February 25, 2008
From Rendering To Reality (And The MLS): 1446 Jackson Street
The fixtures and finish are high-end (Bulthaup, Miele, Subzero, Dornbracht, Lefroy Brooks, WET, Bonelli); we’re fans of the flow, end grain wood flooring, and overall design (although we will note a lack of non-kitchen/bedroom storage); and the pictures really don’t do the space justice (the ceiling height of the “breakfast nook” is just over 6’).
As previously noted, the other three units in the building have already sold. As not previously noted (nor known to most), the selling prices for those three: Unit 2 (1440 Jackson) 2,274 sqft - $2.5M; unit 3 (1438 Jackson) 1,227 sqft - $1.5 million; and unit 4 (1442 Jackson) 1,457 sqft - $1.7M.
∙ Listing: 1446 Jackson (1/1) 683 sqft - $699,000 [MLS]
∙ Coming Soon Three Quarters In Contract: 1440 Jackson Street [SocketSite]
First Published: February 25, 2008 6:00 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
What is on the ceiling? Is that a reflection from outside or something worse?
Posted by: anon at February 25, 2008 7:40 AM
Am I the only one that thinks the exterior or the building leaves a lot to be desired for?
Posted by: Serge at February 25, 2008 8:06 AM
This building looks completely out of place. It's now an eyesore on an otherwise attractively typical San Francisco block. I thought the arduous planning and approvals process was supposed to prevent exactly this sort of thing!
Posted by: Dalban at February 25, 2008 9:20 AM
That "out of place" architecture is built next to neighborly thematic buildings is one of my favorite aspects of Buenos Aires. There are blocks there that look like "Logan's Run" crossed with "Dangerous Liaisons," and I love it. Don't fall into the parochial trap unless you think Venice is the end-all be-all of modern city planning.
Posted by: EH at February 25, 2008 9:33 AM
I agree with EH. That block looks like very typical (and bland) victorian/edwardian flats...the spice of the new is nice in this context. If we were talking about an exceptional period streetscape, I MIGHT be more concerned with inserting something this different....but this one is average at best. Hey, and it has bay windows! lol.
Posted by: curmudgeon at February 25, 2008 10:08 AM
Agree with EH and curmudgeon. I love the mix of the new with the old, and the new building, although not the most exciting, still manages to "spice up" the bland buildings around it.
Posted by: g at February 25, 2008 10:16 AM
Has anyone seen the interior of this unit?
The interior walls appear in the photos to be entirely finished in a rough "Taco Bell" sort of troweled texture. That can be an aquired taste and a mess to undo.
[Editor's Note: We have and they are (along with the ceilings).]
Posted by: redseca2 at February 25, 2008 10:40 AM
This unit is a modern day equivalent of a gate house. It appears that the breakfast nook is scrunched into the space above the building's garage entry; thus the outward sloping windows and elevated floor. You can certainly keep track of who comes and goes, but I hope they clearly posted the garage height limit. Any impressions from this weekend's open house?
Posted by: tr at February 25, 2008 10:49 AM
I personally find the "old" buildings to be quite ugly. I think the new building is a definite upgrade. I also find it utterly ridiculous that people think they should have a say in what others choose to build and live in.
Posted by: me at February 25, 2008 10:50 AM
If anything this building IMPROVES the neighborhood appeal! Bravo!
Posted by: sf at February 25, 2008 11:38 AM
It's certainly a great improvement over the dump next door with the asbestos-shingle facade and fire-escape. Now *that* one needs some TLC!
Posted by: zzzzzzz at February 25, 2008 11:48 AM
My only real gripe here is with the coloring of the exterior and I'm not saying I'd rather it blend seamlessly with its lighter neighbors. But something brighter or more colorful, or perhaps more in tune with SF's lighter coastal aesthetic, would be my preference. Otherwise, well done.
Posted by: Timosha at February 25, 2008 12:24 PM
Timosha- are you kidding? SF is one of the foggiest, unbright places in the US and the world.
Posted by: sf at February 25, 2008 12:39 PM
Simply love the kitchen!
Posted by: blahhh at February 25, 2008 1:15 PM
Foggy? Unbright? Only if you live in the Sunset.
Posted by: Dave at February 25, 2008 2:01 PM
I think most of you are being too kind. I sure wouldn't want to live in this unit.
I can't think of any way to attractively cover those slanted windows over the garage, in front of the breakfast nook... maybe somebody more creative can. But it seems like you're going to be on display to the neighborhood 24/7. (Get up to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night? Don't switch on a light, or you'll be visible to everyone outside.)
It looks to be a tiny, storage-deprived space - I'm not even sure there's room for a dresser in the bedroom, if you want to be able to open the drawers - at least based on the layout drawing. It could have been a lot larger, but the builder apparently wanted to accommodate a long hallway so people could walk in from the garage without having to go outside. I'm not sure that's a good compromise, at least where this unit is concerned.
Hmm, you have to walk down some stairs (that look like risers), through the living room and around any furniture there to get to the dining area. That's convenient. Glad there are wood floors, those spills will be easier to clean up. I won't comment on the walls... ok, maybe I will... they look hideous to me.
No closet for linens or coats, guess those have to go in the bedroom.
The little deck is nice, it won't get much sun, but it is what it is.
And it all works great until someone tries to drive their new SUV into the garage and takes out the breakfast nook. ;-)
Posted by: Dave at February 25, 2008 2:28 PM
@ sf at February 25, 2008 12:39 PM
Not even close. SF has an average of 160 clear days a year. Here you can see that SF is in fact one of the sunniest cities in the country:
I am not living in San Francisco full-time right now and dearly miss it for this reason, among others. In the last ten years I have lived in Chicago, DC and Cambridge MA, and would consider all three considerably gloomier and darker, not to mention obviously much, much colder. That brick and other darker building materials are so pervasive in these cities (with the exception of some of DC's core) is only appropriate.
Anyway, I feel SF has a sort of light and ethereal quality to it even on foggy or darker days--and the lighter Mediterranean hues so abundant in the city do their part.
Posted by: Timosha at February 25, 2008 3:46 PM
I went to the open house, and the unit borders on hilarious. That breakast nook is actually shelf about three feet deep and a foot above the kitchen floor to allow clearance for the garage. With the entire unit washed with headlights every time a car enters the garage at night,
There are no closets.
The stucco's not unattractive, but is so deep it will require dusting. The long hall on one side allows rear access/egress to the upper units.
The perfect minimalist pied-a-terre. Or venue for sex dates.
There are no closets.
Posted by: Rocco at February 25, 2008 4:01 PM
$700k for 683 square feet?
Posted by: Foolio at February 25, 2008 4:01 PM
Yes I am being nice.
This unit is so small compared to the others within the building, it could have been intended as something like the Au Pair unit for the people on the top floor.
Posted by: redseca2 at February 25, 2008 4:01 PM
I like the design but it is way overpriced.
Over $1000/SF is WAY TOO much
Posted by: Spencer at February 25, 2008 5:07 PM
Wow, NO closets? I assumed the area "south" of the bed in the layout drawing was a big bedroom closet. With no closets, this isn't even an apartment, it's a hotel suite.
Wait, even they have closets. And privacy.
I'm not usually this critical, but I spent some time looking at the layout and pictures and just thought it seemed amazingly unlivable (and overpriced.) I don't mind the exterior appearance... I like the looks of some modern buildings interspersed with more historic structures. But above all, if you're gonna live there, it's got to do more than just look good, it's got to be functional and, at some level, practical.
[Editor's Note: Your assumption was actually correct (but the bedroom closet has yet to be installed).]
Posted by: Dave at February 25, 2008 6:06 PM
The bottom unit fits the "budget chic" criteria.
Posted by: sf at February 25, 2008 8:03 PM
I'm always interested in people's opinions of what constitutes or makes for an attractive building. I'm an Architect, grad school, license, design world contacts et al and I find this building to be ugly. I bet most of my colleagues would too. But most of you here, probably patent attorneys, neuro sugreons and bankers find this "a great imprvoement" That's troubling.
The building has a few plusses:
1. The rusticantion of the lower storyy in brick, lines with the adjacent building.
2. The height and building form/ typology (ie bay windows) is also polite. Though I felt that was force fed courtesy the planning department. This building has a verticallity that is alittle confused or uneasy.
The mirro glass is a little cheasy. The black granit cladding on brick is just plain wrong. Granite is heavier than brick. Wood siding on brick, much better.
The photograph of the bedroom with the ULTRA wide angle lens is futile try. A 12 year old would know that is a desperate attempt at making a small space appear larger. The perspective is so obvious, the rugs angles accentuates it.
The only fenestrations are some dreadful sloped one windows overlooking the driveway/ sidewalk (not operable) and a double door to a teeny deck.
What a kitchen centric house. The photographs of the faucets are a little much.
But, I guess the bourgeoises love their baulthaup or ogen pohl or whatever. Ah well.
Posted by: Ar-KEE-tectT at February 25, 2008 8:30 PM
The location is great, but the price does seem a little high. It is an "interesting" place.
But to Dalban's post, the planning code and design guidelines aren't intended to force victorian knock-offs, they are to make sure your neighbor doesn't build something completely out of scale with your neighborhood. In that aspect, this building succeeds well. The building has the same massing as the streetscape and as the architect-poster pointed out, the rustication makes a solid reference to its neighbors. I hope that the glass is not mirrored, just shiny and reflecting!
I haven't seen it in person, but the square footage is on par with a many one-bedrooms in SF, maybe slightly on the small side, especially for the price and its quirks others have mentioned (walls, windows).
Posted by: anon me at February 25, 2008 9:29 PM
The red brick on the lower story is HIDEOUS!! That looks like some crap from a late 70's bank building. PEOPLE: brick is not meant to be all perfect. The older bricks that have imperfections are what give buildings character. Look at the East Coast or even the warehouses in South Beach and there is a huge difference. Just compare the Tres Agaves restaurant brick to the new "perfect" but crap (and fake!) brick across the street at 170 King. Brick is just like people - it's the flaws and imperfections that make them unique, different...and ultimately beautiful.
Posted by: TheRealScoop at February 25, 2008 11:36 PM
What TheRealScoop said. We hates the press-on perfecto-brick. And don't get me started on how the faux brick of the view-blocking Waterbar utterly fails to connect with the older buildings across the Embarcadero. I do hope this brick thing isn't an outcome of planning department rules and tradeoffs.
Posted by: Delancey at February 26, 2008 12:01 AM
Run Forest Run. At 633sq ft. this place is way over $$$. Imagine chillin and having a nice evening meal in the kitchen and everytime some one walks by or dives into the parking area they see you and yours sittin chillin stuffin your pie holes in the fishtank they call an eat in area.
Thanks but no thanks I'll pass on this. BTW yes the stucco treatment on the walls were done by the same fine craftsmen who brought you Taco Bell
Posted by: Amazan8 at February 26, 2008 11:13 AM
ok, just saw the place today...
+ suprisingly ok light, even if you had to do some shades on the windows by the kitchen (which I agree would be needed, and not cheap)
+ lots of cool appliances (but that only goes so far)
+ location, location, location.
+ a parking spot. Call me crazy but I think in this part of the town a spot is worth $100,000 alone. Plus interior access from the spot.
+ good windows / seems to be good soundproofing.
+ though small and narrow, that little deck isn't half bad.
- small small small...wow.
- no closet in the bedroom but they'll put one in there. frankly, if they do, then it's fine as what you'll get is about on par with the tiny closets everywhere else.
- a bigger problem then the small bedroom (to come) closet, is just lack of storage anywhere. Hardly anything in the bathroom and I really didn't see anywhere else in the unit for storage, nor in the garage area. That's really tough. Kitchen storage was ok.
- not sure but I think getting your car in / out isn't going to be a walk in the park..probably backing the thing out, up hill, onto a somewhat fast downhill street. That is a bit annoying.
so anyway, at first i thought it was way overpriced, but if this place goes for exactly $700K, for newly built unit, with parking/interior acess, in a prime location...well, it may be perfect for some.
(btw, I also sneaked a peak at the bottom unit's garden / patio and I gotta say, it looks great. It's a mini manicured park, with a great kitchen / bbq, and about 1/2 of the space is covered with a glass roof..nice).
Would love to see the other units - they seem like a better deal than unit #1.
Posted by: Joe at February 26, 2008 1:26 PM
We too though Bonelli windows stood for a high end, quality product but sadly found that this is not the case. If you buy this place (or anyplace) with Bonelli windows, make sure they aren't scratched already.
See the ordeal that we are going through here: bonelliwindows.wordpress.com
Posted by: BrianM at June 10, 2008 12:55 PM