3822 24th Street circa 2012

From the listing of the little single-family home at 3822 24th Street which purchased for $759,000 in March of 2012 and didn’t include the lot next door:

“This SFR on 24th St in the heart of Noe Valley is a very special piece of SF real estate. The home features include period details with high ceilings, tremendous natural light as the property is detached on most of 4 sides, lovely tranquil garden, formal living room and dine in kitchen with deck off master bedroom into lovely garden.”

Since then, a five-story building has risen on the adjacent 3820 24th Street lot.

3822 24th Street circa 2015

And the buyers of 3822 24th street have requested permission to demolish their two-bedroom home and build a four-story-over-basement building, with five condos over a ground-floor retail space and parking for five bicycles, on the site.

Permits for the project, which were first filed back in February of 2014, have been awaiting the Planning Commission’s approval of the development, the hearing for which was originally scheduled for this week but has been pushed back to April 23.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by anon

    Good stuff, get it built now.

  2. Posted by jenofla

    And the city grows up. So it takes over a year to even get approval for this kind of project? Wow.

    • Posted by soccermom

      A year is optimistic for a demolition permit for a small charming-ish house.

  3. Posted by woolie

    The dreaded pop-up has arrived on the Western shores.

  4. Posted by zig

    Great location. I miss it

  5. Posted by seriously

    could they move the historic building? it’s just not appropriate density for such a lively corridor like 24th. I’m sure someone would love to have this home somewhere in the country or south bay. maybe they could work something out with the city and get a break if they save the historic structure.

    • Posted by zig

      I think a lot of the detail on this structure has been stripped off and I imagine it has been a rental for some time

    • Posted by wc1e

      Historic? How so?

      • Posted by woolie

        Looks old. Automatically historic. Duh.

    • Posted by Futurist

      This little house has zero historic value. It’s just an old Victorian era cottage. Demo it and build new housing and retail at this site. And yes with parking.

      • Posted by anon

        Curb cut on 24th? No.

        • Posted by Anon1

          What about the curb cut on the right and left hand side? Are those o.k. with you, or do you want those gone as well?

          • Posted by anon

            Ideally they should be gone as well.

          • Posted by sparky*b

            The new building next door is 2 commercial, 4? residential and has no parking.

            [Editor’s Note: 3820 24th Street includes 5 residential units.]

          • Posted by PC

            3820 24th St only contains 3 residential units, not 5. You can see their plans at luxon24th(dot)com

            [Editor’s Note: Good catch, that’s definitely our mistake. We were working off an elevation of the building and missed the fact that 301 and 302 are multi-story units.]

        • Posted by zig

          Curb cuts on 24th are really a negative for pedestrians but Futurist is a car nut

          • Posted by moto mayhem

            i think we can all agree that there should be at least 1 curb cut for parking for a 5 unit condo.

          • Posted by zig

            The problem is just in general that curb cuts on a pedestrian street suck. I used to walk here with my little kids and it is bad. As much as possible this needs to be avoided. If there is no side or alley access this might be housing best without parking.

          • Posted by anon

            No, we can’t “all” agree on that. Pedestrian streets should not have curb cuts. Build the parking in another building on another street.

          • Posted by Mystery Realtor

            No, we can’t all agree.

          • Posted by NoeNeighbor

            They really should have combined the two lots and made one larger building with a curb cut. I have a small child and really don’t think that curb cuts are the end of the world — it is part of living in the city.

          • Posted by anon

            “it’s part of living in a city”

            Um, not it’s not. Curb cuts are exceptionally rare in most cities in the world on pedestrian heavy streets.

          • Posted by Sierrajeff

            Most pedestrian-heavy areas in other cities have alleys, that provide car and service access.

          • Posted by anon

            Not true. Most European and Asian cities do not have alleys.

        • Posted by Futurist

          Curb cuts work fine in mixed use areas. 4-5 cars entering and leaving on any one day is hardly disruptive. Take the example farther up 24th next to Whole Foods. The building had residential above commercial with a curb cut for the below grade parking. On any given day only a few cars enter and leave, randomly. People wait, they pull in or out and life goes on.

          It works.

          • Posted by zig

            Does not work well for families with small kids. Sure it is manageable here and there but if you repeat it over and over you no longer have a mixed use area

          • Posted by moto mayhem

            the rest of the world seems to be able to live with the small inconvenience of the probability of having to wait 30 senconds for a car to pull in or out of driveway once every 2 months, but in SF we just cant handle anything that so dramatically disrupts our lives. the horror of having to wait

          • Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

            Folks, if it was just this parcel then there would not be much to be concerned about. But it is every parcel along the upper 24th commercial zone that combines to create inefficient ped/car conflicts.

            This is a bad situation for everyone on the street. Obviously there’s the ped conflict at the curb cut. But there’s also the problem of a car on the street waiting for a gap in the ped traffic. While they’re waiting to turn into the driveway they’re holding up traffic behind them.

          • Posted by anon

            moto – have you been outside the US? Most of the rest of the world absolutely does not allow curb cuts on pedestrian-heavy streets.

          • Posted by S

            funny you bring up whole foods as those curb cuts are probably the best example for zig’s point

          • Posted by Joel

            It’s not just the entering/exiting of vehicles that is problematic. It’s the issue of a) introducing a dead space in the commercial corridor which, especially during a bad economy, can influence vacancies in the adjacent retail spaces and blight b) removing an on-street parking space and c) reducing the amount of space available to install sidewalk amenities like seating, street trees, bike racks, etc.

          • Posted by Sierrajeff

            Joel is right – it’s all the friggin’ curb cuts in this City make street parking a nightmare, not some monstrous number of cars per se. I’d love to see homes in the Richmond and Sunset required to combine their curb cuts (i.e., with angled driveways), so as to free up more curb space.

            In this specific example, suppose they make a curb cut so that a future building can park 5 cars. That’s removing one (or more likely 2, because it will be badly spaced) street spaces – which see regular daily use and turnover – for the sake of parking 5 vehicles off-street – which 5 vehicles will only use that curb cut 2x a day at most. So 98% of the time, the former parking space (or spaces) sits unused and unusable.

          • Posted by moto mayhem

            anon. i’ve been to 6 eu countries, latin american countries and 2 asian countries so far this year. yes, i travel a lot. many EU tcountries have extensive use of alleyways that we dont have.

            Have you ever been outside of US?

          • Posted by anon

            moto – I live in Tokyo now, and have lived in Barcelona, London, Buenos Aires, and Paris in the past. None of those cities have extensive alleys (some alleys in newer areas, but they’re very, very, VERY rare), yet all manage to avoid curb cuts on heavy pedestrian streets.

            This isn’t hard, you simply ban curb cuts on pedestrian streets like 24th and have more curb cuts on streets like 23rd or 25th. Why is that impossible for “innovative” SF to do?

    • Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

      Moving this house to the city limits would be enormously expensive, let along moving to Marin or Santa Clara counties. Santa Clara county already has its share of “unwanted” old vics which are routinely sold for $1 with the condition that the buyer has to move it off of the parcel. Often one dollar is not low enough to find a buyer.

      • Posted by zig

        My father told me when we was a kid and they built 280 on his block they did sell the houses for $1 and they were dragging them down the street to open land further south

        I am sure now nobody wants a house like this

    • Posted by stevenj

      According to the giant Planning Commission sign that has been erected in front of this home recently it is not considered a “historic resource” probably because most of the detail has been removed from the front facade. Still, if the inside is mostly intact, this lovely little Victorian will soon be dust.

  6. Posted by Jake

    Noe has a 1.2+ car to household ratio on average and higher than that for non-rentals, such as these. 93% of owner-occupied housing units in Noe have at least one car and less than 40% of Noe housing is SFH. The CA car registration data doesn’t lag so much, and shows a slight increase in car ownership in SF since this Census data.

    One out of every four people in this area with a job, drive to work outside of SF. As I have explained before on SS, the 1989 quake and closing of the central fwy north of Market made Noe very desirable for people that commute to the valley. Just minutes away from both 101 and 280.

    Whatever your hopes for the future, it is unrealistic to expect that these 10 housing units with zero parking will not add to the parking congestion in the immediate neighborhood. One corner of their block is residential parking zone S and the other is zone Z. I wonder which one they ask to have expanded to cover them.

  7. Posted by Kris

    It’s a great location.

  8. Posted by Greg

    This is why we have a housing shortage in SF. Over a year in Planning and probably still a long way to go until they can break ground. SF Planning Dept processes need a complete overhaul.

    • Posted by stevenj

      The reason we have a housing shortage is not because of the Planning Commission or the time it takes to get a permit. We have a housing shortage due to Proposition M (look it up) passed by the voters in the 1980’s and because of neighborhoods like Noe Valley whose residents do not want high density housing and to keep the height limits at about 40 ft. even along transit corridors like 24th St.

      • Posted by anon

        Prop M applies to commercial properties only (look it up), not residential.

  9. Posted by anon

    I have no idea why you’re equating any of this with “eco” this or “hipster” that Futurist. I’m just talking about cold, hard economic facts. You raise the price of something (time or money) and you get less of it at the margins. Period. Fact.

  10. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Jake – There’s no question that it is likely that some residents of a garageless building will own cars anyway. Like any other residence without parking (including some homes that have been here over a century), there’s less incentive to own a car if you’ve got to deal with street parking. Yes, it will increase competition for on-street parking and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. There are a lot of people who only move their car once or twice a week on street cleaning days. As competition heats up some of these folks are going to realize that the hassle isn’t really worth the marginal utility of a rarely used car.

    Futurist – Ditto. Just because people want cars doesn’t mean that new projects need to accommodate more cars. If you want a car then get one. Onsite parking is not a requirement to own a car. And it seems a bit comical that you see a prestige car’s need to display their status as one of the reasons to degrade a busy street’s functionality.

    Anon1 – those stats only go up to 2000. There’s been a more concerted effort to get transit first and support for other modes of transportation off the ground since then. Even so its gonna take time. Most people won’t consider bicycling if their 40 block long daily commute includes 4 blocks of white knuckle hell. Unfortunately that’s the situation on the ground today and until it is fixed a lot of people won’t bike. And transit of course really needs some improvement. Even though we’ve had transit lanes for years, Muni is just now considering using bus video to ticket transit lane abusers who slow bus traffic and cause delays and clumping.

    • Posted by moto mayhem

      can you explain why cycling has not increased over the past few years in portland as the amount of bike lanes has increased? it looks like they reached a max that new bike lanes doesnt raise

      • Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

        Read my comment to Anon1 above. Gaps in the infrastructure (example: the 4 blocks mentioned) keep the meeker cyclists in their cars.

        We’re at the tail end of a half century of autos-first street planning. That’s going to take a while to mitigate. Have some patience.

        • Posted by moto mayhem

          my question is: why has the % of people in portland who commute via cycling stalled even as more and more bike infrastructure has been added.?

          the “if you build it, they will come” mentality hasnt worked there. why do you think its going to work here.?

          • Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

            I’m having deja vu. Didn’t we already discuss the Portland situation a few weeks ago?

            How much traffic does a halfway constructed bridge attract?

          • Posted by moto mayhem

            do you know when the new biking numbers for SF will come out from MTA?

          • Posted by Anon1

            Moto Mayhem is right, at a certain point, bike usage becomes flat or declines. Plenty of articles about many different cities have shown this, check out the “Atlantic Cities” site. There are only so many people who can take advantage of cycling as an option for their commute. There is a reason the MTA is not releasing the bike count, and they are probably busy right now trying to adjust numbers to save themselves from embarrassment.

            As an architect, I am visiting clients and project sites throughout the greater Bay Area on a weekly basis. I cannot cycle from a client meeting Palo Alto back to our office in Sausalito, or cycle from Sausalito up to a job site in Calistoga. I live in the Marina, and there are SOME days during good weather when I have used my bike to go to work and back, but this happens maybe 15 times a year.

          • Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

            Anon1 – What? You mean a percentage trend cannot keep going up forever, past 100%? Whoa! Next you’re going to break the mind blowing news that the sky is blue.

            Of course not everyone’s going to ride a bike. No-one expects that. But there’s plenty of opportunity to increase the number of bicyclists in SF and the greater Bay Area. We’re nowhere near reaching the horizontal asymptote.

          • Posted by moto mayhem

            “We’re nowhere near reaching the horizontal asymptote.”

            how do you know that?

          • Posted by anon

            Because there are many developed world cities orders of magnitude higher than us. Why do you think that we are close to it?

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles