While vertically challenged at times, we’re kind of digging the unique and eclectic nature of the space. And those bumps will go away with time (and a cold compress or two).
∙ Listing: 2308 A Divisadero (2/2) 1,900 sqft – $1,325,000 [MLS]
San Francisco real estate tips, trends and the local scoop: "Plug In" to SocketSite™
While vertically challenged at times, we’re kind of digging the unique and eclectic nature of the space. And those bumps will go away with time (and a cold compress or two).
∙ Listing: 2308 A Divisadero (2/2) 1,900 sqft – $1,325,000 [MLS]
Both bedrooms are of the head knocker variety though the one pictured here is the most extreme.
1900 sq.ft. ? Seems big until you deduct the unusable floorspace caused not only by these low ceilings but also the odd floorplan.
It is a nice looking place though I hope buyers take that 1900′ metric with a grain of salt.
Quirky and attractive. Seems like it would be fun to live and entertain here.
midcentfan,
Except during one of the city’s rare heat waves…
If it’s insulated properly, and the looks of it indicate they spent some money, that’s not an issue.
A large portion of the penthouse appears to be unaffected by the eaves. With clever decorating, the eaves don’t have to result in much loss of usable space. The main problem they present is a loss of picture hanging area.
Regarding the problem of excessive heat, I have seen finished attic areas fitted with vents where windows wouldn’t work.
Beautiful building from the outside but the unit looks like an oven with all those skylights, even on not-so-hot days. You have to really like blinding sunlight to be interested in this place.
“With clever decorating, the eaves don’t have to result in much loss of usable space.”
How can decorating recover the unusable space ? The sloped walls reduce the floor area where humans can stand. In my opinion any square foot of floor where I cannot stand up is not very usable. Storage perhaps, but not for living.
My master bedroom is reclaimed attic space (although more like the other bedroom, not like the one above).
I love the skylights, it floods with light most of the time.
if you dislike so much light you’re in luck. Blackout shades work well.
this place feels sort of disjointed though. I’m surprised all those pictures are of the same unit. it has a fair amount of space, but it appears somewhat awkward to me.
but at least it’s unique. I’d love to see this in person.
seriously? decorating is going to solve the lack of usable and functional space?? wow, that’s a new one.
This is way overpriced, when you get down to the real usable and livable space. I think most people would tire quickly of living in an “attic” such as this…not worth it.
Anybody know what that angle-arm sofa is?
The kitchen concerns me the most, it is a terrible layout.
We have friends who have a similar gabled guest bedroom in their Sonoma house. It got to the point where we had to explain that we weren’t spending the night any longer on our trips up because we got tired of hitting our heads on the wall.
Thankfully they understood but my point here is don’t underestimate the problem of these inclined bedroom walls. And for the record, I’m only 5’8″.
Just one more example of a realtor trying to put lipstick on a pig! must see! too beautiful to miss!
Wow! What an awesome space. Seems well priced for Pac Heights and I can’t wait to see it. Clearly it’s not for everyone but I for one love the idea of living in a one of a kind space.
And no, I have no interest in this property and I don’t even know the agent. It’s just a cool place.
@ Milkshake and Noearch:
Not every bit of floorspace needs to be capable of accommodating a standing person (especially when you have 1,900 SF to work with). A chest, freestanding cabinets, or bookshelves are good uses of a short wall. You can also put a sofa or chairs against a short wall; when you stand-up, you’re already away from the wall where the ceiling is higher.
Anyone who has lived in a small space knows about making use of every available inch. Anyway, much of the unit appears not to be impinged by low eaves.
“Just one more example of a realtor trying to put lipstick on a pig!”…Noearch, you really seem to hate this place.
I agree with Lori about the disjointed kitchen layout.
Overall, though, this unit is a lot more interesting to me than most of the high-rise vanilla shoeboxes in poorly realized locations that pass for luxury housing in this city. This one has some attractive character and quirkiness. The outside of the building looks nice too.
I acknowledge that not everybody wants quirkiness in their living space.
If the ceiling above an area is under 5’6″ then it can not be counted as square footage, correct?
I kinda dig the (slanted) walls of wood. Might be interested if it were $700 per actual, legal square foot…not the 1900 claimed.
“Not every bit of floorspace needs to be capable of accommodating a standing person…”
I totally agree. My beef however is with this space being reported as “livable”. A metric like floorspace is used multiple ways : by buyers comparing properties as well as in computing the $/sq.ft. amount.
Consider two properties both reporting 1900 sq.ft. Property A has standard 8′ ceilings throughout. Property B has 1400 sq. ft. at 8′ height, 400 sq.ft. lower than 5’6″, and another 100 sq. ft. somewhere in between. Which of those two properties is more livable and hence more valuable ? The “living space” metric doesn’t tell the while story here.
“A chest, freestanding cabinets, or bookshelves are good uses of a short wall…”
Not really. In the room above you cannot push the rear feet of such a piece of furniture completely to the baseboard. It leaves a triangular and barely usable space behind the furniture as well as causes the piece to intrude further into the sparse living space.
I totally understand how to use odd spaces (you should see my attic !) and don’t rule out a property that has odd spaces or strange floorplans. My complaint is reporting a deceptive metric.
Maybe this is just laziness on SFAR’s part. Certainly it is pretty easy to measure the amount of livable space with at least a 5’6″ height.
Understood, Milkshake. Dishonest measurements should not be tolerated (is the SFAR or the Realtor at fault?). It would be better if the listing just said “unknown” and encourage the buyer to have it measured properly by an inspector or architect.
I still think this place has a lot more going for it than what developers have been giving us over the past decade, or so. Not eveyone is looking for a rectangular box slathered in granite.
As the comments show, this place requires a special buyer and the price needs to reflect that. In a soft market anything “outside the box” will require more aggressive discounting to attract a buyer willing to tolerate some eccentricities. That said, I don’t really have an opinion as to whether this price is in the ballpark.
“Dishonest measurements should not be tolerated (is the SFAR or the Realtor at fault?).”
First, the listing clearly states the sq ft info is from the owner.
Second, do we know that the listed 1900 sq ft does or does not include the sq ft under 5’6″? I missed that part.
LOL…ahhhhhh, yea sausres, you got that right. I really do hate this place…terrible floor plan, and the angled walls no matter how much you try to pretend it works…….just doesnt..
milkshake has it right on, as well….
finding that “special” buyer?? are you kidding? what a line. in other words the seller (or realtor) really hopes that “special” buyer can be convinced or deceived…into buying a lot of un-livable space.
Enough with the 5’6 = legal head height nonsense. I forget the code as it was quoted to me. But it is more like 7’0 in some living space and 6’6 in mechanical rooms and closets. Five feet six? How could that work?
christ, you [Removed by Editor] are unbelievable. like it, dont like it, whatever. either way it all comes back to those dishonest realtors…damn them all to hell. if it weren’t for them i’m sure there’d be peace in the middle east by now!
Anonn, that is how it was explained to me, and how I’ve heard it time and again. A room must be at least 50% 7’+ ceilings to count as living space (I don’t doubt that this place qualifies), and you only measure the area with 5’6″+ ceilings. No nonsense, it’s just how you calculate a-frames and other unusual spaces.
i’m not going to argue any of that, but will still, however, refer you to my previous post.
also, have you gone and measured the place?
It’s 7’6″ minimum ceiling height for a bedroom. For a slanted ceiling like this room, only 50% of the floor area must this height requirement and you can disregard the areas with less than 5′ height for this calculation – IOW the outer edges with less than 5′ height would be treated as not existing.
“i’m not going to argue any of that, but will still, however, refer you to my previous post”
anon$random, what are you (not) arguing and which prevous post?
@anonn and others: some advice…stick to what you know, ok?
it’s dangerous to give out wrong advice..quoted to you or not. doesn’t help when you forget it, as well.
condoshopper has it almost right: 7′-6″ minimum ceiling height for ALL habitable spaces; ie, bedrooms and 7′-0″ min for other rooms such as halls, baths and kitchens.
One can argue all day about the usefulness or not of the area below the angled walls..Bottom line, I feel is that it’s not terribly usable..and should definitely not be “hyped up” by the Realtor or the MLS as a part of the overall floor area.
Wait just a minute, Noearch. They were all saying something way off. I expressly said I wasn’t sure, and my memory didn’t serve me properly as I was off by 6″ on the two different designations. If you weren’t so busy bash, bash, bashing in this thread you might have nipped the 5’6 thing in the bud. You know, seeing as how you told everybody the other day that the altruistic informing of all and sundry is your chief aim and all. So save your hectoring little shpiel today, all right? Your true colors are clearly on display.
Noearch, what’s your source?
As I understand, while a number of different standards exist, there is no mandated national standard for measuring square footage. Supposedly, the most common used by appraisers is ANSI-Z765, but local codes may differ and should be observed.
My noting of 7′ and 5’6″ is from the experience of previously owning a home in the Midwest with converted attic space. Perhaps 5’6″ is a local thing back there, or I am mistaken. Is your knowledge of 7’6″ a San Francisco specific, or are you mistaken?
And now, for the curious, from the ANSI-Z765 standard:
Ceiling Height Requirements
To be included in finished square footage calculations, finished areas must have a ceiling height of at least 7 feet (2.13 meters) except under beams, ducts, and other obstructions where the height may be 6 feet 4 inches (1.93 meters); under stairs where there is no specified height requirement; or where the ceiling is sloped. If a room’s ceiling is sloped, at least one-half of the finished square footage in that room must have a vertical ceiling height of at least 7 feet (2.13 meters); no portion of the finished area that has a height of less than 5 feet (1.52 meters) may be included in finished square footage.
I’m only quoting the SF Building Code and the California Building Code, with regard to legal, habitable spaces.
I am not a realtor, nor an appraiser. and my comments are not about measuring square footage.
I’ve been in the apartment a few times and it’s charming and livable, both airy and cozy. It’s a great space for entertaining and feels quite spacious. I doubt many people have knocked their heads against the walls. It never seemed a problem.