Chelsea Park
The latest listing verbiage from the sales office at Chelsea Park: “Prices slashed for stunning homes in the heart of the Castro/Mission Dolores neighborhoods! $500/day bonus for quick escrows, free parking for 5 years.”
At least 18% of the 39 units in the development remain available with 7 currently listed and prices reduced by up to $100,000 (9.5%). And while originally starting at $679,000, now available from $619,000 (down 8.8%).
UPDATE: Make that reduced by up to $150,000 (14.3%):

[T]he unit (#9) Socketsite lists as $949K seems to have dropped another $50K today, it’s now showing $899K. The text of the listing still says “only” $949, but the top of the listing shows the reduced price.

∙ Listing: 3620 19th Street #9 (2/2.5) – $949,000 [MLS]
∙ Listing: 3620 19th Street #27 (1/1) – $619,000 [MLS]
Chelsea Park (Phase I): On The MLS And Opening Tomorrow (1/27) [SocketSite]

38 thoughts on “The Latest Listing Verbiage From Chelsea Park: “Prices Slashed””
  1. This 2 bed, 2.5 bath will be down to $450,000 in the next 3 years. If they were smart, they would slash prices even more, before the recession hits the Bay Area. Things aren’t improving and may get worse with the current administration. You can’t tax your way out of a depression/recession.

  2. Stunning homes?
    For me a stunning home is a cantilevered mid-century overlooking a majestic landscape, not a pretty bland 2/2 townhouse asking just short of – gasp – $1M.

  3. At the Potrero, with the non-auction, the 2/2’s are going for $613K to $655K. These were selling for upto $876K including the cost of upgrades.

  4. Way too small — notice no sq footage on the MLS. The price is nearly $1000 sq. foot. Those are St. Regis prices. Good luck.

  5. This is such a horrid development. It’s like something from San Jose plopped down in the middle of the Mission. It is bland with a capital B. The finishes and layouts also just make you say “What were they thinking!” Such a waste for a great location. This development has no competition in the neighborhood. And to top it off, no parking. I usually don’t like to harp, but this is just plain awful.

  6. So, what happened to the first buyers? Did they buy at full price? If so, their places have also just depreciated up to $100k….

  7. What a massive disappointment this entire development is. One of the best locations in the city and they squandered the land on pretty much what every poster above said.

  8. When this place first opened, people were crawling all over it and the sales staff were bragging about how many contracts they’d signed. How times change!

  9. people were crawling all over it
    So, does this mean 32 out of the 39 have been ‘sold’? How many closed?
    If they only have 7 to sell, that’s remarkable any way you look at it.

  10. I went to an open house here a few months ago, and it really does feel out of place for this neighborhood. I think the poster who described it as something that you’d see in San Jose hit the nail on the head. The 2BR units are a decent size, but that doesn’t make up for the bland design and so-so layout. It’s too bad, because it’s located in a desirable area.
    As for pricing, these look to be priced as low as $630K per sqft, so I’m not sure what poster Itsy Bitsy is referring to with being comparable to the St. Regis. My guess is that these will for sell for $550-$850K depending on the size. Obviously, there will also be some huge incentives to close before the year ends.

  11. This 2 bed, 2.5 bath will be down to $450,000 in the next 3 years.
    I’m not a fan of this development at all (cheap finishes, low ceilings, crappy motel architecture) but there’s NO WAY a 2/2.5 is going to fall to 450K. Dream on.

  12. This develop is terrible, depressing, poorly done.
    If you develop SF to look and feel like San Jose or Walnut Creek, SF property will be worth no more than property in San Jose or Walnut Creek.
    I agree with MarinaRenter. If you build San Jose in SF, the San Jose prices will follow.
    $450,000 within 3 years.

  13. there’s NO WAY a 2/2.5 is going to fall to 450K.
    How much would they rent for? 2500? 2800?
    Looking at cold, hard facts, without the glitter that is still in many people’s eyes about the “unique” RE in SF, a property that would rent for less than 3K should sell for less than 500K period.
    Why burden yourself with 6K+/month for a townhome when you can rent it for 3K? Pride in ownership? Appreciation?
    No, they simply ran out of lemmings. Time to lower the prices.

  14. I repeat my earlier characterization of this development: “English Country Fortress Meets Ivy League Dormitory.” (Yes, there’s a soupcon of Spanish Colonial too.) What a disaster.
    Speaking of happenings in the ‘hood, I noticed this morning that construction work has begun on the lots that formerly housed Flora Grubb’s nursery. Three 2-unit buildings are planned for the space. Renderings, anyone?

  15. How much would they rent for? 2500? 2800?
    Looking at cold, hard facts, without the glitter that is still in many people’s eyes about the “unique” RE in SF, a property that would rent for less than 3K should sell for less than 500K period.
    They make no sense as rentals, but I do believe that there’s an “ownership premium” that most people will be willing to pay above and beyond what it would cost to rent.
    I still do not believe these will go down to $300/sq. ft. Time will tell, of course.

  16. They make no sense as rentals
    I beg to disagree. This is a city of renters (60%+). Plenty of places in SF wouldn’t make sense as rentals except for the low low price people paid for them years ago. I know families who are renting houses in good nabes and they’re not paying anything close to the potential mortgage for a similar house sold today.
    If purchasing prices come back in line with local incomes, buying to rent out will become interesting, even for these townhouses.

  17. Of course, I meant that at this price, they make no sense as rentals. And people probably aren’t buying them as rentals, at least not yet.
    Most of the rentals in the city are crap, which is why people will pay more to own and live in a nicer place.

  18. Heart of the Castro? Please. I’ll buy Mission Dolores, but it’s 5-6 blocks from being “Heart of the Castro.”
    And the unit (#9) Socketsite lists as $949K seems to have dropped another $50K today, it’s now showing $899K. The text of the listing still says “only” $949, but the top of the listing shows the reduced price.
    That unit is 1492 sq. ft, not a bad size, so $600/sq ft.
    I agree with all the comments about the horrible San Jose styling, it’s like awful suburbia gone urban.

  19. “It looks like an Avalon community. In face Avalon won’t have to do much remodeling when they buy it out.”
    You’re being too generous, I think even some Avalon communities have a pool. Someone said it in an earlier comment, but the description is appropriate- “depressing”.

  20. i’m actually surprised by the hostility towards this development, I took a look at it a few months ago and thought there was a certain charm. I agree it feels out of place, but I kind of liked it – felt a little like a Santa Barbara or San Diego enclave in the mission.
    I suspect some of the earlier posters are correct, it’ll sell, but for high-5’s and up…

  21. Please leave Santa Barbara out of this. Santa Barbara at least has made their “Ye Olde Spanish” style architecture look rather authentic. How is “Ye Olde” Chelsea Park authentic? When did we need to borrow London names to enhance a San Francisco neighborhood? This project is proof that this city is loosing it’s uniqueness. Slapping “Mayfair” on cheap stucco screams of suburban neighborhoods many of us are trying to escape from.

  22. Having lived in Santa Barbara for a number of years and having friends who live there currently, I can say this development does resemble many of the more recent developments down there.

  23. Funny you mention this, having gone through SB myself, this place made me think of a retirement community on Modoc Road. Not so much the style than the feel.

  24. “Dave” is way off base…this really is an excellent location if you want to be in a hip, happening location with great food just around the block (Delfina, Tartine, BiRite Creamery, etc etc).
    You’re all right that the architecture is dreadful. I really don’t know what they were thinking. And the marketing makes me retch. Why pseudo-English in San Francisco.
    However, one thing about the project I do actually like is the courtyard. The site plan took an awkward lot and created a nice community of homes surrounding shared open space. I could easily see a tight little neighborhood developing there. I think the people who buy will actually like living there quite a lot.

  25. a few things
    I disagree with some posters. I think that pseudo-English names and design work well with San Francisco. where do you think “victorians” come from? whenever people say “San Francisco is so European” my first thought is “no it’s not” but then I remember that SF is very similar to the non-central further outskirts of London like Balham.
    the problem is that these units are only minutely UK in styling.
    they’re more like cheap Spanish tract home knock-offs.
    but if they were truly English inspired (cool row-homes made of brick with English accents inside) I think they’d go over well, name and all.
    the insides of these are generica to say the least. I don’t know why anybody would live here. they’re like a white on white half way house or something. We have these in the midwest. we call them slums. (only half kidding)
    maybe I’ve had too much alcohol tonight (ok, no… I’ve had waaayyy too much alcohol). but these places are bland on bland on bland.

  26. While not “heart of the Castro” this is an excellent location. Close to all the restaurants on Valencia St. and 18th St., Close to BART, convenient to southbound freeways, close to Dolores Park etc. yet far enough away from the “heart of the Mission” to not have real crime issues.
    That being said, the units are cramped and strangely laid-out and the styling is uninspired (contra to a previous poster, there is parking).

  27. re:parking. If it is leased, then that’s great imo…allows you to NOT buy parking in this incredibly transit rich neighborhood if you don’t want it. However, that should be reflected in the cost of the condos, and even at reduced pricing, I don’t believe it is. The market will decide….

  28. I agree with NoeNeighbor and curmudgeon that this is a great area. I’d take this location over the Cesar Chavez condos on the other thread any day (although I think both are laughably overpriced for what you get).

  29. Went by the Chelsea Park development today. (Not sure if this is the latest thread on this topic or not).
    HOWEVER, here’s my trip report, with the recent “asking prices” (as indicated by Eric Rahe the agent onsite that day).
    Of the six two-level townhomes, four are available:
    UNIT 1: 2BR/2.5BA, $999k down from $1.125M
    UNIT 2: same as 1.
    UNIT 5: 2BR/2.5BA, $899k down from $1.005M
    UNIT 6: 2BR/2.5BA, $1.05M
    (I personally liked this layout the best … )
    Of the six three-level townhomes (weird layout I thought), one is available:
    Unit 10: 2BA/2.5BA, $899k
    Of the four 3BR apartments on offer, one faces the courtyard (23G) and the remainder face 19th St.
    All are 3BR/2BA
    23G, 1501 sq. ft., $949k down from $1.25M (!!)
    26S, 1335 sq. ft., $749k down from $949k
    32S, 1305 sq. ft., $850k down from $1.05M (although Eric told me in hushed tones that this could be had for $829k if I wanted it.)
    38S, 1305 sq. ft., $847k (but could be had “in the 850s”) or some such BS.
    Seems like after over a year on the market the sellers are becoming reasonably flexible on prices.
    I don’t get the criticism of this development, it is like a nice little oasis away from the grime of 19th st. (But still close enough that you can go to the park, or walk to Tartine or Dosa or whatever for food).
    I pity the people who bought in early and paid full price.

Leave a Reply

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