CFAH


The Board of Supervisors has cleared the way for the Drew School expansion by rejecting a Pacific Heights Residents Association appeal of the plan’s environmental review and tabling an appeal of a special demolition permit.
That being said, not all supervisors were happy that the expansion will result in the demolition of the three-unit rent-controlled building at 1831-1835 Broderick:

Supervisor Chris Daly made an unsuccessful attempt to have the permit be approved with the requirement that the residential building itself be relocated somewhere in the city by the school to preserve the housing units.

Drawings For A Proposed Drew School Expansion Along Broderick [SocketSite]
The Drew School Addition Rendering Scoop: Its Living Wall And All [SocketSite]
Drew School expansion a go [SFExaminer]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Joe

    I wonder if Daly’s plan was to have the Drew school relocate the building to Fairfield?

  2. Posted by Conifer

    Daly was called an anarchist by Phil Bronstein in the Chronicle the other day. He is not an anarchist at all: he is a Marxist or Trotskyite to be kind, a Stalinist if given half a chance.
    But I did like the facade of the Victorian.

  3. Posted by sleepiguy

    I assume the green wall will consist of a climbing cannabis, which, I believe, is the Drew school mascot.

  4. Posted by San FronziScheme

    Daly was called an anarchist by Phil Bronstein in the Chronicle the other day. He is not an anarchist at all: he is a Marxist or Trotskyite to be kind, a Stalinist if given half a chance.
    Nope, more a “daddy will always be there to help me when I need him” Marxist. LOL. He reminds me of hipster art students who love talking about changing the system but wouldn’t dare cutting up daddy’s credit card!

  5. Posted by Drew

    Wow, I actually agree with Chris Daly on something. Sure sign of the apocalypse…

  6. Posted by badlydrawnbear

    @Drew, Move the building where exactly?
    Is there some surplus of of vacant residential lots in SF that could accommodate this building?
    Is there some lack of rent controlled apartments?
    Is there a neighborhood without a dozen or more Victorians already present?

  7. Posted by Drew

    It seems a crime to destroy a beautiful antique that cannot be remade. Current developers don’t have the skill nor incentive.
    Anyway, these buildings are a part of what makes San Francisco great. The least they could do is sell the facade and install it on a building that needs it.
    Oh well…

  8. Posted by salarywoman

    Civic Center Plaza?

  9. Posted by BobN

    he is a Marxist or Trotskyite
    You do a great disservice to anyone with a commitment to a philosophy.
    Chris Daly appears to be committed to one and only one thing: the aggrandizement of Chris Daly.

  10. Posted by Joe

    So the front of the building should be sold to someone who needs it?
    A Faux victorian building front is more worthwhile than a properly designed modern one?
    No wonder design in this city is so incredibly bad.
    Move to a theme park if you want everything matchy matchy

  11. Posted by Mr. E

    Guys, the building is ugly, and it’s not even a solid stylistic example of a Victorian.

  12. Posted by Toady

    “It seems a crime to destroy a beautiful antique that cannot be remade.”
    Actually it could be remade. But, for some reason, the city planning code won’t even let people do that. How ironic is that!
    “Anyway, these buildings are a part of what makes San Francisco great.”
    No. These buildings are a part of why San Francisco is driving its middle class out of the city.

  13. Posted by flaneur

    Joe – If you do not like old buildings, move to Bucharest. They were all torn down.

  14. Posted by FormerAptBroker

    Toady wrote:
    > These buildings are a part of why San Francisco
    > is driving its middle class out of the city.
    I think that paying over $30K a year per kid for Drew and other decent schools like Convent or UHS is what is really forcing the middle class out of the city…

  15. Posted by FormerAptBroker

    “Supervisor Chris Daly made an unsuccessful attempt to have the permit be approved with the requirement that the residential building itself be relocated somewhere in the city by the school to preserve the housing units.”
    Daly probably feels guilty for evicting the poor people from the two homes he bought in Fairfield and he was hoping to set them up in nice SF low rent units. When he runs for office again he can use the slogan “I’m for tenants rights (as long as I don’t own the building)”…

  16. Posted by anon

    I’ve said this in threads before, but I’ll say it again – why in the world is Chris Daly called a Marxist or Trotskyite? That is spitting in the face of anyone who has studied Marx or Trotsky and their ideas. Chris Daly is a corrupt politician, nothing more. Marx and Trotsky were great minds, flawed though their ideas might be. Daly has never had a good idea that didn’t benefit him personally in some way – he’s the epitome of a selfish, spoiled, corrupt brat who found that politics was something he could excel in.

  17. Posted by LMRiM

    he’s the epitome of a selfish, spoiled, corrupt brat who found that politics was something he could excel in
    OK, then maybe we should call him a Leninist or Castroite.

  18. Posted by Toady

    “I think that paying over $30K a year per kid for Drew and other decent schools like Convent or UHS is what is really forcing the middle class out of the city…”
    Simply serving a need. If SFUSD schools weren’t so crappy, then schools like Drew would wither away.

  19. Posted by anon

    OK, then maybe we should call him a Leninist or Castroite.
    That is definitely more apt. Even Stalinist works for me.

  20. Posted by pumpkin patch

    Love it, relocate the building to Fairfield…how about in his own single-family backyard? And, then, tell the renters they don’t have to pay, at all.
    Then, he will get a taste of what it is like to have a squatter on his own property (that is what he REALLY did to people we know–the story that brought him fame is a scam).

  21. Posted by anon

    Love it, relocate the building to Fairfield…how about in his own single-family backyard? And, then, tell the renters they don’t have to pay, at all.
    Then, he will get a taste of what it is like to have a squatter on his own property (that is what he REALLY did to people we know–the story that brought him fame is a scam).

  22. Posted by matt

    Would anyone like to discuss the issues? Land use, rent control, architectural preservation, contemporary design, planning/zoning… anything but snarky BS would be awesome. I don’t give a sh** if you hate/love old things or pre-co** when you see a rectilinear structure with horizontal and/or vertical wood slats. That isn’t interesting at all.

  23. Posted by matt

    In other words, I’m a NIMBY. Nothing should ever be allowed to change in this city ever.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Articles