11 ms·
Owner who demolished famed San Francisco house must build replica
- HuangYuSan 8y agoI just wish they cared about environmental preservation as much
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- doctorpangloss 8y agoAh, the “little people” of multi million dollar inherited homes and land really got some justice here. Real justice.
- chrisseaton 8y ago> Ah, the “little people” of multi million dollar inherited homes and land really got some justice here. The 'little people' referenced isn't the home owner. It's the community in San Francisco who lost a piece of notable architecture.
- forkchop 8y agoNo one that lives anywhere near this community is a "little person". The woman that lodged the complaint is likely very, very wealthy as well. Hence the previous mocking (and accurate) comment about, "multi million dollar inherited homes and land..."
- manfredo 8y agoI live in San Francisco and I have never heard of this building. The threshold for what gets considered "historic" in this town is exteremely low. That, combined with the chronic housing shortage makes it difficult for me to feel contempt for the owner.
- erikpukinskis 8y agoHistoric doesn’t mean well known necessarily. Sometimes historians are the only ones who recognize the significance of a structure. It might still be valuable to preserve for the future. Part of history and archeology is trying to understand the past better. But part of it is also realizing that future generations will have knowledge and tools that we don’t, and some level of preservation should be done as a matter of course, so that hidden knowledge isn’t erased before its salvage becomes feasible. I can’t argue for this specific house, just that being famous isn’t the only reason to keep something. Actually, in some ways it’s the famous locations that could be harmlessly torn down: the historic information has mostly been extracted, and many popular locations are merely a curiosity for tourists to stick in their cap.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- bialpio 8y agoActually, we did. I own a house and I have to go through the pain of jumping thorough all the hoops of applying for renovation permits. If you can just ignore the law, it's a slap to the face for all the people that follow it, irrespective of where they live and how wealthy they are.
- marcoperaza 8y agoYour sentiment has merit, but it reminds me of the bit in Huckleberry Finn (I think?) where a traveling scam show comes to town. Every night, a crowd arrives, pays entrance, and is treated only to the scammers persuading them to keep quiet about it, so that the next night's crowd gets taken for suckers too. And of course, misery loves company, so the people do just that.
- gonyea 8y agoI want to build an ADU on my Mountain View property but was denied because the permitting department in anti-ADU and will obstruct any way they can, despite the rule changes. Yet others have gone ahead and built an ADU on their property anyway, under similar circumstances, ignoring the permitting department. Morally speaking, did these people injure me? Did they slap me in the face? Are they wrong? They increased the housing supply during a shortage, but at the cost of ignoring the law.
- bialpio 8y agoOh, I don't know about morality, didn't realize we are discussing it here. All I know is that you have 2 options: either ignore the law but make sure you are ready to face the consequences, or don't ignore the law. I don't think there is a 3rd option where you knowingly ignore the law and then cry about being punished for doing it.
- everybodyknows 8y agoAs a practical matter, how would the city know unless neighbors report the construction activity? The question then is, can the city be trusted to maintain the anonymity of the reporter. Anyone have direct experience on this?
- mc32 8y agoI hope this goes up through the court system. I hope the owner wins. There is often too much conservatism when it comes to preserving the old. Some really significant, old things, ok. But not at the pace of SF. I mean this does not happen in Japan, or Korea or China. People move on. Time goes on. People are buying the land and pay taxes. They should be able to do reasonable things with their property. I don't think Korea, Japan, etc., are unreasonable with regard to property development.
- eesmith 8y ago"this does not happen in Japan" What do you mean by "this"? Japan has restrictions on what can be done to historic buildings. Eg, https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/10/05/national/groups-work-preserve-japanese-colonial-architecture-taipei/ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/10/05/national/groups... has "Given its historic significance, however, the city refused to have the No. 1 Granary torn down, and in 2006 it was designated a historic structure, which protected it from developers who coveted the property, now a choice location in central Taipei" - for a building from 1944.
- mc32 8y agoI’d say these are exceptions rather than a rule in Taiwan. They’ve saved a few Dutch colonial strctures too, but very few.
- eesmith 8y agoWhat do you mean by "this"? Because special restrictions on buildings with perceived historical significance seems to be something done in most countries.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- rayiner 8y agoHistorical preservation is stealing from the future. (In this case, it’s stealing from the future in order to preserve an ugly house dominated by a garage door for posterity. The owner here did a public service.)
- kbutler 8y agoDemolition of history is stealing the past from the future. Goes both ways. I'm glad various buildings and artworks have been preserved, even though they may prevent other buildings or artworks. I don't know that I would have pushed for this one to be preserved.
- chrisseaton 8y agoWow I can't believe the comments on this thread. Do you not see any value in preserving our past for future generations? Are we stealing from the future when we preserve more notable old buildings like castles as well, or do you just not like the way this particular building looks? I think the criteria is notability, not aesthetics, for what it's worth.
- lotyrin 8y agoSure... but why preserve this?
- charlesism 8y agoBecause it's distinctive. It's common for people to hate an architectural trend, that has only recently fallen out of vogue, only later to come to admire it.
- Nasrudith 8y agoShouldn't that be a matter of documentation in the first place instead of just keeping structures indefinitely? It reminds me of the Metropolitan Sepulchre plan in the 19th century (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Sepulchre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Sepulchre). While they went with garden cemeteries instead I believe the important point is that cities are for the living and the now and not the past. I personally think that there may be a value to keeping the old around but just mere archivism shouldn't be a reason. If people actually visit it frequently enough certainly keep it but if it is just for the information, we have books for that.
- marcoperaza 8y agoBehold California, where you can’t tear things down and where you definitely can’t build them[1]. A shining beacon of good government for all of America. [1] Except a decade and your first-born in legal fees later.
- newnewpdro 8y agoCalifornia is a large state, the majority of it not being the ultra-desirable overrated pockets like the bay area where the barriers to development are considered necessary to preserve the region from the hoardes of people.
- crb002 8y agoI hope he appeals. You can't create an ex post facto covenence.
- joemag 8y agoMost cities, you have to get a building permit to do any major renovation. Those permits tend to be pretty specific on what you can or cannot do - some even require the exact construction plans. The article makes it sound that the owner went well outside what he got the permit for. If so - what in the world did he think was going to happen? Where I live, they get you for cutting down one extra tree than what you were permitted.
- tsomctl 8y ago> In San Francisco, property speculators have made a game out of tearing down historically protected homes, then retroactively applying for demolition permits, and using the now-empty lots to build massive mansions that sell for millions. https://boingboing.net/2018/12/16/unscramble-the-egg.html https://boingboing.net/2018/12/16/unscramble-the-egg.html I'm assuming that the money to be made is greater than the fines they have to pay for demolishing a historical home.
- burfog 8y agoThe city mandates that a person rebuild an ugly little house. Wow. I wonder if they'll also demand 2-prong outlets, asbestos, lead paint, and real fuses. The neighbor who complained is a truly sour toxic person. She should be delighted to have the neighborhood improving. Instead she blocks it (which should be impossible) and creates a hostile neighbor situation.
- erikpukinskis 8y agoNo, they’ll be allowed to do new wiring and latex paint.
- pfdietz 8y agoI expect situations like this in the future will result in sad "accidental" fires.
- theoh 8y agoHow does that get around the problem of mandated reconstruction with the insurance payout?
- gonyea 8y agoUnless the city is pitching in $$$ for the effort, this seems legally questionable. Insurance will only pay the market rate (and barely that), and the cost of such a process would surely run higher.
- LyndsySimon 8y agoI live in a community where there is very little oversight like this (by design), but my mortgage requires that I cover my home for the cost to rebuild, not the market value. I questioned this because in my case it’s more than twice the value, but apparently it’s how things are normally done.
- gonyea 8y agoWell, market rate in this context meant the (regional) labor and material costs to construct a generic, equal sqft house with X rooms and Y baths. I perhaps chose the wrong term. It'd likely require a lawsuit to make them shell out an additional $200k+ for the specialist architect and master carpenter to help recreate the original structure.
- theoh 8y agoI don't know about "market rate", but I believe that items are typically insured for their replacement value. There may not be a requirement to insure a protected structure at all, but it's plausible that such a measure could be introduced because of the perceived externalities (i.e. heritage value to society) of a protected building.
- blackjack48 8y agoInterestingly, the city determined a few years ago that the house was not a historic resource: http://citypln-m-extnl.sfgov.org/link.ashx?Action=Download&ObjectVersion=-1&vault={A4A7DACD-B0DC-4322-BD29-F6F07103C6E0}&objectGUID={C8414AD2-85B7-43BB-AE6C-184CB1243DB1}&fileGUID={409B8946-2091-4EBA-B57B-75ED28BEE3DB} http://citypln-m-extnl.sfgov.org/link.ashx?Action=Download&O... Although the owner clearly exceeded the scope of the remodel permit issued by demolishing the house entirely, it's possible that the permit had authorized the removal of everything short of the wall framing (commonplace for "remodel" permits on non-historic buildings in SF.)
- erikpukinskis 8y agoAh, that’s why my new neighbor tore down the house and rebuilt an entirely different structure with a handful of original studs scattered throughout the framing.
- areasonforthat 8y agoThis is exactly the type of pointless bureaucracy that causes USA to fall behind China. Rural areas are dying because of centralization and consolidation of corporations which primary are headquartered in large cities. Those large cities then oppose residential construction but not commercial construction which causes a massive imbalance of jobs to homes. The ensuing increase in real estate prices makes people consider their house as an investment first and they try to prevent further construction to the point where they mandate that even existing buildings may not be rebuilt. This situation is equivalent to a city investing in an electric bus fleet but then the federal government sues the city and sentences them to reinstate the ICE bus fleet. Nobody will disagree that this is crazy. Meanwhile, in this HN thread people argue in favor of the "historic" value of a random building. Obviously this is an extreme example but just think about how less severe situations are invisibly slowed down by excessive bureaucracy in the very successful cities and how this causes massive inefficiencies on the scale of an entire country which is highly dependent on those cities. Lost your job in <town>? Well, you're not welcome here in <city>.
- everybodyknows 8y agoNot mentioned in the piece, but California actually has a voluntary, arguably market-based tax incentive for historic house preservation, the Mills Act: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21412 http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21412