blocks away in the same neighborhood.

https://www.realtor.com/realestatean...0-98421#photo0

[jp1]

If this purchaser's budget is strained from the purchase then they made a bad decision because there are much better houses available, even in san francisco, for $2M.

Like this one just a few blocks away in the same neighborhood.

https://www.realtor.com/realestatean...0-98421#photo0

Or this one which is bigger but not in quite as perfect of a neighborhood. It doesn't show that it sold in 2019 but based on the property tax jump a flipper had to have bought it for around 500,000 in 2019 and fixed it up.

https://www.realtor.com/realestatean...-55420#photo12

[iris lilies]

Nobody spending $2m on a house is going to live in it if it looks like this does. And no one would live in it like that has anywhere near the money to pay that much.

I have no idea about the San Francisco real estate market other than things are super expensive, so I cannot say if they overpaid. Probably they did.

People lived in houses in that condition in my neighborhood, but of course we don’t pay $2 million. The early pioneers here paid more like $2000.

[jp1]

If this house was cheap, even by San Francisco standards, it would make sense. Even $600 or $700k wouldn’t be out of line. It’s got decent sized rooms and with a lot of work it could be nice. But unless they plan to do a MEGA renovation and expansion there’s just no way they can recoup their money anytime soon. And even then it seems doubtful.