A tax assessed value of $2,393,000 would suggest a sale price not too far from the $2,350,000 asking price for 1333 Jones Street #505 when last on the market. Back on the market today, the two-bedroom and two-bath Comstock Co-op is asking $2,395,000.


Big views (which look even bigger through a telephoto lens), a “stunning” remodel (prior to the last sale), and a front door we kind of adore (although perhaps not on this unit).

Also on the market, the not so recently remodeled unit a floor above (#605) asking $2,399,000, and the not quite so view-tastic unit a floor below (#405) asking $1,645,000.

∙ Listing: 1333 Jones #505 (2/2) – $2,395,000 [MLS] [Previous Listing]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by sleepiguy

    I’m a fan of the Comstock. Yes, it’s a little bit older, but I like the location, the driveway, and the remodeled lobby. The units are spacious and have great views. 2+ million seems a little high for a two bedroom, but I think these are good units for maybe a retired couple who wants to move back into the city.

  2. Posted by rumble

    This building has a great mid-century style from the outside, and inside as well (Ive seen an original unit). I never ceases to amaze me the ugly-ness of some remodels!

  3. Posted by sunset guy

    I’ll take door number 2.

  4. Posted by Louis

    Are those 8 foot ceiling heights??

  5. Posted by ppc

    It is a great building – I live there, the location is perfect, the ceilings are over 8.5′, the views are amazing, the staff is extremely attentive and nice, on bedrock, built very well, and it’s full service.

  6. Posted by downtown

    It’s official this “mid-century modern” thing has gone way overboard (not that I don’t appreciate and own a few pieces of said period myself). This building is far from attractive. The views are nice, but the ceilings are low compared to similarly priced condos/coops in this price range in much nicer/older buildings with genuine character. (And a co-op? Why would you buy a co-op in this price range?) Why would you pay 2+million to live in the Van Ness Holiday Inn relocated to Nob Hill which is what this is.

  7. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    And a co-op? Why would you buy a co-op in this price range?

    Not that I’ve ever lived in a co-op, but from what I’ve read about how they operate on The Upper East Side, people buy the co-op because The Board is going to exercise considerable discretion in choosing who your neighbors are going to be.
    I guess that means co-ops appeal to people who don’t believe that simple market forces (are there really that many undesirable types that can afford a $1.6 million plus apartment?) are enough to weed out the riff raff.
    The caveat is that San Francisco isn’t Manhattan.

  8. Posted by JL

    Its a co-op. I hope people understands that you don’t actually own the unit you live in for co-ops. You own shares of the entire building which means you don’t have complete say of your apartment. If you want to renovate, you need permission. If you want guests planning on extended stays you need permission. If a large number of occupants go bankrupt, the rest of the tenants have to share that burden. You should read about co-ops in NY in the 80s to see how messed up it was. People got kicked out because the bank took over the entire building but you still had to pay a mortgage but no place to live.

  9. Posted by ppc

    There are actually many co-ops in the Nob Hill, Russian Hill, and Pacific Height areas. Yes, one does own shares, we do have by-laws to follow in regards to renovation, and one, unless granted, can’t rent out their unit. I like the fact that there isn’t any turnover, aside from new buyers/sellers. Fortunately, the “risk” of a bank takeover is next to impossible in this case, but everyone, obviously, has a right to their opinion.

  10. Posted by Rubicon

    as i understand it, the drawbacks involve the fact that you don’t own real estate and thus don’t enjoy the benefit of the acompanying tax advantages the government grants to such
    that is, no mortgage interest deduction and probably no $1 mil. appreciation exclusion either

  11. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    Yes, one does own shares, we do have by-laws to follow in regards to renovation, and one, unless granted, can’t rent out their unit.

    Which would tend to discourage flippers and speculators and bootleg amateur landlords.

  12. Posted by FormerSF

    Having basically grown up in #505 at The Comstock, my grandmother lived there for 20 years, the draw is the quiet and the view.
    This is not a building where you get to know your neighbors, in fact many of the units are owned by foreign owners and don’t have full time residents.
    As seen in the pictures, the views are incredible. Perfect height and both bridges with a straight shot at Coit.

  13. Posted by sunnyvalesteve

    @Rubicon No, that’s not correct. Co-op owners can deduct mortgage interest and generally get similar tax treatment to homeowners. I used to own a co-op on the east coast.
    That said, given what else is on the market in that price range I don’t see anyone except possibly well-heeled retirees being attracted to these units. Low ceilings, dated bathrooms, kitchens, and often flooring, and the dubious appeal of a rigid “people like us” litmus test for new buyers…I wonder if anyone under 60 lives here??

  14. Posted by ppc

    Sunnyvalesteve: most of the folks that move into the building remodel the units, if they haven’t been completed already. There are residents that are under 60. I’m “young” compared to 60, and there are others in my age group. I agree with FormerSF, many of the residents live there part-time, though I have had the opportunity to meet quite a few nice neighbors. The location, view, large windows, solid construction, and good layout were the reasons for my move to this building.

  15. Posted by Usually Named

    I’ve visited friends’ families in the building. The views are simply incredible.
    I’ve never seen the building from this angle — it seems that some units have built out onto the deck for additional square footage? Interesting.
    [Editor’s Note: With an enclosed terrace, #605 is in fact one of those units.]

  16. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    “it seems that some units have built out onto the deck for additional square footage?”
    Yeah I noticed that too. It is odd that a building association that takes such care in ensuring a quality environment for its owners would allow random modifications to the exterior.
    It reminds me of a Cairo apartment building without the telephone and network wires dangling from window to window.

  17. Posted by SocketSite

    The listing for 1333 Jones Street #605 was withdrawn from the MLS without a sale.

  18. Posted by Former SF Resident

    Wonder why so many units are on sale now? Are the retirees cashing out too!?

  19. Posted by SocketSite

    The list price for 1333 Jones #505 has been reduced $100,000 (4%) from $2,395,000 to $2,295,000.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles