4 ms·
If it wasn't in SF the landlord would probably sell your building to a developer who would raze it and build another new mid-rise. In SF that seems to be very d
by twblalock 4y ago
If it wasn't in SF the landlord would probably sell your building to a developer who would raze it and build another new mid-rise. In SF that seems to be very difficult to do -- although those other new mid-rises must be replacing something that was there before.
- zamnos 4y agoA lot of times they are just finally replacing lots that have sat empty for years or decades. Due to some unknown reason, SF has quite a few lots that are simply stuck in time. No development can be done, they can't be bought or sold, they're just there, waiting for a change that will never come. The local papers like Mission Local probably has somebody who knows what's up with that though.
- twblalock 4y agoThe reason is not unknown. It takes an average of over two years to get construction approved in SF. Almost anyone can slow it down a project they don't like it, for a variety of reasons. Sometimes even members of the Board of Supervisors personally intervene to prevent it. There is a good rundown here, written earlier this week: https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/sf-housing-development-red-tape-17815725.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/sf-hou...