November 19, 2010

The Number Of The 465 Hoffman And An Eight Month Noe Apple To Be

465 Hoffman

Originally listed for $3,900,000 with 4,400 square feet in May 2009 ($886 per square), the modern Noe home at 465 Hoffman ended up selling for $2,970,000 this past March ($675 per square).

It's now eight months later and the "two-unit" single-family home has returned to the market as an apple asking asking $2,995,000 but now listed at 4,500 square feet which, as a plugged-in reader notes, equals $666 per square.

∙ Listing: 465 Hoffman Avenue (4/4.5) - $2,995,000 [MLS]
A Post-Preview List Price Of $3,900,000 For 465 Hoffman Avenue [SocketSite]
Mixing It Up In Noe Valley: 465 Hoffman Sells For $675 Per Square [SocketSite]

First Published: November 19, 2010 10:30 AM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

Looks like a cool house but who in their right mind pays $3 million for a house and then turns around and sells it 8 months later? Talk about a generous donation to the real estate agent industrial complex. Damn.

Posted by: SF Social Media at November 19, 2010 11:11 AM

what is the thinking behind spending $3M on a house only to sell it 8 months later?

you'd think someone dropping $3M on a house would own it for more than 8 months unless it was a flip.

Posted by: . at November 19, 2010 11:20 AM

This "home?" makes me cry blood tears.

Posted by: tyler at November 19, 2010 11:23 AM

I believe the default answer is "corporate relocation," although one would think that people who can afford $3MM homes are high enough on the corporate ladder to be able to predict those types of things with at least a modicum of foresight.

Another possibility is that the Bay Area has too many people with more money than sense, and they've fallen into the habit of impulse-buying trophy properties, only to get bored of them a year later and go searching for the next endorphin release.

Posted by: Legacy Dude at November 19, 2010 11:33 AM

they're not doing themselves any favors with the current staging, either. There are some strangely "traditional" touches (armoire, living room chairs) and a totally boring beige/brown tone throughout.

I'm not a big fan of staging anyway, but in this case it detracts, and makes the place feel even more like an institution (of the correctional variety).

Posted by: curmudgeon at November 19, 2010 11:37 AM

Was May 2009 not the exact month that many here have identified as "the bottom"? If so, then this is a nice data point to test that premise. Personally, I think they lose at least a couple hundred thousand before you even account for transaction costs.

Posted by: shza at November 19, 2010 11:45 AM

I doubt it's staged. That's probably furniture from their previous digs.

Posted by: BobN at November 19, 2010 11:57 AM

Odd that the current photographer chose not to highlight that floating staircase. I thought that was one of the nicest looking design features of the house :

But in the current listing photo 11/37 is as close as you get to seeing that staircase.

And what is up with that bed in photo 21/37 ? It looks as if it was either chopped in half or positioned sideways to the headboard. The culprit of course is overkill from super wide angle lens + perspective correction sets an Alice in Wonderland mood

Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at November 19, 2010 12:35 PM

nice staircase! but no handrail, how do they get away with this stuff.

Posted by: condoshopper at November 19, 2010 12:41 PM

I just went back and looked at the original listing's site . The difference in photographic quality is pretty stunning. The original photographer (Ken Gutmaker ?) did a fabulous job and he pulled that off without using the usual deceptive lens tricks. The lighting and exposure are flawless and the compositional choices really highlight the architect and builder's work.

Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at November 19, 2010 12:48 PM

I like this house. it has a lot of special touches. it is unique IMO.
the bathrooms are very white, but have some texture and some visual interest to them.
the floating staircase is awesome.

solid house.

all that said, we have yet another short hold. I guess 8 months is absolutely ancient compared to the 3 month old in one of the prior threads though.

I always find it intriguing that a person selling a home for $3-4M can't be bothered to put up good pics of the place.

oh well.

it'll be interested to see where this sells given all that we've heard about the incredible SF RE rebound.

Posted by: ex SF-er at November 19, 2010 2:46 PM

Wow, MoD, the contrast between the previous sale photos and this current round are amazing. Both in quality of photography and in the staging (and yes, I agree that the furniture is probably the current resident's, but everything is "staged" to some extent, at least through editing). Even if the current resident threw in the occassional orange chopped pillow for a popo of color, it would actually HELP lol.

I hope the current resident accepted some fantastic new job in Chicago, (and his/her firm is paying for the closing costs)...cause this is going to be a bloodbath, I think.

Posted by: curmudgeon at November 19, 2010 3:14 PM


they get away without having a rail by photoshopping it out....I saw the house and it did have a rail on it

Posted by: mikey woodz at November 19, 2010 3:26 PM

We have 4 stories with no hand rails

When remodeling and going through the 'occupancy cert' inspection- you put up temp rails and tell the inspector REAL RAILS on order.

They really do not care.

Posted by: jmwt at November 19, 2010 3:52 PM

Blimey, you're right mikey. My praise for no photo trickery was unfounded then.

Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at November 19, 2010 4:15 PM

i see. so why did they photoshop out the handrail, is it less desirable without any?

Posted by: condoshopper at November 19, 2010 5:20 PM

I think they just took the photo before the inspector told them to install the handrail.

Posted by: steve at November 19, 2010 5:21 PM

i meant *more. is it more desirable without handrails?

Posted by: condoshopper at November 19, 2010 5:21 PM

steve - check out 5 of 16 from the original (good) photo gallery. There you can see the bottom end of the handrail. So it is possible that photo #6 was shot before the handrail was installed but that would have required that the photographer shoot on two separate days (or sit around while the handrail was installed :-). And I can guarantee you that this photographer did not travel light as there are at least two floor standing strobes on this shoot.

Other photos show evidence of benevolent photoshopping, like the exposure equalization of the outdoor scenes seen through the windows. And Kudos to the photographer for not editing out the powerlines :-)

Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at November 19, 2010 5:35 PM

Why not just reuse the older photos? I'm sure whoever owns the rights would sell them for not very much money.

Posted by: John at November 19, 2010 11:23 PM

the real trickery isnt the photos but the extra 100 ft²...where did they come from?

Posted by: Geo at November 22, 2010 10:37 AM

In contract

Posted by: sparky-b at January 3, 2011 11:03 AM

Sold for $2.85 on 2/2 per Redfin.

[Editor's Note: Eleven Months Later 465 Hoffman Is Picked For $120,000 (4%) Less.]

Posted by: sanfrantim at March 3, 2011 8:22 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:

« San Francisco County Unemployment Falls To 9.3% In October | HOME | New Designs For Dwellings (And Retail) At Market And Sanchez »