Five months ago, Park Terrace released its first batch of condominiums. And while “Phase I Sold Out!”, we have reason to believe that it consisted of a “friends and family” round of only five or six units. And to date, a total of 12 condos (11%) have been reserved.
Park Terrace condos are still “starting from the low $600,000s” (now $604,900), another release of units is scheduled for February 24th March 3rd March 10th, and occupancy is slated for summer ’07.
∙ The Park Terrace (325 Berry): Now Selling [SocketSite]
∙ New Developments: Park Terrace (325 Berry) [SocketSite]
Well, if this were a stand-alone complex, I would say that its very nice. Unfortunately, its exactly the same as all other complexes on the same block (Avalon, other Berry propertites, etc), save for a slightly different color on the exterior. Can’t the developers get more creative to entice buyers?
The Berry complexes should be a “case study” for urban planning students of what not to do. Talk about a lost opportunity, no imagination at all and all because developers did not need to “try hard” during the go-go days of the market. Now that things have changed, just building another box will not excite buyers when so much inventory is about to flood the market this year.
“The Berry complexes should be a “case study” for urban planning students of what not to do.”
It already is. My friend who teaches at Berkeley told me they held a case study over this area for a city planning class. Believe it or not, some students actually gave these buildings thumbs up for fitting well into the UCSF development. That’s something you feel wrong about agreeing to.
Do we have any more information on their 3Bd pricing and floorplans? Their website only shows 2 Bd floorplans, but it looks there are 3Bdrooms in the works.
The main problem I have with Park Terrace is they promote themselves as having this “stunning waterfront location”.
But a closer look reveals that the building and it’s “water” views look directly at all the old, decrepit houseboat community on the other side of Mission Creek. I can imagine that view can get depressing after a while. And the building is also quite close to the 280 overpass so it may block out the sunlight.
At least 235 Berry is located in the middle of the creek farther away from the houseboats…
I had to relocate to a new golf driving range for this batch of crap? Man, and I didn’t think that it was possible for there to be a bigger waste of prime real estate than a driving range. Guess I was wrong.
Are the three bedrooms the town homes? I did notice that town homes were once advertised as starting from $1,075,000 but are now advertised as starting from $995,900.
I hope that 340 Berry (Whenever it is built) will look a lot nicer than all the other buildings in the area.
The driving range area has not been built up yet- it remains an unloved overgrown vacant lot with scattered construction machinery and supplies.
I used to be “one of those” San Franciscans who put down Southern California. You know, the sprawl, stucco everywhere, lack of character, no street life. Well, I think there is more original design in new developements in L.A. and more “vibrant” street life in a lot of areas of L.A. than there is anywhere on Berry Street or most of SOMA for that matter. This is San Francisco living?
How do you define “vibrant street life”? Some part of Berry Street has been a construction zone for four years and will continue to be one for at least one more (and then again when the final empty lot is developed). How do you expect any kind of “street life” to be on Berry Street under these circumstances? Neighborhoods don’t appear overnight, and not every neighborhood, including many of those considered to be the most desirable in San Francisco, is bustling with activity on every street corner (including large parts of Pacific Heights, Nob Hill and Russian Hill).
“Vibrant Street Life” was taken from a previous writers justification for wanting to live at the corner of Powell and O’Farrell (I for one could do without that kind of “vibrant”). But since you asked, I don’t think Berry or surrounding areas will ever be Chestnut/Union/Filmore/Hayes etc. etc. There is absolutely no imagination to any of the developements so far and I don’t see how this “neighborhood” is ever going to feel like what most people come to San Francisco to experience. What was proclaimed to be a “beacon” of urban planning is turning into a flop. Do you think in 50 years people will describe Berry Street as being “charming” or desirable?
I don’t think anyone has been or is stupid enough to suggest that Berry will be like Chestnut, Fillmore, Union or Hayes. I don’t think that has ever been intended or suggested. But, many of the people who choose to live in South Beach, and I imagine Berry Street, choose to do so because of the proximity to various modes of public transportation (including the freeway, Caltrain, the financial district and the Bay Bridge), the sunny weather (the weather is always better in South Beach/Mission Bay) and the new construction. Some people don’t want a quaint condominium in Pacific Heights with no heating, single pane windows and shared laundry. And with respect to imagination, unfortunately, most new architecture in this city, both commercial and residential, is quite unimaginative when compared to numerous other locales, in particular Asian cities like Shanghai and Hong Kong, but that’s a product of the city, or even the country, not the neighborhood.
I doubt anyone will read this as this post has “gone dry” , but here it goes. Why couldn’t Mission Bay have been a “whole new type of concept”? In Chicago they are turning all of the roofs of structures downtown green. Many new condo towers and projects, parking garages, and commercial and office building roofs are now required to be landscaped. On smaller developements in Chicago (10 or 20 unit buildings) the green roofs have created whole new designs and living space opportunities. Millenium Park (look it up online, it is amazing) http://www.millenniumpark.org/ is actually the roof of a parking garage. Why can’t the city planners and developers in S.F. think outside of the box and create a new neighborhood that would be unique and an attractive choice to established areas of the city? Instead we get buildings that look like they belong in the San Fernando Valley or Irvine. As a San Franciscan who also has a residence in Chicago (I am proj. arch. on a dev. in that city) , I can tell you the lack of imagination in S.F. is not an American problem, but a Bay Area dilema.