Asking $5,850,000 in 2006, the penthouse atop 1800 Gough Street sold for $4,000,000 in June of 2007. Since renovated, refinished and refined, the 5,208 square foot co-op has returned to the market asking $5,250,000.
As the upper level entertainment room (which opens to a private terrace) looked before:
And as it looks now:
∙ Listing: 1800 Gough #PH (4/4.5) – $5,250,000 [1800goughpenthouse.com] [MLS]
∙ Speaking Of Relisting (And Reductions) [SocketSite]
well done renovation
the hoa of $1900 might even be reasonable for 5000 sq feet
Beautiful. But these types of dwellings are not desirable for dog owners.
Lol.. They actually stained the wood this time! Is this a SS first? Very pretty, not really an A+ location though…
I don’t believe this place has a real view of the bridges or bay. Sort of a deal breaker in terms of what most buyers in this range will want. That said, I love this place on many levels and love condos with internal stairs. Not sure on the pricing. Seems close, maybe a bit high given the address and lack of view; but honestly, the Gough address isn’t rally a big deal when you are on the 8th floor and have 2 parking spots. Good luck to the sellers.
Taking the paint off and staining the walls is difficult but very SF. Congratulations.
There are not a few people –including some on this list– who would benefit by learning this lesson. This is a handsome property.
Very nice renovation, but location, location, location is crap, crap, crap for this price. This is in my price range and one word for that location (Gough and California): NEVER! I’d be insulted if a realtor even suggested it. I’d probably fire the realtor as being unclear on the concept.
2755 Fillmore sold for 4.97, was completely done, an SFR, no $1900 per month dues, smashing location and had some of the best views, bay views! in the city.
In contrast, the views at this place are of the Whole Foods parking lot and, um the location of Gough and California – um, no.
4.1.
You only do this once in life:
Starting in 1987 and going into 1989, several nights each week after work and on weekends, I would come home and strip a 8 square foot or so area of the woodwork in my home. This included a fully paneled formal dining room, downstairs hallway and foyer wainscot, crowns and picture rails, two floor staircase and upstairs hallway base, crowns and picture rails.
Location can be subjective. I actually really like this location. Very central, pretty quick freeway access down Gough and a lot within walking distance. (including the Whole Foods) Views of The City spreading out in all directions from this height should not be discounted. Its still a VERY SF view. Lovely unit.
However, I think Tipster is much closer to actual market value than the list price. If it couldn’t get close to $5 million in 2006/7 it is not going to get above $5 million now.
My guess, $4,100,001.
I concur with redseca2, stripping paint is an onerous task. My project wasn’t nearly as large as redseca2’s. It was just a piece of furniture which I stripped chemically outdoors to keep the fumes under control. That wasn’t enough though as I had weird heart palpitations for weeks afterwords. Never again. Or at least not with that chemical.
In this upper room it looks as if it may have been cheaper, easier, and faster to just tear out the existing paneling and reconstruct it with new material. I doubt that was done though because the design is exactly the same. The cornice however is worth refurbishing.
And is that a photo of Franz Kafka in the “before” photo ?
I would never want to own a place like this, but I sure would want to be invited over. Kudos on the wood restoration, mos def!
So, between this one and 100 Palo Alto, which is more deserving of their $5MM?
There is something about a Pacific Heights condo. Exquisite, elegant, and understated at that. I would love to live here. Gorgeous, gorgeous, gorgeous.
I’ve seen this unit and other units in this building when they’ve come on the market. I haven’t seen this one in its most recently redone state, but there’s a chance that the wood in the top floor social room has been faux finished and not stripped and stained. This is great unit with beautifully proportioned rooms, outdoor space, and tons of natural light. Maybe its the location that keeps units in this building languishing on the market for so long even after price chops.
Coop, do you mean it was painted to look like this? If so, they did a very good job, and saved a lot of money. Traditionalists might accept this when philistines have painted over original stained wood.
There is a famous SF family that fired an even more famous decorator when he told them to paint their dark wood white. It is still dark and beautiful.
Is the 2nd floor of the PH that ugly boxy thing teetering on the edge of the building? Everything else is stunning if you need a ton of space.
Spectacular real estate porn.
imo no way the wood is faux finished, it seems completely out of character for what looks like a very well done redo.
Okay, I guess I’ll be the one to say it: I think the “before” and “after” pictures need to be reversed! Stained wood is grotesque in paneling, molding, kitchens, bathrooms — heck anywhere in a professionally decorated home. Plus that god-awful leather furniture, the tacky framed print from Z Gallerie, and THOSE NESTING TABLES! Pier 1 wouldn’t even consent to carry them in their stores.
The listing for the penthouse atop 1800 Gough has been withdrawn from the MLS “until 2/2/11” without a reported sale after 71 days on the market in 2010.
As promised, but a month late, the penthouse atop 1800 Gough has returned to the MLS with “1” day on the market and still asking $5,250,000.
It was off the market for over four months, O Lord of That Particular Soapbox. Don’t begrudge them “1 day.”
What’s “the market” for this place @$5.2M? The MLS? Doubt it was off “the market” at all.
The stats are still juked even if it’s off market for 4 months. It’s not like it hasn’t been effectively on the market in the meantime. There are some houses that we’ve seen that have been listed for the last several years, at least for some substantial portion of each year. Those houses are also effectively continuously for sale.
Some are and some aren’t. You and Tipster frequently err on the side of, “something shady must be going on.” So it isn’t like your opinion holds any water.
Please, anon.ed — I think the only time I’ve suggested something shady was on the 7th Ave property (which still looks quite shady) and on a certain double-ended sale that looked questionable (where I was right and the agent reported a fake sale).
If anyone’s opinion doesn’t hold water on whether something is a “new market,” it’s yours where you think selling on Monday vs. selling on Wednesday is a whole new market.
Oh yeah. That one. Where I explained to you what happened and you still kept talking, saying a derisive + ignorant parting shot on your way out of the thread. Was that your only one? I doubt it. Anyway Monday versus Wednesday is a little different than four months on the sidelines. ANd you don’t know that it wasn’t on the sidelines. They may have had family stay there, who knows? Not you.
You actually didn’t explain anything that happened in either case. No one has provided a plausible explanation for that property on 7th Street and no one has provided a plausible explanation for the fraudulent MLS sale for 2041 Sacramento. Find something else I’ve said was shady beyond those two and we can discuss them like civil people.
I know you frequently try to lump other bears in with tipster because you want to discredit them, but it’s quite tiring. I often disagree with tipster.
“Anyway Monday versus Wednesday is a little different than four months on the sidelines. ANd you don’t know that it wasn’t on the sidelines. They may have had family stay there, who knows? Not you.”
You’re the one speculating here, not me. Four months is not a different market, as I’ve said several times. I have suggested up to 18 months, I believe, should be the same listing, to account for abuse.
sfrenegade,
I think you mean 7th avenue and not street. Anyway what do you want to know about that one?
I told you precisely what happened on 7th Avenue. It was sold before it was completed. It was entered into the MLS for comp purposes. And you’re still talking.
Yes I’m speculating on this property, obviously. But many different things can and will happen.
“1800 Gough has been withdrawn from the MLS “until 2/2/11″ ”
Note the editors comment above which would appear to imply that the intention here was always to re-list.
Oh good grief, “note guy.” Note instead the precise timing, which would indicate to most people with a brain that it was being utilized by someone for a specific amount fo time.
It is possible to market a tenant occupied property even if the tenant is short term. Earliest date of occupancy simply becomes one of the contract terms.
Additionally, it seems dubious that all properties which get pulled over the winter season are being taken off market due to tenant occupancy.
“Note instead the precise timing, which would indicate to most people with a brain that it was being utilized by someone for a specific amount fo time.”
Well, except for the fact that it was actually “off” the market until 3/25, not 2/2 as earlier indicated, which does not sound like a specific amount of time being utilized was at issue at all. Sounds an awful lot like the old unlist-then-relist-with-new-DOM game. But keep reflexively defending shady practices.
1. Nobody said all properties pulled over the winter season are taken off due to tenant occupancy except for you, tc_sf.
2. Uh huh. “Let’s get it onto the market on 2/2 for that traditionally HOT HOT HOT February market!”
3. 2/2 first. Then 3/25. Human beings plans can change. Someone decided to stick around another couple months? Who knows.
4. Reflexively defending? LOL. Oh, there’s a reflex behavior at play atop the thread all right.
5. So it’s sfrenegade, tc_sf, and A.T. I’m talking to? Fail, by me.
Yes, sparky-b, sorry, I put 7th Ave the first time and mistyped as 7th St the second time.
You’re just speculating on 1327 7th Ave #10 as well, fluj. There are a number of factors on #10 that are strange:
#8, which sold earlier, was actually listed on MLS and had a normal pending and reported sale on MLS. #11, which also sold earlier, doesn’t appear to have been listed.
For some reason, #10 had its MLS report after its public records report after never even being listed on MLS? Isn’t that strange? Couple that with a double-ended sale and the fact that it’s a different agent from all the other sales, including #9 which sold much later. It looks shady. It may not be shady, but it sure looks shady. A self-serving note on MLS isn’t particularly convincing of anything.
On the second one where I suggested something shady, I was definitely right.
Other than that, can you point to anything? Or are you just trying to lump me in with tipster because it’s convenient?
sfrenegade,
So the question is just how did it sell if it wasn’t on the MLS and just went in later? Then the answer is: it’s multiple units, they’re not all on the MLS but you can buy any of them. Right now they aren’t on the MLS but a good offer would move one I’m sure. It would then go into the MLS.
That’s not really the question, sparky-b. The question is why the specific sequence of events was as it was. It sold a few weeks after #8 and #11, was never actually listed, but still had an MLS record of being sold after the public record of the sale, and for some reason had a different listing agent (who double-ended the sale), unlike the others that have MLS listings (including #9 which sold quite a bit latter). Like I said, it might not be shady, but it looks incredibly shady at the outset.
Never actually listed I think I answered above, they aren’t all on the MLS but they are all for sale. All of Rincon Hill isn’t on the MLS, is it? MLS listing of double ending the sale is probably improper input of the information. There has always been the same selling agent on that place.
“There has always been the same selling agent on that place. ”
Then there is an error somewhere. Both listing agents are named Gary, but they have different last names and work for different agencies, so maybe that’s the source of the discrepancy.
Oh I see now. On redfin it says “listing provided courtesy of” and then has the name. My thought is the buyers agent put the information in and put himself as the buying agent. But “listing provided by” and listing agent aren’t the same thing. The guys client bought a different unit than the MLS listed one and he wanted it known that he sold the unit so he put it in there.
Since y’all brought it up, what is the status of the other units in the 7th Ave condo complex? Anyone know how many have sold?
Reduced. 4.9.
Still like this place a lot. I think they are getting close. Still a lot of coin for no bridge / water view. Doubt it will drop lower than 900/psf. This is a tough one.
A similar comp just hit the MLS @4M for 2200 Sacramento #1701. Way too high and not a chance. But put 1800 into perspective.
Actually, I spoke too soon. 2200 Sacramento #1701 just closed at $4M today. So I think 1800 might actually be getting close to a true value. Of course, -500 on the dow doesn’t help.