Wow I can't believe the comments on this thread. Do you not see any value in preserving our past for future generations? Are we stealing from the future when we preserve more notable old buildings like castles as well, or do you just not like the way this particular building looks? I think the criteria is notability, not aesthetics, for what it's worth.

It's almost impossible to demolish structures in San Francisco, because somebody considers each one historic in some sense. A great example was the recent "historic laundromat" in the mission.[1]

The concept of property rights in SF is basically a joke. You can't do anything to your home unless you spend months and thousands of dollars navigating the bureaucracy. The burden is so onerous that it leads to people going rogue and ignoring all building codes and safety regulations. I have friends who live in places where the internal structure is totally different from what the city has on file. The electrical wiring and plumbing are a haphazard mix of amateur and professional work. The elevators haven't worked in years. But I'm sure if the property owner wanted to tear the place down and build something new (the only sane choice), they would be blocked.

1. https://reason.com/blog/2018/02/21/san-francisco-man-has-spe...

Sounds like there's local politics or pervious experiences in SF that I don't know about that might be driving people's negative reactions.

Where I live I cherish the work that's been done to preserve old buildings so I can see them today, and I hope they're preserved so my ancestors can see them as well.

Much of the existing bureaucracy in SF is purposefully byzantine in response to the urban renewal of the 50s and 60s which saw the "redevelopment" of the Western Addition, Fillmore, Japan Town, and the construction of the interstate highways which bisected neighborhoods. In the case of the former, victorians in historically black neighborhoods (see also: redlining) were torn down to be replaced with projects which went about as well as you can imagine. In the case of the later, we have the Loma Prieta earthquake to thank for restoring Hayes Valley and the Embarcadero to booming, walkable neighborhoods. Instead of learning from its mistakes, SF did a full 180 and landed on the opposite extreme - nothing may change unless all agencies, stake holders, and onlookers alike are perfectly satisfied. In practice, agencies are in the dozens (SF has no right to build, even when meeting all zoning restrictions!). Onlookers are neighbor homeowners who like increasing housing prices and less traffic and organizations like Calle 24 which are indistinguishable from protection rackets.

Obviously it’s a mistake and I meant descendants. Don’t be so snide.

Yeah, I've been following the laundromat saga. If he can't develop a property like that one, then nobody can in SF.

> Do you not see any value in preserving our past for future generations?

Book, art, etc.? Sure. Saving one painting doesn’t stop others from being made. Buildings and the like are different. Each building that’s “protected” robs future generations of real estate that could be put to higher value uses.

My office is in the Watergate. Aside from being sinfully ugly, the historical preservation status of the building makes it impossible to redevelop a high-value piece of land (near transit and the water) into a dense walkable neighborhood. There is no doubt people would prefer the buildings that land could be developed into over a decaying ode to concrete, but a handful of architecture snobs have robbed them of the choice.

Sure... but why preserve this?

Because it's distinctive. It's common for people to hate an architectural trend, that has only recently fallen out of vogue, only later to come to admire it.

Shouldn't that be a matter of documentation in the first place instead of just keeping structures indefinitely?

It reminds me of the Metropolitan Sepulchre plan in the 19th century (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Sepulchre). While they went with garden cemeteries instead I believe the important point is that cities are for the living and the now and not the past. I personally think that there may be a value to keeping the old around but just mere archivism shouldn't be a reason. If people actually visit it frequently enough certainly keep it but if it is just for the information, we have books for that.

First I've heard of the Metropolitan Sepulchre. I very much enjoyed the link.

    Shouldn't that be a matter of documentation 
    in the first place instead of just keeping 
    structures indefinitely?

There has to balance between razing the ruins of Pompeii, and turning every modern strip mall into a heritage site. Where that balance ought to be is beyond me. Who knows what will interest future generations?

    we have books for that.

I don't know if books are a satisfying substitute. Down the road, when VR is higher quality, that would probably suffice.

correction: I've never heard of the Metropolitan Sepulchre

It's just a house, not the Washington Monument. So what?

So, if you value it so much, put up the money?

San Francisco could have purchased the property for preservation. Evidently, it wasn't worth that.

Needlessly infringing on private property rights is disgusting. If you want to preserve something, you should own it, or at least purchase some sort of right to keep the property preserved. Simply seizing that right, by force of government without payment, is at least unethical. I feel it is also unconstitutional, given that our constitution prevents the taking of property without compensation. In these cases, the property has to some degree been taken. Oh, we maintain the legal fiction that you still own it, but you can't actually do what you want with it.

Demolition of history is stealing the past from the future.

Goes both ways.

I'm glad various buildings and artworks have been preserved, even though they may prevent other buildings or artworks. I don't know that I would have pushed for this one to be preserved.

You 'steal' from the future every time you pump gas, eat meat, flush the toilet, maybe even breathing counts by your definition? I used to live next to a Neutra building in the ghetto of N Hollywood... Amazing architecture. Very fortunate the owners kept it in meticulous original condition down to the exterior paint triming colors.

Plenty of property owners would greatly appreciate owning this home, so he could have sold it off if he wanted to. Instead, he tried to cheat the system.

A very similar law/policy exists in Venice for the preservation of the history of that city. Do you consider that to be 'stealing from the future'?

Venice is an exception because of how much of the city’s economy comes from tourism. There is an economic benefit that accrues to all property owners by maintaining a consistent historic look. That said, Venice is gross.

At worst, it is "borrowing from the future." That house will fall apart within 500 years. The earth could be habitable for another billion.

This is a great argument in favor of nuclear annihilation.

How is letting someone build a bigger house for his family even remotely comparable to genocide? The city is basically telling his family that they are not welcome, this building is more important than them and they should leave.

The argument was that preservation is "stealing from the future." Ergo, the commenter apparently believes in earnestness that a personified "future" has an unqualified right to destruction. The argument as presented is sheer nihilism, and pointing that out was the goal of my comment.