No real story of which we yet know (readers?). But as a tipster notes, where there were none now there are two (three bedroom, two bath condos with parking below).
And at least one (unhappy neighbor we’ll suppose).
∙ Listing: 1810-1812 Pacific (3/2.5)- $1,875,000/$1,995,000 [1810-1812pacific.com]
A garage for $3.9m… So effing funny.
Considering how difficult it is to get anything interesting through planning how the hell does something this horrible make it through?
You can put lipstick on a pig – but it’s still a pig
AH! My EYES!!!!
Google Maps has the
construction picture still on.
This looks very narrow and it probably is but Google Maps Street View does shrink horizontals. Wish price is high. It depends on the footage of course, but did they really go that deep into the lot? What about light? I see ALL lights are on in the pics and it’s sunny outside.
PropertyShark doesn’t give anything for 1810, but the PS entry for 1812 looks like the big house on the left.
Nice!!… if you like being able to touch both sides of your house at once…
The new construction appears to have been carried out as an addition to the existing parcel. Back in the “old days” (2-3 yrs ago), if you expanded and added units to a parcel, you could get a condo map on the entire property. Maybe that’s what happened here.
Why am I the only one offended by the fact that there is a single garage taking up an entire developable parcel ?
You guys would rather see a single parking spot than homes for people?
It was built by the owner of the blue/grey victorian, so no unhappy neighbor here (no windows faced out onto it anyways). He simply subdivided his property. No way in hell will it go for so much money though.
Personally, I’d rather have seen the old garage demoed and a nice side garden put in its place. SF needs more green space than it does ghastly, overpriced, cheaply built, claustrophobic, architectural atrocities.
only knock-down furniture need apply
FYI, the listing for 1810-1812 Pacific is for the two NEW units to the right of the victorian – the victorian is a totally separate parcel where the developer lives with his family.
I expect they will sell for close to $1/2 million less than asking, if they sell at all.
Joe,
Not offended by any means by the addition of places for people. Just surprised by the asking price. These funky arrangements belong in the low-end of the market. How much space are we talking here? 20ft? 15ft?
Jake,
I figured that much. They’re making the best of the situation which is great for them. The city fills up wherever it can and that’s logical if prices command it. I am not sure about the 3.9M though.
The “context” just killed the neighborhood.
And who should pay the property tax of 1.15% of the parcel price so you can appreciate a quaint garden??
And don’t forget the chopped pillow abuse…
There’s a fire plug on my block taking up at least 25 sq ft of land on my block. Joe and the owner of this Victorian should get together develop it!
Honestly I don’t see a problem here. Just having a garage there seems wasted space, and the owner sacrificed his own garage to build it. Looks better than the rubix-cube and lego crap I see in Mission Bay.
The prices are laughable though.
They should glue some solar panels to the front of it to get that price.
Out in the “Sunset,” which is rumored to be part of the city, you’ll see garages on the end lots of some blocks, houses on other blocks, and backyards on others. Garages are inevitably the ugliest choice. This garage, while not horrible, didn’t fit the house at all.
Not sure why the owner did such a crappy job on the architecture — no context at all, and the color’s ugly too. That will certainly decrease the value of the original house.
Oh wait, I just noticed the new building’s casting a shadow on that red Prius. Never mind — tear it down.
Is it really that bad? I actually like it. Yes, the house is narrow but it appears that it has been designed to maximize the available interior space. (Also, judging from the pictures it doesn’t look particularly dark inside either.) I’m not saying I would pay the asking price but come on SS posters why so critical?
The developer isn’t the only color blind owner on this block. How does everybody like the Pepto-Bismold apartment building?
so i’m guessing that painting it right away will earn you the wrath of your immediate neighbor?
The whole property sold a few years ago for $1.8. Then they put in the garage under the mansion. Then they somehow split the lot and then built this ugly building. I am surprised it looks so cheap and is priced so high.
“unagi no nedoko” – the eel’s bedroom.
In Imperial Kyoto houses were taxed on the basis of their frontage so it’s common to see very narrow and long houses.
SF ain’t got nothing on Amsterdam on narrow houses. Actually a lot of cities feature narrow houses.
Let’s try harder SF !
My point was why destroy one of the best aspects of the Victorian? Even if you’re just looking at an ugly wall, the fact that it was detached was still a bonus. My place also looks at a solid wall in places, but I just added a frosted window which still adds tons of light and some sheers. Now this place has an awkwardly shaped condo building jammed up next to it when it could have had a huge amount of outdoor space – for SF anyway. I don’t really think this helps the owner/developers property values. But what do I know..
This looks much better in person than in the pics. I live just a few steps away and walk by every day and although at first I hated it, it’s turned out better than I expected.
For all those concerned about the narrowness of the building/lot, I’m 95% certain that it’s at least 25′ wide which I believe is the minimum width for a standard residential lot. If you know SF, you know that there are tons of these lots all over the city – most of the Mission for example has 25′ wide lots. If it didn’t meet the 25′ wide standard, it’s unlikely the City would have allowed it
Jake,
I doubt this lot is 25′ wide. The Japanese car parked there cannot be wider than 6ft and you can fit 2 of them with an extra foot here and there. I’d say the lot is 18 feet wide (hence my original 15 to 20 feet guesstimate).
Another cross-checking: I usually count the number of concrete squares on the front. Then I multiply by 3 (if it’s done right and they’re actual yards). I can guess only around 6, therefore 18 feet again.
25′ is pretty common in SF for SFHs. You can fit the typical Bay window plus an front door plus some wiggle room. This is not the case there I think.
San Fronzi,
Good eye, you’re right! I just measured it and it’s just about 17.5′ feet wide. My guess is that the lot subdivision happened sometime ago (i.e. owner of the victorian + garage technically bought two lots). I don’t see how the Planning Dept. would allow such a small lot subdivision like this today.
What’s the deal with SF properties rarely having windows on the side? Is it so they can do this smash-together stuff?
I mean even the new condos (or are they rentals?) on third just passed SBC has zero windows on the third street side, and it’s not even a place where you’d put a building smack dab next to it. Just strange.
my dad owns the convenience store across the street from this building…we knew the old owners and when the new owners came in, they renovated the victorian part….the new addition is quite tasteless. the colors are ugly, the architecture is bland ‘not modern’, and it just tells you how many bad architects are out there…i am in the field of architecture, and this is quite embarassing…i did hear the inside is nice though, but not for the price…
i just love reading all the bad comments on this page and laugh, i showed my dad and it is priceless
I like it, it is funny, witty even. I wonder who the architect was, they have a great sense of the whimsical. And what an improvement over an ugly garage.
Jake,
Thanks for measuring! That’s what I call going the extra mile (or foot…).
17.5 feet. My last car was longer than that.
Well at 17.5 feet it took all of 3 seconds to run the tape measure, lol, not a big deal at 8:45pm at night.
flaneur, I agree….I love how folks are aghast at the color of this building while that god-awful pink thing is right next door.
I’m not necessarily loving the architecture, but I think it’s fine if they built this – adds more housing to the city w/out huge negative to others (blocked views, etc.).
You heard it here first folks!
The best “aspects of this victorian” is that its detached!!!
Who cares about the architecture of the building – just as long as its detached.
It is incredibly surprising that in a city with limited land for development that every house isnt single family and on an acre of land.
Since these condos are brand new, in a building of no architectural distinction, on Pacific, a traditionally very good street, and good address, –although between Franklin and Gough– the selling prices will set good comps for eastern Pacific Heights condos.
Given that high-end homes aren’t selling very well, I think this is an absolute brilliant move–don’t build a house on an ity-bity piece of land, build two cheaper condos…
Here is my 2 cents on these place. These will sell at some fair price below $1k psf. My guess would be around $875-900. This is actually very bad news for the Prime condo market in SF. These places despite being ugly on the exterior, have key’d elevators, parking and views so they are no schleps in terms of amenities. Plus they are across the street from a fantastic little store 😉 So if brand new, high end finished condos sell at 900 psf, this is going to be very bad for anything w/o a view. There are a lot of condo’s priced in D7 for around 900-1k psf and none of them are really moving at all. So if these places do sell than it would be setting the top of the market; and many of these other places are not “top”.
In terms of prices, I’ll add that 1612 Vallejo just sold for $679 psf @ $1.875 for a very nice Single Family Home. I’m just saying……
Nice bowling alley! 1.9 when you can get houses for less? That’s quite funny…
^ That’s just it.. There was a gorgeous detached (*cough cough) Victorian SFH on Sacramento that sold instantly at 1.8. I think even 800 per foot is a huge push for this place when you can rent a 2+ bedroom in the same area for, what, 2k a month?
You must look at the slideshow on the website… the inside matches the ugliness of the outside. More proof money can’t buy taste (sorry!).
Out of sheer curiousity, I recently checked out a 1 bedroom in the older pink building next door (no view or parking) that was asking $2650. The common areas were pretty crappy (exposed compact flourescent bulbs everywhere) and have not been updated in decades, but the apartment was nicely configured as most are from that era, although with the standard apartment kitchens but nice period moldings, wood floors, etc. My guess is a two bedroom in a smilar building would run around 2500-3500 range (also, there does seem to be a price premium for older buildings in the area for the “charm” factor… moldings, higher ceilings, etc.)
Ahhhh….now I know why Joe wanted to borrow my shoehorn.
I have a feeling these will be on the market for awhile, unless they want to have a come to Jesus moment about the pricing.
I saw these last Sunday. The units are great – not like the picture. I live on the next block and watched them be built from George’s store across the street. They are huge with obviously expensive finishes. What’s up with the haters!!??
A former Marcus and Millichap apt bldg broker used to own this property with family. He retained the expansion entitlements but decided to sell the building instead at the right time too. This was about 3 years ago. Dont know anything about the current owner/developer.
sleepiguy…”rent a 2+ bedroom in the same area for, what, 2k a month?”
well, not if you’re comparing apples to apples…a 2+ bed that looks like this, in just a 2 unit building, in this area, will probably be more like $4k/mo, is my guess.
New construction in Pac Heights – $$expensive$$. new construction in Pac Heights instead of a garage? Priceless! Very clever. Wouldn’t have believed it without the pictures. Per website, both places have views, decks, kitchen/bath bling. It should go close to 1k/ft. If there’s one thing I’ve learned being in RE in SF over the last 6 years that people will build just about anywhere they can – and someone will pay premium for it.
Hmmm…
For nearly 2M I want a dining room, or something close to a dining room. Don’t San Franciscans eat at a table ever? Or do you all just eat microwave food sitting at the TV or at the kitchen Island?
They tried to squeeze a little dinette table in one of the units, and didn’t even bother in the other!
Also not sure I”d like my master bedroom on the other side of a garage.
otherwise I think these look pretty nice. and they are 3 BR, 2.5 Ba as well, which is a bonus.
The 17.5′ width is a killer. Subtract at least 1′ for side and interior walls and this place is 16′ wide internally at its widest point. There were 2 units similarly built on Pacific / Webster a few years back that sold for under 2M and around this PSF. They were much wider and just as nice. No view, but a better physical location overall. And this was back in 2006.
http://www.mapjack.com/?TACnW3JzbFKG5CNA
However, [Zorro] speaks the truth. I’m continually surprised at what people will build/buy.
I live in a house that’s between 20′ and 16′ wide (it varies) — the size is very workable, although for $2M, one might expect to get a little more.
More SF mediocrity…look at recent design in Holland or Japan on lots as narrow or narrower than this: puts this regressive SF “architecture” to shame.
The listings for 1810 and 1812 Pacific have been withdrawn from the MLS without a sale but we wouldn’t be surprised if they soon returned (or popped up elsewhere).
These are already on Craigslist for rent. Been there for about a week or so. I’ll post the link next time I stumble upon it.
$7200/mo. Rental Listing: http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/apa/1304761751.html
Interesting how these past sale-gone-rental listings do not often include the front picture of the house. Good thing we have a few people connecting the dots.
here’s a project in toronto on a 13′ wide lot which might open some of your minds:
http://modresdes.blogspot.com/2008/04/drew-mandel-design-83a-marlborough-ave.html
According to C/L — Only one left. So the other is either rented, or sold?
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/reb/1406636966.html
1810 reduced to $1.560
gosh I’m actually thinking about renting one of these places. so it’s a little slim and doesn’t really match the neighborhood. people say those things about me too. seriously though they are kind of sweet inside, private elevator, nice finishes, good location, garage and decent view.
guess I’ll have to see it. I wouldn’t pay $7200/mo though, for that you can get a very nice sfh (not in pac heights) or a penthouse/high floor apt in one of the upscale highrises.
anyway it’s been on the rental market for a while, wonder what the owner would accept..