332 Hill
Down the street from the streamline moderne design of 849 Sanchez, and originally constructed in 1963, 332 hill has been rebuilt and expanded as a “contemporary modern” home, the (floor) plans for which were first approved in 2005 and completed in 2008.
332 Hill Living
Purchased for $972,000 in 2003 having sold the year before for $818,000 (it’s funny how well those “short-term holds” once worked), they’re asking $2,795,000 today.
∙ Listing: 332 Hill (3/3) – $2,795,000 [] [MLS]
Mo’ Moderne Atop Liberty Hill (Or Not) [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by ex SF-er

    with the exception of the Dining room being elevated above the kitchen, I really like this place a lot.
    it is pretty to look at and spacious.
    it is light and airy.
    the wood is a nice color.
    great views.
    great location.
    very nice.
    I like it a lot even though this isn’t typically my style of place.

  2. Posted by EH

    Why would a realtor only put four pix up on the dedicated website? I can only guess that there’s some “gallery” link that I’m missing. I swear, in a city of clueless-noob RE technology, this is probably the lamest RE website yet.

  3. Posted by noearch

    I’m not a big fan of the arbitrary and forced angles in the floor plan. Seems amateurish and not necessary.
    Angles like this, for no programmatic reason, simply creates some awkward room shapes.
    Elegance, simplicity, clarity and purpose are key points of good modern design.

  4. Posted by SFLooking

    For 2.8 M, this is a VERY crappily (word?) conceived and executed website. The photos are few and not the most exprerssive. No nighttime shots. Lead in page poor choices for shots. The flow should tell the stopry of the house with multiple shots of the same room. Night and day. The MLS photos are horrible. Sothebey’s? I am surprised. Not so much if it was from Herth or the like.

  5. Posted by 94114

    There was a similar very large modern home for sale on this block of Hill Street a couple of years ago. This is an incredibly steep street. Does anyone remember it or is this the same home? These brand new homes with the living area facing fancy kitchen cabinets start to run together after a while.

  6. Posted by SFHill

    to EH: there are more photos now. They only finished staging and did the photography on Saturday. Hover over the address, then click on Photographs.
    to noearch: I suspect that the whole house is angled toward the bay view. That said, I fully agree with you about the awkward room shapes.
    to the editors: “completed in 2008” doesn’t come close to telling the whole story. The kitchen was finally installed last December, if memory serves.

  7. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    “…the (floor) plans for which were first approved in 2005 and completed in 2008.”
    I’m having difficulty understanding this phrase. Does it mean that preliminary floorplan was approved in ’05 and the final floorplan approved in ’08 ? Or does it mean that the final floorplan was approved in ’05 and the construction completed in ’08 ? If it is the latter then why did it take so long to bring to the market ? In 2008 those who dawdled getting their property on the market were punished. If it is the former then wow, three years to go from prelim to final plans.
    I agree with noearch about the odd wall angles. They always produce unusable space. Though classic 90 degree angles are a little boring when looking at the blueprints, there are plenty of other ways to innovate aside from space wasting odd angles.
    This is a great location and I’d love to live here. Unfortunately development has placed this property out of reach.

  8. Posted by noearch

    If the architect wants to take advantage of bay views and begin to rotate the floor plan toward those goals, then do it with conviction.
    The only minor gesture toward angling the plan toward the view is at the top floor. why not angle more of the lower exterior walls, esp. the street elevation to really express this focus. otherwise, as I have said, the angled gestures are largely meaningless.

  9. Posted by BobN

    I’m not a big fan of the arbitrary and forced angles in the floor plan. Seems amateurish and not necessary.
    Angles like this, for no programmatic reason, simply creates some awkward room shapes.
    Generally, I would agree with you, but look at the plans and then imagine them with the angles “straightened out”. You get even more awkward rooms with narrower main spaces and deep alcoves. I suppose you could make the alcoves closets. The skewing the architect employed seems to have improved the layout of all the rooms involved.

  10. Posted by 94114

    The house I was thinking about before was 350 Hill. 4 bedrooms, 3.5 baths. It sold for 2.9 million in August of 2009. I think it was a more interesting house:

  11. Posted by anonee

    “(it’s funny how well those “short-term holds” once worked)”
    yes indeed, they worked very well for flippers/developers when the market was going up.
    and selling was good for anyone (long or short term) when the market was going up.
    but markets have always gone up AND down and only the gullible believed otherwise, no?
    that being said do you advocate short term holds? (taking into consideration the transaction costs and all).

  12. Posted by SocketSite

    The sale of 332 Hill closed escrow today with a reported contract price of $2,600,000 (7 percent under asking).

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles