What was this:
Has been reduced to this:
I wish I had known about the “community” action that buffed all of Warm Water Cove park and been there to protest. Of course it wasn’t really mentioned at all except for a call for volunteers on the SF connect website. The action was entitled “Reclaim Warm Water Cove Park.” Reclaim it from whom, for whom? For the new neighbors in their high-rise luxury condos? SF is in a pretty sad state.
And as far as picking weeds goes, the volunteers basically cleaned out the entire park of any existing greenery, including bushes. What did they put in its place? WOODCHIPS. Great. It’s so inviting now, with no art, no bushes or grass, only a dark green wall with razorwire and intimidating signs stating the penal code and “DO NOT DEFACE”. Now its a family park.
What I don’t understand is how the company who owns the fence, and partially supported the whitewashing, only paints over the side of the fence facing the park. According to the city’s taken-for-scripture “broken-windows theory“, doesn’t this still promote a “lawless atmosphere” and constitute urban blight?
Mark O’Hanlon, a “25+ year Dogpatch resident,” reminds us that before there was the graffiti art,
Warm Water Cove used to be a very dangerous gangs and guns area before the artists ( and mobile homeless)took over.
Doesn’t a public park belong to all of the community? Unfortunately the city only wants to acknowledge certain constituents as being part of the “community” and the graffiti writers who painted at the cove as well as the homeless who slept in the bushes (or the “weeds” that had to be pulled) are not recognized as members of said “community.”
Gavin Newsom apparently had some lipservice to pay, claiming he’ll
“invest in programs that promote appropriate places for graffiti,’’ which might include a public wall in Warm Water Cove Park… (from SFgate)
Appropriate places for graffiti? Then it isn’t graffiti anymore! They already had a public wall at Warm Water Cove Park.. What are they going to do, put a new concrete wall up and have a “community” curation team that will decide who paints what where? Why does all art have to be bureaucratized? If urban blight is what they are trying to cure, then get the industries to clean up their act and their properties. Of course the only thing they can think of to do is “clean up” that little park even though it is surrounded by deteriorating industrial warehouses. It would take a lot more than that to make the area palatable to the yuppie tastes. But I’m pretty sure what will happen soon enough is those industries, who aren’t pulling in as much revenue as their land is worth, will soon be torn down to make way for… wait for it….
MORE LUXURY CONDOS! Because that’s what San Francisco is all about. Makin’ money.
One of the wonderful things about graffiti though, is its perseverance. Those walls won’t stay drab for long. The city will get tired of patrolling that park anyway, like it always has. I highly doubt it will suddenly undergo a drastic change into a super friendly “family” park, with all the amenities of a park bench and a picnic table. Access to the waterfront consists of a pile of concrete rubble falling into the bay. Is that a place where anyone would want their toddler to play? Despite that, according to the “community” the only dangerous aspect of the park was the garbage and the paint on its walls.
That park was a site of cultural production, a disused, in-between space made relevant by the actions of artists. It was a destination for graffiti writers and those who appreciate that form of art, as well as those who can see the aesthetic in that which is cast aside, rusted over and deteriorated.
Must this city only be subjected to the aesthetic ideals of the propertied classes and boring, shallow pedants? In public space, apparently only some views are accepted.
