January 26, 2011
Calling All Mormons To 676 San Jose
Purchased for $875,000 in 2005, the Victorian home at 676 San Jose was taken "to the studs," expanded (including a new two-bedroom unit below) and modernized in 2006.
Now boasting seven bedrooms and three (although we seem to count four) bathrooms over 3,701 square feet and listed for $1,595,000 ($431 per square) in 2011.
∙ Listing: 676 San Jose (7/3) 3,701 sqft - $1,595,000 [MLS]
First Published: January 26, 2011 11:00 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Sorry to be dense - but what is the mormon reference here?
Posted by: Bernie Hill at January 26, 2011 11:12 AM
Is this supposed to be a joke about Mormons having a lot of kids? Why not just make it about Catholics? Or Mexicans?
Epic, epic fail.
[Editor’s Note: In no way, shape, or form was this intended to be a jab at or joke about the Mormon faith. It was a simple reference to fact on a listing for a "7 bedroom" house:
Today, the average Mormon family size tends to be around 4 children per family. Compared to the past, this is much smaller than early Mormon families; however, it is still approximately double the average family size of non-Mormon families. Historically, speaking Mormon families tended to have at least six children and it was not at all uncommon for families to have far more children than that. Families consisting of nine and ten children were not considered to be out of the ordinary in the least.
We couldn't of said the same, however, for our Octomom headline which never made it to press.]
Posted by: amused at January 26, 2011 11:14 AM
Pull all the statistics you want, but this isn't cool. Coming from an atheist, BTW.
Posted by: amused at January 26, 2011 11:47 AM
So it this usable as an SFR? They don't seem to have pictures of the unit below in the listing. The upper bedrooms have some attic intrusion it seems.
The location is a minus to many I'd think -- on the San Jose almost-freeway. I should look up on Mission Mission/Burrito Justice neighborhood this is. Is La Lengua on the other side of SJ?
Posted by: sfrenegade at January 26, 2011 11:50 AM
Another angle is that most active LDS families tend to have a significantly higher household incomes when compared to those in the surrounding communities that are not so aligned. There's a bit of published social science documenting this, too, so it's not just urban legend.
Not an irrelevant fact when discussing a 1.6 million dollar home.
Posted by: Brahma (incensed renter) at January 26, 2011 11:51 AM
Mormons tend to have lots of kids. Fact. Who else would want a 7-BR house?
And don't get all faux-PC about this after the Mormons bankrolled Prop 8.
Posted by: A.T. at January 26, 2011 11:53 AM
In contract on day one, 1.6 on San Jose.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at January 26, 2011 11:55 AM
editor- if you are 2nd guessing yourself-Nope you did not go over the line... it is funny cuz its true and something mormons actually take pride in
Thanks for adding a little bit more humor than usual
Side note if you talk to a realtor and just say to them "looking for a 7-3" they would probably have no idea what you are talking about vs asking for a 3-2
Posted by: ha at January 26, 2011 11:59 AM
The demographics of mormon families is well established. See, eg, "A Demographic Portrait of the Mormons, 1830-1980", Dean L. May, in _After 150 Years: The Latter-day Saints in Sesquicentennial Perspective_ Provo: Charles Redd Center for Western Studies, 1983 (216p.): 39-69
Which has actual numbers from real census data demonstrating Mormons culture's birth rate to track the national birth rate, just two points higher.
As a former Mormon from a very large family (eight kids), I think the reference is hilarious and most of my practicing family would too. Poking fun at large family sizes is good sport and done all the time, no big deal if it isn't mean-spirited, and this didn't strike me that way.
Posted by: gallileo at January 26, 2011 12:03 PM
Thanks SS for injecting a little humor into the site.
At times, this site and the commenters get to be a little too, I mean WAY too PC. if you know what I mean.
This was funny, and at times can be true.
Posted by: noearch at January 26, 2011 12:09 PM
You have to add "Not that there's anything wrong with that" to the headline...It worked for Seinfeld it should work for SocketSite... :)
It should help soothe those who are a LITTLE too sensitive...
Posted by: Poor in Pac Heights at January 26, 2011 12:16 PM
If this thread had picked on a group that didn't bankroll Prop 8 and is actually represented in SF (Hispanics?), you'd all be screaming bloody murder with the same fervor you usually reserve for realtors.
If it were actually even a little bit funny, it'd be different.
Posted by: amused at January 26, 2011 12:36 PM
Love the editors comments. Now you are finally seeing things with clear glasses. Note: Ikea particle board kitchen cabinets in kids bath-room are sure fire signs of cheap upgrades. I hope you have the cajones (as?) to let my post stay up now that we are on the same team.
Posted by: wifey at January 26, 2011 12:37 PM
Hmm, amused, who is the one making the ethnic generalizations here that could be considered a bit demeaning? Not the editor . . .
Posted by: A.T. at January 26, 2011 12:39 PM
what neighborhood is this?
Posted by: meep at January 26, 2011 12:39 PM
what neighborhood is this?
I was wondering if this is a part of the "new" Noe, after the redraw.
Posted by: justme at January 26, 2011 12:50 PM
This is on the very edge of Noe Valley overlooking the Transmission or whatever one prefers to call that triangular patch of land between San Jose and Mission south of the Mission District.
Posted by: Mole Man at January 26, 2011 12:51 PM
so if this is ok, its ok for me to advertise section 8 units by saying "calling all black families to..."?
Posted by: b at January 26, 2011 12:52 PM
This is on the very edge of Noe Valley
Yup, but was it officially Noe a couple of years ago?
Posted by: justme at January 26, 2011 1:01 PM
Posted by: jose at January 26, 2011 1:06 PM
Burrito Justice is funny. La Lengua is certainly better than Upper Noe Valley Heights or whatever SFAR would come up with.
Posted by: sfrenegade at January 26, 2011 1:10 PM
In a less inflammatory vein, what about this house?
Was this a flip that they held onto since 2006 waiting to sell?
Or was it renovated and owner occupied and the owner just sold normally?
Zillow lists a tax assessment of $1.3M for 2010, don't know if that corresponds well to the purchase price plus renovation cost.
Posted by: tc_sf at January 26, 2011 1:15 PM
I see $374.5K on the permits. Some of that was added in 2005, but the bulk in 2006. With 2% adjustments due to Prop 13, $1.310M in 2009 would be just about right for sale price + permits by my calculation.
Posted by: sfrenegade at January 26, 2011 1:20 PM
Yup, but was [676 San Jose] officially Noe a couple of years ago?
It was and is with the Noe to Mission dividing line at San Jose from Valley to 30th unchanged. The Mission to Noe boundry shift was from Guerrero to San Jose between 24th and 26th.
Posted by: SocketSite at January 26, 2011 1:22 PM
Note: Freedom of speech is not for everyone unless it is their own form of innate racism. Please mind your p's and q's. 7 is good luck #, all is peachy, this should go for over asking, the sky is falling, see "x" statistic etc.
Posted by: wifey at January 26, 2011 1:25 PM
I like the yellow fridge and old timey stove!
But yeah, if there are seven bedrooms and you're even staging one with bunk beds, then you have a bit of a niche market, hehe.
Posted by: kthnxybe at January 26, 2011 1:28 PM
I would bet that this would have gone in to contract on day one no matter what. Cheap 7BR? That's a market in itself.
Posted by: EH at January 26, 2011 1:29 PM
In contract on day one, 1.6 on San Jose.
Well, we now have a price floor in Noe Valley. Sweet south facing yard (with issues!)
Posted by: EBGuy at January 26, 2011 1:40 PM
Unfortunatly for the neighbors, the other primary use in this city for a 7 bedroom house is a halfway house or post rehab sober living... I'll take the mormons over that.
Posted by: Jimmy C at January 26, 2011 1:51 PM
"Another angle is that most active LDS families tend to have a significantly higher household incomes when compared to those in the surrounding communities that are not so aligned. There's a bit of published social science documenting this, too, so it's not just urban legend.
Not an irrelevant fact when discussing a 1.6 million dollar home."
how is that possible? they give up to 35% of their income every year to the church.
Posted by: Jay E at January 26, 2011 2:06 PM
The tithe is 10% not 35%.
Your temple elders are ripping you off.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at January 26, 2011 2:20 PM
"Mormons tend to have lots of kids. Fact. Who else would want a 7-BR house?
And don't get all faux-PC about this after the Mormons bankrolled Prop 8."
probably the most faux-PC comment ever!
Posted by: REpornaddict at January 26, 2011 3:07 PM
is the dormer original or part of the redisign
Posted by: meep at January 26, 2011 4:32 PM
I'm not Mormon, or even religious, but really I kind of found this offensive.
Posted by: Scott at January 26, 2011 5:50 PM
It's extremely offensive for white people to be a subject of ridicule.
Posted by: EH at January 26, 2011 6:56 PM
It's a joke, folks - lighten up.
Posted by: Fishchum at January 27, 2011 8:34 AM
It was funny. All you serious intellectuals need to stop being so damn PC.
Nobody was hurt. No mormons were harmed in the process.
Posted by: noearch at January 27, 2011 8:52 AM
Allow me to introduce a new vein of headline-criticism - I didn't get the joke right away cause the "seven bedroom" part was so far away from the title! Otherwise I would have been very amused.
Posted by: MH for Movoto at January 27, 2011 9:05 AM
A.T. wrote: "Who else would want a 7-BR house?"
Kate Gosselin, if she decides to move here now that her divorce is final. New town, new beginnings, who knows what might happen?
[Editor's Note: Damn it, that's what we get for not reading the gossip rags and websites. The headline we now wish we had gone with: "Calling Kate To 676 San Jose."]
Posted by: Brahma (incensed renter) at January 27, 2011 10:41 AM
"In contract on day one, 1.6 on San Jose."
I'm sure the neighbors are hoping the lucky buyer was Ginnifer Goodwin...
Posted by: Willow at January 27, 2011 3:14 PM
I was waiting for the inevitable Big Love joke. Maybe this means good things for the neighboring houses.
Posted by: sfrenegade at January 27, 2011 3:39 PM
^ I know...I know...just couldn't resist.
Posted by: Willow at January 27, 2011 4:21 PM
If kate gosselin and her brood of little brats move to Noe Vally, I'm moving.
Posted by: noearch at January 27, 2011 5:32 PM
"Exquisite, re-designed, fully detached 4 BD, 2-story Vict + 2BD Unit+Studio"
This is really three units.
Posted by: NoeValleyJim at January 27, 2011 6:30 PM
technically noe, as is my home a block away, but people also call the neighborhood outer mission, nocha, and even bernal when i give my address.
i don't really care what they call it. walking only blocks to the J church muni, i'm 15 minutes from the ferry building and less to union square or hayes valley or dolores park without the hassle of parking, the risks of city biking, or the ugliness of many city buses). It's 5 minutes on foot from some of the best coffee and winebars with outside tables in the city as well as the restaurants of church (toast, pommelo, incanto, alice's ) AND the mission (blue plate, front porch, baby blues bbq and all that latin american goodness) with some of the best weather in the city, park access, and a hop to the glen park bart and the freeways.
i walk for grocery shopping and errands and to the alemany farmer's and flea markets and through the castro, valencia, and 24th street corridors and hike glen canyon or to the top of bernal for views. the j church outbound gets me to the ocean in 20 minutes on a good day via one connection.
the traffic of san jose could be an issue for many with this particular home, but this neighborhood is great.
Posted by: modernedwardian at January 30, 2011 10:02 AM
"i'm 15 minutes from the ferry building"
^511.org says the J church is 26 minutes to the ferry building and the total trip time is 36 minutes, more than twice what you said. But good luck with the sale/desire to hold property values, of your property nearby.
Posted by: tipster at January 30, 2011 10:20 AM
Yeah, that 15 min. to the Ferry Building comment is absurd. It's double that, and the J does not run too frequently so you have to factor in wait time (although that can be reduced with nextmuni).
This is an OK neighborhood, but one thing it ain't is conveniently located for public transportation.
Posted by: A.T. at January 30, 2011 10:42 AM
From here, you would be better off walking to the 24th Street BART station and taking BART to the Ferry Building rather than take the J.
This area is pretty good for transit though, since the J and 24 are close and BART is not too far away. Mission Street always has a bus, too.
Posted by: NoeValleyJim at January 30, 2011 10:53 PM
This location is served by many transit routes. Downtown, BART is the way to go from here. Per Google Maps, transit times are slightly less from here to the Ferry Building than from Pac Heights to the Ferry Building, thanks to the speed of BART. This location is also close to the 24 bus, and one has bike paths the whole way from this house to downtown. Also easy to travel south via BART (or the freeway).
Posted by: Dan at January 31, 2011 10:14 AM
Sign on the building says "SOLD" does anyone know what it went for?
Posted by: NoeValleyJim at March 3, 2011 9:22 AM
It hasn't closed yet.
Posted by: 94114 at March 3, 2011 9:33 AM
The sale of 676 San Jose Avenue closed escrow on 3/8 with a reported contract price of $1,610,000 ($435 per reported square foot).
Posted by: SocketSite at March 22, 2011 2:48 PM