Second Avenue (Image Source: MapJack.com)
In the words of our tipster: “How many ways can a homeowner say FU to their neighbors?” Perhaps subtitled, where’s Planning when you really need them?
But hey, at least they kept the bay windows.

23 thoughts on “Well, At Least They Kept The Bay Windows…”
  1. I can’t help but see that image of the Iraqi prisoner standing on a box with a hood over his head and wires connected to his hands in this house.
    So where is this travesty located ?

  2. I suspect this horrid addition was done 30 or more years ago, when Planning controls were lax or non-existent.
    Saitowitz would certainly like the addition.:)

  3. I think this is on 3rd, 4th or 5th Avenue, between Clement and Geary? Somewhere around there — I’ve seen it.
    So, for all of you who think SF Planning has NO reason to exist (myself included most of the time), just remember this photo!!!
    SF Planning does indeed keep SF looking better than it might otherwise look if everyone could build whatever they wanted.

  4. Sadly noreach, whether this was done 30 years ago or not, the planning process in SF in terms of inspiring beautiful buildings is non-existent.
    Virtually every small-infill project looks the same – institutional, pedestrian unfriendly, foreboding, uninviting. I could go on.
    SF’s recent new buildings, large and small, are among the ugliest of any US city when taken in toto.

  5. The timing of the remodel makes sense. This sort of awful construction occurred in not just SF but pretty much all of the older turn of the century cores of bay area cities. In the 1970s the economy was struggling and many poorly maintained wood Victorians and Edwardians were a shambles. Those were torn down or remodeled with space age 1970s techniques. The result is little pockets of bleak, uninspired, terrible construction within the surviving old buildings. Some neighborhoods of stately well proportioned detached SFHs are punctuated by “drop-in” stucco boxy quadraplexes. What were they thinking ? (A: $$$)
    I just hope that thirty years from now we don’t look back on the 00’s binge of dwellish modern the same way.

  6. “I just hope that thirty years from now we don’t look back on the 00’s binge of dwellish modern the same way.”
    Are you joking? I already look at Dwell’d out places that way.
    I would rather have a better planning department, even if that means we get the occasional house like this monstrosity. Frankly, I have more faith in people designing their own homes than I have faith in SF’s planning department and NIMBYs telling them how to design homes.
    I don’t see how the crappy Planning by Committee process we have here is significantly better than the looser process noearch describes. Planning by Committee SF-style guarantees boring designs due to having to meet the lowest of the low NIMBY common denominator. At least with looser processes, you might get some crappy houses, but you will also likely get some great designs as well.
    Our planning processes strive for mediocrity and inoffensiveness, instead of letting people succeed or fail on their own. People are so afraid their property value might fall that the main goal is just to fit in, even though that actual drop in value would likely be de minimis.

  7. @sfrenegade: I don’t know if you really mean “looser” or “loser” in your comments. Clarify. I think you got your words kinda screwed up, dude.
    I agree the Planning process is somewhat broken and very bureaucratic.It’s hard for even the best architect to work thru it. Yes, SF Planning does have a purpose and many good people who want quality work. Some of the planners down there are gliding thru til retirement. Some are unintelligent.
    But bad design comes from bad architects (and we have plenty of them), bad builders who act like designers (lots of them too) and cheap-ass homeowners who think they can do it themselves. They can’t.
    Good design takes talent, commitment, and understanding and challenging the process, and a realistic budget.
    Garbage in. Garbage out.

  8. At least there is room for improvement. Check out these two places on Frederick in Cole Valley.
    http://www.mapjack.com/?9q3mWWftbFRG
    If you pull up google maps street view, you can see how they currently look. The place on the right has been remodeled to look more victorian. Can’t say its a great remodel, but its a huge improvement

  9. “I don’t know if you really mean “looser” or “loser” in your comments. Clarify. I think you got your words kinda screwed up, dude.”
    I realize you’re often looking to snipe at me, noearch, but I didn’t make any typos. You described the prior processes as more loose than now, correct?
    I do like the description of this addition as Saitowitz-esque. If this whole building at 208-210 2nd looked like the addition and it was located South of Market, people would pay a premium:
    http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/208-2nd-Ave-94118/home/1163414

  10. I’m sure a tenant did it without landlord approval. Isn’t this the wild west? Good lord, you can have 12 homeless people ask you for money within 2 blocks of Union Square and you get pissed about shitty architectural decisions. God help us. More dead birds to drop out of the sky.

  11. no, I’m not looking to snipe at you sfren: it’s cool. I was just asking ’cause many people here get those two spellings and meanings often mixed up.
    so, all is good in snarkland.:)

  12. With everything paved over, all the front yards and sidewalks turned to parking and not a tree or bush in sight, it seems all the neighbors are saying FU to each other. Not that this is any different than anywhere else in SF.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *