Purchased for $1.135 million in 2013, after which the grand plans for its Corona Heights parcel soon emerged, the former 1,500-square-foot home at 53 States Street was recently leveled.

While waylaid by former Supervisor Scott Wiener’s “monster home” legislation, which effectively halted the development of large homes in his neighborhood for a couple of years, despite pandering protestations from his office that it wouldn’t, plans for a 5,480-square-foot duplex to rise on the States Street parcel have since been approved and permitted.

And a sale of the “shovel ready” 53 States Street site, entitlements and an approved permit to start building is now pending for $1.9 million.

28 thoughts on “Monster Home Site in Contract, Plans Approved”
  1. It’s not a monster home if it’s a duplex. Each house is only 2740 square feet. Anything under 3000 square feet should not be considered a monster. Build it!

  2. Anyone want to take a guess on what it would cost to build this? What you could sell two 2740 sqf condos for? Worth it for a developer, or priced too high?

    1. 3.5 million plus apiece? Whatever, what that kind of money gets you in SF is disappointing and not all that appealing. Attached units. One on top of the other. It looks as if the bottom unit won’t even have a view. Not much of a back yard and you step out the front door to a narrow sidewalk hugged by a car strewn street. I’ll pass on this.

      I’d rather take that money and buy a detached home in Piedmont with a magnificent view or something in the San Mateo Hills with a great view.

    2. Two similar new condos sold a few months ago, at 15th and Sanchez a few blocks from here, for $2,850,000 and $2,500,000. This is a really great location, but I’d be surprised if you could get much more than the places on 15th.

    1. Are those actual construction cost? Here in the Central Valley you can build a detached house at 125-150 a sqf including lot, hookups, permits, everything – of course you can go more expensive if you like

      1. $400 would be higher end retail. I built my house 3,300 plus two car garage for approximately $600k. I was the GC though.

        1. $400 is on the low end for construction price in D2 in SF. I just did a project with a GC and the range was 400 to 500 a sqf to build. I was not the GC.

          1. Sorry D2 is District 2 in SF and includes places like The Marina, Cow Hollow, Pacific Heights, Sea Cliff, and a few other areas.

    1. Functionally? Not a lot. One owner can occupy both units. On paper it will always be split units. Both entry ways are besides each other and I assume there is some sort of backyard patio at this point which is easily enough to leave those entryways unlocked or have the keys to make moving between units relatively painless.

  3. Would not combining these two units, even if never occupied, fulfill the criteria for the only-in-SF crime of “dwelling unit merger”?

    1. That’s not exactly true. Your engineer and architect likely care. And expectations in terms of finish, and subsequent development costs, are different between Pacific Heights and Bayview.

          1. No obviously the finishes cost some more at 26th street so a bit apples to oranges but you could have built the Brussels street project on 26th street for the exact same cost as you built it on Brussels. The location in the city didn’t change the price. If John Lum had contacted Galaxy Construction (SF based) and not S&Z (from Navoto) he could have got the same house for less money I bet with a company in business for much longer.

          2. …you could have built the Brussels street project on 26th street for the exact same cost as you built it on Brussels.

            That’s correct. But you wouldn’t build the Brussels Street project on 26th Street (or in Pacific Heights), at least not typically.

            As such, construction in D5 is typically more expensive than construction in D10, at least on average, because…”expectations in terms of finish, and subsequent development costs, are different” between the two.

            And which means, a point of reference as to where a project is taking place in the city is not only relevant, but rather important, when spitballing development costs.

          3. While the reader above was referencing a Supervisoral District (2), we reference MLS-based real estate districts (within which Noe is D5 and Portola is D10).

  4. Well this discussion has too many variable now and is apples and oranges. I was saying builder’s aren’t pricing by district, you’re saying expectations of finishes are higher in more expensive neighborhoods on development projects.

    The initial discussion was about retail pricing for homeowner, not development projects, and plenty of people in D5 put in finishes just like what was done at Brussels. In that situation the price to build will be the same. If you start discussing buyers expectations of development projects the “retail cost” goes out the window anyway.

    And finally the engineer and architect still don’t care where the house is in regards to their price. The architect may in fact have higher total fees on a less expensive project with many details working with the home owner than a high end builder set/ hand it off to the builders interior designer.

Leave a Reply

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