Citrino in San Francisco (
It was earlier this month that a tipster first noted a few price reductions for condos at Citrino (566 South Van Ness). And three weeks later, it appears that incentives (“Credit for HOA dues, buy-down the interest rate and/or Seller to pay transfer tax”) are now sweetening the deal as well. And while we don’t have an official update on sales, as another tipster notes: of the nine units that are currently listed on the MLS (up to 77 DOM), only one is in contract.
Reductions (And A New Release) At Citrino (566 South Van Ness) [SocketSite]
Citrino (566 South Van Ness): Website Update And A Few Prices [SocketSite]

16 thoughts on “Making Lemonade (Incentives) Over At Citrino (566 South Van Ness)”
  1. The whole block is littered with signs, so it’s not for a lack of marketing. I think the problem is that you are a block from 16th & Mission with all of it’s problems (hookers, pimps, junkies, and scam artists), your next door neighbor is an SRO hotel, and the first thing you see walking out of the front door is the dilapidated car wash across the street.
    I think they are going to have to drop their prices a LOT if they want to see any units moving in this market.

  2. With all due recognition to the people who say it’s too easy to just carp on this site, my comment regarding Citrino: Gobble gobble gobble! This development is a turkey.

  3. Scam artists? I don’t think that’s one of the problems of 16th & Mission!
    I am surprised to see “seller to pay transfer tax” as an incentive. Doesn’t the seller usually pay the transfer tax in San Francisco? That has been my experience.
    Is this like the banks that advertise accounts that allow “unlimited deposits with no service charge.”?

  4. In new developments the buyer customarily pays transfer tax- so everyone wants more housing in San Francisco? where do y’all think it should go?
    there isn’t a lot of vacant land around. How about a productive forum on housing instead of all the complaining, bashing and just general bad humors.

  5. “How about a productive forum on housing instead of all the complaining, bashing and just general bad humors.”
    Sounds like somebody’s baby (turkey?) just got called ugly. With all the infill opportunities around San Francisco we don’t need more land just better use of what currently exists or is being built. I’d buy here at the right price but $500K+ isn’t it. That’s not bad humor but rather basic location, location, location.

  6. The prices are too high, yes – but why should the developer not try to get a high price first? Who knows? Maybe they can sell some at the high price, and maybe they could still make money on the development at half the price. I know that everyone will be talking about how stupid the developer was when the price is lowered – but who is to say that they can’t make money at half the current prices? Only the developer knows for sure.

  7. Of course the developer should be trying to get the most for these condos but shouldn’t a smart buyer/agent be trying to get them for the least?
    If the developer manages to sell a few of these before lowering prices on the rest I don’t think it’s the developer that people will be talking about being “stupid”….

  8. Here is another thing to consider. For those who were unfortunate enough to buy there (or any new development) they may be faced with a bigger issue that their banks will not approve their loans if a certain percentage of the units are held back or go to rental. Many banks look for 60% owenership and if these don’t sell the builder could be looking at renting them or holding them off the market thus putting many loans in jeopardy.

  9. I just hope as the market turns there are still developers who would like to build more modest apartments with simpler fixtures and finishes in this area
    For perhaps many reasons the market in our city seems incapable of creating more modest market rate housing

  10. “I just hope as the market turns there are still developers who would like to build more modest apartments with simpler fixtures and finishes in this area”
    Zig..The cost of building in this area or Pacific Hts is really not that different. Fixtures and upgrades in general are not where the big money is spent. The real cost is in the land, holding costs and all the BS that one has to go through with the City and the actual structure. On many posts I read the refrain..”if only developers would build affordable housing…” It is just not possible in San Francisco and getting less so in fact. Sad but true.

  11. The problem with development in San Francisco is that it can take years just to get proper approval. The problem with development is San Francisco is organizations like the “Mission Anti Displacement Coalition” — which should be more aptly called the Mission Anti Housing Coalition. The organization resists most all residential development proposed for the Mission — including developments that propose to build housing on Empty lots and former car dealerships (Valencia btw 18th and 19th), Shuttered paint stores (Kelly Moore on Cesar Chavez St), and the most glaring example, the old Armory on Mission St. By the time an organization such as MADC gets through with a proposal, hundreds of thousands of dollars must be spent by the developer in lost time, additional fees, etc., that affordable housing is no longer possible.

  12. I think a bigger problem here is the units themselves. They’re small. Very small. In the one-bedrooms, the fridge/stove/sink/dishwasher are IN the living room. And the bedrooms themselves are barely large enough to house a bed.
    The two-bedrooms are a little better, but the second bedroom is, again, just a little larger than a large bed.

  13. I agree that these interest groups end up hurting the very people they are trying to help by making this city ever more expensive. However, it actually looks like the builder here put together some OK entry level housing in a neighborhood that entry level buyers might think is livable. The problem is they’ve priced them about $200,000 too high for anyone in the target market. I don’t know if the builder would lose money if the price were reduced that much (and I certainly don’t blame the builder for trying to get more). But the costs are sunk now and the seller can’t just price them wherever it wants — these places will sell once the prices are drastically reduced, but with cheap no-down loans gone forever, they won’t sell until then.

  14. I’m in agreement with the last few posts. The units are not that great and are overpriced. However, one of the 2-2 units, asking 725k went pending today.

  15. The individual units are poorly designed. The architect should be hung out for absurd space planning. There is too much wasted floor area in the kitchens of the two-bed units. The bathrooms could have been laid out better and the bedrooms are a joke. I would expect such small rooms in an SF renovation, but in new construction its a crime. The one-bedroom units are like living in a fishbowl. These places should be priced accordingly.
    And whats up with that ugly countertop in the kitchen. Someone must have gotten a deal.

  16. I represented a buyer at Citrino. The deal that I was able to negotiate for my client (over $35K off list price) + we gave back 40% of our commission (about $7000), we thought was pretty good. Although it the project is in a speculative area, the value in a $/s.f. analysis is quite good for the area. The finishes were nice and most importantly, they delivered the unit in a great condition on time! Underline on time. We represent many buyers for new construction and I can attest that builders are underestimate what it takes to get their certificate of occupancy. Find out more about how you can save 40% of our commission on any new home in san francisco at

Leave a Reply

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