462 Sanchez
Purchased as an 1,138 square foot two-bedroom, one-bath home without a garage for $850,000 in March of 2007, 462 Sanchez has returned as a “contemporary” four-bedroom with three and one-half baths, two car garage, and 2,978 listed square feet.
462 Sanchez Kitchen
Now asking $2,700,000 ($907 per square). And as it looked before behind a tree:
462 Sanchez Before
∙ Listing: 462 Sanchez (4/3.5) 2,978 sqft – $2,700,000 [462sanchez.com] [MLS]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by StGeorge

    The house to the left (its right) looks like it has some truly ghastly stonework on its facade. I’m not sure I’d be prepared to pay ~$900/sq ft to be next to that…

  2. Posted by re guru

    Agreed — that is one of the ugliest houses in SF to the left. I lived a few blocks away for about 15 years, and I walked past it for many years as the owner cut and broke stone piece by piece and glued it to the facade. The good news is the owner finally finished the facade (I think). It was literally under construction for YEARS. Day after day of stone cutting…
    Anyway, as for the place for sale — $907 seems a little steep. I haven’t seen it in person, but It isn’t what I would buy with $2.7 million. I’d like to be up the hill a little bit for that price. Predict it will sell for about $2.2.
    Readers? Anyone walked through this place yet?

  3. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Ah yes, I remember that place to the left with its mini quarry in the front yard for eons. I’m guessing that the owner had access to a free source of granite and marble scraps and thought that it would be a shame for such a quality material to go to waste.
    I’m all for folk art though think a facade shingled with flattened beer cans would be more attractive.

  4. Posted by bgelldawg

    I remember that guy, too! His garage and driveway were packed with stones and he had that saw going – such noise! It seemed like a neverending project. I’m not sure how he decided he was finished, but I don’t think he owns the house anymore. I seem to remember it being sold a few years ago.
    Anyone know the guy’s story?

  5. Posted by MM2

    Another “eat up the backyard to have an extra living room-like space” remodel. Nothing special about the interior; looks like all the other “we don’t cook at all” kitchens.
    Will people ever see how bad overhead lights make everyone and everything look? Unless you’re running a biology lab, ambient lighting that comes in at 45* angles is much more soothing and useful.

  6. Posted by re guru

    @MM2: Love your comment about the “we don’t cook at all” kitchens.
    I, and my family, love to cook. I was a chef once upon a time in a previous life. My kitchen is amazing for cooking, but I have to say it doesn’t resemble anything I see at open houses.
    My kitchen looks most like Julia Child’s kitchen from her TV show days. 😉

  7. Posted by bernalkid

    pity, $2.7 large in SF and not even much of a view.

  8. Posted by bestbuy

    Love the photoshop work on the living room (photo #4 on website/MLS). In one photo you see a big wide screen tv showing a b&w movie (Casablanca?), in the next, it’s just a simple mirror!!!

  9. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    That’s a head-scratcher, bestbuy. That’s no widescreen TV but rather a photo pasted over the same mirror. All I can figure is that whoever did that was trying to convey that you could put a TV over the fireplace.
    …maybe they should photoshop a risotto cooking on the range as well.

  10. Posted by A Smith

    For sure that is one of those new TV/Mirror’s. When not watching the tube, turns into a regular old mirror.

  11. Posted by sfrenegade

    “…maybe they should photoshop a risotto cooking on the range as well.”
    If they wanted to be realistic, they would photoshop a drunk person warming up a frozen pizza in the oven. Risotto would take too long to make. 🙂

  12. Posted by curmudgeon

    The seller seems to be aiming for the same buyer who bought 41 Ford last year for 3.25 mill. But that was larger ($763/square despite the higher price tag) and certainly grander, and with a real back yard.
    I’m flummoxed that anyone would buy this place for 2.7. It’s nothing special (at all) from the outside, is surprisingly cramped on the inside- particularly the living room/dining room area, and it’s location and orientation on Sanchez is not as appealing as the low traffic Ford property with a big south facing back yard.
    Yup, flummoxed. I’m guessing there’s a story there, and I wonder what it is. A delusional flipper? Or someone who built their dream home and now can’t afford it? Or is this a make me move price?
    I’ve been surprised before, but I just don’t see this property going for 2.7.

  13. Posted by Willow

    Regardless of the final selling price, the transformation of Noe continues… Another modest home upgraded for the tastes of the uber wealthy. Pretty amazing rate of change has happened in this neigborhood in such a relatively small period of time. I can’t think of too many places throughout the entire country that has experienced a similar upwards trajectory.

  14. Posted by curmudgeon

    Not Noe, the Castro. But yes, Willow, same general phenomenon, but with a twist.
    41 Ford (at 3.25), and a few others like it in the Castro/Mission Dolores area flatlands have surprised a lot of people (certainly me) because they don’t have the traditional view and separation from the hoi polloi that multi-million dollar homes traditionally have (like just up the hill in Dolores Heights). The values of walkability and access seem to be relatively more important these days.
    But I’m still not seeing 2.7.

  15. Posted by Willow

    ^ Sorry, did not bother to look at the map. Saw Sanchez St and assumed this was Noe. Oh well…

  16. Posted by SWR

    The garage hatchet job took this from something with the potential for charm to just another Sunset-style blech-scape. Always thought this house had potential before, with a little trimming and a paint job, but so much for that.

  17. Posted by re guru

    That was a lovely street tree — I thought the general rule in the city was that if you removed a street tree you had to replace it — especially if you are doing something so politically incorrect and offensive as installing a curb cut and garage door?
    Readers? Anyone know the rule(s)?

  18. Posted by mikey woodz

    Hey you all aint seen those TV/Simple mirrors yet…..mounted to high here though

  19. Posted by noe

    facebook twitter zynga pandora foursquare yelp. bubble 2.0 hear WE GO!!!!!!!!

  20. Posted by Willow

    “…That was a lovely street tree…”
    re guru: I really think greenery is important but that tree doesn’t look particularly special. (That said, I don’t care for the removal of an existing tree.)
    I was in Minneapolis recently and they just have beautiful leafy trees (e.g. cottonwood & red maples) that line the streets. I’m not an arborist but can’t these be grown in San Francisco. Some of the tree choices in the city are somewhat baffling…

  21. Posted by curmudgeon

    Willow, SF is not particularly kind to street trees. We will never be like the midwest or east, just because of our climate. (no rain during much of the growing season, constant wind). There are definitely some species that do ok, others that struggle. It would certainly help if the City would get it’s act together to truly support an urban forest. On one hand things are getting better…there’s more support for larger tree wells and sidewalk landscaping. On the other hand the nazi interpretation of ADA access lead people to fear street trees because they almost inevitably lead to cracks in the sidewalk. That leads folks to plant small trees that will never really grow, or the agressive pruning. So we become a city of lollipops. Pet peeve of mine, sorry for the thread hijack.

  22. Posted by redseca2

    One more tree highjack item:
    Embedded in my brain from some long ago urban planning lecture when I was in architecture school is the fact that Sacramento, of all places, has the highest number of trees per acre of any city beyond some middling size.

  23. Posted by mateo

    I believe the seller is a contractor lived there before essentially rebuilding the entire place. The quality of construction seems to be very solid.
    The owner of the ‘granite house’ next door has plans to do a major rebuild. The granite house is currently vacant.
    It’s a great hood, though 2.7 seems to be a reach. The market will tell us.

  24. Posted by fixthis

    @bestbuy – MLS remarks include “The spacious living room has a gas fireplace and a flat screen TV behind a dramatic mirror…”

  25. Posted by Time for QE3!

    Walked this place today. While very nice on the inside, I don’t see it for anywhere near asking (although having recently bought in SF I certainly hope it sells for this)! C’mon Facebook and IPO already! This will be a great comp for completely gutted/remodeled homes in this area. Considering how awful the OTHER place on Ford st. was that sold for > 1.3 recently was I could easily be wrong. Important to note that this is near the end of the block, and as such the lot is about 2500 sq. ft (mid-block lots are ~3000 sq/f). So… the backyard/lawn patch is compacted into the neighboring wall and windows. This reminds me of a similarly priced place on Fountain street that sold about 5-6 months ago.. was it the same builder? Similarly horrendous place next door in both instances…

  26. Posted by Mark F.

    I really liked the fact that your neighbors can literally look directly right down on you in the back. Bye bye privacy! Otherwise a pretty decent place, but I can’t see this selling for anywhere near asking. Great location, however.

  27. Posted by curmudgeon

    Saw it today. Beautifully done, granted, and well thought out inside. I particularly liked the master bedroom deck facing the street…very sunny and protected from the west wind, and you can’t see the deck from the street (it’s behind the front facade shown above). However, the back yard is miniscule, and as others have pointed out is overlooked on three sides by neighboring buildings. 2.7 is ridiculous.

  28. Posted by Dax

    I’ve been through the house and it’s gorgeous in and out. They did a wonderful job. The kitchen is actually very nice with high-quality appliances. I’d love to cook and throw parties there! Very few homes in this town have so many bathrooms, and they are beautiful done.
    Someone complained about the limited yard space (eating up the yard to make more livable space). Well, the weather in SF is not conducive to enjoying the outdoors that often really. I own a home here now with a larger (for SF) backyard, and I know now that I’d rather have half my yard and more hardscape and square footage inside. We rarely have a day we can grill or enjoy the outdoors.
    And for the person claiming they used photoshop to make a mirror look like a TV in the living room, don’t be absurd. The mirror hides the TV. When the TV is on, it shows through the mirror. Don’t just assume things when you’ve never even been to the property.
    Having your own deck off the master is very nice when the weather permits using it.
    I agree however that 2.7 is steep in this market, on that street, and for that size lot and home … and you don’t really want to be the priciest home on the block ever.

  29. Posted by SocketSite

    The sale of 462 Sanchez closed escrow today with a reported contract price of $2,650,000, just below asking by $50,000 but still $890 per square foot.

  30. Posted by curmudgeon

    crazy!

  31. Posted by steve

    crazy? I say impossible. tipster assured me it was going to be a bloodbath this spring.

  32. Posted by curmudgeon

    lol. I take tipster with a large grain of salt, but I saw this place and I just don’t see $2.65. Maybe I’ll just never understand how someone can fall in love with a place and pay way over than it “should” be worth. Or maybe I’m just cheap.

  33. Posted by lol

    2.65M and not even on Ford Street? Wow-freaking-wow.

  34. Posted by curmudgeon

    I can’t find anything with a higher price per square foot in Noe Valley or the Castro in the past year, save that place at 729 Elizabeth. (source, redfin…and as we know not everything has listed square feet). But $890/square for a big place is certainly high.

  35. Posted by [anon.ed]

    Several of those Liberty Hill sales had higher $psqft, whether or not they advertised square footage.

  36. Posted by curmudgeon

    ^I believe that anon.ed….as you know of course it’s not always listed. So what do you think of this price?

  37. Posted by lol

    [anon.ed] cites Liberty Hill $/sf, but this is not Liberty Hill. This is the flatlands that typically has one or 2 resident homeless on every block. That some are ready to shell ~900/sf is great for residents. It proves that there’s some value in this great neighborhood.

  38. Posted by [anon.ed]

    It’s a stunning result, really. There’s no precedent for paying such a high price with that size lot north of 18th street.

  39. Posted by [anon.ed]

    “cites Liberty Hill” ? I guess so … “cites”? Look what I was talking to, and who said what. When I mentioned Liberty Hill results I was responding directly to curmudgeon, who said “Noe Valley or the Castro.”

  40. Posted by lol

    Cite: wrong choice. Quotes.
    No criticism there. Just amazed this side of the block would fetch that much, even more this side of 18th as you said. But the area is part of a broader change. Destination places where people come to have fun evenings or week-ends become places where people want to live provided they find the right housing options.

  41. Posted by curmudgeon

    That’s exactly how I took anon.ed’s remarks…I think the standard approach would be to think that Liberty Hill/Dolores Heights would have the highest values in the Noe Valley/Castro universe. But there have been these suprising outliers in the flatland Mission adjacent areas that is related to the change lol cites, and point to a change in the previous model where view and distance from the hoi polloi mattered more.
    But in this case, I also think there must be an element of stupid money. That backyard is really terrible. But hey, congrats to the seller and I hope the buyers really love it.

  42. Posted by lol

    Yeah, I live close by and have some access to a backyard with… a redwood tree. I don’t know how you can spend 2.65M and lack this basic luxury. Sorry, I need some green in my life, and not only the paper variety 😉

  43. Posted by mike kennedy

    All you need is one buyer that likes/loves the house. Most people writing here have not bought or sold anything in SF. I bought my first house in Bernal Heights for 150k in 1989. Moved around to different neighborhoods since then but all it takes is one buyer. I am very happy for the seller and buyer at Sanchez.

  44. Posted by sfrenegade

    “All you need is one buyer that likes/loves the house. Most people writing here have not bought or sold anything in SF.”
    Apparently, people who never visit a blog think the best idea is to come here and tell people they are smarter than the readers. In reality, the editor has done reader surveys, and plenty of people here have bought or sold in SF (multiple times). Usually, it’s recommended that new readers lurk for a while before making inane comments and spouting realtor platitudes — we save that for the regulars.

  45. Posted by curmudgeon

    ^ for the record, mike kennedy (since I was a frequent commentator on this thread, and a skeptic regarding the price) I’ve bought and sold houses in San Francisco. And many of the frequent commentators have.
    Yes, it only takes one. And they don’t need to be smart, they just need access to the money.

  46. Posted by DanRH

    I’m really surprised at this one – jeez. That’s a lot of dough for that.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Articles