Developers and preservationists square off in San Francisco's Parkmerced

Not everything that exists needs to be preserved. That includes the Parkmerced townhouses that were never meant to last this long. They're also very energy-inefficient.

While Aaron Goodman brings up some important points and some of these should be addressed (e.g., especially the need for more affordable housing in SF and elsewhere), he also comes off as narrow and NIMBY. For what it's worth, a successful preservation argument in the early 40s would have prevented Parkmerced from being built at all.

The Parkmerced Sustainability Committee has done some modest albeit good green things (Tool Lending Library for the Parkmerced community, dryer racks in laundry rooms, ordering eco-videos with more on the way that residents can freely borrow, and so on) and it's hard to imagine why people would be so brown (that is, anti-green) to oppose it. Aaron Goodman was on this committee, but quit.

I've lived in Parkmerced for 20 years and look forward to the next 20 years, despite the construction, which will usher in a greener, denser, and better neighborhood with more housing, more shops, more community gardens, and more sustainability.

I don't doubt that the Parkmerced Vision could be better, more efficient, and more green. That is not a reason to oppose it, but rather to try to make it better.

An Excerpt from the SF General Plan www.sfgov.org Under the SF Planning Dept.

That existing neighborhood-serving retail uses be preserved and enhanced and future opportunities for resident employment in and ownership of such businesses enhanced;

That existing housing and neighborhood character be conserved and protected in order to preserve the cultural and economic diversity of our neighborhoods;

That the City's supply of affordable housing be preserved and enhanced;

That commuter traffic not impede Muni transit services or overburden our streets or neighborhood parking;

That a diverse economic base be maintained by protecting our industrial and service sectors from displacement due to commercial office development, and that future opportunities for resident employment and ownership in these sectors be enhanced;

That the City achieve the greatest possible preparedness to protect against injury and the loss of life in an earthquake.

That landmarks and historic buildings be preserved; and

That our parks and open space and their access to sunlight and vistas be protected from development.

Specifically regarding RENTAL HOUSING and EQUAL DEVELOPMENT of housing in San Francisco is cited under the Housing Element;

PORTION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN “HOUSING ELEMENT”
WWW.SFGOV.ORG – SF PLANNING DEPARTMENT CODES
OBJECTIVE 8

ENSURE EQUAL ACCESS TO HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES.
Population diversity is one of San Francisco's most important assets. To retain this diversity, a variety of housing opportunities should be available. Households should be able to choose the form of tenure most suitable to their needs, from either a rental or an ownership housing stock. A variety of unit sizes is also important, so that both larger and smaller households can be accommodated in adequate numbers. Units of varied costs are necessary to provide opportunities for households of different income levels. Finally, there should be units with special features and services suitable for households with special needs.

Social and economic factors can discriminate against certain population groups and limit their housing opportunities, leading to patterns of economic and racial segregation. Families with children are constrained by the types, sizes, and cost of units available to them. Access to units suitable for larger households tends to be limited by erosion of the older housing stock and discriminatory rental practices. Standard housing units with special features for elderly and handicapped persons are also in short supply. Housing that meets the needs and is affordable for artists is also lacking. If San Francisco is to retain its economic, racial, and cultural diversity, opportunities should be expanded for population groups for whom affordability and accessibility are crucial.

Hope this does clarify some of the issues regarding the SF General Plan and current lack of adhering to the SF General Plan Principles, in regards to current development in San Francisco.

Alison Hawkes, failed to include and mention or interview a number of people/principles we discussed on the initial interview. Key points to remember;

1) Parkmerced was noted under The Cultural Landscape Foundation's Marvels of Modernism Landscapes at risk in 2008. www.tclf.org

2) Parkmerced proposal places THREE muni m-line stops in a .18 mile radius inside parkmerced, rather than addressing direct connection to the Daly City Bart, along with the possibility of tunneling or aerial transit to link over the 1952 interchange and 19th/Junipero Serra Blvd. intersections. www.parkmercedvision.com

3) The 19th Ave. Transit Corridor Survey is being published this month in February and the documents show "widening" of roads rather than actively addressing traffic concerns in the district. (See SF Board of Supervisors District 7 Sean Elsbernd's legislation 081004, 081005, dealing with traffic issues, and the extra 081281 tacked on withouth 30 day review that turned district 7 into a precursor for better neighborhoods planning).

4) SFSU/CSU's Masterplan also proposes to tear-down and demolish portions of parkmerced. The CSU EIR ignored the parkmerced overall development as a state institute, and was a programmatic EIR and not project specific to the effects on the eligible site of Parkmerced to the national register. Sales of prior land and area to the university, and developers has greatly reduced the ammenities and open space on site from 191.2 acres to 116 approx. The proposal to demolish and densify Parkmerced is approx. a 2/3rds reduction in open space on site.

5) Parkmerced represents an initial "transit orientated development" in SF, one of the first desegregated apartment communities in SF, and a unique Cultural Landscape in its open space and landscape design elements. It represents a UNIQUE landscape and masterplan that is different than the typical gridded streets of SF. It is quiet, relaxing and served for years as affordable rental housing in a city loathe to develop adequate NEW rental housing by developers, bankers, and private interests. The Trinity Plaza Apartments sets the initial redevelopment pro-forma for Parkmerced, legal and technical concerns arise with the "exchange" for existing residents, in terms of what is lost open space wise to what is provided for in the future.

6) Alternatives such as demolishing the existing 11 story towers, and equity density, through cummalative development in adjacent proposed sites such as SFSU/CSU and Stonestown, Cambon Commercial area, and the prior proposed 800 Brotherhood Way (possible future park and green space connector to lake merced) are all ignored currently by the owners. The 11 story existing towers were built in the 1940's and 1950's using Sika-flex conrete enhancement formula's that are not seismic resistant technology, coupled with the geological concerns the existing demolition of the older 11 towers with new energy efficient and higher towers that are seismically more stable, should be looked at per CEQA as a significant alternative to the current proposal.

7) Alison Hawkes incorrectly frames the discussion as "preservation vs. sustainability" which is exactly the opposite of the reality of our position. We believe soundly that preservation and sustainability go hand in hand, and that the ability to preserve the existing landscape design, along with meeting the project sponsors goals for density and profit, along with significant environmental goals can be achieved through preservation alternatives. (See also the National Trust for Historic Preservation's website on "total-tear-downs" and the concern about including preservation in the rush to build "green". I prefer to see parkmerced's efforts as "green-$-greed" and not utilizing the best options in the discussion.

8) PJ Johnston worked on the Bay View Hunters Point effort under the Willie Brown Administration. Gavin Newsome received $10,000.00 from Parkmerced Investors LLP for his governor's campaign. Arnold Schwarzennegger proposed eliminating CEQA review for some projects including private development. And Jeannie Scott (a resident at Parkmerced) is complaining about a hot water issue that could be easily resolved by going to management, maintenance, or the rent-board.)

9) No other significant organization was contacted although information was provided, such as the Cultural Landscape Foundation, DOCOMOMO Documentation of the Modern Movement, The California Preservation Foundation, The Garden Conservancy Group of California, the Parkmerced Residents Organization, the San Francisco Tenants Union, Tenants Together, or the Housing Rights Committee of SF, SFSU/CSU, adjacent property owners, or neighborhood organizations.

10) The initial notice and EIR scoping hearing was predominantly attended by residents that opposed the whole-sale demolition of parkmerced.

11) SFSU/CSU proposes commercial along Buckingham, and Holloway, while Parkmerced proposes 300,000 g.s.f. of retail on crespi. They currently ignore the commercial core of parkmerced, and indicated incorrectly on there drawings that a tower is demolished along Felix/Cambon if there proposal currently does not demolish the towers.

12) No mention is made of the current lack of rental housing being built in SF, the current in-affordable prices of new rental units developed. Example: Trinity Place rents unfurnished 1-bedrooms for $1899-2574, Argenta rents 1-bedrooms for 2300/month, and 2-bedrooms for 3100 per month. No addressing of the current increased rental prices in Parkmerced was noted, based on the "green" rennovations that increased housing costs dramatically in 2007, when work began, and made it close to impossible for existing tenants to move within the complex, or for new families to move in to the unaffordable rents. Currently the majority of renter's now are SFSU students who are faced with increased tuition and housing costs and must cram into units, building illegal sub-walls to gain income to pay for the rents.

13) The SFMTA has cut transit and raised fares, consistently in the district, leading to additional problems for renters, seniors, disabled, and students while Parkmerced pushes for the redeveloped lines into the residential area. This ignores the concern of public transit being routed for private developer interests rather than alternatives that promote direct regional transit connection, and the lack of future transit development prior to developer increases in density.

14) The legal suit, City of Marina vs. CSU which noted the need to assess "fair-share" impacts on the CSU developments, the loss of Stonestown Apartments (University Park North) and Parkmerced (University Park South) was over 1,000 units of rental housing.

15) www.parkmercedlandscape.blogspot.com Chronicled some of the initial changes occuring.

16) The winner of the "green-eco-unit" was also a family who partakes in the "sustainability" committee of Parkmerced that does not currently address issues raised throughout the complex based on the trash/compost ordinance that has been a major disruption on site. The current tower trash rooms are unsanitary, and were not constructed for the purpose they are now serving as compost collection areas.

17) Ongoing work by SFSU/CSU and Parkmerced ignore the historical resources analysis by page and turnbull in current draft form that notes the entire site is eligible for the national register, one of only 2,600 sites nationally. The alternatives proposed in this document do not address the landscape courtyards there current condition nor, the concept of an alternative that protects ALL the landscape elements and provides a significant alternative through use of the Mills Act, preservation and sustainable measures in rennovations, and the existing non-structurally stable towers.

18) Please do note these issue are only a few of the overall considerations, that need to be addressed in the EIR, including adding thousands of underground parking spaces, the effects on the Lake Merced basin, the issues of cummalative development, the issues of predatory equity lending (see Peter Cooper Stuysevant Town NYC)

This article is a great example of what's wrong in American journalism. Your set up was incomplete, you failed to mention that Park Merced was one of two such projects--near mirrors of each other--the other being Park LaBrea, in Hollywood, an important consideration especially if Park LaBrea is under similar pressures, and using similar tactics to move forward.

Park Merced resident Aaron Goodman cites the traffic, and accurately mentions that, despite the planned spur of the "M" line into Park Merced, there is no serious plan to address transit issues on the west side, yet it has been pointed out that if diagonal parking in West Portal and other issues were dealt with, transit could flow much more smoothly, and did--it used to take 7 to 10 minutes to get downtown from St. Francis circle just forty years ago. There are several major boulevards designed for streetcars that could feed into the Twin Peaks tunnel, but none the lines never got built.

Historic preservation is dreadfully represented by Ms. French, who suggests that 1941 San Francisco never would have torn down something built sixty years earlier, in the 1870s, when in fact, history was seldom an obstacle in mid century San Francisco development--have we forgotten the destruction of almost the entire Fillmore and Western Addition victorians in the fifties and sixties, and the demolition of the 105 year old Montgomery Block, which had survived 1906 and once housed the studios of almost every famous artist ever to set foot in 19th century San Francisco, in 1959? Mark Twain met the real Tom Sawyer there, yet that didn't save it.

But worst of all, we come to the fig leaf that is the "eco-friendly" argument. As it was pointed out, it makes much more sense to adapt what exists than to tear out and build new, especially when the new includes so much additional parking. Plumbing issues can be fixed as can almost any other "green" issue. and those lawns can be replaced, where they aren't regularly used for sport, with xeriscape plantings appropriate to the setting.

Park Merced can evolve, and it can also be expanded, and a legitimate question is why we preserve so much, when seem to learn so little from it? More kids are going to art and design schools than ever before, and there is a greater diversity of building materials at prices lower than ever before, yet instead of building Paris or Rome, let alone North Beach, we're building Las Vegas and Tracy, and South Beach. Why are we preserving anything? What's the point?

You presented a collection of opinions, framed in a short and incomplete document, without ever questioning the veracity or motivations of those interviewed, and left if for the listener to sort out, presuming the listener was the least bit informed to begin with. Isn't part of journalism's job to inform and to illuminate?

If this is local public radio's best effort, why should we support it?