I'll never understand why people go ga-ga over something like this. I've seen better chicken coops in backyards.
Posted on 12/15/2018 3:28:16 PM PST by lowbridge
A property owner who illegally demolished a 1936 Twin Peaks house designed by a renowned modernist must rebuild an exact replica of the home rather than the much larger structure the property owner had proposed replacing it with, the City Planning Commission ruled this week.
In a unanimous 5-0 vote late Thursday night, the commission also ordered that the property owner — Ross Johnston, through his 49 Hopkins LLC — include a sidewalk plaque telling the story of the original house designed by architect Richard Neutra, the demolition and the replica.
The commission directive, unprecedented in San Francisco, comes more than a year after the home at 49 Hopkins Ave., known as the Largent House, was almost entirely knocked down. All that remained of the white, two-story redwood-and-concrete-block home was a garage door and frame.
Johnston had received planning permission only to remodel with a design that would have largely kept the first floor of the existing home intact.
Two months after the demolition, Johnston applied for a retroactive demolition permit and for permission to construct a new home that would increase the size from about 1,300 square feet to nearly 4,000 square feet.
The case attracted attention because Neutra is considered one of the most important modern architects and because it highlighted the trend of speculators illegally razing modest homes with the intention of replacing them with mega-homes. The new houses can fetch upward of $5 million, double or triple the price of an average house in already expensive San Francisco.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfchronicle.com ...
“....ordered that the property owner...” So much for property rights.
He should have contracted with an arsonist to burn it down.
I'll never understand why people go ga-ga over something like this. I've seen better chicken coops in backyards.
It doesn’t do much for me either.
Rights do not come without responsibility. The property owner was grossly irresponsible. So I don’t have a problem with this order.
There are some beautiful but fairly modest mid-century contemporary houses, Eichler springs to mind, but this one looks like a small town minor bank branch with a one-lane drive through window. It really doesn’t have much to recommend it aesthetically, zilch for curb appeal. Its a box with a carport.
Insofar as law being law, and the owner having bought knowing what he was getting into, rebuild exactly.
Then build an encompassing larger home around it, just to piss off the zoning board legally, and to make an interesting building.
That is EXACTLY my first thought seeing this house a drive through burger joint!!!! LOL!!!!
What purpose does it serve to rebuild the home exactly as was, doesn’t it defeat the whole purpose of the home being done by a certain designer or architect??? Seems pretty stupid to me, give the guy an enormous fine and send him on his way the history of the building CAN NOT be brought back!!!
Do the neighbors have telescopes?
A barn has more character.
Hope he loses money. Yet another developer who thinks the rules do not apply to him. The common homowner would have handled this according to zoning laws and process, especially before destroying the house!
Looks kind of like a drive in without the menu board.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.