We all know that when tourists come to SF, one of the “must sees” on their list is the row of painted ladies that shine in pastel Victorian splendor along Alamo Square. But would you really want to own a Victorian? Some people love them, with their graceful embellishments, their built-in cabinents and huge closets, their wedding cake facades. They are, after all, kind of like having grandparents. They speak romantically of a time gone by, of genteel sensibilities and pursuits the modern city person can only imagine. In the 1950’s, when SF was moving to renew the Western Addition, one woman, Enid Sales, organized a resistance that saved over 350 of these classic beauties.
But some people would have cheered when the bulldozers knocked the buildings down. Victorians are accused of being drafty, being too small for modern day (and taller) humans, being creaky, and worst: being old. For of course, any old building is likely to have expensive problems: plumbing, electric, termites– and don’t forget a lack of strong, earthquake resistant foundation.
You’ll notice that the new architecture in SF is anything but Victorian. The great phallic towers that rise to the sky look more James Bond than Jane Austen. And the interiors of these new places? Sleek. Built for urban sensuality: sexy kitchens, huge master baths, open kitchens, loft-like bedrooms. Sure, if you live in a building like this, your unit looks a hell of a lot like your neighbors, but surely you won’t buy the same couch, so you can individualize.
The new trend toward green construction is also decidely un-Victorian. You might find teak or even ivory in the old queens, but nothing endangered gets used to make these new condos. You’d think that using sustainable, often recycled materials would drive the prices down, but then you’d not be thinking of SF. No, the new condos are no cheaper than the ancient Victorians, really, so I’m asking for reader opinion: which is the better buy? Which the better investment?
Carol Lloyd of the Chronicle wrote a series of articles on old homes vs. new homes, pointing out that you actually often get more space for your money in the new construction unless you are willing to live in a single-family home in a less desirable neighborhood. But you also get still HOA fees in the new places. Still, you’re likely facing massive expenses to overhaul a decaying Victorian. So, is it six of one, half dozen of the other? Do we revere our grandparents or prefer the energy and modernity of the new generation?
—-
photo credits (in order): Inetours.com and Wikipedia.com
United States
Canada