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.
That house NEEDS to be torn down.
I tend to feel the same way about old houses that I do about kids. Other peoples’ can be wonderfully charming but I don’t want one of my own.
Oh my dude them is fighten’ ’ words!Originally Posted by Tradd
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.
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.
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.
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/?
You’d love living in San Francisco. We’re big on telling people what they can and can’t 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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote