As we wrote about the sale of 219 Brannan’s penultimate penthouse #17D last month:
If the Warriors’ plans for Pier 30-32 and penthouses aren’t your cup of tea, you might want to look elsewhere. But if they are, you might take a peek at 219 Brannan #17D.
The 2,005 square foot three-bedroom unit features big Bay, Bridge, and downtown views from windows that reach from the eleven foot ceilings down to the blonde wood floors.
Purchased as new for $2,307,500 in 2001 and barely lived in since, 219 Brannan #17D is about to hit the market for $3,500,000 with parking for two and dues of $1,047 per month.
As plugged-in people know, the penthouse unit with the exact same floor plan one floor above (219 Brannan #18D) sold for $2,942,500 this past September having been purchased for $2,810,000 in August of 2005.
The sale of 219 Brannan #17D closed escrow today with a reported contract price of $3,625,000. Call it a little over $1,800 a square foot, fifty-seven percent over its 2001 sale price, and twenty-three percent over the price which was paid for the identical unit one floor above nine months ago.
∙ Fancy The Warriors’ Plans And Penthouse Views? [SocketSite]
∙ Redesigned Warriors Arena Unveiled: A Peek Inside And Out [SocketSite]
∙ A Million Dollars Under Dotcom Days For The Brannan’s Penthouse [SocketSite]
Wow…
“the penthouse unit with the exact same floor plan one floor above”
How can they call this a penthouse if there is another unit and another floor above it? Or has my definition of penthouse been wrong all this time?
I made a similar comment 5 years ago on SS about one of the new condo towers that had 2 floors of penthouses. I do not recall what was the exact response from the salesman crowd, but it was in the vein of “silly you, of course you can have more than one penthouse floor”. The term can been interpreted several ways.
My take: if you can sell a penthouse for top $$$ because of its exclusive status, why not making 2 or 3 floors of these “exclusive” penthouses if there’s enough demand for it…
i think penthouse now encompasses any and all of the units on the upper floors that take up a relatively large portion of the whole floor, as in the entire or half of the floor, whereas the lower floors cram in 10 units each. maybe in the old days there was always exactly 1 such unit on the top floor but now the designs are more flexible.
Originally, a penthouse was not the top floor of a building but was built on the roof. In the old days, they were not necessarily luxurious.
Somewhere along the way they became known for being spacious, having great views, and usually having large balconies or decks.
Like the word “luxury” itself, “penthouse” has been watered down in the name of marketing, first to cover everything on the top floor (not just full floor units), now to cover how ever many of the top floors they can slap the label on.
Adding to the penthouse theme; seems that one definition now used is different ceiling heights and appliances (same floor plans but higher ceilings and “better” appliances).
In regards to Brannan, I heard years ago that 219 and 229 were not air conditioned except for the “penthouse floors” but 239 is air conditioned throughout the entire building. So much for another “penthouse” definer – AC…
Most importantly to me, $1,800 SF?
Yeah, the term “luxury” has become overused in the industry and now means nothing.
I knew a couple who lived on the 11th floor, took out the 2nd bedroom to make the living room larger (trust me, it needed it) and gushed over the tiny “cook’s kitchen.” They spent $1M in 2001 before the upgrades and design changes. Friends would refer to it lovingly as their little matchbox in the sky.
The term Penthouse has been defiled ever since Bob Guccione passed — much the way of parking & serendipity & soon even Mad Men.
major props to the developer who comes up with an all-penthouse building!
Wonder how much of that bridge view will be blocked by the proposed arena. It’s a pretty huge structure – 13 stories high and quite wide.
Do any of these buildings have step-backs on the top floors, so that some units have nothing above a portion of them?
If so, then one might be able to define a “penthouse” as anything that does not have another apartment on top of it.
Of course, trying to apply logic to a marketing term is a fool’s errand.
Isn’t it on the 17th floor? Also, the Bay Bridge is already quite high at the shoreline. I don’t think the arena will block the view at all, at least not for this unit.