Posts Tagged ‘property’

This “COMING SOON FOR LEASE” Sign on Our Hibernia Bank Building Might Have Made Sense a Year Ago…

Friday, August 12th, 2016

…but not now, in late Summer, Aught-Sixteen:

20160809_161048 copy

Does this building represent the “revitalization* of the Tenderloin,” or the opposite?

OIOW:

“Even if these improvements can be made [and oh, they were, to the tune of $18 million or so], one must ask if it is worth the trouble. The building will still be sitting in the middle of the worst of Mid-Market.”

*Something promised each and every year I’ve lived in Frisco…

Sign of the Times: “BUBBLE REAL ESTATE”

Wednesday, July 20th, 2016

I’d seen this before, but I hadn’t seen the actual sign:

7J7C8970 copy

Still not sure how serious this venture is…

White Elephant! Get Your White Elephants! For Sale, Now In the Twitterloin – Our HIBERNIA BANK Building is “COMING SOON FOR LEASE?”

Wednesday, July 6th, 2016

Oh no no no no no! This thing has been on the market for a while now. So you can’t just say “COMING SOON.”

7J7C8199 copy

It’s a nice place to visit, perhaps, inside, but you wouldn’t want to live there, is what I’m saying.

What it is is a symbol of Yet Another Failed “Rebirth” of the Tenderloin.

But go ahead buy it, Area Billionaires. You could use it as your secret lair. (And it won’t kill you the way some other hobbies might.)

C’mon. I dare you. Buy this historic building, and then the sellers (lessors, landlords, agents, realtors, Developers?) will take all their banners down, hurrah!

OIOW:

“Even if these improvements can be made [and oh, they were, to the tune of $18 million or so], one must ask if it is worth the trouble. The building will still be sitting in the middle of the worst of Mid-Market.”

Parkmerced Update: The “Townhomes” of Infamous “800 Summit” (“From the Low $1,000,000’s”) are the McMansions of Frisco

Monday, April 11th, 2016

Well Summit 800 has certainly been getting attention the past week.

(And I’ve commented earlier.)

So now let’s take a visit Way Down South, even souther and wester than Parkmerced, which everyone would agree is pretty far south and west already, and make the case that these condos / townhomes / whatever are the McMansions of Frisco.

So what’s a McMansion, big housing on a small lot?

7J7C4196 copy

Well, you can’t get smaller lots than this, right? I mean, these places are abutting:

7J7C4188 copy

And take a look at this wall, below – no windows, right? Are they going to put more condos / townhomes / whatever in later on to cover this up? I mean, nobody else has windows on the side. Anyway, this is your McMansion hallmark – such a small separation betwixt units that there’s no real use for windows on the side:

7J7C4187 copy

“No City Limits” is the sign what’s mounted near the city limits, oddly. I mean this is the city limits, right?

7J7C4186 copy

All right, take a look. (And I’ll add that I’m not saying these units are McMansions, I’m saying that they’re the McMansions of Frisco.)

“In U.S. suburban communities, McMansion is a pejorative term for a “mass-produced mansion”. An example of a McWord, “McMansion” associates the generic quality of these luxury homes with that of mass-produced fast food by evoking the McDonald’s restaurant chain.[1] The neologism “McMansion” seems to have been coined sometime in the early 1980s.[2] It appeared in the Los Angeles Times in 1990[3][4] and the New York Times in 1998.[5] Related terms include “Persian palace”,[6] “garage Mahal”, “starter castle”, and “Hummer house”

The term “McMansion” is generally used to denote a new, or recent, multi-story house of no clear architectural style,[8] which prizes superficial appearance, and sheer size, over quality.
Such very large, indeed expensive, but “mass produced” homes may sit on large lots: that is to say, an entire division of McMansions may be created (perhaps dozens or more at once), each on a large lot. However, in another usage “McMansion” is used pejoratively to refer to a house which replaced a smaller house, in a neighborhood of smaller houses, which seems far too large for its lot and thus crowds adjacent homes. (Indeed, such a McMansion may lack side windows due to the proximity to the boundaries – another McMansion-related cliché”

 

Using Photoshop to Market Blue Skies to Foreigners – Selling Summit 800 Condos/Townhomes Deep in the Fog Belt

Tuesday, April 5th, 2016

Well, here you go, it’s Summit 800, “from the low millions.”

It’s the talk of the town these days.

But Google “summit 800 san francisco” and all you see are highly uncharacteristic blue skies. Isn’t that odd? I mean, we’re deep in the Frisco Fog Belt down there in the lower left corner of SF County, right?

Anyway, these shots come up in the above search. Don’t these Honolulu-style cloud look familiar? Aren’t they exactly the same in both images? What are the odds of that?

shop1 copy

shop2 copy

(Something’s gone wrong here!)

IDK, man. I just feel sorry for the out of towners buying these places.

Enjoy your fog, Newcomers!

BRUTAL: New “CAUTION” Sign Depicts Drunk, Moneyed, iPhone-Distracted San Franciscans Fleeing High Rents by Running to Oakland

Tuesday, August 18th, 2015

[UPDATE: Oh, it’s a coffee cup, not a red Solo cup – see Comments.]

Ouch, this one hurts.

From Jeremy C. Owens  – left to right, OAKLAND, Drunk San Franciscan, iPhone-Addled San Franciscan, Moneyed San Franciscan, SAN FRANCISCO:

CMtFcasVEAA7hKr copy

If only this sign had Oracle Arena heading the other way…

County Living at SUMMIT 800: The Top Seven Reasons Why Foreigners Should NOT Buy a Condo Townhouse Near Parkmerced

Wednesday, March 18th, 2015

What’s that, you’re not a foreigner? Well fine, you certainly should know what you’re doing, so move on in, with my blessings.

But I’m assuming that you’re a foreigner, you know, if you’re thinking about buying at Summit 800.

1. And you know what? The people who are selling to you are assuming you’re a foreigner as well. Look at the name, look at the marketing. You’re rich and naive, that’s what they’re telling you.

2. This is a giant warning sign:

The New Townhouses at Summit 800 Are Already Cutting Prices

Capturedaffffff copy

3. Yes, you’re living in San Francisco but only just inside the county line. So really, you’re sort of living in San Mateo County. This is their slogan: “City Living. No City Limits.” It took me a while to figure things out, because I didn’t see the two sentences together. What they’re saying is that you have the best of both worlds – you’re living in San Francisco, but your apartment/condo/townhouse/townhome/whatever you call it as long as you don’t call it a “house” has a lot of space and is brand-new construction and you have room for two cars and you have a lot of things that are hard to find in SF. BUT YOU’RE NOT REALLY LIVING IN SF, not really. They’re showing you images of Shanghai, but you’d be living in Chengdu.

4. Schools. Ask about schools. OMFG.

5. Weather / Climate. Hey, how’s the weather down there? Oh, foggy again today? Oh.

6. Traffic. OMFG. What they call State Highway 1, I call the 19th Avenue Parking Lot. Things are a bit better if you head south, but then why live in the far south / far west of SF? Oh, just so you can say you have a place in SF? OK, if that’s what you want.

7. What are people saying about this place? Check it. And pay close attention to what Eric has to say.

What if you gave one of these places to your kids and told them they’d only have to pay the monthly homeowner’s fees and annual property taxes, something like $2000 a month? Would your kids even want to move in? IDK. So what happened to your million-plus dollars?

JMO.

SFBARF: Grass Roots or Artificial Turf? Hooh Boy, It’s So Artificial Turf, This Woman Won’t Say Who’s Paying Her

Monday, February 23rd, 2015

Let’s see here, San Francisco’s rich homeowners have a right-side-of-the-aisle group to represent them called SF Moderates and it’s giving five four figures ($5000 as it turns out) for some East Bay apartment-dwelling woman to lobby SF for new right-of-center public comment rules?

Apparently:

7J7C3223 copy

Another group/person what funds her is so unpopular she dare not speak its name. It could be the American Nazi Party, who knows. Prolly not, but maybe it’s Sean Parker, or Con Ronway, or sf.citi or some other entity that wants to keep its sock puppetry on the DL.

Oh well.

Pro-development activist group SFBARF agitates for more housing
By Jonah Owen Lamb

Bay Area renters group advocates for more density to solve housing crisis
By Roland Li

How a prep school math teacher has exploded the debate over affordable housing in San Francisco – Rents in cities like San Francisco are soaring. Is it just a matter of building more housing?
By Lydia DePillis

Uh Oh, Now There’s a Lawsuit Against the City for Recent Ellis Act Legislation – SFAA & realtors Fighting Us

Wednesday, January 29th, 2014

Read it and weep, San Francisco. We’re getting sued:

“For Immediate Release, January 29, 2014:

San Francisco Housing Associations File Lawsuit to Block Anti-Family Legislation

San Francisco – On Tuesday January 28, 2014, the San Francisco Apartment Association, Coalition for Better Housing and the San Francisco Association of REALTORS® filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of legislation known as the Avalos Ellis Act and Merger Prohibition Legislation.

 The legislation was passed by the Board of Supervisors and signed into law by Mayor Ed Lee in violation of building owners’ rights under the state law known as the Ellis Act.

 The legislation prohibits owners of multi-unit buildings from combining units in a building for ten years following an Ellis Act eviction or for five years following an owner-move in eviction.

 On a practical level, the legislation prevents families who own a building from creating a home that meets their needs. For example, the legislation prevents a family from combining two small units into a larger one to provide a home for a growing family. Couples with young children often find themselves in need of additional space they did not anticipate when they purchased a rental building, yet the legislation punishes them.

 Only 2 percent of new housing built in San Francisco since 2001 are single-family homes that provide adequate space for families, often with multiple generations living together. Lack of adequate housing to meet the needs of families has contributed San Francisco losing 5,278 people younger than 18 between 2000 and 2010, according to the census.

 “The San Francisco Association of REALTORS® supports the rights of private property owners for the free use of their property as their needs suit them.  This legislation only exacerbates the problems families face in finding adequate housing and drives out the families that have created the diversity we want and celebrate in our city,” said Walt Baczkowski, CEO of the San Francisco Association of Realtors.

 Because so few single family homes are being constructed, families rely on improving buildings they own, including tenancies in common to add living space. This legislation prohibits them from creating the home they need in a building they own.

 “Families are fleeing San Francisco due to a multitude of reasons that include a lack of adequate space for growing families that often include multiple generations. This legislation exacerbates that problem by punishing and limiting options for families who simply seek to create a home that meets the needs of their family,” stated Janan New, Executive Director of the San Francisco Apartment Association. “This legislation punishes hard working families, while doing little to protect renters.”

 The lawsuit states that the legislation is pre-empted by state law known as the Ellis Act, which allows building owners to take a building off the rental market and convert those units to condominiums or single -family homes. Under the law, building owners are already required to give occupants up to one year advance notice and provide relocation fees of $5,210 per tenant, up to a maximum of $15,632, plus $3,473 additional for tenants who are senior or disabled.

 “My clients are seeking relief from this just-passed legislation which unfairly takes away the right of individuals and families who simply want to create a home for themselves and their family in a building they own,” stated Jim Parrinello, attorney for the plaintiffs.

Selfish, Petty-Bourgeois, White, Property-Owning NIMBY Millionaires Oppose Nifty New Potrero Hill Kaiser

Friday, December 7th, 2012

Hey look, Kaiser Permanente is coming to Potrero Hill.

But some people are highly upset:

Selfish,*

YEP. Pretty much.

Petty-Bourgeois,

YEP

White,

YEP. I’d be surprised if they weren’t.

Property-Owning,

YEP. Obsessed with real estate they are, my precious.

NIMBY

YEP. “Oh yes, Kommandant  we totally support your mission of expanding your concentration and extermination camps, but couldn’t you select a more “appropriate” site, perhaps in East Auschwitz, or maybe even Auschwitz Annex? As the saying goes, property values uber alles.”

Millionaires

YEP. “Well, I’M not a millionaire, ” they lie.

Sorry, little nursey, your kind just isn’t welcome on “The Hill.”

Via stepsaheadlearners

And hey, where’s our helipad, you know, that other thing what was supposed to have “destroyed” property values in PH.

Let’s bring the pain, bring the sanctimony, let’s write canned letters  to all these people, why not:

The CEO and Board of Directors of Kaiser Permanente
Kaiser Permanente (George C. Halvorson)
LNK Partners (Phil Marineau)
Kaiser Permanente (Christine Robisch)
Kaiser Permanente (Robert Pearl)
Kaiser Permanente (Gregory A. Adams)
Kaiser Permanente (Bernard J. Tyson)
Kaiser Permanente (Randy Wittorp)
Kaiser Permanente (Jay Murphy)
Kaiser Permanente (Cameron White)
SF Planning Department (Wade Wietgrefe)
SF Planning Department (Susan Mickelsen)
SF Planning Department (John Rahaim)
Malia Cohen
Megan Hamilton
Andrea Bruss
Kaiser Permanente Board Member (J. Eugene Grigsby)
Kaiser Permanente Board Member (Edward Pei)
SF Planning Department (Sarah Jones)
SF Planning Department (Ben Fu)

*I’m srsly. Do these people sincerely care about “historic” corrugated steel buildings? No, not at all. So how stupid do they think we are?