1409 Sanchez As Currently Is (www.SocketSite)
As 1409 Sanchez looks today and as is proposed for a new two-unit building (both 2 bedrooms and 2.5 baths) with “plans & demolition set to have final approval on 2/14/09.”
1409 Sanchez: Plan
Asking $1,250,000 in its current state but “plans/fees & permits included w/ purchase.” Again, assuming they’re approved. And yes, sold in December of 2005 for $868,000 and then again in September of 2008 for $875,000 (having been briefly in contract last January when listed for $1,100,000 but subsequently reduced to $799,500 in April).
New permits, no apples.
∙ Listing: 1409 Sanchez (2/1) – $1,250,000 [MLS]
A Total Noe Fixer/Tear-Down (For A Little Less Than Two Years Ago?) [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by 137 DOM

    Too bad you can only post under one name. I’d love doing the 1 DOM – 2 DOM … 259 DOM … 784 DOM gimmick for this arrogant flipper.

  2. Posted by anon

    Yeah, what a shame. You bring so much insight to the table with your useless posts.

  3. Posted by clueless newb

    Hey all –
    Forgive (and please cure) my ignorance here… but it would appear (?) that the seller is implying the act of (almost) getting permits for expansion increased the value of the building by over 50% (vs. the April ask). Are permits really that expensive to get and that valuable? Or is this person simply delusional?

  4. Posted by 137 DOM

    clueless newb,
    Yes, the seller wants to be paid for 1 – his aquaintance with a few probably good professionals (valuable), 2 – His time spent through the hassle, 3 – His expenses
    My opinion: it’s an investor who is seeing the winds turn and wants to stay ahead of the market (bailing out before the train hits him).
    I think he shoud try and sell at his buy price plus costs instead of doing the “in-your-face” gimmick that worked so well 2 years ago. Sell fast or be screwed up forever.
    There’s sweat equity to be unlocked in this property. But I don’t know if it makes sense at this price.

  5. Posted by Geo

    Also depends on how much the seller spent on the asbestos/lead abatement which appears to have been completed…

  6. Posted by 137 DOM

    OK. I take it back. He’s not an arrogant flipper if he took some asbestos out of his own pocket.
    Now, about the price…

  7. Posted by Miles

    Yeah, good luck with this one – land and construction financing for small projects like this has been severely curtailed.

  8. Posted by nowonderitcostssomuchhere

    Delusional. Permits are a pain to get in this town but it doesn’t justify a $450K premium! Our ‘journey’ took another 4.5 months after our 311 expired – and we had no funky engineering and no neighbors objecting. I imagine we’ll see some pricechopping here soon!

  9. Posted by EH

    Color me rube, but why would the owner do all the exterior painting and asbestos/lead abatement for something that is supposedly going to be sold as a permitted teardown?

  10. Posted by nowonderitcostssomuchhere

    First Republic still does financing for these deals. Citibank will too (but they had some ridiculous capital requirements 6 months ago – hopefully that’s changed).

  11. Posted by unearthly

    Citigroup is barely alive; they won’t be making too home loans in the SF/Bay Area market.

  12. Posted by noearch

    That’s a huge premium to pay for “plans/permits and fees”..assuming it will receive full approval.
    From my experience arch and engineering plans should cost about $75k, and permits about $25k..add about $15k for architects construction administration fees. That’s more realistic.
    My biggest complaint is the totally bland, UGLY, boring, pedestrian, dull facade that is being shown. What a piece of bureaucratic design crap. It doesnt have to be false Edwardian, it doesnt have to have bay windows; it doesnt have to pretend to be “old”.
    But I suspect it makes the Planning Dept. very happy, and will satisfy the out of control design NIMBY’s that slither around Noe Valley always on the lookout to fight good, fresh, contemporary design.

  13. Posted by EH

    I do note that the mockup of the NEW BUILDING did see to the detail of putting vegetation between the garage and front door. It may just be a vote for the informal (and possibly code/DPW-contravening?) Planter Alley that the residents on that stretch of block seem to be trying to institute.

  14. Posted by 137 DOM

    why would the owner do all the exterior painting and asbestos/lead abatement for something that is supposedly going to be sold as a permitted teardown?
    I believe you are not allowed to dump asbestos into a landfill. If you tear down a place with asbestos, good luck on sorting out the bad stuff. You can say you could do the removal during the tear down, but then how would you go through the necessary inspection process? I think this is why it is done beforehand. That way there’s less chance someone will cut corners trying to save a bundle.

  15. Posted by unearthly

    The the current property was purchased at peak pricing, closing right before the DOW dropped another 30%. I thought the trick of getting plans that no one wants and charging a premium was dead.
    Any thoughts on how much the 2/2.5 units would sell for in the current climate, $800k? How much would it cost to build this place assuming the current plans and permits are used?

  16. Posted by LMRiM

    That was my thinking exactly, unearthly. I sort of think that by the time a 2-unit like that picture is done, the whole building will be worth around $1,250,000.

  17. Posted by noearch

    I think actual hard construction costs will be about $300/sf. This is not “high end” but appropriate for Noe Valley. You maybe able to build it for $275/sf, but that would be very cheap finishes and materials, which will affect your selling price and the buyer type.
    So: 3775 sf x $300/sf comes to about $1.13m.

  18. Posted by EH

    Oh, and by the way the house on the right in the picture still has their Christmas crap up. Keep that in mind when bidding on this house. 😉

  19. Posted by EBGuy

    Oh, and by the way the house on the right in the picture still has their Christmas crap up.
    Uhhh… those look like red, white and blue buntings. It is now safe to be patriotic and left-leaning; welcome to the new San Francisco.

  20. Posted by ex SF-er

    not exciting, but it looks a lot better than the thing that’s there now. it also fits in better at that height… more consistent across the 3 buildings.
    it looks like it could easily be “mediterrane-ified” or “Spanish-ified” if one so chose.
    This is not “high end” but appropriate for Noe Valley.
    I thought Noe was high end? wouldn’t high end be more appropriate? (serious question not snark).

  21. Posted by noearch

    I was referring to my opinion of proposed construction costs. $300/sf is not high end; decent quality but not luxury.
    I would not call this part of Noe on Sanchez st. high end.
    Hopefully the exterior design will improve GREATLY during the review process; and hopefully it will not be ____-ified into any false historicist style.

  22. Posted by EH

    EBGuy: Try visiting it at night. They did take the tree down Sunday (Monday?), which was nice.
    And noearch is right, I’ve lived right around here for 15 years and I call it the Noe Ghetto. Much higher density and clapboard apartment buildings than there are north of, say, 26th. Then again I consider O’Greenbaums to be effectively the Mission, so I might just be a lowbrow snob.

  23. Posted by REpornaddict

    One question regarding Noe – so not totally off topic..
    The 3 TICs that were featured on this site on Church or Sanchez at around $1.3m each..I think one closed but what happened to the other two – I can’t see them on the MLS now.

  24. Posted by 44yo hipster

    Yea, this guy is going to get his ass handed to him…that is 2007 pricing, where any decent SF contractor could get a construction loan. But now almost impossible
    Noearch- one thing you forgot on the costs- 3 yrs holding~$200k.
    Those units are probably worth $850k each, so unless youre building this thing in mexico for sub $150 per sq ft, this thing aint happening. Sorry charlie.

  25. Posted by 44yo hipster

    One more thang…agree w/noearch…that design is totally fugly & straight out of the planning dept playbook.

  26. Posted by pC-sparky

    “…that is 2007 pricing, where any decent SF contractor could get a construction loan. But now almost impossible”. That’s not true I was able to get a purchase and construction loan for a remodel that I haven’t done the drawings for yet. Loans are getting easier to come by, I also coordinated a construction loan for a client.
    The 2007 pricing part is dead on. Priced to be impossible to make money; break even number is $2.5M or so. Ahh the Noe fixer.

  27. Posted by noearch

    yea, I agree back: it’s a piece of crap design..
    and prob wont get built anytime soon, given the cost of construction. sorry, I wasnt thinking bout the holding costs (not really my area) but you’re right.

  28. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    Those units are probably worth $850k each
    Where are you seeing new construction in Noe selling at $450/sq ft?

  29. Posted by 44yo hipster

    sparky- ru goig thru bank of marin?
    At any rate, it is certainly not easy getting constr$$ today w/o previous bank relationship, solid track record and serious reserves. My point was that it was much much easier getting constr $$ prior to august 2007. Dont u ahree?
    As for my $850k estmate/unit,i’m basimg that on the 2/2.5 config. Their sq ft of 3750 does mot make sense. Maybe inc garage. But if the 3/2’s are now struggling to break $1 mil, these things 8-12 months from now may only fetch $850. Thats my rationale.

  30. Posted by unearthly

    4077 A 23rd St is a remodeled 3/2 selling for $1.1M or $564/sqft; someone offering $1M could close tommorow ($500/sqft). The POS 2/2’s shown above will sell for less per sqft.

  31. Posted by auden

    4077 A 23rd street is not a great comp for a condo like the ones proposed above. First off, its a TIC, second, its a shack in the backyard of a 2/2 with zero yard or views [unless you count the neighbor’s backyard as a view]. Nice interior finishes, but its a property that was really overpriced coming out of the gate (the 2 front units, more appropriately priced, sold very quickly last year), and now is suffering the slow death that many properties with unfixable drawbacks are now experiencing…

  32. Posted by Geo

    price reduced to $1.199…

  33. Posted by LMRiM

    1409 Sanchez is now “price improved” down to $970K:

  34. Posted by Elan Hahn

    Both planted areas and the trees in front of the properties adjacent to 1409 Sanchez St. were fully permitted, inspected, and approved by the Dept. of Urban Forestry.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles