1278-1282 Church Street (www.SocketSite.com)
While 1278 Church Street closed escrow on 9/19/08 with a reported contract price of $1,368,000 ($27,000/2% under asking), the list prices on the other two new TIC’s in the building have just been reduced: 1280 Church by $66,000 (5.3%) and 1282 Church by $70,000 (5.4%). Plus, “seller will [now] buy down your interest rate!”
And speaking of listings on Church Street
Newish Construction In Noe: Three TICs At 1278-1282 Church Street [SocketSite]
∙ Listing: 1280 Church Street (3/3) – $1,245,000 (TIC) [MLS]
∙ Listing: 1282 Church Street (3/2) – $1,365,000 (TIC) [MLS]
It’s Friday, So Insert Cheeky Comment Here (943 Church Street #B) [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by EH

    Also in Noe, my favorite future-retro hybrid, 313 Duncan, has a sign up though it’s not showing up in MLS yet.

  2. Posted by REpornaddict

    I went to see these places out of interest, and kind of liked them.
    I was wondering though, if these and other high end TICs have a problem when trying to appeal to people who could otherwise afford a decent SFH – as opposed to TICs say in the 6-700k range.
    I guess I am saying that maybe some of the negative image people have of TICs is a problem when they get expensive enough to basically compete with SFHs.

  3. Posted by tipster

    They should just price these at 350x Google stock and leave it at that. It would be faster and easier for all concerned then changing the prices, and the net result would be the same.

  4. Posted by Dude

    Another Noe apple: 636 28th Street.

  5. Posted by ex SF-er

    they’re both fairly nice, in that modern sort of way. I like 1282 much more because I like its kitchen and its floors more than 1280 (I am not keen on the fragility of bamboo floors).
    I gave bamboo floors another chance, but seeing them in ORH after just a few weeks of cats running/walking on them made me realize that bamboo has a long way to go still.
    but these are well done for the most part especially if one likes a contemporary look.
    regardless, for this kind of money it would be hard to settle for a TIC.

  6. Posted by ben

    love the design. financing will be tough. the buyer may not need it though at this price. i don’t know. i do know the north bay lenders in the tic finance game typically want 30% down….409K down. Ouch.

  7. Posted by sf

    I’ve walked by, looks better in person, and in context with the neighborhood.

  8. Posted by Ryan

    bamboo belongs in BMW’s not on the floor of a TIC/Condo. I have to agree.

  9. Posted by Nicole

    The bottom one had a nice backyard. It would have been my pick and I can understand why it went first. I can also understand why TICS don’t move at these prices…

  10. Posted by soapbox derby

    MLS: “The overhead beam above the bed incorporates adjustable recessed lighting”
    translation: indirect fluorescent light like you see in every hospital room across the country.
    Does it come with a nurse on call too?

  11. Posted by RenterAgain

    Speaking of high-priced TICs in Noe Valley, it looks like 4077 23rd St has been reduced to $1.295 millon. Sorry, I’m not sure how to link to the MLS page.
    I’ve become a fan of this site:
    More price drops than hikes lately.

  12. Posted by someone

    The market in NV is the worst it has been since ’01.
    And yeah expensive TICs were always problematic for the exact reason REpornaddict brings up. That was an issue even at the height of the market.
    636 28th street had problems when it was sold previously in a hot market. Floor plan is problematic and make the house feel quite small for $2M.
    Having said that, there are some good homes over $2M, all of them are just stuck right now.

  13. Posted by anon

    tandem parking shared with other unit = no thanks

  14. Posted by resp

    I still have never heard of a case of a San Fran TIC owner defaulting. Andy Sirkin often points to this fact. Wondering if anyone has see it happen, given the market changes.

  15. Posted by diemos

    Relaxed lending standards were never available for TIC loans.

  16. Posted by cse

    I’m a bit puzzled by the negative comments on “hi end TICs.”
    To me, it all comes down to pricing vis-a-vis *comparable* condos and SFHs. The middle unit of these Church St. TICs is now priced at $714/sqft. A middle condo (of about the same size) at the 4121 Cesar Chavez development is now listed at $869/sqft. So the Church St. unit is 20% less, and the seller is offering to “buy down the rate.” Depending on the current gap between fractional TIC and condo loan rates (which I don’t know), and the details of the developer’s buy-down offer, the Church St. unit might (or might not) be a good deal. (Recognizing that it does have other disadvantages vis-a-vis the Cesar Chavez unit, like tandem parking, street noise, and lack of outdoor space; but also some advantages–a more central location, a less ridiculous facade.)
    Regarding other sales of quasi/potential “hi end” TICs, in 3+ unit buildings, in the Noe area:
    3595 21st @ Church (a nice 3/2 with impressive views and solid raw material, but modest finishes and a small kitchen) sold in June for $1.1M (~$687/sqft)
    1188 Dolores (a totally “raw” Edwardian 3/2 with great views but a crappy, tunnel-like entrance; needs tons of work) sold in August for $937,500 (~$586/sqft), despite being in a building with two tenant-occupied units (both retained by seller).
    There may be other examples.

  17. Posted by sf

    OK, what is the difference between a TIC and a Condo building? (I’m a renter)
    [Editor’s Note: A couple of links to get you started: The SocketSite Scoop: Wells Fargo To Offer Fractional TIC Financing? and Condo Conversion, TIC, and Ellis Act Overviews.]

  18. Posted by diemos

    TICs were a scam invented to get around the condo conversion laws (that’s why you don’t see them in other areas of the country). A group of people would buy a building in common and then live in the various units. Origonally there was a single loan that everyone signed on to but recently fractional loans have been available so they are functionally little different from condos nowadays.

  19. Posted by othernotary

    “TICs were a scam invented to get around the condo conversion law”
    no. TICs were initially used in the vacation rental model, for groups to purchase properites together for rental purposes: http://www.nuwireinvestor.com/wiki/pages/tenants-in-common.aspx
    as it applies to SF, condo conversion law doesn’t inhibit 2 units, just 3-5 as it relates to TICs.

  20. Posted by othernotary

    your use of the word “scam” is very indicative of where your affinities lie, i’m guessing. why is a tic a scam? someone wants to buy a vacant flat in a building. they are not condos. some are rented. some are not. why can’t an owner sell partial ownership? really … “scam” ?

  21. Posted by diemos

    I state no position on the utility or legality of the condo conversion laws.
    However, I flatly state that if those law did not exist the concept of a “TIC” would never have been invented.

  22. Posted by Noe 94131

    And, diemos, you’re flatly wrong.
    The “tenancy in common” is a rather ancient feature of Anglo-American property law. Non-related parties jointly owning and using real property for various purposes is nothing new.

  23. Posted by chuckie

    Condo coversion laws themselves a corollary of the rent control laws.

  24. Posted by cse

    Re TICs and Rent Control:
    In line with Chuckie’s remark above, it is often said that the condo conversion restrictions exist so as to maintain the stock of rent-controlled units. On one level this makes sense: the 200 units allowed to convert to condo annually are freed from rent control upon conversion (unless they harbor an elderly protected tenant). On another level, it does not: why not allow more liberal condo conversion, subject to the proviso that if the unit converted to condo was subject to rent control it shall retain that status post-conversion? This would keep the stock of rent-controlled units intact, while allowing owner-occupants of what are now TIC units to secure the financing and liability advantages that come with condo status.
    Does anyone know if a proposal long these lines has been floated in the past? It strikes me as a superficially plausible way to break the logjam, if/when the balance of power on the city council shifts back toward the center. (A shift is presumably necessary to get such an ordinance enacted, since it would–horror of horrors–probably result in somewhat more owner-occupancy of what are now renter-occupied units. Then again, some of the new owners would probably be present-day renters . . . .)

  25. Posted by cse

    Re Comparable Condos:
    Does anyone know what 1183 Dolores sold for (it went on the market at $1,299,000 ($780/sqft) recently and was under contract in a nanosecond.

  26. Posted by Animo

    Yes, tenancy in common is a long-recognized form of property ownership. That it’s used for the ownership of separately-conveyed units within a common building by unrelated parties is a rather unique and ingenious workaround of SF’s condo conversion rules.

  27. Posted by RenterAgain

    About 1188 Dolores–– it also came with the garage (2 car parking). It was originally priced for about $1 million but took a little while to sell. I was really wowed by the views.
    Now 1190 Dolores is for sale for $829K. I think that is the middle unit in the same building? On Property Shark, it shows that the entire building was purchased in May 2008 for $2 million.

  28. Posted by cse

    1190 Dolores is the middle unit in the building with 1188. (It’s also tenant-occupied, and the tenant was on site and advertising her 17-year occupancy during the first showing. I’d be very curious to learn whether the buyer of 1188 negotiated a “no-Ellis w/o my consent” clause in the TIC agreement!)
    I was frankly quite surprised that 1188 went as high as it did. (I understand that the seller provided some financing, but I don’t know the terms. Maybe that explains some of it.) The unit does have great views, but architecturally it’s boring (your basic Edwardian flat), and it needs: a new kitchen, two new baths, a new heating system (and there’s no obvious place to stash a furnace), a number of new windows, and probably new wiring and plumbing. And there’s no getting around the awful entry: a very long run of dank, lightless terrazo stairs, with disconcerting settlement.

  29. Posted by someone

    1188-1190 was sold as an entire building and it took ~2 months, a price reduction and a sweet seller financing.
    Then I noticed the new owner trying to flip one unit. Did follow up on that one.

  30. Posted by SocketSite

    The listings for 1280 and 1282 Church Street were withdrawn from the MLS this morning without a recorded sale.

  31. Posted by anon

    4077 A 23rd is in contract

  32. Posted by RenterAgain

    Any idea what it sold for?

  33. Posted by anono

    1280 Church is on Craigslist for $997K- big reduction from $1.3M

  34. Posted by EBGuy

    The building at 1101 Dolores seems to have some TIC potential (2 units, 2426 sq.ft.); it was taken back by the bank on August 11, 2009 for $1,013,557. Orignally sold in March 1998 for $575,000. Looks like the owner did a bit of refinancing (the latest courtesy of WaMu). All good things must come to an end… (anybody know the backstory?)

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles