Purchased for $3,275,000 in August 2006, the steel framed house at 112 Mallorca Way has returned to the market asking $3,479,000.
Listed at 4,669 square feet, the Marina home boasts six decks, five bedrooms, four (and one-half) baths, a three-car garage, two fireplaces (that “have been sheet rocked over but can be brought back to working order”), and a legal “one-bedroom apartment” below.
∙ Listing: 112 Mallorca Way (5/4.5) – $3,479,000 [obeo.com] [MLS]
This may be a dumb question but I don’t know much about the topic. Is the steel frame significantly better from an earthquake on landfill perspective?
A properly designed steel frame is better than just about any other framing material regardless of the stability of earth it is on. Maybe if it gets cheap enough, carbon fiber might replace it as a better framing material.
I want to color those windows like a Mondrian painting
This is the ugliest house I have ever seen. And I only count 4 bedrooms.
cost-plus pricing* + hiring an overpaid power broker + buying the most improved house on the street at the peak of the bubble = another dumb seller expecting to “break even”.
* cost-plus = purchase price + 6% commission
Oooh, this looks like another one of them “double-wide” San Franscisco row houses.
Or does that expression only apply in trailer parks?
i believe a steel frame will likely keep your house standing in a major earthquake, but will do nothing to prevent the ensuing fire started by your next-door neighbor’s severed gas line.
True about the fire risk but at least the steel frame will resist a collapse immediately caused by the quake. That’s the purpose of most seismic construction techniques: ensure that the building remains sound enough so the occupants can safely evacuate. Most steel frames are designed to permanently deform (but not collapse) in a large quake rendering the building uninhabitable.
So though you might lose your house at least you haven’t lost your life.
Only four bedrooms and only a studio apt. below.
“Maybe if it gets cheap enough, carbon fiber might replace it as a better framing material.”
But isn’t the issue with carbon fiber that you can’t necessarily inspect for cracks easily? The positive is that it doesn’t corrode as easily as steel.
“Only four bedrooms and only a studio apt. below.”
Yes, I’m assuming the visible 114 above the 2nd door is the studio.
Yes, sfrenegade: on second thought carbon fiber might not outperform good old steel for seismic applications. That’s because unlike steel, carbon fiber doesn’t “gracefully degrade” when facing stronger forces. It just suddenly snaps. Steel on the other hand would become ductile and absorb even more energy (though it would then be ruined).
Oh well, there goes that dream of organic Roger Dean style perspex and carbon fiber living pods 🙂
I guess they spent all the money on the steel (which is nice), but didn’t spend any on an attractive facade. Really unattractive!
Some comments that there are actually fewer bedrooms than advertised. Someone playing fast and loose with the facts? Why? It’s not like the buyer isn’t going to notice, is it?
And not much nicer looking on the inside.
Perhaps the agent is counting the permitted separate studio as the 5th BR?
Also carbon fiber might not be so great in a fire, the epoxy would probably melt and possibly give off toxic chlorine gas…
The agent’s website clearly states: “Five bedrooms, four and a half remodeled bathrooms, legal one bedroom apartment with kitchen and separate entrance.”
There are only 4 bedrooms, 3.5 baths and a legal studio apartment. How can an agent get 3 crucial facts wrong and even print this on a brochure?
Also, it’s a “custom built steel framed modern home” but built in 1924. A way of saying that was a remodel in name only?
And, this note:
“Note: There is a fireplace in the living room and a fireplace in the master bedroom. Both fireplaces have been sheet rocked over but can be brought back to working order.”
The MBR looks like it’s sitting in a mezzanine lobby at Lincoln Center.
Transporter malfunction, no doubt.
Property Shark has it as RH3. It’s not uncommon to find 2 units on RH3 but I don’t know if this would be allowed today.
I’d bet the pre-redo state was an actual functional 2-unit, and that the “legal unit” has been kept to get it permitted into a manse.
As was already stated, I also only counted 4 possible bedrooms.
I understand that this is probably a beginners question, but can someone on here help me understand how the agents get floor plans/lay outs for listings like the photograph above shows?
They sheetrocked over the fireplaces?! Who on earth would do that? This place is a hot mess.
lol, your bet is pretty close…
According to the San Francisco Building Dept. permit history for this property, the structure was originally two flats that were merged into one unit. Oddly, the permit is indicated as expired.
Also, all lots with RH-3 zoning are allowed to have up to three units. Oversize lots with RH-3 zoning can have additional units. (1,500 square feet of lot area per unit)
inmycountry,
My question is more, in the case of an empty lot with no pre-existing structure, will the Building Department allow you to build only 1 or 2 units where you’re allowed up to 3? Don’t they have a “density first” mantra, or do you still own the right to under-utilize?
Aren’t fore-closed on tract developments in the central valley already full of those cheap front doors and garage doors?
Did they have to bring them here too?
lol,
Good question. I don’t know the answer, but suppose it may depend on the circumstances of a particlar lot, such as lot size, neighboring structures and type and size of proposed units. (perhaps noearch will weigh in on your question)
It makes me wonder though, how they merged the two units on this property, as merging units on any building built before 1985 requires a variance and the permit history does not indicate one was applied for or granted.
The 2000 permit is to convert the upper 2 units into 1 unit and add a fourth story. Which would of course mean all new foundation and framing on the lowest level so it got redone then and made into the “guest suite”.
Variance wasn’t needed to do this until later.
sparky-b,
A variance wouldn’t be needed for the “guest suite” unit. In fact it may have been pre-existing before this round of remodeling. In other words, two flats and a one bedroom ground floor apartment on an RH-3 lot would be perfectly legal.
However, a variance would be needed to merge the the two flats into one unit, as SF Planning views this as reducing the housing stock. The variance would have to be granted prior to starting any construction.
Adding the forth floor is a separate issue and is what triggers the new foundation and full structural upgrade.
Yes, I agree. This was a 3 unit merged into 2 units. That wasn’t my point about the variance; my point is that you need a variance to merge the units now, but you didn’t need a variance in 2000.
Oh…I misunderstood you. And thanks for clarifying the variance date for merging units.
In Escrow.
Sold: $3,479,000
an apple?
Purchased for $3,275,000 in August 2006
up 6.2% is quite the suprising result. congratulations to the 2006 buyer