Okay, so columns aren’t really our thing (sorry Mike, marble or not). But we do like big views. And there aren’t many buildings in San Francisco from which a second floor unit provides a panoramic like this.

Configured as a one-bedroom (and without one parking space), the 2,849 square foot Royal Towers (1750 Taylor) #205 is on the market and asking $4,500,000. An un-renovated (and column-less) Royal Towers three-bedroom (with two parking spaces) on the 18th floor has been on the market for two months asking $2,049,888.

1750 Taylor #1803: Living

From the listing for 1750 Taylor #1803: “Last comp at $2,175,000 16 stories down.” That completely renovated “comp” shouldn’t come as any surprise to the truly plugged-in and brings us back to the second floor.

21 thoughts on “Royal Towers (1750 Taylor): Columns, Views, And Comps”
  1. Geez………where do I start here…
    Views are spectacular but that is the only nice thing I can say about this ridiculously overpriced homage to Ali Baba and the 40 thieves.
    Who would take an almost 3000 sq. ft. condo and make a 1 bedroom out of it and then price it at $1600. a sq. ft……….with $3000.00 HOA fees ?

  2. Ya know what really classes up a joint?
    Mahbul Cahlums! You gots to gets yourselfs some Mahbul Cahlums!

  3. I like the column/arcade detail though its juxtaposition within a modern box just does not work.
    apartment : 1970s
    columns : 1600s
    furniture : 1940s
    carpet : 1980s
    kitchen : 1990s
    taste : timeless (or maybe lost in the timeline)

  4. Such a swank building should be a better neighbor. The exterior looks like it hasn’t been painted in decades. Great views from inside the building but from Russian Hill it’s an eyesore blocking the view of Coit Tower.

  5. from the listing: Great opportunity to develop your own quintessential pied-a-terre…
    Somehow, “pied-a-terre” seems deeply wrong.

  6. I have been lurking on this site for two years, but this property has finally inspired me to write my first comment. This apartment so offends the senses that I feel ill. I thought the columns would be the worst of it, but then I got to the bedroom, the kitchen, the yellow foyer, the fireplace in the main living area, and finally the HOA dues.
    Any ideas why did they choose to put a wall between the view and the bathtub? (18-20) They could have had a nice temple to bathing, at least.
    Also, why is it that a condo that presumes to be worth north of 4MM has such terrible photography? They could have hired a photography student at CCSF for $100 and gotten better results.

  7. then I got to the bedroom, the kitchen, the yellow foyer, the fireplace in the main living area
    As a made my way through the photos, the theme song from Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego popped into my head.

  8. “from the listing: Great opportunity to develop your own quintessential pied-a-terre”
    Aaaah … so that reveals the sales strategy. Anyone who can fork over $4M for a vacation home that will be vacant 90% of the time is not very cost conscious. Hence the bloated price. They’re fishing for the Robb Report crowd here. But the stager needs to make it more obvious where the $100K gold plated tube driven stereo system goes.
    consumer – good call on that Temple of Bathing opportunity. Just make sure that you gotta get you some mahbul kohl-lums in dere.
    And for my pal Paul :
    easter brings flowers
    manure nurtures slender roots
    blooms on royal roof

  9. For those HOA dues, they better have The Rolling Stones jamming & SI swimsuit models serving me champagne every weekend in the lobby

  10. I wish more of you – including the editor – embraced cultural diversity. And I like the second living room. It has a Jean Michel Frank – the 1930’s designer – feel to it.

  11. It’s rare but I am pretty speechless regarding #205. I will just say that everyone has different taste.
    Unit #1803 needs to center the dining room table under the light fixture. Drives me nuts when it isn’t.

  12. Price increased to 2,150.
    No doubt they finally realize that anyone buying now is going to demand 6% back from the seller. So they just raised their price by 6%.
    Furthermore, they Agent, not the owner, is offering to pay for one year of leased parking. “1st year of lease to be paid by listing agent upon successful close of escrow”. So they up the commission paid to the agent, the agent kicks it back to the buyer, while still allowing the owner to kick back 6% to the buyer.
    Thus the parking won’t count towards the 6% limit on concessions paid by the owner and they can kick back even more to the buyer.
    God bless America. It’s not enough that we are lending 102.5% of the value of properties, we are now about to blow through even that.

Leave a Reply

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