75 Miraloma (Image Source: 75miraloma.com)
According to a “plugged-in” reader’s comment, 75 Miraloma (another new construction home “bordering St. Francis Wood”) first hit the market in late 2004 with a list price of around $4,000,000.
Turned into a rental when it failed to sell, the property retuned to the market four months ago with a list price of $2,285,000. Four days ago, the price was dropped another $90,000 (3.9%). And while we haven’t been inside, as best we can tell there’s not a lot of depth to the property (although it does appear to be wide and tall).
∙ Listing: 75 Miraloma (4/3.5) – $2,195,000 [75miraloma.com]
The SocketSite Scoop On “Solaria” (166 Yerba Buena Ave) [SocketSite]
The Scoop On 168 Yerba Buena Avenue (And St. Francis Court) [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by eddy

    Funny. First we get Mr. Rodgers Neighborhood; and now we get a Hollywood back lot style house that looks like a mansion, but is only about 20ft deep.
    Still, look impressive!

  2. Posted by jennifer mckinley

    wow. that’s a truly soulless building in a lovely locale. what a waste. if you want sterile architecture, why not buy a place in one of the many new and uninspiring highrises and at least get doorman service, more sunshine, and a better view…?

  3. Posted by eugenia

    egads, the choice of finishes is unfortunate and the staging is rather ghastly …

  4. Posted by 94114

    Isn’t it a tear-down?

  5. Posted by rg

    I drive by this house on almost a daily basis and I have to say that it is the gaudiest thing in all of SF! It can hardly be called “new construction” – it was built 5 years ago and has never sold! [Removed by Editor] It is a nice neighborhood and has a great ocean view, but unfortunately would have to be completely striped of all exterior foam detailing and Tuscan faux painting to be decent. This house is the epidemy of why SF should have a design review board! It ruined the neighborhood.
    [Editor’s Note: The house is actually closer to three years old (with almost four years of permitting prior to construction). Additional background on neighborhood objections to the construction (and final approval) from the San Francisco Board of Appeals: http://www.sfgov.org/site/bdappeal_page.asp?id=18194 ]

  6. Posted by Anne

    This is indeed ugly on the outside and inside. Doing things on the cheap (a penny saved but a pound foolish) will end up biting the seller in the ass. This house needs a MAJOR discount ie 50% to less than $1M before it will move.
    The market will dictate how things get designed – no need for a some arbitrary design board.

  7. Posted by anon

    Looks just like some of the Tuscan style plywood villas which are for sale in the East Bay. Maybe the contractor missed the San Ramon exit and instead ended up in the city.

  8. Posted by jeccat

    Good lord! The staging– why? All the pink and green and brick red everywhere… what were they thinking?

  9. Posted by John

    55 Robinhood sold for close to 2M, with about the same size and also great view. Of course, 55 Robinhood has a big lot (9000 sqft?), which this one lacks.
    I don’t get why people don’t like the style. It doesn’t fit the neighorhood, but by itself, it is not that bad. Why would people think a remodeled 1900 home is better than a new construction?
    For me, a house at that price range need some great outdoor space, yard or patio, which this house lacks. However, 2M may not be that overpriced, considering it probably cost the seller about that much to build this house.

  10. Posted by Jeff

    I went to one of the open houses. When it was a rental it was rented to a baseball player called “the big hurt”, make up your own joke.
    It is a somewhat silly house with an overly grand entrance, but I have to say that it does have a fantasy garage. The two garage doors in front connect together as a single room the size of a basketball court. Your mind fills with suburban garage fantasies unimagineable in the city.

  11. Posted by rg

    Why were my comments edited? I gave first-hand information about the laborers who did the work. I am an architect who was working on a project just down the street while this was being built. I almost reported them twice for dangerous worksite conditions. It was not a racist remark in the slightest – people who are interested in purchasing a property should have all the information they can about what is under those cheap finishes – and when it is what appeared to be horribly put together construction on an extremely dangerous site, I’m going to say so.

  12. Posted by there goes the neighborhood

    For those of us who have to look at this house on a regular basis, having it be a tear down is just a cruel tease….
    But the only consolation I find is that, even in a McMansion society, people obviously can sniff out crap when they see (smell?) it – kudos to SF buyers!
    And while the builder may have scored his permit and his project, while pissing off the neighbors and visually assualting passersby, (not to mention all the petroleum-based foam sacrificed to manufacture those 2-story hollow columns), at least he in all liklihood will take a financial bath on the deal.
    There is a god after all….

  13. Posted by anon

    “not to mention all the petroleum-based foam sacrificed to manufacture those 2-story hollow columns”
    Hey, I thought that was Carrera marble. Didn’t know the Romans had petroleum-based foam columns. But then again, the Romans didn’t have plywood either…

  14. Posted by anonymous

    It will hopefully roll down the hill in the next shaker…truly an abomination!

  15. Posted by Morgan

    More proof that San Francisco is attracted to the worst aspects of Los Angeles, while Los Angeles is becoming more like the San Francisco that used to be. We are getting stucco tuscan mansions, and they are getting walkable neighborhoods (finally) and well designed modern custom homes. All you have to do is spend a day walking around Venice and you can’t help but question the decisions both in Presidio Heights, but also SOMA and Mission Bay. I am almost ready to give in and admit that our “uniqueness” as a city is becoming ruined.

  16. Posted by dissent

    What amazes me is that builders of this sort of trash don’t bother to learn the least little bit about the style they are ‘imitating’. I mean those pillars are … are … just stupid looking. As in, totally out of proportion. What was the builder thinking?

  17. Posted by wayne

    Why is everybody dumping on the builder. While I agree that it is ugly, that is what was approved by planning.I have used many fine Architects over the last 20 years and I can tell you that on NO occasion has City Planning ever accepted what was presented to then. You get these kids out of Architectural school thinking they are Norman Foster or somebody and feel that they have to put their own stamp on everything.

  18. Posted by Jim Devries

    This is a beautiful house. Not sure why everyone is slamming it here. I guess I have bad taste. Some parts are cheesy like the fountain in the front of the house in the middle of the garage bay doors. The house doesn’t have a piece of walkable soil which is a turn off. But on the inside its really nice. But I can understand the neigboring houses disliking it b/c is towers over everything and sticks out in a very noticable, almost obnoxious way since the other homes are smaller, more uniform in style and not very tall. Althought I wouldn’t have built this house in this way, for $2M you can do a whole lot worse in San Fran. I think its appropriately valued. But I need a little more “green” in my landscaping than this house offers.

  19. Posted by let me count the ways

    Assuming that aesthetics are subjective, let’s just look at the practical….
    First, the driveway is right in the middle of the blind turn on Miraloma. This is also the 43 Masonic muni route. Blind turn + downhill bound muni bus = make sure you fasten your seatbelt before pulling out of that 5 car garage!
    Second, garage at street level. Kitchen on second floor. No elevator or dumb waiter. Rainy day + groceries + kids? = you couldn’t pay me to live in this house.
    Third, a master bedroom so small that the stagers use a double bed, not even a queen. Now there is absolutely nothing wrong with a small, cozy bedroom. But when you market a house as a “magnificent Tuscan style villa” for over $2MM, don’t you think the buyer would like to not have to choose between a large bed and bedside tables?
    Fourth (now I’m getting back into the subjective realm), cheap building materials do not make for a lovely, lasting home environment. It’s a faux home and feels like a movie set – not a place to set down roots.
    And yes, you can do worse in SF for $2.2mm, but you can’t just look at SF overall to figure out a comp. Prices in the City are so neighborhood specific. This is my neighborhood, and as much I would love to think that values were like Pac Heights, or even Noe, they’re just not. Look at houses even in St. Francis Wood (a “step up” in cache with a corresponding $$ premium) and I think you’ll find that this house is definitely overpriced for the neighborhood, even now.

  20. Posted by Jim Devries

    All your points are well taken. I did a quick driveby and popped in at an open house for a few minutes. I can understand all the issues effecting this house’s value. Someone will eventually buy this house. I think it’s going to be rented again to someone. I wonder what it will eventually sell for. For me, I’m passing and going to wait for the right home for me. Thanks.

  21. Posted by paul

    You would think an agent that was going to make 60k on the sale would stage this one better, or at least enough taste to hire a decent stage. Please remove James bond movie posters in entertainment room!

Add a Comment

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