601 4th Street #319

One of 88 live/work lofts in the Holliday Development’s 1991 Heublien Building conversion, 601 4th Street #319 last sold for $335,000 in September 1995. Since then, however, the 1,965 square foot loft has undergone a rather extensive (and expensive) renovation.

A few features that caught our eye: Zebra and African Wenge wood cabinets; Solher Iron stairs and catwalk; and Bazaza, Waterworks, and Ocean Side Glass tiles. And yes, two deeded parking spaces (so you can leave the vehicles parked between jaunts to Stinson, Yosemite and Tahoe).

∙ Listing: 601 4th St #319 (2/2) 1,965 sqft – $1,349,000 [Climb] [MLS]

10 thoughts on “Through The <strike>Looking</strike> Glass Floors Of 601 4th Street #319”
  1. I’ve always liked this building. This renovation looks pretty great (though a lifetime of stainless-steel cleaner may be in order). If you’re going to pick a building in which to renovate a unit, this is a good one to pick.

  2. I live a few condos down and love this building too. I just saw this unit the other day and it is gorgeous. The units on that side of the build have sun all day.
    I am also pleasently surprised by the continued renovation of the whole surrounding block. In the past month three new restaurants and one bar have gone in.

  3. Wow! I’ll be sure to tell all my artist friends about the amazing live/work unit that only costs $1.35M. I’m sure there’s a lot of artists that can easily afford that!
    Oh, wait, live/work is a sham… Never mind.

  4. They did a good job of making this place look just like an office lobby — albeit a nice one. And even the kitchen looks eerily similar to the one several doors down from me in our office. Needs more “live” in the live/work ratio.

  5. I’ll be sure to tell all my artist friends about the amazing live/work unit that only costs $1.35M. I’m sure there’s a lot of artists that can easily afford that!

    And that’s one reason why, last I checked, The City wasn’t interested in approving any more live/work units. Most of them, like the one featured here, are really cool but only work for hipster, childless affluent singles or couples. From The San Francisco Chronicle:

    By the late 1990s, it was clear to everyone that the live/work ordinance had been a mistake. In 1999, the city imposed a 12-month moratorium on new live/work developments, and in 2000, they extended it indefinitely. “The Planning Department couldn’t decide how to fix the problem,” Rubin said. “And while we were trying, the Board of Supervisors shut us down.”

  6. This looks hard to clean. Various details are wrong like the kitchen faucet having a stylistic flourish that doesn’t match anything else and the island having wood that doesn’t match the floor. With inflation this should be worth almost a half million. Granted, this building is great and well located and the unit gets sun, but it still seems overpriced by a wide margin since it is only a fancy condo.
    Live/work a sham? Compared to what? In the end these are all just units with locations and measured living space. It doesn’t make sense to hold a grudge against whatever it takes to get a permit in SF.

  7. Live/work is a sham because there is no work. The idea behind live/work was that the city government would make it cheaper for developers to build units for artists. At the time, artists were leaving the city for cheaper housing and the live/work designation was supposed to stem the loss.
    The problem, as Brahma notes, is that people started lying. The requirement that the owners actually run a creative business in the housing unit was (and is) widely ignored (hence, the sham). Units that were supposed to be confined to a small market (artists) were made available to anyone. Were the sales of live/work units confined to a smaller market, with a more limited ability to pay, these units would be cheaper and the mass exodus of artists to Oakland may never have happened.

  8. Regarding the “sham”, I think that it’s the avoidance of school tax that was at issue.
    I thought that giving artists a special deal was a bit of a stretch. But, I was also not willing to lie about my use of a place. At the time (late 90’s), those lofts that were zoned Live/Work were a bit less expensive than other condos or lofts.
    At the time, the real estate agents selling the places were actively encouraging buyers to lie. I specifically remember attending an open house at the Mill Building lofts. I told the agent that I liked a unit, but that I did not qualify to buy there. She responded that anyone could answer in a way to qualify.

  9. The problem was enforcement (or lack thereof). Has anyone read what San Francisco defines as “arts-related” (which is the requirement to occupy live-work space)? It’s incredibly vague. I could stick a drawing on my fridge and claim to be an “artist” – does anyone think SF is going to take the time and resources to take someone to court over this issue?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *