
Owner who demolished famed San Francisco house must build replica - skookum
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46585537
======
blackjack48
Interestingly, 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&O...](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})

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
Ah, 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.

------
doctorpangloss
Ah, the “little people” of multi million dollar inherited homes and land
really got some justice here. Real justice.

~~~
bialpio
Actually, 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.

~~~
gonyea
I 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
Oh, 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.

------
joemag
Most 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
> 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.

------
rayiner
Historical 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.)

~~~
chrisseaton
Wow 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.

~~~
ggreer
It's almost impossible to demolish structures in San Francisco, because
somebody considers each one historic in some sense. A great example was the
recent "historic laundromat" in the mission.[1]

The concept of property rights in SF is basically a joke. You can't do
anything to your home unless you spend months and thousands of dollars
navigating the bureaucracy. The burden is so onerous that it leads to people
going rogue and ignoring all building codes and safety regulations. I have
friends who live in places where the internal structure is totally different
from what the city has on file. The electrical wiring and plumbing are a
haphazard mix of amateur and professional work. The elevators haven't worked
in years. But I'm sure if the property owner wanted to tear the place down and
build something new (the only sane choice), they would be blocked.

1\. [https://reason.com/blog/2018/02/21/san-francisco-man-has-
spe...](https://reason.com/blog/2018/02/21/san-francisco-man-has-
spent-4-years-1-mi)

~~~
chrisseaton
Sounds like there's local politics or pervious experiences in SF that I don't
know about that might be driving people's negative reactions.

Where I live I cherish the work that's been done to preserve old buildings so
I can see them today, and I hope they're preserved so my ancestors can see
them as well.

~~~
kansface
Much of the existing bureaucracy in SF is purposefully byzantine in response
to the urban renewal of the 50s and 60s which saw the "redevelopment" of the
Western Addition, Fillmore, Japan Town, and the construction of the interstate
highways which bisected neighborhoods. In the case of the former, victorians
in historically black neighborhoods (see also: redlining) were torn down to be
replaced with projects which went about as well as you can imagine. In the
case of the later, we have the Loma Prieta earthquake to thank for restoring
Hayes Valley and the Embarcadero to booming, walkable neighborhoods. Instead
of learning from its mistakes, SF did a full 180 and landed on the opposite
extreme - nothing may change unless all agencies, stake holders, and onlookers
alike are perfectly satisfied. In practice, agencies are in the dozens (SF has
no right to build, even when meeting all zoning restrictions!). Onlookers are
neighbor homeowners who like increasing housing prices and less traffic and
organizations like Calle 24 which are indistinguishable from protection
rackets.

------
burfog
The 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
No, they’ll be allowed to do new wiring and latex paint.

------
pfdietz
I expect situations like this in the future will result in sad "accidental"
fires.

~~~
theoh
How does that get around the problem of mandated reconstruction with the
insurance payout?

~~~
gonyea
Unless 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
I 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
Well, 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
I 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.

~~~
LyndsySimon
That's it exactly.

I live in an inexpensive area, and purchased my five(-ish) bedroom home for
~$125k. It would cost about $240k to rebuild, exclusive of the cost of the
land.

When buying homeowner's insurance, my interest is that I would not lose value
in the event of my home's destruction; I want to be able to buy another home
of similar value and not owe more money than I already did. However, my
mortgage requires that I insure the home's replacement value, and no insurer
that I could find would cover me for only $125k.

This results in what I believe to be a negative incentive: assuming no equity,
I currently owe $125k and have a home. If my home were to burn to the ground
tomorrow, I would have a check for $240k. I'd then use that check to pay off
my existing mortgage and buy a home of similar value outright - leaving me a
profit of ~$115k in the process.

------
everybodyknows
Not 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)

------
HuangYuSan
I just wish they cared about environmental preservation as much

------
marcoperaza
Behold 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
California 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
I hope he appeals. You can't create an ex post facto covenence.

------
areasonforthat
This 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>.

