Built in 1906 and expanded over the years, the roughly 2000-square-foot home at 159 Laidley Street, which is recorded at 1,312 square feet per the city, quietly sold for $2.7 million in November of last year having been acquired for $251,000 in 1995.

And yes, with a 5,500-square-foot “manor” down the block having fetched $9.7 million back 2018, and another 5,100-square-foot home down the street having sold for $7.4 million, plans to raze the existing home at 159 Laidley and build a modern new home designed by Winder Gibson Architects on the Laidley Heights site are in the works, plans which would yield a roughly 4,800-square-foot, three-level home with a two-car garage and panoramic views of the city.

We’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Panhandle Pro

    With enough work, you could research all of the specific streets (e.g. the eastern side of Laidley, the western side of Belgrave in Clarendon Heights, the western side of Mullens in Bernal) which have strongly above average views but aren’t insanely gentrified yet. There is likely a market inefficiency here. While the ship has sailed for Laidley, with all of the hills in SF, there have gotta be many more like it.

    • Posted by SoBayRealtor

      I know you are trying to say something here, but not completely sure what it is?

      • Posted by scurvy

        He’s saying there are streets in iffy neighborhoods that have great views. You can buy up the street, tear everything down, and build some modern stuff on the sites.

      • Posted by Sparky-b

        I believe the idea is, can you take known hot micro RE streets and estimate the next one earlier than the masses so you don’t pay 2.7 for a fixer. Like in the case of Laidley East side, you have Bemis directly above it. Deals to be had? Someone is finishing a nice house there, on the Miguel corner, soon so that ship may have sailed (but maybe it’s not for sale).

    • Posted by UnlivableCity

      Oh really? Because with that Chris Daly “real estate is a zero sum game“ mentality (had it predominated, all the things that make cities attractive in the first place would have never been built) then those homes will be turned into delightfully dreadful Scott Weiner four-plexes.

  2. Posted by Miraloma Man

    Isn’t 2,000 sf enough?

    P.S., I thought the market for Noe Valley Modern McMansions had all moved to Tahoe?

    P.P.S., Why does everything have to be so ugly and in your face in this country?

    • Posted by Chris

      If 2,000 SF was enough, then people would not have paid multi-millions respectively for the 5,500 square-foot and 5,100 square-foot homes on the street. Some people like bigger homes, and if that is how they want to spend their money, I guess good for them. As for Tahoe, it’s a pretty place, and I can somewhat understand its appeal during the pandemic, but aside from retirees (generally, on the Nevada side), I think most people would not want to make it their primary residence since it gets cold (skiing fun aside) and boring.

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles