2845 Broadway

Officially withdrawn from the MLS in January 2010 after 1,400 days on the market at $65,000,000 then reduced to an unlisted $47,000,000 later that year, it’s a plugged-in tipster that notes the asking price for 2845 Broadway has been reduced to $38,500,000.

As we first wrote about the property in 2006:

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”.

It’s now five years later and $26,500,000 (41%) less but you still won’t be getting any of those walls or finishes in either the main home of 17,500 square feet or the guest house which measures a mere 6,000 squared, but you will now get a more complete peek inside.

2845 Broadway: Interior

38 thoughts on “Over $50 Million Invested And Now Asking $38.5M For 2845 Broadway”
  1. Open, airy feel, good light, and flow: walk to any room from any point in any other room — you don’t even need to walk to a door! Good bones — in fact, all bones.
    But where is the worrk triangle in the kitchen? And for that matter, where is the kitchen at all? With no kitchen, will FHA loan on it?

  2. I love the spare, modern interior – I wouldn’t touch a thing. However, I would completely re-do the exterior walls and facade and rip out all that old stucco, replacing it with something fresh to match the high-tech, industrial interior.

  3. Not to sound like a marketing agent here or anything. But, this is a once in a generation opportunity to take possession of this site and absolutely establish a masterpiece. The problem of course is the conspicuous consumption problem. I’d say you’re $30M away from finishing / furnishing this home the way it ought to be completed. And there are plenty of locals who could snatch this up. How much would it be worth for Marc Benioff to piss off Larry Ellison to buy this home that ‘looks down’ on the Oracle? FYI, this is my ultimate prediction on buyer, however, there are countless other CEO/VC/PE/HF Billionaires that could relocate from their current homes in the area and create a family compound that is truly one of a kind. Whoever buys this will likely never, ever sell it; and if they did, they would never recoup the investment so who really cares how long it takes to find the right buyer. But I suspect more than a few people would be quietly crushed morally if this got snatched up by one of the elite wealth holders looking to establish their base. But whoever buys it will need a bit of teflon to get past the initial splash and attention the sale of this home will get.
    Personally, I’ve always loved this place, but $65M was a joke and not even close. I’d say at $25M this place would FLY off the shelf. Maybe only 5 lots even close to this one including Daniel Steel, the neighboring 2835 Broadway, and a few others. Would be curious to get other opinions on the ‘best lots’ in SF.

  4. It’ll probably stay this way for a lot longer – as the shrine to the Egyptian Goddess Hubris… Maybe if Mubarak gets off, he can buy it. Just add some papyrus and a bas relief of Ramesses III defeating the Sea People and he’ll have his own Abu Simbel.

  5. sorry Denis, you have this all wrong. This is not Egyptian style, it’s definitely late-Babylonian.
    If Saddam gets back, he’ll call this home.

  6. Apparently the original two structures at 2845 Broadway…
    I thought this home and the ones south of it were all developed from the empty lot sold by the school district (former high school location???). I know I used to walk through the lot on the way to the Presidio when I took the pooches for a long walk.
    Am I confused?

  7. Lol! Yes, you guys are right… It really does evoke a ziggurat more than a palace at Luxor… Sadly, I think all the Iranian zillionaires prefer Beverly Hills to SF…

  8. “The problem of course is the conspicuous consumption problem.”
    Indeed. This is San Francisco, and there is an ethos (perhaps also a pathos) against conspicuous consumption. There are many extremely wealthy people and families who could afford this place, the other OB manses for-sale, or the St. Regis PH. But the culture in SF generally frowns on such conspicuous consumption. There are a whole bunch of extremely wealthy people, who could easily afford to purchase this property, but would never consider doing so. They’re the same people who would read the Vogue article about the Trainas and cringe mightily. They are the people who probably live within a few blocks of this house, “make do” in a lovely 8,000 sf home, drive an E-class and a hybrid of some sort, and don’t want their lives discussed on real estate blogs.

  9. Not well said Joshua, in my opinion.
    I feel you are really “reaching” when you say that conspicuous consumption is frowned on in SF. Maybe in talk but not in real life and action.
    Tell that to all the “regular, solid, good people and families” say, in Noe Valley who own a luxury BMW or Volvo suv, or push their kids in a high end stroller. This is not conspicuous consumption. This is just pursuing life as one chooses. It’s not hurting anyone.
    Every city, every society needs wealthy people. Our city has them, as well as middle class, and poor people. It’s life.
    Would you rather we all live in a tyrannical dictatorship, such as North Korea, and never be allowed to achieve anything?
    We will always have large, expensive houses like this in SF, and they should be allowed to exist.

  10. Modernqueen – read some Paul Fussell if you don’t get what Joshua is driving at. There aren’t going to be that many folks mad at rich people on a real estate blog. 🙂

  11. heh heh. Sure thing. WHo is that ancient persona again? It’s been such a long time now. Why hold on? Anyway, did “Modernqueen” ever converse with “fluj”? take it easy, guy. I agree with your main point. But Joshua was talking about almost something else entirely. Nuance and degree exist in this world in which we live, you know.

  12. No joshua was not talking about something entirely different. Let him defend his own comments. Are you his mommy?
    And yes, I have conversed and sparred with the fluj very recently. he never goes away.
    Actually, I think Joshua is just jealous he can’t afford this lovely mansion.

  13. My apologizes for changing the subject, however I am somewhat new to SF and would like some brief history about this home.
    New construction in the past 10 years from an open lot?
    It just seems like a new home, however this neighborhood has so many older established homes, and I rarely see open lots in the city so I am a bit confused.

  14. Kazee,
    The site of this house was part of a larger parcel of land (about 50 percent of the entire block) that was occupied by a public grammer school. In the 1970’s the school was deemed seismically unsafe and closed. As most of the children living in the neighborhood attended private schools there was no plan to rebuild. Over the years various ideas were floated for the site, including condominiums, but none materialized.
    The school district finally put the parcel up for sale about 12 years ago, as timing seemed good with the dotcom boom. It was sold and the new owner subdivided the site into lots for single family residences. The lots were then put on the market and sold. It’s interesting to note, that some of the buyers purchased several adjacent lots and merged them to create larger parcels. I don’t think that was anticipated.
    And there you you have it.

  15. Thanks, inmycountry… I was trying to picture where on that block these houses were and not remembering them – that makes sense as we stopped doing the Lyon Street Stairs due to the dog’s arthritis around that time. I think the neighbors were thrilled to have the site sold as the school district left the lot covered with ivy. Although living next to a ten year construction project must be infuriating..
    Is it really one of the best lots in SF? I notice there seems to be more demand to be on the north side of the Broadway blocks.

  16. Many of these lots span the entire block between Pacific and Broadway and they sit up very high with killer views. Curious to see what happens with the home next door. The owner recently passed away in her northeast home.

  17. Anyone have any color on 2950 Pacific, which is the next house west of this one (address on Pacific but situated more like it’s on Brdwy). It was owned by Jane Newhall, who died in August at aged 97 with no husband or children. Always thought this house was gorgeous.

  18. That’s the home I was referring to in the post just above. Beautiful home. It was just repainted last year. There is an access road from pacific and there is no entrance to the home / lot from Broadway. It’s a hidden gem, IMO. I’d love to know more about the history of the property. There is a little carriage house / garage two homes west of this one that has also intrigued me.

  19. I’ve always wondered what 2974 (the carriage house) belonged to as well – the style and architecture sort of match the pillars at 2950, but 2972 Pacific separates them.
    Bay Citizen says “At 2950 Pacific Ave., the tax bill for the $22 million house is $5,435; Jane Newhall’s grandmother built the commanding grey-shingled house at 2950 Pacific Ave. in 1908 and her family has occupied it ever since”
    Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/129yM)
    From Google Books: http://books.google.com/books?id=J8dEQubtnqYC&lpg=PA75&ots=7RrYAKMheV&dq=2972%20Pacific%20San%20Francisco%20history&pg=PA75#v=onepage&q&f=false
    No wonder that carriage house is so gorgeous – it’s Julia Morgan-designed for 2950 Pacific:

  20. inmycountry,
    Thanks so much for the info and well stated history about the land.
    That is just what I was wondering about 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *