2500 Steiner (
2500 Steiner (

Sweeping San Francisco views. An iconic (and power packed) San Francisco Building:

“Of all the opening lines in apartment elevators, one of the best had to have been delivered by Markos Kounalakis upon moving into 2500 Steiner St. in Pacific Heights. A neighbor stepped in and introduced herself as Sally Hambrecht, to which Kounalakis graciously replied, “We’ve met. We met at the White House at a State Dinner.”

And a price tag ($6,750,000) and “if you have to ask” monthly HOA fee ($3,212) to match. Now if only there were more shots of that interior.

Then again, this one is all about the building. And the people. And the views…

∙ Listing: 2500 Steiner #11 (3/3) – $6,750,000 [MLS]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Jeff

    Beautiful property! Probably the best views in all of San Francisco. Now if I only had 6 million more dollars!

  2. Posted by tom

    I’d be a little scared to live in a 1925 high rise in this town.

  3. Posted by Eric

    Call me greedy, but I want at least 2 parking spots for my $6M + $3,200 a month HOAs!! Wherever will I park the Bentley?

  4. Posted by bean

    beautiful view, beautiful building, i’m down with the politics…but my goodness, the SF Chronicle article it’s linked to is insipid. They may as well name the building “Susie’s Stables”. They must be so proud of themselves.

  5. Posted by anon

    Wherever will I park the Bentley?
    Have your driver park it in another building 🙂

  6. Posted by Michael

    I have always loved this building. Amazing to read that it’s only 12 units, each on its own floor. Anybody have the scoop on who is parting with the penultimate number 11?

  7. Posted by Morgan

    My favorite building by far in the city. The doorman sits up a flight of stairs in what looks like an altar with stained glass windows behind him letting you know that this is where the Goddess of Money lives. Don’t worship that Goddess myself, but you sure feel intimidated walking in there to go to a party.
    The Buell/Thompkins penthouse has some of the most amazing views I have ever seen when invited there before for events as the building feels much higher with its location at the top of the hill.
    Sorry folks, but these people will never flock to live next to the bus station at Millenium or the Californian at Rincon Hill. This is the “real” thing. I believe #11 is the unit below the Penthouse, and have no idea who owns it, but it has the highest ceilings of any unit in the building.

  8. Posted by father who worries

    Is sky the limit for property values in SFRO?

  9. Posted by BGelldawg

    Anyone else find it odd that in the ultra-luxurious penthouse featured in the Chronicle article, the photos show that the owners chose Dorthea Lange’s famous portraits of poverty to decorate their walls?
    Original silver prints, I’m sure.

  10. Posted by Republican

    This is the unofficial Democrat fundraiser building in San Francisco. Great views and right across the park, but I’ll stick to the unofficial Republican fundraiser building in SF – 999 Green.

  11. Posted by tyler

    I worked at an event in this building for Hillary Clinton when she was in town a few years back.

  12. Posted by anonymon

    If the unit is so beautiful inside, why did they only show two pictures as compared to the eight pictures of the view?
    Surely would not want to be up there during the next earthquake.

  13. Posted by Morgan

    This building has gone through MANY earthquakes without a problem. What are people thinking? The fact is many older high rise structures have incredible integrity. We did an analysis of a similar building in Los Angeles recently and found it was strong enough to survive an 8.5 earthquake (structure was built in 1926 and is 15 stories tall in Hancock Park). 2500 Steiner is not in Mission Bay, or the Marina, but built on very stable soils and bedrock. I would rather ride out a strong quake in Susie’s penthouse than in the Radiance or the Marina District.

  14. Posted by M

    This building’s height and mass is WAY out of context with the surrounding buildings and is ruining other people’s views and the neighborhood’s character. I don’t see how anyone could anyone possibly approve of it. A three-story Victorian would be much more appropriate for this site.
    I’m not actually serious, but it is funny to see such praise for a building like this, and such scorn for the proposed tall buildings on the Port’s piers and for One Rincon Hill. Anybody else agree here?

  15. Posted by anti candy stripes

    WHY most One Rincon be brought up in every thread? Can’t those of us on the north side of the city get a break from the constant One Rincon boosters? It is not in my view or neighborhood, and I for one and going to not give it any attention as it deserves none. 2500 Steiner is a true trophy property, like 2006 Washington, and deserves the title “luxury” building, unlike many new towers that “claim” to be luxury.

  16. Posted by eddy

    Can we get some comps for this building please.

  17. Posted by Republican

    Okay, maybe 999 Green which I mentioned earlier isn’t an even comparison to the 2500 Steiner gem. But comparing 2500 Steiner to the godly 2006 Washington is blasphemy!

  18. Posted by Sleepiguy

    A good comp might be 2288 Broadway… A united there sold for 7+ and the exterior isn’t all that exciting.

  19. Posted by David

    No one is complaining about the way this building looks because this building isn’t ugly.

  20. Posted by Frederick

    Dear Morgan at August 3, 2007 4:00 PM
    “Sorry folks, but these people will never flock to live next to the bus station at Millenium or the Californian at Rincon Hill. This is the “real” thing.”
    You are invited to the TransBay Terminal presentation at the City Hall this Monday, August 6th at 6:00 PM to see the future of the “bus station”. If Mr. Meussdorffer was still with us he would be in the front row to watch the future of San Francisco as it is un-veiled.
    After you see the presentation, the bus stop you will be referring to will be at Jackson and Steiner.
    [Editor’s Note: And now back to 2500 Steiner…]

  21. Posted by anon

    “WHY most One Rincon be brought up in every thread? Can’t those of us on the north side of the city get a break from the constant One Rincon boosters? It is not in my view or neighborhood, and I for one and going to not give it any attention as it deserves none. 2500 Steiner is a true trophy property, like 2006 Washington, and deserves the title “luxury” building, unlike many new towers that “claim” to be luxury.”
    You contradicted yourself in your own post. I’d say you have a point if you weren’t one of main contributors to the ORH topics.
    In any case, I think this building looks like a tombstone. So big and white and thin. Like a slab of marble sticking out of the grass. But that is just my opinion.

  22. Posted by Anononononono

    Only one parking spot, because this group puts the limo in limo liberals.

  23. Posted by Anonlurker

    What is interesting about this building is that even though it is not very tall, the views are amazing. Until you have been in one of the upper floor units, you cannot understand why some of the wealthiest people in Northern California own here. If any of you are walkers, in the evening the views into the ground floor John Wheatman unit are quite inspiring. Wheatman is still, to me, one of the great Bay Area designers, and deserves to be included in those who helped to shape the Bay Area “aesthetic”. What is strange is why those who choose to live in other parts of the city need to take jabs at this building and this part of town. Some choose to live in Pacific Heights, some choose Soma, “can’t we all just get along?”

  24. Posted by Sleepiguy

    I can see my house in those pictures. I would have absolutely no reservations about buying a unit here. If I ever decide to give up my SFH, I’ll look either here or 2006 Washington.

  25. Posted by boat32

    Having nowhere near the necessary funds for this building does not stop me from going in a spin over the sheer architectural beauty and panache of this property. I am at a loss to understand the life (or lifeless) style of those who, for whatever reason, have to post a cheap shot.

  26. Posted by bitchster

    “What is strange is why those who choose to live in other parts of the city need to take jabs at this building and this part of town. Some choose to live in Pacific Heights, some choose Soma, “can’t we all just get along?”
    I just love this. Lovers of this type of building and area can take cheap shots at the Rincon Hill buildings and new high rises all day long but when someone criticizes a building in their own backyard they are appalled.

  27. Posted by Sleepiguy

    Lots of people living in Pac Heights hate this building! I’ve often heard people wondering how it ever got built! It’s really a love/hate property.
    I’m curious though, what’s with the unfortunate landscaping? A year or so ago the grounds were torn up and giant pots with overly tall, crooked topiaries were placed around the building. U-G-L-Y

  28. Posted by anonandon

    The owner of #10 (Shaari Ergas) did the new landscaping, so if you are invited to a party, best not to say that opinion out loud.
    How in the world could anyone possibly compare this building with One Rincon? They are two completely different types of buildings, neighborhoods, and homeowners. People need to get over their “delusions of grandeur”. You wont find a 2500 owner needing to post negative comments about other towers because they are not sure whether or not they made a good choice in the purchase of their home.

  29. Posted by eddy

    I was looking for comps in the building? Also, anyone know what the square footage is for these places?

  30. Posted by Michael

    eddy: “2500 Steiner St., is understated, without driveway or balconies, and with one three-bedroom apartment per floor. But the penthouse was built with just two and Buell, a real estate man, didn’t know how big it was until he paced it off upon request — 40 feet wide and 100 feet long, adding up to 4,000 square feet.”
    If that’s accurate for the penthouse with the catwalk, perhaps another 1,000 sqft for floors 2-10?

  31. Posted by Sleepiguy

    Oh sorry.. I remember unit 2 was for sale a year or so ago for like 4.2 something.. but it didn’t have views, if I’m not mistaken.

  32. Posted by Anon

    It is somewhat strange that the realtor posted pictures of the exterior of a different builing in the MLS listing (see pictures 2 and 3, which are clearly not 2500 Steiner). Can anyone identify the other building? Is it even in SF?

  33. Posted by anon2

    Picture #2 and #3 ARE 2500 Steiner. Not sure why someone would think otherwise.

  34. Posted by blahhh

    “I remember unit 2 was for sale a year or so ago for like 4.2 something.. but it didn’t have views, if I’m not mistaken.”
    $4.2m for 5000 sq.ft in this building sounds like a great deal. For comparison, unit 23E at the St. Regis is right now listed for $4.495m. It’s only half as big (2573 sq.ft).

  35. Posted by rg

    I’d figure if the penthouse has about a 5′ catwalk around it, that would make floors #1-11 5500 s.f. each. That makes this unit $1227/sf. While the price is a big chuck of change, it kinda makes spending $1000/sf for OneRincon or $1500/sf for the St. Regis, or even $800-900 for a [Removed by Editor] SOMA loft a real waste of money.

  36. Posted by hjkhjkhkjh

    The interior photos were clearly doctored up -color enhanced and the window views replaced
    (with camera exposure you wouldn’t see the blue sky from an interior shot.)
    This is my guess why you only have 2 interior shots.

  37. Posted by nonanon

    It looks like 2500 Steiner #7 was on the market in 2005 and asking $6,250,000 for “+- 4,000 square feet”.
    Big units at the Royal Towers (1750 Taylor) might make for some decent comps as well.

  38. Posted by anon94123

    Everybody talks about “urban living” as if this means living downtown or in Soma. I call this “urban living” because within two blocks you have 6 restaurants, 3 coffee houses, wine store, cleaners, park with tennis courts, interesting design shops, gourmet markets, private school, multiple bus lines, etc. etc. This building is to me what people think of when they think of San Francisco, where you can be in a real walkable neighborhood that does not feel like an office park. This tower also passes what I call the “San Francisco test”, unlike some of the others, for if you look out of any window from this building, YOU KNOW you are in San Franicisco, and not Irvine or Century City. I viewed a St. Regis unit recently which was very nice but the views (to the South) reminded me of Cleveland instead of San Francisco. This is the reason properties on the north side of the city will always be the most valuable.

  39. Posted by Frederick

    2500 Steiner is considered one of the premier residential buildings in San Francisco.
    Other comparables include 2000 Washington, 2288 Broadway, 1940 Broadway and 2006 Washington in Pacific Heights and 1090 Chestnut on Russian Hill.
    All of these buildings were built in the 1920’s except 2288 Broadway (1957). The present selling prices, depending upon condition and views range from $6M to $25M (private offering).
    Other popular comparables would include 1940 and 1958 Vallejo (1930’s), 1750 Taylor (Billy Getty’s Penthouse at 1750 Taylor sold for $15M in 1998) & 999 Green (Penthouse & combined units on upper floors (built in the 1960’s), 1170 Sacramento and 1001 California on Nob Hill.
    All of these are favored apartment locations in San Francisco.
    Of all of them, 2006 Washington is the Grand Dame!!

  40. Posted by anonymon

    Why does everyone always feel compelled to reduce every topic on Socketsite to a “my building and area is better than your building and area? Does it always have to be a competition between Soma, Rincon Hill, Russian Hill and the Marina? We all have different tastes and different things will appeal to different people. We are lucky that SF has so many types of neighborhoods, archicture, etc. to choose from. There is something for everyone.

  41. Posted by anonymon

    “All of these are favored apartment locations in San Francisco.”
    Favored by you? Or are you speaking for everyone?

  42. Posted by Anon

    rg: Comparing price per sqft in this building versus the buildings in SOMA is ridiculous. Do you really think someone is going to say, “Dang it, I spent $1000 per sqft on my 1200 sqft place in ORH, but if only I would have waited! I could have spent only $1200 per sqft in Pac Heights. Of course, the unit costs five times as much as mine, but cost per sqft is comparable! I can surely come up with an extra five mil!”

  43. Posted by tyler

    A gorgeous building but the park across from it is actually not very pretty. Everytime I’ve been it’s full of dead grass.

  44. Posted by anonandon

    It is strange that there are many projects such as 2500 Steiner that are being built in Chicago and Los Angeles, but not here. I would think there would be a real market in San Francisco for new full floor flats in mid-rise towers in better neighborhoods. In Los Angeles, two full floor unit towers on Wilshire both sold out before construction began, and in Chicago, they put up about six of these type of luxury towers a year usually selling out well before they are built.

  45. Posted by Brutus

    Where would you put these towers? No tower like this would ever be permitted in this area again – the residents of the neighborhood would be screaming about “Manhattanization”. Ditto every other “high-end” neighborhood in the City. Every neighborhood that isn’t high-end would be screaming “Gentrification!” There simply isn’t a place to put mid-rise high-end in this City.

  46. Posted by anonandon

    Sorry, I was not writing so much about Pacific Heights as I was writing about San Francisco in general. I just wish there were more of these type of structures that were new. They are very popular in Chicago and are all over the place there.

  47. Posted by cindy@staged4more

    From my personal experience, older homes actually were built with more integrity than the newer homes now where the people just want to turn the property so fast that the newer homes lack a certain of craftsmanship and patience to be built. It’s a great building in a great neighborhood. I used to rent nearby. I miss it! But not the rent price tag!

  48. Posted by Sleepiguy

    Isn’t a little friendly neighborhood competition a good thing? It shows that we have pride in our residences, regardless of the location. As such, we’ll work a bit harder to make sure our streets are cleaner, our homes are often updated and painted, and our gardens manicured. If other areas of the city want the prestige value set by Pacific Heights, great!

  49. Posted by Jack

    Wow, a co-op (translated…legalized housing discrimination) full of Democrats! Who needs rich Republicans?
    Must be heaven on earth….sorry, a little religious humor there, folks 😉

  50. Posted by MysteryRealtor

    This is a wonderful building. Each unit also comes with a seperate studio (maids quaters) in the basement.

  51. Posted by Sleepiguy

    It’s under contract…

  52. Posted by John

    This unit belonged to my grandparents for nearly twenty years prior to 2007. It is true about the high ceilings and amazing views from the top of Pac Heights. Great memories there! Surprised to see someone claiming this is a Democratic Fundraiser Building, doubtful.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles