June 11, 2009
An Eco-Friendly "Baker Acres" Prepares Its Return (2201 Baker)
Built as a single-family home in 1904, converted to a boarding house known as "Baker Acres" in the 1940’s, and then Ellis Acted in 2002, an almost fully gutted and foreclosed upon 2201 Baker Street went on the market in November of 2007 asking $2,490,000.
Purchased for $2,538,000 and completely rebuilt as a single-family home by RBR Development (think Regina Callan), 2201 Baker Street is about to return to the market as the first "eco-friendly" Metropolitan Home Modern by Design Showhome.
This 7,700 square foot home, is outfitted with the latest green technologies [Regrid solar photovoltaic panels], building materials [high efficiency insulation, low u-value glazing, low VOC paints, recycled brick], mechanical systems [two high efficiency furnaces with air purification system]...and spectacular cutting-edge modern design on 4-levels of impressive living space and outdoor spaces including a large walk-out garden and roof garden to accommodate the lifestyle of a modern San Francisco family.
As a plugged-in eddy correctly surmised (and stole a bit of our thunder), Barbabra and Robert Callan have the listing with a
whisper price of $7.1 million. The first VIP tours are scheduled to start in a week with a month of public tours starting on June 20th ($25 tickets benefit the San Francisco Ballet).
And as it looked before:
∙ Coming Soon: 2201 Baker Street (7/9) [streetsofsanfrancisco.com]
∙ Prime Pacific Heights Single Family For Under Five Hundred A Square! [SocketSite]
∙ Modern by Design Showhouse 2009 [Metropolitan Home]
First Published: June 11, 2009 5:30 PM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Sorry, but it's still ugly as all hell - the tiny windows, the faux balconies, and don't get me started on the sidewalk encroachment.
I'm sure the interior will be "nice," but the fact that it's all 100% new is a little sad. I know the house was too far gone to salvage any of the period details, but still. I predict lots of brown and taupe walls...
Posted by: sleepiguy at June 11, 2009 5:59 PM
Ahh... So we have a follow up to the Marina Green Showcase home. These folks are good at drumming up the PR machine. The Callan family firing on all cylinders. I've still never figured out exactly what the final sale price was on the Marina Green Home (name link). There seemed to be some odd tax records on that place as well. Anyone?
Back to this place, I'm OK with the brown and taupe walls, although the MGS home had a lot of nice color throughout. $8M? That's a tough block / corner to command those prices, but I'll reserve my judgment until I see it in person. At least they don't have to photoshop the streets like their nieghbor ;)
[Editor's Note: Sorry, that should have been "around $7M" (and it's actually $7.1M).]
Posted by: eddy at June 11, 2009 6:10 PM
More thunder stealing: www.2201baker.com
But just a placeholder for now....
I'm fairly certain the images that pop up here in the intro are of the new place even though the website goes through to the 1771 NP site. The picture of the kitchen is from the NP house but all the other images are not, IIRC.
[Editor's Note: While you're right about the placeholder URL, you're not about the images (at least not yet).]
Posted by: eddy at June 11, 2009 6:18 PM
Agree with Sleepiguy, this house always struck me as ugly, and along with the predicted brown and taupe, I expect lots of animal skulls and shells. (Though there are some great designers involved who don't usually fall into "that" trap including Jiun Ho, Julie Dowling, and Orlando Diaz Azcuy)
Posted by: Morgan at June 11, 2009 7:11 PM
someone please help cure my bad attitude about agents by convincing me that the sale through Callan 1 to Callan 2 for $2.538 M was arms-length.
Posted by: resp at June 11, 2009 7:28 PM
A 7700 square foot home is about as eco friendly as a Hummer. There are enough materials there for 2 large homes.
Posted by: tipster at June 11, 2009 8:37 PM
No need to turn this into an "is it green" thread. Look, it's a 7700 sqft home and its big. So let's just get the whole green, not green thing behind us so we can discuss the merits of the house. New owners will probably have SUVs and other non-green stuff. Get over it. The whole green / sustainable stuff is a joke anyway.
$7.1 is still pretty high for no view and a bad block. But it's probably closer to reality. There will be a lot of margin in this house, as there was with the MGS home. Looking forward to getting inside to take a look. I actually liked the MGS home quite a bit. This was a good buy and a good development opportunity. As for the arms-length nature of this transaction, this was fair game in a hot market so there is no reason to cast those stones.
I wouldn't be surprised if RBR purchased the sub 500psf foot home on Washington as their next project? Hmmm, just speculating.
Posted by: eddy at June 11, 2009 8:56 PM
Normally I don't comment on the whole "green" thing, but it this case it's ridiculously disingenuous. The two years of constant construction negated every "environmentally friendly" feature added to this place. Besides, in 10 years the "cutting-edge modern design" will be completely dated and the next owner will rip out the kitchens and baths and start over... I don't care if people put "green" products in their houses, but don't act like this house is saving Earth -unless the buyer is planning on growing rainforest saplings and raising harp seals inside... Uh oh, I think I just gave the BOS an idea for a ballot measure.
Posted by: sleepiguy at June 11, 2009 8:57 PM
Eddy, the Callans didn't buy the house on Washington, but a relation to a (the?) preeminent SF politico did...
For me, this place has zero curb appeal. No matter how spectacular the interior may be, I can't get past the outside. And maybe it's just me, but there's something odd about the blocks of Pac Heights in between Divis and Presidio and north of Sacramento and south of Pacific. There are some cute Victorians there, but the area is kind of a hodgepodge of architectural styles that make it feel disjointed as opposed to quaint and quirky.
Posted by: sleepiguy at June 11, 2009 9:08 PM
I hope the owners plan to plant a rainforest in the 4-car garage.
Posted by: Smiling Millionaire at June 11, 2009 11:01 PM
"I don't care if people put "green" products in their houses, but don't act like this house is saving Earth -unless the buyer is planning on growing rainforest saplings and raising harp seals inside... Uh oh, I think I just gave the BOS an idea for a ballot measure."
sleepiguy, that is the funniest comment of the week !
And insightful as well. The irony is many of those who legislate the definition of "green" or those most active in purchasing green products like this do not seem to truly embrace the meaning of the term.
The greenest use of this building would be to leave it as a boarding house. Despite the dreary connotations of a SRO, it could house a larger number of people who would benefit from the natural efficiencies of living in a city.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at June 11, 2009 11:20 PM
This place has a date with a "5" handle.
Posted by: Somaloin Sam at June 11, 2009 11:57 PM
"Despite the dreary connotations of a SRO, it could house a larger number of people who would benefit from the natural efficiencies of living in a city."
The other major loss is that now I won't be able to live at 2201B Baker Street.
Posted by: theo at June 12, 2009 1:35 AM
The other major loss is that now I won't be able to live at 2201B Baker Street.
Posted by: Delancey at June 12, 2009 1:58 AM
Good Lord, there's a lot of money being made in SF real estate, which is a reason we're all reading this popular web site. The 1771 North Point Marina house must have sold in the 5m range since its taxes are 56k per year.
These folks bought this Baker house for 2.5m and aim to sell for 7m. If they do it, just on this job alone they'll have made a fortune that can sustain a family for generations.
Sure, the renovations are extensive, but these are business people. They understand how not to get reamed the 6% realtor fees on each transaction, and they're not paying anything close to what the bored rich pay for their renovations.
Posted by: Unwarrantedinlaw at June 12, 2009 3:26 AM
It's true calling was as a boarding house.
The lipstick on this pig isn't working. IMHO.
Posted by: jon at June 12, 2009 4:21 AM
This is one of the ugliest homes (on the outside) even after the reno. it does not look like a $7M home, even in SF.
The irony is many of those who legislate the definition of "green" or those most active in purchasing green products like this do not seem to truly embrace the meaning of the term.
Even the green hotshots get it wrong sometimes. I watched a lecture by one of the pre-eminent green people in the world (sorry, I forget his name which is a pity because he was AMAZING) from India. He builds these uber-green structures.
In his latest structure he was FORCED to put in an air conditioner in order to get the highest LEED certification. (because part of the scoring for LEED includes having a very high efficiency air conditioner. if he didn't have an AC he would get 0 points!).
silly, huh? without LEED he wouldn't have put in AC. Oh, and BTW, this structure was in INDIA, so hot hot hot. He has many other wonderful buildings that don't meet LEED certification because they don't have heat or AC. (again in India)
that said I agree with others. When debating 7000sq ft homes, one must take it into context that the buyer will ONLY be looking in that size range. Thus, the goal is to make it as green as possible.
It's like safe sex. Safe sex is really "safer" sex. this building isn't green. It's "greener". not sure if that deserves praise or scorn.
the fact that all the advertising around the city talks about GREEN GREEN GREEN! at least means that people are starting to think about it.
Posted by: ex SF-er at June 12, 2009 4:26 AM
Green is the new Black, which is the new way to make $green$
Posted by: eddy at June 12, 2009 8:32 AM
This house is very dark, ugly, on a downslope (facing the wrong way - for this amount north/west would be nice), no view, no yard. If being green is worth an additional $4.6 million someone is smoking green.
Posted by: PDT at June 12, 2009 9:38 AM
If you want to see what it looked like inside before the transformation, check this out. For the "real p*rn", these mags were not only left inside during all of the showings, but out openly on display. @PDT, if you think the new is "very dark", you should have seen it before.
Posted by: alex at June 12, 2009 9:54 AM
Ex - SFer
This is one of the downfalls of the LEED points system. For energy conservation points you have to compare to a model with the same systems. So, if you model without A/C you get no points for not installing A/C because you have not improved on the model. LEED continues to evolve and hopefully this and some of the other faults,such as not deducting points for components that are not sustainable - like single family homes with 2000 sf per occupant. Hopefully, both the lipstick and perfume they slathered this pig with were low VOC!
Posted by: OneEyedMan at June 12, 2009 12:07 PM
We looked at this place when it was gutted. I remember it looked like a developer who had run out of money.
I think it could make a nice B&B hotel, but I didn't get the feel that it was made for long-term living.
Posted by: HappyRenter at June 12, 2009 2:30 PM
It's not exactly on the best block in Pac Heights. To command $7M, you'll need something going for it. Be it view, amazing garden, or a great location (if this house is on Pacific and Lyon, it can easily go for $7M). It's a big house alright, but I cannot imagine $7M for this house at this location.
Posted by: jaja at June 15, 2009 1:31 AM
The Metropolitan showcase was last night... and word is the house is pretty nice. Barbara has a few pictures online finally. I didn't realize it's something of a decorator showcase project!
I've not seen it yet, but the photos look nice. Again, though, it's ultra, ultra trendy. It's not an interior made for long term use, nor does it fit well with the boxy exterior.
Posted by: sleepiguy at June 18, 2009 1:25 PM
$6,525,000 is the new price.
Posted by: Conifer at August 10, 2009 2:13 PM
Posted by: Conifer at September 4, 2009 11:34 AM
I lived there for a couple of months in 1977. It was a great way to ease into a move to SF. Lots of interesting people there. Miss the awning out front.
Posted by: david kohn at July 20, 2010 5:38 PM
I remember Baker Acres as a residence apartment series of buildings that housed young, trend-setting professionals as they began their lives in the city by the bay...
I remember it most fondly as the place we where I met and fell in love with the only man of my life with whom I've been reunited, joyously...
So, I thank you all from the bottom of both our hearts for having so enriched our lives...
Posted by: leslie at October 20, 2010 11:29 AM
I spent 3 monts in this house in summer 1988. Wonderful Time, first visit to The us. Have been searching Gary C. And Amy P. But without success. Would be very happy to reconnect to anyone i met there. I AM easily reached through linkedin or fb.
Posted by: Yves.morel at September 22, 2011 4:20 PM
1960 nineteen years old . Three month in summer from atlanta wow will never forget.
Posted by: Wes stroup at February 24, 2012 6:14 PM
In returning to my home town after many years, August'88, was directed to Baker Acres as a guest hotel. Of the people I knew, most were looking for jobs. I was looking for a house. Gary Cavello was manager, and we all had a pretty good time.
Posted by: Conte Guzman at February 24, 2013 5:26 PM
Summer of 1960; fun times at Bakers Acres--loved my room with private bath and French doors opening onto large balcony. Recall how we all met at Paoli's for Friday Happy Hour 'cause Fri night BA dinners were to be routinely skipped. 'Twas a fun group; someone always organizing a party, picnic, nights on the town, Sunday excursions to Sam's in Tiburon, St. Helena, Napa Valley (free wine tasting in the day). Fun spot down the hill where we went to watch the Nixon-Kennedy debates. We'd gather in the community room; share job-seeking finds--lots of good jobs then as I recall.
Posted by: Pat Kelly at March 8, 2013 8:42 AM