21–30 of 52 posts
According to Zillow, rent in SF is about flat over the past year and a half, so it's not like all SF real estate across the board is getting twice as cheap. I kinda like the NEMA building itself, but the location near Civic Center is right in the middle of the fentanylpocalypse. Of all the places to lose value, this one doesn't surprise me much.
Lost valuation , which is a distinct concept from value.
Please. If we accept the validity of use-value separate from exchange-value there is an entire dialectical chain of consequences we have to contend with. It's much easier to conclude that its value is equivalent to its price.
Check out this building in SOMA, it was finished, sat empty waiting for permits for 2 years because the City sucks, and during that time the condo market crashed and so now the builder had to hand it back to the lender. Full brand new condo building one block from Oracle Park with like 24 luxury condos in it for 16 mil now: https://sfstandard.com/2023/08/16/brand-new-san-francisco-co...
By now I would think most builders can expect 1-2 years for obtaining permits. Not ideal, but it's similar in other large metros.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By now I would think most builders can expect 1-2 years for obtaining permits. Not ideal, but it's similar in other large metros.
That is certainly not the case in Austin. There's no reason SF can't replicate that if they even try a little bit.
Check out this building in SOMA, it was finished, sat empty waiting for permits for 2 years because the City sucks, and during that time the condo market crashed and so now the builder had to hand it back to the lender. Full brand new condo building one block from Oracle Park with like 24 luxury condos in it for 16 mil now: https://sfstandard.com/2023/08/16/brand-new-san-francisco-co...
By now I would think most builders can expect 1-2 years for obtaining permits. Not ideal, but it's similar in other large metros.
Lost valuation , which is a distinct concept from value.
Please. If we accept the validity of use-value separate from exchange-value there is an entire dialectical chain of consequences we have to contend with. It's much easier to conclude that its value is equivalent to its price.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Current vacancy rate is still less than 10%, so unsure what makes it ill-conceived. There is/was a lack of amenity-rich rentals targeted to young professional types in SF like you’d see in NYC and it fills a certain niche. Main issue is rental market in SF is still soft so they can’t charge what they did pre-pandemic, and the location doesn’t help.
"so unsure what makes it ill-conceived" The headline of the article is that it has lost 50% of it's value. During that same multi year period we have had well over 10% inflation. So Maybe that part. Yeah I'm gonna go with that part. Or maybe the investors just hate money and were going for -60% ROI. Who knows.
Pandemic happened, and interest rates shot up. Looks like timing is everything, and it wasn't really SF's fault.
According to Zillow, rent in SF is about flat over the past year and a half, so it's not like all SF real estate across the board is getting twice as cheap. I kinda like the NEMA building itself, but the location near Civic Center is right in the middle of the fentanylpocalypse. Of all the places to lose value, this one doesn't surprise me much.
The problem is that there are large numbers of dwellings that are empty, but the property owners don't want to rent them out in the vague hope that in the future they'll be able to charge much more.
So you get high rents and homelessness (that's your fentanylpocalypse that you've decided is the city's fault and not the predictable consequence of cost driven homelessness) while also having large numbers of unoccupied apartments. All because a bunch of investors are hoping that by restricting the supply they can push rent prices up.