In March 2007 the two-bedroom at the Beacon known as 250 King Street #624 was priced and listed by The Mark Company for $799,000. From the listing at the time: “This large two-bedroom home at the Beacon is a great value!” and “Selling quickly – don’t miss out!”
Within a day of its listing the Beacon condo was in contract. And two months later in May of 2007 it sold for $784,000 ($668 per square foot).
Six weeks ago 250 King Street #624 was taken back by the bank. And yesterday the 1,173 square foot condo was listed for $499,900 ($426 per square), a sale at which would represent a $284,100 (36 percent) decline in value on which plugged-in people should have missed out.
∙ Listing: 250 King Street #624 (2/2) 1,173 sqft – $499,900 [MLS]
Pics make the place look dreary….
” a sale at which would represent a $284,100 (36 percent) decline in value on which plugged-in people should have missed out.”
This is confuisng to me, did Socketsite recommend against buying this unit in 2007 or just not to buy real estate in general or just not buy at the Beacon?
$700 for condo fees, $400 for leased parking, $480 for taxes … so $1,580 per month of carrying costs PLUS your mortgage. Why are the fees so high for this new-ish building?
This is still overpriced. The building is hospital like. If anyone recalls, when it opened as a rental building, the balconies were unusable because of code violations. My understanding is that there are still legal disputes with the developer over construction defects.
My guess is that this will go for something under $400,000.
Paul, anyone reading this site in 2007 had access to good advice – which was not to touch anything in this building.
i looked at these when they hit the market. the location isn’t half bad.
I would question the square footage in some of these units though. i live in an apartment with almost identical sf as claimed here and these seem absolutely tiny to me. barely room for a love seat and a small dining table in the living area. i guess the island is multi-purpose.
It seems kind of pointless to lease parking for $400, when people who don’t even live in the building can get it for less…
Regardless, it’s fair to say someone reading SS in 2007 may have been dissuaded from purchasing this or similar listings. Thanks, socketsite. I think you’ve made your point.
This site has potentially saved me from making irrational buying decisions.
I’m just the average joe, not unlike many of the victims that jumped into the overpriced bubble era properties, because we were always told that bay area real estate is always solid, the property will go up [insert double digit]% soon, don’t time the market – ie. buy whatever you can afford now, interest rates are low, don’t miss the boat, etc.
One major factor helping me resist chasing the rising prices was reading the articles and posters on this site.
This site helped me too – in fact, it was the discussion about the Beacon that drew my attention to the hazards of many recent developments. Ultimately, I was able to come up with ways to value property that give me a better sense of whether or not to buy.
This building was always a bit doomed. I knew it by seeing it first hand, it was confirmed by posts on this site.
What a sad story for a two-bedroom “home.” This place was doomed to fail.
Last I remember,t ehre was lititgation taking place at the Beacon, in turn greatly reducing the potential for financing.
Does anybody know if this is still the case? Thx
Once again, thank you for the insights and the views. Always a lesson to be learned from your posts.
Condo litigation takes about a decade, unless one of the parties goes bankrupt first.
The condo market in San Francisco really seem to be trending downward, especially in the SOMA area for the large complex.
I am currently looking into condos in the Van ness area instead, anyone has any thought on those condo at 140 South Van Ness? Right above the Chervon Gas Station?
dkzody is spam
“I am currently looking into condos in the Van ness area instead, anyone has any thought on those condo at 140 South Van Ness? Right above the Chervon Gas Station?”
Katebear: Don’t do it! That location is really challenged. Better to go with something like The Artani.
NOTE TO EDITOR: the comment above by dkzody is spam.
Too bad the sale price difference are much higher for the Artani. It’s all about the location!
it does seem like prices are still trending down for soma condos; the listing prices seem to edge lower and lower every few passing months.
katebear i’ve visited the 1/1’s that are currently available at 140 South, and that was a few months ago, so i would bargain for a lower price if you do make an offer because obviously they are not moving at this price.
I’m looking into a 2bd/2bath place that doesn’t cost me an arm and leg on HOA in the city. Any suggession of area or condo?
Beacon HOA is way too ridiculous.
as far as i’m aware, buildings with low(er) HOA’s would be your 140 south van ness, 818 van ness, 750 van ness, and on the soma side is 199 new montgomery, 246 2nd st. but i’m now in the camp that prices in general are too high for all of these condos.
Hey Katebear, try my condo building at 5800 Third Street. I’m the sales manager there. It’s in Bayview. Now before everyone jumps my backside about how horrible the Bayview is, you should consider I am talking Bayview, NOT Hunters Point. There is a difference.
We have large 2BRs in the upper $300,000s. HOA dues at $350. New construction. New Fresh & Easy Grocery store opening in March/April. Limon restaurant opening in a few months. Crossroads cafe, too.
The Bayview is transforming. Think Fillmore 10 years ago. Think Soma 10 years ago. It IS happening. If you want to make a smart economic (yet long term) play, give it a look. At least owe it to yourself to go look.
I believe in it 100%
I’ve never understood all of the negativity about this property. My boyfriend lives at the Beacon (as a renter, I should point out), so I’m there frequently. It’s extremely well-maintained, the units are reasonably nice (those I’ve seen), the location is great for those that like Mission Bay and its proximity to transit, especially Caltrain… the hallways feel a bit like a hotel (albeit a reasonably nice one), but that’s pretty much the best you can expect from this sort of huge condo development.
Granted, the prices a few years ago were way too high for what you got, and the HOA fees seem excessive, but there is a beautiful pool, a much better-than-average gym, and a well-appointed clubhouse that residents can use, plus a full-time concierge and security. That all costs money.
This sort of huge condo property isn’t my personal cup-of-tea, but if I were going to move to Mission Bay and live in one of these kind of places, I like The Beacon as well as anything else I’ve seen. It’s certainly nicer than The Palms.
I’m surprised by the leased parking with this listing, I have the impression that most units at the Beacon have deeded parking. Is that not the case? Or was the parking sold unbundled from the units?
I’m not defending the value of these units, which are in the eye of the beholder (and are a lot closer to reasonable than they once were.) But it’s really not a bad building. And having Safeway right downstairs is pretty darned convenient.
Check out this Socketsite posting from today. It is just more evidence of the Third Street corridor, including Bayview, changing.
https://socketsite.com/archives/2010/12/on_tap_at_tomorrows_planning_meeting_magnolia_on_third.html#comments
Toured this building last Sunday. The listing agent told me there is a litigation going on but a couple of banks (including Wells Fargo) do finance Beacon; at least according to him.
Regarding the parking, apparently once the owner missed a payment, the parking fees is raised from $100 to whatever Beacon wants to charge ($350 was told), even after the delinquency is made current.
Regarding Bayview, that’s a sweet neighborhood if it ever gets gentrified; but I think it will take a while.
They do also have an interior courtyard dog park and liberal dog policy.
No conservative dogs allowed then???
Apart for the Blue Dog Dem’s, that is, right?
A fun factoid: still a lot of wish rent for 2 Bedrooms @ the Beacon
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/apa/sfc?bedrooms=2&query=beacon%20&srchType=A
Even in the dreamy 3000s, a 2007 buyer becoming accidental landlord still takes a bath. In the mid-300s you’d start breaking even with the $700 HOA fees, taxes and parking. But at 500K? Good luck with that!
I guess I kind of stepped into it with my comment on the dog policy.
Oh Eddy…please don’t try to use this site as cheap promo for your tragic building at 5800 Third. If SOMA isn’t moving, Bayview/HP certainly isn’t moving.
Sure you “believe in it 100%”… as with the rest of PMA, you’d believe in a garbage dump as long as your gross compensation structure was tied to it.
I know that this is not an architecture blog, but as I was driving around SOMA/South Beach the other day, I was thinking about the large number of unattractive buildings that have been built in the past decade. Most, I have only seen from the outside, but a few, from the inside as well (or, by viewing listings pointed out here).
Why were there so many cheap and uninteresting buildings built? The prices asked at the time would seem to be able to support something more interesting … perhaps even hiring a good architect.
Just greed and speed, or something more?
This building looks pretty bad, but there are worse offenders. One Embarcadero South / 88 King Street might be worse.
“Why were there so many cheap and uninteresting buildings built? The prices asked at the time would seem to be able to support something more interesting … perhaps even hiring a good architect.
Just greed and speed, or something more?”
Greed and speed is a good reason, but you have to combine it with the absurd requirements of the planning departments here in the city. Most things are done by committee here, rather than being one person’s vision, so that tends to result in a reversion to bland and inoffensive.
Developers certainly wanted to take advantage of the housing boom, and speed is the primary factor there. Some of them missed in their timing and have paid the price.
Developers in sluggish markets have to stand out to sell, and this means quality. In bullish markets anything will sell at any price. To hell with quality or comfort. People will gobble the “luxury condo” lies either because they have their own agenda or simply because they’re desperate (prriiiced out foreeeeveeer!)
“A fun factoid: still a lot of wish rent for 2 Bedrooms @ the Beacon
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/apa/sfc?bedrooms=2&query=beacon%20&srchType=A“
One of units I toured at the Beacon is a 590 sq ft studio that is tenant occupied for $2250/month. Now if a studio can go for $2250, why can’t a 1,000 sq ft 2/2 rent for $3300? In fact, it seems the 2/2 is a better deal.
That’s funny that some 2007 buyer thought this was worth almost $800k. This situation unfolded just as it always was meant to: foreclosure, down payment evaporated, credit ding, underwater neighbors…..
This building is the poster child for the SOMA condo bust. I know several idiots that bought in this building at the peak in 2006 paying $800-$900 per sq ft. I rented a place in a nearby building, knowing that this ponzi scheme was on the verge of collapse. Some of these morons actually laughed at me for renting instead of buying, saying things like “you’re throwing money away”, “you’re stupid to rent instead of buy”, etc. I wonder what they’re thinking now, with their “investment” down 50%.
I wonder how many people in this dump are actually still paying their mortgages and hoa fees. Anybody have any info?
pobeb,
Just as you’ll have people overpaying for property, you’ll find people overpaying in rent. This renter is a gem, which is probably why he is sold along with the unit! (gullible cashcow comes with the studio!). Otherwise they’d have found a way to terminate his contract.
I’d avoid anything marketed by the Mark Company. You will be overpaying by at least $100,000, probably more.