2750%20Vallejo%20Before.jpg
Purchased for $4,000,000 in 2006, plans to demolish the Charles Peter Weeks designed Pacific Heights home at 2750 Vallejo Street and build anew were challenged and rejected.
And while its renovation was opposed by preservationists as “insultingly posed as the ‘recreation’ of a never existing ‘original design’ that in fact would destroy the real existing original design,” the project was approved and the transformation is now complete.
2750%20Vallejo.jpg
The LEED Platinum redesigned home features showstopping views and finishes throughout.
2750%20Vallejo%20Dining.jpg
A skylit pentroom now sits atop with a garden level, outdoor lap pool, and spa below.
2750%20Vallejo%20Rear.jpg
And there’s even a hidden parking spot in the garage for the weekend Porsche:


2750%20Vallejo%20Parking.jpg
While not yet listed as official inventory on the MLS, plugged-in people know the four bedroom home with seven and one-half baths is on the market for $23,000,000.
∙ Listing: 2750 Vallejo (4/7.5) – $23,000,000 [Sotheby’s]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Aw man now I’m going to have nightmares waking up sitting in darkness entombed in a Porsche.

  2. Posted by R

    YES! More stuccofocation. Exactly what this city needs.

  3. Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

    That car lift looks too narrow for a Lambo. Too bad, otherwise I’d be interested.

  4. Posted by Invented

    Uber tacky. Lit up no less. A Hollywood confection screaming “Everyone — look at me, NOW”! And besides brown shingles are SO San Francisco.
    What’s the point?

  5. Posted by lol

    The whole house was dipped in vanilla frozen yogurt. Yummy.

  6. Posted by SusieQ

    I went through that house when it was first for sale a few years ago. Totally chopped up useless space, zero functionality.
    Like what they did with the place. Fully useful open space, the only thing that is a bit odd are the black shingles but they will probably grow on me. “Uber tacky?” Comments like that are Uber predictable. Can you tell us something useful? Or are you just bitter? No wait, you can’t afford it…oh, now I understand….

  7. Posted by Mark

    I know where this place is (across the street from a friend of mine) and yes, I’d have to say it’s just totally ostentatious. Then again, just because you have money doesn’t mean you have style or taste. I’ll conclude that taste is all personal, but when you open up your home like this to viewers expect to hear the good and the bad.

  8. Posted by Denis

    The shingles are serving up Shinto shrine realness…
    I’ve been really anticipating this one. Susie is right. I saw this house when it lingered on the market for ages and went through multiple price reductions. It was basically a dump and, while not unlivable, entirely undesirable. I think the developer here has done a lot of uber high-end, trendy projects and they always sell at huge prices, so she’s clearly doing something right and knows her market. I believe they’ve almost all been features here on Socketsite.
    Personally, I absolutely loathe shingles. They weather poorly and never seem to hold color well if painted. Personally I think this looks very chic. It may scream LA, but I think this is modern and stucco done well unlike, say, that freakish mess over on the 2400 block of Broadway. The people who complained about this project will likely not complain when this sells for record price for outer Vallejo. Like it or not, new money wants these homes, so prepare to see many more places like it in the future.

  9. Posted by Davie

    @Denis, while the appearance of shingles may change over time (if not maintained / sealed regularly) they are one of the best materials from a waterproofing perspective. Shingles from 100+ old home are routinely removed to find well-preserved structure underneath. Stucco is notorious for water penetration.

  10. Posted by Denis

    It’s just an aesthetic issue for me rather than one about quality or protective capabilities. It’s certainly true that stucco has its problems. I’ve seen lots of new stucco homes have leaks and discoloration from water damage.
    Still, I think this was the best possible outcome for this particular property. It will be interesting to see if the house next door keeps its shingles. All that said, my favorite shingled home in D7 though is still 2430 Vallejo, which is going to to be renovated soon.
    Speaking of shingles, has anyone noticed the purple and lavender trim on 2400 Vallejo? 2750′s neighbors should be thrilled they don’t have to look at that every day.

  11. Posted by lark

    I am a software engineer not a real estate professional but I’ve had an interest in the real estate market for a long time and I enjoy looking at what is available. But this house is an example of why (speaking as a non-professional) much of the coverage currently makes me want to throw up.
    It’s not that I boil up with envy when I see that slice of the market aimed at the truly rich. I am tired of it. Bored. There is too much of this market segment. I don’t relate to the people or their tastes. Why must they dominate so much of the coverage?
    I would like stories about people who bought and fixed up more modest properties and made something lovely.

  12. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    While I have no attachment to the shingled original home, and I applaud the developer for getting the LEED certification, what I find utterly predictable is when an over value-engineered, tasteless Hollywood-wanna-be house like this one reaches the market, the shills appear here to attempt to preempt valid and well-deserved criticism with tired pathetic one-liners such as “you’re just bitter, you can’t afford it” and “Like it or not, new money wants these homes, so prepare to see many more places like it in the future”.
    Pretty much anything newly built will sell in the high-demand parts of S.F., so the fact that something poorly designed to maximize developer revenue doesn’t say much about what “new money” wants.
    One of the shills will read the comment you’re reading now and post something below like “Brahma, you’re a renter, so offer your opinion when you have some money to put into the market instead of sitting on the sidelines” or something similar. Just you watch.

  13. Posted by jenofla

    A ton of stairs over four stories, just a lap pool, and a space-saving spot for another car in the garage? That is SO not LA. In LA, everything would be sprawling over one story. Some bright colors and tile roofs might also be in order. I understand the sentiment in the face of a house that is relatively ostentatious for SF, but, uh, for LA, this is a refined, quiet little house.

  14. Posted by Eddy

    If this sells at this price I will be in total and absolute shock and disbelief. But I guess what were they to price this at given the market for high end homes is off the chart. May as well shoot for the moon. Folks may look back on some of these 2007-2012 d7 sales and wonder at the “low prices” these homes sold. Just goes to show that. the wealth ecosystem is alive and thriving here. Fascinating.

  15. Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

    And speaking of predictable, Brahma the Tedious of course points out that anyone who could possibly find this house attractive must necessarily have poor taste and/or ulterior motives like all people of means. Yawn!

  16. Posted by theduckie

    Love the lap pool. I don’t hate it, but the interiors-bathroom, kitchen, while high end, are pretty generic looking. And I hate that style of kitchen anyway.
    Doesn’t wow me for the money-would be expecting something like 2701 broadway for that amount.

  17. Posted by Jake

    I like it! It looks like the developer put a lot of money in and then priced it very aggressively. I hope they get it.
    I’m not super impressed with the obstructed view – what’s up with the big tree? Being on a sloping hill not ideal and it is literally in the shadows of the big gold coast broadway mansions. Ok I’m nit picking but hey it is priced at 23M so fair game.
    As someone who owns real estate I think this is all good.

  18. Posted by Willow

    I really like this place. I find the exterior understated and classy. Shingles to me are very unattractive. What’s up with the 7.5 bathrooms? Seems excessive.

  19. Posted by Victor

    @Denis It looks like the house next door is getting work done too(from the backyard view). Perhaps their shingled facade will be a thing of the past too.

  20. Posted by DCR

    I am surprised how little info the marketing material gives about the house. Where’s the parking? Seven bathrooms and only a few shown? No floor plans? Just odd to spend this kind of money to develop it and not have a more comprehensive overview.

  21. Posted by Willow

    “But this house is an example of why (speaking as a non-professional) much of the coverage currently makes me want to throw up.”
    Lark: I agree. Can we have more homes featured that are attainable for us mere mortals? (Oh, that’s right…I forgot all of Socketsite posters are trust fund babies or CEO’s of social media companies.)

  22. Posted by djt

    Quite a remodel!
    For that amount of coin, I would expect something far beyond wood frame construction…I would expect commercial building level structure, durability, noise isolation, building controls, etc. At some price point, more money should mean a longer lived, more durable building, not just fancier surfaces over the same framing as an $80,000 house in Texas.

  23. Posted by BillyBalls

    some issues.
    1) don’t think an aventador would fit in the lift. (and for the record, 997 Porsches have terrible rms issues.)
    2) I can see someone creating a crushed Prius sunlight with that lift.
    3) what’s 23 million in bitcoin?

  24. Posted by jlasf

    Stray thought:
    Many posters on SS use the term “LA” as a synonym for vulgar, showy, and ostentatiously hip.
    Do the folks in LA, use the term “SF” in some way? For instance,
    “Who would want to live in that house? It’s so SF.”

  25. Posted by anun

    Folks in LA don’t care about SF.

  26. Posted by Rillion

    Folks in LA don’t care about any other city, except maybe NY.

  27. Posted by Philip

    Pathetic and gross. Belongs in LA, east of the 405. Or maybe some nasty part of San Diego. Soulless fool.

  28. Posted by meep

    how many square feet

  29. Posted by jenofla

    Only people in LA who care about NY are explants from NY.

  30. Posted by AnonArch

    Honestly people, just for fun I sometimes look at some of the listings on real estate sites that specialize in historic architecture in L.A. and the remodels are FAR more sensitive and sophisticated, especially on the mid-century modern homes lately.
    While we are dropping in Porsche lifts in Presidio Heights, mid century homes by Neutra in Silver Lake are being restored with original window hardware and cabinetry. Some of the recent Wallace Neff and George Washington Smith homes to come on the market have had their gardens and interiors restored to original condition.
    I submit that this remodel is all about the new San Francisco and has NOTHING to do with what has been happening in Los Angeles. At this price range in Los Angeles you could be buying a world famous iconic structure restored by some of the best in the business. Check out some of these as an example:
    http://www.marmol-radziner.com/restoration/restoration

  31. Posted by Truth

    San Francisco is chock full o people who have been to Los Angeles three or four times yet think they know what it’s all about. LA is like a state. It is working class and rich. It is gaudy and it is tasteful. People who talk that silly talk clown themselves right out of my earshot.

  32. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Well there is a certain kind of gaudy in LA that you have to leave the 7×7 and go to some place like Blackhawk or in the hills west of I280 to experience. SF lots are too small to create granite fountain plazas the size of a subsistence farmer’s plot with enough water to keep the crops fertile.
    Yeah, LA is big.
    SF gaudy comes in a compact package with quaintness and whimsy. The Painted Ladies and Laidley. Or the interiors of Pac Heights and the Castro.

  33. Posted by Truth

    Your shoddy attempts at encapsulating SF ostentatiousness similarly left me cold. Hack city. Trying to assume some sort of authoritative vice, when you’re on here daily begging for advice? No.

  34. Posted by eddy

    The more I think about this place the more I’m convinced that they are over reaching on price. If you have $20+ M to burn on SF real estate why would you pick this home. Go strike a deal on 2950 and dump 10M into it. Or just go knocking on some doors of any number of places that would likely sell for a $6-8M make me move offer and hire one of the big boys to come in to build your home. I’m not seeing anything so special on this place that is going to make a buyer write a blank check to the developer.

  35. Posted by Just Looking

    Eddy, I totally agree!!

  36. Posted by Denis

    I don’t think it will sell at this price either… I can’t imagine what the final number will be though. 2950 or 2898 are the better properties but will take 3+ years of renovation. It may be hard to convince people to go through all that when they can just move in tomorrow here. I think the real steal is 2668 Vallejo at “only” 10 million. It probably needs a few cosmetic changes, but it’s a more sophisticated, more “SF” looking home (if that’s a thing), but what do I know given my lowly shill status.
    As for anonarch’s comment… SF, especially D7, has so few true modern homes in the Eichler/Neutra style they command insane price tags. Look at the homes on Fillmore and Washington that sold for 3k and 4k per foot, both need/needed extensive work. The construction costs here can be double what they are in LA so it rarely pencils out. This was always intended as a flip, so I’m not surprised at the good, but not perfect finishes.
    I personally prefer classic SF homes. My house is filled with 110 year old old-growth oak and I shudder to think that if I ever sell it, it will be instantly gutted and turned into something like this… That said, there truly was nothing salvageable in 2750 and I think this is a really good outcome given the extreme limitations of the property. The new buyers will surely personalize it a bit now that it’s light, bright and has usable open space.

  37. Posted by Clueless

    This is essentially similar to this developers’ 2342 Broadway which set new records in 2010 at 13,500,000. That view was unobstructed but the block had a bus line. Its fairly similar to 2504 Jackson at that same price. Only partial views from the top floor there.
    This is priced 70% higher than either.
    Its priced 100% above what you could do this for yourself.
    Would love to be at that meeting where the selling agent gets their client “comfortable” with those inconvenient truths!
    But then someone just paid a billion dollars for a company that loses so much money that they can’t even borrow any more, and you can’t entomb your Porsche in THAT money pit ;)

  38. Posted by eddy

    I posted a few weeks back on 2342 that it now seems the home was a good value considering the 2304 Jackson property that is about to close in this same price range; and the similar homes over in Presidio Heights that sold at 10+m. But I don’t think 2750 can sell at this price and don’t think anyone will be looking back to say it was anything other than an overzealous listing price. Although it’s still not on the MLS so the actually listing could be more in line with reality. I’ll give the benefit of the doubt. Our comments certainly aren’t helping. :)

  39. Posted by Clueless

    Was 2342 a good value or has the market escalated to roughly the same extent that 2504 loses to its’ lack of view? 10-20% is probably a reasonable assumption for both of those and would put 2342/2750 at 16,000,000 today.
    The final price here will be 16,500,000; you heard it here first ;)

  40. Posted by eddy

    How many square ft is 2504? Can’t give you a guess till I have that. But seems everything in this range is selling at 2 – 2.2k psf. I’ll leave it there for now. Personally, I’m not that impressed with the finishes on 2504. I do like the pool and garage lift.

  41. Posted by Clueless

    These are all 6500-7500″ish” depending on whose measuring stick you use. Not 10,000 sqft by any stretch.
    But then they would be 30,000,000 if they were, right? ;)

  42. Posted by eddy

    So at the outer size of your square footage and my otter limit of $ psf it would seem that we are aligned at $16.5. Sold. :)

  43. Posted by frozentoast

    Closed for $20M and almost exactly 2.5k psf. 2342 Broadway was a bargain although few suspected at the time!

  44. Posted by eddy

    The implication is 8000 square feet. Very impressive outcome. Interesting this home never made it onto the MLS and remained relatively confidential throughout the whole process only to have the exact sale price and $/psf disclosed so publicly. Congrats to the sellers/developers and I sincerely hope the market keeps pace. Fairly blown away at the sale price. It’s not like there is a ton of competition at these levels. That said, the Sacks and Parker purchase(s) both known and unknown, along with the Pincus home, may prove to be the best buys in retrospect. Very curious to see how the Sacks project on Pacific/Broadway turns out. Lots of activity there.

  45. Posted by Denis

    Amazing! Great for the sellers. I still really like this place, regardless of what people think of it. And yes, 2342 Broadway was a steal. It would easily be 20-25 million now. They could probably sell it for that in a day or two if they wanted.

Add a Comment

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