Purchased for $1.5 million in October 2014, the “Manhattan-like industrial condo” unit #1 at 10 Mint Plaza – which features high-gloss concrete floors, exposed beams, high ceilings, high-end finishes, and a Mid-Market location a few blocks from Twitter – returned to the market listed for $2.5 million last year.

Reduced to $2.35 million after a month, relisted for $2.195 million last August, dropped to $2.095 million in September, reduced to $1.995 million after a few more weeks, dropped to $1.795 million at the end of last year, relisted for $1.6 million in February, reduced to $1.49 million in May and then to $1.4 million in June, the sale of 10 Mint Plaza #1 has just closed escrow with a $1.425 million contract price.

And yes, that’s officially “over asking!” for the 1,559-square-foot pad according to all industry stats and reports (but 5 percent below its 2014 sale price on an apples-to-apples basis).

28 thoughts on “High-End Mint Plaza Loft Fails to Fetch 2014 Price”
  1. Right, it’s an awful location. I’m surprised it even sold for $1.425. Would you live in “Skid Row” if you had that sort of money?

      1. Then I think your parents should volunteer to live in it: a monied, sheltered person is the last type that should live there …as “educational” as it would be for him/her, and lucrative for those encountered.

  2. With an HOA Fee of $1,426.47 monthly, the buyer has to trust that the building’s management is doing lots of power washing outside to minimize the disgustingness.

  3. $1.5M is a lot for an OK condo in a marginal area. But if your expectation was that you could stomach the monthly payments, HOA and street grit for a few years and then walk away with a cool $1M (or more since properties used to fly off “over asking”), wouldn’t that be a deal that many people would take?

    On the upswing, it’s no great surprise that demand for $1.5M condos that people expected would soon become $2.5M+ condos was insatiable. But when prices flatten, all that sacrifice gets you nothing. And when prices turn down you end up paying for the privilege of taking a capital loss. What’s the demand for that like?

    This is also a good reality check for those promoting the false dichotomy between bubble top prices and a tech apocalypse where we give up our smartphones. US median household income is about $56k. So at $1.5M, the 2014 sale ran about 26.8x US median income. And the $2.5M attempt would represent about 44.6x US median household income. Keeping in mind that by definition half of US households make less than the median and that competition is global and even the US median is very high for many parts of the world, you can clearly see that there’s plenty of a headroom for Bay Area prices to reflect its desirability and the presence of some globally leading tech companies (along with some very frothy ones) yet not linger at bubble top levels.

  4. I rather enjoy watching this development fail. Exploiting cheap land in an area known for bums and drug dealers should not be profitable. Just because Shorenstein made a wise bet on the furniture warehouse, doesn’t mean everyone in that area should get rich. Work on addressing the dealers and bums and the property value will skyrocket. Do nothing and watch your investment evaporate.

    1. I agree this part of the city is pure absolute filth and I have a pretty hi tolerance for filth.

      I was walking along mission the other day and from about 7th st until past the armory its absolutely horrendous the state of the streets, i mean absolutely sad.

      I did see that fancy new shiny metal venus sculpture thing which was pretty cool, but was laughing on the inside at the yuppie/techie whatever you want to call them younger kids nowadays walking outta that new building right into needles, stenches, peopel with thier pants down laying on the sidewalk, it was bad. I mean, why would you want to live in this atmosphere?

      1. Minor edit on my comment though: the one brightspot within all that was the hub intersection, probably because its really a massive set of roads and traffic, not as much room for sidewalk human decay. of course it was still bad there, but not the horrendous conditions along 7th, 8th, 9th and then again right after the hub and around the armory.

        point being, the hub could be a mini bright spot within all that, but it will definitley be similiar in that you will still walk out onto crack pipes, needles, poo, exposed body parts, harassment, stentch, etc

  5. Apparently a consensus is emerging about the bum n filth factor of this particular urban nook. With that massive HOA war chest, they should be well poised to spiffy up the hood n hoodlums in the not so far off. Nattily dressed hobos be greeting the parentals!

  6. I looked at this building when I was in the market for a condo in mid 2015. these units were trash AND overpriced then.zero redeeming qualities.

    1. Genuinely curious: why did you think the units were trash? I’m familiar with the area, but not the actual units.

  7. In 5 to 10 years time I predict this area will be completely transformed by the 5M project, Central Subway, etc. 25 years ago, South Park was as bad if not worse than 5th and Mission is today, now look at it.

    1. What the heck is so great about South Park? I’ve been there.

      As for your prediction, the scum, trash and filth remain where market rate buildings have gone up over the past 5 to 10 years. They just don’t disappear when you slap an expensive price tag on a building.

      1. The buildings around South Park are nice, but the feral population remains in the park itself. Remodels aside..

  8. At 1.425M this could be a good investment long term. It’s a great urban location except for the homeless issue but that could be temporary (or not) and with Uber/Lyft/self-driving the lack of parking is not a big deal for the future urban lifestyle. The homeless won’t disappear but I think all the development will push them to other areas of the city.

    1. Oh and whether the HOA is high depends on what it includes (power, gas, water/sewag, internet, cable?) and the property tax at this closing price will be almost be as much. Yes it’s expensive living in SF.

      1. Yes it’s expensive living in SF.

        Yes, it is. Although in this case, it’s $75,000 less expensive than three years ago.

      1. Agreed. And sad to say, the bums nowdays are in worse shape than the 70’s. It used to be many if the bums were just poor uneducated people. Yes there was some alcoholism and drug abuse back then – but not like now. Now the substance abuse / mental health issues are much more seriously entrenched.
        Units in this area will always face a neighborhood character problem.

        1. Always is a long time. I’ve lived in this city since 1970. Lots of things change, usually in unexpected ways.

Leave a Reply

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