December 16, 2013
Rebuilt With An Abundance Of Contemporary Flair
Listed for $1,425,000 last December with 1,630 square feet, three legal bedrooms, and an unwarranted in-law below, the Upper Noe home at 545 Valley sold for $1,350,000 in February.
Since "stripped to the studs and rebuilt" with the facade above, 545 Valley Street is now back on the market and listed for $2,599,000 with a "reimagined floor plan to add over 1,000 square feet of living space," four bedrooms, and an abundance of contemporary flair throughout.
The kitchen opens to a new deck off the rear. The floating staircase is lit by LEDs in the handrails and runs all the way to the roof and a deck that's accessed by way of a new hatch/skylight:
∙ Listing: 545 Valley (4/3.5) - $2,599,000 [545valley.com]
First Published: December 16, 2013 1:45 PM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
It's not the house I'd buy and it's still incredibly ugly (after the remodel), but I think we can all accept that the contemporary interior was an appropriate choice and didn't destroy a piece of the city's architectural heritage...
Posted by: pvc at December 16, 2013 2:21 PM
LED lights in handrail? Cute but perhaps only necessary b/c "floating staircase" is so dangerous. And speaking of dangerous, are the jail bars immediately outside the bedroom french doors meant to protect against sleep walk induced multi story free fall flying events? And is that shower stall contained or is water supposed to fly all over the bathroom?
Posted by: 4oceans at December 16, 2013 2:21 PM
Interesting that they went with the marble for this high-end remodel, since I'm under the impression that it scratches and etches more easily than other more expensive materials.
Is marble the surface of choice for these sorts of luxury kitchens nowadays?
Posted by: Tim Bracken at December 16, 2013 2:22 PM
The toilet paper dispenser is hung to far from the commode! I that price point one shouldn't have to reach that far.
Posted by: emanon at December 16, 2013 2:32 PM
Wow, a lot of bitter people here today. I like the redo, both interior and exterior. Would have preferred they'd kept symmetry on the facade (matched the casements), and $2.6M is just ridiculous. But no reason to throw around the venom.
Posted by: Sierrajeff at December 16, 2013 2:45 PM
(For the record, my comment was tongue in cheek; and apologies for the grammatical error.)
Posted by: emanon at December 16, 2013 3:11 PM
I wonder if this new façade will seem as dated as the old façade within 30 or 40 years? Why do many modern designs age so poorly? I was recently admiring simple shingle façades by Coxhead and Julia Morgan in Presidio Heights and noticed they had almost no ornamentation but looked attractive and charming as a design after 100 years of age.
Posted by: 94123 at December 16, 2013 3:25 PM
No loss to curb appeal in this remodel. The original facade was just plain ugly whereas the new facade is just plain.
I like the roof deck solution. That's going to be an awesome place to hang out on nice days. The hatch serves as a skylight. Nice! As a practical matter the roof deck needs to be outfitted with incredibly rugged furniture. Either that or there needs to be a shed to store that stuff out of season. As staged it wouldn't work very well.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at December 16, 2013 3:38 PM
So this is a real question. I'm not sure why there's such a current fad with roof decks. If that's all you have for open space then I obviously get it. But in this project what might you do on the roof deck that you couldn't do on the lower deck?
In fact the lower deck is directly off the kitchen so probably makes more sense. I'm just not sure why/when I would use the roof deck but it's clearly an expense people are willing to pay for
Posted by: DCR at December 16, 2013 3:38 PM
DCR - I think that the views off of the roof deck are superior to the deck off the kitchen. Aside from that I agree that the kitchen deck is certainly more functional. The roof deck is definitely a great asset for entertaining.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at December 16, 2013 3:44 PM
really like the facade job. The interior is intriguing, they spent a load on those stairs but there is a serious lack of attention to detail throughout the rest of the home in regards to the feel (exterior door levers? vanities?). Also, how does that roof deck hatch serve as a legal means of egress? if that is legal that is one awesome solution.
Posted by: knock at December 16, 2013 4:12 PM
Without crown moldings or wainscoting you don't get any love on SocketSite. I'm sure somebody mentioned that to the architect and then he shrugged.
Posted by: formidable doer of the nasty at December 17, 2013 1:59 AM
You can't have crown molding on a 8' ceilings. I might be off few inches but the whole house seems low on the volume side.
Floor plan and choice of finishes seems fine. Facade a huge upgrade, so my only misgive is the price.
AFAICT, this is your traditional 1 story over a garage remodel where you capture space behind the garage. The best of such jobs fetched $2.1M at the peak (2007) and afterwards were barely crossing the $1.8M, now we are asking $2.6M for that?
I couldn't figure out the square footage, but it's incredibly hard to get 1500 sqft per floor on a normal lot (like this one), so IF they left a tiny garage below they might hit 2500 sqft and that's pricey for basement bedrooms.
Posted by: someone at December 17, 2013 8:13 AM
I think it's a good job and it definitely fits the facade. Material choices and finishes are a little safe (and perhaps even a little lower end for this price point -- see the vanities) but that is where the new owner can personalize things. I love the hatch, though.
Tim Bracken: Marble is getting very popular but it will etch with any household acid or even water (and scratch/chip/stain) and is not family-friendly. Marble develops a "patina" -- which works well with more rustic decor but maybe not so much with a polished finish with lots of light in a contemporary kitchen. Marble seems expensive but this particular one probably costs less than most stones or quartzes.
Posted by: Gur at December 17, 2013 9:47 AM
Roof decks make money, for the developer because people go up there during the showing and they think "ooh, aah". But they never really use them once they are living in the house. All they do is inflate the price of housing and for that reason they should not be allowed by the City
Posted by: noe mom at December 17, 2013 10:23 AM
Then I guess SF should ban shake weights, pot fillers, and steam showers.
Posted by: TEJ at December 17, 2013 11:08 AM
@ noe mom what is up with the constantly strident takes? Plenty of people use their roofdecks. We use the heck out of mine. Whatever!
Posted by: Truth at December 17, 2013 11:19 AM
If you'd like to take a look at this home in person we're having an open house Saturday (1/11) from 1:30-4:00pm.
Posted by: Mark Rowson at January 7, 2014 5:11 PM
The list price for 545 Valley Street has been reduced $50,000 (2 percent), now asking $2,549,000.
Posted by: SocketSite at February 4, 2014 3:41 PM
Sold for $2.5m on 2/24.
someone said: "AFAICT, this is your traditional 1 story over a garage remodel where you capture space behind the garage. The best of such jobs fetched $2.1M at the peak (2007) and afterwards were barely crossing the $1.8M, now we are asking $2.6M for that?"
I think we're just slightly past the peak of 2007, after adjusting for inflation?
Posted by: jack at February 25, 2014 9:33 AM