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.