Purchased for $780,000 in August 2006, the “almost new” 188 King Street #309 returned to the market this past May asking $850,000. Reduced to $750,000 in June and then $629,000 in September, yesterday the asking price was reduced to $599,000.
A sale at $599,000 would represent a 23% drop in value for this South Beach condo over the past three years. But as we wrote in April of 2008:
As you might recall, it was eighteen months [now three years] ago that we calculated that only seven of the 44 condos that compose 188 King Street had been sold on the open market despite “multiple releases” and five additional units being advertised as “sold” for marketing purposes (but retained by the developers).
And keep in mind that unsold units ended up becoming rentals (which could affect financing), and a week after the sale of #305 closed escrow [for $925,000 in May of 2006] the developer cut prices by up to $100,000 (which still didn’t manage to move the sales needle at the time).
The resale of 188 King Street #305 ended up closing escrow in June of 2008 for $795,000. No word on whether or not that 14% drop in value from 2006 was “the bottom” at the time.
UPDATE: After 184 days on the MLS listed as a one-bathroom, it’s an hour before a plugged-in reader notices there’s two different bathrooms featured in the listing photos for #309. And PropertyShark confirms, it’s actually a two bathroom condo (as was #305).
∙ Listing: 188 King Street #309 (1/”1″) – $599,000 [MLS]
∙ 188 King Street #305 Returns To The Market (And Is Quickly Reduced) [SocketSite]
∙ 188 King Street: Sales Update [SocketSite]
∙ 188 King Street: The Rents [SocketSite]
∙ The Scoop On 188 King Street: Now Selling Leasing [SocketSite]
∙ Price Reductions At 188 King [SocketSite]
Is it me or do the photos on the MLS show two different bathrooms, but the place is a 1 bedroom, 1 bath?
[Editor’s Note: Nice catch (see UPDATE above).]
I’ve always liked 188 King, good location, and nice finishes.
A little bit long and narrow, but you often find that with new (rather than conversion) lofts.
Because of the high renter to owner ratio in the building, it may be problematic to obtain financing.
[Editor’s Note: As linked to above and noted in 2006: “An important consideration if you’re interested in buying one of the units in the front-half of the building: quite a few lenders will refuse to finance a condo in a building that is less than 60% owner-occupied. It’s something to consider in terms of resale as well.” You can’t say we didn’t warn you.]
Is it me or do the photos on the MLS show two different bathrooms, but the place is a 1 bedroom, 1 bath?
Good point. It also seems like a big enough place to disclose the sq. ft…
If I remember this floorplan correctly it’s 2 full baths and about 1100 sf.
So why ia agent and owner shooting themselves in the foot by advertising only 1 bathroom?? Also, 1100 sq ft is very spacious for a 1BR; I’d be promoting the heck out of that too.
Am I missing something? Or are these people *really dumb*.
$599,000/1100 sqft = $544 psft. Although prices have fallen under the $600 psft level that some had hoped would hold, that seems like a reasonable price. HOA of $489 would seem to be reasonable as well.
$2500 mortgage + 600 property tax + 500 HOA – 700 deduction = $2900/mo, which is about the rent for a 2 bedroom 1100 square foot place in that area.
A large 1 bedroom should go for about $2700, so it’s still more expensive to own than rent, and that’s what’s keeping this place down. These no-amenity-but-a-doorman buildings are just not a draw to own anymore: you are really just renting an inexpensive apartment from the bank and if the cost of ownership can’t at least get close to the cost of renting one, they just don’t seem to sell, $600 psft floor or not.
So more owners who can’t sell without a huge loss are renting them and that is making rents fall further in a vicious cycle. Not this seller, though, he was willing to pay somewhere near $11,000 per month to live in a no-amenity SoMa 1 bedroom for three years. Hope he liked it. At $375 per day it must have been one heck of a good time.
I toured a one bedroom in the building a while back it was really sweet. It’s huge for a 1 bedroom and has nice finishes – very attractive at $599K. Only downside is the high % of renters and high HOA dues. Aside from a parking spot, you only get a doorman which is a waste of money in my view.
I like the building also. Have a friend who currently lives there but my only problem is the upkeep in the building. Since the developer is the majority owner, the building is filthy. The carpets/hallway paints are dirty and the doorman in the front of the building is hardly there. Looks like a rental.
Also parking at the garage could be difficult since the entrance is on King.
But, $599k is not a bad price for this unit.
Wow, are comparable 1 bedroom rents really $2700? $32,400 a year to rent a one bedroom? One would have to make well north of $90,000 a year even to live here. Although it does seem to be a pretty spacious one bedroom (is there a bonus room or something that isn’t counted that could be used for an office or child’s room or something which accounts for the premium?).
I guess this assumed rent includes a premium for living close to the Financial District? I think one could find a one bedroom this spacious for under $2000 in other parts of the City and closer to $1500 in other parts of the Bay Area.
The walk to downtown would be nice as well as being close to all the various transport. But still. That’s a huge amount of money. One has to be in the top 25% of income-earners in the City to even afford to rent a one bedroom apartment in SoMa? No thanks. I would rather live in Daly City and take the express bus for 5 years and save up some money than pay such a premium.
Wow, are comparable 1 bedroom rents really $2700
Not really. Maybe last year, including parking. Should be a few hundred less now.
Upgraded 38th floor one bedroom at One Rincon going for $2,450 with parking, pool, gym, views, etc: http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/apa/1457826175.html
Michael,
188 King 306 is almost twice as big, as the unit you are describing on the 38th floor.
Thanks Michael for the link. That is definitely a little bit more consideration to justify the premium that so many landed gentry in SoMa are apparently seeking. 2650 with parking, utilities, pool, gym, and cable included is more like it. Still, a bit of a premium over other places in the Bay Area (I know the Oakland ritzy condo living isn’t the same as the hifalutin SoMa condo livin’ but I bet one could find the same amenities for much, much cheaper in Oakland, for e.g.).
I just searched SoMa on Craigslist and see that quite a few potential landlords are asking for similar hefty premiums on one bedrooms. And just look at how many are up for rent! This is all based on my anecdotal experience and I would like to see some facts . . . . But I was looking at Craigslist recently for places in Berkeley, Albany, El Cerrito, and parts of Oakland to find a little bit better rent than what I pay in Noe Valley and it seemed like one could find a one bedroom much, much, cheaper than these prices I’m seeing in SoMa. I assume SoMa has many more rental units than these other areas, in toto, but I wonder if the vacancy rate in SoMa is higher. Sure seems like it perusing Craigslist. Or are people really paying these asking rents one sees plastered over Craigslist and there are so many units and so much demand that there are always a lot on offer? Doesn’t seem right to me. Seems like a wide discrepancy in asking rents too. I would definitely drive a hard bargain and not pay asking if I was considering these. I would probably also ask for a credit check on individual landlords or seek some other protection from default and foreclosure.
I just don’t understand how there are that many people in San Francisco that make ~ 100K and want to pay a premium to live in one bedroom SoMa apartment when they can live more reasonably elsewhere. In short, why the apparent premium on SoMa one bedroom rentals?
Here is a 1bd/2ba loft at 200 Townsend a block away: $2700.
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/apa/1462932520.html
Good deals out there folks. Fo sho.
Here is a 1bd/2ba loft at 200 Townsend a block away: $2700.
They are dreaming.
One would have to make well north of $90,000 a year even to live here.
That’s an average salary for a person in hightech/biotech/finance around here. And if it was a couple, they’d be making close to 200K. There are lots of people making that much.
Not biotech. Biotech salaries are appallingly low.
Just to throw this out there, someone making $90K/year as a single person in California has a take-home of a little under $4800/mo, and a married person who is the sole earner has a take-home of a little under $5500/mo (use http://www.paycheckcity.com/netpaycalc/netpaycalculator.asp). I hope people making $90K in household income are not paying $2700/mo in rent.
As to Mikey’s point, I still want to know how many people we’re talking about here. Given that the median salary in SF isn’t even $90K, how many of these tech DINKs are there in SF? Lots of commenters here seem to handwave this point.
SF median in 2007 is $67,333. At least in 2000, there were a little over 20K households making $200K+ and under 38K making $150K+. http://www.demographia.com/db-sfbay$$.htm
And, note that in 2000, there were fewer households making $200K+ per capita in SF vs. the rest of the Bay Area and fewer households making $100K+ in SF vs. the rest of the Bay Area. Obviously things have changed in 2000, but I’m just giving some real data here instead of handwaving.
Why are there so many renters in this building? It looks like a nice complex in a decent location.
Wow, are comparable 1 bedroom rents really $2700?
If by comparable you mean 1100 sq. ft. with 2 full bathrooms and a garage parking space, then yes. That’s a LARGE apartment. I’ve lived in 3-bedroom flats smaller than that.
I think one could find a one bedroom this spacious for under $2000 in other parts of the City…
That would be quite a find and pretty unlikely. 1100 sq. ft. one-bedrooms with home offices? Not exactly a common find in the city, even without the 2 bathrooms.
I work nearby and saw this building built. Watching them put up the faux bricks on the outside was kind of comical. But maybe that’s just what they do now.
^^^ Yeah, building a true brick building is not economical in a quake zone because you would need to build a steel moment frame structure first and then fill in the walls with brick. So we get the fake brick instead.
I prefer more authentic finishes. Here in SF that would be stuff like wood, aluminum, stucco, glass, concrete, stone tiles, etc. The fake brick just looks too fake.
I’m grateful that so many owners of real brick buildings have taken the effort and expense to retrofit to meet quake standards. It would have been cheaper to tear the building down and build new.
I thought these were nice when built, but they did not really have closet space. There was a built in cabinet in the bedroom and that was it.
It may be 1100 square feet, but it’s still a shoebox.
“…Not this seller, though, he was willing to pay somewhere near $11,000 per month to live in a no-amenity SoMa 1 bedroom for three years. Hope he liked it. At $375 per day it must have been one heck of a good time.”
Classic Tipster piling on…doesn’t this at some point get tiresome?
On a separate note, I have heard anecdotally that some developments that were not able to sell out are quietly returning rental inventory back onto the market for sale. It will be interesting to see how they fare given the low interest environment and the available government subsidies. I’d be particularly careful about buying into a building that has more than 30% rentals. Not a good sign. I wonder what the owner / rental ratio is like at the Brannan, Infinity and ORH. Paul?
[Editor’s Note: It’s more than anecdotal: Selling The Rest Of Their Sold Out Inventory At 199 New Montgomery. And perhaps obfuscating the issue (or at least accurate counts) in a couple of the newer developments about town: Some Plugged-In Perspective On Mortgage Fraud Back In 2008.]
Is there a price differential for a bedroom that is a loft (open balcony to the living area below)versus a “real” bedroom (4 walls, a door and a window)? I can’t imagine trying to sleep while the spouse is cooking a late-night snack down below or watching the TV, the smells and noises wafting up. I’m curious whether this difference is ever reflected in the pricing of lofts versus “real” 1-bedrooms.
“It may be 1100 square feet, but it’s still a shoebox.”
So, in effect, rendering the phrase “shoebox” meaningless. Unless you mean, “box”. Which? Awesome! Large open space.
Who you callin’ a shoe, curmedgeon?
Okay, it’s still a box. It is exactly the modern loft design…2 story living area, kitchen tucked under a loft bedroom…no walls (hence no privacy). The fact that it’s slightly bigger than some doesn’t make it nicer, more special, or more distinctive. Except that it’s bigger.
That’s why I called it a shoebox. For a pretty big shoe. 🙂
I guess I just don’t get the appeal.
I checked for more current census data on household income and housing prices in SF for 2006-2008.
Essentially, a similar number of people who were making around $150K in 2000 are closer to $200K now (no surprise — that’s why I quoted the $150K number earlier) — 12.2% of households, and 16.5% of families (families are restricted to at least 2 people related by blood/marriage I believe):
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US0667000&-qr_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_DP3YR3&-context=adp&-ds_name=&-tree_id=3308&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-format=
In addition, the overwhelming number of owner-occupied houses in SF are above $500K, 59.6% between $500K and $999K, and $29.2% at 1M or above, and 72.4% of all houses have a mortgage, and almost 40% of those with a mortgage pay more than 35% of household income on that mortgage:
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US0667000&-qr_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_DP3YR4&-context=adp&-ds_name=&-tree_id=3308&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-format=
“I guess I just don’t get the appeal.”
Correct, you don’t!
sfrenegade, awesome link! a few more interesting stats
-27.6 owner occupied units do not have a mortgage
-of the owner occupied units with mortgages, 21.6% have a “selected monthy ownership cost” less that $2K/month and, as you mention, 59.5% have a cost less that 35 percent of income.
-including mortagaged and not mortaged, 67.2% of all owner occupied units cost less than 35% of income.
-finally, 33.6% of renters (compared to 37.3% of homeowners) pay 35 percent or more of income in housing costs.
I’d love to see income stats for home owners, purchase dates and data on SMOCs over 40, 45 an 50 percent of income, but such is life.
“are closer to $200K now”
Um, “2006-2008” and “now” are a world away. As a small business owner, my income is down 40%. I’m one of the lucky ones.
Ohai:
“That would be quite a find [a comparable one bedroom for under $2000] and pretty unlikely. 1100 sq. ft. one-bedrooms with home offices? Not exactly a common find in the city, even without the 2 bathrooms.”
Here’s two in Glenn Park:
$1900 http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/apa/1461952499.html (it’s got an whole extra bedroom that can be used for the office–and garage parking).
$1900/$1975 w/ parking. http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/apa/1457605209.html
Here’s one in Bernal for $1750:
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/apa/1453248474.html
Here’s a spacious one with covered parking in the Inner Richmond for only $1695: http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/apa/1458140971.html
And this one seems to be very similar to the subject condo, yet a little bit dated, in Portrero Hill: http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/apa/1456993271.html parking included! And it even has an office nook thingy!
Another one on Bernal for $1900: http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/apa/1456351903.html
Oh, and for those those above discussing shoeboxes check out this artist shoebox: http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/apa/1462323419.html
Here’s a posting for what appears to be the same type of unit (1bd/2bth) at 188 King, asking rent of $2950 ($35,400/year).
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/apa/1460296693.html
From the pictures it looks like the occupant uses the “office” as a dining room nook.
Here’s what one can find for comparable downtown condo living if one is willing to live in Oakland:
$2695 for a 3 bedroom and almost 400 more square feet than the subject condo: http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/apa/1459716266.html
Of course one could also rent an entire house in the East Bay for this price (up to 5 bedrooms, multiple baths, garages, yards, bonus rooms, a lot more space):
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/apa/eby?query=house+or+home&catAbbreviation=apa&minAsk=2800&maxAsk=3000&bedrooms=&neighborhood=
Appears to be a very significant premium for a condo in Soma.
SFHawkguy: There is a long time premium associated with living in San Francisco (including SOMA) and rightly or wrongly there is a large section of the population that would never consider living in Oakland (or the East Bay) so unfortunately your comparisons are not apples to apples. Comparing rental stock in different SF neighborhoods may be a better approach. i.e. Noe Valley vs Glen Park vs Bernal Heights, or Rincon Hill vs South Beach vs Mission Bay.
I think unit 309 at 188 King is the smallest unit in the building ~900 sq/ft.
The reason being that there was a unit that sold not too long ago that was listed at 1,123 sq/ft – that had the catwalk to the master bath, and an extra ‘office’ space under the stairs.
This unit has neither the catwalk or extra office nook under the stairs. At 900 square feet and a price of $599k, that is $666/sq foot – still too high considering the market.
Any thoughts?