San Francisco real estate is not for the faint of heart. When James and Zara Rowbotham first toured their new listing right next to Kite Hill in Eureka Valley, they were not deterred by the boarded up doors, tagged-over windows and hypodermic needles strewn along the walkway to the three-unit building, whose only residents the last five-plus years have been a rotating crew of squatters.
Instead, they clocked the panoramic views, prime location and approved entitlements to demo the existing 1908 structure and build three new 1,200-square-foot apartments. Vanguard agent Zara is the more experienced of the brother-sister duo, with 16 years mainly working on developer-focused listings. She felt justified asking $1.3 million — $150,000 more than what 121 Yukon St. sold for in 2021 when it was in run-down, but pre-squalor, condition.
That bottle of prescription pills on the living room carpet? Just added charm, joked James, a Compass agent who was, until two years ago, an Oakland cop. The poop bucket on the deck outside the top-floor solarium, mentioned in one of the numerous complaints from neighbors?
“It’s more of a poop basket,” James said, noting that it is, in fact, still on the premises.
The amazing part is not that the Rowbothams, who are co-listing with Vanguard agent Mandy Lee, thought that they could get over $1 million for a property with no working plumbing, plywood doors and a years-long history as a neighborhood nuisance. It’s that it looks like they might have done it. The showing requests have been nonstop, and after fielding several lower offers they are currently negotiating a full-price offer with a developer. Such is the state of San Francisco real estate, they shrugged, noting that single-family homes requiring down-to-the-studs remodels in less-desirable locations are selling for a million dollars over asking.
“If this were a single-family, it would have gone in a minute,” even in its current condition, Zara said. “It could have reached something like $2 million.”
The property, which actually has some charming original architectural details like arched windows and doorways, likely began as a small single-family home similar to those around it in the Castro-adjacent neighborhood known for its views. It is zoned for single-family plus an in-law unit, but decades ago it was converted into a three-unit rental. Therein lay the problem for the sellers.
They had bought the property hoping to be able to return it to a single-family home, the agents said, and then found out that would be impossible, as it would have removed units from the city’s housing stock, a big no-no. So they pivoted to a new plan to raze the building and build three new apartments.
The project ended up being one of the most challenging commissions in architect Jim Zack’s career. Legislation meant to promote development allowing up to four units on a single-family lot had recently passed, but the reality of using that legislation with the additional rear yard requirements of a narrow, single-family zoned lot proved difficult.
The Planning Department eventually gave the design a variance to allow for a smaller yard than a single-family lot with three units would typically be allowed. But the previous tenant, who had died years earlier, lived in a rent-controlled unit. That meant that whatever was built there would have to be rent-controlled as well, due to a state law that requires a one-to-one replacement for any demolished rent-controlled unit, even though most new construction does not fall under rent control. If the owners wanted to condo-convert, the units would have to be owner-occupied, or deeded as below-market units in perpetuity.
Zack said that after the planning approvals came in, the project stalled and the owners stopped the building permit process. When they told him earlier this year they were going to sell instead, he understood why.
“The city has allowed us to design a building that’s three units, but they put restrictions on it that are so rigid that no one will ever be able to build a project here, because the economics will never make sense for anybody,” he said.
Zack said he appreciated the goal of the state legislation, but in this case, when the property has been empty and blighted for years, it seemed illogical.
“Yes, we’re taking away this small apartment that might house a poor person in their little one-bedroom to make a high-end, market-rate, two-bedroom condo,” he said. “But it is vacant, we’re not kicking anybody out, and they are substandard and deteriorated, so at what point does common sense just kind of say, no, the right thing to do is to allow you to build new housing?”
San Francisco Planning Chief of Staff Dan Sider said he hasn’t seen “a meaningful dent” in housing production due to the state’s rules, though he did acknowledge that state law is, “perhaps by necessity, somewhat blunt.”
“Any project involving the loss of existing, affordable units is going to have less flexibility,” he said, adding that the approved project could still move forward under the new owner.
Any difference from the status quo would mark the end of a yearslong nightmare for Owen Starr, who has lived with his husband and two kids next door to 121 Yukon for 15 years.
“It needs to change,” he said. “This is going to keep getting worse.”
He was friendly with the previous owner, a “super nice guy” who lived on the second floor and was best friends with his longtime tenant, who lived on the first floor. Both landlord and tenant are now deceased. For as long as Starr has lived next door, no one ever lived in the top-floor unit with the solarium.
The property wasn’t in the best shape under the previous ownership, but it was “habitable” and “cute.” Over the last five years, there have been repeated calls to the police for drugs, noise and other disturbances. One time the cops even brought Starr’s now-13-year-old son Jesse a gift basket with a board game and stickers after they took over his room to try to talk to a squatter throwing bottles at people on the street.
Starr was thrilled to hear that there was the possibility of new ownership. He’s a strong supporter of affordable housing, especially as a parent who hopes his children will be able to stay in the city where they were raised. But he also just wants something, anything to happen next door.
“It shouldn’t sit abandoned,” he said. “This is where we live. This is our community. I would much rather see people living there, and it being built.”
As a 25-year San Franciscan, he’s also completely unsurprised at the $1.3 million price, given the prime location next to the park, even with the millions more that will likely go into the future development plans.
“I know it sounds nuts,” he said. “I mean, that’s the city, right?”
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。