736 Valencia
The first of the eight new two-bedrooms at 736 Valencia (which we first unwrapped last year) has hit the market listed for $950,000 for its 1,465 square feet ($648 per square foot). And forget Medjool, we’ll see you up on 736 Valencia’s rooftop terrace.
736 Valencia Rooftop Terrace
At the same time at least two of the new three-bedroom units at 700 Valencia have hit craigslist asking $4,495 to $4,695 (down from $4,795) a month.
UPDATE: The two craigslist postings for 700 Valencia have been hastily removed.
∙ Listing: 736 Valencia #202 (2/2) 1,465 sqft – $950,000 [MLS]
736 Valencia Exposed (700 Valencia Still Under Wraps) [SocketSite]
700 Valencia Unwrapped (And Nine New Units Coming Soon) [SocketSite]
∙ Rental Listing: 700 Valencia #2 (3/2.5) – $4,695/month [craigslist.org]
∙ Rental Listing: 700 Valencia #4 (3/2.5) – $4,495/month [craigslist.org]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by abc

    So much for housing the auto repair workers next door….either that or they are the best compensated auto workers this side of the Mississippi…

  2. Posted by EH

    Is this strategic, or is the 2nd floor the only one finished?

  3. Posted by 45yo hipster

    Abc- I noticed that too, having watched the hotly contested planning and appeals process on this. I’m sure that renting/selling to the workers next door was not stipulated as part of the development agreement. The guy probably had to say that to make his case more appealing to the lefty yahoos…this is typical of the things developers have to do to get things built in this city. The anti development schmucks are worse, I remember that young activist [Removed by Editor] putting on the sympathy cry at the end as she vociferously tried to derail this project. It’s dog eat dog out there in SF developmentsville!

  4. Posted by curmudgeon

    Medjool….(as in the date). Boy, that terrace is sweet.
    [Editor’s Note: Good catch (and honestly a typo on that one).]

  5. Posted by Snark17

    Great looking building. I wonder how the stained exterior wood, which seems the recent trend, will hold up after a few years. Also like all the new trees on this block.

  6. Posted by curmudgeon

    craigslist ads “deleted by author”

  7. Posted by James

    *sigh* that used to be my view until this building blocked it. Oh well. It’s a nice addition to the street. Wonder what’ll go in the ground floor.

  8. Posted by Willow

    “Also like all the new trees on this block.”
    I haven’t seen the trees in person but they look (like a lot of trees in SF) kinda mangy to me. I’ll reserve final judgement until I walk by in person.
    I’m not an expert but can’t we plant more elegant leafy green trees like in NY or Chicago?

  9. Posted by Denis

    The trees look really good… They aren’t the stringy, low water trees planted in the Guerrero median. Are they maples? I need to take a second look…
    Also, the trees outside the Broadway tunnel look great too…

  10. Posted by Snark17

    I think they are London Plane (sycamore) trees, 15+ feet tall. Hardly mangy IMO. The Guerrero trees are very mangy.

  11. Posted by anon

    what are the trees along the street near esprit park? those are nice. Or along that one cool stretch of shotwell? I totally agree – tree selection in this city is very strange.
    I think we can all agree that for neighborhoods, you want shade, but you don’t want all light and views blockd by a dense tree

  12. Posted by curmudgeon

    There are new trees between 15th and 19th as part of the Valencia Streetscape Plan, which has widened sidewalks, added pedestrian bulb-outs, and pedestrian scale lighting. It is just finishing up and looking great. With additional funding it will be extended towards 24th.
    There are at least two tree species, one is Sycamore and the other I’m not sure of. They’ve placed relatively large trees in (15 feet high or so). The tree wells are larger than average (and have beautiful grates), so I have high hopes. They left existing trees in place, for the most part, and it looks like that is the case in front of this building.

  13. Posted by curmudgeon

    Oh, and I think the tree selection is strange along Guerrero as well. It is a very narrow median, and I’m sure that limited choices. But I have a hard time imagining the tree the chose thriving.
    Tree choice is very constrained by issues of tolerance to urban conditions and room for roots. Sometimes mistakes are made. One notable one is that somehow no one imagined that Palm Trees have roots. They are relatively contained, but they still need room…and along Upper Market street the palms are destroying the pavement adjacent to the median.

  14. Posted by joh

    Many species of broad-leaf deciduous trees require water year-round to thrive (there are obviously exceptions). Living in a Mediterranean climate limits our choices for low-maintenance varieties. Which is why tree selection is different in SF than it is in Chicago or NY.

  15. Posted by Willow

    OK, so mangy is probably not the best description here. Still don’t like them but that’s just a personal preference.
    BTW, Magnolias seem to be the new tree of choice at the moment in the city. They are everywhere!

  16. Posted by VancouverJones

    The design makes me think of a cruise ship; but I like it. I also like the fact that “Each 2bd/2ba home spans the width of the building”. Just curious, will the roof top deck be usable in this part of the city (i.e. too cold)?

  17. Posted by observantneighbor

    Rent vs. Buy?
    I stopped by a rental open house for 700 Valencia last Sunday. The agent told me that the two units offered for rent were the only ones left (asking $4495 and $4695, respectively, for 3 br/2.5 ba units of 1400 and 1600 sqft w/1 independent parking spot per unit). He also said that the other units in the building had rented at the same price point, with the exception of the 4 br corner unit with exclusive use of the roofdeck, which rented for north of $6k/mo. He may have been lying but I told him (truthfully) that I was not in the rental market myself at present, so he had less incentive to lie to me about this than to would-be renters.
    The design and finishes are what you would expect for the “off the shelf luxury” condo market. Nice enough but very ordinary. The outdoor space consists of a large central patio facing the side of an ugly building next door. No comparison to the roof deck at 736 Valencia.
    Using the 15:1 price-to-annual-rent rule of thumb, the “equilibrium” price in a normal market for a unit with a rental value of $4500/mo should be about $810,000. I’d guess that the 1400 sqft unit would sell for about $875,00 – $950,000 in today’s market. If this is right, prices in the condo market in this neighborhood are still high, but not grossly so, especially given that the P/E ratio should be expected to rise above its long run average during a recession (when rents, like corporate profits, fall temporarily).
    That said, the $950k asking price for the 2/2s at 736 Valencia seems pretty aggressive to me, and if they get their price the market may still have a ways to fall. I believe the 2 BR condos in the new building at 20th and San Carlos were rented (roughly a year ago, when the rental market may have been a bit softer) for about $3500/mo, which at 15:1 translates to $630,000 as the asset price. The 736 Valencia units look significantly nicer (that roofdeck!), and the location can’t be beat, but are they really worth 50% more?

  18. Posted by Mr T

    VancouverJones , that roof deck is in one of the best spots weather-wise in the city. It’s low enough to escape high winds coming through Dolores Park and it’s smack in the middle of a spot that is always sunny in the mission.
    The problems I see with this place are that it’s only 2 bedrooms, still a million dollars, and is gang and junkie heaven. The gangs may be getting better, but the junkies are getting worse.

  19. Posted by Activist

    Perhaps they can water the nice, leafy trees with the tears of all the “young activists” who opposed this development…two birds, one stone.

  20. Posted by anon

    price the market may still have a ways to fall
    Can one even make a case for Valencia corridor condos having fallen at all?

  21. Posted by Pedestrianist

    Sorry to be redundant if I missed it in the comments above, but the two tree species along the Valencia ST redo are London Plane and Brisbane Box. The two trees in front of this building are older Brisbane Boxes from a previous improvement effort, a little worse for the wear after the construction but these are hardy trees.

  22. Posted by xyz

    Mr T, do you live in this neighborhood? I do. No gangs and no junkies on this side of Mission. Some drunks, some street defecation, and probably if you hang out in Dolores Park/Mission Playground during certain hours there is sketchiness there. It’s an urban setting for sure, but not as bad as you make it out to be.

  23. Posted by curmudgeon

    I agree with XYZ. I’m in the neighborhood all the time. No notice at all of gang activity. It is junky heaven around 16th Street BART station, a few blocks away, admittedly. Valencia cleans up remarkably.

  24. Posted by FormerAptBroker

    Observantneighbor wrote:
    > The agent told me that the two units offered for rent were the
    > only ones left (asking $4495 and $4695, respectively)
    The guy must be a new rental agent. When renting apartments you always tell people that you just have one left (and try to get a deposit check before they leave the building)…
    > He also said that the other units in the building had rented at the
    > same price point, with the exception of the 4 br corner unit with
    > exclusive use of the roofdeck, which rented for north of $6k/mo.
    You typically tell people that similar units are all rented for more, and convince them that they are getting a “great deal” on the “last one”. It was a good move to let you know that there is a unit in the building renting for $6K a month since it makes the other units seem like a “great deal”. If there really is a renter in there paying $72K (in non tax deductable after tax dollars) I’ve got to give the leasing group kudos for finding one of the very small number of San Franciscans that have $72K for rent every year and the very very small number of renters with that much cash that want to live in that neighborhood.
    > He may have been lying but I told him (truthfully) that I was not in
    > the rental market myself at present, so he had less incentive to lie
    > to me about this than to would-be renters.
    As a licensed California Real Estate Broker and guy that had been leasing apartment for over 30 years I can tell you that it is safe to replace “may have been lying” with “probably lying” anything time a real estate agent is trying to sell you something or get you to sign a lease.

  25. Posted by kathleen

    “As licensed California Real Estate Broker …I can tell you it is safe to replace “may have been lying” with “probaby lying” anytime a real estate agent is trying to sell you something or get you to sign a lease.”
    Maybe that is how you operate/operated.
    I know this site is a realtor whack-a-mole slamfest, but as a hard working and honest real estate broker, I take offense. There are honest folk who work amongst us who understand agency and ethics.
    [Editor’s Note: We’ll add that we’ve also heard that the majority of units at 700 Valencia have in fact been leased, but we can’t vouch for the rents.]

  26. Posted by Mission

    For anyone in the know, how do these units compare to the other fairly modern newer developments in that area, such as the Nove and the Green 22nd St. building?
    Especially price to value? thanks.

  27. Posted by The Real Mr.T

    I would give some of my jewelry to buy this place. 950K is only a couple of my chains…I’ll have plenty left over.
    I pity the fool who doesn’t like this place.

  28. Posted by NC

    Yawn. I hope they build about 35 more of these bland hospital looking units around here so I can charge descent rents for my dump too!

  29. Posted by curmudgeon

    700 is on craigslist again with rental ads. $4495 for a 3 br.

Add a Comment

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