In the words of a plugged-in tipster: “Here’s a great video to show the lengths people will go to get parking in their historic home.”
In the words of the architects:
The bottom floor of the building, a historic Victorian apartment house [at 1701 Oak Street], had a hodgepodge of storage rooms, utility spaces and an ancient studio apartment shoehorned between a dozen wood posts. The original brick foundations were underfoot. The project structural engineer, Don David of Double D Engineering determined that as part of upgrading the seismic strength of the structure they could get rid of the columns and the partitions, build new concrete footings, and create a clean open garage space. The problem, as Corey found out when he asked the planning department to review the project, was how to get a car in.
The front wall of the ground floor had a three sided bay window, with windows on each face [editor’s note: actually, only on two as captured below], matching the bays on the levels above, and the city planning department had recently started enforcing its mandate to limit changes to the character of historic building’s front facades – including conversion of bay windows into garage doors. Their design guidelines require that fronts of buildings, front yards, fencing, and similar relics of historic design be left largely intact, and that changes must be made in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings. Replacement of the bay window with a garage door, a common practice for many years, was no longer an option. Plus we needed to find a contractor who did windows and doors in atlanta that were suitable for the house. Not many do wooden window frames anymore!
Corey, a mechanical engineer by education and a problem solver by nature, conceived the idea of converting the walls of the bay window into door panels that would fold into the garage space to allow cars to enter, and then fold back into place, keeping the historic appearance intact. The planning department agreed that this concept was provisionally acceptable.
And as what’s now the entrance to the garage as it looked before:
? Architectural Magic [beausoleil-architects.com]
Seems like he’ll forever have trouble with people parking in front of it, since they won’t know it is actually a garage door.
Even if it has the driveway instead of a sidewalk, signs, red curb, whatever, people will still think there’s no garage there and park in front of it.
There’s clearly a “No Parking” sign above the door. Whatever inconveniences that may be suffered due to morons parking in your driveway may be offset by the fun in having them towed.
I’m wondering how wide the doorway becomes when the doors swing open? It doesn’t look as if the “right” door folds flat when its retracted.
Cool idea. As for people mistakenly parking in front of the hidden door that is certainly an issue. Adding a “no parking” sign partially defeats the purpose of hiding the garage door.
I once had a narrow dirt driveway that people frequently didn’t notice and parked in front of. One day my roommate got fed up and called to have the car towed. This time it was our next-door neighbor’s girlfriend. Oops !
(note that the “before” photo seems to have a seam in the middle of the bay. This isn’t a real cut but rather an artifact of the streetview photo stitching)
That is too. Freaking. Cool. I love it.
I agree about people not realizing it’s a garage and parking in front of it, though. But nevertheless a genius idea.
Take that anti-parking/car mafia disguised as historical preservationists!
actually, I think it’s assinine. Cool yes, and a marvel of engineering. But so incredibly stupid. While I would prefer to see no garage at all, in this case IMHO a garage door would look better.
If you’re going to mandate historic appearance, you might as well mandate historic use.
Fishchum: You can’t expect everybody to be able to see through walls and cool garage doors disguised as Victorian bay windows.
A “No Parking” sign in this situation is meaningless: it could be purchased at a hardware store by anyone and posted anywhere – yet one is not supposed to park only where one clearly blocks the driveway.
I don’t expect people to. A sign, driveway and painted curb cuts should be enough.
Interesting. Anybody nearby know the clearance?
“A sign, driveway and painted curb cuts should be enough.”
I disagree. There are lots of artifact curb cuts and unenforcebale ‘no parking’ signs in the city. I would have to see it in person but based on the photos I think that might be my first thought here.
With this garage entrance, I would get an agreement with Joe Shmoe’s Tow to get a $50 commission per sucker. Do this 2-3 times a day and you’ve got yourself an easy cash printing business. Heck, you could even park the tow truck close-by because it’s gonna happen every. freaking. day.
I can’t imagine someone being stupid enough to risk their car being towed and impounded because they thought the sign was “unenforceable” – especially where there’s a driveway and fresh curb cuts in front of the garage. But I suppose it happens.
This seems like an excellent case for applying the red DPT logo painted curbs. Most people should notice and honor that designation. But yeah, you’ll also get higher than normal accidental illegal parking.
Do people who regularly think people will block this garage normally park at curb cuts that don’t have an obvious garage? I tend not to do so at any curb cut, e.g. even if it’s fenced off without an obvious gate. Are there some large number of curb cuts in SF that don’t have driveways/garages that you’d think about it?
Also seems like the easy solution is to put red DPT curbs, but then you can’t block your own driveway.
Don’t you mean “In the words of Curbed” since the Youtube video has been posted since March 31 and serendipitously appears on Socketsite a few hours after Curbed.
[Editor’s Note: Nope, we mean in the words of our tipster who sent us the link at 11 this morning, what would appear to have been a few hours before Curbed. And while we could have posted it earlier, we decided to wait until we could track down the address and a decent “before” shot.]
curmudgeon:
“actually, I think it’s assinine. Cool yes, and a marvel of engineering. But so incredibly stupid. While I would prefer to see no garage at all, in this case IMHO a garage door would look better.
If you’re going to mandate historic appearance, you might as well mandate historic use.”
curmudgeon, I’ll bet you’d be OK if the City “mandated” how often and when you “use” your toilet at home.
It must be torture for you to live in the free world – do you long for a life in North Korea?
I am so incredibly impressed with this solution – this takes creative problem solving to an entirely new level.
This is a simply awesome example of creative and sensitive property owners who have gone to extraordinary trouble and expense to exercise their right to improve their own property …. while at the same time preserving the right of the general public to enjoy a well planned “public realm”.
Bravo
Oh, bubblesurfer, don’t make me out to be a humorless curmudgeon.
I don’t like this solution, aesthetically. I also don’t like that it is forced as the only way to meet the city’s asinine requirement. That’s why I said “if you’re going to mandate historic appearance you might as well mandate historic use”.
I DO think it is brilliant…but only in the “brilliant way to get around a seeming unsolvable problem”.
I actually believe that a nice understated garage door would look better than this. This reminds me of disneyland. And, just to be clear…I hate disneyland. 🙂
What was the total cost? It’s hard not to have dedicated parking. I kinda think there is an irrational war on cars that fails to differentiate btwn smart cars and huge suv’s. It very hard City for contractors. Try to have a family and work and bring kids to child care and get groceries on a bus. Our policies and space combined contribute to making living in the City almost impossible for any but the rich and poor, many with a form of subsidy which I fully support. Just not the middle class or even working class.
Everyone who thinks that everyone will magically obey a private “No parking” sign, and curb cuts, and red curbs, must be living in a different SF than I do.
For many years I lived in a small building with all of those things — signs, red curbs, and all, in front of an obvious garage door. Yet, invariably, at least once a month someone would decide to park there.
This is not to mention the whole other set of people who believe it is okay to park anywhere as long as the emergency flashers are on, or if they’re only going to be away for “a minute”.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not making any judgment at all on the clever design of the stealth garage. I’m just noting that a side effect of it will invariably be an increase in driveway blockage, as many desperate drivers will see what they think is a remodel that removed an old garage and therefore think it is now okay to park there, regardless of any signs or curbs.
Wahahaha…all you people who think a curb cut, red paint, or a no parking sign deter aggressive parkers. The paved driveway to my small apartment bldg is blocked by a gate. We have the curb cut, red paint, 24-hour no parking sign, the whole 9 yards, and at least 75% of the time on weekends some dumbass squeezes his car in, congratulating himself on his “parking karma.” None of those totems deter SF parkers in the slightest and the property owner at 1701 Oak won’t have any more or less of a problem with a blocked driveway due to his aesthetic solution. Blocked driveways are just endemic in this city.
Is that for real? Looks great! Well, that’s a great comprise between a homeowner’s need for a garage and the need to protect (respect) the public living room (public realm).
I’ve been trying to wrap my head around this one, and it simply makes no sense.
The City Planning Code does allow garage doors, with defined “historic” styles, but are rarely enforced as to the style installed.
A classic, high quality wood garage doors would have perfect sense here. To pretend this is a 3 part bay window is just disingenuous and, well..kinda stupid. The double hung windows in the fake bay are squat and out of proportion compared to the existing very tall windows. What were they thinking?
Well, the architectural firm who designed this appears to design lots of overbloated McMansions with lots of fake style thrown in.
Dumb idea, and yea pretty asinine.
awe cmon noearch – first of all, I don’t need to explain to you that Planning over the past year or so has put the skids on garage conversions when the bay goes to grade, so there was no way they would have even allowed a “historic” styled door.
And cmon, it’s not “disingenuous”….. it’s genius!
But I totally agree with you about the windows being squat and outa proportion.
The chances of that lower-floor bay having been original to the house are pretty darn slim.
NO, the planning dept. has not put the “skids” (what does that mean) on garage conversions over the past year. They have very defined guidelines and criteria, but you can still put one in, if you meet the strict requirements.
It does appear that there was and original bay window at that location before the garage. But there’s no way the Planning Dept. would really “require” the owner and architect to create a false movable bay in place of a traditional garage door, but they supported it.
The owner obviously as a mechanical engineer became intrigued with the movable bay idea and pursued it. I wouldn’t call it “genius” but I suppose it’s “clever” or “geeky”.
I wish they had put in a new street tree as well.
Wow, can’t believe I agree with noearch, but I do on this one. Great comment by noearch. I predict that some time in the future, when SS gets to be about 50 years old, someone is going to ask:
“Why on earth did the City at one time make people do this to get a garage door. This is a fake bay — that isn’t historic at all. It is built to deceive people.”
And, by the way, what is the enforcement when this door breaks and the next owner installs whatever they want?
This is right up there with the downtown office buildings, such as 650 California, that don’t have any parking. Instead, all the executives in the building rent parking across the street from St Mary’s Square garage for a $390 dollars per month.
And one more thing — the $3.00 “No Parking” sign sure looks nice with the fancy new historically correct yet historically inaccurate garage door…
Agreed that a normal garage door would look a lot better and less jarring than the black and orange NO PARKING sign.
U G L Y
“The chances of that lower-floor bay having been original to the house are pretty darn slim.”
What gave it away? The inexpensive, modern, smaller windows or the non-ornate, doesn’t-match-the-rest-of-the-building, cheap, almost corrugated-steel-looking siding underneath them?
Whoever slapped that in there on the cheap must be having quite the chuckle watching anyone trying to “preserve” it.
I don’t think this is a “clever” deign at all. If they were *really* clever, they would have a piece of plywood with a car painted on it standing up on the street blocking the entrance from anyone who wanted to park in front of the garage, that would be hinged on the bottom and would drop down automatically when the garage door opened.
noearch:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/put+the+skids+on
And I said Planning has been “putting the skids” on garage conversions “when the bay goes to grade” – I agree with you that they will allow garage conversions if the project “meets strict requirements” as you put it…..and one of the strict requirements is that the bay can’t go to grade!
And I’m not saying it takes a genius or a rocket scientist to figure out how to make this happen mechanically…..I’m saying that for someone to find a way around the f%*! up planning code and get their garage in …. is awesome – I love it.
I think it would cost very little money to change the windows to a more historically correct size and type – the owners should do this and in my book that will make this a perfect end run around too much damn process in this city!
The process is too damn high!
Don’t forget to tag this as “Exceptional Garage Doors”
A giant sticker on the garage door would have been sooo much more fun. And probably cheaper too:
http://www.style-your-garage.com/us/index.php?id_lc=15
But getting to see your local tow truck driver on a daily basis: priceless. He’ll probably give you “instant rewards” for your not-so-clever idea.
^^^ beware the sound. Not safe for work;) ^^^
BRAVO to the cleverista who conjured up this solution. I tried to do this to a new house in Noe Valley where the entire front wall would flip up like old garage doors where the seams were at the side so you couldn’t tell, at all that there was a 16′-0″ wide garage door. Looked like no garage at all. Response from Planning’s vaunted “Residential Design Team”? NO WAY, it would set a precedent. Better to take up much more space in the interior to have the required two car parking and have one 8′-0″ door facing the street. !@&^%$#’ers.
a curb cut with no driveway or visible red curb with MTC logo is not enforceable, according to what I have been told.
The easiest way to prevent accidental blockage parking here would be to keep fresh MTC-applied red paint all the way across the curb cut, so people get clued in that it’s in active use.
The solution here is ‘gee whiz’ interesting, but belies planning’s stated goal of preserving historic character. Apparently, as long as it LOOKS historic, that’s good enough. Who the hell wants to live in a city as fake as that? Pretty soon we’ll have buildings that look historical from the outside, but are completely modern on the inside. Oh wait, those are already a dime a dozen.
The only people impressed by buildings that merely look like victorians on the outside are tourists, because they don’t get to go inside, so aren’t in on the joke. How many people come to SF just to SEE it?
If it was me, I’d paint a trompe l’oeil garage door over the thing.
@rr: You just described the “Disneyfication” of San Francisco, which I have been critical of the Historic Preservation Commission for pushing.
marvinsnephew – I totally get you – you seem to be one of the few on here who understands the feat that was achieved here in terms of process…….where most of these other posters can only look at what was not achieved in terms of appearance/style/design.
Bravo indeed!
rr –
“Apparently, as long as it LOOKS historic, that’s good enough”
Where would you draw the line – what happens when beetles chew away a section of siding on a historic house – would removing rotten siding and replacing it “in kind” with new siding be inappropriate since it would only LOOK historic, as you put it? Can you expand?
Well…commenting on what marvinsnephew noted is one of the good components of the Residential Design Guidelines: Limiting the width of a garage door to 8′-0″ vs a 16′-0″ wide door makes total sense from an exterior architectural and urban design point of view. The smaller door has a reduced “visual impact” on the street, and it limits the curb cut to 8′-0″ wide. Much nicer from a design point of view as well as not reducing available curb side parking dimensions.
The garage door width is clearly tied into the curbcut WIDTH as well. I would assume the Planning Dept. did not so much object to the “hiding” of the door expression, as to the actual width.
Yes, it does require a deeper garage space to accommodate 2 car parking where each car must be independently allowed to enter and exit. That’s up to the owner/architect/builder to solve, and it’s not that big of a deal. Taking up more space at the garage interior does not negatively impact the street side design.
I support the Residential Design Guidelines as a good thing for our neighborhoods.
Thank you for this article. I found it extremely helpful.