Entitled for the development of nine modern units designed to target “an international gathering of millennial techies that inhabit the streets” of SoMa, with “sophisticated urban tastes and money” back in 2020, the ground for the five-story building to rise at “224 Clara,” between 5th and 6th Streets, has yet to break ground.

And while building permits for the development have been approved and a demolition permit is pending, the 224-228 Clara Street site, which was acquired for $1.525 million in May of 2019, following the tragic discovery of the decapitated torso of Brian Egg, who had owned and occupied the little single-family home on the two-parcel site, is now back on the market with a $3 million price tag.

At the same time, the recently completed 25-unit new development at 603 Tennessee Street, which was also designed for those with sophisticated urban tastes and money, was foreclosed upon lsat month. We’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.

10 thoughts on “Approved Development for Moneyed Techies Back in Play”
  1. So some greater fool is supposed to reward these real estate “geniuses” with effectively double the amount they invested to acquire this property four years ago in exchange for the entitlement and some fancy renderings? I admit that the permits have value, but No. These jokers need to take a hair cut.

    This project is a case study in most of what is wrong with residential development in S.F.. The market should be punishing this behavior and the property should trade at a discount to what they purchased it for pre-pandemic, and after the deal closes the managing/general partners of the development group should be going back to their lender with their tails between their legs, asking for a workout to get out of their remaining loan balance.

    1. discovery of the decapitated torso
      This kind of thing by itself used to depress values…tho perhaps it has (i.e. the original expectation was of a trebling in value)

    2. Brahma,
      They spent 4 years (almost) getting a permit. That is why they are charging this price. This could very well be a price that if they get it they sell, if they don’t they build. I don’t see throwing this price out there as walking away from the project at all.
      I agree with you that this is a case study of what is wrong with SF, but a different study. It has been over 4 years since the plans were submitted and they don’t have a permit to build yet!

        1. “a demolition permit is pending”
          Can’t build until that is done.

          “yet to break ground”
          The permits look like they finished review on 7/27/2023.

          1. I just read for the first time about the recently-signed Assembly Bill 2234 that will, starting January 2024, put limits on the amount of time a jurisdiction has to approve building permits post-planning entitlement. I’m not sure if that would have applied here. Namelink has more details.

    1. While I should stick to speaking only for myself, I am willing to guess that there are several readers here who don’t know what “a Santos permit” (or for that matter, “a clean permit) refers to. Does that have something to do with Rodrigo Santos, the former president of San Francisco’s Building Inspection Commission? If you could unpack that idiom, I for one would appreciate it.

Leave a Reply

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