June 30, 2009
Is "G" Wondering What The "F" As Well?
It’s a bit to the South but we’ve looked at it before. Purchased for $2,500,000 in November of 2005 and boasting $750,000 in upgrades since, "G’s" 356 Santana Row #306 down in San Jose returned to the market in April of 2008 asking $4,000,000.
Reduced a number of times before being withdrawn in December, it’s a plugged-in reader that notices it’s been back on the market for 22 days asking $2,999,999.
∙ Listing: 356 Santana Row #306 (4/4) 3,856 sqft - $2,999,999 [306villacornet.com]
∙ Infinity Penthouse Unit 37B: Before And After (And The Budget) [SocketSite]
First Published: June 30, 2009 11:45 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Wow, this place manages to be boring and vulgar at the same time. But I guess that's San Jose all over...
Posted by: snark17 at June 30, 2009 12:04 PM
snark17 - Nice piece of classic SF insecurity there. Yeah, put down the rest of the bay area. It makes SF seem so much more superior.
We know how Gs Infinity pad is so much classier.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at June 30, 2009 12:28 PM
With all his cash you would think he could hire someone with taste?
Posted by: bird_man at June 30, 2009 12:38 PM
Looks a lot better than the Infinity penthouse he ruined.
Posted by: DD at June 30, 2009 12:47 PM
Ugh, this is awful. It may not be as gaudy as the Infinity penthouse (who the hell is giving him advice??), but it is just plain boring and looks like any nasty track home that was decorated at an EXPO (before they went under) with stuff that is supposed to look "expensive." I can't see where the $750K in upgrades went and can't believe it was ever worth near what he is asking, let alone worth it in this economy.
Posted by: sfosea at June 30, 2009 12:53 PM
Tickety-tack, nuveau riche, palace of overconsumption. Above a shopping mall. What's to like for $3MM? No thanks, I'll pass...
Posted by: Drew at June 30, 2009 12:57 PM
I dunno but when I think of San Jose a 3 million dollar condo doesn't come to mind. Good luck trying to unload this one...
Posted by: Willow at June 30, 2009 1:03 PM
It has both McMansion styling and a no urban appeal. It's the worst of both worlds. It's franken-condo.
Posted by: builder5 at June 30, 2009 1:09 PM
"...Above a shopping mall..."
And that's sort of the attraction here. This particular mall (Santana Row) attracts a high concentration of well dressed (and perhaps highly modified) sharp looking women.
It is the perfect place for a lazy multimillionaire playboy to locate an oversized shag pad. Just step out of your front door and bag a hottie in no time. The trick is to avoid being pounced on by the cougars that also prowl Santana Row.
If you don't care how banal your place looks, chances are that most of your prey will not either.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at June 30, 2009 1:29 PM
How has G's Infinity pad worked out? There aren't many comps for penthouses, I guess, but would be interesting to know how the high high end of SOMA condos are doing...
Posted by: Po Hill Jeff at June 30, 2009 1:43 PM
wow ... stereotypes a flyin' in this comments string ... presumptuous, no?
Posted by: jamie at June 30, 2009 2:11 PM
I don't think this looks that gaudy at all... just plain. I'm very surprised that there is $750k of upgrades here as well.
interestingly, they missed on the easiest ways to bring this place to life. they should have put details such as crown moulding, large baseboards, and perhaps wainscoting in the dining room. I also would have put nicer door and window mouldings (is that the word). that would have added significant charm to this place.
I'm sorry, but 2 inch baseboards and cheap door mouldings don't cut it in a $3M pad IMO.
as an example, contrast G's pad to the lobby. the lobby has those great exposed wood beams in the ceiling, and has much better trim too. it looks much more "luxurious" and visiually interesting because of it.
Posted by: ex SF-er at June 30, 2009 2:36 PM
Love the headline Adam...
Posted by: Glenn Kelman at June 30, 2009 2:46 PM
"How has G's Infinity pad worked out?"
The "hot, hot, hot" sales for the lower floors at the Infinity are down to 650 psf. He paid north of $2000 psf [close to $7m] for his pad, almost triple the psf cost of the lower floors. In terms of how it's worked out, I'm just guessing he may feel a tad buggered.
Definition - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggery
Posted by: huh? at June 30, 2009 3:02 PM
How interesting. Boxy condos in anonymous towers on streets without any life, but tons of traffic fighting to get on freeways and bridges is "urban", but living above a pedestrian only retail street is tacky. Mission Bay is an urban frontier, but high density developements in the largest city in Northern California are not encouraged? Although San Jose is not for me, what is wrong with projects such as this, hopefully someday connected to a true regional mass transit network?
Posted by: anon2 at June 30, 2009 4:06 PM
I think it strange that Socketsite would not only identify owners of individual properties, but also openly ridicule them (Is "G" Wondering What The "F" As Well?).
I think this thread is inappropriate and not advancing Socketsite down the path of "The Wall Street Journal" of Real Estate blogs.
Moreover, I do not understand it's relevance to San Francisco Real Estate, other than the owner also owns a property at the Infinity.
"P" is wondering what the "F".
[Editor’s Note: While we try to focus on the property rather than the person (unless it’s a public or high profile figure, or central to the story), when one hires a publicist to promote their persona and lifestyle and lands on the cover of a local magazine promoting one of their properties, it becomes about the individual as well. That's how this San Jose property landed on SocketSite in the first place. And we do our best to see properties that we've once featured through to the good, bad or ugly end (which is why we deemed it relevant again).]
Posted by: Paul Hwang at June 30, 2009 7:50 PM
anon2: Santana Row is not a "pedestrian only retail street" (although there are only two lanes for cars, with traffic calming). It is an outdoor shopping mall with condos above (good for density) and surrounded by parking lots (bad for density). The transportation options it's closest to are the 280 and 880 freeways. I find the place particularly ironic in that it's intended to give you the feeling of a European city center, but is planned as a conventional suburban mall. Although I have been there a few times - it has good restaurants - I think it's an appropriate target for our mockery, given its pretensions.
Having said that, I think there are places in San Jose, particularly close to downtown, where the city planners have done a great job of locating housing near transit (light rail and Caltrain).
Posted by: Po Hill Jeff at June 30, 2009 8:44 PM
I'm sure he's taking solace from his $1mm hit in SF real estate in the other $399mm
Posted by: Mud at July 1, 2009 12:08 AM
^^^Paul, Just go to "G"'s website to see what kind of privacy he is after. G has more publicity agents than some real estate offices have staff, and posting pictures of himself with his shirt off does not help his cause. His video page is especially interesting, I think it is safe to say G is not interested in privacy, but instead publicity. Is this a video of the Santana Ana Row condo?....
Po Hill, Agree that it is not a Euro-City Center, I was more trying to figure out why this project is any worse than some of the new developement trends in San Francisco. My hoping for a transit friendly, less car user Bay Area was only a wish.
Posted by: anon2 at July 1, 2009 3:37 AM
This is an interesting turn of events. Paul, a serial spammer and shameless self-promoter as an arbiter of taste on blog postings :)
Or is "P" just sucking up to "G" on blogs? Where was "P" when "NG"'s re dalliances were dissected recently right here. And doesn't every major newspaper have a column dedicated to re doings of local and national celebrities and self-promoters?
Property Shark and many re sites list names of owners, when they bought, how much they paid, how much they borrowed, how much taxes they pay and owe and if they are delinquent. All part of public record for most folks.
Methinks "P" trying to manufacture controversy as part of a devious plot to garner more shameles self-promotion :)
Posted by: chuckie at July 1, 2009 8:13 AM
"I think this thread is inappropriate and not advancing Socketsite down the path of "The Wall Street Journal" of Real Estate blogs."
If there is any reason that this blog would not advance in the direction of the WSJ of blogs it would be because of people like you, Paul. Sorry, "P". In the event that you have ever read the Journal you might have noticed that it's filled with facts, figures and actual data about the markets, economy and interest rates. That's precisely the actual data (in this case, real estate pricing trends) that you refuse to add to this blog, because honesty and transparency are against your "principles."
Your empty self promotion ["hot, hot, hot"] moves this blog more in the direction of the National Enquirer as you add nothing but fluff. Well, maybe not quite, given that the National Enquirer actually has an iota of credibility.
Posted by: H-diddy at July 1, 2009 9:29 AM
I don't understand how the owner's identity of a San Jose property is relevant to understanding the San Francisco Real Estate market.
The only thing I see is the acerbic personality of various posters being adopted by the Editors of Socketsite.
While chuckie and various other posters would ridicule and promote violence in their posts, I am saddened by this trend from the Editors. What will be tomorrows headline; "Die cockroach! Die!"?
[Editor’s Note: The question of relevance was asked and answered above.]
Posted by: Paul Hwang at July 1, 2009 9:57 AM
"In the event that you have ever read the Journal you might have noticed that it's filled with facts, figures and actual data about the markets, economy and interest rates."
Oi. The entire purpose of the WSJ is to herd the sheep to the slaughterhouse.
Posted by: diemos at July 1, 2009 10:22 AM
"Oi. The entire purpose of the WSJ is to herd the sheep to the slaughterhouse."
Well, in that case it has a lot in common with Paul quest to induce people to buy at the Infinity.
Remember, hell is also "hot, hot, hot".
Posted by: H-diddy at July 1, 2009 10:30 AM
'Remember, hell is also "hot, hot, hot".'
LOL, best comment of the day.
Does the three sentence article grievously offend anybody here other than Paul Hwang?
Posted by: Sb at July 1, 2009 10:46 AM
"I don't understand how the owner's identity of a San Jose property is relevant to understanding the San Francisco Real Estate market."
I hate that a shameless self-promoter (think Paul) and serial abuser of the blog etiquette and resources (again think Paul) is getting this air play but I can't help point out that the excesses of this bubble and its bursting will eventually be best understood by the actions and motivations of its actors.
As far as WSJ of blogs? I suggest the blog focus a few posts on the Bernie Madoff of Infinity/ORH/Metropolitan condos. Who has exploded the most wealth for the buyers in these buildings in cahoots with developers/sellers while professing to "represent" buyers? The mandarins in Washington have managed to slow down this unwinding and to sucker a lot of recent buyers into continuing to absorb ongoing carrying cost losses. In a couple years when reality has finally set in and these buyers do start to face up to their losses, their Bernie Madoff (think Paul) should at least have to look in the mirror.
Posted by: chuckie at July 1, 2009 11:04 AM
chuckie, that's "F" Up' you would compare Paul to Madoff. Have you personally met Paul or had an experience with him outside of Socketsite? Seems lame to me you would call shots out through the internet.
Reminds me of all the fake tough internet guys who post on internet forums under alias.
Now back to G and his sense of style...
Posted by: anon at July 1, 2009 11:13 AM
Actually, "Hell is other people." Endlessly circling and cycling with their selfishness, rudeness, obtrusiveness and petty squawks ... least that's how Sartre depicted it in "No Exit." It ought to be familiar to frequent readers of this website.
Posted by: anonn at July 1, 2009 11:22 AM
Now back to G and his sense of style...
I followed the link. I could have sworn the picture was winking at me. Shoudda swallowed my coffee before clicking. Now I need a new keyboard.
Posted by: San FronziScheme at July 1, 2009 11:23 AM
Not being heterosexual, I'm sometimes off in my analyses, but it strikes me that locating a brothel directly above a shopping mall is a stroke of genius!
Posted by: BobN at July 1, 2009 11:39 AM
"I think it strange that Socketsite would not only identify owners of individual properties, but also openly ridicule them (Is "G" Wondering What The "F" As Well?."
Ordinarily I would agree with you Paul but G is positioning himself as a stud muffin who is quite the media whore (twittering away about dinner at French Laundry no less…) so I think he can take it. Besides he's rich! And Adam, love the title. One of your best.
Posted by: Willow at July 1, 2009 1:56 PM
"How has G's Infinity pad worked out? There aren't many comps for penthouses, I guess, but would be interesting to know how the high high end of SOMA condos are doing..."
PHJ - Socketsite just noted that the Ritz Carlton penthouse, #2401, failed to sell at its asking price of just under $6m. The space is 3595 sf and thus the asking price was $1668 psf.
"G" paid just short of $7m (or north of $2,000 psf) for the Infinity Penthouse #37B. If the Ritz Carlton penthouse got zero bids asking $1668 psf and most would consider the Ritz a superior property it's anybody's guess how far "G's" penthouse has fallen in value.
[Removed by Editor]
Posted by: huh? at July 1, 2009 2:31 PM
Whether or not someone deserves to be ridiculed or not is moot, it's the decline of civility accerelated by the anonymity of the Internet that is a sad comment on our Society. My two cents for a kindler and gentler Socketsite.
Posted by: Paul Hwang at July 1, 2009 7:24 PM
"My two cents for a kindler and gentler Socketsite."
Bleeh. Nouveau riche who hire publicists to inform the peons about their fabulous new lifestyles deserve all the mocking they get.
Posted by: diemos at July 1, 2009 8:51 PM