A year ago a Russian Hill “historic” cottage at 1268 Lombard lost its battle with a wrecking crew over preservationists’ protests (and under “resourceful” circumstances).
As we wrote at the time with respect to the value of the now vacant lot: “Valuable as long as one can secure permits to build. And in this case, we’d hate to be the ones applying.”
Tomorrow the Architectural Review Committee of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) will review a proposal for building a 4-unit, 5-story residential building that would measure approximately 40′ tall and 96′ deep on the lot.
Although not required by the Department’s CEQA review procedures, this Review and Comment hearing has been requested by the [Planning] Department because of the strong interest shown by the HPC in the emergency demolition that took place at the property in March 2009.
That being said, a few excerpts from a 2009 study by William Kostura of the effect of the proposed new building on a potential Russian Hill Historic District:
If the Victorian-era cottage at 1268-1270 Lombard still stood, it might have made sense to extend the District west to include this lot (#1268). With the house gone, I would recommend including #s 1234, 1240-1242, and 1248-1250 Lombard in the district, but not the buildings to the west of them.
The potential historic district could also be extended north to include most of the buildings on the 2600 block of Larkin Street. That issue however is irrelevant to the task now at hand, namely, judging the effect of the proposed new building at 1268 Lombard on the historic district.
It now appears that (in my opinion) the vacant lot at 1268 Lombard Street is across the street from, and three lots west of, the boundaries of a potential historic district. It is thus par of the setting of the proposed historic district, but is not part of the district itself.
It was useful to determine this before judging what kind of effect the proposed building could have on the district. New construction within a historic district is more likely to
have an effect on the district than would construction that is merely within the setting of a
district.
The proposed building at 1268 Lombard Street does not seem to me to have an adverse visual effect on the historic district that is located across the street and thee lots to the
east.
Now back to the Architectural Review Committee (and plugged-in readers) for comments.
∙ 1268 Lombard Losing Its Battle Against The Granite Wrecking Crew [SocketSite]
∙ The “Resourceful” Demolition Of A Historic Resource? (1268 Lombard) [SocketSite]
∙ Landmarks Preservation: Out Of The Frying Pan And Into The Fire? [SocketSite]
∙ 1268 Lombard Street Proposal [sf-planning.org]
Oh Jeebus.
Is there a grain of sand in this town that will not be granted historic status by this committee?
Is this the architectural facade equivalent of a developer first floating plans for a building taller than then need to construct ? In the latter strategy the neighbors request a shorter building. The developers comply, getting what they wanted anyways and the neighbors feel that they have influenced the development for the good.
Here we have a rather bland facade. Will the neighbors demand more artistry (and then “win” against the developer) ?
I’d not be surprised if the top floor gets lopped off too.
Aside from the “historic” house/shack that previously stood there, that side of the block on Lombard Street has no particular architectural distinction. What’s the fuss? (Okay, it’s a mediocre design.)
Seriously, pretty hard to tell much from this concept elevation.
Mediocre or not, perhaps the facade is just meant to be minimal, background, and not attempt to stand out. A valid approach for inserting a new building into an historic area.
Why is this historic? If it is historic because there are existing buildings which are over 45 years old, then is there any large area of SF which is not considered historic?
See, this is why smart people like NewBuyer choose real estate in places like Russian Hill, where it is damn near impossible to build inventory or make buildings taller. There are exceptions, but the cards are stacked against development.
In Soma, the sky is the limit… literally.
Buying in Soma or any “up and coming” part of this city is a no-brainer… as in, you have no brain if you do it.
Ahhhhhh manhatannization!!!
Manhattanization? Really? Four stories isn’t very Manhattan-like.
It’s pretty awesome that the old place got torn down in the face of the NIMBY-preservists. That needs to happen far more often in this city where structures that were never intended to survive more than a short time are still kept around at great expense to the current owners. I definitely feel sorry for the new owners who will have a hell of a time getting this place built.
I appreciate Bill Kostura’s level-headed analysis: he is a great documentary historian – he sets out the facts of what is there (and how it got there) and lets people make up their own minds about what’s worth preserving. Surely that’s the right approach to historical preservation, rather than the typical “hysterical preservation” approach that people comment on above and is the usual way things are done by Architectural Heritage, Russian Hill Neighbors (and now the Preservation Commission).