April 2, 2010
1355 Pacific: Two Top Floor Two-Bedrooms Listed At Eleven A Square
The first two condos at the newly constructed 1355 Pacific have been listed, both two-bedrooms and priced at $1,145,000 and $1,229,000, or $1,126 and $1,108 per square foot respectively for 1355 Pacific #405 and #402 on the top floor.
Unfortunately neither of the listings currently include any interior photos (which are still missing from 1355 Pacific’s website as well).
∙ Listing: 1355 Pacific Avenue #402 (2/2) 1,109 sqft - $1,299,000 [MLS]
∙ Listing: 1355 Pacific Avenue #405 (2/2) 1,016 sqft - $1,145,000 [MLS]
∙ The Newest 23 On Nob Hill (1355 Pacific) Coming Soon [SocketSite]
∙ The 1355 Pacific Floor Plan Challenge: Find The Third Bedroom [SocketSite]
First Published: April 2, 2010 7:45 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
is this 2006 again? $1100/SF in a decent location? the units better have gold toilet seats.
Posted by: ajb at April 2, 2010 8:00 AM
IT's a pity that the developer didn't get the memo about the real estate bubble crashing.
I actually think that there's a lot to like about this building. While not a Pritzker prize winner, there some reasonable amount of thought given to layout.
That said, most apartments have bedrooms that look onto light shafts. For this price, I'd expect much more than what's on offer here.
With so much crashing going on in the condo market, I wonder what makes this developer believe that they can get these prices for this kind of building?
Are the toilet seats gold plated?
Posted by: embarcadero at April 2, 2010 8:09 AM
Well there is a premium for new condo smell.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at April 2, 2010 8:40 AM
The developer/builder has no excuse not to understand that the bubble has crashed as his last property on 14th street (www.form14th.com) completely went rental after none sold.
Posted by: SFLooking at April 2, 2010 9:14 AM
I agree he did not take into account the "new world pricing". With that being said, these will sell at that price, because people (a) have money, (b) will always assign a premium to something new, and (c) are stupid.
Posted by: SFRE at April 2, 2010 9:30 AM
That part of Pacific cannot command that kind of pricing. It just can't. Two-way street and has a weird vibe to it.
Posted by: scurvy at April 2, 2010 9:31 AM
i didnt mean gold plated toilet seats. i meant solid gold. you have to get some value somehow with those prices.
furthermore i agree with scurvey. that block is creepy. the building/garage next door has a very strange smell. across the street is a store where there are constantly about 6 dogs sitting outside (yappers). there is also a shady building next door. GOOD LUCK!
Posted by: ajb at April 2, 2010 11:07 AM
I know there are people out there that can afford 1.2 or 1.3, but do they really want to live in 1,000 to 1,100 sq ft for that money in this market?
Posted by: grumpy at April 2, 2010 11:34 AM
this block is creepy?
Posted by: condoshopper at April 2, 2010 11:54 AM
I have to think this kind of pricing is there to get some concession from the lenders, as opposed to a serious asking price.
He lists at his break even price, then goes back the to the lenders and says "Look, no one will buy at the break even price, so if you foreclose, you WON'T get your money back. So I can either start dropping the prices, but then I can only pay you back 70 cents on the dollar, or if you want to keep the loan on your books at full value so that no one realizes what everyone already knows, namely, that you're insolvent, we can go the rental route."
So they list at this price only to show the bank that foreclosure would be pointless.
And SFRE, I laughed out loud at c).
Posted by: tipster at April 2, 2010 11:58 AM
The block isn't creepy but otoh it's kind of mundane and has a few downsides to it. The pricing of these units is amazingly high all things considered.
Posted by: Amen Corner at April 2, 2010 1:47 PM
Looks like the two units listed in MLS just went into contract.
Has anyone taken a look inside?
Posted by: Francis at April 2, 2010 2:27 PM
If it is true that these units are already in contract (we need confirmation), then refer to my post at 9:30.
When things drop, the undesirable properties get slammed disproportionately more than properties in better locations that are more desirable. When buyers come back, they are very selective in terms of location/chicness/quality. Kind of simple logic, but is my rationale as to why these would have sold. **Not to mention my point "c" above - Anyone who spends $1.3MM for a condo is stupid**. Even though these are nice/new, buying a 2/2 condo at that price point is irresponsible and overly self-indulgent. But hey, if they have that are independently wealthy I guess they can be immature in their consumption patterns, and who am I to question.
Posted by: SFRE at April 2, 2010 2:45 PM
I'm sure the views had a big part of this, if they are already in contract. I think the price is high also, but there is a nice view from those 2 units looking at GG Bridge and water. Some people are willing to pay a big premium for that look out the window!
Posted by: chris at April 2, 2010 3:21 PM
Careful, we've also seen units go "into contract" to create "comps" for the suckers who buy afterward.
Lotta money in real estate. Therefore, lots of manipulation going on behind the scenes. We all fell for it in 2006. A unit would sell at a price with a secret $100K cash back to the buyer and that would create a new "comp", and the next set of buyers would bid that price without getting the cash back. Your friendly Realtor "forgot" to mention it when pulling the comps.
The views are very nice, but I don't see that hood and this market supporting that price. Of course, I saw through a lot of shams posted here, only to have people defend them as real at the time (I'm sure that will happen here), only to have them later exposed as the shams they were.
I'm not saying that is necessarily what happened here: people just need to be alert to the fact that it happens a lot more than you know. The developer has 21 more units to sell, it would be worth it to goose the comps by having untraceable parties buy the first few.
If this had happened at the end of the sales process, it would seem more believable. My BS meter isn't pegged to complete BS, but the meter is pretty far to the right.
Posted by: tipster at April 2, 2010 3:54 PM
If two units are indeed in contract and they are not bought by the developer's mother-in-law or cousins, then may be this is another sign there is demand for nice condos with view. Say the units sold after a 15% discount, the prices are not completely ridiculous. More importantly, these are likely domestic buyers as overseas counterparts would opt for highrises with valet.
Posted by: Outsider at April 2, 2010 4:10 PM
Overseas counterparts would opt for highrise with valet????
Are you just pulling this out of thin air?
Posted by: Embarcadero at April 4, 2010 11:02 AM
First hand and anecdotal - at least pertaining to buyers from Asia, middle east and South America. For those who use the unit as a second home prefers the perceived security of a highrise, especially with a lobby attendant. They also understand there is less general day to day maintenance they have to directly deal with. Valet is considered a desirable luxury feature - not for you and I perhaps, but some people do like the ability to drive up to the front of the building, leave the car and head straight to the elevator instead of winding four levels into an underground garage or worse, trying to place your vehicle into a stacker. You simply don't see a buyer from India, Kuwait, Taiwan or Hong Kong looking for a home in Noe Valley which is highly valued by local buyers.
Posted by: Outsider at April 4, 2010 12:12 PM
@Outsider, do you REALLY think buyers from "Taiwan, Kuwait, India, and Hong Kong" are looking for condos in San Francisco vs. a single family home on the Peninsula? Trust me, foreign buyers are not looking for another expensive shoe box, which they probably already own in their own country, but instead are searching for what they believe to be an "American lifestyle". I have friends in Hillsborough who are surrounded by wealthy foreign buyers who settle and bring their relatives here, but NEVER go up to the city. Crowded, noise filled, and sometimes dangerous and dirty streets are what they are leaving behind, why would they want to re-live that experience all over again?
Posted by: anony at April 4, 2010 12:37 PM
Anony: I completely agree with what you said. There is a distinct group of buyers that has either moved to or has a substantial part of their family in the US that looks for homes in the suburbs, especially down the peninsula. This has been the case since the 1970s as many of my foreign undergraduate friends at Stanford owned homes in the Sky Farm part of Hillsborough. There was indeed a lot of wealth and excess evident by many 18-19 year olds parading the latest Porsches and BMWs. I remember a friend from the Philippines that drove a Mercedes 500SEL and wore an 18K Rolex Daytona to class.
That said, I am referring to a different group of foreign buyers that are looking for condos as a safe place to stay while visiting. many have grown kids here that have their own family. The days of staying with your son or daughter is fast becoming a thing of the past. A lot prefer to have their own place and the real estate downturn has made many condos outright cheap compared to Hong Kong, Taipei or Shanghai. And San Francisco is not exactly Manila, Bangkok or Mambai which have drastic contrast between the slump and the exclusive. Where else can you find such a rich mix of cultures as in the City by the Bay ?
SOMA is a more popular locale for many as opposed to say, Pacific Heights simple because of its proximity to downtown and easy freeway access. A trip to Hillsborough via 280 or Orinda via the Bay Bridge outside rush hours is not much more than 20 minutes.
Posted by: Outsider at April 4, 2010 2:16 PM
Thanks for the more detailed explanation @Outsider. I understand the type of buyer you are talking about now. Your description of wealthy suburban foreign buyers is close to what I observed growing up here as well. Although this segment of foreign wealth is attracted to condos far more than a house in Noe as you mentioned earlier, I wonder if Vancouver and Sydney have stolen San Francisco's reign for attracting wealthy condo buyers from Asia at the present time?
Posted by: anony at April 4, 2010 2:50 PM
Vancouver has always attracted asian immigrants. I think the better access to health care and slower pace of life in Canada is always desirable. Still believe San Francisco is up there among the best. The latest prominent buyers are immigrants from India. They are highly educated and have stout purchasing power. Like most people, they do tend to move into the suburb once they have children.
Posted by: Outsider at April 4, 2010 4:55 PM
Vancouver attracted HK immigrants because you can buy the local equivalent of a green card for about $300,000 CDN (or you could in the era just prior to the HK handover). The immigration flow continues because so many people settled there prior to the handover. It's not about healthcare or the pace of life, though I agree these are nice things about Canada.
As someone who has lived in South America, Asia, Europe and a couple of big cities in the US, I think Outsider is making this up by extrapolating from his/her own experience/desires. I just don't see this happening at scale.
Posted by: Embarcadero at April 4, 2010 9:22 PM
Last week, we previewed the entire building with a qualified buyer looking for new construction in Districts 7-8. He had significant interest in #402 (top floor corner unit with GG Bridge views). We were told the unit would be listed for $1,250,000 (although it was not in MLS yet). We wrote a very compelling offer a few days later only to learn that the unit had gone in to MLS for $21,000 less than the price we were quoted and the unit was ratified!
Posted by: Castaldo Properties at April 5, 2010 4:37 PM
re: Castaldo's story.. I guess that puts to bed Tipster's conspiracy theory of the first two sales being shams to drive comps..
Of course, around here, it probably will just expand the conspiracy theory... if they were doing it they would definitely put a post like this just to throw dummies like me off.
Posted by: R at April 5, 2010 5:03 PM
To the new buyers of condos at 1355 Pacific:
Suckas! You've been Punk'd!
Posted by: Moe at April 10, 2010 9:52 PM
What a surprise. A realtor, who deals in the area and stands to make a lot more money if he can con-vince people that fake buys at an above-market price are real, gives us an anecdote about a client making "a compelling offer" for the same property before the developer's shill buys it like he planned to all along.
Gosh, I'd like to believe such an "impartial" statement, but I think I'll keep my skeptical hat on.
Posted by: tipster at April 11, 2010 9:47 AM
Shut up Tipster. Your fake nonsense is making this site worthless. People are sharing things and you're on about your crap. Stuff it.
Posted by: anonn at April 11, 2010 2:01 PM
Nailed it. Tipster does see Castaldo as further proof of a vast conspiracy with zero actual facts to back anything up.
Posted by: R at April 11, 2010 4:58 PM
Ha ha, Anonn, just like you defended at 10:52 on March 27 the shill comments when I called them out as fake in the thread about 728 Duncan below, it's good to see the Realtors still haven't met a positive real estate comment they couldn't disbelieve!
That Duncan property is still available, by the way, no surprise. So is 610 Rhode Island, the property another realtor, Katy Diner, gushed was an "Incredible Value" with "Great Pricing" (at the third comment).
After posting at least one other misleading statement on this site and getting called out for the complete BS she was spewing, she doesn't seem to be posting any longer.
Why is it that you group of clowns even bother posting. None of us believe a word you say! And it's a lucky thing: any one who was stupid enough to believe a single word you said for the last 5 years is out hundreds of thousands of dollars!
Great track record you guys have going, there.
And nice of you, R, to jump right in and point out that an unsubstantiated, anecdotal, incomplete comment "put my theory to bed". What happened, did you flunk logic class? Unless it's substantiated, it kind of doesn't count as a fact, and when it comes from a source with a motive,it's kind of easy to disbelieve it, and so where were your complaints about zero facts then, hmmm?
Posted by: tipster at April 11, 2010 5:20 PM
I will put my track record against yours any day of the week, pal. "Us guys" -- that's just your cute little way of talking on your hobbysite. You're a crab. Sorry you didn't buy in 2003. Obviously, you should have.
Posted by: anonn at April 11, 2010 5:46 PM
"Sorry you didn't buy in 2003. Obviously, you should have."
Nice tacit recognition that anyone who bought in SF after 2003 is likely screwed financially. So you have to go back 7 years -- and counting -- to get above break-even. Wadda deal. What happened to all the "SF real estate only goes up" talk? Yes, there was a ton of it from 2005-2007, the years when buyers were getting most royally screwed by the same tactics tipster highlights. The realtors, of course, will just keep spouting it. You should be condemning such rot in the profession, not defending it.
Posted by: A.T. at April 12, 2010 9:10 AM
Oh. Is that what I said? Whatever.
Posted by: anonn at April 12, 2010 10:36 AM
A listing for a 2/2 (#301) is on the market for $899k. The problem is that its only 842sqft!! That comes out to almost $1,100psft.
How can they possible fit a 2/2 in 842sqft? I mean 1635 California, just managed to get in a 2/2 at around 915sqft, but at 842sqft, that is extreeeemely tight. It should have been 1/1
Posted by: SFRE at April 20, 2010 12:09 PM
The sale of 1355 Pacific Ave #405 closed escrow today with an MLS reported contract price of $1,145,000.
Posted by: SocketSite at May 19, 2010 1:18 PM
List prices for at least three of the smaller two-bedrooms at 1355 Pacific (including #301 referenced by a reader above) have been reduced by 6 percent apiece.
Posted by: SocketSite at July 29, 2010 2:46 PM