SAN FRANCISCO | 1177 Market Street (Trinity Place) | 240 FT | 24 FLOORS - Page 16

edit · #**301** Posted **Aug 1, 2008, 11:36 PM**

Hi guys. Just ran out and took some shots of the work in progress. I have a few more uploaded to my picasa. The building is coming along so fast. Can't wait to see how it turns out.

http://picasaweb.google.com/instant.joel/1188MissionSt

nativeguy1964 · #**302** Posted **Aug 3, 2008, 1:55 AM**

edit - do you live here at trinity too?

edit · #**303** Posted **Aug 4, 2008, 12:02 AM**

I do! Actually the first of August made it three years for me in the building. I'm really excited about the new building as I'm sure you are too.

peanut gallery · #**304** Posted **Aug 4, 2008, 3:57 AM**

The rest of us are excited about the positive change to the area. But for you guys it must be extra-special. Welcome to the forum, edit. Like nativeguy, it will be great to see your unique views of the new building.

nativeguy1964 · #**305** Posted **Aug 5, 2008, 9:12 AM**

you've been here three years edit? cool did you get to seet he seniority list? I'm curious as to how many people are ahead of me. Your pics are better than mine too I use an older video cam with much grainier pics. I take mine from the third floor garbage chute stairwell.

edit · #**306** Posted **Aug 6, 2008, 12:26 AM**

Thanks Peanut and Native! It's nice to be welcomed into a forum of like mindedness.

Native, I'm going to double check on how we check the Que. There is a public list available for us to know exactly where we are in line. I know we have people in the building here over 30 years so they obviously take first pick over us, however we can't be far behind. Most of the people in our building are here for 2 to 3 months max and then quickly move to somewhere else.

Thanks guys, glad to be apart of the forum.

nativeguy1964 · #**307** Posted **Aug 7, 2008, 8:16 AM**

yeh cool edit - if you find anything out let me know ( I asked the gal downstairs once and she abruptly said "theres no list" and walked away. whats with those people anyway. you'd think they be a little nicer since they are trying to rent out such dumpy apartments.

BTinSF · #**308** Posted **Aug 8, 2008, 7:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nativeguy1964

yeh cool edit - if you find anything out let me know ( I asked the gal downstairs once and she abruptly said "theres no list" and walked away. whats with those people anyway. you'd think they be a little nicer since they are trying to rent out such dumpy apartments.

I don't see why at this point they'd be trying to rent them. Don't they have to let you move into the new building at the same rent? I don't see the advantage to Trinity to create more people entitled that way at this point. As I recall, the first building is going to be all current tenants and any remaining units that get rented will be either "affordable" or at least rent-controlled. So while the advantages to them aren't huge, it might still be better to just minimize the number of people from the old building moving in. No?

nativeguy1964 · #**309** Posted **Aug 8, 2008, 5:18 PM**

Well, I don't thinnk they are much worried about really. First, they have more money than god. And there is a lot of turnover here. They get a lot of short term renters , students for the semester etc. and each time the unit turns over they can raise the rent so its a way to continue raising base rents. I mean I keep telling friends of mine - ( who live in sac) that they ought to move into this building now and lock in a decent rent on a new place but no one can afford it anyway. also the rent here is already not far below market rate unless you've been here for 20 or 30 years. 1200-1600 depending on the unit. which is about the prices for most of the neighborhood. by the time they turn the units a few more times in the next two years they'll be charging near market rate for those most recent tenants who move into the new building.

nativeguy1964 · #**310** Posted **Aug 8, 2008, 5:26 PM**

I do wish I knew where I was on the seniority list though. I mean are there 50 100 200 people ahead of me? I like high floors, so Im hoping to be 10th or above. Thats assuming there's 200 people ahead of me and not everyone likes it up there. By my estimate there are 20 apts per floor. 10 each on the top two. 24/23. I wish I could get all my friends and other cool people to move in here now so we can all live in the new building.lol. right now there lots of foreign families living 4 and 5 people to a studio. That shouldn't be allowed.

edit · #**311** Posted **Aug 9, 2008, 4:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nativeguy1964

I do wish I knew where I was on the seniority list though. I mean are there 50 100 200 people ahead of me? I like high floors, so Im hoping to be 10th or above. Thats assuming there's 200 people ahead of me and not everyone likes it up there. By my estimate there are 20 apts per floor. 10 each on the top two. 24/23. I wish I could get all my friends and other cool people to move in here now so we can all live in the new building.lol. right now there lots of foreign families living 4 and 5 people to a studio. That shouldn't be allowed.

Native, I'm going to ask Richard at the front desk and follow up with my mother. She works at the capital so as soon as the news broke that we were moving over to the new building rent controled I heard it from her. Also that was her first question, how will the apartments be picked? I can't recall who she was speaking to (sorry this is heard from 3rd hand by now info) however seniority would be the deciding factor and that a list would be available.

The older woman that typically sits at the back desk I believe is the Manager. She's actually been rather rude with me in the past. I had a situation where I had a friend run over to the BK lounge and took my keys. On her way back in she had security swipe the keys out of her hand and escorted her into the office. I was then issued some form of write up for having keys not cut by them and was then accused of having more then one person living in my studio.

That sort of treatment is just absolutely unacceptable. I feel as though they are told on a "as need to know" basis and other then being just an unpleasant person to speak to she may be telling the truth as she knows it.

You're right about turn around and 5 people living in studios. Also lets not forget our hallways that smell like a buffet from across the world every night. But hey, who doesn't like a little spice in their walk home?

BTinSF · #**312** Posted **Aug 9, 2008, 4:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nativeguy1964

They get a lot of short term renters

In 1982, they almost got me. When I first came here--transferred to Oakland Naval Hospital by the Navy--and was house hunting, I was staying with a friend from the Navy and after a couple of months (the condo I finally bought was still under construction) things began to get a little sour so I considered moving out and Trinity was the only easy place to move to (since I knew they had good parking, short -term rentals and plenty of vacancies. But in the end I stuck it out where I was until I could move in to my new place.

BTinSF · #**313** Posted **Aug 9, 2008, 4:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nativeguy1964

I like high floors, so Im hoping to be 10th or above. Thats assuming there's 200 people ahead of me and not everyone likes it up there. By my estimate there are 20 apts per floor.

Generally, the high floors are considered the most desirable. In my condo in 1982, the prices escalated $5000 per floor for the same floor plan. The Trinity agreement was that they had to let you move in and, I think, at the same rent, but do they have to give you the choice units? Or can they limit you to only the least desirable units comparable to what you have (a one bedroom for a one bedroom say)--which would probably mean keeping the top floors for new market rate tenants?

Gordo · #**314** Posted **Aug 9, 2008, 5:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTinSF

Generally, the high floors are considered the most desirable. In my condo in 1982, the prices escalated $5000 per floor for the same floor plan. The Trinity agreement was that they had to let you move in and, I think, at the same rent, but do they have to give you the choice units? Or can they limit you to only the least desirable units comparable to what you have (a one bedroom for a one bedroom say)--which would probably mean keeping the top floors for new market rate tenants?

I thought the first building was exactly the same number of units as exist now? In other words, the first building will not have any market rate units not subject to rent control (or so I thought).

BTinSF · #**315** Posted **Aug 9, 2008, 6:00 PM**

The gentlemen who live there seem to be saying there are 200 or so tenants "ahead of" them. How many behind isn't clear (nor is it clear how many of the short-term tenants will be there 2 years from now). But I doubt the building is full--it never was in the past. There are well over 400 apartments in the new building--nativeguy is estimating 460 or so. So I think it won't be even close to full with only the current Trinity tenants. This issue, however, is why I wondered if they are still actively renting or trying to let the number with "move-in rights" decline by attrition.

The first building won't have any units not subject to rent control I don't believe. But units that are vacant at the time the building is initially occupied can be rented at market rate because of vacancy decontrol--then whoever moves in would have the benefits of rent control as in other rent controlled buildings.

viewguysf · #**316** Posted **Aug 9, 2008, 6:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTinSF

Or can they limit you to only the least desirable units comparable to what you have (a one bedroom for a one bedroom say)--which would probably mean keeping the top floors for new market rate tenants?

Isn't that complex all studios or did Del Webb's Townehouse have some suites originally?

Gordo · #**317** Posted **Aug 9, 2008, 7:15 PM**

The first building will include 360 rent controlled studios, to replace the current 360 studios. Not sure of the total number of units in the first building:

http://www.trinityplace.com/description.php

I understand your thought about them just not renting anymore right now - but think of it this way - the new units will be rent controlled too. Even if they could receive, say $400 more per month as the base, keeping the units empty for another year will cost them more than $10,000 per unit. With as many units as they have, they wouldn't be crippling future income potential nearly as much as a four unit place might be. It would cripple them a lot more to simply hold 50, 60, 100 units off the market right now and lose tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands in rent. It would be a different story if Trinity was looking to unload the property at some point in time in the near future, but they've made it clear that they're keeping it for the long term.

BTinSF · #**318** Posted **Aug 9, 2008, 7:32 PM**

There's a difference between renting a rent-controlled unit to a new tenant at the then market rate when the new building opens in 18 months or so (again--in SF there is no vacancy control limiting the rent on unoccupied units in the new building until they become occupied--then the rent can only go up at the controlled rate) and renting to an existing tenant at a rent that has been controlled for several years already.

The economics of renting now vs trying to arrange as many vacant units as possible when the new building opens are complicated. It would depend on things like the average length expected for a tenancy in the new building (if it costs them $10K and they get an extra $400 a month, it would only take a couple of years to be ahead). Rather than try to guess which would be more to their advantage, I thought perhaps edit or nativeguy would know whether they are actively renting to new people now.

If there are 360 controlled units in the new building, which I'm sure will have more than that total, I go back to my original question: Will/can they reserve the top floors for the uncontrolled units and limit the tenants under control to the lower floors?

Gordo · #**319** Posted **Aug 9, 2008, 7:44 PM**

Well then, I guess we await their answers

Sort of off topic - I would be curious about one thing - 15% of the remaining units will be "affordable", for a total of 231 affordable units. I would like to know in large projects like this which of those numbers (the 360 rent controlled or the 231 affordable) is more scary. The rent controlled units can be rented at the then-market rate level every time a tenant leaves. The 231 will always be below market, regardless. I'm sure it depends entirely on turnover, but I'd be very curious to see the numbers on that five to ten years down the road. My thought is that the 231 affordable is much worse, simply because the 360 rent controlled units are all studios, and likely will continue to have pretty high turnover.

BTinSF · #**320** Posted **Aug 9, 2008, 9:14 PM**

If it was me, I'd worry a lot less about "affordable" units and their occupants in a rental building than in a condo. Most of the condo developers seem to be putting their "affordable" quota off-site, which is smart, but not all. In those cases where they are on-site, what happens if there's a special assessment for maintenance or the board wants to add some amenity? Likely the "affordable" owners won't be able to "afford" their share leading to class war.

At least in a rental building, all that's ever going to be asked of the "affordable" occupants is to pay the rent.