June 20, 2007
The Montgomery (74 New Montgomery): Pricing And Reservations
Apparently it was “lamb lollipops” and potent cocktails for the “Grand Opening” of The Montgomery (74 New Montgomery). And while nary a price list was to be found (tipsters?), here’s some guidance and the inside scoop:
∙ So far only 17 of the 107 condos have been released (none of which are two bedrooms) and eleven (11) have received $5,000 refundable deposits.
∙ Price ranges for the first release: studios $379,000 to $540,000 (420-580 sqft); junior one bedrooms $598,000 to $655,000 (500-600 sqft); one bedrooms $487,000 to $647,000 (600-750 sqft); and one bedrooms + den $745,000 to $850,000 (700-900 sqft). Penthouses (4) are expected to be priced as high as $1,800,000 (1500-1600 sqft).
∙ A second release of units is slated for July first (should include a few two bedrooms).
A larger second sales center opens this weekend around the corner on Annie Street (no word on if they'll be celebrating with more lamb lollipops), and the first move-ins are expected to occur as early as September.
First Published: June 20, 2007 4:30 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
It seems a good, solid, substantial building. The lack of expansive views may limit its appeal to some -- but on the other hand, not everyone wants to be in a highrise. I think the best thing is that the feeling one gets inside is of a true San Francisco building -- like the old San Francisco of 1930s movies.
Posted by: Damion at June 20, 2007 9:53 AM
Posted by: steve at June 20, 2007 10:06 AM
15 spots in the building, I think. Does the pricing above include the BMR units?
[Editor's Note: The pricing above does not include the 11 BMR units nor inventory that has yet to be released.]
Posted by: anon at June 20, 2007 11:01 AM
So it seems to be priced at close to $1000/sq foot.
Seems kind of high for the current condo market, and given what's coming down the pipeline?
I was looking at getting something over at the Radiance (over by Mission Bay) and some posters mentioned the $1000/sq ft for a view unit over there was high (given its location is undeveloped right now)... but this one is located right downtown on a business dominant corner...
At 11/17 with reservations (granted they are refundable), seems like this is very good start.
Posted by: shopper at June 20, 2007 11:38 AM
It seems more the norm for any new developments to be around $1000 psf. Resales are still $100 to $300 less, so it may be a good opportunity to look at the Metropolitan, Bridgeview and other nice buildings in good locations for less cash if that's the type of housing you want.
Posted by: Damion at June 20, 2007 1:51 PM
The Met is nice. Bridgeview in my opinion is doomed for resales given the quality of some of the buildings that are going up right in this area.
From what I heard $450 if you don't get assigned parking. That's rough, but it is 24/7 access. There is also a Jamba Juice right there!
Posted by: anon at June 20, 2007 2:15 PM
How old is this structure? It's not a new building right? I haven't noticed any new highrise on this block being built.
Also why is the junior 1 bedrm quoted higher than a regular 1 bdrm?
Posted by: CondoShopper at June 20, 2007 4:01 PM
The Jr 1 bdrm is higher because the Junior refers to "Junior Seau", the football player. Those are the biggest one bedrooms.
Just Kidding of course :) I have no idea.
Posted by: anon at June 20, 2007 4:20 PM
I don't know why but I like those stools and they go with my kitchen which has a wood/black granite look. Does anyone know where they are from?
Posted by: anom at June 20, 2007 4:34 PM
Condoshopper, it's a refit of an old office building from the early part of the last century.
Posted by: curmudgeon at June 21, 2007 7:05 AM
Thanks curmudgeon. I wonder about the seismic safety of these in the next big quake. It's a reality of living here, but paying so much $/sqft for a unit in a building for which HOA most likely will not cover earthquake insurance seems risky.
Posted by: CondoShopper at June 21, 2007 9:43 AM
I know for a fact that the building was seismically retrofitted before the conversion. And because of that, it (and all NEW construction and other seismically-retrofitted stuff) is likely be "safer" in earthquakes than 95% of other homes in SF.
Posted by: grrrr at June 21, 2007 11:49 AM
those garden stools are at gumps.com for $375
Posted by: will at June 22, 2007 11:24 AM
Ok but i believe old historical buildings have a more lenient seismic standard than new buildings. just something to consider.
Posted by: condoshopper at June 22, 2007 4:26 PM
A new client just reserved a one-bedroom for a very good price. As I got more familiar with the building during the tour I realized how cool it is. It seems like it would be very safe in an earthquake. The whole place almost seems like it's sculpted out of stone. It's very solid. Very thick walls and floors. And it's a great location.
Posted by: Damion at June 25, 2007 7:03 PM
condoshopper, the building was completely gutted and a whole new system of concrete shearwalls were installed. Seismic standards are what they are, it's a pretty solid building, probably not going anywhere.
Posted by: renzomatic at July 16, 2007 10:39 AM
I walked thru it during earlier construction and they added massive, thick concrete shearwalls throughout the structure. Given SF's strict seismic upgrade codes, it's probably the safest old building in SF.
Posted by: archibuilder at July 19, 2007 9:10 AM
Oh...and have you checked out the model units? Pretty sweet - high ceilings, surprising amount of light for the 3rd floor, and the big old windows are totally cool. It's a really unique mix of historic and modern, certainly different than most everything else coming on the market. The prices actually seem reasonable.
Posted by: archibuilder at July 19, 2007 9:14 AM
Important observations/opinions noted re: earthquakes.....In my opinion, the very biggist 'Wildcard' in SF Real Estate. More volitile & less predictable than economic info. Although a calculated risk to some extent, a great quake will have a great impact on all area properties destroyed OR un-damaged. Also, significant difference between minimum code-required seismic retrofit and modern new-construction design/engineering. The comparison of contract details in the insurance coverage AND anticipated response by insurance carriers may be the most important mitigating factor. Lifelong resident....I have so far, accepted the risks, with experience during salvage south of Market in 1989, while noting that countless 'Victorians' made it through 1906. I won't count on FEMA or the "Good Faith" of carriers. Katrina was extreme, as our quake may be. Any experienced/educated input here on earthquake policies & how good/bad they might actually become when needed?
Posted by: cts at August 22, 2007 10:06 AM