From a distance, they look beautiful. Up close, most are sort of gross looking and not well maintained. You’d think the cost of taking care of a little house would be negligible compared to the price of the house itself.
"Rent control is in effect for all San Francisco renters who reside in buildings constructed before June 1979. This means your rent can only increase by a governmentally mandated percentage each year, based on the cost of living index, and with a 30-day notice. If your landlord has improved the facilities in your building, he can petition for an additional increase, but the Rent Board must approve his request, which can't exceed 10 percent. If a landlord is negligent in his maintenance of the building or units, you can make application for a rent decrease to the Rent Board."
https://homeguides.sfgate.com/san-francisco-rent-control-inf...
Original Victorians definitely fall in the pre June 1979 category.
I'd say 95% of them are actually 2-4 separate apartments.
It's definitely not cheap to own a Victorian in San Francisco even with renters.
I'm also a firm believer in trying to do as much maintenance myself as possible whether it's home/vehicle. If you own something you're going to care about it more and go the extra mile to make sure the work is done correctly. There are some jobs though where I know it's over my head.
Why would you think that? Sure, SF has high real estate costs, but it also has high labor costs (including, for most people who can afford to live there through work, high opportunity costs of diverting personal labor to maintenance.)
Up close a lot of the USA looks unmaintained compared to Europe/Australia.
Every time a foreign friend visit me there it would only take a couple of hours for them to say something like "...everything looks kind of half finished" , or "wow, this place is falling apart"