As we wrote about 104 Laidley in early 2009 when listed for $1,095,000:
Painted ladies and Tales of the City hillside abodes don’t have a monopoly on homes that scream old school San Francisco (if not only in the address, and in a good way as far as we’re concerned). Welcome to 104 “Wonderful” Laidley (with which we’ll agree).
As a plugged-in reader added:
I had some friends that rented the upstairs in that…It was wonderful, but the live-in landlord down in the basement and the neighbors were not. You weren’t allowed to be in the garden or hot tub after 9PM or the neighbors would complain.
And as another notes, having failed to sell in 2009, 104 Laidley has returned to the market in 2011 listed for $959,000 and downplaying that “wonderful” reference.
Once again, obviously the aforementioned landlord would no longer be an issue if you buy. Still no comment on the neighbors.
∙ Listing: 104 Laidley (3/2) – $959,000 [MLS]
∙ Welcome to 104 “Wonderful” Laidley (And A Lot Of Green) [SocketSite]
Despite some of the “exuberance” on the front of the house, this house seems to have a lot going for it including good bones, location and views. The price looks very reasonable for the Laidley address and the views.
Yes, its a “charming” place on a delightful street; wonderful views, lush back yard;
But: I would be cautious to say it has good bones: Are the foundations upgraded? any shear walls or moment frames? Pretty low ceilings in the laundry area and that attic space. Good mechanical systems?
Garage could use gyp-board ceilings and walls to become fire resistant. Double glazed windows? updated electrical system?
Those are some of the key components I would look for with this house and location.
Also, uh, one of the “bedrooms” has a 6′ ceiling, and one of the “bathrooms” has a shower that’s not much more than a drain in the floor.
Views are nice, though.
Yea, torque: good things to point out. I think the price needs to reflect some of those items. still seems too high to me.
Views don’t mean much if the some of the rooms are not habitable..and the “bones” are broken or fragile.
Between about 1968 and 1980 there was a phenomenon here of hippie architecture (my term). Most of it in the hills above the Castro and southward, most of it consisting of “enhancing” old funky places with lots of adornment, lots of skylights, lots of recycled parts from salvage… and little of it with permits.
Its disappearing fast, in this case behind a hideous monochrome of green paint.
I echo the concerns about work done back when a house like this would sell for under 100K because I once used a student loan check (for only the fall term) as a down payment for a multi-unit building. It was a different world at a completely different price point and there was little budget for things that did not show.
ha ha, this house. the “mirror window” on the front there cracks me up every time. and no hot-tub after 9? i’d rather live in antioch than have that restriction.
Jimeny, those interior photos of rooms with windows are so over-HDRed that they look fake. They could tone it down a couple of stops and still get a good effect without the bizarre look.
Definitely a funky house though this location is great.
And thanks stucco-sux for introducing the term “hippie architecture” to the SocketSite lexicon.
What a mess!
“hippie architecture” could be shortened to hippiecture.
may i suggest a photo submittale contest of the best examples?
re: hippie architecture. I love the onion dome someone built on top of a house on Cumberland (or maybe it’s 20th?). Definitely would qualify for the contest.
I was one of the previous owners of this property. A friend sent me this posting to let me know that my former partner is selling. I thought the previous comments were mean. It’s one thing to ask good questions. it’s another to degrade the property with scorn. This house is amazing. It’s fun loving, well constructed, and will be a joy for people who have a happy spirit and a love of life.
I was one of the previous owners of this property. A friend sent me this posting to let me know that my former partner is selling. I thought the previous comments posted at this site were mean. It’s one thing to ask good questions before you make a purchase like this. it’s another to degrade the property and the owner with scorn. This house is amazing. It’s fun loving, well constructed, and will be a joy to live in for anyone who has a happy spirit and a love of life. I would also add that I lived there for 12 years and had a beautiful rapport with the neighbors. It’s a wonderful house on a wonderful street with wonderful people around it.
I was one of the former renters of the upstairs portion of this house. As I said on the last post: This house has a lot of things going for it and in many ways it is wonderful; and the photos don’t really do it justice.
But it came with a real dealkiller that I wish I’d known about from the start, and that potential buyers should know: The house presses up against the neighbors’ house to the west, the walls are far too thin and lack insulation so sounds really carry, and those neighbors were extremely sensitive, conservative and grouchy, they went to bed extremely early and insisted on complete silence at night in the backyard and hot tub, as well as quiet in the west rooms. They were the most unreasonable and crotchety neighbors I’ve ever had; certainly the worst by far in 12+ years of living in San Francisco. That’s definitely a hidden “gotcha” that you should know going in…
Sean
Real estate law question: anyone know if the seller has to disclose, at or before contract time, that the neighbors are crotchety, complaining, curmudgeons that will actively impair the new buyers’ happy spirits and love of life?
Seems like that would imply a lower offer, if the people writing an offer knew about it.
It also brings up the question…when does one simply say FU to the neighbors? They have no right to demand complete silence after 9PM, and no recourse either… the cops would laugh if they complained.
Not a happy situation though.
Also, when you agree to sell your property, no one is forcing you or your realtor to show it off on SS.
When it shows up on SS, comments both pro and con are fair.
Stop whining.
While I realize that to architectural professionals, this may be the equivalent to saying that I deflate my tires to hedge against inflation in a deflationary world, I do have a bit of a soft spot for “hippie architecture”. And I think it adds quite a bit of SF specific character in a land of granite topped Sub-Zero condos.
re the disclosure comment. I’m a real estate attorney, and would definitely disclose this. The seller must disclose facts that materially affect the value or desirability of the property. A non-disclosure lawsuit, even if based on weak facts, is expensive and time consuming and will likely result in a settlement.
All sorts of neighborly nuisances go undisclosed. Once while doing my due diligence on a home I stopped by midday in a weekday to discover a dozen screaming children in the next-door front yard. The neighbor was running a child care center.
Its true that much goes undisclosed, but its a litigation risk.
workisboringtoday, thanks for jumping in as your info sure is different from what I would have expected. Is the “rule” for what needs to be disclosed set out clearly in any statute or case law? Is it objective or subjective? A rule requiring disclosing that the neighbors complain if you make too much noise after 9:00 sure seems like it goes too far. What if the seller also generally went to bed at 9:00 and thus thought these neighbors’ quibbles were no big deal? That seller would not have to disclose whereas a late partier seller would have to do so?
Anyone can sue over anything (doesn’t mean the case won’t get tossed), so avoiding any litigation risk at all is not realistic and would likely just result in a lower sales price if taken to the extreme.
A real estate seller has both a common law and statutory duty of disclosure. Where the seller knows of facts materially affecting the value or desirability of the property and also knows that such facts are not known to, or within the reach of the diligent attention and observation of the buyer, the seller is under a duty to disclose them to the buyer. Undisclosed facts are material if they would have a significant and measurable effect on market value.
A seller’s duty of disclosure is limited to material facts; once the essential facts are disclosed a seller is not under a duty to provide details that would merely serve to elaborate on the disclosed facts. Where a seller fails to disclose a material fact, he may be subject to liability for nondisclosure since his conduct in the transaction amounts to a representation of the nonexistence of the facts which he has failed to disclose. Generally, whether the undisclosed matter was of sufficient materiality to have affected the value or desirability of the property is a question of fact. Likewise, whether or not the seller has actual knowledge of an undisclosed fact is a question of fact. A breach of this duty of disclosure will give rise to a cause of action for both rescission and damages.
The statutory obligations are set forth in Civil Code section 1102 et seq. This specifies the information a residential property seller must disclose when transferring the property and identifies the form Transfer Disclosure Statement and mandates that the disclosures be made in “good faith” as defined as “honesty in fact in the conduct of the transaction.” (Civ. Code, § 1102.7.)
@A.T. – if the Seller also went to bed at 9:00 p.m., he would not have had actual knowledge that the neighbor complains about loud noises after 9pm, so would have no duty to disclose that. And to your point, yes, anyone can sue over anything, but the fact that you suggest that omitting a disclosure can result in an increased sales-price just confirms that the “omission” is materially and should be included in the disclosure.
A real estate seller has both a common law and statutory duty of disclosure. Where the seller knows of facts materially affecting the value or desirability of the property and also knows that such facts are not known to, or within the reach of the diligent attention and observation of the buyer, the seller is under a duty to disclose them to the buyer. Undisclosed facts are material if they would have a significant and measurable effect on market value.
A seller’s duty of disclosure is limited to material facts; once the essential facts are disclosed a seller is not under a duty to provide details that would merely serve to elaborate on the disclosed facts. Where a seller fails to disclose a material fact, he may be subject to liability for nondisclosure since his conduct in the transaction amounts to a representation of the nonexistence of the facts which he has failed to disclose. Generally, whether the undisclosed matter was of sufficient materiality to have affected the value or desirability of the property is a question of fact. Likewise, whether or not the seller has actual knowledge of an undisclosed fact is a question of fact. A breach of this duty of disclosure will give rise to a cause of action for both rescission and damages.
The statutory obligations are set forth in Civil Code section 1102 et seq. This specifies the information a residential property seller must disclose when transferring the property and identifies the form Transfer Disclosure Statement and mandates that the disclosures be made in “good faith” as defined as “honesty in fact in the conduct of the transaction.” (Civ. Code, § 1102.7.)
@A.T. – if the Seller also went to bed at 9:00 p.m., he would not have had actual knowledge that the neighbor complains about loud noises after 9pm, so would have no duty to disclose that. But if he “generally” went to bed at 9pm, and had some knowledge that the neighbor complained about loud noises after 9, it’s a question of fact as to whether it should be disclosed (i.e., does it materially affect the value or desirability of the property). And to your point, yes, anyone can sue over anything, but the fact that you suggest that omitting a disclosure can result in an increased sales-price just confirms that the “omission” is materially and should be included in the disclosure.
Thanks boredatworktoday. That is somewhat helpful, although it does not provide much guidance on what needs to be done in the real world!
My point about the excess of disclosures was a little different and does not necessarily prove materiality. For example, an (admittedly) extreme but accurate disclosure just about anywhere in SF might include: “homeless guys often rummage through recycling and wake up residents, stray cats often yowl at night, neighbors two doors down often have loud parties, fire engines can be heard at night several times a month, puke occasionally found on front sidewalk, druggies’ needles sometimes discarded in front bushes, dog sh** often deposited by tree in front of house, used condoms have been seen at the nearby park, etc.” Sounds like a nightmare place nobody would pay full price for but it is all just city living. That all sounds arguably required under the law pretty much anywhere in SF.
Consider ” … and also knows that such facts are not known to, or within the reach of the diligent attention and observation of the buyer, the seller is under a duty to disclose them to the buyer…”
tc_sf, I guess we’ll let the jury decide that! Now, how much do you (the seller) want to pay me (the innocent buyer) to avoid legal and expert fees and the risk that a jury will believe me?
I’m kidding, but this is an area that I would think would offer clearer guidance. In reality, I suspect that the kinds of people that end up suing over anything but the most egregious non-disclosures (rot, termites, etc.) would sue no matter what, so it probably does not matter if one discloses mousy next door neighbors because even if you did they would find something else.
I rented the top half of this house as a VRBO rental for several weeks. I can’t speak to the sundry questions about mechanicals and fireproofing as those were not concerns for me at that time, but I can assure you the vibe of the house is sock-knocking amazing and quite truly like no other I’ve known anywhere else in my many years in San Francisco. I can also confirm the sound problem between upper and lower: it’s horrendous. You could be upstairs and know without an ounce of doubt whether someone downstairs was crumpling or folding. A related point is that the downstairs living quarters are straight out of John Malkovich. And finally the fuckery of the neighbors is legendary. They alone make this otherwise phenomenal house completely untenable.
ok, those are cool comments from Dee, for the most part.
but help me out: what does the “vibe” of a place mean? that is currently a very trendy word.
Secondly, what is “sock-knocking amazing” about it?
Just asking.
“crumpling or folding” is that another trendy word?? or was that suppose to be some engineering term about a foundation.
crumpling or folding are very technical engineering terms to describe how one handles toilet paper. i.e. you can hear EVERYTHING.
vibe is inherently subjective, but is way less annoying than, say, “emotional aura.”
it feels peaceful there, and very homey. windows everywhere. good layout that allows both big gatherings and lots of small breakout areas. a nice work area out front delivering sensational panoramic views. the garden landscaping out back is extremely pretty, multi-tiered with a really fun catwalk and lots of “wow” factor.
granted thanks to a small pond it also is a mosquito magnet: i’d drain that shit immediately.
one particularly cool feature is air circulation via the roof access. you get fresh air throughout, in every nook and cranny of the house. the city views, especially at sunrise and sunset, are unreal, because of the laidley location and elevation on that side of the street.
someone mentioned a hippy sensibility, and they’re absolutely correct. most of that has been stamped out by the somewhat depressing and artless white paint job, but traces remain in very obvious ways (name over garage, kitchen, bathroom are examples you can see for yourself in the provided photos.) and i guess it has a bit of a wooden-frame ramshackle feel, in the way that only seven-figure houses in noe, bernal and glen park can.
at some point this all becomes words. just go to the house and see how it feels to you. it’s definitely a house with a strong point of view, as are all the houses on laidley: most every one (minus a few 60s? crap apartment buildings) is an architectural standout, and in completely different directions. either you love them or you hate them.
The sale of 104 Laidley closed escrow on Friday with a reported contract price of $975,000.