Having hit the market priced at $6.95 million last month, the nearly 9,000-square foot Queen Anne Victorian on the northwest corner of Franklin and California, which sits on the southern half of a 10,654-square-foot Pacific Heights parcel, has just sold with a $7.0 million contract price.

As we first reported at the time, the historic home’s parcel at 1701 Franklin Street was recently subdivided into two legal lots and the home’s backyard is now buildable.

But as the home’s historic designation extends to its parcel, the development of the new lot would require a Certificate of Appropriateness to proceed. We’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.

18 thoughts on “Landmark Victorian and Buildable Lot Fetch $7.0 Million”
    1. Why? Is there something wrong with cities having beautiful open spaces just for that enjoyment?

      Not every piece of land needs to be built upon.

      1. I agree with you here Futurist! I wish they would leave the lovely well cared for park alone (even if its private).

  1. “…development of the new lot would require a Certificate of Appropriateness to proceed.”

    I wonder what those sell for these days.

  2. This is not the first house in PacHts and PresHts with a garden that became a buildable lot. This includes some houses on the best blocks, including outer Broadway, and many others. I do not know anyone who owns an original house that did not wish the previous owner had kept the garden. Some of the gardens sprouted buildings that are 1960s ugly, and others have modern mansions. It is sad to see this go.

  3. This home and the new buildable lot may be situated on the corner of Franklin and California, but for the purposes of this thread, it might as well have an address on that proverbial Memory Lane…

    Some folks who oppose or lament change in our City might be well served with a trip to the Library’s “SF history” room chock full of photographs, maps, and stories that will place their trip down Memory Lane in the broader context. Most of the comments in this thread would be appropriate at any point in the City’s prior history. And without a doubt, (obviously through some other medium or forum than this site), those same comments would be heard on the stroll down Memory Lane.

    1. I don’t “oppose or lament change” of The City. But long term, thoughtful urban planning also respects existing open space that is important to balance against increased density.

      It’s not about Memory Lane at all, but about respecting history.

  4. If the lot is not found appropriate for building, perhaps they could sell half of it to the home next door, which has been on the market for years sans any real outdoor space…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *