1750 Taylor #1601 Living

Referenced by a plugged-in reader last week, while the 3,318-square-foot unit #1601 within The Royal Towers at 1750 Taylor Street isn’t listed on the MLS, it is for sale and asking $10.5 million, a sale at which would make it the priciest apartment (condo/co-op) in San Francisco at $3,165 per square foot.

1750 Taylor #1601 Dining

That being said, the furniture is included in the sale (but the art is not).

Purchased for $3.2 million at the end of 2010, the “Imperial Floor Plan” unit was taken down to the studs and reconfigured for the sellers, with a new “two-bedroom” floor plan that “maximizes the space, takes advantage of the views and accommodates today’s lifestyle.”

1750 Taylor #1601 Floor Plan

The remodel was a collaboration between designer Jay Jeffers, architect Stephen Sutro and Black Mountain Construction.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Bertie Anglis

    Oof, HOA dues are $3,600/month.

    Then again, 500 square foot studios are renting for more than that at Avalon Hayes Valley, so maybe the dues aren’t so bad in this new gilded age of San Francisco housing prices.

  2. Posted by Amewsed

    The dues are meant to keep the upper middle class riff-raff out. No pricey good stuff for you!

    I don’t have a fear of heights but those floor to ceiling windows give me vertigo. A bit scary if you have a lovers’ spat in the bedroom or a tipsy guest in the dining area/kitchen.

    • Posted by BobN

      The mere presence of a railing, no matter how flimsy, makes it possible for me to approach windows like that. Without one, no way, no how. That said, I’d gladly live there and stay 10 feet from the glass. No prob.

  3. Posted by sausalito_res

    What’s an “Imperial Floor Plan”?

    $10 million and it doesn’t have a separate dining room. Call me old-school but I think that should be standard equipment at this price point. I *get* that they want to accentuate the view bling for marketing purposes, but this just doesn’t seem like a practical design for day-in day-out living. Views are great but they won’t necessarily want to look out of the windows 100% of the time. Probably this isn’t designed for sale to full-time resident.

    And that living room furniture doesn’t look very comfortable. I’d like to think that someone with the scratch for a place like this would already have some stuff that they are fond of. And if their old furniture doesn’t work in this place, they should have well-enough defined taste that they wouldn’t just accept the items chosen by someone else’s designer. Another tip-off that the target buyer is someone buying a second/third/fourth residence.

    • Posted by BobN

      I think Imperial Floor Plan means you have a LOT of money and simply buy the unit below for staff and actual cooking.

    • Posted by Amewsed

      Is this the type of third/fourth house you don’t allow your kids or any friends with kids to come over? Sort of like the third/fourth wife? Those windows and furnishings aren’t safe for kids, regardless of price point. Think of the heirs. Not sure if I would buy this even if I had $10M.

      • Posted by Amewsed

        Goes to show I am precisely the kind of country bumpkin the super rich would roll their eyes. Because I don’t and will never understand their choices or lifestyles. Ye super rich shall have own separate door!

    • Posted by mercury613

      “$10 million and it doesn’t have a separate dining room.”

      Thank you.

  4. Posted by Joshua

    The redo reminds me of Aria in Las Vegas.

  5. Posted by Never use one anyway

    Three Showers, no tub?

  6. Posted by Willow

    The Den/Home Theater spaces seem awkward. I guess it could be dining… I’d want more closet space at this price point too…

  7. Posted by stop driving

    The lack of a tub is a total dealbreaker. For $10M I want to be able to take a bath.

    • Posted by shza

      Has anyone really taken more than a handful of baths since childhood? (And I’m willing to bet there is no deed restriction against adding a bathtub.)

      • Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

        That’s a bingo and you’ve identified where bathtubs are needed: for bathing children. It is a little challenging to clean a two year old in the shower.

        For adults-only households bathtubs are a nice-to-have for those who prefer a bath over a shower, even if just once in a while. But for little kids they’re needed daily.

        • Posted by Amewsed

          You are talking to an audience of San Franciscans who have long forgotten about their childhoods and can only relate to their pets instead of children as adults.

          I guess those sculpture tubs inside the big shower room makes sense now — no additional drainage required and you can easily add a handheld for the tub use off the main shower supply line.

        • Posted by shza

          Right, but as many comments above have correctly noted, a family with little kids is not the target buyer for this $10M two-bedroom furnished wall-of-glass high-rise condo in the first place.

      • Posted by JR "Bob" Dobbs

        Not a big bath-taker, although I do take an ice bath maybe every 6 weeks after a long run (avoids a lot of soreness later). And as has been mentioned, when our kids were little we used the tub all the time. I gotta say that I wouldn’t even look at a home witout at least one bathtub. Weird not to include one.

        • Posted by stop driving

          As a single adult, I enjoy a hot bath every night. There’s no better way to end a day.

  8. Posted by Mark F.

    I love it, but at that price? I never take baths , so that’s not an issue.

  9. Posted by Charlie

    I saw this today on tour. In spite of the fog, I found this unit to be fabulous. Much better than the one over at The Comstock.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles