June 18, 2009
The 2201 Baker Street Site Scoop: Full Gallery And Floor Plans Live
It features a fairly full gallery of pictures and floor plans (and that $7,100,000 price tag).
And yes, the grand grand opening was last night. It’s built for entertaining either en masse on the main floor and garden, or more intimately above (in the third floor family room and terrace) or below (where the sweet media room and glass enclosed wine cellar lie).
∙ Listing: 2201 Baker Street (7/9) - $7,100,000 [2201bakerst.com]
∙ An Eco-Friendly "Baker Acres" Prepares Its Return (2201 Baker) [SocketSite]
First Published: June 18, 2009 1:45 PM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
I told you guys everything would be gray.
Posted by: sleepiguy at June 18, 2009 2:22 PM
Is the new trend in interior design mix-n-match hideous.
Seriously, the neon-pink/green bathroom would make me want to retch if I were a little hung-over.
However I do like the greenscaping of the sidewalk (I think that's new). Although the prison inspired "yard" is a little depressing.
The white linoleum sitting room reminds me of something from Kubrick's Clockwork Orange.
Posted by: HappyRenter at June 18, 2009 2:43 PM
I have been waiting for this house to be finished. I absolutely love the location and neighborhood (a friend owns a condo around the corner). I was very hopeful for a beautiful renovation. I think that I almost threw up in my hands after viewing some of the slideshow photos. The designers ruined an absolutely beautiful corner plot of land in a prime location in SF. I hope they can't sell it for even half of this, because that decision is atrocious
Posted by: Marinarenter at June 18, 2009 2:59 PM
I wonder if the wine cellar comes with or without Hannibal Lecter.
Posted by: walker at June 18, 2009 3:07 PM
may i suggest 10 milligrams of compazine (an anti-nausea medication) 30 minutes prior to viewing the website photos?
you will need it.
Posted by: hidious design at June 18, 2009 3:10 PM
I'm a little confused about that triad of rectangles on the LR wall across from the sofa. The lowest is clearly a fireplace. To the right seems to be a flatscreen TV. But what is above the fireplace ? Another TV ?
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at June 18, 2009 3:11 PM
Don't you know art when you see it?
Posted by: OneEyedMan at June 18, 2009 3:18 PM
Can anyone stop this music? Darn! It is so mind-numbing! How do you stop this freaking music???!!!
Ah They have put a stop button. My brain froze in pain for a moment. Good. Click. Ahhh. That's better.
Now I can see the images.
But something is wrong obviously.
There must be a button to switch from B&W to RGB?
What were they thinking?
Wait. It's in color already. They really fooled me for a while.
Posted by: San FronziScheme at June 18, 2009 3:26 PM
Faux Picasso bathroom art: $14.00
Comic bubble bathroom mirror: $29.99
Life-size cherry red missile: $79.99
Shiny bowling alley linoleum living room floors: $245
1960s neo-modern chairs and loveseat from Goodwill: (free)
Dizzying beehive wallpaper: $3.99
Incongruent geometric migraine-inducing area rugs: $59.95
Jumbo cheddar cheese wedge deck furniture: $167.45
Getting a real decorator with a sense of taste and aesthetics: PRICELESS!
Posted by: DataDude at June 18, 2009 3:27 PM
The white linoleum sitting room is the most uncomfortable looking room I've ever seen.
Posted by: lark at June 18, 2009 3:35 PM
I said this in the other thread, but the int. finishes are DESPERATELY trendy and way, way over the top. In 10 years (probably less), the owner will have to trash everything because it'll be laughably dated.
The comments here are priceless.. Hannibal Lector?! ROTFL
Hey - some of the designers are among THE best known and most expensive in the city.... See what $300 per hour gets you?
Will it sell though? It might... There's no accounting for taste. *
*although, if I ever sell my place, I'm going to go hide in a corner until you guys are done!
Posted by: sleepiguy at June 18, 2009 3:42 PM
The white linoleum floor/slash chairs, reminds me of something a college frat guy would do and think it was COOL, but FOR REAL in a multi-million dollar home?
My main beef with all the 'decorating' is that some rooms are ultramodern and others not so much, it's confusing :) what decade am I in?
Posted by: Poor in PacHeights at June 18, 2009 3:43 PM
wow. I mean wow.
They certainly swung for the fences.
I can't tell: are the chairs and coffe table melded into the floor in that concrete room? they look seamless with the floor! I don't like it, but it certainly is unique!
I've never seen a painting hung on a glass shower wall before! Actually, almost every room brings a surprise to my eyes! A lacqured brillo pad box as a bedside table! A fluorescent red jockey with a gold $ sign medallion! Neon green mixed with neon red and pink and yellow! wow!
This designer has done things I've never seen before in my life. Granted, I hate most of them, but I must give him/her credit for being original. I don't recall seeing any chopped pillows or Aquaturd fabric in the place!
The more I think about it, I actually LOVE this place. It is one of the most visually interesting places I've seen in some time. Sure, it doesn't have charging Rhinos, but it is so unique. I could never live here, but I'm glad that I got to see it. It's very Alice in Wonderland or something. Not sure if I'd stage my $7M home this way though.
[Editor’s Note: It’s not a "designer" but rather a whole host (and showcase home). On the website under "Property Info" select "contributors" for a room by room list.]
Posted by: ex SF-er at June 18, 2009 3:44 PM
so those 2 quarter circles on the right corners of the rectangle above the fireplace are not glare off of a shiny screen ? Dang ! That's an ugly painting.
Also I see that the SS editor has replaced the realistic exterior photo with the touched up one (with ugly web of wires removed). Normally I'd start whining about the photoshop job, but at least on the realtor's site both photos are presented so nothing is being hidden.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at June 18, 2009 3:45 PM
Oh, photochop time in full effect from the first pic. Where's the powerlines go? What's going on with the sky?
Cool place though. I like it, but not nearly over-the-top baroque enough for me at $7m.
[Editor’s Note: See Milkshake’s comment above.]
Posted by: lolcat_94123 at June 18, 2009 3:54 PM
Yeah, Martha Angus, Orlando Diaz Azcuy, Jay Jeffers, Steven Miller... BIG names people...
Posted by: sleepiguy at June 18, 2009 4:04 PM
Why would anyone want a place that looks like that on the outside (older) and like that on the inside (modern/dwell)?
Posted by: Ms. Piggy at June 18, 2009 4:14 PM
I miss the John Wheatman look!!! These are big name designers, but the trend they seem to want to follow is far away from understated contemporary comfort. I still have many clients who desire interiors that are calm, modern, and that reflect the pacific location of this city with both Western and Asian influences. I actually think some of the interior design going on down in L.A. is more mature at the moment that what designers in this city are doing.
Posted by: sigh at June 18, 2009 4:20 PM
a couple of things, that "white floor" is actually not the floor, it's just one big set piece if you will. you can clearly see that in the picture if you look at the edges of the piece/floor. my guess is that it's assembled in pieces. kinda risky but obviously not the floor.
other than the slightly odd art pieces in the courtyard and inside, i think it looks rather stellar. does it sell @ it's price? probably not because of the busy corner but i'm glad the house was renovated instead of torn down. fantastic looking wood finishes.
Posted by: geoff at June 18, 2009 4:22 PM
It looks like someone asked their teenage daughters what would look nice.
Posted by: kthnxybe at June 18, 2009 4:30 PM
I don't think that's a linoleum floor. It looks like one of those poured floors that form a very, very flat, hard, and shiny surface. I think the GAP store at Powell and Market has one.
Also, it appears that the chairs and coffee table are built into the floor surface, as sort of undulations in the horizontal plane, reminiscent rolling and cresting waves, calling into question the very meaning of "horizontal" and "plane".
Sorry, the weird music is making me channel architectural magazines from the 70s...
Posted by: BobN at June 18, 2009 4:35 PM
Lots of questions about that living room floor. The plugged-in answer: Lonseal eco vinyl (laid over the hardwood).
Posted by: SocketSite at June 18, 2009 4:40 PM
It looks like Roche Bobois had a clearance sale, if you ask me.
Posted by: BobN at June 18, 2009 4:49 PM
I feel obligated to jump in and point out that once again we have a high profile over the top mega-mansion being touted as green. Nothing green about putting vinyl over an existing hardwood floor. This is green in the same way that burning ethanol in your Hummer is green. At least they didn't say the design was sustainable.
Posted by: OneEyedMan at June 18, 2009 5:11 PM
Does $7.1 get you all the crap inside this home? And is there a discount if it is purchased empty? Seriously. The interior design here is quite horrible.
I'm really surprised that they didn't take the opportunity to add some steel beams and create a more open floorplan, but maybe that isn't green or something. The seems like a really wasted opportunity to create a piece of modern design that result in a modern piece of.... something else.
All that aside, I think this actually stands a chance to sell. I'm just not sure who would buy this place? The modern buyer would have bought the place on Pacific. They guy who needs 6bd rooms would rather live in Presidio Heights / Laural Village.
Posted by: eddy at June 18, 2009 5:12 PM
"If you came into the powder room to look at yourself in the mirror while I was sitting on the toilet, then yes, I am thinking about you."
Posted by: sparky-b at June 18, 2009 5:15 PM
Have to agree that I also would have never thought we would come to the day when people would cover existing wood flooring with vinyl and call it "green" or "eco". The idea that the megamillion house refurbishment industry would start labeling their projects "green" trivializes what was originally a valuable growing enviromental awareness.
Posted by: sigh at June 18, 2009 5:42 PM
I guess my comments are more like ex SF-er's comments than any others. I love the juxtaposition of the old and new. While I'm not too keen personally on everything the various designers have done, I think (ex SF-er says it better than I can).... "[i]t is one of the most visually interesting places I've seen in some time."
I'd get rid of the rocket, the brillo box, the thug art portraits, etc. There is a lot I would keep, including the Family Room (it's really fun and I LOVE those chandeliers and the shadows they cast on the ceiling). I even like the green bathroom- for guests not myself. It shows some thought went into decorating it. A lot of spaces just seem to be expensive versions of Pottery Barn.
I was wondering what the party was in the area last night... with the caterers and valet parking.... The area around Broadway and Broderick was pretty busy with helpers. At least that's all I saw.... But I didn't walk around the neighborhood so it probably was this grand opening, which spread out a few blocks, as some events can. Or there may have been something else which I missed.
Posted by: StockBoySF at June 18, 2009 7:13 PM
Anyone who can afford $7m and likes modern is not going to want this exterior. Most of those who want this exterior, which is verySF, might want the hardwood floors.
Really this adds little to the neighborhood, but the interior was quite a mess when last sold.
Posted by: Conifer at June 18, 2009 7:43 PM
For the first time in my life I just stopped halfway through the listing photos. Couldn't do it. Shudder. What were they thinking?
Posted by: Salarywoman at June 18, 2009 8:06 PM
LOL - plain nasty. If anyone would think about paying $7.1 for this place they must be nuts. Plato may be influential, but in another time. No yard, horrible view, bad light, convenient utility wires, bad taste, and the street is marginal. It's big but so was the Stanley Hotel in The Shining. I think it looks like poop...no offense.
Posted by: [pdt] at June 18, 2009 8:45 PM
Posted by: MichelleL at June 18, 2009 8:49 PM
Maybe a dose of acid before touring this place would help one make better sense of some of the more quirky design elements.
Posted by: nnona at June 18, 2009 9:22 PM
obviously put together for the jbg google buyer........
Posted by: Jimmy at June 18, 2009 10:19 PM
Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice
Posted by: luigimail at June 18, 2009 10:19 PM
I think I see a strategy here. If the house doesn't get the price after maybe 200 DOM, there's a high chance that the owners can lease it to one of those reality shows like Real World or Big Brother where they coop a bunch of incompatible strangers and let them sort out important issues like which way should a toilet paper roll should hang.
This wild and unusual interior would make great eye candy backdrop during those mundane arguments.
I wonder whether the developer pre-wired for the video cameras. At least there's space for the hot tub out back.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at June 18, 2009 11:22 PM
i think you guys are missing the point. The point of designer showcase house is for interior designers to showcase their fantasy design. A lot of the stuff in here are not livable. They are not meant to be livable. They are there to exhibit that these designers can think outside the box. I thought the juxtaposition of the traditional and modern cabinetry in the kitchen that opens up to the great room is well done. I didn't think the combination would work and bravo to the designer who pulled that off. The look of the vinyl flooring is actually quite architectural. It looks like the intention of the designer is to have the furniture protrude from the floor and form a collection of seating and a coffee table. It's a concept. Not a real living space. The Brillo box is an homage to Andy Warhol. Overall I think the designers did a great job. I happen to love gray. Will I buy this place for $7M? No. Not only I don't have the money, I think the location is not ideal for this price tag. Plus I would much rather remodel my place myself than have someone to do it. And no, I don't know any of the designers and am not affiliated with the seller in anyway.
Posted by: jaja at June 19, 2009 12:05 AM
While there are some things that I rather like about the place, It's comforting that I wasn't alone in wondering what brought the designers to their unusual taste for PCP mixed with carpet shavings and Ketamine.
I'm not seeing the Bathroom Of Despair being commented on, but is that really a spherical 8-track tape player I spy in the "library" beneath the more-effective-than-ipecac pink window frame? When, exactly, did "modern" come to mean "that which we happily jettisoned forty years ago"?
I assume the the buyer would take delivery bare. The basics are quite nice, even if the yard is a bit dreary. Whoever invented that Lonseal stuff should be brought up on charges, as should anybody intimating that there is anything "green" about needing over 7k sq.ft. to shack up in. Not that having plenty of space and then some isn't an admirable goal, but let's not kid ourselves about it being a "small footprint".
Posted by: justme at June 19, 2009 12:09 AM
Sure looks like 8' ceilings. That's green, I guess.
I like the sky and lights in the windows photo
For 7.1 large.....no further comments.
Posted by: jon at June 19, 2009 3:42 AM
regardless of one's taste, it appears that the break-even on this remodel (per the last thread) is much closer to $3.5M that to &7.1M and the Callan clan stands to make a handsome profit.
as in nearly all r.e. investments, the money was made on the buy, not the sale. i have been involved in enough transactions to feel comfortable that the "buy" here was not at arms length. yes the property was publically listed at the time but listing agents have quite enough control over information flow to favor a buyer of their choice.
i still tend to side with the SF r.e. bears - many more apples to come that will show huge losses for those that bought in the last few years - but those that purchased investment properties at distressed prices with a smart plan (like this property) can make a fortune in any market.
Posted by: resp at June 19, 2009 5:18 AM
@jaja "The point of designer showcase house is for interior designers to showcase their fantasy design."
Not everyone has a fantasy of having their eyes assaulted by horrible design. If this is their "fantasy," I'd hate to see what their nightmares are like.
Posted by: fogfan at June 19, 2009 6:26 AM
resp is correct that the profit was made in the buy. I think they cost themselves some margin with the approach. this place will attract attention due to the strategy, but will it attract a buyer. we'll see. also, don't hold your hopes for a sale price. this will 100% guaranteed be a confidential sale as was north pointe.
Posted by: eddy at June 19, 2009 8:04 AM
San Franciscans are not known for cutting edge taste. I guess that's reflected here in this thread.
Maybe they should have put a bunch of bay windows on the outside.
Posted by: Toady at June 19, 2009 10:00 AM
i'm sorry, how is this green?
Posted by: cerky at June 19, 2009 10:19 AM
I thought these comments were overboard until I actually saw the link. Goodness, what's with the barn right next to the living room, if that what it is.
Granted this could be a "fantasy" but I'm not sure it is beneficial to "stage" a fantasy when trying to sell a house. A buyer wants to look at and fall in love with the house in most cases, not feel dazed and confused and walk out of there with "what the hell was that".
Posted by: viewlover at June 19, 2009 10:27 AM
After looking at the before and after pics, and the before and after prices I can only say if anyone buys this at the $7+m price they have to be out of their gourds. *scratches head in dismay*
Posted by: Oceangoer at June 19, 2009 10:38 AM
The arguments about decoration are endless. Taste is contextual and cultural, although there are serious people who have worked on ideas and theories of beauty. There may be someone who likes this house enough as is to buy it, or there may be someone who wants to have it and change it to their own taste.
We were on a trip to look at architecture in Ireland, with several of the most important scholars in the field of 19th century architectural history. Another participant was an interior designer. While the scholars would disagree with each other wittily, the designer was always defending his own personal taste, and found himself largely alone in this. Most of the people on the trip were antiquarians, as one would expect.
I think that most designers are destined to be forgotten and ignored, because enduring taste is a rare commodity. As with recent political history (Truman, Eisenhower, Bush the father), it is almost impossible to assess wisdom, permanence and importance contemporaneously.
One can be relatively confident, however, that no one will be restoring this house in 2100 AD to look like it does today. But in that year, $7m will surely seem a bargain, if you can hold on that long.
Posted by: Conifer at June 19, 2009 11:30 AM
$7.1 will get you 200 Locust which just hit the MLS and looks fabulous. It really makes this place seem like paper machete. It's got a corner lot, views, and a classic feel. Decorating still has some issues however :-)
Posted by: eddy at June 19, 2009 3:01 PM
Personally I prefer my spaces to be mixed up a little. I have no problem with one style in one area of the house and another style in another area. As long as it is all tied together with some common theme. I think the "barn" style is outstanding for that one room (with that pile of firewood I view it more as a "done-up" storage room). I can just smell the fresh-cut wood. If I want to get away from the modern look, then I have a retreat. Especially if I want to throw something when certain ex-politicians speak.
Posted by: StockBoySF at June 19, 2009 6:59 PM
Dude. I have never seen a thread on socketsite where a home has been verbally abused this much. I have no strong opinion about the interior of this house after seeing a few of the San Francisco Designer Showcase homes in recent years. I think this home, via website pictures, is easier on one's eyes than the Designer Showcase homes, to be quite frank.
If anything, the window treatments (or lighting, not sure) make the the pictures of this home look boarded up on my computer. But, heck, I am using a laptop....
Posted by: pumpkin patch at June 20, 2009 8:20 AM
I think this thread has become a little overly negative (to which I definitely contributed). However, I did go see the house and it's not nearly as garish as it looks in the photos, so I'd kind of like to post a retraction. The Steven Miller kitchen and Jay Jeffers' loft space are actually quite nice. There are a couple of major fails (decapitated animals!), but for the most part the house works. There are similar elements and materials used throughout giving it a more unified feeling than most decorator showcase homes. However, most of the materials are fairly industrial (lots of steel and rivets, metallic venetian plaster, and about a ton or two of Ceasarstone), so if you're looking for warm and cozy, move along. My other complaint is the sizing of the spaces. For a place that's supposedly spread out over almost 8k square feet, why the mini rooms?
Posted by: sleepiguy at June 20, 2009 1:15 PM
I don't think the thread has gone too far south. They designed this place for attention, and they are certainly getting it. The home was also well trafficked yesterday due in some part I'm sure to the attention drawn here I'd suspect. And the proceeds are going to a good cause so I'm happy to give my support. I'll agree that the home works better in person, but I still maintain that they should have opened up the place a bit more. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on seismic retrofit but I'd have some serious questions if I were interested.
And I'm still not sure who is the target buyer for this place. I could understand what the Menaged developers were trying to do with 3577 Pacifc and the buyer they were attracting, which BTW is in contract @$5.65 (down from a list of $7.7). I think that type of reduction may be necessary to sell 2201.
Posted by: eddy at June 21, 2009 9:40 AM
I guess everyone has seen the price has been chopped to 6,525,000.
Posted by: sleepiguy at August 6, 2009 12:29 PM
Not surprised here at all. Pricing strategy is becoming extremely critical in this market. This felt overpriced from the start and it's a shame all of that traffic and buzz was lost on a "ask" with far too high expectations. My instinct tells me that there was $2-3M in margin in the opening asking price.
I'd say this has a shot of selling at 775psf or right around $6M. This would be a premium over 2525 Webster that sold at ~735psf. Webster was in a better location but had slightly inferior finishing.
Posted by: eddy at August 6, 2009 2:37 PM
$6,525,000, the new price. It will sell after two more reductions of the same amount.
Posted by: Conifer at August 10, 2009 2:16 PM
Sorry Conifer. In Escrow. I'm predicting a confidential sale for now.
Posted by: eddy at August 17, 2009 3:54 AM
eddy - how do you know 2201 Baker is not in escrow for $5.5 million? or some number close to it - you suggest that because it is "in escrow", Conifer was wrong in his post about $6.5 million being roughly a million too high?? why isn't it possible it is in escrow for $5.5 million?? are you some sort of insider here?
Posted by: rocky b at August 20, 2009 4:20 PM
rocky b - First, I'm not convinced Conifer is a "he". Second, your reading skills require a closer attention to detail. Third, I have no clue what it is in contract for, nor did I make any such suggestion in that comment. Conifer said that it would sell after 2 more reductions of ~500k. It is "In Escrow" and Conifer's predicted reductions never took place. So, technically, Conifer's prediction will not be accurate assuming it closes escrow. That's all. Fourth, I'm predicting that there will be a confidential sale price so we may never fully know what the final sale price is on this listing. Fifth, I'm on record just a few posts above stating that I DO think this could sell around $6M based on recent comps. So my position on this situation is pretty well defined.
Based on your comment related to the 2849 Pacific thread it seems clear you have some issue with these folks. Perhaps you could clarify your issues?
Posted by: eddy at August 20, 2009 8:48 PM
you seem a little irritated, eddy - presumably that is not a red flag - I did not mean to offend you
Posted by: rocky b at August 21, 2009 7:38 AM
Sorry. Just seemed like you were making an accusation of some sort and felt compelled to make my position crystal clear.
Posted by: eddy at August 21, 2009 7:48 AM
no problem, eddy, and not to irritate you further, but it just seemed like you were rubbing Conifer's nose into "something" when in reality, he or "she" may have been "correct" about the sale price being a million less than $6.5. I mean, if the "confidential price" is $5.5 +/-, then Conifer was very astute in his or "her" comment. Numbers never lie and at the end of the day, surface to the top, but sometimes marketing gimmicks like "confidential sales" or what have you, attempt to camouflage the truth. In addition, I am stumped on where you come up w/comps that support 6.5 mil for this place, but you are probably a lot smarter than me.
Posted by: rocky b at August 21, 2009 10:18 AM
Rocky b...dude, what is your problem?? I just read this little jab back/forth..I don't think eddy was at all doing what you are accusing.
If anything, i get from Conifer that he/she was aggressively saying that it'll take two more reductions, and it didn't...thus, eddy's comment was spot-on.
No idea what the final price was but you can't argue that there were no further public reductions, much less two of them.
Posted by: DanRH at September 15, 2009 7:53 AM
"If anything, i get from Conifer that he/she was aggressively saying that it'll take two more reductions, and it didn't...thus, eddy's comment was spot-on."
DanRH, maybe eddy was "spot-on", but does eddy or u know the sales price here? If not, what if the sales price was around 5.5? If so, then Conifer's assessment of value was really ultimately accurate.
either way, I could care less
Posted by: rocky b at September 15, 2009 5:18 PM
With respect to the sale price which was reported as a "confidential" sale at its last list price of $6,525,000 on the MLS but ended up recording with a sale price of $5,800,000: The Dude Buys 2201 Baker ("Confidentially").
Posted by: SocketSite at December 21, 2009 5:56 PM
This is a good value and I'm sure the sellers did well on the job. Hope the new buyers are enjoying the home. Congrats! Nice to have closure on this topic. Thanks for the update.
Posted by: eddy at December 21, 2009 7:10 PM
so, eddy, after reading your posts on this topic, maybe you should recognize Conifer as being very astute in his opinion on valuation of this asset because he was virtually spot on
Posted by: rocky b at December 22, 2009 6:05 AM
Conifer, you have one heck of a cheerleader. I'm not sure why rocky b feels like he is the defender of your honor here, especially since he said he "didn't care", But for the record, 2201 was reduced 575k and Confier implied that it would take a reduction of 1,150,000 to sell the listing, or $5.375. I'm on record stating that this would sell right around $6M. So, at 200k difference from my stated prediction, I'm technically more accurate. Conifer was off by 425k. So not only are you bad at reading comprehension having totally misinterpreted my initial "Sorry Conifer" note, you're all now on record as being bad at simple math. Good for you. I will not be holding my breath awaiting your recognition for being "spot on". Thanks for playing.
Posted by: eddy at December 22, 2009 9:32 AM
eddy, you're batting nearly 1000 with the rest of us.
Posted by: tipster at December 22, 2009 10:05 AM
Eddy, I disagree. Your words displayed a certain arrogance in your Aug 17 post addressed to Conifer, and my only comment is that Conifer was relatively accurate in his valuation opinion on the subject property contrary to your Aug 17 post.
Posted by: rocky b at December 22, 2009 10:18 AM