Editor,
I read with interest “Large Mixed-Use Project Delayed by Litigation,” in last month’s View, which I found to be unbalanced and another example of advertisements for the “development at any cost” mentality that seems to have taken over San Francisco.
Need a new stadium? Oh, it’s okay to build it right across from a hospital; the ambulances, nurses, doctors and other professionals will probably be able to figure out how to reach their patients in the horrendous traffic jams that’ll occur on Mariposa, Third, and the surrounding streets. Should we have a real plan for mass transit infrastructure in place? No, we don’t need one because the taxpayers won’t support it and the politicians, led by our inimitable Mayor, at City Hall can’t/don’t summon the political will to force developers to pay their fair share to support infrastructure improvements. Why should they when they can build unabated Cheerios box apartments all over the City while providing not a lick of real open space. Oh, I forgot that balconies count as open space.
This brings us to the proposed project to be built on the corner of Mississippi and 16th streets, across from the other monstrosity. The arguments made in favor of this development are mostly the usual “we need more housing.” Well, that’s true. But what the article fails to bring up in any substantive way is the congestion at this particular intersection, and how parking under the structure will only allow for a fraction of the cars that’ll inevitably show up with the new residents.
I counted extensive interviews with three pro-development individuals and nobody from Grow Potrero Responsibly or Save the Hill – only their lawyer – who have been trying to “work” with the developer for several years now to craft a plan that’d create something beautiful from the existing historic structures. In spite of Dennis Herrera’s claim that it’s too late, I guess when you’re ignored for two years you finally give up and file a lawsuit.
The last intelligence-insulting quote came from Art Agnos, who maintains that “this is just a couple of neighbors worried about losing their view.” Amazing.
Jim Wilkins
Pennsylvania Street
Editor,
Thank you for all the news about new developments in the Bay Area. When I first moved to Potrero Hill I was shocked at the cost of rent, and assumed that we were in a housing crises and needed to build more accommodations if we hoped to preserve a modicum of affordability or economic diversity.
Thankfully, The Potrero View has disavowed me of this notion. Through headlines like “Mega Developments Southside Challenge Public Infrastructure,” “Pier 70 Project Merits Comprehensive Transportation Solutions,” and “Pier 70 Building Heights Would Block Bay” I have come to learn that, in fact, there is no housing crises in Potrero Hill. The real crisis is that more housing threatens our views and our infrastructure. I only hope that we can continue to fight any and all construction, which would ruin our fair neighborhood.
Unfortunately, the community will have to continue the good fight without me. I plan to move this summer, as I can no longer afford to live here.
Rex Salisbury
Kansas Street
Editor,
My wife, 12-year-old daughter, and I have been Potrero Hill homeowners for 10 years, and operate a small business in the neighborhood. I read Jacob Bourne’s article in the May issue (“Mega Developments Southside Challenge Public Infrastructure”), and concur with residents’ concerns regarding an attempt to coordinate aspects of these projects. I hope the City takes the lead in doing this.
We truly enjoy our area and the surrounding neighborhoods, and take full advantage of the many amenities offered. Our family thrives on open space in this dense city and sincerely hope that plans for new fields, shoreline access and new places to safely run, walk and bike are realized.
With good projects like Pier 70 and Crane Cove Park knocking at our door, identifying and supporting the right balance of preservation of existing amenities and growth opportunities for new ones has been and will be paramount to our happiness here.
Jeremy Regenbogen
De Haro Street
Editor,
We represent a group of about 40 working artists at Pier 70’s Noonan Building who support Forest City’s plans to bring new life and livelihoods to Pier 70. We’re printmakers, sculptors, painters, photographers, film makers, and writers. We house small creative businesses, such as an illustrator, web designer, letterpress operation, fabric and clothing designers.
Artists talk a lot about what’s happening in San Francisco and the Bay Area, with so many new developments displacing artists and small businesses. For San Francisco to continue to be a vibrant hub of art and culture, artists must be protected. While our beloved Noonan Building will be torn down as part of the Pier 70 development, we’re very pleased to be included in the new development. We trust and believe in Forest City’s agreement with us to replace our studio space within the Pier 70 project and to design a rent schedule that’ll insure the space continues to be affordable.
Yes, we’re looking out for our own interests. Most importantly, we’re preserving a way for future generations of artists to live and work in San Francisco.
Forest City recently presented the conceptual plans for the development to the Noonan Building Artists. We’re quite impressed with the openness of the space and that it’s prominent in the project; a place for all to see where art will be celebrated. We look forward to being part of this exciting new development that preserves space for artists, historical buildings, open space, and access to the Bay, combined with the residential, commercial, retail, and light industrial components.
We commend Forest City for its commitment to protecting working artists and incorporating us into the future. We fully support this project.
Marti McKee, Henry Jackson, Suzy Barnard, and Kim Austin
