Purchased for $1.495 million in September 2015, the 1,418-square-foot Lumina unit #2A, above Woodlands Market at 318 Main Street, returned to the market this past June listed for $1.649 million, touting: “Best priced 2bed/2bath home in San Francisco’s premier luxury high rise condo!”

Relisted anew for $1.588 million in July and then “adjusted” down to $1.495 million in October, the sale of 318 Main Street #2A has just closed escrow with a reported contract price of $1.470 million, representing total deprecation of 1.7 percent for the unit over the past two years, not accounting for the cost of a couple of closet and bathroom upgrades since the unit was purchased as new.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Metroliner

    This isn’t a two bedroom. That might be why.

    • Posted by Martin

      I’m curious what you mean. It’s 2 bath, right? Do you happen to have a copy of the floorplan?

      • Posted by Metroliner

        There are a bunch of earlier photos that show the second “bedroom” without a window and I believe that it has a slider for a door. Technically it is not a bedroom, but a den.

        • Posted by anon

          Yes, metroliner is correct, I saw the apartment and there are no windows in the second bedroom. It is a den.

  2. Posted by Pero

    Given socketsite’s claim that inventory of new condos is somewhere around 25% higher than the year before, isn’t this a surprisingly stable price? Has demand for luxury condos also increased by 25% over a year? Are newly minted bitcoin millionaires behind this? I need answers!

  3. Posted by anon

    Is there any accountability for false advertising by agents? 1BR with den advertised as 2BR. Just curious

    • Posted by Pero

      Wait, did you just use ‘accountability’ and ‘advertising’ in the same sentence?

  4. Posted by gTwice

    is it possible to get any more bland? white, grey, tan, box. i don’t get it, i really don’t get it.

  5. Posted by lumina tentant

    The carrying costs (mortgage, hoa, property taxes, principal loss, commission) on this place add up to about $130K/year – a little over $11K/month. I can think of a few better places one can live in for that amount of dough

    I think this will be an example that will keep short term speculators out of the condo market – which hopefully will bring the prices back to rational levels

    FYI there’s quite a few Lumina condo resales coming to the market and the developer isn’t done selling yet – what amazes me is the price the resale listings hope to fetch (comparable to what the developer is looking for at much higher floors)

    btw the HOA fees are going up a good amount …

    • Posted by Metroliner

      Going up? Aren’t they already in the $1,000+/month range? Who has this kind of money?

      • Posted by another anon

        Everyone in the neighborhood has that kind of money.

  6. Posted by Dave

    This is expected – more or less. New condo prices and prices of those condos a few years old are flat to down somewhat. The situation in the Lumina is complicated by the fact a fair number of the original units have yet to sell. After almost a year and a half. Beyond that, this area is, if not a wasteland on non-work days, pretty devoid of excitement or any sense of neighborhood. Of course, these units are not luxury or premier compared to what garners that appellation in Seattle or LA.

    Short term speculators are a shrinking breed in SF. The above average appreciation is not here anymore and won’t be for maybe 10 years. Many speculators were willingly to accept negative flow on the promise of huge short term appreciation. Based on what lumina tenant posted, this unit would have huge negative flow for an investor with possibly no appreciable appreciation for a number of years. Perhaps it was purchased by someone who will occupy the unit. HOA dues going up a good amount? On a newer building? What is the issue? Larger HOA dues will further constrain sales and desirability of the Lumina towers.

    • Posted by anon2.5

      Probably rising wages for the door man and other amenities providers.

      It’s a bit of a bait and switch with high HOA rates, that only go up from there. You have to blame the original buyers in part for believing those HOA rates will remain stagnant.

    • Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

      I agree that you have to blame buyers for believing that HOA rates will remain stagnant. Any half-decent buyers agent would have informed them that in the majority of circumstances, HOA rates go up over time and usually at a higher rate than CPI, and that is true of Townhomes/Condos in general, not at all specific to S.F.

  7. Posted by Sfnative

    This reminds me of the time 2006-2008 when condos were starting to slip in price. This time, it’s not the banks’ fault in lending subprime loans to unqualified buyers but people just in general not having enough cash on hand to supplement their exhorbant lifestyles while using credit and speculation to drive their desires.

    Increased HOAs, stagnant salary rise, increasing property taxes, potential decrease in tax deductions, likely increase in state income taxes all become factors after a purchase of this range.

    Now with the fed rates increasing, those who wish to bail out of their purchases will not have access to a higher range of buyers and may see themselves forclosing.

    It’s human nature.

    • Posted by bachman_erlich_overdrive

      OTOH: A recent Planning Commission study reported that San Francisco produced 10.4 jobs for every new housing unit during the last annual review.

      [Editor’s Note: While more relevantly and recently (i.e., this year versus last): San Francisco and Bay Area Employment Slip from Record Highs.]

      • Posted by Sfnative

        Interesting, but what is your point? Can these employed still afford this place? Not sure what you are inferring. A simple supply and demand curve in the sf housing market doesn’t work quite so well when using strict employment numbers. What percentage of those can afford a down payment and a million dollar loan, HOAs, property taxes, reduced tax deductions, and maintain an SF lifestyle?

    • Posted by anon

      It reminds me of 2006-08 as well, but in reverse. In 2006-08, the broad indexes like Case Shiller clearly showed SF prices declining. But you had a lot of realtors pointing to a rare outlier that had held its price saying “see, not in SF!!!” Now you have the broader indexes clearly showing prices remaining strong with modest gains, and you have people pointing to rare outliers that declined saying, “see, SF is tanking!!!” And to top it off, you have the editor simply deleting posts that highlight recent sales that showed solid appreciation over the last year or two. So, yes, some lessons can be drawn from the 2006-08 story.

      • Posted by Sfnative

        So, you are drinking the Kool Aid? Just saying that in jest because the tone of your rebuttal is a bit emotionally charged. Economics with real estate is largely emotional as with everything else, except it’s at a grander scale that say an Hermès hand bag. I just think rather than a crash, there will be a level of correcting and the world takes a few more turns and then human race continues to move on. Cycles of mistakes and economic bipolar disorders will continue with everyone arguing about a sliver of the window of economic history.

Add a Comment

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