@ladymantle: my thought exactly.

I agree, but was most distracted (and fascinated) by the name "Barnaby Grist." Awesome. It should be in a novel.

Where's the Historic Commission when you need them?

Every time a Victorian is modernized, baby Jesus cries.

Inoffensive, but soulless.

Honestly, what a lot of bitchy, negative comments! Maybe in America the trend is towards leaving older houses pickled in their 'heritage' juices? Having lived in London and Sydney, old/new hybrids such as this house are common. They offer the best of both worlds. I happily live in one, with the cosy, darker, older rooms at the front and large, expansive, light-filled newer spaces at the back.

If you want to live in much of SF, you don't have many alternatives to Victorian/Edwardian. I think it's a creative solution and I'd happily live in their new version. And I doubt that the "before" of the back of the house is any more historically pure... looks like it was already renovated a few times.

I cannot presume to speak for others, but I think my own negative reaction to this renovation/addition has more to do with it's lack of integration of the old and new rather than either a distaste for the style of the addition or a reverence for strict hysterical (sic) accuracy. I tend to think that any combination can be made to work, but this effort, while pleasant enough and certainly an improvement on the home-made looking shack of the previous renovation, has failed to connect the front of the house to the back. I can't see any stylistic indication in the renovation that the architects referenced or were even aware of the front facade. Without the one exterior shot of the street elevation, one would never know these rooms belong to a renovated house at all.

I've seen this business in the front/party in the back remodels before. I think this one went a bit too far, though, particularly for the interiors.

why not buy a recently built modern house and put a replica facade on the front if that is what you want? That way, no historic designs suffer. Modern or Victorian. Forget poor design and not connecting the front to the back. This is about history and heritage preservation.

There are plenty of contemporary houses nearby. No need to destroy a beautifully crafted pre-earthquake relic. And if one is going to remodel, why not attend to some kind of design synergy? As-is this is a kind of Frankenstein's monster of a house.

Why do people who don't want to live in historic houses move into historic houses in historic neighborhoods? For a Victorian in Noe money clearly isn't the motivating factor... It just seems like such a waste... Unless the house was *really* falling apart at the seams. Then I suppose it's a reasonable remodel. But the Frankenstein design is still a bit off-putting.

wow. now it looks like it belongs in florida.

I think the remodel is fantastic. The original back of the house is horrible with tiny windows. The remodel really opens up the house and adds a ton of sunlight, something really difficult to achieve in an old victorian.

I like the look of the new house but I do also wish they'd kept a bit of the old one too. Many some moldings in the ceiling (imagining there were some) and such, it could have made for a fun contrast in the house a bit of old and a bit of modern. That having been said, it must interesting to walk through that facade to find that house behind it.

Out of curiosity, how much does a remodel like that cost?

I hate it...what a g**d***'d waste.

They left the street-side intact, right? If so, I have no problem with it. It looks like nice airy space to me.

The only way to preserve historic structures is to make them usable for the people of today. Victorians may be pretty, but all those tiny little rooms pretty much suck. I think this is a great way to keep the historic character of the street, and still have something to live in.

TOTAL PERFECTION!!!!!

Why is it that this house reminds me of a mullet? Business in front (classic historical Victorian) & party in the back (modern simplicity).

While some can occasionally pull of a mullet with some degree of style, I have to say that overall the trend, either architecturally or otherwise, should be avoided.

A someone who owns a small two-bedroom Victorian in SF, I disagree with lemonadefish that "all those tiny little rooms pretty much suck." Those tiny little rooms are what gives these old spaces character and coziness. Different strokes, etc. That said, though this remodel makes me cringe and is the exact opposite of what I would have done to the space, it's theirs, and they have created a home environment that works for them. I respect that.

Other than people of today being fatter, less formal and more consumer-focused than Victorian-era folks, I don't think the use of rooms in homes has changed much. So I strongly disagree that tiny little rooms "pretty much suck" or that they are unusable by modern-day home dwellers. We still eat, work, sleep, entertain, and so on. Sure, many people are totally "wired" now and feel they need giant TV screens that wouldn't fit in a small parlor. Most of us have a LOT more stuff than people from 100-130 years ago. But to dismiss the inherent design and scale of Victorian rooms doesn't make the results of this remodel more defensible, in my opinion. It still lacks integration and respect for the history of the era and the neighborhood.

so sad. have we no pride in the victorians that make this city so historic?

move to the soma if you want a modern house. stay out of the places the rest of us cherish.

old does not equal historic. victorian does not equal quality. i think this does a great job of maintaining what was worth keeping and modernizeing what didn't. why live in the past? embrace the now and now isn't about crappy old victorians. believe me, i've remodeled and extended enough victorians and edwardians in sf to know that there's them that's worth preserving and them that isn't. and the reason san franciscans remodel victorians is because there's so bloody many of them! there are precious few modern houses to buy. this city is in danger of turning into a disney version of san francisco as it is with the freaking ridiculous planning requirements. thank goodness there are owners with the vision to see past it.

It's not completely hideous, but it's certainly not "gorgeous". It's rather sterile and typical. I don't mind that they renovated their Victorian, but I can live without AT's superlatives. It looks like about a million other McMakeovers.

I find it exquisite. The back looks so much better - it looked like a pieced together shack before. Love the amount of light that now floods in. Great job!

I could not figure out what the first picture had to do with the rest until I read the comments!! I had no CLUE that the first picture was the front of the house!! I actually think the interior and the new back are interesting, but when I know they are an addition/renovation of a historic Victorian home I think the combination is horrendous! The lack of respect for existing context is disappointing.

The architect seems to have made the poor home schizophrenic!

Sad. That's all.