Purchased for $25,000 in 1969, the ‘vintage’ two-bedroom Noe Valley home at 1072 Noe hit the market last month listed for $1,898,000 as a fixer, “ready for an incredible transformation,” with an undeveloped full-length attic and an underdeveloped two-car garage “with dig-out potential.”

Six bids were received, five of which were from developers.  And today, the sale of 1072 Noe closed escrow with a reported contract price of $2.8 million (the lowest bid was $2.15 million).

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by SFBayview

    Wow, a 111 times appreciation in 46 years!

    • Posted by san FronziScheme

      Yes, but today’s dollar can only buy you a 1/4 toast 😉

  2. Posted by Leningrad

    That’s the power of real estate.Even if they only got half their asking price it sure beats walking away with 552 rent receipts.

  3. Posted by Mark

    Trust me, it needs an incredible transformation. Most likely, it will be gutted and/or brought down to its foundation. As it should.

    Nearly $3M for a piece of crap. I’d like to say it’s all about “location,” but it’s Noe Valley. Just Noe Valley. It’s clear the lemmings will pay whatever they can just to say they live in this part of town.

    • Posted by Futurist

      Sorry, Mark but for those of us who live in “this part of town”, we get the appeal, the neighborhood vibe, the weather, the access to transit, the parks, the open space, the ‘downtown” street.

      It all adds up to value and desirability. but, yea, it is “Just Noe Valley”.

      And that’s just awesome.

      • Posted by san FronziScheme

        Agreed on appeal and neighborhood vibe.

        – Weather: it depends where you are
        – Access to Transit: not as attractive as the Market St corridor, but decent, also depending where you are. It’s access to the 280 that sells more than public transit, imho.
        – Parks: not better or worse than other residential neighborhoods
        – Open Space: hillside, sure, but your neighbors might remind you one day nothing is guaranteed
        – Downtown street: 24th street is one of several neighborhood “villages” in SF. Not exceptional in itself, but pretty nice.

        NV is nice, and I enjoyed living there (aside from the great outdoors space that you can seldom enjoy due to the weather), but I think much of the beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

        Now is it THE area to be for a certain crowd? Definitely.

        I think we can see the “if the perfect product sells for $Y, then $X is a reasonable price” effect. This would not have fetched less than 1/2 of that 6 years ago.

        I still need to wrap my head around these prices.

        • Posted by Futurist

          I can’t decide if I like your comments or not. But anyway.
          -of course weather depends on where you are. It can be sunny in the Marina and foggy and windy in the Mission.
          -We’re not the “market st. corridor” for transit. No sense comparing. but we do have the J which essentially runs thru most of the ‘hood. Pretty convenient I’d say.
          -parks and open space: I group them together: Billy Goat Hill is an amazing piece of permanently preserved open space; views are astounding; raw, rugged, unmanicured, natural. other open spaces are at top of 29th at Diamond, and top of Duncan St. at Castro; again, preserved, raw, open, views. Day St. Rec center has play fields, ball field, dog park, basketball, indoors and out, tennis courts, kids play space, indoor community spaces; very active and busy and safe.
          – 24th St. evolving, but busy. check it out on Saturday mornings during our farmers market; crowded and crawling with people. Plus we have a Noe Valley Town Square about to break ground.

          The appeal is simply part of attraction to young, generally well to do people” couples, families, single, gay and straight. Attraction creates more attraction creates desirability, and yes demand and large prices for single family homes.

          Seems to work as a genuine “urban village” and I only see it getting more desirable.

          • Posted by san FronziScheme

            Weatherwise it’s much better overall to be East of Diamond because of those fog plumes.

            Parks, I agree. There’s also the fact that all the blocks away from the 24th street corridor have backyards with mature trees. Taken together inside a block, these make beautiful green spaces. This is how I picked my own block in the Castro.

            J line? An attraction in itself for both the scenery and the somewhat unreliable nature of the schedule.

          • Posted by SFrentier

            I dunno. I took a mid day mid week walk around Noe and 24th st was pretty dead…just a few old ass boomers, no young or hip crowd like the mission has. People just didn’t seem engaged or interesting. Boring vibe. Only place with a minor vibe was la boulange, which is pretty blah. It seems no different than the downtowns of Palo Alto or mill valley. Unforch, Noe lost its mojo years ago.

          • Posted by Futurist

            Seriously? lost its’ mojo a FEW YEARS AGO? You sure you went to the right neighborhood?

            So ONLY neighborhoods with a young and hip crowd are valid? and worth entering? and worth buying into? and worth living in?

            Your entire commentary was cranky and without truth.

          • Posted by SFrentier

            Whoah, didn’t mean to ruffle your feathers, ol futurist. But I lived in NV from 94-2004 (matter of fact, it was my first property.) In the mid-late 90’s Noe had some sole (long live Cafe Sanchez!), and was a decent if modest up and coming neighborhood. Then the dot com boom and onwards quickly turned it into a soulless yuppie haven. That’s what I mean.

        • Posted by anon

          “(aside from the great outdoors space that you can seldom enjoy due to the weather)”

          This is so laughable.

          • Posted by San FronziScheme (formerly known as lol)

            Sharing my time between the desert and the Mediterranean, I have to dig back for my older warm clothes before I plan a trip back to my friend in NV. I have to put socks back under my Birkenstocks. And when I get there I am so happy to get back inside. Those fog plumes get into my bones.

          • Posted by anon

            be that as it may “you seldom enjoy due to the weather” is nonsense. if you don’t like 55-75 most of the year then that’s on you. you said “you,” not “I.” lots of people like the spring like temps SF has most of the year round and enjoy the outdoors accordingly. and you know that. do more self editing dude. nobody is checking for the lint in your navel.

          • Posted by san FronziScheme

            75? Oh, you meant that day in september.

            j/k

          • Posted by moto mayhem

            i live in the inner richmond and think its probably 75+ degrees at least 75 days/yr, and certainly 65+ at least 250 days/yr. Over the last 3 yrs, its been foggy less than 30 days out of the year. I can only imagine noe is better than this. I have a roof deck and would say i enjoy it 150 days out of the year. Personally think the weatehr in SF is by far better than anywhere else in the country

      • Posted by roberto

        Parks? in Noe? Where? Day street has a softball field and there is Douglas park. That’s it.
        Noe Valley lacks parkland.

        • Posted by san FronziScheme

          You could argue that Billy Goat Hill is part of Noe (local kids love that swing!). Many soccer moms in NV also go to the Dolores Park playground.

          • Posted by cleverpunhere

            You could argue that, but you’d be wrong. Billy Goat Hill is in Glen Park using any relevant map that I know of. But if it makes you feel better, “you could argue” that Yosemite is part of Noe.

      • Posted by Mark

        Yep, just Noe Valley. All yours.

    • Posted by Pioneer

      Agree with Futurist. The “lemmings” commute to the peninsula and the valley is an hour less each way compared to Pac Heights or the Marina. That’s 500 hours a year NOT commuting – worth every penny when you make what lemmings do.

      • Posted by Mark

        I don’t know what route you take, but it doesn’t take an hour to get from the Marina/Pac Heights to Noe Valley. Maybe by MUNI.

  4. Posted by jenofla

    Add me to the puzzled about Noe Valley crowd. I’ve visited friends there, and it’s a wonderful neighborhood, but I feel so many other neighborhoods (Glen Park, Bernal, Cole Valley, Eureka Valley, West Portal) are just as wonderful. I just don’t understand why it’s at such a premium. It’s a bit windy and it can be hard to find parking for friends to visit.

    GP and BH have the same access to 280, and GP has BART. BH has smaller lots. WP, EV, and CV are foggier. So yes, I don’t expect these neighborhoods to command the same prices, but NV just seems so far and away ahead. Is it proximity to the Mission (still a hike last I tried)? Is it just socioeconomic self-stratification? The rich for whom there is no difference between a $4 or $9 million dollar house have decided to choose this neighborhood to congregate? Or is this just an example of a developer overpaying for a piece of land and we’re thinking too much about it? They probably need a $5-6 mil house to recoup costs no?

    • Posted by san FronziScheme

      I think it’s a question of having all the elements to be an attractive neighborhood, mixed with an historical dynamic in the 90s and the 00s. Once you have a critical mass of people of certain circles in a specific area, and if they have the means, then they’ll create their own ecosystem.

    • Posted by Wai Yip Tung

      Add me to the skeptic. Noe is a fine place. I just don’t understand how it commands such premium. It’s vibe pale compares to Mission. Transit is OK. If Silicon Valley commute is important, why not Potrero Hill, Mission or Glen Park?

      BH is another puzzle. Transit is poor. Homes are crowding on narrow hilly streets. Yet it keeps rising up the ranks. To me it is just as unsexy as Portola but as least Portola has larger lots.

      • Posted by san FronziScheme

        Portola, Glen Park, Potrero Hill are a bit too far from other vibrant and central neighborhoods. With BH you can walk to the Mission or Noe. With Noe you can walk to the Mission or the Castro. I think it’s about not being stuck in an island or a quasi suburbia away from the action.

        • Posted by jenofla

          Glen Park you have BART and can be in the Mission in a few stops. Also super convenient for SFO and OAK. West Portal, you have three subway lines running to downtown and only two stops from Castro. Potrero is a bus ride to SOMA. But as long as people believe that these places are quasi-suburbia (which is not felt by those who actually live there), maybe there will always be a price differential. Enough people with the funds think NV is worth it–so that’s how much it’ll cost.

          • Posted by San FronziScheme (formerly known as lol)

            You said the words: bus, subway, BART. I love walking (the parisian in me will never go away) and I can’t live in a house where going someplace starts with a car or public transportation. Even in LV I moved to a walkable area in downtown. Maybe it’s just me. But I have a feeling quite a few people want to be close to the action.

          • Posted by jenofla

            What? It’s 1.3 miles from 571 Hoffman, which sold for 6.7m, to the Castro Theatre and 1.8 miles to Tartine. 1.3 miles to 24th and Mission. If that’s your definition of walkability (and actually, it’s mine too), then Potrero is walkable to SOMA and the Mission, Glen Park is walkable to the southern Mission and Bernal and Noe, and West Portal is walkable to Inner Sunset (and all the stuff along Noriega and Taraval). Cole Valley and Eureka Valley are super walkable then. This is a city, not that many islands. Look, Noe boosters, Noe is a great neighborhood. But you don’t have to put down other neighborhoods to justify it. You mentioned it earlier, a critical mass of people of certain circles have created an ecosystem. Good for them and good for Noe. Doesn’t mean other neighborhoods are any less central, fun, pretty, walkable, family-friendly, etc etc. They’ve just not become the “rich” neighborhood.

          • Posted by san FronziScheme

            Going from 571 Hoffman to the Castro Theater is actually a great walk (and slide!). I know, adults are not supposed to use the slide, but who’s watching?…

            Going to Tartine can be done by hopping by Liberty Hill which is my preferred hill in all of SF.

            24th and Mission is done through, well, 24th street. Pretty nice stroll and great view on Dolores.

            Another one: from BH to the Mission? Precita Park or make a hook by Tiffany if you feel like musing.

            My point? When you are going places from Noe or BH, you are actually going THROUGH places, not a tundra of desolate speedways, highways, spaghetti bowls and other semi industrial areas. It’s not only the destination that counts but also the journey. To be true, GP is pretty high on my list since I always love taking the steps after enjoying the great architecture.

            PS: I’ll never understand Tartine. You can’t fool a Frenchman.

      • Posted by Mark

        BH became popular because people were priced out of NV and GP. Now the same is happening in BH…people being priced out. You see this now in the Sunset where 65+ year old homes in “vintage” condition in the outer avenues are fetching top dollar.

      • Posted by Futurist

        So remain a skeptic Wai, but the prices being mentioned are not fantasy, bust just “real”. What are you skeptical of??

        And trying to compare the Noe “vibe” with the Mission is ridiculous. They have a completely different demographic of buyers and social life. It’s like comparing a monkey to a dragon. Very different.

        It’s not rocket science.

        • Posted by Orland

          Does not this “debate” underscore for you what a grand city in which to live SF is?

        • Posted by ThegrimREpa

          No one goes to the Mission any more. It’s too crowded.

      • Posted by cleverpunhere

        Personally, I’d take Noe a thousand times over Bernal. But Glen Park is really terrific, and the Noe price premium vs Glen Park makes no sense to me (admittedly, that premium is getting smaller every day). Some parts of Noe have nicer housing stock than Glen Park, but otherwise I think Glen Park is ahead by most measures. Obviously, the current market disagrees, so there must be more to it.

    • Posted by BobN

      Noe Valley is closer in than many of those other ‘hoods. It was built longer ago, with larger homes for a somewhat richer market at the time.

    • Posted by NJ

      As someone who spends time in both CV and NV almost daily, I have to believe the only tangible benefit NV has over CV is that it is a few minutes closer to 280. In almost all other respects, CV is a nicer place than NV, IMHO. As to beauty of streets and home exteriors, CV wins hands-down. That there is undue fog in CV is a misconception, in my experience. CV is in a bit of a banana belt — especially the southern part (away from the Haight), as it is sheltered by Sutro Forest. I don’t often see it foggy there but sunny in NV.

      • Posted by Orland

        I do believe Cole Valley remains my favorite SF hood but there are so many great ones.

        When I was young, naive and a renter, first learning SF, thought how great it’d be to move to a new part of town every couple of years. Then I experienced the hassle of landing that first flat — even then!

  5. Posted by woolie

    That’s about 11% annual gain for 46 years.

    • Posted by JustLooking

      OK. Had to run some #s. If you had bought the S&P 500 (06/30/1969) and sold 06/30/2015. Annualized return of 10.1%. Of course you need to factor in the taxes on dividends, etc.

      Then back out 5% for transaction costs on sale of the house and the annualized gain falls to around 10.6%. And don’t forget that the owner likely added some costs – the interior looks dated, but I don’t think it is fully 1969 dated.

      At the end of the day (even with likely owner leverage – aka, the mortgage), it may very well be a push compared to the S&P 500 over the same time period.

      • Posted by Flash

        I suppose one should also factor in the rent income of the house or, equivalently, the amount of rent that the owner saved by living there rather than renting somewhere else. That’s probably higher than the dividends and capital gains which your are including for the S&P 500.

      • Posted by SFrentier

        Yeah but you can’t live in your s&p 500 stocks.

        Plus the mortgage leverage is a significant factor. What was the down payment requirement in 1969 anyone? 25%? So your cash outlay was only $6250. Run that # for s&p and it’s a big difference.

      • Posted by Moto mayhem

        s&p almost always beats housing

      • Posted by JR "Bob" Dobbs

        With dividends reinvested, the S&P returned about 11.6%/yr since 1969.

        Housing is generally a lousy “investment” given all the large holding and transaction costs. But, of course, when you factor in rent vs. own considerations, it is often the better option from the standpoint of choosing a place to live. And no doubt this place was a great move either in terms of “investment” value or rent vs. own. Anyone who thinks that a buyer in SF today will see anything even approaching this result is delusional.

        • Posted by SFrentier

          Housing is lousy investment? Generalize much?

          I dunno…lots of people seem to do very well strictly as RE investors. And not just in Frisco and not just recently/last boom. Numerous Investors all over the world who invested in appreciating areas, who managed their risks, leveraged wisely did very well. Holding costs are mitigated by rents. Transaction costs? How often do you need to sell performing properties. And if you want to, there is 1031ex available. Plus, RE has awesome tax advantages which stocks ain’t got.

          Sooo…..whatcha talkin ’bout Willis?

        • Posted by anon

          oh, predicting 37 years into the future now, are we? get a grip dude.

  6. Posted by BobN

    Yoo hoo, Mr. Developer/Buyer, I’d gladly take that table off your hands…

  7. Posted by uberfan

    Post says 6 bids were received and five were from developers – my bet is that the non-developer got the place – anyone have the inside skinny???

  8. Posted by youknowwhatImean?

    schadenfreude … coming to a theater near you. stay tuned!

  9. Posted by SFrentier

    Can a dev make dinero on this? What’s the top end of Noe? $1500 PSF? Is the bldg. envelope of this joint even 3000 SF? So assume $4.5 mil sell out. Buy at $2.8, add $1 mil all in costs, and this looks pretty marginal. Either rich noob brought this for themselves, or delusional flipper thinks he can get north of $5 mil on the sell side. Unless this house and lot is f-ing incredible, it ain’t gonna happen.

    • Posted by Government Shrinkage

      If it was bought by developers, I suspect the place will be turned into condos.

      The parcel area is about 1800 sqft (buildable area per city records, on a 2600 sqft lot), in a 40-X height zone zoned RH-3 (three families residential). Assume they can go to 40 feet and add 2 floors. I also suspect that they wouldn’t have too much difficulty getting approval for 2 or perhaps even 3 units: Planning is going to like more housing. The neighbors maybe a pain… but at 2M/condo (not hard for an 1800sqft condo at that location) that’s a tidy profit.

      • Posted by anon

        no chance. if bought by developers, then single family home is the best and highest usage. and your back of the envelope condo numbers pencil out to a big loss, btw

        • Posted by Long-time San Franciscan

          (3 * 2.x) – (2.8 + 1.6) = tidy profit.

    • Posted by sparky-b

      I am sure the buyer was looking at:
      471 Hoffman: $6.7mm and
      553 Elizabeth: $7mm.

      This location is better than both of those.

      • Posted by Government Shrinkage

        That too.

      • Posted by SFrentier

        I dunno, how speculative is it to assume you can get $6-7 mil for a fancy Noe home, what, 18 months from now? Seems risky to me. If your specing on $3-4 mil Noe home, that’s more in the mainstream.

        • Posted by EBGuy

          Maybe sparky-b can comment about the turnaround time. I foresee a below grade patio, nanawall and firepit in this homes future.

          • Posted by sparky-b

            I estimate it is about 15 months to permit and 12 months to build.

        • Posted by anon

          very speculative dude. that’s the point. this is nuts.

      • Posted by San FronziScheme (formerly known as lol)

        7 years ago we were discussing the appropriateness of purchasing 1.2M fixers for a prospective 2.8M sales for fully redone. Today we are at almost 2.5 times that.

        I am calling a top. Again.

        • Posted by JR "Bob" Dobbs

          I can’t say I disagree. I am not predicting a significant decline in the next 12-18 months. But I do see a substantial risk of a significant decline from today’s SF prices within the next few years after that. I certainly wouldn’t buy in this market.

          • Posted by Futurist

            Based on what facts?

            People were amazed when the first Noe Valley single family home sale hit $1m. The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

            And so here we are. What factors would you see that would cause this “significant decline”?

          • Posted by san FronziScheme

            Cycles go that way. No doubt that long term Noe will stay prime, and all buyers bidding up this high do have the cash, but in that particular cycle, the hysteria is taking a lot of future appreciation as a given.

            Buyer #1 looks for 5M homes where they were just 4.5M 6 months ago. He cannot find any and rationalizes that a 20% increase is a given, and therefore will go to 5.5M right now, accelerating the increase. Buyer #2 sees price gone to 5.5M and thinks he would be paying much more tomorrow, pulling the trigger fast to push the price to 6M. And so on…

            I will not go as far as saying this is similar to the subprime deadbeats of 2006 overpaying their suburban blah houses because “they would be in the money in 6 months”.

            The key question is always whether the buyers can afford the price they pay. As I said earlier, obviously they can. But should they pay that price? What makes Noe worth 2 or 3 times areas that are 1 mile away, have similar views, lifestyle, offer? And when you go market by market, wouldnt it mean an entire re-evaluation of all the segments of the SF market? Nope, because some areas are paid all cash, and others are paid using income (plus cash, obviously). This means that many prices in SF will have to reach a plateau limited by income, and the massive differences with the upper layers of the market will have to be justified.

        • Posted by sparky-b

          I second the notion that this is the top.

          • Posted by SFrentier

            Yeah but da question is: are we gonna drop, say 10-15%, or are we gonna go sideways for awhile. IF prices do not continue increasing significantly this year/early next, then I think we’re gonna go sideways. So if you’re buying now, no biggie. Get the place you love, enjoy it, and don’t worry about the next 2-3 years of (potential) sideways action. But if we keep going up another 10-15%, then yeah there is a stronger chance for a bounce back.

          • Posted by san FronziScheme

            You arguably called the bottom in March 2009 (even though it lasted a bit more than 2 years). We’ll see what the next 3-4 years have in store for the market.

  10. Posted by inclinejj

    My first real estate class back when I was a snot nosed 18 year old the instructor said. I would much rather have the crappiest crack den in the best neighborhood then a nice property in a crappy neighborhood. You lazy fat americans born here, and foreigners come in and kick your ass. Most people live paycheck to paycheck. I did mortgage banking for awhile and I saw people who made $500,000 a year back then spend every dime every month.

    What you people forget to realize. For every thousand you make people make millions out here. Stock Options, CEO;s, and the Bay Area has the biggest concentration of Billionaires in the United States.

    Someone will buy this. Put a mil or two into it and have their own personal dream house. If I like it or you people like it doesn’t matter. Rich people do what they want, because they can afford it.

    • Posted by san FronziScheme

      A dream house on a 25 foot lot. It has the price tag of a dream/trophy house and the footprint of a row house in Anywhere, PN. It is a decent compromise under the circumstances but calling these “dream houses”? I hope the moneyed people have more ambition.

  11. Posted by c_q

    Just for reference, $22k in 1969 dollars is $143k in 2015 dollars adjusted for inflation (CPI). Granted, real estate increases better than inflation usually, but the long-term number I hear the most is 6% per year average. So, $22k increased by 6% for each of the intervening 46 years still only gets you to $321k today. Even taking ratio of house price to average salary, it was about $10k/yr in 1969, today it’s about $100k/yr, so with the same ratio should be about $220k.

    [Editor’s Note: Long-term average appreciation in San Francisco is closer to 4 percent per year.]

  12. Posted by erick

    in order to get 2M and change the units are going to have to be huge, and high end. So construction of 5400 sq ft or more, and you get 1.6M, including two plus years holding costs? and transaction fees? try 2.5m. And you’re banking on 2M+ for the lowest unit? I don’t think so. Maybe not a big loss, but a loss. I was thinking more like 1000 a foot and maybe the top unit gets 2M+.

    Anyway, compared to a single family home for 7M and less cost to build, as less kitchens/baths, etc? no contest

    • Posted by Long-time San Franciscan

      2.xM is an average. Top unit goes for more, bottom for less. More complexity, slightly more expensive but a safer bet. Not clear the 6-7M sales are not unicorns. ~1000-1200/sqft for a high end condo at this location, with parking is 100% guaranteed. The unicorn could see a 1.5M variation either way. More risky, more upside…

  13. Posted by Long-time San Franciscan

    You are correct about construction costs for high end finishes – 400/sqft plus property tax ~60K = a little under 2.5M.

  14. Posted by uberfan

    way more walkable than 25th as well as Hoffman – but absolutely no view – but people know they usually can’t have both a killer view and walkability at the same time – really couldn’t be better for walkability – I agree with earlier post – this will not pencil out for condos – no way – this will require the same type of buyer that went for 25th as well as Hoffman – with professional architecture and design, this should be ok as single family – the buy side at Hoffman was 1.5 mil – the buy on this one could eat into what might otherwise have been sic profit – or who knows – in another couple years after Uber IPO’s, a twenty something will snap it up with cash and a seven day close for 8 or 9 mil – now wouldn’t that be awesome margin 🙂

  15. Posted by TheNewGuy

    This may not be true, but there is a rumor that this is now slated to be low-income affordable housing. Although sold to a private developer, I have it from very reliable sources that the developer is flipping it (for $4.0 million) to the city in return for an easement that will allow for 60 feet and a contract to build 15 units, space for 20+ bikes, but only 3 parking spaces with charging stations.

  16. Posted by anon

    GP, BH, Potrero Hill, Mission all have projects. Noe doesn’t. Not that hard to figure out.

    • Posted by san FronziScheme

      The projects in NV are called Diamond Heights 😉

      • Posted by anon

        they aren’t in noe valley. there you go again, musing + adding nothing

        • Posted by san FronziScheme

          there you go again, putting your panties in a bunch. But you are not denying that Noe is bordered with quite a sizable amount of projects/social housing units.

          • Posted by anon

            huh? baseless stuff right there. not denying? grow up. SF is all about neighborhoods, and you know that. the fact is, Noe is the biggest southern neighborhood without projects. therefore, it is the biggest neighborhood with the best weather, closest to freeways, without projects.

            “yeah, but the next neighborhood up the hill has projects” ??? that’s your take?

            why?

            weird. more deleting. less saving. that would be a good thing outta you.

          • Posted by anon

            like, Lower Pacific Heights has projects. So, therefore Pacific Heights has projects.

            That’s kinda what you said.

            Honestly bud, you’re really off any more. Clearly you’re not here. So, like, why?

          • Posted by san FronziScheme

            You took a pun and ran with it foaming at the mouth. You have issues.

            Bud.

          • Posted by anon

            No, i really don’t. pun? Naah. You’ve got a not particularly great way with your second language, and an even more compulsory Pavlovian psyche than me.

          • Posted by san FronziScheme

            That was weak, and I would say low even by your own standards. This doesn’t make you look good. Then again, you’re the untraceable and unaccountable “anon”.

    • Posted by cleverpunhere

      There are no projects in Glen Park, as far as I know. There is some section 8, but no projects. And I suspect there is some section 8 in Noe, too.

      • Posted by anon

        There are subsidized housing developments in Glen Park, and not in Noe. Are there section 8 flats here and there, in Noe? probably.

        • Posted by cleverpunhere

          You are wrong on both counts. First, Section 8 is subsidized housing, my friend. Second, “subsidized housing developments” do exist in Noe. They are in somewhat “remote” corners of the neighborhood, but so are the ones in Glen Park.

          I hate to beat this to death, but if you are going to accuse others of “adding nothing” and saying “baseless stuff,” you should work on your own accuracy, too.

          • Posted by anon

            I am not wrong, actually. You did not even disagree with me there. I said there are subsidized housing developments in Glen Park. You objected to my initial term “projects.” Fine. If you could point to any subsidized housing development in Noe Valley, then do so. Otherwise you’ve not made a point.

          • Posted by san FronziScheme

            Are we back to 2008 when the one we shall not name was following the RE crash with denials, “he said, you said, I said”, “I am not wrong” and a lot of rationalizations?

          • Posted by anon

            No, seriously, not only is that not what happened back then, but what is the subsidized development in Noe Valley?

          • Posted by anon

            fine. a question was asked, “what is it about Noe”? I tried to answer the question, bringing a fact to the table that nobody else had yet touched upon. Not sure why my simple fact was then subjected to oblivion-parsing, but there you go.

          • Posted by cleverpunhere

            My earlier comment ended up outside of this thread, but the answer to your question is 29th and Diamond in Noe. Probably elsewhere, too. But who cares? These places don’t impact quality of life the way actual projects do, which is why I objected to your broad statement about “projects” in the first place. It sounds like we agree that there aren’t projects in Glen Park.

          • Posted by san FronziScheme

            True, and you shall get the credit for having introduced that. But SF is a small city and not having project doesn’t necessarily make an area more valuable. In the case of NV, it’s debatable since it’s closely bordered by the Mission and DH to the North and Spouth. You could argue that DH is harder to get to than the Mission (these slopes sometimes feel like the walls of a fortress), but the connection is there.

          • Posted by anon

            Are those Section 8 at 29th and Diamond? I never knew that. I thought they were simply 80s condos. Is that still Noe there? south of 29th at that location, past the open space? debatable. I bet the people across the street and uphill, where 30th would go if not for the hills, think they live in Diamond Heights. Wait a minute. Just Google Earthed. Some of those units are indeed north of 29th.

            Also, @ SF Fronzischeme, you really think so? In a small city not having any projects don’t make an area more valuable? I beg to differ. All one needs to do is look at areas that do indeed have projects. Look at the Westside Courts part of Lower Pacific Heights. That area has long been kept less expensive due to the projects.

          • Posted by cleverpunhere

            A broker I trust once told me those were section 8, but I don’t know any better than that.

          • Posted by san FronziScheme

            I did say “necessarily”. It’s all micro 😉

  17. Posted by cleverpunhere

    What is that at 29th and Diamond?

  18. Posted by leftSFinsanityYEARSago

    “a fool and his money are soon parted” to the next buyer of the ‘flipped’ version of this dump

Add a Comment

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