DOCSLIB.ORG

Retail Space for Lease

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Retail Space for Lease 243 BRANNAN STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA RETAIL SPACE FOR LEASE HIGHLIGHTS SIZE Approx. 2,227 Sq. Ft. • Centrally located in San Francisco’s vibrant TERM 5-10 Years South Beach neighborhood. • Neighboring tenants include AT&T Ballpark, Tres POSSESSION Immediate Agaves, Koh Samui, Borders and many more. FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: 415.438.2144 LOUIS CORNEJO EZRA BARTH-ROGERS The information has been secured by Starboard TCN from sources believed to be reliable. [email protected] [email protected] It is not guaranteed, however, and should be verified prior to consummating any transaction. 33 NEW MONTGOMERY STREET | SUITE 1230 | SAN FRANCISCO | CA 94105 | 415.765.6900 | FAX 415.956.2003 | www.starboardnet.com 243 BRANNAN STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA FLOOR PLAN FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: 415.438.2144 LOUIS CORNEJO EZRA BARTH-ROGERS The information has been secured by Starboard TCN from sources believed to be reliable. [email protected] [email protected] It is not guaranteed, however, and should be verified prior to consummating any transaction. 33 NEW MONTGOMERY STREET | SUITE 1230 | SAN FRANCISCO | CA 94105 | 415.765.6900 | FAX 415.956.2003 | www.starboardnet.com 243 BRANNAN STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA THE SOUTH BEACH NEIGHBORHOOD The amount of growth within the Eastern South of Market (SoMa) area of San Francisco is simply overwhelming, especially in areas along the waterfront such as Rincon Hill, South Beach, Transbay, and Mission Bay. Not includ- ing those developments already completed, in San Francisco there are 30,000 new housing units and 6 Million sq. ft. of commercial space planned for construction, most of which is located in the South of Market Area. The Brannan itself is a masterpiece development of luxury condominiums completed in 2002. Its three towers are located on Brannan St between 1st St and 2nd St, surrounded by high end restaurants, retailers, art galleries, café’s, professional services, and plenty of entertainment. Located within walking distance from The Embarcadero, South Park, the Ballpark, the Financial District, and the Moscone center, 243 Brannan is a prime location to serv- ice the very large number of employees, residents, and visitors in the area. Already one of the hottest neighbor- hoods in the city, South Beach is not cooling down any time soon. FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: 415.438.2144 LOUIS CORNEJO EZRA BARTH-ROGERS The information has been secured by Starboard TCN from sources believed to be reliable. [email protected] [email protected] It is not guaranteed, however, and should be verified prior to consummating any transaction. 33 NEW MONTGOMERY STREET | SUITE 1230 | SAN FRANCISCO | CA 94105 | 415.765.6900 | FAX 415.956.2003 | www.starboardnet.com 243 BRANNAN STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA The Infinity (Phase I) The Infinity (Phase II) 201 Folsom 325 Fremont 340 Fremont Bridgeview 399 Fremont The Metropolitan One Rincon Hill 50 Lansing (Phase I) The Watermark 246 2nd St. Turnberry Tower One Rincon Hill (Phase II) 200 Brannan 243 BRANNAN Jack Falstaff Restaurant Paragon Restaurant One South Park 88 Townsend One Embarcadero 170 Off Third Koh Samui Restaurant The Palms AT&T Park The Beacon 310 Townsend The Radiance (Phase I) 235 Berry The Radiance 255 Berry (Phase II) Arterra Park Terrace FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: 415.438.2144 LOUIS CORNEJO EZRA BARTH-ROGERS The information has been secured by Starboard TCN from sources believed to be reliable. [email protected] [email protected] It is not guaranteed, however, and should be verified prior to consummating any transaction. 33 NEW MONTGOMERY STREET | SUITE 1230 | SAN FRANCISCO | CA 94105 | 415.765.6900 | FAX 415.956.2003 | www.starboardnet.com FULL DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 1990 - 2000 Census, 2005 Estimates & 2010 Projections Calculated using Proportional Block Groups Lat/Lon: 37.7829105/-122.3906815 October 2007 RF1 243 Brannan St 1.00 mi 2.00 mi .50 mi radius SAN FRANCISCO, California radius radius 2005 Estimated Population 7,696 18,439 145,505 2010 Projected Population 8,899 19,741 140,460 TION 2000 Census Population 6,052 16,531 150,154 1990 Census Population 2,913 10,946 134,458 . Historical Annual Growth 1990 to 2005 10.9% 4.6% 0.5% POPULA Projected Annual Growth 2005 to 2010 3.1% 1.4% -0.7% 2005 Est. Households 4,732 10,476 78,962 2010 Proj. Households 5,645 11,569 77,917 2000 Census Households 3,588 9,073 79,948 1990 Census Households 1,673 5,836 66,920 Historical Annual Growth 1990 to 2005 12.2% 5.3% 1.2% HOUSEHOLDS Projected Annual Growth 2005 to 2010 3.9% 2.1% -0.3% 2005 Est. Population 0 to 9 Years 4.1% 4.3% 6.4% 2005 Est. Population 10 to 19 Years 2.9% 3.5% 5.1% 2005 Est. Population 20 to 29 Years 14.5% 11.8% 12.3% 2005 Est. Population 30 to 44 Years 43.5% 36.5% 32.0% AGE 2005 Est. Population 45 to 59 Years 20.9% 22.6% 22.4% 2005 Est. Population 60 to 74 Years 8.9% 12.4% 13.3% The information herein is provided without representation or warranty 2005 Est. Population 75 Years Plus 5.2% 8.9% 8.4% 2005 Est. Median Age 39.8 43.9 41.7 2005 Est. Male Population 59.2% 58.9% 55.0% TUS 2005 Est. Female Population 40.8% 41.1% 45.0% A ST 2005 Est. Never Married 52.4% 46.9% 48.1% AL & SEX 2005 Est. Now Married 25.4% 25.2% 27.1% 2005 Est. Separated or Divorced 9.3% 15.5% 14.4% 2005 Est. Widowed MARIT 12.9% 12.4% 10.4% 2005 Est. HH Income $200,000 or More 16.1% 11.0% 6.4% 2005 Est. HH Income $150,000 to 199,999 7.1% 4.8% 3.4% 2005 Est. HH Income $100,000 to 149,999 15.5% 11.3% 9.6% 2005 Est. HH Income $75,000 to 99,999 11.7% 8.9% 8.7% 2005 Est. HH Income $50,000 to 74,999 12.2% 10.8% 13.2% 2005 Est. HH Income $35,000 to 49,999 9.5% 10.5% 12.8% 2005 Est. HH Income $25,000 to 34,999 4.6% 5.8% 9.4% INCOME 2005 Est. HH Income $15,000 to 24,999 5.0% 7.9% 11.5% 2005 Est. HH Income $0 to 14,999 18.3% 29.0% 24.9% 2005 Est. Average Household Income $ 123,685 $ 93,849 $ 71,131 2005 Est. Median HH Income $ 71,450 $ 52,377 $ 46,495 This report was produced using data from private and government sources deemed to be reliable. 2005 Est. Per Capita Income $ 78,942 $ 56,619 $ 40,133 2005 Est. Number of Businesses 1,445 12,449 26,971 2005 Est. Total Number of Employees 20,508 167,042 326,264 ©2007, Sites USA, Chandler, Arizona, 480-491-1112 - 1 of 3 - Demographic Source: Applied Geographic Solutions / TIGER Geography 07/05 FULL DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 1990 - 2000 Census, 2005 Estimates & 2010 Projections Calculated using Proportional Block Groups Lat/Lon: 37.7829105/-122.3906815 October 2007 RF1 243 Brannan St 1.00 mi 2.00 mi .50 mi radius SAN FRANCISCO, California radius radius 2005 Est. White Population 62.8% 52.9% 49.4% 2005 Est. Black Population 7.1% 8.8% 5.6% 2005 Est. Asian & Pacific Islander 23.0% 30.6% 36.5% RACE 2005 Est. American Indian & Alaska Native 0.3% 0.5% 0.5% 2005 Est. Other Races Population 6.8% 7.2% 8.1% . 2005 Est. Hispanic Population 501 1,512 15,854 2005 Est. Hispanic Population Percent 6.5% 8.2% 10.9% ANIC 2010 Proj. Hispanic Population Percent 6.5% 8.1% 10.8% HISP 2000 Hispanic Population Percent 6.4% 8.4% 11.0% 2005 Est. Adult Population (25 Years or Older) 6,833 16,275 122,153 2005 Est. Elementary (0 to 8) 8.0% 11.4% 13.9% 2005 Est. Some High School (9 to 11) 8.9% 11.9% 12.1% TION 2005 Est. High School Graduate (12) 17.7% 20.5% 20.5% 2005 Est. Some College (13 to 16) 19.1% 19.3% 19.5% 2005 Est. Associate Degree Only 6.6% 6.4% 6.5% EDUCA 2005 Est. Bachelor Degree Only 23.4% 19.2% 17.9% (Adults 25 or Older) 2005 Est. Graduate Degree 16.2% 11.3% 9.5% 2005 Est. Total Housing Units 5,862 12,700 91,855 The information herein is provided without representation or warranty 2005 Est. Owner Occupied Percent 23.0% 19.2% 17.3% 2005 Est. Renter Occupied Percent 57.7% 63.3% 68.7% HOUSING 2005 Est. Vacant Housing Percent 19.3% 17.5% 14.0% 2000 Homes Built 1999 to 2000 6.9% 4.0% 0.8% 2000 Homes Built 1995 to 1998 15.9% 10.9% 3.0% T BY 2000 Homes Built 1990 to 1994 24.6% 13.4% 3.8% 2000 Homes Built 1980 to 1989 30.8% 22.1% 7.4% 2000 Homes Built 1970 to 1979 6.7% 10.3% 6.4% YEAR 2000 Homes Built 1960 to 1969 1.8% 7.7% 8.8% 2000 Homes Built 1950 to 1959 1.4% 5.0% 7.1% HOMES BUIL 2000 Homes Built Before 1949 12.0% 26.5% 62.7% 2000 Home Value $1,000,000 or More 8.1% 5.2% 12.0% 2000 Home Value $500,000 to $999,999 21.9% 23.7% 38.7% 2000 Home Value $400,000 to $499,999 13.2% 26.1% 16.3% 2000 Home Value $300,000 to $399,999 34.8% 38.4% 21.3% 2000 Home Value $200,000 to $299,999 - - 5.0% ALUES 2000 Home Value $150,000 to $199,999 - - 1.5% 2000 Home Value $100,000 to $149,999 22.2% 6.6% 2.4% 2000 Home Value $50,000 to $99,999 - - 1.2% This report was produced using data from private and government sources deemed to be reliable.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Bay Area-Silicon Valley and Australia an Expanding Trans-Pacific Partnership
    The Bay Area-Silicon Valley and Australia An Expanding Trans-Pacific Partnership December 2020 Acknowledgments This report was developed in partnership with the Odette Hampton, Trade and Investment Commissioner American Chamber of Commerce in Australia, with and Deputy Consul General, Australian Trade and support from Cisco, Google, Lendlease, Salesforce, Investment Commission (Austrade) Telstra, University of Technology Sydney, and Wipro. Joe Hockey, Founding Partner and President, Bondi Development of the project was led by Sean Randolph, Partners, Australian Ambassador to the US, 2016–2020 Senior Director at the Bay Area Council Economic Institute. Neils Erich, a consultant to the Institute, Vikas Jain, Asia-Pacific Business Head for Engineering, was co-author. The Institute wishes to thank April Construction and Mining, Wipro Palmerlee, Chief Executive Officer of the American Claire Johnston, Managing Director, Google Chamber of Commerce in Australia, for her support Development Ventures, Lendlease throughout this effort and the following individuals for Joe Kaesshaefer, Trade and Investment Commissioner– their valuable input: USA, Department of Industry, New South Wales Jeff Bleich, Chief Legal Officer, Cruise, US Ambassador Michael Kapel, Trade and Investment Commissioner to to Australia 2009–2013 the Americas in San Francisco, Government of Victoria Michael Blumenstein, Associate Dean, Research Damian Kassabgi, Executive Vice President, Public Strategy and Management, Faculty of Engineering Policy and Communications, Afterpay and
    [Show full text]
  • 25 Years: Downtown Plan Monitoring Report, 1985-2009 03
    YEARS DOWNTOWN PLAN MONITORING REPORT 1 9 8 5 - 2 0 0 9 SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT JUNE 2011 © 2011 San Francisco Planning Department 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94103-3114 www.sfplanning.org 25 YEARS: DOWNTOWN PLAN MONITORING REPORT 1985-2009 San Francisco Planning Department June 2011 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 01 25 Years: Downtown Plan 01 Economic Change and Unexpected Trends 02 Regional Context and What Lies Ahead 02 25 YEARS: DOWNTOWN PLAN MONITORING REPORT, 1985-2009 03 Report Organization 03 PART I: THE DOWNTOWN PLAN: GOALS ACHIEVED 05 Introduction 05 Space for Commerce 08 New Commercial Construction Downtown 08 Downtown Commercial Space Today 10 Space for Housing 12 New Housing Downtown 12 Jobs Housing Linkage Program (JHLP) 14 Protecting Existing Housing Downtown 16 Downtown Housing Today 17 Open Space 18 Downtown Open Space Today 20 Historic Preservation 21 Downtown Historic Preservation Today 21 Urban Form 23 Downtown Urban Form Today 24 Moving About – Transportation 25 Downtown Transportation Today 26 PART II: ECONOMIC CHANGE AND REGIONAL GROWTH SINCE 1985 27 San Francisco Employment Change – from Office to Other Activities 28 Sole Proprietors – Shift from Large to Smaller Employers 28 Downtown Area Employment – A Change in Location 33 Downtown C-3 Zone Employment Change 33 Downtown San Francisco in a Regional Context: What Lies Ahead? 34 San Francisco and the Region 34 The Downtown Plan Today and Tomorrow 35 APPENDICES Appendix A: Downtown Plan Objectives 37 Appendix B: Table 1: New Office
    [Show full text]
  • Baseline Budget for Phase 1 of the Transbay Transit Center Program (Program) in the Amount of $1,189,000,000 in Year of Expenditure (YOE) Dollars
    THIS STAFF REPORT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO.: 7 FOR THE MEETING OF: November 16, 2007 TRANSBAY JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY BRIEF DESCRIPTION: Recommendation of a Baseline Budget for Phase 1 of the Transbay Transit Center Program (Program) in the amount of $1,189,000,000 in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars. SUMMARY: A preliminary Phase 1 cost estimate totaling $983 million was developed in January 2006 and presented to the Board in March 2006. This preliminary estimate was prepared using conceptual designs and FTA-mandated minimum levels of contingencies, as well as initial estimates of escalation and program-wide costs such as design and construction management. Since the Phase 1 preliminary cost estimate was presented to the Board in March 2006, considerable work has been completed to identify the most probable final cost of Phase 1 as the basis for the recommended Baseline Budget. The estimate was recalculated to account for the escalation that occurred during 2006, and an industry review was conducted to assess the most probable ongoing annual levels of escalation to the end of construction. In addition, adjustments were made to the Phase 1 preliminary cost estimate to account for further scope development, development of intended contracting strategies, and reallocation of some costs from Phase 2. Accordingly, this report provides an update to the components included in the prior estimate and recommends the adoption of a Baseline Budget for Phase 1 of $1,189,000,000 (YOE). Once adopted, this Baseline Budget will be the benchmark against which cost performance will be measured. Staff and consultants have developed a draft funding plan for the Baseline Budget.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mark Company Standard Monthly Reports San Francisco
    The Mark Company Standard Monthly Reports San Francisco May 2013 Contents Executive Summary Currently Selling Developments Resale Developments Pipeline Report TMC Disclaimer Notes 1) Currently Selling is defined as a new construction residential project selling for the first time or a project in which units have never been lived in as owner-occupied. 2) Resale is defined as a residential unit that has been sold at least once before and has previously been lived in. 3) This report covers Currently Selling residential developments with 20+ Market Rate units and Resale residential developments with 50+ Market Rate units located in Districts 7, 8 and 9. 4) Assume that projects located in the Currently Selling section are actively selling units unless noted otherwise. 5) Date On Market refers to the date the Sales Center opened. 6) Average Absorption is calculated from Date On Market through the first of the month prior to the date of the report. It accounts for units both in contract and closed. 7) Average Price/SF is calculated using only units where both square footage and price are known. Average Price/SF is defined as the average price divided by the average square footage. Averages are weighted averages. 8) Developments are considered Sold Out once the last Market Rate unit has closed OR there have been six months without a closing, all units are in contract and the Sales Center is closed (e.g. there is no active marketing). At that point, projects will be moved to the Resale section and tracked for resale closings. 9) Market Rate Units Available in the Pipeline Report refers to the estimated number of Market Rate units available for sale at the development (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Ephemera Collection SF SUB COLL
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt2p30342b No online items Finding Aid to the San Francisco Ephemera Collection SF SUB COLL Finding aid prepared by David Krah, Stephanie Walls, and California Ephemera Project staff; updated by San Francisco History Center staff. The California Ephemera Project was funded by a Cataloging Hidden Special Collections and Archives grant from the Council on Library and Information Resources in 2009-2010. San Francisco History Center, San Francisco Public Library 100 Larkin Street San Francisco, CA 94102 [email protected] URL: http://www.sfpl.org/sfhistory 2010, revised January 2020 Finding Aid to the San Francisco SF SUB COLL 1 Ephemera Collection SF SUB COLL Title: San Francisco ephemera collection Date (inclusive): 1850-present Identifier/Call Number: SF SUB COLL Physical Description: 265.0 Linear feet(in 153 file drawers) Contributing Institution: San Francisco History Center, San Francisco Public Library 100 Larkin Street San Francisco, CA 94102 415-557-4567 [email protected] URL: http://sfpl.org/sfhistory Abstract: Consists of ephemeral materials, city records and clippings relating to the city of San Francisco and its citizens. Materials date from the 1850s to the present, the bulk from the 20th century. Subjects cover a diverse array of San Francisco history and primarily pertain to: municipal government; city planning; urban policy; environmental engineering; transportation; social history; labor history; community relations; notable events; public events, fairs and celebrations; and various aspects of local popular culture. Subjects also relate to specific local entities, such as: businesses; schools, colleges and universities; political parties; and associations, groups and clubs.
    [Show full text]
  • G2. Affordable Housing (Inclusionary) Program
    FY 2009-10 Development Impact Fee Report ’s Office Controller January 24, 2011 City and County of San Francisco City and City and County of San Francisco FY 2009-10 Development Impact Fee Report January 24, 2011 Introduction San Francisco Planning Code Article 2, Section 409(b) requires the Controller to issue an Annual Citywide Development Fee and Development Impact Requirements Report including: All development fees collected during the prior fiscal year, organized by development fee account; All cumulative monies collected and expended over the life of each fee; The number of projects that elected to satisfy development impact requirements through in-kind improvements; Any annual construction cost inflation adjustments to fees (based on the Annual Infrastructure Construction Cost Inflation Estimate published by the Office of the City Administrator's Capital Planning Group); and Other information required pursuant to the California Mitigation Fee Act Government Code 66001, including: fee rate and description; the beginning and ending balance of the fee account; the amount of fees collected and interest earned; an identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the percentage of the cost of the improvement funded with fees; an approximate construction start date; and a description of any transfers or loans made from the account.1 Table 1 lists the City’s twenty-four development impact fees, the department or agency collecting and administering each one, and other fee details as of November 2, 2010. On December 6, 2010, several fee levels were adjusted for consistency to reflect gross square feet instead of net square feet.
    [Show full text]
  • Development Impact Fee Report FY 2010-11
    FY 2010-11 Development Impact Fee Report Controller’s Office December 1, 2011 City and County of San Francisco City and County of San Francisco FY 2010-11 Development Impact Fee Report December 1, 2011 Introduction San Francisco Planning Code Article 4, Section 409 requires the Controller to issue an Annual Citywide Development Fee and Development Impact Requirements Report including: All development fees collected during the prior fiscal year, organized by development fee account; All cumulative monies collected and expended over the life of each fee; The number of projects that elected to satisfy development impact requirements through in-kind improvements; Any annual construction cost inflation adjustments to fees, except for the Jobs-Housing Linkage Fee and the Inclusionary Affordable Housing Fee (based on the Annual Infrastructure Construction Cost Inflation Estimate published by the Office of the City Administrator's Capital Planning Group); and Other information required pursuant to the California Mitigation Fee Act Government Code 66001, including: fee rate and description; the beginning and ending balance of the fee account; the amount of fees collected and interest earned; an identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the percentage of the cost of the improvement funded with fees; an approximate construction start date; and a description of any transfers or loans made from the account.1 Table 2 lists the City’s twenty-four development impact fees, the department or agency administering each one, the current fee level and other fee details as of November 28, 2011. Table 3 displays cumulative revenues and expenditures and the FY 2010-11 year-end balance for each development fee account.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest City to Take Pier 70 Project Height Increase to Voters
    114th Year OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF SAN FRANCISCO Volume 114, No. 7 July 2014 www.SFBuildingTradesCouncil.org Forest City to Take Pier 70 Project Height Increase to Voters ♦ The $242 Million Development Would Create 10,000 Construction Jobs By Paul Burton San Francisco Centre and de- City Development Image Courtesy Forest Contributing Writer veloped the Presidio Landmark apartment complex. he impact of The developer’s new pro- Proposition B is posal, the “Union Iron Works starting to be felt. Historic District Housing, Prop B, which Waterfront Parks, Jobs and passed last month, Preservation Initiative,” will Trestricts development along ask voters to restore the height San Francisco’s waterfront limit at the property from 40 by mandating voter approval feet to 90 feet, which is the of every project that exceeds height of the tallest existing height limits. historic structure on the site In response, representatives now. Forest City executive Jack of Forest City Development Sylvan said the ballot measure presented Pier 70 plans to to allow the 90-foot heights delegates of the San Francisco would be submitted to the City Building and Construction in July in order for the measure Trades Council at the council’s to be on the ballot this Novem- recent meeting. Forest City ber. Sylvan said the developer plans to place an initiative on decided to move forward with Forest City plans to develop a 25-acre portion of the Pier 70 Master Plan area. The site includes 2.5 million November’s ballot asking for (continued on page 6) square feet of new buildings, a major park and about 250,000 square feet of existing buildings.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 QUARTER 1 MARKET REPORT SAN FRANCISCO LUXURY HIGHRISE RESIDENCES South Beach | Rincon Hill | Yerba Buena | Soma | Mission Bay
    2019 QUARTER 1 MARKET REPORT SAN FRANCISCO LUXURY HIGHRISE RESIDENCES South Beach | Rincon Hill | Yerba Buena | SoMa | Mission Bay ROBYN KAUFMAN SFHIGHRISES.COM South Beach Top Producer | Top 1% SF Condo Sales 415.497.1798 | [email protected] YOUR 2019 QUARTER 1 REPORT ROBYN’S RECENT SALES ACTIVITY Spring is typically the season when median prices increase most. However, median house sales prices SOLD $2,720,000 SOLD $2,250,000 SOLD $1,925,000 dropped dramatically from last March with a switch from high year-over-year quarterly appreciation rates to zero appreciation in the last 2 quarters. MLS also reported less real estate sales and new listings in Q1 2019. In our neighborhood, sales in every building have been pretty skinny, with the average sales price remaining unchanged since last quarter. New listings almost always climb from January through March, but not this year. The reason behind this can be that sellers are waiting waiting for IPO buyers, which many manifest later in the year. Q2 will provide much more data regarding the media-frenzy “IPO” effect. 401 HARRISON STREET #38D 355 1ST STREET #2801 338 MAIN STREET #10A THE HARRISON THE METROPOLITAN LUMINA The good news is that open house activity has been steady citywide with many buyers just beginning their search. Interest rates have dropped: 30 year fixed rates are around 4% and 15 year fixed rates are around NEW CONDO SALE HIGHEST PRICE SOLD AT THE MET CASH DEAL. SOLD IN 15 DAYS 3.625%. So, buyers are wanting to purchase now rather than wait.
    [Show full text]
  • The Shops at Avery Lane Final
    The Opportunity At the base of an impeccably designed 618 foot tower sits the Shops at Avery Lane. The world class design is uniquely modern showcasing sophisticated materials and intriguing textures at all levels. Centrally lo- cated on the street level is the central open space. Multiple residential entry points and outside seating areas are surrounded by engaging re- tail storefronts. Superbly designed retail spaces are characterized by ample volume, natural light and accessibility to the outside. Complimented by pre- mium landscaping, lighting and numerous outdoor seating areas, the perfect neighborhood shopping environment awaits for best in class food, beverage, fitness and entertainment retailers. Small and large format spaces exist in both internal and external portions of Avery Lane. The Market No sub market in San Francisco has experienced more growth than the Transbay / Rincon Hill. neighborhood. One of the fastest growing sub markets in the country, the neighborhood has seen historic, record breaking levels of office growth over the prior 18 months. 16 million square feet of architecturally significant office space is located adjacent to transportation options including BART, Golden Gate Ferry, MUNI bus lines and Cal Train offering convenient access for the 156,000 daytime employee base. In addition to 18,000 existing residential units in the sub market an additional 8,000 units have been planned with roughly 3,800 units remaining in process or under construction. Active. Educated. Affluent. Creative. The customer profile provides excellent demographic levels for urban retailers to succeed and thrive. m St m u r D MARKET ST 18 7 3 19 1 16 1 OFFICE The Customer STEVENSON ST 2 1 Salesforce FERRY BUILDING 2 Ferry Building A neighborhood dense with office workers and residents surrounds The Shops at Avery Lane.
    [Show full text]
  • SF FINAL 2016.Indd
    THE POLARIS PACIFIC REPORT San Francisco Condominium Market SEPTEMBER 2016 MLS DISTRICT 1-10 SAN FRANCISCO / LOS ANGELES / SAN DIEGO / OAKLAND-EMERYVILLE / SILICON VALLEY / SEATTLE / PHOENIX MARKET SNAPSHOT SAN FRANCISCO | SEPTEMBER 2016 LOW-RISE BUILDING MID-RISE BUILDING HIGH-RISE BUILDING 4 STORIES OR LESS 5-12 STORIES 13 STORIES OR MORE PRICE PER SQ. FT. PRICE PER SQ. FT. PRICE PER SQ. FT. $1,198 $1,303 $1,522 ANNUAL CHANGE ANNUAL CHANGE ANNUAL CHANGE +0.9% -0.4% +5.7% MACRO TRENDS CONDO INVENTORY CONDO SALES & MEDIAN PRICE MULTI-FAMILY COMPLETIONS BY TYPE BY TYPE BY BUILDING TYPE 915 202 971 NEW NEW NEW CONDOS 3.1 CONDOS $1,095K CONDOS 2,611 MONTHS OF MEDIAN 2015 RESALE RESALE MULTI-FAMILY INVENTORY PRICE 751 DELIVERIES 1,640 771 RESALES NEW RESALES APTS ABOUT POLARIS PACIFIC Polaris Pacifi c is a new-condominium brokerage and advisory fi rm renowned for its grasp and insight into market trends and buyer sentiment in the major urban markets of the West Coast, and its ability to capitalize upon this information to generate sales performance. We produce monthly reports on six major urban markets on the West Coast—San Francisco, Los Angeles, Silicon Valley, Oakland-Emeryville, San Diego, Seattle and Phoenix —that provide timely insight into the performance of new and existing condominiums in these regions. We also generate comprehensive custom reports for specifi c multi-family development sites, including pricing and rental models, fl oorplan critique services, demographic analysis, and future supply projections by submarket at the request of developers and fi nancial institutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Residential.Pdf
    RESIDENTIAL TURNBERRY PLACE Las Vegas, NV Team Langan provided geotechnical services for the five-star Turnberry Place Turnberry Associates development in the heart of the Las Vegas Strip. The project consisted of Robert M. Swedroe Architects four 40-story condominium towers and an expansive club facility. Langan overcame many geotechnical challenges, including the size of the structures, the sequencing of construction, and below-grade parking levels. 216 VIA 57 WEST New York, NY Team Regarded as a hybrid between the European perimeter block and a New York The Durst Organization City skyscraper with a classic Copenhagen-styled residential courtyard, this Bjarke Ingels Group 35-story residential building in Midtown West includes 709 units and ground Thornton Tomasetti Hunter Roberts Construction Group floor retail space. A massive outdoor courtyard cut into the center of the SLCE Architects building adds to the structure’s unique hyperbolic paraboloid shape. Langan Starr Whitehouse Landscape Architects and Planners was the geotechnical and site/civil Engineer of Record. 218 399 FREMONT STREET San Francisco, CA Team Langan performed site/civil, geotechnical, and environmental engineering UDR services for this 42-story, 596,240-square-foot development, which offers 447 Solomon Cordwell Buenz residential units, an outdoor pool, a spa, and amenity space on the roof of the Swinerton Magnusson Klemencic Associates above-grade parking structure. 220 MAXWELL PLACE Hoboken, NJ Team Maxwell Place is a large, luxury residential waterfront development on the Toll Brothers Hudson River. Numerous industrial structures once occupied the project site, Marchetto Higgins Stieve Architects which was partially reclaimed from the river. The project also included the first- Perkins Eastman DeSimone Consulting Engineers ever deep dynamic compaction improvement in the history of Hoboken.
    [Show full text]