July 29, 2010

A Medjool Of A Modern Noe Valley Home (767 27th Street)

767 27th Street Exterior

By the numbers for the concrete and steel 767 27th Street with cedar siding: 3 decks; 4 car parking; 5 bedrooms; 6.5 baths; completed in 2007; and listed for $3,850,000 today.

767 27th Street Kitchen

And yes, public records suggest the home was built for the owner of Medjool.

∙ Listing: 767 27th Street (5/6.5) - $3,850,000 [joelgoodrich.com] [MLS]

First Published: July 29, 2010 4:30 PM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

Didn't realize this is what passes for elegant these days.

Is TV on top of the fireplace a SocketSite faux pas?

Posted by: sfrenegade at July 29, 2010 4:38 PM

Been walking by this place for years wondering when it was going to finally be put on the market. I think the decision to wait may have been a mistake, as is the decision not to hold an open house ("By appointment only..."), which makes me think the property has something to hide.

Posted by: sanfrantim at July 29, 2010 4:49 PM

Saw this hit the market today. Interesting. How big?

Posted by: eddy at July 29, 2010 5:05 PM

They didn't photoshop out the wires!

Posted by: curmudgeon at July 29, 2010 5:09 PM

"which makes me think the property has something to hide."

Apparently they think the bedrooms are worth hiding!

Posted by: sfrenegade at July 29, 2010 5:11 PM

Why do you think the builder didn't just live there?

Maybe trying to get the $500K tax break, maybe never intending to flip.

Seems like a 1.5 lot situation so you can build a big home. Location is a bit high, so could be tricky to sell

Posted by: someone at July 29, 2010 5:13 PM

Next door there is a similarly-styled luxury home, built about the same time - so I think this pair always was built to sell. Both houses are near a popular dog park, so I go by there often.

Neither place has ever been lived in, or put on the market until now. The second place (not on the market yet) had a fire a year or so ago, which may have put a crimp in the builder's plan to go to market.

The marketing approach here is truly a mystery.

I'd love to take a look inside, but so far only a Tuesday "broker's tour" is being made available.

Posted by: sanfrantim at July 29, 2010 5:23 PM

"Why do you think the builder didn't just live there?"

Looks like the person who built it is living there to me. Bought the lot with cottage on it for $710k in 2003. Refinanced in 2007 for $1.75m.

Posted by: Michael at July 29, 2010 5:26 PM

@ someone: The tax angle is interesting, but I don't think you get to claim the exemption if you don't actually reside there.

Posted by: sanfrantim at July 29, 2010 5:26 PM

@ michael
i'm quite sure no one's been living there, as
i walk by it almost every day.

Posted by: sanfrantim at July 29, 2010 5:33 PM

I'm digging the pool in the kitchen

Posted by: DiverJ at July 29, 2010 5:38 PM

"Next door there is a similarly-styled luxury home, built about the same time - so I think this pair always was built to sell. Both houses are near a popular dog park, so I go by there often.

Neither place has ever been lived in, or put on the market until now. The second place (not on the market yet) had a fire a year or so ago, which may have put a crimp in the builder's plan to go to market.

The marketing approach here is truly a mystery."

You simply don't know what your talking about friend.

The house for sale was built for a local restaurant owner and they moved in shortly after completion - not a spec house.

The house that burned was built by a local builder as his personal residence and yes he lived there with his family after he built it and before the fire - not a spec house.

I think what's truly a mystery here is why some posters pretend to know so much when in fact they know so little - mystified here.

Posted by: mystified at July 29, 2010 6:11 PM

Mapjack view of the construction on May 16, 2007

http://www.mapjack.com/?ddvmWzDybFnD

Google Street View in namelink

Posted by: eddy at July 29, 2010 6:13 PM

Oooh its a comment face-off with Curbed SF.

The comments there are better. Sorry Realty Geeks, but its true.

And I like the house just fine. Which makes me respect these comments here more...but they aren't as funny.

Posted by: stucco-sux at July 29, 2010 7:45 PM

Seems to be all stairways. Not one photo of a bedroom, in a 5 BR house?

[Removed by Editor]

Posted by: Snark17 at July 29, 2010 7:47 PM

overall a truly unique home
at first glance I like it.
On further inspection, not so sure.

There seems to be a mishmash of things going on, and i'm not sure they all gel well together.

The glass panel floor in the kitchen as example, the odd wood paneling with the wood floors, some of the tile choices.

I don't know this micronabe well enough. can it support a $4M pricetag?

seems hard to believe that nobody lived there with that terrible furniture. surely it wasn't staged like that. it really is hard to ignore the furnishings which detract from the home in a big way.

unless you're into pink microfiber couches and tacky white pleather-lookalike couches that is.
All that's missing is naugahyde. but then again, we haven't seen the bedrooms yet.

I always applaud uniqueness. and this place is unique. I'd undo a lot of choices, but I appreciate the effort.

Posted by: ex SF-er at July 29, 2010 8:37 PM

I remember walking thru this house shortly after it was built. Wasn't it an AIA tour property or something? My memory is fuzzy.

But my, the furniture is quite... uh...

* makes "at a loss for words" face *

Posted by: Kurt Brown at July 29, 2010 8:41 PM

I don't know this micronabe well enough. can it support a $4M pricetag?

It's right near the Google Guys house, which was $6M what, 5 yrs ago? Looks similar, too.

Posted by: EH at July 29, 2010 9:18 PM

No , it's not near the Google guys house. not at all.

Posted by: noearch at July 29, 2010 9:37 PM

Is there just one Google Guy?

Posted by: pacific at July 29, 2010 9:38 PM

The aforementioned "Google guy's" house which is .3 miles/3 blocks away (according to Google Maps): Ogrydziak/Prillinger Architects: The T House. Purchased for $5.3 million in 2005, but a different class of design (and location).

Posted by: SocketSite at July 29, 2010 11:52 PM

nice house - bad furniture

Posted by: resident at July 30, 2010 6:51 AM

A kitchen with his and her's sinks and fridges. Win.

Posted by: brandno at July 30, 2010 7:55 AM

I don't personally like this place, it looks too much like a high end modern hotel for my tastes. Maybe a W or even a Four Seasons. Some people think that this is the pinnacle of luxury, I know.

I like all the windows. It seems like there is a lot of wasted space, but maybe it is large enough that this isn't a problem. If they decide to have an open house, i will take a look at it and report back.

Noearch, you usually aren't shy about sharing your opinion. What do you think of this place? What do you think of the reverse floor plan? I think they did this to take advantage of the views.

Posted by: NoeValleyJim at July 30, 2010 9:24 AM

I used to live in this neighborhood (near the behemoth of 625 Duncan, sold for near $6M if I remember correctly) and also watched this house be built on my walks to the dogpark. I remember that just after it was finished, the house was included in an AIA-type ticketed walking tour...it sticks in my mind because everyone who went into the house had to take off their shoes at the door and put on booties. Views from this street are lovely, and the proximity to Firefly must be worth something!

[Editor's Note: The Spec-tacular 625 Duncan Sells For $5,818,000 In Noe Valley.]

Posted by: Alamo Square Dweller at July 30, 2010 9:53 AM

You'd think for $3.85M they would stage with something nicer than a sofa and rug they found on a sidewalk in the Haight.

Posted by: Jeff at July 30, 2010 9:58 AM

As for the location, this block is pretty nice (though a bit too steep and some may not cherish living near a popular dog park). No way is it $3.8 m nice though; there are some pretty dumpy houses nearby. Like 728 Duncan one street over, the price is far too precious for its location.

The two other $5mil + houses discussed above are on a nicer, flatter block and appear larger. And they were sold as brand new construction. This property reportedly has been lived in for several years.

The price must be reduced dramatically, or this will not sell.

Posted by: sanfrantim at July 30, 2010 2:28 PM

I can't wait to see it Tuesday. I'm thinking right now it's pretty high, both literally where it's sat up the hill and figuratively in terms of price. But full doc 80% LTV up to 2M loans in the low 5% apr range are in effect from Citi, Wells and BofA right now. So people with 1m to 1.5m cash down payments are getting good rates on good houses in the 2 to 3.5M range. The price on this one would seem to take it out of that sweetspot. Still need to see it though.

Posted by: geoff the realtor at July 31, 2010 10:46 AM

"So people with 1m to 1.5m cash down payments are getting good rates"

Praise be to the people with large cash down payments!

My heroes.

Posted by: diemos at July 31, 2010 11:04 AM

My heroes will be the secondary market purchasers of said loans.

Posted by: geoff the realtor at July 31, 2010 11:06 AM

"But full doc 80% LTV up to 2M loans in the low 5% apr range are in effect from Citi, Wells and BofA right now."

"My heroes will be the secondary market purchasers of said loans."

I'm a depositor at Wells so I'm providing the funding for those loans. (In part anyway. At 0.25% interest (lol). With a full federal guarantee against any losses.)

At 50% LTV I'd be more than happy to disintermediate Wells and make those loans directly. No doc, 4%.

At 70% LTV I'd be comfortable directly making loans with full doc, 5%.

At 80% LTV I'd start losing sleep. Not worth it. Still too much down-side potential.

Posted by: diemos at July 31, 2010 11:37 AM

@diemos, your analysis is for this specific property correct? Between the lines read is that you're thinking this is around +25% over priced? Feels about right, but even $3M is a lot of change for this part of the city no matter how awesome the property.

Posted by: eddy at July 31, 2010 11:47 AM

"your analysis is for this specific property correct?"

This general segment of the market. I'd only be happy making a loan if I thought the borrowers down payment would insulate me from loss of principle from potential declines in the market.

(In a properly functioning, private free market for financing that is what it's for.)

Posted by: diemos at July 31, 2010 12:01 PM

Agree, and you can't really argue with the underlying comment about the risk factor / strategy. But banks tend to get less than market and still have selling costs. So too do private lenders for the most part. So even at 75% LTV you have another 5-8% transaction cost. Lot of risk for a 4-5% return.

Posted by: eddy at July 31, 2010 12:20 PM

Gus Murad, owner of Medjool, is the owner/resident. He started on remodeling, then the house next door started remodeling, he liked it, and hired that architect to finish this. The house is a real mess. There is a reason they don't show photos of the bedrooms - they are the 1930s original rooms on the first floor - small and chopped up, and semi-basement in the back. The rest of the floorplan is strange to say the least - a grand stairway to no where, etc. To top it off, every possible surface that can take tile or marble is overdone with gaudy multi-colored fru frus.

The house next door was supposed to be on the AIA tour a couple of years ago; the owner backed out at the last minute, and Murad let them use his house. A real embarrassment to the AIA. The much nicer house next door had a major fire last year - parents in Europe, kids had a party. "Newspaper in the sauna" was the stated cause of the fire. House is being rebuilt according to original design.

Posted by: Jim at July 31, 2010 5:03 PM

@diemos,

"At 50% LTV I'd be more than happy to disintermediate Wells and make those loans directly. No doc, 4%."

if you are 'more than happy' to commit your capital for such returns why don't you just buy 30 year USTs?

Posted by: anonee at July 31, 2010 11:11 PM

Excellent point.

Posted by: diemos at August 1, 2010 12:50 AM

I don't get your point Jim in naming names and attempting to just trash the design of the house. It seems mean spirited, and of no use.

What credentials do you have anyway, to offer design criticism? and what makes the other house so "much nicer", other than your opinion?

Posted by: interestfree at August 1, 2010 3:04 PM

@Jim, thanks for that explanation of the AIA tour. I remember the place seemed... er... not quite appropriate for the tour.

As for "newspaper in the sauna"... personally I prefer my sauna a little cooler than the temperature required to ignite newsprint ;)

Posted by: Kurt Brown at August 2, 2010 5:24 PM

I like this house.. you guys should totally check out the site www.767-27thstreet.com

It looks cool.

Posted by: Mike at August 16, 2010 1:41 PM

The list price for 767 27th Street has been reduced $385,000 (10%), now asking $3,465,000.

Posted by: SocketSite at September 10, 2010 10:22 AM

Another 10% at least will be required. And why no square footage given?

Posted by: sanfrantim at September 10, 2010 12:11 PM

The listing for 767 27th Street has just been withdrawn from the MLS after 62 days on the market without a reported sale.

Posted by: SocketSite at September 29, 2010 12:28 PM

Post a comment


(required - will be published)


(required - will not be published, sold, or shared)


(optional - your "Posted by" name will link to this URL)

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


Continue Perusing SocketSite:

« Will It Play With The Port? | HOME | Plans To Raze Market Street "Home" And Build 64 Apartments »