February 6, 2014
The Modern Noe Valley Market Since 2009, Apples-To-Apples Style
As we wrote about the sale of the modern Noe home at 465 Hoffman in February 2011:
"Speaking of Noe Valley year-over-year, the sale of 465 Hoffman closed escrow Wednesday with a reported contract price of $2,850,000.
Call it $633 per listed square foot and a four percent ($120,000) drop in value over the past eleven months for the "exceptional showcase home architecturally designed & methodically built with gorgeous views!"
As plugged-in people might recall, the modern Noe home first hit the market in early 2009 listed for $3,900,000 and sold for $2,970,000 [in March of 2010]."
The modern 4,500 square foot home is now back on the market and listed for $3,795,000.
A sale at asking would represent average annual appreciation of 10 percent over the past three years on an apples-to-apples basis. If you think you know Noe, it's time to tell.
∙ Listing: 465 Hoffman (4/4.5) 4,500 sqft - $3,795,000 [465hoffman.com]
First Published: February 6, 2014 7:15 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Yes whatever the market will bid....but folks, really???
Posted by: market value at February 6, 2014 7:49 AM
The text here is confusing to me..i get a headache trying to follow the listing/closing prices and dates..a brief time line would help..
Posted by: chad n. freud at February 6, 2014 8:27 AM
Posted by: someone at February 6, 2014 9:13 AM
so here is a summary:
Sept 2009 - Listed for $3.495MM
April 2010 - Sold for $2.97MM
November 2010 - Listed again for $2.995MM
Feb 2011 - Sold for $3.3MM
Feb 2014 - Listed again again for $3.795MM
My question is why does this place seem to turn over so frequently? Is there a problem with the place or location?
Seems big enough to accommodate many different types of owners..
Posted by: chad n. freud at February 6, 2014 9:38 AM
"Feb 2011 - Sold for $3.3MM"
The post above claims the sale price then was $2.85M. Redfin shows MLS and public records having a sale at $2.85M on Feb 2, then another public records entry at $3.3M on Feb 11.
"My question is why does this place seem to turn over so frequently? "
It really seems like a there's a group of properties that do seem to keep popping on the market over and over again. It would be interesting to know if anyone had stats showing that X% of SF homes were responsible for Y% of sales transactions.
Posted by: anon2 at February 6, 2014 10:26 AM
Wow. That exterior really hasn't aged well. Four years old and already looks like it's decaying.
Posted by: hugh at February 6, 2014 12:03 PM
> Wow. That exterior really hasn't aged well.
> Four years old and already looks like it's
House flippers don't care if it lasts, just if it is cheap and looks good while the property is for sale...
Posted by: FormerAptBroker at February 6, 2014 1:23 PM
If that's supposed to be wood, I think it's telling us that it would look good with slate strips in there.
Posted by: EH at February 6, 2014 2:39 PM
that place looks like cr@p
Posted by: the_r at February 6, 2014 3:53 PM
Here is what it looked like the last time the Google Mapper drove by:
Other than the front of the house, it looks fine. But the front of the house looks terrible and it doesn't seem like it would take the much to clean it up. Terrible job staging by the owner.
Posted by: NoeValleyJim at February 6, 2014 4:59 PM
RE: My question is why does this place seem to turn over so frequently?
I used to live a block away from this home. Hoffman is as close to Diamond Heights as it is to Noe Valley. The walk down the hill is horrible...but not as bad as the walk back up the hill from 24th Street. This is a classic case of outsized house vs immediate neighborhood--were it further down the hill the value would be squarely in the $3.5mm range; up the hill it is more of an open question, and one where the buyer becomes disnenchanted after a few months of living so high on the hill and dealing with the long and steep walk.
Posted by: no_ vally at February 6, 2014 10:24 PM
no-vallly - thanks for the info.
A related question or comment. It seems that walkability trumps views these days for buyers. When i first got to SF, Views seemed to be valued more than Walkability in terms of property values and prices.
I wonder now what premium buyers will pay for Views vs Walkability, or pay for both (in the rare cases you have both).
Seems like for 465 Hoffman, if this house was down in the flats of Noe it would be worth at least $200K more and possibly have less turnover.
Posted by: chad n. freud at February 7, 2014 7:59 AM
I don't agree with no-vally. There are multiple 3 million dollar sales within a block (to include one further up on Fountain St). SF is full of hills and some of the most expensive properties are on them (Russian Hill, Pacific Heights, Nob Hill, Ashbury/Clarendon Heights, and Telegraph Hill to name a few).
Besides, for proximity to 24th St, this location beats all the pricey properties in upper NV (on a hill!). To call the walk up or down the hill horrible is quite a stretch IMO.
My guess is that this is not a factor in the multiple sales of this property.
With this all being said, some people value views over walkability. I get it, walkability is important, but to have a 85 walk score opposed to 95 is negligible IMO. We're talking a 5 minute difference in walking here.
Posted by: Latitude at February 7, 2014 10:53 AM
I think this place is losing some potential buyers that may have kids..it doesn't seem to kid friendly of a house. But it only takes one I guess.
Posted by: DanRH at February 7, 2014 11:22 AM