2604 Pacific Avenue Living Room

Designed by Samuel Newsom and built in 1889, the big Queen Anne Victorian at 2604 Pacific Avenue has since been renovated and remodeled, but it hasn’t become a modern white box inside.

2604 Pacific Avenue Dining Room

The contemporary kitchen does open to both the family room and dining room [floor plans], but with a set of doors that can separate the diners from the dishes and cooks.

2604 Pacific Avenue Kitchen

And of course, there are a number of big views and decks.

2604 Pacific Avenue Bedroom

Purchased for $8,180,000 in 2002 having already been remodeled, the six-bedroom Pacific Heights pad is now back on the market and listed for $10,950,000.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Mark F.

    Oh yeah, I want this. A+ This will sell fast .

  2. Posted by Anon

    Is that Lana Del Rey in the dining room ticket booth?

  3. Posted by Confier

    Have they removed the pocket doors and made the openings wider?

  4. Posted by jenofla

    Wow this looks so great…does anyone know if the detail is original or new?

  5. Posted by Confier

    The floor pattern was probably original, but the kitchen version is new copy, which is fine. This neighborhood, where traditional people believe every floor should be hardwood, has a lot of kitchens and secondary rooms which have been made to match.

    Some people even do the secondary staircase in hardwood where it was soft wood and carpeted earlier. The main staircases are always hardwood, although the risers are sometimes painted.

    The modern chandeliers in this house look cheap, and the cans in the ceiling are obviously new, and except for lighting pictures unnecessary.

    The execrable phrase “bathed in light” implies that the new owner will have few framed works on paper and no books whose spines might fade. Perhaps the target audience only uses Kindle.

    • Posted by soccermom

      “The execrable phrase “bathed in light” implies that the new owner will have few framed works on paper and no books whose spines might fade.”

      Dude, if this wasn’t here in front of my face, on my computer, I would be sure this phrase had been hammered out on a portable Underwood by a gentleman wearing a cravat, a velour smoking jacket, and a pair of silk-lined leather slippers, amidst a haze of Cavendish pipe tobacco and waning afternoon light, a bookmarked copy of the third volume of Gibbon’s Decline and Fall at his side.

      • Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

        That comment accedes to cynosure. Love your humor and wit soccermom.

      • Posted by Confier

        Almost.
        In certain circles in SF and other cities in the western world, there are still people who do have both framed works on paper on the walls, and rare and antiquarian books of sufficient value to be concerned about the effect of sunlight on their condition. Some of them read socketsite. But few if any are white shoebox flippers.

        • Posted by Exactly!

          For a city that claims to be so European, I am constantly amazed that so many San Franciscans think sophisticated living means a living room with 20 can lights in the ceiling. Conifer is correct, outside of the world of shoebox flippers are some remaining homeowners who DO have valuable works of art that require special preservation procedures.

        • Posted by modernedwardian

          really? ever hear of UV protective coating on windows and glazing? unless you are talking about skylit rooms, light damage is easily mitigated. additionally, most people’s art isn’t of much value to begin with – even in multimillion dollar homes.
          i live in a white shoebox (if you mean a smaller painted white interior flat, about 1200 sq ft currently, where main living spaces have been opened up) though i’ve kept moldings and millwork and anglypta that i’d bet you’d like. my walls are as adorned as any with woodcut prints, monotypes, etchings, watercolors, pastels, and a few large format oils. much of it is “collectable”, meaning in museums or auctionable in NYC, SF, LA, or London at “art only” auctions.
          only the oils need any real heat/light protection at this point.
          science has alleviated most of your other concerns.

          • Posted by Exactly!

            Actually, I do have UV protection for my prints. (Wood block Asian prints to be exact)
            I guess my main rant is that I have never understood the sea of “can” lights in ceilings of many remodels. This project is rather discreet and sophisticated compared to some shown in the past.

          • Posted by Confier

            UV is not perfect, which is why museums and libraries keep valuable works on paper in low light and change them frequently.

    • Posted by Futurist

      Collectors who own my works on paper (watercolors) don’t really need to worry much. They are always archivally framed with acid free materials and covered (but never touching) by UV museum plex.

      New Led lighting is very forgiving on art, keeping the light levels lower.

      • Posted by soccermom

        I have some of your best posts framed in my study.
        Twenty pound print/copy stock, minimum 30% recycled.
        Mostly back from 2012 when you were more cantankerous.

  6. Posted by jenofla

    OKay, now that I’ve looked at all the photos…gotta say, they did go a little overboard with the canned lights. Gives it a bit of a hotel rather than homey feel, but hey, this is likely going to be for entertainment.

  7. Posted by Jim

    In answer to Jenofla, every surface, every window, every door, every molding, every fixture – with the possible exception of some floors – and the exterior siding – is completely new. Those are neo-classical details, not Queen Anne.

    • Posted by Adam

      You beat me to it, I was about to say the same thing.

      • Posted by Bruce

        I think Jim is right, and that’s fine with me. I happen to live Victorian exteriors (Edwardian, I like more), but interior Victorian architectural can be too much for me, so I’m happy to see the neo-classical details. Conifer wondered if pocket doors had been removed, and replaced with wider openings. I have the same suspicion, but again, I like the result. I think it’s absolutely beautiful.

    • Posted by BobN

      There are a few elements that would, or could, be found in a Victorian home. My place built in the 1870s has woodwork that looks just like the lower part of the dining room paneling and we also have the trim on the ceiling that’s “inside” the molding in original plaster. The actual molding, though, is far less ornate than this living room.

  8. Posted by eddy

    Great home. Would change virtually nothing. Home next door recently sold (2602) for $8.25 by the same agent.

  9. Posted by Techie Tweaker

    There is no original fabric or detailing inside this house.

  10. Posted by jamesjr

    I could move in tomorrow.
    Love at first sight.

  11. Posted by yelloman

    I love this house.
    I love the dialogue even more.
    I had to look up what the term “accedes to cynosure” means, and I actually own, and wear a cravat, have a smoking jacket, and monogrammed slippers.
    No pipes and haven’t thought about Gibbon in a long long time, although I do have a NY Review of Books subscriptions, and have Piranesi prints on the wall, which as they are archivally framed, are (I hope) pretty durable.
    I do like the description of Confier by soccermom. Are there many of us left out there, esp here in SF?

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles