May 16, 2008
The SocketSite Scoop On 2820 Scott: 2008 Decorator Showcase House
What many people already know about 2820 Scott Street (the 2008 Decorator Showcase house): it was a boarding house prior to being purchased by the Paige family (think Paige Glass) in December of 2005 for “much less” than its list price of $8,500,000; it has been undergoing a major renovation, remodeling, and re-decorating ever since; and it offers over 14,000 square feet of living space along with one of the most stunning roof decks in all of San Francisco (in terms of the views).
What most people don’t (but really want to know): although it’s not officially on the market, word on the street is that an offer north of $29,000,000 will make it yours (a seriously plugged-in source, however, estimates its value at closer to $24,000,000).
And yes, absent any accepted offers it becomes a bachelor pad for the Paige’s 38-year-old son. Now about that post-showcase housewarming party...
First Published: May 16, 2008 4:00 PM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
I don't think this is much of a surprise. The house was bought for about 6 million back in 05. I think it could be an awesome house (the 360 degree view from the roof deck is to die for), but the bad news is that it was slapped together so quickly that it'll cost an astronomical amount to fix all the inevitable flaws that will show up over time.
Posted by: Sleepiguy at May 16, 2008 4:22 PM
Agree with Sleepiguy, although I also wouldn't want to live on a North/South Street for anything over 18M!
Posted by: eddy at May 16, 2008 4:27 PM
maybe if the seller can level out that street they can fetch $18M
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at May 16, 2008 4:50 PM
"maybe if the seller can level out that street they can fetch $18M"
...cue the McGuire joke, but make it good! ;)
[Editor's Note: And now back to 2820 Scott...]
Posted by: dub dub at May 16, 2008 5:05 PM
Out of curiosity,
does anybody know how much a remodel like this would have cost?
it just seems unbelievable that a place could be bought for $6M, renovated, and then put back for $29M... even for the rich and famous.
I know it's not just $$$ and cents... and my question isn't meant to slam... I just find it odd that people would pay quintuple the price in 3 years. (unless that remodel cost like $10M or something)
Posted by: ex SF-er at May 17, 2008 5:51 AM
I don't know how much this particular remodel cost. However, my guess is that contractor Chick Wong is at the extreme lower end. High end contractors typically charge 700-1000 a foot, even if they tell you otherwise.
2820 was in deplorable condition four years ago and it would've been easy to blow through a 10+ million budget on a restoration. That obviously didn't happen here.
Posted by: Sleepiguy at May 17, 2008 10:40 AM
Why hasn't anyone talked about 230 Sea Cliff? For half the money of 2820 Scott, 230 Sea Cliff has all the featurs of a forever property. 230 Sea Cliff house has not been on the market since 1969.
It is pending per the MLS! Now this is a house!
Posted by: janeknowsbest at May 18, 2008 8:05 PM
230 Sea Cliff has a great facade and garden, but it's a pretty small house for 14.5 million and needs a good 6-7 million dollar overhaul. The fact that Malin has sold a fixer for $2400 per foot should be astonishing, but after the sales on Scott, I'm not all that surprised. There are enough mega-wealthy people in SF to keep the ultra-high-end real estate afloat pretty much indefinitely.
2820, on the other hand, would be a great consular residence. Does Dubai need an SF mansion?
Posted by: Sleepiguy at May 18, 2008 8:21 PM
I looked at 2820 when it was offered (though it didn't have the glass arch above the front door back then). I had the same opinion: that it should be a consular residence. The rooms are enormous. The whole place is huge.
It's too big for a regular residence. The bedrooms looked like they were all about at least 500 square feet. It could be a large office building or a hotel.
That place was in sad shape a few years ago. Quite the project even to get it into presentable shape.
Posted by: tipster at May 18, 2008 9:52 PM
6 mil for the house
6 mil for the reno -- maybe
6 mil for escalation / profit
i dont see how this clears $ 18 mil
28 is insane. saw every corner at the showcase- its just not at that level.
Posted by: Louis at May 19, 2008 12:55 AM
Beautiful home. I agree with the other comments about the sale price. The lawn in the picture is sloped oddly - is this considered artistic, or is this a photoshop error?
Posted by: ALJones at May 19, 2008 8:30 AM
For what it's worth, my house in Oakland, while not "officially" for sale, is also available for $29mm.
Posted by: Porky at May 19, 2008 9:17 AM
I'm going over to the house this Thursday. These showcase things are for a good cause, but they are definitely a bit of a hoot as the decorators seem to try to outdo each other in pomposity and pretentiousness. The last one I went to was at One Cherry. The chairs outside had moss for seats (best not to be wearing a white linen skirt for that one), and in the dining room there was a living tree (no kidding, not a plant a tree) in each corner. I can't wait to see this one. But I hear the fountain leaks so it may not be on, that makes it a tough decision for me to make an offer.
Posted by: Oceangoer at May 19, 2008 9:53 AM
Hi Sleepiguy- 1 – 2 mill perhaps for renovation at 230 Sea Cliff Ave. Kitchen and bathrooms. Structure is perfect, Roof is slate new, concrete foundation. House is world class compared to Scott Street.
Posted by: janeknowsbest at May 19, 2008 1:28 PM
^ Maybe if you hire Chick Wong... If you want to make the lower floor livable, you'll have to tear out every shoring wall in the basement. Also, the house has a terrible, circuitous floor plan, so you'll basically need to destroy most of the first floor and all of the second and start from scratch. You'll want radiant heat, high-end electrical, all new copper plumbing, all new windows, and an insane amount of waterproofing. Of course, you just bought a 14 million + house, so you'll probably hire Ryan, Plath, or Van Acker. Construction fees are out of control at the moment thanks to horrific gas prices. Architect and structural engineering fees and a great decorator will set you back another million or more.
Posted by: Sleepiguy at May 19, 2008 2:57 PM
So much for blogging. If you were this on the spot with some of your other postings your site would be empty. Nice to know that censorship is alive and well on your site! This proves that blogging is a mistake and only for those who want to wallow in their own misery. Provocation is prevalent if it serves your purpose. What a loser site this is.
[Editor’s Note: There's really no need to keep wasting your time (or ours). But if you do decide to keep plugging in, let’s drop the comments filled with nothing more than strings of personal attacks (they’re weak and not particularly welcome).]
Posted by: REChatster at May 28, 2008 5:15 PM
I say let the guy vent and be finished with it so that he can move on to "better" sites (like thefrontSteps or something?) with "better" postings (from RE professionals!).
Posted by: San FronziScheme at May 28, 2008 5:35 PM
Can't believe you removed a post lambasting your bloggers. I sit and watch your blog try to reduce the price of real estate by negative comments. Someone brings it to your attention and you don't like it. The truth will alway prevail and so does the simple laws of ecomomics "supply and demand".
Real estate will alway go up in value no matter what blogs say.
[Editor's Note: Speaking of the truth, we'll note that "watchingyou" and "REChatster" are one and the same. We know, not exactly a shocker.]
Posted by: watchingyou at May 28, 2008 5:41 PM
This blog is a mixed bag of longs and shorts. It is definitely more short than long, but (maybe you noticed) so is the country.
(I agree that SF is a different animal, at least for now)
The current downturn might not please everyone, but it is a necessary move. Historical prices for real estate show that it is an excellent hedge against inflation but not as much as the stock market. There is theoretically less risk and the trend is up due to population increases and supply issues.
BUT RE has been used and abused as a way to quick riches.
And no, I am not a frustrated fence-sitting loser who is afraid of risk. I was long Real Estate from 94 to 2003. Believe me, it was uncomfortable to be long at the time, especially in 99 when all my friends were piling their cash in overbloated sock-puppet stocks. People would scratch their heads big time.
Then I sold my places in 2004-2006 when the mass got all crazy way too late. I became short ever since. It's easy to be short national or regional, but much harder to be short in SF. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe I'll invest out of SF. I'll go long again once prices make more sense.
[Editor's Note: See note above. And now back to 2820 Scott...]
Posted by: San FronziScheme at May 28, 2008 6:02 PM
The basic tragedy is that many wealthy folks treat historic homes like playthings; they often have no knowledge of architecture or history. The new owner wants their fashionable modern suburban interiors despite any surviving original paneling and plasterwork.
There seems to be a culture of bragging rights attached to how much money is spent ‘making’ the house ‘theirs.’ The more spent the better. Usually, far more money is expended creating a flashy renovation that’s outdated in a few years than would ever have been spent restoring the home’s original beauty. Timeless interior and exterior details sacrificed by architectural thugs.
Historic and architecturally significant homes are handed over to architects and decorators who may or may not have any knowledge of or respect for original details and planning. Parquet floors are pulled up for marble, or sanded thin to make them appear brand-spanking-new. New interiors in the style of Provence, Louis-the-whatever or early High Tech take the place of the original. In San Francisco, the silly continental interiors inserted into the Casebolt house a number of years ago are a prime example of this; generic Southern European as interpreted by Chef Boyardee. Must everyone have his-AND-hers dressing rooms, or destroy a finely detailed public room to create a sauna the size of an SUV?
The final nail in the coffin of sensitive renovation is the fashionable coverage given to brutal ‘rebuilds’ that are little better than a teardown. Other old home wannabees decide they want one just like that, and these architectural carpenter ants move on two their next wealthy family and their next victim. For example, most of the historic mansions in Kennebunkport, Maine, have been gutted, or even partially demolished. We are expected to oooh and aah over these disasters that often represent more money than the combined debts of several third world nations.
I have been involved in Historic Preservation for more than 40 years. I have personally saved, or worked as part of a team that saved several hundred buildings, some of national importance. In all that time, I have rarely seen a fashionable renovation completed with an eye toward reasonable cost through preservation of original details and layout.
Posted by: Gregory hubbard at January 22, 2010 4:17 PM