CFAH

On the market for $29.5 million last year, the Pacific Heights mansion and permits to expand at 2950 Pacific Avenue has just sold for $17 million.

Acquired from Mark and Alison Pincus for $16 million in November of 2015, Troon Pacific subsequently engaged Snøhetta (yes, that Snøhetta) to draft plans to transform the Albert Farr-designed home into a modern 18,000-square-foot mansion with a coveted “2895 Broadway” address, as we first reported at the time, and spent five years on the design, development and permitting for the project which has since been fully approved.

And having been reduced to $20 million last month, the sale was officially “within 15 percent of asking” while over 40 percent below the team’s original expectations.  We’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by SanFranSeeYa

    Another winning “investment” for Troon LPs. At least there will be losses to offset any remaining capital gains…oh wait, sorry, just more losses.

  2. Posted by sparky-b

    They sold it for $1M more than they bought it for.
    And as is so often the case, they don’t really have all the permits
    No Parking
    I would say they they sold it for 40% under their dream price, not under the team’s expectations.

    • Posted by SocketSite

      To be clear, the permits have been approved, issued and reinstated, including site, shoring and building. And while they sold the property “for $1M more than they bought it for,” that’s not accounting for 7 years of carrying costs, including property taxes of around $200,000 per year, and all the soft costs spent getting the project designed, by Snøhetta(!), approved and permitted.

      • Posted by Notcom

        I believe ‘sparky’ was being a bit facetious, as this example seems almost a parody of ignoring related costs.

        But now back to the issue(s) at hand: claiming this was cherry-picked and RE is SF – particularly at the higher end – is all-cash buyers who are unaffected by current financial trends…

        • Posted by Gee Ess

          I’m not sure there’s a basis for the assumption that a buyer paying cash is unaffected by trends. The cost of money affects everyone—someone paying all cash is foregoing a much larger risk-free interest rate on that money so it is still “costlier” to them. That said, not everyone who’s wealthy both recognizes this and acts accordingly, whereas people who are borrowing money mostly don’t have a choice.

      • Posted by sparky-b

        Yes they sold a property that they spent a ton of money on the permitting for while not permitting a garage. They made it super specific to them, and then put it on the market. The odds the new buyer does this plan, I think, is very low. They will do a remodel but it won’t be this.

        But the point is they did NO work on the property that anyone else wants and it is $1m more. I am not ignoring related costs, but they are only related costs if they have value. There is a difference between an owner losing money and the property losing value. All projects and certainly are permits are not value adds.

        (Now of course the always misstated Case-Shiller will say this property should have sold for much more).

        • Posted by SocketSite

          Actually, they did seven years worth of work on the property. And the entitlements, even if amended, definitely have value, as anyone complaining about how long, difficult and costly it is to get projects approved and permitted in San Francisco would certainly be able to attest.

          • Posted by sparky-b

            These permits have value if you want 2 stories of Gallery and Art storage and catering kitchen and you want to spend several more million to get those 11,600 feet. Not every property that spends years getting permits has those permits executed.

          • Posted by SocketSite

            It’s much easier and significantly less costly to amend previously approved and fully permitted plans than to start from scratch. And in the context of this specific property, those permits are valuable, particularly with being able to mint a new Broadway address.

          • Posted by BobN

            Whatever they’ve done, I’d say they’ve done it “to” the house…

    • Posted by jenofla

      The rendering above and in the listing seems to have a garage, pretty much the whole lower floor. Are you saying it’s approved but not permitted? If it’s approved, would it be that hard to get permits?

      • Posted by PaulH

        Those plans really give of London oligarch mansion vibes.

      • Posted by sparky-b

        the renderings show cars, but there isn’t a permit for any. The lower level is a gallery, the other lower level is art storage. The new front door at Broadway does not have a garage door. A garage is neither approved nor permitted, they look to have had an initial planning meeting earlier this year about adding it to the plans.

        • Posted by around1905

          My understanding of planning department rules is that you have to add more parking inside the property than you remove from the street and then it will get approved. But then it goes to the DPW and the BSM which adds another year or so of wrangling. This place needs a lot of parking to be a good project and they should have invested that year to get it.

          • Posted by sparky-b

            You don’t have to add “more” parking to get a permit through planning. Because then there would be no single car garages built, and planning have lots of other rules for garages based on slope and setback and aesthetics and neighboring houses etc. But also the Planning Department doesn’t understand the planning rules, so how can anyone else.

    • Posted by Adam

      Troon made at least $500 selling off the original interior woodwork for parts.

  3. Posted by Jimmy The Landlord

    Not to be negative or anything but Ick. The rendering looks like the arse end of the Jawa land crawler, painted black. But money can’t buy taste so I expect it’ll fly off the shelves when complete.

  4. Posted by MyOddCommentHandle

    the traditional roof line with the all black thing is an unusual contrast

    i predict this house is nicknamed the Darth Vader house by it’s neighbors

    the renderings look nice tho.

    and making the most of your property shouldn’t be looked at as a bad thing. they didn’t go 5 floors below the street level. at best they excavated the hillside a bit.

  5. Posted by Sierrajeff

    Curious why Broadway is seen as more desirable than Pacific. Isn’t Pacific the higher street here? Plus, when I think Broadway, all I think of is the faux-freeway Broadway Tunnel and the Chinatown / North Beach traffic jams.

    • Posted by Never In Doubt

      Clearly, you’re thinking of/ living in the wrong stretch of Broadway.

      Broadway West of Divisadero, aka “Billionaires Row” is not that.

    • Posted by Sierrajeff

      I stated that that’s what I “think of”, hence why I was asking. And I’d also rather have a rounder address (“2950”) than “2895”. But that’s all just me, I don’t stand on subjective 3rd party touchstones (“oooh, I live on ‘billionaire’s row’ instead of Pacific!”) and focus on what I actually have, not what I think others think of what I have.

  6. Posted by BobN

    Too late for a Halloween Superstore???

  7. Posted by Ken

    City Transfer Tax ($468,000) and RE Commissions ($700,000+) more than wiped out the so called $1,000,000 profit. Never mind entitlement and carrying costs for years.

    Development not for the faint of heart.

    • Posted by sparky-b

      “so called $1M profit”?? nobody said there was a profit here.

  8. Posted by Conifer

    Outer Broadway has been the best address for many decades. But many people, including old families, have preferred other nearby streets, including outer Vallejo and Pacific, Jackson facing Alta Plaza, and others especially in Presidio Heights.

    This is not New York or Paris, and street addresses never have conferred the kind of status that some new people think. The problem with this house is not its address on Pacific or Broadway. The problem is the wanton destruction of an extraordinary interior that cannot be replaced.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles