As we outlined in August of last year:

Priced at $45 million [in late 2018], which was misreported by some as being “the most expensive home ever listed” in San Francisco, “Residence 950” at 950 Lombard Street – which now offers around 9,500 square feet of rather spectacular living space spread across a 15,700-square-foot Russian Hill lot with sweeping views and a cantilevered pool – [was just] relisted anew with a reduced $40.5 million price tag.

In addition the five-bedroom main residence, which is connected to an underground art gallery/sports court and a four car garage, the property, which was speculatively developed over a six year period by Troon Pacific, includes a one-bedroom guesthouse/spa and an outdoor entertainment center, lawn and dining areas.

And yes, the residence is now LEED Platinum Certified as well.

Subsequently withdrawn from the MLS but not the market, the sale of 950 Lombard Street quietly closed escrow in March of the this year with a contract price of $27 million, a sale which would have been 40 percent below its original list price if the property had remained listed on the MLS.

And while the sale of 950 Lombard tied for the most expensive home sale in San Francisco this year, the $27 million sale was roughly 31 percent below the actual most expensive home sale on record in San Francisco, a title which is currently held by 2920 Broadway (which quietly traded for $39 million in October of 2018 and was being offered for rent at $40,000 a month last year while plans for a major remodeling and expansion, the permits for which are now on hold, were being drawn).

At the same time, the complete redevelopment of 2901 Broadway across the street, which was purchased for $28.25 million in 2012 and into which another eight figures has since been invested, is now construction complete and likely represents the “most expensive home in San Francisco” in all actuality.

17 thoughts on “The “Most Expensive Home in San Francisco” Sold for Far Less”
    1. Looks like there are panels on the roofs with eastern and southern exposures, not northern. While not ideal, an eastern exposure is only about 15 to 20 percent less efficient than southern.

  1. Looks absolutely phenomenal. Kudos to everyone involved with these projects. Amazing what a team can build with vision and a large budget. I have never been inside a house like this let alone live in it. Congrats to the new owners, I wish them many happy memories.

      1. Right? We live in one of the most unequal cities in the world. Our SF public policy has 10’s of thousands living in Tenderloin SRO’s / Govt Housing for generations…

  2. The contrast between the classic shingle style home and the gigantic ultra-trendy expansion below grade is jarring, almost absurd. It kind of looks like the not so secret lair of a Bond villain. If this were home was a car, it would be a classic Jaguar F-Type that received the same treatment as a lifted pick-up. More proof that you can’t buy good taste with more money.

    1. Agree. Interesting to think what a tasteful subterranean expansion would look like, but would probably be too subtle for these types of buyers.

      1. Below grade expansions are more common in San Francisco than you may think, given how many homes are perched on hillsides with nowhere to expand but up or down. It’s something that’s especially common in Bernal Heights, where the topography is steep, and many of the homes were originally built for households with more modest means. I just don’t think I’ve seen a below grade expansions that sticks out as much as this one does.

    2. ALMOST absurd ?? I think they bridged that gap many times over.
      It mostly reminds me of one of those museum displays where some structure(‘s envelope) lifts up to display the interior.

  3. It’s a great looking house with great view! But sadly the house next to it can clearly look down into the garden which at $27m is less than ideal. At that price, everything should be perfect imo. The garden with a pool and a spa house is lovely. I’m sure future garden party at this house will be more than fabulous. Congrats to the new buyer. I wonder if seller made any money…

  4. People who own these houses usually own around 5-6 of them and live only a few months in each per year. Nosy neighbors are hardly a concern.

    I knew a girl who worked for a family in PacHts and they lived across the street from the CEO of Gap (then) and they said he’s owned it for 10 years and they’ve never seen it occupied even once.

    1. If this is true (and I have no doubt that it is, based on what I’ve read), then it follows we need to ignore the chain yankers in the comment threads here who say, over and over again, that we need more luxury units in S.F., because (their argument goes) when “the market” provides more new construction luxury units, then when well-heeled buyers go shopping for a “move up” unit, they will leave behind a unit that is affordable to the merely well-off, and those buyers will leave a unit that is affordable to the middle-class and so on until there is a unit left for the working class.

      Of course, it’s a hogwash argument and no one ever supplies any data when they make it, but that’s what they say.

      1. There’s a big difference between what is typically talked about as “luxury” units and housing that appeals to the megarich jet-set who own properties all over. The vast majority of new-development “luxury” units are still at the end of the day relatively small apartments that are going to be used as primary residences (ignoring covid move situations). I don’t know any uberwealthy people but I imagine that they’d either want a mansion like this or, if in a new construction building, a large penthouse unit with crazy views. Either way, the supply of those is quite small and isn’t really relevant to the housing substitution debate you’re bringing up.

    1. That’s only because Scott F didn’t give San Francisco all his money. Cool. Follow that logic, Scott F? It’s yours.

Leave a Reply

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