We’re drawn to the deck(s) and views, but do wish they were located off the living room or kitchen for ease of entertaining (at least more than one, or perhaps two…). And while that couch in the kitchen has got to go, we do like the light and access to the yard (think grill).
∙ Listing: 4419 19th Street (3/3.5) – $2,535,000 [MLS]
Yeah, it doesn’t boast decks off every level. Just the top two!!! But it does have outdoor space off every level. That south facing yard will be very well used, I’ll bet. Very cool property. It’s got big views but it is still walkable to Castro stuff. Really slick finishes. Nice one all around.
I almost didn’t have anything bad to say about this place until I saw the facade. Not sure why they would finish this place so nicely and then leave the facade so row-home looking. Anyway, easy fix, instant equity! 😉
Why does the couch have to go from next to the kitchen? It’s where everyone tends to congregate anyway (especially if they can’t get to that top deck easily). I’m always having to shoo my guests away from standing in the kitchen with me as I prepare drinks, etc. Maybe I’m not the best host (and should have everything prepared in advance so as to better spend time with my guests) but it’s my reality. I kinda like it.
Eddy,
Don’t you think that might have been the concept? “nondescript and neighborhood-like, but oh what treasures lie within” — or something?
The facade is completely redone, take a look at mapjack to see the original facade. Looks like the garage and entry door positions have been swapped.
Maybe I’m just really slow this morning, but I can’t seem to reconcile the first image and the last image (on the MLS listing). The last image shows a ground floor outdoor area, but the second floor does not seem to have an outdoor area. But clearly image #1 is not of the ground floor. What am I missing?
matt: the patio area off the bedroom faces the front of the house, no? above the roofline on the street side.
love the dumbwaiter. everyone needs one of those.
Front of the house doesn’t seem to show any outdoor areas at all (picture #29).
OK a bit confusing but it’s a roof top deck in the front of the house with a solid rail. The house is 4 stories tall with three stories visible from the front and three from the back. The bottom floor is the garage/media room, 2nd floor is the kitchen/living and leads to the back yard, 3rd floor and 4th floors have decks and are set near the rear of the house. They’ve managed to pack a lot of stuff into a 1500sqft lot. The original house was ~ 1500 sqft not including the basement.
@earthly:
not exactly, but close. for clarity, one could say that this is (5) level building.
-garage level
-media room level (off of entry stair up to living)
-main level
-upper level
-penthouse level
although technically it’s a basement + (3) stories.
Square footage anyone?
1510 sqft per PropertyShark which probably doesn’t include the basement media room. I don’t think they expanded the envelope of the house much as it’s on a really small lot (1498 sqft). One permit application was filed with an estimated construction cost of $500k.
The current owner purchased the house with 100% financing and has a $1.84M ARM on the place; might have been an investment play.
The property is well over 2000 feet. I’d say closer to 3000 than 2000… I believe it previously had both an attic and a lower level which have been captured as sq ft.
1510 sf and 2535K asking price. That’s $1680/sf.
For a place with false ceiling, spots, 1960s tiles in the bathroom and a very bland curb appeal.
They are selling the “Sleek sophistication”. I’ll call it boring.
3000sf makes more sense at this price. Never mind. Still boring, except for the deck. I love decks.
Fronzi,
wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and OK if that’s your opinion fine.
fluj, you’re slowly losing whatever relevance you have with monolithic comments on opinions.
Keep to facts. It’s more your turf.
Wait a sec. Did you just tell me to keep to the facts?
Interesting that you would say that. “Keep to the facts” after pulling the OLD tax records on NEW construction and extrapolating it out to an erroneous $$psqft.
And by the way, “false ceiling” — incorrect statement. “spots” — ??? “1960’s tile” — incorrect (60’s inspired retro look? yes.) “bland curb appeal” — opinion.
You had exactly one opinion there and I didn’t challenge it.
@fluj:
cut the guy some slack, at least he got the asking price right. you didn’t mention that!
Fluj, I think more than likely they didn’t want to bother with the city to get a facade change. They just cleaned it up (a lot) based on the MJ view. It’s a nice place, but I would have bumped out the front Edwardian style and added some cosmetic details to the exterior. I’m sure the neighbors wouldn’t have minded.
The total lot size is 25×60 sqft, the top two floors (1 bedroom on each) only take up 1/2 of the original building envelope, 1/2 the basement is used for the garage. The kitchen looks to be in an addition out the back of the house. The original envelope was probably 25×30 with the addition bumping out another 8-10 ft. I’d say it’s little over 2000 sqft of interior space.
False ceiling: how do you get the wiring up there? There is definitely a space to allow for the spotlights and the ceiling would be higher without it. Call it what you want, I call it a waste of ceiling height for a cheap effect. Your spotlights are a short-sighted option for a quick ROI. A bit like IKEA. The look will be outdated pretty fast but who cares, right?
“60’s inspired retro look?” Where do you get those things? On that vein, Old becomes Vintage and “Dry Rot” becomes “Contractor Special”. Still 60s look and ugly (good amounts of bleach to keep them clean not included)
Price per SF on old data. At least I recognized it quickly and didn’t make it a matter of principle like some who will cling by their nails to any irrelevant small thing just not to admit they were wrong.
unearthly,
I think only the top floor takes up 1/2 the envelope. So you have like 2 X 25 X 40 plus another half, plus the media room mezzanine above the garage. I’m gonna get a sneak preview so I will let you know if interested. (But I think it’s open Sunday anyway).
“False ceiling: how do you get the wiring up there? There is definitely a space to allow for the spotlights and the ceiling would be higher without it. Call it what you want, I call it a waste of ceiling height for a cheap effect. Your spotlights are a short-sighted option for a quick ROI. A bit like IKEA. The look will be outdated pretty fast but who cares, right?”
Dude, they’re called recessed cans, not “spots,” and I’m sorry but there’s a way to talk about architecture and design and you aren’t speaking the vernacular. And in doing so, you’re actually saying other things entirely. As for predicting when canned lighting will go out of fashion well who the heck knows.
“On that vein, Old becomes Vintage and “Dry Rot” becomes “Contractor Special”. Still 60s look and ugly (good amounts of bleach to keep them clean not included)”
Right. Huh?
“Price per SF on old data. At least I recognized it quickly and didn’t make it a matter of principle like some who will cling by their nails to any irrelevant small thing just not to admit they were wrong.”
Maybe. But the way you wrote it was as a jumping off point for a litany of other uninformed complaints. It wasn’t fair criticism, and you published your words on a blog. This is actually a prime example of why redfin, zillow, and the like are often worthless.
i’m the architect so i know a few things about this house.
@fronz:
there are no false ceilings. you get the wiring and lighting fixtures in between the floor joists. have you ever been in a house under construction? it might be informative for you. no offense but fluj is right, at least in this topic you’ve posted nearly all incorrect information.
@uneartly:
there are (2) bedrooms on the “upper level” and (1) bedroom at the “penthouse” level. your other guesses aren’t correct but probably not too far off the mark.
@ Darren
Thanks for the update; its always good to hear from the source. Yeah, I forgot about the 3rd bedroom.
Does anyone know the maximum SFR footprint allowed on a lot in SF (as a percentage of lot size)?
at least for single family residential construction, there is no F.A.R. (floor area ratio) in san francisco. it’s sort of built in to the planning codes via setback requirements, height restrictions and the nebulous ‘community design guidelines’. there are special use districts that tack on additional requirements that sometimes feel close to FAR restrictions.
I’m a neighbor to this property (about 3-4 doors up). It’s been quite a project, though no real complaints throughout the construction process. Happy to see it nearing completion.
Someone above mentioned that they swapped garage and entry door if you look at the map linked. actually, there was no garage before. garage you may be seeing in the older photo is a property next door. first part of this project was digging out a garage and adding (reinforcing?) the foundation.
it’s a very nice addition up above from the exterior. we were a little surprised that the exterior of the existing property wasn’t upgraded to match the same more modern exterior of the upper levels that were added. Darren: just curious if you’d share why that wasn’t done (city permit process? or, am i missing a good explanation on how the slightly redone exterior actually does fit right in). i’ll also add that it almost looked like faux molding/trim on the exterior that didn’t seem to match the new upper levels–which i personally love btw!).
please don’t take those as criticisms of the overall project. just something we noticed, and the only thing we could talk about since we hadn’t seen any of these interior photos yet.
funny: our friends who live behind this house (on side street back and above) had their great view blocked by the addition, though they still have a view from an upper floor of their house, just not a lower one that used to have skyline view. they were good sports about it…at least to us. 🙂
p.s. fluj: just curious…are you the listing agent by chance? owner? no problem if so. i’m just a fan of full disclosure. i disclosed that i’m a neighbor who lives 3-4 doors away. your kick-off comment sounded a bit rah rah (not that there’s anything wrong with that) for a casual observer of a listing. 🙂 then again, maybe you’re just a big fan of decks and give them three exclamation points whenever talking about them. 🙂
(all written in good humor)
@dan mcmurtrie,
nice looking job. i noticed that you responded to some of the
comments above so i wonder if you care to fill us in on the actual square footage? i’m certain that you know; and that the seller and seller’s agent have access to this info but choose not to disclose it. maybe they feel that this info is not important?
DS,
I’m not the listing agent, no. If I were I would have said so without fail.
@fronz it is good to know that the mentally challenged have something to do.
4419 19th Street has returned to the market with a new listing (and one day DOM count), but at the same price.
If this house was in Noe Valley it would have sold weeks ago. I don’t get it. I know Noe Valley is closer to 280 and Silicon Valley but the Eureka Valley side of the hill is far more interesting, architecturally and otherwise.
The listing for 4419 19th Street has once again been withdrawn (and another 58 days on the market erased). Will we see a third?
“Will we see a third?”
Yes. Now it’s down to $1,995,000. And not a single picture of the facade on the redfin listing:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/4419-19th-St-94114/home/673592
Down more than 20% from its intial listing price back last June. Looks like the sellers chased the market down into the greatest credit collapse since the Depression. lol
i’m surprised to see that this listing has been tried by three different agencies in such a short time (may to october).