1150 Sacramento #703: Master

It’s not exactly our style, but we couldn’t help but do a double take on the master suite. Or the views (especially from the 3,000 square foot terrace). And to be honest, the price.

1150 Sacramento Street #703: Floor Plan

Four parking spaces (that’s the upside of combining two units), and roughly a thousand dollars per space per month in HOA dues (and that would be the down).

∙ Listing: 1150 Sacramento Street #703 (4/3) – $9,700,000 [1150sacramento.com] [MLS]

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by asiagoSF

    this place has 2 (two) bidets!
    I am reaching for my checkbook…

  2. Posted by Katy Dinner

    This has been available for way over a month “off the market” I saw when it was first being marketed. It is a great floor plan, location and a deck that spans the entire building.
    It is likely that whoever buys it will remodel it. The finishes are specific – I am not even sure how I would classify the bathroom. Huge is the best word I can come up w since I can’t describe it.
    The views are not my favorite (for $10m). The deck has killer views. The Living room and dining room have views of the square.

  3. Posted by Sleepiguy

    Tickety-tack..

  4. Posted by John

    Pretty bad natural lighting, isn’t it?

  5. Posted by 4ever-renter

    I have never understood the need for a master bedroom with more square footage than the living room…

  6. Posted by sunnyvalesteve

    The faux-Versailles thing has got to go. It’s baffling why they would stage a place in a style that doesn’t appeal to anyone under 70. Or maybe it’s not staged, but should have been. With a $10 mil price tag they should be able to afford marketing that would actually appeal to a potential buyer.
    Still, it’s an awesome space, esp with the roof deck. Not to mention the “cabinetry galore!”

  7. Posted by Foolio

    Another pocket listing gone public.
    Sign o’ the times?

  8. Posted by tipster

    You’d think for ten mil that they wouldn’t just recycle their web site from some “Russian Hill Condominium” either, but that’s what the title of the web page at the top of your browser currently reads when you click on the listing.
    The lack of professionalism at the top of this industry is astounding…

  9. Posted by Russ

    Did anyone else notice the large and ugly speakers hanging in the living and dining rooms? For $10 Mil one would think those speakers could have been embedded into the wall so they weren’t such an eye sore.

  10. Posted by Fundy Mental

    the flagrant interior design has me a little flustered, flabbergasted and flummoxed
    great, great location, & not just b/c it’s close to one of my fav restaraunts — Nob Hill Cafe
    sq.ft.?
    shocking HOA fees
    not a fan of the lobby or building ext.

  11. Posted by merger

    anybody have any ideas how and when this unit was merged? This is the second place in a weeks profiled on this site that was merged.
    I am trying to merge two condos and having issues getting around the state law requirement that states a new condo map signed by all the other owners in the building and their lenders is needed. Planning and building department are not a problem. Any helpful suggestions from the socketsite community would be appreciated.
    cheers!

  12. Posted by Conifer

    Appallingly bad taste in furniture, whether you are 70 or not, rich or poor. Real French 18th century furniture is beautiful.

  13. Posted by Jake

    merger: I thought the planning department specifically was very tough on unit mergers – has something changed?
    Re: the state law question, I do think you need the other owners signoff (or maybe the HOA board as a proxy?) but I don’t think you need the lenders to sign off. This sounds like the same stuff I encountered when I converted to condo (the lender sign off) but I believe we eventually found out that that was no longer necessary. Good luck.

  14. Posted by good luck

    a 10mil $ teardown – how palo alto in the late 90’s—good luck –

  15. Posted by Conifer

    Jake: merger: I thought the planning department specifically was very tough on unit mergers – has something changed?
    I think you are right. A lot of people just live in more than one unit without legally merging. Perhaps we will get a few new and sane supervisors in November, and hence more sensible members of the Planning Commission.

  16. Posted by sparky-the-bear

    I believe there is a luxury theshold on unit conversions. Like if each unit is worth more than $2M? or something then you can convert, because you are not removing “affordable” housing from the rental market.

  17. Posted by Conifer

    $2 million is where affordable ends?
    So one million is affordable? Even the uber-socialists cannot believe that.
    But if they do, perhaps we can begin to eliminate rent control on all units worth $2 million or more.

  18. Posted by Salarywoman

    Claustrophobic! Gives me the willies just looking at the photographs.

  19. Posted by Ryan

    Is this where G’s parents live?

  20. Posted by San FronziScheme

    Is this where G’s parents live?
    Let’s see:
    – Colors match.
    – Relative unity in the style.
    – Looks like a place where people might actually live.
    Nope.
    Seriously, Why spend 10M in a 1989 building when they could easily buy a castle in France with valet-de-pieds and horse carriages. They’ll even have cash left for powdered wigs and a Marquis’ title (If you can still buy these).

  21. Posted by Sylvain

    I am surprised how low the ceilings are for a “luxury” unit such as this. Agree with San FronziScheme, why not buy a chateau in France instead, at least it would be authentic. PLUS, you could have almost 7 million left over.
    http://www.prestigeproperty.co.uk/french_chateau_for_sale.asp

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles