Expected to be priced starting around $550,000 for a studio at the end of 2007, then from $485,000 a year ago, the first studio at 829 Folsom (#308) has been listed on the MLS and is asking $399,000.
As a reader notes, however, the listing for #308 doesn’t include parking (there are sixty-three parking spaces in the building, but sixty-nine units).
∙ Listing: 829 Folsom #308 (0/1) – $399,000 [MLS]
∙ 829 Folsom Street: 69 Luxury Condominiums Coming In 2008 [SocketSite]
∙ 829 Folsom Street: New Details, Online Registration, And Timing [SocketSite]
∙ 829 Folsom [829folsom.com]
WTF is up with selling *anything* new w/o parking?
[Editor’s Note: Sixty-three parking spaces in the building (but sixty-nine units).]
A studio, in a marginal location, with no parking. 399K is STILL overpriced.
Do we have to beat this dead horse every week around here?
There are people, who have money and jobs, who would buy an urban condo without parking.
We all love to use our own sphere of reality as “fact” so here goes – I personally know at least two couples who *gasp* sold their car and went 100% car-free in SF. One used the money from selling their car to put solar panels on their roof, even! They both use carshare and rent from Enterprise/City Rent A Car when they need to get out of SF for any period of time.
Is there carshare in this building? Frequently 1-6 spots are reserved for carshare in new buildings, so a publicly available 63 spaces in a 69 unit building fits that profile.
The plan looks microscopic… No square footage on MLS or website. Nice rooftop terrace though with great views. I’ll be surprised if this building is not renting within 6 months.
There are people, who have money and jobs, who would buy an urban condo without parking.
Maybe, but it’s a small (probably single digit) percentage. People who can afford to buy almost always have cars. This is not Manhattan.
“We all love to use our own sphere of reality as “fact””
Sure, and if as developers, they wish to maximally contract the radius of the sphere of potential buyers, I can think of no better way than to not include parking for all units on a brand spanking new building…
It must be raining homebuyers again…
Ugly exterior. The wall of glass is a seismic hazard. The stacked bay windows make this building look poorly proportioned esp with the squared bay window combined with another bay window that is different in size with the other two outer bay window. The useless grill at the top makes this building look like a cheesy attempt at looking 1980s.
At SomaGrand, where I live, they charge a premium for the right to valet park, and an even higher premium for independent parking (NOT deeded), just assigned, but can be re-assigned by HOA. Being on the same block of Mission as BART/MUNI goes a long way to car free-ness, but we have 2 scooters for the jaunt to Caltrain and galavanting in-town, and a car that is kept in the South Bay during the week to get to work. So, we’re still not London/Paris/Berlin or New York — yet.
We need more major MUNI arteries across town unhindered first. 🙂
I agree completely with Mike. I previously lived in Manhattan. Being carless there is an entirely different proposition from being carless in SF. For one, the public transportation in SF basically sucks, especially if you ever want to go somewhere not between Civic Center and Embarcadero on Market. The number of outdoor activities you might want to do that are within a 1/2-hour drive here is also exponentially higher than in NYC. As much as the SOMA-boosters here like to pretend they live in a major urban center, SF is just not like a dense east coast city. If you don’t actually value that on some level, I don’t know why you’re living here and not in NYC or Chicago.
The reason there are not enough spaces is because the City tells developers that they CANNOT AND MUST not build a space for every unit. They believe that in this way it will encourage public transportation.
I guarentee you, that without the City’s involvement, most units would have 2 spaces.
Back on topic, I have to agree with Mike that this is overpriced.
As a comp, I submit 199 New Montgomery #911, featured here on SocketSite. Studio in a newer building, 412 square feet, also with no parking. Originally sold for $399K in June of 2005, now on market for $225K ($550 psf). That’s probably a low price to draw attention, but it’s unlikely to get bid back up to $399K.
From my observations, Soma prices are approaching the $600 psf mark on their descent. I believe Cubix, about a block from here, was selling their ~350 square foot studios for slightly north of $200K before they shut down, which supports that number.
[Editor’s Note: Cubix (766 Harrison) Sales Office Currently Closed But Not Sold Out]
Shza, I would LOVE to live in NYC. Hubby of 19 years hates NYC though. *Sigh*. That’s “What I Did For Love”. :p SF is about his urban limit. I’m a child of it. Darn that thing about having opposites attract!
I know location is everything but the post before this is for a 3/1 267k vs a tiny studio for 399k?
SF isn’t so big that I wouldn’t be willing to live a few miles away for hundreds of extra square feet of living space.
Any idea on the square footage on this and the other Units? I looked at some of the other floor plans, some look nice, others have a very liberal interpretation of what a ‘Bedroom’ is. Check out floor plan C…. Also I know this one says no parking, but the parking garage says three levels of parking, which is a deep dig for a 9 story residential…makes me think car lift..
What a horrendous looking building. You have the ugly 821 Folsom that looks like a jail center and now this is built next to it. I feel bad for all the residents at Stanley Saitowitz YBL to have these 2 buildings as neighbors.
The sales manager at this building was the same at the Palms. We all know where this building will be heading…
I actually think these look cute enough on the inside. the finishes seem about as nice as ORH or Infinity to me anyway. (I’m not a designer, just a regular joe…)
I hate when the pictures are not of the actual unit. clearly those aren’t the pics for the studio. arrrgh.
the essential problem for me is that this is a studio. studios are at best a short-term housing solution, so why buy them? short term housing solution equals rental!
therefore IMO a studio should always cost less than comparable rent, since studios are an inferior housing product and it’s unlikely you’ll live there for any significant period of time. and there are high transaction costs to buying.
how much could a place like this rent for? $1500-2000?
PITI should be no more than that (on a 30 year fixed).
this is extreme entry level housing and should have a price that reflects that.
$450 HOA? That room isn’t even 450 sqft.
When I first arrived in California someone told me “living without a car in this state is like living without legs.”
That was 10 years ago and I still do not have a car. I live in lower nob hill and do not have a problem commuting via transit to my job in oakland.
I save at least $10,000 a year being carless and rent cars through thrifty or zipcar when ever I want. I never have to find parking, clean or service the car = better life 🙂
Why does everyone assume living in SF = having a car? 🙁
carless – I received similar advice about how it would be impossible to live here without a car. From my hippie friends even !
“The reason there are not enough spaces is because the City tells developers that they CANNOT AND MUST not build a space for every unit. They believe that in this way it will encourage public transportation.”
Not quite Mark. What the city is trying to do is to control street congestion which benefits everyone on the streets, including Muni buses and solo SUV drivers. In the ‘burbs congestion issues brought on by new developments is often handled by widening streets. Not a viable option in SOMA.
On this property, the comparison to Cubix is hard to avoid. It is just a bit larger than the smallest Cubix studio, but priced at the original Cubix price of $399. What gives ? And it is lame that the listing agent doesn’t report the square footage. So much for presenting the buyer with the info they need to understand their purchase.
Now about that roof deck : excellent !
AAARGH I’m so sick of this parking discussion.
It is a GOOD thing to decouple parking from the unit sale. As Eric and carless attest, there are people who do not need the parking. Why make them pay for it? People who need it can buy or lease it. (it’s not clear to me how it’s being handled in this particular building, but clearly they built at almost a 1/1 ratio, so there is PLENTY of parking to go around).
People are reacting as if there is no parking, whereas there actually is parking in the building.
Perhaps we should park this argument for a while and come back to it later?
(ducks head)
🙂
Used to be that the excuse to buy a rabbit warren like this was that it would appreciate and one could get a “foot in the door” of San Francisco real estate. Wonder what the reason is now to live in a little glass cube with a toilet, a sink and room for the sofa and not much else.
I live in FiDi and don’t own a car. Never really been a problem.
The reason there are not enough spaces is because the City tells developers that they CANNOT AND MUST not build a space for every unit. They believe that in this way it will encourage public transportation.
And in the neighborhoods The City still tells developers THEY MUST build a space for every unit, even though this limits the supply of new housing and drives up the cost.
What percentage of San Francisco REQUIRES at least one parking space per unit compared to the percentage that does not?
No car here, going on 15 years, now with two kids in tow, no real problems so far. Saved a lot of money that way, too, which I was able to use to upgrade my housing options.
Wonder what the reason is now to live in a little glass cube with a toilet, a sink and room for the sofa and not much else.
$400k at 5% with a $250/mo HOA comes in at ~$2000/mo carrying cost, in line with rents I’d think.
I was looking at condos down here in the South Bay in 2001-2002 and found the $350K pricepoints for the high-end high compared to the falling rents of the dotcom crash, but these same places are now going for $600K, largely thanks to the low interest rates and semi-stable rents in the area.
Barring an employment mass apocalypse, I don’t think prices are going to retreat towards 2001-2002 timeframes until interest rates are back above 7% for a significant time period.
Car free in SF is possible if your time has no value. 99% (?) of the world do not own cars, so obviously such a thing is possible!
It’s also possible to pay 399k + 450 HOA to live car-free in this condo, but I wouldn’t recommend it.
“I was looking at condos down here in the South Bay…”
Troy – If you’re still interested in the south bay, you’re going to find some good deals on new condos in downtown and surrounding the Caltrain station. It has really been built out during the boom. I’d guess at least 1000 units are coming online in a mixture of high and low rises.
For the price of this luxury prison cell you can probably buy a nice 2br 2ba. With parking 🙂
Not quite.
A $388K loan (assumes a whopping 3% down payment on that $400K per FHA, aka Subprime II) at 5% is a monthly P&I of $2,082. Add in HOA of $450/month on this place (not $250) and you have $2,532. With property taxes, it’s $2,948. Add in mortgage insurance for a total monthly pre-tax of $3,248. After-tax it’d probably be around $2,500, depending on the individual’s situation.
Here’s a studio at the Palms for $1,695 if you don’t want the parking spot:
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/apa/1201331838.html
Since you guys are sort of on the subject or possible rental options compared to purchasing a studio. Does anyone have any input on renting at places like avalon or archstone? Or would I be best served using craigslist and renting from an actual condo development?
Personally, I don’t think I could get myself to buy a studio. I think a 1 bedroom is a lot easier to keep over a decent period of time.
FYI I need a car. 🙂 I do a lot of moving around in the East Bay as well as the city.
I get my hair cut across the street from this butt-ugly abomination. The fact that it sits next door to Satowitz’s gem is bad enough. The fact that it was permitted to be built is another blight on the judgement and process that passes for planning in our oh-so small minded little town. What a drippy building.
Would be interesting to know if the cost to build also came down. I’ve heard contractors working at cost just to keep people employed.
That building is pretty hard on my eyes.
Regarding parking, ZipCar works *very* well.
This argument over whether a parking space is necessary in SF misses the point IMO.
The idea is decoupling – separating the cost of the parking space from the cost of the housing so that you can choose to have parking, or not have it, as you see fit. You can even choose where you want your parking, and how much you’re willing to spend. The city is not saying that you can’t have a parking space – only that it can’t be “included” with your unit.
I’ll also second (and third) the Zipcar point. If you can use Excel, try running the numbers comparing your gas, insurance, maintenance (and perhaps interest payments), all of which Zipcar pays FOR you, to the estimated cost of being a Zipster (as the company likes to call its customers). I realized my annual expenses would be cut in half using Zipcar and I sold my car immediately. I’m not a “single digit” demographic either.
To dub dub, I value my time at approximately $200/hr in these types of analyses.
As for the building, I agree with Legacy’s accounting that buying this place is about twice as expensive per month as renting. To me, this listing is another example that there’s still a lot of air left to be squeezed out of the bubble.
The time value thing is always a funny one. The precise reason that I sold my car and use taxis, rentals, and Zipcar is that I value my time. If I’m in SF, the last thing I want to do when going to dinner or something is waste half an hour trying to find parking and/or waiting for my car from the valet after a meal. A taxi is door-to-door and you can have one called while you’re still enjoying dinner.
You can take a lot of taxis each month for the cost of owning a car and a parking spot (or renting a parking spot).
For out of town trips, I’d much rather rent, since then I can get exactly the vehicle that I want for each trip and it’s nice and clean and ready to go. I have them bring me the car, so I don’t even have to leave home or the office.
When you can walk to work and never need a car for work, owning a car in SF is really absurd, IMO. If I needed a car for work, I wouldn’t in a million years live in SF, because it would be too much of a pain in the ass. I’d join Satchel up in Marin.
What the city is trying to do is to control street congestion which benefits everyone on the streets
And how’s that working out?
We recently took our pooch to the vet. It used to be medium hard to find parking within a block or two of the clinic. Now there’s a big residential development — full square block, I think — right across the street. No parking anywhere. No free spots as we circled for half an hour. HALF AN HOUR.
The City should survey the residents of all the buildings built in the last five years. How many cars are owned per unit? How many have parking for those vehicles? I think people would be shocked.
haha olberwomann that’s funny!
$400k at 5% with a $250/mo HOA comes in at ~$2000/mo carrying cost, in line with rents I’d think.
it may be better to show your math on this one. this isn’t the math that I come up with unless you’re assuming a sky high downpayment???
but people with sky high downpayments are unlikely to buy a low end starter studio IMO (sure it’s possible that there is an Israeli attache who buys this for their rebellious lesbian daughter, or a couple from Antioch who wants a pied a terre, but this is much more likely to be a starter pad for a just-starting SF worker bee)
If you’re using IO loans or an Option ARM to get this figure, then I must ask why? Haven’t we learned from the past 5 years? The IO/Option ARM game works best in an era of appreciation, since you’re not paying down principal. The IO/Option ARMs are really ways of RENTING, with an option to buy at a specified price. Sort of “rent to own” if you will. Many others call it a call option.
These units should have a PITI + HOA (preferably on a 15 or 30 year fixed with let’s say 20% down payment) that is significantly less than comparable rent (to compensate you for the risk of depreciation that you take in buying a place like this).
for $2000 you can get nicer. I don’t know anybody who spends anywhere near $2000/mo on a not-very-big studio in a nabe like this.
bobN – that parking problem could be remedied by increasing the on-street parking fee and/or reducing the parking time allowed.
Or perhaps your vet should purchase/rent parking for their clients convenience.
I just don’t see the appeal in buying a studio unless it’s substantially cheaper than renting one, as I wouldn’t expect someone to live in it for more than a few years.
As an aside – can someone please explain to me the appeal of Saitowitz’s building next to this? I’ve never seen the appeal.
I don’t really understand the love for YBL next door either. I don’t have a big problem with them, but they look very depressing to me with all their gray concrete to garner so much praise from everyone.
As someone who is a native ny’er – and has been living in SF for the past 11 years, I have to call shenanigans. SHZA – have you travelled at all on the west coast? SF is easily the most “dense east coast” city west of Chicago much less on the west coast.
The transit here can suck a lot of the time – but its also the best and most comprehensive of LA, SD, Portland, Seattle, etc.
It’s not comparable to NY – but nothing in this country is – not even Chicago.
I live in SF – Not LA or Seattle because I value living in a dense urban environment – as similar as possible to what I’m used to.
I live in Nob Hill, I rent, I don’t own a car, but I do need a garage spot for my motorcycle. Garages aren’t just about cars. They’re about storage. I guess I’d be down with decoupling the spot from the unit since that’s what I technically do now. My garage isn’t in my apartment building.
That said, buying studios is historically not a wise investment.
bob, “shenanigans” seems grossly overstated here. I don’t deny that SF is the densest, most “east coast” (i.e., Modern) city in the west. It is not like LA (i.e., Post-Modern, i.e., huge essentially suburban sprawl). That’s why I live here as opposed to LA as well.
But the public transportation here really sucks (aside from on the major Market street artery). And “dense for the west coast” doesn’t equal “real urban density.” Saying something like “SF is not Manhattan” hardly seems shenanigans-worthy. Look at the huge number of two-story SFH’s and chopped up SFH’s here.
I can see how one might nevertheless be efficiently car-less here. Brutus has obviously run the numbers for his lifestyle. I can’t imagine how NVJ does it with two kids though. I have 2 kids as well and one of the things I value about living in a city is being able to spontaneously do things, e.g.: drive across town to the beach or GG park or Land’s End or across the bridge to the Marin discovery museum, etc. The last thing I want to do in those situations is add extra steps of renting a car, reinstalling car seats, reloading the trunk with strollers, etc. It’s hard enough to get everyone out of the house and moving already.
But I also agree with curmudgeon and Po Hill Jeff that this whole discussion is somewhat of a red herring and that decoupling of parking and residences is efficient. Personally, I’m willing to pay a premium to have the parking physically attached to my housing and would never even consider living somewhere without it. But it would obviously be incorrect for the market to assume everyone feels the same.
Apologies for the serious off-topic tangent. I share others’ befuddlement at why anyone would ever purchase rather than rent a studio. Especially for over 1/2 a million bucks (original 2007 projected pricing on this dump).
I have 2 kids as well and one of the things I value about living in a city is being able to spontaneously do things, e.g.: drive across town to the beach or GG park or Land’s End or across the bridge to the Marin discovery museum, etc.
Hey, if that is what you love about the area and you are willing and able to pay the $1000/mo premium for that perk, more power to you.
What I love is being able to walk everywhere, having a real sense of neighborhood where you really get to know the people around you and have frequent interactions with them and knowing that I am living as lightly on the earth as I can.
I am sure that I spend much less time on commuting and on travel in general than when I owned a car. My time is super important to me too, which is why I insist on living near where I work. I also don’t have a parking spot, so I would have to spend a lot of time searching for parking if I had a car. Initially, I could not afford a house in a neighborhood that I wanted to live in that included parking. Now that I have gotten used to living without a car, I can’t imagine going back. Owning car is an expensive inconvenience, especially if you don’t commute to work in it.
The kids are still young — not in school yet — so we may be forced to make some kind of change, depending on where they end up going. I would prefer that they go to the Spanish Immersion program at Fairmont, so they can walk to school, but we will see how it works out. As I am sure you know, you never know which school you will end up in. We may end up renting or even buying in another part of town, depending on where the kids end up. Or even moving out of SF entirely, though that is our least favorite option.
It is not really that hard to do things with a Zipcar, it just requires more planning ahead of time. But mostly we just spend lots of time in the neighborhood, which we love. If you don’t own a car, you better like where you are at, because you will end up spending much more time there than you would have otherwise.
I lived in SF without a car or a motorcycle for 4 years. I now have a motorcycle and a car, and can’t believe I lived in north beach for so long without them. Too many events, places and people were difficult to reach before, and now that I have a motorcycle and a car the possibilities are endless. 🙂 Peeps without personal motorized vehicles don’t know what they are missing out on.
I’ve got both a car and a bicycle. The car is rarely used and never for commuting. The bike gets daily use.
So I have a car (4WD SUV) and know clearly what it is good for (offroading, driving up to the Sierra during a snowstorm, hauling building supplies, taxiing a carload of candy-stoked 9 year olds to the next birthday venue). Yet I could certainly live without it. If it weren’t for the “free” parking that came with my home, I would have ditched it long ago and rented on the 10-20 days a year that I want a car.
Free parking can influence the of acquisition of vehicles. At one time I had 2 cars, a motorcycle, a large canoe, and 5 bicycles. One day when every one of those vehicles was down due to some mechanical problem I had an epiphany while walking to work (the only viable mode of transport left 🙂 and scaled way back.
Yeah, access to free (or nearly free) parking does influence how many cars people have. My partner and I used to have one car, when we got a place that came with a parking spot and also had amble on street parking (for a $74 permit) we decided not to sell our older car when we purchased a new one earlier this year. We would have sold it and made due without it if it was a pain to park.
It is nice to see soo many people enbracing a similar car-free lifestyle.
To those who question my carlessness, I do valve my time and prefer to read on Bart than drive across the bridge each day.
The $74 cost of the yearly street parking permit really bugs me. It allow people to keep a car parked on a street that they might use once a week. This limits everyone’s access to parking. The permit cost should be charged monthly and in line with what the public parking lots charge.
I would love for the IRS to allow a tax credit on shoes for the commuters that walk to work. I destroy shoes (my tires) during my walk/Bart commute.
I am living a semi-car-free life in Telegraph Hill, being lucky enough to cycle or walk to work depending on time/weather/courage. Heck, I can even telecommute to work (3/4 miles).
I have a junk car parked in Area A taking up space and getting kick-ass views as we speak (sorry carless, but I do get your point). My car collects dust and very few miles. I thought about throwing away the POS but the wife says no.
So. We’ve got folks using zipcars (just a smart way to lease a car if you don’t commute with one), motorcycles and cars, “now only one car”, and a dusty car that isn’t used much.
Not exactly a resounding “car free” result!
citycarshare.com says private cars cost about 500/month which I think is a fair estimate if you are not paying for parking.
When I tried briefly to live car-free in Noe Valley (I don’t live there now), I saved about 350/month (after extra cab costs, etc, not counting the time sink and reduced mobility), but I didn’t pay for parking.
People spend 350/mo at the apple store. Or on foodie stuff, or any number of other SF hipster activities. And I’m talking about average people, not the kind of people that could really afford many properties on this site.
A fellow above said his zipcar use saves him 50% of car costs, which (as it turns out) is consistent with my experiment.
In summary: if you don’t spend money on a car, you can spend it on something else (like HOA fees, extra rent, or extra taxes on more-expensive property!).
I miss the parking lot.
dub dub – exactly. I just laugh at the people that think that not owning a car means relying on Muni for three 30 minute rides a day.
“Car-free” doesn’t mean not using a car, it means not owning one (at least to most people that I know).
Most people view owning cars the same way that many people view owning housing. They vastly overstate the advantages, and vastly understate the disadvantages.
In summary: if you don’t spend money on a car, you can spend it on something else (like HOA fees, extra rent, or extra taxes on more-expensive property!).
Or you can save it.
http://www.math.com/students/calculators/source/compound.htm
$350/mo at 10% yield for 25 years comes out to $1/2M dollars. Add $200/mo for parking and it is more like $3/4M. Not too shabby.
NVJ – but one can save money any number of ways.
I bet one spends more on a “Noe valley childcare tax”, for example, than one saves not owning a car there.
It’s one thing to make car cost claims while living in a legacy rent-controlled apartment without parking in dense North City. It’s preposterous doing so while living in Noe Valley taking zipcar while twittering on an iphone.
You mentioned you might use a car to commute for more money earlier, so you recognize a car’s utility beyond its cost (in sharp contrast to the Noe Valley Tax, or foodie hipster costs).
I actually think we agree in principle, but we have different pain points! 🙂
The bottom line is a car’s additional cost (over the practical alternative) is on par with any number of things an urbanite might spend his/her money on (but probably “shouldn’t”).
@Brutus — Taking my point to conclusion :), the additional cost of owning a vehicle is not so dire because the practical alternative (zip cars, taxis, rentals) isn’t free. If the alternative fits you, then it’s a total win. But if not, no big whoop. Go out to dinner fewer times a month, and ease up on the peets — er, blue bottle 🙂
Anyway, have a nice evening everyone — that’s it for me on this thread, and thanks for being good sports!
“We’ve got folks using zipcars (just a smart way to lease a car if you don’t commute with one), motorcycles and cars, “now only one car”, and a dusty car that isn’t used much.
Not exactly a resounding “car free” result!”
The point about the dusty and unused cars was that it is so cheap to keep cars due to nearly free on-street parking or the sunk costs of included parking. There’s no financial incentive not to have a car because city subsidies and bundled parking eliminate one of the largest costs of owning a car in the city.
Unbundle parking and phase out the on-street parking subsidies and let the market determine the proper value of parking.
@Brutus — Taking my point to conclusion :), the additional cost of owning a vehicle is not so dire because the practical alternative (zip cars, taxis, rentals) isn’t free. If the alternative fits you, then it’s a total win. But if not, no big whoop. Go out to dinner fewer times a month, and ease up on the peets — er, blue bottle 🙂
The difference is of course that the alternatives are paid for by the use, instead of being largely fixed costs. I’m certainly not arguing that cars aren’t a valid need and/or want for most people in the US, simply that most people vastly overstate the utility and advantages of owning one (just as people overstate the utility and advantages of owning housing).
An example – I may spend MORE some months on local transportation than someone who owns a car, but if I decide to leave the area for a weekend or my work sends me to another country for a couple months (as happened recently), my costs for local transportation literally drop to zero. If I had the fixed costs of renting parking, paying for a car (either through an actual payment or depreciation or combo of the two), my costs would be the same as if I were there, only I have no possibility of using the car.
The fixed costs of car ownership are what make it different than going out to dinner, drinking blue bottle, etc, all of which I can choose to change AT ANY POINT in time and then save money. Lack of flexibility is what makes car ownership in SF so unappealing to me.
Milkshake,
Good luck on that. I know how lucky I am to hog a spot that could be used by B&Ts to party more easily. Plus where I park doesn’t have the street sweeping switcheroo that I loathed in Noe (hills too steep).
Re: commenter “BobbyS” way at the top who wrote “The wall of glass is a seismic hazard.”
LOL. Perhaps you haven’t seen the many glass walled buildings downtown, or around the world? Ever heard of a curtain wall? The actual structure is steel and reinforced concrete. The floor to ceiling windows mean absolutely nothing to the strength of the building.
I see the lowest prices on the studios is now $376,225
No square footage on the MLS for the cheaper units, measurement starts when price is 500K+