patrick.net

"The units were reportedly priced at $630,000 each, in an overall waterfront development worth $227 million."

"5-Alarm Fire Spreads To UCSF Roof, Research Center Evacuated"

curious2 says

"The units were reportedly priced at $630,000 each, in an overall waterfront development worth $227 million."

The estimated development cost of the project was estimated at 227M at that time. BRE properties, hq in San Francisco develops/buys and rent large apartment buildings.

It does give you an idea just how expensive it is to build, even basic multi unit large apartments in San Francisco in a flat piece of land of a former nothing with pretty dense 1/1 and 2/2. Building an apartment costs around 650K a pop. BRE said that thing would yield around 7% which puts average rent net of vacancy of around $3800 a pop (96% occupied).

A real estate agent tragedy. If only the fire could have started AFTER they were sold.

SFace says

The estimated development cost of the project was estimated at 227M at that time. BRE properties, hq in San Francisco develops/buys and rent large apartment buildings.

"According to published reports, the building was slated to become condominiums with an expected sale price of $630,000."

Ceffer says

A real estate agent tragedy. If only the fire could have started AFTER they were sold.

I think you meant to say, the fire should have started during the marketing walk through, with the maximum number of brokers in attendance, while they were on the highest floor. Witnesses would have described AF flicking a cigarette into the structure, before tossing a spent flamethrower into his Jeep, then driving into the Sunset to eat some Chinese.

curious2 says

"According
to published reports, the building was slated to become condominiums with an
expected sale price of $630,000."

The development cost for the 360 units are estimated at an all-in costs of 227M or so last year. BRE does not sell units. They build/buy and lease entire apartment complex only.

SFace says

BRE said that thing would yield around 7% which puts average rent net of vacancy of around $3800 a pop (96% occupied).

The latest quote I've heard for Mission Bay 1BR apartments is about $4200 from a friend of a friend.

What it sells for and what it costs are two different entities.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CP/

All reports say the apartments were being built for sale as condominiums, so if that is incorrect, then SFace and PatNet are first with the actual fact.

curious2 says

All reports say the apartments were being built for sale as condominiums, so if that is incorrect, then SFace and PatNet are first with the actual fact.

just go to the damn source, BRE properties. These were built to be leased. And why the freak would BRE or anyone with a brain pin themselves to a price. 630K is the cost to build the damn thing per unit all-in (includes retail space). Sales price is a separate matter and not relevent unless you buy the whole complex.

Your source is some reporter, my source comes from the CEO of "BRE"

http://www.snl.com/Cache/1001178773.PDF?Y=&O=PDF&D=&fid=1001178773&T=&iid=102924

page 14, 30 and 31

MB360 Units 360, est market rent Q2 2013 $3,695, cost $227,200K.

% of HH > 100K income 32.3%
3 year eff rent growth 11% for SOMA.

bgamall4 says

So did they freefall like 9/11? Of course not, they were imploded at 9/11. This was just a fire. And no concrete reinforcement here so it was weaker and it still didn't implode.

I think my point was the replacement cost is a lot higher than what a normal person here thinks. 630K is an outrageous sum for some 1/1 or 2/2 apartment packed in 360 units over two eight story building. That's just the replacement cost now. That's why San Francisco condo's prices are going up and/or rent will be outrageous.

The economics is homes won't be built without a 800K+ average sales price or $3,700 in minimum effective rent for the basic mostly 1/1 and some 2/2/ apartments in an off location.

SFace says

That's just the replacement cost now.

The original cost included more than construction. The cost to remove and replace the destroyed construction might be less.

Thanks for your link to BRE's report. The local commercial press seem to be copying each other rather than checking the source. I check PatNet to balance the bandwagon / echo chamber effect of MSM.

"A 5-alarm fire in San Francisco is now under control, but a new danger has emerged -- officials say the building is likely to collapse. Wednesday afternoon, crews began knocking down parts of the charred structure in hopes of preventing it from collapsing onto the street."

"I'd say in my career this is the biggest volume of fire that I've ever seen," said SFFD Deputy Chief of Operations Mark Gonzales. "I mean, just the size of it."

bgamall4 says

So did they freefall like 9/11? Of course not, they were imploded at 9/11. This was just a fire. And no concrete reinforcement here so it was weaker and it still didn't implode.

Everyone knows that steel & concrete are flimsy forms of construction.
Bldg. 7 fell, vertically & it wasn't hit by a plane on 9/11. It must have been equally weak throughout to fall ,straight down,so cleanly. roflmao

Another quality demolition job.