October 8, 2007
Just In Time For The Holidays 338 Holladay Returns (For Even Less)
And speaking of Holidays, 338 Holladay is back on the market. As you might recall, this modern Green home first hit the market in July of 2006 for $1,279,000 and was systematically reduced down to $994,000 before being withdrawn. It was an outcome that caused the owner/developer to decree that people "couldn't care less” about being green.
And while we don’t (and didn’t) agree (that people could care less), we continue to believe that very few people are willing to go green at the expense of design or location. And while neither of those two things have changed for this property, we will note that the price once again has (now asking $899,000 or 30% below the original list).
And yes, it's now officially four days on the market and a new new "original list" price of $899,000 (at least in the eyes of the MLS and their reported statistics).
First Published: October 8, 2007 10:40 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
It's right next to the freeway!
Posted by: tony at October 8, 2007 11:12 AM
It looks like living in a matchbox. Maybe those are just bad pics, but it looks like 8 ft. ceilings in the house. For someone over 6ft, this is just too confining.
Oh yeah, and the location is bad.
Posted by: Spencer at October 8, 2007 11:21 AM
I was planning on touring it yesterday, but gave it a drive by and a no thank you. It's literally right next to the freeway, on a really narrow claustrophobic street (kind of feels like Deliverance country down there) and the place next door looks like it's about to collapse into a pile of weathered wood (though they appear to be working on it).
Still, looks like quite a lot of house for $899k for someone willing to tolerate the location.
Posted by: scott.h at October 8, 2007 11:46 AM
If one "could care less" that means that you care at least somewhat :-) The correct aphorism, in my opinion, is "couldn't care less". Not sure why the former is so prevelent in American English.
[Editor’s Note: We screwed up the quote, and it was in fact “couldn’t care less”).]
Posted by: Amen Corner at October 8, 2007 11:59 AM
I don't know from Feng Shui, but something about that impinged-driveway/urban snout house look combined with hideous fenestration trumps any eco-grooviness I'd want to live in.
Posted by: Pritchard at October 8, 2007 12:02 PM
Hmm.... ugly, expensive and in a crummy location. I'm surprised there wasn't an all-out bidding war over the weekend!
Posted by: Jimbob at October 8, 2007 12:18 PM
The label Green building as per the example here is unfortunately often used as an excuse for wanting to be different, hard to the senses and narcissistic designs. Green buildings should also not visually pollute. A basic ecological principle is consideration for one's environment and that includes the wellbeing of the people affected. It would be helpful if modern architecture made more of an effort to emotionally connect with us.
Posted by: Chris at October 8, 2007 12:43 PM
Look at the top of the windows at the ceiling! Normally, the windows tops are at 7'. Does that mean this house has 7' ceiling?
Yes, there are the extra 6" in the bedroom to make them legal.
Yes, lower ceiling saves heating cost, so I guess that's a feature, not a bug.
Posted by: John at October 8, 2007 12:58 PM
It looks like the "green-ness" flows primarily from solar heating (and a solar-powered hot water heater). I am not a fan of punitive building codes, but it is criminal that California does not require solar systems on new construction -- if the $4.00 PG&E bills this guy cites have any basis in reality, the things would pay for themselves quickly, and there would not even be a tremendous cost burden to such a requirement (except for some added up-front costs that would be recovered over time).
Posted by: Trip at October 8, 2007 1:02 PM
Anyone know the type of tree in the picture, on the right? I have one in my garden and am curious. Thanks.
Posted by: gh at October 8, 2007 1:07 PM
in SF, location trumps everything. I agree that in this case, green is being to market an otherwise negative property/profile. And, solar PV/water and bamboo floors are nice, but green is so much more than that (i.e. what insulation, and how was it installed? low VOC-paints, sealants spec'd?). Good of the developer to try. Third-party verification and ratings help to define green on an even playing field and prevent greenwashing.
Bad designs are bad across the board. The exterior is pretty weak (although describing this as "visual pollution" is a bit harsh), but the interiors are just plain blah!
Posted by: anong at October 8, 2007 1:26 PM
The house may be clean and "green", but the dirt particles and engine fumes from the freeway blowing in through the bedroom window sure aren't.
Posted by: Nicole at October 8, 2007 1:31 PM
ceilings aren't 7'. look at the height of the wall enclosing the kitchen. look to be at least 9' in the living areas and closer to 8' in the bedroom (based on the door).
Posted by: rich at October 8, 2007 1:32 PM
you guys are brutal!
Posted by: james at October 8, 2007 1:42 PM
Anyone know the square footage? Didn't see it anywhere...
Posted by: Dude at October 8, 2007 1:59 PM
Yes, there is no excuse (absent building code issues) for an 8 foot ceiling in new construction - what is the point?
Posted by: John at October 8, 2007 2:14 PM
When we toured it last year it had some really interesting features, but as the realtor told us, it was built as a highly customized home for someone that was planning to live in it herself. It looked like it.
the strangest feature to me are the three big windows over the garage. There is a sitting area that has matching windows, but it is on the other side of the garage. To actually see the view, you actually look through the garage. When you stand in the room, it feels like a big picture window to look at your car.
overall the rooms are small, especially the kitchen. I didn't hate the place, I just couldn't imagine living there myself.
If I had to guess at square footage I would guess around 1500-1700 sqft.
Posted by: Justin at October 8, 2007 2:28 PM
Way, way, way overpriced (originally) for the location. May do better this time around.
Posted by: "Dave" at October 8, 2007 2:39 PM
Even in a better location, the house itself is pretty gross: the odd driveway, lousy window locations, subterranean feel, dank kitchen, DIY staircase, hot dog stand cutout into the kitchen, odd interior frosted glass placements, etc.
Posted by: pwb at October 8, 2007 2:49 PM
The interior looks surprisingly dark for all the windows and light colors. The kitchen is a boilerplate contractor special with no imagination whatsoever. And there is that outside. It looks like a Sunset house on acid.
Posted by: Michael E at October 8, 2007 2:57 PM
@Amen corner: Oh cmon! Saying "We could care less" is an example of irony! Socketsite, Don't cave in to the language pedants!11!
[Editor’s Note: Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), we didn’t cave. We really did screw up the quote.]
Posted by: dub dub at October 8, 2007 4:20 PM
Does anyone know how much she purchased the propery for and when?
Posted by: Nicole at October 8, 2007 5:12 PM
The developer should be reading and learning from all these comments. The building is poorly designed and a lot of the interior materials are just cheap. Look at the cheap kitchen cabinets and the masonite interior doors. pure junk.
Posted by: noearch at October 8, 2007 5:39 PM
The tree in the picture is Yucca elephantipes.
Posted by: Pritchard at October 8, 2007 10:29 PM
Well, I, for one, couldn't care less about going green when considering a home purchase, and I certainly would not shell out more green to ... well, be green.
Posted by: S&S at October 9, 2007 11:19 AM
Oh, I posted before reading all the hoopla about "care less" and "couldn't care less."
Phew! Glad I got it right. :P
Posted by: S&S at October 9, 2007 11:21 AM
in another time and place, this would've been called a shanty.
now it's a subject of laughter for the cynical.
overpriced is an understatement at best. certainly, a kindness. pity the poor thing who designed it.
Posted by: jonj at October 9, 2007 1:30 PM
If they'd only put in the heated towel racks in the bathroom and spent a few hundred bucks more on counter tops that beauty would be flying off the shelf. Remember the Sunnyside shanty with the blue fluorescent light? Some sucker bought it for over 1.4 Mill. There's got to be a sucker somewhere for this master piece also.
Posted by: anon at October 9, 2007 2:04 PM
Ick. What are developers thinking when they put in such tacky cabinets and those awful closet doors. It's a mess.
Posted by: Mistereks at October 10, 2007 12:28 PM
to imagine that it was actually "designed" is beyond me.
Posted by: Stephen Bryant Shelley at October 13, 2007 5:16 PM
PS, to "noearch"
developers aren't interested in learning,
and they never do.
Developers have one MO,
making maximum dollar for least effort.
Posted by: Stephen Bryant Shelley at October 13, 2007 5:20 PM
It is now reduced further to $849,000
Posted by: Vanessa at October 25, 2007 3:50 PM