May 1, 2009
As One Ecker Turns (Our Fourth Update):
Selling In Receivership
From a reader:
You’ve mentioned [One Ecker Place] a few times
Second: deposits refunded so it could be apartments
Third: back to being condos for sale
Now it seems construction has halted...Any new news?
Fourth: The development is in receivership (and all deposits have been returned).
According to a plugged-in source the building still needs around another six months of work to reach completion. And in terms of that "Fifth" (i.e., what happens next), we'll have to wait and see (but most likely the condo route again).
∙ A Heller Manus Renovation Of 1 Ecker Place [SocketSite]
∙ One (1) Ecker Place Update: Sales Office Open (And A Few Details) [SocketSite]
∙ The SocketSite Scoop On One (1) Ecker Place: Going
Condo Rental [SocketSite]
∙ The Scoop On One (1) Ecker Place Redux: Going
Condo Rental Condo [SocketSite]
First Published: May 1, 2009 8:00 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Receivership? Ouch. That's too bad, especially for the folks that snagged unit 403. That place was pretty nice. Here are some pics from last November:
Guess we'll see what happens. Thanks for the update.
Posted by: Binnings Team at May 1, 2009 8:31 AM
But I thought SF was "special"
Posted by: HappyRenter at May 1, 2009 8:31 AM
They'll be back in a year or 18 months. But I don't see why anyone assumes the asking prices will be any lower then.
Posted by: Jimmy (No Longer Bitter) at May 1, 2009 9:34 AM
What does it mean, exactly, when a project goes into "receivership"? Do that not have the funding to finish the project?
Posted by: Fishchum at May 1, 2009 9:38 AM
I think that "receivership" means the developer is insolvent, but that term is usually reserved for failing banks that are taken over by the Comptroller. Basically, a court-appointed "receiver" takes over and runs the company's operations.
Posted by: sacdomc at May 1, 2009 9:55 AM
I am a Realtor who showed these condos to a pre-approved buyer last year. The listing broker's agent who was on duty that day was completely unprepared with pricing, availability, number of units in the project and other basic types of information that any serious buyer would want to know. He said he was just holding down the fort (babysitting) the project and didn't have any more information than what was on the public handouts he had given us. Any question that we asked him was given the same response: "That's a good question. I'll check with the listing agent and she'll get back to you about that."
Eventually someone did get back to me with the answers to my buyer's questions but it was three weeks later! The excuse was that their computer systems had a some kind of a glitch. What does that have to do with picking up the phone? I couldn't believe they couldn't come up with a better excuse than that. It was insulting.
The day that we visited the building and the on site sales office the building elevators had been installed yet. The building was still a construction zone. It was dangerous. We weren't even asked to put on hardhats.
Hearing that the project is on hold doesn't surprise me at all. I hope that whoever is handling it now will educate the on site selling agents about the five "P"s - Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance. Nuff said.
Posted by: RSVP at May 1, 2009 10:30 AM
I walked through the whole development about 6 months ago. I went over to have a look and in the model apt the sales agents, developers reps, or whoever they were, were chatting amongst themselves and totally ignored me. Eventually I just went exploring. The entire project was accessible, even places where the public obviously wasn't meant to be going yet. As the other commenter said, it was a raw construction zone.
At that time they were already installing appliances, bathroom fixtures, etc., so it seemed like at least a number of units were not too far from completion. It was interesting to have a look through all of the units, something the agents/developers rarely let you do. One thing that struck me about this project is how close most of them are to other units and the surrounding bldgs. With the large windows it felt like you could literally reach out and touch the next guy's window. So the impression I had was a fishbowl-like lack of privacy, and the fact that the windows, or at least the bottom part of them, would need to be covered most if not all of the time.
My 2 cents, due to the privacy issue this space would have been much better for offices than residential. That said, the units were basically attractive and I love the location. There would certainly be a few gems in there and I hope the project finds a way to move forward and fulfill the potential of the space.
Posted by: sunnyvalesteve at May 1, 2009 10:48 AM
Receivership means, typically, that the construction lender is moving towards foreclosure and in the interim has petitioned the court to appoint a receiver to protect the structure or complete some construction.
Posted by: Grubber at May 1, 2009 10:53 AM
I visited the building over a year ago, and was told that they would start moving people in around June 2008(!). The absolute deal-killer for me was no parking - that really has to limit the appeal of this sort of place...
Posted by: Chris at May 1, 2009 11:06 AM
this is another case proving the point that not every building in every location is appropriate for housing, particularly not every historic building. This was a perfectly good affordable office building with lots of charm in the heart of downtown. Not appropriate as housing, being sandwich between some very tall buildings and not offering much of anything in the way of light and air, less even than a chinatown alley (at least there the adjacent buildings are only 4 stories, rather than 40). But the City seems willing to let anyone try anything.
Posted by: realist at May 1, 2009 12:02 PM
I looked at an apartment here too, and thought seriously about buying.
I really like the location and think that at least some of the apartments were great. I was interested in 403 - like others (had a nice view, good light). I didn't need and don't care about parking.
Two things really put me off. First, the prices were absurd. They wanted $1.4 million for a 2/2 with no outdoor space. We thought of countering, but gave up before trying. Later on, we learned that they wanted to charge something like $1,200 in HOA for the apartment we were considering. This for a place with *no* services (not even a 24 hr doorman).
The second was the complete and utter disorganization of the sales staff. They didn't know when things were going to be ready (by things, I don't mean the building, I mean things like the HOA rules, or a contract). It was a bit beyond absurd. I'm not surprised that this place ends up in receivership.
I think that this location and building could have worked for housing. I think it was a mistake to imagine that this location and building were the right opportunity to test the upper limits of pricing (asking north of 1.100/sf? What were they smoking).
Posted by: embarcadero at May 2, 2009 11:56 AM
I can see One Ecker from my office. The building does not not show much action from the outside. The deck seems to need work for one thing. The boarded "tagged" storefront (tag announcing a restaurant?) is still empty.
Nice project. Expensive units. Bad timing.
Posted by: San FronziScheme at May 7, 2009 9:44 PM
Does anyone know if One Ecker sold yesterday at auction?
Posted by: in search of at December 31, 2009 11:02 AM