August 27, 2009
The Full Floor Plan Monty For 2006 Washington Number Four
As other’s have suggested, however, it’s not a good sign with respect to whether or not interior shots will show up anytime soon (if ever at this price point in this building).
∙ Listing: 2006 Washington #4 (5/5.5) - $8,500,000 [sfproperties.com]
∙ 2006 Washington Number 4 Returns Asking 32 (Plus) Percent Less [SocketSite]
First Published: August 27, 2009 10:00 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Is it me, or does the floor plan look slightly odd, like there were a few different owners who added or took away walls/added baths where there didn't use to be any/repurposed some rooms, but all with different ideas of how the flow should go?
That combined with the lack of interior pictures makes me wonder what's going on in there.
Still, I bet it's nicer than my place. :)
Posted by: kthnxybe at August 27, 2009 7:28 AM
As in "the KITCHEN with breakfast area & butler’s pantry awaits the new owner’s custom installation."
Posted by: kthnxybe at August 27, 2009 7:30 AM
I think that the lack of interior photos means that the buyer is expected to update the interior anyways.
The floorplan, views, and most importantly the address are all prospective buyers need know.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at August 27, 2009 7:39 AM
my amenity count:
safes with bidets inside: 0
I still don't get it...
Posted by: asiagoSF at August 27, 2009 7:46 AM
The two bedrooms with one entrance yet two separate bathrooms strikes me as odd. So, you walk through one bedroom to get to the other, but now worries, each one has a separate toilet, sink, and tub?
Posted by: Brutus at August 27, 2009 7:47 AM
I think the floor plan is grand and in the nieghborhood its located in, it's a sure sell. I can't wait to see the interior photos. I've heard remarkable stories of properties that sell quickly with Malin Giddings & Arthur McLaughlin as the staging designer. I'll betcha this property will sell quick!
Posted by: kristen at August 27, 2009 8:02 AM
I was just talking to a friend about this building and he told me that Marshall Wais, Jr. lives in this building. It makes sense that he would want to live in a safe building since his Dad was kidnapped from (as we talked about on SocketSite a while back).
P.S. Ever since I was a little kid I have wanted to own a unit in this building...
Posted by: FormerAptBroker at August 27, 2009 8:46 AM
There's got to be almost a studio's worth of closet space in there. Would make hide and seek fun.
I count ~38 doors marked on the floor plan!
The first interior update I can see making is removing the bottom right bathroom (relative to the picture) and turning the bedroom+bedroom room into an office or art studio space, or home theater.
Second, is the 'vestibule' really necessary? Are we just trying to hide the elevator from view? Because what's the point of the vestibule if it doesn't have an attached closet? You're going to have to walk around to put your coat away anyway.
Posted by: rr at August 27, 2009 8:58 AM
I lived on the other side (the poor side) of Lafayette Park from this building for several years. Every time I walked the dog by this building we'd both drool. Even from the ground level turn-around driveway (which is gorgeous by itself), the views are stunning. They're the full-on, drop-dead gorgeous views of the Golden Gate Bridge and Alcatraz everyone wishes they had. No peek-a-boos or partials here -- it's on the northern crest of the hill. When the Fleet arrives each October they're saluting you on your terrace.
And I'm guessing a good chunk of the HOA dues is for earthquake insurance? I know that was the case at 2200 Sacramento (SW side of the park).
Posted by: Roger at August 27, 2009 9:06 AM
Approx 5500 square feet. No longer a secret. $1545 per sq ft.
Posted by: GL at August 27, 2009 9:39 AM
rr - you'll see vestibules a lot where elevators are the main access to a unit. They can be locked off for added security for the unit.
Posted by: CameronRex at August 27, 2009 9:47 AM
"That combined with the lack of interior pictures makes me wonder what's going on in there."
At that price point, you send the floor plan to your decorator. Everything there, almost no matter what, is coming out anyway. What you want is a floor plan, the location of the windows, and to know where the plumbing is. Everything else, including parts of the floor plan, gets changed before you ever move in.
It always surprises me that someone used to living like a king still has a formica countertop that was fashion forward in 1960, but ceased being so. I suppose they just don't want to bother with a remodel. You'd think they'd update while they were on vacation or something.
Posted by: tipster at August 27, 2009 10:14 AM
I know at least three residents in the building have spent north of $1k/sf to remodel the entire unit.
These people have so much money that they don't really care about the HOA dues, mortgage, etc. Its all about the address and the people around you.
I know many big republican donors live in this building. 2500 Steiner is the democrats.
Posted by: rentvsbuy at August 27, 2009 10:15 AM
You can compare the layouts of apartments 4 & 9 by looking at Malin's Sold Properties description here: http://www.sfproperties.com/properties/2006washington/index.html
Apartment 9's layout allows better access to the southeast bedrooms.
Posted by: Lee at August 27, 2009 10:19 AM
safes with bidets inside: 0
Oh, I don't know... that chimney stack looks awfully big. Could be hiding a secret room.
Posted by: BobN at August 27, 2009 10:21 AM
Even better, here's how it COULD look if you have 5 million to spare for the remodel and interior furnishings..
Posted by: sleepiguy at August 27, 2009 10:34 AM
I've been told in the past that one of the major reasons why they don't put up pictures in luxury homes is because they don't want art thieves to be able to canvass the joint using the pictures. Not sure if that's part of the thinking in SF or not, but that's what I've heard from friends who sold high end listings in other cities.
Posted by: ex SF-er at August 27, 2009 10:47 AM
Here is another one with the same architect
Posted by: rentvsbuy at August 27, 2009 10:47 AM
Agree that the layout of #9 is much better with respect to the southeast bedrooms. The laundry/ maid's room/sewing room area also seems to be better conceived.
Posted by: SausalitoRes at August 27, 2009 10:59 AM
Ex-SF-er may have found the reason for no interior photos. A florist friend of mine does the flowers in one of these units and says the art collection is truly Louvre quality with paintings by artists such as Cezanne, Monet, Edward Hopper, Degas, Vuillard etc. I was told that the HVAC system to maintain the paintings and the security systems to protect them was amazing. I have no idea if this unit is the one he visits.
This is the one building I always wanted to see the interior of.
Posted by: Morgan at August 27, 2009 11:04 AM
"At that price point, you send the floor plan to your decorator."
You are so right. It's why this building is a Co-op and not a Condo.
Posted by: Roger at August 27, 2009 11:08 AM
The most common reason for a vestibule at an elevator is to provide smoke and fire seperation between floors.
The elevator in large part probably dates from the original construction, so with the comments regardign art above, the vestibule is a good idea.
Posted by: redseca2 at August 27, 2009 11:17 AM
> Here is another one with the same architect (with a link).
The link looks like 2006 Washington, but the page says:
“Renovation of a Julia Morgan Apartment”
Did Julia Morgan do any work on 2006 Washington with Meussdorffer (or was she involved with splitting off the penthouse)?
Posted by: FormerAptBroker at August 27, 2009 12:57 PM
I beleive Julia Morgan was hired to do the interior of that unit only. Meussdorffer designed the building.
Posted by: rentvsbuy at August 27, 2009 1:04 PM
active contingent already.
Posted by: resp at August 27, 2009 8:02 PM
funny how no one comments after the sale is in escrow. all the pundits stop commenting....why is that?
Posted by: Number7 at August 27, 2009 10:04 PM
^Because most people read this site during the day, not after 8pm? That's my guess.
Posted by: anon at August 27, 2009 10:19 PM
Number7, easy on the conspiracy theory!
If you re-read this thread it was actually pretty nice. Comments on the layout, on the prospect of redecorating, a bit of name dropping, people who know the area dropping in. Very civil. Not much bashing on the price. It was dropped and this was a smart move.
Abut the lack of comments, the last post before the contingent announcement was 1:04PM. After that a few were busy on some other thread. This one was basically dead. Exceptional property, incredible place. Boring.
Give us something we can relate to (hint: SFH in Noe, the middle class brass ring).
I have my own conspiracy theory to stir up the muck a bit: the repricing happened yesterday, right? And oh surprise we have "active contingent" right away. I feel there could have been an offer on the back burner, the asking was lowered and tada! An offer! Sold in ONE DAY. What a success!
Or maybe the price was reasonable enough to attract a serious offer, like 1001 California #8. When starry-eyed sellers get their oxygen levels back to normal they end up selling!
Posted by: San FronziScheme at August 27, 2009 10:28 PM
This was "sold" when Malin got the listing - there was already a buyer who was willing to pay, just not quite so much. She gets the sale and the "reputation" as an agent who moves high end properties, but it was already essentially a done deal.
Posted by: anonnnnnn at August 27, 2009 11:16 PM
Hey an easy 8M sale is where it's at. More than likely they had the buyer and used the buyer leverage to get the listing contract; and now it's in contract. There isn't a lot of competition here that anyone would feel compelled to make an offer in 24 hours. So I tend to agree with anonnnnnn on the pre-deal.
$8.5 is a pretty fair price. Sub $1500 psf should be a pretty clear message to high end condos and their listing agents (you know who you are :). This place is equivalent to a premier building in CPW in NYC and those places routinely sell for 3/4k psf.
I give some credit to the agents here for talking some market sense into these sellers and getting deals done. With the exception of one property, these guys are moving everything that comes their way.
Is there an easy way to find out the buyer agent on a closed deal in the MLS?
Posted by: eddy at August 28, 2009 6:58 AM
Ah! I wasn't too far off in my theory...
Posted by: San FronziScheme at August 28, 2009 8:28 AM
No interior photos often is about security.
The floor plan reads to me from the butlers pantry back is for the help. The two connected ed bedrooms are for children, or baby and nanny.
Posted by: goodbonesgal at August 28, 2009 9:19 AM
"...those places routinely sell for 3/4k psf"
Eddy - By 3/4k do you mean $3000-$4000 ? Surely the CPW flats are not going for three quarters of $1000 == $750
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at August 28, 2009 9:23 AM
23 closets total. The Lazy Closet Indicator comes up to 4.6. Not bad at all.
Posted by: San FronziScheme at August 28, 2009 10:27 AM
CPW apartments in major buildings, such as the El Dorado, were selling for over $2000 per square foot as recently as early this year.
2006 Washington, however, compares to Fifth Avenue, not CPW.
The architect Andrew Skurman is the top in his field in SF because he uses a Classical idiom with thorough historical knowledge and fine taste. His work is timeless and will last over a century. He does interior as well as exterior architecture in the tradition of the great men and women of his field.
Posted by: Conifer at August 28, 2009 10:59 AM
Posted by: eddy at August 28, 2009 11:42 AM
I have been to several parties in the penthouse unit. Whole floor and mostly wraparound terrace. Remarkable place in all respects. Great parties as well. Owners are fantastic and quite generous. They are not poor.
Posted by: kondratieff at August 28, 2009 7:28 PM
To answer your question, yes you can see who the buyers agent was on the MLS once it is SOLD.
I'm pretty positive that Malin double ended this deal (meaning she represented both seller & buyer making double the comission)
There is just no way that the unit goes contingent after the same day it is listed.
Posted by: Richard at August 28, 2009 7:33 PM
Posted by: anonnnnnn at August 28, 2009 10:31 PM
I heard escrow...
Posted by: Ryan at August 29, 2009 2:14 AM
"Alsolutly, the hotest real estate project in the history of San Francisco!! Better than 2006 Washington, 10 Coop Apartments sold in 1925 (still the most sought after apartment in SF)"
Posted by Fred in 2006 on this site (3rd comment)
regarding One Rincon Hill Tower.
In fact, a reading of that thread shows how very long ago 2006 now seems, with the first comment boasting a Parkside home that sold for 50% more than purchase price two years previous. Some of us knew what was going on was insanity, but reading it now really drives home what a bubble looked like.
I mention this not to be off topic, but to show the silly comments comparing every new ugly SOMA tower to buildings such as 2006 Washington. There is NO comparison.
Posted by: Morgan at August 29, 2009 6:30 AM
Wow, it already went into escrow after only two days. It had previously been on the market with McGuire for 273 days at 15Million and then reduced to 12.5 Million. Perhaps the seller's were just testing the waters back then. Malin really knows what she is doing and I wouldn't be surprised if she did double end this deal - she is connected to all the big money buyers. Just goes to show you that pricing is everything!
Posted by: Julie Peisner at August 31, 2009 10:05 AM
Be careful people, "In Escrow" (or "Active Contingent") is not nearly the same as "In Escrow - Firm" (at which point all contingencies have been waived and earnest money is at risk).
And according to the MLS, 2006 Washington #4 is out of contract and Active once again.
Posted by: SocketSite at August 31, 2009 11:35 AM
I'm not totally surprised. I'm still a little puzzled about this unit. I remain suspicious about the lack of interior pix, especially since I believe the unit to be vacant and devoid of furnishings.
Posted by: sleepiguy at August 31, 2009 11:49 AM
A fall from (escrow) grace and still no interior photo's would indicate that she's waiting until Arthur puts in some work. I remember pics from when this was a McGuire listing and the place was pretty... um, "dated".
Posted by: anon at September 3, 2009 3:01 PM
I walked this property with a client during the previous listing... and we found it dated and dingy. Even though the floorplan (walk-through) bedroom lends itself perfectly to creating an uber-luxe two room suite, she ran scared from this co-op. If she could see it now; sleek, elegant and befitting the address.
Posted by: DZInerSF at October 7, 2009 9:22 AM
In contract-Firm. I think it was smart to play this one slow to wait for the right buyer. The original 2008 McGuire $15M ask was really confusing. Curious on the final price.
Posted by: eddy at August 8, 2010 10:25 AM
Did I mention I finally went into this unit? It was in pretty awful condition. It was like going into your dead grandma's place. The massive HOAs and what I predict could easily be a 4-5 million renovation would pretty much scare any sane buyer. I predict a sale in the 6s. The 15 million figure was ludicrous beyond belief.
Posted by: Denis at August 8, 2010 11:21 AM
6s? I'd be surprised. If that low, I think they pull it from MLS and do this confidentially as there would be some very unhappy residents / future (and past) clients in there. I think as a coop they could conceal the price better too.
Posted by: eddy at August 9, 2010 10:58 AM