March 4, 2009
550 18th Street Unwrapped (And 35 New Condos Now Renting)
A plugged-in tipster captures the recently unwrapped 550 18th Street.
That's thirty-five (35) new two and three bedroom Mission Bay condos ranging from 1,200 to 1,500 square feet, and currently seeking $3,500 to $5,500 per month in rent.
No word on the 7,000 square feet of ground floor commercial.
∙ 550 18th Street (35 Units) [550-18th.com]
First Published: March 4, 2009 3:15 PM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Does that include a pleasure slave or something?
Posted by: Debtpocalypse at March 4, 2009 3:35 PM
architectural bashing begins in 4 ... 3 ... 2 ... 1
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at March 4, 2009 3:42 PM
Still trying to break even or maybe make a buck in this market. No one can blame them.
Their rationale is: Costs >>> ROI >>> Pricing
Unfortunately the market works the other way around:
Target population >>> Salary >>> Pricing
With so much supply in condos gone rental, nothing justifies these prices anymore.
Posted by: San FronziScheme at March 4, 2009 3:45 PM
I won't bash the architecture per se,
but I wish
1) they provided more pictures of the units. is it that expensive to put up a pic of the LR, Kitchen, DR, each BR and Bath?
2) they had used a little color. Looks like the motif is washed out grey?
it can be easily fixed with paint, or if paint isn't allowed then colorful accessories.
but it really is impossible to rate this place, as we have few pics of it whatsoever.
I feel like I could rent better in SF for $3500/mo though, even though this place is new.
new rental stock is always welcome!
Posted by: ex SF-er at March 4, 2009 3:51 PM
Desired rents = bwaahaaahaaa
Posted by: mortgage analyst at March 4, 2009 3:54 PM
architectural bashing begins in 4 ... 3 ... 2 ... 1
It's so terribly un-Karl-Farbman-like.
Posted by: EH at March 4, 2009 3:58 PM
Still trying to break even or maybe make a buck in this market. No one can blame them. Their rationale is: Costs >>> ROI >>> Pricing
I actually think this would be a pretty interesting applied economics/finance problem to work on, if I had a job at the appropriate level at either Vanguard Properties (for 550 18th Street) or Riverstone Residential (The Argenta). I should admit upfront that I don’t really know what i’m talking about, but...
You're probably right about the Return on Investment, which is why they are renting the units in both buildings. Now, instead of having to sell the properties and obviously incur an immediate loss, you now have to figure out just how long it takes, with market rent and the rip that the property management company is taking every month, to achieve payback for the building costs, overhead, etc.
it'd be interesting to know what kind of deal they struck with the bank or REIT that provided the financing for the construction now that they know they can't payoff the loan(s) in a relatively short time period (i.e., after the units sold).
Posted by: Brahma at March 4, 2009 4:16 PM
I like the right side of the building in the first pic, but the left side just looks like a mess with all those random parts sticking out.
Posted by: what at March 4, 2009 4:24 PM
is the cost structure of building in SF really so high that developers cannot make any profit with prevailing condo prices? i mean, prices have obviously softened but prevailing selling prices are not high enough to turn a profit? projects like artani, arterra could probably still fetch 400-500k for one bedrooms (down from maybe 600k at peak of market). i'm amazed that it's unprofitable to build and sell condo's for those prices.
Posted by: condoshopper at March 4, 2009 4:24 PM
selling at $500k would be like asking the developer to just give it away! The complexes you're talking about condoshopper are special condos and deserve special prices, not a piddly half mil. What is this, Detroit?!
Posted by: Jason at March 4, 2009 4:31 PM
I think the cost of buildings coming on-line now or recently may be too high because they paid the old land costs, materials costs and labor costs. I can't imagine a developer would rent a building if they could still get out from under the debt and make a profit by selling in this environment.
As for new projects, the costs have come down but have they come down enough to be able to sell for lower prices and still generate a large enough rate of return on a developer's capital to justify the risk? Based on the number of cancelled projects the answer appears to be no for large buildings.
Posted by: anono at March 4, 2009 4:35 PM
HAHAHA the asking rents! What is wrong with these people? Nobody who can afford $5500 a month in rent is going to pay that amount for a cookie-cutter 1500-sqft apartment on Illinois St of all places.
What a joke this town has become. For that place in that "neighborhood" I would pay $2500, maximum. Whoever penciled this one out and gave the green light is the biggest moron in real estate.
And while I'm in a bad mood, check out the difference between the
architect's drawing (no doubt used to get planning approval) and the reality. In the drawing the building it sparkling white. Here on Earth, the building is baby-poop brown.
Posted by: Jeffrey W. Baker at March 4, 2009 4:35 PM
When I looked at that facade, the first thing that jumped into my head was that human-feeding space aliens will keep their herds (us...) in similar pens. The windows won't open, of course, but they'll be pleasantly south-oriented so that we don't lack for (taste-enhancing) vitamin D.
Posted by: Debtpocalypse at March 4, 2009 4:37 PM
Jason, no this isn't Detroit, if it were Detroit you could buy a house for the cost of 2 months of this places wishing rent.
Posted by: Rillion at March 4, 2009 5:03 PM
Architecture actually looks ALOT more interesting (on the bay side) than most other condos that have hit the market over the last few years.
What they don't show is the union building this wraps around on the third street side. I'm curious to know how that turned out. Anyone have pictures?
Very nice condos though. Knowing someone in the lofts across 18th street, I must say those lofts are very nice inside too.
Posted by: luvinmissionbay at March 4, 2009 5:10 PM
Isn't this really Dogpatch?
I mean, I actually like Dogpatch and everything... but they are at least a block away from being in Mission Bay (is the boundary Mariposa or 16th?).
Posted by: Po Hill Jeff at March 4, 2009 5:18 PM
Yep. That's a lot for rent.
Obviously, many other agree.
It'll be interesting to see which comes first, a serious drop in the rental price or free months with move-in specials.
Posted by: Jack at March 4, 2009 5:41 PM
Posted by: Mole Man at March 4, 2009 5:41 PM
Dogpatch isn't part of the "real Mission Bay"?
Posted by: Debtpocalypse at March 4, 2009 5:45 PM
god that is so fugly. baby poop brown is right.
no chicks over there either.
Posted by: bernie lomax at March 4, 2009 5:50 PM
i think they could literally cut those rents in half to get to FMV
Posted by: spencer at March 4, 2009 6:20 PM
>>Does that include a pleasure slave or something?
No, but you get free stem cell therapy down the street in 20 years -- if you can afford to wait.
Posted by: Jus7tme at March 4, 2009 7:09 PM
I have a question: Why are 90% of the condos being developed in SF nowadays so BUTT UGLY. I hate this neo-funkis-50s-whatever style. God it is awful. Ugh.
Posted by: Jus7tme at March 4, 2009 7:12 PM
any kids in this neighborhood?
I'd buy something like this for 500-600K for 2 bedroom. My range. Mostly no kids in these new condos it seems. I don't want to salt people's game and signature drinks with a child around
Posted by: Zig at March 4, 2009 8:16 PM
Definitely Dogpatch. No one has mentioned the seafood distributor right across the street on Illinois...when the winds blow in from the bay, residents won't be able to open their windows. The smell can be gagging (but it's mildly tolerable when the business is closed on weekends).
Posted by: Dogpatch Dog at March 4, 2009 8:32 PM
The photos only tell a really small piece of the story here, there is a Union Hall next's door and that's honest work so not going to say anything against that.
What's weird is how the building snakes around the Union Hall and parking lot, very different to the planning drawings, it honestly looks like they forgot to build on half the site.
While the building has the potential for great views...I only said potential. My biggest problem is what appears to be the open/exposed hallways (based on a recent drive by) that are used to access the units, this is close to being a walkup.
Also the marble slabbed side reminds me a couple of the South of Market buildings from 1999/2000 which have slate tiles on the ground floor, someone needs to tell the developer nicer materials doesn't make this a good idea (I am assuming it's a good treatment for handling tagging).
Posted by: observer at March 4, 2009 10:58 PM
Wow, if they are honestly expecting those rents they are in for a rude awakening. I'm continually amazed at how many different versions of the Wall Street Journal there must be out there. These people have a very different take on the world than I (or any other SocketSiter, it seems).
And now back to shorting REITs.
Posted by: Valentino at March 5, 2009 6:50 AM
I lke the design, esp the oculus over each of the top balconies. Glass railings a nice touch. Kitchen looks great also.
Posted by: midcentfan at March 5, 2009 6:58 AM
> I actually think this would be a pretty interesting applied
> economics/finance problem to work on, if I had a job at
> the appropriate level at either Vanguard Properties (for 550
> 18th Street) or Riverstone Residential (The Argenta).
I don’t have any personal knowledge of 18th Street or Argenta, but I have been involved (as a lender) with failed condo projects and it is typical to see a developer use fake/dream rents to get a lender to extend and restructure a construction or convert it in to a mini-perm.
Other than a few small condo conversions with hands on owners I have never seen a condo project fail to sell through and cash flow as a rental (both of these deals will probably go back to the lenders when the developers don’t get the fake/dream $5K a month rent.
Posted by: FormerAptBroker at March 5, 2009 7:16 AM
If you look at the SFAR Real Estate District map, this definitely lies within the "Central Waterfront" district 9J, one full block from Mission Bay's southern border. As some of you have mentioned, this area is also better known as Dogpatch, but is technically Central WF to us Realtors.
Posted by: realtordistricts at March 5, 2009 9:35 AM
It's a shame that developers get so greedy and don't leave enough green space around all these developments. I blame the city for allowing this to happen and feel a little bad for the people who end up loosing out because it takes so long to get anything passed and out of the ground here in SF.
Maybe this can become the New Public Housing and they can tear down that Crap on P. Hill? Problem solved!
Posted by: samsoma at March 5, 2009 10:46 AM
It's a shame that developers get so greedy and don't leave enough green space around all these developments
Well, it's called "making the numbers work". "Greed" built this city or else we'll all be living in tents.
Green space is a luxury in high density cities. Paris doesn't have much green around its buildings and it's still a beautiful city, isn't it?
If you want green, live in SF and have moderately affordable housing, there are still a few neighborhoods with condo-like pricing and back/front yards. This is not that bad for a city like SF.
Posted by: San FronziScheme at March 5, 2009 11:39 AM
Paris Has Parks in the neighborhoods; Place de Voges; the Tulleries...even older SF neighborhoods have Parks; BV; Alamo; Alta Plaza...the only real park in SouthBeach/SOMA is Southpark and it is filled with Homeless and druggies...if you want your kids or dog to play you'd better clean up the needles 1st! I'm talking about the City of SF donating space to be Green/Park Type areas and policing the homeless/druggies. Guess if your paying $3500-upwards of $5000 you don't want to go to a park that the public can access anyway right??? Guess again!
Posted by: samsoma at March 5, 2009 2:32 PM
Actually, I have been in the units and they are really nice, spacious, and some have huge patios an others have views of the water. Prices of the average 2 BD units are comparable with most places in the mid-high 3K range. And there aren't many 3 BD alternatives on this side of San Francisco, so it seems pretty in-line.
I thought the kitchen was really well thought out with high end appliances, and large soaking tubs in some of the bathrooms, cool rain showers in others, lots of windows, and lots of light. And the lobby actually has tons of color...a bright pink mural in the lobby off 18th.
It is a good alternative to corporate housing of Avalon for sure, which charges at least this much if not more!
And the neighborhood is still rough, but the Ramp, Moshi's, Sunshine Cafe, hardknox cafe, and of course the lightrail are all right there, and it might be nice to get off of the condo row of Mission Bay...I wouldn't be touting that as the ultimate SF location. I'm just saying I would take a boutique building in Dogpatch with tons of floorplans to choose from in an environment that is, um, a little less sterile than oh say The Beacon and the 600 little boxes they offer.
Posted by: buyertobe at March 5, 2009 4:27 PM
No real comment on the architecture of the building, and i would assume the rental prices will quickly be modified with many an incentives, but isnt the old Concrete Plant on the next block slated to become a public park? And arent there a number of central waterfront projects in the pipeline given the recent passing of the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan? not to mention UCSF Campus development.
If the Park does become a reality, combined with the the Pier 70 Master Plan, SWL 337 development and even some of the other projects, the dogpatch/mission bay border area cuold be a true destination for more than just occasional passer through and PH resident. As buyertobe said, though the neighborhood is still rough and still forced to confront its past, its still a neighborhood with some momentum, and a chance to actually be a real neighborhood or expansion of PH.
Poor timing by this developer, but i guess you could say that about almost anything built from 2007-Present.
Posted by: Rob at March 6, 2009 11:55 AM
Regarding parks, in Dogpatch there very definitely IS a park, Esprit Park. That park has an interesting history, as it was built gratis by Esprit back in the day, and later when the Esprit glory days were over, it was sold off to the City. (I was involved in the community effort at the time). It's definitely not as well maintained as a public park, but it still definitely has its charms.
And there is a lot of park space, both current and prospective in Mission Bay, including public spaces at UCSF, parks along the waterfront and along Mission Creek. The parks in Mission Bay are being phased in with development, so they are definitely not all there yet, but it will be a very green area.
And, more prospectively, there are definitely prospects for park enhancements around a redeveloped Pier 70, and improvements to Warm Water Cove and Islais Creek.
Posted by: curmudgeon at March 6, 2009 4:18 PM
This looks a bit lke a Motel 6 from the other side of the building. Long exterior corrider to doors. At least the developers are going to own it for a while.
The smoking crack pricing.. is this a trademark move?
Posted by: kathleen at March 11, 2009 8:54 AM
Top price for a 3 bedroom is now down to $3900. Apparently, Mr. Market called and told them to lower their price or sit vacant and they did.
$3900 / 3br - Waterfront Living - New Lux Condos in Mission Bay (SOMA / south beach) (map)
Posted by: tipster at May 6, 2009 6:35 AM
You might want to work on your reading comprehension. The ad says 3900 and up for 3 bedrooms.
Posted by: diemos at May 6, 2009 7:31 AM
They deleted the ad!
Posted by: chuckie at May 6, 2009 9:16 AM