From the “SOS Cathedral Hill” site which implores its readers to “get the facts about the massive luxury condo [proposed] on Cathedral Hill” and join them “in the fight to protect our neighborhood”:

New York Developer Adco Group wants to build a massive 30+ story, 400 foot tall luxury condo on Cathedral Hill that would be visible from much of the city. This proposal is nearly double the height of any existing building on Cathedral Hill and will stick out like a sore thumb.

This structure does not fit in our neighborhood. In fact, it will put the many seniors who live in our neighborhood at risk. The increased traffic on Post St. will make worse an already unsafe environment for pedestrians.

The project will endanger pedestrians and seniors, increase traffic and strain already limited MUNI resources. We just can’t afford the risk.

With respect to getting the facts straight, while ADCO’s proposed tower would be the tallest building on the block, at 416 feet it’s nowhere near “nearly double the height” of the existing Sequoias building which tops out at 396 feet next door.


And no, that’s not One Rincon Hill in the rendering above (nor, unfortunately, is it the SOM design which had originally been drawn for the site).

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by BobN

    If it’s only a 20-ft difference, something’s wrong with the renderings in the other thread.

  2. Posted by cbf

    So can we start a petition to stop [NIMBYs] from starting petitions? Or can we at least petition to get them to stop including blatant lies in their petitions?
    If people are opposed to a project, fine…but I wish NIMBYs could at least be truthful with the information they present.

  3. Posted by taco taco

    Absurd. I live in the immediate area and I’d like to tell my NIMBY counterparts that they don’t have any right to speak on my behalf. I, for one, would love the addition. Consider this a call for counter-petition to build it.

  4. Posted by Joe

    You’re welcome on this link.
    Please take a moment to chuckle at the following link:
    Isnt it accurate? a bunch of old white people just terrified by a skyscraper! next to a skyscraper that already exists

  5. Posted by Ebro

    How does this put seniors at risk? If anything the higher density will decrease traffic speeds on Geary. I’m in favor.

  6. Posted by knock

    I”ll start a petition to keep ugly blue skyscrapers out of cathedral hill. They belong in southbeach, or soma, but not cathedral hill. Something white and concrete is what we need.

  7. Posted by JWS

    The photo on their site, unfortunately, hurts their claim more than it helps…definitely typecasts the opponents as cranky seniors, whether or not that is the case.
    I am, of course, not opposed to this development, but that original design was spectacular in comparison, and played well with the gorgeous cathedral across the street.

  8. Posted by Snark17

    Wealthy, cranky seniors who are very short-sighted: This project will increase amenities in the neighborhood and make it safer at night with more people around. How I cannot stand SF NIMBYs!!
    But yes please bring back the original design! I would start a campaign on that one.

  9. Posted by lol

    Yet another proof that old farts are unduly hogging too many resources and will not share them without a fight.
    The old are eating their young. Kinda like Soylent Green in reverse.

  10. Posted by Mike

    There are old people in San Francisco?
    Anyway, BUILD IT!

  11. Posted by R

    Clearly we need a ballot initiative to stop this.

  12. Posted by wc1

    Bitch because housing is so expensive and then bitch when new housing goes up.

  13. Posted by W

    Those old people will likely be dead by the time the construction is complete.

  14. Posted by lol

    That loudmouth on the left is the guy who will 311 your a$$ for an overflowing recyclables container after Xmas eve.

  15. Posted by noodle

    At what point will people stop calling buildings luxury condos and just call them condos? It’s not like putting crappy finishes in new construction will suddenly make it affordable.

  16. Posted by wc1

    What’s important is that we blame Scott Wiener for this.

  17. Posted by Mike

    I see that the “SOS Cathedral Hill” site has 20 likes on Facebook, I guess old people don’t use Facebook (or have Internet access for that matter)

  18. Posted by contraian

    What hate we are getting from the ss readers.

  19. Posted by FedUP

    What if you are not a “senior”, not a NIMBY, not against density and towers, but just cannot stand a tower with such a cheap unimaginative design?
    We are going to be stuck with these towers for a LONG TIME (hello Fox Plaza?) so could we send this one back to the CAD jockeys that must have copied this design from the 80s Houston/Dallas/Miami folder.

  20. Posted by wrath

    “What if you are not a “senior”, not a NIMBY, not against density and towers, but just cannot stand a tower with such a cheap unimaginative design?”
    Then you can buy the land and build your own design – even PINK!

  21. Posted by NoUglyTowers

    Very well “wrath”, and to further your build anything libertarian view, the pink tower will have TWO parking spaces per unit! Now watch all the build any ugly 80’s tower design crowd start to yell shrill comments against the tower because of those evil cars. And why not make the pink tower 80 stories while you are at it? Let’s just scrap all planning and codes.

  22. Posted by wrath

    @ NoUgly: yes, you are correct allowing this tower to be built would be like “scrapping ALL PLANNING AND CODES.”
    I understand: if this tower is built then we are one step away from World War Z, no scrap that (along with the codes), it’s like at least World War ZZZ.
    What’s actually funny here is that you seem to think that having two parking spaces is the end of the world… And, oh mein gott, 80 stories – the horror. It’s funny b/c it’s not 1000 stories or 10 parking spaces which seems out of bounds for you (and which, probably, is excessive) but, like, exactly 2 and 80.
    Your provincial attitude is precisely why SF will never be another Walnut Creek. Shame on you.

  23. Posted by Michael

    Kinda sad that their goal is only 100 signatures. How many people live in that area again? How many will be in the building itself? They need to get a grip.

  24. Posted by J

    Complain that rents and real estate prices are too high, then complain when someone tries to build a building that will actually add significant units to SF. Same story, different day.

  25. Posted by Jimmy (No Longer Bitter)

    “Endanger seniors” … I love that line! I have to use that more often myself.

  26. Posted by badlydrawnbear

    “The increased traffic on Post St. will make worse an already unsafe environment for pedestrians.”
    Well the answer here is a people-centric street redesign (although we have all seen how those go) not blocking development.
    If the intersection is ALREADY unsafe then fix the intersection, don’t stop building.

  27. Posted by lol

    We all generally get slower as we age. This makes the world appear to go faster than you’d like it to.
    Added to that is the loss of peripheral vision. This makes many things around you come up at the last minute, causing the “deer-in-the-headlight” attitude on the sidewalks (or behind the wheel!).
    Another critical aspect is the perceived rate of change as you lose control of time.
    All of these factors cause a gradual increase in fear among the senior. How you cope with it affects your surroundings.
    I know quite a few seniors in this City and their attitude towards development varies a lot.
    One friend is simply passive as she doesn’t have the energy to fight or even understand everything that happens. I often have to tell her she shouldn’t allow everything to happen around her, or take what a neighbor says about his development at face value.
    Another one of my senior friends is the posterchild of Nimbyism, contesting everything and nothing, slowing down each and every younger neighbor who want to change their property. He’s right 1/2 or the time, but the other 1/2 of his judgement calls is just a huge pain in the street’s butt. It keeps him busy and motivated…

  28. Posted by David

    Pretty ugly comments about older people. Do those posters feel that way about their own parents? Would the editors tolerate this kind of hostility if it were directed at African-American people, or Asian people or gay people?

  29. Posted by curmudgeon

    Well, David, I think the NIMBY’s kinda set themselves up for gentle ridicule given that they self selected their poster-children to be white seniors. Kinda blunts their message.
    I don’t think most of the comments express hostility towards seniors, they express hostility towards NIMBYs. And the latter are NOT a protected class.

  30. Posted by lol

    Yes, I’d say the same thing to older relatives, especially the ones still driving: we get slower as we age and the world gets too fast and sometimes too hard to really understand. And this makes us scared.
    My dad stopped driving, not because I told him his driving was becoming dangerous, but because he totaled 4 parked cars one day. I admit I’ll probably be an know-it-all cranky old coot by the time I reach 65. But convincing me of that fact will be a real challenge.
    I simply say there’s a relationship between age and Nimbyism. You are free to criticize this empirical observation on its merit and the background rationale.

  31. Posted by lol

    Talking about older people, here is a 93 yo woman and her peculiar driving in San Rafael last week.

  32. Posted by Juliet Hamlin

    Wow boys, I just heard about the “SS Elder Hate campaign” but I have to say, as a professional developer, I’m now embarrased to say I’m a Socket Site follower! As a developer who promotes housing growth for all incomes throughout SF, I can’t believe how naive these comments are to think that elderly neighbors living only 16 feet from a proposed development shouldn’t get actively engaged especially when the developer is proposing exceptions to the planning code, reclassifying the zoning height and amending the general plan!!!
    I live on this hill and several of my former condo neighbors live in the Sequoias and I can tell you they are not ignorant old white farts! Anybody who would live 16′ from a proposed tower like this should organize because I have never heard one word from this developer “Adco” to reach out to my Condo Assn. or my community. As a developer, I would never assume I can just steamroll into a neighborhood without ever engaging the community. Even if I do build as-of-right, I always engage the neighbors. Until I hear from these New York Adco folks, I’m all for the Seniors raising hell!!! Or let them build a 24 story tower instead of 36 if they don’t want to deal with all of us on the hill, young or old. And really boys, do you honestly believe that the proposed 37 story at 416 feet is really only 20′ higher than the Seqoias at 25 stories? Now lets talk about who is being factual!

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles