July 30, 2009
Call It Sunroom, Fogroom, Whatever…We’d Never Leave That Floor
Our main concern with 470 Vallejo is that we’d never want to leave the "pent-level" floor. And as such we’d very likely end up spending every night on the couch.
A related renovation aside, both 2209 Scott Street #1 and #2 closed escrow last week.
∙ Listing: 470 Vallejo (4/4) – $3,995,000 [470vallejo.com] [MLS]
∙ With Memorial Day Barbeques On The Brain (2209 Scott Street) [SocketSite]
First Published: July 30, 2009 12:45 PM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Stunning! (Although I'm sure someone will find a problem with this home. It wouldn't be SS otherwise!)
Posted by: Willow at July 30, 2009 1:43 PM
Yes! There is something definitely wrong with this place! It isn't mine. : )
Posted by: jd at July 30, 2009 2:08 PM
This is to me the type of views, neighborhood and house that many people dream about when they think San Francisco. Agreed, it IS stunning, and I would rather own this than any SOMA penthouse. Please invite me to the housewarming!
Posted by: Morgan at July 30, 2009 2:12 PM
Sold for $2.5 in 2008. Square footage not listed but propertshark reports about 2800. It also reports that its zoned RH3 (3 family), hence the kitchen in the lower unit, but it's being marketed as a SFH. I'm interested to see how this plays out.
These agents are on a roll lately.
Posted by: eddy at July 30, 2009 2:20 PM
Amazing place. This side of Vallejo is great and pretty insulated as is most of Telegraph Hill once you pass the 20%+ grades but still close to everything. The slopes work like a "no booze after this point" sign. I love this hill!
Very little car traffic apart from the A-area permit locals looking for a free spot and the occasional guy who still thinks "Dead End - No Turn Around" is there to scare tourists away. Good luck on that U-turn.
The location had me worried for a second. But you're on the good side of Vallejo. The other side has the infamous cliff as a backdrop. You have a good century or 2 before that cliff churns its way through.
Posted by: San FronziScheme at July 30, 2009 2:20 PM
$1,400/sf assuming 2,800sf of space...this will indeed be very interesting to watch. I would be very surprised to see the market reach norh of $3.5M for this today...
Posted by: ok at July 30, 2009 3:01 PM
Why does the front facade have two address numbers? Is there a rental unit?
Posted by: confused at July 30, 2009 3:22 PM
When will anyone put something other than stainless steel and granite in a kitchen? And I'm not seeing a stove hood or any ventilation for the range top: Are they expected to open all the windows and doors every time they cook? Also, why leave the space above all the cabinets? Nothing but a dust collector and it makes the cabinets look glued onto the wall -- right out of their Ikea boxes.
(Sorry, just thought I'd pretend for a moment that this is a condo in Soma/Mission Bay, since I was missing the usual negative comment threads between listing agents who lose out on commssions to developer's sales offices.)
Posted by: Sarcasm Intended at July 30, 2009 3:23 PM
Now that's badass.
Posted by: lolcat_94123 at July 30, 2009 3:37 PM
why are most stagers in this city SOOO afraid of color? Is anyone else tired of west elm knock offs?
Posted by: DZinerSF at July 30, 2009 3:38 PM
Posted by: looker at July 30, 2009 3:39 PM
Is this the same staging group from the Steiner properties?
Posted by: sleepiguy at July 30, 2009 3:45 PM
Green Couch staged this and did an amazing job in my opinion.
Posted by: nottimhawko at July 30, 2009 3:46 PM
" I'm not seeing a stove hood or any ventilation for the range top: Are they expected to open all the windows and doors every time they cook?"
Ventilation is right on stove. Take a close look at the edge of stove. North side of stove has a thin, narrow square. A panel of ventilation pops up when cooking.
Posted by: SFlove at July 30, 2009 3:56 PM
DzinerSF - you should check out the staging for 173 Downey (www.173downey.com) - lots of color in the staging there, one of the better efforts I've seen
Posted by: noegal at July 30, 2009 3:56 PM
Are they really trying to make 1.5 million dollars after holding the house for 1 year?
Posted by: Guest at July 30, 2009 4:09 PM
there is no granite in the building. the property is over 3000 sq ft....maybe one of you negs would like a real tour???
Posted by: developer at July 30, 2009 4:13 PM
no, if you were really a "plugged in" reader (what a joke)! you'd probably figure out that the building may have been renovated from the ground up, that maybe there is additional parking, an elevator, a roof deck that is twice the size...
Is it too much to ask that SS readers actually visit a property every now and then prior to writing comments. Adam, you started this site out of frustration a few years back, see what breeds???
Posted by: developer at July 30, 2009 4:20 PM
Is it me or is picture 17 of the Golden Gate Bridge view not really from this house?
Posted by: I Can See For Miles at July 30, 2009 4:28 PM
Nicely done. I'm lovin that staircase made with white translucent treads.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at July 30, 2009 4:50 PM
The view from this home looks so THIRD WORLD? Ugly mismatched buildings with several different colors of paint ascending Mexico DF style up the hill with clothes flapping in the wind.
What happened with the facade? HIDEOUS!
Floor plan, meet choppy. This floor plan is barely livable!!
Posted by: Rex at July 30, 2009 5:26 PM
@confused: This was originally a two-unit building. It looks like it could still be. Very observant.
Posted by: Rocco at July 30, 2009 5:31 PM
@developer, based on your comment on the Scott street thread -- are we to surmise that you are the developer of this property, and the scott street property?
Posted by: eddy at July 30, 2009 6:09 PM
OMG, is that a deer head mounted on the wall above the stairway in picture 19? Is it to toss your hat and scarf on? LOL.
"Is it me or is picture 17 of the Golden Gate Bridge view not really from this house?" I think the view shown in picture 18 says not, but maybe on a clear day you CAN see forever (and through mountains). Just another reason why, as developer says, you should always visit the property first before faxing in your offer.
Posted by: CaesarStone not Caesar stone at July 30, 2009 6:19 PM
Am I wrong or are there two units in this building? There are two addresses (470 & 72), two front doors (see elevation picture, 2 different white doors on right), and this was a two unit building before. If it is being sold as a single family house, why put two address numbers on the front?
Whatever this is, it is stunning and I like location, views, design, choices of colors, materials and fixtures. The "developer" should remember that most of the comments have been VERY positive and I wish them well.
Posted by: still confused at July 30, 2009 7:02 PM
yes it is I, rick teed the developer of scott, vallejo 2829 steiner....
thanks for the spelling bee....
Posted by: developer at July 30, 2009 8:03 PM
I think the GG Bridge picture is to give you an idea of what's in the neighborhood. You know, in case you don't really know a lot about San Francisco.
Posted by: EH at July 30, 2009 8:48 PM
Amazing property. Well done, parking, the most spectacular 'view property' that I have evey experienced. An intimate view of the financial district and the city's northwestern slope from North Beach. Including the golden gate, presideo, cow hollow and marina. Amazing! View, View, View. Breathtaking, seriously.
Posted by: jeff schlarb at July 31, 2009 12:35 AM
Sexy. This is true RE porn. If I stare at these pix any longer, I'm gonna need some RE kleenex.
Posted by: plugged in at July 31, 2009 8:00 AM
Developer sounds like such a nice fellow/lady.
There is realtor who posts here occasionally who would be a perfect personality match.
Posted by: anon at July 31, 2009 8:18 AM
Thanks for the clarification Rick. Good luck with all the listings; and congrat's on Steiner. Did that go to a single person, or multiple if you don't mind me asking. Also, I like the listing over in Laurel. Did you develop, or are you just listing?
Posted by: eddy at July 31, 2009 10:03 AM
Funny to see developers on here get upset when a little transparency into the shady shady world of real estate begins to cut into their margins. Frustration started this blog? Great, because it's exactly what this industry needs -- a little more insight into a broken system that adds unwarranted costs to both buyers and sellers.
Posted by: nottimhawko at July 31, 2009 10:53 AM
^^^I don't think the implication above is at all warranted. We do live in a free country and throwing shady claims around carelessly is not appropriate. This is an anon / public forum but the larger group should still keep an appropriate tone.
Posted by: eddy at July 31, 2009 11:14 AM
Is not Photoshopped ?
Posted by: Chad at July 31, 2009 1:15 PM
do you own your home or do you rent?? maybe I could help you???
Transparency??? This is American soil last I checked...land of the free
I am trying to make a living and provide quality housing at the same time..what exactly do you do to contribute???
Anon, 590 spruce is a listing, I did help my client with the build out a few years back, he took a job in Indiana...
Posted by: developer at July 31, 2009 3:03 PM
Thanks Rick. And good luck with the sales. I actually really like 590 Spruce.
Posted by: eddy at July 31, 2009 4:01 PM
I'm curious -- what margin do you need before taking on a project?
In regards to pricing, do you first decide how much you can sell a project for, and then set the budget with the appropriate margin, or tally up the build costs and then set the price based on that.
In other words, what are you more certain of, before starting: your costs, or your minimum sales proceeds?
Posted by: Robert at July 31, 2009 9:23 PM
How do you do it??
Isn't this the worst real market in the history of real estate?
If you had been reading SS for the past 3 years you would never have tried half of what you have done. You would have wasted all your creative time calling people names on SS.
Instead you get up every day and tell yourself the World is Your Oyster.
Look at all the wonderful changes you have brought to our interesting city, and you have just begun.
Keep it up, you only live once!
Posted by: Frederick at July 31, 2009 11:53 PM
"If you had been reading SS for the past 3 years you would never have tried half of what you have done."
I think if you had been reading SS for the past 3 years you would have done EXACTLY what Rick has done: high-end modern remodels. Why so insecure?
Posted by: SFSal at August 1, 2009 9:51 AM
There are plenty of high end modern remodels that are not moving, or had to drop price to sell.
Posted by: MarinaLocal at August 1, 2009 12:07 PM
Rick, is this one of two units, or is it a SFH? The two address numbers on the front is confusing.
Your company is doing great work and it shows in your success.
Posted by: justin at August 1, 2009 2:46 PM
It's 2 units being sold as one SFH. The City, in its wisdom, makes it hard to combine units, so a simple solution is not to.
Posted by: salarywoman at August 1, 2009 9:51 PM
If they did not combine the two units, how is this a single family house? There has to be a connection. Are there two kitchens? Can the city do anything to you if they find out?
Posted by: Conifer at August 3, 2009 8:47 AM
It's two units that function as a single family home. The units are probably joined by a fire rated door while the second unit has its own separate means of egress. And it does have its own kitchen which I think is visible in the pictures. The city doesn't really care how you use the property as whole provided that the second unit remain as such according to planning code. You can't turn a structure that was originally multiple units into a SFH, but sometimes you can turn a home that has been chopped up into units back into a SFH if it meets certain historical criteria - it's just not easy.
Posted by: sleepiguy at August 3, 2009 9:13 AM
You make it sounds like your doing society some sort of charity by revamping these homes. The guise of "providing quality living" is hilarious. I'm all for making a living, and the land of the free for that matter, but let's call it like it is. You're in the business of building luxury homes at the highest margin possible. There are a lot of inefficiencies that do not benefit the buyer in that type of market, so it's in this HOMWOWNER'S best interest to read sites like socketsite in order get a better grip on the pulse of SF real estate.
Posted by: nottimhawko at August 3, 2009 9:54 AM
How does the city enforce this rule of keeping the second unit? Or do they just leave you alone because there are better things to do?
In any other city, this fine house from two units would not be an issue. We have friends in NYC, London, Paris, Brussels, and Madrid who have apartments or houses that were formed from smaller units.
Posted by: Conifer at August 3, 2009 9:55 AM
If you are remodeling a property, the city has planning do progress inspections and a final inspection to make sure everything is to code including the retention of a housing unit. Loss of housing is a major planning issue, so it's something they definitely keep track of since obviously a SFH is worth more than two separate condos. Remember that house featured here that sold on Fillmore and Jackson? That was also two units. As for illegally removing units... Well, I'm not touching that one..
Posted by: sleepiguy at August 3, 2009 10:03 AM
I'll second that. A home in the $2.5M range was snapped from the market and was replaced with a (tentatively) $4M range home. A micro-scale supply/demand domino effect was initiated as a consequence.
On the other side of the equation, prices are overall cheaper today than the same time last year. These redos are a big bet in this market. Best wishes on the sale.
Posted by: San FronziScheme at August 3, 2009 11:08 AM
As noted in the 4th post in this thread, this is actually a RH3 3 unit home so the city has this rated as 3 homes, although there may never have been a 3rd unit. Just something to consider. There are a lots of RH2/RH3 homes around the city functioning as a SFH. Lot's of SFH doing the opposite as TIC's!
Posted by: eddy at August 3, 2009 1:49 PM
Why would anyone change a SFH to a TIC? Or are TICs worth more in some, non-northern areas of the city?
Posted by: Conifer at August 3, 2009 1:55 PM
I'm just saying there are a lot of RH1 (SFH)zoned homes that are really 2 and 3 unit rental properties, or functioning TICs.
Posted by: eddy at August 3, 2009 2:06 PM
In other words, SFH to units wasn't done recently, because that would not be economic.
There was a truly great, huge Victorian on California St (?1976) a number of years ago that had been chopped into five or six units, but not badly. I am sure that whoever bought it must have returned it to its proper use. The interior architecture of the main rooms and staircase was worthy of a coffee table book.
Posted by: Conifer at August 3, 2009 6:11 PM
Conifer, yes, many large homes in Pac Heights were carved up into units in the 50s like the Rossi mansion on Vallejo. Planning allowed its conversion from 11 to 2 units a few months ago - which was a huge shocker.
Eddy, I'm a little confused by your statement. I thought RH2 zoning refers to parts of the block and not specifically to the house in question. Part of my block is "zoned" RH2, even though some properties are SFHs while others have a 2 to 10 units crammed in them, but they're all zoned RH2.
Posted by: sleepiguy at August 3, 2009 7:04 PM
I'm pretty sure that each lot has it's own zoning specific to that lots designated use. Lot A can be RH1 and Lot B can be RH2 or RH3. I've not seen to many scenarios of SFH RH2 that do not have multiple units. That said, I wouldn't bet the house on my casual interpretation.
Posted by: eddy at August 3, 2009 9:57 PM
Spot zoning is not considered good planning practice.
So you are unlikely to find a lot with a zoning designation that does not match any of its neighbors. You will, however, find plenty of buildouts that do not match. That's because, historically, an owner could always build fewer than the allowed number of units. Don't know what the situation is today, though. It's possible that SF planning will no longer let a SFH be built on an RH2 or RH3 lot. Anybody know?
Posted by: salarywoman at August 4, 2009 2:20 PM
Interesting how every negative comment on here has no basis in fact.
Even the posts about how the city works are all wrong.
There are buildings all over the city zoned for more or fewer units than exist because zoning boundaries change over time whether houses were built in 1906 or 1996.
A large number of buildings in this city are stewing in a sea of code violations, clad in formica, linoleum, with furnaces the size of buicks, covered in asbestos, with no fire ratings, outlets or even light fixtures in many cases. Fine for rental - but who wants to own that for eternity.
Development isn't inherently evil.
Everything in this home is custom. Not Ikea.
Remodeling may not be the greenest thing in the world - but if you bother to shell out for high quality finishes & make the spaces flexible enough to sustain a stranger - it's a lot less likely that it'll all end up in a landfill shortly after changing hands.
Posted by: other at August 7, 2009 9:38 AM
I agree, a fabulous remodel. I'm coveting bigtime.
I didn't see a stove in the wet bar in the ground floor media room, but I guess it wouldn't be hard to add one. Do that and you've got a second unit for in-law or rental. And they have their own patio.
Now, here's a question for you SF'ers (I'm from out of state). Checking out this place on Google Earth, I was surprised to see another whole collection of housing units in the interior of this block. You can't even see them from Vallejo, Green, etc., only in the aerial view. Were those added in later on? When this building was originally built, did it have a backyard?
Posted by: slobone at August 11, 2009 10:17 AM
There is a gas shut off under the countertop of the bar - so a gas range could be added easily.
The building did always have a rear yard.
The really interesting thing about having neighbors central to the block is the (secret) bonus side yard.
That whole east wall could be blasted out for views to a side easement that is used by multiple neighbors as a wide stair & tiered gardens to get to their houses up the hill.
Posted by: other at August 14, 2009 1:39 PM
Anyone know who did the staging at 173 Downey?
Posted by: AD at August 27, 2009 7:40 PM
Sunrooms are very good for health. People are showing interest in it now.It maintains room temperature in winter season.It can be used as multipurpose room also as you described.
Posted by: Sunroom Ontario at September 30, 2009 4:49 PM