Listed for $1.395 million in July of 2014, reduced to $1.295 million that August and then re-listed anew for “$995,000” the next month, the 1,229-square-foot unit #310 in the iconic Heublein Building at 601 4th Street officially sold with “multiple offers!” and an “over asking” contract price of $1,095,000 on 10/6/2014.

Since renovated to create “a modern dynamic live-work environment that epitomizes SF loft living,” by “seamlessly [integrating] industrial design elements and contemporary aesthetics,” and with “designer-inspired fixtures and finishes,” the Central SoMa loft returned to the market listed for $1,150,000 six weeks ago.

This morning, the list price for 601 4th Street #310 was reduced to “$999,000,” a sale above which will be considered to be “over asking” once again. And if you think you know the market for lofts in San Francisco, now’s the time to tell.

16 thoughts on “Renovated Loft in an Iconic Building Returns to 2014 Price”
    1. Considering it was the first major building converted from commercial to residential use in San Francisco, setting the stage for others and acting as a cornerstone for the transformation of the neighborhood, yes, it’s an icon.

      But if one doesn’t actually know the building’s history, or didn’t bother to simply follow its link, then sure, we can see how it might be confusing.

    1. Definitely overrused words by a certain demographic who work in a certain industry.

      This is a basic loft. No bells or whistles or even unique architectural details that pop out and make this unit special.

    2. Perhaps, but wouldn’t “Dope Crib Goes for Retro Bucks” have seemed worse ??

      As for “iconic”, whatever the merits of its validity may be – and I’m offering no opinion beyond the statement that it’s hard to believe the city didn’t see a “major” industrial>residential conversion until 1991 – the question should be “is it relevant to the sale?” If people pay for iconicism, or if it continues to be iconic b/c it represents a whole class of sales, then it would be…but of course that last point is a separate one from its original meaning, and it’s a logical fallacy to imply they’re the same.

      1. For example, the Jackson Brewery Building. Now I’m making no claim for the current configuration, which (according to a rival site) seems to date from the mid-1990’s, but (again according to this same site) “In the 1970s the top two floors of the main brewhouse building at the corner were converted into one living space.” Of course an argument can be made that a single living space doesn’t equate to “major,” but I can’t help but think this is but an example, and there were others (from this era or even earlier) big enough that they would.

        1. As opposed to the wholesale conversion of an entire building which resulted in 88 residential units and paved the way for the development of the neighborhood, converting a single unit or two, or even a few, doesn’t count as a major development.

          1. Restrict your search to development large enough to change the direction of the neighborhood, as well as the industry, in terms of leading the way for large conversion projects in San Francisco, and then we’ll take you seriously. Until then, back to the unit, or at the very least building, at hand…

          2. It may have been the first building (hence “iconic”) to convert in this neighborhood but it hardly paved the way for development on any grand scale. It was a combination of events and projects that transformed this area over the past 2.5 decades many of which were in the planning stages before the first resident moved into these lofts. Lose your elitist attitude, SS.

      2. And when did you move to SF? Guessing you either have not been here long or simply weren’t paying attention in the late 80’s – mid 90’s when most of the “iconic” lofts were converted…

  1. This unit like a number of others in the building have a loft bedroom but the bathroom is on the main floor requiring one to descend and ascend a flight of stairs in order to relieve oneself during the night. I always thought that this was a bummer.

Leave a Reply

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