June 29, 2009
An 06 Comp (In More Ways Than One) At One Rincon Hill
While One Rincon Hill (425 1st Street) #806 has been on the market for 87 days asking $945,000 ($763 per square foot), the sale of 425 1st Street #1306 closed escrow three days ago with a reported contract price of $930,000.
The 06 unit five floors higher had been asking $995,000, was on the market for 113 days, and was advertising "available for lease as of June 1st. [for] $4150 mo." Tax records would suggest an original purchase price of just over $975,000 (likely in 2006) for #1306.
∙ Listing: 425 1st Street #806 (2/2) - $945,000 [MLS]
First Published: June 29, 2009 10:00 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Is that the actual size of the "master" bedroom? So much for trying to fit a California King sized bed in that!
In the "luxury" highrise condo my parents now live in no Wilshire Blvd. in L.A., that would be the size of the womans master bedroom closet.
Posted by: anonastonished at June 29, 2009 10:24 AM
Assuming the list price for Unit 1306 is correct at $975,000, it may well include some upgrades. The recent sale at $930,000 represents a drop in price of 4.6% since 2006. Given the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, pricing appears to have held up relatively well, all things considered.
Posted by: huh? at June 29, 2009 10:32 AM
quite frankly, I'm stunned this has only taken a 5% haircut (net of transaction costs, of course, the seller lost 15-20%...).
Still, this process of price discovery is taking even longer than I thought it would (and I thought it would take 3-5 years), even in the bubbliest of the buble zones.
Posted by: polip at June 29, 2009 10:37 AM
Transaction costs are now 10-15%?
Posted by: pwb at June 29, 2009 10:49 AM
The master bedroom is not only small, it feels even smaller, thanks to that furnace in the corner. A queen will leave a barely enough space for you to clear. But then, you don't live in ORH for spacious bedrooms. You live there for the view.
Note: I think 1406 was last listed for $995k before withdrawing about 6 mo ago.
Posted by: Fishtarian at June 29, 2009 10:51 AM
perhaps polip is including the holding costs in his/her estimation. Buying ORH clearly costs more per month than does renting comparable units. That adds up.
Posted by: ex SF-er at June 29, 2009 10:56 AM
at the front end, transaction costs for the buyer (usually buying from a new development these historically, but not presently, included the trasfer tax) likely ran around 2-3% (closing, title, transfer tax, etc). On the back end, they usually run around 7-8%. So yes, I would say that all in it's around 10-13%.
Is that better?
And quite frankly, that is better than I would have expected, and is far from a financial 'blowup' for most buyers (cash on cash it may have been rather ugly, I don't know how much went in at first loss position back in 2006).
Posted by: polip at June 29, 2009 10:59 AM
Transaction costs are now 10-15%?
Maybe they mean
6% to realtor
6.5% price cut
Title insurance, etc...
easily over a 15% loss
Posted by: Jason at June 29, 2009 11:00 AM
keep in mind that 806 would be 106 or the garden unit in any other building and 1306 would be 506. I looked at this floorplan and the master closet may as well be in the living room. Where is the 20-50% correction?
Posted by: viewlover at June 29, 2009 11:07 AM
I think that floor plan is one of the models the sales team show you as part of the standard tour. I actually like it a lot even with the smallish master bedroom. You get a full wall of windows on one side of your unit (including the kitchen) and the living dining is large enough to accommodate a reasonably sized table. Of course the model unit I think is somewhere on the 40th floor with spectacular views. It can be somewhat disconcerting being that high up particularly outside on a balcony but I'm sure to some that's part of the appeal.
Posted by: Willow at June 29, 2009 11:27 AM
Well I've seen at least one example of a condo that even APPRECIATED since 2006, so I'm not shocked to see an example of one that only lost 5%. I even sent my aforementioned example to the editor, but it interestingly never got featured here.
What is somewhat surprising to me is that this small of a price drop happened in ORH. That neighborhood is pretty overbuilt IMHO. Either way, I think a 15% drop from peak is about what one should expect in SF proper over the long haul. For the record, I initially thought it could be a 10-15% drop, so we’re testing the lower end of that range. Obviously, some places/neighborhoods will drop more than this, but I don't think 30% drops are the norm, and I don't think they'll ever be. That's just my unpopular two cents though.
[Editor’s Note: Please feel free to either share that apple here for public scrutiny or shoot it to us again and we'll take a look.]
Posted by: Lance at June 29, 2009 12:05 PM
"Where is the 20-50% correction?"
Viewlover - Using the MLS square footage of 1238 sf for this unit, the $975,000 price in 2006 would be around $787 psf. In 2006 there were MANY similarly situated units in similar highrises selling for north of $1,000 psf. The sale at $930,000 represents a cost of $751psf. Accordingly those that were lured into the $1,000+ psf cost structure have likely experienced 25-35% price reductions, before transaction costs. I won't single out anywhere where this may have happened, as I hear everything there is "hot, hot, hot".
Polip - If front end transaction costs likely ran around 2-3% (closing, title, transfer tax, etc) and back end ran around 7-8%, wouldn't the range be 9-11%? And the 7-8% assumes he paid 5-6% to his broker in the current market, which seems a bit of a stretch if he/she had even basic negotiating skills.
Yes, that's better.
Posted by: huh? at June 29, 2009 12:57 PM
huh, thanks for the clarification. I am aware of the $1,000 psf condos, the smaller 550-650 sf condos at Palms, Hayes, Infinity, seemed to be in that price range. However, I don't think that ORH was leaving any percieved money on the table when it originally priced the larger units, the lower floors were cheaper than the higher floors, and the 02 plans, fake sale as it was mentioned here, 2202 or 1802 or one of those at 1.3, and someone verified that indeed it did go for about $1,000 psf. In the end, its' still only a 5% reduction. Some bears on this site have not made the distinction as to the size of the units, but really do paint with a broad brush, specially when it comes to SOMA. In reality, its' a pretty mixed market at best.
I am starting to look for a new place and I've been disappointed that most of the good stuff is already under contract and not all that good to begin with. This data point just goes to show me that things are still moving pretty good considering the state of the economy.
Posted by: viewlover at June 29, 2009 1:34 PM
Speaking of $1000/sq.ft. condos, looks like some Amgen money was thrown at The Watermark (501 Beale #14A, 3bed/2bath 1,469 sq.ft. sold for $1,580,000 on June 10).
[Editor’s Note: See comment below.]
Posted by: EBGuy at June 29, 2009 2:11 PM
Holy skewed photos, Batman. Where do I get me some of those super extra wide seat chairs?
Posted by: d b at June 29, 2009 2:15 PM
Viewlover - I believe the 'fake' resale of 2202 went for $1.3m, or 1,000psf, but the 'base' purchase price was apparently a little over $1m, or around $800 psf, hence the uproar.
Still though I remember even in late 2007 seeing an asking price for a 2/2 at the Met, around the 20th floor, priced at $1200psf (which never sold) and the infamous 20B (a 2/2) at the Infinity which sold for $1300+ psf. I have to believe there were several other 2/2's also asking (and receiving) over $1000psf. Hence I believe the $1000psf wasn't just confined to smaller 1/1s.
At any rate I will agree that people paint a fairly broad brush when it comes to SOMA and someone like yourself (who is actively looking) does see the distinctions.
Posted by: huh? at June 29, 2009 2:16 PM
wow, ebguy just gave me another "shock" as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: viewlover at June 29, 2009 3:27 PM
With respect to the resale of 501 Beale #14A for $1,580,000 ($1,075 per square foot), keep in mind its tax basis suggests an original sale price of closer to $1,800,000 ($1,225 per square foot) in April 2006 and #15A sold for a reported $1,770,000 ($1,205 per square foot) in May of that year.
In other words, it's a >10% drop below early 2006 values for the 3 bedroom, 2 bath and 1,469 square foot 501 Beale #14A.
And now back to One Rincon Hill...
Posted by: SocketSite at June 29, 2009 4:11 PM
Is it easy to remove interior walls in these units? Wonder how livability would improve if the owners could eliminate bedroom 2 and incorporate the space into a larger living/dining area.
Posted by: midcentfan at June 30, 2009 7:32 AM
The living room is quite large. The master is surprisingly large and will accommodate a king sized bed. IMO, this is one of the most desirable floor plans in ORH. The city views are amazing; from floors 12-20 you have an amazing perspective of the city - too much higher and you start to see the rooftops and utilities. The only odd thing about this unit is the balcony's location off the second bedroom. I never understood the desirability of the 02's. The floor plans are OK but you lose your view to darkness when night comes.
Posted by: ORH1 at June 30, 2009 9:38 AM
Well, "accommodating" it may, but good idea, probably not. Put a TV cabinet next to the furnace, and you can't get to the window without closing the cabinet door. Put a cal king, you won't even be able to open it. And below 20th, you don't get any water view. But, of course, nothing comes even close to its evening city view. You have to survive the intense afternoon sun to get there though.
If anyone's interested, here is 3606 for rent:
Posted by: Fishtarian at June 30, 2009 11:32 AM
May be developer purchased the property to create a noise that market is back.... watch out .....
Posted by: sam at July 21, 2009 9:21 AM
The listing for 425 1st Street #806 has been withdrawn from the MLS after 117 days on the market without a sale.
Posted by: SocketSite at July 29, 2009 12:36 PM