May 23, 2009
With Memorial Day Barbeques On The Brain (2209 Scott Street)
It was simply the wide plank floors (for which we’re suckers) and high ceilings (ditto) of the down to the studs (if not foundation) remodel of 2209 Scott that piqued our interest. And we were drawn right up to the roof deck with Memorial Day barbeques on the brain...
First Published: May 23, 2009 11:00 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
The prices seem REALLY high for TICs...
The look nice, cookie-cutter bathrooms and staging aside. The building before was awful before, so I'm thrilled it had a make-over. I hope they sell!
Posted by: sleepiguy at May 23, 2009 11:28 AM
I really dig some of the decorator details but question the duplex design. Is that tight garage to be shared by both units parking tandem side-by-side? One unit gets the back garden and the other gets the roof?
Better be best friends with your co-owner(s); looks like the penthouse master bedroom totally overlooks the back area; not much of an inner sanctum.
Like the above, I don't think taking a $3M property and dividing it into two $2M ones really added any value. We'll see.
Posted by: Troy at May 23, 2009 7:48 PM
That is a really high price for a TIC, but at least you can bypass the condo lottery and convert fairly quickly. Assuming the make over was done with permits, the inspection should be easy too.
Posted by: rr at May 23, 2009 8:41 PM
The facade on this place, while improved is still a major disaster. I like the park setting, but my money would go to Monica's 2149-2151 Jackson if I was looking for a 2 unit building. These things almost always go as a unit. Interesting that it's not listed as a 2 unit building on MLS. Anyway, TIC conversion should be easy so long as their are no disclosure issues but I just don't see how they are going to get asking for these when SFH's are trading at less? I'd say these 2 places are 20% over priced.
Posted by: eddy at May 23, 2009 9:06 PM
Facade and front windows look cheap.
Pricing for a TIC is insane, whatver the prospects are for the lottery.
Posted by: Louis at May 23, 2009 10:16 PM
That is an awesome roof deck.
I have a general question about roof deck conversions : I'd assume that community input is part of the permitting process. Are roof deck plans often shot down by neighbors ? I'm wondering what the grounds for opposing a roof deck would be. The normal light/air arguments would not apply. I'm just wondering because I often see a place that could accommodate a great roof deck though don't know what risk is involved in assuming that such a project would fly.
Here's hoping that everyone BBQing in roof decks are using gas or electric grills. Hot coals would be dangerous falling on flammable materials.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at May 24, 2009 10:09 AM
TMoD - I too am interested in this info...
Just from speaking to one person, I know one item that has to be considered is the support of the house/units when adding a roofdeck (ie, is the foundation / supporting walls going to properly support the additional material and people safely/etc.).
Posted by: DanRH at May 24, 2009 10:55 AM
I happened on this site when I was seriously thinking about a property in Bernal mid last year. I knew the prices hadn't even begun to topple but I was balancing that with my financing which is Euro based and it was $1.60 = €1 back then. In other words, even with some of the falls we've seen in the last year, I probabably still would be (today) better off if I personally had bought last year.
My best friend is an architect in Bernal and his speciality is getting planning permission. He told me that roof decks don't need planning permission.
Now whether that is in the case of a post 1940 house (which have a lot less regs than pre 1940 houses) I don't know. But this is a rule he was rather excited about.
Posted by: Piedmont(Italy) at May 24, 2009 11:12 AM
Roof decks are hugely controversial in parts of the city... Try to add one in North Beach or Telegraph Hill and it's pitchforks and torches...
In Pac Heights, it depends on the neighbors, really. Longtime residents hate them because people might go on them and have parties! The horror!!
I'll mention one property in particular that added roof decks without approval and the neighbors were so incensed that the current owners are forbidden to access them, even though they are still extant. In one spot, there's a large deck, but no door while elsewhere, the deck has a fence through the midpoint.. So you can go on PART of it, but not all of it!! I'm totally not joking...
Also, there was another well known recent case where a neighbor was so apoplectic about a deck over a garage that she sent out letters to CHRA saying that she would be subjected to the unspeakable terror of seeing children playing outside!! She spent years fighting it - and lost.
I'm sure this place is fine, but I'd make doubly sure the roof deck is permitted.
Final word: I haven't seen it yet, but I think this place makes more sense as a single family. I think you could buy both units and create a makeshift SFR out of it... 3.5 isn't bad for that block.
Posted by: sleepiguy at May 24, 2009 12:03 PM
One of the uglier pieces of new property I've seen in a while. The fireplace surrounds/facades are truly abysmal--and successfully incorporate the worst design choices: The patina looks like a Motel 6 (so do the windows), the fireplace itself looks like a microwave, and then there is the mind-numbing switch/knob. Truly amazing.
Nothing they did here altered the basic box problem of the structure.
Posted by: SurveyKid at May 25, 2009 6:48 AM
The Planning Department likes to think they encourage roof decks, while the Building Department makes them next to impossible. Several years ago I tried to do a roof deck on my 1920s building which originally was permitted with a "laundry drying porch" on the roof - surrounded by a picket fence and clothes poles and lines - as shown on the original blue prints which I have. The Planning Department staff, citing their policy to encourage the provision of private open space, say go ahead, and that the railing could be any height as long as it was clear. (Because of topography, this deck [on a house at the bottom of a hill] would not block the view from any other house).
The Building Department on the other hand, said:
- shear bracing had to be extended to the footing of the building (the building is 2 flats over a garage).
- the deck could not be closer than 3 feet from the property lines unless the railings were 2-hour fire rated.
- of course, this would have necessitated shear walls through the entire house at a distance of 3 feet from the property line, rendering the house unusable.
- because the house would now be 4 stories, a second means of egress had to be created (e.g. a fire escape in addition to the winder in the light well).
- but of course SF no longer allows new fire escapes so that meant a new internal stair within the existing house.
- and winders are no longer permitted, so the existing winder from the ground to the second floor flat would have to become a standard straight stair for the final flight to the roof, which was spatially impossible.
The upshot? The Planning Department told me to build it without a permit.
Posted by: Jim at May 25, 2009 12:37 PM
"I think you could buy both units and create a makeshift SFR out of it... 3.5 isn't bad for that block."
And they are asking 4.6...
Posted by: anon at May 31, 2009 6:08 AM
The new code removed the need for second egress if you want to get it permitted.
Posted by: sparky-b at May 31, 2009 10:29 AM
The list price for 2209 Scott Street #2 has been reduced from $2,195,000 to $2,085,000, a drop of 5%.
Posted by: SocketSite at June 17, 2009 2:39 PM
Both 2209 Scott Street #1 and #2 closed escrow on 7/23/09, unfortunately with what appears to be "confidential" sale prices.
Posted by: SocketSite at July 30, 2009 11:37 AM
just an fyi all was permitted including the roof decks and your dreaming if you think you could have bought this for 3.5....
Posted by: developer at July 30, 2009 4:30 PM
i didn't get why this can bypass the condo lottery and convert quickly...?
Posted by: chocaholic at July 30, 2009 10:30 PM
It can bypass the condo lottery if the building only has 2 units is my understanding.
Posted by: Rillion at July 31, 2009 9:25 AM
These units totally perplex me and I'm in disbelief that they sold. $3.6-$3.7 would seem the right price for both units, maybe. At $4.6 for both properties is just way too high, IMO.
There is a SFH hitting the market any day now at 2307 Scott just up the block at $3.995M that should be pretty impressive. It also has a pool and park views. All this talk about the $4M price range with Pierce, Scott, Baker, Union..., plus the $3M Green St home... There is a lot of value out there right now compared to recent years.
How these TICs sold so quickly is beyond me. Nice work by the developer / agent.
PS: There is a decent shot of the pool from the Western View of the maps.live.com ariel view on the 2307 listing. It's a black bottom so it's hard to spot it.
Posted by: eddy at August 3, 2009 9:41 PM