Did Mark Zuckerberg Pay $10 Million to Move to the Mission?

When news broke in mid-October that Facebook founder and one-time MDMA user Mark Zuckerberg moved to the Mission District, it stirred quite a bit of debate as to where exactly he moved and what it meant for the neighborhood.  Over the weekend, The Wall Street Journal seemed to unknowingly figure it all out:

A 5,542-square-foot home in San Francisco’s Mission District has sold for $9,999,000, according to public records.  The price could be a record for the increasingly trendy neighborhood, based on a search of the San Francisco Multiple Listing Service’s records for the last 30 years.

The price is breaking new ground,” says real estate agent Dennis Otto of Pacific Union International, who was not involved in the deal.  “It speaks to the desirability of the location.” The location in recent years has gone from being the grittier side of San Francisco to one that is now a favorite with the young tech crowd, as it offers easy access to the freeway connecting the city and Silicon Valley as well as to an ever growing number of artisanal chocolate shops and hipster coffee outlets.

The article doesn't mention the address or Zuckerberg, but does say it was purchased by SFRP LLC. from Cary S. Collins.  Through some rather trivial Googling, it would appear the house is 3450 21st Street (at Dolores), which was originally purchased for $1.2m in 1997 and only estimated to be worth $3.2m by Zillow, meaning the holding company—registered by a lawyer who specializes in forming trusts for rich folks—overpaid by nearly $6.8m for the privilege of quick access to artisanal chocolate.

All this info matches up with the info dropped by SocketSite over the fall, with the exception of a half-block discrepancy in their reported address:

While Zuckerberg does appear to have bought a home in San Francisco, according to a plugged-in source and due diligence, the house in question is actually atop Liberty Hill on the non-Mission side of Dolores. The property was never openly listed for sale, for which Zuckerberg paid a premium, and Zuckerberg's name is not attached to the house.

Okay, so what if was him?  After all, $10 million is nothing to the kid—especially considering he paid double that to shut down complaints about privacy “concerns.”  However, it's less about the man himself and more the trend it signals.  As Curbed put it:

The Mission has already made news for asserting itself as the latest hot 'nabe. It's a bit of a Cinderella story: What was once a lowly stepchild, cowering in the shadow of real estate giants Noe and Castro, has emerged…and suitors are lining up. Earlier this year Redfin predicted the Mission would be among Bay Area locations to witness the steepest home price increases in 2013. […] With “easy access to the freeway connecting the city and Silicon Valley,” plus SF's local tech corporations setting up shop nearby and the full gamut of new shops and eateries (who could forget “gourmet gulch?”), the Mission is officially the hottest neighborhood for residential real estate.

Better lock in those rent-controlled apartments, folks.  It's going to be a brutal year.

Update: A couple of commenters and email tipsters put Zuckerberg safely in Noe/Castro at 3660 21st Street—not the $10M property originally mentioned, but a couple blocks west.  This property was sold for $3M in May (only $1.2M over the asking price) and registered to a Palo Alto lawyer who specializes in aiding corporate execs with estate planning, so all that matches up.

Should this update prove to be true, it makes the record-breaking $9,999,000 sale all the more curious.  Who the hell else threw a bonus $6.8M at a Mission District address?  Is paying over three times the home's value really what it takes for lowly non-Time's Man Of the Year mega-millionaires to score a crash pad these days?

It seems 21st Street is becoming San Francisco's new billionaire's row.  Anyone want to go halvsies on opening a new artisanal chocolate shop?

Update II: It seems Mark bought both houses, because why the hell not?

[WSJ, via Curbed]

Comments (40)

According to the “plugged in” comments over at Socket Site, the address numbers should add up to 15. This adds up to 12.

If people are up in arms about this, what would they rather him do – steal a market-rate 2bd/ba off the market? I’m not competing for housing with anyone spending $10M to buy a home. If for some reason the prior owners couldn’t sell the house when they moved out, it’s not like they would have converted it to $3K/mo. rental units. I’m not sure I’m making my point very concisely, but I’m just trying to say that if Zuck wants to drive the price up slightly for other people in the 8-figure home-purchase market, I really don’t think that will have any impact whatsoever on us regular working schmucks. (And yes, I get that it’s symbolic of housing getting more expensive at every price point, but that’s all it is, a symbol.)

You’re right–none of us were in the market for a $3.2M home–but that hugely-inflated $10M selling price is exactly the point: prices are going through the fucking roof right now. That house sold for 3.125 TIMES it’s market-value. Sure, it was Zuckerberg, and money clearly isn’t an issue to him. But it’s indicative of what’s happening: property owners can’t even possibly ask for enough; it’ll just sell for far more than what they ever thought was reasonable.

If you don’t realize that will trickle down (even more than it already has) to $500k places, rental units, would-be rental units converted to condos etc., I think you’re really missing the point.

Spot on, Kevmo! I think you’re onto something here. There may be a story here about rich tech industry people moving into SF and driving up rent prices.

LOL that’s almost as much overinflation as suckers paid for FB stock at launch.

It didn’t sell for 3.2x its value, it sold for its value—nice houses are routinely selling for $900-$1200 in that neighborhood, and the one cited is spectacular, newly remodeled, with astounding views off the back.

Those of us that have invested in the neighborhood for years and years and years are thrilled it’s finally being recognized for what it is—a great value.

My family’s been here for 30 years, and all you newcomers saying it’s too expensive were just ripping off family’s like mine by saying the Mission was cheap. We’re finally seeing a return, so stop with the hate.

No.

Newly remodeled it might have been, but the site is a construction zone right now!

This type of crap is once again in actually “nice” neighborhoods not far from la Mission as well and yes, a few of them are from facebook. It is causing these greedy landlords, in my case Doctors who care a lot - about THEMSELVES and that’s it! to try to illegally evict tenants so they can sell the house because ya know “you can’t sell a house with tenants in it ” -my landlord 2010.

Anyway, I can not believe the 15 and growing violations these idiots are incurring besides the other costs, just because they are too cheap to hire a lawyer. Seriously, I think rent control is the only reason “real” hard-working people can still live in SF. However, I agree it needs to be modified (wishful thinking). As long as this stupid city continues to build , what is it 5 -“market rate condo” projects along Upper market, you bet i’m gonna do whatever it takes to keep my small, beautiful apartment FOREVER.. To any landlords who are screwed by rent-control, etc, you knew the rules now deal with it ! No Sympathy For YOu ! In my case, I seriously would rather not be dealing with this but like I have heard many times before, “San Francisco is probably the only place where you can be a perfect tenant and still have your landlord all of a sudden try to FUCK YOU. And no mater the outcome in a year at LEAST, it still SUCKS for me and my family, but it is their fault because they did not even try before breaking laws. Now it is just funny seing what they do and laughing.

Many landlords don’t want to be in the rental business any more. That’s what the Ellis Act is for.

I don’t know about other landlords in the Mission, but I do everything I can to keep from breaking the rent control laws.  I’d much rather pay a bunch of money to get tenants out, rather then give it to lawyers. I’ve done it twice, and they all seemed happy to take it - they wanted to move to a cleaner, safer neighborhood. I don’t mind the grit so much, but I wish there were more greenery.

Sigh…

Public records show renovations for 3450 21st Street totaling $125,000 in the past couple months, which includes adding a greenhouse.

Maybe Zuck is planning on making some extra money on the side?

Perhaps he bought it for his mistress, yes?

Doesn’t Jello Biafra own a place around there too?

Jello (eric) owns a place on Castro and 18/17.

People are giving me offers on my building. In the millions. My building is not for sale. It’s crazy out there.

Hahaha…fucking lame-ass name dropper.

And getting crazier…

Given the herd mentality in tech, every Zuckerberg wannabe will be buying real estate here.

Chicken- you’re getting offers because we billionaires want you out of the neighborhood; not because we want your building :p

P.S. Nice soul-patch.

Is Tracy Chapman on Liberty or 21st? Maybe they’re building a secret tunnel so she can sing them to sleep every night?

tracy chapman no longer lives on 21st between Dolores and Guererro.

21st Dolores Is NOT the Mission…gtittier??? Really? FUCK You that’s an insult to long time residents

No, Zuckerberg is at 3660 21st Street.

This must be more to the story. There’s no reason in the world to pay that kind of premium.

Why do you people care so much about what is happening in a neighborhood you’re just guests in yourself? You would love nothing more than to report on “Zuckerberg sightings” like you have in the past to keep this lame “blog” alive

Oh oh or BICYCLE/COFFEE STUFFS! YEAH!

Please, let me buy you a beer for this comment!

SF Feudalism - a small group owns it, while the majority are landless laborers who toil for rent and entertainment money. not really serfs though, since they move away after a few years.

as if this guy paying 3x too much for a house is an indication of the market in general. sure shits expensive but not cause this guy bought a house for way too much on the down low. you are clearly more interested in creating click bait. you should not be making huge generalizations about markets you do not understand.

PS - WHO CARES?!?

Plutocrats out of the Mission!

The new property bubble has a devastating effect on rents….as much so as 10,000 new people moving in with middle class and upper class salaries. Both are what really drive gentrification. Granted a larger young white artistic ‘hip’ boutique population, whether in the east village late 70’s, SOMA and the Mission in the early 80’s makes the ‘gentry’ feel more comfortable and as their ads state, more edgy urbane and cosmopolitan, property speculation is the steamroller coupled with enough people to actually pay $3,000 for a studio or $5 million (near a ‘dangerous area’) for a house. Gentrification is not ‘caused’ by any funny cartoonish white people moving in. If so, explain large great market/ infused, cheap food, little artist boutique areas of Mexico city, Santiago, Barcelona, London, Rome, ect suddenly becoming unaffordable for the lower class, then the working class…then….
If anyone is concerned about working class and middle class people not being able to live in viable mixed urban areas with some semblance of stability, that person should understand that the rich have controlled city development and planning since day one. And now we are faced with another fake bubble, that is fueled by absolutely the same people that fueled the dot com bubble, and the massive crash of 2007. It is USA govt subsidized property speculation. Massive tax write offs not only for leaving rentals empty, but for ellis act evictions. The IRS will let you take $200,000 tax free profit, if you move into a house and then sell it two years later. I saw this happen on three houses just on my block. Three level victorians, perhaps 15 people in each house, evicted…for a two or three person family, that then sold it in two years. It is your government that destroys neighborhoods, from leveling the ‘slum hotels’ in Soma to leveling the beautiful but black and crime ridden Filmore in the 60’s, to splitting Boston neighborhoods, to Chicago…etc. Now they don’t raise a highway overtop you, they subsidize and welcome the top 10% in destroying any chance of you living in a small, though rough, urban area. An influx of working class and middle or upper class young people does not destroy a neighborhood. Rich people do. Landlords do. Politicians do.

I thought he moved next to those guys that do the whole Xmas thing on 21st….I was wondering what the Zuck would think about the whole thing once he saw it, I hope they told him to suck it if he had any issues…

If you know the house you know how special it is. The great room with that amazing view is being remodeled into Mr. Z’s new office. Dr. Z who works in the city will have a much easier commute.

There is an even more interesting back story to this mind-blowing deal. Z bought and paid 3m+ for a new home for the former owner elsewhere in SF as a bonus for vacating the premises very quickly.

That said, I think you should delete any references and/or photos to the all these addresses for their privacy and security. Let them live in peace and not have to worry about gawkers and groupies hanging around.

Don’t you think its a little ironic that you are worrying about Mark Zuckerberg’s privacy when he sold yours?

I am priced out of San Francisco and Berkeley– where am I supposed live? So many people are loosing apts because of the rents increases that the TECH Folks can afford to pay. 20 yrs. in Non-profits and I cannot afford to stay in the SF Bay Area! I am not the only one.

A Zillow estimate does not a value make. Not even close. Referring to Zillow estimates as real values compromises your journalistic integrity and therefore story. Also, 21st between Fair Oaks and Dolores is Liberty Hill and never was “gritty.”

You’re so right!  I remember when I lived at 19th and Lex back in the mid-‘90’s, Liberty Hill seemed out of place with all the beautiful landscaping and lack of security bars (and garbage in the streets).  I always wanted to buy a nice old Victorian there and fix it up, but I had to settle for an Edwardian down by 24th St. and Mission.  Even 10 years ago, Liberty Hill was like another world compared to my part of the Mission .  How many people even go up there?  There are no artisan chocolate shops there, as far as I know.

I don’t know what people see in the mission district. It is dirty, full of litter, lots of crime, and generally a very unappealing place to live. They do have some good restaurants.

Post New Comment