2845 Broadway

Speaking of properties that were withdrawn from the MLS at the end of the year, after 1400 days on the market at $65,000,000, and without a single official reduction, on Friday the first the listing for 2845 Broadway was withdrawn from the market without a sale.

As we wrote in 2006 when the property was first listed:

Apparently the original two structures at 2845 Broadway sold for $32 million in November 2002, cost of construction to date is estimated to be $18 million, and the “Buzz among brokers” is that it will cost another $8-16 million to finish the property. Just to clarify, for $65M you won’t be getting any “interior walls, ceilings and finishes”.

No update on the current finish of the property (or whether it will soon return to the market with 1399 fewer days on the market and no official reductions).

Other notable properties that have either recently been withdrawn from the MLS without a sale, pulled off the market for the holidays, or have had their listings expire: 2100 Vallejo, 2006 Washington #4, 999 Green #2802 and 393 Carl.

UPDATE: Noted by a plugged-in reader on our original thread with a reminder by another this morning, a tiny peek inside 2845 Broadway via Forbes a few years back.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by russianhillman

    why even waste space on this website to discuss this? I don’t think anyone on this site is looking to buy or sell a $65M house.

  2. Posted by Jeremy

    Why even waste an issue on swimsuits? I don’t think any of the readership of Sports Illustrated is looking to buy or sell a swimsuit.

  3. Posted by tipster

    $11 million in carrying costs and taxes, $50 million in buy and upgrade costs and it won’t sell for anywhere near $65 million.
    Not hard to see where this is heading…

  4. Posted by diemos

    At least it’s the right color for a white elephant.

  5. Posted by ex SF-er

    even the super-kajillionaires are hesitant to buy this sort of place at this time. the climate is not good for exorbitant displays of wealth, espcially since a fair amount of that wealth is due to corporate welfare (bailout money).
    the big boys making big bucks are going to lay low for a few more years until the plebes forget about all these bailouts, even the wealthy whose wealth has nothing to do with bailouts (big tech money).
    that said, even in great times very very very few people are ever in the market for a $65M pad, fewer yet in SF.

  6. Posted by noearch

    To some of us, this is, in fact interesting info about real estate and residential architecture. I would LOVE to see the interior of this house and some floor plans….

  7. Posted by kthnxybe

    Wasn’t this place always just a publicity stunt, and they never had any intention of selling (unless, of course, they did get the $65M)? Don’t the owners have tons of other properties?
    Perhaps the “oooh I bought a house from the guy selling the west coast’s most expensive house” thrill isn’t what it was back in the boom times. So they took the listing down for now.
    Personally if I had 65 million dollars and wanted to spend it on this place, I would make them demolish the thing and send it all back to the quarry!

  8. Posted by kthnxybe

    Or maybe they will finally finish it and then pump up the price because I think Candy Spelling’s house is the most expensive now? Or something like that.

  9. Posted by Legacy Dude

    All you naysayers will be looking foolish when the conforming loan limit is increased to $64,729,750. I bet a few buddies from out of town scoop this puppy up and just rent out a few rooms to cover the mortgage.

  10. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    kthnxybe wrote:

    because I think Candy Spelling’s house is the most expensive now? Or something like that.

    Yep. Candy Spelling’s Holmby Hills mansion is still on the market, asking $150-million:

    The 56,500-square-foot mansion remains the most expensive residential listing in the U.S., and there’s no price reduction in sight. Quite simply, wealth can afford to wait. It’s a distinction between the very rich and the very leveraged in a housing market that has been in decline for several years. “You either sell it right away or it could take two or three years,” said Jeffrey Hyland… “The sellers know this. There is not a sense of urgency.”

    I can’t possibly imagine anyone buying that house, however, because for the price you could easily build whatever you want from scratch. Maybe not in that neighborhood.

  11. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    The Spelling Mansion is just too huge. No wonder it hasn’t sold.
    A 42,000 square foot home is plenty large enough. No-one needs more than an acre of floor space for a single family home.
    People need to consider more compact floorplan, like this place on 2845 Broadway. SF leads the way in minimal lifestyles.

  12. Posted by diemos

    A 56,500 sqft mansion is not a dwelling, it’s a status symbol. And it’s not big enough if someone else has something larger.

  13. Posted by sleepiguy

    Unless you are the reincarnation of Amenhotep III, who would actually want to live in a place like this?

  14. Posted by Former Tehrangeles Dweller

    This looks like many of the so-called “Persian Palaces” in LA. The realtors usually call it “Mediterranean” or some other euphemism (which makes no sense geographically).

  15. Posted by lark

    I checked out the Forbes report.
    This place is not finished!
    It’s a shell inside. No walls. Beams.
    [Editor’s Note: Or as we wrote in 2006 prior to the Forbes report (and as noted above):

    …the “Buzz among brokers” is that it will cost another $8-16 million to finish the property. Just to clarify, for $65M you won’t be getting any “interior walls, ceilings and finishes”.

    But again, unfortunately we don’t have an update on what’s been done since. Tipsters?]

  16. Posted by Fred

    I could see this place being bought by some cult religion and used to house all the groupies. Not the Mormons, but something like that OSHO group that has a big orgy compound in Pune, India. Does California give tax-exemptions to houses used for religious purposes? I know DC does.

  17. Posted by noearch

    Yes it does have beams. otherwise it would not stand up.

  18. Posted by citicritter

    A 65 million dollar pile of fake historical BS — serves them right, whoever was so misguided to build this waste of stone.

  19. Posted by Kurt Brown

    Oooers! It’s PERFECT for The Museum of Financial Meltdown! Garsh I’d give my left arm for the gift shop concession!

  20. Posted by wow

    Museum of Financial Meltdown
    Bad location for a museum. It’s not easily walkable with all the stairs and steep grade. More like a drive-through for gawkers.

  21. Posted by deshard

    I totally agree with russianhillman. It’s a waste of Socketsite space. I could see a posting like this once in a while, but there seems to be a preponderance in number of posts about houses priced in the stratosphere.
    Enough already.

  22. I disagree, lets keep a mix of properties here. Seeing what is occurring across the spectrum is helpful in understanding the market as a whole. Plus it is fun to see how the ultra wealthy burn their Bennies.
    Even if I could afford this place I would not buy it. I’d rather buy out whomever bought Sunny Jim’s place and use the leftover millions to open a few “Centers For Kids Who Can’t Read Good And Wanna Learn To Do Other Stuff Good Too”.
    At the other end of the spectrum are the run down $150k dumps that I doubt that anyone here would buy. Still interesting to see how they dropped from their $500k highs.

  23. Posted by SocketSite

    The listing for 2006 Washington St #4 is once again active.

  24. Posted by sleepiguy

    I did a little online sleuthing and the Sperlings pay the city almost $1 million a year in property taxes – and that’s only for the properties I know about – most which are vacant. Other than the Gettys, I don’t know of another SF family that pays more in residential prop. taxes… We should thank them for doing their part in SF’s time of need.

  25. Posted by anon

    Good scoop, thanks for this. Work stopped for over a year though just recently there has been a small crew on site working/tinkering inside the massive shell.

  26. Posted by eddy

    sleepiguy, i thought I was reading a post from EBGuy.

  27. Posted by Bethesda

    We would like to buy it! We are Isalam, Bethesda and Mizpah.
    Is anyone interested in our purchase of 2845 Broadway? Perhaps the Getty’s could comment?
    We now live in Pacific Heights, and would like to take a better look at the property, please.

  28. Posted by Bethesda

    With help, we could make the purchase on May 21, 2011.

  29. Posted by Bethesda

    Could the Corps of Engineers at 1455 Market Street please take notice of these posts?
    Please remember that we are encouraging an Axis Society.
    Isalam Bethesda Mizpah

  30. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    Follow-up to my comment above, at January 4, 2010. According to the Los Angles Times, Candy Spelling sold her Holmby Hills estate to a 22-year-old British heiress:

    Candy Spelling’s sprawling estate in Holmby Hills, which has bragging rights as the most expensive residential listing in the U.S., reportedly has been sold to a 22-year-old British heiress.
    Spelling, widow of legendary TV producer Aaron Spelling, put the 4.7-acre residence up for sale more than two years ago at $150 million, and she held firm to that price despite one of the worst real estate downturns in generations.

    So, high-end places are definitely selling; true wealth doesn’t have to lower their price so we’ll see what 2845 Broadway comes back to market at.

  31. Posted by Bethesda

    Still waiting to move in, also interested in the penthouse at the Pencil Building at 2500 Steiner if the Clintons no longer want it.
    It would be nice to stay there until 2845 Broadway is ready.

  32. Posted by Bethesda

    Now residing at 2210 Clay Street. Getting closer, am I not? I like Blue Bottle! Isalam, Bethesda and Mizpah.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles