690 Market #2401

Last week #1805 at San Francisco’s Ritz-Carlton Residences (690 Market) closed escrow with a reported contract price of $1,300,000. Not too shabby considering it’s a one-bedroom. But perhaps a bit concerning considering the sales office was asking $1,505,000.

It’s definitely something to consider if you’re interested in #1905 one floor above (still listed by the sales office for $1,525,000), or #1705 one floor below (which “motivated sellers” are now offering for $1,450,000, down from $1,499,000 five months prior).

Also back on the market, the 3,595 square foot penthouse shell known as #2401. Current asking price: $6,500,000 (offered by the sales office for $5,420,000 in 2006).

UPDATE: From a trusted plugged-in tipster: “I’ve heard that one-third of the Ritz units fell out of escrow. I gather some buyers were upset that the retail space, which was supposed to be a restaurant, will instead be spun off as a commercial condo and sold to a bank. Also, gym has been delayed by quite a bit.”

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by fluj

    It’s over. Sorry. Scare tactics are dead. San Francisco never really took a price hit and it won’t, either. Gee, this one bedroom SOMA condo only got $1.3M and not $1.5? Boo hoo.

  2. Posted by ex SF-er

    I’m confused:
    is the picture above of 1805, or of 2401?
    because if 1805 is an empty shell it would be hard to compare these since 1705 and 1905 are both finished.
    if 1805 is indeed finished then that doesn’t bode well for 1705/1905. if it is unfinished then I’m just not sure.
    as for “motivated sellers”, they almost never are. unfortunately, one can never really truly believe anything in a listing… sad that “truth in advertising” doesn’t apply. those people are definitely chasing the market down, and I would assume losing a fair amount in terms of holding costs while they overprice their unit.
    [Editor’s Note: The photo is for #2401 (and #1805 was finished). All photos should have embedded captions (try mousing over the image).]

  3. Posted by Anonymous

    That’s almost exactly a 20% price increase for the penthouse since your November 13, 2006 post about it ($6,500,000 now vs. $5,420,000).
    Has the place grown bigger since then?
    Is there any residential property in California which has appreciated 20% since November 13, 2006?
    For $6.5 million, of course, you can buy the Beaux Arts 1 bedroom for $2.45 million at 1001 California, and still have money left over to buy the old “Sunny Jim” Rolph place at 3690 21st Street, for $3.5 million (if it’s still available).
    People must be lining up around the block on Market Street for the Penthouse even as I write this!

  4. Posted by curmudgeon

    I’m assuming the pic is of 2401 penthouse, since there is a two storey space clearly shown.

  5. Posted by market

    Sure fluj, the SOMA condo market is on fire! Better buy now before the record-high inventory is gobbled up. No price hit and there never will be one, so you can always flip it at a higher price if you want.
    Come on, you know better.

  6. Posted by fluj

    “sad that “truth in advertising” doesn’t apply. those people are definitely chasing the market down, ”
    You went, if, if, if … then.
    No.

  7. Posted by location

    How do these shell sales work? Do you get it like in the photo above and then hire your own architect to decide where to put walls/ceilings and how to finish it? If so, how much does that generally run $/sf?
    Also, was the first poster the real fluj, or some impostor? Odd post.

  8. Posted by fluj

    “Sure fluj, the SOMA condo market is on fire!”
    Did I say that?
    Explain something. Explain a $1.3M one bedroom SOMA condo, for everyone.

  9. Posted by Recent ORH buyer

    Anonymous,
    Just a hunch here, but the fact that Mr. “G” Chahal paid close to $6.9m for his 3,355 sq. ft penthouse at the Infinity, could have motivated the Ritz to reprice their penthouse from $5.4m to $6.5m. Remember all those ‘tasteful’ details –
    https://socketsite.com/archives/2008/05/infinity_penthouse_unit_37b_before_and_after_and_the_bi.html

  10. Posted by fluj

    Nope. Real fluj here. Taking issue with editorial word choice, that’s all. $1.3M is concerning?
    Puh
    lee
    ass
    [Editor’s Note: For those who paid more than $1,300,000 for a lower floor unit in the same stack – or if you’re trying to move a lower floor unit for $1,450,000 – yes, we’d call it a bit concerning.]

  11. Posted by whocaresaboutsf

    fluj – you declared that SF has not experienced price declines and will not experience price declines. SF is immune – the bubble’s last stand. Thanks for letting me know it is safe to get off the sidelines and jump in and pay over $1,000 psf.

  12. Posted by fluj

    Don’t tell me what I declared or didn’t declare when it is plain as day in black and white, above. But go ahead and fake like you’re maybe in the market till the cows come home.

  13. Posted by paco

    no, no you guys don’t get it. the editor is showing you how the market is tumbling- one bedrooms are crashing down to $1.3 million. looks like a bloodbath…

  14. Posted by tipster

    “never really took a price hit and it won’t, either.”
    Ha ha, that’s what people in LA said. Until the DQ numbers came out last month.

  15. Posted by Ryan

    isnt the RC Residences like not even 50% sold… there are so many other high rises that are just as amazing and some half the price.

  16. Posted by Anonymous

    “Explain a $1.3M one bedroom SOMA condo, for everyone.”
    Well, for one thing, it’s not in SOMA but
    north of Market Street.

  17. Posted by Ryan

    OH yes, and only $35k a year in HOA, due yearly not monthly… I forgot about that.

  18. Posted by ex SF-er

    You went, if, if, if … then.
    No.

    not sure I understand your post fluj… but perhaps my thought wasn’t elucidated well.
    if 1805 just went for $150k less than 1705, AND 1705 has been on the market for 5 months with a new $75k drop in price, then it would seem that 1705 owners are indeed chasing the market down.
    unless you argue with the definition of chasing the market down. Perhaps these units were never worth more than $1.3M. in that case the owners aren’t chasing the market down, they were simply overpriced to begin with and are just lowering their overvalued price along with the builder.
    I don’t know if any similar units have sold for above $1.3M, so I don’t know if they’re chasing the market down, or if they simply overpriced to begin with and are nearing reality.
    anyone know if anything in this complex sold for anywhere near or above $1.3M in the past?

  19. Posted by fluj

    It’s on Market st., OK ? Big whup.
    Tipster,
    “Ha ha, that’s what people in LA said. Until the DQ numbers came out last month.”
    You realize you’re posting your silly brand of pessimism in a thread anchored by a $1.3M one bedroom, right?
    Do you have friends in Los Angeles? I do. (One of whom is a realtor who just sold a 3br 1 ba n Eagle Rock for like 680K.) But if you do, ask what 600K gets you in Venice nowadays. The answer will be, “nothing.”

  20. Posted by fluj

    “Perhaps these units were never worth more than $1.3M.”
    Yeah, that’s more like it. These pricepoints are speculative to begin with. You need to start any and all logical deductions with that realization.

  21. Posted by Spencer

    Fluj. are you kidding? Not many people predicted major price decrease for SF in 2008. Most have been predicting 09 and 10 for the largest decreases in SF proper due to resetting of alt-a and jumbo. Either way, seeing a 5% decrease in 2008 has been a surprise to me.

  22. Posted by cy

    No offense fluj — I am merely an SF resident, real estate news junkie, not a mover and shaker, not super-savvy about all things RE, not even in the market for anything right now. I appreciate your viewpoints and insights, but . . .
    You seem to get really angry, sarcastic, pissy toward other people’s comments. I only point it out to say that you might be suppressing comments from a lot of people who are afraid of being ridiculed by you — it might encourage more open discussion if you could find a less vitriolic way of getting your points across.
    Or maybe I’m the outlier, and other people love it! But that’s my two cents.

  23. Posted by fluj

    Hey Cy,
    You know what? You’re right. I’m gonna reel it in. (Tho with most of these guys and gals it has been months of back and forth, for what it’s worth.)
    But one last salvo.
    Spencer,
    You’re seeing a 5% decrease, are ya? 2009 and 2010, huh?
    suuuuuuuuuure

  24. Posted by FSBO

    Hey fluj, I did check out the sub-$700K market in Venice and Marina del Ray (SFH only). There are a few 800-900 sf dumps available and they are REO’s and short sales. So I would agree that the answer is “not much”.

  25. Posted by cy

    Reinforcing my faith in humanity . . . and the SS community. 🙂

  26. Posted by Dan

    I appreciate fluj’s perspective. He’s upfront that he is a realtor, and obviously that is his prespective. But he tries to back up his assertions, and is a valuable contributor to this site.
    Agreed that the tit-for-tat with others (with whom fluj has butted heads) is not as valuable to other readers.

  27. Posted by Spencer

    “Spencer,
    You’re seeing a 5% decrease, are ya? 2009 and 2010, huh?”
    yes, i have no doubt about it. There is not one economic indicator telling me otherwise.
    I’m certainly saving my cash and piling away all the money i save by renting for 2 more years, regardless of any short term blips.

  28. Posted by market

    fluj, your posts are hard to discern today: “You’re seeing a 5% decrease, are ya? 2009 and 2010, huh? suuuuuuuuuure.” I’m not sure exactly what you mean, but are you seriously disputing that SF has seen at least 5% price declines since the peak on an apples to apples basis? That is a very conservative estimate. Seems like at least twice that. Maybe not in Noe or Presidio Heights or a couple other pretty well-to-do neighborhoods, but city-wide there has plainly been a decline of at least 5% even before accounting for general inflation.

  29. Posted by Michael

    “Gee, this one bedroom SOMA condo only got $1.3M and not $1.5? Boo hoo.”
    I’m sure that will make the sellers of #1705 feel so much better fluj. “So what if you paid $1.4M for your one bedroom, it’s still worth at least $1.5!” Realtor genius at work.

  30. Posted by fluj

    I dispute that indeed. It is not just two neighborhoods. It is most of the city that has not seen price declines since spring 2006.I’ve posted numbers speaking to this fact more times than I care to rehash at this particular moment. Everyone has seen them. There is one case to be made, and one case only, for price decline citywide. And that is for condos. But not all condos, plainly.

  31. Posted by bird_man

    I still can’t figure out where these re agents find all the time to constantly post on the www if things are so good right now?
    Ah well, I can’t figure out the market either….
    so it goes.

  32. Posted by fluj

    I’m sure that will make the sellers of #1705 feel so much better fluj. “So what if you paid $1.4M for your one bedroom, it’s still worth at least $1.5!” Realtor genius at work
    Whatever, Michael. It’s a $1.3M Market st. one bedroom. Argue away.

  33. Posted by Micahel

    That should have read 1.3 not 1.5:
    “So what if you paid $1.4M for your one bedroom, it’s still worth at least $1.3!” Realtor genius at work.
    “Whatever, Michael. It’s a $1.3M Market st. one bedroom. Argue away.”
    By your logic it wouldn’t matter if the price fell to $1.1M because it would still be a $1.1M one bedroom! More genius!

  34. Posted by fluj

    By your logic it wouldn’t matter if the price fell to $1.1M because it would still be a $1.1M one bedroom! More genius!
    Who is extending logic outward? you, or I?
    I’m just another guy on the internet, bro. I happen to work in r.e. You are the singlemost vitriolic fluj basher of them all. Congrats.
    Does it suck to have a condo in your building sell for less? Sure. Does selling r.e. inside of a few years time amount to a dicey proposition? always. Was the Ritz Carlton pricing speculative in the first place? Clearly.

  35. Posted by Mole Man

    This building is at an extreme high point for luxury which makes the price a little harder to measure.
    What fluj is saying doesn’t make sense to me. Currently inflation is running hot, so every year of any thing less than robust appreciation amounts to a decrease in the real price. Keep that up for a few years and real prices can move quite a bit.

  36. Posted by CA MLS

    No way that thing is worth $1.3

  37. Posted by akrosdabay

    “Does it suck to have a condo in your building sell for less? Sure. Does selling r.e. inside of a few years time amount to a dicey proposition? always. Was the Ritz Carlton pricing speculative in the first place? Clearly.”
    One would argue that most of SF RE market has been speculative over the past few years.
    Nice way to cover your behind. If some one shows prices declines you’ll just claim “Oh it was speculative”.

  38. Posted by noearch

    fluj is a big bully..he does harass people..and attempt to silence them thru his big mouth.
    he oughta just shut up and listen once in a while..and at least..
    respect other DIFFERENT opinions.

  39. Posted by badlydrawnbear

    wow this was the weirdest comment thread I have seen in a long time.
    I can only guess Fluj doesn’t care that the other owners may, and let me stress may, have just lost 200k in equity because he gets paid on commission so WTF does he care if it goes for 1.3 or 1.5 as long as it goes and he, or some other RE agent, earns a commission.
    I think potential buyers/market watchers care because it does denote falling prices at the highest of high end living, another supposedly immune part of the RE world (“they’re rich, it’s different for them”)
    Who would have thought 200k(or 13%)price drop on a box in the sky would bring out this many pissed off posters, but I guess it is a Monday.

  40. Posted by fluj

    Noearch, akrosdabay,
    Just stay antagonistic, OK? Keep it consistent. Don’t try to be my e-buddies next week. It’s too confusing. Noearch, slip in a realtor dis, frame it like realtors detract from architects salaries and call me names. Akrosdabay disagree with whatever (why does an anonymous internet handle need to cover his behind????) and don’t try to be my pal. I need to keep track and when you guys try to act nice to me occasionally it gets confusing.

  41. Posted by akrosdabay

    “I can only guess Fluj doesn’t care that the other owners may, and let me stress may, have just lost 200k in equity because he gets paid on commission so WTF does he care if it goes for 1.3 or 1.5 as long as it goes and he, or some other RE agent, earns a commission.”
    Good point. I wonder what his clients would think of fluj’s attitude about their money!
    May be that’s why he uses an alias and keeps his identity a secret. So he can go on incoherent rants when ever he feels like it.

  42. Posted by peanut gallery

    Not going to speak for him but I think Fluj means that it is hard to set values for new condo developments. When you are dealing with new the swings can happen 10-20% fairly easily. There are also too many different “pricing” deals so the later buyers are at somewhat of a disadvantage (unless the price comes down). It may be that the higher “comps” in some of the highrises are not as solid as a seasoned building. If I paid 1.1 early in the sales period and you paid 1.4 towards the end of the sales period, but we both move in at the same time is the value of my condo really 1.4? If I paid 1.1 for a unit that is ready to inhabit and then I moved in, and then 9 months later you paid 1.4 and moved into your unit I would feel better about me selling mine for 1.4. Just a thought…

  43. Posted by fluj

    “Good point. I wonder what his clients would think of fluj’s attitude about their money!”
    Because I’m not a guy with an opinion, right? I’m not a person. I’m an institution. Everything I say has to do with my clients’ assets.

  44. Posted by SocketSite

    UPDATE: From a trusted plugged-in tipster: “I’ve heard that one-third of the Ritz units fell out of escrow. I gather some buyers were upset that the retail space, which was supposed to be a restaurant, will instead be spun off as a commercial condo and sold to a bank. Also, gym has been delayed by quite a bit.”

  45. Posted by akrosdabay

    “Because I’m not a guy with an opinion, right? I’m not a person. I’m an institution. Everything I say has to do with my clients’ assets.”
    Yes because that is your job, especially since you parade the fact that your are in the SF RE business as the main source of your credibility on SS. You use that as tool to try and prove you know better. You can’t have it both ways and claim to just “be a person with an opinion” when your bad behavior is called into question.
    Giving your opinion is one thing. Trying to pass disingenuous and incoherent rants as opinion while at the same time claiming to be a Realtor, who knows better than everyone else here, is dubious.
    Your clients have a right to know your “real” opinions. So the anonymity is a disservice to your clients. I would really not appreciate my Realtor, who I turn to for the most important financial advice, to have an anonymous online identity where he/she callously talks about people losing money on RE.
    I hate to have to say it but your behavior has been reprehensible as of late.

  46. Posted by Ryan

    where is my popcorn, this is getting so good…

  47. Posted by badlydrawnbear

    look I can’t claim to really know what fluj’s opinion is I can only infer that by his post

    Gee, this one bedroom SOMA condo only got $1.3M and not $1.5? Boo hoo.

    that if you are looking at the sale of a one bedroom condo for $1.3M at a sign of a distressed housing market, he doesn’t see it that way.
    And if I was an RE agent and just got a commission on a $1.3M sale I would be all smiles too. But if I was a neighbor trying to sell my similar condo one floor below for 1.45M I would definitely be pissed and probably thinking that the market is distressed.

  48. Posted by ex SF-er

    slams and egos aside… I still feel like an important question has not been answered.
    Have ANY similar condos in this building gone for above $1.3M?
    because if none have, then nobody has lost anything. Some people have simply over-priced their listing.
    If on the other hand people have paid more than $1.3M for a similar condo then someone has taken a loss.
    Example (all totally made up #’s)
    they all buy initially for $1.1M due to getting in early.
    Then some are “flipped” for $1.5M
    Now one sells for $1.3M
    in this case the market went up quickly and now is going down… and the owners of 1705 are chasing the market down.
    Contrast this with:
    Early owners get in for $1.1M
    Later some are flipped for $1.25M
    Today one sells for $1.3M
    Some ballsy people list theirs for $1.5M
    in this case nobody has “lost” anything. in fact, the market may still be going up! We simply have aggressive pricing on units for sale. the optimistic sellers just need to drop their price but haven’t lost anything (except maybe holding costs)
    to me it’s a HUGE and IMPORTANT difference.
    so anybody know: did any of these units sell for more than $1.3M??? fluj? others?
    [Editor’s Note: Agreed (and we’re working on it).]

  49. Posted by fluj

    My quite coherent and easy to follow opinion remains the same: A $1.3M one bedroom is incredibly expensive and under no circumstances should it be viewed as a sign of distress.
    I don’t want to get into any further negativity.

  50. Posted by sparky

    Fluj is getting bashed on here not the other way around. His point, in the first place, was that if the headline was a typical “here’s a $1.1M 1 bedroom that just hit the market”; then it would have got bashed on this site as overpriced up until the update on the fact it got $1.3m and then the new buyer would get bashed as an idiot.
    He was making a simple point, what other people paid or didn’t asside, someone just paid $1.3M for that 1 bedroom on Market. That wouldn’t happen in a crap market.
    But, I think we could all go without the “boo hoo”

  51. Posted by Foolio

    Anyone know why the gym is being delayed? And if it’s true that the building is only 50% sold (as stated above)?
    Those would be additional bad signs for anyone trying to sell out of this building…

  52. Posted by Trip

    Only marginally relevant, but to put some perspective on things, about 12 years ago I worked on a nasty lawsuit about ownership of this building — purchase price for the whole shebang was $12 million in the mid-90s (before the Ritz addition). Quite silly in my mind to pay $1.3 million for anything on this block of Market St. unless it’s gold-plated and the gold is worth $1.3 million or more. (Nevertheless, an interesting case with lots of fraud and Thai gangster elements — couple people involved now in the federal pen).
    But I agree that ex SF-er has posed the real relevant questions. I dug around a bit on the tax assessor web site but could not really find out anything.

  53. Posted by ex SF-er

    He was making a simple point, what other people paid or didn’t asside, someone just paid $1.3M for that 1 bedroom on Market. That wouldn’t happen in a crap market.
    I don’t agree with this point.
    2 examples:
    Apogee and Setai in South Beach Miami. I hardly think anybody would disagree that Miami is getting hit hard Real-estate wise. I would bet most would even call SoBe’s market “crap” right now
    And yet there are still sales of Apogee, a luxury high rise in South Beach (it may become THE high rise in SoBe if reports are to be believed…)
    also “The Setai” (My favorite South Beach Luxury High rise) reportedly had a sale on the 40th floor for $24 Million in November or so (Florida’s market has been in the doldrums for while)
    that said: I also know that other units in that same building are just sitting there not selling. (for a brief time in 2005 I thought about moving to SoFl and buying into the Setai. then I regained my sanity)
    the point: sales of high end properties will occur in a bad market
    hence my question stands:
    what have comparable sales been in this building. have they been higher or lower than $1.3M?

  54. Posted by ex SF-er

    as example
    5 miami beach condos CLOSED (not listed, closed) for above $2.5M in April of 2008.
    Multimilion dollar condos close even in crap markets like Miami, FL

  55. Posted by SFwatcher

    HaHaHa…..It was fun reading throu’ 53 comments…
    btw the auto industry is ecstatic that bentley’s are still in demand and selling for $300K. It seems like everyone is going for them….
    and if by any chance someone sells one for $200K, I will hear from my ford dealer that people are buying 4 seater cars for 200K..Market is still en fuego…..

  56. Posted by SocketSite

    Preferred pricing from two years ago which also required the purchase of a fractional unit and likely represents the lowest possible acquisition cost for any resale unit in this stack:
    #1505 – $1.20M
    #1605 – $1.21M
    #1705 – $1.24M
    #1805 – $1.26M
    #1905 – $1.28M
    #2005 – $1.30M
    We’re still looking for confirmation of any subsequent sales with contract prices over $1,300,000 (either resale or by way of the sales office).

  57. Posted by sparky

    ex-SFer,
    I think if anyone else (Fluj) quoted some other city for his comps he would get lambasted. But you do it and that’s fine…I have no idea what the Miami market is, or house SB relates to the rest of Miami, or if th bad Miami numbers include all of Dade county etc.

  58. Posted by ex SF-er

    sparky:
    I wasn’t using Miami as comps to SF.
    I was trying to refute this comment:
    He was making a simple point, what other people paid or didn’t asside, someone just paid $1.3M for that 1 bedroom on Market. That wouldn’t happen in a crap market.
    In order to refute this comment, I have to prove that people buy high priced condos in crap markets.
    Clearly I can’t use SF data, since there is disagreement on whether or not SF is a “crap market”.
    Thus, I chose a region generally considered to be a “bad market” (miami). I used Miami because I know something of it’s market, and because Miami is generally considered one of the worst performing markets in the country.
    I showed data that indicates that high priced condo sales are happening in bad markets.
    Therefore, by showing 5 closings of multimillion dollar condos in a bad market I have proved that this statement is not necessarily true:
    someone just paid $1.3M for that 1 bedroom on Market. That wouldn’t happen in a crap market.
    and if you read MY Posts (not others) closely, you will see that I agree that we know nothing of whether or not the above $1.3M condo sale shows SF condo strength or weakness, as we have no comparable sales data.
    although it would appear that prices are essentially flat based on socketsite’s update (1.26M vs 1.3M latest sale, so a $40k increase in 2years) unless again we find a comp in that building for more than 1.3M since the original listing prices.

  59. Posted by satchelfan

    Even Bentleys sales are being affected…
    http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article3784523.ece
    Pick one up on sale soon!

  60. Posted by EBGuy

    And to reiew, at least the fractionals are doing great:
    1bed/1bath (1/12 fraction) selling for $199k on Craigslist (or you can buy from the developers for $239k)
    3bed/3bath (1/12 fraction) selling for $350k. If the photos are to be believed, these units got the arched windows from the orginal structure. Canary… coal mine… starting to wheeze…

  61. Posted by San FronziScheme

    Only one solution to bullies: just let them rant and they’ll go crawling back to their lonely corner.
    I see many posters here learning, adjusting, shaping their opinions as the facts and better theories come along.
    But bullies are steadfast and will never give in as long as we fuel them with arguments.
    Their real agenda is not the truth, it’s having a fight.

  62. Posted by tipster

    1805 closed at 1.3, now 1505 is available for 729K.
    http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/690-Market-St-94104/unit-1505/home/21967204
    Go up read the first post in this thread: it’s pretty famous.

  63. Posted by sfrenegade

    The actual sale price on #1705 was $1.2355M. #1905 was $1.278M.
    #1505 was foreclosed at $937,377 by HSBC and originally bought for $1.193M (Ritz wasn’t “all cash”).
    The penthouse shell sold for $5.3305M.
    Tipster, I don’t think the ’05 stack is homogeneous. Check out this one:
    http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/690-Market-St-94104/unit-1105/home/21967224

  64. Posted by tipster

    Prices continue to fall! Ritz 1505 reduced to $699K, 42% off its purchase price of 1.193.
    http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/690-Market-St-94104/unit-1505/home/21967204
    @SFR, counting windows in the photo from the listing, 11 floors in the old building, so there will be two different 05 stacks, one 12 and above and the other 11 and below.

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles