As we first reported last year:

When the hedge fund manager who lives in the 4,400-square-foot Presidio Heights home at the corner of Walnut and Jackson learned that the home next door at 3311 Jackson, a smaller 3,000-square-foot home which had been in the same family since being constructed in 1928, was going to be put up for sale at the end of 2013, an idea was hatched.

While the Jackson Street property had been pegged as a potential historic resource, a commissioned evaluation by Page & Turnbull has determined that the property “does not appear to be a historical resource.”

And as such, having purchased 3311 Jackson for $4.95 million in early 2014, the aforementioned manager is planning to demolish the home and rebuild upon the site, aligning the new building’s floor plates with his home at 101 Walnut and connecting the two structures internally to create a supersized single-family home measuring over 7,000 square feet, the formal application for which has just been submitted to Planning.

And with the aforementioned application having now been formally withdrawn, 3311 Jackson Street is now on the market as a “regal residence…filled with timeless finishes and appointments” and a $4.9 million price tag.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Amewsed

    Smart move. This 3K square foot home is nice, standing on its own. With a smaller price tag than being a part of a 7K sq. ft home in which the owner will have a tougher time selling in the future, it is a easier choice.

  2. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    I predict a kitchen remodel in this house’s future.

  3. Posted by jl

    Wonder what comments came back from Planning. Also wonder if the seller has any restrictions on a new owner expanding up and/or back…like everyone else on the block seems to have been able to do.

  4. Posted by Hanque

    Nice house that hasn’t really been messed with.. those bathrooms with the original 1928 tile and fixtures are charming (but are probably not long for this world.) Kitchen with the 1980s appliances is a great blank canvas for a sensitive remodel.

  5. Posted by Dr. Pants

    I can easily see DBI denying the merger due to reducing housing stock. That’s probably why it was withdrawn and put back on the market.

    • Posted by maxp1

      Yeah, I didn’t think they were allowing anyone to demolish and merge units anymore. Surprised that they even tried to do this.

    • Posted by shza

      Thank goodness. Now a nice family that would otherwise become homeless can spend $5M on this modest Presidio Heights home and have a roof over their heads.

  6. Posted by MyOddCommentHandle

    i actually really don’t like this place. i’d raze and rebuild on existing foundation and add large roof deck and extra wide garage door.

    • Posted by Alai

      Can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic, but the extra-wide garage door is definitely up there as one of the worst aesthetic features of new houses (of course the increased private street space is a nice feature, so I can see why people do it).

      Walking down some streets in Pacific Heights where classic houses are now fronted by rows of garage boxes… blah.

      • Posted by MyOddCommentHandle

        The bedroom layout is terrible and the kitchen and bathroom need to get gutted. The windows could really stand to be modernized. Even the fireplaces/hearths aren’t particularly exceptional. What’s left?

  7. Posted by Conifer

    This would not have been exceptional in this neighborhood at 7000 square feet. The idea that this reduces housing stock is laughable. The leftist government of SF is worried about $5 million houses disappearing? In this case, it would be a minor loss, compared for example to the interior gutting of Mark Pincus’ house. (I know these are separate legal issues, total demolition vs interior.)

  8. Posted by BobN

    Wow. We haven’t seen pillows so viciously chopped in years.

  9. Posted by SocketSite

    While the proposed project, which included an application for a legal dwelling unit merger, had raised the concern of neighbors, the application was withdrawn prior to any approval, or denial, from Planning.

    • Posted by denis

      The neighbors were concerned about a DUM? In Presidio Heights? Because PH residents are super concerned about preserving affordable housing stock. Highly unlikely. My guess is they didn’t want a renovation and used the DUM is an excuse to stall/prevent the demolition or renovation, which I HAVE seen done in Cow Hollow.

      Speaking of Cow Hollow. I can count (at least) 5 neighbors w/in two blocks of my block that have legal apartments in their homes and the suggesting of renting them out just results in laughter. Those that do rent out legal (and illegal) units bought in the 70s. This unit has been unofficially removed from the market and won’t be rented out again, likely until the end of time. Planning needs to be reasonable about this, but that would be expecting a rational, logical urban development strategy with modicum of sanity.

      • Posted by SocketSite

        No. The concerns were with respect to the physical impacts of the project on the neighboring homes. And once again, the proposed merger was never denied.

        • Posted by denis

          Yes, but mentioning the DUM implies that was a factor in the neighbor opposition, otherwise why bring it up in that context? So, it’s just another case of construction averse neighbors threatening to DR a project into oblivion and the owners, smartly, abandoned the project- likely to a developer who can push projections through planning and DBI. The neighbors think they won this battle, but the odds are this awkward family home selling to a lovely, quiet family are limited. I fully expect an experienced developer to snap this up and remodel it into oblivion. There’s a lot of money on the table here. A 7k sq ft home on this block is what? Min, 11? 12?

          • Posted by SocketSite

            It was noted in the context of the preceding comments, some of which seem to have fingered the “leftist government” and a phantom denial of the merger for the abandonment of the project.

Add a Comment

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