Відео

Thank you! Appreciate your comment ... what an amazing crew~!

The exterior of the house is made of top quality wood and weathered almost 140 years well. Much of the interior, such as the plaster is in poor condition. Many elements had been remodeled by different owners through all those years and thus the original materials were not there. We chose to highlight and celebrate the elements that were available to us and unique to the Italianate style and avoid what would distract from the beauty of the house.

Why would they do it? Maximizing profit. If they had kept it as a single-family dwelling, in that neighborhood it might sell for $3 million, although the cost of shoring it up, moving it, and then putting it on a new foundation would eat up about 1/6th of that. By chopping it up into 7 condos, they can sell each of them for an average of say, $800,000. That's double the value of it as a SFD. And as a bonus, on the old site, they get to build a 47-unit building. _Ka-CHING!_ Because that's what property in SF has come down to: maximizing profits at the cost of history and quality of life. :/

@@roberthaines4221 oh I know why. It always comes down to money. It was more of a rhetorical question. I just don't feel it's truly worth chopping up such a beautiful home like that. I can only imagine what kin of "upgrades" will be done to it. Nothing will come close to the quality of work and craftsmanship that was put into homes from that era, no matter the price tag.

@@vanessahornsby1811 You're exactly right. In my opinion, anyone that would truly appreciate living in a property like this would not want to live in it as a condo. Just sayin'.

There are about a dozen Earthquake Refugee Shacks still extant in SF. I lived in one of them, out on 46th between Irving and Judah. Sorry to hear about the one on Clement that's now gone.

Yeah, they should have kept the old wiring and plumbing in it too because, you know, it's better for it to burn down due to ancient wiring and plumbing than to modernize it. SMH. I live in a 1934 Sears Craftsman Bungalow with the original exterior but a fully updated modern interior. The entire inside is now one large open living area and kitchen with a bathroom and bedrooms in a new addition off the back. Don't like it? I can live with that.

@@thedoctor7158 You can modernize systems without gutting the facility.

@@tbm3fan913 So what if a building you are likely to never see the inside of looks different inside than it did 100 years ago? So you can look at it and say "Ooooh, original!"

@@thedoctor7158 Obviously it is completely beyond your ability to understand so I cease to further enlighten you.

HAVE FUN WITH THE CRACKHEADS AND DRUGGIES.....

Hopefully loads of those interior features still original will be both reused and well-matched, to create historically appropriate apartments! I had read elsewhere that the interior had been changed many times and also in disrepair in the past already, so I am betting with the historical societies involved, it will on the whole be an upgrade. (I do love big houses and get a bit sad when they are divided, still)

@@twobluestripes I have a 1934 Sears Craftsman bungalow I opened up fully but the decorative items are still in use inside as well as in the extension I had added off the back for the new bathrooms and bedrooms that matches the style of the historic exterior. It really makes no sense to leave the small, cramped rooms in 100+ year old houses. There's nothing inherently special about the interiors unless you plan to just turn it into a museum.

@@thedoctor7158 It's preference I think. I love a beautiful Craftsman bungalow that still has its rooms intact. I've done many kitchen and bathroom remodels in Craftsmans and Victorians, and I think keeping the rooms gives the advantage of having more modern fixtures and style, which I think may not work if it was opened up.

@@margonathanson2827 The rooms are just too small for a modern lifestyle. Mine had a living room, kitchen, dining room, 2 bedrooms, and bathroom with the square footage of most modern country kitchens and living rooms combined. I opened the entire interior up to a single open room with a large kitchen, living area, and dining area. Everything else was moved into the addition. Nice to look at but to live in, no, sorry. Just too small and cramped.

I hope they will post more episodes

HAVE FUN WITH THE CRACKHEADS AND DRUGGIES.....

good one.

True. But better than demolishing the whole thing.

I don’t think so - will be a nice apartment for someone-with all the built in craftmanship . I lived in a Victorian apartment once though - I was driven crazy cleaning dust off the nooks and crannies - lol it’s more difficult to kept clean 🧽. But not that bad overall .

God forbid this city had more rental units. We really need more of the 1% hoarding 99% of the real estate and make it completely unaffordable for everyone else.

​@@darkwoodmovies -- San Francisco does not "need" more housing. The demand for living spaces in SF is infinite and can never be accommodated. They could build 100,000 new units in the City and in a year or less, they would all be taken, without putting a significant dent in the demand. _About half_ of all of the new units that have been added to SF's stock in the past 20 years have been purchased or rented by people who didn't live in SF before then. IOW, they have been purchased as _pieds-a-terres_ by foreigners, or for immigrants and out-of-towners, or as investment properties (such as for AirBnB), and therefore do little to help SF residents. But that's far from _all_ they do: they also add to the density of what is already the second-most-densely-populated city in the US. They place an increased burden on everything from infrastructure (gas, electricity, water, etc.) to institutions (e.g., schools) to emergency services (police, fire, etc.), as well as diminishing the quality of life for those already here. Again, San Francisco has not had a "housing crisis" since 1906. What it has, is a *housing demand* crisis. And so long as people all over the world want to come to San Francisco, it will be impossible to build our way out of that crisis.

@@roberthaines4221 For better or for worse, I think all cities in America need to face the reality that more people will be moving in constantly, and our economy is shifting to become more and more urban. Demand will always go up, it's inevitable. You can't solve it by asking big companies and businesses to stay away. We need infrastructure and policies to handle the demand crises, because it won't go away. Ignoring it will just skyrocket prices and cause a homeless epidemic, as we're seeing now.

@@darkwoodmovies -- I think you're seeing the tail wag the dog. Even if humanity is becoming more urbanized, there is nothing that says it's preferable or even rational, for people to move to _existing, historic_ cities. SF (like Manhattan, the other most densely-populated city in the US) is effectively an island. The only way to add more housing is to make the existing space more densely-populated, which simply creates collateral problems, such as those I've already mentioned (load on infrastructure, etc.) So a far more rational way to accommodate more people in urban environments is to create new urban centers. New cities are being created all over the world, with dozens of them built in the past 2 decades that are larger than SF's population of 800,000. (See link below) That makes far more sense than increasing density in existing cities. There are, for example, largely unused spaces within an hour of SF that could easily accommodate new cities being built -- particularly in areas to the north of Livermore, north of Vacaville, west of Sears Point, etc. Those make far more sense than just expecting to keep placing heavier and heavier burdens on the second-most-densely-populated city in the US, which also happens to be built atop a major seismic fault, and to have access on 3 sides limited by the Bay. So why is the focus on SF instead? One reason: people want a piece of what it already offers -- liberal policies, history, scenic beauty, cultural attractions -- in short, all things that would be negatively affected by adding more residents. They could build those new cities as satellites to SF, and *still* people would prefer to own and/or live in SF. To me, that proves that it's not really about needed living space, but rather about people wanting to live in SF, to the exclusion of other, less expensive, more available options. www.usnews.com/news/cities/slideshows/these-are-7-of-the-worlds-newest-cities

@@roberthaines4221 Finally someone who ACTUALLY GETS IT! Thank you for explaining to the ignorant.