The current configuration of this Mullen Building condo yields a few vertically challenged rooms and a loft that conjures Being John Malkovich.
If the listed square footage (2,590) for 60 Rausch #201 doesn’t include the loft and you can garner permission to reconfigure, however, at $320 per square foot ($829,000) and with two car parking it could become a rather interesting space.
∙ Listing: 60 Rausch #201 (2/1.5) – $829,000 [60rausch201.com] [MLS]
∙ The Mullen Buildings: 52/60 Rausch & 73 Sumner [SocketSite]
It creeps me out when you go to the agent’s website for this property and his pervy picture appears in a pop up window. “Looks like you might be interested…wink, wink” I suddenly felt like I was back at Catholic school!
Like the unit, but horrible location. People are sleeping in the streets right in front on a regular basis.
I never thought I’d say this about any space, but a popcorn ceiling would be an improvement on the loft.
Is the ceiling unsually low or is it just an optical illusion? I thought the code have some minimum headroom requirement. The loft sucks by the way. It looks like an unfinished windowless office space.
Awful location. The listing itself doesn’t appear to have photos for some reason. The lighting in that place in general looks awful, but the loft is unacceptable. Where do the windows face? And agree with what Tweety said too.
Loft??? It looks like they are stuck down in a bomb shelter
@SFRE – I can 100% guarantee that people are NOT sleeping in front of this building on a regular basis and that this location is actually a pretty nice oasis in western SOMA. Rauch and Langton are two surprisingly nice side streets.
With that said, I can’t say much for the loft. Not much that is appealing about the space.
@nottimhawko – Last week I went to look at a place in 73 Sumner. Right out front at the end of Clementina (adjacent to 73 Sumner) there were two homeless people who set-up camp – complete with shopping cart, blankets, etc., making a “fort”. I left the property, and had to walk on the other side of the street, because that side was completely blocked.
You mentioned that “people are not sleeping in front of the Mullen buildings on a regular basis”, then let me ask this question – is even sleeping in front of the building on a semi-regular basis acceptable? For me its not, especially at the prices they are asking.
SFRE: Yes, there are a couple of folks who sleep on Clemintina. One has been there for two years, and I have never seen him causing any real problems. Crime in the area is as much related to the dance clubs as anything.
That said, Rausch is a nice side street, and that part of Folsom is rather calm and nice. Would you like to live there? Clearly not. But it is worlds apart from the worst parts of town. While a little unplesantly urban at times, calling the area aweful is a misrepresentation. And the price? $320/sq ft? Not at all bad. Too bad it needs some reconfiguring.
@ Mr. E – Agreed, not my cup of tea, especially considering the area will NEVER improve substantially above where it is today (at least in my lifetime).
I also question the build quality, since the unit I viewed in 73 Sumner was under litigation, and I believe all the Mullen buildings used the same builder
SFRE: That’s bogus – the area has already improved in your life time and will likely continue to improve through a combination of improvements in the Mid-Market area and the areas near the Federal Building and courthouse.
You are correct, however, that 60 Rausch is related to 73 Sumner (and 1168 Folsom, 30 Dore, and *wait for it* Cubix!). They are all George Hauser designed and developed buildings. While the designs are a bit off, the quality of the build seems fine (at least in my experience). Hauser’s primary sin is stiffing his contractors, lenders, and tenants. I guess he forgot that part about tenant deposits being in a set-aside account. . .
If homeless people are going to bother you then S.F. is not the city for you. With the exception of Pacific/Presidio Heights you will probably experience homeless people by your house at one point or another.
This place does not fall in my definition of “loft” whatsoever.
Mr E –
Did Hauser steal his tenant’s money directly or did he use an LLC? I just cannot understand how this continues to be OK in SF, the kingdom of the protected renter. See also Arden VanUpp and the Lembi’s. This is probably the #1 rip-off of renters – taking their deposit $. Oh, you can sue them in Civil court – what a useless hassle. It’s like you have to try to gum them to death because there’s nothing to go after them with that has any teeth. This is taking money from people that is not yours. Same as going into their apartments when they aren’t there and taking their jewelry.
Why can’t someone go to jail for this?
The deposits were taken by LLCs named after the buildings. They were not turned over to the receiver when Hauser lost control of the buildings. They are likely single member LLCs with Hauser as the member. Thus, regardless of the entity that acted, it was Hauser that stole the deposits.
Unfortunately, the entire Hauser system has declared bankruptcy. I believe that this also extends to Hauser himself. So the best one could do is end up with an unsecured bankruptcy claim against Hauser. Given the sum of secured debts held by the Hauser enterprise, that is roughly equivalent to a warm thimble-full of spit. That said, I wonder if his wife is also covered in the bankruptcy. If not, one may be able to attack her for half the claim as part of the community. That seems a stretch.
But you raise an interesting point, OneEyedMan. Perhaps one can raise a criminal fraud action. I think it is worth it for the City to protect its citizens from such thieves.
George Hauser is the most ill tempered individual I have ever known not to mention unethical and perhaps criminal. I purchased from him, which was big mistake.
Beyond his egotistical, foul-mouth rapport with people, he was very good at intimidated and belittled owners/renters at every chance and obfuscated when simple requests were made.
In addition, he was completely disrespectful of the community surrounding his projects. He never fulfilled his commitments in several neighborhood agreements. He stopped paying his HOA dues on the properties he owned but rented, and so I am, told he kept the deposit money of the renters. Lstly, he may have illegally divided the 1.5 garage parking spaces assigned to each unit into 1.0 parking space per unit. He then rented the “newly created” spaces and kept the money.
At the very least, he should not be allowed to practice architecture in this city. Further, it would give me no greater pleasure than to see Hauser behind bars. Please City Hall, take on this thief!
And it is back on the market as of 2/19/2010
Reading all this about Hauser is making me ill. I am one of the suckers that rented a unit at 30 Dore, and after waiting for over a year (yes, over a year!) for my deposit, Mr. Hauser himself emailed me himself to say, “sure, go ahead and sue me. You’ll win, but you won’t be able to collect.” What does one do in this situation? In my head, it’s just a small sum that Mr. Hauser owes me (slightly over 2k) but it’s a lot of money to me – a gal who got laid off and was forced to move out and was anxiously awaiting that deposit so she could feed herself.
Folks, help a sister out: is small claims an option anymore? Do I try to go out and get an attorney – for such a small amount?
This is not legal advice, but small claims is definitely an option, and you’re not allowed to have an attorney for small claims typically.
From what folks said above, it seems like he may have filed bankruptcy, so you’d be an unsecured creditor if that’s indeed the case.
EBGuy sent the following link:
http://webaccess.sftc.org/Scripts/Magic94/mgrqispi94.dll?APPNAME=IJS&PRGNAME=ROA22&ARGUMENTS=-ACGC09487399%22
But it looks like that’s bankruptcy for a corporation. Unclear if that’s him personally. But I would think one could go after both the LLC and him personally for deposit issues. People seem to think of LLCs as more of a liability shield than they really are. If Hauser committed fraud as an individual, he can be liable as an individual.
Ahh, no, the stay was for George F. Hauser personally — read it too quickly.
Depending on what he owes, it may not be worth the small claims filing fee. But I have no idea what he owes.
The sale of 60 Rausch #201 closed escrow on 3/12/10 with a reported contract price of $829,000 ($320 per square foot). As a plugged-in tipster notes, this was previously the office space for Hauser Architects.
Sold at asking, interesting.
Get this: Hauser now claims he owns 23 parking spaces at 60 Rausch post LLC and persnal bankruptcy.
It appears he “converted” 50+ parking spaces into approx. 75 smaller parking spaces at 60 Rausch, and kept the difference for himself. Somehow he managed to keep thees parking space “assets” despite bankruptcy.
I wish the city attorney would look into this!