September 26, 2012

The Height Of The Heights And An Unnamed Real Estate Tycoon

100 Palo Alto

Custom built for former San Francisco Mayor Elmer E. Robinson in 1953, the Mid-Century home at 100 Palo Alto Avenue hit the market in March 2008 listed for $4,000,000 and closed escrow that April with a recorded contract price of $5,625,000.

100 Palo Alto Living

Returned to the market listed for $6,400,000 in 2010, after 341 days on the MLS and a couple of reductions, the Clarendon Heights home was withdrawn from the market in early 2011, last asking $4,950,000.

100 Palo Alto Kitchen

The four-bedroom home is now back on the market, listed anew for $4,995,000 in 2012 and touting "formerly owned by a local real estate tycoon" whom we have yet to identify.

∙ Listing: 100 Palo Alto Avenue (4/4.5) - $4,995,000 [100-paloalto.com]
Forget The Rock Star Lifestyle, Anybody Want To Live Like A Mayor? [SocketSite]
An Ex-Mayor’s Mid-Century Clarendon Heights View Manse Returns [SocketSite]
Less Great Expectations For Ex-Mayor's Mid-Century Modern Home [SocketSite]
As The Market Turns: Another Quick Cut For 100 Palo Alto [SocketSite]

First Published: September 26, 2012 12:00 AM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

Ron Basemerm, founder of Herth used to own it. If that is the reference, then I think the word tycoon is being used a touch liberally here.

Posted by: anon$random at September 26, 2012 9:26 AM

also, the tax records link to 10 Palo Alto, as opposed to 100, a somewhat common error that usually happens with an extra 0, as opposed to dropping one.

Posted by: anon$random at September 26, 2012 9:29 AM

I'm pretty sure Ron Bansemer - who died on Sunday - would not want to be referred to as a "real estate tycoon". Not only because he wasn't, but also because that whole image was nothing near his personality. Keep it classy, Jon, lol.

Posted by: Lurker at September 26, 2012 10:17 AM

This house has got to be the poster child for crazy overbidding. Someone paid 1.625 million over asking and now is trying to sell at a half million dollar loss. Wow!

Posted by: 94114 at September 26, 2012 10:36 AM

This house has probably the best view in SF. Can see from the GG Bridge to San Jose .... when it's not foggy. Although, it's vexxing that someone would pay so much over asking and not have upgraded the bathrooms in 4 years.

Posted by: DZinerSF at September 26, 2012 11:00 AM

The 2008 buyer deserves to lose a lot more than 675k + costs. It was pretty obvious by 3/08 to anyone with a brain that the market was just about ready to dive.

Posted by: El Bombero at September 26, 2012 11:40 AM

Great views, but WAY overpriced.

Posted by: Mark F at September 26, 2012 12:29 PM

the house looks like the kind of house i would buy...if i had $5MM.

Posted by: anon$random at September 26, 2012 12:41 PM

Amazing views. Though I'd argue that 37 St. Germain's views are even a bit better -- plus you get a *lot* more house. That place has been on/off forever (look back to 1996) -- currently see it on the agent's site at $7.5MM, but it needs a price chop to move.

Posted by: Joshua at September 26, 2012 3:55 PM

"A lot more" is one way to describe the house at 37 St. Germain...I can think of a couple others. At the end of the day, though, it's kind of neat that people who want that kind of view have two radically different styles of house to choose from.

Posted by: EH at September 26, 2012 4:10 PM

From records, it looks like the listing agent represented the seller when he bought this back in '08.

Talk about burying your client. Ouch.

Posted by: Anony at September 26, 2012 11:47 PM

^if intentional, call that turn of phrase, given the circumstances, poor taste wouldnt be sufficient. But I think it was merely bad writing + a judgmental bent + ignorance.

Posted by: Anon1 at September 27, 2012 8:27 AM

Cut $300k to $4,695k, now looking at a more than one million $$ loss for the owner/heirs.

I looked back at the posts from when it sold in 2008. It seems like at least one poster got it right ("deluded buyer"):

And now SOLD at $5,625,000. How much above the original asking price of $4,000,000 is that? Come on, folks - bring out your calculators.
Posted by: movingback at April 5, 2008 1:28 AM

why, i believe that's 40% over, mb! impossible in this market. must be a mistake or a deluded buyer who has not been reading socketsite.
Posted by: sanfrantim at April 5, 2008 8:41 AM

Posted by: El Bombero at November 7, 2012 1:09 PM

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:

« Supported By Neighbors But Opposed By Planning In Pacific Heights | HOME | A Blast From The Past And Back To The Future On Portola Drive »