Newly built on a wide Noe Valley view lot which was purchased for $1.185 million in May of 2015, the contemporary 3,675-square-foot home at 1644 Diamond Street hit the market this past March priced at $3.895 million or roughly $1,060 per square foot.

Reduced to $3.695 million in April, briefly in contract, and then reduced to $3.595 million in July, the four-bedroom home was then offered for rent at $15,000 a month in August.

Having failed to secure a tenant, 1644 Diamond was re-listed as new for $3.495 million, or roughly $951 per square foot, in September, the price at which it has now closed escrow “at asking” (and without any reductions) according to all industry stats and aggregate reports.

At the time the lot was purchased back in 2015, the listing had noted “new construction homes within one block” were selling “in the $3.5MM – $3.85MM range.” For example, 1636 Diamond, the 3,511-square-foot contemporary home next door, sold for $3.5 million, or roughly $997 per square foot, in March of 2015 versus the $951 per foot that the newer 1644 Diamond just fetched.

37 thoughts on “Noe Valley View Home Fails to Fetch 2015-Era Price”
  1. Well the actual price it got is the same, $3.5mm. This article is trying to say that it didn’t get the same $/ft, but not all footage is the same and not always accurate. This place has a 360sq. ft. foyer + a useless full bath and 200 sq. ft. of “gallery” at the kids stairs.

  2. I think the problem with this house was levels. Too many levels with steps, although they weren’t carpeted.

  3. This should’ve been built as six full-floor condos at least instead of a monster home. The 35 stops right there, the 24 runs frequently two blocks away. No excuse for RH-1 zoning here. This should be home to six families instead of one.

  4. 652 Duncan, a couple blocks away, just closed at $1247/sf. Yet this place on Diamond only got $951/sf.

    So I guess the headline here could have read “Noe Valley View Home Fails to Fetch 2017-Era Price.” Would have been really weird, but just as valid – or invalid – as the current headline.

    [Editor’s Note: On average, smaller homes, such as the 32 percent smaller house at 652 Duncan which sold for $3.155 million, fetch higher prices per square foot, which is why dissimilar sized homes are eschewed as comps.]

    1. So why even quote in terms of price per square foot? If you’re only comparing similar-sized homes, why not just compare the actual price?

  5. It will also be interesting to watch the one at 428 Collingwood that was listed at $6.75 and has been reduced to $6.495. It’s been on market for a while.

    1. I walked through 428 Collingwood, and was amazed by all of its built-in efficiencies. It is LEED Platinum so comps won’t be common on this one.

      1. It’s cool, but I wonder if most people will pay for the upgrades (other than solar). Have they actually gotten the LEED Platinum certification or is it just registered?

    2. Or on an apples-to-apples basis, and a closer comp in terms of construction, 538 28th Street which was purchased for $4,985,000 in June of 2016 and was just reduced to $4,995,000 ($1,044 per square foot).

      1. Agree, and 1644 feels very Diamond Heights…way up the hill. Pushing a stroller from 24th Street would not be pleasant, which eliminates a large part of the buyer pool.

        1. Yes it sits beneath the projects adjacent to Safeway and given the location and slope there will be little to no walking. Bland design and lack of quality finishings add to the mediocrity.

    3. I’m assuming the seller told the agent to list at that price, at it appears somewhat divorced from reality. I think $5.5-5.75 would be lucky, and about where 614 Noe sold.

    4. The sale of 428 Collingwood has closed escrow with a $6.2 million contract price or roughly $1,432 per square foot for a brand new LEED Platinum home with five bedrooms and a two-car garage.

  6. I understand this is Noe Valley and the neighborhood commands premium prices, but it seems a lot of smarter money would go elsewhere in SF to buy a better house for less. There is only so much you can do with paint.

    Some nice high-end imported French or Italian wall paper would be nice to make an otherwise bland (on the outside and inside) feel more upscale and desirable. Or is that amenity reserved only for Cow Hollow homes asking $12M?

  7. I visited an Open House for this place – there are definitely several reasons it didn’t command premium pricing:

    -Sits directly below the housing project (I assume that’s what it is, don’t actually know for sure) on Diamond Heights Blvd
    -The hill on which that project sits effectively blocks out any afternoon sun
    -You are near the top of the Diamond St hill so definitely not an easy walk to/from 24th St, especially if pushing a stroller (as many residents of NV are known to do)
    -Cramped & ugly ‘backyard’ area
    -The house itself is fairly ‘meh’ when compared to other new construction/high end remodels in the area

    All of that being said I think the price it ultimately traded at is a fair price. Despite the flaws mentioned above you’re getting a brand new ~3700 sq foot house in NV for under $1k/square foot – not a bad deal for the buyer (I’m sure some may disagree with paying that much $ for any house in SF but relative to other neighborhood comps I feel like this offers relative value).

    1. Though notice that the 2015 comp used was right next door, and presumable it was no easier to push a stroller up a hill in 2015.

  8. As NoeEnvy said–it’s next to the projects–yes they are. You’ll get the higher prices in the flats than up on the hill. It’s easier to get to DH Safeway than 24th St. DH shopping center isn’t as fun as 24th St.

    1. It is saying that the house sold for about what the seller thought should be the sale price for a newly developed home on the lot. Others are opining, among other things, as to whether the comps support the purchase price or not.

      1. Actually, it’s saying the house sold for 4.6 percent less, on a price per square foot basis, than its closest comp fetched in early 2015 and under $1,000 per square foot.

        It’s also saying that it sold for just under the bottom of the implied range that comparable homes were fetching circa 2015.

        And it’s also saying that it sold for 10.3 percent less than its original list price, a price which was likely closer to “what the seller [or at least agent] thought should be the sale price for a newly developed home on the lot” as evidenced by the little sequential cuts and subsequent attempt to rent/hold versus further reduce and sell.

  9. I don’t think so. Another Noe Diamond st November sale, 1188 Diamond, fetched $300 more per foot just a week and a half prior. What was the implied range for that one? Does it matter that there was not one publicly stated? What of that one getting nearer $1300 per square feet than $1200? Is that indicative of an era?

    1. Was the implied value for that property its listing price of 4.75M? It did not read as a teaser price, IMO.

      1. No, of course they are not the same and that’s all part of it. You’re the one riffing on trends, here.

          1. I’d say that 1188 Diamond is more or less in keeping with what some of the well executed larger homes have done in that general area, and that the Cube House, as well as 168 Jersey, one up on Hoffman I can’t recall the address of, are the outliers, really. Was your general point that more vertical homes on smaller lots in the mid 3Ms range are not faring as well these days? It’s always going to be a small sample set.

  10. I just don’t understand why SS readers are so fixated on Realtors quoting sales prices “at asking”, or when the price is reduced and selling for more than the reduced price as “above asking”, when any reputable Realtor checks the Property History. As a South Bay Realtor for 40 years, these are terms I’ve never heard with any regularity when describing a sale, since we always check the History for actual data. Do you really think these terms are fooling anyone?

    1. Everyone here agrees that “over asking” is meaningless. But then why does it appear so often in agent’s public statements?

      1. Search for “over asking” in the web sites of most mainstream papers such as sfgate and see how many headline hits you get. And click a few links to read the text of the articles and see if they even hint at how this “metric” is so commonly manipulated.

        Most people don’t follow RE this closely and many are fooled by these terms.

        1. Fake news!
          I just know as a professional Realtor we don’t rely on SFGate for valuations. And yes, there is such a thing as a professional Realtor.

  11. Most people don’t realize that behind and above the property is Public Section 8 Housing. On the same block to the left and couple doors down is the same. Diamond Heights has the most Public Section 8 Housing in the city. Addison St., Gold Mine Drive, Diamond Heights Blvd., etc. Crime is just as bad today as it was when it was built 50 years ago.

Leave a Reply

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