Everybody loves parklets

07.01.11 - 3:46 pm | Steven T. Jones |

(20)

Deep (on the mike at left) dedicates what he called "Deepistan National Parklet" in front of his home on Valencia Street

Steven T. Jones

The Chronicle's urban design writer John King, consistently one of the paper's best writers, today took a celebratory look at the parklets that have been springing up around town, calling them, “the most intriguing urban design innovation in today's San Francisco.” I agree with that sentiment, and so does the crowd that showed up on Sunday to dedicate “the Deeplet,” the first such parklet in front of a residential property.

It was a collaboration between homeowner Amandeep “Deep” Jawa, his girlfriend Kimberly Conley, and designer Jane Martin, who King quotes in his piece (which only Chron subscribers and read until Sunday when it goes public). The idea is to take underutilized space from automobiles and give it back to people.

Livable City director Tom Radulovich also spoke at the event, talking about how the streets were traditionally the gathering and social spaces in cities, until transportation planners started to value the efficient movement and storage of automobiles over a more inclusive view of streets. But the parklets – along with temporary street seizures like the Sunday Streets events – are part of a movement back to a more holistic view of city spaces.

We at the Guardian have been sympathetically covering this trend for years, and it is notably one of the few areas of agreement that we've had with the Chronicle and former Mayor Gavin Newsom, whose administration cleared the way for the permitted creation of parklet. And on this beautiful summer day, agreeing on the importance of having places to lounge and to just be seems like a great starting point for more discussions on the future of this great city.

Comments

Agreed

Good things all around. We need more of these.

Posted by Lucretia "Secretia" Snapples on Jul. 01, 2011 @ 6:28 pm

King

Totally agree regarding King. That guy writes good, interesting columns.

Posted by The Commish on Jul. 01, 2011 @ 7:10 pm

Watch out, you might get what

Watch out, you might get what you wish for. Dean Macris' true intent was to actually decrease the number of parks by arguing that our STREETS and Parklets could be used to meet the City requirements for OPEN SPACE. Next, we will be declaring roof tops as OPEN SPACE (if publicly accessible).

This is so the land can be densified--that we can build supertall and argue that "Open Space" requirements are keeping the pace.

The same is true of parking: they are building 50% less so the Developers don't have to dig deep (which is expensive) -- but can double heights as the parking ratio is reduced to 0.5 per unit of housing.

HURRAY, you say--we'll have less cars?

What they are not telling you is that they will allow the Developers to RACK cars on elevator lifts so they can fit TWO CARS IN EACH SPACE.

Few expensive condo owners WILL BUY condos without a parking space, so Developers--with a wink and a nod--tell us what we want to hear and they do what they want.

So watch out, we are being DEFRAUDED. If you don't believe me, just wait--you will see my words come true. But the Dudes who are doing this--they will be out the door in retirement with the bucks.

And the mastermind of all of this: it is Willie Brown.

Posted by Charley_sf on Jul. 02, 2011 @ 7:53 am

And?

Sorry, not quite sure what your point is? Sometimes change takes one step at a time. Please don't despair if you can't get everything you want all at once.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 13, 2011 @ 10:49 pm

Parklets

Parklets are great! Sunset has a beautiful little parklet between La Playa and Lower Great Highway at Judah. It includes a Bocci ball court. These parklets are more accessible to disabled and seniors because they are in their neighborhood. I can now walk to a park which is wonderful and I'm learning about Bocci ball. I hope we can separate Parklets from the over development issues. I see Charley's connection but I wish we can deal with over development as a separate issue and continue to fight it.

Posted by guest on Jul. 02, 2011 @ 4:12 pm

Charley's right

'Stacked parking',

That was one of the last laws Downtown pushed through the Board between the time the Class of 2000 smashed Willie's puppets and when they took office. I recall even Michael Yaki withdrew from the idea in revulsion (of course he voted for it anyway).

If you want to see the Car Racks in operation, check out Walter Wong's lot at 13th and Mission.

Giants in rain delay with 6-0 lead in Detroit.

Posted by Guest h. brown on Jul. 02, 2011 @ 4:30 pm

Stacked Parking?

Where I come from, they are called multi-storey car parks. They are the obvious solution for densely populated areas like SF but outside of downtown, there are relatively few of them.

Everyone likes parks but we also need to be conscious about replacing parking that is lost to them. Ideally, all parking would be off-street so that we can have recreational space, agreeable streets and adequate parking. But that requires investment in infrastructure.

Posted by Walter on Jul. 03, 2011 @ 8:27 am

Thank you, Charley

For providing the real reporting-- not the Press Release.
Starting with praise for lightweight, politically-motivated, architectural opinion and ending with feel good for this "important" work of the Newsom administration, at least the troll-love in the comments validates the quality of the content.
Who doesn't love bicycles, sunshine, or apple pie? How about serious coverage of land use and not regurgitating PR blather?

Posted by Guest on Jul. 02, 2011 @ 11:47 pm

I am of mixed minds on

I am of mixed minds on Deepistan. It is always good to transform a parking space into open space. But I am uncomfortable with people with means being granted a disproportionate say over the public realm.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 05, 2011 @ 7:11 am

the only problem with deepistan...

is that the actual parklet isn't very nice. The one down the block infront of freewheel is just so much better. I think it is time that they have some kind of quality control on parklets... ie the one infront of the crepe place which is just a straight up extension of the borning restaurant.

Deepistan is almost just and extended driveway with a planter on each side that you can uncomfortably sit on. Cool dude, weak parklet.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 05, 2011 @ 11:35 am

Not everyone loves parklets

The parklet they installed at 17th and Castro is not a welcome addition if you ask me. On the rare warm day, people use it, but it's mostly a haven for street people who were problematic even before it was installed. It was also nice to be able to drive down 17th Street which you can no longer do.

Posted by Larry Gentry on Jul. 05, 2011 @ 1:45 pm

I'm glad the parklet at 17th

I'm glad the parklet at 17th and Castro was installed. It's a nice addition to the neighborhood. It is heavily used by many people (many regulars there because I frequently recognize the same people there including some of the naked guys...viva naked guys!). The parket is rarely used by "street people" (i.e. homeless people which some people feel the need to scape goat). In fact, the furniture shows the parklet is heavily used. Look at the tables and chairs. They are wearing out from use. They recently re-did the "floor" because it too was wearing out and had holes in it from heavy use. I suppose the City could install big huge cement blocks there instead to keep those "nasty homeless people" out because some people don't think homeless and street people belong in this City or in one's line of sight. If I may, I'm going to tell it like it is: Only the wealthy, pretentious, snooty, SUV white trash belong in this City in some people's minds. That's the impression I get from some people. I read in another publication where the wealthy snots in the Castro (who live in that condo behind Milk Plaza but who actually belong in Walnut Creek because the Castro snots can't stand homeless people) are asking/insisting that the new benches recently installed in the Harvey Milk Plaza be removed and/or the placing of a security guard in the plazas to keep the homeless out. I'm not making this up regardless of how absurd that sounds. This is a major City and like all major cities we have homeless people. If one does not want to see homeless people, MOVE! to Walnut Creek. There's a train leaving approximately every 20 minutes and take your snooty, pretentious "I'm too good to see homeless people" friends with you. There have always been homeless people in this city so why do people move here if they don't want to see homeless people? Did they do no research before they moved here? Sounds like it. This stuff makes my blood boil...this scapegoating of homeless and street people, when people's outrage should be about the off-shoring of millions and millions of jobs which have left this country, (which has contributed to homelessness), and the massive corruption in the government.

Posted by Jorge Orwell 1984 on Jul. 05, 2011 @ 3:21 pm

parklets

Not everyone "loves" the parklets. I haven't spoken to anyone who think they are a good idea. They take over much needed parking spaces. Many of us need these spaces because we are UNABLE to take public transportation, cannot walk very far and so need to drive and PARK.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 05, 2011 @ 3:59 pm

You've been asking the wrong

You've been asking the wrong people. I suspect if you go and ask someone sitting in a parklet they will tell you that they think the parklet is a good idea, so go ask them and then you won't have to say that you haven't spoken with anyone who thinks it's a good idea. Why are you unable to take public transportation, or it is more of a case of being unwilling to take public transportation? You can't walk very far? Why is that? A medical condition or too much body weight? Or too lazy? So the rest of us are supposed to suffer for your being unable to take mass transit? If one can get into a vehicle one can take Muni, for example. They both work on the same principle. Cities already have way too many vehicles in them. That's part of the problem and your vehicle-fixation is part of the problem. So go relax and enjoy one of these parklets and stop listening to these rabids who don't like anything but vehicles for them to put their big, lazy, self-absorbed, white-trash ass in. A city full of parking lots and vehicles for lazy and out-of-shape people is worthless.

Posted by Jorge Orwell 1984 on Jul. 05, 2011 @ 4:47 pm

Actually, I LOVE parklets!

Actually, I LOVE parklets!

I think they're one of the best things to happen to this city in a long time.
It's so nice to finally be able to sit outside in our neighborhoods!

Not that it really matters, but I'm a property owner and a small business owner. Although I was once an auto owner, I'm now proud to be car free and am happy to donate the spots that I once occupied with my car (when I was young and foolish) to the common good.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 1:21 pm

As usual

The young and able must suffer the existence of the old and infirm, who impede our progress. Surely there must be a solution to free up the space they take.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 05, 2011 @ 7:21 pm

parklet

I'm all for parks on sidewalks, not in parking spaces? I believe the idea hear is to force people to have less cars. The problem with taking up valuable parking spots in the city is, currently people still have the same amount of cars, but now less parking spots. It's not realistic to everyone to say use rapid transit or carpool, we all don't live near our jobs. At the end of a long day, I just want to find a parking spot, and go to my own home to relax, not drive around for ten minutes, watching other people drink coffee in parking spots that could be used for parking! I don't know, but I think that's why they're called parking spots?

Posted by Parklets Suck!!!! on Aug. 19, 2011 @ 8:51 am

parklets

I am amazed that the Bay Guardian is endorsing privatizing parking spaces!

These have been really bad news for neighbors who were not informed by the City government. And neighboring businesses have been against these and ignored!

Look up Mark Groton, the libertarian who founded Limewire and is the evangelist behind the parkets and the blog Streetsblog (very biased!).

Posted by Richard on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 9:48 pm

Um, no one's privatizing

Um, no one's privatizing parking spaces... quite the opposite.

Using public space to park your personal vehicle rent free would actually be the privatization of public space.

Parklets are the reclamation of public space for the public good, rather than for your sole vehicle.

Personally, I'm tired of subsidizing your oil addiction. If people must drive in the city then they should be forced to pay the true costs of their lifestyle choice by paying for parking (at parking garages). Why should you be able to store your car rent free in public space??? Rethink.

Drivers should also be paying for the roads they destroy, the air they contaminate, the healthcare costs that they contribute to and the oil wars that they require. I look forward to seeing these changes enacted in the near future.

Posted by Mike on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 1:31 pm

Hey Mike, you're point is

Hey Mike,
you're point is well taken...I would like to see fewer cars myself, but I don't know about "free", most parklets are built where parking meters once were. More to the point, the privatization I see is the cafes and restaurants sponsoring them so they can accomodate more tables. I won't be long when you sit at one, and you'll be asked to leave, or they will point to the clipboard to tell you there is a party of 4 ahead of you...What's happening here is this is very valuable to these eating establishments, hence property values, rental values remain (high) and so does property tax revenue. One only has to look at who is "sponsoring" them and you'll get the idea.
Don't get me wrong, I like them too. Better than staring at parked cars, but I see trouble down the road.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 4:03 pm