Hey, have you seen that giant, ugly monstrosity of a wall on Haight Street between Laguna and Buchanan? That's the old UC Extension campus. Yep, the one that's been closed since 2003 and has been fallow since. Why are we bringing this thing up now, ruining your beautiful June morning with mental images of a dilapidated, graffiti-scarred bit of lovely urban blight right in the middle of the city?
Because there's a meeting tonight to discuss the fate of the campus. See, UC wants to long-term lease the campus to AF Evans, who has worked through the byzantine process of city politics to come up with a development plan that pretty much nobody loves, but includes senior GLBT housing, affordable housing, community space, and preserves 80% -ish of the historic buildings there.
But, there are other constituencies that want to have the whole damned thing declared a Historical Landmark, which would require that pretty much every building would have to be preserved as-is. Who's behind this plan, which would keep that retaining wall where it is, and keep eyes off the street in an already crime-troubled neighborhood?
Well, we're not the types to insinuate, wink, nod, or in any way allege (right, Ed Jew?), but the group pushing for landmarking is called Save the UCBE Laguna Street Campus, and they have absolutely nothing to do with New College, who have absolutely no interest in getting that campus for themselves, although a suspicious number of people with New College connections have been showing up at Lower Haight and Hayes Valley neighborhood meetings lately...
For its part, AF Evans has declared that it will walk away if the site is landmarked, and UC has said that if Evans walks they'll mothball the place and let it sit there for the free use of the local crack-dealing set. Are they telling the truth, or is this a bargaining tactic? Who knows?
If you live nearby and want to make your voice heard, or if you're just interested in the riotously fun site of a city land-use appropriations hearing, make your way to City Hall tonight! The hearing is at room 400 in City Hall tonight, starting at around six.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
arthur evans is a bigtime republican who is helping the recall against jake.
he was also mentioned in that LA Times article about hippies in the haight.
he will lie lie lie to get a handle on that land. don't believe him or UC.
I live on Buchanan, across the street from this site. I totally disagree with the characterization that it's used by "the local crack-dealing set". Clearly, its primary use is as a toilet for homeless people.
But since they boarded up all the windows and installed chain-link fencing around all the sleep-able nooks not visible from the street, it's been a little less nasty, although it looks terrible.
I understand why people aren't overjoyed about the AF Evans plan, but they should really think hard about what happened to another historic building, the Armory. Neighborhood groups in the Mission opposed every development plan that came down the pipe, and they ended up with ZERO community space and ZERO affordable housing units when Kink.com bought the site.
Also: an interesting wrinkle is that the City claims that it still owns a strip of the property that's the continuation of Waller St between Buchanan and Laguna.
I live on Buchanan, across the street from this site. I totally disagree with the characterization that it's used by "the local crack-dealing set". Clearly, its primary use is as a toilet for homeless people.
But since they boarded up all the windows and installed chain-link fencing around all the sleep-able nooks not visible from the street, it's been a little less nasty, although it looks terrible.
I understand why people aren't overjoyed about the AF Evans plan, but they should really think hard about what happened to another historic building, the Armory. Neighborhood groups in the Mission opposed every development plan that came down the pipe, and they ended up with ZERO community space and ZERO affordable housing units when Kink.com bought the site.
Also: an interesting wrinkle is that the City claims that it still owns a strip of the property that's the continuation of Waller St between Buchanan and Laguna.
agreed about the little bit of chain link fence, it really made a big difference. Is the AF Evans plan just bland like the rest of SF big development or is it actually bad? I'm all for building more houses in the neighborhood.
The Armory Building in the Mission is a PERFECT example of sticking a cog in the wheel of progress. It seems funny in retrospect that anyone would have been comfortable actually "living" in that place, or working some 9-5 Web.1 dotbomb job with those tiny prison windows and that medieval castle (Moorish ?)architecture to report to daily, but there you go!
Frankly, I can't think of any better suitor for that monsterous dungeon than an S/M porn company.
Little Kink.com---home at last!
Ah yes, historic buildings. Why, some of them are nearly 100 years old! Golly gee!
Idiots in the local historical preservation scene really need to get their lazy asses back east, or maybe to Europe, or possibly Sumeria. There are no buildings of historical value whatsoever at UC Laguna. The only thing worth consideration is the WPA mural at Woods Hall Annex. The rest of the site should obviously be redeveloped for the benefit of contemporary San Franciscans who actually have to live their lives here.
I've seen the plans of this campus. It will knock socks off. It will provide lots of green and access and views. If you live in the area it will be your new favorite urban plot to hang out - a micromini Delores park without the annoying dog shit.
The existing unusable piece of crap is not a landmark structure. Sure it has history, but it does not add positively to the nature of the neighborhood. The plans that I have seen do incorporate much of the historic elements, but they really open the campus up to the community.
The architect/landscape firm that is coordinating the campus is GLS Lanscape|Architecture. They are based in the Mission and do brilliant work. Don't believe the hype of the reactionary preservationist motherscratchers, look up their designs for yourselves!
See: "glsarchDOTcomSLASHucExtensionDOTphp" for images of what they are thinking.
Jeffrey W. Baker,
You, sir, clearly have no sense of California's historical legacy. Only a mendacious pro-development dot-com yuppie like yourself would be so dismissive of the historical value of UC Laguna's attractive Mission style wall and gymnasium(?).
In fact, it is the only adjacent Mission-style wall and gymnasium(?) north of Market Street, west of Van Ness and east of Fillmore. We owe it to our grandchildren to make sure that it is not destroyed.
And yet, a philistine like yourself would have it so. You would probably also oppose the preservation of the Berkeley IHOP/Mexican Restaurant.
Good day,
Theo
Bravo Theo! You should also include the lovely, quaint Fillmore St McDonalds to your list of places worth bronzing.
The development of the UC site reminds one of the missed opportunity that occurred when they demolished the blighted, crime-ridden Housing Project at Hight & Buchanan a decade or so ago.
Instead of replacing it with Public Project Failure v2.0, the block should have been cleared, graded and planted as a public lawn. (think: The Marina Green)
Is there any doubt that the area desperately needs a large park?
The UC site could easily be made into something akin to Dolores Park... that is if anyone at City Hall cared about delivering real public amenities to its tax paying residents.
I have little doubt The City has already spent more money "studying" the UC site than it would have cost to create a basic large city park there.
4-3 against Landmark designation. There go my porn studio hopes.
Damn, I too was hoping it could be another porn studio.
I live in the neighborhood and have attended some of the meetings. My concern is that the city will lose a chunk of land zoned public since the early 1900s. The land was sold to UC for very little because it was zoned public. Now they want to get the zoning changed and make money off of it. According to an article in the Examiner Monday if the development doesn't happen it's the end of the UC Extension! Give me a break. Like UC Extension/UC have no other revenue sources?!
That land is a public asset whose development HAS to be considered within the context of all the housing development that will be happening in the Market/Van Ness corridor in the next 10 years. Where else will public lands be preserved or added? Show us that map and then let's make an informed decision.
I know! Let's ask GMZEEO to tag it.