mall.jpgThe story posted by Liz Henry on the Redwood City DMV reminded me of a report I heard on the radio. Could waiting in line at the San Francisco DMV become just a part of a shopping trip?

Rather than just remodel the San Francisco DMV Office at 1377 Fell St., the plan may be to design a new shopping mall that includes a DMV. Buy a Juicy handbag, your favorite fragrance or MP3 player, and while there renew a Driver License, or register a vehicle.

Somehow the deal is to be a money saver for the Department of Motor Vehicles. It’s so crazy, it just might work as long as planners keep the good smelling and yummy Cinnabon on the other side of the Mall.

7 Comments so far

  1. tyler82 (unregistered) on December 15th, 2006 @ 1:52 am

    whatever they decide to do would be better than what’s there now. I’m all for it

  2. phil (unregistered) on December 15th, 2006 @ 10:18 am

    i agree, the dmv parking lot is an eyesore. A mix use development would be nice since its right next to the panhandle and the residents will enjoy the great location with shops, similar to broderick place, adjacent to the dmv.

  3. Mattymatt (unregistered) on December 15th, 2006 @ 1:49 pm

    Holy crap. This is such a good idea I nearly just wet myself. If you’re going to insist on driving, the least you can do is be forced to take transit at least once every few years. Get rid of the giant parking lot that served so few people; replace it with jobs, destinations, and community space for everyone.

  4. SEAN (unregistered) on December 15th, 2006 @ 3:07 pm

    I agree. That space, inside and out, is just blighted/soiled. The cramped chaos inside feels like part rundown bus station, part jury duty limbo. The DMV (at least used to) do inspections in the parking lot. And a few tests I think too. I imagine with the redesign, that will be incorporated as well. I’m sure the only ones who’ll miss the eyesore parking lot will be the theoretically banned skate boarders.

  5. cd (unregistered) on December 15th, 2006 @ 3:41 pm

    “insist on driving.”

    I know many people who wish they had the luxury of not-driving, but sometimes employment’s a bitch, isn’t it.

  6. Jordan (unregistered) on December 16th, 2006 @ 8:03 pm

    Yeah, I agree something else needs to go there, but the phrase “shopping mall” frightens me a bit.

  7. 2DogsandABaby (unregistered) on December 21st, 2006 @ 2:33 pm

    I’m gonna play NIMBY on this one, sort-of.

    I wouldn’t object to a “shopping mall”, so long as it is done “right”. The Broderick place complex is ok, but not terribly attractive. And in a month of it being open, I can say that I’ve had quite a few run-ins with cars exiting and entering the stupid parking spots between the complex and the bank. The complex is not bad, but not perfect either.

    The parking lot IS always full during the day. I’m not sure how one will do parking for shopping (yup, this is 2006 and people do drive cars!) and DMV both. A garage would have to be in order for that one.

    Speaking of shopping, there are a number of storefronts open on DIVIS and the surrounding streets. I’m not sure that new storefronts are needed at this time.

    As far as the grounds looking like shit…how do you suppose that would change? You’re still going to have the state taking care of the lot. You’ll still have the stupid-ass taggers trying to paint their misspelled names on the walls.

    All that being said, I’d love to see a remodeled and/or new mixed-use building on the site. However, it would be nice if it was actually thought thru and doesn’t pander to the folks that want it to “blend in with the victorians” or look old. A nice modernist structure would look and work a lot nicer than a drab, shit-brown building with shake siding like the broderick place.

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.