Completely overhauled in the late 90’s by Andrew Skurman and Suzanne Tucker, which landed the full-floor unit #3 in the Beaux Arts building at 1001 California Street a spread in Architectural Digest back in 1999, the 3,500-square-foot, two-bedroom condo quietly sold for $4.5 million in October of 2011 having been listed for $5.995 million that May.

Returned to the market priced at $12.8 million in late 2018, the asking price for 1001 California #3 was reduced to $10.9 million in early 2019, to $9.9 million in early 2021, to $8.9 million in January of this year and then to $7.9 million this past April.  And having just sold for $7.3 million or roughly $2,100 per square foot, the re-sale of 1001 California #3 was officially “within 8 percent of asking” according to all industry stats and aggregate reports.

On an apples-to-apples basis, that’s total appreciation of 62.2 percent since the fourth quarter of 2011 for the truly luxury condo, or roughly 4.5 percent per year, while the widely misreported Case-Shiller Index for “San Francisco” condo values was up 132 percent over the same period of time.

18 thoughts on “Beaux Arts Beauty Finally Fetches $2,100 per Square Foot”
  1. I wish I could learn about the residents of these (and other similar) buildings in the city. I feel like it’s gotta be mostly people in their late 60s+ who earned their money from their parents or own a stake in manufacturing and sit on a board of some big overseas conglomerate.

    1. Me too, I’m so curious who the buyers of these types of places are. Someone with $7.3M can live anywhere, and he/she chose Nob Hill.

    2. The owners are probably empty-nesters in their 50’s – 60’s. This might be their third or fourth home – one in Napa, one in Hawaii, and maybe a place in Europe somewhere. They don’t want the hassle of a home to maintain. This is merely their pied-a-terre that’s convenient to the PU Club, just across the street.

    3. 2A: 94 year old venture capitalist
      2B: mystery
      3A + 3B: pied-à-terre for a former software company CFO, now a philanthropist
      4A + 4B: venture capitalist
      5A + 5B: 81 year old partner / co-founder of an investment management firm
      6: real estate investor and Trump-Pence fundraiser host
      7: 64 year old VC guy / son of the 2nd floor guy
      8: lawyer + possibly a developer?
      9: corporate VP for a software company
      10: same folks that own #6
      TH1: mystery
      TH2: CEO of a medical company.

      Pretty boring crowd if you ask me…

      1. There’s only floors 2-7 plus the tiny penthouse that used to be attached to 7. All units are full-floor apartments except the two on the 2nd floor. TH1-2 are both two-story units on the first floor duplexed down. Where are you getting 9 and 10 from? There’s no 9th or 10th floor.

        1. Slight misunderstanding of the SF PIM on my part I guess. What I assumed to be #9, 0254/091, became /111 and /112 which correlate with TH1 and TH2. Not sure about #10 though, which is still listed as a separate lot, 0254/096. Close and accurate enough I guess.

  2. On the one hand, it’s not my taste at all, but on the other hand, it’s impressive to see a renovation that was done ~25 years ago that doesn’t look dated. Those hardwood floors look amazing

  3. Gorgeous. Just gorgeous. Tbh I think 7.3 is a great deal for that. Of course I suppose you’ll need another 1.5 or 2 to furnish it 🙂

    I’ve never lived in nob hill, probably not in my top five neighborhood picks but to each their own. If you’re old money this is probably your jam.

    1. I’m curious to know which restaurant you thought was great by SF standards. It can’t have been Beaucoup, so how far back are you going? It must have been something that’s been gone for decades.

Leave a Reply

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