3184 Mission #302: Floor Plan
Initially priced at $659,000 as part of “Valencia Triangle” (subsequently reduced to $585,000), and then initially priced at $599,000 as part of “Mission Valencia,” a plugged-in reader notes that 3184 Mission Street #302 is now on the market for $549,000 and offers some thoughts and impressions.

I wanted to post my recent impressions of Mission Valencia since some of the only info I could find about the place came [from this site]. I saw several of the units at an open house last week and was most interested in #302, which is currently on the market for $549K (reduced price) with 2 yrs paid HOA. This is one of the smaller, cheaper units.

The unit was very nice and new with a great kitchen and living room. However, the bedrooms were tiny and the bathroom layout seemed odd with the washer/ dryer taking up a lot of the space. The unit also overlooks busy Mission St. and the BART grates, and when the trains went by (which is very often) it was quite loud. There was almost no storage space in the unit, just small closets in the bedrooms. I did not see evidence of the pigeon problem that I had read about [here], but there was a fake owl on the balcony. The balcony was really small and not very usable–I would’ve rather had storage space.

You have to make your own decision about the neighborhood and how safe you feel there, so I won’t go into that. The parking is secured and overall the building seemed secure. You can walk to 24th St. BART and there is bus service on Mission right outside the building. But other than the bars and restaurants in the immediate vicinity of the building, I don’t think you’d be able to walk to very many fun places (Noe Valley, Bernal Heights) very easily. But they would be a short drive/trip away.

Overall, the building is nice and new, but the unit still seemed overpriced for what you get even with the incentives and price reductions. However, if you are looking in this price range, it is one of the nicer things I have seen for below 600K. If the price comes down another 50K, I think it would be a great buy. Hopefully, this will help someone out there.

UPDATE: And from another: “Word is that they are really willing to negotiate on these prices. For those interested in 2BR 2BA 1Pkg, it’s probably difficult to find a better deal. I think you could get most of the units for 10% less than the listed price, which is already reduced. And don’t be bamboozled by the realtor telling you only a few are for sale- they’re all for sale. I think only the 2BMR units closed and one unit is in contract. This project has been a financial disaster for the builder as a result of having the condo approvals pulled in spring 2006.”
∙ Listing: 3184 Mission #302 (2/1.5) – $549,000 [MLS]
Take Two For Valencia Triangle Mission Valencia (3184 Mission) [SocketSite]
Valencia Triangle (3184 Mission) [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by anono

    Word is that they are really willing to negotiate on these prices. For those interested in 2BR 2BA 1Pkg, it’s probably difficult to find a better deal. I think you could get most of the units for 10% less than the listed price, which is already reduced. And don’t be bamboozled by the realtor telling you only a few are for sale- they’re all for sale. I think only the 2BMR units closed and one unit is in contract. This project has been a financial disaster for the builder as a result of having the condo approvals pulled in spring 2006.

  2. Posted by Spencer

    this is still overpriced for this neighborhood.
    This unit is still priced at $680/ sq ft in a 450/sq ft neighborhood. This should sell for under $400K.
    I would be willing to be that it goes for under $500K.

  3. Posted by San FronziScheme

    550K is still very expensive for a noisy neighbourhood, sharing the block with the Salvation Army and the daily workers on Cesar Chavez.
    This is perfect student housing and you’re a 5-minute bike ride to the cool Valencia Nabe.
    But this is not student price.
    200-225K would be the price I’d pay for this to rent it out to a student. And I’d have to repaint/recarpet the place every 5 years.

  4. Posted by anono

    200K? ugh. You’re not looking at real estate in Des Moines. $550K is expensive (and ridiculous, if you think about it) for a 2BR anywhere, but this is San Francisco.
    I think #302 should go for the high 400s. The second bath only a half and it is only 806 sq. ft. Anyone could buy it tomorrow for the 490K, the seller may even go lower.
    I would stick with the 4th floor in this building though, and then maybe invest in the most sound proof windows you can find. Still, for any relos working on the peninsula or in the south bay who are getting a nice rate buy down, a 1250-1300sq. ft., 4th floor unit could be a nice pick-up for around $650K.

  5. Posted by San FronziScheme

    Actually, 700-800sf condos in Des Moines, IA sell for 60K, not 200K. That’s the reality of rent vs. buy that will keep sales prices in correlation with salaries.
    Now, I agree there’s a premium in this town. But 3-4 times middle-Amrica seems reasonable, not 10-times. Salaries in SF are double the US avg, not 10 times.
    And I was talking about a rental investment. You have to be really conservative when you buy to rent.

  6. Posted by Spencer

    also, i would like to point out that this place has been reduced by 17% (which should have been included in the socketsite write-up).
    if it goes for $499K, which is my guess, that will have been a 24% reduction.

  7. Posted by San FronziScheme

    24% is a nice gesture. But people are buying the best for what they can afford. And this is not the best location and very far from being affordable.
    Who would buy these at 500K?
    Mortgage would make the monthly payment north of 2700. Plus HOA, plus 550 property taxes.
    You’re looking at close to 3500 for a noisy wedge.
    If I were a renter with rent control, I wouldn’t be leaving a great deal to end up on the Salvation Army block.
    Hey, they have cheap furniture there. And the manpower to carry it is 1/2 block away.

  8. Posted by george

    I think its a good value for the money actually and they did a good job readjusting the prices given the current market.

  9. Posted by San FronziScheme

    Please define good value.
    Just because a basic SFH sells for 1.6M in nearby Noe Valley doesn’t mean this is worth even 400K.
    With this thinking, a 500K home in Stockton is also a great value. Guess what, bad locations collapsed because people with the money didn’t want to live there. Only the minimal or close-to minimal wage people wanted to live there and they couldn’t afford it.
    Bad timing I guess.

  10. Posted by MossySF

    People usually comment about noise as in anything louder than a BFE suburb = noisy. Seriously, the noise in this area is rather minor — once you get south of Cesar Chavez on Mission, the traffic drops by 60%. If you want noise, something like the eternal freeway that is Fell Street is what I’d consider noisy.
    Being a block away from Mi Lindo Peru — that deserves a decent premium. Good, cheap eats, I could eat there 5 days a week.

  11. Posted by Michael

    I remember looking at these when they first came on the market about 1.5 years ago and noticed how the actual layouts didn’t match the realtors’ printed layouts, for the worse. They had gotten rid of all the storage!

  12. Posted by jimmythekid

    Now, the realtors might be desperate but I know the owner and he is definitely not desperate. he is very wealthy and owns a lot of real estate very low and no LTVs. He will not give these units away. He will simply re rent them if the market is not there.
    200k is an absolute joke from someone who knows nothing about real estate in San Francisco.

  13. Posted by San FronziScheme

    Joke? Know nothing? You’re throwing assumptions around. Are you a Realtor?,-N219068,-N,-A,-N13230296
    4 units totalling 2840 sf for sale at $641,900
    That’s 160K/unit and the size is similar (700sf/unit). The place might need work, no status on the renter situation. And it’s a much more central area (SOMA). But it’s closer to what I think is the real price of SF.
    And then you’ve got the 1BR TICs on Woodward Street that have been for sale for ever for less than 250K with no takers.
    If these guy has the time to lose money, that’s great news. In the mean time, I’ll look for a better “value” than this for my rental investments. And we’ll see what the market says in the next 5 years.

  14. Posted by jglick

    Has anyone seen this property? It has not been released yet but the units are very large and @ $650k (as per chron add) appear to offer a much better persqft price. Includes clubroom and fitness center too.

  15. Posted by Dave

    San FronziScheme: I am really reluctant to throw myself into this argument, but come one… talk about comparing apples and oranges!
    You are comparing new construction to a 100-year-old building which (this being San Francisco) probably has hundreds of thousands of dollars in deferred maintenance, original plumbing and electrical, etc. You’d have to do a to-the-studs remodel to create something comparable, and then you’d have spent MORE money per unit, I’ll bet. Plus there’s no parking (the unit you’re comparing to has secured parking.)
    Add to that the likelihood, which the MLS listing doesn’t offer any clues about, that the units are occupied by rent controlled tenants paying next-to-nothing for rent and who you basically can’t evict (yes, you could do an OMI on one of the units, it would cost you tens of thousands of dollars depending on how many people were occupying the unit, plus attorney fees and lots of time, and they’d probably trash the unit on the way out.) I’m also willing to bet that none of the Natoma units have more than 1 bath (whether you put any value in the extra half bath in the Mission Valencia property is up to you, of course.)
    I think your comparison is so off-base that it actually made me stop and laugh out loud, and compelled me to reply.
    I am NOT defending the Mission Valencia property or pricing; it seems a LITTLE high to me for the neighborhood, but you’re unlikely to find new construction in SF for too much less. But you can’t realistically compare it to a century-old, occupied (i’m sure the listing would say if it were vacant, since that’s a major “feature” in SF), zero-parking property. Your talking about completely different planets.
    Having said all of that, I’m not trying to start a flame war, I just don’t think it’s a sensible comparison.

  16. Posted by Dave

    Oops, I should have re-read my posting for errors before I submitted it. It should be “come on” in the first paragraph and “You’re” in the next-to-last.
    Posting a correction before somebody accuses me of being illiterate. 😉

  17. Posted by fluj

    Woodward is a shooting gallery for junkies. The property was Ellis’d, it has no garage, and they want 250K. Why you consistently hold it up as some sort of indicator is unknown.
    As for Natoma, it is 4 X 700 foot fixer units between 6th and 7th. Here are the non-public comments: “All offers subject to Indymac banks sr. mgmt. approval and any offers or counter offers by Indymac banks aren’t binding unless the entire agreement is ratified by all parties. $75 buyer paid doc fee at closing. Borrower(s) must pre-qualify with Robert Butler at Indymac bank prior to or upon submission of offer to purchase.”
    So the thing is bank owned. Also it merely says “Tenant” four times and no rent numbers, so assume everyone pays peanuts and is protected.
    You said, “A much more central area (SOMA). Close to the real price in SF”
    You make two points there. The first indicates a lack of San Francisco knowledge, and what neighborhoods are what. The second indicates some sort of unsubstantiated ability to read the future.
    Do you know what Natoma and 6th is? It doesn’t seem likely. A fixer. Protected tenants. Bank owned.
    wow. just, wow.

  18. Posted by chuckie

    Fronzi, fluj, all:
    Love to hear your thoughts on the following sales history I picked up from Property Shark on the Natoma 4-plex:
    5/5/5 sold for $742,500
    12/1/5 sold for $1,240,000
    10/26/7 bank came to “own” it for $810,000
    Now they are trying to sell for $640,000? Trying to create a bidding war?
    Here’s the link:

  19. Posted by eekamouse

    Hey, the Salvation Army (entire block) is up for sale ($30M). This is an up and coming ‘nabe 5 blocks from BART (closer once the 30th & Mission Station goes in).

  20. Posted by fluj

    YEah, chuckie, I’m looking at the same chain of title you are and it’s easy to follow but the numbers just don’t seem to make sense. Especially if the units are what the seem to be.
    So, anyway. A group bought it from an individual for 742K 5/5. They put 20% down. They refinance it up to 900K in June of 2006 and pull their 248K back out. Next, they sell it to someone six months later for $1.24M. That individual finances the entire property.
    So, apparently the people in the middle pocketed at least 300K by holding the for 19 months. The guy they sold it to lost it to the bank 11 months later.
    What’s happening now seemingly is that the bank is trying to dump the property.

  21. Posted by fluj

    Oh, and the part about the bank. I don’t know how they derive their valuations. But what probably happened is that this property was foreclosed upon and nobody bid on it at its 810K starting point on the courthouse steps. So it reverted back to the bank at that figure and they’ve been holding it ever since. From the bank’s perspective, having dealt with foreclosure departments myself, they only want to get as much money back as possible.
    But they did hire a realtor. We can suppose the directive from the bank was not “just dump it” but “get us as much money as possible.” It started off at 709.9K on 3/11. We can suppose that the pricing is the realtor’s strategy, I guess? Right, likely angling for overbids.
    You have to think somebody will believe they can profit off it once more at its current pricepoint.

  22. Posted by Dave

    …and despite the fact that people in this city (and readers on this site) often seem to think differently, there is absolutely no way to put a value on a property like the Natoma one without the lease details for the existing tenants.
    It’s an income property, and its value depends on its income. If you don’t know what that is, there’s no way to determine the value.
    You won’t find me among the crazy people that value SF income property based on rental “upside” – when you’ve got existing rent-controlled tenants paying 25% of market rent, they are never gonna leave, and there is NO rental upside. Not for a long time, anyway.
    Of course, you can always Ellis the building and sell the units individually as TICs. Good luck with that on this property.

  23. Posted by San FronziScheme

    I just pointed to a guy who was complaining about my estimate of a 700sf place in a bad neighborhood that I wouldn’t pay more than 200-250K, and I substantiated by giving under-300K samples, giving proper disclaimers about tenants, shape, and so on.
    The Valencia wedge is not by far a desirable neighborhood. The Salvation Army, despite the wonderful job they are doing to society are never a good shop you want locally. Army, 26th and other East-West streets are “illegal central” where you can get cheap day laborers. And you’re a stone’s throw away from a few Bernal Heights slums.
    The bottom of the market is an indication of what’s going on overall. And this Nabe is pretty close to the bottom, despite the fact that it’s a new building.
    The laws of supply and demand have a disproportionate effect on the lower market segment.
    When the market is red-hot, people priced out from the Nabe they target will go to the fringes of these Nabes. And they will price out other people who will target a lower segment. And so on until the prices for 80% of the market are within a very thin price range. When demand overwhelms supply and everyone is convinced prices can only go up, you’ll get the prices of the mass of the market to technical limits: the limits of affordability. I could say that we’ve even gone past that level thanks to the creativity of lenders.
    When the market is soft or deflating, few will buy in these areas, not even at 60% median price. They’ll focus to better areas first as their money buys more. Plus having a pulse is not the only criteria lenders need to lend you 400K. In addition, these Nabes are short-term intermediary areas. You go there the time to save money and then you move up. But paying a small fortune to share the lie of crack dealers for 20 years, no way. And the way prices are going, chances you’ll have stagnating prices for a while. The bad neighborhoods get gentrified during upswings, then stagnate or go down during downturns. This is the canary in the coal mine.
    I used to have my rentals in bad neighborhoods. I bought them dirt cheap when nobody was buying. I fixed them up, then rented them out. Then prices shot to the moon 8 years later with exactly the same phenomenon as what I just described. Being the ankles in the mud a better way to size a market than to listen to Realtors.

  24. Posted by PN

    Details on the value of this property aside, a comment in the original posted review has me wondering:
    I don’t think you’d be able to walk to very many fun places (Noe Valley, Bernal Heights) very easily. But they would be a short drive/trip away.
    I can’t think of a location that is more easily walkable to both Noe and Bernal, so what am I missing? What exactly constitutes “walkability” in this town? I live in Noe and regularly walk to Bernal (and elsewhere). Maybe I’m out of touch with how much “normal” people can walk?
    Seems to me that if we’re going to push to make this a walking/biking/transit first city we need a better idea of what people thinks that means. (And I don’t mean the people who insist on a 2-car garage for every condo.)

  25. Posted by NoeNeighbor

    “Hey, the Salvation Army (entire block) is up for sale ($30M). This is an up and coming ‘nabe 5 blocks from BART (closer once the 30th & Mission Station goes in).”
    This would be great news if it was true; I have no idea whether or not the block is up for sale (and it certainly will be a battle to develop it into anything decent), but I really wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the 30th and Mission Station. That thing was part of the original BART plans and I haven’t heard anything suggesting that anyone is even considering building it now. If someone knows otherwise, please let us know.

  26. Posted by fluj

    You have completely micategorized the market dynamic, feel, and character of the area. Your points about “illegal labor,” (three blocks and one very busy thoroughfare away) “Bernal Heights slums” being nearby (where exactly???), and about the Salvation Army as shopping center indicate a pronounced lack of understanding.
    To address your main market point, whither the stagnation? The fact of the matter, truly, is that this is an area that has seen the Noe Valley and Bernal Heights trends just about enwrap itself. One need only look at the sales east of Dolores. The stigma, seemingly, is just about gone for East of DOlores for many buyers. 50 Valley street is nearer to Mission@ Valencia than Cesar Chavez st. 3551-3553 Mission went pending today. Look at Tiffany street.
    This is a highly policed, dense urban area with a great deal of foot traffic and commerce and absolutely no open drug dealing. It has about 20 extremely busy restaurants within its three or so blocks. Bernal and Church street Noe are both very walkable. There is a Safeway that does nonstop business, a superbusy hardware store, etc etc.
    I’m not saying I don’t think these condos aren’t a little expensive still. To me they are.

  27. Posted by anono

    @jimmythekid: I know someone who went to see these this weekend and the selling agent repeatedly stated to them that the prices were negotiable- begging for any offers. When was the last time you saw that in S.F.?
    Only unit 401 is in contract- at 748K- and has been for sale for 8 months so will certainly go for less if this is an arms length transaction. This unit is the “signature unit” and was in contract at 848K soon after this place originally opened 2 yrs. ago.
    No doubt that the developer will make money but they will certainly sell these for a lower price per sq. ft. than you will see for new construction anywhere in S.F. They’re already offering 2 yrs hoa dues and other incentives and I’ve gotten the impression that they would offer basically 5 yrs hoa dues plus some type of closing cost credits in order to make the prices appear higher.
    I think the units are nice, especially the main room and kitchen. However, there is a lack of storage and closet space. Some units have no closets in the bedrooms. There are also some odd, triangular shaped layouts. I would recommend these to someone based on the price. If you can snag a top floor new 2BR 2BA 1pk for 600-650K that has potential for a good upside in this market.
    I hope they sell for a great price as I live own in the area, but that it clearly not happening. 3400 Ceasar Chavez broke ground recently and if they don’t unload Mission Valencia soon they’ll have some healthy competition.

  28. Posted by San FronziScheme

    I agree with some of your points. This neighborhood definitely profited from the lifting effect of nearby Noe and Bernal. But once prices stagnate and supply increases, buyers get pickier and can afford to take the time. This is not the “buy now or be outpriced forever” market of 2004-2006. Location matters a great deal more when you have a wide variety of places for sale.
    By “a few Bernal Heights slums” I meant a few dilapidated streets between Mission and Bernal. Not all slums, but you can see some places really need attention.
    And the day workers are one block away, a few hanging out on Army accross from the S.A. though they are sometimes more numerous and less visible on 25th/26th. I do a lot of walking there and am always amazed of the amount of tolerance this city has.
    Safeway (I shop there whenever I come back from Daly) and the nearby latino restaurants are a great thing to have in this neighborhood. It’s an unappreciated area. The One-dollar stores and Big Lots don’t help in this though. But what can you do, these businesses have to go somewhere and the high traffic on Mission is I think what makes it less attractive.

  29. Posted by fluj

    OK, truce. I double checked. The day workers are one gigantic Mission double or triple size block but three normal size blocks if you go by the other side of Mission street.
    There are dilapidated houses everywhere in Bernal. There are also million dollar houses everywhere in Bernal. Not to pick apart your language too much, because everybody else does that to me and I’m no hypocrite. But “slums” ? That means something else entirely. “Bernal slums” means the very southeast portion of Bernal Heights by the Alemany projects or Bayshore. That’s very far from the area in question.
    Agreed about Big Lots. The one dollar stuff is farther north on Mission. There is so much more than Latino food in the neighborhood. There’s Blue Plate, Emmy’s, Front Porch, Yo’s Sushi club, Angkor Borei, and the list goes on and on.

  30. Posted by SFHawkguy

    One would have to be a bit of an urban pioneer to live here–at least at this moment in time. Just on the other side of C. Chavez St., where the day laborers hang out, and as one walks East towards the highways, there are some housing projects and poorer neighborhoods. Throughout that part of the Mission and toward General Hospital there are some nice working class neighborhoods but definitely not consistent with the lifestyle these condos are selling. It’s a bit nicer on South side of Chavez St. (where these condos are), and down toward Precita park, but there are still some areas that are poor–especially the farther down one goes from Bernal Hill. I don’t know if they are “slums”, but it’s definitely a poorer neighborhood. Just go one block up the hill and you will see nicer places.
    But Fluj is right to point to the positives in this area.
    If I were moving here I would also be very interested in what happens to the old Kelly-Moore building.

  31. Posted by PN

    If I were moving here I would also be very interested in what happens to the old Kelly-Moore building.

  32. Posted by anono

    an “urban pioneer” to live here? Yikes. I think only people who spend little to no time in this area would make that statement. I live near here on Tiffany and neither I nor my neighbors are urban pioneers. This entire area is filled with $1M+ houses and a ton of young(ish) families. Frankly, we own in the area and are already priced out of north bernal. Noe is not an option due to cost.
    The appeal of Mission Valencia is price, and those prices are better (or will be) than anything comparable anywhere in S.F.
    The paint store is gone, as the excavation work for 3400 ceasar chavez has already started.

  33. Posted by jd

    The Salvation Army is indeed vacating, and word is that the site will be used for BMR units.
    So, expect a good year of construction noise and dust, followed by a building with nothing but BMR units……can you say declining property value?

  34. Posted by Spencer

    although this area did benefit from noe and bernal rises, it will also be one of the 1st areas to fall in the downturn because it is not bernal or noe and people will become pickier.
    On the A to F scale, it used to be a D and is now a C on its way back to being a D.

  35. Posted by SFHawkguy

    “an “urban pioneer” to live here? Yikes. I think only people who spend little to no time in this area would make that statement.”
    Well anon. I live nearby and spend a lot of time here and traveling through here. There are indeed nice places nearby. Your street is one of them. And then it quickly transitions into poorer neighborhoods (described above). These condos are are right at a transition point. And as someone else noted above, the nice neighborhoods of Noe Valley have spread East and crossed Dolores and your street is proof of that. I ride my bike and walk and run down your street often. But I also continue to walk, ride my bike, and run in a Northernly and Eastern direction and I see what lies on the other side of these condos.
    This area is not bad it’s just that it would be a bit of a gamble to bet that gentrification will continue apace here. It has the potential and I certainly hope it does. I guess my instincts are like the Fonze’s above, that as the lower priced housing market continues to weaken these transition neighborhoods will stop gentrifying and may go to seed. Same thing with other transition neighborhoods.
    And then you have the affordable housing activists that will do their best to ensure that the immediate area remains unimproved or becomes a ghetto.

  36. Posted by PN

    followed by a building with nothing but BMR units……can you say declining property value?
    I fail to understand how converting a Salvation Army warehouse to housing is somehow going to bring down property values. What’s the beef with BMR? I love that people are shallow enough to think BMR means a project. Do they have any frickin’ idea that BMR’s are geared to people who actually have real jobs but don’t make a ton of money? Like nurses, paramedics, cops, teachers…
    Nevermind the requirements to purchase:
    First Time Homebuyer
    10% Down
    Full Doc Loan
    One person HHI of ~$65K, Two person HHI of $75K and so on.

  37. Posted by Dan

    “But I also continue to walk, ride my bike, and run in a Northernly and Eastern direction and I see what lies on the other side of these condos.”
    Directly to the east of these condos is the west slope of Bernal, a very nice area. The nearest house for sale to the east of Mission Valencia is a victorian on Coleridge on the market for $1,249,000.
    Does anyone have a link to substantiate the story that the Salvation Army is building affordable housing nearby? The Salvation Army is building a large affordable housing complex and community center, but in the Tenderloin.

  38. Posted by anono

    @sfhawkguy: I certainly understand the point you are making. Indeed, one of the reasons that people who live in (should I say “own”?) this area fought for 3400 Ceasar Chavez is that the project is seen as a lynch pin of improvement for the entire neighborhood. I think Mission Valencia will be viewed in a different light once 3400 CC is there.

  39. Posted by fluj

    TO the point that the construction of 3400 Cesar Chavez will affect values in the area, how? Again it is one very, very long block away. Like 200 yards. And to the other negative comment — only nine of the units are to be BMR anyway.

  40. Posted by John Smith

    I have a lot of experience with this building (I can’t really say why) and here are my thoughts.
    Most of the units are actually pretty nice on the inside. They have good finishings, nice floors, and the most expensive units have great size. In fact the large, expensive units that don’t face Mission Street would actually be great deals if they were priced in the 600’s instead of 700’s (which is what 199 Tiffany is at).
    The small 549k unit in my opinion was pretty terrible. REALLY small. As the post mentions, the washer was in the bathroom, and it just looked tacky. There is absolutely no closet space in this unit, or any of the other lower priced units. Overall it just isn’t worth it, even at 549.
    The BART/traffic noise: it’s an issue for the Mission St facing units. The BART vibrations are noticeable, but I think the bus noise is actually worse because it passes right by. They have double paned glass but you still hear plenty of stuff.
    The balcony: poorly designed. Can’t really sit out on them since the wall is so high. Also I did notice the pigeon droppings all over. It’s a problem for most of the units.
    The area: if you like the Mission/Bernal Heights area it’s fine, but I’m not one of those yuppies who’s afraid of any place with different types of people. This area is much safer, in my opinion, than Van Ness or Harrison in the Mission.
    The cost: the developer is willing to deal. You can get at least 2 years HOA plus a 3 point buy down. I assume that now you can get even more. At least 25k off the listing price. No one is buying these units, because they are overpriced. There was a huge 2bd unit at 199 Tiffany up the street and it’s list price was 699k. Makes no sense to price a 200 sq ft smaller unit at this place for 649k even with incentives.
    Anyway, I’d only buy here if I could get a non-Mission Street facing unit, with 25k to 50k off the list price and the 2 year HOA plus 3 point buy down. Otherwise, it’s just not worth it.

  41. Posted by John Smith

    I’d also add that the comments regaring the owner being really wealthy and successfully are true from what I hear. He’s willing to deal, but he isn’t going to give these condos away. He knows he can just rent them out at a premium in today’s rental market. It would take him a day or two to post them on Craigslist as rentals and they’d be gone.
    And look at it this way. There is a 649k unit that has been 649k for at least six months. Before that they lowered it 10k from 659k. If they were desparate to sell they’d just lower it 50k more to 599k, but for whatever reason the developer doesn’t want to do that. But I think if you make an offer that is respectable they’ll deal with you especially since it seems they can’t get rid of these units.
    Btw- the same thing is happening at the Citrino at 16th and Van Ness- which arguably is in a more problematic location and is probably less well built. They can’t sell those units either and yet they keep the list price the same. I’m sure you can get massive discounts if you structure your first offer right.

  42. Posted by anono

    Good points “John Smith”. This place was way way overpriced when it first came on line 2 years ago and now it is just overpriced. These units should be priced below 199 Tiffany- a building I am very familiar with- that was built by the same builder. The 905 sq ft. condos facing Mission at 199 Tiffany sold for mid 500s, so the 806 sq. ft. condos at Mission Valencia should certainly sell for less. I say high 400s would draw a lot of interest. I think this property has been marketed poorly- much like 199 Tiffany was. Hmmm… I’m sensing a pattern here.
    Fluj- I think 3400 CC will positively affect values in the area for a number of reasons, not the least of which is an influx of market rate condos. If you just follow Mission from 199 Tiffany to Mission Valencia to 3400 CC you can see that finally market rate infill development is happening. This will have a positive effect on nearby buildings simply because there is a real lack of supply. The more infill development of market rate condos in this area- and a lot is proposed along Mission and Valencia- the more interest the area draws as a whole. I suppose that is how gentrifications works.

  43. Posted by curmudgeon

    In case nobody answered the 30th/Mission BART question…
    There will probably never be a station at 30th and Mission. BART does many planning studies that are politically motivated. When Tom Radulovich became a BART Board member,one of his planks was to put in a station at 30th and Mission. He was elected, BART completed a study. Study showed, of course, that it would be hugely expensive for somewhat limited additional ridership. There has been, effectively, no further movement on this idea.

  44. Posted by anono

    I’m not so sure about the ease of renting. Last time they had to offer a month of free rent on many units and I think most eventually rented in the 2600-2800 range even after the free month. I don’t think you break even after hoa dues, property taxes and financing costs but I could be wrong. More to the point, why kick out the renters who were providing the income and sell if you didn’t intend to actually sell? I think these units are avaialable at bargain basement prices. This building has been a giant headache for the owner and he didn’t get rich by slowly losing money. He can discount the units and still make money because he probably built the place for less than $400 /sq. ft. Plus, while you still own the building it is vulnerable to creditors- once the devleoper sells he’ll move his money offshore and it becomes untouchable.

  45. Posted by anono

    BART at 30th & Mission has been a dream for those who live near here. I think it would draw a lot of ridership from those of us who trek down to 24th, but alas, it won’t happen. However, 30th & Mission would provide a great opportunity for high density housing located right above a transit stop- something S.F. fails at miserably. I am blown away by the lack of housing near the BART stops in this city.

  46. Posted by John Smith

    The last units that sold at 199 Tiffany were an incredible deal, with people getting something like 550/sq ft for 2bd/2ba units that were over 1,100 square feet.
    I can’t understand at all why Mission Valencia can’t price their units the same way. The agent claimed they have better finishes, but I don’t buy that. 199 Tiffany has freaking jacuzzi bathtubs, nice floors, and huge bedrooms. It’s also in a much quieter location and closer to the Bernal restaurants.
    It’s also worth noting that there are two large condo complexes at 16th and Guerrero. Both have 2bd units on the market now for around 629k and they both are about 950 sq ft. In contrast, the same sized unit is 649k at Mission Valencia, even though the neighborhood is not a desirable and the building is much less efficient (no gym, etc like at Guerrero).
    Sure the no HOA for two years and 3 point buydown makes a huge difference, but people aren’t even going to view this units when they are so clearly overpriced compared to what’s on the market in the Mission/Bernal area.

  47. Posted by John Smith

    Yeah, I’m sure even renting the Mission Valencia units doesn’t make the developer money. He’s still losing money on this, but at the same time, renting isn’t that bad an option if he wants to wait out the downturn.
    Anyway, I think one of the problems is that this developer has a ton of money and he doesn’t care about losing money on this property. He won’t lower prices significantly from what they are now, though you can try some under the table stuff to see how far he goes. Based on my experience, if you give him a lowball over he’ll (a) either get pissed and not even counter, or (b) he’ll counter accepting your incentives but at the full listing price.

  48. Posted by anono

    interesting. I don’t know anyone who actually put it an offer at Mission Valencia yet but people who have looked at them got the impression that everything was negotiable, particularly incentives. But hey, more power to him if he wants to hold out. One problem is how are you going to convince people to be among the first in on a project that has been unsold for so long?
    The last units at 199 Tiffany were a great deal, but the two resales have shown that the prices there will hold up well. A unit just closed there at $690K (sold for $635K a year ago in the “199 Tiffany close-out”) and was in contract after less than two weeks. 2BR 2BA 1260 sq. ft., 2nd floor facing 29th street. Units are laid out a little better than Mission Valencia- much better storage and huge, really nice bathrooms. The building at Mission Valencia is laid out better, as if builder learned from his mistakes.
    I hope MV sells out and fills up, it’ll be good for the ‘hood.

  49. Posted by John Smith

    My understanding is that at least a couple units have gone into contract, but the seller backed out later.
    One problem is that since less than half the units are sold, it’s difficult to get most banks to approve the building.
    This apparently has been a problem a few times because buyers realized they had to use the preferred lender, who maybe wasnt giving rates as good as other lenders.
    I looked at the 199 Tiffany unit that was on the market for 699k. It was really impressive. Massive. Nice bathrooms and bedrooms. It’s farther from BART but still. MV’s pricing makes no sense as soon as you see 199 Tiffany.

  50. Posted by joe realtor

    I was with the office that marketed the project over a year ago. So quite familiar with the building. Same owner/developer as 199 Tiffany btw.
    Problems: Location is not in any specific neighborhood but instead wedged between several. Mission Street address…some buyers won’t even take a look.
    Priced too high from the beginning by both marketing teams. The WORST thing any seller can do.
    Units are mostly pretty nice but a little weird with some choices for finishes, storage, location of W/D units. Like master br closet in some baths?
    What is pretty good. Generally pretty good finish work and details. But overbuilt for the location in my opinion. The interior courtyard and roof deck are nice. I have lived in a similar situation in another city. Makes for a friendly and fun condo environment.
    Small 2 br units for under $600,000. Look at it as a decent size one bedroom plus large walk in closet/office space. Comps out fairly well with good size one br units.
    They will sell, but it will take a long while. As in 199 Tiffany

  51. Posted by Spencer

    personal opinion: he can’t rent the 1bdrooms in this area for over $1500/month.
    the owner would be better off lowering the price $100K and just getting rid of them. Trying to wait out a downturn is too big a gamble. this downturn could last 5 more years or more.

  52. Posted by Guy

    I lived in this building (rented in 2006-2007). It’s a totally safe neighborhood and the apartments are really nice. However, the people who are trying to sell them are totally incompetent and a bit delusional. But the neighborhood is totally fine.

  53. Posted by Dan

    Guy: What was the rent on your unit at Mission Valencia?

  54. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    How far is it from the Salvation Army? You claim that it is on the same block, which is not even close to true. Are you familiar with the neighborhood at all? It is three very long blocks away.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles