September 15, 2010

The Vanguards Of Development For 35 Lloyd

35 Lloyd Lot

A plugged-in reader’s comment with respect to the proposed development of the lot at 35 Lloyd couldn’t help but catch our eye. Of the 15 letters received by the Planning Department in support of the project, 10 were by way of agents of Vanguard Properties, including the brokerage’s president. Not one of the ten felt compelled, however, to note their affiliation with Vanguard.

As our reader also noted, the buyers and proposed developers of the lot at 35 Lloyd previously developed 943 Church, a project for which Vanguard provided both sell-side and buy-side representation for the developed property.

Who (Or What) Will Get To See The Light Of Day On Lloyd? [SocketSite]
35 Lloyd Street (aka 37‐39 Lloyd Street) Discretionary Review [sf-planning.org]
Another Friday, Another New Price: 943 Church Street One And Two [SocketSite]

First Published: September 15, 2010 1:00 AM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

I'm all for infill development. And I don't have any huge objections to this project. But Vanguard...yeah, they can be pretty sleazy. Maybe just supremely cynical. I can totally see the neighborhood getting turned off, because you KNOW they came in with the biggest project they could justify, just so the could be "responsive" to neighborhood concerns.

I'm glad someone made the connection about the letters. I kept reading those form letters that said "I live near the project", and I was wondering...well if you live so near why don't you mention your address!

Posted by: curmudgeon at September 15, 2010 8:06 AM

One of the letters is from a Caldwell Banker Agent.

Posted by: SFLooking at September 15, 2010 8:12 AM

The building is just so butt-ugly.

Posted by: steve at September 15, 2010 8:45 AM

Shills! Seriously, the board isn't going to like being manipulated like this one. They should require disclosures on those letters.

Posted by: eddy at September 15, 2010 9:00 AM

It's a shame to see the last few of these pocket-lots being concreted/built over with another boring box.

The lack of open space in SF is a shame and it's getting worse.

I know it's private property but still it's a shame land prices are so high here and the City is broke as it'd be nice to see the City purchase some of these empty lots and keep them as open space.

Posted by: Gil at September 15, 2010 9:02 AM

They should put a bocci ball court there, what could go wrong?

Posted by: sparky-b at September 15, 2010 9:20 AM

OMG a real estate development company?
I forget, are they "the man" ? As in working for the..?
Isnt it a shame cities have to be where people build houses to live ? And that cities that are densely populated have less open space? Isnt it a shame that real estate development company's try and develop real estate?
God this is a cruel cruel world we live in

Posted by: Joe at September 15, 2010 9:22 AM

Gil, there is tons of open space in SF, and there is no need to preserve this lot for "open space" value. For god sakes, Duboce Park is a block away, and Buena Vista Park is a couple of blocks away. I am SO TIRED of that "open space" argument raised when neighbors don't want to see a legitimate lot developed.

Posted by: curmudgeon at September 15, 2010 9:36 AM

according to this:

http://www.tpl.org/content_documents/citypark_facts/ccpe_TotalAcresPercentofLandArea_08.pdf

San Francisco is one of the top cities for parks as a percentage of total available land, well above average.

Posted by: lyqwyd at September 15, 2010 9:45 AM

There's also a letter from a Zephyr agent.

M.R.

Posted by: Mystery Realtor at September 15, 2010 9:46 AM

"I am SO TIRED of that "open space" argument raised when neighbors don't want to see a legitimate lot developed."

Isn't this basically the attitude of the entire Bay Area in general? We have tons of open space here to build on, but we also have many many artificial constraints to keep prices high. Similarly, we could put many more people in SF and drop housing prices, but we don't. Say what you like about the tenets of national socialism, dude, at least it's an ethos.

Posted by: sfrenegade at September 15, 2010 9:51 AM

Build away. I see very little being built that is considerate of the environment, that will add to the community 15 years after the developer has left the parcel. I love love Love new buildings.
I go gaga for good design. Love modern design. Lot of new dev does not age well.

I guess its the 80/20 rule in action.

I don't want the cityscape to look like joan rivers face, too many bad attemps and no real way to revive the former natural beauty.

At last Joan is brilliant, these designs are not.

Posted by: Kathleen at September 15, 2010 10:07 AM

For 10 years, I lived steps from Lloyd St. I adore this lane -- and I've always loved this yard -- it was a psychic breath of fresh air and a moment of decompression for an otherwise jammed street. Serene, overgrown, beckoning...

However, I support developing the yard (agreed looks slightly jammed in and spilling over; there are other options for same square footage without overwhelming) -- but my pt is that right @ the end of this tiny street is a beautiful pocket park that provides really, an unusual (in SF) counterpt to this built-out street.

Just want to remind how Lloyd spills out on this unique and well cared for greenspace and I consider this in my overall reaction.

I will miss however that amazing lot & the momentary breath of fresh air & visual delight it provided me and my family for many years.

Posted by: invented at September 15, 2010 10:26 AM

There is not all that much open space left, and much of that is critical watershed or high landslide risk or both or constrained in some other way. Between 1920 and 1960 developed area exploded. The USGS has very good records and studies of this phenomenon including an animation of street grid expansion during this period. The biggest challenge is replacing low densities with higher density infill development. That used to happen naturally through market forces, but political constraints have made increasing density with infill development difficult or impossible all over the Bay Area. The idea that new buildings must match the old is ludicrous, especially the requirement for prominent front stairs to keep out the handicapped and elderly.

Posted by: Mole Man at September 15, 2010 10:31 AM

Moleman, I think what you are meaning to say is "there is not that much open space left in PRIVATELY OWNED VACANT LOTS. (lyqwyd showed that there is TONS of publicly owned open space in the City).

You are partially correct, particularly if you are talking about residentially zoned laned (there is a lot of industrially zoned open space on the eastern side of town).

But, regardless, I'm not really sure what your point is.

Posted by: curmudgeon at September 15, 2010 10:53 AM

But, regardless, I'm not really sure what your point is.

I think the point is that they shouldn't build a nuclear power plant on this lot.

Posted by: EH at September 15, 2010 11:49 AM

Only in San Francisco is a vacant lot considered a "visual delight" and a "psychic breath of fresh air." You should consider moving to Detroit or Jersey, they have plenty of overgrown lots you can gaze into. ;)

Not trying to be an a$$hole - I do understand your sentiment.

Posted by: lolcat_94123 at September 15, 2010 1:25 PM

SF is near the top in the "high density" category. But, I was initially surprised to see NYC is tops in that category. Certainly, not much of this is due to "parklets"! I suspect that 90% is due to the big chunks of park space.

Nobody beats (low density) Anchorage!

Posted by: john at September 15, 2010 7:25 PM

Reading through this discussion, some of the comments remind me more of the attitudes of someone living in Carmel, Mendecino or Santa Barbara, instead of San Francisco, Chicago or NYC.
There are plenty of charming quiet villages on the coast where one can enjoy the boutique rural enviroment so many seem to crave.

Posted by: Justin at September 15, 2010 7:45 PM

Doesn't suprise me at all... The Vanguard peeps are the sleeziest in town

Posted by: Julia at September 15, 2010 9:59 PM

Was this always an undeveloped lot?

Can anyone share the history of who owned it and how it ended up for sale?

If it was the garden of one of the other houses, as I think someone else suggested, how did the lot get split? That would have been the time for the neighbors to stop the development.

Posted by: bgelldawg at September 16, 2010 7:49 AM

The lot has always been the garden for 45 Lloyd. The original owner, Max Wisenhutter, split the lot around 1900 (according to Sanborn Maps). He kept one lot and gave the other to his daughter. The daughter sold both lots in the 60s to Herb Donaldson (http://www.fogcityjournal.com/news_in_brief/herb_donaldson_honored_060623.shtml).

Herb passed away in December 2008, and his estate sold the house and garden separately to cover estate taxes. They took the first offer they got, which is why it went so cheap. Most neighbors didn't even know the garden was a separate lot until it sold.

Posted by: FL at September 16, 2010 3:54 PM

That is so sad for the neighbors.

Herb Donaldson was quite wealthy, owned many properties, and had no dependents to support. I'm sure if someone had approached him prior to his death he would have provided for the preservation of the garden lot. He was an extremely generous man.

Thank you for the background information, FL.

Posted by: bgelldawg at September 16, 2010 9:53 PM

It's disgusting that this beautiful respite from urban life is being ruined to build housing!

Posted by: Kennedy at September 17, 2010 11:18 AM

"beautiful respite from urban life"

If you really cared about "urban life," you'd suggest tearing all the SFRs on Lloyd down, building some condos, and adding some greenspace that way. As it is, you're just being a NIMBY.

Posted by: sfrenegade at September 17, 2010 11:26 AM

So please, would someone tell us what happened at the Planning Commission meeting on Sept. 16??

Posted by: Bloggy at September 17, 2010 7:34 PM

Posted by: SocketSite at October 12, 2010 1:50 PM

re: Vanguard...can someone summarize what their business model is? I've never really had it explained to me. They clearly were involved in a lot of renovations (flips or not) and also small scale new development during the boom. Is that principals investing from their own accounts, or is there a Vanguard organization is the developer.

But they are also a bread and butter real estate broker, correct, and represent sellers and buyers? Just wondering... Are there other real estate companies in SF like them, or is their business model unique?

After seeing several Vanguard related issues on this site ([like this one]), it certainly gets my antenna up anytime I see a Vanguard listing.

Posted by: curmudgeon at October 15, 2010 9:39 AM

Post a comment


(required - will be published)


(required - will not be published, sold, or shared)


(optional - your "Posted by" name will link to this URL)

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


Continue Perusing SocketSite:

« Noe Valley's 1420 Douglas Closes At 26 Percent Under Its 2007 Price | HOME | New Home Sales Tumble While Inventory Jumps »