Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Pools are a bad example for SF, but here is an example of a luxury condo built in the last few years.

I don't disagree that they don't add much to the cost, but they are high-margin offerings - people pay more rent for places that offer these.

http://38doloressf.com/amenities/

Amenities: LEED Gold certified, butterfly garden, outdoor living room with fire pit



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.

[1] https://www.avaloncommunities.com/california/san-francisco-a... [2] https://181fremont.com/amenities/ [3] https://www.theaverysf.com/lifestyle


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.

[1] https://jeffjackapartments.com/building/ [2] https://www.twowestdelaware.com/amenities-and-features/


Those 40 year old buildings also sell for over a million bucks today, so I suppose by the price definition of luxury, they are a luxury unit as well.


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.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: