Built in 1915, the 1,400-square-foot structure at 1016 De Haro Street was originally a neighborhood grocery store.
The building was converted into a two-bedroom Potrero Hill home in the 1940s. And what was likely the store’s stable was turned into a 263-square-foot bathhouse behind.
Purchased for $1.17 million in early 2015, plans to level the vacant home have since been drawn. And as proposed, a two-unit building with 6,800 square feet of space and a four-car garage will rise up to 40 feet in height on the site.
As designed by D-Scheme Studio, the building would effectively step down five stories at its rear.
And the project as proposed does not require any exceptions or variances from San Francisco’s Planning Code.
But in order to proceed, the development team will need Planning’s approval in order to demolish the existing home on the site, the structure of which has been found to be unsound and the approval hearing for which was continued from the end of last year to next week.
Hasn’t changed much over the years, but that’s about to end. BWAH…HAH…HAH (cue ominous music)
Great find. The mere presence of this photograph on the internet could pose a formidable challenge to the demolition. Over/under on someone of Russian/Molokan descent showing up to cry out for a past of non-pork retailed groceries? Non-zero.
Also, what exactly has been applied to that wooden power pole such that it is still in service since 1939?
Funny… I think the wooden power poles are treated with some tar pesticide mixture that gives good protection against rot and bugs. From what I’ve heard, they are highly toxic and have to be taken to a landfill designated for toxic waste when they are retired… perhaps somebody involved with utilities know more
Thanks, but it’s not hard; indeed it’s amazing/inspiring/disturbing what one can find out in a few seconds…got a mini-bio on the boy in the pic: 1924-1973, married, military service [but seemed to have missed the Big One] became a cop in SF…
As for phone poles, I believe they were creasoted; when I was growing up in the 60/70’s the poles in the neighborhood still had their ID stamps – little metal plugs, really – from the mid 20’s…so yes, they last a long time.
Terrible. RH-2 zoning leads to two massive 3,400-square foot homes that will be utterly unaffordable, instead of seven 900-square foot flats that could fit in the same envelope. We need form-based zoning to stop this kind of disgrace.
Great project and design. Fits well within the existing context, both front and rear elevations.
Utterly “unaffordable” to who?
You mean those who can’t afford it?
By that definition, every unit in SF is affordable by someone. The housing crisis is over!
It’s not a crisis for those who can afford to buy. It’s an issue for me and my husband who refuse to spend 4k a month on a mortgage. That’s why we are moving out of the Bay Area to a place that’s more affordable.
And, beyond that, what one gets for 4K/month in SF. Its not worth it in terms of quality of life.
You’re exactly right and I mean that in a respectful and non-critical way. New housing, even existing housing will never get “cheaper” to build. That’s reality.
Those who make the decision to buy out of the Bay Area are simply making a logical, personal choice that makes sense for them.
There’s no whining, no complaining, no “unfair to me” attitude. And that makes sense.
That’s the decision I reached 2 years ago. To my amazement, I’m not missing the Bay Area nearly as much as I dreaded. Evolve and adapt or perish.
Scott, I appreciate the insight!
No offense, but your proposal for 7 smaller units will not guarantee “affordability,” which is a loosely defined term in the Bay Area.
It will absolutely guarantee more affordability compared to these two huge units. You are arguing the reactionary “futility thesis“.
Like someone parking their yacht in a dilapidated houseboat community.
Anything not dilapidated will be considered a “yacht” by someone.
looks like a very nice addition to the neighborhood
Totally agree with scott f on this. Zoning needs to be revised city wide.
We have to save it.. It is a historic gem that needs to be preserved at all cost, preferably other people’s money.
Absolutely. It might be a possible contributor to a potential historic district. (Actual phrase I’ve heard from planning.)
Scott F is right on. Nothing wrong with the envelope or the design – we need more density everywhere — but more units is right for the neighborhood and good for the city.
The faux tilt-shift in the renderings 🙂
nah, it’s just a blur mask to de-emphasize the neighbors.