2342 Broadway

It’s not yet officially listed inventory, nor is the address even mentioned on the Sotheby’s site. But a few doors down from 2306 and 2310 Broadway, and across the street from the Party of Five house at 2311 Broadway, lies 2342 Broadway.

2342 Broadway Back

Purchased as a total fixer for what tax records would suggest was $5,610,000 in May 2008 (asking just under six million at the time), the Pacific Heights big humongous view home has been completely remade from front to back and bottom to top.

2342 Broadway Bed

And in addition to the requisite eight figure finishings, solar panels and a rainwater harvesting system could help the home achieve LEED Platinum certification.

2342 Broadway Bath

Asking $14,000,000. And a tip of the hat to the always plugged-in sleepiguy for the scoop.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by kthnxybe

    Is that a sauna? Sigh.

  2. Posted by dogboy

    Imagine up to 30% of your electrical needs coming from solar panels. Imagine a rain harvesting system.
    Wow, this place will pay for itself in about, hmm – let’s see – 2000 years.

  3. Posted by CameronRex

    dogboy – post of the year – LOL.

  4. Posted by huh?

    No idea whether it’s worth the price or not, but I’m not sure R.E. porn gets much more salivating than this. Looks amazing to me.

  5. Posted by eddy

    The prior sale was off market. See name link for the before pic and some more details.
    2430 sold for $9M. This home has better views and is pretty spectacular. $14M is a lot of money but this is the nicest home on the market right now if you ask me. Makes the 2395 and 2849 Pacific homes look silly in comparison. But at the same time, it makes 2100 Vallejo look a little more realistic. Good luck.

  6. Posted by cerky

    They made the front really fugly and took away all the charm when they removed the shingles. The back is also super nouveau riche – what’s with the wrought iron balconies?
    Willing to bet the solar panels only barely begin to offset the huge expense of lighting and heating the place. They probably pay for 10% of the energy bill, tops.

  7. Posted by corntrollio

    Pretty swanky place. Does one need to worry about the upper floors re: seismic issues? Looks like some soft-stories there to take advantage of the views.

  8. Posted by steve

    excellent RE pron. thanks SS and sleepiguy!

  9. Posted by Is this luxury?

    I agree the back looks plain wrong. As if they had the design for a real nice house and shrunk it horizontally to make it fit the lot. This type of design needs air.
    The front is Pottery Barn bland. I could see it in the new residential expanses around LA, but in PH? I suppose they target buyers that have more money than taste. Then again, this is Pacific Heights.
    I don’t deny this is expensive stuff all around and a lot of good craftsmanship. This just looks too much like the house our typical Joneses would build had they won the lottery.

  10. Posted by Fishchum

    Count me in as someone who prefers the original facade. I love the brown shingles with the black trim.
    Would anyone venture a guess as to how much use the outdoor space in the back will get? I’ve really begun to notice the difference between a North facing outdoor space, which, IMO, gets relatively little sunlight, and a South facing outdoor space which should get substantially more.

  11. Posted by tipster

    Regardless of what we think of the before/after, it’s what buyers at the upper price ranges want. Eddy’s right: nicest house on the market right now. Will sell fast.

  12. Posted by ex SF-er

    I agree, this is great RE pron.
    There is so much that is sold in SF as “luxury” that is so yawn-inspiring. This place actually does look like a million bucks. (ok, maybe even 14 million!).
    the house looks weird to me from the back, but who’s gonna look at it from the back anyway, and it allows them to have that great outdoor living room.
    there may be a very few things here and there that I would change, but the interior is fantastic.
    and it even has two things I love.
    1) a tree out front!
    2) a usable kitchen triangle. even though the triangle isn’t great, it’s one of the first usable luxury kitchens I’ve seen in a while.

  13. Posted by Oceangoer

    Fishchum you are essentially right about north facing gardens, but in fact if you are careful with tree trimming (to bring in light) and the right plantings they can be not only a delight but get lots of use. We are in Cow Hollow, with a north facing garden that boasts two 65-year old fig trees (yum), a plum tree, lemon tree and bay laurel. All bear lots of fruit … and trust me it is a delight to sit in that garden, sip a glass of wine and contemplate nature. The trouble with most of the renovated houses I see is they put down flagstone or wood and have little boxes for plants and call it a garden. Doesn’t work for me.

  14. Posted by anonn

    Would anyone venture a guess as to how much use the outdoor space in the back will get? I’ve really begun to notice the difference between a North facing outdoor space, which, IMO, gets relatively little sunlight, and a South facing outdoor space which should get substantially more.
    Over on this side of town you want north facing for the views. This lot is big enough, with large yards on either side, that the yard will still get decent sun all year long. Most people would probably use the yard a lot.

  15. Posted by sleepiguy

    They staged the house a couple of weeks ago, so I’ve been anxiously waiting for the pictures to show up. The developers really blasted through this remodel. They had guys working pretty much seven days a week to get it done. It’s really rare to see something of this scale finished within a year. So job well done – I hope!
    I have mixed feelings about the place. I may be in the minority, but I prefer the stucco (I can’t believe I said that) to the dark shingles. It makes the house look wider and brighter. But ITL is right, it does kind of look like a Pottery Barn, or Williams Sonoma store. I’m ok with that though.. The back is where I have some issues. The whole cabana thing is one of a kinda I’ll give them that.
    Still, best views in the city and I wish them luck!

  16. Posted by StockBoySF

    I don’t think the front facade looks noveau riche. The shingles may have been removed but the original details appear to have remained. I actually prefer this front, which looks cleaner, than shingles and black trim. The back of the house is another story…. looks like a McMansion.
    The interior is wonderful! Clean looking, bright and well done. Though I’m not too keen on the “suspended” (as I call it) bathroom cabinets and sinks, nor the particular style of fixtures. Looks like something you’d find in 90% of the remodels trying to be modern.
    Still… if I had the money I’d buy it, make a few minor changes and be thankful that no one could see the back of the house. I’d even do without the “requisite” garden access from the kitchen. I wonder how the back could be fixed.
    Anyone expect it to fetch $14 million?

  17. Posted by perplexed

    “Now stop imagining and make it yours.”

  18. Posted by D

    Anything with architectural uplighting isn’t green. It may check off enough boxes to satisfy LEED, but it’s a waste of energy for aesthetics. I bet this check box version of “green” pervades the remodel.

  19. Posted by Dakota

    any word on the # of bedrooms, baths and square footage?

  20. Posted by Salarywoman

    The back of this house was designed for a different climate. Makes no sense in SF. Completely non functional and a horror to look at to boot. Who cares if “no one can see it.” You’d see it if you were the owner.
    The front facade looks strange, like someone with a bad facelift. And the uplighting? What were they thinking?
    I will say the interiors do look pretty nice, especially the baths and the kitchen. But 14M? On the other hand I’ve heard that nobody has ever gone broke underestimating the good taste of the American public.

  21. Posted by BobN

    It’s pretty obvious that the north-facing outdoor space is a safe place for pillows to come rest and refluff, after having done yoeman’s work inside in their chopped condition.

  22. Posted by P

    I agree with D: the upward facing exterior lighting is both energy-wasteful and contradicts Dark Sky lighting guidelines. If this is what passes for LEED Platinum, then architects should be sent back to primary school and re-educated from the ground up. Utterly shameful the term “green” is even attached to this kind of stuff… but then again, the only thing more asinine than architectural certification is a broker’s license…

  23. Posted by anonn

    You confused LEED certification and architect licensing, somehow working in a realtor/broker slam for good measure. Nice one. This site is awesome today.

  24. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    The backside of the house reminds me of an altar. I’d have the urge to genuflect and make the sign of the cross every time I passed over the center line.
    It would look awesome with a crucifix mounted in there somewhere.

  25. Posted by Kerry

    Wow. That rear is kind of busy, isn’t it?
    Looks like it could’ve been interesting with the high covered hottub area, but the jack and jill balconies and asymmetric 3rd floor bay windows look odd.

  26. Posted by Mole Man

    Talking about sustainability always gets people really upset. Why so serious? It is true that this is a garish and extreme structure with some inherently inefficient elements, but it is also true that any big, high end home is going to have a big impact on the environment that can be limited with some basic steps starting with the design and the sourcing of materials. All this does is make sure that the damage done is less than would otherwise be the case. Before things like LEED became trendy precious rainforest hardwoods were all the rage. Impacts of fantasy living for the local Richistani could be much worse.

  27. Posted by sparky-b

    There are a bunch of parrots that live in that tree on the right side of the back yard shot. They are going to fly right into the master suite when that Nana-wall is open.

  28. Posted by anonArch

    Dear “P”, there is a LOT more to completing certification as an architect than getting a brokers license in real estate. I will say that LEED is by far NOT the best “green” certification program, but it is the one being purshed down our threats, and although it is sometimes a clever game for how to gain points, it does have merits in that it is forcing designers and builders to consider ever selection and decision more carefully.

  29. Posted by OneEyedMan LEED AP

    Agree with Mole Man and anonArch. LEED not a perfect scoring system. But it is better for the planet that the big-ass house egoists see being green as a required status point. Just curious, besides yours truly, how many of the posters and lurkers out there are LEED AP (Accredited Professional)?

  30. Posted by Louis

    sell soon? – $10 to $11 MIL

  31. Posted by alex

    As Vince Vaughn would say in “Swingers”…that house is so money!

  32. Posted by John

    The inside looks pretty nice. Perhaps the architects were hindered on what they could do on the outside by SF laws.

  33. Posted by Fred

    This place is narrower than you would think, resulting in spaces running into each other – you enter the house in the dining room, with the LR to the left and kitchen to the right. All one space. Feels more like a NYC loft than a PH residence. Bedrooms are small. The downstairs is just outright strange. The exterior and block are not up to par. The back yard is unusable and dark. Not to be a negative nellie, the views, from virtually every room, are to die for. Unbelievable. If you want views and NYC this is your place.

  34. Posted by jeff schlarb

    The level of user detail this builder creates rivals their interior aesthetic choices. So impressive, so well thought out, this is unlike any home I have ever seen! What many of you haven’t seen yet is the pent room’s outdoor space. This has a covered portion out of wind and provides views, fresh air, a gas fireplace and a full seating area. PLUS, the rest of the deck space. Really creative, bravo!

  35. Posted by Fishchum

    Gee Jeff, you didn’t happen to do the staging for this house did you?

  36. Posted by Mike

    Definitely worth 14M or close to it. Makes the comps in the same price range look like ass. On “green” claims: funny how that brings out cynicism in folks who wouldn’t have said a word if the builder hadn’t even made an effort. And don’t knock how much of an impact it can have. We have a 8K sq. ft. house that is almost 100% powered by solar, and it will only get better as technology improves and as we make other improvements. If the folks who can afford the investment don’t make an effort then there isn’t much of a chance the rest of the world gets there. Only negative comment is that they sure seem to have stretched the front photo horozontally.

  37. Posted by bernielomax

    too much pampering. Who makes 14M anyway? Probably not somebody doing anything legal, and certainly someone not doing anything ethical.
    And who would want to live in Pac Heights anyway? It’s not “SOMA” lol 😛

  38. Posted by hugh

    “Talking about sustainability always gets people really upset”
    Well… It’s just so absurd and contrary. possibly even counterproductive. Maybe it’s a good thing to mitigate… to give some kind of environmentally-friendly certification for not finishing a place in ivory and poached animal hides (as might have been the case 100 years ago), but “sustainable” certification (at least the LEED variety) applied to things that are in no way sustainable… it’s just annoying!
    But even their naming convention (why stop at platinum when there are blood diamonds?) bug me.
    I live in an apartment building where there are 12 units… my PG&E bill averages $12. If you were to tear down the building, haul it to a landfill, and replace it with a single residence (for two people) that used three times the energy, and design it to offset that by 20-30%…. you have LEED Platinum. Free reign to throw in sanctimonious marketing copy (and maybe a spread in a home & garden magazine titled with a pun/play on “green”.
    it makes no sense.

  39. Posted by leedless

    for OneEyedMan LEED AP “Just curious, besides yours truly, how many of the posters and lurkers out there are LEED AP (Accredited Professional)?”
    I’m a environmental professional (engineer type) and lurker who wold like to be involved in LEED but it appears to be restrcted to Architects. Any plans I have for envineering solutions not involing remodels cannot involve LEED criteria.

  40. Posted by OneEyedMan

    leedless – LEED is in no way restricted to Architects. Various consultants play a role in achieving different points. And innovation efforts are strongly encouraged. You could visit for more info.

  41. Posted by Michael

    Agreed that LEED doesn’t judge what gets built, just how it is built. Sure, it would be better to tear down a big house and build an apartment building instead, but just try that in any neighborhood in SF. Even the greenies would NIMBY.

  42. Posted by eddy

    Ha! It looks like the sellers of 2100 Vallejo just reduced their listing price to $13.5M from $15.2, and down from $25M. I’d say this is a direct response to the 2343 listing. Personally, I’d take the 2100 Vallejo listing and the double lot.
    [Editor’s Note: Damn it eddy, there you go stealing a bit of our thunder with respect to tomorrow’s line-up. And perhaps not too ironically, you’ll have a quote.]

  43. Posted by eddy

    2100 Vallejo is a Sotheby’s listing as well.

  44. Posted by Sambo

    In regards to eddy’s timely post about 2100 Vallejo – I’ve been in both of them, and 2342 is the better house. It probably loses on location, and certainly scale of rooms. Everything else about it trumps 2100 Vallejo. 2342 is absolutely beautiful inside, and the interaction between indoor and outdoor space is just about the best I’ve ever seen in north side SF. The technology and green elements (despite many’s objection to them) take it to the next level. 2100 is grand, but not special in my opinion.
    The moment the listing agent put 2342 Broadway on, every North Side agent pretty much agreed that 2100 Vallejo would either have to dramatically reduce it’s list price, or go the way of a Joel Goodrich listing and be nothing more than source of promotion for real estate publications.
    [Editor’s Note: Two Years And A 46 Percent Drop In Expectations For 2100 Vallejo]

  45. Posted by eddy

    2342 was bought for $6M and there is maybe $3M in the remodel. That leaves $5M of profit, or negotiation room to potential buyers. 2100 is a spectacular home and is far grander than 2342. A few shills on here trumping 2342 which is basically a very nice, northside, view SFH with some high end finishes doesn’t make it a grand mansion on scale with 2100 V, 2820 Scott, 2601 Broadway (reduce it to $10M pls). 2395 and 2849 Pacific are probably nicer homes, but sorely lack a view and are each 4-6M overpriced. Let’s not forget 2311 Broadway. There is some interesting inventory in the 7-15M range. Personally, I don’t think there are that many buyers out there and the ones that exist are pouncing on the best homes; like the fantastic Broadway house that just closed down the street for ~10M. That’s the home I would have bought out of all these homes so I’m not surprised these others are sitting. Good to see some D7 action and a bit surprising given the time of year too. Makes me think 2010 is going to see a lot more prime inventory flooding the market.
    My advice to all these agents is urge your sellers to SELL. Most these folks are locking in huge gains. 10M on 2100, $6M on 2601. Greed.

  46. Posted by sleepiguy

    Eddy, I really think this place cost more than 3 million to build – at least I hope it did. It’s incredibly expensive to keep workers going 7 days a week for an entire year. Less than 500 per foot doesn’t seem possible unless they really cut costs on materials. I’d definitely take my time on the inspections for this one. That said, I think some flexibility is built into the price.
    I’ve been thinking of this house as the last great flip of D7. It’s going to be a long time before someone attempts something of this scale.
    I’m not certain there’s going to a flood of inventory in D7 next year. I think this past spring there was sort of a rats-off-a-sinking ship vibe going around the neighborhood, but now potential sellers that aren’t in desperate straits aren’t going to be that flexible on pricing. The mood has definitely shifted – for better or worse.

  47. Posted by eddy

    I saw the inside prior to the last sale and watched this build over the last year. I’d argue that it’s very hard to spend $3M in a year. Look at what they did on that Fillmore flip. They rebuilt the entire house and finished it with top end finishes. Bought for $2.4 and sold for $5. Using one of the top contractors in the city. And I’m sure they made $1M there. I would be very surprised if there is much more than $3M in the remodel. Maybe one of the shills will chime in? LOL.

  48. Posted by Bonbon

    Well it looks like someone will be calling this one home. It’s in escrow and Firm!!

  49. Posted by Mary

    Bonbon, at what price is it in escrow at?

  50. Posted by Bonbon

    That I do not know. But I suspect that after it closes we will find out the price.

  51. Posted by Mary


  52. Posted by eddy

    Sold Price: $13,500,000; -500k & -4% change from asking. I’m a little surprised but as I said before, this was the nicest view home in this price range. The gut remodel premium comp strikes again. My 2 questions are this: #1) What would this place have sold at 2007 and #2) what does this say about the value of 2100 Vallejo?

  53. Posted by SocketSite

    The conversation and commentary continues: Big Money Returns To Broadway (With Roots Beyond Real Estate)

  54. Posted by Moch

    Got a card from Sotheby’s in the mail–their “Quarterly Luxury Home Report” that said this home went for 13.5M (as stated above), and is 3,781 sq feet–so, went for $3,750.48/sq foot.
    IS THAT POSSIBLE?! Wondering if the sq footage is accurate. I thought it was much larger…
    Not sure what the record is per sq ft in SF–but it was remarkable to me, if all true.

  55. Posted by eddy

    In retrospect, this home @ 13.5 was a great and timely and savvy pickup given what were seeing on the market today. Congrats.

  56. Posted by frozentoast

    Sold for 18M last month

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles