151 Alice B. Toklas Place #708
As a plugged-in reader notes, a fully remodeled and renovated Marquee Lofts (151 Alice B. Toklas Place) #708 has returned to the market asking $739,000 following its kitchen-less foreclosure sale for $580,000 in June of 2008.
Once again, Marquee Lofts #708 first changed hands on 9/30/04 for $607,500; sold on 10/05/06 for $865,000; and was bought back by Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending for $708,933 on 1/9/08. As it looked at that time:
151 Alice B. Toklas Place #708
∙ Listing: 151 Alice B. Toklas Place #708 (1/1) – $739,000 [MLS]
Change Of Heart, Cash Crunch, Or A Condo Sitter Gone Crazy? [SocketSite]
From Foreshadowing To Foreclosure For A Marquee Loft Off Van Ness [SocketSite]
Another Non-Comp Comp Along The Booming Van Ness Corridor [SocketSite]

25 thoughts on “A Remodeled Marquee Lofts #708 Returns…With A Kitchen!”
  1. His and her sinks, but an apartment-sized fridge (correct me if I’m wrong).
    Perfect for a couple who decides to save money on their spa treatments, and by going childless, but still want to eat out a lot, and pay 767/month HOA. Parking too!
    It’s nice to see folks adjusting to the new normal.

  2. I like the redesign! It’s always nice to have a kitchen.
    One thought: I’ve never understood how this kind of ‘loft’ set up qualified as a 1 BD? vs a really good studio set up? In this case the sleeping area is essitially tucked in behind the kitchen. At least with most ‘lofts’ the bedroom space is at least on a sperate floor. Or does it really matter how many steps (up)it takes to get up to the sleeping space?

  3. tipster may want to add one other item to the flipper’s costs : the remodel of the posts. It looks as if the posts were shrouded in a boxy inverted ziggurat structure in this place’s last incarnation. I like the current remod where the concrete posts appear in their original bugle shaped form.

  4. @mole yeah. $766 HOAs! If this really were for “discerning buyers” that would stop them in their tracks right there.

  5. Have to commend the brave condo-flippers who stuck their necks out in this market.
    Of course, sticking your neck out isn’t always a great idea. We’ll know how if all ends up in a few months.

  6. I like the kitchen, and obviously in was done on a tight budget. Any idea where the cabinets are from?

  7. I read this in the Business Times, to put pricing into perspective. I guess the developers are losing, and getting ready to lose a lot of money, or they may try to sit tight hold the properties?
    “Even with the price of land down more than 50 percent, it still costs at least $750 a square foot to build a steel-frame tower. A tower with 1,000-square-foot two bedrooms would have to average $750,000 a unit to break even.”

  8. So I guess the investors who bought it to flip didn’t buy the ripped out kitchen pieces from Craig’s List.

  9. gowiththeflow – The numbers from the San Franciso Business Times are suspect. According to Wikipedia, the 1,150,000 square feet Millennium Tower cost $350 million to build, working out to $304 psf. And that was the peak of the real estate cycle: Construction costs have come down since.

  10. I see the numbers you are looking at; yes, suspect. I wonder if the numbers are rigged or if the Wiki info does not account for all the cost? What could they have left out? Perhaps Wiki is strictly construction cost to build, not including land, fees, etc.?

  11. On the subject of numbers provided by developers, see this WSJ article on Trunp’s estimates of his net worth. Wonder why some of us do not trust developers?

  12. I’m not exactly sure, but I think the 350M is only for the cost of constructing the building.

  13. Yes, and it was in reply to gowiththeflow’s quote from the Business Times that “Even with the price of land down more than 50 percent, it still costs at least $750 a square foot to build a steel-frame tower.” Granted Millennium Tower is concrete, but the price difference between concrete and steel is not that great.

  14. On second thought, I see what you mean “The cost to build” does not necessarily refer to construction cost. I am still skeptical of a figure in which the construction cost is a fraction of the total cost. On the other hand, given the astronomical rates you would have to pay to get a construction loan these days – assuming you could get one – this might be true.

  15. This one was 1229 square feet
    Sale date 11/5/2009
    Sale price $683,000
    So the flipper probably lost some money (based on my back of the envelope calculations above).
    —————–
    Fast forward 10 months, a different one has been on the market for 50 days, and after a small price reduction is now:
    For Sale (MLS-listed)
    $569,000
    151 Alice B. Toklas #511 San Francisco, CA 94109
    Beds: 1
    Baths: 1
    Sq. Ft.: 1,267
    $120K less in ten months. Kind of hard to make the rent vs buy work out in that environment.
    At least the flipper can take heart: both he AND his buyer have lost money!
    http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/151-Alice-B-Toklas-Pl-94109/unit-511/home/941213

  16. #511 is still on the market at $449 psft.
    And now another one at 151 Alice B. Toklas, this one a foreclosure with an intact kitchen, 1429 square feet @$476 per.
    Foreclosures have typically been listed pretty high, and then they drop them over time. This one is listed for 679K, $29K over its last sale — in 1999!
    If this one sells for under $449 psft, the two months old asking price of #511, which is likely because it is larger, then it drops under its 1999 price!!

Leave a Reply

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