SAN FRANCISCO | Projects: Under Construction, Approved, and Proposed

[combusean]

The insinuation that San Francisco's latest round of market rate housing stock does nothing to alleviate the crisis needs to end.

Even if Lumina were to be dead empty all the time from wealthy second-home owners, there's still 188 units of affordable housing that are getting built somewhere else. And the 60% "absentee owners" rate is actually commensurate with the rest of the city.

Fflint, I was in Foster City a year before I moved into Parkmerced and I've been here since 09/01/2013. Phoenix before that, the last several years downtown altho i grew up in Chandler.

As for Parkmerced, I have tired of this place and want to get out--between the noisy neighbors, shoddy construction, the walk to the unreliable M and its commute to downtown, and the fact that very little is within a reasonable walk has worn me out after 13 months and I need to move on.

I'm looking at Fox Plaza, if anybody knows any other rent-controlled, decently sized, pet-friendly apartment complexes near Muni Metro between Castro and Embarcadero please PM me.

[biggerhigherfaster]

Originally Posted by combusean

The insinuation that San Francisco's latest round of market rate housing stock does nothing to alleviate the crisis needs to end.

Even if Lumina were to be dead empty all the time from wealthy second-home owners, there's still 188 units of affordable housing that are getting built somewhere else. And the 60% "absentee owners" rate is actually commensurate with the rest of the city.

Fflint, I was in Foster City a year before I moved into Parkmerced and I've been here since 09/01/2013. Phoenix before that, the last several years downtown altho i grew up in Chandler.

As for Parkmerced, I have tired of this place and want to get out--between the noisy neighbors, shoddy construction, the walk to the unreliable M and its commute to downtown, and the fact that very little is within a reasonable walk has worn me out after 13 months and I need to move on.

I'm looking at Fox Plaza, if anybody knows any other rent-controlled, decently sized, pet-friendly apartment complexes near Muni Metro between Castro and Embarcadero please PM me.

Agreed. These absentee owners often rent out their units, so their condos are basically like apartments. I've rented from such absentee owners twice (including once with a roommate) and visited many other such condos as a prospective tenant.

Agreed also on Park Merced. I once sublet for five weeks there; those were some pretty miserable five weeks.

[Folks3000]

Originally Posted by fflint

39% of SF’s New Condos Owned by Non-Residents

Peter Lawrence Kane
The Bold Italic
September 29, 2014

Over the summer, New York Magazine conjectured that there is a wide swath of Manhattan’s Midtown East where most apartments remained uninhabited for upwards of 10 months out of the year. The largely-foreign owners principally resided elsewhere, maintaining a pied-à-terre in NYC for tax purposes or the odd jaunt through town. Not coincidentally, this is the same neighborhood where most of the next wave of glassy, skyline-altering supertalls is set to go up.

If New York has a housing crisis, San Francisco has a housing emergency – and it turns out the same deadening trend is afoot here. The inimitable 48 Hills did a herculean amount of grunt work at the Tax Assessor’s office and determined that, of 5,212 market-rate condos in 23 buildings (nearly all in SoMa/South Beach and constructed after 2000), absentee owners control 39%. For some buildings, it’s even worse: at the St. Regis, at 188 Minna St., 63% of the owners don’t actually get their mail there.

Just because someone maintains a San Francisco address as their second (or third, or fourth) home doesn’t mean the space necessarily languishes; it’s entirely possible some of these units are investment properties that get rented out (at exorbitant rates, of course). But when a condo is owned by a winery or a software company as an executive aerie, it’s not very likely to contribute much, and ghost neighborhoods with no one in them will start to wither like those oxygen-free dead zones in the Pacific. By proving that barely half of market-rate housing houses actual San Franciscans, the 48 Hills story is thus a direct hit on Mayor Lee’s strategy of “build housing, any housing, to alleviate the shortage.” It’s not working.
....

Investigation: New condos aren’t owned by San Francisco residents

By Darwin Bond Graham and Tim Redmond
48hillsonline.org
September 29, 2014
...
According to supply and demand theory, projects like The Brannan and Millennium Tower add to the total stock of housing, and should help to ease prices across the overall housing market by satiating the demand of high-income San Franciscans for space in the city.

But rather than satisfy some demand for housing at the top of the market and alleviating the city’s affordability crisis, San Francisco’s luxury condos instead are being purchased by wealthy buyers who have a virtually bottomless appetite for super-exclusive real estate. Many of these buyers don’t live in San Francisco; their city condos are second, or third homes, a 48 hills analysis of property records shows.

We reviewed Assessor’s Office records for 5,212 condos in 23 buildings, most built after the year 2000, all of them market-rate residences. We found that absentee owners control approximately 2,034 of these condos – about 39 percent of the total. (We identified absentee owners as having a listed address that is different than the condo residence.)

In some buildings, the number of absentee owners is above 60 percent.

Many of these condo owners are wealthy Silicon Valley tech entrepreneurs, Marin County lawyers and doctors, and East Bay executives with sprawling multi-million dollar houses in ritzy zip codes like Los Altos Hills, Sausalito, and Lafayette. Some live as far away as New York City, Hawaii, and Hong Kong. It’s unclear how much time they spend in their San Francisco condo homes, or if the properties sit empty much of the year.

Some might be rented out to full time residents, but San Francisco doesn’t keep records sufficient to identify rental units.

We did find some units from the buildings we examined listed on Airbnb and VRBO – for as much as $6,000 a night. Which doesn’t do a whole lot for the city’s affordable housing crisis.
....
“This data points to the irony that when discussing the eviction crisis in San Francisco, so many, including so many in tech, are quick to assert that development is the solution,” said Erin McElroy of the Anti-Eviction Mapping Project. New development for absentee owners does not solve the housing shortage, especially for poor and working-class residents.”
....
But gains in wealth and income for the top one percent aren’t trickling down to the majority of San Franciscans. Instead stagnation of wages and spiking home prices and rents are fueling a housing crisis. San Francisco continues to see an exodus of households earning less than $100,000 a year.

And based on the data we’ve compiled, it’s hard to argue that Mayor Ed Lee’s policy – which calls for building unlimited market-rate housing – is going to do much for the affordability crisis. “This is critically important information, and it makes the trickle-down argument for housing absolutely absurd,” longtime activist Calvin Welch told us. “For Ed Lee to talk about a city for the 100 percent is an easy and stupid formulation, since he’s building housing only for the 1 percent.”
....

I mean, if it were true it wouldn't even be bad, it would be awesome! A bunch of people paying SF taxes and not using any of the city services, sounds like a win-win to me. Gets some affordable housing built, doesn't hurt traffic as much, helps pay for infrastructure for the rest of us. We should build more for people who won't live here but still pay us taxes!

[fimiak]

Originally Posted by combusean

The insinuation that San Francisco's latest round of market rate housing stock does nothing to alleviate the crisis needs to end.

Even if Lumina were to be dead empty all the time from wealthy second-home owners, there's still 188 units of affordable housing that are getting built somewhere else. And the 60% "absentee owners" rate is actually commensurate with the rest of the city.

Fflint, I was in Foster City a year before I moved into Parkmerced and I've been here since 09/01/2013. Phoenix before that, the last several years downtown altho i grew up in Chandler.

As for Parkmerced, I have tired of this place and want to get out--between the noisy neighbors, shoddy construction, the walk to the unreliable M and its commute to downtown, and the fact that very little is within a reasonable walk has worn me out after 13 months and I need to move on.

I'm looking at Fox Plaza, if anybody knows any other rent-controlled, decently sized, pet-friendly apartment complexes near Muni Metro between Castro and Embarcadero please PM me.

The recently constructed housing is barely enough to cover natural population growth. The city is growing by 6k people a year, and so in order to keep prices down far more housing needs to be created.

About your move, I would suggest looking at NeMa, and 100 Van Ness (opening jan 2015), and 55 Ninth, all three of which surround fox plaza.

[hruski]

Originally Posted by fimiak

The recently constructed housing is barely enough to cover natural population growth. The city is growing by 6k people a year, and so in order to keep prices down far more housing needs to be created.

About your move, I would suggest looking at NeMa, and 100 Van Ness (opening jan 2015), and 55 Ninth, all three of which surround fox plaza.

And none of which are rent controlled.

[jpdivola]

Originally Posted by biggerhigherfaster

Agreed. These absentee owners often rent out their units, so their condos are basically like apartments. I've rented from such absentee owners twice (including once with a roommate) and visited many other such condos as a prospective tenant.

Agreed also on Park Merced. I once sublet for five weeks there; those were some pretty miserable five weeks.

Plus, in the absence of new construction, many of these absentee owners could simply buy up existing housing units. Granted new high rise construction probably induces some demand from wealthy out of towers. But, it is improbable that none of these owners would otherwise be in the market for a 2nd home in SF.


I hate how the fact that demand for housing in SF is absurdly high is taken as evidence that supply and demand has been refuted. Why is it left of center people have no trouble arguing that the stimulus was a good idea, it just wasn't large enough, but can't grasp an analogous argument with regard to housing construction.

Yeah, the global income distribution is out of whack and that screws up desirable urban housing markets, but not building more housing will only make the problem worse.

[DIESELPOLO]

Originally Posted by hruski

And none of which are rent controlled.

NEMA is comically expensive. I'd be in there if I had it like that, but it's not for people like me. Ha!

[Folks3000]

Originally Posted by jpdivola

Plus, in the absence of new construction, many of these absentee owners could simply buy up existing housing units. Granted new high rise construction probably induces some demand from wealthy out of towers. But, it is improbable that none of these owners would otherwise be in the market for a 2nd home in SF.


I hate how the fact that demand for housing in SF is absurdly high is taken as evidence that supply and demand has been refuted. Why is it left of center people have no trouble arguing that the stimulus was a good idea, it just wasn't large enough, but can't grasp an analogous argument with regard to housing construction.

Yeah, the global income distribution is out of whack and that screws up desirable urban housing markets, but not building more housing will only make the problem worse.

Couldn't agree more. I consider myself a very liberal person, but a lot of my liberal-minded friends seem to think that because they have some reservations about capitalism that all the forces of capitalism are just a bunch of bull or something. Clearly not building more housing should never be the answer. Perhaps I am biased because I studied economics for many years, but surely that simple fact would only require some basic economics lesson or even just common sense to understand.

Bay Area development is like one giant collective action problem, everyone hates the prices but nobody budges on allowing more development (because some argument about poor people, developers trying to make money, etc). I mean even that statement, "developers just want to make money!" YEA! DUH! They certainly don't want to build buildings to LOSE money, breaking even isn't going to please shareholders. People are so ridiculously idealistic sometimes that nothing can actually get done in the real world. I love how liberal SF is, but sometimes I wish they were just a tad more practical.

[fflint]

Millennium, Infinity, Rincon Hill--these new trophy towers are attracting a whole different class of international investors who pay over asking price, in cash, and who once bypassed San Francisco altogether. These are the same types who pay cash for trophy properties in London, New York, etc.. They are looking for a safe place to park their cash outside China and other nations, and were not as interested in San Francisco until the construction of such high profile (and low-maintenance) developments. The alternative for this particular investor class has been a similar development in another city, such as Vancouver, not a Noe Valley Victorian. It is not obviously true these particular investors would necessarily be snapping up other kinds of San Francisco housing if only we didn't build foreign investor-class trophy towers.

Now, let me be clear: I don't oppose new towers in downtown, Rincon Hill, SOMA, etc. because I am temperamentally pro-development. And no doubt thousands of absentee owners are a net positive for city coffers in that they pay real estate taxes but don't generally use local services. But it's also true absentee owners are the reason retail doesn't pencil out on Rincon Hill, where no new restaurants or shops have opened and the owner of the area's one small convenience store recently told the Chronicle "I thought there would be all these new people coming up here. That is why I bought the store. It's been a big disappointment." And I am skeptical of the claims these glitzy international investment-magnets do anything to lower or stabilize housing costs for actual and would-be full time San Francisco residents.

[simms3_redux]

^^^You are right on two things:

1) These shiny new luxe towers neither drive up overall pricing (maybe "condo" pricing, but not overall housing) nor solve any demand issues and thus lower pricing.

2) Foreign HNW investors want high security and low maintenance, simply because they are absentee. Most of SF housing stock, the vast majority, does not offer either.


Where housing demand will be solved is in rentals of any price point - from high end to medium end. Salaries in SF are high, meaning that renters can afford high end. But they can't necessarily afford to OWN, which is why 6 figure salaried people in SF and NYC still rent. If there are no new/luxe apartments to rent, then they pretty much are forced to rent older "rent-controlled" stock.

Also, some neighborhoods will always be in high demand because of the nature of the neighborhood, or because of transit routes. In light of all of the new condo announcements and SF staple closures (Lombardi's, Empress, Flax, and probably the Endup being the latest), the demand for certain neighborhoods may wane as their charm disappears. Something to consider.

Also, Harper & Rye replaced Red Devil Lounge on Polk, and while H&R is always packed, everyone I've talked to agrees it SUCKS. That was bar replacing bar/live music venue and LOTS of character being lost in the process. It's even worse when straight up condos with bank branch on ground floor replaces something like RDL.

[jpdivola]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

^^^You are right on two things:

1) These shiny new luxe towers neither drive up overall pricing (maybe "condo" pricing, but not overall housing) nor solve any demand issues and thus lower pricing.

2) Foreign HNW investors want high security and low maintenance, simply because they are absentee. Most of SF housing stock, the vast majority, does not offer either.

For the new towers to not be doing anything about the existing supply shortage, wouldn't we need 3 conditions to be met:

1) 100% of the units are purchased by investors- not true

2) 100% of the investors would only be in SF due to high rise construction many of these investors/2nd home people are coming solely due to new condo market, but it is highly unlikely to be 100%. Maybe a house in Noe Valley isn't a prefect substitute for a high rise condo. But, investors buy townhomes in London, older Nob Hill style flats in Paris.

3)None of the investors rent out their units as rentals. Seems this is demonstrably false.


I do agree that this "induced, foreign investor, non rental" market perhaps undermined the role of new supply to hold down housing prices AND in a metro area of several million, a few thousand units isn't going to meaning fully change the demand/supply imbalance. But, we shouldn't argue that new supply won't help at all.

[simms3_redux]

Originally Posted by jpdivola

For the new towers to not be doing anything about the existing supply shortage, wouldn't we need 3 conditions to be met:

1) 100% of the units are purchased by investors- not true

2) 100% of the investors would only be in SF due to high rise construction many of these investors/2nd home people are coming solely due to new condo market, but it is highly unlikely to be 100%. Maybe a house in Noe Valley isn't a prefect substitute for a high rise condo. But, investors buy townhomes in London, older Nob Hill style flats in Paris.

3)None of the investors rent out their units as rentals. Seems this is demonstrably false.


I do agree that this "induced, foreign investor, non rental" market perhaps undermined the role of new supply to hold down housing prices AND in a metro area of several million, a few thousand units isn't going to meaning fully change the demand/supply imbalance. But, we shouldn't argue that new supply won't help at all.

But luxe condos are a tiny fraction of new housing. Lumina is massive at 655 units, but typically on average only a few hundred new luxury housing units for sale get built a year. While not enough housing in general gets built, there is definitely an absurdly disproportionate imbalance (for many appropriate reasons) between new luxe condos/housing and new apartments/affordable housing.

A complex like NEMA does so much more to relieve housing pressures than a complex like Lumina.

I'm all for both, of course, just saying.

[JWS]

I actually agree with foreign buyers being a real problem in SF (the Peninsula is just as worse, if not more so). This is why I was a big proponent of Ed Lee's encouragement toward new construction being primarily rental based in his state of the market housing address. That being said, this is SF and I have little to no expectations that anything from that address will actually be carried out, but Mid-Market (lots of rental buildings) is booming while Rincon Hill (ownership) has yet to become lively.

As for Red Devil Lounge vs. Harper and Rye being a micro-example of the city as a whole losing charm, they both hold the exact same score on Yelp. The reality is that the terms "charm" and the "soul of the city" are subjective, and I feel people so often confuse what they and their circle prefer for a universal definition of "charm". Cities change. A neighborhood that once preferred "Mom and Pop" or "gritty" may change into one that prefers a cleaner, streamlined aesthetic. Tartine Bakery and Delarosa add a lot of charm and energy to their respective neighborhoods despite being expensive and modern. A slew of substandard "gritty/Mom and Pop" restaurants on Van Ness and Lombard draw charm away despite being "unique". While the argument for increasing homogenization of the city as a whole certainly stands and is something worth discussing, let's not make the mistake of assuming "new" equals "sterile" and "old/funky/gritty" equals "charm". Not to mention that the large wait times for the "new school" San Francisco restaurants blatantly belie the claims that the new restaurants and bars are drawing charm away from SF and people will no longer want to live or visit...if anything, it seems the opposite in many cases.

[SF born and RAISED]

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...ly-5792378.php

Never heard of these projects mentioned in the article. Does anyone have any information of these sites?

[mt_climber13]

JWS- great post!

[simms3_redux]

Such an inactive forum for such an active city! I took these on Friday afternoon:

[mt_climber13]

^I've noticed SF to be one of the most dull forums.. all the excitement and camaraderie in the 1,120 ft. supertall going up in Philly by the locals is something that I wish the SF forums had, it's like a bunch of uptight bridge players in here!

[Jerry of San Fran]

simms3_redux - nice sunset set! Thanks for the updates.

[Jerry of San Fran]

Here is a view of 45 Lansing from the 20th floor of One Rincon. Needless to say the photograph was taken through tinted glass so I did my best to correct the color.

2014_10_05_45 Lansing (2)

[Jerry of San Fran]

Here is a view of Two Rincon (on right side) taken 10/05/2014 from the 20th floor of One Rincon Tower . #2 Rincon blocked my friend's view so we no longer have a New Year Eve party to watch the fireworks. As you can see lot's more development coming to block the far view. My friend was advised at the time of the condo purchase 10 years ago about the development so it is not a surprise. This view is from the kitchen.

Tow Rincon Tower