While just listed on the MLS without a disclosed address or associated sale history, the “spacious 1B1B condo in the heart of San Francisco, with breathtaking views that will leave you in awe…across from the renowned Proper Hotel” is unit #306 at 1075 Market Street (a.k.a. “Stage 1075”).

Purchased for $809,000 in July of 2018, which was in-line with other comp-setting sales at the time, the 672-square-foot unit #306 was just listed for $598,000, with the “remarkable bonus” of a “high-quality tenant…in place, ensuring stable rental income” for the “once-in-a-lifetime chance to own a piece of San Francisco’s extraordinary lifestyle.”

The 90-unit, Mid-Market building has a lobby attendant, virtual doorman and an enviable rooftop deck with multiple fire pits, lounge seating, a barbeque and a dog run with a hose.

If you think you know the market for entry level condos in San Francisco, now’s the time to tell.

Keep in mind that the 672-square-foot unit #606, three floors up at 1075 Market Street, sold for $625,000 at the end of last year (which was 29.1 percent below its “once-in-a-lifetime” price in October of 2018), while the 672-square-foot unit #706, which was purchased for $979,000 in February of 2019, remains on the market having been listed for $688,000 last month, a sale at which would be 29.7 percent below its 2019 price on an apples-to-apples basis.

35 thoughts on “Once-in-a-Lifetime Opportunity Listed for 26 Percent Less”
  1. Price discovery continues. How low will it go? This building is 3 or so blocks from the Westfield Mall whose owner announced yesterday they are ceasing payments on the loan and returning the 1.8-million-foot mall to the bank. More downward pressure on area prices – this condo likely sells for less than the listing price.

    1. I’ve always thought that shopping mall was kind of an absurd idea in a city like San Francisco, but the new buyer of this condo will still be able to shop at San Francisco Centre if they want to. Westfield’s lenders have already announced that they will keep the mall open once they take back control. The stock of Westfield’s parent company, Scentre Group, is down a little over ten percent, year to date.

      1. Cinemark announced they are closing their Westfield Mall outlet next week. The mall may be kept open but be virtually empty of tenants. How long the lenders are willing to keep it afloat as is remains to be seen.

        1. This will not affect the living experience of anyone who has the wherewithal to buy this condo at all. Overwhelmingly, the movies they are showing during any given week are the same four or five movies that any AMC or any other chain theater is showing.

          Every once in a great while they would screen a Studio Ghibli movie (such as the current Kiki’s Delivery Service) or an art film (I had to run to catch The Tragedy of Macbeth there during the pandemic before it stopped showing), but as there are other places to see those films in S.F., this closing will be no great loss unless you have some fondness for generic superhero movies.

    2. With regard to the Westfield Mall, apparently The Mayor spoke today at a conference and mentioned it. From San Francisco Mayor Floats Razing Mall in Crisis-Ridden Downtown:

      San Francisco Mayor London Breed called on investors to redevelop the city’s struggling downtown core by converting or even demolishing empty buildings to make way for new growth.
      “I think we have to start re-imagining what the downtown can be,” Breed said at the Bloomberg Technology Summit in San Francisco on Thursday.
      “Let’s look at what’s possible rather than dwelling on the stories of another store closing — there are a lot of people who may not even shop in those places” because of the increase in online shopping.
      …She pointed to the city’s Westfield mall as a structure that could be demolished and the land used as “something completely different” like to build a sports stadium.

      She has great ideas, now the main issue is where to obtain the funding to implement those ideas. Because The City, with a more than $750 million dollar budget deficit, can’t do it on its own.

        1. It’s easy for people who aren’t in an elected position of responsibility to to pop off on social media with criticism. The Mayor is a political moderate who is doing the best she can under real-world constraints.

          I’m sure that if Michael Shellenberger — or any candidate preferred by the Fox News-watching or Forbes-reading crowd — became Mayor of San Francisco tomorrow, the actual facts on the ground wouldn’t change that much. The $750 million dollar budget deficit isn’t susceptible to being changed by rhetoric and The Mayor, any Mayor, does not have the power to lower nationwide interest rates to a level where moribund malls such as Westfield Mall are viable to continue to operate.

          1. She doesn’t know what she’s doing…

            I believe ‘Fact’ is referring – or at least should be referring – to her (presumably) improptu attempt at property development. Say what you want about her Administration in general – and I’m offering no particular opinion – none of the suggestions put forth so far (biotech, sports stadium, residential) can really be called thoughtful. She’s free to have opinions, of course, but if she’s going to offer them under the mantle of the Mayor’s Office, I think it’s fair to judge them more harshly than those of some anonymous commenter. (And who knows, she very well may ‘test run’ ideas here on Socketsite, itself.)

  2. So landlords are now advertising condos that were supposed to be built to house “20-something coder[s] making $150K+ as their first rung on the home ownership ladder” to sell as income property for other landlords?

    To the listing agent: If the buyer is just looking for an income stream, why would he care about “own[ing] a piece of San Francisco’s extraordinary lifestyle”? You aren’t going to live in the unit if you’re a landlord, are you? Did you use ChatGPT to write this listing copy?

    I don’t think the low-ball-asking-price-to-incite-a-bidding-war gambit is going to work with this unit. If and when this sells, will we know if the 2018 buyer was one of Jimmy’s real estate “geniuses” of 2016-2022 that is now trying to get out quick and avoid “eating it”.

  3. Open-air drug use & dealing @ Civic Center.
    Open-air drug use & dealing @ and 6/7th & Mission.
    Drug drug dealing & loitering @ at McCallister & Market.

    This unit is literally surrounded on all sides by degeneracy, drugs, and vagrancy.

    But sure, “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” here folks!

    1. There was open air drug dealing going on in 2018, too. That’s not the main reason for the drop in price, not even close. Remote work and interest rates are far bigger reasons.

    2. If my recent trips through the area were any indication, it’s all much better than it’s been in years. I don’t know how consistent the cleaning/policing is, but if they keep it up, they’re certainly on the right track (except for waiting so long to do it).

      1. There’s no denying of street issues. However, Mid-Market was pretty rough in 2018, in 2012, in 2008 etc. That’s not why this unit is down so much.

        – Source: I walked by this area daily throughout the 2010’s

        1. Back in past years, ppl were putting up with whatever, not just the street scene but also abhorrent commutes, ridiculous cost of living, so they could go chase the funny money floating around town. Remember how some skinny/pale tech startup types were shamed into oblivion if they dared to point out the obvious? Finding themselves relenting and presenting themselves going volunteering, hat in hand? Fast forward to today: The money’s going elsewhere. Why should it return? For this?

          1. At least relenting and doing volunteer work is productive.

            I don’t agree that the skinny/pale tech startup arrivistes were shamed into oblivion because they dared to point out that Mid-Market wasn’t the Rodeo Drive of their imagination before they moved here. If they were shamed, it was because they were newly arrived and were pretty arrogant about telling people already living here what they should do to make the area more amenable to people like skinny/pale tech startup types. As if the people already living here didn’t have a reasonable expectation for safe, clean streets. That was the shameful part, not pointing out the obvious.

            Did newly arrived “skinny/pale tech startup types” you alluded to have any real, workable solutions addressing the intractable social problems evident in this neighborhood to offer then? Do they now, other than “wave a magic wand and make the drug dealers preying on the homeless go away?”

            If not, and they proceed with “going elsewhere”, fine. The “funny money floating around town” was never sustainable in the long run, anyhow. If the types you mentioned leave, housing prices will adjust downward as the pale tech startup types sell at substantial losses; who cares since it was all Sand Hill Road’s money.

            I hope as some of the “skinny/pale tech startup types” leave, they take the people who only arrived here to make money running up the cost of shelter to Texas or Florida with them, since those places “elsewhere” are where they wanted to end up after they made their money here anyway.

    3. And Btw, City Hall has heard your/our complaints about Open-air drug use and has taken action. From last week, San Francisco to Deploy 130 Sheriff’s Deputies in Downtown Drug Crackdown:

      The San Francisco Sheriff’s Office is tasking its emergency unit with arresting and compelling treatment for people who use drugs or are intoxicated in public, city leaders announced Thursday.

      The plan comes shortly after Mayor London Breed last month told the Board of Supervisors that “force” needs to be part of the city’s response to drug use. The sheriff’s plan includes deploying 130 additional deputies to…areas where drug use, sales and overdoses are concentrated in the city…

      “In many cases, individuals suffering from drug addiction only seek help when they hit their lowest point, and the sad truth for many is that the low point is incarceration,” Sheriff Paul Miyamoto said at a press conference Thursday morning outside City Hall.

      The Emergency Services Unit at the sheriff’s office will work with the Mayor’s Office to increase arrests for drug sellers as well as people using drugs outdoors and in public settings, particularly those who are deemed to pose a threat to themselves or others.

      …Law enforcement officials on Thursday expressed awareness that arrests alone won’t fix the problematic drug use or crime trends. They suggested that it was part of a broader effort.

      “While it’s an unpopular stance to take, arresting and putting people in jail, it can be a critical gateway to help and needs to be a part of the multipronged approach,” Miyamoto said. “We’re not advocating for harsher punishments or increased incarceration for those who are struggling with harmful choices. There needs to be a multipronged approach to these problems, not just a single focus on harm reduction and treating this as a health crisis.”

      I completely support this approach. Breed, Supervisors Matt Dorsey and Joel Engardio, and District Attorney Brooke Jenkins are taking things in a better direction, IMHO, than the previous policies advocated by the so-called “harm reduction” folks.

      During the first week of June, 58 people were arrested for drug use in San Francisco.

  4. In the last 30 years I haven’t seen a new unit with a bedroom closet that small. Just odd.

  5. I know a millennial who bought here in 2018. She was so proud to have bought a home in SF “all by herself.” I imagine she knew she was taking a risk in an up-and-coming area. Tough blow from a black swan event. Hopefully she did not pay the absurd $1,400/foot that the owner of #706 did.

    1. ‘Black swan’ event after order of magnitude run up in prices in less than 30 years?
      Must have been served/sold the kool aid of infinite growth … just like much of our city government and various enablers.

      Just for the record when people were being displaced and losing homes it was all about the ‘free market’…

    2. Although I have no way of knowing…I am pretty confident that the realtor who sold unit #706 for $979,000 in February of 2019 and his client the seller were at pebble beach on more than one occasion during the last four years, still laughing about that sale all the way up the back nine.

      And a year prior to the onset of the pandemic bubble! The current hopeful seller of that unit must feel like they have been left holding one of the biggest bags of odorous excrement ever assembled in the history of capitalism.

      1. You must know a lot of very wealthy realtors. The ones I know are mainly longtime San Franciscans, many of who were born here, who lead normal middle class lives.

  6. One must understand how small this unit is. It should be pied-à-terre, as defined by our great contemporary font of knowledge, Wikipedia. However most “reasonably wealthy persons” expect their pieds in NYC, Paris or Amsterdam –the wiki chosen cities– to be in attractive, central and safe areas. Perhaps central, this unit is not in an attractive or safe area. I expect its price is heading south.

  7. Figure a $500k loan at 7.5% is $3,500 a month plus whatever the HOA is? $500?/month? That means you need to rent for $4k month to cover expenses. Seems unlikely for such a small space. But it is a nice building.

    1. According to the listing, the HOA fees are $803 per month, I guess they have to spend to maintain that dedicated pet area on the rooftop.

      Looks like the new owner, if they want to keep that “long-term, high-quality tenant” in place at the same rent, is going to have to pony up some more equity given today’s interest rates.

  8. UPDATE: The list price for 1075 Market Street #706 has just been reduced to $650,000, a sale at which would represent a 33.6 percent drop in value for the condo versus first quarter of 2019.

  9. UPDATE: The list price for 1075 Market Street #306 has just been further reduced to $588,000, a sale at which would be 27.3 percent below its value in mid-2018.

Leave a Reply

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