A San Francisco mall could be transformed into a housing-commercial development
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 04. 2024
- John Ramos reports on a possible plan to convert parking space at Stonestown Galleria into a housing development.
Read more: www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/...
Website: kpix.com/
CZcams: / cbssanfrancisco
Facebook: / cbssanfrancisco
Instagram: / kpixtv
Twitter: / kpixtv
The “housing shortage” in San Francisco is a smokescreen used by politicians to help private developers generate more revenue and in return pay more taxes. There are several new apartment and condo buildings in San Francisco that are not at full capacity and the “affordable” housing (BMR) program has no applicants and is flooded with condos for sale and apartments for rent. The Parkmerced housing complex next to Stonestown is near bankruptcy, because it cannot get to 100% occupancy. The City does not have a supply issue as it did in the past. It now has a demand issue. It has to address the issues on why there is low demand for market and below market housing first. Then they can find creative ways to build new housing.
Agree with much below. The "affordable housing" and "housing shortage" myths are an easy way to take advantage of low information high empathy voters. Developers make deals with Progressive pols, the above empathetic voters vote for the pols. The developers "contribute" to such pols. Media such as this immorally take advantage. Instead of informing the public that "feel good: zero solutions make the problem unadressed. Thus worse
Yea make Stonestone more hectic as 19th avenue is already a mess.
The rear parking is where most people park since the front is jam packed. The city should take down the old movie theater and not make it a historic site.
The housing project planned replaces all surface parking front and back. It will only have underground parking, which is only 1/3 of current capacity. So fewer visitors would be able to park. All others will need to use public transportation or taxis to visit Stonestown Galleria in the future.
@@pimaxuma That's awesome, helping the climate before it's too late.
Private owners they should be able to do whatever they want. But outside of when the mall is closed I don't think I've ever seen that mall parking lot empty. Translation: it is being used as intended unlike some malls.
Just add housing on top of the mall. Most countries have residental on the upper floors and retail at the bottom floor. The new residents will need to drive to get to work.
More traffic on 19th Avenueeeeee😵💫
Easy fix. Get rid of any golf course in the city.
Not going to happen. There are several endangered species on golf course land. The City won’t disrupt that habitat. Also the people who live near Lincoln Park will rise up and fight against losing their view. Presidio is on Federal land, Golden Gate is in Golden Gate Park, Harding is a gold mine and in Lake Merced, Gleneagles you will also be upsetting disc golfers and it is in a neighborhood no developer will want to build in, finally Sharpe Park has the endangered garter snake and it is on county land, but in the city of Pacifica. There is no golf course that is feasible for development.
Releax they can build the apts above the parking
Yup, gotta have more of that " affordable housing". The truth is that they don't want to solve the homeless problem because it's way to profitable. Maybe they should try to find the " missing " 24 billion dollars that was supposed to go toward the homeless problem
100% Another corruption scheme
uh oh... he said "reimagine". nuff said. If shoplifting is your full time job, then having housing right next to the mall would be like work from home. Just sayin', is all ;-)
19th Avenue will become a traffic nightmare.
No one will be able to afford the houses around there anyways. The old guy saying it would help with housing is an idiot. Those rental units will still probably cost about 2-3k in that area just for a studio. That place literally won't be a mall anymore and less people would actually go there to shop since its more of a residential space rather than a "mall" anymore. No one will drive there to look for parking when you're basically fighting with residential parking. Let me guess also, they'll have mall parking but I expect they'll start putting a fee for that as well. Goodbye stonestown if that happens. Everyone would rather start shopping at daly city mall or south bay malls.
The only way to reduce rent is to build more units. We need to keep building. This will help
Big cities like Tokyo have decent rent for a big city because they build more housing.
@@ciello___8307 Lol no you can't compare Tokyo with SF. Tokyo has waaaayyyy more people than SF. I hope you also know that Tokyo is a larger landscape than SF... Tokyo has 847 sqm compared to SF's 47sqm. And to note, it's cheaper to live in Tokyo if you're comparing USD to Yen... You do realize the yen is weak right? You're not making any sense lmao.
@@ciello___8307 Yes, build more housing in SF. But the proposed Stonestown apartments is a luxury project, with only 20% of units will be "affordable", which doesn't mean cheap. We don't need more luxury projects. SF needs more standard housing.
@@pimaxuma if there aren't luxury apartments where do you think the people that want to live in those luxury apartments will be living? They'll be where they are right now in apartments that would normally be cheaper and more affordable but no longer are because they can outbid anybody who would normally live in that cheaper unit
@@pimaxuma to be fair, almost all new apartments are marketed as “luxury” even if they are normal construction. The term means nothing now.
Adding more housing won't solve the housing problem??? SMH
It's because new housing will be priced at 'market rates' which means typical San Franciscans who are not homeless won't be able to afford it. This has been going on for generations here in SF whenever a developer builds new dwellings and reneges on lowered rent prices for a small number of homes set aside for low-cost housing. These clowns cry about being able to make money as ROI for their project.
@@J3unG and if we don't build any new housing at all but demand for housing keeps going up and more people are fighting for a limited number of units what will happen to the price of existing housing?
This is why that bill was passed forcing landlords to lower rent on empty units. We have plenty of housing in SF, the rent just needs to be fluxuated by how much someone makes rather then how deep the landlord's pocket is.
Your math is wrong
1+1 +1= more then 1
Take the parking away for parking AND homes!! And people already are displaced, especially in nearby Ingelside neighborhood
Watch them be stupid and take away some of the parking and claim its okay. I void that place because parking sucks at times.
I hate this, this is one of the few malls near me with adiquate parking. We have park merced just next door which is practically the same thing. Go upgrade park merced and leave stonestown alone!
I know there is a homeless crisis going on but do you think they will acctually make the rent affordable for the homeless to live there? I dont think so.
if you listened closely, the new proposal builds housing on top of the existing parking lots but car traffic would be “redirected to underground parking garages”
@@ytrqwee I did hear that. That does not change fact that the current underground parking is not large enough to compensate the amount of parking they are building on. And where will the new residents park??
Stonestown is fine the way it is, if it ain't broke don't fix it.
Homelessness isn’t a housing problem, it’s a drug problem.
It’s both. If someone is struggling and can’t afford to pay rent, they are more likely to use drugs because it’s an easy way to feel better in the moment when the world around you sucks. If people have strong support networks, a solid place to live, they are not likely to dip into drugs as a crutch. It’s basically human behavior. There’s tons of studies on it.
@@anthonysnyder1152 That's bs....They start using drugs when the going is good....and they feel like they have life by the balls...So they start using....And then? Then their lives collapse....Nobody starts using drugs ONCE they are homeless..If they are in their right mind, they are thinking about getting out of homelessness....Don't kid yourself...
@@anthonysnyder1152BS, my friends that were users came from affluent neighborhoods. They started using end of high school/ college years. Some people try drugs because they want to party and then get hooked. All that stuffy stuff you’re saying sounds good in a book.
@@teri03 There’s no magic bullet, you solve one issue then another issue becomes the focus. If you are able to ever get to a point where the resulting homeless and drug problem is manageable unlike the current situation that is chaotic and damaging to the city. Mental health for example we haven’t talked about but will 100% be the next problem if we ever solve affordability and drug use… for now - extra homes in this area will address the overall housing shortage we have that are driving up prices. Although arguable we may never reach the threshold because there may be millions that want to live in the city. Students right now are struggling to live near SFSU because there aren’t that many options available close by and Park Merced is price gouging the students. I’m hoping these units force the neighborhood apartments (that are 60+ years old and falling apart) to lower their rent.
@@anthonysnyder1152 Heavy drug use damages the brain and can cause mental illness and anxiety. You cannot hand someone like that keys to an apartment. We also have a lot of immigration in this country, so plan on never having enough housing because as newcomers get jobs and citizenship they also will require housing outside of what’s available. University students are better off living at home, there’s a housing shortage that will not be solved anytime soon. I grew up with a housing developer in my family and even in the 90’s and early 2000’s he would complain about building in California. Takes forever to get anything done.
Good. More housing is needed. Mixed use is even better.
Smart idea
The young man is very wise. He is spot on that it'll just make everything more expensive. "Developers" are businesses, the end game is to make profit $$$$.
Let's look at the alternative, build no housing there. Demand for housing keeps going up but there are no extra units which means more people are fighting for the same limited number, can you tell me what would happen to the price of existing housing overtime? Prices will always keep rising unless we build any new housing
Well... plenty of excessively empty public parks wastefully managed by the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department to contruct housing. Stop trying to take away private lands.
There’s that word again. “Reimagine”. 😂😂😂🤦🏻♂️
It would be nice to see more shuttles instead of private cars in the renderings of future plans.
If they wanted to buiild that bad they should not have put in a giant Whole Foods there. The old rear UA Cinema bldg has to stay but not the parking lot. I used to live near there and I do not think WesPo, StFrankFolks, or Lake Shore want to endure parking issues like the HMart at the Hellemany Ocean Village. Some Days people park at BART back lot. Even Lakeshore Plaza people have to park on Ocean.
By the don't close down Great Highway and force everyone on last avenue or Sunset Blvd.
This is the thing with new developments in California. The rule is to allow only 10% for affordable housing. So whatever they are mentioning 20% might not be correct. In any case, it will definitely not support homelessness, especially in SF.
This is typical KPIX propaganda for the real estate developers. There's no point in putting housing on the back end of Stonestown. It will be a density mess because SF State, the mall and current homeowners already exist in the area. The amount of traffic and people will be awful.
Park Merced Appt being foreclosed. They want affordable housing but expect Free housing . Residents should pay $100K more each
You mean like in Emeryville? with apts. above stores? or in San Jose's Santana Row? same same? oh...that's innovative alright....
Adding more market rate housing doesn't increase the price.... it lowers it. More housing = more affordable housing. Basic economics.
Allowing a luxury housing project like the proposed Stonestown apartments, which targets high income customers (for 80% of units), would show to all nearby landlords that they could charge higher prices for their property. So it would increase prices for all nearby properties.
@@pimaxuma No it wouldn’t. Visit California YIMBY and other pro-housing organizations for more information if you’d like to educate yourself 👍
Not in a basically 49 sq mile city.
@@mdmoz1777 supply and demand determine price. If you want to alleviate homelessness, you increase supply. It’s stupidly obvious.
you're dead wrong....This is SF....that may be tru in Oklahoma but this is a 7X7 square mile city and ALL want to live here but ALL cannot either afford to live here or there is not enough room. To create more room means you have more space but the other side of the equation means you have to be able to afford it.....which alot of people cannot. If i can't afford a Ferrari, does that mean that if they build more Ferraris that i should be the proud owner of one? of course not....that's absurd!!!
19th Ave is one of the most forlorn places in the world after 11pm. Thank God for Seniores Pizza. They are on Durant now in B-Town.
The housing "shortage" is caused by greedy Wall Street landlords, private equity firms and REITs
we will have to Raise your TAXES first ????
I proposed that idea with my orders
I made that idea come true with my orders
Just take some of the empty commercial buildings and swap them, Jesus the city is so corrupt
Tuff.
15 minute city?
20% for affordable housing is not enough!
Cancel the project if that's the case! 😡
They just want to make big deals with big real estate investors
So you would rather have no new housing at all and you want the wealthy to continue to be competing for the cheaper housing? 20% is perfectly fine because it'll open up other more affordable units when the wealthy move out
What a brilliant idea! The ubiquitous parking lots and cars are an eyesore. Let's use the land properly and wisely by creating vibrant, flourishing, and inviting spaces. In addition, many can use public transit, walk or cycle to Stonestown instead of using the car. The exercise has its benefits, too.
Fill it up! All cheap for newcomers
santana row 2.0
I was tired of only being able to step on human doodoo outdoors. Now I get to step on it indoors.
An early Christmas gift for all.
We need more parking as much as housing. SF needs to stop being so anti car
Stonestown was a Ghostown after Border's would close at night. The Leonard Library had a double table that you would associate with a farm family. The grill would come down to lock up the books. Who could blame them. Wonder how many books were flung out the window and sold in the Haight and elsewhere during the 60s. Any Student Housing Plans in this dream.
They should remove all the parking in Stonestown and give all of the new housing units to the unhoused!
It's laughable that people keep saying junkies and crazies on the street will be able to pay rent at incredibly expensive SF developments like this. Just think of the cost for the underground parking alone.
gooood luck
happy I don't live in that area
I also proposed generating income by selling the data collected by the city to the highest bidders for the evolution of Ai
I also proposed generating income by selling the data collected by the city the highest bidders for the evolution of Ai
🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
Take note this is the blueprint for all dying shopping malls..high density housing. The most profitable thing to build for anyone involved.
"Please don't take the parking away" 😂 In the densest city on the west coast, an empty parking lot shouldn't take priority over housing.
Ignorant comment. Free parking allows any customer to shop at Stonestown. No parking means less customers for those shops. That housing project is for rich people. The mandated 20% affordable units is a gimmick. Most poor people cannot afford the "below market" price of those few units. And later the rising HOA fees force many to move out. City officials only care about tax revenue, housing the poor and homeless is not really a priority in SF.
Good for SFSU students
Future Prison...
OH YOU SHUT UP, MICHAEL THE TRUMPSTER FREAK!!!!!
Abolish rent control
what would that do? If i moved out, they would raise the rent to market rate and you STILL wouldn't be able to afford it....sorry, that's not an option.
South Park Soda Sopa
Good! 👍
That’s a great planning. I love a place that knows how to plan that means the people care about the people love it.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
lol these nimbys are so dumb and self serving. Austin has proven that more inventory lowers prices. SF needs more inventory. Plus this will make the area much more vibrant. Not everyone has a car. I take muni to stones town and it’s so awkward to walk to the wall. Moving the parking underground is really smart.
Sf is trash now
Stonestown is actually pretty nice. So of course they want to destroy it.
hardly....parts, yes....But yesterday we went out to the GG Bridge, Alamo Square, The LYons street staircase and had lunch at The Shake Shack...all very cool.....
Much better use of the land!
The housing tax raises monthly housing prices by an average of $400. Housing should not be taxed! By the way, the regime calls it property taxes so you won't make the connection.
Agenda 21
Which is?
We need a mega church.
selling false dreams! The public is so gullible.
It’s gonna be ruined once the homeless rolls out of the muni busses, and all the trash thugs start breaking into the houses
Karen .... we are coming for the parking ....If U have a house to Park at ... Maybe U should park there.... Karen...
Releax they can build the apts above the parking
Releax they can build the apts above the parking