CFAH

1422 Douglass
Purchased for $925,000 in 2007, the single-family Noe Valley home at 1422 Douglass returned to the market two weeks ago listed for $875,000 while noting: “Be prepared to ooh and aah (sic) over this charming Victorian home that packs a big impression.”
1422 Douglass Dining and Deck
On Friday, the list price for 1422 Douglass was reduced to $849,000. We’re not sure if that’s an “ooh” or an “ahh,” but we do know that’s 8 percent ($76,000) below its 2007 sale price on an apples-to-apples basis.
∙ Listing: 1422 Douglass (2/1) 1,050 sqft – $849,000 [1422douglass.com] [MLS]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Hilarious HDR artifact in that curbside photo. You can see the ghosts of the flapping “for sale” sign.
    Three car off street parking is nice though there’s plenty of easy on-street parking on this block.
    Too bad there aren’t views from this home, it is high enough up on the hill.

  2. Posted by Lori

    Not a fan of a bedroom in the front of the house. The bathroom is awkward. Hate the tile floor in the kitchen, and the kitchen is definitely not an “ooh” or “aah” for me. I predict another price drop. On the plus side, nice yard, deck and garage.

  3. Posted by bid1

    One bath? What sort of ‘family house’ has two BR and one bath??

  4. Posted by BDB

    It’s a cute little house, but the large apartment building beside it doesn’t do it any favours..
    Also it’s well up in the Fog Belt.
    Saw it a few weeks ago.

  5. Posted by MM2

    The images make it look much better than it does in real life. The siding and steps look pretty sad, almost like a trailer. Inside the yellowish color that’s meant to be warm is a bit bilious.
    The biggest problem is the poor use of space. There are many spaces that are unusable because they’re too small or in an odd location. For example, why the angled counter top with nothing underneath in the kitchen? And why remodel a bathroom to put in a small tub and shove the toilet into a weird corner?

  6. Posted by Average Joe

    aah, methinks they need a technology upgrade:
    “The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later.”
    [Editor’s Note: Sorry, we’ve been known to have that effect. Try the MLS link above instead.]

  7. Posted by spencer

    it’s tiny. 750K

  8. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Tiny as built, yes. There’s plenty of expansion possibilities though. If the garage is tall enough then it would be pretty easy to significantly expand space and you’d still have an off street parking spot in the driveway.

  9. Posted by sf builder

    If it was me, I’d pull up those plants between the walkway and the driveway so I could park two cars side by side.
    Then someone could use the space in the garage.
    And if you do that, it starts to make a little more sense.
    But, don’t see it going for $849,000.

  10. Posted by Justine Earnshaw

    That is an absolutely charming little house, and from all appearances the interior is nice as well. (Just looking at it from the outside, I thought it might be a bit claustrophobic, but if it is, the indoor photos hide the imperfection well.) Unfortunately, even with a reduced price, it’s still out of my range…
    Justine

  11. Posted by serious

    Here are the photos http://1422douglassst.dom.us

  12. Posted by lolcat_94123

    Some funky things going on in those pics posts by serious. The sky in #29 looks like they photochopped it to be intentionally gloomy. And the blurry sign and plants are almost nauseating to look at.

  13. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    lolcat_94123 – Those are artifacts of hastily done HDR photo processing.

  14. Posted by sfrenegade

    “Just looking at it from the outside, I thought it might be a bit claustrophobic, but if it is, the indoor photos hide the imperfection well.”
    That’s the trickery of the lenses. See how the relative proportions can change significantly from different angles?
    1050 sqft is not “tiny” for a 2/1 as some people have suggested, but calling it a “family house” does seem like a stretch as someone said. For comparison, a common design among 50s tract homes was a 900 sqft 2/1 (with a tiny kitchen relative to what’s common now). I’m not convinced of this price yet. There’s stuff that can be done with this place, as Milkshake said. Not a perfect location at all, but they did a nice job with the backyard and deck.

  15. Posted by Modernqueen

    thanks sfbuilder! get rid of the landscaping and pave it over. nice job. ugly.
    This is what makes some of our neighborhoods, such as the Outer Sunset look like low rent, white-trash neighborhoods.
    Besides, The Planning Code would NOT allow it.
    BTW, I assume you would convert that garage to living space without permits, right?

  16. Posted by Fishchum

    I kinda like this place. My wife and I don’t have kids, so size-wise it looks fine (although another bathroom would be ideal) – the problem is that we’re solidly middle class by SF’s standards, and I don’t think we’d be able to afford it.
    Does anyone know what it would take to build a room downstairs with a half bath? I’m thinking it has great man-cave potential. This wouldn’t be an additional unit for someone to live, just an extra room big enough for a couch and TV, a whole bunch of sports memoribilia, and my original copy of the poster from “Taxi Driver”.

  17. Posted by sf builder

    @MQ: I don’t see anything wrong with having the option of pulling another car in if street parking gets tight. And, you don’t have to pave over the planting area — maybe just use the kind of pavers that you can grow grass through. And, from the look of the front, I think you could actually still meet Planning’s requirements for planted area.
    For people with kids and/or elderly parents visiting, being able to park in front of your own house is essential.
    As for the space in the garage, I don’t think a permit is required to use the space. Let’s say I wanted a workshop, or a ping pong table, or a music studio, or a place for my kids to play on rainy weekend days. No permit required for any of this, but with that kind of option than an 1100 SF house can make a lot more sense.

  18. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    sf builder – why tear out that nice landscaping? There’s already three off street parking spots and no shortage of nearby street parking.

  19. Posted by dantheman

    I thought the DR, or city, or whatever you callit would actually applaud “creating” more off-street parking – so in essence cementing over the plants is a good thing BUT NOOOOOO!
    In the disclosures expect to see “shaking plants and occasional blurred vision”

  20. Posted by sf builder

    @MQ and MOD:
    My original comment was tongue and cheek, aimed at earlier threads on this site. When I looked at the photo it just seemed obvious. There was a perfectly good parking space with plants in the way!!
    Also, three off-street parking places is nice, but when you have to move one or two cars to get to the other one it becomes a lot less nice. It is fine for a single guy who has a commuter prius and a weekend porsche, but for real people with kids, elderly parents who can’t walk so well, etc it isn’t that helpful.

  21. Posted by Modernqueen

    @sfbuilder: whether you meant your comments to be “tongue in cheek” is up to you. I don’t believe you.
    You said what you said. I take it at face value.
    But what you suggested is what many people do here and it makes for very harsh, unattractive neighborhoods, lacking greenery but excess amounts of concrete and cars in front yards. Ever go out to the Outer Sunset? Check it out and look at the endless streets without trees, landscaping.
    Pretty harsh. pretty sad part of The City.
    There are elements of the Planning Code in place now that prohibit paving over a front yard setback area. I’m glad we have those kind of controls, but they are not enforced nearly enough.

  22. Posted by sf builder

    @MQ:
    You really should lighten up in life. You live in a city. People are going to do what they do.
    The reason the Sunset looks the way it does is because real people have real needs. This City lacks affordable housing and the necessary parking to go with it.
    Oh, and if I knew where you lived, I’d buy the place on each side and the ones across the street, and pave the front yards!!! 😉
    Then I’d go on CL and buy a few barely running cars and park them.
    Careful what you ask for in life, and try to have some fun.

  23. Posted by Modernqueen

    Interesting commentary sf builder, but really way off base.
    “Lightening up” has really nothing to do with this particular commentary.
    And yes, I live here and love this city. But yes, “some” people will do what they do, without regard for the larger civic element, and the concerns of neighbors. Guess what? You can’t do whatever you want to do in SF. This is a civil society with codes of conduct and regulations, designed for the good of all of us.
    But selfish, self-entitle people will do negative things. Paving over a front yard for more parking is one of those things. It’s too bad. It makes for a truly ugly street environment.
    Your logic, if one can call it that, is attempting to “feel sorry” for those poor Sunset residents because the City does not have enough affordable housing and parking.Really?
    In fact, we currently have a very selfish, trashy neighbor in my area who does, in fact, park his car over the sidewalk and into his front yard. Many neighbors have complained and we are currently attempting to get resolution with the Planning Dept. No one likes this next to them, and others do not have to put up with it.
    And yes, we have a lot of fun. We take pride in our neighborhood and want others to respect it as well.
    Simple as that.

  24. Posted by lolcat_94123

    socketsite.com: where sarcasm is not allowed. this is serious bizness.

  25. Posted by Modernqueen

    Socketsite: where sarcasm is, in fact, allowed. We see plenty of it, mine included.
    It’s also a great site to make serious commentary about the good and not so good parts of our great city.

  26. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    sf builder – If a household including people with kids and/or elderly folks lived at this house then the solution is simple. Give those who could benefit from convenience the priority outer parking spot. If you need to leave before the kidmobile or the bingo express heads out then park on the street. So long as the other driver is fit enough for the strenuous five second walk to the the street parking then you’re good.
    You seem to be really reaching for an excuse to create an extra parking space here; degrading the neighborhood for no tangible value.

  27. Posted by El Bombero

    Down to $825K. Hopefully, the 2007 buyers didn’t put too much down.

  28. Posted by El Bombero

    This is now showing as contingent. I sure hope it’s going to go for well under $825k, assuming it closes of course.

  29. Posted by El Bombero

    It seems that 1422 Douglass closed @ $775k, down 16% from 2007. With closing and buying costs, the sellers probably lost a bit more than $200k. “Be prepared to ohh and ahh….”

  30. Posted by Bernie Hill

    This place is now being rented on Craigslist for $4250 (6 month lease). Maybe someone can do the rent v. buy calculator on this.
    http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/apa/2938444701.html

  31. Posted by 94114

    1422 Douglass appears to be back again.

  32. Posted by RenterAgain

    This is like one of those “spot the 10 differences” puzzles. You can see the old and new photos on Redfin if you have an account.
    http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/1422-Douglass-St-94131/home/889539/sfarmls-388509
    http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/1422-Douglass-St-94131/home/889539
    I spy a new kitchen (w/ permits), new floors, new paint inside and out, … anything else? Asking 200K over the Feb 2012 selling price.
    Huh. It might just work.
    I hate it when kitchen cabinets don’t go all the way up to the ceiling. No other gripes 😉 I still love the back yard, which looks the same.

  33. Posted by Dan

    New Victorian style siding replacing the old asbestos.

  34. Posted by RenterAgain

    Sold for a hair over 1M.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles