147 Laidley (front and back)
According to a plugged-in tipster 147 Laidley, a 2008 San Francisco AIA tour home and recent AIA Design award winner, is being prepped for sale and is “coming soon.”
147 Laidley: Kitchen
From the Wall Street Journal with respect to the Jim Zack and Lise de Vito (of Zack|de Vito Architecture) designed and owned home:

[The architects] designed their house with the environment in mind, using sustainably-harvested woods and solar panels to keep their average monthly energy bill to $80 a month. The couple also built much of the home’s frame off-site, shaving nearly two months from the 15-month project and keeping total construction costs to $1.5 million, or $500 a square foot — moderate, by San Francisco standards.

According to our tipster the asking price still hasn’t been set, but “it will be north of $3M.” We’ll keep you plugged-in.
∙ Property Website: 147 Laidley – Price TBD [147laidley.com]
2009 AIA Citation Award: Laidley Street Residence [aiasf.org]
Winning Homes [Wall Street Journal]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by anonarch

    I am loosing my patience with other architects and homeowners claiming their large new custom residences are “keeping the enviroment in mind”. My favorite was the new 10,000 sq. ft. “green” Palo Alto home featured in the Chronicle earlier this year.
    (They kept the Prius in the garage shot and conviently removed the Benz and Tahoe.)
    I recently reminded a client that the ultimate “green” residence could use her existing structure in new and imaginative ways. Although what may have existed at this location may have been junk, or nothing, there are many structures that could be rebuilt without being destroyed. America needs to stop looking at houses as throw-away objects and start making things last longer. Short distance automobile commuters could be possibly doing more for the planet by the continued use of their old vehicle instead of buying a new one, as an example, since the production of the new car uses much more resources than the better fuel economy will offset.
    Buying some re-claimed wood floors and slapping a solar panel on the roof are only surface gestures.
    Still, despite my rant, this is a very nice job by a firm I respect.

  2. Posted by Slappy

    @anonarch:
    Thank you for articulating my feelings on the claims of “green.” I believe that 10,000 sq ft home was for two people, no?
    Regardless, that’s too much space regardless of what is “slapped on the roof”

  3. Posted by Trip

    I’ve been in this home many times. It really is a great place — quite beautiful. As for the probable asking price, whatever it ends up being, let’s just say that I hope they get it . . .

  4. Posted by Auden

    The couple doesn’t live anywhere anywhere very long. I went through their last residence– which they were still inhabitting until it sold– in Noe on Chattanooga in late 2007. I don’t believe they were living in that one very long either. They do quite well each time– lets see how this one goes…
    [Editor's Note: A Zack/de Vito Design (And Home) Hits The Market On Chattanooga.]

  5. Posted by Mole Man

    This house is amazing. It seems to have exactly the high end modern design look that is hot at this moment.
    Ratings of sustainability need to evolve to be really meaningful. It is true that adapting an older structure is always more green, but it is also true that in this case the task was to make way for something splendid and new. In that context it is worthwhile to do all these things such as using sustainable sources, clever construction tricks, and solar panels. The alternative would be to ignore impacts and that would be even worse, probably by at least one order of magnitude. Furthermore, however unlikely it may be, if the the developers manage to erect a timeless design that ends up being appreciated and kept in use for a hundred years or more through some number of remodels and reconfigurations then doing away with what was there before might actually make sense viewed in terms of the full servicable lifetime of the structure.

  6. Posted by MarinaRenter

    Anonarch and Mole Man,
    I think that you are both right. I have only been a Bay Area Resident for 2 yrs, but I have noticed a very strong oxymoron, when it comes to living a “green” lifestyle. Some of the biggest hypocrites are my customers from Marin, whom think they are green, because they drive a Prius. They live in 4,000+ sq. ft. homes, purchase tons of new clothes and other belongings, and, in general, consume tons of resources.
    Funny note, if you know any Marin Resident. Marin residents, whom claim to be “green”, have consistently voted down a train from Larkspur to Santa Rosa, b/c it would bring “an unpleasant element from SF.” I have heard this so, so many times from various residents. Disclaimer: not everyone agrees with this sentiment.
    The one good thing about this depression/recession is that it is becoming no longer “hip” to live above your means or live an extravagant lifestyle. Unfortunately, the government is bailing so many people out, whom need to learn this lesson the hard way.

  7. Posted by LEED AP

    Hate to pile on – but so many of you are correct about the psuedo-sustainability aspects of designs like this. Why use 1 acre of stainless steel for your countertops when 2 acres give you so much more of a wow factor? What happens in 3 years when SS counters aren’t “cool” any more? Well, we have some poor peasants mine some granite in South America, throw it on a stinky cargo ship to China where some more poor peasants can cut and polish it before it gets thrown on another cargo ship to SF. Then the new owner can show off his new “natural” countertops without a clue as to what kind of carbon footprint they have. Maybe we can get the old stainless we tear out on the same boat that brought the stone here so they can melt it down again in China.
    Ditto the cabinets. Are these from Italy or Germany?

  8. Posted by Unwarrantedinlaw

    Looks like purchase cost of the lot/teardown was 706k? Construction costs $1.5m, so will be interesting to see its sales price.

  9. Posted by vox

    OMG! That stairway is acrylic! I’m going to plant my back forty with acrylic seedlings for the upkeep when that thing scratches and turns yellow.
    But what it really really needs is for somebody to glue some plastic mannequins on the upper and lower surfaces of the staircases, then we can do up some bong hits (in our acrylic bong) and go all M.C. Escher on each other!!!
    /I’ll bring the Roger Dean posters, you bring your album covers.

  10. Posted by vox

    Oh and while I’d keep my retro mistress in the Sunny Jim House, I’d keep my techno mistress here. I’d get her a synthetic miniskirt get up with vinyl thigh boots. OK, they could be green vinyl thigh boots as long as they weren’t real green (that’s cruel).
    Long as she didn’t mess with the mannequins or help the Hero thwart my plan for world domination, she could camp out alone with no friends. And she better smoke outside. Yeah.

  11. Posted by marko1332

    You can’t do anything in SF without offending someone. Is there a more neurotic, defensive, reactionary, and sensitive city in N.A. than SF? How does anything get done, when everyone feels they have input into to the situation.
    I’ve got news for you; nobody gives a crap what you think.

  12. Posted by anonn

    Wow. You hope they get it because you know them, eh Trip? caugh caugh hypocrite caugh. Laidley is in Glen Park. A special block of Glen Park, but Glen Park it is. You would be going nuts on this place talking about delusional this delusional that otherwise. LOL. Can’t tell who is faker on here, you or Former Apt Broker. It’s a tossup for sure.

  13. Posted by Trip

    Have it your way. Sure, I’m a “hypocrite” because I want my friends to do well. Did I conceal the fact that I knew the sellers? Not objective on this one at all, I concede. Hey, I hope someone gives them $10 million for it. Guess that makes me a “faker.”

  14. Posted by anon

    “You would be going nuts on this place talking about delusional this delusional that otherwise”
    Wow. I mean, wow.

  15. Posted by jeff

    it goes without saying the home is spectacular… but what makes all of stop and pause is the photography… i just can’t give enough credit to agents who still spend the time to hire folks to take their photos… i know plenty of agents these days carry a camera with them, but take a look out the kitchen windows and tell me if you’ve ever been able to balance the kitchen light with the exterior light so well you could still see the City view…

  16. Posted by anonn

    Uh huh. I got it. Quite hypocritical and contrary to a great many things you’ve uttered previously, but I got it. Even internet posturers who are secretly tickled pink about their own purchase need friends.
    Glen Park for ~3M, and people are talking about the luxury market is imminently tanking. Color me skeptical.

  17. Posted by EBGuy

    Regardless of the home size, they are installing a neighborhood power plant and I’m sure that’s a green we can all get behind (seeing as they don’t appear to be mounted on the front of the building). From the permit: 2.865KW RESIDENTIAL ROOFMOUNT PV SYSTEM, 16-200 WATT PANELS.
    I’m guessing the aircraft landing lights are the fluorescent fixtures. Certainly looks better than the old school long tubes I have in my kitchen. Anybody have experience with these?

  18. Posted by jaja

    I didn’t know that Glen Park homes can command upwards of $3M+. As real estate saying goes, never buy the best house on the block because it’ll be the hardest one to sell when you want to sell. While it’s done very well, I cannot imagine people rushing to bid on this house unless they expect to retire in it. I think they’ll be lucky to get their money back. If this house is in Pac Heights, or even lower Pac Heights, I think they’ll be able to move it for that price tag or possibly more depending on the street.

  19. Posted by gps

    ” As real estate saying goes, never buy the best house on the block because it’ll be the hardest one to sell when you want to sell. ”
    I didn’t know much about Glen Park either until I moved here (I have lived in pretty much every neighborhood of the city except Pacific Heights and Hunter’s Point). Most people don’t know that Laidley Street is a fantastic street, closer to Noe Valley, with a sweeping view of downtown and the bay. Quite a few homes on the end where this house is located display innovative architecture. It’s a couple of blocks up from Church street, the J-line, and all of the restaurants one way, and “downtown” Glen Park/Glen Park Bart on the other. That said, any house over 1.5 million on this street is going to have to be fan-fucking-tastic to sell; there are far too many houses available in other areas of the city with instant cache going for the same amount.

  20. Posted by SocketSite

    The list price for 147 Laidley has been set. Asking $3,350,000.

  21. Posted by anonn

    The list price for 147 Laidley has been set. Asking $3,350,000.
    I thought Glen Park was tanking. Or was it toast? Can’t remember which one it was two years ago. I think the poster who said that was Foolio.
    All kidding aside, this is beyond peak pricing. I don’t see it.

  22. Posted by zero

    OMG! That stairway is acrylic! I’m going to plant my back forty with acrylic seedlings for the upkeep when that thing scratches and turns yellow.
    For what it’s worth, the stair treads are likely fabricated out of 3-Form, which is not an acrylic. The company actually has an impressive environmentally-progressive track record, especially for the construction industry.

  23. Posted by SocketSite

    The MLS listing for 147 Laidley at $3,350,000 has been withdrawn from the market without a sale.

  24. Posted by EBGuy

    They should still have a lot of wiggle room on pricing as the home cost approximately $2.2million ($705k land + $1.5million construction). But don’t forget to add in the holding and RE transaction costs when calculating the net. WaMu is the lucky lender who refinanced the home once construction was complete (July 2008).

  25. Posted by Kraus

    Sold on May 04, 2010.
    $2,820,000
    3256 sq. ft.
    $866 / sq. ft
    [Editor's Note: 147 Laidley: From AIA (Award) To WOW (Sale).]

Add a Comment

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