2500 Steiner 2015

A bastion of San Francisco’s power Democrats, and a fixture of Pacific Heights, the twelve-story “Alta Plaza Apartments” building at 2500 Steiner opened in 1927, with twelve full-floor co-op units overlooking the San Francisco Bay and adjacent Alta Plaza Park.

And just below the Hambrechts’ pad on the sixth floor, the 3,500-square-foot unit #5 (which was built as a four-bedroom with maid’s quarters, but reconfigured as a two-bedroom, with a new family room and over-sized master suite) has just hit the market listed for $9,950,000, or roughly $2,840 per square foot.

The unit below, 2500 Steiner #4, sold for $5,250,000 in 2004, or exactly $1,500 per foot.  While the last unit to have changed hands in the building was 2500 Steiner #11, which sold for $7,800,000 ($2,229 per square foot) in 2007.

16 thoughts on “A $10M Two-Bedroom And Nearly $3K Per Square Foot”
  1. Definitely old money building. Nice looking views. This is probably as close to a NYC co-op as you’ll get in SF. I wonder if there are any “restrictions” as to who can move in ie. tech CEOs, Republicans, etc.

    1. It’s probably in the CC&Rs. “Tenant shall not be associated with Republican party or GOP. CEOs of tech companies and shenanigans strictly forbidden.”

  2. I’d love to see the unit turned into a homeless shelter/methadone clinic. Let’s spread the love around evenly.

  3. Of course it’s a sweet unit, but frankly it would probably be kind of a pain to live in, and suitable for a certain sensibility. What do you think it’s like when Presidents and such visit? “Hey man, I’m just trying to get to my car.”

    1. Considering the President (including the current one) historically stays in a hotel downtown or on Nob Hill, I am not sure Presidential visits are a big issue with living in this building.

      And, if you can afford a $10 million condo, then you can also afford to have a maid, driver, and other assistants who ensure life is easy for you and in accordance with your “certain sensibility.”

  4. There was a time in the 1980s when this building attracted empty-nesters who had lived in much bigger houses nearby. It was sort of a retirement choice. A friend of mine, much older than I, was long widowed and in his eighties when he died while living there. He had paid in the low six figures for his apartment, which was near the top. It did not feel especially large, but the views were spectacular. I doubt that he was a Democrat, but his daughter, a prominent board-sitter on the east coast, may have been.

  5. The units in this building were originally developed as apartments (that is where the name came from), not cooperatives. They were converted to coops later. While the views are great, the scale, quality of construction & layouts don’t hold a candle to 2000 & 2006 Washington.

    1. That’s not quite correct. The word “apartment” doesn’t actually connote a rental unit, but rather an individual unit within a shared building. And units within co-op buildings are commonly referred to as “co-operative apartments,” as is/was the case here.

  6. Let the Dems have 2500 Steiner. 2006 Washington is bigger, better and hopefully, full of Libertarians and Independents.

Leave a Reply

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