It has been over twelve years since the single-family home at 149 Mangels Avenue, the foundation of which had been reinforced with cereal boxes, collapsed on its new owner who was doing a bit of non-permitted work.

Three years ago, the Sunnyside parcel traded for $725,000. And shortly thereafter, plans for a new three-story home, with two stories fronting Mangels, a third below and roughly 3,200 square feet of total space, were drafted and submitted to the city for review.

While the ground has yet to be broken, in part due to opposition from neighbors concerned about the proposed approach and ongoing risk to the underpinnings of their home, not to mention the relative size and scale of the proposed replacement project, the design has since been refined, the aforementioned concerns assuaged, and permits for the project have been approved and issued by the city.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Tejón

    They want to build a single family home where a single family home existed before. I understand the neighbors appreciate having a bit of extra space, but it’s not their lot. They need to shut up and go away.

    • Posted by SocketSite

      While it’s not their lot, the extant footings of the collapsed home had illegally undermined the foundation of its neighbor, leading to a bit of the aforementioned concern (and additional cover for the pushback with respect to context and mass).

      • Posted by Tejón

        Aren’t those sort of concerns generally handled by adequate building inspections?

        • Posted by Brisket

          Well the neighbor had a house fall into theirs under the watchful eye of the SF building inspectors, so I would imagine they would be a little gun shy about entirely relying on them again to make sure their foundation isn’t damaged.

          • Posted by Miraloma Man

            I don’t think DBI can be blamed for the last episode. As I recall, the previous owner was trying to jack up his house with car jacks. It didn’t work. I don’t believe he pulled a permit, but if he did, I don’t think DBI would have authorized his approach.

          • Posted by Brisket

            “I don’t think DBI can be blamed for the last episode.”

            Right I never said that. My point is that based on prior experience the homeowner shouldn’t expect the DBI to protect them from any negligence on the part of the new builder, so engaging the new owner/builder about the process related to the adjoining foundation before construction starts seems reasonable under the circumstances. To the extent they are complaining abut the size of the project unrelated to foundation issues where no variance is requested, I agree with Tejon.

          • Posted by Miraloma Man

            But, in all fairness, DBI doesn’t have people roving around in vans looking for people trying to jack up their house with car jacks. That was kind of a one-off incident that can only be attributed to one misguided real estate investor’s DIY hubris…..

  2. Posted by Martin

    Any screen captures of the cereal boxes? I feel like I missed out.

    • Posted by Notcom

      Indeed, all I could find in the linked stories was this statement:”… had a building permit to do a partial foundation replacement and had shored up the house with a temporary wooden frame.”

      And while that doesn’t necessarily disprove the ‘cereal box’ claim, it certainly doesn’t support it. (Uhmm, no pun intended)

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles