1635 California Street
Vanguard’s marketing materials describe 1635 California Street as having a “stylish entrance lobby and elevator much like a boutique hotel”. And after making it to yesterday’s open house, we’d say “boutique hotel” fairly characterizes the “36 modern luxury residences” as well. Much like 1725 Washington, these “residences” suffer from a lack of space.
1635 California opened its doors over three months ago and at least 7 of the units are still on the market (with more yet to be “released”). And although we were not able to secure a full pricing sheet (the agents staffing the open house seemed downright defensive when asked), nor any property statements (none were made available), we’ve still got some numbers for our readers:
1635 California Street #31 – $715,000 [MLS]
1635 California Street #43 – $789,000 [MLS]
∙ 1635 California Street #44 – $719,000
∙ 1635 California Street #52 – $725,000
1635 California Street #55 – $739,000 [MLS]
1635 California Street #62 – $739,000 [MLS]
1635 California Street #63 – $835,000 [MLS]
Update: 1725 Washington Street [SocketSite]
Comments: Condo’s Going Up. Prices Coming Down? [SocketSite]

8 thoughts on “1635 California Street”
  1. I posted about these on one of the earlier threads after visiting there. They feel so much smaller than their listed square footage. I’ve resigned myself to accepting that I’ll pay a lot more for a lot less space than I’d get elsewhere if I want to live in SF, but these seem overpriced. They’re nice, but they just feel cramped. I think they’re poorly layed out, and they really shouldn’t have tried to cram a second bedroom into 975 sq. ft.

  2. The location is very convenient, and the construction is OK, however, the real deal killer was that most of the bedrooms have windows directly in front of the neighboring unit’s front door!
    You can literally open your bedroom window and knock on your neighbor’s door, without having to stretch.
    The units facing the rear, particularly the upper units, suffer from excessive noise from the Holiday Inn’s roof air conditioning. If the hotel has the A/C on, it’s quite loud, even with the windows closed.

  3. I agree with the small comments. I think the layouts would be better if they kept out the master bath. Or like others said, not a 2 BR. And yes, ‘dude’ is on with the window comments. It’s going to be interesting how this and the Washington condo’s sell (their website now has 3 units ‘sold’ – originally just the 2 BMV)

  4. Derek – I doubt anyone would disagree with the fact that space is at a premium in San Francisco. But the fact remains that a well planned 600sqft condo can feel spacious (and will sell for a premium), while a poorly planned 1200sqft condo can feel cramped (and will sell at a discount).
    The underlying issues with these units (i.e. why they continue to sit on the market) are most likely: poor design (“lack of space”) which limits the number of “trade up” buyers, and a price point that doesn’t necessarily make sense for entry level buyers in the current market.

  5. Another cramped Vanguard offering? What I’d like to see if an expose on Vanguard – are they the investor/builders behind all of these bizarrly laid out and cramped units in addition to being the Listing agents?

  6. Touring this building when it was new, convinced me the lack of privacy and no place for the vaccuum cleaner,would keep any smart buyer ensconced in a funky rental.
    Vanguard is the leader in marketing poorly designed new homes.
    Gee, a Real Estate a niche is nice.
    The developers $/sq ft. interests steam roll over any interesting arichtectual elements, storage cieling heights, gracious scale to interior spaces, bonus rooms.
    This economically sound decision making building policy leads to a lot of “soviet style” modern housing.
    I do not know how to fix that problem.
    I reccommend buyers avoid badly designed homes.
    Maybe then developers will stop building them.

Leave a Reply

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