As we wrote about the sale of the modern Noe home at 465 Hoffman in February 2011:

“Speaking of Noe Valley year-over-year, the sale of 465 Hoffman closed escrow Wednesday with a reported contract price of $2,850,000.

Call it $633 per listed square foot and a four percent ($120,000) drop in value over the past eleven months for the “exceptional showcase home architecturally designed & methodically built with gorgeous views!”

As plugged-in people might recall, the modern Noe home first hit the market in early 2009 listed for $3,900,000 and sold for $2,970,000 [in March of 2010].”

The modern 4,500 square foot home is now back on the market and listed for $3,795,000.
A sale at asking would represent average annual appreciation of 10 percent over the past three years on an apples-to-apples basis. If you think you know Noe, it’s time to tell.
∙ Listing: 465 Hoffman (4/4.5) 4,500 sqft – $3,795,000 [465hoffman.com]

18 thoughts on “The Modern Noe Valley Market Since 2009, Apples-To-Apples Style”
  1. The text here is confusing to me..i get a headache trying to follow the listing/closing prices and dates..a brief time line would help..

  2. so here is a summary:
    Sept 2009 – Listed for $3.495MM
    April 2010 – Sold for $2.97MM
    November 2010 – Listed again for $2.995MM
    Feb 2011 – Sold for $3.3MM
    Feb 2014 – Listed again again for $3.795MM
    My question is why does this place seem to turn over so frequently? Is there a problem with the place or location?
    Seems big enough to accommodate many different types of owners..

  3. “Feb 2011 – Sold for $3.3MM”
    The post above claims the sale price then was $2.85M. Redfin shows MLS and public records having a sale at $2.85M on Feb 2, then another public records entry at $3.3M on Feb 11.
    “My question is why does this place seem to turn over so frequently? ”
    It really seems like a there’s a group of properties that do seem to keep popping on the market over and over again. It would be interesting to know if anyone had stats showing that X% of SF homes were responsible for Y% of sales transactions.

  4. hugh wrote:
    > Wow. That exterior really hasn’t aged well.
    > Four years old and already looks like it’s
    > decaying.
    House flippers don’t care if it lasts, just if it is cheap and looks good while the property is for sale…

  5. Here is what it looked like the last time the Google Mapper drove by:
    Google Maps View of 465 Hoffman
    Other than the front of the house, it looks fine. But the front of the house looks terrible and it doesn’t seem like it would take the much to clean it up. Terrible job staging by the owner.

  6. @chad n.
    RE: My question is why does this place seem to turn over so frequently?
    I used to live a block away from this home. Hoffman is as close to Diamond Heights as it is to Noe Valley. The walk down the hill is horrible…but not as bad as the walk back up the hill from 24th Street. This is a classic case of outsized house vs immediate neighborhood–were it further down the hill the value would be squarely in the $3.5mm range; up the hill it is more of an open question, and one where the buyer becomes disnenchanted after a few months of living so high on the hill and dealing with the long and steep walk.

  7. no-vallly – thanks for the info.
    A related question or comment. It seems that walkability trumps views these days for buyers. When i first got to SF, Views seemed to be valued more than Walkability in terms of property values and prices.
    I wonder now what premium buyers will pay for Views vs Walkability, or pay for both (in the rare cases you have both).
    Seems like for 465 Hoffman, if this house was down in the flats of Noe it would be worth at least $200K more and possibly have less turnover.

  8. I don’t agree with no-vally. There are multiple 3 million dollar sales within a block (to include one further up on Fountain St). SF is full of hills and some of the most expensive properties are on them (Russian Hill, Pacific Heights, Nob Hill, Ashbury/Clarendon Heights, and Telegraph Hill to name a few).
    Besides, for proximity to 24th St, this location beats all the pricey properties in upper NV (on a hill!). To call the walk up or down the hill horrible is quite a stretch IMO.
    My guess is that this is not a factor in the multiple sales of this property.
    With this all being said, some people value views over walkability. I get it, walkability is important, but to have a 85 walk score opposed to 95 is negligible IMO. We’re talking a 5 minute difference in walking here.

  9. I think this place is losing some potential buyers that may have kids..it doesn’t seem to kid friendly of a house. But it only takes one I guess.

  10. Wow…time to eat those words from 2/6 and an expected $3.5mm top price. Even in the world of Noe insanity these days this appears to set a new level of uber-insanity

Leave a Reply

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