Parklet on lower Haight: smoking section for a bar
Danny Coyle's on lower Haight Street is applying for a parklet. Follow the issue on lowerhaight.org.
Michael contributes this dissent:
Although I think Danny Coyle's is a fine establishment, and I am truly appreciative of the vitality and security it brings to the neighborhood, I am strongly against this proposal for following reasons. Already too much of their noise spills out onto the street. The windows in the front of the bar are almost always open, and they don't seem to have any policy about closing them after certain hours. They are pretty lousy neighbors, and seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that they are in a residential neighborhood.
The volume on their sound system is always up higher than permissible levels, per city code. They don't seem to have any policy on the hours that they control the volume. If you bother to go to the bar to ask them to adjust the volume, you will likely be met with an annoyed gaze and a sarcastic comment. Putting a parklet in front of a bar is only creating a smoking section for the bar. I smoke, and I hang out in bars. When I'm hanging out in a bar and want to smoke, I go out in front of the bar (unless they have a patio). Smokers hang out at bars with smoking areas. The claim that smoking would not be allowed in this parklet under existing laws is frankly absurd.
One of the objectives of a parklet is to punctuate a block; create visual interest and a social space in the middle of a block. Having a parklet next to a bus stop does not make sense from a planning perspective, and it does not seem like a really pleasant place to hang out, read a book or chat with friends. I do like the idea of seeing more parklets in our neighborhood. I don't think putting them in front of bars that do not serve food is a wise idea. If one has to be installed on Haight Street, it would be more appropriate in front of Molotov's or Noc Noc.
Best regards,
Michael
Labels: District 5, Neighborhoods
posted by Rob Anderson @ 11:44 AM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Have to agree with Michael. Of course I am sure that the "other side" will merely respond with something alone the lines of, "if you don't like it move to the suburbs". Or, "why did you move here in the first place".
We have the same problem as Michael in our area and the bars and more particularly the clubs think they "were here first" ...at lease that is what they say.
There has been residential in my SOMA neighborhood both before and after the 1906 earthquake and fire. Where do they get off saying residential is moving in on an existing land use, such as a club?
First the potato famine, now possibly denying Danny Coyle's a parklet...
Will the oppression of the Irish ever end?
At least there's some acknowlegment that parklets are really only pumped-up smoking sections.
And then there was this yesterday:
Time’s Up: the End of Temporary
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
12:30 pm
From parklets to bike lanes, gardens to pop-up stores, temporary urban interventions have emerged as a powerful source of innovation, experimentation and rapid implementation. |
But while temporary approaches can fast-track things into existence, their day of reckoning must eventually come. Can they put down roots and live on, or should they pass gracefully away?
How should advocates and policymakers contend with these living experiments?
Join innovators Kit Hodge of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, Michael Yarne of the Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development and John Bela of Rebar to discuss the evolution and future of temporary urbanism.
http://www.spur.org/events/calendar/time’s-end-temporary
Seems to me that a parklet next to a bus stop is a good combination, especially here where there's no bus shelter. People waiting for the bus get a more comfortable and pleasant place to sit and wait (right now there's nowhere at all to sit). Heck, combine the two and you'd have the best bus stop in town.
Post a Comment
<< Home