First St. John's United Methodist Church at Larkin and Clay (Image Source:

Having been rejected twice, once in 2010 and again at the end of 2012, the proposed demolition the dilapidated First St. John’s United Methodist Church at the corner of Larkin and Clay and the construction of a five-floor building with 27 dwelling units on the parcel was unanimously approved by San Francisco’s Planning Commission late last year.

Next week, San Francisco’s Board of Appeals will hear the Nob Hill Neighbors’ protest, a challenge of the zoning variances which were granted for the project, and without which the 1601 Larking Street project as approved cannot be built.

1601 Larkin Street 3.1: The Redesign Details And Renderings [SocketSite]
Larkin Street Redevelopment Take Three And Planning’s Flop [SocketSite]

11 thoughts on “Approved Nob Hill Development Appealed By The Neighbors”
  1. I live across the street from this site. It is currently used as a place for the homeless to sleep. They leave trash all over the place and go to the bathroom on the sidewalk. Whoever thinks this is the highest and best use of the space is delusional. I welcome the new housing and think it is a huge improvement over what is there currently. To those protesting…please give up.

  2. Not going to lie, it may be dilapidated, but it is a charming building.
    But I don’t care. If we need more housing then we need more housing. Shouldn’t let a bunch of NIMBYs create a housing crisis.

  3. Who are the nob hill neighbors?
    They dont have a web site, or a contact phone number. They plaster my neighborhood with posters full of dire warnings and hyperbole… who are they?

  4. Not sure I like the look of windows at the corner, they seem out of step with the area, But that said the needed design change I think to building needs is pretty minor and project should be built ax soon as possible

  5. Who on earth would protest something taking the place of that church that is boarded up and reeks of urine! I have lived in Nob Hill for 10 years and I have always wondered how that eye soar just sat there wasting space. I don’t even feel safe walking by it. It is so gross and I hope they tear it down ASAP!

  6. @neighbor: I doubt anyone is arguing that the current use is the “highest and best” — that is just a tired strawman that is trotted out to support the argument “anything else would be better”, so “whatever the developer wants must be approved”. (I am talking to you Lisa).
    It would be interesting to know what the objections are to the building. But since the editors of this blog don’t care about how a building impacts the neighborhood and refer to anyone opposing a development as a “NIMBY” (showing that they don’t even understand what that term means), we are unlikely to find out.
    Sorry, but the pro-development forces are so caught up in making money and so contemptuous of the community, that most people now assume that the neighbors are right. Maybe if the developers actually treated the community with respect rather than resorting to lame insults, there would be more progress.
    I don’t expect this to change. It is much easier to call neighbors NIMBY’s than to actually design buildings that are compatible with the neighborhood.

  7. ^Um, the “neighbors” have blocked more than ten different proposals on this site going back more than a decade.

  8. Yes, unlike the greedy developers, I’m not caught up with making money at all. It appears in my bank account whenever I need it, I just have to invoke the magical words taught to me by the Jinn.

Leave a Reply

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