2405 Folsom: The Signs Are Up (The Website Not So Much)February 6, 2008
A reader reports that Vanguard’s signs now hang from the façade of 2405 Folsom (corner of 20th). From the brokerage’s website:
Six new contemporary three bedroom town homes situated in the New Mission District. Three luxurious levels of living space with the finest finish quality. Formal dining & living areas, two distinct styles of kitchens to choose from outfitted with top-of-the line appliances, cooking island & inset wine refrigerator. Solid hardwood flooring, security system, pre-wired for surround sound and centralized stereo system & solar panel ready. Private entrances and outdoor areas, & 2-car parking each.
And while a property website appears to be in the works, at this point that’s about all we know (tipsters?). Now about that “New” Mission district…
∙ 2405 Folsom [2405folsom.com]
Comments from Plugged-In Readers
Can we please get a slightly larger logo?
[Editor’s Note: Extra tough crowd today. The logo was simply a placeholder (and has since been replaced).]
I live in the neighborhood, and have been seeing this building go up. I have talked with some of the workers & apperently the builder is the same one that built the Copper Building, on 14th and Guerrero.
Would that this one have been as original as the Copper Building! This is *exactly* the sort of faux Victoriana that should be avoided like the plague.
This place is just blah….
“Three luxurious levels of living space…”
I’m wondering why the building was cut up vertically instead of creating 6 one floor flats. It seems like there is space savings with using a common staircase. The big advantage of single floor flats is no stairs for those people who have difficulty ascending stairs. Yeah, you have to climb the stairs to get to your front door but once in you don’t have to climb up and down to go to the toilet, fridge, TV, etc. The main advantage of the stacked 3 floor design is that you don’t have to hear your neighbor’s footsteps above. Haven’t we figured out how to make floors quieter since 1900 though ?
“… solar panel ready …”
What does this mean ? That there’s a pre-wired cable from the roof to the main electrical panel ? If so then that’s a cheap perk that should be added to every new low rise construction. It probably costs less than $10 to add that cable to a new construction but hundreds of $ to retrofit an existing building.
At first glance I was hoping that this was the “before” picture and my only interest was in seeing the new design to follow its pending demolition. Looks like every other treeless, clapboard, post-earthquake quickie that covers 90% of SF.
Could someone remind me why San Franciscans are so quick to bash architecture in other cities? This is proof of what SF Planning pushes designers and developers to create. I am going to have to jump over to a Chicago Architecture Blog to cheer myself up now.
“Paris on the Pacific” indeed!
my first post was deleted. but will say again. this is a terrible and dangerous location.
[Editor’s Note: Your first comment was: “free tasers to 1st 5 customers….” (which while witty, wasn’t very helpful). We have no problem with comments that challenge the desirability and safety of an area, but let’s try to add some depth or experience behind those words (i.e., I used to live on that block and…).]
@ Spencer – what you consider to be a terrible and dangerous location, others may not. Personally, I have no problem with this location. Like any big city in the US, you have to be careful no matter where you live. You would be silly to think otherwise.
I live two blocks away on Shotwell, on a block that seems a million miles from this corner. It’s a great neighborhood, generally, and near some great places like Atlas, and the best of Mission Street. But that corner is Nowheresville, and the building is so Ugly! So Boring! Not one iota of style or thought. I fondly remember the massive mural on the wall behind it, now gone and lost forever. So sad. To call a ratbox like that “luxury” is going too far.
My partner works for the SF Urban Forest Dept. The developers were given fines for cutting down several mature (6 I think) trees at that location during the construction process. They did not need to do that, and they are also required to plant new trees on both street locations on that corner. So ultimately there will be trees. But yes, rather lackluster design, neo-victorian boring blah. looks like they could be townhouse style with lots of light though. Maybe private stamp size gardens. Still going to be somewhere in the 7 figure range I estimate. The new condos at 20th and Shotwell around the corner were snapped up very quickly during the holiday season. I believe there is one left out of 6 or 7.
I lived at 20th and Harrison for many years (before they built all the lofts on Harrison between 17th and 23rd, which has definitely improved the whole ‘hood since I lived there). While the neighborhood is on the bleak side, I wouldn’t consider it particularly dangerous.
I’ve watched that building go up for a while and I guess I’ve grown to accept the undeniable fact it would be quite unattractive as seems to be the SF underachieving norm. It’s too bad because this area is really getting interesting with all the new development.
Editor, I thought we agreed a while ago a drop down menu should be added to assist Spencer in adding his opinion for all neighborhoods non-PH/Marina:
a. be sure to bring your kevlar vest
b. be sure to bring your rifle collection
c. free tasers with a contract
I’m sure I’m missing several of his other important suggestions for new residents to the area, but this would be a good start.
I live a block away and I was disgusted that they had cut down/seriously topped a number of gorgeous trees – pity – the trees would have helped to somewhat hide the ugly exterior.
btw I wouldn’t consider the neighborhood dangerous and when i have nights out on Valencia i have no qualms about walking home alone afterwards.
This is about as bad as architecture gets, period – just pa-friggin-thetic! The developers should be forced to live in this ‘fake-history’ pile. And the nerve of even one San Franciscan to get self-righteous about this city. There isn’t worse building design than this anywhere, not anywhere.
I live two blocks away. The area is great. I never feel unsafe. Lots of families of color, or the hipster variety. (As usual, “spencer” made comments that aren’t accurate, knowledgeable or fair.) The area is the best and only reason to buy such an ugly building. But to be fair, it may improve dramatically once a business moves in on the street level. A great restaurant, cafe, or grocery store could make it a nicer building. El Faro across the street rocks.
This is an old thread by now, but I’m getting really tired of commenters bashing architecture without a) posting their credentials at why they are opposed to architectural choices in seemingly every neighborhood and building that is erected and b) suggesting what they would consider acceptable. Please tell us…what would YOU have built here??? It’s a very old neighborhood with vicoriana abounding…I know Victorians and Edwardians bore the crap out of youth, but please…what WOULD you suggest??? Modern? In this neighborhood?
I’ve seen the interior of the condos and they are beautiful, roomy, airy, lots of light and state-of-the-art fixtures. Colors are sensational interior and exterior. Great addition to the neighborhood, doubters should take a better look.
The website was finally updated yesterday. You can see interior pictures of their staged unit; the corner one, you can tell by the curved bay windows.
They are also toutting that all the units are “Solar Ready” very interesting and a great bonus IMHO.
Just came across the MLS posting for at least one of the units…
follow the link below
yikes, missed posting the link, here it is…
Comments are closed.