8 Buchanan Street (Linea)

Two months ago, a two-bedroom condo at Linea, the listing for which boasted “perhaps the best floor plan” in the building along Market at Buchanan was flipped for $120,500 more than had been paid for the unit five months earlier, a price that was equal to $1,266 per square foot.

Last month, another two-bedroom, the listing for which boasted “by far the best layout in the building” was flipped after a six-month hold for $145,000 more than had originally been paid but closer to $1,218 per square foot.

And earlier this week, the list price for a one-bedroom in the building (8 Buchanan #308), a unit which was purchased for $735,000 ($1,119 per square foot) seven months ago, was reduced from $749,000 to $718,000 ($1,093 per square foot).

At the same time, Linea’s sales office is still trying to closeout 8 Buchanan #312, a “large light filled one-bedroom,” the list price for which was recently reduced from $795,000 to $749,000 ($896 per square foot).

Neither of the aforementioned one-bedrooms include a parking spot.

21 thoughts on “Flips, Flops And A Downward Trend”
  1. I reckon that having parking would have fixed that. But then the mantra is “build it taller and with less parking” so I guess that worked?

    1. Fixed what?

      $749,000 ($896 per square foot) means 835 square feet.

      Yes, I’m sure that adding 340 square feet of parking space would allow you to command a higher price.

      I guess if you pretend that those 340 square feet appear from nowhere and cost you nothing, then including them will certainly get you a much bigger profit.

  2. Not sure I’d call the lowering of asking prices for two small units a “trend”.

    [Editor’s Note: Either would we. Of course, when the most recent sale price per square foot for one of the best units in the building is less than the sale before, and one of those two smaller units is poised to sell for less than was paid in April, we’ll go out on that limb.]

    1. I’m having a hard time understanding the downward trend based on two sales that sold for $120k and $140k more in 5 and 6 months, respectively. Your theory is that the second had a lower $psf than the first? Yet still higher apples to apples? I’m confused.

  3. So the 2bdr comes with a parking spot and the 1bdr doesn’t? Why wouldn’t it go for less? $1100 psf is too high for a unit without parking. The parking spot is worth between 75-100k.

  4. this is very misleading, 1093 per square foot for a 1-br on the third floor without parking is a downward trend…

    [Editor’s Note: Consider said 1-br on the third floor without parking was purchased for $1,119 per square foot in April. Add in the most recent two-bedroom sale which closed for 4% less on price per square foot basis than the two-bedroom sale the month before. And then factor in the sales office activity.]

  5. I still suspect the initial flips were the developer or developer-related (team friends, etc.) in order to get the publicity boost that, well, it got.

  6. I think in the mid/long run this will be seen as one of the least successful new buildings. Really, from the street it reads like an office building. Why didn’t they sculpt in some balconies for 3$% sake? Even in a condo, people appreciate being able to step out into the fresh air. Cheap cheap cheap. It’s also probably the WORST transition from rendering to reality that I can think of in SF at the moment. Anyone have competition?

  7. I think this headline might have made more sense if it had included a question mark at the end of it.

    My read was that the $/sf appears (from two sales) to have peaked a couple months ago and is now a bit lower for 2BR condos here. For 1BR condos, one unit (308) has now been reduced to below its sale price of seven months ago, while another (312) was also reduced to a $/sf price that is about 20% below the other unit.

    Not a lot of data points – hence I would add the question mark to the headline. And the two 2BR data points sold for more than 5-6 months ago, which seems to cut in the other direction unless you compare the recent $/sf sales with one another. But in the ed.’s defense it is SOME evidence of a downward trend beginning just in the last month or so. I hope the SF market has cooled as it was clearly in unsustainable approaching-bubble mode for the last two years.

    I agree with others that this building is not particularly desirable, and the location is not good at all. The prices some have paid have been truly insane imho.

  8. I live in this building. Not all of the units have sold due to some fairly unique floor plans.

    I will say that the location is awesome as it is a block from the 101 on ramp, perfectly situated between the Mission, Hayes Valley and the Castro, and there are a lot of new developments slated for this side of Van Ness on Market over the coming few years… This location rocks!!!

  9. This article is very misleading. You can’t conclude this is a “trend” if you’re not making an accurate comparison. You can’t compare the sale price of a 2BR on 6th floor—with a better floor plan and parking—to a 1BR unit on the 3rd floor. The floor plans and views vary greatly in this building. This is article sensational nonsense.

    [Editor’s Note: We’d agree if that’s what we were doing, but we’re not. We’re comparing two of the “best” two-bedrooms to each other and the one-bedroom to itself.]

Leave a Reply

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