January 17, 2007
368 Elm Street Condos: Complete Pricing (And An Update)
Thanks to a “plugged in” tipster, we (and you) now have complete pricing and a sales update for the 28 condominiums that comprise 368 Elm Street. According to our tipster, nine of the condos are currently “Pending,” but three of those units are unallocated BMR units (#106, #205, and #303). No word on how many, if any, of the other six Pending units are inside sales or developer units.
Current pricing and availability for all 28 condos:
∙ 368 Elm Street #101 (2/2) 1,249 sqft & 2 car parking – $769,000
∙ 368 Elm Street #102 (1/1) 679 sqft & 1 car parking – $549,000
∙ 368 Elm Street #103 (2/2) 1,183 sqft & 2 car parking – $769,000
∙ 368 Elm Street #104 (0/1) 699 sqft & 1 car parking – Pending
∙ 368 Elm Street #105 (2/2) 1,153 sqft & 2 car parking – $749,000
∙ 368 Elm Street #106 (1/1) 649 sqft & 1 car parking – Pending (BMR)
∙ 368 Elm Street #107 (2/2) 1,219 sqft & 2 car parking – $749,000
∙ 368 Elm Street #201 (2/2) 1,249 sqft & 2 car parking – $769,000
∙ 368 Elm Street #202 (1/1) 679 sqft & 1 car parking – $565,000
∙ 368 Elm Street #203 (2/2) 1,183 sqft & 1 car parking – $769,000
∙ 368 Elm Street #204 (0/1) 699 sqft & 1 car parking – $489,000
∙ 368 Elm Street #205 (2/2) 1,183 sqft & 2 car parking – Pending (BMR)
∙ 368 Elm Street #206 (1/1) 679 sqft & 1 car parking – $549,000
∙ 368 Elm Street #207 (2/2) 1,249 sqft & 2 car parking – $749,000
∙ 368 Elm Street #301 (2/2) 1,249 sqft & 2 car parking – Pending
∙ 368 Elm Street #302 (1/1) 679 sqft & 1 car parking – Pending
∙ 368 Elm Street #303 (2/2) 1,183 sqft & 2 car parking – Pending (BMR)
∙ 368 Elm Street #304 (0/1) 699 sqft & 1 car parking – $499,000
∙ 368 Elm Street #305 (2/1) 1,183 sqft & 1 car parking – Pending
∙ 368 Elm Street #306 (1/1) 679 sqft & 1 car parking – $565,000
∙ 368 Elm Street #307 (2/2) 1,249 sqft & 2 car parking – $775,000
∙ 368 Elm Street #401 (2/2) 1,219 sqft & 2 car parking – Pending
∙ 368 Elm Street #402 (1/1) 649 sqft & 1 car parking – Pending
∙ 368 Elm Street #403 (2/2) 1,153 sqft & 2 car parking – $839,000
∙ 368 Elm Street #404 (0/1) 699 sqft & 1 car parking - $519,000
∙ 368 Elm Street #405 (2/2) 1,183 sqft & 2 car parking - $819,000
∙ 368 Elm Street #406 (1/1) 679 sqft & 1 car parking - $589,000
∙ 368 Elm Street #407 (2/2) 1,249 sqft & 2 car parking - $819,000
Proposed monthly HOA dues range from $319 to $392.
∙ 368 Elm Street Condos: A Sales Update [SocketSite]
∙ 368 Elm Street Condos: First Release Pricing And Scoop [SocketSite]
∙ 188 King Street: An Update [SocketSite]
First Published: January 17, 2007 12:10 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
I'd rather have more living space and less parking.
Posted by: curmudgeon at January 17, 2007 8:40 AM
My understanding is the 6 in contract are with buyers represented at other brokerages--no inside deals--listing agent hasn't written any of them yet and no developer deals. This is per the listing agent, overheard at an open house
Posted by: Anonymous at January 17, 2007 10:31 AM
Seeing how precious parking spaces are in the City, I think parking is a great differentiator for the Elm condos. To each his own.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 17, 2007 10:50 AM
I'm with curmudgeon; I don't even have a car, and though having a parking space could be useful in the future, I really doubt there will come a point any time soon when my partner and I will need two car parking. More space with one-car parking would be more attractive (and less expensive).
Posted by: Phil at January 17, 2007 11:28 AM
Sheesh some people can always find something to complain about.
The space is not going to be attached to your unit. It's not going to give you more living space. So why not make use of it. In this market, too much of something is not a bad thing. So it shouldn't be too hard to make lemonade out it: Sell your extra parking, turn it into storage, park your treadmill there.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 17, 2007 12:12 PM
What if you'd rather simply pay less than park junk there or sell it? It is excessive and annoying. Some people don't want to deal. Complaining about complainers is funny.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 17, 2007 12:27 PM
In self defense of my take on parking (anon at 12:12). No, it's not attached to your unit, but it was the developer's choice to maximize the space devoted to parking. In the same total volume of built space, there could have been more living space/less parking. And from my point of view (similar to Phil's), I would much prefer to spend my money on space I can use and enjoy. I may be an outlier in the market, but that's my personal preference.
Posted by: curmudgeon at January 17, 2007 12:33 PM
I'll make the environmentally irresponsible comment and state that we have 2 cars. Having 2 parking spots would be ideal. Thankfully now in our rental we have this arrangement since there was room in the large garage.
Posted by: Lori at January 17, 2007 12:40 PM
I'll second the environmentally irresponsible comment and echo that we have multiple cars. Finding a 2/2 with 2 car parking is relatively rare (take a look at the listings-- we looked extensively last year) which raises the marketability of the property, imho.
Posted by: Gur at January 17, 2007 12:55 PM
Are the second parking spaces tandem?
If not the developer might have done better by assigning one space to each unit and then giving buyers the option of purchasing exclusive use to a second space.
Unfortunately, though, you can't always trade off parking space for living space as curmudgeon suggests. Me, personally, I'd prefer smaller ears and longer legs, but, alas, can't be done.
Posted by: Salarywoman at January 17, 2007 1:00 PM
I like Salarywoman's recommendation alot. If only one parking space were attached to each unit, but others available for sale, it would allow all of us to be happy. And depending on market dynamics could both allow lower per unit prices (for the environmentally responsible among us...no vaue judgements of all you overconsumers...), while still generating more bottom line cash for the developer. I'm surprised that this approach is not tried more often.
Posted by: curmudgeon at January 17, 2007 2:09 PM
Renting out your spot at 360 Elm to someone else in the bldg is allowed. If you can get $250/month for it that's sort of like a ~$40,000 reduction in purchase price, depending on your mortgage loan. Even if you don't have a car you'll want at least one space for resale. Given the crime level in the neighborhood (about the highest in the city) there will be a strong incentive not to park on the street. Also it's a bit of a hike to public transportation so having a car at 368 Elm is more of an advantage than at other locations.
Some spots for the 2 BR units are tandem, others side-by-side.
Posted by: G-dog at January 17, 2007 4:01 PM
I agree with G-dog that the crime situation in this part of town really requires secure parking. I a perfect world, I would love to have an extra space for when out of town family visit. I have seen some older developments that include "guest" parking, but that concept went out when someone calculated that a parking space was worth so much in SF.
My brother's SUV was broken into while parked on the panhandle last Turkey Day. It is tough to have visitors parking where you wouldn't.
Posted by: redseca2 at January 17, 2007 4:48 PM
G dog, this is a very transit rich neighborhood. The 5 Fulton is just around the corner to go downtown, and there are buses on Van Ness too. Never thought of that location as super high crime, but I've never lived there. It seems like a relatively busy area, although there are some projects on the other side of the park (a long block and a half away).
I'd rather be more in the heart of Hayes Valley though. This is much more Van Ness corridor to me.
Posted by: curmudgeon at January 17, 2007 6:27 PM
G dog, this is a very transit rich neighborhood. The 5 Fulton is just around the corner
Well, yes. But I think you'd find yourself walking down to Market most of the time to catch a train rather than wait for a bus. When BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) happens on Van Ness that'll be a plus, but mostly to get to Market for a transfer, I'd guess. Most other new construction in SF is right on the N/T line.
Regarding crime, there's actually very little on that exact block. But if you go to the CrimeMaps web site (linked in SocketSite's reference area) and look at the amount of crime within 1/4 mile of various intersections, 368 Elm doesn't fare well so you'd need to be careful near home. That said, I haven't seen a better kitchen and living area (with fireplace!) for the dollar in new construction.
Posted by: G-dog at January 17, 2007 7:32 PM
I think the extra parking is a huge value add...with regard to the comments about parking vs. living space, how could you translate the extra parking into living space? The parking is either undnerground or at grade so it really isn't an option....it likely just worked out that because of the dimensions of the lot, there was extra parking...
Posted by: anon at January 17, 2007 8:56 PM
To those who have seen this place and are familiar with that area, how would you compare this project with, say, the Palms? They are obviously very different in just about every way. But which is better in terms of value/dollar? Which would you think will likely yield a better return a few years down the line? Thanks in advance for any opinions.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 18, 2007 11:53 AM
My two cents on Palms v Elm:
Palms you're already paying top dollar for much less sqft. The market down there is garnering premium prices but if you look at some of the other projects down near South Beach that are a bit older, they're just not pulling in $1000/sqft and some of them, like units at the Brannan sort of languish on the market. I think there is less upside for the Palms bcs its ultra-modern...and how long does ultra-modern last, a week? a month? a year? 2 years? PLUS there are so many new units slated to come on the market down there in the next years AND parking is not deeded. Lastly, so so many speculators bought at the Palms--and they got locked into their contracts as the market started to, ehhem, adjust. So, are we likely to see a dearth of Palms units on the market in the coming years? No way--the contrary: especially when short- term ARMs go adjustable. The Palms is the "it" life-style for now, but not forever, and people spent too much on those units at the wrong time. I'm still astounded that people are reserving like mad at Infinity and Rincon etc.
Whereas, the so-called "Cathedral Hill" still has a lot of room for growth, people who are buying at 368 Elm are buying to live not to flip. Octavia Blvd is going to yield a lot of growth for that part of the City (The Hayes is extremely well-positioned by the way). Plus two-car parking is a huge value-add, I don't care if you need the space or not AND where are you going to find a non-shoe box 2/2 new construction w/ two-car parking for $620/sqft with easy access to most neighborhoods? Seems like a no brainer, but maybe buyers value current trends over buying a home.
In the end, Palms buyers are paying a premium now because someone/something like 7x7 Magazine has designated the Palms the most popular kid in school--and so buying there means you can tell people you bought there. Today: Cool! Tomorrow: Yawn. (You've been to your high school reunion, yes?)
Posted by: Anonymous at January 19, 2007 4:11 PM
The Palms is have a lot of trouble selling their remaining units right now-- there are some good deals to be had if you are tough on negotiation. I recently heard of a deal where the Buyer negotiated the parking and got a deeded space instead of a rental one.
General consensus in our office is that 368 Elm has gorgeous finishings and good square footage. The location seems a little bland, but you are within striking distance of lots of neat-o stuff in Hayes Valley and movies at Opera Plaza are right around the corner.
For resale, parking is critical. If I can afford it, I'd want it - even if I didn't have a car.
Posted by: Cece Blase at January 20, 2007 1:49 PM
Saw the Elm. The appliances are in no comparison to the Palms, but they aren’t bad either. I was surprised, however, by what a poor poor job they did with the installation, paint, flooring and so on. Corners are chipped, and floors are already scratched up. Most units’ bedrooms either look into each other or at the ugly building next door which is like 15 feet away. What really shocked me was that when I was in unit 207, there were 2 homeless people having sex in the parking lot across the street. I couldn’t believe my eyes…I don’t care much for Palm’s location either. But after driving around the Elm and near the park by a couple of blocks, I don’t think I’d wonder around that area again.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 21, 2007 2:49 AM
Just used the crime map also, there were so many dots around the Elm that I couldn't see streets. A little better around the Palms.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 21, 2007 2:51 AM
Yes, we also saw a similar "action" going on
right across the street - a guy getting a BJ! We immediately left the building and not going back soon...
Posted by: Anonymous at January 22, 2007 11:18 AM
What's not to love about this building. Smaller building, great finishes and two car parking to boot. At the prices for what's available here I can't see living anywhere else that did not have a little bit of city action going on outdoors. Should San Francisco be somehow exclusive to such unpleasantries? If you can find a 2/2 with parking in the city for under $800K without the riff raff... let me know were it is.
Posted by: jack at October 9, 2007 6:44 PM