One Ecker: Exterior (Image Source: oneecker.com)
From a plugged-in tipster:

One Ecker is going the route of Apartments. After pre-selling 10 of 51 units, the building refunded deposits and is going to rent instead of sell.

No word on the proposed rents nor whether or not the official explanation will be unexpected strength in the rental market (versus unexpected weakness in demand for the condos).
One (1) Ecker Place Update: Sales Office Open (And A Few Details) [SocketSite]
A Heller Manus Renovation Of 1 Ecker Place [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by ex SF-er

    more supply=good, IMO.
    condo or rental.
    I anticipate we’ll see a fair amount of condos going rental, and rentals going condo…
    it will all depend on price points, amount of sunk costs, the amount of capital the developer/builder has, and their outlook for the future…
    in the end, it’s all new supply so I’m happy…

  2. Posted by zzzzzzz

    This is the way it’s supposed to happen, right? Units shift back and forth between condos and rentals depending on market conditions. It’s just that city government in SF has artifically and arbitrarily limited just one direction of this equilibrium flow (rentals to owner-occupied) based on orthodox rent-control ideology, not consumer demand.

  3. Posted by Oceangoer

    Rent or buy, the first thing I would want to do is get rid of those stupid sinks sitting on top of blocks in the bathroom. These were a fad in restaurants ten years ago, and I had hoped they had gone on of style. Wrong.
    Parking? Of course I want parking. Can you imagine being a single woman, parking a few blocks away and walking home in that area at 1 or 2 in the morning. No thanks.

  4. Posted by r

    I wonder if Blu is headed in the same direction?

  5. Posted by tipster

    Darn it. The renters get all the great locations, and every bit as nice as anything you can buy!
    To buy something like this at a comparable monthly cost would mean being out in esprit park.

  6. Posted by Michael L.

    3 cheers for the builder. Most builders you need a tug – of -war with to get your monies back.

  7. Posted by SFLooking

    Arrggh. This just happened in our building in Noe. New construction 8 units and the builder held back 4. Then he waited a bit to sell but now settled on renters. I know he is not making money on this and understand he needs to do it but this is not what I signed up for when I bought my place. Plus the renters are already showing they do not care about what we have invested in this as our home.

  8. Posted by JJ

    I’m not surprised. I went in during lunch about 3 weeks ago and the sales person was terrible. He couldn’t be bothered with me, didn’t “have time” to show me the model and never followed up.
    Maybe he already knew they were going to rentals or maybe the develop choose the wrong sales staff.

  9. Posted by Spencer

    rental anecdote #923
    My friend just signed a lease for a 1bdroom on the 6th floor of the Beacon with parking for $1950. He found it on craigslist.
    I’m wondering how much the owner is losing per month renting it out?

  10. Posted by ex SF-er

    SFLooking…
    I’m sorry to hear your pain.
    Perhaps you could talk to the owners of the units and they might talk to the renters?
    or alternatively, if you dislike this you may check your purchase agreement and see if renters are allowed? if they’re not allowed, perhaps you have some available action.
    it sucks signing up for one thing and getting another… definitely not “fair” IMO.

  11. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    On a different tangent, did anyone notice the difference between the two photos taken of the plaza at about the same angle ? Compare this photo to original SS article here http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2007/11/a_heller_manus_renovation_of_1_ecker_place.html .
    In one, all of the people are men and in the other they are all women. What’s going on here ? The Taleban is making inroads into SF ? Has Sharia law been imposed to the genders apart ?
    “By order of Mullah Newsom the plaza shall be occupied by men only from 6am to 11:45am and then by women from noon to 6pm. The 15 minute gap is to prevent any accidental mingling of unrelated men and women.”
    What’s next ? Burning down the SFMOMA ? A ban on hipster haircuts ? Breakless fixies ?

  12. Posted by renter@hotmail.com

    oh, all the crack-head renters ruining our buildings, whatever will we do? Won’t anyone think of the children?
    please, give me a freaking break.
    I know more renters in this City who care about their homes an neighborhoods than owners. In fact, most of the people I know who are engaged in neighborhood organizations and activities are renters.
    Additionally, a lot of renters are actually more prudent and savvy than impetuous owners who jumped into condos they can’t afford and were hoping to turn a good buck in a few years and are pissed about their “investments.” Cry me a river. That’s why people should look at housing as some place to live, not as an investment scheme that conveniently provides someplace to stash your plasma TV and your BMW.

  13. Posted by runner's high

    Browsing rentals on CL is one of my most favorite time killers and I would love to know how much these places will go for!
    Spencer: $1950 for Beacon is pretty sweet (but not common for SoMa) I would love to hear how much luck SoMa Grand owners are having with their units — I see a couple of 1-bedrooms up on CL for $3K a month while ORH 1 bedrooms are out there for $2600-$2900. I might be biased but I think the choice is clear who’s going to end up with empty apartments between those two buildings.

  14. Posted by Spencer

    i think ORH is so much nicer than SOMA Grand in terms of desin and the location. i would rent tehre any day over SOMA grand.
    I think the rental listings on CL are pie in the sky. most of my friends are in the 120K-200K salary range and I don’t know a single one who pays over $2500 for a 1bdr.

  15. Posted by PN

    Where is there a new 8-unit building in Noe Valley?

  16. Posted by anono

    ditto that question. I was not aware of any hard to unload new construction in Noe.

  17. Posted by hj o'connor

    yet another commercial/office building downtown converted to high-end residential. where do the people who can afford these places make their living? is sf becoming becoming entirely a bedroom community of the peninsula? or is the city becoming a residential area for people who don’t need to work for a living?

  18. Posted by redseca2

    hj,
    “another commercial/office building downtown converted to high-end residential”
    These projects were announced at the height of an historic real-estate bubble in a bullish economy.
    The fact that projects like the subject of this thread are converting to rental may indicate we have already exceeded the market capacity.
    You may yet be able to make a sweet deal for downtown office space that includes a Viking range in the conference room.

  19. Posted by anon

    Looks like “renter” was called up directly from central casting:
    “quick, we need a bitter renter stat!! Renters are being bashed in an anonymous forum on the web! Be sure to mention plasma TVs and BMRs in your nonsensical post!!”
    I’ve owned and I’ve rented. There is NO question owners who live in the unit (the situation the OP is in) take better care of a unit than a renter.

  20. Posted by hj o'connor

    actually, those would make lovely office spaces. an office with a shower and a full kitchen.
    it’s just weird to me that all the downtown high-rise buildings in the 70s-80s were offices, now they’re all residential.
    sf definitely doesn’t have the job base to support the residential real estate. in that way, it seems to be more and more like monterey or santa barbara.
    if those places become rentals, does that make it near impossible to convert them back to condos? if so, that’s a huge indicator…

  21. Posted by sf

    You said: I’ve owned and I’ve rented. There is NO question owners who live in the unit (the situation the OP is in) take better care of a unit than a renter.
    I say: You must not be a landlord then. As a renter my whole life, the resistance of most landlords to make any kind of repairs, either to the aesthetics or the function of a building, is sad. ‘Excuse me, but the garden in my back yard collapsed and spewed dirt all over.’ Unable to perform any duties myself out of fear of losing my security deposit, I waited 3 months for somebody to come by and repair my yard. Maybe I’ve had bad luck, but landlords could care less about little things like that, because they are not living there, and why should I invest my time and money into a property when I am going to be forced out at the end of the lease or have my rent raised? Don’t blame the renters, blame the lazy home owners who won’t step foot on your apartment unless the plumbing is shooting sewage up into the sky.

  22. Posted by PN

    Seems to me the argument is not renter v. landlord. It is renter v. owner. There’s a difference. I’d rather have neighbors who own their property (and live in it) than neighbors who rent.

  23. Posted by San FronziScheme

    I can see 1 Ecker from my office. It is still under white plastic wrap.
    Too bad, I like the building and they probably spent a lot in renovations.
    But it appears that 1000/sf started studios with no view do not sell as well as they use to.
    {note about the fact that we see a lot of women on one pic: at 5:30PM, I’d say you see 80% female on that plaza, and during daytime, you get the occasional transient ditting on the benches but no big deal}

  24. Posted by fred

    sf, the statement related to “owners who live in the unit,” not landlords. Actually, this is a 1 Ecker Place thread, not landlord vs. renters or owners vs. renters thread.

  25. Posted by AnonN

    Not too surprised at this given the current state of the for sale market. It’s certain that The Montgomery and 733 Front, among others, won’t miss competing against this project.
    I walked by the building again over the weekend (after the office had closed) and was intigued to see all of the floor plans on display outside. I concluded that the unit(s) I would be interested in are on the southeast side of the building. Walked around to the alley to check out (the building is still all wrapped up) and immediately concluded that, situated as the building is in the middle of a concrete jungle, the windows would barely see the light of day and never any direct sunlight. So that was a deal killer — didn’t even bother to punch up the website when I got back on line.
    But they’ll make excellent rentals.

  26. Posted by sf

    I was just defending myself as a renter who was always taken pride in my home, to the extent that I can.
    On topic, this place has awesome potential. It’s like a little oasis village in the middle of what is soon to be a 1000′+ jungle (Details of which we will hear about Wednesday morning)

  27. Posted by jkd

    This building is similar to the Swallow Printing building at 50 Jessie St. that is about to become the student service center for Golden Gate University. It’s a cool historic building on a sweet south financial district alley, but lacks the light/air/views for a proper residential conversion. This neighborhood has the lowest commercial vacancy rates in San Francisco, but again the lack of views and light would make it commodity space compared to other brick and mortar SoMa options.
    I think it’s best suited for an institutional/educational use, though perhaps it’s too late for that.

  28. Posted by salarywoman

    hj,
    Even though they are going to be rented, they are still condos. The developer can sell them at any time.

Add a Comment

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