March 23, 2010

The Newest 23 On Nob Hill (1355 Pacific) Coming Soon

1355 Pacific (

It’s not yet listed, and its placeholder site doesn’t yet feature any interior photography, but as a plugged-in tipster notes, the 23 new construction Nob Hill condominiums with parking for all at 1355 Pacific are about to hit the market with prices starting at $799,000.

Designed by Sternberg Benjamin Architects (as plugged-in people have known for two years), official showings have started will start next week, and additional details (and photos) are coming soon.

1355 Pacific []
Sternberg Benjamin Architects []
The Proposed Design For 1355 Pacific (And Request For That Of 1536) [SocketSite]

First Published: March 23, 2010 1:00 PM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

Nice looking building, in good location.

Posted by: Mr. Jones at March 23, 2010 1:07 PM

The facade seems very heavy and dull; confused between being post-modern and just plain traditional. very somber looking.

Posted by: noearch at March 23, 2010 1:22 PM

Not a fan of the bunker fortress exterior.

Posted by: etslee at March 23, 2010 1:56 PM

What odd, saggy bay windows.

Posted by: Snark17 at March 23, 2010 1:59 PM

I haven't seen this place in person, but those misshapen bay windows seem to be an artifact of the photographer attempting to apply perspective correction to make the facade look straight. They probably look better in real life. At least I hope so.

[Editor’s Note: Original image since replaced with one of our own.]

Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at March 23, 2010 2:11 PM

Actually on second look, the gray color is a bit dark, but that could be due to the lighter color of the two buildings next door. Perhaps they didn't want it to 'blend in' with another beige or neutral colour. I bet they are nice inside, and its a great location.

One question. Would those be property line windows on the right side of the building (above the little beige building)? I would be concerned that in the future you would lose those windows.

Posted by: Mr. Jones at March 23, 2010 2:25 PM

um yeah, the editor's unprocessed photo does make the building look a lot better compared to the "professional" shot on the website.

Like excessive cosmetic surgery, too much photoshop can cross the line from beautiful to bizarre.

Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at March 23, 2010 2:26 PM

walked by this often but never imagined it would be 23 units - had guessed eight or ten max.

Posted by: condoshopper at March 23, 2010 3:42 PM

I really wonder what people on this site will ever think is a great new condo development... This seems to fit the bill: A mix of 1, 2, and 3 BRs, 1:1 parking (let's face it, people still value their parking spot), fabulous location (hyde street, nob/russian hill, the 10, 12, cable car, walking to EVERYTHING). We don't know much about the details of the units, but if this were somehow priced at $800/ft what more could you ask for?

Posted by: SFdriver at March 23, 2010 4:17 PM

Please tell me those are not exhaust vents in the facade? (the small squares that are hard to make out from photo)

Posted by: curious at March 23, 2010 4:56 PM

^^ Those are not exhaust vents in the facade. They are fresh air intakes that are called Z-ducts. You get ventilation air into your unit without opening the windows. This makes the residence much quieter.

Posted by: OneEyedMan at March 23, 2010 5:09 PM

I think it's great to add housing to SF.
it's especially nice to add a mix of 1 and 2 and especially 3 BR places

too many 1 and 2 BRs in my opinion, makes raising a family very difficult in SF. They can use more 3BRs.

these definitely pique my interest!

Posted by: ex SF-er at March 23, 2010 5:36 PM

The recent purchasers of new construction have deluded themselves into believing their nearly new construction will be the only choice for buyers who want new.

But it looks like there are still plenty of choices out there.

Posted by: tipster at March 23, 2010 6:13 PM

I wonder how these will compare to the units at 1635 California Street. The projects are a similar size [36 vs 23 units], similar location [several blocks, though I would tend to believe that Pacific is a somewhat slightly better location], both completed within 5 years of each other, and I assume both the same type of construction but not sure [1635 was steel/concrete, and I think that 1355 is some combination of wood construction].

Posted by: Mr. Jones at March 23, 2010 6:14 PM

I learned the hard way that dark grey does not do well in this climate, when exposed to the sun all day. It super heats. Those are 4 x 8 sheets of plywood on the west (?) facing wall. Ugh.

Posted by: stucco-sux at March 23, 2010 7:00 PM

those aren't 4 x 8 sheets of plywood - they are expansion score lines in the stucco.

Posted by: Jim at March 23, 2010 9:43 PM

Jim, I'm not saying that they aren't expansion score lines, but if you look at Google Street view, you will see that the exterior is plywood under stucco.

Posted by: Mr. Jones at March 23, 2010 9:47 PM

california vs pacific does not = " slightly somewhat better location". 23 vs 36 equals over 33% different. new vs 5 years old, "1635 was steel/concrete, and I think that 1355 is some combination of wood construction]. "
"4 x 8 sheets of plywood on the west"

glad to see you fellows don't let facts get in the way of your opinions

Posted by: anonee at March 23, 2010 9:53 PM


educate yourself before you pontificate.

Posted by: anonee at March 23, 2010 9:58 PM

anonee, no need to be a turd. It was just a point of view.

Both projects have a low number of units. Yes, I can do math and recognize that the math comes out to 33%. I would also group a building of 6 units and a building of 8 units as SIMILAR.

I also think of a location that is about 1/2 mil apart to be SIMILAR, even though I said Pacific is better.

And I think construction within 5 years of each is SIMILAR.

So take a valium, and relax. And instead of criticizing, why dont you put forth a better comparison.

Posted by: Mr. Jones at March 23, 2010 10:11 PM

Any idea of larger unit(s) size, prices and location?

Posted by: Mike L at March 23, 2010 10:32 PM

surprise surprise! more mindless stucco-clad styrofoam mediocrity for SF..

Posted by: citicritter at March 23, 2010 11:14 PM

I've clicked through every unit on the floor plans (on the site, look for features), and I can't find a three bedroom unit. Can anybody else find one?

Posted by: Jeremy at March 23, 2010 11:18 PM

"I'm not saying that they aren't expansion score lines, but if you look at Google Street view, you will see that the exterior is plywood under stucco."

What do you think should be under the stucco?

Posted by: sparky-b at March 24, 2010 8:34 AM

I walk by here a lot and have to agree with citicritter. This is more mindless stucco-clad mediocrity. The quality of construction looks sloppy and poor. That death-grey paint job is uneven. It will look faded and even more dismal in a few years, just like all the other buildings like this in the city.

Nevertheless, this place will probably appeal to the legion of overpaid clueless young first-time buyer couples looking for a place of their own.

Posted by: Marco at March 26, 2010 5:29 PM

Post a comment

(required - will be published)

(required - will not be published, sold, or shared)

(optional - your "Posted by" name will link to this URL)

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Continue Perusing SocketSite:

« Existing U.S. Home Sales Struggling To Find A Second Wind | HOME | Bay Area Home Sales Slow, Except In San Francisco »