355 1st #S2003: View
Floor to ceiling windows with bridge and building views in the living room (at least for the time being). Stainless steel appliances and granite countertops in the kitchen. And now bank owned and asking $685 per square foot on high floor at The Metropolitan.
Bragging rights to the first plugged-in reader that can determine the pre-bank purchase price (or provide an accurate update on The Californian).
∙ Listing: 355 1st Street #S2003 (1/1) – $544,700 [MLS]
The Lots Have Been Cleared For The Californian And More On Fremont [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Satchel

    I always like the chance for bragging rights!
    About the Metropolitan REO, I can’t find any info on property shark or zillow, BUT one can back into the original selling price using the tax assessment info.
    The current tax basis is $862,490, with property taxes of $9,841 per year (but don’t worry, they’re delinquent). Because the tax assessment would have grown at 2% per year under Prop 13, it looks like this sold for a minimum of $812K, asuming it sold back when it was new in 2004 (2004 is the only date I could find for when it was built – does that sound right to people in that neighborhood?).
    So, at the asking price of $544K, it’s only down 33% from 2004. So, how much off from peak (maybe 2006 around there)?
    Anyway, it’s a nice swan dive. And it looks like the bank took it back for $625K (no doubt the first lien), and the second got wiped out. I hope the original purchaser used 100% financing (I’m guessing he did), so no big deal.
    From the tax records, it looks like this was being used as a rental (apartment license fee), so hopefully the owner put the rental dollars in his pocket while stiffing the bank for a while. That should make up for the short term impact of the credit sting from the REO.
    Sounds like the owner has made an economically rational decision. This must be very disconcerting to the fraudsters who engineered this bubble, who no doubt expected people foolishly to continue to pay on depreciating assets.

  2. Posted by ex SF-er

    I know that foreclosures are often not used as comps, but one would have to seriously consider this building if you are looking at the other towers nearby.
    this is going for $685/sq ft. some of the condos in that neighborhood go for $1100+/sq ft (but probably higher floors… this is on the 20th floor?)
    that said, I know that the Met is considered inferior but I forget why. (I’m not a condo guy so to me an apartment as an apartment, I get them confused.).

  3. Posted by somaview

    Isn’t that view in danger? New highrises one block away are planned, I thought, so that bridge view might not be permanent.
    [Editor’s Note: See references (and links) to The Californian above.]

  4. Posted by Satchel

    Scratch some of what I wrote above – just a little.
    One can “hack” the sf gov tax website by substituting dates in the http address that is returned on query, which allows one to go back and see earlier (than 2006-07) tax years.
    It looks like this one sold more recently, probably around 2005/06, so that means that the price paid was more like $845K. So, at $544K it’s down about THIRTY-SIX percent, but this likely to be a decline from peak.
    I’d expect 1/1s to fall 50% from peak in an area like SOMA/Rincon Hill, where new supply can be built. A 1/1 is a very undesirable piece of property in general, so these should get hit hardest (and it looks like they are).

  5. Posted by diemos

    Instant nequity.

  6. Posted by asiagoSF

    how do you hack the sf gov property tax site address? The url for his property ends in LDVTRAFUQTULITRNESPZOVEMZUAKSJKDQIGYCVUPRJLUQBPALP, hardly an easy to manipulate string to yield previous years’ assessments!

  7. Posted by Satchel

    When you get a return on query for a specific property, the page contains another link entitled “Click here for previous year’s assessment”. Click that one, and the returned url will contain a date string somewhere. Change that string. (Now, they seem to go back only 1 additional year before “previous year’s assessment”, but that’s enough for the Metropolitan REO.)
    I hope that helps!

  8. Posted by phatty

    Satchel, what is the URL where you are doing this?

  9. Posted by anon

    That’s a very good price. I lived there for a while, but would not buy there because of the location. It’s a nightmare trying to get in or out of there during commute hours. The only place that has a worse traffic problem is a nearby tower that will remain nameless.
    There are lots of other foreclosures in that building.

  10. Posted by Recent ORH buyer

    “that said, I know that the Met is considered inferior but I forget why.”
    I’m not sure I would concur with that comment [in terms of the building itself] having lived at the Met fairly recently, for over a year. The Met has seen a number of residents [or at least a number of people I know] purchase at ORH and the Infinity over the past year. As a result, these parties may have needed to sell their homes at the Met in order to swing the payments at their new abodes. As a result, having to sell in a tighter market may have exaccerbated the pricing pressure for their respective units. That’s the only ‘negative’ I’m aware of about the building.
    In terms of this particular unit, it does have an awesome view [it is the 20th floor] so I’m surprized by its predicament. The view would be quite significantly compromised if/when the Californian is built, so perhaps that was a factor. However, that building may be several years away, given the current credit climate.
    Some 1/1 have indeed sold higher than $1100 per sq. ft. As an example, 23C at the Infinity [301 Main Street] with similar views [but closer to the water] sold on 3/23/08 for $1.006m for 804 sq. ft. or about $1250 per sq. ft. To be fair, 1/1 on higher floors [perhaps 35th and higher] at ORH may be north of $1100 too. By comparison the $685 per sq. ft. seems a ‘relative’ bargain. I think they may catch a bid above the $544k asking price.

  11. Posted by ex SF-er

    Recent ORH buyer:
    I’ve never been in the Met in my life, and thus know almost nothing about it.
    I meant “inferior” only in relation to nearby towers (ORH, infinity, etc).
    to use your example: if the Met wasn’t inferior in some way then why are people selling the Met to move to ORH/infinity? and why is it only going for $635/sq ft?
    I would assume because it’s inferior in some way, no?
    but as I initially said: I know less than nothing about this building. it looks nice enough to me

  12. Posted by anon

    The Met is nice enough, but the newer buildings (Infinity and ORH) generally have better amenities (tho the Met’s are nice). Also (and I could be wrong about this) I believe they are having “issues” with the original developer. The scaffolding has been up around the building for over a year because there are some problems with the tiles falling off that the developer doesn’t want to pay for. (apologies if that is not true, it’s what I heard).

  13. Posted by Recent ORH buyer

    Sorry if my comments came across as harsh – they weren’t intended as such.
    Personally, if I owned at the Met, the only reason I would move were if I thought my bridge view [which is of great appeal to me] would be compromised. Great gym in the building, nice indoor pool and jacuzzi and an appealing 12 seat theatre room and decent conference room.
    Why might others want to move to ORH/Infinity? Newer buildings [Met was built in 2004] newer facilities may be an attraction as might some wanting to cash out before views change. All I meant is that, in my view, there isn’t anything inherently inferior about the building. Accordingly I think this should sell over asking.

  14. Posted by Michael

    “There are lots of other foreclosures in that building.”
    That’s frightening.
    “Accordingly I think this should sell over asking.”
    Isn’t selling for over asking is kind of meaningless if it sells for less than what the previous person paid?
    If the neighborhood is getting better shouldn’t that at least offset any depreciation of the older building?

  15. Posted by San FronziScheme

    The SFGOV Treasurer & Tax Collector site is there:
    Click on “BEGIN”

  16. Posted by ex SF-er

    recent ORH buyer:
    I never took your post as harsh. just wanted to explain my first post better.
    we’re cool

  17. Posted by Paul Hwang

    340-350 Fremont!

  18. Posted by chuckie

    “340-350 Fremont!”
    what’s that Paul?

  19. Posted by missionbayres

    Whoa, all these high rise towers, and they are all *u n d e r w a t e r*.
    Now, who in their right mind would pay full price (05-06 prices) to move into ORH and Infinity?? It’s like buying a brand new car. As soon as you drive it off the lot, it’s worth 10-20% less. The Met could be a harbinger of things to come…

  20. Posted by GoodBuyBadTimes

    “Now, who in their right mind would pay full price (05-06 prices) to move into ORH and Infinity??”
    Agreed, only the prices aren’t 05-06 prices, they’re more like 08-09 prices had the market continued to perform at 03-04 pace!
    You’ve called attention to the apparently ever-widening gap between new construction pricing and resales. And it’s not just in Rincon. The resolve of the developers to continue to sit on inventory while their would be buyers snap up these very proximate and close comparables at REO pricing is certainly going to be tested . . . .

  21. Posted by Ryan

    what a deal. high floor for the met, and one of the better floor plans in this building too. who thinks its going to go over asking? And yes, there are a ton of foreclosures in the met right now… and there has been may others in the last year or so. at least this one has the sub zero still…

  22. Posted by phatty

    I just spoke to the realtor of #2003 at the Metropolitan. He says they already have 3 offers. People don’t waste time…
    And there’s a showing today at 1:30 if anyone is interested.
    Out of curiousity (I don’t plan on making an offer) – it’s illegal for the realtor to give an indication on the price of those offers, right? So if someone wanted to make an offer that beat the other 3 and asked the realtor what # would do it, he’d be breaking the law by answering?

  23. Posted by spencer

    my guess is it sells for $540K

  24. Posted by apoorsole

    I say 499k definitely not over 500k!!

  25. Posted by phatty

    I think you’re both lowballin’ her. I think people will overlook the fact that the view will be gone soon, and focus on that tax basis price Satchel figured out for us.
    I go with $625k.

  26. Posted by Recent ORH buyer

    Phatty, who appears to be a potential buyer in this neighborhood, probably is closest on price. I concur with her in that I believe the price will be around $600K. And, at that level, I think it’s a win for the buyer.

  27. Posted by phatty

    Phatty is a him, not a her.
    And I can’t wait to see what this goes for (so I can collect my winnings)

  28. Posted by SocketSite

    355 1st Street #S2003 closed escrow on 10/24/08 with a reported contract price of $600,000.

  29. Posted by cooper

    By Satchel-
    “Sounds like the owner has made an economically rational decision. This must be very disconcerting to the fraudsters who engineered this bubble, who no doubt expected people foolishly to continue to pay on depreciating assets.”
    Wow i am tired of people only blamign the banks who financed these frauds. It’s not like the banks have not taken it in the shorts for this.
    If we are going to put bankers in jail, let’s also put the mortgage brokers and real estate agents who jacked these prices up for years and pocketed commissiosn. If Lehmen has to give money back, how about getting all those commissions back from these frauds who lied on mortgage apps to get deals done?
    If we want bankers to be scapegoats, let’s spread it around and take out the realtors and mortgage brokers who filled out totally fake mortgage apps and shoved this debt on to someone else which looks to be the US taxpayer. All these guys are criminals and the market won’t come back until we put all the people who participated in jail where they belong.

  30. Posted by R.

    #2106 at METROPOLITAN listed for $550K. Any comments.

  31. Posted by diemos

    From the listing; “Tenant will mov out end of Nov.”
    Looks like someone has decided to bail on the landlord thing.

  32. Posted by Jimmy (Bitter Renter)

    I have a theory that the periodicity of real estate bubbles coincides with the time it takes to get a bankruptcy/foreclosure off your credit report (7-10 years).
    Maybe the same horde of gambling addict RE speculators pump up bubble after bubble after bubble, and at the end of each one, they go bankrupt, retreat to their cave for a few years and then re-emerge to repeat the process and cash in again!

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles