April 10, 2012

Fewer Walls (And No Apples) At 42 August Alley

42 August Alley Living Room

Purchased for $2,250,000 in 2008, in 2009 walls were moved, a new kitchen and wet bar were installed, and "selective structural work" was completed at 42 August Alley.

Listed with 2,033 square feet in 2008, the remodeled North Beach home (click floor plan to enlarge) with two car garage is now back on the market and listed for $2,495,000.

∙ Listing: 42 August Alley (3/2.5) - $2,495,000 [42augustalley.com]

First Published: April 10, 2012 7:00 AM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

Seems really pricey per/ft for this type of build. and the wetbar seems so forced on such a small place, its like 8' away from the kitchen....maybe should have put it between the living room/dining or just not even added it at all

Posted by: mikey woodz at April 10, 2012 10:05 AM

I saw this on the MLS as well. I don't get the TV placement in picture 9. Overall, too high of a price for the location and home.

[Editor's Note: At Least It's Not Mounted Over A Fireplace (Or A Television)...]

Posted by: PPC at April 10, 2012 10:08 AM

Seems rich.

Posted by: ok at April 10, 2012 12:55 PM

Am I the only person having trouble decifering the floor plan from these pictures? The wet bar area makes absolutely no sense to me. Why is the dining room down the hall from the kitchen, and why wouldn't you have an eat-in area by the kitchen and then swap the family room with the dining room, thereby making a more suitable, larger entertaining space?

Posted by: Lori at April 10, 2012 2:09 PM

Feels really cramped from the pics, and about $1m over priced.
Is there some killer roof deck or something?

Posted by: lolcat_94123 at April 10, 2012 3:02 PM

From the website: "Roof deck with expansive views of the city and Bay from Alcatraz Island to the Transamerica Building."

And $1200 a square foot seems a little bold.

Posted by: R at April 10, 2012 3:30 PM

Well if there's a deck I change my mind: it's now only $900k over priced.

Posted by: lolcat_94123 at April 10, 2012 4:05 PM

This is a 2/2.5. There is no third bedroom. The floor plans list the third "bedroom" as a study, presumably because there is no closet. Yet, the vanity website and MLS listing both state this is three bed. Hell, the vanity website even states, "Entering on August Alley, the first level is complete with three bedrooms and two fully remodeled bathrooms." No, no it's not. Why the lies?

Posted by: Q at April 11, 2012 1:54 PM

It could be a bedroom. Or a study. Or a dungeon.

It's not like there's a legal definition of what constitutes a bedroom. It's not necessarily not a bedroom.

Posted by: R at April 11, 2012 5:00 PM

"It's not like there's a legal definition of what constitutes a bedroom."

Um...wrong. Please take away R's Internet Comment Card.

Posted by: PN at April 11, 2012 5:05 PM

PN: Please point to the SF Muni or CA code that states what constitutes a bedroom. I'd love to see it.

Posted by: R at April 11, 2012 5:12 PM

My friend rents a 2br flat up the hill from this for $3k month. It has a much better view, parking and a killer roof deck. Ot course, this is not an apples to apples comparison....but I will let you run the rent vs buy.

Posted by: gyuppy at April 11, 2012 7:55 PM

It is quite unlikely your friend could rent that apartment now for $3k/month.

Posted by: Dan at April 11, 2012 8:17 PM

@R:

Convention requires that a bedroom have a closet. See http://www.sfaa.org/0508legalqa.html.

The Planning Department has determined that a second floor room cannot be a bedroom if the secondary egress is through a window facing a courtyard / lightwell. See http://sf-planning.org/ftp/files/LOD/2011/616%20-%2020th%20Street.pdf.

Ergo, no third bedroom.

Posted by: Q at April 12, 2012 10:40 AM

So there is no legal definition, but there is 'convention'.

And this room has three exits, only one of which is a light well. Also you reference docs from planning for new construction not a house built in 1912.

Posted by: R at April 12, 2012 11:33 AM

I think you misunderstand the meaning of "legal." In common law (including law surrounding fraud), meanings of terms are most often determined by convention. Yes, I am a lawyer.

Regardless of your semantics quibbling, crap like this erodes trust. I don't know Monica Pauli or Tim Farrell, but, if I ever meet them, they'll have to dig their way of a trust deficit.

Posted by: Q at April 12, 2012 11:49 AM

^ Just tell R to talk to the Hand

"Words are not pebbles in alien juxtaposition; they have only a communal existence; and not only does the meaning of each interpenetrate the other, but all in their aggregate take their meaning from the setting in which they are used"

Posted by: ReadingForRealtors at April 12, 2012 12:01 PM

So because you could argue that the common definition of a bedroom includes a closet means that is the legal definition?

Clearly you're not a very good lawyer.

Posted by: R at April 12, 2012 12:55 PM

^ troll alert.

Please do not feed R. And everyone, do not ever be surprised at a realtor's willingness to mislead or deceive in a property listing. That this happens with alarming frequency is not news or even worth discussing anymore.

Posted by: anon at April 12, 2012 1:01 PM

OK. Fine. It is not a bedroom because the 'convention' says it needs a closet to be a bedroom. It is illegal to use an armoire.

This is just a room with two doors and a window, but you are not allowed to sleep there! No beds allowed. You must leave it empty.

Posted by: Robb at April 12, 2012 1:06 PM

Post a comment


(required - will be published)


(required - will not be published, sold, or shared)


(optional - your "Posted by" name will link to this URL)

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


Continue Perusing SocketSite:

« The 280 Seventh Street Scoop (And Evolving Neighborhood Editorial) | HOME | San Francisco's City Attorney Sues Short-Term Rental Scofflaws »