1750 Noe Street Facade After

Purchased for $1,412,000 three months ago, the Glen Park home at 1750 Noe Street has undergone a quick renovation, remodeling and re-positioning to “the outskirts of Noe Valley.”

According to the permits, the project did not include any structural changes other than the relocation of the bathroom on the ground floor, but it did include the construction of a new “sleeping room” on the lower level, a rewiring and a remodeling of the home’s existing bathrooms and kitchen.

1750 Noe Street Kitchen: Before and After

The yard was also newly hardscaped, landscaped and terraced.

1750 Noe Street Yard: Before and After

Now listed with 2,300 square feet of living space, up from 1,913 square feet per its listing in May, the three-bedroom home is back on the market and asking $2,698,000.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by soccermom

    “Sleeping room” is my new favorite real estate term.


    • Posted by NoeNeighbor

      What is a “sleeping room”; Is it a bedroom w/o a closet?

      • Posted by soccermom

        You need a closet and you need sufficient exterior light and means of egress (fire escape) to call a bedroom a bedroom (to meet code), so probably the ‘sleeping room’ is deficient in one of these areas. It’s probably a fine bedroom but the sellers don’t want to create a liability for themselves.

        Coming soon: “House has complete kitchen and living rooms on main floor. Downstairs is a space that could be used by the family of your spouse and has a separate area for food preparation and an enclosed room that offers handwashing and bathing, along with a device to eliminate body waste.”

        As the great Nigel Tufnel once said, “There’s a fine line between clever and stupid.”

  2. Posted by redseca2

    Allowing for 90 day turnover and the time to get a permit, they probably only poured the concrete for that backyard “hardscape” last week.

    So it isn’t full strength yet and easy to remove if you want a lawn.

    • Posted by Jake

      Does SF have any regulations about how much of a backyard can be paved? Also does the city require controls of runoff on these steeply sloped lots? Thanks.

      • Posted by Pioneer

        Jake-Check out my namelink for the Water Efficient Landscape ordinance implementation in SF. Tier 1 and Tier 2 will explain this in great detail. And if you look up the address on the Property Information Map/Zoning/Other Information it will show CEQA and Stormwater Zoning that applies to sloped properties. Both tie into WELO discussed in the namelink.

        Control: Slope of 20% or greater
        Description: CEQA Impact: an Environmental Evaluation Application may be required for some types of development.
        Added: 3/19/2013

        Control: Stormwater Management Ordinance
        Description: Projects that disturb 5,000 square feet or more of the ground surface must comply with the Stormwater Design Guidelines and submit a Stormwater Control Plan to the SFPUC for review.

  3. Posted by Willow

    Crazy price for Glen Park even if this is only a block from Noe. Will be interesting to see how this goes. I’d say it sells closer to $2.4MM.

    • Posted by Anon

      In no way is this price not in keeping with what’s been going on in Glen Park over the past 18 months or so. There are many comps which illustrate same.

  4. Posted by John Willis

    This might be the scene of a “burial’.

  5. Posted by Lance

    I agree with Willow. Glen Park is hot, but this one seems over-priced. “Anon”, please give us specific comps that justify this price. Btw, that cement backyard is terrible.

  6. Posted by Anon

    101 Miguel, 30 Conrad, 2335 Diamond.

    All day. Not to mention the numerous million plus spec purchases that have occurred, where developers are obviously banking on 3M plus return exits.

    here endeth the lesson

  7. Posted by mikey woodz

    ^ none of those got 1173/ft and most were all nicer quality than this thing

    • Posted by Anon

      $psqft wise, looks like Miguel got similar and Conrad close. 43 Whitney also got $1100 a foot recently

  8. Posted by Jack

    What a hideous hack job on that poor yard. Should be illegal due to runoff issues as well.

  9. Posted by mikey woodz

    Those props didnt have ikea kitchens

    • Posted by Anon

      no, they didn’t. we’ll see but I bet this isn’t too far off. Moneyed millennials like Glen Park.

  10. Posted by jill

    ive been in SF for 17 years and have never been to glen park. honestly i thought it was part of daly city. this RE market boom is lifting every neighborhood, even those previously not considered part of Fluj’s “the real SF”

    • Posted by Anon

      funny. that understanding is kind of the inverse of how that term was bandied about

  11. Posted by CantankerousWino

    Uhg, that site – complete with elevator/pharmaceutical-for-acid-reflux ad music – why

  12. Posted by soccermom

    I like the glass railing enclosure. I wonder who the manufacturer is – would have thought a graspable railing top was required.

    Too bad they didn’t leave the planters in front. The enormous shrubs had to go, but they could have put back something nice to soften the street side. Could have mirrored the planter flanking the garage on the left. That little corridor of a street needs all the help it can get.

    Looks way better than the before. Good luck to the sellers. Seems like a good target for the young appy fortunes.

  13. Posted by SocketSite

    UPDATE: The listing for 1750 Noe Street has just been withdrawn from the MLS after two weeks on the market without a reported sale.

  14. Posted by nonanon

    So much for “In no way is this price not in keeping with what’s been going on in Glen Park over the past 18 months”, “here endeth the lesson” and “I bet this isn’t too far off”.

  15. Posted by JR "Bob" Dobbs

    “In no way is this price not in keeping with what’s been going on in Glen Park over the past 18 months”, “here endeth the lesson” and “I bet this isn’t too far off”.

    Clearly all written by fluj. Only he could write such incomprehensible, overweening, and yet completely erroneous stuff.

  16. Posted by Anon

    Do you suppose that the story of this sales arc is complete? if so, why? Secondly, I’d ask you to look at the comment where it was agreed that this particular property perhaps didn’t have the same quality finishes.

    • Posted by Anon

      because the point was “crazy price for Glen Park,” and a counterpoint was made, examples cited. why you feel the need to inject oddly worded editorial sentiment is not known

  17. Posted by SocketSite

    UPDATE: The reduced listing for 1750 Noe has just been withdrawn from the MLS without a reported sale.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles