February 10, 2009

30 Dore Goes The Rental For Sale Route And Offers A Bonus Bedroom?

30 Dore #211: Floor Plan

Going the rental route in 2007, a handful of the 42 units at 30 Dore have been listed for sale by the developer over the past few days.

The floor plan and description for 30 Dore #211 on the developer’s website suggest it's a three-bedroom (with two full baths) for $609,000, while the MLS listing quotes only two (and two). Bonus points to the reader who can reconcile the two.

UPDATE: A plugged-in reader adds, previously asking $3,150 to rent #211 (but no word on what was actually obtained).

UPDATE: And from yet another: "Unit 505 was on the market in mid-2007 for $479,000." That was prior to going the rental route and asking $2,100. Once again offered for sale, only now asking for $439,000.

∙ Listing: 30 Dore #211 (2/2) - $609,000 [MLS] [tbcproperties.com]
∙ Listing: 30 Dore #505 (1/1) - $439,000 [tbcproperties.com]

First Published: February 10, 2009 9:10 AM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

Perhaps not enough square feet in the bedroom above the living room. I remember the code prescribes a minimum size of 100 sq. ft. or so.

Posted by: flaneur at February 10, 2009 9:18 AM

That floor plan is not functional. Seriously where is the TV supposed to go? Above the stove or above the sink?

Posted by: Rillion at February 10, 2009 9:30 AM

The developer's web site doesn't take down any old page/listing. By slightly modifying the URL you can see this very unit was asking $3150 to rent: http://www.tbcproperties.com/lease/residential/30_211.html

Have at it rent vs. buy calculators...

Posted by: FAA at February 10, 2009 9:33 AM

Maybe i'm missing something, but a three bedroom place with around 5 square feet of 'living' area.
who is this targeted at? families with kids?
dinks who have lots of guests stay over? (not for dinner though, nowhere to sit.)

the layout looks like student housing.

Posted by: bobTrouser at February 10, 2009 9:37 AM

Unit 505 was on the market in mid-2007 for $479,000. If the developer is hurtin like I think he is, I would wait until he comes down a little more than $40,000...

Posted by: Pacific at February 10, 2009 9:47 AM

The fifth floor units are 1 bedroom, so it makes sense that they would cost less than the 2nd-3rd floor units, which the website says are 3 bedrooms.

Posted by: Dan at February 10, 2009 9:56 AM

What a bizarre floor plan. This does look eerily like many of the newer student housing complexes being built (only it would have a fourth bedroom squeezed in somewhere).

Posted by: Brutus at February 10, 2009 9:56 AM

If you think you can rent it out for $3150, buy it. Obviously, they failed to find tenant at that price.

Posted by: jj at February 10, 2009 10:04 AM

This is a particularly modest understated listing. Not only do they not claim the 3rd BR, but there is no mention of the view that you can see from photo #8.

Quite a contrast compared to some 3BR SFH's with "bridge views" that I've toured. The ones where the 3rd bedroom is a dank windowless section of a converted garage with 7' ceilings and the bridge view is from a bathroom window.

[Editor's Note: Do keep in mind the caption for each of the listing photos: "This image may not be of this particular unit."]

Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at February 10, 2009 10:15 AM

Aw fudge ! Another listing with tricky photo choices. At least this listing includes a disclaimer. Thanks for pointing this out and now that I look at it that view shot #8 cannot match the floorplan. So it must be from another unit.

Listing agent : is it that hard to pick out a set of photos that match the unit for sale ? I'm guessing that this is a 10 minute task tops and surely the seller's commission compensates for this extra effort.

As to why this is not listed as a 3BR, perhaps the clue lies in the lower bedroom doorway. It appears to be a 2 piece door that opens an entire wall up facing the kitchen/stairs. That 2nd part of the door cannot work if there's a bed in the room. Maybe that space could be the dining room ?

Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at February 10, 2009 10:45 AM

I saw these this weekend. These are truly strange industrial-designed spaces that have the aesthetics of a loft but the square footage of something at Cubix. If you like living in the hallways of CTU on "24" then these are for you.

The reason for the bedroom confusion is that the ground level contains a room that is "flex space," basically it has a wall divider and you can turn it into a bedroom or a living room or whatever else. Unfortunately it's not big enough for anything but a bedroom; by and large these units feel like they're missing a living room.

There is noplace to put a TV in most of them.

These are very strange units that would really only work for certain people, and I agree that they feel like student housing.

Posted by: Jason at February 10, 2009 12:15 PM

I believe a 3 bedroom unit must be at least 1,100 sqft (section 315 of the SF Planning Code).

Posted by: Ed at February 10, 2009 12:24 PM

There's no closet in one of the rooms with a bed icon so it doesn't count as a "bedroom" for MLS.

Posted by: ug at February 10, 2009 1:20 PM

wow, normally I don't comment on floor plans but the one bedroom is so freakishly bad I really don't understand it.

The should have just taken out that wall between the living space and the "bedroom" aka "flex space" and let owner decide the layout.

The "one bedroom" is really a studio/loft and that's just what the should have called it.

But let's get real, no one wants to spend several hundred thousand dollars and end up with a galley kitchen

Finally, there is no closet in the "bedroom" so all the storage is under the stairs to the private deck, really?

This sucker suffers from the idea that no matter how bad the floor plan someone will buy it, especially in an up market. Except now it's a down market and no one is really going to be interested in crap like this unless it is an absolute bargain, which it is not.

Posted by: badlydrawnbear at February 10, 2009 1:28 PM

I went to look at these places a few months ago. For the positives, the units get a lot of light, and the neighborhood is central. But the layout is wacky and the materials are so stark - I felt like I'd want to wear steel-toed boots and a helmet all day. Maybe they intend to market to the Dore Alley Fair crowd?

Posted by: 1stTimeBuyer at February 10, 2009 2:15 PM

ug - I see closets in all three "bedrooms".

Posted by: flaneur at February 10, 2009 2:22 PM

I also visited this building during an open house. I really liked its style, but it was a Sunday with not much traffic and the double pane windows did not do a good joob of keeping the traffic noise out. My understanding is it had to do with their quality.

Posted by: flaneur at February 10, 2009 2:29 PM

Check out their marketing website for more info www.glasdore.com

Posted by: bobsyouruncle at February 10, 2009 6:14 PM

The building neighbors a psychiatric crisis center:
http://sfhomeless.wikia.com/wiki/Dore

The proximity might come in handy, in the current economy!

Posted by: Dan at February 10, 2009 8:30 PM

What on earth is a "swing bedroom?"

Posted by: bgelldawg at February 11, 2009 6:38 AM

Flex, my eye. As regards the number of bedrooms, I saw a similar scheme this past weekend in the 1400 block of Sacramento. Each of the three open units (of a six-unit building) was missing a living room (the sofa was put into the little space between the kitchen and the deck (in the rear) like these). The building looked to be an original three-flat (each of the three apparently original addresses now has an A and a B). The room on the street (front) side, which would have been a living room is furnished as a bedroom, thus the +1 bedroom. Seems to me to just be a scheme to garner attention on the price/#bedrooms ratio.

Posted by: Marci at February 11, 2009 11:00 AM

The lender, Redwood Mortgage Investors, has initiated judicial foreclosure proceedings and 24-34 Dore is scheduled to hit the auction block on Oct. 13. The original loan amount was for 3.6765million. The developer is architect George F. Hauser, also of the Baumeister Collective (of Cubix fame).
The same lender is also going forward with judicial foreclosure (and receivership) on 1168 Folsom (aka Stagehouse Lofts). George Hauser is also the developer (1168 Folsom LLC).
The Baumeister Collective/Hauser is the subject of a lawsuit for a $250k loan (March 2007), and a $6,600k extension of credit. One of the case histories indicates that Hauser filed for bankruptcy on August 3.

Posted by: EBGuy at September 28, 2009 11:56 AM

Post a comment


(required - will be published)


(required - will not be published, sold, or shared)


(optional - your "Posted by" name will link to this URL)

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


Continue Perusing SocketSite:

« JustQuotes: A San Francisco Reader Takes A Cue From The Banks | HOME | Polk Street Parking Lot Shuttered, Apartments Ready To Rise »