Asking just under $900,000 when the Infinity sales office first opened, tax records suggest 301 Main Street #9E was purchased for $867,000 in March 2008. The upgraded Tower One condo returned to the market at the end of 2008 listed for $885,000.
The resale asking price was subsequently reduced to $799,000 this past January, and then to $749,000 as a short sale in June. The short sale closed escrow December 10.
And while the sale price in the MLS was reported as “confidential,” and as such will reflect the asking price of $749,000 ($635 per square foot) when queried by those who rely on it for market stats and averages, the recorded deed reports a transfer tax of $4,127.60 which equates to an actual sale price of $607,000 or $514 per square foot for the 1,180 square foot two-bedroom condo with parking, 30 percent under its price in 2008.
Keep in mind that the 1,180 square foot 301 Main Street #10E was purchased for $845,000 in July 2008. And tax records suggest the 1,180 square foot 301 Main Street #11E sold for just over $900,000 this past february while the 1,303 square foot 301 Main Street #8E sold for $1,038,000 in February 2008.
Full Disclosure: We advised the plugged-in buyers in their search for a San Francisco property. And as always, we’re looking forward to the housewarming.
∙ Another Infinity Resale (#9E) Within Those “Restricted” Two Years [SocketSite]
∙ Just Under $900,000 Originally, Asking Just Under $800,000 Today [SocketSite]
∙ An End To Confidential MLS Sales* (*Unless You’re Willing To Pay) [SocketSite]
That’s an actual sale price of $607,000 or [$514] per square foot for the 1,303 square foot two-bedroom condo with parking
wow! that’s a great price. congratulations to the new buyers.
Loss :$267
Monthly : 70 (int. + prop tax, after deductions)
Realtor : 30
Closing : 33 (~6% cash back to FHA buyers)
Total : 400K (I assume they got free HOA)
$20,000 (after taxes) per month to live in a two bedroom condo. I heard the gym was nice.
Really? I don’t believe it yet. Do we know if it was an all-cash purchase? I would be shocked if it had to go through the financing process because that is way below market rate and the bank would have been crazy to accept a price so low.
[Editor’s Note: Really. And according to public records, the sale was financed with a traditional 30 year mortgage and 20 percent down.]
The square footage is also wrong. It’s actually around 1160 sqft. I know b/c I have this same floorplan. (I would love to be wrong)
[Editor’s Note: Great catch and since corrected. Based on tax records it appears as though Tower One “E” plans shift from 1,303 square feet to 1,180 square feet at floor nine.]
$20,000 (after taxes) per month to live in a two bedroom condo. I heard the gym was nice.
It probably cost the bank that much. I doubt it cost the “homeowner” that much. Too bad the bank didn’t get much use out of the gym.
I would be shocked if it had to go through the financing process because that is way below market rate and the bank would have been crazy to accept a price so low.
Apparently the “market” was unwilling to offer any more. Unless you think the bank turned down serious offers that were significantly higher (why would they do that?).
Now, I will grant you that a short sale should generally be somewhat below the market (to compensate the buyer for the hassle of the very long closing process). But that won’t explain more than $30-40k of the apparent $260k price drop.
And this is apparently not a case in which we can say the buyer “overpaid” in 2008, given the 7E/8E/10E comps (except of course insofar as everyone buying in 2007/2008 was overpaying).
$607k actually seems just about right (maybe a little less) for a middle 2bd on the 9th floor considering what folks at T2 paid.
i don’t know why if the bank was willing to take 607K, they didn’t at least try to list it at 650K and give some assurance/confidence to would-be buyers that 650K would seal the deal; i can’t help but to think that they would get some offers.
I’m stating the obvious here, but at this price point and with 20/80 financing, the buyers are instantly better off buying vs. renting on a tax-adjusted basis. Which is the way it ought to be, to reward those prudent enough to sidestep obvious bubbles, and responsible enough to save up large downpayments. Congratulations to the buyers – great to see this type of success story on SocketSite.
“Full Disclosure: We advised the plugged-in buyers in their search for a San Francisco property.”
Oh yeah….forgot that the editor was also a realtor. Got any more deals like this floating around, ed? You know…properties priced where it actually makes sense to buy them?
[Adam’s Note: I wasn’t their agent but rather provided buy-side guidance with regard to the market, buildings, and neighborhood trends.]
“$607k actually seems just about right (maybe a little less) for a middle 2bd on the 9th floor considering what folks at T2 paid.”
If this is a “right” price or just 20K – 30K under, doesn’t it indicate that, in today’s market, the Infinity Towers couldn’t be built?
I don’t think the Ed. is a realtor? ‘Advised’ is different than represented.
I haven’t seen any units in the Infinity, but this sounds REALLY odd. I’m with condoshopper – it makes no sense to not at least list this at $650K. I’m fairly sure that more people would have bid on it. I can even think of a few prospective buyers that I know in the low 600K range.
Close to a 33% haircut for the poster child of the bubble sounds about right, given the comps for Tower II. Is it fair to say that 30-45% losses are now the norm for the ‘original’ Tower I buyers? Funny how these buyers were once saying the Tower II was going to be the more expensive Tower and no matter what happened Tishman was going to “protect” their property values with their “deep pockets”. Didn’t quite work out that way, did it? One would think that the lower floors would have held up better as there was less frothy pricing for these ‘bargain’ units. Apparently a 33% loss is a victory versus a 45% evaporation.
I wonder how ‘G’ feels knowing some plebian paid 25% of what he paid (per square foot) to live in the same building as his marble monstrosity. Maybe if ‘G’ at least gets first dibs on using the machines at the gym it will all be worth it for him?
My guess is Mark Choey is pretty glad he rented in the building versus bought. Perhaps he knew something that other buyers didn’t?
B9E not out of line.
One thing to keep in mind — 9E faces dead on into the tree top building next door. No view to speak of, major fishbowl effect, and fairly dark. That warrants a substantial discount in most markets. Whether those logistics warrants such a steep discount as in this case, is open to argument. But I guess that’s what SS is all about.
JohnK – Did 9E have the same ‘blocked’ view at the time of original sale in 2008 or was the obscured view a recent development? If no changes from the original sale, it’s an apples to apples transaction, poor view or not.
Market anomaly. Congrats to the buyer.
^ you’re right, paying $867K for this place was an anomaly. Thankfully it’s being corrected even as we speak.
If this is a “right” price or just 20K – 30K under, doesn’t it indicate that, in today’s market, the Infinity Towers couldn’t be built?
I think both Gil and diemos have hit on the operative point. These sorts of buildings never made much sense. They’re expensive to construct, and the developers have to pay pretty significant fees to the city. Free money to developers and free money to homebuyers just gave the illusion of penciling out.
We’ll see if this new price ends up being a new comp or not. But I’m betting the $867K in 2008 is not the right comp.
I take my earlier comment back. This unit faces the short stack and doesn’t have a view. It is very similar to the 2/2 sold in the short stacks, so 607k is about right.
Anon/Gil,
This is something I have been wondering about myself…at what price/sf can the buildings be built? And what percentage of that is developer fees to the city? Do either of you have access to the basic cost to a developer to build a tower like Infinity?
Thanks
“This is something I have been wondering about myself…at what price/sf can the buildings be built? And what percentage of that is developer fees to the city? Do either of you have access to the basic cost to a developer to build a tower like Infinity?”
Good question ljl. I don’t know the answer and hope that someone does and can post it.
I’ve heard that SF is supposed to have among the highest development fees in the country. Daly extorted a lot from Rincon Hill developers for permits to build. The developers went along cause with the “free money” floating around they could turn around and gouge the buyers for these so-called “luxury” units.
In terms of cost per sq foot I’ve read on SS that it pencils out in the high 3 digits – certainly well above the 500 – 600/sq ft that seems to be forming as the new base.
Given this, the 2 tower development long proposed for across the block from Infinity would seem to be no longer finacially viable for the developer. It’s been delayed already and if 500/600 is indeed the new sq ft figure for SOMA I expect the developer to eventually abandon the project.
Of course, there are many unrecoverable (or only partially recoverable) costs already sunk into these delayed projects. So I expect that some will get built eventually, because the builder would lose more by abandoning the project.
Any thoughts on how this would impact pricing for the nearby One Hawthorne? Does anyone anticipate similar price per sqft in that building?
“Of course, there are many unrecoverable (or only partially recoverable) costs already sunk into these delayed projects. So I expect that some will get built eventually, because the builder would lose more by abandoning the project.”
The project across the street doesn’t even have final architectual plans yet. Let alone any initial groundwork being done. I’m pretty sure it will be abadonned as what they’d lose by stopping now is ssmall compared to what they lose on 2 40 story “luxury” condo towers in a market that is seeing $500 – $600 sq ft ssale prices.
The office tower on Mission was abadonned early this year even though it was further along – final plans and all.
Even though TRC is “further along” in the process I expect the developer will eventually abandon that project too.
Surprised no one has mentioned this price cut at One Rincon Hill:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/425-1st-St-94105/unit-2504/home/17304930
Unit #2504 (605 sqft 1/1 with a garage space) is available now for $480K with HOA of $692.95/mo.
Considering the postage-stamp-sized kitchen, it seems a little misleading to say it has granite counters-plural. And that’s a “spa-like bath”? Wtf? The awful picture of the bathroom makes it look like a cheap tract-home bathroom.
And you can live 25 floors higher in the same stack at #5004 for $585K with same HOA. Even though the listing still has too many pictures of the building itself, and very few of the unit like #2504, the few pictures of the unit look better than #2504.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/425-1st-St-94105/unit-5004/home/17304621
^ $793/sq ft for a unit at ORH doesn’t seem like it’s worth mentioning.
The bathroom has a counter that appears to match the one in the kitchen, so the listing agent was correct in pluralizing “counters.”
It’s contingent now, so the price reduction seemed to have worked.
Congratulations to the buyer! They got a great deal. (The first of many I imagine for units at the Infinity.) It’s hard to fathom the original buyers paid 867K given the close date of March 2008. It was pretty clear by then where things were headed for the SF Condo market. Bewildering really.