CFAH

65 Eureka: Floor Plan
The listing for 65 Eureka touts, “Classic floor plan with a twist!” Unfortunately we’re not entirely sure if “the twist” is the Family/Media room that can only be accessed via the Bedroom/Den (which appears to be missing a closet), the second full bath off the kitchen (a floor below the bedrooms), or something else that we completely missed.
UPDATE (6/26): 65 Eureka closed escrow on 6/24/08 with a reported contract price of $1,520,000 (4.7% under asking).
∙ Listing: 65 Eureka (4/2) – $1,595,000 [MLS]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Tudor

    This property has been sold in August 2005 for 1.35 million dollars.

    You can find more details here: 65 Eureka St. on PropertyShark.com

    [Editor’s Note: Keep in mind that the garage was added after the last sale so unfortunately no “apples” here (although it will increase the average sales price).]

  2. Posted by location

    It’s kind of a 2/2 with lots of bonus space. I wish there were photos.

  3. Posted by fluj

    I guess the “twist” is a full floor room on top. They lost a proper third bedroom (although the den office nook could probably be construed as a walk in closet) and in that closet’s space they added stairs. It’s also unknown whether there’s a clost upstairs. If so it’s definitely at least a 3Br. I like this floorplan a lot. There’s a great deal of flexibility.

  4. Posted by noearch

    I don’t think much of the floor plan. lots of room for improvement.Full bath off the kitchen is not an asset, but probably a remnant from the orig. plan.house to yard relationship is poor. w/d in the porch? not great.the bath plan upstairs is old fashioned and full of doors, bad circulation.walking thru the bedroom/den to the media room is poor planning.the stair could be reconfigured.no closet in bedroom means “no bedroom”. kitchen plan appears to be a leftover. not really an eat-in kitchen. not much counter space. great potential for some serious remodel by a good architect (like me).

  5. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    ‘I guess the “twist” is a full floor room on top.’
    Hardly a full floor. I’d guess that less than 1/3 of that space is tall enough to stand up due to the steeply angled roofline.
    I once toured a house with an attic converted into a master bedroom. There was exactly one spot in the whole “room” directly under the roof’s apex where I could stand without knocking into the ceiling. Some quality living there. And yes, the MLS listing included that bogus room in the bedroom count.

  6. Posted by fluj

    How do you know that from the floorplan jpeg, milkshake? THe roofline comes in but you don’t really know how steeply, or whether it is indeed straight up or not. Do you? Yeah. I agree that the full bath off the kitchen is a bad idea.

  7. Posted by noearch

    ah…fluj. just look at the perspective drawing on the mls site..its a very steep roof, prob 12/12 pitch..so milkshake is correct..prob a 1/3 of the room usable..it really is just an attic.
    this is a typical example of how realtors constantly skew the reality of a property..IMHO its dishonest, and certainly questionable.

  8. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Fluj – I’m just guessing, but look at the drawing of the front facade of the house and you will see what I mean. I’m seeing a triangular profile with a ridgeline peak at about the same height as the living floor below.
    Assuming that peak is 10′ from the floor (generous !) and the floor is about 20′ wide then the ceiling drops to 6′ at about 4′ on either side of the center ridge. So there is a 8′ wide strip in the middle where normal people can stand up straight out of a total 20′ wide “full floor”. So that’s 40% of the area available for normal living. The remaining 60% is only good for storage.
    I’m seeing an 8′ wide room with triangular storage spaces on either side, hardly a “full floor” even for exceptionally short people.
    I guess the real answer will be known if someone here can visit the open house next week and report back. It won’t be me but I have seen dozens of attic conversions just as described here.

  9. Posted by noearch

    If someone remodels the attic with permits..the code requires vertical walls a minimum of 5′-0″ high before the ceiling begins to slope. min. ceiling height for habitable rooms is 7′-6″..so this becomes not much more than a long skinny hallway..
    just as I thought.

  10. Posted by fluj

    “this is a typical example of how realtors constantly skew the reality of a property..IMHO its dishonest, and certainly questionable.”
    I spoke about the posted floorplan. I asked an earnest question because I did not know the answer I offered no sort of sales pitch and I am largely anonymous for crying out loud.
    How in god’s name you feel justified attacking me is not really all the understandable. But thanks for being an arch prick for no fuckin reason.

  11. Posted by noearch

    LOL..this is actually very funny..and..ah..kinda presumptuous, Mr. Fluj. I wrote two paragraphs. the second one did not have your name in it, nor was it about or for you. get real.
    I was not directing the realtor comment to you. why would you assume that? I was merely referring to many and most realtors, in my opinion, who take enormous literary license when describing a property. in other words: they lie.
    chill out dude. the world, nor this site does not revolve around you. and stop using nasty words, please.

  12. Posted by Noe 94131

    >I was merely referring to many and most realtors, in my opinion, who take enormous literary license when describing a property. in other words: they lie.
    Specifically, calling 65 Eureka a 4 bedroom is inexcusable.
    More generally,
    “Spacious” really means “small”
    “Charming” = “very small”
    “Cute” = “very very small”
    “Chic” = “the size of something you might put on rather than move into”
    “Good for single person” = “and when you die, you can be buried in it”
    My favorite example on, you should pardon the expression, “the size question” read something like: “efficient floorplan saves steps.”
    And views:
    “Panoramic view” = “a view of your neighbor’s roof”
    “View of city lights” = “if your neighbor doesn’t close the drapes at night, you can see in” or “there’s a streetlight 3 feet from your bedroom window” or both
    And the basement apartment with windows that open onto the airshaft? That’s a “sheltered location.”
    And “Needs TLC” = “bring your hardhat and signed liability waiver”

  13. Posted by fluj

    yeah well you were plenty dismissive and you know it. you also managed to toot your own horn, dincha? interesting that you would now criticize me for thinking the world revolves around me, duggo

  14. Posted by fluj

    “”Panoramic view” = “a view of your neighbor’s roof”
    “View of city lights” = “if your neighbor doesn’t close the drapes at night, you can see in” or “there’s a streetlight 3 feet from your bedroom window” or both
    And the basement apartment with windows that open onto the airshaft? That’s a “sheltered location.”
    And “Needs TLC” = “bring your hardhat and signed liability waiver”
    Funny stuff. You started off with a bang.
    But the last four are a reach: Panoramic is usually going to be pretty nice. City lights is usually some sort of bigger view but not downtown. Needs TLC does not connote “total fixer.” Can’t say I’ve seen a whole lot of “sheltered location.”

  15. Posted by whorfin

    Hey, noearch, I think that Carl Simon wrote a song about that:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B7bVD_DkM4

  16. Posted by fluj

    Carl Simon, huh?

  17. Posted by in the market

    MLS pictures have been posted since yesterday. The attic space does look pretty narrow. I have to say, fluj/kenny, from what I’ve seen on this site of your temper and your language, I’ve never hire you as my realtor. It does seem from other posts that you are plenty busy with other clients, though, so good luck!

  18. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Gotta agree with fluj on the accuracy of the view comments in MLS. I’ve found them to be about 90% correct.
    The key qualifier to watch out for is “partial”. So if you see “views : ocean, partial” that might mean that you can see the waves from the half bath window through a gap in the neighbors house.

  19. Posted by noearch

    great comments noe 94131..most realtors are a notorius bunch of loose lips..why don’t they just describe a property more realistically and let the market determine the quality and the ultimate sale?

  20. Posted by Darren McMurtrie

    Well, I happen to be an architect and a good friend of ‘ole fluj. I’d say you’d like him quite a lot as a person, unless you’re a weirdo.
    As an architect, you obviously recognize that you’re trained to critique even the best architecture. I don’t consider it fair to thoroughly beat up non-architects for their opinions or descriptions of built work. Obviously they typically have a more ordinary opinion of the idea of good design.
    As part of that, I especially don’t think it’s fair to beat up a realtor for doing their job, even if that means somewhat romantically describing a space. Turn that idea on our own profession:
    Don’t all architects exaggerate a bit in order to make a point about the inherent potential of a space or detail- especially if you’re trying to convince (i.e., sell) your client a particular design? That’s not altogether different, in many cases, to what a realtor might say. It’s all about that magic word *potential*, right?
    Regardless, I hear what you’re saying but what I’m saying is that I wouldn’t throw fluj in the dirty realtor category. Maybe I’d put him in the dirty friend category though!

  21. Posted by fluj

    in the market — Well, if you really are in the market you have probably already hired a realtor and it isn’t me. Point taken though … I am not anonymous and I should really watch my language. (It really is damned if you do damned if you don’t sometimes, tho. These guys are always asking me stuff and then taking me to task for my opinions.) However, that said if you knew noeach/duggo’s history of dissing realtors, and yeah specifically this realtor, at every chance he gets you would understand.
    Darren M is the man.

  22. Posted by noearch

    I’m going to continue using my expertise and knowledge as a licensed architect, with much experience in the residential market to offer my comments and critiques on properties listed here. Thats what the site is about. ok? I will praise a house when it really is great and I’ll criticize it when it’s bad. I feel I’m doing a service to perhaps the typical buyer who may learn more how to look critically at something costing a LOT of money. Poor floor plans cannot be corrected cheaply. Colors, finishes, plumbing, lighting, cabinets, etc. can.
    There are some great realtors here in SF. there are lots of inept ones. I’ll continue to comment about both. If you don’t like it, then I suggest you don’t read Socketsite any more. It’s a great site and I’m gonna stop by now and then. Thank you.

  23. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Could anyone who attended the open house please comment on the usable floorspace of the top floor “media room” ?

  24. Posted by SocketSite

    65 Eureka closed escrow on 6/24/08 with a reported contract price of $1,520,000 (4.7% under asking).

  25. Posted by San FronziScheme

    Great price, nice sale. Congrats to the Realtor.

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles