Now he tells us!
John King, the SF Chronicle's architectural critic, evidently takes a jaundiced view of what's being built in the city:
Again and again, what's built here follows the path of least resistance. You sense no higher aspiration than getting a green light from a planning commission. After that, let the public beware (SF Chronicle, Feb. 10, 2005).
This wasn't what he told readers a few years ago, when he wrote a series of articles praising the shocking Rincon Towers and the Vancouverization of San Francisco. And his sappy piece last October 20 on the at best mediocre and at worst disastrous Octavia Blvd. project allowed the city's progressive community to slumber on in ignorance of what the Planning Dept. has in store for city neighborhoods.
And his reference to "a planning commission" is disingenuous. Any particular planning commission in mind here? How about the San Francisco Planning Commission, a collection of dim bulb political appointees who rubber-stamp whatever the Planning Department's staff puts in front of them? Sounds like King is beginning to have second thoughts, but the damage is done: the four neighborhood-destroying Rincon Towers are a done deal, as is the freeway bisecting the Hayes Valley neighborhood Planning calls Octavia Blvd.
Labels: Highrise Development, John King, Octavia Blvd., Planning Dept.
posted by Rob Anderson @ 6:00 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
I refer you to King's June 16, 2003 piece in the SF Chronicle that told us that SF too can have residential high-rises, if we do it the Vancouver way. And the July 23, 2003 piece that praises the changes developers made to the street-level design of the towers: "The future of Rincon Hill now looks a lot more enticing---at least on the ground." Not a word in that piece either about cutting the towers in half. Nor was there any hint of King dissenting in his July 26, 2003 piece. Ditto for the Sept. 5, 2003 article after the Planning Commission approved the towers, wherein he gives the last word in the piece to an approving opinion by someone from Planning. Could you provide a citation for your claim? And please cite other "misrepresentations regarding projects in SF." How can I ever see the light if you won't help me?
I'm a "super NIMBY"? I just think development in such a small city has to be done a lot more carefully than the Rincon Towers, UC Extension, Market/Octavia Plan approach. Other correspondents have also mentioned my losing run for D5 Supervisor, as if that's relevant to what's being discussed. These comments are evidently meant to wound, but, hey, off a duck's back, pal! I didn't run with the idea of actually winning---I'm not delusional---but in an attempt to influence the political dialogue and the issues discussed. Of course I failed at that, too, more or less, like I did in 2000. I ran against Matt Gonzalez and others then in an attempt to get the progressive community interested in the homeless issue. Alas, Matt, who, much like Ross in 2004, everyone knew was going to win, never showed any interest in the issue. Too bad for him Gavin Newsom eventually did show an interest in homelessness, because it made him Mayor of SF.
The Jan. 11, 2004 article by John King actually helps my argument, not yours, since King is saying that it's a bad idea to just make the towers shorter. Instead, he thought that eliminating a few of them and making the remaining towers taller was preferable. Nor was that article has last on the Rincon Towers. In a June 17, 2004 piece, he throws a bouquet to the redesigned towers, which he finds "more slender and distinctive, with more light and air between them..." John King simply likes residential highrises. I understand the problem we have in SF: we're damned if we do and damned if we don't on the housing issue. If we don't built any new housing---which is not what I advocate---we limit the supply in an already pricey market. If we do as we're doing now, we are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water, destroying the very things that make the city a good place to live, including its neighborhoods. We just need to grow a lot more carefully than Planning and the We Need Housing movement approach. You also bolster my point with the population numbers. San Francisco is a small geographic area that already has 750,000 people. How many is enough? Planning thinks SF is obligated to make up a regional deficit in housing. Do you agree? Who do you think is going to buy the Rincon Towers condos? Probably well-off people from other parts of the country/world. How does that help the city, except for its tax base? Can I infer from your comments that you think the UC proposal for the extension site is good for that neighborhood and the city? And you like the Rincon Towers?
It's simply not true that John King has "spoken disparagingly in almost every column he has written." Quite the contrary. Interested readers can decide for themselves by checking the SF Chronicle's online archives. Why does "utilizng property to its potential" necessarily mean commercial potential? What that part of town really needs is a real park and a branch library, not an over-large commercial housing development---424 housing units on five acres---for the increasingly imperial University of California. That parcel is also zoned for Public Use and has been for 150 years. I understand that Supervisor Mirkarimi spoke out against the project in a public meeting last night. Good for him!
Readers can go to the archives of John King's Chronicle columns to judge whether he ever spoke "disparagingly" of the Rincon Towers (http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/king/archive/). In fact he likes residential towers, especially if they are "slender and distinctive," as he put it in his June 17, 2004 piece.
Post a Comment
<< Home