View Full Version : What $2 million gets you in San Francisco
https://www.zillow.com/homes/320-Day-St-San-Francisco,-CA-94131_rb/15183314_zpid/?
It survived the 1906 earthquake. Will it survive the real estate boom of 2022 or will the new owners tear it down and put up some dreadful HGTV monstrosity?
An interesting tidbit I learned from the following article about it. Building records were largely destroyed in the earthquake/fire so 1900 was commonly used as the date for any building where the records about it had been lost.
https://thefrontsteps.com/2021/09/20/320-day-worst-house/
Teacher Terry
1-15-22, 2:56pm
Unbelievable!
iris lilies
1-15-22, 2:58pm
https://www.zillow.com/homes/320-Day-St-San-Francisco,-CA-94131_rb/15183314_zpid/?
It survived the 1906 earthquake. Will it survive the real estate boom of 2022 or will the new owners tear it down and put up some dreadful HGTV monstrosity?
An interesting tidbit I learned from the following article about it. Building records were largely destroyed in the earthquake/fire so 1900 was commonly used as the date for any building where the records about it had been lost.
https://thefrontsteps.com/2021/09/20/320-day-worst-house/
i saw that in the Interior design reddit I frequent, or somewhere.
I can’t believe it’s in a neighborhood with no code forbidding tear downs. That’s crazy. Surely some of those SF neighborhoods have protections for those frail old Victorians. What is WRONG with you people?
https://www.zillow.com/homes/320-Day-St-San-Francisco,-CA-94131_rb/15183314_zpid/?
It survived the 1906 earthquake. Will it survive the real estate boom of 2022 or will the new owners tear it down and put up some dreadful HGTV monstrosity?
https://thefrontsteps.com/2021/09/20/320-day-worst-house/
That's my bet. Although it looks like it may have already been through some changes throughout the years. Yet, the front door, the hallway chandelier, and the kitchen built-ins may be close to original.
I know that everyone has their own thing, and values different things, but I have to say, I paid $164,000 for my space, which probably doesn't have much less square footage than that house for $2M, I know I am just as happy here as anyone who might live there. Yes, San Francisco is amazing. I always enjoyed going there on business (except for the time I ate oysters at the Embarcadero, not realizing I'm allergic to them and spent the entire transcontinental flight back to Newark in the airplane bathroom).
I wonder if with the migration of workers who will now be permitted to work from home beyond COVID will cause the real estate markets in all major cities to deflate, as the New York market seems to be doing.
I can’t believe it’s in a neighborhood with no code forbidding tear downs. That’s crazy. Surely some of those SF neighborhoods have protections for those frail old Victorians. What is WRONG with you people?
My limited knowledge of the subject is that it's about as difficult to get a permit to tear something down as it is to get permits to build or renovate. Probably the most likely scenario for this house is that the outside of it will remain intact but the inside will end up looking nothing like it does now. Some friends of ours in the city did this when they bought a monstrously large old 2 family house in the Castro. It's quite nice now but when one is inside it there is no sense of being in a 100 year old house.
My humble abode recently crossed the million-dollar mark on Redfin. It's to laugh. So net worth-wise, I'm a paper millionaire. :cool:
I'm with Iris Lily--that down at the heels Victorian lady needs to be preserved. They're not making any more of them.
iris lilies
1-15-22, 4:08pm
My limited knowledge of the subject is that it's about as difficult to get a permit to tear something down as it is to get permits to build or renovate. Probably the most likely scenario for this house is that the outside of it will remain intact but the inside will end up looking nothing like it does now. Some friends of ours in the city did this when they bought a monstrously large old 2 family house in the Castro. It's quite nice now but when one is inside it there is no sense of being in a 100 year old house.
that is fine, I can live with that, a preserved exterior.
But Victorian renovations that take everything down to the studs and re-create contemporary interiors do not age well. I see that my neighborhood all the time. Our house was down to the studs reno with the first floor basically OK although it is “open” in that we removed pocket doors between the living room and dining room. One door was missing anyway. It’s a small house so that’s fine, but our upstairs plan and finishes are 1990s and it shows.
ApatheticNoMore
1-15-22, 4:15pm
I know people who can afford houses in San Francisco, but they are upper middle class to rich and come from money as well. Just as I know people who can afford something in Southern CA besides a tiny house or a condo but they are upper middle class to rich as well and often married money. And I am middle middle class and had neither a sugar daddy, nor a rich real daddy, so that's not me.
My grandmother's house had glass pocket doors on either side of a central staircase. I hope no one has mucked up that house--it was beautiful.
I've seen some darling small houses in the LA area. One of my favorites was an old trailer. The new owner had decorated it in eclectic/Boho style. It had a decent yard, and she had three dogs--so she was thrilled with that and its proximity to the beach.
Crazy but then I am not of the nostalgia tribe. I love history and unique homes from different eras but give me a well-built (well built is really important and rare in today's quick stick style) modern home anytime.
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.
iris lilies
1-15-22, 7:55pm
That house NEEDS to be torn down.
Oh my dude them is fighten’ ’ words!
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.
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.
iris lilies
1-15-22, 10:18pm
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.
Teacher Terry
1-16-22, 3:58am
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.
rosarugosa
1-16-22, 7:02am
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/98-Essex-St-Saugus-MA-01906/56127211_zpid/?
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.
.
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.
Rosa, my brother's condo in Cambridge is 760 square feet and one in the building identical to his just sold for 670,000.
iris lilies
1-16-22, 11:33am
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.
That is why you (the generic you) have to be careful where you buy.
We get people who buy into our neighborhood because it is beautiful and charming, and then spout off libertarianish nonsense when our code restricts what they can do to the exterier of their house. Umm, no. A GOOD libertarian restricts Big Government, one size fits all with laws made from far away, but supports local regulations tailored to the locale, made by residents there.
My friends and neighbors made this city law, our historic code, and we regularly get together every decade and review and change it.
thank you for coming to my TED talk.
sweetana3
1-16-22, 12:24pm
We have those historic neighborhoods. In fact, I live in one. Very noticeable where there are no limitations. One neighborhood just next to a big historic one has three story modern candle looking tower houses being built in the middle of one story low sloped roof affordable houses. It looks incredibly weird. In fact, a brand new container house by a nationally known architect was built on one of these tiny lots with small old houses all around it. The big complaint here is the taxes on the little affordable houses are pushing up fast due to the new construction fill ins around them.
A GOOD libertarian restricts Big Government, one size fits all with laws made from far away, but supports local regulations tailored to the locale, made by residents there.
I like what Charlie Cook said about being a fairly strict libertarian at the federal level, much less strict at the state level, and even less strict at the local level.
If a city wants to dictate the shape of doorknobs while junkies defecate on the sidewalks outside, that should be mostly a matter for the residents and the U-Haul logistics staff.
Teacher Terry
1-16-22, 1:32pm
I used to love San Francisco. I used to go yearly. The last time I was there about 5 years ago it was so dirty and disgusting that I haven’t been back. I can barely smell anything and the urine smell was awful. There was overflowing garbage in many places, saw someone shooting up and massive homeless.
iris lilies
1-16-22, 2:21pm
I used to love San Francisco. I used to go yearly. The last time I was there about 5 years ago it was so dirty and disgusting that I haven’t been back. I can barely smell anything and the urine smell was awful. There was overflowing garbage in many places, saw someone shooting up and massive homeless.
The Correct term these days is “unhoused.”
Must not put the burden for his status on the victim. Must put the burden on society where it belongs! Apparently “unhoused” means society is not doing its job by providing housing for all, but “ homeless” implies street people are not providing a home for themselves from available resources.
Thank me for your Wokeness lesson today! :~) If you can’t see the difference, well, I can’t say that I do either.
ApatheticNoMore
1-16-22, 2:47pm
Well the last time I was in San Francisco was (no I correct myself it was 6 years ago), but it was a beautiful, beautiful city. I was like wow, why can't we have nice things?
Whether the house could/should be fixed kinda depends on the structural condition of the house IMO. I mean it is old, and obviously wasn't maintained that well, and that's not a great combination. But I also have no way of knowing much more. And a lot of how badly it *looks* could be fixed with paint.
That's silly about homeless, I mean single words don't convey a whole political philosophy, uh more if they are words for a political philosophy I guess, but they don't' really either. And I thought twitter had length limits. What if they restricted all dialogue to one word.
The Correct term these days is “unhoused.”
Must not put the burden for his status on the victim. Must put the burden on society where it belongs! Apparently “unhoused” means society is not doing its job by providing housing for all, but “ homeless” implies street people are not providing a home for themselves from available resources.
Thank me for your Wokeness lesson today! :~) If you can’t see the difference, well, I can’t say that I do either.
Well, when the housing market is such that a rundown unlivable dump of a house sells for $2M is it any surprise that there are people without housing?
San Francisco is the only city I have visited where I felt totally unsafe. Did not feel that way in NYC, Bangkok, Mexico City, Chicago, etc. But SF scared me and this was a long time ago. Used to love it. Was there for weeks in the 70s where the cable cars were actually used for commuting to work and Union Square was a safe place to sit and have lunch.
iris lilies
1-16-22, 3:51pm
The San Francisco house is perfectly fine structurally. My God it is really nice inside! It has an original Victorian door original floors original plaster and original woodwork.
Our close friends lived in a kitchen that looked very much like that for more than a decade.
The absence or presence of finishes does not indicate in any way structural soundness.
Here are two photos from our own house when we bought it. The first is our living room. The second is the second floor with no staircase in the stairwell because it was removed by the previous Rehabber who got tired of the project and put it up for sale. All of our little houses have been some version of this.
That’s why I was so thrilled by our ( by most standards) modest Hermann House where you could actually move in, use plumbing, a fireplace, and wonder of wonders, use central air conditioning!
4165
4166
San Francisco is the only city I have visited where I felt totally unsafe. Did not feel that way in NYC, Bangkok, Mexico City, Chicago, etc. But SF scared me and this was a long time ago. Used to love it. Was there for weeks in the 70s where the cable cars were actually used for commuting to work and Union Square was a safe place to sit and have lunch.
I know of people who claim there is an exodus of people from San Fran due to the large homeless populations and lack of their control by local authorities. No idea if that is really the case, but I could get that impression from social media. My cousin's son lives there and paid $3.5 million for a house that might have cost $750K here at the time, judging from photos. He has a high paying job in finance.
I understand Mayor Breed has abandoned her defund-the-police policies in favor of a Dirty Harry law-and-order position. Maybe there’s something to say for the old mugged by reality adage.
Teacher Terry
1-17-22, 2:51am
Californians are flooding into Reno but not because of the homeless people. They come to retire because it’s so much cheaper but they are driving our prices higher in many areas. In turn our homeless population is growing. I liked San Francisco much better 25 years ago. I imagine when you live there you just stay out of the tourist areas which probably cuts down on your exposure.
The San Francisco house is perfectly fine structurally. My God it is really nice inside! It has an original Victorian door original floors original plaster and original woodwork.
Our close friends lived in a kitchen that looked very much like that for more than a decade.
The absence or presence of finishes does not indicate in any way structural soundness.
Nobody spending $2m on a house is going to live in it if it looks like this does. And no one would live in it like that has anywhere near the money to pay that much.
I know any number of people who overextended themselves buying a place who then needed to skimp on what went into it.
If this purchaser's budget is strained from the purchase then they made a bad decision because there are much better houses available, even in san francisco, for $2M.
Like this one just a few blocks away in the same neighborhood.
https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1319-Dolores-St_San-Francisco_CA_94110_M25410-98421#photo0
If this purchaser's budget is strained from the purchase then they made a bad decision because there are much better houses available, even in san francisco, for $2M.
Like this one just a few blocks away in the same neighborhood.
https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1319-Dolores-St_San-Francisco_CA_94110_M25410-98421#photo0
Or this one which is bigger but not in quite as perfect of a neighborhood. It doesn't show that it sold in 2019 but based on the property tax jump a flipper had to have bought it for around 500,000 in 2019 and fixed it up.
https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/736-Anderson-St_San-Francisco_CA_94110_M25177-55420#photo12
iris lilies
1-17-22, 6:26pm
Nobody spending $2m on a house is going to live in it if it looks like this does. And no one would live in it like that has anywhere near the money to pay that much.
I have no idea about the San Francisco real estate market other than things are super expensive, so I cannot say if they overpaid. Probably they did.
People lived in houses in that condition in my neighborhood, but of course we don’t pay $2 million. The early pioneers here paid more like $2000.
If this house was cheap, even by San Francisco standards, it would make sense. Even $600 or $700k wouldn’t be out of line. It’s got decent sized rooms and with a lot of work it could be nice. But unless they plan to do a MEGA renovation and expansion there’s just no way they can recoup their money anytime soon. And even then it seems doubtful.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.