A year after being razed, construction of the new 1409 Sanchez is complete and the “two-unit” building has hit the market listed for $2,575,000 and looking a heck of a lot better than either what was there before or was at one time rendered.
There are now five bedrooms and five and one-half baths between the two legal units, which also happen to be listed as a single 3,370 square foot home as well.
UPDATE: The facade image from the listing (and a sunnier day):
∙ Listing: 1409-1411 Sanchez (5/5.5) 3,400 sqft – $2,575,000 [MLS]
∙ 1409 Sanchez Meets Its Maker (But Not Because Of The Storm) [SocketSite]
∙ A Total Noe Fixer/Tear-Down (For A Little Less Than Two Years Ago?) [SocketSite]
∙ The Future Façade Of 1409 Sanchez (Assuming Approved And Built) [SocketSite]
Isn’t it an electrical hazard to have the wires hanging out of the front left upper corner of the house like that.
Unless the sky was photoshopped in.
But don’t worry, I’m sure the other photos are accurate. Make sure you believe them when you decide whether to spend your time to take a look in person.
For example, the coffee table in photo 5, has become 3 times wider in photo 3. Same with the chain in photo 9 and photo 8. Same with the chair in photo 20 vs the same chair in photo 19. That shouldn’t indicate to you that the rooms are too small or anything.
And it’s great that the sink on the left in photo 10 is twice the size of the sink on the right. And I love the extra wide 4′ wide sink in photo 22.
Yesiree, I’m sure the place will seem as spacious as it looks on the MLS!
Yabut.. who cares? Do you buy a car looking at the pictures? It’s called marketing, getting people in the door. Once in the the door, the potential buyer can decide for themselves.
All those folks who just love to say “FU to their neighbors” would have to love this project, with Victorians on either side of it.
Nevertheless, there are an appalling number of tear-down shacks still taking up valuable real estate in The City and I applaud the developers of this place for raising the use of this lot to a higher level.
I care and don’t want to waste time visiting OHs just to find out that the MLS listing included bogus and deceptive photos.
Once in the door potential buyers might get exposed to the next round of deception : staging.
And for what its worth marketing does not equate with deception.
I really really don’t understand why people defend deception just because it is “business as usual”. It need not be that way and the first step is to deplore rather than defend such practices.
“Yabut.. who cares? Do you buy a car looking at the pictures? It’s called marketing, getting people in the door. Once in the the door, the potential buyer can decide for themselves.”
Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS:
“Article 12 – REALTORS® shall be honest and truthful in their real estate communications and shall present a true picture in their advertising, marketing, and other representations.”
http://www.realtor.org/mempolweb.nsf/pages/2011Code?OpenDocument
Deception would be showing a picture that ain’t the house. Unless you are claiming those pictures don’t show the house?
Why would realtors want to get someone in the door only to make them totally pissed off that they wasted their valuable time to look at a Potemkin village. Looking for a house is hard work and time consuming. I’m tired of pictures that are so distorted that beds look curved. I’m even tired of looking through a listing with 36 pictures with half of them being of the ‘neighborhood’ or of some tableau the stager is particularly proud of. I don’t need 5 shots of the same room but none of the bathrooms. I’m not fooled. In fact, I’m insulted you think I’m so dumb.
@Owl: Now that I agree with. But it ain’t deception, it’s just bad marketing.
And what’s up with the toilet enclosed in a glass compartment? Is it for privacy? If so that’s a big fail. All it provides is another surface that needs to be cleaned.
I don’t get how it looks better than the before.
Sad, really — the old house was absolutely salvageable. If I lived anywhere near the place I would have purchased it and renovated the old house, both for sake of history, and the sake of my streetscape and neighborhood!!
Would it have killed them to use a little trim?
And that exterior color. I walk by this every day and the final product looks like something that was stripped and dipped in the 70’s. A wasted opportunity in a great Noe location.
I live near here and know the area well. The previous little house was a shack of no distinction and worth of demolition.
The two adjacent houses are quasi-Victorians of no significance. the one on the right side is covered with cement panel siding, which is ugly. It could be renovated very nicely with money thrown at it.
I think the design and scale are very appropriate for that location and street. It neither imitates Victorian houses,nor does it come off as a “Dwell” style home on the exterior. I like the simple bold color and minimum use of trim. I totally applaud the installation of curbside landscaping, and landscaping near the entry and garage door.
From the pictures (I have not been inside yet) the interiors appear to be fresh and open with quality materials. This project is a good example of appropriate urban infill and scale.
I actually think it is priced low.
And we can just ignore the silly comment by kthnxybe.
Not enough pictures of doorknobs.
“Yabut.. who cares? Do you buy a car looking at the pictures? It’s called marketing, getting people in the door. Once in the the door, the potential buyer can decide for themselves”.
I would say its false advertising manipulating the pictures like that. How happy would you be if you show up on a first date that you connected with online and and you realized that all those beautiful pictures of her was photoshoped so that she was looking 40 pounds less heavy.
“Deception would be showing a picture that ain’t the house…”
The house depicted in the photo has no lateral wires spanning from the service connect at the upper left towards the street lines. The real house does have these somewhat unsightly wires.
That’s deception : presenting a better looking curbside view which doesn’t match reality.
Similarly using ultra-wide angle lens shots and then correcting the lens distortion gives the impression of rooms being larger than they really are. Many people can see past those smoke and mirrors though less sophisticated buyers might be fooled.
Ultra-wide shots are not necessary to portray a property. You can accomplish the same coverage using a more normal lens angle (~50mm) just by shooting more photos. You can even stitch normal angle shots together into a panorama with little effort.
The only advantages of ultra-wide lens shots are less photos and giving the false impression of a larger space. And the “less photos” advantage is cleanly negated by the extra post processing work required to correct for lens distortion. So that leaves just deception.
I really don’t see the problem with using honest photography in MLS listings. Those who deceive are cheating their more honest colleagues.
Well, now you know what to look for.
My experience has been that photos of places that are worth the price are rarely stretched. So if you see that, the agent knows its overpriced and there isn’t any need to show up.
It’s like having a listing where the agent states “LISTING IS COMPLETELY OVERPRICED FOR WHAT IT IS.” You’d never go to see a place listed like that. But when the photos are stretched, that’s exactly what they are telling you.
Oh goody, yet another uninspired, cookie-cutter sterile modern boxy interior. There are so many sharp corners in this thing that it looks painful to live there.
What has SS become? a site to bash realtors (or photographers) for using a wide angle lens?
Or about discussing the real merits of a property or building?
Geeez. no one is gonna buy it based on a few photos, for god’s sake. I agree that some of them are wide, and yea I’m not a big fan of staging, but those things ultimately will or will not sell a property.
They’re gaining on us Chewie; hit the hyperdrive!
“Yabut.. who cares? Do you buy a car looking at the pictures? It’s called marketing, getting people in the door. Once in the the door, the potential buyer can decide for themselves.”
You know what’s also marketing? Showing pictures of a fully loaded car, quoting the base price of a cheaper line, and then having someone show up and be disappointed with the rental car version.
As for this house, I’m not a huge fan of modern, but it’s not as bad as Dwell. I have more to quibble about furnishing choices than I do bones. For example, these bathrooms and kitchens are starting to look too cookie-cutter and just like everyone else who has done a remodel.
That third photo makes the facade look bright and cheery.
The first photo, of the actual facade, once you get past all the wires, looks like Darth Vader. You expect it to say “I am your father, Luke Skywalker!”
“Geeez. no one is gonna buy it based on a few photos,”
Well of course not. But they do influence decision making via deception. Not everyone is fooled but you don’t need to fool everyone to profit from deception.
Consider that some (most) buyers refer to the marketing collateral when re-evaluating properties for counteroffers. If the seller comes back to you with a counter and wants a reply quicker than allows you to visit the property in person then all you have are your memories and the marketing collateral. Take a look at the two versions of the facade above (thanks editor for including a realistic comparison). The real one is significantly less attractive than the faked one. Which one do you think would likely tip the scales in favor of a buyer accepting a late night counteroffer ?
Also consider that buyers deceptively lured to an OH may have forgone seeing a better but realistically portrayed home. You can only see so many OHs on a Sunday. So deception has diverted buyer traffic and created a competitive edge. It cheats honest agents their clients.
Again, I really don’t understand why anyone would defend deceptive photography when honest methods are perfectly adequate to market a property. R, noearch : I’d love to know why you’re asking us to just ignore this dishonest and unnecessary practice.
I have to say, I find the facade very sexy — especially the color and lack of “trim.” It sort of reminds me of a Louise Nevelson scuplture.
Of course I’m not defending poor photography or use of the wide angle. It’s a cheesy realtor trick. we all know that. It seems to have become the norm. Big deal.
I doubt that there is a single buyer around who could possibly really care about the crappy photos when it gets serious about making offers, doing inspections and signing papers. The photos really dont matter, IMO.
Anyone notice that they’re selling it as 1 unit, even though it’s legally 2? Planning department really doesn’t like that.
Planning department doesn’t have a say in how you sell it, or who lives there.
You’re not required to sell it or even occupy it as two units, if you choose not to.
It’s also listed as separate units on MLS.
noearch – it isn’t poor photography, it is actually quite sophisticated. The problem is that it is deceptive. And just because it has become the norm doesn’t mean that we should tolerate it. Numerous deceptive sales practices were the norm in the past but were outlawed in defense of consumers.
Short changing customers a few nickels on every cash transaction isn’t a big deal. But that doesn’t make it right.
Creating honest photos is easier and cheaper than faking photos. Those who publish faked photos believe that buyers are influenced by this deception, otherwise why bother ? Listing agents who go out of their way to deceive aren’t doing it just for fun, they’re doing it because they believe it gives them an edge.
“Do you buy a car looking at the pictures? It’s called marketing, getting people in the door. Once in the the door, the potential buyer can decide for themselves.”
The problem is- where do you draw the line? I rented a single family home for several years in the Marina and when the owners put it up for sale, the realtor advertised “Views of the Palace of Fine Art.” There are no such views. Anyone who would come to the open house would see that there is no such view so no one would buy the house believing there were views. It is a lie to get people there and you can argue that it’s harmless.
But it’s all part of the same thing– the “self-regulation” of the NAR where you can do anything without consequences. Some of those practices about faulty comps or comps that weren’t sales- were cited here on socketsite, but you could have a whole website devoted to these practices.
I really can’t believe this overwhelming obsession with “fake” or wide angle photography, as a discussion point here.
Go complain to the realtors. In fact I would LOVE to see to real realtors offer commentary here.
where are you people? You’re all over the place in Noe Valley. Come forward. talk to us.
Honestly, can we have some dialogue about the design instead?
You people are really driving me nuts.
I’m not as obsessed with fake photos as I am with a whole organization blithely allowing their members to fool and deceive the customers that they are supposed to protect.
The disregard for their customers is really troubling.
I’ve been by this house a bunch of times and it looks much more like photo #3 than photo #1 in person.
And so, your point is?
The Milkshake of Despair wrote:
What if they regard their clients not as customers but as marks?
“Do anything to close the sale” is the salesperson’s true credo.
noearch if you were talking to me, then know that I was responding to this:
“That third photo makes the facade look bright and cheery.
The first photo, of the actual facade, once you get past all the wires, looks like Darth Vader. You expect it to say “I am your father, Luke Skywalker!””
It is written as if they are faking the #3 picture and it’s actually dark and gloomy looking. That’s all.
Took the long way home and drove by about an hour ago after reading this. Liked it just fine but have to say it looked a lot more like the first photo than the third.
I assume sparky-b that you are aware the two exterior photos are taken at different times of the day and different types of weather. I hope you know this.
The first shot is during a typical gloomy, gray day in Sf. guess what? ALL the houses look flat and gloomy. so what?
the second photo is taken late afternoon on a cheery sunny afternoon. The facade is bathed in warm, glowing light. all of the other houses are also bathed in warm glowing light. so what?
I’ll give you and other all a little tip: the building is going to look different at different times of the day and with different types of weather.
That’s reality.
I certainly would not want to buy house that is photographed on a gloomy, gray day.
I want a sunny, cheery house.
Seriously, people. get a grip.
“the owners put it up for sale, the realtor advertised “Views of the Palace of Fine Art.” There are no such views.”
Now that is deceptive. Using a wide angle lens, not so much.
Black is the new Stained Cedar
On a bathroom countertop that small, I would rather have one sink and more countertop space.
Did I put a new photo of the property to make it appear darker? No I didn’t, but it was put up as the lead photo and commented on. I was only refuting claims that the house was enhanced to make it seem lighter and not look like Darth Vader.
Read my post, I went by a bunch of times. Several times a day, everyday for months. So I have seen it all kinds of weather and times of the day.
But thanks for lesson about the sun. Since your teaching, what happens to the sun at night, does the light just go out or does it rotate around the earth????
@sparky: do all houses in noe have magical power lines that disapear on sunny days?
bottom photo looks saturated as well as chopped, top photo doesn’t look dark to me.
Picture 5 and picture 17 show two different kitchens. Did they really have to put in two kitchens because it’s technically a two family?
chopper, yes all houses in Noe have magic power lines. Houses in Noe have all sorts of magic, where have you been? I believe this one comes with a Pegasus as well, it’s not in the listing material because it is so commonplace, but it’s in the disclosure packet.
I wonder what the Bidet Police will have to say about a toilet in the shower. I can see the technical argument, but it sure seems like a violation of the spirit of the law.
I also care about the difference between truth and fakery. In real estate. In politics. In journalism. In life.
Geez. I must be “losing my grip.”
I owned in Noe once. My disclosure packet not only mentioned the Pegasus and Magic Wires, but included a whole range of forms to block any attempt to change “the character of the neighborhood” as well. Very handy.
That, plus a coupon for half off on a double-wide stroller.
I’ve seen this a lot with new construction, so I assume there is a reason, but the setback on the right always looks like it was built backwards, and the setback should have been on the left.
As it stands, the windows on the right side of the house on the left are now in a cave, blocking their light and views and giving them a view of black siding of the new house. And worse, the house on the right now has its siding exposed, and a huge “hole” above it, exposing the upper 20% of the home on the right as a false front and giving the upper right bay window of the Darth Vader house a view of the ugly tar and gravel roof of the house on the right and a view of the back of the false front, which is probably not very ornate or even very well maintained.
If the setback had been on the left side of the Darth Vader house, none of these issues would have occurred. I assume doing so ends up looking “too integrated”, almost row house like, and so no one does it any longer, but it just seemed to cause a lot of problems here.
“Now that is deceptive. Using a wide angle lens, not so much.”
Translation: I’ve used this method myself…
@tipster: well, after struggling to get thru your ramblings about setbacks, and caves and falsefronts, it’s obvious to me you should become an architect right away.
You have all the solutions.
Trouble is, none of them make any sense. Setbacks, light wells, light courts, windows in recesses are all a very normal and accepted part of urban residential design in this city.
I still think this modest 2 unit building is a welcome addition to Sanchez st, in all its’ Vader glory, including the well placed sidewalk landscaping, which NO ONE here (except me) seems to acknowledge.
Walk up Sanchez and see the dearth of trees and landscape all the way to 24th. Blocks of barren concrete from curb to property line.
The truly amazing feature of this house that is evident in photo 3 is that there are no wires yet thee are still shadows of wires. These are not magic wires but ghost wires.
I assume noearch has never criticized anything s/he has ever eaten unless s/he is a classically trained chef, has never criticized any restaurant unless s/he has a degree from a hospitality program and has never had an opinion about politics unless s/he has a PhD in political science.
“Did they really have to put in two kitchens because it’s technically a two family?”
Yes.
It looked like the top photo when I walked by this morning.
NO, actually I haven’t.
Thanks for your brilliant insight Anna.
Noearch what’s with all of the snark. Tipster made some interesting comments from an observant and savy layman’s point of view. Maybe as an architect, you could offer some real discussion as to why Tipsters comments couldn’t or wouldn’t work.
Is it true that the sidewalks on the west side are wider than those on the east?
I already did. I previously commented on why I like the building.
8 foot ceilings? really? at this price point?
Totally agree with @tipster regarding setbacks. From my perspective flipping the layout would have better related to the neighboring buildings.
Have to agree with @tipster – it seems like a no-brainer that the house should have been flipped. Maybe someone can shed some light on why they didn’t do it that way. It seems so obvious now that it would have been better for all involved.
Perhaps it had to do with the footprint of the original house?
For those of you now obsessed with something else about this property, I can offer this;
If you study the front elevation carefully, the current location of the garage door places it the farthest from BOTH entry porches of the adjacent houses, allowing a buffer zone between cars and people. That makes very good sense from a neighborly and urban design point of view. It had nothing to do with the footprint of the original cottage on the site.
One reason why I like and support the design of this project.
That’s why tipsters comments don’t really work, IMO. And “flipping” the footprint as suggested by sjnative would, in fact, have NOT related better to the neighbors.
Generally, architects do in fact, think about these issues during the initial stages of design and planning. And the Planning Dept. addresses these types of issues as well, which is why the architectural drawings must include the elevations of the adjacent properties on the submitted plans for 311 notification.
I believe that the setbacks are likely to be directly related to the Planning Department’s ‘Residential Design Guidelines’. They like to see repetition, i.e., maintaining the alternating rhythm (similar setback footprints, not mirrored) as evidenced in this project. Following Tipster’s (and Owl, SJnative) recommendation, flipping to match the solid/voids, architecturally this actually would become much less interesting. It would create larger expanses of flat surfaces. In other words, the consistent setback (always on one side) creates a better buffer with the adjacent building(s).
I do understand (and sympathize) that all may not agree with this, however I would venture to say that those versed in design would see this as relatively fundamental.
Noearch?
Yes, it is fundamental, perhaps. But not so much for a “more interesting” repetition of facades as it is for relating “functionally” to the adjacent properties, as I explained in my recent comments.
It’s important to offer separation between auto access and pedestrian access to a property.
I’m still surprised no one but me as applauded the generous sidewalk and front yard landscaping. This one really hits the mark and vastly improves the friendliness, and continues the adjacent landscape patterns.
I like the house (condos) and think they will sell pretty quickly. Curious if they go together or as a SFH. And I do think the sidewalk landscaping is nice. The stuff out on the curb looks a little funky though with the fencing / garden boxes?
May the force be with them. 🙂
So no one actually went to look at it?
Two units, selling with the potential to “convert” (wink, nudge) to a SFH by removing a kitchen and two doors off the central hall.
Low ceilings.
Nice decks make up for lack of a yard.
Good views.
Boring Crate & Barrel finishes feel like they won’t last long.
No great central space for gatherings.
Yes the sidewalk greening is nice, but given it’s mostly required with building permits not very inspiring.
Yes, I saw it yesterday and it’s not really as you describe:
If the owner chose to convert to one unit, the sky will not fall and it’s not a bad thing. I think for economic reasons it will be a better value as 2 units.
Ceilings are not low. they are normal for new construction, not high, but not “low”.
It has a yard. did you go out to it?
I don’t know what “crate and barrel” finishes are, since c & b sells furniture and house items.
Lots of nice ceramic tile. Quality Duravit fixtures thru-out. High end kitchen appliances. Nice hardwood floors, tons of closet space.
For those who like that style, there are decent sized living/dining spaces in each unit.
The sidewalk greening is “required”..and, just for the record, plants do grow and fill out.
That’s my take on the property. Score: B+
Condo listings withdrawn. My guess is they either had to re-list the SFH as a multi-unit 2-4, or pull the condos. I didn’t think you could do it as both (i.e., SFH and Condos). So the seller clearly wants to sell these as a SFH. Or not, who knows. This happened over on the Jackson property I mentioned on another thread.
The sale of 1409-1411 Sanchez has closed escrow with a reported contract price at asking ($2,575,000) and $757 per square foot.
I thought this would close under its asking price. Not a bad outcome.