181 O'Farrell #513 Floor Plan
As we wrote last November with respect to Odeon (181 O’Farrell):

And then there’s the penthouse (#513) which was purchased for $2,000,000 in March 2007. An attempt to sell it off as a fractional over the past two years failed and it’s been the market as a whole for the past 172 days. Originally asking $2,349,000, it’s been three months at $2,099,000 with an owner that “says make an offer!!”

As we wrote this past February:

The Odeon penthouse is now back on the MLS with an “original” list price of $1,899,000 and an official 3 days on the market. You’ve got to love (or at least understand) those industry stats and Realtor reports.

And as we add today, 181 O’Farrell #513 is back on the market and asking $1,725,000. And yes, it’s an official one (1) day on the market which ought to help those averages.
∙ Listing: 181 O’Farrell #513 (3/2) 2,516 sqft – $1,899,000 [MLS]
Oh My (And Bank Owned) At The Odeon On O’Farrell [SocketSite]
Top Floor Sir, Going Down (181 O’Farrell #513) [SocketSite]

11 thoughts on “On Tour As New Déjà Vu: Odeon Penthouse (181 O’Farrell #513)”
  1. Still pricey. $685/sf with $887 HOA dues + $250 leased parking!
    The cost of living there is mind boggling. Probably in the range of 9-10K/month when all is factored in.
    Nah. I will follow my 3L rule: Lower, lower, lower.

  2. Paul,
    Typical Realtor demeaning tone.
    I could afford to live in that penthouse. I just won’t grossly overpay for it. Plus this neighborhood is everything but one. That’s the first area you see when you visit SF and that’s the first one you avoid on WEs when you live there.

  3. “Unfortunately, not everyone has the ability to live in a “Penthouse”.”
    Bought for $2,000,000 trying to sell for $1,725,000. Glad I wasn’t that fortunate.

  4. Typical Realtor demeaning tone.

    At least he didn’t pull out the usual “The reality is that San Francisco is expensive, if you can’t afford it here, you should move to Fresno” line.
    And anyway, this isn’t even the least expensive “Penthouse” in The City currently on the market.

  5. Looks smaller than its 2500+ claimed sqft. Is it considered the “penthouse” simply because it’s so big compared to the other units in the building plus it has a squib of an upper floor?
    Seems odd to have a $2M$1.725M “penthouse” in a building with $600-800K$550-750K condos (nicest house in the neighborhood, so to speak), as described by deshard in one of the previous threads. I guess it’s nice for someone who likes to feel like they’re looking down on the little people.

  6. How can this be a penthouse?
    Aren’t penthouses supposed to be units built on the top of a building, but with a different footprint? Where’s the unlimited roof access, the wrap-around deck?
    But everything on a high floor now qualifies as a penthouse in RealtorSpeak. Heck, we even see more than one level of penthouse on some of the condo towers.
    That and the bland box “luxury condo”. LOL.
    Every trick to make you pay more for the same cr@p is OK in this business.
    Also, always measure the square footage.

  7. I just walked by this location the other day on my way into Macy’s. There is a vacant building to the immediate left of the main entrance. Not the best curb appeal for the price.

Leave a Reply

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