On the market for $10.25 million in late 2013, the asking price for the landmark, but newly renovated, Pacific Heights Mansion at 1735 Franklin Street was reduced to $9.7 million in 2014 and then to $8.995 million last year.
Known to some as the “Brandenstein” or “Bransten” house, the nearly 8,000 square foot mansion was designed by Hermann Barth, built for William Haas in 1904, and given as a present to his daughter Florine when she married Edward Brandenstein, which was later changed to Bransten.
And having been quietly withdrawn from the MLS last month, the “historical glamour meets modern luxury” mansion has just been relisted anew for $7.998 million, a sale at which will be considered “at asking” and with a mere “3” days on the market as of this morning according to all official industry stats and agent reports.
The mansion last traded hands for $2.25 million in 2003, well before its multi-million dollar overhaul.
Comments from Plugged-In Readers
Comments are closed.
gorgeous, but for $8M I’d like less traffic and more views
Still an incredible house which has retained it’s stunning interior. If this were just around the corner it would have sold for asking long ago.
Ever since Franklin Street was made one-way, there has been a deduction for traffic.
At least they did not paint the wood.
However, the splendid Coxhead designed house at 2600 Jackson was just sold, and they (? the stager) painted every single square inch of wood. Just a few years ago it was original, with all of Coxhead’s quirky neat doors and secret rooms and original hardwood. This painting dark original wood is criminal, as I have said before. White does not equal new or clean, just plain nuts.
Wholeheartedly agreed. Painting wood is indeed criminal and short-sighted.
No, not with every period. My 1904 Victorian has all original redwood trim, that was once stained and very dark, typical for a working class row house.
But the trim was painted over probably 50 or so years ago, and I recently painted it again in all pure white. It works and I’d say it’s not exactly “criminal”.
I go back and forth on painting wood. My Victorian era house has an all oak paneled room and the dark wood just eats light. It’s really hard to mitigate the darkness with decor and lighting. I wouldn’t do it here, but I completely understand the appeal of painting wood.
The failure of this house to sell over the last, what, decade really has little to do with the existing market and more to do with the horrible location. No one who can afford an $8 million home would ever consider Franklin. Remember the Nicholas Cage house? The more telling reductions are 3756 Jackson and the failure of 2635 Broadway to move.
Certainly, it’s your house and you can do what you wish. I would say if you REALLY love the oak paneling, then keep it natural.
But if you really don’t like the darkness feeling, then I’d paint it as well as the trim. It’s just wood.
was also the Werner Erhard house back in the day
In this instance the wood trim is original and looks like it hasn’t been touched. It was made by craftsman that today would simply not be financially feasible to pay. Once painted, it will take a heck of a lot of work to bring it back (if not impossible). Just because it works does not mean it is the right thing to do. For instance, you can buy a piece of art and paint all over it (after all, it’s your property), but does not mean it is right.
My 1913 Craftsman has wood trim, fir or redwood probably. It had been painted using those combs that give the not very good illusion of wood grain. By the time I bought it, this was all chipped and peeling, so I repainted white. But I agree that, for expensive, fine wood that was used in these older, more upper class homes, leave it alone.
Same reason why I wouldn’t buy a home on 19th avenue…TRAFFIC!
Conifer is right regarding 2600 Jackson! You have to know what the interior looked like before, and the historic associations with an Ernest Coxhead design to know why it was a crime to paint that wood. Nobody is saying all homes should be treated like the historic treasure that was 2600 Jackson. I am also glad they did not paint this whole house white or grey.
Someone buy this great house!
Really a wonderful house, despite the location.
It is a rare beautuiful renovation of an nice historical structure. Disagree about wood color; you have to live there, and the darkness that might have been appealing 100 y/o just is not. give thanks interiors not protected under SF pres lunacy. Hate garish flipper-renos but this is not one of them.
Lot of $$$ for traffic, location and no views, agreed on that.
Beautiful house but on one of the worst streets for traffic in SF near the intersection of California and Franklin. It is like living right on the freeway but with constant horns and when it rains the tire sounds are so loud that you become a prisoner forced to keep the windows shut
UPDATE: The reduced listing for 1735 Franklin Street has been withdrawn from the MLS without a reported sale.
UPDATE: 1735 Franklin Street has just returned to the MLS with an “original” list price of $7.998 million, no official record of a reduction, and an official “1” day on the market according to all industry stats.
UPDATE: Withdrawn from the MLS in December, 1735 Franklin Street has once again returned with an “original” list price of $7.998 million, no official record of a reduction and an official “5” days on the market according to all industry stats as of this afternoon.
UPDATE: The list price for 1735 Franklin Street has just been reduced another $503,000 to $7.495 million.
Relisted. Would likely never happen but these 3 lots would make for a nice location for a 6-10 story high end condo complex and at that height you would most certainly pick up some views.