October 24, 2007
300 Sea Cliff: $3,900,000 Reduction (After An $8,000,000 Renovation)
57 months (no not days) after first hitting the market for $23,500,000, and nine months after undergoing an $8,000,000 renovation (and subsequently raising its asking price by $2,400,000), the list price on the Captain's House (300 Sea Cliff) has been reduced by $3,900,000 and it’s now listed for $22,000,000. And yes, we liked the brick better as well.
∙ Listing: 300 Sea Cliff Avenue (5/5.5) - $22,000,000 [Sotheby's] [MLS]
∙ Top Five San Francisco Trophy Homes [SocketSite]
∙ The $8,000,000
Man Renovation [SocketSite]
∙ Another Chance At (For?) The Captain's House (300 Sea Cliff Ave) [SocketSite]
∙ Checking In On 300 Sea Cliff Ave [SocketSite]
First Published: October 24, 2007 10:24 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Huh, only 4 parking spaces? What am I supposed to do with my other two cars? Park them on the street?
Fatal flaw. I'm not buying it.
Posted by: Anon at October 24, 2007 10:33 AM
I still feel that painting over the original red brick was a mistake.
By the looks of it, they've still got some landscaping or gardening and planting to do.
Posted by: Timosha at October 24, 2007 10:58 AM
Is that fog I see on the horizon masking the true market value of this rare dressed-up gem :-)
Posted by: Observer at October 24, 2007 11:36 AM
"I still feel that painting over the original red brick was a mistake"
Timosha, I could not agree more! The brick was beautiful and it makes me curious if they had some problems with moisture that they chose to correct by just painting over those beautiful bricks instead of making proper repairs.
Posted by: anonarch at October 24, 2007 11:41 AM
Uh oh. The "Real Estate Times" Emeritus Listing now looks like an incredibly luxe cinderblock beach bathroom.
Posted by: emmett_brown at October 24, 2007 12:44 PM
22M and no staging? At the very least they should've spent a few thousand to stage the place and make it look more warm and cozy.
Place is too cold and sterile empty...
Posted by: missionbay res at October 24, 2007 1:40 PM
I vaguely recall what it looked like in unpainted brick but with the brick painted it will fit in much better in our portfolio of other Motel 6 properties throughout the California.
Posted by: AcquisitionMGR at October 24, 2007 2:36 PM
Bingo on Motel 6.
This is the cheesiest Nixon-era-style structure I've seen in this price range (altho I'm sure more experienced readers could point to others).
The sad thing is that just putting new surfaces on it obviously hasn't and likely won't ever make a bit of difference. The architecture is right out of 1970's suburban San Jose, writ large. Truly a waste of a fantastic piece of property.
Posted by: Kurt Brown at October 24, 2007 2:55 PM
That was surprisingly ho-hum (especially for the money) until I got to the kitschen photos. I can't imagine it's just lack of staging, some of the photos look like they could be of rooms in any old vacant home. Of course the view is supposed to sell the house, but still... thank god the kitchen fulfilled my expectations of the uber-riche.
Posted by: kaya at October 24, 2007 3:29 PM
Nice wood floors. But I HATE the kitchen cabinetry. Somehow to me French provincial does not match with the other gothic elements of the home.
Posted by: Lori at October 24, 2007 3:53 PM
Yow. That IS one ugly kitchen.
Posted by: oy vey at October 24, 2007 5:29 PM
I know this buyer wants their price, but after almost five years on the market, they reduced the price by only 15%? They should know by now that the "one special buyer" is not going to materialize at close to that price tag. The seller either doesn't really want to sell, unless its for mucho profit - or- they seller is an idiot.
Posted by: SanFranLand at October 24, 2007 6:51 PM
The vesting is in B of A; what is the story behind that?
Posted by: Bill at October 24, 2007 7:07 PM
That's a sketchy neighborhood.
Hey, somebody seems to say that about every other listing!
But seriously, for that price, I would expect much better bathrooms.
And with the alleged eight million dollar improvement budget, they should have made the windows larger instead of literally gold plating the light fixtures.
Posted by: bgelldawg at October 24, 2007 7:19 PM
"Calcutta" marble in the bathrooms? Looks like Carrara marble to me. Didn't realize that Calcutta had cornered the luxury marble trade! Not that there's anything wrong with that....
Posted by: Smugly at October 24, 2007 8:22 PM
Really, for that price you'd think the listing agent would:
1. Proof the text for spelling errors
2. Hire someone to write more enticing descriptions for the photos and actually have the features from the descriptions match the photos.
What is a:
- blue bole
- seedy glass
- Calcutta marble florrs
- tasteful elegate
- vanity ligh
- polished crome
Posted by: Pianist at October 24, 2007 9:59 PM
As a former copy editor in a past life I find that deeply offensive. For a $22M home no less? I would fire that guy immediately if I were the homeowner. Wow.
As a realtor, now, I have to say that it never ceases to amaze me how little of an effort agents sometimes put into their MLS pages. I wish I had a dollar for every blurry photo that I've seen on a $1M+ listing.
Posted by: fluj at October 25, 2007 11:46 AM
I just want to know, if your agent hasn't sold your home in four years and has several other listings which have been sitting on the market for years, wouldn't you bring in some fresh blood? Seriously.
Anyway, two words:
Posted by: MedusaSF at October 25, 2007 11:54 AM
I still cannot understand why the real estate agents can make in total more on the sale of a property than I will sometimes as the architect. PLUS, I have liability for years regarding the residence. When you put all of my office, insurance and consultant expenses out of my fee on a residential project, the architect usually does not make as much as the real estate agent. 7 years of college, 2 years as a apprentice, the testing, the license, the fees, ugggh!
Posted by: anonarch at October 25, 2007 12:28 PM
Hasn't this place been on the market for at least a decade? Either for sale or as a rental. That picture with the orange bridge in the background is a classic of the free real estate magazine genre. Ok, now the house is a new color.
They've had plenty of time to invest in a spellchecker. And an exterminator to get rid of the blue boles.
Posted by: emmett_brown at October 25, 2007 12:44 PM
An $8 mm renovation? Hard to see where it was spent.
Posted by: Ed at October 25, 2007 3:17 PM
I can't believe its taken so long to sell - you have to think the marketing is bad at the bvery best. The agent operates as an international agent and we all know international Sotheby's looks kinda of "low budget" on some of their less then desirable high end product...
Posted by: Michael L. at October 25, 2007 4:05 PM
I think part of the problem is somebody decided that they thought Sea Cliff was outer Broadway. Well it is not Broadway, or Jackson or Washington in Presidio Heights for that matter. It is nice, but your product better be spectacular.
Now I noticed none of the real estate agents wanted to touch my comments regarding why they get about as much payment as I would get as an architect after all of my expenses are taken out if I were to do a project such as this. I will gladly design and manage a project on this place to make it sell, but the realtor would have to split the comission with me based on how many hours we each actually put into this project.
Posted by: anonarch at October 25, 2007 4:38 PM
Well, as an architect you aren't displaying the greatest sense of surroundings when you suggest that this is some kind of example of Sea Cliff run amok, and not Pac Heights or Presidio Heights. Come on now. This location is EPIC. It is not the sellers or the realtor thinking "Sea Cliff = Pac Heights," this is an example of a priceless piece of land ... it's its own thing. If they executed it properly it would be in the stratosphere, akin to some of the better locations in this city. And it would sell for more than $22M. (Unless the soil reports suggest it is sliding into the Pacific, which might very well be the root problem here.)
Posted by: fluj at October 25, 2007 5:04 PM
"If they executed it properly"
Fluj, THAT was my point, they had not executed this property properly, and it is a shame as the location is unique. The problem is, any of my clients would still call this a "fixer" and so why do they think they can get this price?
I have mentioned some Sea Cliff properties before to former clients, but many who I have worked with who have the wealth to live in such a neighborhood, have no desire to. They find it "too far" and "too foggy". It is really rather isolated, and if they want a place in the city, they want to be closer to the action. I agree with you that they could ask this price and more if they took advantage of this location and made this home into something unique.
Posted by: anonarch at October 25, 2007 5:52 PM
I was in the house during the remodel, and the contractors were sort of at the mercy of the decorator who made all the decisions regarding the interior. Unfortunately, the decorator made some ridiculously poor choices. The slate on the floor of the family room is just ghastly. Also, as I said before, the house sticks out on a point, so the winds of the Pacific are constantly beating against the sides. There's just no protection.
Posted by: Sleepiguy at October 25, 2007 7:03 PM
I already posted about the interior design, but I will agree with Sleepiguy. What in god's name was this decorator thinking? Did they even think to take into consideration the original style with the house and work with it instead of infusing their own personal taste (or lack thereof)?
Gack. I predict another 5 years on the market for this one.
Posted by: Lori at October 29, 2007 2:31 PM