Okay, so for a while we’ve been hearing rumblings from brokers to builders that the developers of The Infinity have been discussing going rental rather than sales with their second tower (at least initially). That being said, we haven’t been able to confirm it as fact (and perhaps it’s simply contingency planning gone awry).
And now according to a “plugged in” reader, it’s rumored that One Rincon Hill’s second tower has been put on hold “held back.” Once again, we haven’t been able to confirm (and we’re not sure if the rumor simply refers to sales, construction, or both).
If either of these rumblings are true, it’s not particularly positive commentary on the near-term strength of the market (or new development absorption). On the flipside, either action would increase the near-term scarcity of ownership opportunities in these developments (and help throttle back San Francisco’s condominium pipeline).
And as far as our inventory index (Cii) is concerned, we’re still assuming both towers will hit the pre-construction market in 2007.
UPDATE (2/20): Just to be clear, we haven’t heard even the faintest whisper about “cancelling” either of these towers. At this point it’s simply a question of timing with one and initial use with the other.
UPDATE (2/22): We’re now guessing our “plugged in” reader was absolutely correct about a big project that’s being “held back” on Rincon Hill, but that it’s The Californian on Rincon Hill and not One Rincon Hill that has changed its sales/construction dates. (And that’s news, not rumor.)
The Infinity Continues To Grow Up [SocketSite]
JustQuotes: Nope, Not Included In Our “Near-Term Likely” Cii Pipeline [SocketSite]
One Rincon Hill: Hovering Around 90% Sold [SocketSite]
SocketSite’s Complete Inventory Index (CII): Q1 2007 [SocketSite]
The Californian On Rincon Hill Construction/Sales Pushed Back [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Damion

    If the second tower of Infinity becomes a rental building, the developer still would have the option of selling it as a condo building in a few years… or selling it as an apartment building and getting his money in one big chunk. Either way I’m guessing it’s more profitable than trying to sell the condos for the next few years. I have no inside info, but it just seems the logicial way to go.
    [Editor’s Note: And don’t forget the potential tax credits associated with leasing now and selling later.]

  2. Posted by Morgan

    If either of these rumors are true, than who can possibly still believe the nonsense about all those plans for building the tallest towers in the West project up on Mission Street? This news mirrors what I am seeing throughout the construction industry, which is projects being put on hold, developers not paying bills, and plans being scaled back. I have never had so many contractors calling me looking for work (large scale residential construction projects) as they have in the last two months. Two years ago I could not even get them to return my calls or send back written estimates for upcoming work. The slowing down of all these new projects could also make One Rincon feel more “isolated” for a longer period of time than some buyers may have forecast.

  3. Posted by Anonymous

    The same rumor went around about the Palms with their unsold units a few months ago. It was nothing but another attempt to create a false impression of limited future availability while sales number itself is too behind to be played tricks on. Nice try, but it didn’t work. Would Infinity play it differently? Well, at their current rate of sales they’d probably do just about anything, including spreading this and that rumor like others. Suppose this time a rumor actually does become reality, I’m curious what most Infinity’s current buyers will think at the end when more than half of the residents pay fraction of the price to live in the better located building. I suspect all of a sudden the obstructed bay view would seem somewhat bittersweet.

  4. Posted by badlydrawnbear

    so much for “everyone wants to live here”

  5. Posted by Anonymous

    What’s the pricing at the Infinity? Have they lowered pricing trying to entice more buyers? Did anyone get lower than asking?
    With talk about renting, i’m sure they are willing to “drop” prices?
    Anyone??

  6. Posted by jgmachen

    These rumors should come as no surprise to any plugged in person in the city.
    I would be keenly interested if anyone has been able to successfully approach either of these projects with a low-ball offer? Some where they have to be feeling pain. Just curious as to how much.

  7. Posted by tipster

    No second towers? Why?! Did Google move out of their new offices. Gosh, last month that was going to save residential real estate in SoMa, and I’m shocked, shocked, that the developers of these properties aren’t adding a third tower for those employees alone!
    On a more serious note, it’s probably looking like a good chunk of the deposit holders will be walking away from their deposits, so why bother adding a second towers when you are going to have to re-sell the first one.
    As for Mission street, it’s probably a good part of the reason Rincon is on hold: who the heck would buy a place way out by the freeway when there is an alternative right in SoMa. I suspect that if it weren’t for the Mission towers proceeding, the reconsideration of the other projects might not be performed.
    An lowball offers don’t get accepted when there are hundreds of 3% deposits. That is, unless the developer wants to see all of them get turned back in in a hurry. Instead, they’ll do almost anything not to lower the price. You’re more likely to get something if you ask for it to be tossed in for free: upgrades, a new $600K Ferrari, whatever, as long as the price doesn’t go down forcing the developer to take back units faster than will already happen.

  8. Posted by Soma Resident

    A friend of mine went to Infinity last week. They are not lowering prices though they are no longer raising them (for obvious reasons). There are a number of lower and mid floor units available in the tower and many more in the midrises, though almost all of the upper floors tower units are in contract.
    No word from the sales office that the 2nd tower will be rentals. In fact, they said sales could begin later this year. They have already started contructing the core of the 2nd tower so looks like it will happen…

  9. Posted by Anonymous

    So, if they are putting a halt on current constructions projects in the area, what does that mean for approved projects that were to begin construction within the next 1-2 years (Californian on Rincon Hill, 201 Folsom, etc)?

  10. Posted by SF Living

    It shouldn’t come as a surprise 1Rincon is pulling the plug on the second tower.
    With Millenium (better location), and Infinity (better location) selling, or renting, or both, who would want to live in that isolated office building right next to a freeway onramp?
    If fact this could mean all the other proposed towers (Fremont St, Turnberry, etc…) in Rincon Hill could be postponed/delayed. It would truly isolate 1Rincon for years and years to come…
    As for Infinity, if I were a buyer, the cancellation of these towers including 201 Folsom would be a bit of good news since it’ll shrink inventory and preserve views….

  11. Posted by Anonymous

    There is something to be said for “the cancellation of these towers including 201 Folsom would be good news since it’ll shrink inventory” as I have been holding off trading my house for a city condo because it seemed like every week another new tower was proclaimed with better views and locations. I also fear that One Rincon will be sticking out there by itself for quite a while and this has made me convinced to buy only in more established neighborhoods where units are priced similar to Rincon and Infinity but you get to still feel like you live in San Francisco instead of Irvine.

  12. Posted by Phil

    “If either of the rumblings are true, it’s not particularly positive commentary on the near-term strength of the market (particularly with regard to new development absorption).”
    I think it’s not a particulary postive commentary on a certain *segment* of the market – create developments that can be afforded by a larger portion of San Francisco’s population and I doubt there would be anything in the way of slack demand.

  13. Posted by SF Living

    1Rincon will probably turn into an oddball building known more for it’s isolation and terrible location more than anything else… Definitely won’t have any kind of neighborhood feel for years, unfortunately…
    Infinity is probably in a better position. It’s a block from the waterfront and surrounded by established businesses, retail shops and restaurants, not to mention the new grocery store, cafes, and shops going up within the Infinity complex.
    It’s also an advantage Infinity builds the second tower (rentals or not) since it’ll help create a “neighborhood”.

  14. Posted by Anonymous

    1Rincon reminds me of the Occidental Petroleum building in downtown Los Angeles. They took a gamble in the 70’s that the growth of the skyline would head south along Figueroa , and instead it went north. Now when you drive into the center of L.A. there is a huge cluster of buildings centered around 5th and Flower street while way down by itself sits the Occidental tower all alone, unable to attract tenants, and surrounded by auto repair shops and furniture wholesale warehouses.

  15. Posted by Anonymous

    I don’t know what all this isolation talk about One Rincon is all about. Bridgeview, the Lansing and Metropolitan are litterly right next door.

  16. Posted by Anonymous

    I second tipster’s question at 2:38 PM. Why is the mighty Google only watching on the sideline and not saving the world now?

  17. Posted by Anonymous

    When I think of 1Rincon’s location I think of an empty, windswept, dusty, grayish area devoid of any pedestrians and any ‘neighborly’ feel.
    Yes, there’s other buildings around but what people were hoping for was a neighborhood and that’s just simply not gonna happen.
    It’s an area known mostly for the onramps and traffic and not much else and one 1Rincon building is not gonna change that…

  18. Posted by Anonymous

    I’ve been missing some of the recent postings. Can someone tell me what the issue is with One Rincon vs. Infinity?

  19. Posted by 49Giants

    Anonymous at 8:33pm,
    Oh man, don’t ask.

  20. Posted by Anonymous

    I don’t it’s so much 1Rincon vs Infinity anymore.
    It’s more like folks are just pointing out all the negatives surrounding the 1Rincon project. And the negatives so far seem unending…

  21. Posted by Paul Hwang

    If Tishman Speyer were to make the second building “Rentals” that would seem like a material fact that needs to be disclosed to prospective Buyers. This also seems like it would affect not only the lender financing for the project but also the lender financing for the individual buyers. Why would Tishman Speyer expose themselves to so much liability and endanger the success of the entire project?
    As far as One Rincon not building the second tower, why would they not build it after the success of the first tower?
    In regards to the area being desolate; I usually find if you plop down a couple thousand people in one place, someone will try to sell them something. Retail will take care of itself.
    I have to say I am a little suprised that Socketsite chose to start this thread. It seems like an unlimited amount of liability to me if two giant corporations should feel they are damaged by these “rumors”. You got some rocks Adam! 1st Ammendment!

  22. Posted by Dan

    I think the 2nd towers of the Infinity and 1Rincon will get built. But the focus of future high rise construction will return to building offices, with the declining office vacancy rates.
    The New York Times has an article on the hot-again real estate market there. SF isn’t NYC, but if SF’s economy continues to improve, it will be interesting to see how that affects the housing market.

  23. Posted by John

    “Why would Tishman Speyer expose themselves to so much liability and endanger the success of the entire project?”
    So far it’s all rumors and unsubstantiated claims. I doubt a seasoned developer like Tishman would make a blunder like that.
    I’m sure the rental choice is an option to them, but at this point it’s only an ‘option’ and I see them proceeding with sales of the second tower later this year. Of course the market will dictate what they really do when the time comes…
    “In regards to the area being desolate; I usually find if you plop down a couple thousand people in one place, someone will try to sell them something. Retail will take care of itself.”
    No Paul, the place IS desolate except for the constant stream of traffic…
    A few thousand people already live there. Let’s see, we have the Met, Bridgeview, the Lansing, Baycrest, Avalon, etc…
    All those residences and the place is far from a “neighborhood” with amble retail and food establishments.
    The Met is a good example, the building finished around 2004 and absolutely nothing’s changed in the immediate neighborhood. How is 1Rincon any different?

  24. Posted by Anonymous

    When I look at the news link at One Ricon Hill website, the old news (June 2006) always says it will build 55 and 45-story 2 towers, I am not sure since when it says it has 60-story for first tower when you read the latest news in Feb 2007, in the news it even says “the front entrance on First Street will be labeled the fifth floor “That sounds strange, as a one rincon buyer, I don’t want to have a view 6-floor lower that I supposed to live, could anyone help me to clear this up? I hope the sales office is not playing games with me….

  25. Posted by Anonymous

    I just looked at the folder I got from One Rincon pre-sale party in June, it says “55-story tower” however, it does have floor plan for 3-bedroom between 55-60, are they newly added?

  26. Posted by tipster

    Oh, honestly, you guys, there is no “neighborhood” at One Rincon and there never will be. The place was built for people to come in from the east bay on the occasional weekend, drive in, drive out. No retail establishment other than a gas station will last very long in that environment. There aren’t going to be any customers.
    The question about why the developer wouldn’t build the second tower given the “success” of the first one, that success is a house of cards. The “purchasers” put down 3% deposits that they can walk away from if prices drop by 3% from the peak, when they all put their deposits down. Newsflash: we’re already more than 3% down from the peak. The developer is going to have to re-sell a lot of those units.
    Even those who actually want to live there (a good percentage were hoping for an easy flip) will just renegotiate the purchase price to 3% above the market price or they’ll walk. Or I should say, they’ll drive away, since those people probably haven’t actually walked anywhere in years.

  27. Posted by Anonymous

    If I’m not mistaken, that 60 stories includes 55 stories of above grade living over 5 stories of parking/common. As Anon 12:08 notes: “the front entrance on First Street will be labeled the fifth floor”.

  28. Posted by Paul Hwang

    I walk from the Metropolitan to One Rincon Hill to the Infinity almost every day. It’s really not that far. Even if most of the retail is centered near the Infinity I don’t believe it is an unreasonable distance to walk there from 1st and Harrison.
    Happy Chinese New Year!

  29. Posted by Anon

    Dan – could you post a link to the nytimes article referencing the hot again market in NYC because I didn’t see it. Aside from the ultra high end penthouse market which is benefitting from the record bonus handouts, my understanding is their broader market is pretty similar to SF now – not hot, but not cold either. Or are you referencing their rental market? As I have also read that rental prices have been going way up.

  30. Posted by Anonymous

    Hi, Anon at 12:51, if I remember correctly, the residence starting from 8th floor, the price list I got from the pre-sale party first night also starts at 8th, I was told from 7th floor and below are for parking….

  31. Posted by Anonymous

    1Rincon’s first tower sales performance was completely due to its pricing. Yes, it’ll be “the tallest residential building west of Mississippi” and the view is the sweetest east of whatever. But all the marketing efforts only assisted in making buyers believe they found a reasonable purchase given the $800/sqft price. The credit goes to Infinity for over pricing themselves and making excellent comps! Had 1Rincon priced as high as the Infinity, their sales performance would be an entirely different story.
    The game goes you start selling with lower prices (or at least you advertise that you do) and once the word gets out and settles, it’ll somehow carry through the project as the developer quietly increases their prices. Very often buyers overpaid thinking they bought at the “under-priced” project.
    The problem 1Rincon faces now is that their initial pricing strategy is about to backfire. The developer will definitely want to raise their price by whole lot to make up their given up profits that they exchanged with stolen deposits from Infinity. Now how do you justify this being that the second building is far less desirable? Since the place is about height and views, the second tower is much shorter, it sits lower and most of the lower and mid level units’ views will get blocked in just about every direction. Hence the rumor they will put their second building on hold. Yeah right!
    There is no way that the developer is going to put anything on hold knowing the kind of competition that’s coming up. If they do, they’ll have to wait it out for as long as 4, 5 years if not more. By then they’ll have exhausted their king of the hill image, and buyers will look to satisfy their ego else where. Infinity is not turning anything into rental either. Can you imagine how many cancellations they’ll get if that happens? Who would want to pay as much as $1100/sqft for a place where the all the renters look down at the owners from their better located building? They will start selling soon but not too soon due to lack of sales. They’ll pretend they sold well and don’t have to lower their prices. But one way or another they will. Buyers are getting smarter now and are much more willing to wait.

  32. Posted by Anonymous

    Just a small note to say that I believe in Vancuver B.C. is a residential building that will be the tallest residential tower (76 stories) west of Chicago. It is currently under construction.
    Also…Is there THAT great of a difference in price between Infinity and 1Rincon?

  33. Posted by Anonymous

    “Is there THAT great of a difference in price between Infinity and 1Rincon? ”
    For those who got in early, the difference is about $200-$300/sqft if not more. Multiply it by the square footage, say, 1250. You tell me. People made all kinds of arguments here in terms of Infinity’s prices, including those who work for the developers (“Hi…”). It’ll be interesting to see who wins a few months from now. My guess is the patient buyers will.

  34. Posted by Damion

    Re. Tishman Speyer’s liability, Paul — they have certainly protected themselves from any unforseeable changes that could take place regarding plans for Phase Two (Tower D). The contract makes it very clear. Under “Market Conditions Statements,” 7.7 (f):
    “Seller has the right to discontinue construction in any community according to market demand at its sole discretion”
    And in 7.7 (e):
    “Seller has the right in its sole and absolute discretion, to reduce or increase the size of units in the community, to change materials, change plans and/or specifications or discontinue construction in all communities developed by Seller at its sole discretion and according to market demand. All prices, terms, upgrades, and any other concessions for other units in any existing or proposed phase of this community or any other community of Seller are subject to change at the absolute discretion of Seller. Further, by signing the Agreement Buyer agrees that it will not oppose any action taken by Seller (before any governmental agency with jurisdiction over Phase I) to reduce or increase the size of units to be constructed in the community or to change the materials, plans and specifications of such units. Buyer, by signing the Agreement, is accepting the sales price for the Property (and improvements) and is fully satisfied with such price and any incentives received in connection therewith.”
    And most specifically to this issue, item 7.7 (g):
    “Seller makes no representations or warranties regarding future phases, including (i) the product type (i.e. single family, condominiums, etc.) and density, {ii) unit size, (iii) architectural design, (iv) lot or building elevations, (v) lot or plan configuration, (vi) building materials and costs, (vii) current or future recreational, governmental or utility facilities or (viii) the presence or absence of any view or scene from any portion of the Property.”
    Furthermore, the contract references Phase II, but doesn’t specify what it will be or what the prices will be or whether it will be a rental building. They just say “it is anticipated that the Property may include a fourth building, which, if constructed, will constitute Phase II of the project. This fourth building would be located at 338 Spear Street (Tower D). Tower D is currently scheduled to be under construction after completion of the other buildings at the Project.”

  35. Posted by Anonymous

    Cover story in today’s New York Times indicates that condo market in NYC is redhot again. Don’t see why that won’t carry through to SF. BTW, SOMA will never be like Irvine. Irvine is building 30 story condos but there are no sidewalks and even if there were sidewalks there are no places to walk to. Irvine does have some good restaurants — all the good ones are Asian.

  36. Posted by Anonymous

    How would NYC “red hot” condo market translate over to San Francisco? Talk about Apples and Oranges. As a former New Yorker, the diversity of the NYC economy is huge compared to here. World Financial Capitol, more Fortune 500 headquarters, Fashion, Entertainment, Media all are based or a major player in the NYC economy. There is no comparison. Please remember that the #1 industry in San Francsico is tourism.

  37. Posted by eddy

    “On the ‘flip’side.”
    Now that’s funny.

  38. Posted by Anonymous

    Paul, I appreciate your candor, but at the same time, you do have an agenda. As a real estate agent, you do have a major stake in the success of these projects and others in the area. Also, if you or anyone else lives in one of the current condos, you also have a stake.
    Now, at the same time, I think that a lot of people are unneccesarily badmouthing both the projects and the area. Lots of old-timer San Franciscans can’t understand why anyone would even dream of living in the city if they aren’t in one of the “prime” areas (Marina, Pac Heights, Russian Hill, Nob Hill). They seem to take it personally when they hear about these elaborate plans for SOMA, South Beach, Mission Bay, Transbay Terminal, etc, that will eventually “outdo” their neighborhoods. As a renter in the South Beach area and future buyer, I would look long term at this area, more than the older, washed up neighborhoods. Those places have reached their potential and in my opinion are fairly passe. The new parts of the city are only beginning to develop and I only see brighter days ahead. Now, there may be some iterations with certain projects (i.e. temporary halting of development due to a sagging market, denial by city planners, longer than expected for environmental studies, etc). However, if I were a betting man, I would put my money on SOMA/South Beach, not on Marina, Pac Heights. Now, there are some empty holes and undeveloped areas still. However, as an area resident, I personally think we have more amenities within walking distance than you do in Marina/Pac Heights. They just aren’t currently clustered on one or two streets. Give it a few years and this should change.

  39. Posted by John Kelley

    San Francisco’s economy is more diverse than you might think. Two of the top six fastest growing cosmetics brands — Benefit and Bare Escentuals — are here. Method, the fastest growing producer of cleaning products, is here and is branching into personal care. Gaming and digital entertainment are much bigger here than New York. Biotech is almost nonexistent in New York and is booming here. Of course thousands of Biogen and Amgen employees live in the city. But beyond that, Mission Bay is going to be generating serious jobs. Sirna — now owned by Merck — is on track for a significant expansion in Mission Bay. Fibrogens 450,000 square foot campus is under construction. (they have an $8 billion licensing deal with a Japanese drugmaker.) Oracle, Salesforce, Barclays, Microsoft, Yahoo, Google: all these companies are taking more space in the city, not giving it up.
    Of course the danger with San Francisco is that companies started here inevitably reach a point where they are either acquired or go public. And once you have shareholders or out-of-town ownership calling the shots, the question of the cost of doing business and living in San Francisco becomes a factor.

  40. Posted by Anonymous

    “Is there THAT great of a difference in price between Infinity and 1Rincon? ”
    The fact is very few buyers got in at $800/sqft at 1Rincon (unless you’re a employee, family member or work in the sales office). A few dozen got in at $800-900/sqft during the presale period. And out of those, a number of them cancelled out before going into contract. 1Rincon then re-priced those units to market rate (i.e. $900-$1000sqft).
    So yes, some regular folks got in at $800+/sqft, but the actual number is few and far apart…
    Infinity started pricing at $850+/sqft for units in the middle floors and $900+/sqft for the higher floors initially. Again, those were for early releases and those prices are mostly gone…
    I don’t think the there is THAT great a difference when comparing early releases between the two. 1Rincon released more units at lower prices than Infinity and thus sold more, but the price difference is not as much as most folks make out to be.
    It’s all about marketing, and 1Rincon’s marketing team deserves a gold medal for creating that buzz that carried them thru even though they continued to raise prices. People saw they were 50, 60, 70% sold out and felt they had to get in and convinced themselves they got a good price though they probably overpaid given the location, competition, etc…

  41. Posted by Anonymous

    What a great marketing team of One Rincon, claimed to be 55-floor (54+ top floor for mechanical needs) now it’s 62(60 +2 top floor), they released units with lower prices first, then push your unit 6-floor down and create another 6 floor on the top!!

  42. Posted by jgmachen

    Comparing the SF economy to NYC is a joke. SF’s economy is diverse, but it pales in comparison to NYC. SF hasn’t even tipped the 1 million mark in population.
    Think of the amount of money that is exchanged on Wall Street alone on any given day? It’s mind boggling HUGE. Coupled with media, entertainment, fashion, SF lags.
    I’m neither a native of SF or NYC, but have lived in both. Currently live in SF (SOMA).
    Run the numbers (without emotions)…NYC wins in economic size and diversity.

  43. Posted by Anonymous

    Obviously the financial industry is big in NY — but you could add up all the fashion companies and throw in most of media and just about equal one Google.

  44. Posted by YupYup

    This is one of the great unheralded comedy sites on the internet. “I would look long term at this area, more than the older, washed up neighborhoods. Those places have reached their potential and in my opinion are fairly passe.”
    That’s right: Pacific Heights and Russian Hill are washed up. Neighborhoods have sell-by dates, you see. That’s why the Marina is a ghost-town of 73-year-old invalids who can’t afford to move South of California St. For the rest of us: why stroll down Fillmore when you could be on Harrison? Why buy into a neighborhood with schools, restaurants, small local businesses, a complex social structure, and a history? That stuff is passe.

  45. Posted by Anonymous

    When I first moved to the city I had one realtor that got straight to the point. “Honey, I don’t care what people tell you, I only show properties north of California Street. Period!” She was serious , and she had some interesting facts and statistics to back up her point. I have sold and moved on to Marin but her words keep ringing in my head now that I am thinking of moving back to the city, “Do you want to live in San Francisco, or next to the freeway!?”.

  46. Posted by Dan

    “I only show properties north of California Street. Period!”
    San Francisco has changed. There are some beautiful neighborhoods north of California St. However, the residents of many of these neighborhoods are now a mix of very wealthy people, and older folks who moved in to their neighborhoods many years ago, when it was much less expensive to do so.
    The creative center of gravity of the city, along with its best dining and nightlife, lie south of California St.
    If I had $3 million dollars to spend on a house, I would buy that Parnassus Heights home (or the one by Buena Vista Park) over one in Pacific Heights . If I had $5 million to spend, I’d want that modernist palace that a Google jackpot winner bought in Noe Valley, rather than a Victorian in Pac Heights. I’d much rather live in The Potrero than in those new Lombard St. condos.
    I can understand the appeal of those northern neighborhoods, especially for older, more conservative folks. But I’m amused by the posters who seem to be totally unfamiliar with the City outside of the Marina and Pac Heights.

  47. Posted by Sleepiguy

    Yes, but what happens when architectural trends change and the new developements are no longer in style or just look dated? Why invest millions in properties that haven’t proven to retain their value?
    That said, SF REALLY needs more architectural diversity!

  48. Posted by Anonymous

    In those “older” northern neighborhoods (older by what standards? People live in homes that have changed little in 200 years in Europe!) — homes sell quicker than in ANY neighborhood in the City, and probably the entire region, AND they have continued to have the biggest appreciation over any other area.

  49. Posted by Anonymous

    Going back to the original posting, has anyone had anymore insight into whether the second 1Rincon tower is cancelled, or whether Infinity is seriously consider turning the second tower to rentals? (highly doubtful is my opinion on the rental rumor…)
    Frederick originally reported this, but hasn’t followed up. Frederick??
    http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2007/02/justquotes_nope_not_included_in_our_nearterm_likely_cii.html#comments

  50. Posted by Anonymous

    If property prices fell dramatically, couldn’t the buyers of One Rincon and the Infinity (or any other building that did pre-sale)just renegotiate their purchase prices or threaten to walk away from the deal? It would be safer for the developer to renegotiate with a pre-approved buyer who they know is ready to buy than wait for a complete new buyer to come along for the same unit especially if the market becomes rocky.

  51. Posted by Anonymous

    This is one of the great unheralded comedy sites on the internet. “I would look long term at this area, more than the older, washed up neighborhoods. Those places have reached their potential and in my opinion are fairly passe.”
    “That’s right: Pacific Heights and Russian Hill are washed up. Neighborhoods have sell-by dates, you see. That’s why the Marina is a ghost-town of 73-year-old invalids who can’t afford to move South of California St. For the rest of us: why stroll down Fillmore when you could be on Harrison? Why buy into a neighborhood with schools, restaurants, small local businesses, a complex social structure, and a history? That stuff is passe.”
    I guess this person felt compelled to defend their own neighborhood. Funny that people can endlessly attack Rincon Hill but when it comes to criticism of their own area then socketsite becomes comedy. You got to love the hypocrisy.

  52. Posted by SF Living

    “If property prices fell dramatically, couldn’t the buyers of One Rincon and the Infinity (or any other building that did pre-sale)just renegotiate their purchase prices or threaten to walk away from the deal?”
    I don’t think we’re there yet (at least for the people that got in early, they’re probably still ok). But I’m sure the developers are little nervous…
    Walking away from 3% is certainly better than closing on a property that’s worth 5-10% less than what you bought it for. If the developer doesn’t want to be stuck with unsold and unwanted inventory, they’d be wise to renegociate given qualified buyers are hard to come by these days…

  53. Posted by Dude

    No idea if any of these rumors are true, but it would be sad given that the city needs more housing and the figurative and literal rise of SOMA/Mission Bay is a great thing.
    But if they are true, it goes to show how much speculation there has been in the market. I mean, if you’re a “real” buyer and believer in the SF market long term – if you love the condo, want to live in it, and can afford it – do you really care if prices go down 3-5%?

  54. Posted by tipster

    If the developer doesn’t want to be stuck with unsold and unwanted inventory, they’d be wise to renegotiate (given qualified buyers are hard to come by these days…
    What makes you think those “buyers” (the ones who put 3% down) are qualified? How many of these so-called buyers were planning on 0 down (after the 3% deposit) financing when they put that 3% down, and won’t be able to get it when its time to exercise the option?
    And exactly how easy is it to qualify for a mortgage when the contract price is so much higher than the actual appraised value, as indicated by the lower-priced re-sells of contracts that fell out?
    Now you begin to see the real problems for this developer, and you can see why they might not want to put up a second tower while they are hanging out there on the three percenters who, if they don’t walk away, could get pushed away by their lenders.

  55. Posted by Tom

    Also, keep in mind that most of the units in Infinity required 5%.

  56. Posted by SocketSite

    Folks, we haven’t heard even the faintest whisper about “cancelling” either of these towers. At this point it’s simply a question of timing with one and initial use with the other.

  57. Posted by Anonymous

    Infinity’s second tower will happen. Tishman Speyer is a huge global development and investment conglomerate (heck, they own the Chrysler Building and Rockefeller Center in NY, and built half a dozen other large buildings in San Franisco).
    I’m sure they can absorb any short term weakness in the market. The second tower’s core is already 3-4 stories high and rising rapidly.
    Not sure about the 1Rincon developers though. I think they’re quite small which would explain their nervousness…

  58. Posted by Anonymous

    “Also, keep in mind that most of the units in Infinity required 5%.”
    They require 5% at contract, but according to California law, can only keep 3% of the non-refundable deposit. Basically same as 1Rincon.

  59. Posted by tom

    Under California law they can only keep 3%? As a 5% depositor, that is comforting to hear if things get bad, can you direct me to what law this is?
    Thanks

  60. Posted by Paul Hwang

    Liquidated damages are a sum certain that the parties agree to when it would be impracticable or extremely difficult to fix the actual value. In California, on an agreement involving the sale of four or less residential units, if the amount does not exceed three percent of the purchase price, the claimed liquidated damages are valid unless the buyer establishes that the amount is unreasonable as liquidated damages. If the amount claimed exceeds three percent of the purchase price, the burden is on the party seeking to uphold the liquidated damages. In determining the reasonableness of liquidated damages, courts take into account the circumstances existing when the contract was made and the price and terms of any subsequent sale made within six months of the buyer’s default. This liquidated damages provision must be separately signed, initialed, and in 10-point bold type or 8-point red type. (California Civil Code §1677.)
    Accordingly, if a downpayment is held as liquidated damages, notwithstanding the initialing of a liquidated damages provision, the liquidated damages cannot necessarily be automatically retained. The damages claimed will be evaluated based upon the subsequent events surrounding the sale. Clearly, once the six-month safe harbor has passed, a subsequent sale of the property is no longer a consideration in evaluating the reasonableness of liquidated damages.

  61. Posted by Paul Hwang

    California Civil Code Section 1675
    (a) As used in this section, “residential property” means real property primarily consisting of a dwelling that meets both of the following requirements:
    (1) The dwelling contains not more than four residential units.
    (2) At the time the contract to purchase and sell the property is made, the buyer intends to occupy the dwelling or one of its units as his or her residence.
    (b) A provision in a contract to purchase and sell residential property that provides that all or any part of a payment made by the buyer shall constitute liquidated damages to the seller upon the buyer’s failure to complete the purchase of the property is valid to the extent that payment in the form of cash or check, including a postdated check, is actually made if the provision satisfies the requirements of Sections 1677 and 1678 and either subdivision (c) or (d) of this section.
    (c) If the amount actually paid pursuant to the liquidated damages provision does not exceed 3 percent of the purchase price, the provision is valid to the extent that payment is actually made unless the buyer establishes that the amount is unreasonable as liquidated damages.
    (d) If the amount actually paid pursuant to the liquidated damages provision exceeds 3 percent of the purchase price, the provision is invalid unless the party seeking to uphold the provision establishes that the amount actually paid is reasonable as liquidated damages.
    (e) For the purposes of subdivisions (c) and (d), the reasonableness of an amount actually paid as liquidated damages shall be determined by taking into account both of the following:
    (1) The circumstances existing at the time the contract was made.
    (2) The price and other terms and circumstances of any subsequent sale or contract to sell and purchase the same property if the sale or contract is made within six months of the buyer’s default.
    (f) (1) Notwithstanding either subdivision (c) or (d), for the initial sale of newly constructed attached condominium units, as defined pursuant to Section 783 of the Civil Code, that involves the sale of an attached residential condominium unit located within a structure of 10 or more residential condominium units and the amount actually paid to the seller pursuant to the liquidated damages provision exceeds 3 percent of the purchase price of the residential unit in the transaction both of the following shall occur in the event of a buyer’s default:
    (A) The seller shall perform an accounting of its costs and revenues related to and fairly allocable to the construction and sale of the residential unit within 60 calendar days after the final close of escrow of the sale of the unit within the structure.
    (B) The accounting shall include any and all costs and revenues related to the construction and sale of the residential property and any delay caused by buyer’s default. The seller shall make reasonable efforts to mitigate any damages arising from the default. The seller shall refund to the buyer any amounts previously retained as liquidated damages in excess of the greater of either 3 percent of the originally agreed-upon purchase price of the residential property or the amount of the seller’s losses resulting from the buyer’s default, as calculated by the accounting.
    (2) The refund shall be sent to the buyer’s last known address within 90 days after the final close of escrow of the sale or lease of all the residential condominium units within the structure.
    (3) If the amount retained by the seller after the accounting does not exceed 3 percent of the purchase price, the amount is valid unless the buyer establishes that the amount is unreasonable as liquidated damages pursuant to subdivision (e).
    (4) Subdivision (d) shall not apply to any dispute regarding the reasonableness of any amount retained as liquidated damages pursuant to this subdivision.
    (5) Notwithstanding the time periods regarding the performance of the accounting set forth in paragraph (1), if a “new qualified buyer” has entered into a contract to purchase the residential property in question, the seller shall perform the accounting within 60 calendar days after a new qualified buyer has entered into a contract to purchase.
    (6) As used in this subdivision, the term “structure” shall mean either of the following:
    (A) Improvements constructed on a common foundation.
    (B) Improvements constructed by the same owner that must be constructed concurrently due to the design characteristics of the improvements or physical characteristics of the property on which the improvements are located.
    (7) As used in this subdivision, the term “new qualified buyer” shall mean a buyer that:
    (A) Has been issued a loan commitment, which satisfies the purchase agreement loan contingency requirement, by an institutional lender to obtain a loan for an amount equal to the purchase price less any downpayment possessed by the buyer.
    (B) Has contracted to pay a purchase price that is greater than or equal to the purchase price to be paid by the original buyer.

  62. Posted by Anonymous

    “Under California law they can only keep 3%? As a 5% depositor, that is comforting to hear if things get bad, can you direct me to what law this is?
    Thanks”
    Just brilliant. If people who bought into a $1+ Million condo start getting worried about 2% it shows you how “well qualified” they are for this purchase. Interesting to watch how all this will unfold (rather unravel).

  63. Posted by Michael

    Paul – Doesn’t the 3% issue with pre-construction have more to do with AB728 than the Civil Code?

  64. Posted by Anonymouse

    If they don’t go through with tower 2 of 1Rincon, does that mean each owner of Tower1 gets a parking spot? No more Valet?

  65. Posted by Anonymous

    “If they don’t go through with tower 2 of 1Rincon, does that mean each owner of Tower1 gets a parking spot? No more Valet?”
    The developer still reserves the right the build the second building and probably will so at some point so I doubt they will turn the valet parking into deeded parking spaces.
    If they do though, the developer could easily sell them off at say $50-75k each. I’m sure they won’t just give them away…

  66. Posted by Anonymous

    “”Under California law they can only keep 3%? As a 5% depositor, that is comforting to hear if things get bad, can you direct me to what law this is?
    Thanks”
    Just brilliant. If people who bought into a $1+ Million condo start getting worried about 2% it shows you how “well qualified” they are for this purchase. Interesting to watch how all this will unfold (rather unravel).”
    2% of a million is $20,000. Rich or not, qualified or not, that’s still a lot of money and I’m sure if they choose to walk away, 3% sounds a whole lot better than 5% no matter how rich or poor you are.

  67. Posted by tipster

    Whoa, you guys are way off base. That civil code section states that if you want to fix damages, you can either charge 3% or prove your loss, as long as you use a sale within 6 months of the termination of the contract. If the price goes down by 5%, the developer’s loss is 5%, and it’s easy to prove. So all 5% is nonrefundable if the price drops by that much or more. The 3% is the max that can be charged in the event that the price DOESN’T drop, and even that has to be reasonable.
    Sorry to spoil your day. You’re on the hook for the whole whoppin 5%.
    [Editor’s Note: Not true. With pre-construction the non-refundable portion of a deposit is limited to 3% of the contract price.]

  68. Posted by Anonymous

    Sorry to burst your bubble tipster, but the max is 3%. I don’t think it has to do with the civil code though I have to read the contract.
    I have a copy of the contract at home and will post it tonight (if I can find it…)

  69. Posted by tom

    QUESTION: How much has to do with the change in the “market?”
    Lets say I buy a $1 mil place in the Infinity and the “market” goes down 10% between my deposit time and closing, if The Infinity is still selling the comparible units for $1mil (maybe with discounts on HOA dues or something like that), then have I bought a $900k place for $1mil, or have I bought a $1mil place for $1mil?
    When I go to sell it 5 years later after the “market has gone up 10%, would it be in the ballpark of $1.1mil or $990k?
    I’m not sure what all the factors are to valuating these places, but it seams like previous sale price should be one.

  70. Posted by Paul Hwang

    Uh, California Civil Code is California Civil Code.
    I don’t care what the contract says.

  71. Posted by Anonymous

    Well what takes precedence then? What’s on the contract a buyer signs, or the Cal civil code? Seems it could go either way if it goes to the courts…

  72. Posted by Dude

    If it goes to the courts? Are people seriously going to get litigious over $20K? Don’t lawyers usually charge 1/3 of award as payment?
    Interestingly, (a)(2) of Paul’s posting states “At the time the contract to purchase and sell the property is made, the buyer intends to occupy the dwelling or one of its units as his or her residence.”
    Does this mean if some flipper speculates and loses, they have to take their medicine and learn their lesson? How poetically just if that’s the case….

  73. Posted by Paul Hwang

    I can’t advise you on Civil Procedure or the Law because I am not an attorney. However I can quote the civil code.
    My friend Matt Kabak (www.mattkabak.com) is an excellent attorney who can guide you in liquidated damages disputes arising from the Sale of Real property.

  74. Posted by anonymous

    This is an amazing site. Yesterday everybody wanted to live at One Rincon/The-Infinity. Today near panic on how to limit the potential loss to 3%. Great entertainment.

  75. Posted by tipster

    With pre-construction the non-refundable portion of a deposit is limited to 3% of the contract price.
    Not quite true. What you mean to say is to enforce a liquidated damages clause (i.e. a clause that says a deposit is non refundable) the deposit can’t be more than 3%. I fully agree that the statute, in all practicality, agrees with you. But lets say the contract says all 5% is nonrefundable, but the price drops by 10%. You can go to court and get the liquidated damages (a nonrefundable deposit is probably the same as liquidated damages, depending on the wording of the contract) clause thrown out using that statute. But when you do that, now you have NO liquidated damages clause, so, absent an enforceable liquidated damages clause, actual damages would be awarded.
    And the actual damages are the amount promised under the contract less the amount recovered after the breach. So you promise to pay $1M and the amount recovered from the resale is 900K, you owe $100K. Your lawyer is going to tell you to just let the $50K deposit ride because it’s protecting you from an even bigger loss. If you invalidate it using that statute, you lose even more money.
    So, you see, we’re both right. But by the way, the contract might not provide for ANY liquidated damages, at which point you owe the entire $100K, and the developer can keep the deposit AND sue for the extra $50K. It’s also possible the contract states that the liquidated damages are in fact only 3%, and then the developer would have to refund the difference.
    Note, you should always check your specific facts with an attorney and not rely on any advice you receive on an internet blog, even one as good as socketsite!

  76. Posted by Anonymous

    As the person who first asked the question, I don’t think it is panic about the deposit. The reason I asked is because there is a point at which it is smarter to walk away then it is to complete the purchase, whether the deposit is 3 or 5% moves that line. I don’t think anyone knows anything about the market for sure, but one thing I can know for sure is at what point I will walk away. As any big decision, it is better to decide on that point now and then stick with the number, rather than deciding later.

  77. Posted by Can't think of cool name

    So anyway, I’m assuming that the second towers of both properties will be built and eventually occupied? There is nothing of any substance to indicate otherwise – correct?

  78. Posted by Paul Hwang

    Tipster, I would argue that the legal definition of “deposit” is that it is refundable.
    DEPOSIT – Usually defined to be a naked bailment of goods to be kept for the bailor, without reward, and to be returned when he shall require it. A contract, by which one of the contracting parties gives a thing to another to keep, who is to do so gratuitously, and obliges himself to return it when he shall be requested.

  79. Posted by tipster

    You’ll get no argument from the developer if you want to argue that a deposit is refundable. The developer will then define to you what a “contract” is and your obligations under that contract were to pay the balance on a specified date.
    Because you refused to do that, the developer sold it to someone else at less than the contract price, and the law says he has the right to look to you for payment.
    If the second buyer of your unit pays a lesser amount, and the difference is more than the deposit, because you have so successfully argued that the deposit should not limit the damages, which it WOULD do if it were designated as liquidated damages, then YOU OWE THE DIFFERENCE.
    You’re all missing my point. Absent a liquidated damages clause, standard contract damages apply. And those contract damages, if bigger than the deposit, mean you pay MORE by arguing the deposit is refundable. In my example above, you’d get back your $50K and be on the hook for $100K.
    If the price drops by more than the deposit, your lawyer will be arguing the opposite of what you just posted: that the deposit is in fact not refundable and was intended to be the agreed upon amount of damages that should be used IN PLACE of the actual damages.
    You’re all forgetting that you signed a contract to deliver the balance. If you get your deposit back, you still OWE THE BALANCE. But if the deposit is liquidated damages, you don’t owe the balance. So you WANT your deposit to be liquidated damages, and therefore not refundable.
    If you argue that the law says he has to limit damages to 3% not 5%, you lose because the clause gets stricken from the contract because it is void, and now you have no liquidated damages provision to hide behind.
    So I’m not arguing that the 5% should be legal, or that it shouldn’t be refundable (BTW, absent a provision in your contract, it IS refundable, so your argument about what a deposit is has me fully in agreement, but the contract will define it as liquidated damages or not), I’m arguing that you want it to be the liquidated damages you can hide behind to sheild you from the much larger contract damages you would otherwise be obligated to pay.
    So in spite of the fact that there are plenty of arguments to support your theory that it is refundable, using them will subject you to even larger losses. So you’ll just walk from the 5%.
    Again, you need to talk to a lawyer, who will be happy to spend at least 5% arguing your case. Capiche?

  80. Posted by Paul Hwang

    “(a nonrefundable deposit is probably the same as liquidated damages, depending on the wording of the contract)”
    A “deposit” does not have the same legal definition as “liquidated damages”.
    And actually wouldn’t “nonrefundable deposit” actually be “consideration”?
    The veracity of your theoretical argument is not in dispute.
    Given the fact that:
    1) You cannot have two escrows open on the same property.
    2) Escrow is neutral and must take insrtuctions from both parties to be charged.
    3) Developers like to actually close properties.
    4) Mediation, arbitration and litigation are expensive.
    A semi-persuasive and articulate Real Estate Broker or Real Estate Attorney should be able to reach a happy medium with the developer; if not have the entire deposit returned.
    In the final analysis I don’t believe you can make sweeping statements on real property liquidated damages cases. Rather, it would be more prudent to examine them case by case.
    Si Signore, Moto Bene.

  81. Posted by Anonymous

    “So anyway, I’m assuming that the second towers of both properties will be built and eventually occupied? There is nothing of any substance to indicate otherwise – correct?”
    That’s affirm, at least with respect to 1Rincon (and with all due respect Freddy, you were, as I’ve seen you do often on this site, completely talking out of the other end just to incite a heated and overall non-productive discussion like the one that precedes my post–so bravo, way to go, mission accomplished!).
    I’ve been told by the sales office that of the 368 units in tower I, only 26 (about 7%) are left to be purchased.

  82. Posted by Anonymous

    I was told by the sales office the second tower is definately a go and only 25 units remain.
    There was also an article in San Francisco magazine talking about the demographic of the buyers of these luxury developments. The article also says people are predicting 1MM people to move the bay area by 2020. Guess there might be a demand for all this housing afterall.

  83. Posted by outsider

    “non-productive discussion”!??
    That was some interesting reading. Thanks to the posters for shedding light on deposit scenarios.

  84. Posted by SocketSite

    For those of you who haven’t been plugging in to the updates above:
    UPDATE (2/20): Just to be clear, we haven’t heard even the faintest whisper about “cancelling” either of these towers. At this point it’s simply a question of timing with one and initial use with the other.
    UPDATE (2/22): We’re now guessing our “plugged in” reader was absolutely correct about a big project that’s being “held back” on Rincon Hill, but that it’s The Californian on Rincon Hill and not One Rincon Hill that has changed its sales/construction dates. (And that’s news, not rumor.)

  85. Posted by anonymous

    “The article also says people are predicting 1MM people to move the bay area by 2020.”
    I would not worry too much about 2020 and after. As the One Rincon points out in their disclosure package, the building is NOT earthquake proof.

  86. Posted by Willow

    If I intend to buy at a new development such as One Rincoln can someone clarify what happens if the units that buyers backout of are not resold. If the developer rents them, do buyers have any recourse? Is it true that banks have issues with giving loans to buildings that are less than 80% owner occupied?

  87. Posted by John

    Even if the second 1Rincon tower gets built, the delay of The Californian further isolates 1Rincon, and delays any creation of a viable ‘neighborhood’ around Rincon Hill area…
    It will, and continue to be nothing but a desolate patch of land to access the freeway, and not much else…
    It’s too bad, I don’t see changes for years…

  88. Posted by Anonymous

    John – 1Rincon is across the street from the Met and Lansing, half a block from Bridgeview and two blocks from the Infinity – how is that a desolate patch of land???? Stop being so disgruntle!

  89. Posted by Anonymous

    I think what John meant is there’s no “neighborhood” feel to the whole area. Go up there on any given afternoon and it’s bleak. There’s no pedestrians, no retail, nothing. Sure, there’s thousand of people living there, but we never see any of them unless they’re part of the constant stream of traffic that defines the whole area around 1Rincon, The Met, Lansing, etc…
    And Infinity and the waterfront area is more like 4 blocks away. Too far to be part of the onramp neighborhood.

  90. Posted by Anonymous

    A quick comment on the 3% limit thing. I’m an attorney that does not handle property, but looked into it for a bit today. You are not necessarily limited to 3% for liquidated damages. Without getting into details that are even boring for me, you will lose either 3% or the actual loss to the developer after they perform an accounting; not to exceed the deposit.
    So, if you put down 5%, back out, and the condo gets resold for the same amount and with no incidental costs. You get back 2%. If you put down 5% and the condo sells for an amount that causes the builder to loose 5%, then you lose all of your deposit. If you put down 5%, back out, and the condo sells for 20% below what you would have paid, you still lose 5%; you cannot lose more than the deposit.
    These rules are not hard and fast, as the law never is, but this is how it would happen 99% of the time; excluding very unusual contract clauses.
    I have seen Infinity; this is how it works there.

  91. Posted by Anonymous

    “I would not worry too much about 2020 and after. As the One Rincon points out in their disclosure package, the building is NOT earthquake proof.”
    And I guess you have seen a building that states it IS earthquake proof in the disclosure package?
    Testament to the mindless bashing of One Rincon.

  92. Posted by Anonymous

    “And Infinity and the waterfront area is more like 4 blocks away. Too far to be part of the onramp neighborhood.”
    Wow, four blocks away? I better plan my commute.

  93. Posted by Anonymous

    “Wow, four blocks away? I better plan my commute”
    Heh heh, you better because living in 1Rincon, it’ll take the valet 30 minutes to find your car!

  94. Posted by agent

    A few blocks can make or break a neighborhood when it comes to real estate. Union Sq and Nob Hill is really only a few blocks from the edge of the Tenderloins, but it seems a world apart.
    Infinity is a block from the priceless waterfront, retail/food establishments, and closer to downtown. And though 1Rincon is only 4-5 blocks away, but seems a world away compared to the waterfront and Embarcadero area/Ferry building.
    It’ll have great views, but comparing the neighborhood around Infinity vs 1Rincon is like comparing apples and oranges. We all know location really matters in real estate, even if it’s a block or two.

  95. Posted by Paul Hwang

    One Rincon Hill is going to have incredible views with a large portion that will have a high probability of never being blocked. The Infinity is going to be a terrific building in a terrific location.
    They both have good points and bad points. At the end of the day I am glad they are both being built as they will add value to this great city.

  96. Posted by Anonymous

    Out of all the buildings being developed, One Rincon probably has sold the highest percentage of units in the shortest time. Prices were not dropped, there were no incentives, no reduced HOAs etc.
    I find it interesting that somehow it gets the most criticism but then again so does the prettiest girl on the block.

  97. Posted by Anonymous

    “I find it interesting that somehow it gets the most criticism but then again so does the prettiest girl on the block.”
    Huh, well I guess it’s in the eye of the beholder, but to me and a lot of folks out there, 1Rincon resembles a dated 80’s, Irvine style, office building. Nice to look at because of the height, but UGLY with it’s bright white stripes on every single floor and super dark green windows. Yuck!
    Looks like something Arthur Andersen Accounting would have occupied in 1985.

  98. Posted by Anonymous

    I was not necessarily making a point about the aesthetics of the building, I was making a point that One Rincon is one of the most succesful developments from a sales stand point but still gets the most criticism.

  99. Posted by tipster

    One Rincon gets the most bashing because it has the most flippers, who post endlessly about how great it is in an attempt to try to talk up its cachet.
    If those one rincon guys started saying “wow, we bought into an ugly building out by the freeway with a couple of important amenities missing, like sufficient parking, or dryer vents”, the rest of us would come to their defense: “think of those views” or “It will be quick to get into and out of the east bay where you live so you’ll visit it more” etc.
    Instead, this forum sometimes sounds like a stock chatroom where people go after they’ve bought stocks to try to talk them up based on the most flimsy of excuses. Which is pretty much exactly what happens with those two projects. Then some people post smack to try to bring them down a peg or two.

  100. Posted by Anonymous

    Tipster, or should I say Frederick, or whoever you really are.
    You seem to know a lot about a little……and someone earlier used a great word to describe people like you on this site….”disgruntled.”
    And just to make the point…I’m a long-term (i.e., more than 5 years) buyer, not a flipper, at 1Rincon and I am extremely pleased with the condo I’ve bought into.
    I have no agenda at all because I don’t plan to sell my condo for at least 5 years, so again, you’re just flat out wrong.
    So when I recoup my $842/sqft investment and tack on another $200+/sqft……why don’t we meet at the Dean and Deluca over at the Infinity and you can give me your view on the world and maybe even give me some investment advice.

  101. Posted by Anonymous

    “One Rincon gets the most bashing because it has the most flippers, who post endlessly about how great it is in an attempt to try to talk up its cachet.”
    I beg to differ. The negative posts about One Rincon far out number the positive posts. It is not the flippers boosting their investment it is the disgruntled posters who for some reason feel compelled to spend endless hours of their time bashing something they have absolutely no stake in.

  102. Posted by tipster

    So when I recoup my $842/sqft investment and tack on another $200+/sqft……why don’t we meet at the Dean and Deluca over at the Infinity and you can give me your view on the world and maybe even give me some investment advice.
    That would be fun. And while you’re at it, bring copies of your HOA fees, your after tax mortgage payments, after tax property tax payments, realtor fees, staging fees, costs of any improvements or maintenance, etc. We’ll subtract the amount of rent you could have paid for the same place, and then we’ll see how much that $200K or so “profit” really cost you so we can get the complete picture of whether you came out ahead. I’ll bring my Schwab One account statement and we’ll compare who made the better investments.

  103. Posted by Anonymous

    “I’ll bring my Schwab One account statement and we’ll compare who made the better investments.”
    It’s a date…
    [Editor’s Note: Okay, and with that we’re putting an end to the great tipster/anon debate (at least for now). Let us know how things turn out (or better yet, let us join you at Dean and Deluca), and now back to the buildings…]

  104. Posted by Choc. HobNob

    To Anonymous at 3.59pm who thinks everyone who doesn’t have a deposit down at 1Rincon should shut-up – we all DO have a “stake” in it.
    On Lone mountain walking down Fulton (a full 3 miles away) I was struck by how bloody ugly those stinking white stripes are. Thank god the bay bridge pollution will soon turn them black.

  105. Posted by John

    “On Lone mountain walking down Fulton (a full 3 miles away) I was struck by how bloody ugly those stinking white stripes are. Thank god the bay bridge pollution will soon turn them black.”
    I couldn’t agree more Choc. HobNob. Those white stripes and dark glass are hideous enough, but to put those thick white stripes on EVERY SINGLE floor boggles the mind. What was the 1Rincon designer thinking??

  106. Posted by Anonymous

    “To Anonymous at 3.59pm who thinks everyone who doesn’t have a deposit down at 1Rincon should shut-up – we all DO have a “stake” in it.”
    So much anger.

  107. Posted by Anonymous

    “To Anonymous at 3.59pm who thinks everyone who doesn’t have a deposit down at 1Rincon should shut-up – we all DO have a “stake” in it.”
    Ummmm, well true, 1Rincon’s hilltop location means half of SF’s population have to look at that ugly office building for years and years to come….

  108. Posted by Anonymous

    Picking on 1Rincon alone does not take away the problem from San Francisco’s overly “planned” dull skyline. With a couple of exceptions (Transamerica, etc.) most of the tall buildings in the city are completely uninteresting. 1Rincon COULD have been a real opportunity to introduce something imaginative in this prominant location. Now we are stuck with a candy stripe clad late 70’s office tower that belongs in Irvine or Houston. I sometimes wonder if Frank Lloyd Wright was on to something when he said that if you take away the hills and the bay, you would be left with a city no more interesting in architecture than St. Louis.

  109. Posted by on the fence depositer

    Asking the atty Anonymous on Feb 22 at 10:30pm:
    Ok, what happens if you put down the required 5%, back out, and then the developer sells it to another buyer for more than the 5% (say, the prices actually go up by 10% but the buyer has problems that make them not be able to go through with the deal)>… one would think the developer would be happy to give you back all of the 5% or would they be greedy and just keep the 3%?
    I have a contract for the Radiance project and the legalese is of course mind boggling, but it seems to indicate that the buyer agrees that the deposit = liquidated damages and will not contest it but then 2 paragraphs further down it states Cal Civil Code says if the liq damages/deposit is greater than 3%, it is “invalid”. I will have to review/find out if that means the whole clause gets thrown out and then tipsters scenario applies, in which you are on the hook for even more damages if the price went down. Sigh.
    Makes me want to be a renter forever — but no pain, no gain.

Add a Comment

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