CFAH

Radiance At Mission Bay: Floor Plan

The conversion rate of initial fully-refundable $10,000 deposits to actual contracts over at Radiance at Mission Bay appears to have run somewhere around 50% as they’re now advertising “almost half…sold” for phase one. Some additional pricing and (incomplete) availability:

∙ 330 Mission Bay Boulevard #112 (2+/2.5) 1,775 sqft – $1,772,600
∙ 330 Mission Bay Boulevard #303 (1/1) 902 sqft – $663,000
∙ 330 Mission Bay Boulevard #307 (1/1) 849 sqft – $649,500
∙ 330 Mission Bay Boulevard #411 (2+/2) 1,393 sqft – $1,663,800
∙ 330 Mission Bay Boulevard #412 (2/2) 1,201 sqft – $1,417,200
∙ 330 Mission Bay Boulevard #414 (2/2) 1,139 sqft – $985,200
∙ 330 Mission Bay Boulevard #505 (2/2) 1,127 sqft – $997,000
∙ 330 Mission Bay Boulevard #507 (2/2) 1,220 sqft – $1,409,100
∙ 330 Mission Bay Boulevard #517 (2+/3) 1,998 sqft – $2,128,000
∙ 330 Mission Bay Boulevard #606 (2+/2) 1,772 sqft – $2,347,900
∙ 330 Mission Bay Boulevard #805 (1/1) 961 sqft – $946,600

No official word on the status of the phase II towers (although one tipster thinks she saw a new piling being driven into the ground) but they’re now “pouring the 8th floor” of phase I with occupancy slated for “Spring 2008” (a virtual tour for those who are unfamiliar).

And no, we can’t explain why one source lists #411 at 1,393 square feet while the website shows 1,410.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by welldrawnbear

    is it me or is $1000 psf insane for this location?
    I used to live at UCSF Mission bay across 3rd street and I can say from personal experience that these prices are absurd – who in the world would pay them? If units at this location sell even close to 1000 psf I will give up and realize that i should become a welldrawnbull

  2. Posted by FedUP

    I am also suprised. Ever since I first moved to the city, I have rented, owned and now invested in buildings and locations that I felt “spelled” San Francisco. The Marina (after the 89 earthquake, an amazing deal), Cow Hollow, Lake Ave. and Florence Street on Russian Hill, are all what I “thought” great locations, but if a location like Radiance way way down there can get $1,000 a sq. ft. I give up also. What is the point of buying “location, location, location”, if people are paying almost the same sq. ft. costs to live next to nowhere?

  3. Posted by missionbay res

    In 5 years after the place develops, then MAYBE they can justify $1000/sqft. Definitely not now and those folks that do move in next spring are gonna be pretty lonely, except for the construction works and disgruntled Old Navy employees…
    The developer are now advertising “almost half…sold”. Couldn’t that mean they’re 26% sold?? Since 26% is more than a quarter sold.
    Or 34% sold (more than a third).
    Who really knows what “almost half sold” really means…
    [Editor’s Note: We like the way you think (and we’re working on it).]

  4. Posted by Leningrad

    welldrawnbull: $1000 psf is indeed insane ( but now I don’t feel so bad paying $823psf in Mission Bay). What dumb developers, building condos that no one will buy-how do they stay in business? you obviously know more than they do (no offense to you personally-I agree with your sentiment). Where are YOU building condos?
    And FedUP: you bought in great locations, are you trying to tell us you lost money on those houses? I looked there, but couldn’t find anything we could afford. We picked Mission Bay because of the public transportation which makes it next to EVERYTHING.

  5. Posted by Jamie

    I took a ride on the T-Third yesterday from Folsom and The Embarcadero to 3rd and 20th Streets, and I have to say the T-Third service seems to be running pretty smooth (at least it looked smooth yesterday – good supply of T-Third railcars going back and forth).

  6. Posted by Leningrad

    thanks for the update, Jamie, maybe we won’t have to wait 5 years for the place to develop.

  7. Posted by Jordan

    I am half-tempted to drink the kool-aid and say ‘things are different this time, San Francisco is just special and real estate never loses value’.
    Still, how anyone can justify buying a condo right now almost anywhere in SF just blows my mind.
    The last time I checked:
    – the rent vs. buy equation still doesn’t pencil out in these new buildings.
    – there are a ton of new units coming on to the market now, and continuing to do so over the next few years.
    – there are 12% fewer jobs in SF than there was in 2000. If job growth is the ultimate determinate of demand for residential RE, then this doesn’t look promising.
    So, someone slip me some of that kool-aid, and tell me how you can reasonably expect price appreciation in these condos? From a strict financial perspective, why would you not be better of renting and investing your money in short term bonds?
    As a quick disclaimer, I know financial reasons are not the only ones motivating home purchases. Also, I love this city (and live next to Mission Bay).

  8. Posted by Anonymous

    “I took a ride on the T-Third yesterday from Folsom and The Embarcadero to 3rd and 20th Streets, and I have to say the T-Third service seems to be running pretty smooth”
    Wow, they finally managed to run a tramway line pretty smooth. This is the year 2007 AD if I am not mistaken. Are we talking Bangladesh or San Francisco? Go pay $1000 psf. You even get a tramway which runs pretty, pretty smooth. LOOOOOOOOOOOL

  9. Posted by Jamie

    Clearly, you don’t understand the context.

  10. Posted by James

    I have lived in Mission Bay for the last three years and absolutely love it. For you Mission Bay critics, I suggest you come over here on one of these warm evenings and walk along the new parks by the water channel. Last night, the area by the new boat launch was full of cranes and other birds feeding in the water. All of this a few steps from our front door.

  11. Posted by Fedup

    To the question of whether I lost money, of course not. I was also lucky to have moved here when this city was no more expensive than most cities at the time, and money went a LOT farther.
    My point was that Location does not seem to matter any more. When looking at investment property, location was the first thing I would consider, but now it seems people are willing to spend top dollar for anywhere. I consider 1,000 a sq. ft. to be expensive, and therefore it shocks me they are asking such high costs for this location.
    BTW, I have not seen the rental market this HOT in a long long time.

  12. Posted by Rich

    I took the T Line today and it’s still pretty bad in my opinion. Never again will I live anywhere that forces me to depend on MUNI.
    MUNI never will be able to keep any sort of schedule as long as it competes with cars. BART, CalTrain, VTA all have priority over cars. MUNI doesn’t. If some driver blocks an intersection trying to make the next light, MUNI is stuck and gets backed up. As long as it has no priority over traffic, there will always be delays. It is by design.
    I purposely live right between CalTrain and BART so I don’t have to depend on MUNI. It is WONDERFUL when it works, but just when you need it to be on time, it will let you down. As long as I can walk, I can make it CalTrain and BART and not have to drive.

  13. Posted by diemos

    “BTW, I have not seen the rental market this HOT in a long long time.”
    This is something I expected to happen with the real estate slowdown in the central valley. If you’re going to give up on owning and rent for the time being, you might as well rent in the city and save yourself the commute.
    After 7 years with no increase in rent my landlord just hit me with 7 years of “banked” rent control increases. A 10% jump.

  14. Posted by me2

    Ok, so it looks like they sold alot of the very nice condos and a few of the very low. Now how are they going to sell the middle of the road condos.
    With all the inventory that they are creating themselves in the near future with the two new towers they need to “get busy” fast! This being said are they offering any incentives or are the prices flexable?

  15. Posted by SFhighrise

    FedUp-
    I would argue that one criteria in choosing Mission Bay for most people would be location. Now, it is also partially speculation that this will indeed turn into a great neighborhood within the next few years. However, given the rapid increase in development south of the channel, I would argue that this will happen a lot quicker than most people on this site imagine.
    While you can argue that Muni is inefficient, it is still a very short commute by Muni to downtown. So, its delayed by 5-10 minutes. Your commute is still only 20 minutes.
    The weather is indeed a lot nicer here than elsewhere in the city. As I’ve noted before, I’ve gone out to areas of the city such as Marina or Pac Heights on a Fri or Sat night and have been shocked at just how much colder it is than in Mission Bay or near the Embarcadero. These micro-climates are truly astounding.
    Although a lot of people can argue that Rincon Hill doesn’t have much green space, the same cannot be said for Mission Bay. I think that often tends to lend itself to a community atmosphere and I see the number of community events at these parks on the increase.
    Also, for all the naysayers who say its just a bunch of square blocks with chain stores, you really need to look deeper. I’ve noted that I’ve closely observed the area over the past 2 years, since I moved to SF. While chains are still a major component, local shops, restaurants and bars are also on the rise. Every local establishment in the area I’ve seen is absolutely packed on a Fri/Sat night and I see a lot of signs for new local establishments coming in the near future. Just go to District on any night of the week, and you will know what I’m talking about.
    Given the rapid increase of population of the area, you will begin to see a critical mass, which supports all of these services. People aren’t just going to go to Marina, Russian Hill, Pac Heights, etc to go out to the bars or restaurants on weekends. This area, along with Rincon Hill are shaping up to be hot destinations of the city as well. In my view, they have a potential for being a hotter destination in the long run, as those existing areas have already maxed out their potential, but Mission Bay has just started ramping up.

  16. Posted by anon

    “This area, along with Rincon Hill are shaping up to be hot destinations of the city as well. In my view, they have a potential for being a hotter destination in the long run, as those existing areas have already maxed out their potential, but Mission Bay has just started ramping up.”
    Do I smell a real estate agent here????????

  17. Posted by anonononon

    If I am coming to San Francisco for a “San Francisco” experience, I am not going to go to Rincon Hill or Mission Bay. Give me a break. That is like going to Los Angeles, and saying that West Covina is the new “hot” destination in Southern California instead of Beverly Hills, Santa Monica and Malibu. The North side of this city will always be where the views and the money is. As for “better weather”, if I wanted to live in an area with “good” weather, I would leave the city altogether for the Peninsula. Now THAT is good weather.

  18. Posted by SFhighrise

    No, not a real estate agent. I live in the Rincon Hill area though, by choice.
    You know, I feel that I still get the “San Francisco experience” living in this area. I can walk along the Embarcadero, over to Union Square and a lot of other areas. Also, there’s an important thing about this part of the city. I can actually walk to work downtown. This is something that you cannot do in a lot of other neighborhoods. The West Covina analogy serves as a poor one, given the huge amount of sprawl in SoCal. The equivalent here in the bay area would be comparing Livermore to SF, not different SF neighborhoods to one another.
    I personally do not want to live in those old buildings, with creeky floors and mildew. I like a newer, more comfortable living situation, with all of the advantages of an urban area.
    As I’ve noted before, what is the big deal about living right down the street from a strip of restuarants? Its not like our city is so huge that you cannot get to another area very easy. Sure, Chestnut has good restaurants, but not any better than places within walking distance of Mission Bay. Besides, I like variety….I would get tired of the same few spots every day anyway.

  19. Posted by AC

    Those PSF prices are on the high side for sure but I guess it is not outrageous, maybe 10% more than what I think it should be. I guess the pricing is for those interested in a long-term bet on the neighborhood. There is potential there fore sure. I pass through the area several times a week and it gets better in Mission bay every day.

  20. Posted by none

    Yeah, I agree. For some people, It seems like a nieborhood can only be nice if there is a row of swank restaurants nearby. . You can get that in Mountain View too.

  21. Posted by Anon

    Anyone who pays these prices is nuts. Given that beautiful Victorian SFRs in the Marina and Pacific Heights are listed at $800-$850 per sf, these prices for nice, but generic, condos in a fairly dead part of the city are way out of whack. And I use these other neighborhoods as examples of some of the traditionally most desirable and most expensive areas; plenty of great places are available in other wonderful parts of the city for far less. These places at Radiance may or may not sell at these prices, but believe me, in 3 years, these units will be on the market for 40% less.

  22. Posted by Former Lurker

    I doubt you can get a Victorian SFR in the Marina at any price.

  23. Posted by anom

    The listing above on this site is a prime Pacific Heights location (Jackson and Broderick) and is about $735 dollars a sq. ft.

  24. Posted by SFhighrise

    Well, I never said that I don’t think that Radiance is overpriced. It is much more expensive than other developments in the area. However, the units are larger (tough to find in new developments in the city) and the finishes are nice. I guess if people are paying for this, it is worth it…the market will bear this.
    On another note, it is not accurate to compare the new developments at Radiance to the older units in Pac Heights. This is definitely NOT an apples to apples comparison. On one hand, you’re comparing an old victorian in an established, matured neighborhood with no amenities to a modern condo in a high rise in an up and coming neighborhood, in a building with lots of amenities.
    To say that the units should be less in the newer areas would be flawed, unless you find a development in Pac Heights of similar age, quality and scale.

  25. Posted by anom

    I agree it is not an “apples” comparison. The Pacific Heights unit does not have a community rooftop firepit, but really think about it just a bit. You have a nieghborhood you can enjoy NOW, vs. an area you HOPE becomes a neighborhood in 10 to 15 years. Stack on top of this a possibility of a real slow down in new housing construction on the south side of the city due to over supply and a shrinking real estate market, and I would choose the Jackson Street Unit myself. Plus, I happen to like hearing rain falling on my roof, as well as being able to hear the fog horns on Alcatraz and the G.G. Bridge, a 3 block walk to Peets past beautiful homes and apts., and a park with postcard views and tennis courts a block away. I would call those amenities also. However, I hope Mission Bay developes and turns into a great part of town, I am 47 years old and don’t have time to wait 15 years for it to finish turning into a “neighborhood”.

  26. Posted by SFhighrise

    I think 15 years is a bit of stretch. I’d say 3-5 years is more accurate. Within 2 years, we’ll see all of the developments completed south of the channel and I’d give it another couple years for all of the restaurants/shops, etc to come into the retail areas (based upon what is happening right now along King Street).
    I never said your established neighborhood wasn’t a nice place. In fact, I enjoy hanging out in Pac Heights, Marina, Russian Hill, etc. I think having lots of great neighborhoods in the city to explore is a fun thing. However, I would state that its wrong to simply dismiss Mission Bay as “un-San Francisco” or “not a neighborhood”.
    I agree that we are sort of seeing the perfect storm in terms of rapidly growing inventory, rising interest rates and a market in which buyers are not purchasing. However, I also think that assessment is very short sighted. As we all know, this market is extremely cyclical and doesn’t change the fact that there is still a major housing shortage in SF. While you may see these developers have difficulty selling units immediately, this is NOT a long term problem.

  27. Posted by Anon

    The “amenities” are worth little to nothing in $/sf. You get security, and a gym and a rooftop deck you’re sharing with many others. And those not-so-important amenities are hardly “included in the price” — you have a monthly HOA fee that you have to pay forever for them.

  28. Posted by fred

    Let’s consider that new construction commands a premium. A lot of people prefer clean and modern finishes. The new buildings meet updated codes as well. It’s like, would you rather have a new Toyota or an old Mercedes?

  29. Posted by Jamie

    One challenge for early businesses in Mission Bay might be ringing in the neighbors. It is so easy with the Muni stops around the Caltrain station and the N-Judah/T-Third lines to head to Castro, Powell Street, Chinatown, or North Beach that folks might form an early habit of taking the quick trip out of the neighborhood for dinner and so on.
    I’m rooting for Philz Coffee on the corner of Berry and 4th Streets … and I’m also hoping the Mission Bay library branch right there expands its hours beyond 1pm – 6pm most weekdays and Saturday, with a 8pm closing on Wednesday.

  30. Posted by MysteryRealtor

    Hi Folks;
    Like it or not $1K per foot is the current [starting] price point for new construction in SF. It is what people will pay.
    As an aside, price per square foot isin’t really the best way to value property in SF. Bedroom/Bathroom count, Parking and View count for a lot and always need to be factored in. It’s one of the reasons why “Zestimates” can be all over map.
    Best,
    M.R.

  31. Posted by Brutus

    Per sq ft is also misleading when comparing a SFH to a condo. A lot of old Victorians have a lot of “useless” square footage – big, wide hallways and staircases, etc. Also, I’ve seen several Victorians that may have four or five bedrooms, but it would really be much better if there were three or four larger bedrooms – sure you can remodel – but that’s a chunk of change.
    I’m certainly not implying that Victorians in established neighborhoods aren’t very desirable – I’m just saying that there are many cases where spending $1000 a sq ft for a 2000 sq ft condo may make more sense than spending $800 per sq ft for a 2400 sq ft Victorian.

  32. Posted by Gomez

    Mission Bay? Can anyone say Liquefaction? You thought the Marina was bad after Loma Prieta? HAVE FUN PAYING 1000PSF WITHOUT EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE.
    “this town is one good earthquake away form decent real estate prices”
    ~unknown~

  33. Posted by Brutus

    I’d feel safe in an earthquake in a recently completed building in a liquefaction zone long before I’d feel the same in many 100 year old places that aren’t in liquefaction zones.

  34. Posted by Richterscale

    If ANY of you were around for the 89 quake, which had an epicenter 75 miles south of the city, you would understand how severe the problem of liquefaction can be. The Marina was a catastrophe! While all you had to do was cross Lombard going up the hill to more stable soils and the lights were on, people going on about their lives, shopping and eating. FOR MONTHS, the Marina was without water, power, anything! Good Luck! We are going to get hit sooner or later.

  35. Posted by Gdog

    “understand how severe the problem of liquefaction can be.”
    A distinction to make is what happens *around* a condo building if an earthquake hits versus what happens to the structure itself. The new buildings going up in South Beach and elsewhere with a million pilings going down to bedrock probably will hold up well in a fairly strong quake. The infrastructure around them another story entirely.
    As far as going without earthquake insurance goes, being in a condo has advantages. Say $10M of damage happens to a 100 unit building — in that case the HOA can get a construction loan where the monthly payment is divided by all the residents. That payment will very likely be lower than quake insurance. Of course, “no damage no pay”. And, you don’t start payments if/until damage actually occurs.

  36. Posted by Richterscale

    Thanks GDog, THAT was my point. Of course every structure will not fail, but as you mentioned, what happens “around” the structure is another story. I feel so “old” all at once, but if you were alive, and/or, living in S.F. in ’89 during the quake, you would know that for MONTHS, the Marina was dark, while the rest of the city was back “online”. I believe it was over 5 or 6 months before natural gas service returned to the Marina. I was living in Cow Hollow with a view over the Marina, and at night I would watch while we had power and water, as people down there, IF they were allowed to return to their homes, would barbecue on their roofs and use candles for light. I believe the water service also took a very long time to restore. The 89 quake is what made me buy a home in Marin County (though I still own property in the city as well).

  37. Posted by anonwarning

    Video of Marina District after earthquake which had an epicenter 75 miles south of the city. For those of you who own propertie(s) throughout the bay area, this is something to remember. Only a fool would buy in a liquefaction area. Interesting that some of the safest areas (Nob & Russian Hill, as well as Pacific Heights) are also where the wealth is concentrated in this city.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lAXStQCjr8&mode=related&search=#

  38. Posted by me2

    Re: liquefaction
    While this could be a problem I would offer the following on this matter:
    I grew up in Foster City…. If you want to know anything about land fill this is the place to go!
    Foster City, just down the peninsula, was a marsh until TJ Foster convinced the California Army Corp of Engineers to take the sludge out of the bottom of the Bay and dump it into what later became Foster City. I am happy to report that our former homestead, one of the first to be built, still stands with all the roads etc still intact. This is despite numerous earthquakes that have occurred in the area since the early 60’s.
    I have never heard of any problems with any building in the area, including the 22-story high rise office building that was constructed there about 15 years ago.
    I would like to add one caveat to the above statement; I do not believe you can compare the Marina, which was poorly created from the debris of the 1906 quake, to SOMA/Mission Bay, which was constructed using engineered soil. I do believe that natural settling of the soil will occur in this or any other area that has landfill. Settling is more of a maintenance issue. Most folks are not aware of the problem. Are you aware that most of the buildings in the Financial District past Montgomery Street are on fill?
    I have seen BART and MUNI taking folks to work, but can honestly say that I have not seen any boats, ferries, or rubber ducks in this area.

  39. Posted by Brutus

    anonwarning – Only a fool would buy in a liquefaction area? How much money did those who bought after the ’89 earthquake make? You see, the good part about earthquakes (as compared to hurricanes or floods) is that they don’t happen very often. Most of us will only experience one (maybe two) major earthquakes in our lifetimes. And so – people quickly forget and move on. Buying in a liquefaction zone may be risky, but it’s much less risky than buying on a Florida beach or in a midwest flood plain. After the next quake, if anyone wants to sell me their Marina property for cheap, call me up! I’ll be buying, because I know that the next major quake would likely take decades – and I would make a fortune in the interim.

  40. Posted by anonwarning

    Brutus, I don’t think the warning is regarding whether or not money will be made in a location like the Marina, what about the safety of your own life and family? Were you here in 89? There was talk at that time of whether or not people should even be “allowed” to rebuild in the Marina.
    It seems like a long time ago now, but there are many people who remember 89 very well and will refuse to buy property in liquefaction areas. Let’s hope you are right and we don’t live through an earthquake like ’06. BTW Brutus, we are overdue for one in our area, and the ’89 quake was very short, and located in the hills above Santa Cruz. Imagine if the epicenter was here in the city or Oakland? Imagine if it was as strong as 1906? The whole city would look like the Marina District, and the Marina and perhaps Mission Bay would be completely destroyed. Look it up, there are plenty of studies online.
    Do you have earthquake emergency supplies? Do you know how they put the fires out in the Marina? There was no water pressure and they pulled hoses together all the way to the waterfront and used fireboats to pump sea water. The entire city had NO WATER PRESSURE. The fireboats were to have been put out of service in a matter of months, and many feel it was a miracle for otherwise the fires would have crossed Lombard and gone straight up the hill to Pacific Heights. What would they have done on outer Broadway, load up the Bentleys with art and drive to Tahoe (except the bay bridge had failed in one section)? I had to get a hotel room at the Nikko Hotel because they have their own generators and had electricity before much of the city. My own building did not have electricity restored for 1 month. (Cow Hollow)

  41. Posted by anonwarning

    Here is a video of only the Marina District taken after the 89 quake. Amazing footage.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db1kK1Dk1cU#
    Brutus, there are plenty of great neighborhoods in this city that are not dangerous like the Marina, so why defend a those who should know better? (I might be a fool myself as I am stuck at home with broken ribs after a bad mountain biking accident over one week ago, I guess it is the risks we choose to take)

  42. Posted by Brutus

    anonwarning – I was not speaking of the safety of the areas. I was responding to your statement “Only a fool would buy in a liquefaction area”. I wasn’t responding to any statement regarding living there – because you didn’t make that statement to begin with.
    I’m well aware that earthquakes are dangerous. But “discussion” of not building there is no more relevant than “discussion” of not building again in New Orleans.

  43. Posted by SFhighrise

    I’d like to add that I watched a special on PBS a couple months ago with a building inspector who noted that only 1 highrise apartment in the world, built to modern standards (i.e. post 1970s standards) has collapsed. This happened in Mexico City, during their quake of the 1980s and was due to the fact that this building was filled to the ceiling with books and had a weight much higher than allowable by code. When we think around the world, how many major earthquakes have happened, this number is quite astonishingly low. When you couple this with the fact that Japan is a major earthquake zone and I’m sure that the Kobe/Osaka area has a lot of fill, yet, none of their “modern” high-rises collapsed during the Kobe quake, this should say something about the safety of fill areas here in the bay area.
    In addition, if you look back at the 1906 quake, the Mission District (another fill area, above Mission Creek) was one of the most devastated areas.
    My point is that with the combination of a new development and a modern fill zone (i.e. proper engineering), I don’t see Mission Bay as any more dangerous than other parts of the city. In fact, I’d feel safer there than most areas.
    Even on hills, I wouldn’t feel extremely safe. Look at Pac Heights. Sure, it is on bedrock, but the older buildings there definitely weren’t built to code. The bedrock may have saved this area during the 1989 quake, but if you had a 1906 scale quake again, I think that you’d see many of the older buildings collapse, regardless if they were built on fill or not.
    My point is that while people like to knock Mission Bay for many reasons, the landfill issue should not be one of them, when considering all factors.
    Heck, if you want to be safe from earthquakes entirely, don’t live in California.

  44. Posted by justin

    A building like the Radiance will probably be fine. It is the services (water, gas, cable, electricity) that will be down for weeks or months in an area like Mission Bay or the Marina. I would rather be anywhere in the city but the Marina during a quake, period. Mission Bay is shown as being the only other truly dangerous area of the city on the USGS maps.

  45. Posted by anon

    I agree with sfhighrise’s last comment. Newer buildings built to code on landfill would fair much better than older buildings built on non-landfill. I wonder if anyone can point to any structures in the Marina that collapse, which were built to code?

  46. Posted by justin

    Regarding buildings built to buidiing codes that could provide “some” safety, this project was stopped as is reported below. Groups actually have fought against seismic upgrades here in San Francisco!
    http://www.baycrossings.com/archives/2005/02_March/seismic_safety_hit_a_political_roadblock.htm
    This report shows that 28% of the city will be destroyed if a quake greater than 7.0 were to strike (a strong chance of this happening between now and 2040), and if there are fires, possibly over 40% of “some areas” of the city could be destroyed. This is not “gloom and doom”, but a very real possibility in a dense city with many pre 1950 wood structures. We can all choose to live in safe new structures, but it is important to understand what the city itself could be like after the next earthquake.

  47. Posted by potential buyer

    Hi folks — wanted to ask your opinions on this matter. Getting back to the original post, the prices now for Radiance would qualify as preconstruction or pre-preconstruction, correct?
    Isn’t it true that in nearly every real estate development, those that buy pre or pre-pre construction basically can sell for a profit since they got in early? Maybe it may take 2 years, maybe 5 years, but basically, they make a profit?
    The only case I can think of where this did not happen is if the building was of shoddy construction (in which case, this developer does not seem to be) or if the market really really tanked (like 25% in SF, which is probably not the case either).
    Am I correct in my assessment? Of course the downside is if I am taking out mortgage of 90% or more, than most of my early payments go to interest so the profit would be less at re-sale?
    (Beacon, Glassworks, etc — aren’t those early buyers looking at some profit now?)

  48. Posted by Leningrad

    Brutus,
    “Buying in a liquefaction zone may be risky, but it’s much less risky than buying on a Florida beach….”
    not quite accurate. I live on the water in a Florida beach city [and just bought a Mission Bay condo with pilings down to bedrock]. FL has a coastline of over 1000 miles, so if the center of a hurricane hits outside of “75 miles” it will do very little damage. ( I usually say 50 miles, but I lived through Loma Prieta and wanted to keep the 75mile analagy; and it can hit a lot closer if it is on the proper North or South side). And then remember you have days or a week to prepare, and evacuate if necessary.
    But you mean “risky” to structure, not your person. Most people have hurricane insurance (I never had earthquake insurance and didn’t know anyone who did).
    Never the less, I certainly agree with your comments; and I’ll be joining you on a buying spree in the Marina after the next big one.

  49. Posted by cautious

    Leningrad, what you would be buying in your buying spree in the Marina District (post quake) would be new construction so I doubt there will be any deals. IF there was a quake greater than 7.0 within 15 miles of the Marina for a duration greater than 50 seconds, the Marina would be finished. Look at the second video posted above. Since you were here, you may remember the Marina was closed to residents for MONTHS, every street and sidewalk had to be rebuilt. All of the infrastructure had to be rebuilt. If you cannot get earthquake insurance in a liquefaction zone, then why would you be taking the risk when just hundreds of feet away you could be buying a safe location. Remember it is not the structure alone, but the services going to that structure which get problems. There are two red areas on the S.F. map, one is the Marina, the other is a portion of Mission Bay that Radiance is located on. I would post a link to the USGS map, but it might be blocked from posting because of spam filters. I think Radiance is a great design, great floorplans, quality developer, but I just don’t buy in liquefaction zones.

  50. Posted by Leningrad

    cautious, there is risk everywhere. (from an earthquake point of fiew) There is no “safe location” in San Francisco. It is just a matter of where one draws the line of acceptable risk; obviously you are willing to accept the earthquake risk (a lot of people won’t move to CA because they don’t) Brutus (I think) doesn’t want to accept the hurricane risk, etc. Some people accept neither and live in Kansas. I am willing to accept the months it takes to rebuild infrastructure and services. From an engineering point of view, I like pilings below the liquification zone.
    It’s fine for you not to buy in a liquification zone, please don’t get me wrong. Do you stay out of tall buildings, liquification zones, un-reinforced brick buildings? Where will you be when the big one hits? As far as I’m concerned, if it doesen’t bleed I don’t care.
    As for buying in the Marina after a quake. Look at the area today, and prices did go down greatly in 89. But I never meant to imply I actually have the money to go on a shopping spree, I was only agreeing with Brutus’ comment.

  51. Posted by Rooey

    I sorry but I am a little tired of the blah blah about earthquakes, this topic was beat to death on another blog on socket, could you take it back there?
    While I don’t underscore the importance of this subject, how many times do we beat it to death? If you live in California for long enough chances are you will experience an earthquake, taxes, and long term appreciation of real estate. As indicated in a prior email most of the financial district is built on landfill. The Marina was filled with debris from the SF ’06 earthquake. Fortunatly the Radiance is not constructed in the Marina. If you are that concered about earthquakes perhaps Iowa would be a better place to locate you family? Sorry if this sounds a little harsh but for a fourth generation San Franciscan this subject is like running your finger nails down a chalkboard. It is also alot more polite than what I wanted to say which involved medication and self help groups.
    Re: Insurance-first in my opinion insurance is just a legalized form of gambling. The reality is that should a truly major earthquake occur and you survive, what makes you think that the insurance companies have deep enough pockets to payout to everyone they have insured?
    However if you insist on continuing this discussion, may I also offer that the History Channel had a show about the possiblity of a meteor hitting the planet and another about Nostradamus’ predictions for the end of the world in 2012.
    Until then welcome to the Sunshine state!

  52. Posted by james

    have any of you guys here actually closed at this property? i’m quite skeptical of the marketing side of contract/deposit after learning first hand how decpetive they can be to slot you into the unit they want you to buy. quite sad and immoral if you ask me.
    the square footage discrepancy might be from reporting patio’s as part of that figure.

  53. Posted by Leningrad

    potential buyer, you are correct in your conclusions, but it doesn’t follow logically from your assumptions. It doesn’t make any difference if you buy pre construction; if prices go up you will make a profit (you may have to wait until you close to sell depending on the builder). It doesen’t make any difference whether your mortgage is 90% or 0% you will make the same Amount of profit (the % return is different). The fact that your payments are mostly interest is really not part of the equation.
    The best time to buy is when the price is at the lowest, whether pre or post construction. But NO ONE knows when that will be (except of course for every expert on this site, yea right). The best time to buy (IMO) is when prices are going down, like now; you may not get in on othe lowest price, but you will not be priced out of the market as you wait for the prices to fall to what you think is the bottom if you are wrong.
    If you keep the condo long enough, you will make money. As some one said here before: buy, sell, repeat, repeat, retire. Why not keep renting and think of it as buying a place…for your landlord?!
    best of luck! Radiance seems like a great place.

  54. Posted by Leningrad

    Rooey, gee, I’m sorry for joining the discussion, but if someone is talking about hurricanes, I’d like the facts to be accurate. And then I get slammed for stating the obvious that real estate prices go down after a disaster, so what am I to do? not answer? You do know that you don’t have to read all the posts if you don’t want to?
    Yes. ” If you live in California for long enough chances are you will experience an earthquake, taxes, and long term appreciation of real estate.” some people don’t get it. What’s Nostradamus’ screen name?

  55. Posted by anonymouse

    These are the asking prices that we know of – not sure if they are under contract or not:
    Unit Sq. Ft Asking Price PSF
    112 1775 $1,772,600 $999
    114 1746 $1,772,600 $1,015
    205 1313 $984,000 $749
    303 902 $663,000 $735
    307 849 $649,500 $765
    310 1419 $1,165,000 $821
    314 1461 $1,646,400 $1,127
    317 1176 $1,181,000 $1,004
    404 1213 $1,150,000 $948
    407 1159 $1,327,000 $1,145
    409 1056 $992,000 $939
    410 1392 $1,218,000 $875
    411 1393 $1,663,800 $1,194
    412 1201 $1,417,200 $1,180
    414 1139 $985,200 $865
    505 1127 $997,000 $885
    507 1220 $1,409,100 $1,155
    510 1988 $2,230,000 $1,122
    517 1998 $2,128,000 $1,065
    602 1529 $1,619,000 $1,059
    604 1711 $2,347,900 $1,372
    606 1772 $2,347,900 $1,325
    607 1777 $1,643,700 $925
    608 1360 $1,462,000 $1,075
    702 1620 $1,344,600 $830
    704 1679 $2,199,500 $1,310
    801 1006 $910,400 $905
    802 1620 $1,360,800 $840
    804 1525 $2,096,900 $1,375
    805 961 $946,600 $985
    902 1620 $1,328,500 $820
    904 1525 $2,099,000 $1,376
    905 961 $956,000 $995
    I know of several others that have not converted for certain.
    In addition, I would offer the following observations:
    1) PSA does not include a provision for Financing Contingency. The developer has not provided an absolute date or a period that a potential buyer could focus on, the best information is “Spring 2008”. However, this is not absolute. This would make a rate lock on the loan very difficult. During this period, while unlikely, interest rates could skyrocket.
    What I find interesting is that the developer has not put a financing contingency in the PSA, but has instructed their “preferred lenders” provide a preapproval letter. It appears to me that the developer is double dipping. If there is no contingency and the PSA does provide for a liquidated damage clause, why does the developer feel empowered to request a preapproval letter without the consent of the borrower?
    2) While I am not an attorney I would offer that any potential buyer review the liquid damage provision. During our meeting with the sales rep we were told that the max the developer could request under a default was 3%. However, I do not believe in my opinion the PSA is written this way. In fact is my opinion it is written just the opposite. I have checked with an attorney that has indicated that under California Civil code the parties (the developer and buyer) can wave the 3% limit. It is my opinion that the contract may be written in this manner.
    3) In my opinion would think that a buyer would also want a recession provision it a material change occurs in the condo, the finishes, the building, the facility, HOA dues-more than 25% change, the completion date, or most importantly if the list price of the available units decreases by more than 10%.

  56. Posted by potential buyer

    James at 9:23am on 7/15…. can you tell me what your experience was? If you wish, you can send me a pm (user name hopeful in the forum section)… I think I may have had a similar experience. I have one of the units on hold while I get my documents in order but noticed a different unit came available and when I inquired, I was told that the unit was no longer available, someone was “actively” pursuing it. Then I see it on this list now. hmm. In all fairness, I didn’t pursue it further because the sales person told me the unit (the latter one that came available) had standard ceilings, and I was only interested if the ceiling height was the higher type (of course, I should check back, she could have just been saying that).
    Leningrad.. thank you for your input…the one cost I’d have to factor in is the cost of selling (realtor fees etc) unless I would do it myself. So I’d have to at least have the price appreciate by 5-6%… hmm, looking at it this way, the return (thanks for clarifying) could be dicey given this is a down market.
    In any case, I’m rethinking this whole situation and leaning toward waiting until the 2nd phase comes on line… at the worst, prices go up and I am completely priced out. The 1st phase building has better location and nice firepit amenity (what do folks on this site think of firepit).. the firepit area overlooks the water so one would get a nice view, assuming the area won’t always be crowded. But the 2nd phase will have 317 units and that seems like a lot of units to sell without offering some kind of incentive.
    Anyone know if the developer has agreed to incentives (on a contract by contract basis that is). I’m sure they are not offering any across the board incentives, given the early stage of the selling cycle.
    Thanks also to anonymouse for your input.. these are definitely points to consider before signing the psa.

  57. Posted by citicritter

    Radiance — seismic and financial factors aside, once again its yet more craptastic, banal new multi-unit design for SF…other cities worldwide are putting us to shame in the design of this all important building type.

  58. Posted by Anonymous

    “Only a fool would buy in a liquefaction area? How much money did those who bought after the ’89 earthquake make?”
    They bought AFTER, not BEFORE the earthquake. Just a little detail………

  59. Posted by anon

    “The new buildings going up in South Beach and elsewhere with a million pilings going down to bedrock probably will hold up well in a fairly strong quake.”
    I spoke with one of the civil engineers on the construction site: pilings do NOT go down to the bedrock since the bedrock is too deep. Pilings go down into the landfill and sand beneath the landfill. In a strong quake people in the building should be safe but the building will have to be torn down afterwards.
    I am gladly paying my $3,500 monthly rent at the Avalon at Missions Bay for a two bedroom so I won’t have to worry about all that stuff – and, more importantly, won’t have to pay $8,000+ a month for the luxury to rent from my bank.

  60. Posted by anom

    Interesting that Berry Street and north of the canal seems to be better soils according to USGS maps. Radiance is on the only other land in the city outside of the “deep” Marina to have this risk.
    Regarding the term “deep Marina”, this was told to me by a pretty girl at Bix Restaurant who explained, “I bought a beautiful home in the Marina, and I don’t mean near Lombard, but the DEEP Marina”.

  61. Posted by james

    potential buyer, you are in for a rough ride. the marketing/real estate company they hired is incented to sell you the exact unit they have in mind for you when you walk into that door and not another. you will be bambozzeled as best you can by them to do that. they will lie to you about the unit you want being under contract, the developer not releasing the floor, you name it. it’s not going to be pretty. my advice, do not buy a unit you do not absolutely love. when they lie to you, ask them to show you a contract.
    radiance is getting so much buzz over here in south beach but i fear folks are getting the same bend over treatment the mark company gives on a daily basis.
    be careful.
    on the contract stuff, i hear that the deposit was refundable but you must put 5% down to convert to what they call a contract. not sure how much if any of that is refundable before they complete construction and you actually close in june of 2008.

  62. Posted by potential buyer

    Thanks James.
    I take it then that you did not make any purchase there?
    In looking at their purchase agreement, the 5% is definitely not refundable! Lots of disclaimers etc…Anonymouse posted advice is definitely well taken that if one goes forward on the contract, definitely need to put in a clause that buyer does *not* waive the 3% legal liquidated damages maximum….I’m glad anonymouse had an atty review and give opinion on how to proceed..
    Still not decided yet though.
    Sounds like Radiance is getting a lot of positive buzz down in South Beach — is that your impression? Do people like the amenities/ location, or feel developer is really of quality construction?

  63. Posted by anonymouse

    james, thank you for the updates. I had thought this might be going on! There has been a lot of inconsistent messages these folks are putting out to the public. I believe that they think we are not smart enough to figure this deception.
    RE: Buzz-what does that mean? Do you think they really have as many units under contract as they have indicated-50% according to their emailed posting? I know the unit we have a deposit under is listed as sold, but we have not signed the PSA.
    We have been in contact with several others that are in the same boat. Or do they think we are paying too much?
    Have you heard of any concessions being offered or reductions in the List Price?
    Thank you for any assistance you can offer.

  64. Posted by james

    i already own in south beach and we considered suing the mark company back when they pulled this shit on us here in my building back in 2000 but it wasn’t worth it.
    i don’t know much about bosa development from san diego and their construction quality.
    you need to do that homework too from folks that own down there before you pull the trigger.

  65. Posted by anon

    Rooey writes: “The reality is that should a truly major earthquake occur and you survive, what makes you think that the insurance companies have deep enough pockets to payout to everyone they have insured?”
    This is one thing that does not need to be factored into the equation. Insurers are strictly regulated (here and in every state). They only write what they can pay. In the event of a catastrophe, they have all spread the risk through reinsurance agreements with many other insurers–who have in turn further reinsured it (Warren Buffet makes most of his money through reinsurance). This is why not a single insurer went belly-up after Hurricane Katrina, and they would not go belly-up even if SF were leveled. There are very rare exceptions where you hear about an insurer insolvency (where an owner cooked the books or looted the company). But risk is spread far and wide in this country and your insurer is not going to be unable to pay an earthquake claim.
    There are lots of good reasons not to buy earthquake coverage (e.g. premiums are too high for the risk, especially with the high deductibles). But insurer inability to pay is not one of them.

  66. Posted by Rooey

    Thank you for this clarification “anon” at 1:34. You are correct about state regulations on this subject. I am not saying that it is prudent not to have insurance. However, it is not the end all/magic bullet!
    This being said Insurance companies have on many occasions tried to limit their exposure after a major event.
    A good case in point was the earthquake in LA ten (+) years ago, the insurance companies had the then Insurance Czar limit their exposure/payouts to policy holders. I believe he did this if they payed into his re-election campaign. He of course was removed or resigned from office once this became public knowledge.

  67. Posted by anon

    We are in agreement on your main point. Insurance has to be treated just like any other major expense — with a cost/benefit analysis. I don’t have earthquake coverage because the available terms are absurd. My place is on solid rock and survived both the ’06 and ’89 quakes without a scratch. But the best quote I could get was over $4000/year with a $200,000 deductible. You could build the whole place from the ground up for only about $400,000. So we put a few thousand into shear walling and securing the foundation — if this place goes down, it means the whole city is flattened and I don’t want to live there anyway.
    This is a long-winded way of saying that earthquake risks are real, but they won’t have much of an effect on real estate pricing (until after a big one).

  68. Posted by anon

    Reply to anonymouse at July 15, 2007 3:56 PM
    1) Thanks for all the pricing info – this information is always very helpful.
    2)For your 3rd observation – All buyers of any preconstruction should be aware of DRE regulations section 2800 – here is a link to the regulations – must scroll down to get to section 2800. http://www.dre.ca.gov/relaw_pdf/Regs.pdf
    Most buyers are not aware of this (nor are the developers or the attorneys), and if there are changes, you generally can get your full deposit returned for changes prior to a final report or after a final report if an amended final report is required – usually you need to contact the DRE to get the specifics. (although i am not a lawyer, and there are many variables) so check w/ an expert if this applies to you.

  69. Posted by potential buyer

    Thanks anon at 5:36pm.. I checked it out (pg 63 is where material changes section 2800 is)… sounds as if the developer offers incentives at later date (across the board incentives), that would constitute a material change. I would have to make sure I add an amendment in the psa agreement if I do sign, that states nothing signed in agreement supercedes the DRE regulations 2800.
    By the way, what are people’s feelings on the firepit amenity? It sounds pretty nice to me but just wondering what kind of value at resale.
    For instance, most folks like pools but when they realize the expense to maintain, as an amenity its not so valued anymore (so I’m told).

  70. Posted by Morgan

    I am not sure the fire pit is such a great thing. I used to own a unit at a project similar in price and size to Radiance in Newport Beach, and the fire pit became THE place for people to go drink and make noise that carried up to units nearby. The Homeowners Assoc. finally decided to turn the firepit into a fountain because of ongoing problems. I would much rather have a swimming pool than a fire pit. BTW, if Radiance had boat slips, that would make all the difference for me. Someone should do a project in Mission Bay that includes docks with boat slips please.

  71. Posted by Anonymous

    “BTW, if Radiance had boat slips, that would make all the difference for me. Someone should do a project in Mission Bay that includes docks with boat slips please.”
    Gotta be kidding. You don’t get boat slips in a $1,000 psf ghetto. Condos with boat sips start at $2,000+ psf. Everyone wants to be here…..

  72. Posted by Ken Ayer

    Re the $1,000 per sq ft issue – there’s a nice Victorian on 24th in Noe Valley listed for about $3,500,000 (see http://droubiteam.com/listing.php?l=33), which works out to about $1,750 per sq ft. That’s for something built before modern earthquake codes, in a nice but not Pacific Heights area. It isn’t just the price, it’s what the market is.

  73. Posted by anon2

    RE: Ken Ayer-what is your point? Are you trying to say an over priced single family Victorian home in an established area justifies this developers prices? In addition, I believe that Noe Valley is bedrock-hence liquefaction isn’t an issue. The fact that this victorian is still standing after 100 years indicates that someone was on the ball when it was constructed.
    RE: Price-yes these units are way over priced but wait until December it will be a blood bath with all the inventory from all the other properties in the area. Just my thoughts on the subject.

  74. Posted by anonrebroker

    These may be nice very basic units, but they are way overpriced, clearly the developer is outside of the market. My opinion is to wait, you can buy these once this developer becomes more market savvy or broke from the lack of sales.

  75. Posted by me3

    ABOVE THE LAW?
    In my opinion it appears that this developer believes that they do not have to comply with Fair Housing matters.
    In addition to not honoring ADA accommodation requests even on units indicating handicap logo, “their construction schedule can not be changed”, they are so brazen not to display fair housing logos in all print material. Last I heard the logo issue was a $10,000 fine per event and the former well in addition to major fines I believe this could potentially stop construction or delay the opening. It will be interesting to see how access issues are addressed in the common areas such as the gym.
    You would think this guy would do a little research especially given the amount of product he has to sell in Radiance (99 units) and Radiance West (319).
    Hey Nat Bosa I have a question, do you think if you are from Canada you do not have to abide by the laws of the countries you are doing business in?

  76. Posted by james

    anyone fall out of contract yet because of the market turmoil?
    i’m waiting with lots of cash in hand

  77. Posted by Mark

    Fedup,
    I agree with you that 1000 a square foot is insane. It’s insane no matter what the location. Who are you to say that Mission Bay’s location is any less desirable than anywhere else though. It’s different strokes for different folks. Mission Bay offers the best weather in the city, the best commute to the peninsula, best open floorplans (ie. you gotta admit that many flats in cow hollow/marina/pac heights have alot of wasted space), most modern ammenities (ie. some like having a pool and new gym in the building that aren’t available in other parts of the city), and AWESOME views (not many places can be built right on the water anymore. Also some people actually like seeing an area being rebuilt. It’s pretty cool to notice on a monthly basis a new piece of property being developed (ie. just this week the property right next to Radiance started ground breaking. This isn’t ten years ago. This is now a time with those of us with vision can see past the fact this was nothing ten years ago. You would have also been someone to criticize commercial developers commanding prices in SOMA…now SOMA is where it’s at commercially and even residentially now with the redevelopment of Rincon Hill.
    Finally, in my view the plan for south of the third street bridge is even better than the north side of the bridge.

  78. Posted by mark

    also, after continuing to read the blog I’m confused by the quality of restaurants argument. Up until pretty recently, the Marina was about the WORST part of the city for quality restaurants.

  79. Posted by me2

    Mark is correct, the soup kitchen that is run out of fire station that is located on the same block must be one of the better eateries in the city-after all their clientèle does appear to be well fed.
    As for the price, without a doubt this will be one of the more desirable location in the city. However, with the current credit crunch, the flood of product/inventory that will be developed in the next few years I think it will be a more than a few years before anyone can justify over $1000 psf.

  80. Posted by Mark

    I wasn’t saying Mission Bay was the food capital of the city. I was just saying that until recently no one went to the Marina to eat and most Marina people went elsewhere for the top food. So to say the Marina is more attractive cause of food is crazy. Don’t get me wrong…I like the Marina but the major plug I’ll give it is for the energy/people not food. Furthermore, with this said what’s the primary thing that makes a neighborhood great. It’s the people/energy. Well in the not so distant future, South Beach/Mission Bay will be the most densely populated area in San Francisco. So on top of all the other benefits I mentioned above (ie. weather, space etc.), it will also have that energy.
    I don’t know how many people I’ve met that have moved into the area after bashing it just a few years/months earlier and end up loving the area.

  81. Posted by james

    i’ll second that mark. i’m a 7 year resident of south beach and still love it. it just gets better all the time.
    we get a new eatery almost every other month:
    http://sf.eater.com/

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles