CFAH

425 1st Street #2202

Priced by the One Rincon Hill sales office at $1,020,000 (not including any upgrades) on the first day of pre-sales in 2006, an upgraded 425 1st #2202 created quite a stir when it was resold two years later with a reported (and recorded) contract price of $1,300,000.

A few months later the two-bedroom view condo returned to the market asking $1,359,000. And a few weeks ago the second resale of 425 1st Street #2202 quietly closed escrow with a reported contract price of $1,150,000 (initially reported as $1,038,000).

At 1,309 square feet, that’s $879 per square foot for one of the most coveted two-bedroom stacks at One Rincon Hill. And it’s $48,000 less than #1902 (“over $60K in upgrades”) is currently asking as well.

UPDATE: After our post yesterday the reported contract price for 425 1st #2202 was changed from $1,038,000 to $1,150,000 in the MLS and now matches its recorded sales price. Our post has been updated accordingly. In addition, the listing for 425 1st #1902 has since been withdrawn.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by LMRiM

    I remember this first resale created quite a stir on SS (reading the comments back from the June 08 thread is a hoot now).
    I think tipster was right in his original theory that the $1.3M “resale” was a sham designed to sucker in new victims, er “buyers”. At least I hope he was right. Otherwise, some poor chump just blew up more than $300K in about 8 months! Considering that we’re talking about a pretty ordinary shoebox in the sky, that’s got to be some kind of record even for SF.

  2. Posted by tipster_fan

    A quote from tipster June 26th of last year on the resale at $1.3 million. Perhaps he was on to something…….
    “It CLOSED escrow 6 days after being listed. I don’t think this transaction passes the smell test.
    All real estate is Theater. This listing could very well be theater. Did ORH, or someone they sent out, buy it? Did they “contribute” to the purchase price to “assist” the buyer for marketing purposes (both for the unclosed units and the ones in the next building)?
    I see people on Craigslist begging people to take over their contracts at no gain, and then: Surprise, the first reported resale (the one the contract holders who haven’t closed would be watching) is a big gain for one of the contract holders?
    The manipulable facts don’t seem to match the unmanipulated facts. Sorry. In these situations, there is usually more than the public face of the transaction reveals. Might be on the up and up, it is one of the most desirable units, but it sure smells VERY different from what I’ve seen on Craigslist.
    Sort of like in the last days of the disco craze, when, after the lines of people disappeared, the NYC disco owners paid attractive people to stand in line so that others would think disco was still “in” and pay sky high prices. Or near the end of the dot com craze when the people who got the ipo shares were required to buy more on the first day to goose the first day gain. Or the NRCCs goosing the purchase price of homes near the end of the housing bubble.
    I’ve seen enough of those sort of situations to make me slightly skeptical when some “announcement” doesn’t match what I see in general. I can be wrong, frequently am, but this sure smells funny. 30%? Seems quite extraordinary.”

  3. Posted by Legacy Dude

    Tough to know what to make of this one. Great unit, to be sure. I haven’t been in this one, but have seen a few other flagship condos at ORH and have generally been impressed with layouts and finishes (and obviously, views).
    But is it down 20% from last sale, or up 2% from original price?

  4. Posted by jessep

    That seems to be in-line with what’s going on.
    I think 800 psf is where we are now, roughly. But it is new construction.
    I’m actually kind of surprised it closed that high.
    I almost bought at One Rincon and I remember they were pitching me a city view for 1.2M (2BD/2BA) a 2.4 M (3BD/3BA) and a 1.8 M townhouse.
    This is an interesting development.
    None of them had dead on bridge views like that though. I personally don’t like bridge/water views but no doubt they command a big premium.

  5. Posted by anonsf

    Yes, these transactions are so fishy I don’t think you can draw any conclusions from them, (but I will anyway).
    So it’s basically closed this last time at what it sold for in 2006.
    Overall, not too bad, considering how bad the market is. That is, of course, if this last sale is a real sale at all.
    [Editor’s Note: Don’t forget the value of the upgrades.]

  6. Posted by phatty

    I think there’s no question that the 1.3M sale was bogus and purely a deviant marketing scheme. Anyone venture a guess on how they went about this though? Think they fronted the buyer a few 100k? What would be in it for him, since he’d have to pay more taxes on it? Or maybe ORH was the buyer, buying from themselves?
    Anyone?

  7. Posted by tipster - and the above is all sarcasm

    This “tipster” guy is nothing more that a conspiracy theorist, as Anonn and others frequently point out. Clearly Anonn is on to something and this tipster fraud is all wet.
    You guys just can’t take our word for anything! A Realtor’s word is his bond and if we say it sold for $1.3 in the prior sale (in a matter of days), well you should just believe everything we say.
    That’s how you buyers keep from losing money in this business: believe everything your Realtor tells you. There are no shams, falsities, or even misleading inferences made by any Realtor anywhere.
    It just doesn’t happen, and the sooner the buying public realizes it, the better. Thanks Anonn for exposing this “tipster” guy as being the true fraud that he is!

  8. Posted by EH

    Are those kickback deals actually legal?
    OT: I just went to get smokes and saw that 313 Duncan has sold. Stagers are swaddling the Ikea in plastic and moving it out as I type.

  9. Posted by anonn

    Oh, but what about the Moises Alou free season tickets scam from two days ago? You know, after he was already traded to the Mets? What about the gangsta landlord and his coterie of shotgun toating property managers? In a nameless city’s ghetto you know so very well? A city “in between” San Francisco and Detroit?
    Real credible stuff, Tippedovercanoe. You’re all wet.
    Just because some people on the internet happen to buy into this particular conspiracy ramble doesn’t make you any less of a crackpot.

  10. Posted by Willow

    “…425 1st Street #2202 quietly closed escrow”
    Since we are speaking “quietly” can I say in a very low whisper that the view really is stunning.

  11. Posted by anon

    Well, does the fact that he was clearly right about this particular scam — the suggestion of which you openly mocked 9 months ago — make him any less of a crackpot? Or is that just an inconvenient truth for you to sidestep so you can mock some more?

  12. Posted by anon

    If anyone wants the “true” full scoop, talk to the guys at South Beach RE. The first owner is an agent over there.
    I’m sure they can spread some info on what’s going on in the market, especially at Rincon Hill.

  13. Posted by anonn

    Buddy, his track record is garbage. “Clearly right” ? No way I am willing to grant that sort of validation. Neither you, nor he, know precisely what happened. Meanwhile, go ahead and ignore his nonsense from a couple days ago if you like while sticking to your worthless “bash anonn, and bash anonn” only routine that the editor keeps allowing. You’re beneath my contempt you miserable little anonymos no account. And Tipster called me out by name because he feels vindicated by anonymous gullible strangers like you.

  14. Posted by lolcat_94123

    Why is the RE industry just seem so much shadier than others? Is it the tendency for lack of higher education? The money involved? You just don’t seem to hear this stories, whether this one is true or not, in other professions. Or everyone is a fraudster.
    Nice place though.

  15. Posted by tipster

    Hey, I’m supposed to be the forum crackpot, anonn. Stop trying to take my title away from me.

  16. Posted by anon

    anonn (that’s not anonymous?), my gosh, you were dead wrong and tipster was absolutely right. Yet instead of being a man and apologizing or at least recognizing this fact, you instead chime in with a non sequitur and call him a crackpot! And you say I’m the “no account” one! Hee hee, as I said earlier, at least you’re predictable.

  17. Posted by anonn

    “Hey, I’m supposed to be the forum crackpot, anonn. Stop trying to take my title away from me.”
    What did I do or say to take the throne away from you, King Crackpot? Say that I don’t believe anything you say still? OK. Nice fans you have.

  18. Posted by jj

    Strange thing, I thought I saw it on redfin as in contract for $1.15 just last week. I guess RE transaction works in mysterious ways.
    I heard rumor that 2307, listed for $649k, is in contract as well.

  19. Posted by sf

    Pole envy.

  20. Posted by anonanon

    “Strange thing, I thought I saw it on redfin as in contract for $1.15 just last week.”
    Property Shark lists the 3/18/2009 resale as $1.15M as well.

  21. Posted by Sb

    “Neither you, nor he, know precisely what happened.”
    And, since you have no concrete proof, you are unable to form any sort of meaningful conclusion.
    Good ol’ anonn, the Johnny Cochran of real estate analysis.

  22. Posted by anonn

    More like the F. Lee Bailey of Socketsite, “The Lie Detector.” Interesting how nobody found fault with dummy’s “you were dead wrong and Tipster absolutely right.” Absolutely? Really? none of these clowns knows anything.

  23. Posted by anon

    Wow, anonn, we agree on something! The F. Lee Bailey comparison is indeed apt, but only as it pertains to one’s command of ethical obligations. Bailey, of course, was disbarred for ripping off his client and lying to the court about it all. F. Lee Anonn, indeed.
    http://www.mass.gov/obcbbo/8764.htm

  24. Posted by anonanon

    Interesting. The listing agent recorded the transaction on MLS two days ago with a selling price of $1,038,000. Listing price was $1,188,000. Today, the selling price was changed to $1,150,000 by an SFAR staffer. Property Shark’s record of the transaction also shows $1,150,000.

  25. Posted by Legacy Dude

    No offense, anonn, but who made you SocketSite hall monitor anyway? Lately it’s like you’ve developed some kind of pathological obsession with tipster, LMRiM, and now Trip. You loiter on this website (which you ironically denounce at every opportunity) like some kind of stalker, waiting for one of these guys to post any opinion, so that you can issue a demerit and scream, “Na ah!” Happens on nearly every thread, and it’s getting tedious, IMO. Yet they’re the ones who are “creepy?”
    Like it or not, many of us plug in to read their postings, which are informative and ENTERTAINING. Now anyone who doesn’t agree with your personal view of the world is a “clown” or a “dummy.” Are you really the omniscient arbiter of all things real estate? Then maybe you should start your own blog insteaad of haunting this one.

  26. Posted by LMRiM

    The listing agent recorded the transaction on MLS two days ago with a selling price of $1,038,000…. Today, the selling price was changed to $1,150,000 by an SFAR staffer.
    Hmm. If 10% was given back to the buyer “under the table” to help fund the downpayment (those pesky banks), the net proceeds from a $1.15M sale received by the seller would be $1.035M. An extra $3K would be lying around; how much do “good” appraisers cost these days, lol?
    I have no idea what’s going on with this particular sale. But my brother is an exec at a national-presence title insurer and he *hears* that this sort of stuff is going on all the time.

  27. Posted by ex SF-er

    This unit has arguably some of the best views in the city. (many people like water view).
    I actually like the units overall, although I find them very bland. but they can be spiced up very nicely with interior decorating. they’re kind of like a blank canvas upon which you can decorate. there is nothing interesting about the units, but nothing offensive. very easy to personalize.
    It’s really a pity the other building isn’t getting built, since that’s where the nice gym was supposed to be. But the outdoor space is very nice, and I don’t find that I mind the noise that much.
    I think of it as relatively basic housing with a little bit of flair. given that, its value has held up fairly well.
    (only down a few thousand plus the lost remodeling fees over the last 2-3 years).
    I personally feel that the building is starting to become a little more populated… before it was a ghost building… now there are people here and there.
    perhaps due to more people renting in there, or more of the owners deciding to stay a while longer?
    anyway, it’s welcome added housing, and as jamie always says perhaps it will make the Rincon nabe a little more pedestrian and daily life friendly…
    I doubt most ORH units have been a good investment per se… but it’s not the worst place to live given all the issues with location/price/etc.
    as for the last sale: who can say. I doubt many of us honestly believed that transaction was as advertised. so I kind of negate that.
    (see that anonn… I’m dismissing the last sale that otherwise would “prove” huge depreciation in this building).
    I won’t go off topic and talk about Wells today… too busy and plus who can read bank financial statements anymore anyway? it’s all blackbox stuff filled with Level 2 and 3 assets and off balance entities etc. I’ll only say that I don’t see why we need to keep bailing out firms that are making record profits. (cough) mabye I can dig into their financials tomorrow. that’d be a waste of a Friday.

  28. Posted by agent-x

    I met the Seller and spoke with her about listing the property (she chose to list with someone else). She is real, and she really did pay $1.3M. So there’s no grassy knoll there.
    I don’t know the circumstances surrounding her resale– but did hear after it was ratified that the negotiated price was $1.15M.

  29. Posted by tipster

    Thanks agent-x! I believe EVERYTHING a Realtor tells me, so I guess that settles it! I OFTEN see people pay way above market prices only to turn around practically the next day and resell at a loss. They must have REALLY wanted it bad enough to pay an above market price, but no so bad as to keep it for very long. Happens. all. the. time. If you have any bridges you’d like to sell me, I’d be eager to buy one of those too!
    LMRiM, I think it’s easy to make record profits if congress intimidates FASB into relaxing mark-to-market rules, allowing the banks to stop writing anything down. If I could ignore half my expenses but keep booking revenue, I’d enjoy record profits with one exception: I’d soon run out of cash. But that wouldn’t be a problem if uncle TARP were always around to slip me a couple of $Bil. Ha ha, shouldn’t be too many mortgage writedowns when unemployment is rising through the roof! Nope, that’s why their writedowns went DOWN this quarter! Must be a really great business climate out there giving those record profits!

  30. Posted by anonn

    “tipster, LMRiM, and now Trip”
    Yeah, well, you have that backwards. Pay attention and you’ll see. In fact, read this thread. See who called who out, out of the blue at 2:44. Who called what “clearly right” (what we now see as false) and “a scam” at 2:54. Who jumped down whose throat with a false indignity because I wouldn’t concede that this was nothing more than typical conjecture? And then so on, for the rest of the thread?
    Whatever, Legacy Dude. Read the thread. I wouldn’t have even given this thread a second glance.

  31. Posted by anonn

    Oh, and go ahead and disagree. It makes the world go round. Doesn’t mean you’re a clown. Anon is a dolt. LMRiM? Almost 100 percent wrong about SF r.e., and pretty much an arch prat and a two note writer, but not stupid, obviously. Trip? Disingenuous without fail. Tipster? Luxury high rise price fixing conspiracy, season ticket fraud, gangsta landlord marauding, and ex-lax poisoning. All within the last three days.
    Entertained?

  32. Posted by tipster

    Oh please. Spare us! This thread is the epitomy of real estate in SF. Mostly fake for the theater effect, while a few realtors try to explain that, no, it was perfectly legit, like the TWO instances of $100K cash back that have been uncovered here (and probably plenty more) that also goosed the comps and the time, the fake price for fixtures to withhold the transfer and property taxes on the real estate that sold at the same time, etc.
    I can only imagine when the cash back sales hit: how many realtors told their clients “Well, prices are very strong now and you’ll just need to increase your offer to compete” as opposed to what they SHOULD have said, which was, “there is an awful lot of fraud going on now with lending standards so lax, and you might want to think critically about whether something is a comp or might be faked”.
    Could a sham buyer pays 1.3, while the sales office hands them $200K, or agrees to make good their upcoming loss? Or could the buyer be just a contractor who figured they would take a $200K bullet for a good client? Who knows. The whole transaction stinks and jumping in to defend it just proves my point more.
    In any event, I have no doubt that the 1.3 was actually paid, but there are 100 ways that it could still be a less-than-arms-length transaction, intended to boost the first resale comp. We all saw it close for a jaw dropping price, only to be remarketed a few months later, after every one of the advance sales had closed and when they hoped it would fold into the crowd of other flippers trying to get out.
    And that makes me a conspiracy theorist? Hardly, it makes me a very wide awake realist. Anyone can put the pieces together like I did and realize this was not an arm’s length transaction. Anyone who didn’t in those other cases lost a lot of money.
    It was so friggin’ obvious, I don’t even know why you try.

  33. Posted by hangemhi

    How many people read socketsite do you think? Enough that “agent-x” has to protect his/her fraud with a comment? A comment that any regular comment reader would know would get immediately shat on by the likes of you tipster??? I think not. It seemed like a genuine post to me… ahh but it was from a Realtor, so it’s obvious fraud. Good point. New point too. Very original.
    Socketsite comments are occasionally insightful… enough so to stick around. But as annoying as anonn has become, I think someone needs to play “hall monitor” so the “dolts” like “anon” (agreed, get a frickin name), the conspiracy theorists like tipster, and the mis-use and over generalizers of facts like Trip get put on notice so that they can’t just say anything without someone pointing out how biased they often are.

  34. Posted by SocketSite

    UPDATE: After our post yesterday the reported contract price for 425 1st #2202 was changed from $1,038,000 to $1,150,000 in the MLS and now matches its recorded sales price. Our post has been updated accordingly. In addition, the listing for 425 1st #1902 has since been withdrawn.

  35. Posted by gowiththeflow

    Constant arguing between anonn and his/her socketenemies has become so very boring! Can’t you all just ignore each other so we have something interesting to read and blog about?

  36. Posted by LMRiM

    That seems on the level. Nothing fishy about either the first resale (supposedly for $1.3M), or now the second resale, supposedly for $1.15M, but initially reported at the nice round number of 1.038M. I’m sure it’s just a realtor “fat finger” input problem – easy to mix up 1.038 and 1.15. I’m glad we got that sorted out, because I understand that ORH is still selling units and potential buyers might get the wrong idea about the only resale so far….
    If any potential buyer has any concerns, he should just get in touch with a good agent, and everything will be crystal clear 😉

  37. Posted by LMRiM

    GWTF,
    If you read between the lines, you’ll see that most “enemies of Der Fluj” stopped responding a while ago, but it looks like a new crop has sprung up. Very strange, the guy’s such a pleasant personality….

  38. Posted by ellbee

    How come when a 2/2 actually sells for over $1M (with or w/o kickbacks) we don’t get all the South Beach haters chiming in saying they’d never live there, it’s not the RealSF, I wouldn’t pay more than $650/sqft, etc? I miss that part of the chorus.

  39. Posted by unearthly

    To hit the bottom you need some knife catchers, welcome to the club owner of ORH #2202.

  40. Posted by gowiththeflow

    Yes such a charmer. Just playing. No hard feelings fluj I don’t have any idea who you are. Half the time I actually feel bad for Fluj. Fluj maybe you should just stop responding to things that upset you? I have a feeling people are doing it to you for fun now.
    “How come when a 2/2 actually sells for over $1M (with or w/o kickbacks) we don’t get all the South Beach haters chiming insaying they’d never live there, it’s not the RealSF, I wouldn’t pay more than $650/sqft, etc? I miss that part of the chorus.”
    I would but only for Rincon because it is not in the real sf. But I can’t because I will get my arse kicked for saying that the Infinity is 🙂

  41. Posted by gowiththeflow

    NVJim I 2nd that. Very interesting. I think it was all the fees they charged me for doing a refi to the increased conforming. Kidding. All jokes aside I recall you went for the increased conf (not sure if it was with Wells?); are you planning on doing another refi when banks pick up the inc conf again here soon given rates have fallen?

  42. Posted by chuckie

    Until someone comes up with a better theory, tipster’s explanation is the one that makes the best sense.
    Now we have these additional wrinkles of the differing prices and listing being withdrawn.
    I know the real estate professionals will have us believe these are all coincidences and there is no manipulation involved, but the tale has become too fantastical.
    I have to add my voice to the chorus against anonn’s shenanigans. I think his postings (most of them where he puts down other posters rather than taking on the content of their postings) have become indistinguishable from a troll’s and have the primary purpose of “provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion”.
    To anonn: you can do better.
    To the community: do not feed the troll 🙂

  43. Posted by ex SF-er

    UPDATE: After our post yesterday the reported contract price for 425 1st #2202 was changed from $1,038,000 to $1,150,000 in the MLS and now matches its recorded sales price. Our post has been updated accordingly. In addition, the listing for 425 1st #1902 has since been withdrawn.
    honest question: what would the reasons be for an initially incorrect recorded sales price? or am I misunderstanding what happened here?
    seems odd that the property would be recorded with one sales price, then updated with another very different sales price.
    or is it common that the first recording is erroneous and is updated correctly later?

  44. Posted by anonn

    Why is Chuckie’s comment allowed to stand, when I was correct, singled out in the first place, and Tipster clearly libelous?
    I don’t get it.
    [Editor’s Note: Your comments weren’t debating or debunking any facts, theories or even opinions for that matter. And more importantly, the comment from ex SF-er (which preceded yours) managed to get the discussion back on track and away from the tit for tat, which is where we’d like it to stay.]

  45. Posted by jj

    Keep in mind that 1802 was listed around the same time for $995k but later withdrawn, unable to sell. Given that, $1.15m for 2202 is somewhat of a suspect. If a mistake, it’s more like someone typed in the true price by mistake.

  46. Posted by jessep

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/01/BUQ816QS2H.DTL
    “And you’ll never see two towers again,” he said, referring to projects that included twin high-rises, such as The Infinity and One Rincon Hill condominiums in the SoMa neighborhood. “It’s the death knell for residential development.”

  47. Posted by Patrick

    Isn’t that an orgasmatron blocking the corner view?

  48. Posted by tipster

    Here’s a fun fictitious story I just completely made up. Read this to your kids tonight at bedtime:
    One day, Friendly Frank decides to buy the first resale at One Ronco Hill. Friendly Frank has a side deal with the developer at One Ronco Hill: they will pay $200K towards the purchase and make up any loss. Friendly Frank buys the property for the outrageous asking of 1.3. Then, a few months later, Friendly Frank tries to unload it. Someone finally buys it for 1.038. This is very bad for the developer and the real estate salespeople who make commissions on that building. But in any event, the developer is on the hook for the difference between 1.038 and 1.1, plus some carrying costs, and so the developer has to pay the difference between 1.038 and 1.15. The developer pays up.
    Now the story time question is, kids, what was the price for which the property was sold? Was it 1.038 that the buyer paid or 1.15 that the seller got? After some deliberation, it is happily conceded by all real estate salespeople involved that the reported price (and the latest comp) should be 1.15! The price is changed for all to see. Hooray!
    Wasn’t that a fun story? Stay tuned for story time next week kids, when we’ll tell the story of a real estate salesperson who completely falls apart on a blog.

  49. Posted by gowiththeflow

    Per the Article:
    “stunt the growth of high-rise housing, even after the economy recovers.”
    = + value for current hrise units going forward.
    “doubted he would witness another residential skyscraper built in San Francisco”
    = + value for current hrise units going forward.
    “And you’ll never see two towers again,”
    = I personally don’t agree but if so lucky for the One Gincon props that would have views blocked in future with tower 2.
    “said Covarrubias, whose company co-developed the Soma Grand condo tower on Mission Street”
    = Bitter just because his project flopped.
    I don’t agree this will hald Transbay however. Obamanomics call for mass funding to infastructure, not a guarantee but it may help us here.
    ———-
    Speaking of Wells Fargo (in thread above) I just spoke with them and they are now telling me that for a refi the increased conf will not be going back to 729,750.00 – only for new purchases.. Refi will max out at the current $625,500.00 anyone know anything about this being true or not?

  50. Posted by ex SF-er

    “And you’ll never see two towers again,”
    this statement is more hyperbole than anything. We won’t see multi-tower projects for some time, but “never” is too strong.
    My guess is that it won’t happen until the next RE boom in a few decades. RE is like that. It booms (or bubbles in some cases) and things go up like crazy. then there’s a long stall. then a boom.
    we just finished a crazy bubble… so of course there will be retracement of those heady times… but we’ll boom again in our lifetimes.
    besides, it’s not like this wasn’t predictable. many on here (including me) hypothesized that ORH2 would never get built. it just never really made economic sense.
    —-
    as for gowiththeflow’s arguments. s/he is correct that not building these towers will help current property valuations, by restricting supply.
    however, it is unlikely to be enough. One of the problems with SF’s boom, like other cities, is that there was a severe misallocation of capital towards the wrong type of properties.
    SF really needs more 3-4 BR places so people can have a family and grow into their units.
    Instead, there was a huge amount of 1-2BR places built, many on spec. once you take away bubble dynamics, how many people really want to stretch and sacrifice for a 1 bedroom condo? before people stretched into starter housing in order to ‘get on the ladder’ so they could jump to a 3-4BR later on… but in a falling RE market that doesn’t make sense. It’s better just to not buy a 1BR, rent instead, and directly purchase the 3BR.
    my guess: starter homes will suffer the most (studios, 1BRs etc) other homes will suffer less (3-4 BRs in family friendly nabes)
    of course, much of this depends on govt intervention again. we’ll see how foolish they continue to be.

  51. Posted by gowiththeflow

    “SF really needs more 3-4 BR places so people can have a family and grow into their units.”
    Exactly why I have been pushing purchase of the 3 bed units in the new complexes. You are right ex Sf-er.
    This is why I have also pushed the Infinity more than some other buildings. 3beds are available, community offers a lot for children as well as singles and I have to say after moving to the nabe I am shocked at how many families and strollers I see mixed in amongst the singles, child free couples etc. Just the right balance for all. More recently I am seeing friends both single and with kids spending time in the area coming all the way from PH and NHill.

  52. Posted by ex SF-er

    do not feed the troll.
    also do not instigate others into being trolls.
    when not instigated, anonn can bring valuable information to the site. when instigated, it is tedius for the rest of us.
    in this particular thread anonn was instigated. we all know he cannot control himself when instigated. bringing up anonn’s past aliases is instigation as well. bringing up his true identity is just wrong, unless you out yourself too.
    if anonn is being a troll, ignore. if he brings things to the table, discuss. if you are trolling, stop. if you are instigating, stop.
    BTW: simply disagreeing with blog consensus is not being a troll. I usually disagreed with blog consensus when I first arrived and I (don’t believe I) was a troll.
    also: one can condemn the RE industry without bringing anonn’s name(s) into it.
    example:
    “RE agents are scum of the earth” (condemnation of RE industry)
    vs
    “this is just typical of RE agents like anonn” (condemnation of RE industry and irrelevant instigation of anonn).

  53. Posted by anonsf

    however, it is unlikely to be enough. One of the problems with SF’s boom, like other cities, is that there was a severe misallocation of capital towards the wrong type of properties.
    SF really needs more 3-4 BR places so people can have a family and grow into their units.

    Well, yes. But 1) families are getting smaller, 2) these small units were built downtown, not the most family-friendly place. IOW–did these small downtown units crowd out the larger 3-4 bedroom places in other locations? I don’t think so. 3) The market is doing the misallocation. If there were lots of families ready willing and able to buy larger units then I think they would have been built. These smaller units must have been more profitable. 4) Families have been leaving the city for years because it’s too crowded/expensive/schools are bad. I really don’t think that a larger supply of larger units would have made a huge difference.

  54. Posted by Mole Man

    The real value in 2009 dollars is around $800k or so.
    The second tower will evenutally be built because of the massive, enduring imbalance between jobs and housing units in the City and the fact that it was permitted at one time.
    All this drama is out of place because in the age of information housing units are a commodity.

  55. Posted by Outsider

    Tipster: You are probably accurate on your “story” since price protection has been thrown around by builders in the suburb for quite a while to lure buyers. They have been doing that for diamonds by some retailers for decades and they are now doing that for automobiles. These effort to boost sales and sale prices are often thinly disguised.
    anonsf: Agree with all your points. San Francisco, especially near downtown is simply NOT ideal to raise a family. Probably okay till the child is at pre-school age. That would explain the number of young couples with stroller seen by GWTF. If living in SF is of high priority, then you would do what NVJim suggests – move out of downtown into SFH neighborhood. Otherwise – goodbye San Francisco !
    GWTF: Banks, including Wells Fargo are imposing many brand new restrictions on Condo financing and refinancing as Fannie & Freddie are trying everything possible to avoid purchasing condo loans. Bottomline – condo will carry substantially higher rates than SFH and will require lower LTV ratio or higher down payment. Due to fear of “investors”, any purchases that are from second home buyers who live within 45 miles of SF will be considered investment property. The current conforming 417K 30 year 80% investor loan carries a 6% plus rate as opposed to under 5% for SFH or primary residence. This essentially eliminates all second home buyers from the greater bay area – very bad for condo prices for the near future. Its the closing the barn door after the horses are gone strategy but those guys have proven themselves to be idiots a while ago and this should not come as a surprise.

  56. Posted by Outsider

    I have to add that many Manhattan dwellers do manage to raise their kids in highrise condos. Battery Park in downtown near World Trade Center is a good examples. So it is doable. But SF would have to force developers to pay into funds that can be used to purchase SOMA lands for little league ballparks. Fat chance that will happen…

  57. Posted by Willow

    I’m not convinced 3-4 bedroom condominium units really are going to sell in San Francisco. That said, the living / dining areas for most new construction has been grossly undersized for singles, couples or families while bathrooms continue to get bigger and bigger. Makes no sense to me.

  58. Posted by jessep

    I own a 3 BD in downtown, the only one in my building actually.
    Anecdotally speaking, I see tons of kids in Jackson Square. I don’t think there’s any in my building but between GG commons, 733 front and the gateway there are tons of strollers.

  59. Posted by gowiththeflow

    Willow I agree on the bathroom size note; would rather have the extra space allocated to living area.
    “GWTF: Banks, including Wells Fargo are imposing many brand new restrictions on Condo financing and refinancing as Fannie & Freddie are trying everything possible to avoid purchasing condo loans.”
    Fannie and Freddie all ready own my loan. I am just waiting for the increased conforming to re-instate with banks to refi to the new lower rates.
    I would prefer to refi directly with the bank, pay a bit if needed to buy the points down vs. lock into some 5 yr BS plan via the .gov program (floats back up to your current rate in 5 years if they help now) if in fact I qualify.
    The gov plan attempts a 31% DTI vs. the 37.5% I was required to meet, so that could be a huge savings. The catch is if I do qual, I don’t necessarily trust the gov plan (has to be some hidden agenda) and they have yet to clarify if taking the bait put’s your FICO etc. in harms way, and if it does not your still going to be on the banks crapper list right?
    I am just trying to get info to see what the best move is at this point.

  60. Posted by Gary

    Goes to show how dead the market is when realtors have all day to snipe at one another. awesome.

  61. Posted by gowiththeflow

    No the guyes sniping have been doing so even since the market was up.. still not sure what gives but apparently we are all suppose to ignore it.

  62. Posted by anon

    this building is so awkward and dysfunctional.
    it truly is the credit bubble’s pets.com
    right by the freeway, random taiwanese finishes, arrogant sales staff,
    I know this city puts a premium on water views, but the bridge views at the infinity (IMO) are much better than these.

  63. Posted by curmudgeon

    I agree on Willow’s comment re: the misallocation of space to bathrooms vs living/dining (I know this is a thread hijack). I think it’s a weird combination of our completely anal (pun intended) focus on personal hygiene, our compulsion towards privacy, and the unfortunate impact of universal access design.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Recent Articles