Purchased for $1,150,000 as an 800 square foot “tear-down” in March of 2007, on the lot now stands nearly 4,500 square feet of living space with four bedrooms and four and one-half baths spread across two legal units (“Catered to a family with Au Pair…”).
And this evening, Group 41 officially unveils their “H House” (a.k.a. 465 Hoffman).
Floor plans (pdf) and a few renderings already online, we’ll have additional updates and details throughout the day (or perhaps night).
UPDATE: The reality below (versus the rendering above):
And a pre-preview party peek at the master bath, bedroom, and staircase rendered above for the truly plugged-in…
∙ 465 Hoffman Avenue [465hoffman.com]
this ought to be interesting. fyi — don’t bother clicking on the pics. nothing but pics of generic appliances. If 3577 pacific can’t move on the wall and the firehouse still sits; they better price this very carefully.
LOL “Green features…”
Price? (I know, if I have to ask… 🙂 )
I kinda like it.
4
Beautifully done, and as an owner of a property in Noe Valley I’d love to see them sell it at the price point they go out with (I’m guessing it has to be in the 3MM’s) – but I’m skeptical. I don’t think the area supports these types of trophy properties yet (if I’m wrong – great!) – ask the folks who are trying to sell the former Firehouse on 22nd how that’s working out…
Love the fake people renderings! More please.
Ugly with extra stairs to limit accessibility. An architect came up with this? Gakk!
website is rediculous.
why do they post a bunch of pictures of appliances that are surrounded by nothing? or lightfixtures that hang in empty space?
are they telling you “If you live here, you could maybe buy this light”?
or “if you live here, you might or might not have a fridge like this”?
the very few renderings available definitely look like they’re being unique though. That ceiling is very unique, and one pic of a wall looked unique as well, and I couldn’t quite tell what that flooring was supposed to be.
definitely not my style… but it looks like they’re putting a lot of imagination and effort into the styling. Unlike a lot of garbage put out as “modern”, this place does not look like cookie cutter Ikea. I’ll at least give them that!
I’m not sure I understand the layout. It looks like the lower level bedroom is lofted over the Au pair’s living quarters on the bottom level???? Is that lower level bedroom supposed to be for the Au Pair?
It seems odd to give the au pair 2 of the 4 living levels. it seems equally odd to loft somebody ELSE’s bedroom over a live-in Au Pair’s living room.
this place seems more like a duplex than a SFH with Au Pair.
terrible slide show of the fake interiors. what a joke.
this is another example of a “way over designed” house. I mean how many lighting and finish and edgy tricks can they put into one little house? Appears to be designed by a fairly junior architect. it lacks that mature refinement and clarity that only comes from experience.
Being an expert at digital 3d design programs does NOT mean you have any talent.
UPDATE: Before photo added above, price is officially TBD, and we’re working on some additional images (do remember it has yet to be “officially” unveiled).
Looks like the neighbors decided to re-do their house too! Everyone gets in on the action.
Do the neighbors get the benefit of the rendered improvements? Why didn’t they render that lovely wire pole in front too!
What’s the saying about having the nicest home on the block again?
Regarding the glossy white walls in the third photo – if I create a mural with dry erase markers, will it easily wipe off?
I don’t understand … where did the pole go? I’ve got one in front of my place I would love to do the same magic on. Also check out the white chair and white fake books in the slide show. Very eerie.
The slideshow is a joke–it just shows pictures of lamps and appliances! Also looks way overdone for the area.
and I can’t resist:
@ ex-SF-er:
it’s RIDICULOUS. Rediculous is not a word–not even on SS.
Fabulous: a real masterpiece.
I agree with sparky: will easily sell in the 4s.
Will be resold in a few years for less.
i’m gonna guess the only 4-handle buyer will have to be photoshopped in too.
does anyone know the history of why they went from a single unit to a 2-unit building on this site? if that’s true. why bother doing that? won’t it be lived in as a SFH?
More fake people renderings are here. Famous boxer fakes. In case anybody else loves fake rendered people, that is.
http://espn.go.com/sports/boxing/fightcred/main?id=4095154
Can any slick computer person superimpose Ricky Hatton onto the guy on the cell phone? And Manny Pacquiao onto the woman in the front of the house? Thanks in advance.
I am delighted to see this black and white new building. For those who want to live like this, they now have the opportunity. They can even buy appliances and light fixtures as suggested on the website. A total look, a way of life even.
However, as I said in recent days, the people who do this kind of work ought to stay out of mock Tudor buildings on Webster Street, and mansions on Pacific Avenue, and allow that way of life to continue as its own architects and owners intended. There is no lack of people who like old homes to stay old homes.
This is true tolerance.
$4M seems high to me. Any estimates on their breakeven price? There have been only 8 single-family homes sales this year at or above $4M – all of them in D7. (Actually, 6 of the 8 show the list price with an * as the selling price so we don’t really know what they sold for.) As info, the April total sales count for SFH’s and condos stands at 240 compared with 443 for Apr 2008 and 500-600+ in prior recent years.
The hypothetical 20-something owner wearing black/sporting-blue-tie in the picture above has been talking desperately on the cellphone to his creditors for hours….
LOL about green too.
Being “green” is buying a 800sf fixer and keeping it at 800sf, only doing the bare minimum to make it safe and livable. Tons of existing materials were thrown away and with them the carbons they had used. Tons of new materials were needed. Workers had to move themselves and stuff around with trucks. The “green” statement is laughable when viewed from ANY standpoint. That’s just like the Chinese honcho who had underlings spray paint a mountain green.
Being green is NOT using air conditioning. Of course when you’ve got 4000sf+ with plenty of windows, you’re creating your own little personal global warming environment and you need to burn fossil fuels to cool it off! I mean, what’s the average temperature in SF again?
I say it sits still for 6 months at 3.5M. Sees some action at 2.95 after 12, sees some real action at 2.7M in late 2010 and maybe sells at that price. A guy shelling 4M on Hoffman better get his head checked. I’d buy the firehouse instead in a second instead.
Plus we had a debate not long ago on whether Grand View was Noe or not. Hoffman is in the same situation. I used to live not far away but 1 block down.
Are you sure that’s the same address? Neither neighbor’s house is the same as before (did they both tear down and remodel as well?) and the power pole is now gone.
the power pole is now gone
Yeah, I used to have a great bay view from my front porch in this nabe. Great view except for a big ugly utility pole 30 feet away with cut wires dangling and a half open platic box with car batteries (? they looked like car batteries to me ?) exposed. It reminded me of my time in Africa. Lazy penny pinching utilities.
Thanks for the (preliminary) April sales numbers, FSBO. A 40-plus percent YOY sales drop is surprising even to me. I thought the cheap money would start things picking up a little more, and we heard a lot about “more places going into contract.”
Listings seem to be climbing again as well. Public MLS shows 1927 (inc. in-contract), and a lot of new ones today — looks like about 125 in the last 24 hours, and it’s still only about noon. To beat my dead horse, maybe we can get the editor to break the listing and sales numbers down by price segments . . .
I suppose in this economy, I shouldn’t say anything to encourage unemployment, but ENOUGH WITH THE FLASH web stuff!!!
“and it’s still only about noon”
Trip, it’s my understanding that Friday at noon is the cutoff time to be listed on the Tuesday’s brokers’ tour, so by noon, you really have the bulk of that week’s listings.
I say it sits still for 6 months at 3.5M. Sees some action at 2.95 after 12, sees some real action at 2.7M in late 2010 and maybe sells at that price. A guy shelling 4M on Hoffman better get his head checked. I’d buy the firehouse instead in a second instead.
OK, you’re on the record. Rumor is that they’re going to come out at ~4M, suggesting a flat 900 a foot pricing. I think we’ve seen that the best of Noe no longer commands that sort of pricing. Eight hundred a foot is going to be 3.6M, and Noe by and large doesn’t really support that either. But 700 a foot gets 3.15M, and I think that’s doable. This one will be interesting to watch. I and clients of mine passed on this project three different times.
Editor,
Are you going to the party?
(If I was selling this place I’m not sure I’d want to make sure it got on SS, but I guess it’s too late now.)
Wow, so much hate here!
I bet that website was put together a while ago and all those pictures are of elements and appliances that have now been nicely integrated into the house.
I don’t really care for the flash web site, but I do hope that it is updated with real pictures after the unveiling tonight because the renderings have sparked my curiosity.
On the record I am then…
700 a foot is a fair price – for today’s market. But if asking is 900-ish it will probably linger. Yes it’s unique, it’s special and they did a wonderful job building the place (just not very green overall) and all future generations thank them for that. While the seller realizes asking is too high, another few % will have slowly fallen off the table. And if it sits long enough, fair price in 2010 might be closer to 650/sf. Heck, if they played it smart they’ll still make a profit worth the effort. Risk should be rewarded. But it’s not called risk for nothing…
But 700 a foot gets 3.15M, and I think that’s doable. This one will be interesting to watch. I and clients of mine passed on this project three different times.
I concur. It’s still a premium at that price, but there just is not enough new construction and there are people that will pay a premium for New.
Any guess at what they have in the project in terms of capital at risk?
UPDATE: A pre-preview party peek at the master bath, bedroom, and staircase rendered above have been added to our post along with a photograph of the facade.
tipster, didn’t know about the noon rule. But redfin has the number of listings in the last 24 hours up to 151 now. Quite a lot considering there were only 240 sales the entire month of April . . .
Apparently the only color allowed in this house is inside the refrigerator, and how colorful it is!
Oh yes, the green draftsman’s triangles; historic items in the days of CAD. I never thought my old drafting equipment could become architectural accents.
The exterior is cold and prison like, reinforced by the bars on the stairs. I like how tight the crop is on the house. I guess they did not like the un-rendered homes next door. 🙂
I looked at the Google street view — it shows the house in very early phase of construction.
But how out of character with the block. Way over-reaching compared to the neighboring NV cottages.
I’m sure the neighbors hate it. You’d have to be tone-deaf to live here and just arrogant to build it.
Personally I have never understood how on demand hot water is a “green feature”.
Looking at the floor plans its interesting that one of the bedrooms is smaller than the master bath. This place must be tiny.
On-demand hot water heaters are more efficient than standard water heaters. The only thing better are the indirect tanks that work with boilers.
rs,
It’s not tiny, that master bath is just huge. The dimensions are on the floor plan so it’s not guess work. That bathroom is 11×15 not counting the shower or toilet areas.
Nothing like a giant grey concrete slab to warm up the block. The backside of the house has bare concrete siding, which looks especially inviting when it rains and the water leaves soakmarks. The whole thing definitely throws off a cheap ikea vibe.
Is this a competition? A competition for who can come up with the most sarcastic slams? I am sick to death of hearing all the cuts and personal assaults. This is why I only read this rag on a rainy day when I can find absolutely nothing better to do. I pity you sorry, snide, pathetic bast#@^ds who spend countless hours wrapped up in this useless, negative dialogue.
Did you know that of the people who live in San Francisco, only 10% can afford to buy a home here? Congratulations on building a house for the ruling class – you’ve shown yourself to be just like the other legions of lap-dogs to the rich. If you want to do something truly laudable, come up with a well designed home that real people can afford. Otherwise you’re just another cheerleader for the .01% of the population that can afford this kind of excess.
Two years ago you would all be falling over yourselves saying how great this home is, now everyone is jumping on the hate wagon. Would you all rather have the shack that was here before?
I think the design is very nice and the only thing they did wrong is build this residence 3 years too late.
There is still a power pole that dominates the views out of both street side bedroom windows. You can see the bottom half of the pole in the original structure photo. The upper half has a horrendous canister and lots of cables running to and from it creating a major eye sore.
Will San Francisco eventually put all utilities underground the way they are in most cities? Why is this such a long process here compared to other older U.S. cities that went underground decades ago?
[Editor’s Note: We’ve moved the undergrounding discussion to: Stick ‘Em Where The Sun Don’t Shine (And Views Aren’t Obstructed). And now back to 465 Hoffman…]
The original property was $1.15 million for 800 sf. I learned on another recent thread that the possibility of tearing down or enlarging the existing structure has no effect on a property’s sales price. So apparently the original house was worth $1438 psf. The new one is being forecast to go for less (possibly much less) than $800 psf. Guess values have dropped here by over 45%!!
Yes, oddly enough actual tear down permits and plans trump their “possible” cousins when it comes to value premium.
They should tear this place down and build a shack to get a higher per sq foot price. 🙂
there is almost no lending on homes in this price range anymore, so good luck selling this one.
It looks like something out of Modern Decor. Not really my style but It looks more usable and inviting than what was there before.
The only constant is change so if an architect wants to get creative and someone pays for it, why the heck not?
I’m a fan of space, light and functional…this has that.
Hits redfin today for $3.9mm
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/465-Hoffman-Ave-94114/home/1389544
and if you like this one also check out 350 hill around the corner and down the block.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/350-Hill-St-94114/home/1015023
big numbers all around it seems…
Redfin? You really mean SF MLS.
Looks cool.. but dark cold and lifeless like the house from the movie “Gattaca”.
It’s 12:45 pm and I just walked through the place. Stunning, ultra modern inside. Light is just lovely throughout. Yard is concrete & beach sand. Of all bizarre and random finishings to be missing, none of the bathrooms have toilet roll holders. Lots of agents there so far and presumably potential buyers on their way.
Looks like they’re still putting the final touches on a few things – water heater or furnace room, wine cellar, the garage.
[Editor’s Note: Received as a tip, added as a comment.]
In Escrow
Sold: 2,970,000. $675/ft.
Back @ $2,995,000
And now the new house smell is gone. Strange.
Ha…and according to redfin it is $666 per square foot. Coincidence? I think not….