Hopefully loads of those interior features still original will be both reused and well-matched, to create historically appropriate apartments! I had read elsewhere that the interior had been changed many times and also in disrepair in the past already, so I am betting with the historical societies involved, it will on the whole be an upgrade. (I do love big houses and get a bit sad when they are divided, still)
@@twobluestripes I have a 1934 Sears Craftsman bungalow I opened up fully but the decorative items are still in use inside as well as in the extension I had added off the back for the new bathrooms and bedrooms that matches the style of the historic exterior. It really makes no sense to leave the small, cramped rooms in 100+ year old houses. There's nothing inherently special about the interiors unless you plan to just turn it into a museum.
@@10th_Doctor It's preference I think. I love a beautiful Craftsman bungalow that still has its rooms intact. I've done many kitchen and bathroom remodels in Craftsmans and Victorians, and I think keeping the rooms gives the advantage of having more modern fixtures and style, which I think may not work if it was opened up.
@@margonathanson2827 The rooms are just too small for a modern lifestyle. Mine had a living room, kitchen, dining room, 2 bedrooms, and bathroom with the square footage of most modern country kitchens and living rooms combined. I opened the entire interior up to a single open room with a large kitchen, living area, and dining area. Everything else was moved into the addition. Nice to look at but to live in, no, sorry. Just too small and cramped.
Saw this on the CBS evening news and had to check it out since lived in the Richmond District between 1988-98 and there were still some small earthquake homes like the one on Clement between 21st and 22nd now gone. All this talk about this rare specimen is moot since once the house is gutted it will no longer be a rare specimen but simply an old shell around a 2021 interior. Much like a 32 Ford which has been modernized and the only vintage parts left are the metal body panels.
There are about a dozen Earthquake Refugee Shacks still extant in SF. I lived in one of them, out on 46th between Irving and Judah. Sorry to hear about the one on Clement that's now gone.
Yeah, they should have kept the old wiring and plumbing in it too because, you know, it's better for it to burn down due to ancient wiring and plumbing than to modernize it. SMH. I live in a 1934 Sears Craftsman Bungalow with the original exterior but a fully updated modern interior. The entire inside is now one large open living area and kitchen with a bathroom and bedrooms in a new addition off the back. Don't like it? I can live with that.
@@tbm3fan913 So what if a building you are likely to never see the inside of looks different inside than it did 100 years ago? So you can look at it and say "Ooooh, original!"
God forbid this city had more rental units. We really need more of the 1% hoarding 99% of the real estate and make it completely unaffordable for everyone else.
@@darkwoodmovies -- San Francisco does not "need" more housing. The demand for living spaces in SF is infinite and can never be accommodated. They could build 100,000 new units in the City and in a year or less, they would all be taken, without putting a significant dent in the demand. _About half_ of all of the new units that have been added to SF's stock in the past 20 years have been purchased or rented by people who didn't live in SF before then. IOW, they have been purchased as _pieds-a-terres_ by foreigners, or for immigrants and out-of-towners, or as investment properties (such as for AirBnB), and therefore do little to help SF residents. But that's far from _all_ they do: they also add to the density of what is already the second-most-densely-populated city in the US. They place an increased burden on everything from infrastructure (gas, electricity, water, etc.) to institutions (e.g., schools) to emergency services (police, fire, etc.), as well as diminishing the quality of life for those already here. Again, San Francisco has not had a "housing crisis" since 1906. What it has, is a *housing demand* crisis. And so long as people all over the world want to come to San Francisco, it will be impossible to build our way out of that crisis.
@@roberthaines4221 For better or for worse, I think all cities in America need to face the reality that more people will be moving in constantly, and our economy is shifting to become more and more urban. Demand will always go up, it's inevitable. You can't solve it by asking big companies and businesses to stay away. We need infrastructure and policies to handle the demand crises, because it won't go away. Ignoring it will just skyrocket prices and cause a homeless epidemic, as we're seeing now.
@@darkwoodmovies -- I think you're seeing the tail wag the dog. Even if humanity is becoming more urbanized, there is nothing that says it's preferable or even rational, for people to move to _existing, historic_ cities. SF (like Manhattan, the other most densely-populated city in the US) is effectively an island. The only way to add more housing is to make the existing space more densely-populated, which simply creates collateral problems, such as those I've already mentioned (load on infrastructure, etc.) So a far more rational way to accommodate more people in urban environments is to create new urban centers. New cities are being created all over the world, with dozens of them built in the past 2 decades that are larger than SF's population of 800,000. (See link below) That makes far more sense than increasing density in existing cities. There are, for example, largely unused spaces within an hour of SF that could easily accommodate new cities being built -- particularly in areas to the north of Livermore, north of Vacaville, west of Sears Point, etc. Those make far more sense than just expecting to keep placing heavier and heavier burdens on the second-most-densely-populated city in the US, which also happens to be built atop a major seismic fault, and to have access on 3 sides limited by the Bay. So why is the focus on SF instead? One reason: people want a piece of what it already offers -- liberal policies, history, scenic beauty, cultural attractions -- in short, all things that would be negatively affected by adding more residents. They could build those new cities as satellites to SF, and *still* people would prefer to own and/or live in SF. To me, that proves that it's not really about needed living space, but rather about people wanting to live in SF, to the exclusion of other, less expensive, more available options. www.usnews.com/news/cities/slideshows/these-are-7-of-the-worlds-newest-cities
WHY would you want to make such a beautiful and historical home into a multi-family building?!!!? I hate when people take such beautiful homes and turn them into apartments. You know that they're going to have to make major changes to it to accommodate making it into separate apartments. Shame shame shame!!!
Why would they do it? Maximizing profit. If they had kept it as a single-family dwelling, in that neighborhood it might sell for $3 million, although the cost of shoring it up, moving it, and then putting it on a new foundation would eat up about 1/6th of that. By chopping it up into 7 condos, they can sell each of them for an average of say, $800,000. That's double the value of it as a SFD. And as a bonus, on the old site, they get to build a 47-unit building. _Ka-CHING!_ Because that's what property in SF has come down to: maximizing profits at the cost of history and quality of life. :/
@@roberthaines4221 oh I know why. It always comes down to money. It was more of a rhetorical question. I just don't feel it's truly worth chopping up such a beautiful home like that. I can only imagine what kin of "upgrades" will be done to it. Nothing will come close to the quality of work and craftsmanship that was put into homes from that era, no matter the price tag.
@@vanessahornsby1811 You're exactly right. In my opinion, anyone that would truly appreciate living in a property like this would not want to live in it as a condo. Just sayin'.
So utterly sad that they intend to ruin such awesome historical beauty. First, by moving its location, then by altering its original intended use by gutting its interior to "make room" for losers and their nasty families to invade. Why bother spending $400,000 to move the house? Then another half mil or mil to further annihilate the thing! Lord how I loathe humans.
So after moving, the original Franklin St site will have a bland 20 unit apartment built on it? Too bad you aren't going to mimic the old Victorian style.
@@cureosityproject6911 This must be an enormous building, if they could turn it into 7 units. There are not that many people that need a huge mansion. It does make me happy that the facade is going to be retained.
I’m glad the home is being saved, but yet another gutted Victorian in town turned into multi-family housing? 🤦♂️ Do we have any single-family Victorians left? The city is getting further and further away from what made it the most charming town on earth in the first place.
@@RaymondHng Having lived here half my life, I can tell you that the growing number of multi/family units has massively increased our population which lent itself to single-family Victorians skyrocketing into the millions of dollars. Prices were never like this until around the late 90’s when the population exploded and demand increased, and multi-family apartment housing made it possible for people to move in, take over, and inflate our cost of living.
@@socalguy97 I was born and raised San Francisco, so I've lived in the city my _entire_ life. Here are the historical population numbers for San Francisco, San Diego, and Manhattan for every decade since 1860. *Year San Francisco San Diego Manhattan* 1860 56,802 - 731 - 813,669 - 1870 149,473 163.10% 2,300 214.60% 942,292 15.80% 1880 233,959 56.50% 2,637 14.70% 1,164,674 23.60% 1890 298,997 27.80% 16,159 512.80% 1,441,216 23.70% 1900 342,782 14.60% 17,700 9.50% 1,850,093 28.40% 1910 416,912 21.60% 39,578 123.60% 2,331,542 26.00% 1920 506,676 21.50% 74,361 87.90% 2,284,103 −2.0% 1930 634,394 25.20% 147,995 99.00% 1,867,312 −18.2% 1940 634,536 0.00% 203,341 37.40% 1,889,924 1.20% 1950 775,357 22.20% 334,387 64.40% 1,960,101 3.70% 1960 740,316 −4.5% 573,224 71.40% 1,698,281 −13.4% 1970 715,674 −3.3% 696,769 21.60% 1,539,233 −9.4% 1980 678,974 −5.1% 875,538 25.70% 1,428,285 −7.2% 1990 723,959 6.60% 1,110,549 26.80% 1,487,536 4.10% 2000 776,733 7.30% 1,223,400 10.20% 1,537,195 3.30% 2010 805,235 3.70% 1,307,402 6.90% 1,585,873 3.20% 2019 881,549 9.50% 1,423,851 8.90% 1,628,706 2.70% The population of San Francisco actually went down for three decades while San Diego surpassed it. The growth in population of San Francisco was not "explosive" as San Diego. But it's not the building of multi-unit apartments that caused SF real estates prices to skyrocket. It's the lack of available housing to keep up with the demand that drives property values up. San Diego is seven times the land area of San Francisco, so they have more land to build housing on. Manhattan is 71% of the land area of this city and they are locked in by water like San Francisco, so they build more taller high rises for housing. It's the NIMBYs in the city that prevent the building of taller structures for more housing. San Francisco Waterfront Partners spent over $10 million in the planning process to build 134 condos at 8 Washington Street. After NIMBYs got the project on the San Francisco ballot, voters defeated the development in the election and SF Waterfront Partners gave up on the project.
I don’t think so - will be a nice apartment for someone-with all the built in craftmanship . I lived in a Victorian apartment once though - I was driven crazy cleaning dust off the nooks and crannies - lol it’s more difficult to kept clean 🧽. But not that bad overall .
This video is great but it’s annoyingly chopped up. Very poor editing. I wish they would’ve just stuck with one topic and showed more of the original interior without changing direction. I am happy that they are preserving history though.
The exterior of the house is made of top quality wood and weathered almost 140 years well. Much of the interior, such as the plaster is in poor condition. Many elements had been remodeled by different owners through all those years and thus the original materials were not there. We chose to highlight and celebrate the elements that were available to us and unique to the Italianate style and avoid what would distract from the beauty of the house.
Oh dear you will ruin the historical value and integrity of the interior of the building by making it a multi-occupancy building -and why move it: It's just all about making money these days. So sad -and then building up high to get the 'rent' money in. There must be better things that could be done to save this old building and house people. :-(
Got here from sfgate. I really appreciate the effort to preserve history through these amazing buildings
HAVE FUN WITH THE CRACKHEADS AND DRUGGIES.....
good one.
It's a bummer to see them show off the beautiful interior features and then explain the building will be gutted for "adaptive reuse."
Hopefully loads of those interior features still original will be both reused and well-matched, to create historically appropriate apartments! I had read elsewhere that the interior had been changed many times and also in disrepair in the past already, so I am betting with the historical societies involved, it will on the whole be an upgrade.
(I do love big houses and get a bit sad when they are divided, still)
@@twobluestripes I have a 1934 Sears Craftsman bungalow I opened up fully but the decorative items are still in use inside as well as in the extension I had added off the back for the new bathrooms and bedrooms that matches the style of the historic exterior. It really makes no sense to leave the small, cramped rooms in 100+ year old houses. There's nothing inherently special about the interiors unless you plan to just turn it into a museum.
@@10th_Doctor It's preference I think. I love a beautiful Craftsman bungalow that still has its rooms intact. I've done many kitchen and bathroom remodels in Craftsmans and Victorians, and I think keeping the rooms gives the advantage of having more modern fixtures and style, which I think may not work if it was opened up.
@@margonathanson2827 The rooms are just too small for a modern lifestyle. Mine had a living room, kitchen, dining room, 2 bedrooms, and bathroom with the square footage of most modern country kitchens and living rooms combined. I opened the entire interior up to a single open room with a large kitchen, living area, and dining area. Everything else was moved into the addition. Nice to look at but to live in, no, sorry. Just too small and cramped.
Saw this on the CBS evening news and had to check it out since lived in the Richmond District between 1988-98 and there were still some small earthquake homes like the one on Clement between 21st and 22nd now gone. All this talk about this rare specimen is moot since once the house is gutted it will no longer be a rare specimen but simply an old shell around a 2021 interior. Much like a 32 Ford which has been modernized and the only vintage parts left are the metal body panels.
There are about a dozen Earthquake Refugee Shacks still extant in SF. I lived in one of them, out on 46th between Irving and Judah. Sorry to hear about the one on Clement that's now gone.
Yeah, they should have kept the old wiring and plumbing in it too because, you know, it's better for it to burn down due to ancient wiring and plumbing than to modernize it. SMH.
I live in a 1934 Sears Craftsman Bungalow with the original exterior but a fully updated modern interior. The entire inside is now one large open living area and kitchen with a bathroom and bedrooms in a new addition off the back. Don't like it? I can live with that.
@@10th_Doctor You can modernize systems without gutting the facility.
@@tbm3fan913 So what if a building you are likely to never see the inside of looks different inside than it did 100 years ago? So you can look at it and say "Ooooh, original!"
@@10th_Doctor Obviously it is completely beyond your ability to understand so I cease to further enlighten you.
This is beautiful! I hope they don’t modernize and keep all the historical stuff inside.
Hope they post the moving of this beauty. Wow!
HAVE FUN WITH THE CRACKHEADS AND DRUGGIES.....
Sounds like they’re going yo gut and carve out several units in that beautiful Victorian. smh.
God forbid this city had more rental units. We really need more of the 1% hoarding 99% of the real estate and make it completely unaffordable for everyone else.
@@darkwoodmovies -- San Francisco does not "need" more housing. The demand for living spaces in SF is infinite and can never be accommodated. They could build 100,000 new units in the City and in a year or less, they would all be taken, without putting a significant dent in the demand. _About half_ of all of the new units that have been added to SF's stock in the past 20 years have been purchased or rented by people who didn't live in SF before then. IOW, they have been purchased as _pieds-a-terres_ by foreigners, or for immigrants and out-of-towners, or as investment properties (such as for AirBnB), and therefore do little to help SF residents.
But that's far from _all_ they do: they also add to the density of what is already the second-most-densely-populated city in the US. They place an increased burden on everything from infrastructure (gas, electricity, water, etc.) to institutions (e.g., schools) to emergency services (police, fire, etc.), as well as diminishing the quality of life for those already here.
Again, San Francisco has not had a "housing crisis" since 1906. What it has, is a *housing demand* crisis. And so long as people all over the world want to come to San Francisco, it will be impossible to build our way out of that crisis.
@@roberthaines4221 For better or for worse, I think all cities in America need to face the reality that more people will be moving in constantly, and our economy is shifting to become more and more urban. Demand will always go up, it's inevitable. You can't solve it by asking big companies and businesses to stay away. We need infrastructure and policies to handle the demand crises, because it won't go away. Ignoring it will just skyrocket prices and cause a homeless epidemic, as we're seeing now.
@@darkwoodmovies -- I think you're seeing the tail wag the dog.
Even if humanity is becoming more urbanized, there is nothing that says it's preferable or even rational, for people to move to _existing, historic_ cities. SF (like Manhattan, the other most densely-populated city in the US) is effectively an island. The only way to add more housing is to make the existing space more densely-populated, which simply creates collateral problems, such as those I've already mentioned (load on infrastructure, etc.) So a far more rational way to accommodate more people in urban environments is to create new urban centers.
New cities are being created all over the world, with dozens of them built in the past 2 decades that are larger than SF's population of 800,000. (See link below) That makes far more sense than increasing density in existing cities. There are, for example, largely unused spaces within an hour of SF that could easily accommodate new cities being built -- particularly in areas to the north of Livermore, north of Vacaville, west of Sears Point, etc. Those make far more sense than just expecting to keep placing heavier and heavier burdens on the second-most-densely-populated city in the US, which also happens to be built atop a major seismic fault, and to have access on 3 sides limited by the Bay.
So why is the focus on SF instead? One reason: people want a piece of what it already offers -- liberal policies, history, scenic beauty, cultural attractions -- in short, all things that would be negatively affected by adding more residents. They could build those new cities as satellites to SF, and *still* people would prefer to own and/or live in SF. To me, that proves that it's not really about needed living space, but rather about people wanting to live in SF, to the exclusion of other, less expensive, more available options.
www.usnews.com/news/cities/slideshows/these-are-7-of-the-worlds-newest-cities
@@roberthaines4221 Finally someone who ACTUALLY GETS IT! Thank you for explaining to the ignorant.
They are going to ruin it by putting in 7 units. SMH
WHY would you want to make such a beautiful and historical home into a multi-family building?!!!? I hate when people take such beautiful homes and turn them into apartments. You know that they're going to have to make major changes to it to accommodate making it into separate apartments. Shame shame shame!!!
Why would they do it? Maximizing profit. If they had kept it as a single-family dwelling, in that neighborhood it might sell for $3 million, although the cost of shoring it up, moving it, and then putting it on a new foundation would eat up about 1/6th of that. By chopping it up into 7 condos, they can sell each of them for an average of say, $800,000. That's double the value of it as a SFD. And as a bonus, on the old site, they get to build a 47-unit building. _Ka-CHING!_ Because that's what property in SF has come down to: maximizing profits at the cost of history and quality of life. :/
@@roberthaines4221 oh I know why. It always comes down to money. It was more of a rhetorical question. I just don't feel it's truly worth chopping up such a beautiful home like that. I can only imagine what kin of "upgrades" will be done to it. Nothing will come close to the quality of work and craftsmanship that was put into homes from that era, no matter the price tag.
@@vanessahornsby1811 You're exactly right. In my opinion, anyone that would truly appreciate living in a property like this would not want to live in it as a condo. Just sayin'.
Is there a Part 2?
I hope they will post more episodes
@@cureosityproject6911 Thanks, we're working on it!
So utterly sad that they intend to ruin such awesome historical beauty. First, by moving its location, then by altering its original intended use by gutting its interior to "make room" for losers and their nasty families to invade. Why bother spending $400,000 to move the house? Then another half mil or mil to further annihilate the thing! Lord how I loathe humans.
Losers and their nasty families? Wow.
wtf is wrong with you? You're a bad person, and people like you are exactly why SF is unlivable and overpriced.
So glad they are saving the Victorian. The new apartment looks like just another new, glass apartment building - boring and bland.
So after moving, the original Franklin St site will have a bland 20 unit apartment built on it? Too bad you aren't going to mimic the old Victorian style.
Yeah, the new apartment looks like classic brutal Soviet style architecture.
They should keep it original and no modifications at all! #Sad
@@cureosityproject6911 This must be an enormous building, if they could turn it into 7 units. There are not that many people that need a huge mansion. It does make me happy that the facade is going to be retained.
@@cureosityproject6911 Who is this "they" who are going to spend millions of dollars to do that?
Looks like it will match the one already next to it (which I think was developed by the same developer)
2:34 had to move new Fulton site adjacent building 14'. Purist me doesn't like the sound of that adaptive reuse rebuilding ☹️😡
I’m glad the home is being saved, but yet another gutted Victorian in town turned into multi-family housing? 🤦♂️ Do we have any single-family Victorians left? The city is getting further and further away from what made it the most charming town on earth in the first place.
What single family can afford a $3 million house with $42,000 property taxes annually? That would be about $14,000 per month in mortgage payments.
@@RaymondHng Having lived here half my life, I can tell you that the growing number of multi/family units has massively increased our population which lent itself to single-family Victorians skyrocketing into the millions of dollars. Prices were never like this until around the late 90’s when the population exploded and demand increased, and multi-family apartment housing made it possible for people to move in, take over, and inflate our cost of living.
@@socalguy97 I was born and raised San Francisco, so I've lived in the city my _entire_ life. Here are the historical population numbers for San Francisco, San Diego, and Manhattan for every decade since 1860.
*Year San Francisco San Diego Manhattan*
1860 56,802 - 731 - 813,669 -
1870 149,473 163.10% 2,300 214.60% 942,292 15.80%
1880 233,959 56.50% 2,637 14.70% 1,164,674 23.60%
1890 298,997 27.80% 16,159 512.80% 1,441,216 23.70%
1900 342,782 14.60% 17,700 9.50% 1,850,093 28.40%
1910 416,912 21.60% 39,578 123.60% 2,331,542 26.00%
1920 506,676 21.50% 74,361 87.90% 2,284,103 −2.0%
1930 634,394 25.20% 147,995 99.00% 1,867,312 −18.2%
1940 634,536 0.00% 203,341 37.40% 1,889,924 1.20%
1950 775,357 22.20% 334,387 64.40% 1,960,101 3.70%
1960 740,316 −4.5% 573,224 71.40% 1,698,281 −13.4%
1970 715,674 −3.3% 696,769 21.60% 1,539,233 −9.4%
1980 678,974 −5.1% 875,538 25.70% 1,428,285 −7.2%
1990 723,959 6.60% 1,110,549 26.80% 1,487,536 4.10%
2000 776,733 7.30% 1,223,400 10.20% 1,537,195 3.30%
2010 805,235 3.70% 1,307,402 6.90% 1,585,873 3.20%
2019 881,549 9.50% 1,423,851 8.90% 1,628,706 2.70%
The population of San Francisco actually went down for three decades while San Diego surpassed it. The growth in population of San Francisco was not "explosive" as San Diego. But it's not the building of multi-unit apartments that caused SF real estates prices to skyrocket. It's the lack of available housing to keep up with the demand that drives property values up. San Diego is seven times the land area of San Francisco, so they have more land to build housing on. Manhattan is 71% of the land area of this city and they are locked in by water like San Francisco, so they build more taller high rises for housing. It's the NIMBYs in the city that prevent the building of taller structures for more housing. San Francisco Waterfront Partners spent over $10 million in the planning process to build 134 condos at 8 Washington Street. After NIMBYs got the project on the San Francisco ballot, voters defeated the development in the election and SF Waterfront Partners gave up on the project.
shame its being turned into a apartment building.
True. But better than demolishing the whole thing.
I don’t think so - will be a nice apartment for someone-with all the built in craftmanship . I lived in a Victorian apartment once though - I was driven crazy cleaning dust off the nooks and crannies - lol it’s more difficult to kept clean 🧽. But not that bad overall .
This video is great but it’s annoyingly chopped up. Very poor editing. I wish they would’ve just stuck with one topic and showed more of the original interior without changing direction. I am happy that they are preserving history though.
The exterior of the house is made of top quality wood and weathered almost 140 years well. Much of the interior, such as the plaster is in poor condition. Many elements had been remodeled by different owners through all those years and thus the original materials were not there. We chose to highlight and celebrate the elements that were available to us and unique to the Italianate style and avoid what would distract from the beauty of the house.
Oh dear you will ruin the historical value and integrity of the interior of the building by making it a multi-occupancy building -and why move it: It's just all about making money these days. So sad -and then building up high to get the 'rent' money in. There must be better things that could be done to save this old building and house people. :-(