Cubix 11/2/09 (www.SocketSite.com)
The Cubix sales office (766 Harrison) is about to re-open their doors. Lost to foreclosure in July, it’s no longer a HausBau property. And according to our sources it’s still bank owned (although the paper has bounced from bank to bank via a number of acquisitions).
As a plugged-in tipster notes, a new banner now touts “from the high $100,000’s” versus the “starting from high $200K” of yesteryear (2008). And a new website sports a hyphen (now cubix-sf.com versus cubixsf.com).
As we reported in July when the bank took over, 80 of the 98 residential condos and the commercial space remained unsold. It was in January that the sales office had reduced prices by “up to 29.5%” with the goal of hitting 50 percent sold.
SocketSite’s Straight Scoop On The Collapse Of Cubix (766 Harrison) [SocketSite]
Cubix (766 Harrison) [cubix-sf.com]
766 Harrison: Condos Indeed And A Brand New Brand (“Cubix YB”) [SocketSite]
Cubix (766 Harrison) Officially Cuts “Up To 29.5%” For Stimulus Sale [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by curmudgeon

    I still think it makes more sense as rentals, but at least we’re getting somewhere at “right sizing” the market….when was the last time the “high 100’s” was seen in SF?

  2. Posted by badlydrawnbear

    Just another 50% price decline. Move along folks … nothing to see here … move along …

  3. Posted by badlydrawnbear

    Sorry, 33%.

  4. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    badlydrawnbear, I can appreciate the sarcasm, however, most real estate agents on this site will laugh this event off as an anomaly. You just can’t compare practically anything else in The City with Cubix because they are so much smaller than anything else on the market (for sale, that is).

  5. Posted by rr

    Is this starting from the $109k’s or the $199k’s? Only having one significant figure when that digit is a 1 allows for a 100% variation in the actual number.
    (compared to if they said starting from the $800’s, where there is only a 12.5% variation)

  6. Posted by Insidesfre

    This whole Cubix outcome is really unfortunate. In concept, this was a good way for first-time buyers to get into the market.

  7. Posted by J

    It is an even better option for first time buyers now…

  8. Posted by Michael

    I’ll agree it was a good way for 18 buyers to get into market and lose at least a $100k a piece. I guess that’s better than getting into the market at ORH/Infinity an losing $200k a piece.

  9. Posted by diemos

    “You just can’t compare practically anything else in The City”
    Yup, even though the real estate industry’s valuation system is based on comps the minute any comp show a decline it is no longer a comp.

  10. Posted by down the drain

    rr,
    The sign says “High 100s” on the pictures. High 100s probably means something like $199,999.97.

  11. Posted by Buy High, Sell Low

    “Yup, even though the real estate industry’s valuation system is based on comps the minute any comp show a decline it is no longer a comp.”
    Tell me about it… I tried so hard to tell my ex-gf to cut the price on her TIC based on the comps I gathered so she could get out of debt, but noooooooo…
    You see the whole market is coming back in the spring, and happy days will be here again!

  12. Posted by ex SF-er

    I agree with Brahma… there really are/were few buildings comprised exclusively of such small units.
    there are other studios around town, but most of them are in buildings that also have 1BR, 2BR, and 3BR places… thus cubix is an anomaly.
    it doesn’t mean that we can just exclude the data that cubix shows us, but the fact that they are all so small is something to consider.
    constructing a building exclusively of studios was always a risky endeavor, even back in 2007/early 2008.
    moving into a studio in a place that has 3BR condos is different than moving into a place that has only studios.
    kind of like moving into a small house surrounded by mansions is different than moving into a small house surrounded by other small houses.
    the small house surrounded by mansions will sell at a premium.

  13. Posted by rr

    They need to turn these into long-term lease (say, 5 or 10 year) artist/musician studio spaces.
    You don’t need that much space to practice or paint, but it would be nice to have a small kitchen and bathroom if you are working all day or night.
    They can rename it the cubix art collective.

  14. Posted by SocketSite

    You just can’t compare practically anything else in The City with Cubix because they are so much smaller than anything else on the market (for sale, that is).
    In terms of simply size and building composition, the Book Concern Building wouldn’t be a bad comparison (priced from $258,000 to $451,000 in 2006).

  15. Posted by curmudgeon

    Yes, an there are units in the book concern building available for rent, I believe from the developer…I don’t think they succeeded in selling out that building.

  16. Posted by Chad

    Nice, @100k ish, definitely a deal. I am going to check it out this weekend and report back.
    Aahhh, I can already visualize my Shag Pad :)

  17. Posted by sam

    High $100,000’s is what? $180,000? $190,000? And those are for the least desirable units and probably only a couple of units at that price. The units that you would want are likely still in the low $200,000’s. Still overpriced. I’ll pass.

  18. Posted by joh

    Maybe I can get a deal on two adjacent units and tear down the walls. Or buy one on top of the other and add a staircase so I can call it a SOMA loft.

  19. Posted by Dukie Hauser

    Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy…George owns property up and down 11th street and never worked with the community to create “doable” projects. Now that he is bankrupt he has become a absentee landlord who cannot even afford the electric bill to keep lights on at night. The result is crime, taggers, dealer, crack dancers, homeless sleepers and campers. The neighborhood has to pay for paint etc and our labor to keep the taggers at bay. Thanks George…for nothing.

  20. Posted by kaya

    Shag pad?
    I’m holding out for whoever’s buying 1360 Montgomery, thanks.

  21. Posted by EBGuy

    Now that he is bankrupt he has become a absentee landlord who cannot even afford the electric bill to keep lights on at night.
    For those of you who are interested, I made a partial list of failed George Hauser projects at this end of this thread.

  22. Posted by sunnyvalesteve

    I bet at least one of these units goes for high five figures when all is said and done. If I were marketing this development I’d have a no-reserve auction for the least desirable unit, just to get the buzz from one outrageous low price, as well as motivate a little price discovery.

  23. Posted by Mole Man

    This is chasing the market down. If released at these prices then results might have been completely different.

  24. Posted by sfgal

    Has anyone been to this bldg, and actually viewed the units? Are they livable, or just too small?

  25. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    …George owns property up and down 11th street and never worked with the community to create “doable” projects.

    Perhaps he thinks he’s Howard Roark and that the purity of his vision will only be contaminated by having it presented to and approved by the unwashed masses.
    You see, from the Libertarian/Objectivist point of view, George Hauser declaring bankruptcy is not an admission of failure or an expression of lack of ability to pay his debts, no sir! It is a message.
    In the grand tradition of Nietzsche’s Ubermenchen everywhere, he simply had to seize this moment to tell us that he is now on strike! He will simply no longer tolerate parasitic workers exploiting his talent, from which all progress ultimately flows!! Yes, how dare, how dare ungrateful, incompetent moochers question his obviously brilliant plans!!!

  26. Posted by Willow

    “Has anyone been to this bldg, and actually viewed the units? Are they livable, or just too small?”
    I know we’ve covered this territory before but count me in the “far too small to be livable” camp…

  27. Posted by David

    Still overpriced. Should be $80-120k. Hard to live in 150-200 square feet full time. These are pied-a-terres at best. And how many of those are selling these days??

  28. Posted by sanch

    In response to this post, “Is this starting from the $109k’s or the $199k’s? Only having one significant figure when that digit is a 1 allows for a 100% variation in the actual number.”, I received the following email from the listing agent several weeks ago (September 2009):
    “… We have 72 market rate and 7 BMR units for sale. The units are all studio apartments ranging from approx 250 to 350 square feet. Our pricing ranges from $179,000 to $259,000. …”
    Still too pricey for my taste, but at least closer to the mark.

  29. Posted by medated

    Plenty of New Yorkers live in 350 sq ft spaces or less. My brother lived with 3 others in a 350 sq ft apt in NY for a couple years. They were students, yeah, but there are plenty who would be happy with that much space living alone.
    Just to give perspective.

  30. Posted by Chad

    @sfgal. I am going to check it out this weekend. Check back on this Thread for a Report.
    @Willow. Who ever spoke of “living” in these Units ? [Removed by Editor]

  31. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    766 Harrison #313 is on the market, marked Contingent, as an income-restricted BMR unit for $99,367 or $390 per ft.² with HOA dues of $265 monthly and $250 per month leased parking.
    Interestingly, developers other than George Hauser want to take on the small unit market in San Francisco. From berkeleyside, Berkeley developer sees future in small, smart homes:

    Patrick Kennedy is showing a reporter around a tiny living space — so compact in fact that, at 160 sq ft, it is the smallest apartment one is legally allowed to build
    …The SmartSpace comes with a sofa that doubles as a bed, a desk that doubles as a breakfast counter, a window bench that, at a pinch, doubles as a spare bed, a diminutive bathroom, and a surprisingly large amount of storage space.

    Working with local company Zeta, Kennedy is developing two such buildings in San Francisco’s SoMa and Mission neighborhoods…The apartments will not offer parking — the assumption being that downtown residents will rely on public transit and/or bikes. The San Francisco units will rent for $1,595 a month.

    Emphasis mine. Perhaps if Hauser went into the design with renting the units for 1.5K monthly, he would have been able to pull off a financially successful project.
    [Editor's Note: As we reported two years ago: Small Can Be Beautiful But...Will "SmartSpace" Sell In San Francisco?]

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *