Purchased as an un-entitled Tenderloin parcel for $1.6 million in early 2014, plans for an eight-story, market-rate building with 23 residential units to rise at 430 Eddy Street were approved by the City in early 2016.

Having returned to the market as a “Fully Entitled!” site listed for $5.0 million, a price of roughly $220K per entitled unit, which was around the price per unit that developers had been paying for luxury sites around the city at the time, the asking price for the parcel was first reduced to $4.8 million and then dropped to $3.5 million in 2017.

The list price for the 430 Eddy Street parcel was further reduced to $2.998 million or roughly $130,000 per entitled studio unit in 2018, with building permits for the project having been approved by the city as well.

And once again, for those wondering how new developments could possibly start to pencil in San Francisco without a radical drop in the cost of construction and/or affordable housing requirements, here’s another hint: the now “formerly approved” site at 430 Eddy Street, the development of which has been abandoned, is back on the market with a $2.099 million price tag.

We’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.

25 thoughts on “Price for Banked Trendyloin Site Slashed”
  1. The dam is bursting on valuations across SF. Wells just sold 550 California for $42 million. They purchased it for $160 million in 2008. Don’t know what it was appraised at pre-pandemic but certainly much more than $160 million. The biggest hit will come in commercial real estate, but residential properties/sites are seeing/will see big drops as well – this Trendyloin site is a case in point.

    [Editor’s Note: As we outlined two months ago: As Office Vacancy Rate Climbs, Another Shoe Is Poised to Drop.]

    1. It’s an empty lot in the Tenderloin. That’s about as representative as saying an empty lot by seatac is representative of Pioneer Square.

      1. I don’t understand your comparison. Seatac is a solid ten miles from downtown Seattle. This place is less than a mile from downtown SF.

    2. Doomsaying aside, had this developer gotten underway in a timely manner instead of trying to flip the entitled property they probably would have already completed the project and sold the units here before the pandemic.

      A comment in the Feb 2016 thread about this parcel (tip of the hat to ‘Q’ for this) indicated that one could find a studio two blocks away from this location in the Hamilton asking $1,010 per ft.² at that time. Similar units in the same building now, are asking $729 per ft.², representing approximately a 27.8 percent decrease. And that building offers residents access to a ballroom/party room with adjacent community kitchen, 16th-floor sky deck, fitness center, laundry room and 24-hour manned desk, amenities that a developer of this site would be hard-pressed to duplicate in an eight-story building.

      As to the hint regarding new developments penciling out…the current asking of $2.099 million produces a raw starting cost of roughly $95.4k per entitled unit, a 26.61 percent decrease since the 2018 asking price reduction. Using the aforementioned current selling price of units in the Hamilton produces $364.5k per completed 500 ft.² unit (not taking into account the 970 ft.² retail space) here.

      There has to be a way for The City to incentivize developers to proceed with building instead of sitting on a project for over six years (“…approved by the City in early 2016”) trying to flip it.

      1. “…approved by the City in early 2016” Should reallty say approved by planning in early 2016
        The site permit was approved through building in mid 2018
        There was never an application for any addendum. So “Fully Entitled” with only a few more years of permitting to go.

        Also, isn’t this project approved for 100% affordable units? If so the whole discussion on marker conditions and costs of other comp. size places is moot

        1. Sparky, from this site’s February, 2016 post, final ‘graph:

          If approved next month, an eight-story building with 23 residential units will rise on the site, along with a 970-square-foot retail space and a ground-floor room for the storage of 24 bikes. And as proposed, the majority, if not all, of the sub 500-square-foot units will be market rate.

          Emphasis added.
          Would have been wonderful for someone to start on a 100 percent affordable unit building, but that was not what was proposed, or I assume approved here.

          1. From planning 2011:
            The project at 430 Eddy Street would demolish an existing surface parking lot and construct a five‐story building reaching approximately 47 feet in height, containing 24 senior affordable dwelling units and one parking space

            Then in the 2016 special restrictions it says 3 of 23 have to be BMR.

            Feb. 2020 they got an SB-35 approval to do:
            The project proposes the construction of an eight-story building with 23 one-bedroom dwelling units and approximately 970 square feet of commercial space at the ground floor. The project was originally approved as a market-rate project by the Planning Commission on March 17, 2016 per Motion No. 19596 (Case No. 2014.0400CUA) and is being converted into a 100% affordable project for senior individuals and households earning between 30% AMI and 60% AMI. The site is currently vacant.

            I guess they were in contract to sell and that is why they modified the permit for 100% affordable (“Previous Project Sponsor is currently in contract to sell the Property to SF Eddy Housing Investors, LP (“New Project Sponsor”). On September 25, 2019, New Project Sponsor obtained approval from the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee”).

            So I guess it wasn’t always going to be 100% affordable, but that is what you are buying if you buy it. They used the streamlined permitting process under 35 to get it permitted. So probably need to keep it that way.

          2. The “formerly approved” site would not be restricted to the development of a below market rate building moving forward.

    3. “The dam is bursting on valuations across SF.”

      Good. SF is not much bigger than Fresno, and property values should reflect as such. Hopefully the era of irrational inflated exuberance is soon ending.

      1. so Columbus and Indianapolis should be more expensive than SF. Because that is how that works.

      2. Venice, Italy, has a full time population of 56000 people or so, and is in the midst of decades of decline as well as increasingly severe risk of flooding. Therefore real estate in Venice should be very cheap

          1. Uh huh. This “build your own kitchen” dump in Venice is a fortune by Fresno standards, then, huh? But as I’m well aware, posts here are all perfectly cool with changing the goalposts sometimes inside sentences you write. All good.

          2. That’s very much the Wrong Side of the Canal for Venice. Plus for a good six months plus of the year Venice is a horrible place to live in. I’d take Milan in August over Venice in August any day. And Milan is truly horrible in August.

            Then there are all the fun random extra taxes. And the joy of playing the Italian version of Government Bureaucracy. Kafkaesque does n’t even come close to describing the experience. Which mostly involves ignoring most regulations. But you have to know which ones can be ignored. And the list changes all the time.

            The reason why property in Italy looks cheap to foreigners is because wages are low and taxes are high. And if you dont speak Italian or even better the regional dialect you are guaranteed some big surprises along the way, Not good ones either. Not for the faint hearted no matter how great Italy is to visit.

            France would be a much better comparison. Like Lyon or Bordeaux. Much more straight forward too. More annoying bureaucracy, but less stressful.

          3. Really?? I know someone who bluffed their way thru Italy – from pied to toe – just saying “abbondonza!” 🙂
            No, seriously, good to know. Now back to the actual topic at hand: can Frisco’s pain be Fresno’s gain ?

          4. I’m talking about actually buying property and living in Italy. Not being some clueless tourist. I know first hand from immediate family over the last three decades how it works in Italy. Actually living and owing property in Italy. I visit Italy (and France) regularly. But not as a tourist since the 1980’s.

            You brought up how “cheap” property was in Venice as part of the discussion. I pointed out you dont have a clue what you are talking about. Just another clueless tourist spouting off. Lots of those in SF too. Of the Ten Year Tourist variety. Did not live in SF ten years ago. Wont be living in SF in ten years time. I’m pretty new around here. Only five decades and counting. But I have my Loma Prieta story so that seems to make me a local now.

            As for the lot in question. Just the usual story that has been going on in that area since it was first built out starting in the 1880’s. Someone was greedy and the clock timed out for the current boom. So need to wait another 10 or 15 years for the next boom cycle to be net positive (in real terms).

            The eternal story of SF property speculation since the early 1870’s.

          5. Well I’ve been here since mid ’66. So you are new. Welcome! (Bay Area, mind you: never lived in SF, never wanted to….too many hypothermic vists to my grandparent’s house).

  2. I don’t think the cost of land is what is preventing projects moving forward or from penciling out. Even if the land were *free*, unless the cost of construction, borrowing and regulatory compliance also comes down, I would still not expect most of these projects to move forward.

  3. walked by a few days ago by necessity……I’m sure well-heeled, blind, deaf peeps that never leave the unit(s) nor have any company would be perfectly happy here. Maybe the city could give the parcel to the drug dealers so they’d be comfy!

    1. This listing is like a Jerry Seinfeld stand up routine. One wonders why it held value in the past and now just seems sad.

  4. Meanwhile, a short three blocks or six minute walk from this site (according to google maps), a 1,000-unit ‘academic village’ could transform S.F.’s Tenderloin:

    When new housing arises in the Tenderloin, it is typically either subsidized low-income complexes built by nonprofits or the sort of full-service rental communities targeting young professionals that have popped up in recent years along the north side of Market Street.

    But these days the only housing under construction in the neighborhood is catering to a different group: students.

    UC College of the Law San Francisco…is quietly developing a pioneering multi-institution “academic village” that the school is betting will provide living spaces for its students while also enhancing the safety of the streets that were so disorderly during the pandemic. At one point, the law school and four other community groups filed a lawsuit to force the city to remove tents from the sidewalks.

    This summer, UC Law SF will open Academe at 198, a 14-story, 656-unit student-housing complex at 198 McAllister St. One-third of the apartments…will be master-leased by UCSF. The rest of them will be available not only to UC Law SF students, but also to students from UC Berkeley, San Francisco State University, University of San Francisco and the University of the Pacific Arthur A. Dugoni School of Dentistry.

    The academic village is a multiphased reimagining of the campus that could eventually result in over 1,300 units — including some that could potentially house San Francisco public school teachers. As a state agency, the law school is exempt from local zoning controls and the city approval process, meaning that it could be approved much faster than a typical San Francisco project. The project would be financed with tax-exempt bonds.

    Emphasis mine. If feckless private developers are going to stand around for years on end trying to flip entitled projects, we need the public sector to pick up the slack.

Leave a Reply

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