Condo Conversions Create Jobs

Blogging over at Beyond Chron, Randy Shaw recently wrote an article about how allowing tenancies-in-common (TICs) to pay a large fee to the city and bypass the condo conversion lottery will kill jobs in San Francisco.

I don’t make a habit of refuting every ridiculous article written about TICs, but this one was so over the top that I feel compelled to bring some facts to the discussion.

In his article, Mr. Shaw posits that:

“… it [condo conversion] would be a huge job killer, eliminating desperately needed construction jobs and making financing for new condo projects even more difficult to obtain.”

While I’ve heard any number of fascinating stories over the years about what condo conversions do or do not do to the city and its housing stock, this is the first time I’ve ever heard that condo conversions kill jobs. The heart of his argument seems to be that any homes converted to condos would reduce the demand for new condos by a ratio of 1:1 (or more, perhaps?).  In particular, Mr. Shaw seems to be concerned with the development of new condo projects in neighborhoods that he identifies as “emerging” like Visitacion Valley and The Bayview. He goes on to state that:

“Building condos creates living wage blue-collar jobs, and most of these new condos are slated to be built as economic engines for emerging neighborhoods like the Bayview and Visitacion Valley.” – Mr. Shaw

I have a few problems with this argument. While I’m shocked to see Mr. Shaw suddenly advocate for the creation of condo developments in San Francisco, particularly when he has a history of taking pride in defeating development opportunities, we’ll put that to the side for now. Once I picked my jaw up off the floor, though, here are some facts that we should take into consideration if we want to have a rational discussion about condo conversions and jobs.

TICs aren’t found in the neighborhoods he expresses concern about
I did a search of all listed TIC sales in the San Francisco MLS from March 1, 2009, to the present. There wasn’t a single sale of a TIC in District 10 in that entire period! In fact, I had to go all the way back to 2008 to find even one TIC sale in district 10 (a 2-unit building in the Excelsior). If I go back over ten years to look at all sales in District 10 since January 1, 2000, in District 10 (here’s a guide to the MLS districts), there have only been six TIC sales in all of the following neighborhoods: Silver Terrace, Bayview, Portola, Excelsior, Mission Terrace, Outer Mission, Crocker Amazon, Visitacion Valley, Little Hollywood, Bayview Heights, Candlestick Point, and Hunters Point.

So, at most, in the emerging neighborhoods that Mr. Shaw is deeply concerned about, six new condos will be created. At most. If they haven’t already been converted to condos.

Where are the TICs?
As  you can see from the map below (which contains the location of all TICs sold for almost the entire past three years), the overwhelming majority of TICs have been sold in central San Francisco. These are neighborhoods like The Castro, Noe Valley, Corona Heights, Duboce Park, Glen Park, Twin Peaks, Mission Dolores, The Haight, Cole Valley and Parnassus Heights. What do these neighborhoods all have in common? For the most part, neighborhoods where you find TICs are neighborhoods that have been almost entirely developed, where the opportunities for ground-up development are incredibly rare.

View TIC Sales in San Francisco in a full screen map

Neighborhoods Aren’t Interchangeable
Mr. Shaw also doesn’t appear to understand that home dwellers (renters and buyers) are rather picky about their San Francisco neighborhoods. Some folks want to live in The Mission or nowhere else. Some set their hearts on Noe Valley and won’t settle for anything less. While most people have a list of five to ten neighborhoods that they are interested in living in, I have seen very few people who view his emerging neighborhoods (Visitacion Valley, Bayview) as interchangeable with their preferred neighborhood. Put another way, I have yet to meet a buyer that says, “Well, if I can’t get what I want in Noe Valley I’ll take something in Visitacion Valley.” While both neighborhoods might have Valley in their name, the similarities pretty much stop there. Neighborhoods are not interchangeable, and the creation of housing stock in one neighborhood does not destroy demand in another neighborhood.

Take a look at the boom years for condo development in South Beach, Yerba Buena, and SOMA. If you take the entire quantity of condos built at The Palms, The Millennium, One Rincon, The Infinity, Blu, SOMA Grand, and The Beacon the total is 2,287 – about 10% more than the 2,000 potential condo conversions that have Mr. Shaw terrified (on a side note, I don’t know if 2,000 is an accurate number of potential condo conversions – anyone care to help?). Did the sale of 2,287 condos in the South Beach/SOMA/Yerba Buena area decimate the condo market in Noe Valley, North Beach, Telegraph Hill or any other part of San Francisco? No, they didn’t! Why? Because for many buyers, the neighborhoods weren’t interchangeable, and even if they were willing to consider neighborhoods with new developments, many objected to the style or the size of the building. Not to mention the fact that demand for housing has almost always out-stripped supply because of the challenges developers face in building homes in San Francisco.

“In contrast, converting a rental or a unit owned as a tenancy in common (TIC) to a condo creates no jobs.” – Mr. Shaw

Condo Conversions Create Jobs
I don’t feel like I’m going out on a limb when I say condo conversion will create jobs. For starters, every unit approved for condo conversion must undergo three inspections by the city – one general building inspection, one electrical, and one plumbing. Any deficiencies noted by the city during these inspections must be fixed as a condition of conversion to a condo (in fact, the violations must be fixed no matter what). All of the work must be done with permits by contractors that are licensed in the appropriate trade. Most of these contractors are smaller outfits – not the big construction companies bidding on large condo project developments. Could they use the work? Absolutely! Would the conversion of 2,000 dwellings to condos put these folks in the soup line? Absolutely not!

In addition to the jobs generated by physical inspections and corrective work, the condo conversion process requires the creation of legal documents (the covenants, conditions, and restrictions – or CC&Rs – along with the bylaws and articles of incorporation) and a survey of  the condominium building. Both the survey and legal documents would bring work to small businesses. While we can argue if creating more jobs for attorneys is a good idea or a bad idea, the reality is that condo conversion will help keep the doors open at small businesses across the city.

“After all, if you were a builder trying to get financing to build an approved project, why would a bank lend money to you when your units will be competing with thousands of newly converted units fresh on the market?” – Mr. Shaw

Condo Converted Homes Are Already Occupied
In contrast with building new developments like SOMA Grand or The Palms from scratch, the conversion of an existing dwelling into a condominium does not create a vacant property. TICs are already occupied – primarily by hard-working home-owners, but also by tenants. A homeowner is not going to sell simply because they converted their ownership from a TIC percentage of the whole building to a condominium. Does it make it easier for them to sell? Absolutely. Does that mean they will? Not necessarily. And guess what – even if they did sell, that would be good for the economy and jobs because it would mean that they would need another place to live.

If they do move, realistically they are going to be interested in “moving up” in their existing neighborhood (or a nearby one), but who knows, maybe they’ll want a condo in one of Mr. Shaw’s developing neighborhoods. In which case, the condo conversion helped create demand for more housing, not reduce it. The sale of a home also generates revenue from transfer taxes that go directly to the city. Not to mention the painters, landscapers, movers and other handy-folk that get business when a home is bought and sold.

“Think we would see many Ellis evictions if speculators knew that 3-6 unit buildings in San Francisco could never become condos? How about addressing this serious risk to long-term tenants instead of figuring out new ways for real estate speculators to get even richer?” – Mr. Shaw

Buildings with Two or More No-Fault Evictions Are Already Prohibited From Conversion (Including Ellis Acted Buildings)
Mr. Shaw published an article on May 11, 2006, in which he was delighted about “tough eviction protection legislation” that had just been passed by the Board of Supervisors and signed by Mayor Newsom. What was this tough eviction protection legislation? It was an ordinance that prohibited the conversion of a TIC to a condo if there was the eviction of an elderly or disabled tenant after May 1, 2005, for any reason unrelated to the tenant’s behavior. The law also prohibits condo conversion if tenants have been evicted from two or more units since May 1, 2005, for any reason unrelated to the tenants’ behavior. This eliminates any building that was vacated using the Ellis Act (or any other no-fault eviction method that removes tenants from two or more units) from eligibility for condo conversion. The law is also building specific, rather than owner specific – restrictions run with the property regardless of who owned the building at the time of the eviction. How quickly we forget…

“… does not change the fundamental issue: 3-6 unit building that were built as rental units, and typically stayed rental units for over eighty years are now off the rental housing market when rental units in San Francisco are more scarce than ever.” – Mr. Shaw

Condos Can Be Rented!
Mr. Shaw argues that the conversion of ownership from TIC to a condominium will eliminate hundreds of buildings from the rental stock. Which is, quite frankly, a blatant lie. As he immediately acknowledges in the next paragraphs of his article, condos can be rented. They are not subject to rent control, which is an entirely different concern.

I’ve been a tenant in San Francisco, and I’ve been a homeowner. The creation of condos from TICs might do a lot of things — like help the city balance its budget. But to suggest that it will somehow kill jobs is perhaps the most ludicrous thing I’ve ever read.

Share This:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Technorati
  • del.icio.us

Going Up? San Francisco Inventory Is!

It’s Tuesday, which means that as soon as I finish writing this post, I’ll be out the door and touring homes for the rest of the day. From the north end to the south side I’ll be hoofing it all over the city in the hybrid, all so you don’t have to see the ugly ones on Sunday!

I’ve been using TheoTour as a beta-tester for the past several months, and one of my favorite features is the at-a-glance snapshot of market inventory. As you can see, while we are far from the October 2011 fall peak of 300 new listings, new listings have taken a substantial tick upward from the beginning of the year. Our first real estate buying/selling season begins in earnest in February (tomorrow!), running through June (roughly). Then things will momentarily pause for the fog in July and August, and pick up again in September and October before they quiet down for the holidays in November and December.

Today the are 136 new listings on tour today, up from less than 50 at the beginning of January.

Broker's Tour Stats for January 31, 2012

With interest rates at historic lows and improved consumer confidence, my prediction for San Francisco real estate in 2012 is that it will be a very good year, with an increase in volume and a slight increase in prices.

We are also beginning to come to the end of our new construction inventory, with only one new condo building opening this year (The Madrone). Given the uptick in buyer interest, I’m willing to predict that buildings like One Hawthorne, The Millennium, Blu, and One Rincon will sell out their remaining inventory in 2012.

Am I crazy? Ridiculously optimistic? Professionally informed? Talk amongst yourselves in the comments, I’d love to hear your thoughts about the San Francisco real estate market in 2012!

Share This:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Technorati
  • del.icio.us

2011 Most Expensive homes in SF

What were the most expensive homes sold in San Francisco during the 2011 calendar year? I always have to wait for the tax records to catch up with December recordings, but now that they have, the results are in. It was a blockbuster year for luxury real estate in 2011!

2840 Broadway

2840 Broadway, Sales Price: $33,000,000

2950 Broadway

2950 Broadway, Sales Price: $29,500,000

188 Minna, The St. Regis

188 Minna St., Penthouse A, Sales Price: $ 28,000,000

2920 Broadway

2920 Broadway, Sales Price: $23,473,000

3070 Pacific Ave., Sales Price: $20,000,000

3070 Pacific Ave., Sales Price: $20,000,000

3701 Washington

3701 Washington, Sales Price: $12,100,000

2550 Green St.

2550 Green St., Sales Price: $9,500,000

3362 Jackson St.

3362 Jackson St., Sales Price: $9,250,000

2323 Hyde St.

2323 Hyde St., Sales Price: $9,000,000

60 Normandie Terr.

60 Normandie Terrace, Sales Price: $8,800,000

To refresh your memory, here is our 2010 list of the most expensive homes in San Francisco. As you can see from the list below, Pacific Heights dominated the top 10 sales list, with 6 out of the most expensive homes sold in 2011 located in that neighborhood. Presidio Heights comes in second place with two sales, and Yerba Buena and Russian Hill each have one sale.

Rank        Address                              Sales Price           Source
1 2840 Broadway $ 33,000,000 Tax
2 2950 Broadway $ 29,500,00 Tax/MLS
3 188 Minna St. – PHA $ 28,000,000 Tax
4 2920 Broadway $ 23,473,000 Tax
5 3070 Pacific Ave. $ 20,000,000 Tax
6 3701 Washington $ 12,100,000 Tax/MLS
7 2550 Green St. $ 9,500,000 Tax/MLS
8 3362 Jackson $ 9,250,000 Tax
9 2323 Hyde St. $ 9,000,000 MLS
10 60 Normandie Ter. $ 8,800,000 Tax/MLS

 

2840 Broadway was an off-market deal, while 188 Minna St. (the only condo to make the list this year, with all of the other sales being single family homes) was the foreclosure sale at The St. Regis that received plenty of press during the year.

It was clearly a good year to be among the 1%, with the 2011 most expensive sale coming in more than twice as high as the top 2010 sale (2600 Pacific Ave). Five of this year’s most expensive real estate deals were valued at $ 20,000,000 or more, while not one of the 2010 sales broke the twenty million dollar mark. Broadway Avenue kept it’s ranking as the most expensive street to live on, with three of this year’s sales located in the Pacific Heights stretch of Broadway, which was the same as last year.

So there you have it – the top 10 most expensive San Francisco home sales in 2011. Talk amongst yourselves about these homes and their respective sales prices. Good investment for the years to come, or outrageous and unjustifiable at any price? Keep your comments friendly but interesting :-)

 

Share This:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Technorati
  • del.icio.us

Mobile Homes of San Francisco

Tell someone you live in a mobile home in San Francisco and they’ll look at you like you’re crazy. Which you might be, but I digress. While San Francisco real estate might be known for six-figure sale prices in small packages, we aren’t known as the land of trailer parks. Perhaps it’s because we’re prone to earthquakes instead of tornadoes? There are a few homes in San Francisco, though, that are more mobile than their appearance suggests.

200 Woodside Ave., now found in the Forest Hill extension neighborhood but once part of St. Francis Wood, is one such house.

The Forest Hill Extension neighborhood was built out primarily in the 1920s, and most of the homes are finished in stucco and have a rather consistent look and feel to them – vaguely Spanish Med. 200 Woodside, on the other hand, is a cape-cod style home that is finished primarily with wood siding.

200 Woodside Ave. - A San Francisco Mobile Home

Below is a photo of the home in the context of its block, and as you can see 200 Woodside stands out as the home that doesn’t look like all of the others.

View of Forest Hill Extension

It turns out that the home was moved to this particular site back in the 1950′s, when Portola Drive was being widened. Below are several photos of Portola, before it was widened, during the construction, and how it looks today:

Portola before the street was widened

Portola when it was being widened, 1958

Portola Drive, 2012

Freeways were all the rage in the 1950s, and the plan at the time was to pretty much put a freeway everywhere. Portola wouldn’t have been turned into a freeway, but it was widened in the late 1950s to accomodate the additional traffic envisioned as a result of the freeway expansion. As you can see, it was doubled from a two-lane to a four-lane street.

I’m not sure where exactly the home at 200 Woodside Ave. started out, but it was somewhere over in the construction area and instead of being demolished it was moved to it’s current location.

The only other homes that I know of being relocated are a strip of Victorians in the Western Addition neighborhood that were moved back in the 1960s. How about you, what mobile homes in San Francisco do you know about?

Share This:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Technorati
  • del.icio.us

San Francisco, 1955

Today’s quick afternoon distraction is a video of San Francisco taken in 1955.

Here are a few of my thoughts after watching it:

- Twin Peaks is naked! It was shocking to see how different Twin Peaks is today compared to the video, since most of Twin Peaks wasn’t built on until the 1960′s and 1970′s.

- Golden Gate Park in 1955 looks pretty much like Golden Gate Park in 2012, with the exception of those museums that have undergone an earthquake-induced transformation.

- Downtown San Francisco, where are your skyscrapers?

What stands out to you in the video?

Share This:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Technorati
  • del.icio.us

Congratulations to 2011 Zephyr Top 10 Producers

At this morning’s Zephyr sales meeting, the company top producers were announced.

Top Producer is one of those terms that might seem straight-forward, but upon closer examination is actually a bit ambiguous. While a real estate Top Producer is exactly that – an agent  that does a lot of business (usually by dollar volume) – the definition varies from company to company. Some real estate companies might recognize their top 10%, or their top 25%. Even if two different companies recognized their top 10%, the dollar volume required to be in that bracket might vary wildly. Top Producer status is certainly a honor and an accomplishment, but just remember that the criteria vary from company to company and year to year.

Now that I’ve explained a bit about Top Producer status, I’d like to take a moment and congratulate the top 10 Zephyr agents (in terms of dollar volume) in 2011. This isn’t the entire list of Zephyr Top Producers, just the top 10.

In no particular order, congratulations to the following Zephyr top producer agents:

  • Tim Gullicksen
  • Chris Sprague
  • Tim Hawko
  • Robin Hubinsky
  • Richard Meyerson
  • Don Woolhouse
  • Bill Kitchen
  • Mollie Poe
  • Danielle Lazier
  • Anna Spathis

I’d also like to give a special shout out and congratulations to Zephyr’s company-wide Top Producer, Danielle Lazier.

Britton and I have both been at Zephyr real estate since Day 1 of our career, and we have a great deal of respect for our colleagues, sales managers, administrative team, and everyone else that is on team Zephyr. We couldn’t be the happy and dynamic team that we are if it wasn’t for the awesome staff that surrounds us, and our fellow colleagues that bring their “A-Game” to their business on a daily basis. To every agent out there (top producer or not) that runs an honest, solid, reputable and awesome business, we say thank you and congratulations!

 

Share This:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Technorati
  • del.icio.us

Portola Dr & O’Shaughnessy Blvd. – Then and Now

While doing some research for an upcoming blog post about Portola Dr. I came across this great picture of the strip mall located along Portola between Evelyn and Fowler that was taken in 1938. For comparison, I went out and took a picture from roughly the same vantage point last Friday. As you can see, the more things change, the more they stay the same!

Portola Dr. in 1938, source: foundsf.org

The Miraloma Appliance co. is now home to the Portola Cleaners, while the Merit Food Center has made way for Tower Burger (yum!). I can’t quite read the signs on the next two buildings, does anyone know what was once there?  However, the Miraloma Market (far right hand side of the picture) is still the Miraloma Market (although way back in 1938 it didn’t have a taqueria).

Portola Dr. in 2012, source: Matt Fuller, GRI

If the street configuration and parking lot looks a little different to you, then you get bonus stars for your eagle eyes. Portola street was widened in the 1950′s during the lets-build-freeways-everywhere craze, which actually resulted in some of the original homes on Portola Dr. being relocated to other spots in the city.

Anyway, just a fun little then and now picture to satisfy you on this Tuesday. I’m headed out the door for broker’s tour shortly, and will be visiting neighborhoods from the north end to the south side of the city. Not much to view in Miraloma Park today, but inventory across the city is slowly creeping back up.

Have a favorite spot in the city, or an old picture that would make for a great then and now comparison? Get in touch, I’m a big fan of San Francisco history and always love to learn more about the history of the streets and homes in San Francisco.

 

Share This:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Technorati
  • del.icio.us

Common Sense or Anti-Homeless?

The creation of parklets in San Francisco has led to some unintended consequences. They aren’t on park land, so park rules and regulations can’t be enforced. They aren’t a sidewalk, though, so sidewalk laws don’t apply. And even though they might be in the street, their design is such that laws governing what you can and can’t do in a street don’t quite fit either.

Parklet in the Inner Sunset (wouldn't be affected by the Wiener legislation, as written)

City Supervisor Scott Wiener has introduced legislation that will spell out what is and isn’t allowed in the two parklets in his district – both near the heart of the Castro.  According to the San Francisco Chronicle:

Highlights of Wiener’s legislation include banning sleeping at any time in the plazas; prohibiting camping, cooking or creating any kind of shelter; banning the selling or bartering of any merchandise without a permit; and prohibiting four-wheeled shopping carts. Also, plaza goers couldn’t smoke.

Violations would be an infraction with a maximum fine for repeat offenders of $500.

To me, this all sounds pretty innocuous and reasonable. It’s one thing to create a parklet with the hope of attracting visitors to liven up the streetscape during the day, it’s something else entirely to assume that means they can stay the night and set up a camp. Occupy parklet just doesn’t have the same ring as Occupy Wall Street.

People who make a living out of ‘advocating’ for the homeless are, expectedly, outraged and feel this is just one more horrible and mean-spirited piece of legislation.

My experience is that San Francisco bends over backwards to try and work with the homeless population and find solutions to a problem that has no easy solution, particularly given the larger framework of cuts at the state and national level for mental health care.

If we are truly compassionate, we should be focused on finding the dollars for mental health care, and not spewing outrage over common sense public courtesies. But those are just my two cents – what about yours?

 

 

Share This:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Technorati
  • del.icio.us

Glen Park Slime

IMG_7364

Destroyed Landscaping in Center Median

IMG_7365

View of Destroyed Plants in the Median

IMG_7363

View Towards Bosworth on O'Shaughnessy

IMG_7366

Additional View of the Vandalized Median

IMG_7367

The Vandalized Median

IMG_7374

Vandalized Succulent...

IMG_7373

Additional View of the Damage

IMG_7370

O'Shaughnessy approaching Bosworth

IMG_7368

View of Upper Pedestrian Median, Malta @ O'Shaughnessy

IMG_7369

Upper Pedestrian Median, not vandalized, at Malta/O'Shaughnessy

Glen Park has some slime. As you can see from the above photos, some individual or group of individuals thought it would be cool/funny/hilarious/a good use of taxpayer funds to destroy the new plants that are a part of the O’Shaughnessy/Bosworth traffic calming project. For those of you not familiar with the area, it’s a twisty road at the bottom of the canyon, and it was great to see the city take some steps to slow traffic down and make it look a little bit more beautiful.

While the vandals weren’t able to destroy the traffic calming street bulbs and center median planter, they managed to do a number on some of the succulent plants that had recently been planted by the city.

Jerks!

O’Shaughnessy / Bosworth Traffic Calming Project
This project was made possible in part by the San Francisco County Transportation Authority through a grant of Proposition K Local Sales Tax Funds.

Project Information
The O’Shaughnessy / Bosworth Traffic Calming Project began in August 2005. Read the O’Shaughnessy/Bosworth Meeting Notes – 8/30/05 meeting (PDF),O’Shaughnessy/Bosworth Final Traffic Calming Plan (PDF), and the Funding-Phasing Plan (PDF)

Project Update
A pedestrian refuge island was constructed at the intersection of O’Shaughnessy and Malta to assist pedestrians crossing the street at that intersection.  That island has recently been removed as part of a paving project for the O’Shaughnessy corridor but it will be reconstructed as part of the paving project.

A new crosswalk and pedestrian island will be constructed on O’Shaughnessy at the intersection with Del Vale.  The guardrail on the uphill side of the street will be opened up to allow pedestrians to cross at this location without the need to step over the guardrail.

Between Bosworth and Malta, a portion of the striped median will be opened up to allow for landscaping.  Adjacent curb extensions will be constructed to narrow the lanes just uphill of where the housing begins on O’Shaughnessy.  The intent is to create a gateway to let drivers know that there is a change from a mountain road to a residential area near a park.  This work will take place as part of the paving project.

Source: San Francisco MTA website

Share This:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Technorati
  • del.icio.us

The Secret Community Garden in Diamond Heights

It’s not exactly a secret in the sense that you aren’t supposed to know about it, but it is secret in the sense that you probably don’t know it exists… What am I talking about?

I’m talking about a lush little plot of land, tucked away next to a Policy Academy, across the street from a large condominium complex, and at the entrance to a “sub-division” of single family homes known for their mid-century architecture and views of Glen Park Canyon

The Little Red Hen Community Garden in the Diamond Heights neighborhood opened on Mother’s Day of 2011. Later in the year they got their snazzy new sign, and in December of last year the Police Department threw a little party to help them celebrate.

Located on San Francisco police academy land, the community garden is immediately to the east of Amber Drive, just to the south of Duncan (to keep things confusing, Amber and Duncan intersect each other twice. The garden is located at the southern-most intersection of the two streets – closer to the Safeway shopping center than to Portola.

Diamond Heights has a deserved reputation for fog and blustery weather, so I was happily surprised to stumble across the Little Red Hen after previewing a classic mid-century home for sale in the Diamond Heights neighborhood. The Glen Park Association has a great write up about the project, and I’d also encourage you to visit the garden’s website to learn more about opportunities to garden in Diamond Heights.

According to the Glen Park Association website, the garden has been incredibly popular and there is currently a waiting list for garden plots. The site used to be overgrown and under-utilized, so it is really exciting to see what the efforts of some committed neighbors and neighborhood enthusiasts can make happen!

 

Share This:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Technorati
  • del.icio.us
Please view our comment policy, disclaimers, and copyright notice (if that's your thing).