As we first reported last year:
Five parcels along Market Street between 5th and 6th Streets have been hit with Notices of Default (NOD’s) including 935-939 Market, 943 Market, and 949-961 Market.
If that stretch of Market sounds familiar, it should. For as plugged-in people know, and PropertyShark catches, those parcels comprise the site of the proposed and approved CityPlace development.
Apparently Connecticut-based Commonfund Realty, which partnered with San Francisco based Urban Realty on the CityPlace development, “has stopped investment in real estate projects as it seeks to restructure a $1 billion fund that lost most of its value.”
As best we can tell there’s approximately $36 million of cross collateralized debt on the three parcels and it’s a $9,680,000 note from 2007 which filed the notice of default.
While the Notice of Defaults noted above were cancelled, new Notices were filed soon thereafter. And as a plugged-in tipster notes, the CityPlace parcels along Market Street are now scheduled to hit the courthouse steps in San Francisco this Wednesday, March 14.
∙ Notice Of Default Filed For CityPlace Parcels [SocketSite]
∙ Details To Augment Designs For “CityPlace” (935-965 Market Street) [SocketSite]
∙ CityPlace EIR Approved Appealed Approved! [SocketSite]
So much for the economic recovery picking up steam. There isn’t going to be very much development as one might have hoped from the America’s Cup (does not runneth over), to the Giants parking lot to this CityPlace project.
SF officials should realize that they have to fight to keep every investment dollar, and not turn away business at each and every step. Stop over-regulating, and lift some of those anti-chain store moratoriums.
Can we pay for the lots in crack?
The CityPlace site would be a good location for an urban Ikea– where customers could see the furniture, then have it delivered. (And buy smaller housewares.)
Otherwise, could the existing buildings be rehabbed into tech office space? There seems to be a demand, and for now, a tax break for mid-Market.
The SF commies are keeping the city from advancing. The only thing SF is good at is making up stupid laws and regulations every day and driving/keeping businesses away.
I still think it would have been superior place for Target. I wonder if the target decision to go to Metreon was partially because the backing of the CityPlace project wasn’t clear, or did CityPlace fail because they couldn’t sign someone like Target?
I fail to see why we should blame the City on this one. In general they are working very hard to make Mid Market work.
The City should be blamed for this for the same reason the America’s Cup is turning out to be such a disaster.
America’s Cup is a disaster because the initial estimates of interest (both by team and spectators) were so wildly overblown. Whose fault is that?
But back on topic…
No news about the Transbay Tower? Socketsite really dropped the ball today!
[Editor’s Note: While we break the news that an anchor development along Market Street is headed for foreclosure and a major Mission Bay development will be delayed by at least five years, today the Chronicle reports the design for the proposed Transbay Tower shrank by a little over a hundred feet. And you think we dropped the ball?]
I don’t understand the comments above from FreeSF and Live Smart at all. The developer’s financing partner had at least one fund run out of money. That is not the fault of The City.
The developer can find another partner, hopefully one based on the west coast who understands what property development in California entails, and continue. If they can’t, then whoever the successful auction winner is when the property hits the courthouse steps will take over. That’s the way market capitalism is supposed to work.
SF Gate had the Transbay tower story up hours before Socketsite. This is the biggest news in SF real estate. Yes, you dropped the ball.
[Editor’s Note: Now don’t we feel silly for only having first reported the reduced height five months ago.]
i’m the first one to blame the process in this town, but clearly there’s a certain element of ignorance at play here with these comments about commie sf this and failure BOS that. this project’s delay is all related to the developers’ issues and nothing to do with the city, aside from the fact that they decided to develop here with an initially moronic notion of a lane off market street, parking issues galore, and not nailing down an anchor tenant in a complex designed to be anchored. so yeah, even if your notion is that you can just waltz into one of the great american cities and call the shots, these guys still got away with a lot, and still just couldn’t finance it.
I think the idea in blaming the city is that if it didn’t take so long in approving this project (appeals and all), maybe the developer would have gone forward. After all, it’s not like they really ran out of money, they just decided to back off from real estate investments. But then again, it’s all speculation on our part.
“Can we pay for the lots in crack?”
that has long been the only legal tender in this city – as per BopOS
Notice of trustee sales postponed for these. Not Notice of Defaults.
One sale was given one more day which normally means bankruptcy will be filed the rest where postponed until the 21st of March.
Sale Date/Time: 3/14/2012 02:00 PM
Status: Active
Estimated Debt: $57,740,462.36
Bid Amount: $45,000,000.00
Sale Amount: N/A
TS Number: 11-00072-4
APN: 3704 – 001; 3704-062
Priority #: 925651
Property County: San Francisco
Property Address: 901 Market Street, San Francisco, CA may also be known as 901 Market St. #919, San Francisco, CA
Google Map
Sale Location: At the Van Ness Street entrance to the City Hall, 400 Van Ness Ave, San Francisco, CA
Sale Date/Time: 3/14/2012 02:00 PM
Status: Revert to Beneficiary
Estimated Debt: $57,740,462.36
Bid Amount: $45,000,000.00
Sale Amount: $45,000,000.00
TS Number: 11-00072-4
APN: 3704 – 001; 3704-062
Priority #: 925651
Property County: San Francisco
Property Address: 901 Market Street, San Francisco, CA may also be known as 901 Market St. #919, San Francisco, CA
Google Map
Sale Location: At the Van Ness Street entrance to the City Hall, 400 Van Ness Ave, San Francisco, CA
I assume that “Revert to Beneficiary” means that there were no bidders. Thanks for keeping us updated inclinejj.
Keep in mind that while related, 901-919 Market Street isn’t one of the actual CityPlace parcels and the reversion reported by inclinejj above (for which we’ll echo the thanks) was for a note in the second position, taking out a $15,800,000 third and there’s still a $41,000,000 first.
revert to beneficiary means no bidders it reverted back to the holder of the 2nd note.
It looks like these two properties will go today also!
Sale Date/Time: 3/15/2012 02:00 PM
Status: Postponed to 03/15/2012 @ 02:00 PM – Beneficiary Request
Estimated Debt: $4,076,263.47
Bid Amount: $6,500,000.00
Sale Amount: N/A
TS Number: 11-00073-4
APN: 3704 -076
Priority #: 925682
ale Date/Time: 3/15/2012 02:00 PM
Status: Postponed to 03/15/2012 @ 02:00 PM – Beneficiary Request
Estimated Debt: $5,102,849.83
Bid Amount: $8,000,000.00
Sale Amount: N/A
TS Number: 11-00070-4
APN: 3704 – 22
Priority #: 925650
Property County: San Francisco
Property Address: 980-982 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA
Google Map
Sale Location: At the Van Ness Avenue entrance to the City Hall, 400 Van Ness Ave, San Francisco, CA
Sale Date/Time: 3/15/2012 02:00 PM
Status: Revert to Beneficiary
Estimated Debt: $5,102,849.83
Bid Amount: $8,000,000.00
Sale Amount: $4,000,000.00
TS Number: 11-00070-4
APN: 3704 – 22
Priority #: 925650
Property County: San Francisco
Property Address: 980-982 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA
——————————————————————————–
Sale Date/Time: 3/15/2012 02:00 PM
Status: Revert to Beneficiary
Estimated Debt: $4,076,263.47
Bid Amount: $6,500,000.00
Sale Amount: $2,000,000.00
TS Number: 11-00073-4
APN: 3704 -076
Priority #: 925682
Property County: San Francisco
Property Address: 925 Market Street, San Francisco, CA
UPDATE: CityPlace Parcels Rescheduled For Foreclosure Tomorrow