Empty S.F. office tower formerly valued at $62M sold for $6.5M(sfchronicle.com)
sfchronicle.com
Empty S.F. office tower formerly valued at $62M sold for $6.5M
https://www.sfchronicle.com/realestate/article/s-f-tower-sells-90-discount-19418186.php
75 comments
It's so tiresome. These headlines/tweets are literally written daily, and the trick is always the same.
In a similar fashion, an office tower in Saint Louis which was valued at $205M in 2006 recently sold for just $3.6M [1]
[1] https://www.costar.com/article/642008108/one-of-st-louis-tal...
[1] https://www.costar.com/article/642008108/one-of-st-louis-tal...
Wait so I can get a huge office building for the cost of three mediocre single family homes?
Turn that on its head: what kind of huge office building is only wroth $6 million? A really crappy one. Based on personal experience with that building I'd rather have 3x SFH.
It's the location — 6th & Market (well more like 6th & Jessie) is the roughest block in the city. Rougher than anywhere in the TL.
The entrance (and thus the address) is on Market – 995 Market. It sits between Market and Stevenson. Jessie is a block closer to Mission, and yeah 6th and Mission has a reputation.
It's zoned for mixed use (although the donut shop on the ground floor left years ago and I'm pretty sure that space has been vacant for a few years). It's in between Powell and Civic Center stations. It's a pretty decent location, with some great food and entertainment near by although the fancier restaurants closed ages ago. It's basically across the street from the Golden Gate Theater and the Warfield.
The neighborhood is what it is. IKEA and their new, popular, food hall is less than a block away. Looks like there's some hipster dofus AI incubator right there too.
The building itself just wasn't well maintained. Last I saw you were far more likely to get trapped in the elevator than mugged.
It's zoned for mixed use (although the donut shop on the ground floor left years ago and I'm pretty sure that space has been vacant for a few years). It's in between Powell and Civic Center stations. It's a pretty decent location, with some great food and entertainment near by although the fancier restaurants closed ages ago. It's basically across the street from the Golden Gate Theater and the Warfield.
The neighborhood is what it is. IKEA and their new, popular, food hall is less than a block away. Looks like there's some hipster dofus AI incubator right there too.
The building itself just wasn't well maintained. Last I saw you were far more likely to get trapped in the elevator than mugged.
> The neighborhood is what it is.
I did go out of my way to describe it as “roughest” and not “worst”. Least compatible with the image of perfection projected by the typical tower-dwelling corpo? :)
In fact I have a lot of fond memories from the mid-2010s of stopping by the weed lounge on Jessie for a Volcano bag and a few floors of Isaac Rebirth on my PSVita any time my afternoon train was significantly delayed. Alas that just closed too for the same reason: https://sfstandard.com/2024/02/02/san-francisco-cannabis-dis...
I did go out of my way to describe it as “roughest” and not “worst”. Least compatible with the image of perfection projected by the typical tower-dwelling corpo? :)
In fact I have a lot of fond memories from the mid-2010s of stopping by the weed lounge on Jessie for a Volcano bag and a few floors of Isaac Rebirth on my PSVita any time my afternoon train was significantly delayed. Alas that just closed too for the same reason: https://sfstandard.com/2024/02/02/san-francisco-cannabis-dis...
[deleted]
going from sixth and market down to mission st is quite a walk
What are the taxes per year?
Around 2% of the sale price in perpetuity.
Because of the infamous prop 13, commercial real estate taxes in California are in practice capped at 1980s valuations.
A foreclosure auction is an ownership transfer that triggers a reappraisal. So this building will likely see a big jump (unless it had an uncapled appraisal recently). Most likely the appraised value will be more than the foreclosure sale price, as a foreclosure sale doesn't meet the free market value conditions. The sale was forced, and buyers don't have time to complete due dilligence between the announcement and the sale.
In downtown St. Louis, ATT tower sold for half of that, right there in the middle of downtown. Sold for 200 million in 2016. So, if we go by office buildings that have sat unoccupied for a while, SF is still maintaining good value.
You can’t. They also assumed the debt against it
I am not sure this is the correct take, they happened to have assumed the debt prior. But the building was sold independently for this price at a public auction. They had to do this to find the fair value of the building to deduct it from the debt. You could have bid 6.57M and won if no one bid after. Now they own the building and the remainder of the debt.
My understanding is this was a foreclosure auction and that the lender bought it (but I'm not actually sure if it was the lender, because articles are saying it was the 'special servicer).
At California foreclosure auctions, my understanding is the lender will usually bid up to the loan balance or their estimate of what they can sell it for with some marketting and time. That it sold for $6M to the lender tells you that nobody was prepared to make an offer on it given the time constraints, not that the fair market value is $6M. The lender will operate it and prepare it for sale and buyers will be able to take their time to do due dilligence etc, and most likely it will sell for somewhat more than $6M.
The purpose of a foreclosure auction include clearly establishing a change of ownership. If the lender pursued judicial foreclosure and a deficiency judgement, the fair market value will be litigated some time after the sale, and the borrower may need to make up the difference between the loan balance and fair market value.
At California foreclosure auctions, my understanding is the lender will usually bid up to the loan balance or their estimate of what they can sell it for with some marketting and time. That it sold for $6M to the lender tells you that nobody was prepared to make an offer on it given the time constraints, not that the fair market value is $6M. The lender will operate it and prepare it for sale and buyers will be able to take their time to do due dilligence etc, and most likely it will sell for somewhat more than $6M.
The purpose of a foreclosure auction include clearly establishing a change of ownership. If the lender pursued judicial foreclosure and a deficiency judgement, the fair market value will be litigated some time after the sale, and the borrower may need to make up the difference between the loan balance and fair market value.
Some people believe that it’s hard to convert office space into housing. Meanwhile there are people living inside sewage tunnels, cars, the concept of guardians in the UK (who live in office spaces), etc.
I’d be extremely happy to have any of those “hard conversion” offices to live. Naysayers should mind their own business and stop believing in nonsense.
I’d be extremely happy to have any of those “hard conversion” offices to live. Naysayers should mind their own business and stop believing in nonsense.
None of these are legally housing or residence. The problem is regulation, not that it's practically impossible to live in that space.
Living in sewage tunnels and cars is also against regulation.
Sure, but these people are not asking. If somebody finds them, they're stopped (there are legal overnight parking spots but less and less). Same thing with houses, only it's much more easily visible and the investment and fines are too much to just try.
How the hell do you default on a $45 million loan at the same time while buying another property in the same area for $27 million?
This is the kind of stuff that pisses everybody off. The hoi polloi get raked over the coals for college loans while the haut monde blithely skip right past $40 million in debt.
This is the kind of stuff that pisses everybody off. The hoi polloi get raked over the coals for college loans while the haut monde blithely skip right past $40 million in debt.
Real estate is the messy underbelly of capitalism. Since only debt (= mortgages) creates money (and growth) you have to cut them some slack. The economy won't work if you're asking too many questions.
> Since only debt (= mortgages) creates money
Mortgages aren’t only one among many phyla of dollar-denominated debt, they‘re not even the biggest [1][2]. And fiscal spending can create new money without debt. Debt is the monetary channel’s mechanism.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/274636/combined-sum-of-a...
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_...
Mortgages aren’t only one among many phyla of dollar-denominated debt, they‘re not even the biggest [1][2]. And fiscal spending can create new money without debt. Debt is the monetary channel’s mechanism.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/274636/combined-sum-of-a...
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_...
Wouldn't fiscal spending devalue the currency since this money has to be "printed" instead of lent?
The hoi polloi want their debt paid by the public. Private capital eats the loss here. kind of different.
> How the hell do you default on a $45 million loan at the same time while buying another property in the same area for $27 million?
Similar to how you can restructure your medical debt, which doesn’t show up on credit reports anymore, while buying a new car on financing. Separate sets of books.
Similar to how you can restructure your medical debt, which doesn’t show up on credit reports anymore, while buying a new car on financing. Separate sets of books.
different entities.
make new entity, sell new bonds with a new proposal on how new people will potentially make money.
make new entity, sell new bonds with a new proposal on how new people will potentially make money.
How hard would it be to convert that building to residential, and sell each floor as an unfinished apartment or two?
(With ground floor for retail businesses that are generally appealing to residents of the building, such as a cafe.)
(With ground floor for retail businesses that are generally appealing to residents of the building, such as a cafe.)
My understanding is that office buildings don’t usually have the windows, ventilation, or plumbing required to support apartments. A retrofit would be expensive and would leave you with a ton of cave-like rooms in the interior.
I live in one.
I think it's less about the pragmatics of the things you list, and more about the permits.
I could walk into a lot of commercial spaces, including my office and turn it into a code compliant dwelling myself with stuff from Home Depot I can fit in my truck.
I can't get it approved, permitted , by the city of SF, even if I did it by the books.
There are literally people who show up to the permit office with wheelbarrows.
If you want to fix housing in SF, fix the permit office.
I think it's less about the pragmatics of the things you list, and more about the permits.
I could walk into a lot of commercial spaces, including my office and turn it into a code compliant dwelling myself with stuff from Home Depot I can fit in my truck.
I can't get it approved, permitted , by the city of SF, even if I did it by the books.
There are literally people who show up to the permit office with wheelbarrows.
If you want to fix housing in SF, fix the permit office.
Didn’t we just pass a ballot measure to make this less headache?
I honestly don't know, I expect they can only improve it by 10% or so without drastically changing things.
> would leave you with a ton of cave-like rooms in the interior
I get into this debate every time this comes up, but this was my (illegal) first apartment in New York. It was great. It’s prudish tendencies like outlawing apartments with no windows that force folks like me, who would put black-out curtains anyway, to compete for housing with families who do need natural light. All while an office building lies vacant.
I get into this debate every time this comes up, but this was my (illegal) first apartment in New York. It was great. It’s prudish tendencies like outlawing apartments with no windows that force folks like me, who would put black-out curtains anyway, to compete for housing with families who do need natural light. All while an office building lies vacant.
Windows are legally required for safety purposes, not for sunlight
It’s prudish tendencies like outlawing apartments with no windows that force folks like me, who don't care for safety anyway, to compete for housing with families who do need safety.
but unironically; it'd be much safer than the street
but unironically; it'd be much safer than the street
It’s preferable to have safety standards on general housing stock, instead of asking individuals to figure out safety levels.
I imagine there are plenty of people out there that aren’t aware that windows are for safety and might find out in the worst way possible.
I imagine there are plenty of people out there that aren’t aware that windows are for safety and might find out in the worst way possible.
> Windows are legally required for safety purposes
They are not used for egress in skyscrapers—no ladder goes that high. And commercial buildings have fantastic internal ventilation. (Skyscraper apartment windows often can’t be opened for ventilation anyway, and are not trivially shattered.)
They are not used for egress in skyscrapers—no ladder goes that high. And commercial buildings have fantastic internal ventilation. (Skyscraper apartment windows often can’t be opened for ventilation anyway, and are not trivially shattered.)
What safety? This makes no sense. Am I supposed to jump out of 20th floor or what?
In case of ventilation fail an openable window allow for emergency manual ventilation, beside that being exposed to a bit of sunlight is needed for a good health, artificial lights can't do the same.
Many flats here in Europe have windows that don't open. Don't tell me I can open the windows in a NYC skyscraper
Well, at least in Italy (where I was born) and France it's not allowed to have civil accommodations without openable windows. In Italy at all, in France you are allowed for non-living areas (bathroom and kitchens essentially) as long as another form of ventilation is present.
Limits I know are 1/8 of the flat surface you can march on must be openable windows, 1 complete air change per hour (you have a 50m³ room, you must change at least 50m³ of air per hour. There are some tolerance for historic buildings down to 1/12 of the flat surface, below that the accommodation can't be used to live in.
While for offices there is only an natural illumination requirement, and a ventilation NOT necessarily bound to openable windows. I do not know for the rest of the EU.
Limits I know are 1/8 of the flat surface you can march on must be openable windows, 1 complete air change per hour (you have a 50m³ room, you must change at least 50m³ of air per hour. There are some tolerance for historic buildings down to 1/12 of the flat surface, below that the accommodation can't be used to live in.
While for offices there is only an natural illumination requirement, and a ventilation NOT necessarily bound to openable windows. I do not know for the rest of the EU.
I’d guess that your preference for windowless rooms is out of the norm, and that most people do want windows. Or at least enough do that it doesn’t make financial sense to convert office buildings.
Or maybe I’m wrong! Maybe the reason that we haven’t seen a rash of converted office buildings is that property owners are holding out hope for return to office, and desperately avoiding writing down their properties. That’s pretty plausible too.
Or maybe I’m wrong! Maybe the reason that we haven’t seen a rash of converted office buildings is that property owners are holding out hope for return to office, and desperately avoiding writing down their properties. That’s pretty plausible too.
Or maybe raise the requirements for office buildings so that they’re more easily convertible to housing purposes?
Yes, simply rollback habitability requirements for tech workers. What could go wrong?
You do not ever, under any circumstances, get to credit yourself for promoting "habitability" in a city where adults routinely need roommates.
No...I don't think this logic really holds...
Laws around habitability have nothing to do with price. If you want to make the race to the bottom worse, remove habitability requirements and observe actual dystopia.
Laws around habitability have nothing to do with price. If you want to make the race to the bottom worse, remove habitability requirements and observe actual dystopia.
Could name the building "Grenfell Tower S.F.".
Yeah, Munger Hall was a good design. It's all right, though. I outcompete practically anyone for the homes I care about. They complain on the Internet and I live in the homes they want because they won't let me live in these things.
I go on the Internet and it's people saying stuff like "Everyone worries about rent these days" and I really don't.
I go on the Internet and it's people saying stuff like "Everyone worries about rent these days" and I really don't.
In china where legal compliance is more loose, a lot of people live in windowless sub basement rooms (called the ant tribe in Beijing at least). Mold is an issue, so these are even less habital than what you are looking for probably.
I once spent the night in a windowless hotel room in Xi’an. It freaked me out so I moved hotels the next day.
I once spent the night in a windowless hotel room in Xi’an. It freaked me out so I moved hotels the next day.
In America, they who could live there live on the street instead. I suppose one could argue which is better. But most seem to prefer the windowless room over the street.
That's true. But note that these dwellings are also illegal in China, just that rule of law in China is not as strong as it is in America.
Anyways, American moral standards prevent us from just giving people window less rooms to live in, it has to be $100k/tiny home that will last only a few years, or something else crazy like that.
Anyways, American moral standards prevent us from just giving people window less rooms to live in, it has to be $100k/tiny home that will last only a few years, or something else crazy like that.
It's true. I have noticed this. I think it's because American moral standards conform to the Copenhagen interpretation of ethics. Pareto improvements are insufficient. Interaction implies that some high standard must be met. Therefore, if we give someone something it is insufficient that it is better. It must be good.
Ya, western ethics are a bit harsh. Take the minimum wage, it doesn't just put a bottom on what employers can pay a person, but it puts a bottom on how productive a person must be to get any job at all (lest the job be eliminated as "not worth it"). Similarly so: putting a bottom on housing prevents slums and health hazards, but it deprives some people of housing because they cannot afford this bottom.
On the other hand, it forces people to become better, and most of them do. Social services help and hurt the problem: on the one hand, you won't die quickly if you become addicted to fentanyl, but on the other hand, the lack of immediate harsh consequences can make dipping into drugs appear less risky. On the other hand, in China, where bottoms are non-existent, and social services are very moralistic, if there are any at all, you know doing drugs is pretty much a death sentence. Even becoming a member of the ant tribe won't save you.
On the other hand, it forces people to become better, and most of them do. Social services help and hurt the problem: on the one hand, you won't die quickly if you become addicted to fentanyl, but on the other hand, the lack of immediate harsh consequences can make dipping into drugs appear less risky. On the other hand, in China, where bottoms are non-existent, and social services are very moralistic, if there are any at all, you know doing drugs is pretty much a death sentence. Even becoming a member of the ant tribe won't save you.
Each floor has got to be worth at least a million as one big apartment with its existing office bathrooms, no?
And in San Francisco, there is also a requirement for new multi-family dwelling to set aside a certain percent for low rent use.
I only know that because it tanked a developer from doing the conversion on a downtown SF property last year, and that made hacker News.
I only know that because it tanked a developer from doing the conversion on a downtown SF property last year, and that made hacker News.
Not sure if it's hard but it's definitely costly. Looks like average renovation costs (after some quick googling) $100-$200/sqft and with an average office tower floor size of 25000sqft it's going to be at least $2.5M per floor.
Is there such a thing as scrap value for a building? If you tear it down are there any materials worth scavenging or is the only real value in the land?
Yes, there is.
>> For example, the Deutsche Bank Building in New York, demolished in 2011, contained about 40,000 tons of structural steel. At that time, scrap steel prices averaged around $200 per ton, yielding an estimated $8 million from steel alone.
>> For example, the Deutsche Bank Building in New York, demolished in 2011, contained about 40,000 tons of structural steel. At that time, scrap steel prices averaged around $200 per ton, yielding an estimated $8 million from steel alone.
For people who can't read the article: just turn off JS and everything works fine.
It's on the corner of 6th and market. Kinda scuzzy area unfortunately.
The TL has a de facto annex one or two blocks down 6th into SoMa.
I wonder what the annual maintenance, utilities, taxes and other upkeep would be on that.
The key thing is that the buyers had already taken on the loan against the building.
Quote :
"The mostly vacant building was auctioned off eight months after Bridgeton Holdings defaulted on a $45 million mortgage loan. The investor bought the tower in 2018 for $62 million, or $685 per square foot.
LNR, a unit of Connecticut-based Starwood Property Trust, had been acting as special servicer for the $45 million loan. The LNR affiliate took over the loan this month from the original lender, Dallas-based LStar Capital.
Bridgeton, which told lenders last summer it would stop payments on the loan, owed more than $47 million by the April 18 auction.
Because it had taken over the loan from LStar, LNR could have simply credited the $6.56 million auction bid against the more than $47 million Bridgeton owed on the building, instead of plunking down cash at auction, according to the Business Times.
"
So really the reduction is vastly less than is stated in the headline.