Classic facade, modern interior, and one of the many keys to our hearts: a master shower without curtains or glass doors. Glass doors, however, quite prevalent elsewhere (key #17).
∙ Listing: 4226 25th Street (4/3.5) – $2,950,000 [4226-25thstreet.com] [MLS]
I’m sure lots of people will chime in with the death of classic SF homes and what a tragedy it is to not preserve the classic details of this place.
I wonder what will sell first, this place or the Fillmore location. Similar situations.
https://socketsite.com/archives/2008/05/built_in_1904_but_reconstructed_a_century_later_2542_fi.html#comments
~3M with only hills and a peak-a-boo Bay shot for views ? This one could be telling. It really is the heart of Noe but most are surprised to know that Noe has only seen two $3M+ sales for SFRs, ever. This is in the middle of everybody, not perched up on a hill with views for days. Interesting.
I think I must be reaching my saturation point for all these Dwell-like interiors. They’re getting boring, it looks like a hotel lobby.
Spiffy! Actually, I think those views are pretty good as Noe Valley goes. Bathroom is a neat idea. I assume the shower is on the right side of that wall?
Last sold in 06 (!), so I guess this is a straight up remodel and flip (mapjack shows work in progress)?
Pricing and location aside, it’s pretty stunning inside. Very original (especially the powder room–absolutely drop-dead gorgeous).
But I do have to ask–did they forget to clean the floors in the den before the photo shoot?
For the same price or less, you can get some land and a nice house in Burlingame, San Mateo Park, Hillsborough and all these enclaves are still close enough to their downtown areas as well as SF. Granted, it’s not SF, but getting to Noe through a grundgy neighborhood isn’t my idea of a peaceful home. I love the city but sometimes you just have to start thinking twice about these crazy prices and what you’re getting for it.
that’s pretty tragic. it already looks dated and cheap. facade-ism is about the tackiest architectural mode possible.
I think I saw this house 6 months ago or so at the crossing of 25th and Castro. A crane was lifting the house. That’s not cheap.
God, people are such vicious haters.
I suppose some would only be happy if the “renovation” was performed using victorian era “improvements” – horse hair plaster, knob and tube wiring.
Time moves on San Francisco, despite what some people think.
I am also in the “reaching my saturation point for dwell interiors” camp. If you want a modern house, why not build a modern house? And for those haters of Victorians, why not just knock it down and put up an honest modern structure? Why save the exterior at all if you want an interior like this? I would rather see a modern house both inside and out, than a pretend home such as this.
With the current love affair for all things Los Angeles, we may be forgetting some of what made San Francisco so unique. My partner owns an Eichler home in Lucas Valley that we use as a weekend house, and a modern retreat from our San Francisco Victorian. Instead of ripping apart our city home to a pretend Los Angeles Dwell house, we chose to restore an original modern residence that has more light and space than any Victorian remodel could give, and kept our city house true to its original design.
anon2:
First, not everyone can afford multiple homes.
Second, it would be almost impossible to convince the city to let you knock down a Victorian and build a modern house in place of it.
Where is the dog?
anon2: If it were possible to find modern new construction in this city, I am sure people would much rather have that than a “facade-ism”. But, unfortunately, this city has prevented anything erected after 1950 from even getting a face lift. I’m not saying I love the interior of this house, but it took me 2 years to find a decent, large, new construction in this city. If I could have knocked down one of those old homes, I would have.
The city gives you a very hard time to knock a victorian down and put up a modern house a la Venice in SoCal. The neighbors would chime in and the possibility of that being done is next to zero.
The interior of the house is well done. However, at close to a thousand dollar per square feet, I think that’s too much for Noe Valley. I sold mine 1 years ago in prime Presidio Heights for $1000 per square feet (75% redone). I would much rather buy at PH than NV for 1k/sqft.
not everyone wants a purely modern or a purely victorian house. i personally like a mix of the two. i like this house a lot. It stays in character with the neighborhood by retaining its victorian facade, and there is something to be said for that. the interior is really beautiful, but maybe a tad too modern for my taste. I would have left just a little more victorian detail sprinkled throughout. but all in all, i think blending the old with the new is a unique style in and of itself, and isn’t just a cop out for those who can’t tear down a place and build a modern structure or for those who hate victorians.
I would much rather have pretty Victorians stay there even if it only a facade. This isn’t LA or Palm Springs after all. But anything after 1960 or so, tear it down with impunity please. No one needs to preserve cottage cheese ceilings and faux Victorian bay windows on a stucco house.
This particular interior is pretty – what I find objectionable is when a nice Edwardian gets a cheesy cherry veneer-stainless-and-granite kitchen shoved into a corner of the living room and called an “open floor plan.”
I love how anything modern is referred to as SF trying to be LA. Get over yourselves. Most of SF was built in Victorian or Edwardian styles because of the time period built, not because we were then not “trying to be LA”. Bring on the modern interiors!
Lifestyles change. Technologies change. Families change. Therefore, houses must change. Victorian houses of this scale were built for families with servants, and the kitchen was hidden away from the guests. There were two parlors because men and women divided off after dinner. Houses were dark. No need to have flowing open spaces when heavy drapes covered the windows anyway. And anyway the houses were as closed as society. Garages were not necessary without cars. One could go on…
And at any rate, there is nothing unique with an era having a “look”. Every Victorian strove to look like the magazines published by the tastemakers of the day recommended. Why should anyone expect this not to apply today?
@fluj,
Asking price is pretty steep but is likely to sell near that. In Noe location trade off with view, and this place is about 1.5 blocks too far but has some wow effect to compensate. You can’t get views and be able to walk to places.
We’ve seen 3 homes on 25th st (3976, 4061,4069) sell for a tad below $3M in ’07. It appears that this one is a bit smaller.
@someone,
I’m not gonna definitively comment until I see it first. They’re basically at 1000 a foot without big views. Nice homes and condos can bank on 850 a foot in Noe, nowadays probably 900. And 900 would get ~2.75m for this one. I’m more than a little interested in seeing what happens here.
@fluj
I drove by on the way home and realized why the floor plan is so open. The house is a bit narrow, there is a 3′ breezway and it also seems that some of the structure on the east is further set back from property line. By the time you factor in the studs we are probably left with 20′ of interior width.
I agree that pics are deceiving, need to see the interior. 3976/4061 25th were both approaching 4000 sqft.
On the other hand, I heard that 849 Sanchez went way over asking with 3K sqft, weird floor plan and sub optimal views.
Dwell sells
Will check it out on Sun and report back
Dwell sells. Dwell is tired. Dwell. Blah. It’s all Bauhaus-to-Brutalism rehash already. Things that were avant-garde at one point, long ago, and now are very safe. And it’s been so overdone the past several years, it’s about as exciting as Miami Vice 80s or orange/goldenrod/mustard/avocado 70s (which os only now looking classic).
It’s funny to see the bashing of victorians, or the justification that the city would never allow a teardown (when this, minus the facade, is just that. it’s worse than a teardown, it’s an abomination). The city seems not to mind facade-ism. the is a lot of in in the 70s-80s financial district and 90s-00s Soma.
Should a renovation have horse hair plaster? that’s actually a good example of why it’s so sad to see the loss of these old buildings. compared to contemporary interior walls (1/2″ of chalk and paper) that have no sound dampening effect… plus old-growth wood construction, done to a standard that would be insanely expensive to use today. contemporary construction is usually not better, just cheaper.
and for what? this would be different if it were someone’s dream home, but it’s a speculative flip. thrown together and and outfitted with trendy, expensive, safe, bland, “high-end” finishes. it’s designed to lure some idealized target rich person. not anyone or anything specific.
i don’t know if houses and antiques are similar (they seem like they should be), but it seems like a much better investment to buy a cheaper (and unmolested) house in the same neighborhood.
it’s sad to see Noe Valley become Celebration, FL.
Beautiful, modern, perfect, cold.
I long to see evidence that people actually live in the place, even though staged. The closest thing to a sign of life was the pink/orange quilt in the child’s(?) room.
Cavernous showers that are open-ended are cold, in the sense that they are chilly! They look “now” but are entirely shivery and goose pimpley (and nipple-raising) when taking the time necessary to shave one’s legs.
Okay, I’m changing topics. I love the pendant light fixtures above the counter in this house. Anyone recognize them and able to point me in the right direction so I can put in my house — neither modern nor victorian!
Just looking at that bathroom makes me feel clean and refreshed.
Pianist –
I agree it doesn’t seem made for actual living – where the heck do you keep a broom/mop in that tiny kitchen ? Or did the builder just assume kitchen floors magically clean themselves ?
Looks sleek, but I think you grow frustrated the longer you live there because of builder oversights.
“where the heck do you keep a broom/mop in that tiny kitchen ?”
How about the pantry off the kitchen or the closet off the dining room:
http://www.talklein.com/images/properties/4226_25thFPF.pdf
Totally echo Jim’s comments.
Can someone please raise their hand to the following: if you suddenly got handed $2M-$3M and you HAD to spend it on a house for you / your family, would you choose something fairly open plan? or would you say, ‘no’, and would prefer something with divided off rooms (ala, Victorian?)?? I’m guessing more than 50% would choose the former…which..duh..is why folks make these places look the way they do.
Hugh, I think your arguement is somewhat silly – you’re saying you don’t like the look of it, which is fine..but is it just the degree to which it’s been renovated? I agree that we should learn something from the old style with keeping walls / floors thick / sound proof..but how about windows? Hugh, would you argue that when rebuilding a house, you should stick with what was then normal and keep single-pane windows? Even though those are less sound proof? And loose more heat / less environmentally sound?
So maybe you can argue that this has gone too far in one direction, but just arguing that people shouldn’t renovate to a modern look (even though it apparently does ‘sell’ right now), and ‘ruin’ everything seems silly.
Personally, I would keep the single pane windows… And it looks like they did on the front (ie, the only remaining piece of the house). But I can understand changing them, if noise is a concern. The windows in victorians are amazing works of engineering themselves, with pulleys and sash weights, originally with wavy glass that’s not even replaceable, and often curved panes.
From what I can tell, this place hasn’t been renovated, it’s been torn down and replaced, saving only the facade. the fact that it was most likely permitted as a renovation is sad… and there are whole areas of the city that would benefit from such. you were to tear down half of the the circa-50s-60s prefab SFRs on the hills along the 280, it would be an improvement (and lots of those are in areas with views, similar sized lots, safe – if sleepy areas).
but that wouldn’t bring in $3 million.
All I see here is destroying the architectural character of a neighborhood with an ever-diminishing stock of what gives its character, while paying the most crass and shallow nod to it.
What bothers me personally, is that this is just a flip… erasing something that has functioned for 120 years. and done so faddishly, so 2008. but replacing the house probably added 1000 sq. ft, and that’s the defining principle of monster homes.
ok, i see what you mean hugh – you make some very valid points.
Hugh,
Your point leave out the very high probability that the inside of this property as many other has no Victorian details left. Including in many cases the previous removal/moving of walls.
Saw the place today, and it is very nice. I’m not a huge fan for Dwell interiors, we live in a truly restored 1874 house. BUT this one is very tastefully done IMHO, ignoring the tragic mismatch with its origin/facade.
The architect is brilliant, being able to hide the fact the space is still pretty small, especially compared with other homes previously sold for near 3M. No dinning room, rather a dinning area, the house is a bit narrow and suffer from a lot of stairs. On the other hand color scheme, and use of dark wood is gorgeous, plus a lot of windows and skylights make it exceptionally bright.
I predict someone going crazy over this one and getting it near asking.
Regarding what some are calling the “Dwell” look. What is so sad is that to me this type of style is already so dated. (so VERY 1998 – 2005) In NYC and around Dumbo in Brooklyn, I used to see homes rebuilt that were not just another flip product pulled from a magazine, but instead eclectic mixtures created by the owners who actually lived in these turn of the century houses. Does every bathroom have to be a 2002 Spa Bathroom like the one you saw at the Amangani? Does every kitchen need the 2002 laboratory look? Where is the diversity, the creativity, or is this becoming a city of homes built for a quick flip?
There was an interesting article in the NY Times this week about interior design for resale…
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/realestate/08COV.html?scp=1&sq=broker+kitchen&st=nyt
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2008/06/08/realestate/0608COV_index.html
Saw the place today. I liked it but it’s still a lot of money..and I must admit that again, while I like the open plan, part of me would wonder if you really want it *this* open..ie, anyone in one part of that kitchen/living/dining room can hear the other. Like if you had kids, could they hang out ‘in their own space’….
however, with this place, I think you could – that downstairs ‘media/whatever’ room saves the day…kids down there, adults probably upstairs (or vica versa).
I also think this place has one huge thing going for it – location is pretty solid…easy walk to 24th.
As a developer I am with you guys, I am fed up with this cookie cutter modern look as well, but it is what the buying public wants. I have had to do this to stagnant properties in order to get sales; Open up more walls, remove trim, paint stained trim, you name it. And this is on stuff that I designed 3 years before selling. Where were the buyers like you? They don’t exist. Buyers and there agents still want bland modern, there is no end in site to this look. I can’t wait for this trend to end, but I’m not going to try to be ahead of the curve anymore either.
sparky: well, I hope, at least, you’re selling the trim (and such) you’re taking out of these places to architectural salvage, and not just sending it to a landfill.
as for me, i am definitely not in the target demo. I just have a particular love for late-Victorian architecture, due mostly to living in SF for so long. And in an area renowned for it, there isn’t much left of pre-1900 buildings. Noe/Mission/Western Addition/Potrero is mostly it…
I am looking in West Oakland, where prices can be below $200/sq. ft, for the same buildings (and it’s quite dangerous, but has recently seemed to be welcoming the funky mix of artists/hippies/weirdos that made SF so charming).
Who exactly IS buying a $3mm house in Noe? Every time one of these is listed, the comments seem to generally assume a young family, but I can’t see it. If you’re young and can afford it, you’re working too much to afford the time for family. And in this range, you’re looking at CEOs, established venture capitalists/investor types, people living off their wealth and not needing to work…
I’m wondering if there is going to be a glut of these Dwell mini McMansions on the market in Noe Valley and that they’re going to start sitting for a long time. There used to be one or two at a time but now it seems like there’s quite a few. I know there’s lots of money out there but I wonder if there’s unlimited interest in them.
@Sparky
There is a reasonable middle ground between tiny rooms and dated victorians and an open floor plan.
4061 25th st (http://www.petebrannigan.com/properties_detail.php?property=31)
Or look at 3969 23rd (http://www.joeandrafael.com/recently_sold.htm)
These we real homes, that were nicely restored.
The super trendy open floor plan camp is usually something that replacing a fairly hideous structure, even if it was built at the Victorian era. Keep in mind the Noe was a poor working class neighborhood with many low end housing built at the turn of the previous century.
I find the open floor plan is a necessity in many of those structures. Specifically in this place you won’t be able to fit formal living/dining rooms and keep the light well and a hall way in this narrow structure. You can’t demolish it, hence you can’t modify the envelope.
@94114
I agree there is a glut of 2.5M-3M bldgs, the most Noe ever seen. (575 28th, Douglass/26th, 2X Elizabeth, Valley, Douglass/23rd,…) I still remember 575 Valley sitting on the market for almost a year until selling for 2.275M in ’05 and that’s a 4400 sqft place.
Profit margins for flippers are shrinking daily, problem lies ahead in the near term.
Very nice house. Good location. However, I don’t think the Noe market right now will support $1000 psf listings. My prediction: this will sit for awhile unless, and until, sellers knock about $200 k off the price.
hugh,
I am putting them into another project, in a different format. I have lot’s of mahogany trim, which I am re-using. This time as window sills, with the rest of the window sheetrocked. A modern detail, but it fits the house. Also, I am making some furniture for myself.
someone,
I agree that often these are replacing something hideous, and so the comments about the victorian detail removal is unfounded.
Finally, as a builder I do this this stuff for people’s homes all the time as well. The style is still “hot”. It’s not just the homes that are selling, and therefore discussed here. Mostly in victorians where only the facade remains.