2000 Washington #A: View
Three bedrooms, three (and one-half) baths, three parking spaces, and three cheers.
2000 Washington #A: Living
One full floor, one of only seven cooperative units in the Conrad Muessdorffer designed building, and one “if you have to ask” price ($6,250,000) with dues to match ($2,285/mo).
2000 Washington #A: Kitchen
∙ Listing: 2000 Washington Street #A (3/3.5) – $6,250,000 [MLS]
Architect: Conrad Alfred Meussdorffer [sfhistoryencyclopedia.com]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by JayDawg

    for $6+ mil I’d expect some outdoor living space…..

  2. Posted by Sleepiguy

    I think this is the lowest condo in that building, but I don’t think that will matter. It looks lovely; it’s well priced; and it’s one of the most desirable condo buildings in Pacific Heights (along with its neighbor 2006 Washington).

  3. Posted by ex SF-er

    Although I dislike the kitchen, otherwise I really think this is a stunning place.
    I’m always amazed at how much some of these properties cost… but this is truly a luxury property so the typical rules simply do not apply. (it’s like a $400 bottle of wine or a $15k shower curtain)

  4. Posted by vox

    Look at it this way, for $6MM you get to borrow a cup of sugar from Danielle Steele.

  5. Posted by Ramsey

    They stripped out all the detail from a beautiful old building and it’s the ground floor unit on Gough (granted this is the 2way section of Gough so it’s nowhere near as bad, but it’s still busy with all the cars reving their engines trying to get up and over the top of the hill and/or while waiting for the light to change). I’ll pass…

  6. Posted by tipster

    That’s phenomenal workmanship in an A+++ building. Ground floor and Gough street aren’t doing anything for me, and neither is the Kitchen, but the materials and workmanship in the photos make it appears as though it’s worth every bit of the asking price.
    The “typical rules” DO apply, that typical rule being the 80/20 rule. To get past the top 80th percentile, means you go way over the 20th percentile in terms of cost. And that hits hard if you want that sort of thing. Look at the ceilings: that’s the give away that they probably went went past the 80th percentile.
    For 2K per month, you get a doorman in a SEVEN unit building: shared only 7 ways, you practically get your own assistant, which is a bargain for $2K per month.
    If it doesn’t sell at asking, it’s going to go for pretty close.

  7. Posted by louis

    its a great bldg but for the ground floor unit i will be amazed if they get 6 mil

  8. Posted by Frederick

    The 6th floor at 2000 Washington sold recently for $10,000,000.
    The first floor for $6.25 is a steal.

  9. Posted by Chaka

    Tipster, 80/20 rule in terms of pricing, remodeling? Sorry, I don’t understand your post, can you elaborate? Thanks.

  10. Posted by Sleepiguy

    It’s finally in contract…

  11. Posted by eddy

    #6 on MLS @ $12M. Frederick noted above that it sold for $10M in ~2008. Apple?

  12. Posted by sfrenegade

    “#6 on MLS @ $12M. Frederick noted above that it sold for $10M in ~2008. Apple?”
    I don’t think so. Permit history says $120K of remodeling starting on April 30, 2008. That’d be the current seller, and the work was marked completed in March ’09.

  13. Posted by eddy

    #5 on MLS @ $6.8. Makes that ground floor unit not so much a steal.

  14. Posted by eddy

    #5 In Escrow.

  15. Posted by sfrenegade

    #5 is the last unit with a low tax value — $312K. All of the others are multi-million.
    One question however: Is Unit #A the same as Unit #1? If so, why is the 2009 tax value of Unit #1 at $6.095M if #A sold for $6.25M? The 2009 tax value is exactly (to the dollar) equal to a $5,976,000 sale in 2008 plus 2% due to Prop 13. I will note that the sale was double-ended by Sotheby’s and $6.25M is the MLS-listed sale price, not public records.

  16. Posted by eddy

    #5 Sold: $5.850
    Neither the ground floor owners or the 6th floor owners will be pleased with this comp.
    Congrats to the buyer.

  17. Posted by sfrenegade

    And there goes the low tax valuation! Congrats to the buyer. It definitely looks like a deal compared to #A/#1 and #6.
    Btw, #A and #1 have the same APN, so it looks like that sale of #A was actually for $5.976M, not $6.25M, per the tax values.
    Even the buyer of #3 might be a little miffed. Unit #3 was listed for $5.995M in April 2001 and sold for $5.3M in February 2002, and currently has a tax value in 2010 of $6,065,680.

  18. Posted by sfrenegade

    I meant to provide the link for #3 in my post above, sorry.

Add a Comment

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