Purchased for $1,310,000 in February of 2006, the self described “Romanesque Victorian” at 1507 Dolores returned to the market at the beginning of November asking $1,349,000. Two weeks later and three weeks ago the price was reduced to $1,295,000.
In the words of a sharp tongued reader:
“Romanesque” must refer to the horrendous faux stone siding that was probably added some time in the 1950’s. It also has convenience to “the metro”, maybe that is the Romanesque term for “Muni.”
Luckily it’s not nearly as “Romanesque” inside.
UPDATE: A reader’s comment we simply couldn’t resist: “I just wish they had placed tiny windows on the third floor so the fake Disneyland effect would be complete.”
UPDATE: And another with respect to the architecture and accuracy: “If they are using the word correctly, Romanesque refers to the rounded arches, in contrast to Gothic which would have pointed or ogival arches.” Cheers.
∙ Listing: 1507 Dolores Street (3/3) – $1,295,000 [1507Dolores.com] [MLS]
seriously though… was that siding EVER attractive?
So how much would it have cost to strip off the faux siding and replaced with a nice stucco treatment and repaint…
sigh! it reminds me of my life in Tuscony!
ok, maybe not.
it looks really nice on the inside though.
that said: is this a SFH? it has a kitchenette in one of the bedrooms.
I have to walk past this house once or twice a week and it’s horrible each time. I just wish they had placed tiny windows on the third floor so the fake Disneyland effect would be complete.
How much would it cost to fix this? $100,000?
If they are using the word correctly, Romanesque refers to the rounded arches, in contrast to Gothic which would have pointed or ogival arches.
Ugly in any case.
This thread is useless without hunchbacks.
more like Grotesque
Is 28th and Dolores really NV?
Oh BTW, the link done broke.
[Editor’s Note: Officially Noe (and link fixed).]
While this is not that great, there are actually worse faux masonry facades to be found :
– stucco sprayed right over a preexisting clapboard exterior (so you can see the original contours and weep over its entombment)
– press on brick
– press on flagstone
and the one that really makes me wretch :
– press on brick or flagstone that has been “artfully” painted over in a two color scheme (especially if the stone is painted teal and the grout painted maroon)
Yeah, this Dolores example isn’t really in style now but at least the the work was done with some sense of craft.
When you live in a city that has over 100 years of architectural heritage, sometimes stuff goes out of style for a while. During the 1950s people disregarded common Vics because they were old fashioned.
Maybe this facade will be back in vogue someday ? I wonder what people 40 years in the future will say about the modern facades that people gush about today ?
My personal preferences is that the “traditional” masonry looks in an earthquake zone are a cognitive dissonance. You know that it is fake (or a URM risk !). The only “believable” masonry material in quake country is reinforced concrete.
Rapunzle, Rapunzle, throw down your golden hair!
seriously…milkshake…I assume and hope you were joking..
either that..or..you need to put down the pipe, dude..
Perhaps if they added some sort of “distressed” look to the faux stone, it might look less…plastic? Like a previous commenter said, though, how much would it cost to tear this stuff off?
I walk by this one a lot also..and ah..it’s one of the uglier houses on Dolores St.
As for “tearing off” the faux stone and related costs, that’s honestly hard to pin down without knowing more info and asking lots of questions.
1. What is under the fake stone? If it’s the original wood siding, it may not be water resistant. You will probably need to add a water resistant material such as Tyvek or similar, then add new (wood) siding.
2. Depends on what level of restoration you may want. Return it to an original Victorian facade? Edwardian? It would involve a lot of wood trim, wood windows, etc.
3. Is there water damage or termite damage under the faux stone. Possible because that fake stone, much like stucco does not breath and retains water, which causes damage.
Without investigating some of the comments above, it’s hard to put a cost on the restoration, but I would recommend starting with $50k..and up. there are too many unknown factors to get a more accurate cost estimate.
lets see,
put up the scaffold (2 hours), strip the stucco (2 men, 2 days),
pay for the dumpster ($580), and voila.
the real job tho, is replacing whatever trim that was removed
when they stuccoed this place.
that can be time consuming and the materials expensive. still, i think you can find someone to do this for ~$20k.
good points about the potentially damaged wood underneath altho having gone thru this 5 different times i’ve never seen much damage. with that bay window tho there is def. potential for unpleasant surprises.
ok, you covered some of the labor part. good..
the real cost, as I have said, comes from what you find UNDER the stucco…and then determining the scope of work, the extent and quality of materials..
I’m sticking with about $50k and up. that’s realistic.
noearch – If you wondering whether I’m joking by not joining the chorus of ridicule and condemnation then no, I am not joking.
Just pointing out that there are actually much worse facade treatments out there.
I just took another look and see that this *was* done with fake stone tiles. So I’ll reduce my bid by another $10K 🙂
Just to be clear, I would not want this facade on my house. Nor would I want any fake masonry treatment.
I need to dig up some truly bad examples for comparison of why I don’t think this facade is that bad.
noearch is right. Stucco is tough to remove without destroying everything underneath. To make this decent you’ll need new windows, insulation, new siding and trim (that will have to be carefully designed) and paint. It’s a 100k job.
You’ve heard of the “painted ladies,” now we have the “old wrinkled ladies.”
Eesh.
Baltimore has a ton of this stuff – it’s called formstone. There’s even a documentary out there about it somewhere. My favorite quote from an owner: “It’s like having your own little castle in the middle of the city.” (You have to hear that in your head with a real “Balmore” accent to get the full effect.
@peter_
thank you for your comments. Yes, it certainly could cost $100k..I always quote high budget numbers to my clients, rather than do them a disservice just to get them on board, and give them a completely unrealistic low number.
I’d rather be proven wrong by having the project come in at a LOWER cost than the other way around. Any type of remedial / renovation work such as this has many unknowns and hidden costs that are only discovered as you begin to remove the offending materials. $50-100k is entirely possible, given termite and water penetration issues, replacement of windows with high quality wood windows, flashing, new siding, trim, etc.
Italin-esque architecture in California actually looks great with a stucco exterior. Not the Las Vegas type stucco, but the Mediterranean stucco. There’s a difference.
There is a question regarding the use of the term “the Metro” which I found humorous. The Metro is the light rail system, N Judah, J Church, etc. MUNI is the entire transit system of San Francisco, referring to the Municipal Railway, and includes all forms of public transit operated under that system; diesel busses, trolley busses, cable cars, LRV’s.
What is under the fake stone?
Medieval gnomes and sleeping Princesses, of course.
Oh, and unicorns!
well yea…and lots of fairies.
especially on Dolores st.
@noearch
“thank you for your comments. Yes, it certainly could cost $100k..I always quote high budget numbers to my clients, rather than do them a disservice just to get them on board, and give them a completely unrealistic low number.”
Just make your save vs. petrification. If you’re high enough level, it’s no big deal.
huh?
I call these houses “aquarium castles”, just needs a bubbling windmill out front to complete the look. To be fair, this one does look somewhat slightly less than totally horrific, as these remodels go.
I asked a contractor about restoring a Victorian facade that had gotten “hit with the stucco stick”. He SWAG was at least 100k for a one-story-over-basement.
Milkshake is right, there are worse faux masonry looks in D5. Put “3743 17th St” into mapjack for instance….Painted-on purple masonry (which I believe has since been changed to a more traditional castle with flags look if I recall correctly). Now that’s hot!
Does anyone else think it’s odd that they’d go from a picture of a baby crib in #11 to a long Baby-Jane staircase shot in #12?
Looks like this is now in contract (contingent).
This looks no worse than some of the stick-on “real” stone they use now on which the corners glaringly reveal the 1″ thickness of the material.
Formstone or similar products, could either have too little variation in the colors of the “stones” or too much; same for the mortar lines. There are people who specialize in coloring this stuff semi-realistically (there are even YT videos!), so the owners of this place could easily tone down its fakeness.
The arch above the large 1st floor window assembly appears to be levitating; a stucco-mason could probably turn the “stonework” above the whole thing into a lintel with a solid arched section in the middle.
Speaking of levitation, the whole bumpout is implausible in stone without some support underneath it; one might stucco the bottom 8″ into a header and add precast pillars, but that would block the “1501” door, which might be worth removing anyway, since it’s an eyesore. Alternately, one could just cover the whole bumpout with flat stucco.
The half-walls surrounding the stairs don’t look right; they should either get precast capstones, or be replaced with pre-cast or iron balustrades. So, it wouldn’t take that much to make this place look no faker than most of what’s built today; even as-is it looks a lot better than the vinyl siding that covers many similar buildings on the East coast.