With the flick of a switch and a plugged-in tip, The Margarido House (5950 Margarido Drive, Oakland) has officially gone from coming soon to on the market online.

The marketing site features a full gallery, plans and description for the five bedroom, five bath and 4,665 square foot LEED Platinum certified house in the Oakland Hills. The only detail that’s conspicuously missing from the site, an official asking price.
UPDATE: Make that an official $5,500,000 (and the next time we spell Margarido correctly when searching Redfin).
∙ Listing: 5950 Margarido Drive (5/5), Oakland [themargaridohouse.com] [Redfin]
There’s Green (And Perhaps Even Platinum) Up In Them Thar Hills [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by FAA

    Dr. Redfin has prescribed $5,500,000.

  2. Posted by location

    Looks like $5.5m.
    http://www.redfin.com/CA/Oakland/5950-Margarido-Dr-94618/home/22006367
    Also of note in this neighborhood is that Billie Joe Armstrong’s 5/4 Mediterranean still appears to be available for $4.85m. It’s not LEED certified, but it is 7000sf on a double lot, and of course, has a professional quality recording studio.
    http://homesbyheidi.com/Bay_Area_Real_Estate_for_Private_Clients_listings/695D435F-A6E0-EAE5-FDBBD8244690D836.shtml

  3. Posted by Paul Hwang

    Beautiful, a seemless marriage of aesthetics and technology.

  4. Posted by lolcat_94123

    lol@LEED certified platinum.
    Nothing says “green” and “environmentally aware” like a ~4700 st ft house.

  5. Posted by tipster

    Wow.

  6. Posted by anonn

    lol@LEED certified platinum
    Really? LOL @ LEED certification?
    I say LOL @ entrenched snideness.

  7. Posted by location

    I agree with anonn. I’ve seen lots of people make that same “joke” and I don’t understand the “point”. Some people are going to live in houses this large. Attempting to make them as efficient as possible is not a bad thing. What is the largest house someone is allowed to live in without getting laughed at by you, lolcat_94123?

  8. Posted by dub dub

    According to bayareahomegirl.com, the green day guy’s house sold “snappily”

  9. Posted by OneEyedMan LEED AP

    Never thought I would post this:
    I agree with anonn too.
    This is a big-ass house in a neighborhood full of big-ass houses. This is a green big-ass house, unlike the rest of them. Sustainability is not the same thing as Communism.

  10. Posted by tjg

    is a S400 hybrid included?

  11. Posted by Green Guy

    There’s a huge difference between making a house as efficient as possible and holding it up as some bastion to everything “green.”
    Unless you’re OctoMom, NO ONE needs a house this big. So while you’re obviously free to build as large of monstrosity as you’d like, don’t try and bullshit me that it didn’t use a ton of resources to build and won’t continue to use a ton of resources to heat, power, clean, etc.
    Just because it’s greener than it could be doesn’t mean it’s green.

  12. Posted by dub dub

    What I love about this house is that it’s great with or without the green certification. Some of the new SF “mansions” on tiny lots seem to use “greenness” as an excuse, obnoxiously muscling into lots not really designed for them right on top of their more-modest (and actually more-green) neighbors. Those houses could be aesthetically smaller, modern, and greener all at the same time.
    But this house really belongs on this lot, aesthetically. Really spectacular. As I mentioned in the linked thread above, they could be burning tires in the driveway for all I care…

  13. Posted by anonn

    Sure, not building large houses at all is more green. But if it’s going to get built, and it will, why not build green?
    That argument is specious. It has more to do with the American mindset than it is with building or not building green.

  14. Posted by EBGuy

    The Alameda County Recorder’s office is a bit less revealing than Ess Eff’s (is an APN search too much to ask?), so the tea leaves are harder to read. The original construction loan appears to be with Summit Bank (10/2006), then there were deeds of trust with WaMu and CitiMortgage in 2/2007. Appears to be a reworking of credit terms (refi?) with Summit Bank three days ago (10/27/2009). I would like to think they have a lot of wiggle room on price. They’ve been living there for the two year tax free holding period, but that also means paying carrying costs. As I stated in the previous thread, there is some (not a lot of) pent up supply in the neighborhood. You’d be much better off buying on the courthouse steps if you have the patience. For those of you opining the size, there’s a kinder, gentler Platinum Green on the Back Page of this months San Francisco magazine — a retrofit of a 1500 sq.ft. Rockridge house. Sorry no link, but here’s one to the main article on green buildign.

  15. Posted by Tall Guy

    The bigger the house the better, I just offset my mess.

  16. Posted by Troy

    While I dig modernity I hope the money is in the land with this.
    House itself is almost decent but the interior shows a timidity of form and panache that the exterior promises.

  17. Posted by Troy

    oh man, checking the nabe there’s 6173 Ocean View Dr, lot is 2000′ smaller but the price is an order of magnitude less.
    $5.5M . . . it is to LOL.

  18. Posted by EBGuy

    Troy, I think I’ve found a more worthy opponent. Slightly different neighborhood (but don’t be fooled by the Berkeley mailing address as this is Oakland schools.) Here is 7080 Norfolk in all its $3.899 million glory:
    Mediterranean estate! Two lots combined for palacial house with gourmet kitchen with 48-inch range, 48-inch refrigerator, granite tops, Cherry cabinets, media room, level front and backyard with pool and San Francisco views to die for.

  19. Posted by Troy

    btw, anonn is free to call me a JBR cuz that’s what I am and have been for 30+ years. I grew up in the El Cerrito flats, with my bedroom window looking out eastwards, up to all the lights of the hills.
    Aside from that, it’s hard to find a house up there that I don’t like. Killer views, and more importantly outside of the burned-out area the architecture is wonderfully classic Californian casual.

  20. Posted by anonn

    I don’t have a problem with anything you said, Troy, and I confess I don’t know what a JBR is anyway. It’s just the “Oh yeah. Reeaaaaaal grean. Huge house. New construction. SURE it is” — that a lot of people say is bogus. Of course new construction is not green. But the thing is going to get built so why not build it green, and offset other energy use moving forward? It’s America. Monied people want big houses.

  21. Posted by Gavin

    I love how the windows open up to looking over the greenery in the back yard.

  22. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    What is the most anyone has ever paid for a house in Oakland? This prices seems too high.

  23. Posted by EBGuy

    What is the most anyone has ever paid for a house in Oakland?
    I’m curious myself. PS only lets you go back three years on the comparables search, but I did find this (and I’m curious if anyone can beat it). The home at 2 Westminster Drive was bought by a relocation service for $3,616,500 on 12/10/2008 and was subsequently resold for $2.3million. Now there’s a total compensation package to be proud of… Originally bought for $3.735million on 1/3/2007.
    In runner up position at $3.5 million is 50 Selborne Drive (4,500 sq. ft., built and sold in 2006).

  24. Posted by MK

    In 94618: 5809 Ivanhoe Rd @ $4,300,000 (06/14/2005)
    Include Piedmont: 68 Lincoln Ave @ $7,800,000 (05/23/2008)

  25. Posted by JM

    Notice how the owner of this house has an agent from SF and not Oakland. Probably no local agent would waste their time with a listing so over priced. Also, what’s with calling a house by a name anyway. ‘The Margarido House’. Sounds like the owner must be full of himself.

  26. Posted by Ryan

    @JM
    Maybe it’s not because a local agent would take it, but rather the listing agent has more experience with homes at this price point, and has the resources to market the listing to more qualified buyers in said price point?

  27. Posted by JM

    The SF listing agent may have the resources to market a $5.5 home, but my point was that any local agent would know that this house will NEVER sell for that much, so why bother wasting your time and money. As a resident of Upper Rockridge, I can attest that many of us are getting quite a chuckle at this seller’s fantasy price.

  28. Posted by EBGuy

    JM, Any neighborhood gossip on if (and when) the owner of 6001 Margarido (4,953 sq.ft.) will throw in the towel?

  29. Posted by JM

    Haven’t heard anything about 6001 Margarido.

  30. Posted by EBGuy

    I think that 7124 Norfolk might provide some good competition for this property. It was architect David Stark Wilson’s personal residence for twelve years. The property is on double lot, 3,949 sq.ft. (5/4), a Berkeley address, but Oakland schools and listed at $3.275million.

  31. Posted by Ryan

    After visiting this house last night I can confidently say that the photos do not do the place justice and the house is worth every penny of 5.5MM. I don’t say that often, but the features, layout, finishes, quality and VIEWS, VIEWS, VIEWS. I was really impressed. It is one of the most gorgeous homes I have ever been in. The outdoor space is so usable considering its on a hill and so well designed. The tech features blew me away. It is an amazing property.

  32. Posted by EBGuy

    On the Block is reporting that 7124 Norfolk sold for $2.95 million ($280k under asking).

  33. Posted by EBGuy

    Here’s another David Stark Wilson designed home (4524 sq.ft.) that should provide some competition, priced at $2.95 million. It’s located at 5 Woodside Way, which is about as ‘top of the world’ as you can get. Note: Adjacent lot available with seller carryback. .

Add a Comment

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