68 First Street Residences

While the 15,000-square-foot penthouse atop LUMINA’s 42-story Tower B is on the market for $49 million, the existence of which we first reported last year, there’s an even bigger and higher floor penthouse in the works in San Francisco.

As currently envisioned and rendered above, the entire top floor of the 60-story tower to rise at 68 First Street is to become a single 17,000-square-foot, five-bedroom Grand Penthouse with a shell ceiling height of around 16 feet.

The size of the Grand Penthouse would rival that of the 17,000-square-foot penthouse atop the St. Regis at 188 Minna, which is the largest residence in San Francisco and sold for $28 million in 2011, having been foreclosed upon earlier that year and listed for $70 million in 2008.

And while the 68 First Street penthouse wouldn’t offer nearly the same amount of outdoor space as either of the other aforementioned units, there are plans for a tiny private terrace in the middle of tower’s residential open space above and the condo would lay claim to being the highest residential unit in San Francisco, as measured from the ground, and with no other parcels in the city currently zoned for building any higher.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Rainer Wilke

    I wonder if this would be the highest residence in the state of CA

  2. Posted by BobN

    with a shell ceiling height of around 16 feet

    Pity they’re going to build actual rooms instead of selling it as empty enclosed space.

  3. Posted by alberto rossi

    We have a better idea from this picture what the west side of building will look like. Yeesh.

    • Posted by Sutro_Tower

      Agreed. That’s a rough elevator core for the whole western half of the city to have to see for 900+ feet.

  4. Posted by Dixon Hill

    Not meant to be lived-in. For collecting.

    • Posted by woolie

      So what? Jobs when it’s built, transfer tax when it’s sold, property tax every year.

  5. Posted by Oakland lover

    This tower is so amazing. Dr Claw’s HQ for sure.

  6. Posted by someonewhocares

    When can SF have a supertall WITH a world-class public observatory in the league of a New York or say Chicago?

    • Posted by Frisco

      We have a 900 foot mountain in the middle of the city. That’s more special than a top-floor tourist trap like any other city would have.

      • Posted by Futurist

        Exactly. Nothing but endless envy from others who want more and taller. They should move to Chicago or NY if they want supertalls so much.

        • Posted by Somewhocares

          Must disagree. An observatory from a supertall in the heart of downtown is desperately needed. Twin Peaks is too far away.

  7. Posted by alberto rossi

    I think we also get a better idea from this picture how much of the glass facade actually has that cut crystal type depth. It’s turns out only a couple of spots on each of the First Street corners and also on the crown. Quite a bit of sleight of hand here.

  8. Posted by Conifer

    “Residences” like this in NY and and Miami and London are widely assumed to be used as tax shelters or money-launderers for criminals from certain countries. There is a pilot federal program that allows the piercing of the LLC in NY and Miami to reveal the real owner. If the program works, it will become national, and the value of these properties will fall.

  9. Posted by Jim

    Among the many myths about the SF housing market is that all these condos are being bought by offshore Russian or Chinese or whatever oligarchs and are left vacant, or only slightly used.

    The best study I have seen on the subject is “Non-Primary Residences and San Francisco’s Housing Market”, October 21, 2014 ( While primary data are only partial, it appears that only 2.4% of the housing units in the city are pied a terre. This goes up to an average of 13% in new condos, especially downtown and including the two buildings that have hotel concierge services that of course have the highest percentage, as they are essentially hotels.

    Of the 2,000 units studied, only 4 were left completely vacant. Seven cities had a higher percentage of pied a terre, with Miami leading the list at around 7.5%with just under 4% in Manhattan. The number of non-primary residences in SF is relatively low, even for new construction in wealthier neighborhoods.

    • Posted by Wes Eagan

      Thanks Jim. While partial, it’s the first measured statistics I’ve seen on the topic. Because yes, there is a lot of subjective comments thrown out on this and it’s always baffled me why someone (of any wealth caliber) would leave a very expensive asset completely unused even if it was a tax shelter or a speculative growth investment.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles