Dense in the west - Page 3

Parkmerced redesign wins narrow Planning Commission approval

02.15.11 - 6:50 pm | Rebecca Bowe |

(9)

Aaron Goodman, a former resident of Parkmerced, has been vocal in his opposition to the scope and scale of the project

GUARDIAN PHOTO BY REBECCA BOWE

"The proposed Parkmerced development is the kind of development that I normally would support. It's the kind of thing I work on in my profession," noted Marshall, an attorney who has worked on redevelopment projects. "What's different about this project is that it involves an existing community. It requires devastation of that community. It reminds me of the old-style redevelopment projects that went on in the Fillmore that destroyed existing neighborhoods. Look around that area now ... there's high density housing there, but that's about all. The community — the networks of the people — was destroyed decades ago."

Marshall took it a step further, offering her analysis on why Parkmerced was targeted. "It's because it's a working-class neighborhood of renters," she said. "That's why we're going to destroy Parkmerced."

Comments

Ridiculous hysterics - about

Ridiculous hysterics - about on par with what happens when development on this scale is attempted in San Francisco.
All existing rent controlled tenants are to be relocated ON SITE. This is not the fillmore where people were offered vouchers and the possibility of coming back after.

It's so tiring to see the same arguments rehatched ad nauseum all over the city - the basic argument is change nothing anywhere ever because I am comfortable where I am now.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 9:08 am

19th Avenue Traffic!

Yes very "green" project, except for all the cars! Why does this "green" project that is so walkable and next to the Muni streetcar line need so much parking? All these cars on 19th Avenue will bring Muni to a crawl! More traffic spillover onto neighborhood streets.

If you approve the project, you must get rid of the parking, which will make the units less attractive for the uber-rich and more affordable for real San Franciscans.

Posted by 19th Avenue Traffic!! on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 9:26 am

green = preservation

the lack of preservation, infill is what makes this project NOT green.

a new washer-dryer-dishwasher
loss of openspace

lack of direct transit,

1:1 parking,

lack of addressing of existing towers....

not green, just $$$$$$$$

Posted by Guest on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 8:02 am

Real san franciscans dont

Real san franciscans dont drive cars?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 11:55 am

Polly Marshall, eviction lawyer

Polly Marshall was the attorney who evicted artists, tenants including us and small businesses at 50-56 Julian in the Mission in 2002.

-marc

Posted by marcos on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 2:30 pm

Who is us? Do you represent

Who is us? Do you represent some organization? Are there more than one of you in there?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 11:15 am

What was missing.....

any discussion of what I show in the photo...

the "LOSS" of open-space, per unit/tenant

The effect is that the loss of each garden unit is not accounted for, and is bartered for new washer/dryers/dishwashers in every unit and called "green".

Without any discussion of preservation/infill this is NOT a sustainable development.

Commissioner Moore stated clearly the reasons why the commission should NOT have approved the EIR documents. There is no clearer statement about why this project should NOT be approved as shown...

There are many other options to provide infill, transit, and sustainable improvements, the lack of willingness of the other 4 commissioners to discuss, or delay the decision, is due to the "entitlements" and the clause stellar and fortress negotiated on the purchase...

Money is all that matters, to the city, planners, and commissioners approving this project. The Human impact is ignored again.....

Posted by Guest on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 4:48 pm

This project is so inhumane.

This project is so inhumane. The developers are just in it for the money. Shame on them to try to destroy such a beautiful community and they call it "green" just for profit. Call it what it is "greed". And they promise re-location with the same rent? Who believes that when there is no such law for new buildings. They are just overcrowding the area and adding more traffic congestion to SF's 19th Ave which will also affect Daly City around Lake Merced.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 4:10 pm

Parkmerced--Are We Serious About Infill?

Oh, we talk a good game in San Francisco and the central Bay Area about infill housing. But any time anyone actually proposes it, like at Parkmerced, we rise up to oppose it. It's not the perfect utopian scheme only for very low income people, therefore we oppose it. Is it within easy walking distance of a light rail line? We don't care. Is it within easy walking distance of tons of shopping? We don't care. Will the people living there drive less and have less of a carbon footprint than the average American cited in the article? We don't care. Do existing tenants have a legally binding guarantee to come back at the same rents? We don't care.

We don't really mean it about infill. Who cares about carbon emissions and greenhouse gases, by the time it really kicks in, it will be our kids' problem. Let those other cities do infill. Like Brentwood and Gilroy and American Canyon.

Urban progressives should be giving full throated cheers for the Parkmerced project. This is what we have supposedly been demanding for decades. But we oppose it. For shame, Bay Guardian, for shame.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 5:46 pm