Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 39

Thread: What $2 million gets you in San Francisco

  1. #11
    Senior Member JaneV2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    14,204
    I admire historic houses, and most of the houses I and my various relatives lived in fit that description, but my main determinant is location. Since I prefer suburbs, I'm very unlikely to encounter a dwelling with any architectural interest whatsoever. And I have no interest in rehabbing one, anyway.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Tradd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    The Suburban Midwest
    Posts
    5,945
    That house NEEDS to be torn down.

  3. #13
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    8,010
    I tend to feel the same way about old houses that I do about kids. Other peoplesí can be wonderfully charming but I donít want one of my own.

  4. #14
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Always logged in
    Posts
    21,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Tradd View Post
    That house NEEDS to be torn down.
    Oh my dude them is fighten’ ’ words!

  5. #15
    Senior Member Tradd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    The Suburban Midwest
    Posts
    5,945
    Quote Originally Posted by iris lilies View Post
    Oh my dude them is fighten’ ’ words!
    It’s not like a old brick house. It’s fugly. And a mess. I love nice old houses. This is not nice. And the amount of cash that it would take to make it habitable boggles my mind. It’s San Francisco. I’m sure some of the homeless wouldn’t mind living there. But maybe some would.

  6. #16
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    8,010
    Honestly there are thousands of houses just like this but in far better shape scattered throughout the older neighborhoods on the then edges of the city (which mostly escaped the fire in 1906). Thereís nothing unique or noteworthy about this one. The new owners will probably drop $1m on renovations for it because thatís the slightly easier path to monetizing their investment compared to tearing it down and building new.

  7. #17
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Always logged in
    Posts
    21,509
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    Honestly there are thousands of houses just like this but in far better shape scattered throughout the older neighborhoods on the then edges of the city (which mostly escaped the fire in 1906). There’s nothing unique or noteworthy about this one. The new owners will probably drop $1m on renovations for it because that’s the slightly easier path to monetizing their investment compared to tearing it down and building new.
    This is the problem with ya’ll who don’t understand each individual dwelling, no matter how modest, contributes to the streetscape of the block, and makes up the fabric of the neighborhood. Historic districts are designated as such so that the district remains whole. Traditionally that has happened only after key pieces of architecture, sometimes swaths of a block, Have been razed and only after that do people wake up to take action.

    As for Tradd’s comment about brick structures – that’s not what San Francisco architecture is. Chicago is brick structures, San Francisco is not. St. Louis is made up of brick and masonry structures. We owned a rare woodframe house in an adjacent neighborhood that we thought was some plain Jane little 1940s bungalow and made application to tear it down. Our city’s historic preservation Board said hold on, that is much older than you think, it’s probably from the 1860s. It’s very old likely pre-dating the brick houses surrounding it. We kept the little house.

  8. #18
    Senior Member Teacher Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    12,301
    I L, I totally agree with you that the house should be saved. I love old houses and new ones are not the same. When the university wanted to build student housing where 8 old houses were they sold them for a dollar but you had to move them. At least 4 have been saved because I have seen them. Luckily we still have some empty city lots in town. Of all the houses I have lived in new homes were not my favorite.

  9. #19
    Senior Member rosarugosa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Eastern Massachusetts
    Posts
    6,916
    I agree too that the house should be saved, but by someone with more money and energy than me!

    This house recently sold in my neck of the woods. It's expected to be a tear-down. They were asking $315K initially, but it looks like it went for $400K. It's just interesting to see what $400K buys you 10 miles from Boston.
    https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/9...6127211_zpid/?

  10. #20
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    8,010
    Quote Originally Posted by iris lilies View Post
    This is the problem with ya’ll who don’t understand each individual dwelling, no matter how modest, contributes to the streetscape of the block, and makes up the fabric of the neighborhood. Historic districts are designated as such so that the district remains whole. Traditionally that has happened only after key pieces of architecture, sometimes swaths of a block, Have been razed and only after that do people wake up to take action.

    .
    Youíd love living in San Francisco. Weíre big on telling people what they can and canít do with their property.

    But I get your point. And I admit, San Francisco is the most attractive city in the country to me. Precisely because of that street scape that looks like nowhere else.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •