July 30, 2010
Hales Warehouse (410 Jessie) Gallery Of Listing(s) Along Mint Plaza
Other Hales Warehouse condos on the market along Mint Plaza, the 769 square foot 410 Jessie #302 which was previously asking $499,000 and touting "Great Deal!" has just been relisted at $399,000 (purchased for $580,000 in September 2007), and the 1,229 square foot 410 Jessie #201 asking $979,000 (purchased for $920,000 in September 2007).
∙ Listing: 410 Jesse Street #201 (2/2) 1,229 sqft - $979,000 [MLS]
∙ Listing: 410 Jesse Street #302 (1/1) 769 sqft - $399,000 [MLS]
∙ Listing: 410 Jesse Street #502 (2/2) 2,018 sqft - $1,350,000 [MLS]
∙ The Mint Lofts: The SocketSite Scoop, Update And (Some) Pricing [SocketSite]
∙ JustQuotes: Care To Quote The Odds On The Success Of Mint Plaza? [SocketSite]
First Published: July 30, 2010 11:30 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Wow, such a huge disparity in size, architecture, finishes, design and view between units 201 and 502; and a relatively small (35%) difference in price.
P.S. – I know many of you feel they are ubiquitous, but I will admit that I’m a sucker for the polished concrete floors in both units!
Posted by: jason at July 30, 2010 11:57 AM
Unit #302 appears to be a Jr. 1
Posted by: WH at July 30, 2010 12:00 PM
Great space, cool location that's super convenient even though the neighborhood isn't the best, but $1200 HOA without parking. Wow!
Not clear from the photos if the bedrooms are legally separate rooms, which would require windows (or some other means of egress).
Posted by: sunnyvalesteve at July 30, 2010 12:43 PM
Whenever there is a listing with ZERO pics of the inside I don't even bother to check it out. You just have to assume something is seriously wrong with the place. If there isn't then the agent isn't doing his or her job
Posted by: CameronRex at July 30, 2010 12:53 PM
another example of a location that rose phenomenally in price with the tide. mid market condos at these prices?
i hope that a wave of gentrification can swamp this whole area and maybe this will seem like a good buy in 20 years. but its not there yet and the pioneers deserve much better pricing than what is on offer.
Posted by: anonee at July 30, 2010 1:22 PM
I think it's very disingenuous, though not illegal, to show rooms with beds as "bedrooms" without windows. The code requires a certain type and size of windows for all defined bedrooms, unless the room is open for 1/2 its' width to an adjacent room with windows.
It may be a way to sell units, but it's not terribly pleasant to have a room with no windows as your sleeping room. The plan shown above is, strictly speaking, not a 2 bedroom unit as shown.
Posted by: noearch at July 30, 2010 1:28 PM
^^^ I heard that the window requirement on enclosed bedrooms is a fire code requirement. If you wake up to a fire outside of the door, having a window escape route increase the chances of survival. I've been told for example you can't legally replace a first floor bedroom window with one that does not open wide enough for escape.
... but then that does not explain high rise bedrooms where the window isn't a viable escape option. Maybe high rises have other fire code requirements that mitigate this problem.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at July 30, 2010 2:04 PM
That's mostly correct. Windows are a fire code issue, for secondary escape. The building code also requires that legal bedrooms have a window for a minimum amount of light and fresh air, otherwise you must provide mechanical fresh air ventilation to that room. Also: code compliant windows in bedrooms must be of a certain size (area), width, and a maximum height above the floor to the sill line. Again, all for life safety reasons.
As for high rises, remember they are fully sprinklered, at least new ones built after a certain date. And interior materials in a high rise residential building must be of a different type of fire resistance.
I would personally not like to be in a bedroom like the one shown without a code compliant window to the exterior. Both for lack of fresh air and light and for secondary exit reasons. I really am surprised they are marketed and sold as bedrooms. Seems wrong to me.
Posted by: noearch at July 30, 2010 2:21 PM
I really like the unit except for two things: no ventilation in the kitchen and (2) fraud in the ad. That's not a two bedroom.
What's wrong with these RE "professionals"?
Posted by: Embarcadero at July 30, 2010 2:35 PM
I was hesitant to outright call it fraud, as well. But I agree with you. This practice of deceit really should be investigated and new rules applied to descriptions of properties.
Any real estate professionals care to weigh in on this issue??
It really is a problem.
Posted by: noearch at July 30, 2010 3:12 PM
What's also interesting is that the code requires that the bedroom egress windows are to PUBLIC WAY. SF allows for an exception (like to a back yard) but many places don't.
Posted by: Code at July 30, 2010 3:17 PM
Virtually every "loft" I've seen in SF has windows on only one side, and that side is almost always the "living room" area.
Posted by: BobN at July 30, 2010 3:33 PM
ok, BobN..fair enuf. that's true. but what's your point?
It appears the unit above is being marketed, advertised and sold as a 2 bedroom unit...and it's not.
Posted by: noearch at July 30, 2010 3:41 PM
Other than the surly, uninformed commentary you have to admit Unit 502 on Mint Plaza is a beautiful unit, right! If you haven't been down to the Plaza on mid day Wednesday for the Farmers Market or high noon of Friday for Jazz, do your self a favor and come on down. It's free. It's a sign of positive urban renewal and available to all comers. We live in a great city, enjoy.
Posted by: Ed Campana at July 30, 2010 4:05 PM
BTW: the photos are fantastic (no sarcasm), who is the photographer who did this......?
Posted by: suspicious at July 30, 2010 4:07 PM
Ed Campana -- what specifically did you find to be uninformed?
Posted by: sfrenegade at July 30, 2010 4:09 PM
Yea, I found nothing "surly or uninformed" about the comments..mine or others. These are legitimate criticisms about issues of honest marketing and property description.
Just saying unit 502 is "beautiful" is an extremely loose term..full of interpretations. Fact is, those windowless "bedrooms" are pretty gloomy and cave like.
Posted by: noearch at July 30, 2010 4:33 PM
noearch is often surly, but never uninformed :)
Posted by: NoeValleyJim at July 30, 2010 6:39 PM
Whoa! $1200 dues for only 2,000 square feet and NO PARKING?
Posted by: Rex at July 30, 2010 8:13 PM
good god Ed, is that all you have to say? everyone wants to know how you can call rooms bedrooms when they have no windows and all you have to say is "uninformed commentary" and fluff about the hood?
as for me, if i had this listing i'd take it to my broker and ask what my legal obligations were.
either way i bet the seller demanded it be advertised as 2 bedrooms and would keep interviewing agents until he found someone who would do it. i'd be inclined to take the listing and then simply disclose in more than one place that "bedroom" is a marketing term here and legally there are no bedrooms.
of course there may be some loop hole here because it seems odd that a 2,000 SqFt place could somehow end up with no bedrooms. so i'm as curious and "uniformed" as others. so help us out Mr. Informed Ed C. What's the story?
Posted by: hangemhi at July 30, 2010 9:56 PM
The room is good sized, has its own bathroom and walk-in closet and you all are complaining that it's not a bedroom? Puh-leaze.
Posted by: pwb at July 30, 2010 10:36 PM
the loft looks very nice and the floors are amazing looking. (this coming from a guy who doesn't usually like lofts or concrete floors!)
but it really comes off as a dark cave. I actually don't think the photographer did this place justice because every light looks like it's turned on in this place and yet it looks dark dark dark.
as for the bedrooms:
Seems to me that there is different lingo when talking about lofts, and I see the reasoning.
Clearly, this place isn't 'really' a 2 BR, but it's not 'really' a 0 BR either.
the "legal" bedroom argument, although valid, fails to help a buyer screen in/out the prospective lofts by "bedroom" style. Even when buying lofts I'd say most buyers think in those terms. Most loft buyers don't put their couch right next to the bed which is near the stove as example. they have a "living space" a "sleeping space" and a "body hygiene" space or whatever.
so from a practical standpoint, how to differentiate a pseudo 1 BR loft from a pseudo 3 BR loft? especially in SF where so many units don't even list square footage?
Perhaps they should add an asterix or perhaps an "L" indicating loft. Or better yet call it a "sleeping space" or similar instead of a "bedroom"?
So this could be called:
2 BR-L, 2 Ba
2 BR*, 2 Ba
or my favorite:
2 SS, 2 Ba
it would add information for the buyer while still keeping legal distinction.
TO ME subjectively, when defining something as a bedroom, a way to separate oneself and cut off the noise from the common areas (so 4 walls or similar as example) is MORE important than having a window
So I'm more comfortable calling a windowless space with a closet and 4 walls and a door that can close a "bedroom" than I am an open space connected to the living room with a big picture window facing outside.
all that said; I'd rather have a window, but that's because I'm not a loft person.
Posted by: ex SF-er at July 31, 2010 2:12 AM
Without getting so wordy, I'll break it down into my two basic issues:
1. Legally speaking, the rooms defined as bedrooms are not bedrooms.
2. Livably speaking, the rooms defined as bedrooms are not very pleasant, as windowless spaces, to be in.
Posted by: noearch at July 31, 2010 9:08 AM
Wow -- love the finishes on these places and looked further into each. 201 has a completely different layout than 502. both seem to be 2br to me, but with 201's layout, (which can be seen in the listing or at http://www.mintcollectionsf.com/floorplans_hales/hales_01_2.html) each bedroom has windows. really like the windows in each, but 201 has about double the windows than 502.
502 does have a very open lofty feel to it from the gigantic room. From the pictures, 201 seems to be more open though because of the 2 sides of windows.
Going to check 201 out on Sunday.
Posted by: jjj at July 31, 2010 10:37 AM
thanks for the shill.
Posted by: interestfree at July 31, 2010 11:24 AM
Emergency Escape and Rescue windows are only required in sleeping rooms BELOW the fourth story above grade. (Section 1026.1 - 2007 California Building Code)
Posted by: warehouse at July 31, 2010 1:07 PM
A prison with new kitchen and staging.
Good luck, jjj, in your new home. Hope you are lucky enough to make the best offer for 201, the one with "double the windows." "Wow"
Posted by: Conifer at August 1, 2010 10:28 AM
yea, jjj is quite the brilliant one..
Posted by: interestfree at August 1, 2010 11:42 AM
Why is unit #302 a Jr. One Bedroom? Because of the lack of a window in the bedroom? WH didn't explain.
The builders website calls it a one bedroom (perhaps they can't be trusted). The room has a door and seems big enough to hold the double/queen bed.
Place looks interesting to me. No parking and high fees would seem to be negatives. Location isn't great; except for Blue Bottle Coffee.
Posted by: John at August 2, 2010 2:26 PM
totally off topic.....but why are people so obsessed with Blue Bottle? Its coffee for chrisssakes!!!! Is it just another trendy thing for SFers to jump on?!?! I mean....homeboy John just said that the area around this home (SOMA) is not great except for the Blue Bottle Coffee. LMFAO!
Posted by: yunion at August 2, 2010 3:03 PM
#302 sold for $440K, down from 580K, a loss of 25%.
With commissions, etc, they were spending about $7500 per month, every month for three years to live in a Jr. one bedroom in a slum.
Posted by: tipster at September 23, 2010 1:57 PM
#201 never sold. But wait, two floors up a $300K+ loss, to live in a slum.
#401 is pending. Last ask: $725K. Purchased for $1,020,000. Not a short sale. As "E.T" once said: Ouch!
Posted by: tipster at March 13, 2012 1:03 PM