Purchased for $2.1 million in April of 2015, the “elegantly modern & smart” full-floor condo #2 at 68 Belcher, with three bedrooms, three baths and a private rooftop deck with panoramic views on a tree-lined street in coveted Duboce Triangle, returned to the market priced at $2.45 million this past April.

While the nearly 2,100-square-foot unit, a measurement which doesn’t include the condo’s 700-square-foot rooftop deck nor its deeded parking space with a charging station in the building’s garage, has been updated a bit over the past 8 years, including a light kitchen makeover, the re-sale will effectively be apples-to-apples.

And having been reduced to $2,350,000 in May and then to $2,299,999 in June, the asking price for 68 Belcher Street #2 is now down to $2,150,000, an “at asking” sale at which would represent net appreciation of just 2.4 percent since the second quarter of 2015 on an apples-to-apples basis while the widely misreported index for San Francisco condo values is “still up 24 percent!” over the same period of time.

If you think you know the market for coveted Duboce Triangle and/or contemporary condos that are “bigger than many single family homes,” now’s the time to tell.

12 thoughts on “Coveted Duboce Triangle Condo Nears Its 2015 Price”
  1. This is a sobering one. Assuming it sells close to this, $1K/foot for an extra large condo, sure. But that rooftop is worth a lot. I would have guessed closer to $1,200/foot. My only theory is that the number of steps to enter the unit must be huge – three full flights of stairs it appears. I’ve talked to agents about how these top floor flats can lose value with the number of stairs.

  2. The stager certainly hit the “elegantly modern & smart” look, but there’s not a whole lot that the ultimate buyer is going to actually acquire that does. Once all of the furnishings and artwork are out of the unit following close of escrow, it’s a generic white box interior that will be interchangeable with the majority of other property in S.F. that’s been flipped over the last fifteen years.

    I don’t think I know the market for Duboce Triangle, but a unit on the market for going on five months isn’t coveted. $2,125,000 if the seller accepts a bid at all.

    1. The only thing we are sure about is that the drop in price is due to it being the top floor, or not the floor, or maybe some other factor, and definitely not due to an asset bubble that is now deflating with normalizing interest rates that had been suppressed for the longest duration ever.

    2. Good catch! Don’t think the roof deck is exclusive as historical listing for #3 mentions the roof deck. Either misleading listing or neighbors sold their rights to it? Third floor walkup, better than fourth floor. Don’t know Duboce at all! but 1.85 mil, if they have to sell. 1.7 if roof deck is shared.

    3. As we outlined above, the roof deck is “exclusive use” (private) for unit #2 (which is the middle unit, not the top floor).

      The top-floor unit #3, which is smaller, has its own private deck at the rear of the building, atop unit #2.

    1. ^^^ This. And the construction period (a year or two, I’d imagine) wouldn’t be much fun for the folks across the street either.

      Although who knows if the 69 Belcher project will get built, is/was Saitowitz an investor in that project? Having taken a bath on his project in Mission Bay, he may not be in the mood to do so again with what appears to be a very similar design (but without the bird-poop ledges.) Although building permits were applied for back in December of last year, I don’t think there has been any actual work performed since then.

    2. I’m guessing that the 69 Belcher project will be in “the upcoming” state of progress for at least a couple more years yet. Even if Saitowitz is an investor in the project and has the will to proceed and build it, his LPs are probably aware that new construction sales prices are dropping, and potential lenders will be as well.
      As the editor pointed out during the Spring, “… that’s why new developments aren’t penciling, particularly for developers with high cost bases for their sites/land.”
      I would not be surprised of the ownership/development group attempts to sell the entitled property for the 69 Belcher project sometime in the next year.

  3. Your phrasing of everything in the passive voice is unbearable. I’m baffled as to why you do this. If you were to communicate your (very useful and interesting) commentary in a more straightforward manner, you’re engagement would increase.

    1. From Lannon, J. M. (1991). Technical writing. 5th Ed. HarperCollins Publishers. Pg 203:

      Some writers mistakenly rely on the passive voice because they think it sounds more objective and important. But the passive voice often makes writing sound wordy or evasive and unethical…for economy, directness, and clarity, use the active voice in most of your writing.

      That was from the text we used in the first undergrad course in technical communication I ever took in college (I don’t have my copy of Strunk & White handy to see what it says on this topic, but I recall from memory the sentiment is similar). Perhaps standards are different on the business/economics side of the house.

    2. > Your phrasing of everything in the passive voice is unbearable.

      Assuming this comment is addressed towards the site owner, if it’s not entirely clear to you, let me spell it out: their commentary apes and sends up the style of real estate listing copy. But you want to shoot that messenger, don’t you.

Leave a Reply

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