• Thank you for visiting HeavyEquipmentForums.com! Our objective is to provide industry professionals a place to gather to exchange questions, answers and ideas. We welcome you to register using the "Register" icon at the top of the page. We'd appreciate any help you can offer in spreading the word of our new site. The more members that join, the bigger resource for all to enjoy. Thank you!

Gold Rush Era Building Demo'ed in San Francisco--Clear Case of Demoliton by Neglect

Do you think they should have demo'ed this old building?


  • Total voters
    23

Dualie

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
1,371
Location
Nor Cal
I love these dumb AZZES that think just because something is old it should be preserved. If it was THE oldest or had ANY historical significance what so ever.


it was just an old un inhabitable POS building.

I hand it to the guys for out smarting the system in all the smartest ways. They bought a distressed property when times were booming. Couldn't get permits to repair and remodel it so they did what any crafty man does.

Make the system work for you. leave it open let it rot then the city has no choice but to level it.

Thinking around the law works sometimes
 

stock

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
2,022
Location
Eire
Occupation
We have moved on and now were lost....
I love these dumb AZZES that think just because something is old it should be preserved. If it was THE oldest or had ANY historical significance what so ever.


it was just an old un inhabitable POS building.

I hand it to the guys for out smarting the system in all the smartest ways. They bought a distressed property when times were booming. Couldn't get permits to repair and remodel it so they did what any crafty man does.

Make the system work for you. leave it open let it rot then the city has no choice but to level it.

Thinking around the law works sometimes

If this thinking was applied to most European cities they would look similar to some very modern new world cities with lots of steel and glass, being recycled just for the sake of it,the whole old world charm that so many new worlders speak of when visiting our shores would be non existent.Should this modernist view be applied to say the Pentagon ,the Senate building ,the White house or Leinster house or Aras an Uachtarain http://www.president.ie/index.php?section=39&lang=eng[/U] or All such iconic buildings,I dont think so every country has a history, as has every state ,city ,town and village some of which needs to be perserved ,dont for one minute think that I am a card carrying, tree hugging conservationist ,far from it ,I support change but not change for, or at any cost.
Our esteemed Government is forcing a motorway through exceptionally close to one of the most important and significant historical sites in Europe and paying no heed to anyone, this is the other end of the scale .
Not every structure is of historic significance or importance but those that are ,should be preserved with a consistent approach and fiscal support .

There have been some projects that I have visited where only the facade of the building was saved or only the front wall so as the apperance of the street remained unchanged but a brand new functional building replaced a delapated run down structure.
I refrained from posting sooner on this thread so as not to have a knee jerk reaction to this issue ,in this instance with so little of the original city left standing after the earth quake I would have thought that every effort should be made to safeguard such rare structures and the likes of this act of destruction would be frowned upon ie demolition by neglect,to the best of my knowledge the local authority here has the power to make a building safe or demolish it with the power of a court order and seek to reclaim the cost from the owner ,if this fails they have the power to garnish site and structure freehold.Only twice in the last twenty years have they invoked this order and on both occasions the roofs were falling on to the street, don't know how many times they warned of the implementation of it though . :IMO:my2c


Stock
 

Wolf

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
1,203
Location
California
Right on, Dualie!

I love these dumb AZZES that think just because something is old it should be preserved. If it was THE oldest or had ANY historical significance what so ever.


it was just an old un inhabitable POS building.

I hand it to the guys for out smarting the system in all the smartest ways. They bought a distressed property when times were booming. Couldn't get permits to repair and remodel it so they did what any crafty man does.

Make the system work for you. leave it open let it rot then the city has no choice but to level it.

Thinking around the law works sometimes

Right on, Dualie! You got the idea. Thinking around the law works.

dude, you shoulda been there with your hoe making toothpicks out of the old dump. you know the site, it's on lombard, just above van ness.

was a crappy old building indeed. good to see it down. you should have been there for the wrecking party, man, it was crazy with the protestors and all showing up. you could have put them in their place, dualie, I know you would have done it right.
 

Iron Horse

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
761
Location
,
Regardless of what i think about the building being demolished , the poll would not be correct . Being able to see the names of the voters and which way they voted would stop a lot of people voting against the majority for fear of ridicule etc . The poll should be anonymous .
 

Wolf

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
1,203
Location
California
Closet Cases?

Regardless of what i think about the building being demolished , the poll would not be correct . Being able to see the names of the voters and which way they voted would stop a lot of people voting against the majority for fear of ridicule etc . The poll should be anonymous .

So you think many of them are closet greenies, tree huggers and leaf lickers who are in the closet who are afraid to give their real opinion?

What do you think the results would really be if the survey were anonymous?
 

Wolf

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
1,203
Location
California
Closet Cases?

Regardless of what i think about the building being demolished , the poll would not be correct . Being able to see the names of the voters and which way they voted would stop a lot of people voting against the majority for fear of ridicule etc . The poll should be anonymous .

So you think many of them are closet greenies, tree huggers and leaf lickers who are in the closet who are afraid to give their real opinion?

What do you think the results would really be if the survey were anonymous?

Do you think any of them actually care about buildings like this Gold Rush era one that got smashed up recently? Please explain.


:beatsme
 

Iron Horse

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
761
Location
,
All polls and ballots should be anonymous , regardless of what the topic is . That's why you stood in a cardboard cubicle not long ago when you voted for a new president . And from what you have just said , anyone who dares vote no is a leaf licker or closet greenie .
 
Last edited:

Wolf

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
1,203
Location
California
All polls and ballots should be anonymous , regardless of what the topic is . That's why you stood in a cardboard cubicle not long ago when you voted for a new president .

What do you think the results would really be if the survey were anonymous?
 

Wolf

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
1,203
Location
California
Here's How they Made the System Work for them---Cracks in bureaucracy doomed historic

I hand it to the guys for out smarting the system in all the smartest ways. They bought a distressed property when times were booming. Couldn't get permits to repair and remodel it so they did what any crafty man does.

Make the system work for you. leave it open let it rot then the city has no choice but to level it.

Thinking around the law works sometimes

Cracks in bureaucracy doomed historic house


The historic Russian Hill house that was razed last month never received a mandatory review by preservation officials because San Francisco's Department of Building Inspection improperly issued a construction permit two years ago, a Chronicle investigation has found.

The proposed permit to work on the exterior of the Victorian residence at 1268 Lombard St. should have been sent to the Planning Department, where it would have been closely reviewed by a preservation expert and could have drawn additional official scrutiny to the deterioration of a historic house.

Instead, a building inspection official issued the permit without sending it to planning. That allowed workers to open up the outside of the building. Subsequently, the building's interior was left open to the elements, causing further decay. A city commissioner later said it looked like the building was left to rot on purpose so that it could be demolished.

The home, which withstood the 1906 earthquake and fire, was torn down March 16 because city officials agreed with the owners that the building was in imminent danger of collapse. Preservationists, however, argued that it could have been refurbished.

But officials and preservationists agree on one thing: This glitch and others in the recent history of the 148-year-old house illustrate larger problems in the city's building inspection process. "I am gravely concerned that permits to alter or demolish historic resources are slipping through the cracks," said Cynthia Servetnick, a member of the San Francisco Preservation Consortium, which advocates for preserving historic resources.

Built in 1861, the house was bought in 1945 by John B. Molinari, who became a state appeals court judge. He passed it to a family trust, and it was later officially listed as a historic resource. In 1999, their contractors discovered a crack in the retaining wall and dry rot and deemed the building structurally unsound, the family said in a letter to the city.

Son John L. Molinari, a former supervisor, sought a permit to demolish the home and replace it with a three-story building. But the Planning Department denied his application in 2002, saying the building was listed as a historic resource.

On Nov. 1, 2007, the Molinari family sold the small, vacant home for $1.3 million to James Nunemacher, a principal with Vanguard Properties, and Michael Cassidy, a developer.

Yet little more than a month after the sale, Molinari received a notice of violation from the Building Inspection Department ordering him to stop work at the house. The notice surprised him, he said, because he no longer owned it and had taken out no permit.

It turned out that three months earlier - while Molinari still owned the house - a company called West Coast Inc. had taken out the permit to open the building and repair the dry rot by opening up the facade. Permit records variously list the firm as a "lessee" and "agent," with a post office box for an address. However, postal authorities told The Chronicle that the box number does not exist.

Molinari said he was astonished that anyone could receive a permit to work on his home without him knowing of it. "That sure is lax," he said.

But not unheard of. Ed Sweeney, a deputy director of the Building Inspection Department, acknowledged that in recent years some applicants have obtained building permits without the owners' authorization.

William Strawn, a spokesman for the building department, confirmed the permit error. Lawrence Badiner, Planning Department zoning administrator, said, "If it wasn't routed to us, it was a glitch," he said.

Strawn said the inspector who issued the dry rot permit apparently believed the applicant had the owner's permission. He noted that state law was changed in January to require further proof that the building owner wants a construction permit.

But that wasn't the only way the system failed.

A building inspector was supposed to have checked a computer list of historic houses before granting the permit. Applications for permits to work on the facades of historic homes were supposed to be sent to planning before approval.

In such cases, planning officials are supposed to closely review construction plans to enforce preservation rules.

But building inspector Joseph Yu approved the permit without doing so, records show. Yu declined to comment.

In two interviews, Cassidy denied knowing about the dry rot permit or West Coast Inc. The Chronicle later obtained a receipt that showed Cassidy paid $234.15 in cash for the permit.

When told about the receipt, Cassidy said he didn't recall the matter, but might have taken out the permit and listed West Coast as a potential contractor for the work. He denied he had tried to hide his role in the permit.

There were more problems.

In March 2008, a neighbor complained that the building had been left open to the elements and intruders. An inspector ordered Cassidy to board up the building. He did several times, he said, but trespassers reopened it.

Earlier this month, Cassidy and Nunemacher sought an emergency demolition permit, saying the building was in imminent danger of collapse. A city engineer concurred.

Yet Debra Walker, a building inspection commissioner who toured the building, said it appeared to have been intentionally left open to the elements to hasten its demise in an effort to get the demolition permit. Cassidy and Nunemacher denied doing that.

An emergency permit allows owners to demolish a building without the rigorous Planning Department review that had blocked the Molinaris from demolishing it.

Supervisors President David Chiu is drafting a measure requiring owners of vacant properties to register them so city officials can better monitor them, prevent safety hazards and protect historic resources.

F. Joseph Butler, an architect who opposed demolishing the house and contended it could have been saved, hailed the proposed measure. But he said official lapses could undermine even the most rigorous rules. "It's absolutely about enforcement," he said.
 

mudmaker

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
136
Location
Colorado
I still say it should be up to the owners to decide whether or not the structure is worth saving or not. The long time owners wanted to tear it down due to the cost of repairs. The developer simply knew how to get it torn down If the city would not try to be so controlling the long time owners of the building could have done what they saw fit to do.

Put yourself in their shoes!! You have building which is going to require more repairs than it is worth. You will never see a return on the money you will be putting into it, but if you tear it down you can build a building that will add value to the property and be profitable.

The sad part of this story is the person making the money on the project is the one who knew how to grease the corrupt govt wheels. That is what big govt get us!!!!

If the city or any other bleeding heart wanted to save it why don't they buy it?? It is always easy to spend other peoples money telling them they have to save this building.
 
Top