April 19, 2011
Argenta (1 Polk) Sold In Bulk To Behringer Harvard
As a plugged-in resident reports, the bulk sale of Argenta (1 Polk Street) which had been built as condominiums, was unsuccessfully marketed for sale in 2008, and turned rental in 2009, has closed escrow with Dallas based Behringer Harvard Multifamily REIT acquiring the property from the bank.
The sale of the 179-unit building has been in the works since February 11 when Behringer Harvard first entered into an agreement to purchase the property for $94 million excluding closing costs.
Our tipster also notes: "I recently received an offer to renew my lease for another year."
UPDATE: As noted buy a plugged-in reader and since corrected, while Australian based Anka developed the property, Behringer Harvard purchased the property from "MacQuarie Argenta Inc.," a holding company for the construction lender who financed the project.
∙ Argenta (1 Polk): Ground Breaking [SocketSite]
∙ The Scoop: Argenta (1 Polk) On The Market As An Apartment Building [SocketSite]
∙ The Official Argenta (One Polk) Offering Image And Language [SocketSite]
∙ The Argenta (1 Polk) Scoop Redux: Riverstone Residential To Manage [SocketSite]
∙ The Rather Ironic "Argenta Silver Lining": Now Leasing At One Polk [SocketSite]
First Published: April 19, 2011 7:30 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
nice looking building. rents are up. at $94 Million $525K per door. anyone know the total sf?
Posted by: Paul Hwang at April 19, 2011 8:45 AM
Rents are up from what to what?
Posted by: lyqwyd at April 19, 2011 9:07 AM
The location is sooo depressing - nothing fun close by.
Posted by: Mike at April 19, 2011 9:10 AM
In my experience in the SoMa and South Beach area, renatl prices have increased over the last year and there seems to be less inventory out there. For example, not much inventory at the Infinity and One Rincon as compared to last year same time.
Posted by: Paul Hwang at April 19, 2011 9:12 AM
approximately 162,000 rentable sf. Yield on in-place income is reported to be sub 4%.
Posted by: JSH at April 19, 2011 9:17 AM
That's not SoMa or South Beach, I'd say it's Mid or Upper Market St area.
Posted by: lyqwyd at April 19, 2011 9:40 AM
any chance these go condo?
Posted by: ju at April 19, 2011 10:01 AM
Does this mean the original developer lost money?
Posted by: kathleen at April 19, 2011 10:14 AM
Anka - the developer - is long gone and lost all of its investment in this property several years ago. The contruction lender Macquarie Bank was the Seller of the property in this transaction.
Posted by: serenity now at April 19, 2011 12:28 PM
Hey JSH and lyqwyd: 162,000 total units in SF considered as rentals? Does that take into account illegal inlaws and who provides that information?
"Yield on in-place income is reported to be sub 4%," what does that mean?
[Editor’s Note: That’s 162,000 rentable "square feet" (as in the size of Argenta) not units in San Francisco and the "yield on in-place income" would be the annual rent roll less operating expenses divided by the purchase price (i.e., CAP rate at current rents).]
Posted by: radar at April 19, 2011 2:00 PM
Macquarie Bank...Australia's version of Goldman Sachs. Why am I not surprised that they are involved in this?
Posted by: Willow at April 19, 2011 3:16 PM
Get ready for sales! My guess is this will be the next Artani SF!
Posted by: Matt Woebcke at April 19, 2011 9:55 PM
I actually do like the design of this building. It's the right scale and there's enough visual interest to distinguish it from the usual bland boxes that seem to pop up in the city.
Posted by: Willow at April 20, 2011 9:45 AM
yeah but is it a BOMA 162k sf?
I know people on Socketsite are very sophisticated but maybe its better to make it clear that "yield on in-place income" is before debt service.
Also when calculating the "CAP rate at current rents" may not reflect concessions which I think would be different than "yield on in-place income".
I think it would be better to use Pro forma CAP, so that it would more accurate to the market, so you could weigh the sales price value against possibly growing the rents.
But I don't think the buyers based their decision on the CAP (Pro forma or otherwise).
Of coarse, I could be completely wrong about everything.
Posted by: Paul Hwang at April 20, 2011 9:51 AM
"I think it would be better to use Pro forma CAP"
I agree. Using fake numbers is usually better than using real numbers when deciding on an investment.
Posted by: sfrenegade at April 20, 2011 10:29 AM