December 19, 2006
What’s Up With The Watermark "G"s?
A reader wonders, “What's the scoop on [Watermark] unit 15g? Tax records show that it was sold by Watermark for $830,000. It's a 1295 sq ft corner unit. 12g sold for $975,000; 17g sold for $1,650,000; 20g sold for $1,400,000. Now 15g just entered into contract for $969,000 as a resale. Why was there a fire sale at Watermark when this unit [first] entered into contract at around the same time as the other "g" units?”
Something definitely seems screwy, but unfortunately we don't have the inside scoop (this time). Readers? And while you’re at it, perhaps someone can answer our follow-up question: how’d the buyer of 17g wind up paying $250,000 more than the buyer of 20g? (And yes, the floor plans for all four of the units look identical.)
UPDATE: Okay, we should have caught this earlier, but the letters (A-U) used to designate floor plan types are not directly correlated with the actual unit addresses on each floor. In other words, while unit 15G is actually a “D” type floor plan, it looks like units 17G and 20G are actually “N” type floor plans. And to answer our own question, only two units in the entire building offer wraparound patios, and the “N” plan on the 17th floor is one of them. It’s turning out to be one of those
∙ Watermark Update: 85% Sold [SocketSite]
First Published: December 19, 2006 12:00 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Which floors are level with the decks of the Bay Bridge? Given that "G" units seem to face the bridge, this might partially explain things, as I heard the noise is pretty bad when you are directly on a parallel with the two decks.
Another question about the Watermark is why are there still so ofew lights on at night in that building?
Posted by: Amen Corner at December 18, 2006 11:18 PM
The G units are actually 1259SqFt.
17th or 20th floor is really not that high and the views partially face the hillside where the bridge attaches to. Not a great view and yes, it can be noisy being almost parallel with the bridge.
And the poor soul that bought it for 1,650,000 (over $1310/SqFt!) has to be at least 300k under water considering that it's probably worth no more than $1000-$1100/SqFt now (1.259-1.385M)...
Posted by: Anonymous at December 19, 2006 1:39 AM
A naive question - are upgrades included in final sale price - could this account for some of the discrepancies?
Posted by: Anonymous at December 19, 2006 9:22 AM
I saw 15G a few weekends ago. It faces the Beale side of the building and is right in the middle of the floor (hence no balconies, only the corner units have those).
It does not look into the base of the bridge, but you can obviously see it if you step up to the window and look right. If you step back your view is not too bad, looking west towards Twin Peaks, as well as a nice view southwest through South Beach and towards Candlestick.
Also, I remember it as quiet - no bridge noise, and it was almost parallel with the span.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 19, 2006 9:43 AM
I heard from an agent that the original asking price was $960,000, but Watermark just wanted to get rid of the last remaining units. The profits above a certain margin go to the Port District anyway, so they had no incentives to hold out for a higher price. But still, it does not make sense when the other units entered into contract around the same time; there was clearly a healthy demand for those units above the bridge at around $1000/sq ft. Something is fishy.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 19, 2006 10:33 AM
"Something is fishy."
Not necessarily fishy, just economics. A seller has the right to sell a property at whatever price they want, yes? If a developer has made (or exceeded) their pro-forma margins and wants to dump a few remaining units just to get done, it's certainly their right to do so.
And I would say that if "fishy" was the dude who got the sreamin' deal, he wouldn't think it was so fishy - he would just think he scored a great buy!
Posted by: indulgeinlife at December 19, 2006 11:29 AM
Something is definitely "fishy" as in, it stinks.
This project is complete dud and the market is simply putting it in check. I think the floor plans look pretty nice and the views toward the bay look spectacular, but aside from that, the building itself looks atrocious and any unit that faces opposite the bay would be a horrible place to live.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 19, 2006 11:58 AM
To address the lights question, I think most people use it as a weekend home. The garage is empty during the week, but full on the weekends.
Also, for all you Watermark haters, I moved in a few months ago. I was initially skeptical, but am starting to love the building. I'm realizing the sales office did a really crappy job selling the building. The building is actually really nice and the units with views of the bay are unparalleled.
Posted by: DesignGuy at December 19, 2006 12:06 PM
Okay, we really should have caught this earlier, but keep in mind that while “g” designated floor plans are consistent throughout the building, “g” numbered units are not.
In other words, 15g is not the same unit as 17g, which is not the same as 20g. And to answer our own question, we’re guessing that 17g has a wraparound patio (unique to the 17th floor). It’s turning out to be one of those mornings...
Posted by: SocketSite at December 19, 2006 12:20 PM
"while “g” designated floor plans are consistent throughout the building, “g” numbered units are not."
How does that work?
Posted by: Anonymous at December 19, 2006 12:38 PM
I think the building looks nice and it seems to me the buyers don't have to worry about their bay views. What you see is what you get with no issues about some 60 story monstrosity being slammed up in front of it. I'd say having that risk eliminated is worth a lot.
Posted by: rut at December 19, 2006 12:43 PM
"...What you see is what you get with no issues about some 60 story monstrosity being slammed up in front of it. I'd say having that risk eliminated is worth a lot."
Look, the Watermark is a flat out ugly building from the outside and aside from the lucky buyers that purchased units with bay views, it's a dog.
Face it, The Watermark and all of the other early South Beach condos are South Beach version 1.0 and 1Rincon, the Infinity and the Millenium are version 2.0. People are always willing to pay more for the hot new version 2.0 of anything. Now, if there's ever a version 3.0, the same thing will happen all over again.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 19, 2006 1:14 PM
Watermark buyers do however have the uncertainty as to what, if anything, will now be built as part of the Bryant St Pier redevelopment.
I agree it's an ugly building on the outside, with an ugly parking lot surrounding it for the forseeable future. However, I thought the units themselves - particularly those with views - were excellent.
Posted by: Amen Corner at December 19, 2006 1:20 PM
I don't think that most buildings in the area have a major noise issue. I have lived in 2 separate buildings in the area, right by the bridge and when you close the windows, the bridge noise is barely audible....this is the benefit of new construction, versus living in an older area of the city. I agree that if you have a view directly into the bridge, it may not be ideal. However, I beg to differ that the building looks atrocious. I like its modern look and the amenities in the building are nice. Now, when the Infinity and One Rincon are complete, they will put the Watermark to shame, but that's a different story.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 19, 2006 1:23 PM
"However, I thought the units themselves - particularly those with views - were excellent."
No argument with this comment, however, weren't those units pretty much snapped up right away and therefore are a moot point when were talking about the units that won't move and are therefore the subject of what is essentially a fire sale?
Posted by: Anonymous at December 19, 2006 1:24 PM
You can see here:
that 17G does *not* have the wrap-around balcony-- that's 17N. 17G looks like the other Gs.
[Editor's Note: This is part of the problem, the "floor plan" designations on the building maps are not the same as the actual unit numbers (e.g., "8C" is actually the "H" floor plan, "15G" is actually the "D" floor plan, and we have a feeling "17G" is actually the "N" floor plan).]
Posted by: Dan at December 19, 2006 2:09 PM
To me, the Watermark was a lost opportunity from the standpoint of what could have been a beautiful building in a prime location. When construction started, I was excited to see it go up and thought it was going to look great when finished. But, when it was completed, I thought, "That's it....Is it really done?" I almost got the impression the builders had ditched a lot of plans midway through construction. Subsequent difficulties with the cruise ship pier and associated development didn't help matters for the surrounding area. What cracked me up the most were that ads with the headline that read; "Some people only appreciate great architecture, others live in it." I thought the tag line should have followed: "Appreciate the great architecture of other buildings from the Watermark." It seemed silly to base the advertising on a weakness rather than unique strength (location, views) of the building. As it stands, it doesn't appear to be a building with enduring attractiveness. Anonymous at 2:14 was correct in observing that the next newest thing will always be the hot topic.
Posted by: Christopher at December 19, 2006 2:16 PM
Does anyone know the status of the cruise ship terminal project right now? Last time it got media attention, they were still trying to find a developer. I know that Bovis Land Lease ditched the project last summer, citing rising commodity costs.....commodity prices have actually decreased a few percentage points since this past summer....does anyone think that this will have an impact on how quickly a developer picks up the project? Any idea on how much the city planners are actually committed to this project being done quickly? I think that this project can be the glue that ties the neighborhood together and would be a great asset to the city...it seems that others may not necessarily feel so passionately about it?
Posted by: Anonymous at December 19, 2006 2:25 PM
Anonymous at 2:25--I do know that SF saw an increase in cruise ship traffic over the past few years, but several lines have now decreased their schedules that would have included SF as a port or start/end destination. Overall, the number of stops in SF will be lower for 2007. Don't know if this impacts the urgency of the project or not.
Posted by: Christopher at December 19, 2006 2:31 PM
Last time I heard, the pier project is dead in the water. I think they tried to find another developer but they also backed out due to the zoning restrictions and poor physical state of the existing peir. No one wants to touch it as the zoning does not allow the project to be profitable due to the amount of money that has to be put in to recronstruct the pier foundation. The developer was pushing for a more profitable ratio of space usage but the city at this point was not willing to change it. Not sure what is happening at this point.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 19, 2006 2:46 PM
I think the building looks like an old company headquarters from the early 90s that went out of business and could never be rented. The building never looked completed and no one is ever there.
I did see some of the brigdge view units inside and I must say they were beautiful. The outside sucks though.
Maybe the management should cut a deal with the residents to leave their lights on when they are not there so the building does not look so vacant! =)
Posted by: Anonymous at December 19, 2006 2:49 PM
Right, the cruise ship terminal project is dead so that large expansive parking lot will be an eye sore for the next decade.
Unless you get the highest few floors the views are really not that spectacular, especially with the parking lot taking up so much of the bay. And the view from the opposite end are nothing special.
Views, design, and amenities from 1Rincon and Infinity will blow Watermark out of the water...
Posted by: Anonymous at December 19, 2006 2:56 PM
"To address the lights question, I think most people use it as a weekend home. The garage is empty during the week, but full on the weekends."
Regarding the 12:06 posting by DesignGuy, I drive past the Watermark every weekend (early evening and later at night) and the building is still mostly pitch black. I see a few upper level corner units always lit and a few mid levels, but really that's about it. I would say generally the building looks to be 70-80% empty. And by empty I'm not saying unsold, just not occupied.
It really looks like a "ghost" building when compared to the rest of downtown...
And I'm just wondering who are these people that buy it, but barely use it? It's just weird and fishy...
Posted by: Anonymous at December 19, 2006 4:03 PM
The City and the Port are very committed to finishing the project. The port has created an internal advisory committee to weigh options and phasing, and is mulling routes as grand as increasing the size of the Terminal, and as ambitious as a bond. It's a very important project for the amenities the new buildings will provide, the recreation the Bryant Street Pier will allow, and the revenue the Cruise Terminal will bring in.
The Port has gone as far as dispatching representatives to Sacramento to look at legislative options, because if the Port doesn't have the money to fix its crumbling piers, then everyone loses, and the piers continue to crumble.
The Port is caged in a horrible financial situation, with expensive rotting piers, extreme limits on development, and a revenue stream solely from development. Something needs to change.
Posted by: S at December 19, 2006 4:03 PM
15G is actually a "D" floor plan and it has a view of twin peaks and South Beach Area. No decks or anything but its nice.
Posted by: WaterMark Watcher at December 19, 2006 6:00 PM
If the Port District gets a portion of the profits from Watermark and if the Port had no say in selling 15g way way below market, they deserve to be broke. That's the government for you. Someone should write our legislators about this deal.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 19, 2006 6:18 PM
How is a "g" same as a "d"?
Posted by: Anonymous at December 19, 2006 6:19 PM
From looking at the listing pictures, the unit appears to face the west towards Twin Peaks, and it does not look like a corner. It looks more like a "B," according to the floorplans in Watermark's website. There must be some mislabelling of the floorplans in their site. If 15G is actually 15B, then the pricing would make a little bit more sense.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 19, 2006 6:30 PM
Very confusing. If the units were designated 17A, 17B, 17C, etc, there would be no 17G. There are only 6 units on that floor, so it would only go to 17F. That's why it looks like 17G is the floorplan designation from the website, rather than the unit address.
Posted by: Dan at December 19, 2006 6:35 PM
One last try to clear up the confusion we probably helped fuel...
Watermark used letters (A-U as far as we know) to differentiate between different “types” of floor plans. For example, a "D" plan designates a 1,037 sqft two bedroom, while an "H" plan designates a 801 sqft one bedroom. These are the letters you see when you look at floor plans online. And as Dan notes, not all “types” are offered on each floor.
These “type” letters, however, have nothing to do with the actual unit addresses (which unfortunately happen to use letters as well). As we previously noted, unit “8C” (the address) is actually an “H” plan one bedroom (the type), while unit “15G” (the address) is actually a “D” plan two bedroom (the type). And while we haven't had a chance to confirm, we have a feeling "17G" (the address) is actually an "N" plan (the type).
Posted by: SocketSite at December 19, 2006 7:30 PM
Oh......gees....which genius at Watermark came up with this system...?
Posted by: Anonymous at December 19, 2006 11:25 PM
Regardless, plan D is still 1037 sq. ft. and $830,000 was way below market; it is also evidenced by the fact that it went into contract quickly after it was listed at $969,000 as a resale.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 20, 2006 9:46 AM
I just wish my agent was smart enough to land me this deal...
Posted by: Anonymous at December 20, 2006 10:25 AM
why is everyone hating on the watermark so much?
i don't think one rincon is going to be that great. it looks like a trump building with all that black glass. plus, i don't think anything can be done to mitigate bridge traffic that will take place half the day. nothing like smog and bridge and tunnel peeople to look out onto.
as for the watermark, i think there's some mondrian-esque uniqueness about the watermark. one thing i will say is that i reminds me a little of miami. a little out of place with san francisco, but totally in step with portside across the street.
Posted by: DesignGuy at December 20, 2006 12:19 PM
"i don't think one rincon is going to be that great. it looks like a trump building with all that black glass. plus, i don't think anything can be done to mitigate bridge traffic that will take place half the day. nothing like smog and bridge and tunnel peeople to look out onto."
"why is everyone hating on the watermark so much?"
Stone, meet glass house.
Man, do you have a warped sense of reality. The Watermark is an objectively ugly building from the outside. I think there have been plenty of posts to back-up that sentiment. I would also add that the Watermark is below the bridge, rather than above it like 1Rincon, which makes a huge difference from both a sound perspective and an aesthetic perspective.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 20, 2006 1:59 PM
Watermark is ugly. And this is particularly sad because it is so visible.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 20, 2006 2:54 PM
Watermark is a travesty. Not only is the exterior ugly, the interior layout looks cheap and the units lack closet space. And yes I agree with the lighting issue, the building is almost black at night. Does anyone live there?
And don't get me started on the pool, which is like 4 feet wide!
Posted by: John at December 20, 2006 5:20 PM
I’m indifferent on the exterior and not a big fan of the layouts, but I love the windows, views of the bridge/bay and location. Guess it all comes down to different strokes for different folks (quite literally John).
Posted by: Michael at December 20, 2006 5:30 PM
wow. a flip in this market? Reallistically, at asking its still under the magic $1,000 per foot. Still not bad for an unobstructed high-floor view unit. Albeit, not on the 60th but its a totally diiferent location--who doesn't want to be 1/2 block from the Embarcadero? I personally think the build details are top notch at the WM.. In the top tier South Beach buildings(except the 4seasons and STR) i like the Brannan, WM, and the Met! Yes, I want an agent like that too!
Posted by: JW at December 20, 2006 7:38 PM
Re the letter unit type vs letter unit address confusion at the Watermark, I think they originally planned to have the floor number plus the unit type be the address of the unit but then they realized that it wouldn't make any sense if you were trying to find a unit after getting out of the elevator because the alphabet would be all scrambled up. So they re-lettered everything. What is really strange is why they didn't just use numbers for the unit addresses.
The thing that really bugs me about the Watermark is that it doesn't have a 13th floor. I love the fact that some people hate the way it looks. Means it might actually be a piece of architecture.
Posted by: Susapix at December 20, 2006 11:36 PM
I actually don't mind the exterior of the Watermark (from what I can see). But I am suprised that it is so empty. I can see it when I cross the BB and always see it empty.
Until reading these threads, I seriously thought they were still building it. Maybe the units facing the BB are still for sale (as I would prefer a bay facing unit) and all the lights can be seen if you were on the other side of the building. If that's not the case, then it must truly be a ghost town in that building.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 21, 2006 1:23 AM
In response to DesignGuy's comment about the garage being full on weekends (hence the building being fully occupied on weekends as well), I was in the garage on a Sunday not too long ago trying to find the parking space for a unit that was still being sold at the time though the sales office. For a three story garage on a Sunday, I probably counted no more than ten cars in the garage and it looked brand new (no wheel/scuff marks showing that cars were going in and out). I would assume that if there was some amount of traffic, even if the garage was empty on weekdays, you would see a little wear and tear on the concrete, but not the day I was there.
The theory that the building is full on the weekend may not hold water (no pun intended...).
Posted by: Anonymous at December 21, 2006 5:06 AM
I was in the garage as well and it was 50% mostly empty. Some of the cars were trophy cars in my book... An Aston Martin, two Ferraris, a RUF 911 Turbo. The balance includes an SLR Mercedes, BMWs and other Mercedes. Talk about an affluent clientele.
Posted by: MJ at December 21, 2006 8:41 AM
"Talk about an affluent clientele"
Well, SF has become the playground for the wealthy and I don't see that trend reversing any time soon.
The positives of having wealthy neighbors include the fact that you know that the building will be maintained well and you don't have to worry too much about vandalism and break ins.
A major negative would be that you probably won't find a lot of very friendly neighbors or even people that will say hi back to you on the elevators.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 21, 2006 8:45 AM
Drove by the Watermark last night and either they're reading these posts and now lighting units at night (which might be the case given the number of units I saw with seemingly every light turned on inside each), or there are about 25% on the Embarcadero side that are occupied. As for the garage use comment, I wonder if this is not similar to a friend's condo tower in Vancouver BC where most of his neighbors are wealthy part-timers and if they even keep a car in the building, it rarely moves and is more often than not a trophy car. Finally, I think the exterior design as built is a missed opportunity and agree the design seemed to want to be a Mondrian-esque collage. Too bad, but those commenters who shriek that the WM is hideous while implying that 1Rincon is some breakthrough masterpiece sound too defensive of the latter by half -- One Rincon may or may not turn out to be a nice addition to the skyline but it offers _nothing_ new in terms of design. The bowed facade and black glass are, as others have noted, potentially dated and imo tired and uninspired.
Posted by: Tom at December 21, 2006 9:11 AM
I wonder if WaterMark would be considered more "attractive" if it were taller? Infinity is more unusual, at least for SF, than 1 Rincon, but it is the height and location of 1 Rincon that make it potentially quite stunning. That said, I would not want to live in the exhaust cloud that will come off the bridge. One benefit of the WaterMark is that it has, on one side, fabulous views of the bridge but it is low enough not to have the exhaust cloud issues. AND, if the port development does happen at some point the location will become fantastic.
Posted by: CameronRex at December 21, 2006 10:12 AM
"I would not want to live in the exhaust cloud that will come off the bridge."
This is such an ignorant statement. Many people that have lived in or live in the Clocktower lofts have posted on this site and have never complained about an "exhaust cloud." That building is in a much worse location than 1Rincon when it comes to potential pollution issues.
As far as the Watermark goes, I have yet to see anyone disagree with the premise that the bayside units are probably very nice to live in. However, that said, we're not talking about the bayside units. The units that are still sitting vacating are the crappy bridgeside units that face a dirt hill and other buildings.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 21, 2006 10:57 AM
Anonymous at 10:57....Not sure why you had to toss in the personal attack but it is not appreciated. Nor is it fair. To liken the Clock Tower lofts, most of which sit even or below the lower bridge deck with 1 Rincon which sits closer to the bridge, above it AND wrapped by a busy off ramp is not a valid comparison in my opinion. That point made, I think 1 Rincon will be a wonderful addition to the skyline and for those that choose it a fantastic home.
Posted by: CameronRex at December 21, 2006 11:17 AM
The statement that those who live above the bridge will have dirtier air than those below is just incorrect. For a year, I lived in a unit that was looking directly up to the bridge. Now, I live close to the bridge but in a unit above the bridge.
I have to say that the first unit was much dirtier than my current one and my white walls turned black very easily. I don't see nearly as much pollution at this current place.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 21, 2006 11:37 AM
CameronRex: Ditto on your comment. Also, I can attest that grime on windows and in units is prevalent in SoBe (Clock Tower, Hills Plaza are personal firsthand experiences). But, I currently live in District 8 and still lots of dust and grime inside when my windows are open. A part of city living!
(BTW: Am I the only one tiring of so many "Anonymous" posters? Administrator: Is there a way to make unique user names a requisite?)
Posted by: Christopher at December 21, 2006 11:42 AM
"Not sure why you had to toss in the personal attack but it is not appreciated. Nor is it fair."
A. Not a personal attack , just an objective statement based on other posts to this site.
B. Yes it is fair, because you still seemed to have missed my point, that being, this whole pollution/traffic issue is a total red herring, and that if no one at the Clocktower lofts has had an issue with it, then certainly no one at 1Rincon will have a problem.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 21, 2006 11:43 AM
"The statement that those who live above the bridge will have dirtier air than those below is just incorrect. For a year, I lived in a unit that was looking directly up to the bridge. Now, I live close to the bridge but in a unit above the bridge.
I have to say that the first unit was much dirtier than my current one and my white walls turned black very easily. I don't see nearly as much pollution at this current place."
Thank you very much. That was only point.
Anonymous at 10:57.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 21, 2006 11:45 AM
Anonymous 10:57 and 11:43...you can disagree with me all you wish, but to call/refer to a person or a comment as 'ignorant' just because you disagree, for whatever reason, IS getting personal.
Thank you Anonymous 11:37 for responding with an example based on personal experience.
Those of you that have bought in 1 Rincon or REALLY, REALLY love the building...GREAT! I'm happy for you. My original comment was that I, personally, would not want to live in an exhaust cloud. I was referring more to the fumes than anything. Pollution in the city is a given. But it has been made quite clear that a certain faction of posters on this site will not accept any comment that remotely implies 1 Rincon and/or Infinity are not God's gift to condo living in SF.
I want to second Christopher's suggestion of unique user names.
Posted by: CameronRex at December 21, 2006 11:59 AM
"But it has been made quite clear that a certain faction of posters on this site will not accept any comment that remotely implies 1 Rincon and/or Infinity are not God's gift to condo living in SF."
I thought this was a topic dealing with the Watermark and its inability to move all of its units at its originally listed prices.
How did we get from there to your current "rant", for lack of a better word about 1Rincon and Infinity?
Let's all keep our eye on the ball.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 21, 2006 12:02 PM
CameronRex: Your contributions are on-target and fun to read--plus you're not afraid to take ownership of them (i.e., you're not "Anonymous"). Now you know why I refuse to refer to certain developments by name!
Posted by: Christopher at December 21, 2006 12:11 PM
Have to join the plea for an end to the lame and indistinguishable use of "anonymous". To the argument of the Anonymous who loves to toss around the word "objective" -- as in "the Watermark is an objectively ugly building" or this howler "not a personal attack, just an objective statement based on other posts to this site" -- it is always a sign of weakness to mis-use words like objective to assert some kind of false authority. "In my opinion"
would be so much more constructive and honest.
Posted by: Tom at December 21, 2006 12:21 PM
Oh yes, because "Anonymous" vs. "Christoper" or "CameronRex" are ssoooooo different in terms of anonymity. Do me favor, put your full legal name, driver's license number and social security number under "Name" and then you'll get credit for "taking ownership."
What a joke.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 21, 2006 12:22 PM
You could still post 50 times to this topic and use 50 different names. Unless the Administrator goes to the trouble of making everyone who wants to post, set up an account with an e-mail address and then log-in prior to joining a topic, it's utterly useless to insist that they do away with the anonymous post name.
I suspect that the casual reader will not be inclined to comment is he or she is required to take such steps. You're just going to have to settle for the Administrator's discretion in removing offensive posts or posts that having nothing to do with the topic whatsoever.
Posted by: Wannabe Administrator at December 21, 2006 12:28 PM
Meanwhile back at the ranch... I thought that all units at the Watermark were sold. The sales office is no longer open, so anything for sale would be a resale - right?
Posted by: can't think of cool name at December 21, 2006 1:11 PM
With regard to posting “Anonymously,” we simply ask that you don’t. Not necessarily for reasons of “taking ownership,” but if for no other reason than it helps readers track/reference comments and trains of thought (as opposed to “Anonymous at 9:17”).
That being said, we are weighing our options with regard to requirements for leaving a comment. Regardless, thanks for “plugging in.” And now back to the Watermark...
Posted by: SocketSite at December 21, 2006 1:11 PM
"I thought that all units at the Watermark were sold. The sales office is no longer open, so anything for sale would be a resale - right?"
I was sort of confused about that myself. But the website is still up and running and references the sales office. What gives?
Posted by: Anonymous But Taking Ownership at December 21, 2006 1:26 PM
"My original comment was that I, personally, would not want to live in an exhaust cloud. I was referring more to the fumes than anything"
I think this is a good point. I don't think anyone is talking literally about a "exhaust cloud", but that fact that cars and truck spew pollutants that are generally bad for our health.
From the NSC website (National Safety Council), it states auto emissions as:
HYDROCARBONS: react with nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight and elevated temperatures to form ground-level ozone. It can cause eye irritation, coughing, wheezing, and shortness of breath and can lead to permanent lung damage.
NITROGEN OXIDES(NOx): also contribute to the formation of ozone and contribute to the formation of acid rain and to water quality problems.
CARBON MONOXIDE: is a colorless, odorless, deadly gas. It reduces the flow of oxygen in the bloodstream and can impair mental functions and visual perception. In urban areas, motor vehicles are responsible for as much as 90 percent of carbon monoxide in the air.
It's bad enough we have these pollutants everywhere there's automobiles, but to live in such close proximity to a major freeway with thousand and thousand of cars passing by every day is is not my idea of luxury living, not to mention the gridlock conditions...
Posted by: John at December 21, 2006 1:37 PM
Oh yeah, I was talking about the freeway onramp development in my above comment.
Regarding the Watermark, how is it that since this posting started, there's suddenly more lights turned on at night? It's weird and fishy...
Posted by: John at December 21, 2006 1:40 PM
Real Estate is cool for the mid-2000's. As was stocks in the late 90's when even my Grandma was talking about how she made XX% in YY days. Appears that Socket Site has done well at getting a critical mass plugged in, and now powered up in terms of lighting at the WaterMark.
Soot, IMHO, (in my humble opinion) is a huge product of the amount of construction in your immediate vicinity. e.g. if you're at Hills Plaza, your windows and walls got dirtly a lot faster when they started pumping the Infinity posts down to the rock a few hundred feet below.
Posted by: MJ at December 21, 2006 1:49 PM
John, let it go brutha......the horse is literally decomposing.
What is it, a slow Thursday?
Besides, aren't we talking Watermark?
Posted by: Anonymous at December 21, 2006 1:52 PM
Actually John, its weirder and fishier...
Posted by: can't think of cool name at December 21, 2006 1:52 PM
It's the holidays! Of course it's slow in the office... ;-)
And regarding the Watermark, I toured there a month or so ago and the sales lady and marketing team in general were the most uninspired, depressing, unmotivated team I've ever seen. They just seem like they rather be somewhere else. Certainly, they didn't seem excited about the Watermark...
Posted by: John at December 21, 2006 2:11 PM
The Port has not done a good job with negotiating this, they should have required Bovis to begin on the terminal first. Bovis pulled out once they completed the Watermark and made $20 million, I don't think they ever intended to do the cruise ship terminal.
As to the sales team there, the last few months the building was staffed by a company that provides "temps" hence their disinterested attitude.
And, yes, there are agents out there that work aggressively for their clients.
Posted by: Condo Contessa at December 22, 2006 9:51 AM
In my own opinion, the pollution from the freeway and bridge will be the worst for Watermark, then the lower floors at 1Rincon and finally the Infinity. If you look at a map, the WaterMark and Infinity are really not that far away from the freeway. I think the Watermark would get the worst due to the general wind direction in the area and the lower height. The top floors at 1Rincon could potentially be further away from the freeway than the Watermark due to the height.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 22, 2006 2:03 PM
Yeah, it was definitely a fire sale for people who knew what to say and who to say it to. I put two lucky buyers into two units in December at steep discounts to the list price (better than 15G). The units will most likely be resold in January at a sizeable profit. Look on MLS for them in the near future.
I think it helps if your agent is plugged into the market and understands the position of the seller. If you choose to have a desperate [Removed by Editor] speculator represent you in a multimillion dollar transaction that blows up, you really have only one person to blame.
Posted by: Paul at December 22, 2006 2:42 PM
LIGHTS ON, NO ONE HOME
John is right. I live in the Met and as soon as I read through this thread I went and looked out my window and SURE ENOUGH there are WAY MORE lights on in the Watermark than I've EVER seen before. Folks, it's Xmas weekend - don't tell me all the rich folks with 2nd homes spend their holiday in the Watermark. I think the marketing team is on to what John noted and are using lighting in what must be unpurchased units to make it look like the building is decently inhabited.
And to the disbelievers of the exhaust plume from the Bay Bridge - CalOSHA is all over describing it. Google it or something and you'll see. Friends living in Hills Plaza pre-Gap building or any other recent Rincon dev had soot inside their units when windows were open, and when they all left - guess what - soot gone. 1Rincon stops construction on Sundays, and believe me, I have to wipe my outside table down EVERYday if I want to use it. It's not the construction.
Posted by: TheRealScoop at December 22, 2006 11:15 PM
Lights on or not, does it really matter if all the units are sold? Why should they (either or both the owners and the marketing team, which I believe is gone) care about our postings on how dark the building is at night?
And Paul, thanks for the heads up on the two units that will be flipped soon. I would imagine that anybody wanting to sell at the Watermark early in 2007 will now have the thumbscrews put to them by any buyer who either reads this site or is turned onto this site by a reader. Anything listed will now be assumed to have been bought "at steep discounts" and will probably run into some hard negotiations, especially if they inquire about whether or not you or your realty company was involved in the inital purchase...
Posted by: Can't think of cool name at December 23, 2006 12:28 PM
"And to the disbelievers of the exhaust plume from the Bay Bridge - CalOSHA is all over describing it. Google it or something and you'll see. Friends living in Hills Plaza pre-Gap building or any other recent Rincon dev had soot inside their units when windows were open, and when they all left - guess what - soot gone. 1Rincon stops construction on Sundays, and believe me, I have to wipe my outside table down EVERYday if I want to use it. It's not the construction."
I can't find anything on Google but would love to see these reports. Do you have a link?
Posted by: Anonymous at December 23, 2006 1:41 PM
Hey, TheRealScoop, can you provide a link to the calosha data you are referencing? I do not think the study exists. If you look at the link above, they are just starting to do research on air pollution from the bridges, at the street level in SF. Currently, I can only find reports on SF in general which is not useful to this discussion.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 23, 2006 2:02 PM
Anonymous 12/23 1:41 and 2:02 - I don't see the link anymore either. The study posted online had a diagram showing how the particulate plume expanded on both sides of the bridge. It was posted about 4 years ago and a friend who lived in Hills Plaza at the time was reviewing it. Until I can find it again, I guess I will cede 1 point to the doubters for now...
Posted by: TheRealScoop at December 23, 2006 8:39 PM
Thanks RealScoop. Please post the link if you find it. I believe you, I was just fustrated I could not find it myself.
In any case, the new study they are working on will be very interesting.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 24, 2006 2:27 PM
Looks like another unit is hitting the market at the WaterMark. 20F is now listed for sale $1,100,000. The square footage is not listed and its a corner unit but looking at the bridge :( Nice to be 20 floors up if you dont want to look out the window.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 1, 2007 10:45 PM