The Royal Towers Developer’s Unit Returns (1750 Taylor #1701)
January 26, 2009
As we wrote in our September 2007 scoop:
Originally the developer’s unit, #1701 in The Royal Towers (1750 Taylor) boasts panoramic bridge to bridge (and everything in between) views, as well as the only gas range in the building (yes, it’s good to be the developer). And the 3,300 square foot three bedroom, four and one-half bath coop is now on the market for $7,000,000 (and $3,354 a month).
In contract a month later and closed for what tax records would suggest was around $6.8M (assessed value of $6,854,000 in 2008), the rather incredible (and almost incomparable) 1750 Taylor #1701 is back on the market today and asking $6,500,000. And interestingly enough, it appears the gas range is no longer (but there’s now a built-in BBQ). Sweet.
Comments from Plugged-In Readers
Comments are closed.
Is the cheesy art collection included? One can never have too many 1950s era pinups rendered in oil.
HOA dues at $10k (per month?)
[Editor’s Note: Per quarter if we’re not mistaken.]
If there was an award for the most idiotic use of abbreviations in a MLS listing, this one would win.
I love when you see units like this that have amazing multi-million dollar views and all-glass walls and someone puts a TV in front of it.
It’s even better when they don’t bother to shut the television off when the Realtor is taking photos.
I thnk th abrvs r rly clr an usfl fr ths lstng.
These millionaire buyers seem to move more often than millionaire renters. Realtors must love them!
This realtor (and his client) needs to be informed that writing an ad for a $6.5M listing using blackberry-based abbreviations is simply not acceptable. Who is this idiot?
I don’t think the owner spends much time in SF.. Probably wanted to dump some dead weight.
except for the master bedroom, much of this unit seems very cramped to me. especially their TV rooms. they have long couches facing into a wall in the library (?)
How many square feet is this place?
also: I think this place would be perfect for a stager. The furnishings seem very 1960’s and dated espeically that living room. (perhaps they’re modern and I’m misreading it though?).
but I certainly don’t think of those as 6.5M bathrooms, or the tiny galley kitchen as luxury kitchen.
that said, the views are top notch, how many places have that kind of view? may make it worth another gut-remodel…
This idiot is more likely to be from an era of newspaper ads than blackberry 🙂
And the idiot stands to make close to $162,500 (his half of 5% commission) on the sale of this place.
I’d like to buy a vowel.
The agent is constricted by a limit on the amount of words the MLS will allow in the comments section, hence the use of the many distracting abbreviations…but there must be better things to blog about. The “idiot” stuff seems out of place here, too. Anyway, the views are indeed remarkable – but in this environment it will be a much, much more difficult sell this time around.
The agent is constricted by a limit on the amount of words the MLS will allow in the comments section
is this the same house?
http://1750taylor1701.com/taylor1750.htm
it looks similar, but it is staged very differently. wow, they took my suggestions quickly!
🙂
also: no abbreviations.
if so:
3200 sq ft
3 br and 4.5 baths
seems like they could perhaps have squeezed 1-2 more bedrooms into 3200 sq ft.
$2000/sq ft seems aggressive to me, but I never know this stuff.
You would think a realtor(tm) writing a description for a $6 million+ listing would use commonly accepted conventions for abbreviating words or turn the task over to someone who could construct a readable paragraph. I gss n ot.
Ex, those are the pictures from the listing back in 07…
The images on the MLS are current.
[Editor’s Note: Correct. Note different agents/brokerage.]
Jason, the image on the TV is probably photoshopped in.
(It’s from Hitchcock’s “To Catch a Thief”, btw. With those
floor to ceiling windows, perhaps “Vertigo” would have
been a better pick.)
Yum. Love a good Royal Towers unit.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I would think that potential buyers in the mid-seven-figure range have better things to do than peruse MLS listings and leave that sort of thing to their “people”, maybe even their people’s people.
Surely the abbreviations are understandable short-hand to pros, no?
Come on folks, if you’re going to read one comment let’s read them all (like sleepiguy’s above) before jumping to conclusions about photos/staging.
And once again: “The use of abbreviations is idiotic.” Fine (or at least so be it). “The agent is an idiot.” Not fine.
Ex, those are the pictures from the listing back in 07…
The images on the MLS are current.
wow. I liked it a lot more in 2007 than now.
It’s astonishing that this property doesn’t have it’s own website as it did back in 2007. The agent stands to make 6 figures on this. Spend for a website! (not sure who decided on MLS only… the agent or seller… but they better get a website fast!)
If you were the agent and knew that in this market the listing was going to be sitting for a long time no matter what you did, since there is literally nobody out there buying high-end real estate right now, would you spend any more money on marketing than you had to?
Some agents will raise their marketing budgets a lot, with the hope that it pays off in a quick sale (which is not likely, judging by recent market statistics); but most agents will cut their marketing budgets to as little as possible. The result? Less staging, less expensive photography, fewer splashy websites, fewer Open Homes ads, and a whole lot of hysterical exclamation points in the MLS! “Seller says make offer NOW!!!!”
Sold 8/09 for a $1.1M loss. $6M. $1734 psft if you use property shark’s 3460 sq ft.
Warning: 47 delicious mostly view photos. Do not click unless you have an extra 15 minutes and some tissues to catch the drool.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/Undisclosed-address-94133/home/12400107
Sellers made a huge fortune on a previous sale… lost a medium size one on this one.. They’ll live I’m sure…