4121 Cesar Chavez
The Summit in Noe Valley” (4121 Ceasar Chavez) is “coming soon” (i.e., no pricing yet).
4121 Cesar Chavez: Interior
Two two-story three-bedroom/two and one-half bath condos on the top floor, four two-bedroom/two and one-half bath condos below. Elevator access, open floor plans, Scavolini cabinetry, and Thermador appliances in the kitchens.
4121 Cesar Chavez: View
South facing common “outdoor retreat” (a.k.a. a deck) and big city views (or more accurately, big views of the city) for all. Pricing when we (or a tipster) can provide.
The Summit In Noe Valley (4121 Cesar Chavez) [thesummitinnoe.com]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by brian

    Putting my uneducated guess in for $1.15m lower units, $1.55m upper units.

  2. Posted by Michael

    I really like the odd angles of the top floors and the big windows. What was there before?

  3. Posted by someone

    It was some crappy 50s (??) structure on a double lot. Don’t remember seeing it on the market, but the developer snapped it, demo the old stuff and has been working on this for sometime now.

  4. Posted by noearch

    here’s some of my criticism..both good and bad:
    1. the entry looks cheap and minimal, sort of like the lobby door to a Motel 6. There is no canopy or recessed entry..so when using the intercom in the rain..you get soaked. the entry makes no design statement worthy of this building.
    2. there is not ONE bit of landscaping at the front of the building. The planning code clearly states that landscaping and trees are required for ALL new projects. What happened here? Somebody decided to cheat the system.
    3. the location, views, and finishes are awesome. the units will probably sell high and fast.

  5. Posted by enonymous

    1.15 and 1.5 are probably way too low
    but i guess it depends on the sq footage

  6. Posted by San FronziScheme

    Incredible location and views.
    One practical question: 6 units and how many garage spaces? There’s a single width garage door. How they organized the car flow will be interesting to see.

  7. Posted by invented

    We like it. Solidly good. Compare it to yesterday’s 7th Ave. skank in Inner Sunset. What a difference an outspoken community can make.

  8. Posted by anon94123

    Regarding the view. Do people really consider that an attractive view? I live in the north part of the city and am still curious why people are so in love with views such as this vs. a view of the Golden Gate or the north bay with angel island and alcatraz. That view looks more like around Silver Lake (without the lake) in Los Angeles.

  9. Posted by 94114

    Views are relative, anon94123. I think many of us would like a view of the bay and of the Golden Gate Bridge. Most can only afford the more mundane views of Bernal Hill. Such a view still beats looking at your neighbor’s back porch.

  10. Posted by invented

    Anon94123
    Great comment.
    Don’t rattle our fantasies of living in SF. Vast majority of residents NEVER see h20 all weeklong. Really — it’s about community not water. We even build away from water. 10,000 homes in Mission Bay. 2% might see water. You’d think Mission Bay would be fully oriented toward the Bay. Not even a glimpse along the light rail. We’re inward not outward. Go figure.

  11. Posted by location

    @anon94123
    Regarding comparing this to views of “the Golden Gate or the north bay with angel island”, would this condo not cost a couple million more with the view you are talking about? Maybe that is part of the price.
    Any view that includes downtown is a good one in my book. I love buildings. I don’t know if you clicked on the link, but the image above is just a piece of the overall panoramic view. Put on your monocle and have a look. (kidding)

  12. Posted by noearch

    oh my. such an arrogant comment about the views. it’s such a pity that many of us..alas..only get a view of mere, mundane, poor little Bernal Hill.
    we realize that a view of the GG Bridge or Angel Island is just so essential to our life…if we can’t have that..well..life is just not worth living.

  13. Posted by Dan

    The view from the north side of the crest of Pacific Heights and Telegraph Hill is spectacular, sure. But there are spectacular views from many different hills around the city. One of the things I like most about the view from the more southern hills (e.g., north Bernal) looking north is watching a finger of fog advance on the downtown skyline, then retreat. Or from the west slope of hills looking west (e.g., west Bernal and Potrero Hill), watching the fog well up west of Twin Peaks, finally spilling over like milk onto the adjacent hills.

  14. Posted by dub dub

    You actually *can* see water from there. What do you folks expect — it’s a valley almost in the center of the peninsula! Yes, it’s inferior to more-classical views in SF, but it’s not like you are being tricked.
    Mapjack has an interesting under construction pic:
    http://www.mapjack.com/?txvmWgmzbFJD
    Not too glamorous looking, but whatever. Looks like the outer sunset to me.

  15. Posted by REpornaddict

    anon94123, agree the views of the city can be great from that, and other nearby zip codes.
    But who wants to spend $1m+++ on something sitting on landfill?
    Well, not me.

  16. Posted by hugh

    about views… are you people insane? if those are the views from that place (and not a nearby hill crest), they’re stunning! you can see the whole skyline, the sunrise over the oakland hills, the bay… the GGB, Alcatraz and Marin Headlands are quintessential city views, but any view in the city is beautiful. how could you possibly complain about the views here? the building is pretty too. the exterior uses (at least some) materials that will age/patina well. it’s modern, a little quirky, lust-worthy.

  17. Posted by TheRealScoop

    dub dub, thanks for the mapjack link. from that photo, those neighbor dwellings are crap-o-licious! not going to have those facades taken care of for a loooong time, so the residents of this new fab pad can ‘enjoy’ some wonderful pieces of SF history every time they come home.

  18. Posted by view lover

    anon94123, a view even of this hill can be quite soothing and enjoyable, specially in a quite neighborhood. I used to live close to downtown with a downtown view, but from Corona Heights, I have a view similar to the one on the pic and since it is panoramic, it’s quite beautiful and I prefer it to downtown. View of the GG Bridge would be nice too, but millions more and really not worth it. And in this case, the view is an added bonus, the space in the pics looks pretty sweet.

  19. Posted by Someone

    @anon94123
    I’m with you in general and find Noearch defensive response entertaining.
    I actually live in a very nice place in the real heart of NoeValley. My next place would be one with view, and frankly the only real view in district 5 is downtown skyline. bernal hill or oakland port doesn’t come close, I was surprised to see the place on Sanchez/Hill making a big deal of their views.
    Downtown views are quite attractive IMO, but clearly 94123 views are more world class, but getting a new condo with views will set you back at least 2X that much

  20. Posted by Going to Zero

    You call that a view? A view of what?
    “Little boxes on the hillside
    Little boxes made of ticky tacky
    Little boxes
    Little boxes
    Little boxes all the same”

    –from the Pete Seeger song (which described
    the Sunset district)

  21. Posted by jim

    Regarding views: when I first came to SF 30+ years ago, I had to have a Bay view; I rented an apartment on Broadway with a view of the Bay, and discovered how boring Bay views can be. For us poor working stiffs, when I got home at night all as I saw was black. And on weekends, there were better things to do than stay home and look at my view. Give me a city view any day.

  22. Posted by anon

    “Little Houses”. I thought that song was about Daly City. The Decemberists do a good version.

  23. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    Ah, the old North of Market/South of Market split rears its ugly head.
    Noe Valley is definitely South of Market, in spite of all of its pretensions.

  24. Posted by Jimmy C

    all:
    let’s not get worked up about anon94123. He is a renter.
    anon94123; Enjoy happy hour at mamacita and leave the serious talk to those of us who don’t want to live close to the 30x.
    the reason you post on Noe props, 94123, is because you secretly want to live in the Noe/Bernal/Glen area.
    Peace.

  25. Posted by Dan

    “Little Boxes” was written by Malvina Reynolds, not Pete Seeger, and it was inspired by the houses of Daly City.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boxes

  26. Posted by REpornaddict

    Little Boxes: yeah I get it, but never too impressed when pop stars/singers/writers mock the lives of the everyday folk as ordinary – hey unfortunately we all can’t afford to live the rich folky-bohemian kind of lives they do and afford something other than a ticky-tacky house.
    I found the lyrics a little condescending, actually.

  27. Posted by Going to Zero

    Peter Seeger sang the song; Pete Seeger made it famous. As for the Sunset district vs. Daly City, I don’t see the difference.

  28. Posted by Dan

    Pete Seeger crediting the song to Malvina Reynolds:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN3rN59GlWw
    The Malvina Reynolds version was the original Weeds theme– though the show later inspired many covers of her song:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvGd8vwWLpE&feature=related
    Re: the song being condescending, maybe so, but I don’t think Malvina Reynolds was richer than the people she was singing about.

  29. Posted by Amused

    This is really amusing.
    Why are people getting so riled about 94123’s comment ?
    It’s all a matter of personal preference, right ?

  30. Posted by vapor

    What is with the anon94123 hate? Calling him/her a renter? Is this derogatory?
    I currently rent in SF by choice, renting a loft for a third of the cost to own. In what soon appears to be a declining market. I have the income and cash to purchase. I, as well as many others, are not bitter renters.
    Seriously..WTF.

  31. Posted by wayne

    I think the top of this building is a total mess, architecturally.

  32. Posted by anon94123

    Yikes, I have not been back to this site in a while and did not know my comment caused such trouble. I apologize. I was not bashing the south side of the city, and my favorite view is from a friend’s apartment near the top of twin peaks.
    My question was is this really that great of a view? As I wrote earlier, it reminds me more the hills and houses near Silver Lake or even East Los Angeles. I also understand there are many types of great views in San Francisco, I just prefer the water views facing north myself. (I am not a renter btw) As I wrote a long time ago, I bought in the Marina in 91 when it was a bargain compared to other parts of the city because of the destruction caused by the 89 quake.

  33. Posted by Noe 94131

    Unit 5 in this building, 3 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, is listed at $2,275,000.

  34. Posted by Joe

    Talked to tyhre agent:
    1450 to 2000 square feet, 1.6 million to 2.4 million dollars

  35. Posted by Someone

    Ouch,
    This is very aggressive pricing. last year there was a 2U on 7xx block of Church, where the penthouse had awesome views and , in a much more convenient location, asking was 2.4M-ish, i.e. 1200/sqft and I thought that was pricey.

  36. Posted by plantguy

    I’ve been in these units, that is a pretty high pricepoint for what it is. Nice certainly, but not THAT nice. We’ll see how it shakes out.
    Speaking of shaking out, you couldn’t PAY me to live in the Marina. It is pretty and quintessentially SF, but the landfill thing? No thanks.
    There are wonderful views all over our great city. Each has its own form of beauty. Personal fave of mine is coming over DeHaro St. on Potrero Hill, day or night.
    And “Little Boxes” was written by Malvina Reynolds to describe Daly City. If anyone’s seen the Showtime series “Weeds” they cover it with many different artists. Fun song and great show.

  37. Posted by Steve R

    I used to live three buildings down from this development, and one thing conspicuously missing in the photos is the views across the street of the big, ugly, brown apartment building. It’s an ugly street in general. I’ve never quite understood the hype about Noe Valley.

  38. Posted by Michael

    Anyone toured this place? Comments, thoughts?

  39. Posted by laura

    These units are indeed spectacular, particularly the upper floor units 5 &6. These won’t move at their current price point and my agent (who’s VERY well connected to the SF agent network) advised me to sit back and wait til this drops to at least $800 per

  40. Posted by awiner

    The views are spectacular, yes, and the units look sharp. On the other hand, when we toured, there were oddities all over the place that made us question the designers’ sanity – like drawers that open up over bathtubs and can’t be easily reached, windows that won’t accept screens, dented metal railings from doors swinging in the strong wind, etc.
    Worst of all, the third bedroom in the upper floor units is comically small, especially in the smaller of the two.
    The street is also unfortunate, with a lot of ugly apartment buildings. There’s very little street parking on this block, and with one car per unit, anyone with 2 cars will park one at least one block away (you’re at the end of a cul-de-sac here).
    That said, as I own in the neighborhood, I’d love to have some absurd comps for my unit. But I’m baffled why anyone would pay these prices when similar numbers fetch SFHs in this area.

  41. Posted by sanfrantim

    I toured the upper two units (5 and 6) today (3 of the units have sold already). A lot of foot traffic. I think “spectacular” is in order. I’ve seen a lot of condos and SFH’s in Noe over the years, including high-end condos that sold at $1.5 million and more. I have no doubt that these will fetch asking. The wrap-around 270 degree views of unit 5 are truly remarkable. I think they’ll not have trouble finding a buyer at or above listing. Yes, the psf price is higher than the Noe average for SFH’s, but these condos justify $1000 psf pricing.

Add a Comment

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