I doubt this calculation changes whether a developer chooses $500 or $1000 countertops. New units in San Francisco are not luxury units. Few have luxury amenities like doormen.
"luxury" is one of the most meaningless and oft misused terms in housing/real estate.
It's not legally defined as anything so any developer can build a shoebox with a bathroom and a murphy bed throw in a nice countertop and call it "luxury".
It's also become a pejorative for ANY market-rate housing in cities by NIMBY anti-development types.
Few San Francisco new constructions have pools, and I don’t see how putting some exercise equipment in what would otherwise be a storage closet makes a building luxury. That can’t be more than a few basis points of total project cost.
I'm not sure those are the amenities that would signify a high end apartment; which probably tracks with the dilution of the brand. Those amenities are pretty standard for most corporate housing, (ex. Avalon's 55 9th[1] has those amenities, but doesn't market itself has luxury).
Compare that building with the 181 Fremont[2] in SOMA which has a several private lounges, a doorman, a building concierge, and valet parking. Several other building in that area, such as the Avery[3] do have pools. I'd consider that 181 Fremont would still be a luxury offering in a city like Chicago where the housing market isn't insane.
However, despite the range the building offerings, most units still rent out for $55-75/sqft.
Maybe we have different opinions of what qualifies as luxury. My example is in a trendy location and above a whole foods. Based on the price (and the units sold quickly) there are no middle or lower class folks living in those apartments/condos. Like zero.
Contrast that with the more spartan apartment buildings building 30-40 years ago. Basic construction, laundry in the basement was the main amenity. These were clearly built for middle or lower class folks to live in.
My point is the building isn't really competitive with other high end residences - it just gets away with charging high pricing because everything in SF high priced. Just because a bunch of high income earners live there doesn't mean it's competitive with other offerings, just like I wouldn't consider a Ford Fusion a luxury car just because Steve Ballmer drives one.
Rather than contrasting it to living standards 30 years ago, it makes more sense to contrast it with living standards today in real estate markets that aren't insane. A comparable apartment to 38 Dolores, with similar amenities is Chicago's Jeff Jack apartments[1] which has much of the similar amenities at a fraction of the price (~$1,000/mo for 1bd) - still likely targeting yuppies but in a different tier than Chicago's high end offerings. However something like a building in Chicago's Gold Coast (which has pricing of around ~3,500/mo for bd) includes features that are in 181 Fremont - pool, lounges, concierge, dry cleaning and even larger floor plans than you would typically find [2].
Alternatively you could say that a lot of apartments in SF get away with charging luxury prices for what really should be standard fan-fare apartment because demand is so high. The GP mentioned more succinctly, a lot of units in SF are cheaply constructed building that are actually rented at luxury rates.
Are you aware that the space for the outdoor living room and butterfly garden are almost certainly mandated by the planning code’s open space requirements? I suppose the builder could have left them as an unlandscaped pile of dirt, but most of the cost is a statutory requirement.
That's more like middle-class apartments than actual luxury. The amenities of Luxury apartments include things like exclusive Michelin star restaurants and grand ballrooms for rent.
Is there a functional difference between places that have a front-desk person and actual doormen, besides opening doors? Not that the former is super-common in San Francisco either, but it's at least existent.
My main dealings with them were, in my most-cash strapped days, delivering Postmates orders to their buildings. They also serve the valuable service of not having to explain to the delivery guy how to get into the building. Much longer notes from the people whose buildings were not manned.
NYC is one of the few places in the United States building truly luxurious condos. The per unit construction cost of new construction in San Francisco is probably within 20% of 100% affordable non-profit developer built subsidized housing (which runs at around $850k/unit).
