While 1409 Sanchez was razed, our neighborhood tipster also notes that 4027-4033 26th Street has indeed risen up as was proposed:
This house is about half way done being renovated. They ended up raising the existing structure up one story, building a garage beneath and an additional story above. It’s massive.
When finished it should be a four-story, five bedroom, and four and one-half bath 3,850 square foot single family home with parking for two.
Purchased in January 2008 for $935,000, and as it’s 1,280 square feet looked at the time:
∙ JustQuotes: There’s Always One On (Almost) Every Block [SocketSite]
∙ 1409 Sanchez Meets Its Maker (But Not Because Of The Storm) [SocketSite]
For San francisco row houses, adding a new floor from below offers some distinct advantages over adding a floor on the top:
You often need to upgrade the foundation anyway, that becomes rather easy with the building “out of the way” for awhile.
You can avoid providing new and upgraded structure down through the existing floors to carry the loads of a new floor up top.
Victorian decoration remains where it belongs, with the elaborate cornice at the top. The new ground floor exterior can be simply detailed as they were originally.
You already have a framed an finished roof, and your worksite already has a roof on it throughout construction, so no needless expense tearing one off only to build another one.
Your new ground floor interior will probably include garage space and it is easy to include the necessary moment frames.
I’m sure it would have been easier to demolish it and start from scratch, instead of hanging on to those ancient clapboards, but we are in SF – not the land of logic 😉 But, how do they handle insulation on the top level – just add it in behind the wall boards, which I assume have been removed?
What is this “insulation” you speak of?
Dang, talk about a “wired community.” Can´t they put those things underground or at least bunch them.
It seems rather insane to me, and I assume the planning and zoning code make it easier to do this than start fresh. But this is an occassion where I actually would rather see something new and modern than this rather tortured “preservation”. (which may surprise given my comments on the Saitowitz project on Mission).
I hope they lose money on this. The fact that they bid this dumpy shack up to $935k for flip value is ridiculous. No one would (and obviously no one did) pay nearly a million to actually live in the shack that was there before — but they would have had to pay that much to actually do so.
The couple who bought this live in San Mateo with their two kids. Is this a flip, or are they building their dream home (or a little of both: a $500k tax free 2 year hold). Anyway, he’s a Real Estate professional so what could go wrong?
EBGuy, I believe you’re incorrect about the buyer. Where did you get your info? As a neighbor I was mailed notice about the permits for this project including the name of the owner/developer and it wasn’t the person you linked to. That said, I do not think the new owner has the intention of moving in, but I could be wrong.
Has anyone been watching the nearly completely work at Valencia & 26th? http://www.mapjack.com/?PWwmWMR5bFjB
They lifted the old residential structure and razed the old grocery and have combined it all into several units with garage. Certainly looks much better than what was there
Where did you get your info?
PropertyShark and cross-checked with the SF Recorder’s website. I’m feeling pretty confident, but mistakes can be made. William Walters appears to be the architect. Contractor is unknown.
This was done to three houses across the street from me when I lived in the Castro. Perfectly cute little single family homes jacked up to three or four stories, turned into multiple units, gold plated (e.g. television built into the bathroom wall), and sold for outrageous prices.
Sorry, but I liked the cute little houses much better.
Just for history’s sake, some notes from the prior thread:
[snip]
Mine go like this: land cost 950K. Construction cost 750K. Holding costs 175K. Staging 10K. Transfer tax 18.175K. Realtors 62.5K. Sales price $2.5M.
[snip]
Posted by: fluj at December 14, 2007 1:14 PM
Many people disputed his suggestion of $250/sqft for construction, and some other folks said more like $350/sqft, but Fluj was very close on the land cost:
The sale of 4027-4033 26th Street closed escrow today with a contract price of $935,000 (1.6% under asking).
Posted by: SocketSite at January 22, 2008 7:23 PM
I find it amusing that the permit apparently says the reconstruction of the house will only be $450K.
Doesn’t 2007 seem like a long time ago? BTW, whatever happened to that fluj guy?
The subject of the debate back then was the ROI. Time will tell on that one. If the project is only half done, the 2-year holding period assumption is already out the window.
“I find it amusing that the permit apparently says the reconstruction of the house will only be $450K.”.
The costs listed on a permit are almost always far lower than the actual costs incurred.
auden said: “The costs listed on a permit are almost always far lower than the actual costs incurred.”
I knew this because I’ve seen it for other permits that people have posted about on SocketSite, but does the city not care about the amount spent as long as people have a permit? I assume this is so people can hide the costs of their remodel from their neighbors (and SS).
The costs listed on permits are lower because the higher the costs the higher the city reassesses the property.
Seems like that ought to constitute prosecutable tax fraud.
It’s juts reassessment but rather various permit and school fees are proportional to the cost of the project.
I doubt they’ll do it for $250/sqft, because raising the structure and also going so high would be more expensive.
OTOH contractors are hungrier for work these days, so maybe it cancels it out.
As for selling price, I don’t like this proposed floor plan, seems like a lot of stairs and very shallow structure.
Putting 2bd/bath + 2 car garage + stairs in 1000sqft is tight. Also separation of 2bd from the top suite is less desireable.
Seems like a repeat of the Duncan house that the twitter guy bought for a discount.
These are always less desirable, i.e
Btw, I was being sarcastic when I said “I assume this is so people can hide the costs of their remodel from their neighbors (and SS).” (cf. when SocketSiters say similar things about confidential sale prices on MLS)
I still don’t understand why the city doesn’t care about this, other than that it’s decently difficult to enforce. It does seem like some sort of fraud, given that both tax bases and permit prices are based on the amount of work.
someone,
School fees is based on new square footage, so they don’t get screwed. PUC gets paid by new baths, so they don’t get screwed. DBI charges based (partly) on the cost, so they usually get short changed. They do give themselves a space right next to where you fill in the cost to change it if the stated cost is grossly incorrect. Also, since this amount stated at the submittal set the agent or owner typically does not have a bid to do the work. So they are taking a wild lowish guess at the cost. Basically it is often a price they would hope to get the work done for. And, even if they wanted to get a bid there is probably not an engineering set, or any specs. so all they would get would be a loose estimate by a contractor anyway.
As far as the project itself, at 3850sq.ft. and $250/ft. that is almost $1M so I think that could be done. Of course I haven’t seen the plans or specs. either.
Also, at 4 story it is probably a master suite on the top, 3 bed 2bath on the 3rd floor, liv/din/kit/powder on the second, and 2 cars + a 1/1 guest down. SO, I think that is a good layout. I like to be on the floor with my kids, but they’re little, later I’m sure I would like some distance.
[Editor’s Note: Try clicking the “as proposed” link in the original post for the actual layout.]
Seeing as how it’s now exactly as tall as the house next door, “it’s massive” is a bit of an exaggeration. Anyway, I lived in a 3-story house in the Richmond for a while in which the top floor was the original house from 1904, with the lower 2 floors added after the earthquake. I found it fascinating that the top floor was the oldest part of the house, when logic would lead one to expect the opposite.