Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facadism topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters press commission to broaden 'facadism' study, request cultural-district implementation steps
Summary
Community members urged the commission to expand its facadeism study to include modern glass replacements of historic buildings and to begin implementation planning for a Filipino Cultural Heritage District; Planning Department staff said a follow-up report on facadeism is expected in March.
Speakers at the Feb. 17 public-comment period urged the Historic Preservation Commission to address what some called a broader problem of facadism and to move forward on cultural-district implementation.
Georgia Shrudish told commissioners she was concerned about "perverse facadism," where older B‑rated buildings are effectively downgraded or demolished and replaced by stark modern glass facades in neighborhoods such as Noe Valley, Bernal Heights and Glen Park. She presented Google Earth images, offered addresses and dates for the record, and asked the commission to include these patterns in its study of facadeism.
Ada Chan of the Filipino Cultural Heritage District thanked the commission for a special hearing on culture and warned that changing dates for major events (she cited the Folsom Street Fair being moved twice for Oracle World) can erode cultural traditions; she requested that staff begin a cultural-district implementation plan this year. Desiree Smith of San Francisco Heritage introduced an intern who will help develop a policy paper on facadeism.
Planning staff responded that a second installment on facadeism is being prepared (Justin Grieving is compiling examples) and is expected in March; staff also offered to include a Cultural Heritage District update in a future staff report so the commission can decide whether a formal memo or further action is warranted.
Commissioner Hyland suggested the commission consider a letter to the Board of Supervisors to express concerns where event scheduling conflicts threaten cultural assets. The discussion closed with staff and commissioners agreeing to return with further information.
Next steps: Planning staff will return with a facadeism follow-up in March and will include a Cultural Heritage District update in a future staff report, at which time commissioners may consider additional formal communications.
