100 Palo Alto View

In March 2008 the Mid-Century Modern Clarendon Heights home at 100 Palo Alto Avenue built for former San Francisco Mayor Elmer E. Robinson in 1953 hit the market asking $4,000,000. It ended up closing escrow with a recorded contract price of $5,625,000.

And while we don’t believe it’s been remodeled much since (2008 not 1953), 100 Palo Alto is back on the market two years later and listed for $6,400,000.

Big views for certain, but even greater expectations for sure.

∙ Listing: 100 Palo Alto (4/4.5) – $6,400,000 []

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Mike

    nice views – but I’m not that impressed with the rest for 6.4 million

  2. Posted by mikey woodz

    Nice Views but thats about it, looks kinda dated and crappy IMO, what makes this worth much more than 50 st. Germain and the other Clarendon runners on the market. These guys are high, Im calling 4.5m max

  3. Posted by jACK

    agreed about the views but 6.4m for a home that hasnt been remolded and was already purchased at the top of the market is insane!!

  4. Posted by flaneur

    Say what you want, it is one of a kind. And the staging is a lot better, and they removed the useless iron gates in front of the garage…

  5. Posted by curmudgeon

    totally annoying website. Great pics, almost no information.

  6. Posted by Jim

    Drop dead views. The rest is just a 1940s builders house that has been remuddled and remuddled and remuddled…and feels like it. Oh well, somebody bit two years ago…the greater fool theory.

  7. Posted by homer

    The outside looks like zero thought was put into it. Seems like something very standard was thrown together then sugar coated over the years. I’m getting a cavity just looking at it.
    But the deep patio entry could be very charming. And I actually like some of the whitewashed brick. In fact, it sort of triggered a vision — what if the exterior was revamped to look like that Wurster house 2870 Pacific? I think that would be a good look for this place.
    The inside looks smashing. I love how open the main floor is without feeling hollow. I am a huge sucker for that furniture/staging! Where can I get those chairs?
    I admit this house is sexier than 50 Saint Germain. But I don’t know if that makes it worth the additional $1.75 million. In fact, it looks like it may even be smaller than 50 SG.

  8. Posted by lol

    They seem to have forgotten that the “Mayor premium” only applies when said mayor is 1) your friend, 2) currently in office and 3) in need of campaign contributions.

  9. Posted by eddy

    This sort of reminds me of 2775 Union. It was listed for $4.095 in April 2007 and sold in 28 days for $4.6. Came back on the market in July 09 for $4.5. It was withdrawn and relisted at $4.1ish and just recently sold for $4.085. So technically, the agent in 2007 seemed to have priced it just right.
    Anyway, point it, that i think the original agent in 2008 had the value better pegged at $4M and the irrational buyer who overpaid will probably not be as lucky this time around.
    PS: As an aside, on 2775. Industry stats will show that it sold in 2010 at 2% under its last asking. Not the 12% from the original listing price.

  10. Posted by Lori

    Agreed that the site is horrible. Just in case the listing realtor reads this site, the pics are all different sizes, the motion of the slide show is too choppy and fast, there are no descriptions of each room and the type on the page that talks briefly about the home is too small.
    I was so annoyed I clicked off the site.

  11. Posted by John

    Had to look up “manse” on Wikipedia. Was I the only one? Still not 100% sure that I get the joke/use in this context.

  12. Posted by Derek

    are you serious about this for 6.4 million. this has great views, but the street appeal of a walnut creek housing devolpment.

  13. Posted by Christine

    for 6.4 i want a back yard. AGREED about the website.

  14. Posted by tipster

    eddy, your comments about 2775 Union don’t seem to match Redfin, which shows that it never sold, was relisted 6 weeks ago for 4.3 and is now down to 4.2 (having sold for 4.6 in 2007).
    Nice half million+ bath the owner will be taking.

  15. Posted by sfrenegade

    “eddy, your comments about 2775 Union don’t seem to match Redfin, which shows that it never sold, was relisted 6 weeks ago for 4.3 and is now down to 4.2 (having sold for 4.6 in 2007).”
    Looking at more than one source, it does appear that 2775 Union sold in 2010. I see:
    $4.080M sale in April 2010 to the owner of 1006 Cole, and 5K less than what eddy said
    $4.6M sale in April 2007
    $2.3M sale in January 2001
    What is strange is that the seller for the 2010 sale does not appear to be the same as the buyer in 2007. I wonder if that’s an error, or if it changed hands somehow in between.
    It does look like it was listed recently, as tipster said.

  16. Posted by eddy

    You need to improve your Redfin skills. Sold by Nina:
    It’s now listed by Vanguard. Weird situation.

  17. Posted by tipster

    No, YOU need to improve YOUR redfin skills. For sale and never sold:
    Odd, to say the least!

  18. Posted by tipster

    And of course, propertyshark agrees with you, eddy.

  19. Posted by sfrenegade

    Strange that Redfin didn’t merge those two entries. It has the same APN, and there aren’t address changes. I’ve mentioned things like this to Redfin in the past, and they basically ignore it.

  20. Posted by eddy

    No apologies necessary. 🙂
    The sold listing w/o the under asking price is on this page:

  21. Posted by tipster

    2775 hasn’t sold yet. Now down to $3.998 from its $4.080 purchase price last year. Should be a decent one year Apple (down 2% so far), and measure of decline from something in the vicinity of the $4.6 peak (down 14% so far). I think the upper end is still doing pretty well.

  22. Posted by eddy

    There is a story on 2775 I just don’t know what it is really. Very very odd.

  23. Posted by eddy

    2775 Union withdrawn from MLS.

  24. Posted by eddy

    2775 Union back at $3.85. This time with Vanguard.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles