Speaking of Sanchez, it’s a plugged-in tipster that first notices the excavation of 4001 20th Street which fronts Sanchez.
A three-story single-family home over a garage is slated for the site. And if our tipster is correct, it’s going to be a one-bedroom on the third level with kitchen, living room, and big city views on the fourth (no word on the second, but a media room comes to mind).
According to our tipster it’s not a spec home nor a home that “Google built” (okay, so Apple we hear). Now’s your chance to liberate the plans and fill in the blank(s).
UPDATE: Architect (Craig Steely) and renderings identified, it’s “Peter’s House” rising:
The design incorporates “a system of moveable louvers (built from reclaimed lumber sourced from the San Francisco Presidio) to regulate openness and privacy” to the north.
∙ Apples To Apples The “Charming” Single-Family At 1610 Sanchez Falls [SocketSite]
∙ Peter’s House [craigsteely.com]
I never even noticed that was a buildable lot before. Nice choice to put the living area on the top level.
Apparently it is hyper-modern and very cool and minimalist. The neighborhood design review committee folks were oohin and aahing about it. (yes, the neighborhood design review committee was actually quite progressive..until some of them resigned recently, anyway.)
I believe the reason there is a design review committee is that this area is part of the Liberty Hill historic district. So there are some special controls, and the design review committee (a subcommittee of the Dolores Heights Improvement Club) reviews plans and provides comment to the Planning Department prior to approval. Something to that effect.
Glad to see it underway.
I’m having a vision. It’s going to be a large rectangle with rectangular windows, plastic siding, and a slight ass hat.
According to that other SF RE blog, it is indeed hyper modern, thanks to Craig Steely, who I think is great. Here’s the item from a month ago (how did you miss this one socketsite?):
http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2010/09/14/glass_and_cypress_fortress_in_mission_dolores.php
And my sources, which are straight from Cupertino, say (within the past month, fwiw) that it an Apple employee who commissioned this house.
Btw, I actually explored buying this lot, which should have devastating city and eastern views from the top floor, back in 2006, and had my agent write the then owners (who I believe own the blue building on the left as well). My letter was never answered, and I moved on.
Nice to see something like this built, and I am very curious about the structural engineering, with so few visible shear walls or frames! And about the floor plan, which looks like it may be the ultimate bachelor pad in 3 levels over garage!
[Editor’s Note: It happens. Cheers.]
This part of LH already contains a pretty diverse collection of architecture (I recall a couple of streamline deco buildings), so thankfully there’s no incentive to blend in with the historic context. I hope Carnac is wrong about the asshat though.
UPDATE: Architect and renderings identified, it’s “Peter’s House” rising (and a house that Apple built seems to be confirmed).
very cool. The concept of “solar oven” immediately came to mind though fortunately the glass faces neither south nor west so it ought to work out fine. And no asshat, yeah !
Sweet!
bold. cool.
Look at me! Nothing to hide! Nowhere to hide neither…
Boring pretentious glass box for an era that will have Lady Gaga and Jersey Shore as cultural highlights. The LookAtMeMeMe generation.
It is very fitting that the image of the facade shows no humans or furniture. Architecture is more than an idea. Designs that look better in animation than in reality are great for awards, but not for people. But despite my negative bent, this will be GREAT as drive-by architectural theater and a welcome addition to a city that has always attracted exhibitionists.
Uh… is that what it’s going to look like when it’s done?
my brain is obviously not working this morning because I can’t figure out what exactly this will be.
Is it just three open rooms above a garage, or is there a non-visualized back aspect to this? there must be something more than those three rooms because I can’t figure out how you get from level to level unless there is a hidden staircase or elevator somewhere. (or transporter).
the louvered wood panels are cool, and I’d be interested in having them depending on how easy/hard they are to open and close.
i’ll reserve judgement until the project is more underway. the rendering above looks cheap (looks like plexiglass and cheap wood), but the renderings on his website are much better.
obviously it will be high end finishes… thus I’m sure it will look cool in real life.
the only major drawback is those circular windows. Yuck. they highlight that evidently you can’t open up any other window so you’re stuck in your fishbowl.
I would have used the louvered wood and also used a curtain of windows that could open completely up. now that would be awesome.
The little round porthole thingies really make this design work.
“And no asshat, yeah !”
I thought the asshat is the person who actually lives in this place?
I really want to like this design, but somehow I can’t. The basic approach underlying the design is great, recognizing the defacto golden rule of modern design otherwise known as principal no. 3 of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: “Recognize all buildings as products of their own time”, and I really like the Louis Kahn-like sensibility behind the materials selected as well as the structural expressionism. But then I come to the porthole windows, which seem to be so… Art Deco?
I realize that this is San Francisco, and a historicist nod is probably inevitable, and there are some great deco buildings nearby, but is this necessary? Traditional windows typically integrate both the need for light and for ventilation; curtain walls tend to deal only with light, leaving the ventilation component to the mechanical engineers. I would have hoped that Mr. Steely could have overcome this limitation in a tectonically more honest way, without resorting to a stylistic quotation. If one asks what would Mies have done, or how would Kahn have handled this issue, these portholes do seem a bit contrived.
Please do not interpret this criticism as condemnation of the design, but only a small, but visually important, part of it. The fact that one can think of Mies or Kahn when considering a piece of residential architecture in San Francisco is quite astounding.
But where’s the front door? At the top of the 20th Street stairs?
Marten, that’s a good question. I believe this property does have access from the top of the stairs, and that’s where the public rooms are…so maybe that’s where the “front door” is as well. I’m also wondering what that circular form to the left is on the garage level.
tj – I didn’t get even a whiff of deco when first looking at this design though now that you point this out my perceptions are forever polluted 🙂
I always associate portholes with the streamline wing of deco. But there’s nothing else here that references streamline deco. In fact there’s quite the opposite to the curvy sweeping lines that you find in all streamline deco buildings. If this references anything in the past to me it looks like Memphis meets double-naught minimalism.
Morgan – I love your take on this structure and have to admit that my enthusiasm here is driven by a lust for “drive-by architectural theater”. And your comment of “a city that has always attracted exhibitionists” made me laugh. I’m still waiting to attend a public gathering of more than a thousand people of which no-one is buck nekkid.
Not that I have a problem with public nudity.
Looking at the images on the architects website, I am wondering how the glass adjacent to the public stairs is cleaned from the interior side…? Not to mention there’s a lot of glass to keep clean overall = almost impossible in SF’s foggy weather, even with Apple’s money in your back pocket.
So anyone who builds anything or does a major renovation after having made money is an asshat? Maybe asshat is just code for owner. I get the argument for renting during some phases of the economic cycle, but why even bother with real estate if you never plan to buy or remodel?
Or maybe you just think anyone who likes modern design is an asshat.
Or maybe this is just sour grapes because some people made money in the tech industry, but you didn’t.
“asshat” in this context doesn’t refer to a person but rather an architectural feature. It is usually used to refer to a top corner flourish, capped with a decorative roof.
The original Cala Foods to Whole Foods project on Stanyan had a prominent asshat.
Milkshake, I realize that. Except when people start saying it refers to the owner (as a joke, of course). My comment speaks more to a prominent POV on SocketSite, and not as much to this particular post.
I avoided chiming in on the “De gustibus” but I do think it’s fair to call whoever commissioned this monstrosity an “asshat”, if in fact all that glass is going to be the envelope.
That glass would be awesome in some scenic environment, say behind some pines on a coastal bluff off Highway 1 out by Pescadero, but in an urban environment I just blanched at this minimalist design.
But I blanche at everything. I can tolerate a few designs in the world, relatively few I actively like and would want to live in without some major changes here & there.
Troy, there’s nothing wrong with not liking a design, but why make it personal? Someone might not like what you choose as your perfect aesthetic, but I would still be annoyed if they called you an asshat for building it.
BTW. No association to the property or design. Just getting slightly annoyed by all the negativity on new design. Might be the weather.
I think I was the one who was joking about the asshat comments, although I did seriously think the commenters above me were calling the owner an asshat. My confusion if they weren’t. I wasn’t aware of the artistic term that Milkshake referred us to.
The part where I disagree with pacific is the extent to which one is allowed to get personal. How do you criticize design without getting personal? This sort of thing is a PERSONAL vision of either the architect, the owner, or both.
I see no problem with comments like lol’s or Morgan’s. The person who commissioned this place is a show-off who has commissioned an impractical place. Bully for them, but let’s not mistake this for brilliant design; it’s just flash without substance, and that probably reflects the owner.
I’m with you pacific and that’s why I appreciate designs like this. I wouldn’t commission something like this for my own home though support the owner here in taking bold risks. He/she is enlivening the cityscape. Without people like this our streets would be really boring.
Institutional builders are the biggest force at pushing the envelope : the deYoung, that Synagogue way out in fogland, the new Fed are all great stuff.
Not everything appeals to all people and that is OK. If we stuck with universal appeal we’d have the bland top40 equivalent of design everywhere.
sfrenegade, I think you can criticize design quite well without getting personal by focusing on the design, rather than the people who are involved (or you assume are involved).
Saying someone is an asshat or a showoff is pretty juvenile criticism. First, there is the assumption you know their motivation or their demeaner, which is purely a guess. Secondly, it attacks the person rather than their actions.
It’s one of the first rules of successful marriage not to violate. Far better to illustrate your intellect by explaining exactly what is wrong with a POV or design and how it could be improved.
You still misunderstood me. I wasn’t calling the person an asshat, but rather thought someone else was. I do think they’re a show-off and I stand behind that comment because the glass box design specifically reflects that character. There is nothing innovative here. It’s just a damn glass box. I think I’ve seen it in Vegas, but they usually have women dancing in them. I see very little built for function except those silly portholes that look contrived, as tj said. They also didn’t use the lot to their advantage like some other steep-lot buildings featured on SS have done.
I’m not really sure how you can take your statement at 2:47PM and reconcile it with “stop attacking the person,” but “do as I say, not as I do” is explanation enough.
Let me explain the difference. Calling people names and calling them out for specific behavior are not the same thing. Did I call you or anyone else a name?
There was stabbing right outside their future doorstep a month ago: http://missionmission.wordpress.com/2010/09/25/stabbing-last-night-on-20th-and-church/
pacific, that’s a nice attempt to backpedal, but did you or did you not violate “First, there is the assumption you know their motivation or their demeaner” with that comment? I certainly was not calling anyone an asshat, but what does calling someone an “asshat” have to do with motivation or demeanor?
“built from reclaimed lumber sourced from the San Francisco Presidio”
I do have one question about this reclaimed lumber. Maybe more than one question:
1) how does one obtain this sort of thing?
2) does the “reclaiming” process get rid of all the toxins and other substances that previously treated the wood?
The example I’m thinking of with question #2 is when people re-use old railroad ties. My impression is that old railroad ties used creosote and other toxic chemicals to treat the wood. Presumably other old timbers would be similar, since we gave a little less thought to using such toxins back in the day.
there’s nothing wrong with not liking a design, but why make it personal?
This is a very personalized design? Who is Peter going to sell this to down the road? I’m reacting solely to the solid glass facades, not the minimalist design, I would never call somewhat who liked brutalism or minimal ornamentation an “asshat”, and I certainly would cheer for any Victorian or Queen Anne to be removed and replaced with something “sharper”, if such a thing were possible and did not worsen the neighborhood’s ambience.
If the neighbors indeed like this addition to their neighborhood, then Peter is not necessarily an asshat I guess.
My boss’s boss was named Peter at Apple btw, but I don’t think this is house : )
sfrenegade – lumber reclaimed from a building’s interior isn’t chemically treated.
The reclamation process is pretty straightforward. When an old building with promising lumber is scheduled for demolition the demo contractors can opt to carefully disassemble parts of the building rather than the normal destructive demo. It takes longer. A normal SFH can be destructively flattened in a matter of hours with rented Cat equipment. The reclamation process takes days on the other hand because car must be taken to remove the reclaimed members without breaking. Pulling the nails and bolts out is a manual process.
Usually the larger pieces are reclaimed and smaller stuff like 2x4s discarded. Then the reclaimed lumber is often milled down to smaller dimensions which makes it look almost new.
It is a costly process due to the manual labor and the mill tends to go through blades faster because of hidden metal. But at least the “raw materials” comes for free.
I’m glad that people take the effort to reclaim wood, especially when the huge solid old growth beams are recovered. They don’t make ’em like that anymore.
As for obtaining reclaimed lumber, I know that there are specialist lumber yards in the bay area though don’t have their names handy. As you might imagine their inventory is inconsistent and constantly changing. You have to check their inventory to see if there’s a match to your project.
As for reclaimed railway ties, I’ve never seen these used for anything but landscaping. And I cringe when they’re used for raised food garden beds due to the toxic chemical treatment.
Institutional builders have little if anything to do with “pushing the envelope”, as noted by milkshake.
I believe it has much more to do with the architect and the design team.
Architects design. Builders build.
correction; architects design and builders figure out how to make the ‘design’ translate to actual
world conditions.
Not really. Architects design and builders learn how to read detailed construction documents and specifications necessary to build great buildings.
To paraphrase the famous line from “The Graduate”, I have one word for you “privacy”. This design feels very, very public. Just compare with it’s neighbor which probably enjoys the great views to the north and east without being viewed from the street. All the best however.
noearch – sorry, my language was not concise enough. By institutional builders I meant the institutional sponsors of these buildings, not their contractors who oversee the actual construction. Without those sponsors many daring designs would never exist. For example Thom Mayne didn’t just fund that huge building in mid-market out of his pocket and then approach the federal officials to move into it. Rather it was the other way around.
So let me try again : Sponsors of institutional buildings are the biggest force at pushing the envelope.
I don’t know about that. Not sure if we disagree, or simply are using different “words” to define the movers and shakers of “pushing the envelope”.
Great architecture is a collaboration of the owner/sponsor and the architect, but I still give the majority of credit to the architect. Without Thom Mayne the Federal Building would never have been as dynamic and creative as it is today.
I’d give the majority of the credit to the person paying for it. Thom Mayne might be great, but if nobody pays him or pays to build his drawings, it’s a moot point.
Well of course the architect has a part in pushing the envelope, that is pretty obvious. I still think that the project sponsor’s contribution is very significant and under-recognized. Though I’ve got no way of proving it I feel that there are far more avant-garde designs than there are occasions to fund and realize them.
I’ll bet that Gehry would have abandoned his trademark “curved sheet metal” style long ago if it weren’t so much in demand. Sponsorship can heavily influence and distort artistic output. (I’ll leave it to the reader to decide whether for the better or worse 🙂
Thanks for the explanation on reclaimed lumber, Milkshake. I didn’t realize what they were talking about was re-use from existing residential structures. There are a decent number of old structures in the Bay Area with high quality redwood that was used back in the day.
“As for reclaimed railway ties, I’ve never seen these used for anything but landscaping. And I cringe when they’re used for raised food garden beds due to the toxic chemical treatment.”
Yeah, I definitely cringe at that one too. Those things are full of toxic chemicals.
Nope. I still don’t agree. The architect and his/her design team (consultants, engineers, etc.) play the major role in determining a buildings form, shape, mass, design. The owner (or sponsor, if you choose to call it that) pays the bills and perhaps has the initial “program”, but a knowledgeable client will respect the architect’s role, talent and influence in determining the outcome of the building. The client must respect the architect, as well as vice versa. The architect is not the “pencil”, or the “computer program” for the client.
You seem to be assuming that the architect is “hungry” and will take the fee to do anything to please the client. Many architects turn down projects when the client is deemed to be too demanding or controlling.
A few years ago, I was interviewed by some wealthy Pacific Heights clients for their home remodel. The fee was large. They wanted me and were ready to sign the contract. However, in further discussions with them regarding their role, I determined that they basically wanted me to “draw” their plans, and nothing more.
I turned the project down.
my understanding is that the recycled lumber from the presidio is eucalyptus felled because of the doyle drive project.
“The client must respect the architect”…
“The architect and his/her design team .. play the major role”
“The owner (or sponsor, if you choose to call it that) pays the bills”
sounds like its all about the architect…
“sounds like its all about the architect…”
If you’ve read previous comments by noearch about working with an architect, you’d know this is nothing new. 🙂 The client comes first.
Trouble with your comments renegade and anonee is that you didn’t quote me accurately.
“The client must respect the architect, as well as vice versa.” You seemed to have left off a key part of my statement. Rather disingenuous, I’d say.
Neither the client nor the architect “come first”. Collaboration and constant dialogue are required for success.
If you really understood the complex process of architectural design, you would understand that it is a collaborative process. The architect should have the training, knowledge, talent and experience to understand and interpret the client’s goals, and in fact “push the envelope” with the goal of delivering a project that EXCEEDS the client’s expectations.