patrick.net

you might want to read burbed.com for lots of history on Santana Row. . .

Why pay $1.4M to live in an ugly box with no yard at a mall, when you could pay $1.4M and get a decent property in SF or Palo Alto, and an awesome property almost anywhere else?

Also keep in mind that living "in the heart of Santana Row" means traffic Hell during the holiday shopping season, as Valley Fair distorts traffic patterns for miles around.

Is this a joke?

NO! It is not a good price.

It's a terrible price. HORRIBLE in fact. About as bad as it gets.

It is far far cheaper to rent the equivalent thing than to pay such an outrageous price and large HOA fees.

http://patrick.net/housing/calculator.php?forsale_ID=1565379

Even if the thing rents for $5,000 per month, the owner will lose hundreds of thousands of dollars over the typical holding period of 6 or 7 years.

Run away!

Well the good news is at 4.36% you Monthly payment will be...
$5,588/mo

So there's always that.

Buy the nice big house up the street from me for $1.4!

$1,399,000
Lot Size: 435 Sq. Ft.

lol

ha HA hA hahahaahahaha! LOL

MyPunanyIsBiggerThanYourPunany says

$1,399,000

Lot Size: 435 Sq. Ft.

lol

How do you get a 2161 ft^2 property on a 435 ft^2 lot? Is it a 5 story condo?

^probably missing a zero

Horrible..next question please..

Has anyone been to Santana Row here?

Nobody rents these townhomes, mostly empty. You have to be certified insane to pay $4K, let alone $6K, a month to live in that neighborhood. The general area is very industrial and polluted.

SF Ace, is that the actual rent that someone will pay in that area?

I've noticed lately that many asking prices are WAY too high. I'm aware of units that have sat empty now for months. I do not know what is behind this. I assume that the landlords are using the units as some sort of tax writeoff and are listing ads at ZOMG WTF pricing to justify their "loss" of having an empty unit on their federal tax returns.

I even know of one particular place...the landlord way over renovated the units considering the neighborhood. So the landlord wants quality tennant(in a bad neighborhood) and won't rent to most people. Theres four units, two of which sat vacant for over a year. One of those is going on two years vacant.

So basically I'm asking is the rent you list a realistic rent? I'm finding that asking prices often mean little.

I can't stand to shop at a mall, let alone live at one. Haven't been to a mall in years....

No.

SF ace says

Dodger, I would never know. But talking with my boss, he just rented his condo in San Francisco for $3,500. He did revealed that he took four appointments and all four offered asking. The rental market is stronger than people realize, especially in San Jose. Of course, 6K rental is another tier. These are millionaire terrortory dwellings.

Santana Row is somewhat unique. San Jose doesn’t have a union square or an upscale downtown, therefore Santana Row is sort of the de facto downtown where the wealthy shop and dine. It’s a few places in this country you can put a Burberry, Gucci, etc. so you know there is market. Speaking with a high end retailer via casual conversation, the waiting list to lease a retail space there runs 100+ deep.

It’s technically not a mall, it’s street level shopping and dining and upscale living, purposely planned. It doesn’t try to appeal to 98% of the market anyway, it’s targeted to a niche where there is no comparable. From that perspective, it doesn’t matter what 98% of us thinks anyway.

you have the most opinions-stated-as-fact out of anyone on this forum.
and that's saying a lot.

and your "logic" is pretty lousy too.

Gimme a break, the wealthy don't shop at Santana Row, they shop at Stanford shopping center because they don't want to bump into working class rif rafs who *think* they are well-off.

Look at the shops at Santana Row, mostly middle class brands faking to be upscale, it was a working class neighborhood and still surrounded by working class. Wealthy people don't want the sight of working class people within a certain radius.

Just by putting a Gucci shop there and your lousy neighborhood suddenly goes upscale? Well, the reality hits you right at the rim of Santana Row.

No...next question?

No. Not a good price nor a good location to live in - even for the young, rich, fabulous, trendy, upwardly mobile person. It is noisy, polluted, over priced (not to mention unsafe) and the larger area surrounding that small strip called Santana Row is not at all desirable - just take a long walk and see for yourself. If I were you, I would buy a nice house in Los Altos or Saratoga with that kind of money and drive down to hang out in Santana Row whenever the heart desires that experience (I see more people eating out or hanging out than shopping in Santana Row)! Believe me that there are plenty of other worthwhile places in the Bay Area to blow your $1.4M on!

SF ace says

A similar townhouse is asking 6K.

Yeah right, it's either a corporate rental or someone putting up a wishing price. I doubt these places are renting for $6K, considering what you could get for $6K in the area. That could just be an unrealistic ask by the developer, as was common at places in SF like One Rincon Hill, the Infinity, or the Millennium before reality set in.

SF ace says

if there is actual appreciation of say 3% annually for 10 years, the buy case blows by the rent case exponentially.

So 3% + inflation? That might be asking for a lot for a new overpriced "luxury" condo at a mall. You'd be much better buying a $1.4M SFR than this junk.

SF ace says

here are the query straight from the management company:

Yes, I'm sure they are being perfectly honest, just like all developers of "luxury" condos during the boom who have been so straightforward.

Yes that is a good price.........IF you are the seller.

SF ace says

actually in this context (looking for renters), management are more opt to understate rent for marketing purpose (website) to get you in the door. this is just common sense and you have it backwards, actual rents are likely higher than what is advertised.

That's generally not true in these overpriced "luxury" condo developments. If the pattern holds true, as it has for the overpriced "luxury" condo buildings I mentioned in SF, they first try to sell at inflated prices. Then they try to sell at slightly less inflated prices. Then they try to rent at inflated prices. Then they try to rent at slightly less inflated prices and start giving "bonuses" to claim a higher headline rent for their lender, e.g. 1 month free, 2 months free, free utilities, etc. They have to show that they are getting enough cashflow from this.