October 5, 2010

Save A Collective $21,700,000 On Hyde And Upper Broadway

2323 Hyde

Unlisted but on the market and asking $18,700,000 since the beginning of the year, 2323 Hyde Street has just hit the MLS with a new price of $15,000,000 and "1 day" on the market.

Built in 1899, at one time divided into apartments but then reconstructed and renovated from 2001 to 2002, the Willis Polk designed home on Hyde was commissioned by the widow of Robert Louis Stevenson in 1893. In 2003 the home was purchased by the Sperlings when listed for $15,000,000 as well.

Also owned by the Sperlings, the asking price for 2845 Broadway has recently been reduced from $65,000,000 to $47,000,000. As we wrote about 2845 Broadway when the property was first listed in 2006:

Apparently the original two structures at 2845 Broadway sold for $32 million in November 2002, cost of construction to date is estimated to be $18 million, and the "Buzz among brokers" is that it will cost another $8-16 million to finish the property.

The asking price for the Sperlings' home at 3450 Washington remains $19,500,000.

∙ Listing: 2323 Hyde (6/6.5) - $15,000,000 [warwickproperties.com]
2845 Broadway Is Withdrawn In 2010 After 1400 DOM At $65,000,000 [SocketSite]
The $65,000,000 House [SocketSite]
3450 Washington: Decorator Showcase 2010 Opens Up [SocketSite]

First Published: October 5, 2010 2:45 PM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

Speaking of chopped up and put back together homes, I'm surprised to not see a feature on 2615-2623 Pacific Ave. This monster has to be seen to believe it. One of the units has one of those kooky lap pools right in the middle of the whole apartment! See name link.

Posted by: eddy at October 5, 2010 3:09 PM

The interior is just vomit-inducing. Do people actually live in a place like this?

Posted by: Fishchum at October 5, 2010 3:35 PM

I saw that property when it looked as if it might not be completed, Eddy. It's a monster all right, a white elephant with albatross wings. What was it going to be otherwise? It was going to be five gigantic flats, I think. (Or six?) Anyway, five gigantic TICs, on that block, in this market? Tough. I thought the thing to do there was to keep it and to rent them out.

Posted by: [anon.ed] at October 5, 2010 3:39 PM

You could also add 1823 Jackson to the list. It has numerous complaints about going from 6 units to 1 or 2, although DBI seems to disagree, even though it's functionally a SFR with a nanny unit. It's also wildly overpriced unless you think a garage is worth more than $2M. It has been previously mentioned in the comments on SocketSite regarding unit merger, and some people said it's still legally 6 units:
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2010/06/san_franciscos_dum_policy_in_principle_and_action_at_20.html

I wonder who is sending in these complaints. Presumably the neighbors would want it to be a SFR.

Posted by: sfrenegade at October 5, 2010 3:40 PM

is that a bed or a bowling alley?

Posted by: anon at October 5, 2010 3:58 PM

1823 Jackson just reduced its price. Still too high.

I'm not sure what to make of the Pacific place. I sort of love it, but you literally need map to find your way around that place. They should have made it 2 monster units. I think this place is going to surprise us! Hoping a new thread emerges to discuss it more fully.

Posted by: eddy at October 5, 2010 4:45 PM

A bit of history, I believe, on this house, here: http://www.rhn.org/historynorthslopeII.html

'Note the unusual two-story arched window facing Hyde Street. The stained glass depicts the ship Hispaniola, which features prominently in Treasure Island, Stevenson’s masterpiece.'...

Posted by: DanRH at October 5, 2010 5:02 PM

Has anyone stopped to ask why these crazy Sperling people own (at least) 3 huge houses in Pacific Heights? And why sell them all at once? I don't get it ...

Posted by: Jimymy (No Longer Bitter) at October 5, 2010 8:45 PM

The Sperlings founded and control The Apollo Group (parent company of University of Phoenix). The stock is down about 45% over the past six years. Also, they like to spend big money (see the yacht named "Reverie", and their properties in SF). Those are the things that lead to three big properties on the market at the same time.

Posted by: Informed Skeptic at October 5, 2010 9:39 PM

They still own about 15% of the company, or about $1B excluding whatever they have taken off the table. I'm pretty sure they are not selling these properties because they need the cash.

Posted by: eddy at October 5, 2010 9:58 PM

Once in a Generation Opportunity to Acquire an Extraordinary Gold Coast Masterpiece in the Making...

After more than 4 years, I guess they're not far off. It might take a full generation to sell this place.

Ahhh, people with too much money.

Posted by: lol at October 5, 2010 10:38 PM

What gets me about these big beautiful homes is their strange floorplans.

Yes, I understand that these homes were initially SFR that some twit destroyed by subdividing into multiple units.

What I don't understand is this; is it really that hard to acquire the original plans and restore these homes to their TRUE former glory?!?

Posted by: Jayson at October 6, 2010 12:23 AM

None of these homes will sell. The location for 2323 is actually downright awful. It's RIGHT at the corner of Lombard at Hyde (where the curvy part starts) so there are throngs of tourists right outside 24/7. The exterior shows a lot of wear and tear while the interior finishes and furnishings are just ghastly. It's like some child's concept of how rich people live. If I'm not mistaken, the Sperlings (who I believe live most of the time in Montecito) bought this home WITH the furnishings. Anyway, as I posted months ago when 2323 first came on the market, we should thank the Sperlings for the $1 million the contribute annually to SF in the form of property taxes.

Posted by: Denis at October 6, 2010 7:14 AM

"... we should thank the Sperlings for the $1 million the contribute annually to SF in the form of property taxes."

True especially because their empty residences do not consume a proportionate amount of city services.

Off topic, but I was chatting with a man who takes particular interest in Robert Louis Stevenson's history a few weeks ago and learned that as a child his mother dressed him as a girl. It seems odd but apparently that was the style at the time in upper class British families and quite normal. I couldn't find any reason for this though, all I can figure is that it is easier to change diapers on a child wearing a dress. But an upper class mother would have employed a nanny so I'm still baffled.

Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at October 6, 2010 9:16 AM

Post a comment


(required - will be published)


(required - will not be published, sold, or shared)


(optional - your "Posted by" name will link to this URL)

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


Continue Perusing SocketSite:

« Six Of Sixty-Five Bank-Owned In Bernal Including Two On Banks | HOME | New Designs For Dwellings (And Retail) At Market And Sanchez »