1840 Washington Street

Having sold as new for $699,000 in June of 2012, the one-bedroom Pacific Heights condo #203 at 1840 Washington Street, a steel-framed building “with luxury finishes and timeless modern design,” returned to market listed for $949,000 this past September, a sale at which would have represented total appreciation of 35 percent, or roughly 7.1 percent per year on a straight line basis, over the past four and a half years.

But having been reduced to $939,000 three weeks ago and then to $899,000 yesterday, a sale at asking will now represent total appreciation of 29 percent for the 843 square foot condo with deeded parking and an external storage closet since 2012.

Or more accurately, a sale at the newly reduced price will represent appreciation of 28 percent from the middle of 2012 to the middle of 2015, or 8.5 percent per year, followed by appreciation of 0.4 percent, or 0.3 percent per year, over the past 18 months as 1840 Washington Street #203 traded hands for $895,000 in June of 2015 as well.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Metroliner

    Can someone explain to me the rationale over installing those hideous wall-mounted radiator towers in new “luxury” condos? They rob that whole wall of its ability to have anything put on or against it and they scream cheap.

    • Posted by emanon

      To keep warm in the winter?

    • Posted by derrysf

      These vertical radiators restrict less wall/floor space than do the rather more common horizontal baseboard units, and are common in new construction throughout the UK and Europe.

      As for the term ‘luxury’, that descriptor means precisely nothing in terms of SF real estate in 2016, the equivalent of ‘vintage’ or ‘rare’ on EBay.

    • Posted by 1840HOA

      Those are the most expensive radiators you can get and provide a much more comfortable and uniform heat source than forced air. The only level up would be radiant floor heating throughout, that I would classify as ultra-luxury.

  2. Posted by Dick

    Radiant floor heating is great IF it isn’t circulating hot water flowing through copper pipes buried in concrete. Maintenance/repair nightmares not too long after original construction.

  3. Posted by tm

    interior looks really boring (and dated somehow, track lighting?). The ceiling looks really low, almost it is something from the 50’s. and a bedroom with no window.

  4. Posted by condoshopper

    looking at the sleeping area, is this really one bedroom or more of a “junior” one bedroom?

  5. Posted by gjhgjhgj

    This unit is sandwiched between Van Ness (aka highway 101) and Franklin St. (aka Highway 102).

    Let us not call this a “Pacific Heights” property. The whole North-South-Bound corridor between Gough and Van Ness is some of the worst property in SF, constant traffic, exhaust, noise, and even worse when it rains.

    • Posted by Conifer

      You cannot write it all off. There is a lot of Pacific Heights on these streets and cross streets: many important houses, flats, and apartment blocks, in terms of history and architecture, and quality of housing. However, there is always a factor of location, as you all know.

  6. Posted by Sara Short

    It’s not really even a one bedroom, but actually an alcove studio.

    • Posted by SocketSite

      That’s incorrect. This is a legal one-bedroom with an over-sized sliding door (which you could wall in if it made you more comfortable) and window (the shade for which is drawn).

  7. Posted by [gjhgjhgj]

    You can easily write off anything East of Gough and most property 1/2+ block West of it in 94115. True in there are some nice properties but those aren’t true Pac Heights from an idea, quality of life, and marketing standpoint. This tranche of properties have the most turnover in that zip code for a reason and calling them “Pacific Heights” is like calling Marin City “Sausalito”….

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles