Damaged by a fire, while the façade of the Dogpatch Victorian at 911 Minnesota Street has been restored and the rear reframed, the interior remains “a blank canvas.”
From the listing for the property across the street from the Homes on Esprit Park:
“Architectural concepts for two floor plans are available. The first envisions a 2 bedroom/ 2 1/2 bath home of 1,630 square feet within the existing envelope. The second plan would expand the home to 4 bedrooms/4 1/2 baths in 2,570 square feet.”
On the market for $799,000 as-in, which concept might you choose to pursue? Keep in mind that neither of the new concepts/plans have been submitted to City for approvals.
∙ Listing: 911 Minnesota Street – $799,000 [911minnesota.com]
Pelton Cottage: http://goo.gl/5s8K4J
Be warned — you will not be allowed to do any renovation that will modify the facade or the street-facing envelope, because these cottages are “contributing” structures for the historic district. There are more than a few DP residents who are extremely rigid about adherence to the historic district guidelines — and will lodge protests and report anything they believe to be awry.
So … I’m curious what the (as-yet unsubmitted) plans are for turning the cottage into a 4 Br.
^nimby states the obvious. any historic facade needs to be kept. these days, they can fight to get a 4-bedroom approved as they can go down and probably back a bit per the lot size/neighboring buildings
Can someone explain to me why four bedrooms is now the new three bedrooms. This is a City with small lots in the residential neighborhoods. Are they putting four bedrooms in all these apartments they are building? No I think at most it is two. I mean I think I know why I just would like to see the responses to my question..
@Noe_mom:
A little farther afield than just, ‘Why 4 bedrooms’ but my take: We are in the middle of a huge housing boom in San Francisco. It’s difficult to tell while it’s going on, and it’s contrary to what’s happening in the economy in almost every other part of the country. Money is being squeezed into every angle of residential real estate in the city.
There are many challenges and limitations on building and expanding multifamily homes and structures. In contrast, in the planning code, the single family home provides the greatest options for flexibility, the fewest limitations on expansion. (No new building code, parking requirements if you make a 1500sf house 2500sf, but there are those requirements if you add a second 1000sf unit.)
Builders want to build ‘valuable’ homes. Families (buyers) who are going to commit to living in the city and are willing to put seven figures into a house want some reassurance they will have room to grow. Or have a home office, a spare guest room plus one for each of two kids, etc. etc..
If you are a builder taking on a single family project like this one, it makes sense to aim for the fattest wallets. You add living space, you add bedrooms, you make money. Nobody pays for backyard space. Real estate agent math stops right around (SF of living space)*(PPSF of comparable homes).
@soccermom How do you support your claim that people don’t pay for yards? Seems like a pretty simple idea that if you had two similar homes in a similar location, the one with the yard would be more desirable, no? And it’s my opinion that when the weather permits, and in this hood it often does, a well designed yard with comfortable seating and maybe even a fireplace is superior to a “great room” for hosting guests. But then again some great rooms are pretty awesome. But in general, outdoor entertaining is very enjoyable for the host and the guests. It’s an amenity for sure. People pay for amenities. No?
Boo – My point is not about two similar houses, where one has a bigger yard.
My point is that if you have a development opportunity like this posting (with a finite parcel space) a big house on a small lot will be worth more than a small house on the same lot. So people keep making 2/1 cottages into 4/3 family homes.
@soccermom – Oh, yeah, that makes sense. I misssed your point. Sorry about that.
Sold for $1,152,000