August 19, 2011
A Rebuilt 662 29th Street Returns At Thrice Its Size (And Price)
Rebuilt over the past two years, 662 29th Street has just returned to the market over in Noe Valley as an "over 3,000" square foot four-bedroom home listed for $2,499,000.
Purchased for $900,000 in 2007 as a 1,078 square foot two-bedroom home without parking but with "expansion potential," the property was briefly marketed for $900,000 in 2009 along with plans, but not permits, for the home that has since materialized.
And a rememberance of the before:
∙ Listing: 662 29th Street (4/4.5) - $2,499,000 [MLS]
First Published: August 19, 2011 11:00 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Did they forget to finish the landscaping in the backyard? Or did it already fall apart? Also, the frontyard bed should have been leveled.
Posted by: Marten at August 19, 2011 11:47 AM
This is a great full renovation of what was a piece of junk cottage here in Noe. Price does seem high, at this point. we shall see.
@marten: the back yard could be waiting for a new owner to make it more personal. ever think of that? Also, the front yard is interesting and reflects the "real" steep slope of 29th St. Ever think of that?
Posted by: Modernqueen at August 19, 2011 11:55 AM
yes, 2.5m for a chance to "make it more personal". Actually, the back bothers me less than the fence which looks like it's straight from some falling apart country cottage.
Posted by: wrath at August 19, 2011 12:07 PM
The "real" steep slope is great BTW. But I can't help feel the house would feel even more "real" if the lot itself weren't leveled - a real leaning house of Noe would be really real.
Posted by: wrath at August 19, 2011 12:11 PM
@modernqueen: I don't think Marten's point was an aesthetic one but rather the fact that after a hard rain you'll find all the soil at your steps or down the road rather than in the planter. But maybe I'm wrong.
Posted by: Boo at August 19, 2011 12:15 PM
I don't know whether marten was thinking aesthetic or functional, since he didn't elaborate.
But no, you won't find your soil down the road after a hard rain. Plant material holds the soil.
I know what I'm talking about. I live on that street.
Posted by: Modernqueen at August 19, 2011 12:43 PM
do planters on 29th street follow special physics?
Posted by: wrath at August 19, 2011 1:20 PM
Boo, it this planter is any like what was installed on the sloping sidewalk at Steiner and Fulton Street, there are three mini-terraces within the planter box, which in effect stops excessive runoff.
Additionally each terrace is filled completely with xeroscape plants so little surface dirt remains.
Posted by: Jackson at August 19, 2011 1:28 PM
Posted by: sparky-b at August 19, 2011 3:08 PM
Where is the kitchen storage? The lack of cabinets makes for an attractive, open look, but only so long as the counters aren't piled high with cereal boxes on top of toaster ovens -- since there doesn't appear to be anywhere near enough place to put all the flotsam of normal living. Not that it would be a deal-breaker, but it definitely puts me off when I see a place not designed for Real Life (r).
Reminds me of some new construction I toured where I sensed something amiss in the kitchen. When I asked where the fridge was, the agent showed me a blank wall space where I could conveniently place a fridge... and block the only window in the room. Not sure how that ever passed inspection, but they presented it with all earnestness.
Posted by: Average Joe at August 19, 2011 3:40 PM
"The lack of cabinets makes for an attractive, open look, but only so long as the counters aren't piled high with cereal boxes on top of toaster ovens -- since there doesn't appear to be anywhere near enough place to put all the flotsam of normal living. Not that it would be a deal-breaker, but it definitely puts me off when I see a place not designed for Real Life (r)."
Silly Joe. Hipster kitchens have replicators to produce food. Store-bought food ruins the clean lines.
Posted by: sfrenegade at August 19, 2011 3:54 PM
$2.5 million asking price and one car parking?
And, nice try with the natural wood out front, but it will get painted over as soon as it bakes in the sun for a couple years and looks terrible.
And, afraid to tell us the actual square footage and thus the price/sf?
Posted by: sf builder at August 19, 2011 4:08 PM
If you need a toaster oven in your life, you shouldn't be living in such a nice, modern home.
This is not a double-wide ya know.
Posted by: Modernqueen at August 19, 2011 4:50 PM
it's not? did ya test it?
Posted by: wrath at August 19, 2011 5:27 PM
It looks great. Will check it out Tues for sure. Anyway, i advised my client that it would go for 2.2 when we viewed it, with the plans in whatever state of entitlement they were in @ 900K. So I'm sticking to my guns. Two two.
Posted by: anon.ed at August 19, 2011 7:26 PM
It's beautiful. I particularly love the staircase. And I agree with letting the new owners do their own backyard - you have to have some place to put your own stamp on a home IMO.
Posted by: juliemarg at August 20, 2011 11:05 AM
Unless seller wises up, this property likely to suffer the same fate as its neighbor, 728 Duncan -- multiple $100k reductions until it stands a chance of finding a buyer near $2m.
Posted by: sanfrantim at August 22, 2011 2:36 PM
This street is waaay too steep to support this price tag. I am guessing $1.9M.
Posted by: NoeValleyJim at August 22, 2011 2:41 PM
After two months on the market, the list price for 662 29th Street has just been reduced $100,000 (4%), now asking $2,399,000.
Posted by: SocketSite at October 19, 2011 11:27 AM
AWESOME hill. would put lance armstrong to shame!
Noe Vlly - yep, the best hills in the City!
Posted by: badlands at October 20, 2011 6:26 AM
The listing for the rebuilt 662 29th Street has been withdrawn from the MLS after 103 days on the market without a reported sale.
Posted by: SocketSite at November 30, 2011 11:53 AM
New year, new listing, new price: $2,249,000
Posted by: eddy at January 19, 2012 8:51 AM
Sold for $2.2M. Nailed it.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at April 17, 2012 6:30 PM
^So you are saying that prices haven't gone anywhere in the last 8 months.
Posted by: tipster at April 17, 2012 11:04 PM
300,000 under original asking? For a big, awesome new place? Took 8 months to sell? In Noe? About 730/sf? Boy, on fire . . .
Posted by: anon at April 18, 2012 7:08 AM
Posted by: Sanfrantim at April 18, 2012 7:45 AM
"^So you are saying that prices haven't gone anywhere in the last 8 months."
Nope. I said this one sold for 2.2, and I nailed it. And that is what I said. 8 months ago maybe there were seven offers for 2.15M but the seller couldn't get his head around that? Who knows. Reach after reach after reach from you these days.
"300,000 under original asking? For a big, awesome new place? Took 8 months to sell? In Noe? About 730/sf? Boy, on fire . ."
And the other pretzel logic down-talker pipes up. To say that you two have fluid criteria is an understatement. Harping on "asking price" now? When you deride commentary regarding the fallout from unimproved apples that sold after huge overbids from the last market?
Why is it so difficult for you two to be real and to talk about the market as it is? Grow the heck up. Or don't, and keep up the bozos routine. It's all good.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at April 18, 2012 9:16 AM
Oh, anoned, you are funny! No comment on the 8 months of sitting on the market or the weak 730/sf for an awesome new place? Must have been the result of those "huge overbids" you mentioned . . .
Take a look at 314 Day Street. Just sold for a little under the 2006 price. More than six years later and a lower price! In hot little ol' Noe, the least-bad SF market! And another 15% lost to inflation. And of course there are selling costs on top of that. And even it got 784/sf, better than this 29th st place nearby.
Posted by: anon at April 18, 2012 9:51 AM
Somehow initially commenting that it would sell for considerably less than its list price is "no comment"? No it isn't. It's a comment and it's on record.
314 Day? I brought it up in another thread myself. Each of these properties are different, guy. 314 Day took an unusually long 55 days to sell back in 2006, and hadn't been upgraded in six years. Think quite "lived in." It's also a smaller home than the 29th street home and smaller homes tend to trend higher in dollars per square foot. And the 29th street property had its issues. If it didn't it would have done much better, IMO. Don't go calling all these properties equal. They are not. That's another mistake you make over and over again with your prezel logic pathological need to make the same points regardless of outcome.
So you don't care to talk about the market in a sober manner. So whatever.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at April 18, 2012 10:02 AM
Got it! I will never again call the exact same property that sells twice in 6 years "equal" to itself because that would be the complete opposite of a "sober" statement. Now, get back to your glass of ripple.
Posted by: anon at April 18, 2012 10:15 AM
Not what I said. But what, you think nothing happens to a house during six years of use? Mother Nature has a bone to pick with Robert Shiller when it comes to that mentality. Regardless, you're doing your little song and dance about a 10K slide in price off a peak year sale. Called that too.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at April 18, 2012 10:42 AM