Redeveloped in 2019, the modern Noe Valley compound at 1647 Sanchez Street, with a primary residence, guest house (290 Day) and a total of 6 bedrooms spread across 6,000-square-feet of space, along with a two-car garage, quietly sold for $9.1 million in July of 2020.

Returned to the market priced at $13.495 million in April of last year, the asking price for the compound was reduced to $12.15 million last June, to $10.995 million last September and then to $9.995 million after another month on the market.

Withdrawn from the MLS a few days ago, 1647 Sanchez has just been listed anew, with an official “1” day on the market and a (further reduced) list price of $8.995 Million, a sale at which would be “at asking” according to all industry stats and aggregate reports but 33 percent below its original list price and 1 percent below its value three years ago.

If you think you know the market for modern compounds, high-end homes and Noe Valley, now’s the time to tell.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by iamthewalrus

    What a bold initial listing price. Asking for a near 50% return on less than a two year hold?

  2. Posted by Maurice

    Charmless and cramped (even with 6 BR!)

  3. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    The purchase for $9.1 million in July of 2020 was probably motivated by the mid-pandemic property bubble. Now that the bubble is disinflating, if they get out with just a 1 percent nominal loss they’ll heave a sigh of relief and move on, wiser. Who knows, maybe the new asking price will kick off a bidding war and they’ll come out of this having made some money.

  4. Posted by Panhandle Pro

    Thesis around sizeable ADU’s, such as here and 1342 Fell St: the millennial generation hates the idea of nursing homes: both in concept and in cost. They also hate the cost of childcare. Their parents (Boomers) are aging gracefully / fully functional and want to be present for their grandchildren, and perhaps a new lease on life in the walkable city.

    The state of CA is also loosening rules around ADU’s in a big way.

    Expect to see many ADU’s and setups like this as a result of this combination of factors.

    • Posted by sparky-b

      We will see lots and lots of 2 units in this area and all the central areas whether or not its what the millennials want. Everything in the Central Neighborhoods over 2500 feet has to be 2 units by law since the start of 2022.

      • Posted by Panhandle Pro

        Thanks for this. You’re right. See my name link.

        Here are a few snippets.

        “The proliferation of monster homes in Noe Valley where the average home is around 1,500 square feet is a serious issue that not only affects livability for current residents but also the environment as a whole,” said Ozzie Rohm of the Noe Neighborhood Council. “Noe Valley has become ground zero for such homes because of its geography and abundance of old and relatively affordable cottages that can be ballooned up for the sole purpose of flipping. Supervisor Mandelman understands the issue and we’re grateful to him for his willingness to act on it.”

        “A Conditional Use approval from the Planning Commission would be required for any development that would result in a residential unit that is more than 3,000 gross square feet (including garage space), or the equivalent of a 1 to 1.2 Floor to Area Ratio (FAR), whichever is less. (For example, on a 2,000 square foot lot a CU would be triggered if any unit will exceed 2,400 square feet, while for lots of 2,500 square feet or larger the threshold would be 3,000 square feet per unit).

        No project resulting in a single unit exceeding 4,000 gross square feet would be permitted. Property owners would be entitled to seek a Variance from this requirement if a specific hardship can be demonstrated.”

        • Posted by Tower of Power

          What a stupid law that is all too typical of Mandelman. If you want more affordability, you could just, you know, remove obstacles to 5 story apartment buildings. Instead we get yet another restriction that will lead to very few extra units and less tax revenues.

          • Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

            It isn’t a stupid law, Mandelman was responding to the desires of his constituents. It is, however, understandable to think the ordinance is “stupid” if you’re one of the people who wants to make money by flipping and replacing smaller, single family homes with luxury monster homes.

            One of the reasons the legislation was passed was because people want affordable single-family homes, not units in 5 story apartment buildings. Single family homes are not interchangeable with units in multi-story apartment buildings. And, in case you’re new to this website, developers of multi-story apartment buildings aren’t even completing projects they have entitlements for, so saying that the Board of Supervisors should remove obstacles to their construction is a canard.

            You’re getting “yet another restriction” because San Francisco simply has too many flippers, developers, and other hangers-on in the S.F. real estate “game” who have made it their business to run up the price of housing, and this ordinance is a reasonable response to the effect that is having on the people who live here.

          • Posted by sparky-b


            It isn’t a stupid idea, but it is a stupid law (IMO). The footage was poorly selected at a house that is not a Monster. It could have been something like 3500 not including garage and would have worked better to disincentivize developers to go for the 2-unit (plus an ADU if desired). Those units can EACH be much bigger than the single family house that was allowed, up to 4000 feet. So basically it’s saying look you need to get a CU for anything so why not go big. Is that what neighbors really want next to them? 2-Luxury monsters?
            It also allows you to add more to your house if it’s already big. Why is this done on percentages (15% allowed)? They should have just said you can add 400 feet and not get a CU requiring a 2nd unit and fully destroying the existing house. If you have 3000 foot house and 200 foot garage, you can add 480 feet to it. Which is a 2 story addition with side setbacks. But you can’t do that if you have a 2350 foot house that same addition would not be allowed.

            The central neighborhoods are going to get a bunch of 4 story, 2 car garage, 7800 foot places.

      • Posted by What a town

        Has this legislation been adopted?

        • Posted by sparky-b

          Yes it was retroactive to January 1, 2022

          and the 3000 feet includes the garage, and low head height spaces that could be worked on later, and spaces under overhangs, and lightwells that could be filled, etc. That is why I said 2500 foot house.

          • Posted by What a town

            Just mandlemans district or city wide?

          • Posted by sparky-b

            Basically just Mandleman’s with a few carve outs at mid-market and the mission where there are already some other controls

    • Posted by Ohlone Californio

      Panhandle Pro, I like a lot of the stuff you post on here. But no way dude. Millennials straight up love themselves some preschool and after-school care. As far as I can tell anyway. I’m a Gen Xer who got going a little late in the kid department. But that’s what I see. They are about it, and all over it, when it comes to preschool and after-school, which unfortunately are indeed competitive.

      • Posted by Panhandle Pro

        I mean, yes, most millennials still will be using afterschool care. This trend is still a relatively small blip on the screen. Im talking going from 1% to 5% of the total. However I know multiple millennials doing exactly what I posted. The combined cost of nursing home + child care is insane, many will try to opt into the way to reduce that by 80% while feeling good about it – grandma in the basement!

  5. Posted by sf

    Too bad the FRB bubble just popped. So close!

  6. Posted by don_keesho

    Would one be subject to a vacancy tax for the privilege of maintaining a “guest house” such as this?

    • Posted by sparky-b

      No. Vacancy tax is 3units and up…for now

  7. Posted by noefog

    Who’s the target market for this? A 9m$ compound (with way too much MDF and crooked outlets inside at that price) on Sanchez next to the rec center? That does not seem appealing to me neither from a “fitting in the neighborhood” vibe nor a “rich folk on a hill” vibe.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles