Current vacancy rate is still less than 10%, so unsure what makes it ill-conceived. There is/was a lack of amenity-rich rentals targeted to young professional types in SF like you’d see in NYC and it fills a certain niche.
Main issue is rental market in SF is still soft so they can’t charge what they did pre-pandemic, and the location doesn’t help.
This is a really uncalled for response. The original comment pointed to the ostentatiousness of a luxury rental building, as if there is no place for it in SF.
It lost value because of a global pandemic years after it launched that has caused rents to fall, but has still managed to keep vacancy rates below 10%. Obviously it could not have planned for something completely outside of its control.
This is wrong. Housing accounts for about a third of CPI. There's some funkiness about how the Owners Equivalent of Rent is calculated but real estate prices definitely show up in inflation.
Main issue is rental market in SF is still soft so they can’t charge what they did pre-pandemic, and the location doesn’t help.