Positioned as “the largest remaining undeveloped residential waterfront parcel in Marin County, and possibly the entire San Francisco Bay Area,” the 14.5-acre parcel at 2800 Paradise Drive in Tiburon, a parcel which includes around 2,000 feet of San Francisco Bay shoreline and has already been entitled for the development of a private compound, was listed for $47 million in 2017.

The entitled plans for 2800 Paradise Drive include a 15,000-square-foot main home, a 2,200-square-foot guest house and a 700-square-foot caretaker’s cottage, the driveways for which have already been poured.

And the list price for 2800 Paradise has just been reduced to $14.9 million with seven interim reductions since 2017, including a reduction from $17.5 million to $15.9 million early last year.

18 thoughts on “Price for Over 14 Acres of Paradise Reduced Nearly 70 Percent”
  1. Are there any views of SF from that parcel? I would think I would like something more spectacular than the East Bay for all that money

    1. I believe the owner of the adjacent cove property (to the west) has a parcel line that extends at least to the top of the dividing hill’s ridge. As such, a proposed development might mainly have easterly views (toward the beautiful Richmond skyline).

  2. Properties at the ultra high-end market in Tiburon and Belvedere (say $30 million and up) haven’t been moving, even before the rise in interest rates. I haven’t tracked it in a few months but there were several homes for sale in that price range on Belvedere Ave, with views from Alcatraz/Bay Bridge to Mt Tam, which sat unsold for a long time. I don’t know if any of them eventually sold.

    1. If you’re buying a 30 million dollar house and asking about interest rates, you are shopping in the wrong price range. This should be a cash only transaction.

        1. Absolutely untrue. High net worth individuals buy all sorts of real estate, multiple homes etc. They also buy tons of other “unproductive” assets like yachts, expensive cars, art, planes. Warren Buffett is the exception in this area and not the rule.

          1. Agreed, in general. Can’t argue with characterizing yachts and planes as “unproductive” consumption goods, but certain expensive cars and fine art could easily be considered investments.

            If you’d been able to purchase a work by Jean-Michel Basquiat during the ’90’s, the value of it would have handily outpaced the return of the stock market over the same time period and you could much more easily acquire any of a number of sixties-era sports cars that would have also done very well in terms of price appreciation.

          2. “This painting here, I bought it 10 years ago for $60,000. I could sell it today for $600,000. The illusion has become real, and the more real it becomes, the more desperately they want it.”
            — Gordon Gekko, Wall Street

      1. I’d like to make sure I’m not missing something about this; possible super-naive question coming right up.

        For sure I have NO idea if eight-figure RE transactions follow (roughly) the same framework as the six-figure sales more frequent with the “regular” people; 20% down, 30 years, “prevailing” interest rates, and so on.

        If that’s (roughly) the same for the big-ticket properties, and I was in a position to be able to decide whether to write out a check for $30M, *or* plunk down $6M and finance the rest — and in either case, assuming there was still plenty left in the ol’ bank account — wouldn’t I *definitely* do the latter? Especially when rates were in the high threes or low fours?

        Because I would have thought that — if I was practically the equivalent of a Qualified Institutional Buyer, all by myself — I could somewhat reasonably expect to be able to invest in a hedge fund or something that would return at *least* that three or four percent per year, if not rather more of course, even if smoothed over time. In which case, couldn’t I outgain the interest proportion of the loan, leaving me the option, if it got really ugly, to default on it, or sell at a loss, and still have the $24M in that invested account?

        I hope I’m right about the merits of this approach, ‘cuz that’s how I plan to snag the penthouse at 432 Park Avenue just as soon as I get those seven pesky numbers right. (And don’t worry, *no*, no way I’m going to pay the guy one-eighty large, either.) First, a brake job on the 4Runner, then 432 Park Avenue.

  3. Nice that they’ve included a parcel plan and a development proposal with the packet. It looks like there’s really only one location that makes sense for a large house. The remaining 13 acres are really only good for privacy and separation. Though you own it all you can only directly use a fraction. Lots of large undeveloped parcels around mature California urban areas are like this.

Leave a Reply

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