July 21, 2010

723 Taylor Unwrapped And Coming Soon

723 Taylor (7/21/10)

Rising last October, it’s a plugged-in tipster that first catches the scaffolding around 723 Taylor between Bush and Sutter coming down. Once again, it’s twelve new units of urban infill coming soon with a website that appears to be in the works.

UPDATE (7/22): Another tipster, another perspective:

723 Taylor

And once again, as the lot once looked:

723 Taylor Before (Image Source: MapJack.com)

723 Taylor Rising: Urban Infill In Action And Twelve Units On The Way [SocketSite]

First Published: July 21, 2010 12:30 PM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

i suspect it will be the same old scenario: listed prices will be over the top, socketsiters will note such (or units sold to "insiders" to establish comps), units will languish on the market without selling, socketsiters will wonder if said units will go rental, listed prices will be reduced, low-ball offers made; some units may sell, prices will be reduced...and eventually lawyers will get involved.
just my prediction

Posted by: snider at July 21, 2010 12:40 PM

Love the facade, nice looking building in a good location walking distance to financial district, whats not to like?

Posted by: anon at July 21, 2010 1:56 PM

Good to see some new energy in a sort of neglected area. Tenderloin/Lower Nob Hill - has amazing potential & would benefit from more ownership opportunities. Also, the whole sense that that Lower NH is a but a traffic corridor on way other neighborhoods undermines the quality of life there. Pine, Bush, and others are outrageous -- like entitled SUV lanes for those who just have to commute, sole driver by sole driver. Without a strong ownership voice that I know of, Planning needs to take lead on looking carefully at this amazing area.

Posted by: Invented at July 21, 2010 2:13 PM

Nice looking building and a great location. Ditto Invented.

Posted by: CameronRex at July 21, 2010 2:27 PM

"Pine, Bush, and others are outrageous -- like entitled SUV lanes for those who just have to commute"

SUV lanes? Really? Are you trying to make talking points or trying to reflect reality? Compared to other cities I've lived in, there really aren't that many SUVs here.

Back to the building, the facade looks nice enough, although quite a contrast from the building to its right. I'm certainly with snider on how pricing and selling will go.

Does this count as Tenderloin Heights/TenderNob/Lower Nob Hill, or is this Nob Hill?

Posted by: sfrenegade at July 21, 2010 4:03 PM

Maybe these places will be snatched up by parents of AAU kids - if they're going to pay that kind of tuition, might as well put the kiddie up in a condo that can be sold to another parent after s/he graduates.

Posted by: AlamoSquare Dweller at July 21, 2010 4:34 PM

"Pine, Bush, and others are outrageous -- like entitled SUV lanes for those who just have to commute"

SUV lanes? Really? Are you trying to make talking points or trying to reflect reality? Compared to other cities I've lived in, there really aren't that many SUVs here.

Well, I live on Pine and I can tell you that while there may not be as many suvs and other cities, it is like living on a freeway - a freeway that often turns into a honking traffic jam when the cable cars pause on powell to - well - pause. Because it is uphill from downtown and because drivers tend to haul ass up said hill, the exhaust pollution can get thick.

But yeah, aside from this and the homeless guy who sleeps and pees in front of my building, the neighborhood is convenient.

Posted by: dogboy at July 21, 2010 4:56 PM

No doubt some streets in SF are like freeways, and to some extent you can thank the Freeway Revolts for that. And the uphill streets are not so great for the reason dogboy said, as we've discussed on SS before.

My point is that "Pine is a freeway" is a typical comment on SS and true, whereas the original poster was instead trying to push an agenda and appeal to emotion. Invented usually does a better job of keeping things factual, and I appreciate his/her comments generally.

Posted by: sfrenegade at July 21, 2010 5:14 PM

Comments like Snider's have reduced Socketsite to a steady, irrelevant whine through a the best market in living memory and now through a the worst. Kudos to the developer who has created a new, good looking building in an area that hasn't seen a new residential building in decades. The proximity to the Olympic Club, the Bohemian Club, theaters, Nob Hill, Union Square and downtown auger well for the project. I hope they do well.

Posted by: Not snide at all at July 21, 2010 5:17 PM

UPDATE: Another perspective has been added above.

Posted by: SocketSite at July 22, 2010 7:41 AM

"the best market in living memory" -- when are you referring to, sir? SocketSite wasn't posting heavily for much of the 2004-2007 SF boom and was pointing out price increases in its early days because that's what was happening in the market. I'm not sure what you're suggesting was "reduced" to something "steady." And if this site is so irrelevant, why are you posting here?

Back to the building, it looks a lot more dreary in the second picture. What did they have against a brighter color?

Posted by: sfrenegade at July 22, 2010 9:16 AM

Why do all of the new buildings being built seem to look the same? A total waste of materials and time.

Just look at Mission Bay and the proposals for Treasure Island. They all look the same. No true architectural diversity.

Kind of like the Japan Town mall. Total lack of detail that today is considered terrible and will eventually be demolished (which is a really good thing).

Time for the Planning Department to start requiring developers to find design styles before all of San Francisco is covered with blandness, like much of the towers downtown.

Posted by: frenchjr25 at July 22, 2010 11:27 AM

Why the attack on AAU AlamoSquare Dweller? The school brings in more than 10,000 students into SF every semester. This means an increase in business for people on Nob Hill and for art stores. And the students that don't live in school housing have jobs and are SF residents.

Without AAU there are many small businesses that would not be open today.

Don't attack a school you clearly know nothing about.

AAU has been great for SF and has been here, and only here, for over 80 years.

It has also saved at least 5 historic structures from being demolished.

Posted by: frenchjr25 at July 22, 2010 11:32 AM

I love this building too, great to see how tradition and modern can work so well together.

Posted by: Suzie at July 22, 2010 1:13 PM

suspect it will be the same old scenario: listed prices will be over the top, socketsiters will note such (or units sold to "insiders" to establish comps), units will languish on the market without selling, socketsiters will wonder if said units will go rental, listed prices will be reduced, low-ball offers made; some units may sell, prices will be reduced...and eventually lawyers will get involved.
just my prediction

I have yet to see a rumor mongerer prove the sold to "insider" to establish comps thing. Not when it comes to smaller developments such as this one. Usually they're proven wrong but by then readers such as you don't double back to see. However, your snide dismissal of future eventuality based upon rumor archness is definitely the logical conclusion of that sort of dialog.

Posted by: anonymous at July 22, 2010 2:27 PM

anonymous is definitely flujanonn.

If I remember correctly, the other small development at which people suspected the insider sale was 1327 7th, and if the first sale wasn't to an insider, the new owner may have gotten screwed on the deal consider the price cuts for later units. Whether it's an insider sale or a trigger-happy first buyer, overpriced is overpriced.

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2010/06/first_mover_disadvantage_and_a_few_more_cuts_at_1327_7t.html

Posted by: sfrenegade at July 22, 2010 2:37 PM

Flujie!

"prove"

and again I'll ask what would satisfy you as proof? Anything less than a signed and notarized confession from the developer?

"Usually they're proven wrong"

don't hold back. feel free to point us to the old threads where these speculations were disproven.

P.S. "archness" is a giveaway.

Posted by: diemos at July 22, 2010 2:39 PM

Right. 7th Avenue showed two or three arm's length transactions that some labeled fraud and then never said another word about, so there's one. DId "fluj" have a monopoly on the word "archness" or something? If so, maybe share another word that would describe someone predicting future events and rolling their eyes? From what I understand, fluj quit the board a long time ago. Then adopted another name. Then left agin. Then some johnny come lately's acted as if they had ever gotten his ear in the first place.

Posted by: anonymous at July 22, 2010 3:30 PM

and if the first sale wasn't to an insider, the new owner may have gotten screwed on the deal consider the price cuts for later units. Whether it's an insider sale or a trigger-happy first buyer, overpriced is overpriced.

There's a big difference between "overpriced" and "insider deal" or "fraud," OK? Do not lump them together and then try to sum it up as if you made a valid point by doing so.

Posted by: anonymous at July 22, 2010 3:39 PM

I remember Unit #11 was directly claimed on SS to be an arm's length transaction. I'm unsure if there were any other sales besides that one. A lot of the other units had been reduced significantly (I seem to remember $1.4M to $1.15M for one and $1.2M to under a million for another) or had been listed for 3-4 months at a time unsuccessfully, last I checked.

So either the early adopters were insiders or they got screwed by making the first move. It doesn't matter to me which one. But it seems rather suspicious that 1 unit moved so quickly, and the rest are dragging on.

Posted by: sfrenegade at July 22, 2010 3:47 PM

fluj/anonn/anonymous -- whether there's a big difference or not, I'm not advancing tipster's argument, and never have. You have also never disproven tipster's (or snider's in this case) argument. I'm simply saying that the circumstances are suspicious enough that it's not implausible. Since when is it improper to call somethign suspicious?

Posted by: sfrenegade at July 22, 2010 3:50 PM

The argument was disproven. Two of those 7th Ave units were from Zephyr to Pac Union and Zephyr to Sotheby's. How could collusion have occurred?

Posted by: anonymous at July 22, 2010 4:05 PM

Next to the Biltmore Hotel

Maybe the hookers with skirts
can get their own condos.

Shorten the stroll
to the Hilton.

The hookers on Jones Street
don't wear skirts at all

For every block away from
the hilton
the hookers get funkier.

Is it me?
or do all
these new buildings
look the same?
Design by Cost Analysis.
Build small
build interesting.

Like the city itself
small and interesting.
Well this halfway there.

We wish you luck!

Posted by: kathleen at July 22, 2010 9:39 PM

Two of those 7th Ave units were from Zephyr to Pac Union and Zephyr to Sotheby's. How could collusion have occurred?

That 2 sales were between different shop doesn't really disprove much. After all the interest of the industry is both high enough volume and high price.

The buyer's agents will not fight for a price too low: 1 - because it's their commission too and 2 - because playing low-ball with a seller's agent means someone will be tough with you when you represent a seller. Nobody scratches your back back (!) when roles are reversed.

If all agents agree to play nice and not undercut the selling agent's pricing strategy, we've got a well oiled profit machine. "It's the market. I think you should take it." Add to the fact that supply is limited and demand pretty constant, you've got the perfect sandbox where everyone can have his little patch.

Posted by: lol at July 22, 2010 10:23 PM

because playing low-ball with a seller's agent means someone will be tough with you when you represent a seller. Nobody scratches your back back (!) when roles are reversed

Nonsense

Posted by: anon at July 23, 2010 6:36 AM

"The argument was disproven. Two of those 7th Ave units were from Zephyr to Pac Union and Zephyr to Sotheby's. How could collusion have occurred?"

Yes, finding four dishonest realtors? What are the odds.

Posted by: tipster at July 23, 2010 9:33 AM

You don't even know who they are, nor did you give it a moment's thought.

Posted by: anon at July 23, 2010 10:23 AM

Honestly, it isn't collusion, it's a business deal.

Buyer says I'll pay $1M, seller says if you make the price 1.5M, I'll kick back $500K, plus $10K for your trouble and the increased property tax for the next 5 years, and we'll register for a property tax reduction for you after we sell the next couple of units. Oh, and we'll pay commissions on the entire 1.5M purchase price.

Who's going to complain? If the next buyer pays more than the first one, the first one gets "instant equity". The realtors make more and the buyer pockets $10K. The buyer and seller are free to structure the deal however they want. It's not collusion. It may be misleading but it's the definition of a good deal: everyone benefits. Of course the subsequent buyers don't, but they aren't part of the transaction.

And if they aren't smart enough to sniff out a faked deal, and instead base an offer on it (!) well, a fool and his money...

Posted by: tipster at July 23, 2010 11:28 AM

You're a sloganeer and that's one of your campaigns on here. I'm not interested in discussion with someone who calls people "dishonest" without any knowledge base. OK?

Posted by: anon at July 23, 2010 12:05 PM

Nor are you interested in a discussion when you have been thoroughly refuted, apparently.

And I didn't call those realtors dishonest, I said finding four dishonest ones wouldn't be too hard.

Posted by: tipster at July 23, 2010 12:31 PM

two things - anon/anonymous you sound almost exactly like fluj, so if you're not him pick a damn name so we can follow you. until then i've got probably the first and last thing i'll ever agree with tipster on.

as for tipster saying "you have been thoroughly refuted" - that is a joke. tipster is a conspiracy theorist. if realtors are involved there must be a conspiracy. Let's be clear here - what you are inferring is that there is rampant fraud in new construction sales. give me a break. Your constant Realtor bashing and made up conspiracies discredits every opinion you have. you've become a sideshow clown.

Posted by: hangemhi at July 23, 2010 1:09 PM

You can't thoroughly refute someone by repeatedly stating an unsubstantiated opinion. Again that's better called sloganeering.

Posted by: anon at July 23, 2010 1:12 PM

OK then fine . I will pick a name and stick with it. Tired of getting called flujanon. I'm a lot nicer than that guy. Although I can understand sort of because some of these people probably deserve to get tongue lashed for all the ridiculous things they say on here.

Posted by: Geoff the Realtor at July 23, 2010 1:33 PM

Nonsense

That was the most lame-a$$ counter-argument I have seen so far. You might not be fluj/anonn after all...

Collusion is built in this industry. No fault on your part there. Just don't defend it, that makes you look sleazier than you probably are.

First is the data asymetry. Try to get the reality of some past deals (like cash backs). Try to get a square footage: 1/2 the listings do not have them: do the walls re-arrange magically at night that a measure is unreliable? How hard can it be? My nephew can do that while texting and doing his homework.

Second, why can't we have the amount bid by another buyer? It's all in a cloak of secrecy so that a sucker will feel powerless and make a wild bet.

Third, on the fact that buyer agents are paid more when the price is higher, exactly like the seller's agent. That's not a good incentive to do a race to the bottom, now, is it? That's also a good enough motive to tweak whatever you can to make someone overpay.

Fourth, buyers agents can also be seller's agents on another deal. On one side, they are fighting to get a higher price. On the other side, they are fighting to make a sale at the price the buyer is willing to pay (but not low enough you're condemning your kids to Mac n' Cheese. This all means you have high pricing in your DNA

If you have enough buyers lined up, with all these elements at play the perfect little pumping machine will work its magic for both the seller's agent and the buyer's. Yes, both.

Those 3 elements alone are like saying to BP to drill for cheap in the Gulf of Mexico with slack rules they have to enforce themselves. They'll grab as much as they can. Sucker!

Posted by: lol at July 23, 2010 5:44 PM

lol wrote:

First is the data asymetry [sic]. Try to get the reality of some past deals (like cash backs).

I agree with lol that asymmetrical information is a hallmark feature of real estate transactions, but I'm a little fuzzy on a few things, perhaps we can talk these out.

Not sure how one would find out about "cash back" arrangements so that one could act on them. Other than the escrow instructions to the title company/escrow officer, where could you find this out and who would be in a position to know about them? If the escrow instructions are the only place were this kind of thing is documented, how would an aggressive secondary buyer access it; isn't it private?

Try to get a square footage: 1/2 the listings do not have them: do the walls re-arrange magically at night that a measure is unreliable? How hard can it be? My nephew can do that while texting and doing his homework.

My understanding is that most brokers and agents do not want to be legally liable for representing a total square footage of a property, even if they did in fact measure it themselves.

The reason, as far as I have read, is that there isn't a standard for measuring the area of a home. An agent or appraiser might measure square footage by inside room dimensions. Developers like to measure the exterior of the building, which can add considerable square footage to the home. This is why agents like the disclaimer you see all over the place: information presented here deemed reliable but not guaranteed and should be verified

If I had even a third of the money that PG&E spent on Proposition 16 earlier this year, I'd circulate a petition to put a "California Real Estate Transaction Transparency Initiative" on the next ballot to force a lot of the under-the-covers chicanery involved in property sales out in to the open.

Posted by: Brahma (incensed renter) at July 23, 2010 8:16 PM

My understanding is that most brokers and agents do not want to be legally liable for representing a total square footage of a property, even if they did in fact measure it themselves.

Yeah, well let me add my grain of salt. I see buildings with 4 units for sale. Big units have square footage. Small units do not. That's happening all. the. time. The key is get warm bodies to visit the place.

Posted by: lol at July 24, 2010 6:15 AM

To prove my point. An example of a building where bigger units have square footage while smaller ones do not:

http://www.trulia.com/for_sale/San_Francisco,CA/varennes_st_keyword/

(disregard 130-132)

The "we can't advertise square footage because we do not want to be legally liable" suddenly disappears whenever the biggest selling point is the square footage.

Very typical. One of many many things that maintain a bad reputation.

Posted by: lol at July 24, 2010 8:01 AM

Post a comment


(required - will be published)


(required - will not be published, sold, or shared)


(optional - your "Posted by" name will link to this URL)

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


Continue Perusing SocketSite:

« Unexpectedly Unusually Uncertain? | HOME | Glass Tower To Rise Over SF Mining Exchange Building On Bush »