January 30, 2009
4356 25th: A Modern Mid-Century Modern AIA Home Tour Home
To those who partook in the 2008 AIA San Francisco Home Tour it's the “Choy Residence.”
Neighbors in Noe Valley will recognize it as 4356 25th Street.
And to others it's simply that sweet Terry + Terry Architecture Mid-Century Modern inspired renovation with a killer kitchen, dining room and deck. Now listed for $2,579,000 with a brokers tour next week and a public open house (assuming it’s still available) as well.
First Published: January 30, 2009 5:30 PM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Not sure about some of the furniture choices, but hey, that's not going to be my problem when I scoop this beauty up at the weekend. Oh wait, I just remembered, I don't have the dosh.
Posted by: Home Girl at January 30, 2009 5:45 PM
"...with a brokers tour next week and a public open house (assuming it’s still available) as well."
Isn't this statement a trifle optimistic? How
many people have $2.6 million in this economy?
Besides this place looks more like a
professional building than a residence. Go to
Google maps and take a stroll up and down the
street. The other residences are far more
modest, and in general one should not own the
most expensive property in the neighborhood.
I suspect this property will decline in value
of the next several years, but I guess it
could sell as this is the crazy San Francisco.
Posted by: A. Zarkov at January 30, 2009 6:38 PM
When do you think I can get this for 40 percent off the listing? Should I wait before I make the offer or do it now?
Posted by: anonymous at January 30, 2009 7:15 PM
When do you think I can get this for 40 percent off the listing?
You will probably have to wait until the future buyers get foreclosed and the bank has to puke up the property :)
(cue "anon" -- "Talking about foreclosure? You don't know anything about these people! You don't know the backstory. Stop speculating about things you don't know, hobbyist....")
Posted by: LMRiM at January 30, 2009 7:38 PM
I personally like the look, nice choice of finishes, though I suspect the wood panels won't age very well.
I do see some issues though, suspiciously low ceilings, probably pretty dark bottom levels.
At 1.3M three years ago and easily $1M of construction+"soft" costs, doesn't seem like such a great deal.
just 6 months ago and a block down the hill 4226 sold for probably $3M.
Posted by: Someone at January 30, 2009 8:09 PM
I saw this shortly before X-mas. I think it was November. Had some cash buyers take a look at it (buyers are no longer buying due to job insecurities), and the one sweet thing I remember about this house is the way they compensated for the low ceilings by actually dropping them lower by the entryway and graduating them upwards towards those floor to ceiling windows you see in that photo in the living room. Very cool effect and a very clever way to make the room seem taller, when in fact, it is not.
As a Realtor, who doesn't comment or blog anonymously, I can't comment on the negatives for fear of being sued (a la Redfin) for hindering in any way shape or form a prospective sale.
It's a sweet house.
Posted by: alex at January 30, 2009 8:28 PM
So 2.5MM, Any view? Square fotage anyone? withut a view, it had better be 3000k sqare.
It loks nice, but what's to get me to take an hour to get over there to see it versus another house. It's awfully annoying that there is no approximate square footage mentioned anywhere, including MLS. The whole thing was redone, so you know it's been measured a hundred times by architects. And the lawsuit excuse is bogus.
(Note to you brokers out there who forward listings without doing some of your own homework like getting a square footage number. Are you just lazy? YWould you let me pitch you a stock idea without knowing how much a company earns?)
Posted by: fluff at January 30, 2009 9:35 PM
I like this house but have to ask, since when is Sutro Tower a "view"?? Not so long ago, this type of thing was known as an "eyesore." You want a view, go to Nob Hill. There's nuthin' in Noe worth "viewing."
Posted by: sunnyvalesteve at January 30, 2009 10:03 PM
Seen it, love it, wish it had come on the market last year!
Posted by: AndrewE at January 30, 2009 10:25 PM
Ugly box, paint the wood white, maybe then I would consider moving there if you paid me, lol.
Posted by: Jake at January 30, 2009 10:34 PM
My experience is that the square footage is omitted for one of two reasons. Either the $/sqft is WAY out of line with the comps for no reason other than an unrealistic seller, or the $/sqft is WAY out of line with the comps because the agent is hoping for an emotional response when you come to visit. I suspect this is in the latter camp.
The bathrooms are very pretty, and the use of wood is striking. However, there are a few potential problems:
1. The reverse floor plan and non optimal layout. Kitchen on top. Bedrooms underneath. Here, there are two bedrooms behind the garage, and then a master under that. Bedrooms are not on the same floor, which is not particularly family friendly. People ignored these problems during the bubble, but whether they ignore them in the bust is an open question.
2. Small scale rooms. The MLS photo shows a pretty small living room. Then the kitchen, dining room and family room are all in one room, with a bathroom? slapped onto one side (see the MLS photo of the living room). Good use of the small space, and it's an attractive space, but it's still a small space for three different uses. Note that the two bedrooms on the garage level are not shown, so they are probably very small too. MLS says it's ideal for a small family or a couple, so I assume that is due to the small size and different floors holding the bedrooms.
3. This is what I find the worst: the exterior front (shown at the top of this page) shows a very inexpensive exterior you'd expect to find on a lower middle class house, papered over with some VERY nice wood. Doesn't work for me.
I think the facade reminds me very much of this house in Noe featured previously on SS that isn't selling for 1.2M, but this other home is smaller and not as nice.
I think for $200K-300K, you could put something close to those same finishes on this house and be done for $1.4 or even 1.5M, though it would be smaller. I don't think you are getting an extra $1.2M in value with this $2.6M place.
However, I'm sure it is very dramatic and maybe someone will be taken by the drama of it. I think one part of it is very nice and the rest is really not all that great, the facade is not great at all and it's priced very high. But all it takes is one buyer.
Posted by: tipster at January 30, 2009 10:46 PM
it's nicely done. I guess if someone is into the Dwell look, then this house is perfect. However, don't expect to make any money on it even after say 5,7 years. Prices will go down more in the near future. But who says house is an investment? It's a home. With that said, I think $2.6m is pricey for Noe Valley since the surrounding houses are selling for less than say 1.5m these days. It's always dangerous to buy the most expensive house on the block (or two, or three)..... Now if this house is in Cow Hallow with golden gate view.... $2.6m will be justifiable and then some?!
Posted by: Juju at January 31, 2009 12:14 AM
"As a Realtor, who doesn't comment or blog anonymously, I can't comment on the negatives for fear of being sued (a la Redfin) for hindering in any way shape or form a prospective sale."
This is a sad, sad state of affairs. I can't think of another industry where this type of behavior would be tolerated (well, maybe jumbo jet sales?).
I had no idea that a Realtor would experience such fear about expressing a substantiated opinion. Is there any chance of this being corrected in the future?
Posted by: Sb at January 31, 2009 10:13 AM
Thats a lot of wood.
Posted by: Ryan at January 31, 2009 11:18 AM
"Thats a lot of wood."
Durn those democrats for passing the "Termite Full Employment Act" ;)
Posted by: diemos at January 31, 2009 11:35 AM
I don't think having the kids' bedrooms on a different floor is necessarily family-unfriendly. Depends on the age of the kids, no?
Posted by: BobN at January 31, 2009 12:54 PM
I love this house.
Ok, so I'm a young guy (23) with no kids, but it looks fantastic.
I get that it's over priced, but wow.
Posted by: jessep at January 31, 2009 4:08 PM
nice place - lots of exotic looking wood. gives me a woody. nice straight erect slats of wood all over the place. i'm thinking Sea Ranch circa 1970's. just need to get over it - the price that is.
Posted by: Amazan8 at January 31, 2009 6:27 PM
Make sure Rob gives you a deal on Esprit Park first! Those condos are insatiable! Right Mike?
Posted by: Sunny Jim at January 31, 2009 9:46 PM
We can all be sued for anything under the sun. As I've already been in hot water for more than one thing regarding what is said publicly online, I wouldn't hold it against any agent or seller in the city to go after someone that may (or may not) have an impact on a sale.
I guess it comes down to a feeling that it is okay to represent a client on one property and share your opinion of value with them in private, but as soon as you make that opinion public, it opens the door to potential liability, because my opinion can help my client, but could hurt somebody else's. For example, if I said it's not worth $2.5M and my client doesn't buy it and thanks me, all is good. But if I say it online (I'm not btw, I'm using examples), and another agent's client reads that and decides not to write an offer because of what I said, now the seller and the buyer's agent could come back to me and say I hindered their chances at a successful sale.
Any chance of this being corrected in the future? I hope so, but it will be a long while.
It's sad, but true.
Posted by: alex at February 1, 2009 9:33 AM
As long as you state facts that are true, or state your opinion as an opinion, not only could you not be successfully sued, but anyone who tried would be liable for your attorney's fees.
For example, you could point out that the higher ceilings were obtained by eliminating the attic, making the space hotter in the summer or cooler in the winter. Or you could state that you think it's priced too high compared to very recent sales in the neighborhood.
You couldn't say you heard the prior owner was murdered in the house, or that the house had burned, unless either of these things were true. It would be particularly bad if you said this while you had a listing for a house up the street.
Speaking the truth or offering a reasoned opinion is safe. Maliciously interfering with a sale is not.
Posted by: tipster at February 1, 2009 11:29 AM
"Speaking the truth or offering a reasoned opinion is safe. Maliciously interfering with a sale is not."
But in our system the difference between those two things is often left up to a jury to decide.
Posted by: diemos at February 1, 2009 12:16 PM
Although I like the house, I am surprised to see so many designers jumping on the 70's style wood look. This is not the climate for maintaining the fresh stained look we see in the images. The damp foggy days tend to turn homes such as this into a dark grey or black wood color over time, OR, one can simply spend a fortune refurbishing the wood surfaces about every 3 to 5 years. Has anybody had any success in sealants that prevent the almost immediate decay?
Posted by: good luck at February 1, 2009 12:45 PM
We had a discussion about wood a while back on socketsite. I believe it was Noearch that said the products were better than in the past. It may not have been him/her so I apologize in advance if I got the person wrong. But it was an architect.
I'm less than impressed with the wood houses near my home with this type of stained siding. The latest one done was beautiful when they put it up (so much nicer than this house), but in just 1.5 years the wood has faded to a burnt-siena mixed with pink (yes pink) tinge... it looks awful. it all needs to be redone.
there are some wood-lookalikes that seem to fare better, but I've never seen them in this shape. I usually see faux-wood shingles instead of siding.
I see a house like this and think "maintenance nightmare"
I like the idea of all the wood, but it is rather limiting. This house is very beautiful, but trendy. I feel like it's a sort of house you totally gut and redo in 5-10 years.
I also feel the layout wastes space. It has a nice TV room, but the great room is odd. you have a sofa that faces the kitchen. Who is going to sit there? I typically see a great room as a place where you can relax, watch TV, hang out, etc.... but this place really doesn't allow that. You could sit in the couch and stare at the fridge, otherwise that whole area is wasted. why not just sit at the stools? I feel there could have been a better workaround for that.
The bedrooms are nice, the bathrooms are extremely nice, the back yard and the deck are stunning and the staircase is phenomenal. The woodwork is also stunning, although I may have shown a little restraint here and there.
too bad the living area is so awkward
Overall: absolutely stunningly gorgeous house to look at in pictures, but not a place I'd like to live.
Posted by: ex SF-er at February 1, 2009 2:57 PM
I appreciate your wisdom "Speaking the truth or offering a reasoned opinion is safe. Maliciously interfering with a sale is not," but I gotta side with Diemos on this one, "But in our system the difference between those two things is often left up to a jury to decide."
Our system allows for those to interpret our opinions as malicious. It's just wrong. Either way, it's lame, and I'm still trying to come up with a way to say all the things I want to say about the "insider" perspective of this industry, but alienating colleagues in any profession is bad for business.
Now..I know the "Editor's Note" is coming to "get back on topic", so with that said, this house is very cool and modern, but "in my opinion" not worth $2.5M. An earlier commenter questioned the views, and they are, in my opinion, quite nice. I sold a property (blanking on the address) just down the street from here that took three years for them to finally demo, but I drove by recently and saw the lot was totally empty, which was quite a relief.
Posted by: alex at February 1, 2009 9:14 PM
"I like this house but have to ask, since when is Sutro Tower a "view"?? Not so long ago, this type of thing was known as an "eyesore.""
Sutro Tower looking from Pacific Heights has been called a southern view for a very long time, especially good if it includes City Hall and beyond. While a northern view is more desirable, a southern view is much better than no view, and provides sun to the back garden and southern side of the house.
Posted by: Conifer at February 1, 2009 10:37 PM
Pictures are pretty yet I'm the virtual tours leave me with an overwhelming sense that it would feel like living in a cramped, brown, box.
Posted by: geekgrrl at February 1, 2009 11:25 PM
Sold, for list with an asterisk. It went pending in two weeks, and it sold a week later.
Posted by: anonn at February 20, 2009 1:44 PM