Source
yimbyJutsushi•

I think this whole issue is kind of stupid. For the city, there's no reason (that I know of) that they couldn't just build the station/exit across the street. For the land owner, really? Only 3 stories on prime real estate in such a wealthy neighborhood on top of a (hopefully) future subway line? For both, is it really that hard to think outside the box a little bit, and just make the damn building a subway station on the bottom + condos on the top? The fact that doing something so plainly obvious like this is prevented by our stupid zoning code, and the fact that the city getting an exemption from the stupid zoning code to build the stupid station would take years of extra stupid CEQA review are big indicators of why this place is so fucked.

9
REO_Jerkwagon•

and just make the damn building a subway station on the bottom + condos on the top

This part right here gets me every time. BOTH can happen, and both WOULD happen in just about any other city. Instead, SF has an empty lot.

4
sudojay•

Chicago has plenty of buildings on top of subway stations in the Loop and it's a major draw for renters and businesses to be on the Pedway. San Francisco doesn't get Chicago winter weather, but how nice would it be to not have to get wet going to the Muni station when it's raining?

2
bruhoho•

The land owner is likely doing this as a bluff. Claim you have other plans for the plot of land and they can ask for more in negotiations with the city.

Prediction: it will take at least 3-5 years more with the city dragging its feet (especially with Peskin now representing D3) and they will end up paying double what they would have if they purchased this year.

3
ForTheBacon•

False dichotomy.

1