The kitchen has been rearranged a bit and a new red stove (a Bertazzoni we believe) installed since its purchase for $1,630,000 in September of 2006 (new above, old below).
Other than that it’s looking to be a rather “apples to apples” sale in the making for 1461 Sanchez as the single-family Noe Valley Victorian is asking $1,615,000 in 2010.
A show of hands from those who think Noe “peaked” in 2006?
Swapping the fridge and stove positions is work triangle neutral. I wonder what the rational for the change was ? The new red stove didn’t fit in the old spot ? I do like the new kitchen better though assuming that the stainless topped table stays.
Its a big house on a fairly nice block. I hope the sellers manage to not lose too much here.
After browsing Noe on Redfin for a few minutes, I would hazard a guess that this will sell for $1.5 to $1.55M. I wonder what’s the logic driving this type of over pricing in this type of market.
Pretty bad outcome for the seller, although could have been a lot worse. And most likely, will be for the next buyer.
a broker recently said NOE is hot! so that means if you buy it’ll tank. i feel bad for all the home buyers who see prices drop 10% and think “awesome what a deal” since they have been so jaded by past prices.
this is a BALANCE SHEET recession – there will be NO growth in real estate for many years. settle in.
And by the way, i’m a homeowner
I attended a children’s birthday party in this house over 20 years ago…obviously the family that sold this house did not buy or sell it for anything in this price range. They did do the expansion (sq. feet) space that you are highlighting, but not the first kitchen pictured which is very nice as well. I think this house has had at least 4 other owners in this 20 year period. If owners stayed in their houses longer perhaps this whole crazy price thing would stablize. In other words if people could treat their houses like homes and not rentals…but of course people don’t always have a choice…the real problem is of course the major flipping that occured in Noe Valley all these years (particularly since 2000)which has lead to the dirty little secret of some foreclosures in Noe Valley due to a combination of greed and very bad judgement. It is our own little bubble. I think Noe prices peaked in 2007.
put a fork in NOE, IT’S DONE!
(for 2-5 years no growth, then 1-3% growth for another 2-5 years)
I’m curious what the omniscient, “in the trenches” realtors predict for a selling price here?
I’m sure the sellers will be relieved their kitchen has been declared work triangle neutral/slight improvement by the MOD metric. I vastly prefer the new layout if only because the refrigerator looked kind of stupid with the shallow/squat countertop surrounds.
Nice house for almost twice what I want to pay. Buh-bye Noe!
What’s going on with those cabinets over the new stove/old refrigerator? (or are they something other than cabinets?)
Here is a nice Noe sale that closed today at 5% below the mid-2005 price (and “Over Asking!!!”). But since prices did not go up any further after that, we’re only down 5% from peak . . .
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/466-Clipper-St-94114/home/1744167
Swapping the fridge and stove positions is work triangle neutral.
Geometrically, yes. Culinarialy? It’s an improvement. Besides the uninterrupted sweep of open countertop, you make more trips to the stove and sink when cooking than you do to the fridge. The new arrangement involves less walking.
Besides the uninterrupted sweep of open countertop, you make more trips to the stove and sink when cooking than you do to the fridge. The new arrangement involves less walking.
Plus a shorter distance to carry pots full of water to the range, dirty pans from the oven to the sink, etc.
Try carrying a big pot of boiling pasta water from the stove to the sink in the old kitchen, dodging the island work-table, and you’ll understand why the change isn’t really “neutral” but for the better.
I think the 1461 Sanchez owners are hoping another buyer will materialize similar to the one who purchased 1381 Sanchez in December. That newly renovated, more high-end home (4BR/3BA, 2200 sq feet) sold for $1,710,000. 1461 Sanchez has a similar scheme with bedrooms on the sidewalk level. I wouldn’t be surprised if 1461 Sanchez’ owners get their asking price.
Yes, 1381 Sanchez was a shocker of a sale. IMO, the place was kinda crappy. I can’t see it going for less than $1.45, and I could see them getting asking – it depends on their luck!
I am not sure why they made the change.
Whoops ! I misread the photo and thought that the sink was between the fridge and range. Now that I see it on the right side, the swap does indeed make sense.
“A show of hands from those who think Noe “peaked” in 2006?”…
I think you meant to say a show of hands who think real estate peaked in 2006, yes? Or do you just love to hate Noe Valley?
Thanks for writing about the obvious again. You’re like a stock analyst that downgrades a stock after it falls from grace. Any forward looking thoughts????
To be fair, the average hater on here has now embraced 2007 as peak. That’s despite talking about 2007, suring 2007, complete with nihilistic predictions of sales prices, as if it were something out of Cormac McCarthy’s “The Road”/ Sherman’s march to the sea/ the end of the Mayan calendar/ “The Road Warrior” on Van Ness/ etc. As for Noe Valley, it’s over. That’s why a really nice house in Glen Park can potentially grab ~3M to this day.
C’mon, as long as dual-income straight couples want to live and raise their kids in San Francisco, Noe Valley will never be ‘over’.
actually prices are going to depend on interest rates from here on out.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MORTG?cid=114
The change makes for a cleaner line and better food prep area.
The refrigerator interrupts the counter line in kitchen one.
The second kitchen it is off to one side of triangle good place for a cold pantry.
New design leaves more work/prep area area to left and right of the stove, important to anyone who likes to cook.
Pretty stove.
Sold for $1.598 on 5/20.
Market strength in 2010 means losing only 150K + holding costs over 4 years.
But think how much you’d have wasted on rent!
Rent for a house like this = 5000 a month X 12 X 4 = 24OK over four years, at least. Probably more.
Ya know, folks on the rent side of the rent vs. buy debates use some pretty optimistic assumptions for rent costs. We went looking for a dog-friendly, updated 3-BR house on the Peninsula, for example, (not SF but it helps to use real numbers here) and found almost nothing on the West side (of El Camino) Burlingame or San Mateo Park under $3500. Nothing that was habitable, anyway. Sure, sans dog, sans renovations, you could maybe get something in the $2700/mo range.
But why? We were able to buy a move-in 3BR short sale for $850k. Net of tax deductions it is the same price as renting, maybe even a little less*.
And would someone explain why they want to consider principal payments when comparing owners’ holding costs but renters obviously don’t retain any of their rent paid. Anyone want to tackle that one? A fair comparison would be:
interest paid + taxes + insurance net of tax deductions vs. rent.
In our case its a wash, to within a couple hundred bucks a month (below the noise level for me).
* there’s a wrinkle here in that the in-laws provided most of our downpayment (which totaled 20% of purchase price) so the cost to me of that money is $0 (and the opportunity cost for me is also zero since the downpayment money was only available to purchase real estate). That basically makes buying a no-brainer.