Dubbed “Laidley Manor,” the 5,300-square-foot Glen Park home which sits upon a double-lot at 143 Laidley Street hit the market priced at $10 million three months ago having taken four years to re-develop, with “three sprawling levels,” panoramic views, and five bedrooms hidden behind a deceptive cedar facade fronting the street.

And according to the agent, 143 Laidley has just fetched a record-setting $9.7 million price for the neighborhood and roughly $1,830 per square foot.

The property had been purchased with an outdated 1,400-square-foot home home on the site for $2 million in 2013. And the buyer of the new home hasn’t (yet) been identified.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Notcom

    “The buyer remains unnamed.” And who can blame them? I wouldn’t want Daddy knowing where his money went either.

    I like that tree out in front – a lot…too bad you can’t see it from the house.

  2. Posted by haighter

    All I can say is WOW!

    But it seems like the balconies and decks all face north – good luck sitting out there in the shade most days of the year.

  3. Posted by cleverpunhere

    It is great to see Glen Park heading this direction–between transit, the housing stock, the neighborhood, and the park itself it just has a ton to offer.

    • Posted by Occupied in Oakland

      Wrong, people who buy $10m trophy homes don’t regularly (if ever) use transit, don’t frequent public parks, don’t patronize local businesses much and their homes sit empty for months on end. Making money is great, but the turning of Glen Park into a trophy hood is extremely distasteful to me.

      I’d like to see a massive, massive property tax hike on anything over $3m or 3,000SF to pay for TOD.

      • Posted by scott f

        I’d just like to see multifamily legalized. If not for the RH-1 zoning, this could easily be 20 condos, which would definitely go for more than $10 million total, but be much more reasonably priced each, and provide an option for people who would actually live in the neighborhood, go to the park and use transit.

      • Posted by Just My Opinion

        First you would have to repeal the insanity called Prop 13. Good luck with that

      • Posted by Pioneer

        You are wrong in your assumption here. The buyers are a family with kids who will live in the house year round. Most of the adjacent back yards are connected by unlocked gates to share the midblock green space. Taxes are already high enough for properties over 5 million.

  4. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Stories like this make me want to kick myself for not putting in an offer for $1.3M on this block years ago.

    • Posted by sparky-b

      This is a double lot. Not too many single family houses on 50ft. wide lots in these neighborhoods

  5. Posted by BobN

    Why four years?

    • Posted by sparky-b

      They spent 1 year trying to tear it down to build 2 houses. That was denied and so they went this route

      • Posted by EBGuy

        Maybe they should have tried a lot split (there goes the living room!) Ess Eff planning looks like a load of fun.

        • Posted by sparky-b

          They did. It was deemed historic and they couldn’t tear down and split. Gotta think they did better at the end of the day. They could have sold 2 $5M house but would have spent even more to get them done.

          • Posted by BobN

            Historic? What part of that house is old?

          • Posted by Ohlone Californio

            The original structure was built in 1957. Do you know how the historic designation and review process functions in SF?

  6. Posted by Just My Opinion

    Glen Park is nice. If I wanted to spend $10 million on a house, there would be any number of neighborhoods I would prefer over Glen Park.

    For my own sanity, I just hope that the purchaser is at least over 30 years old. It would just make me feel better.

  7. Posted by Amewsed

    Glen Park is a pretty quiet understated neighborhood. Sure if I want to spend $10M on a home, it would not be in SF but the buyer(s) may need to be in SF for work or whatever else interests them. Why all the existential angst over age of buyer, how they may or may not use public facilities, and basically someone else’s property?

    • Posted by Just My Opinion

      Lighten up Amewsed. Good for the buyer. The last sentence was clearly a joke.

      Another joke: I hope he/she doesn’t often use the term “existential angst”

  8. Posted by Robert

    Thank you Amewsed. Why all the angst? I send out my congratulations to the buyers for acquiring a beautiful property.

  9. Posted by Dave

    If I had 10 million to spend on a home – mind you I don’t – I wouldn’t. I’d purchase a 2800 or so square foot home in Sausalito with a view of the East Bay Hills, Oakland and San Francisco. Some land and space between the home and adjacent homes. All for under 5 million.

    This home is too hemmed in for my taste and the front exterior leaves a lot to be desired.

  10. Posted by Let them eat cake

    I’m with Occupied in Oakland. Home owners of this type give nothing to the neighborhood. And your 1.3 million house next door is now just a crime magnet.

    • Posted by Just My Opinion

      It is a fortress from the street. It says to me – “stay out”.

    • Posted by that_dude

      They give a ton of property tax actually. What do you give to the neighbourhood?

    • Posted by cleverpunhere

      I don’t understand why this home makes the neighboring home a crime magnet.

  11. Posted by anon2.5

    What’s with the weird bit of siding on the top right corner of the house (top floor) as seen from the rear of the house? Seems a bit out of place to me.

    Overall, beautiful house. It is not in a particularly dense part of the city and this location is not particularly transit rich IMO. It would take min. of 30 mins to get downtown and more like 40 mins. door to door. Even modest buyers in this area will likely rely on Uber or cars more than BART. In that sense, this house is not overly out of character with the neighborhood. We should be much more concerned with SFHs at half this price in the heart of the Mission, Lower Haight, Duboce Park, etc.

    • Posted by sparky-b

      I think what you are talking about is the house next door

      • Posted by cleverpunhere

        The commute from Glen Park to downtown is typically 20 minutes by BART, depending on how many blocks you are from the station. 40 minutes way off.

        • Posted by Just My Opinion

          Maybe by Bart, but Glen Park is an EASY 45 mins at rush hour by car.

          • Posted by cleverpunhere

            In my experience driving is more like 30 minutes, but most people don’t regularly drive because when you live in Glen Park you don’t have to. We have the least crowded BART stop in the whole system and every train coming through goes downtown.

            And, contrary to what you might think, people who can afford $10M homes actually do use transit, especially when it is faster than the alternative.

          • Posted by Brisket

            I drive from Sunnyside to my office in North Beach 5 days a week in rush hour – 40 minutes. 30 minutes to downtown.

        • Posted by anon2.5

          Umm, not sure how I am way off.

          It’s 0.7 miles and 14 mins walk to BART, plus an average of 2 mins. waiting for the train, plus a 12 min. ride to embarcadero. So unless you’re on the same block as the BART station and you have super human abilities to navigate the BART crowds, escalators and turnstiles, min. 30 mins. door to door is about right. Mind you, most of the tech companies are deeper in SOMA, requiring an additional 5-10 min. walk, so for most people, so 40 mins is a more reasonably estimate.

          I am not saying it’s an unreasonable commute. The bigger point I was making is that buyers at this price level are unlikely to rely on BART or MUNI outside of regular work commuting.

  12. Posted by Just My Opinion

    Clever: I will bet you a $10 million house that you can not drive from Glen Park to the corner of Montgomery and California in 30 minutes if you leave your house any time between 730 am and 9 am. Leave at 6:30 am, yes. Leave at 8, 45 mins, no less.
    BART would be much better. And I am not the one who said that the wealthy don’t take BART.

    • Posted by Brisket

      I’ll take that bet. Meet me tomorrow in front of Glen park BART at 8:25 – I’ll even bring coffee and pastries for the ride.

  13. Posted by Philip

    What a miserable addition to the streetscape. Blank wall, no scale, no plants. Tells the world “I’m selfish and paranoid.” What they do with the interior is their business.
    I can’t believe this got through Planning, or that the neighbors could not get some design concessions for the “facade”, if it can be called one.

    • Posted by SocketSite

      Keep in mind that the prior facade and streetscape was effectively the same.

    • Posted by Ohlone Californio

      The look of it from street is the same as it was before except sleeker + a different hued wood.

    • Posted by cleverpunhere

      The hilarious part of this comment is not only that the facade is virtually unchanged from the original, but that planning probably INSISTED that it be unchanged.

    • Posted by Grenadier of Antioch

      Fortunately this is the one of the few (only?) houses on Wonderful Laidley Street that turns it back so severely.

      Even an Eichler still gives one the opportunity to yell “get off my lawn”!

  14. Posted by George Machun

    I’m so glad I sold my house in Bernal and got the hell out of SF. The quality of life in the city is disgusting. Thanks Danielle and Michael. Loving Marin County living!

  15. Posted by Chris McMahon

    How come all of these opinionated commentators hide behind fake names?
    My real name is Chris McMahon and I really don’t have any opinion on that house whatsoever.

Add a Comment

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