April 29, 2011
Inner Mission North Survey Says…Thirteen Historic Districts
Next week, San Francisco's Planning Department will formally present the results of their Inner Mission North Survey to San Francisco's Historic Preservation Commission with a motion to adopt, modify or disapprove their findings.
The study area was designed "to encompass the portion of the Mission District that was directly affected by the 1906 Earthquake and Fires and that was physically rebuilt in the decades that followed the disaster" and covered the 30 square blocks generally bounded by Duboce Avenue and Market Street to the north; 20th Street to the south; Folsom Street and Shotwell Street to the east; and Dolores Street to the west.
The survey documented approximately 2,009 individual properties that are located within the survey area, and included assessments of historic/non-historic statuses for approximately 1,745 individual properties that are at least 50 years of age and that are located within the survey area.
The survey identified a total of 824 properties as eligible for listing in the California Register and/or National Register (including individually eligible properties and/or contributors to eligible historic districts). The survey also identified a total of 921 properties as not eligible for listing in the California Register and/or National Register.
The survey included identification and assessment of groupings of thematically related historic properties that appear to comprise thirteen (13) eligible historic districts.
The thirteen eligible historic districts, four of which are already in place and a number of which are refinements or replacements to districts previously adopted:
1. 16th and Valencia Streets Post-Fire Historic District
2. Capp and Howard Streets Mid-Block Fire Line Historic District
3. Guerrero Street Fire Line Historic District
4. Hidalgo Terrace Historic District
5. Inner Mission North Boulevards and Alleys Reconstruction Historic District
6. Lexington and San Carlos Streets Reconstruction Historic District
7. Mission Miracle Mile 19th to 20th Streets Historic District
8. Mission Miracle Mile at 17th Street Historic District
9. Ramona Street Historic District
10. South Van Ness Avenue-Shotwell-Folsom Streets Historic District
11. Sycamore Street Reconstruction Historic District
12. Wilhelm’s Reconstruction Bungalows Historic District
13. Woodward Street Romeo Flats Reconstruction Historic District
∙ Inner Mission North Historic Resource Survey [sf-planning.org]
First Published: April 29, 2011 4:00 PM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
In #5, who are these crazy people who think 24 Lapidge Street is actually worth preserving? In #8, 239 Capp is worth preserving?
We should keep the "tenement" (their words, not mine) at 59-61 Lapidge in #5? In what universe should we be preserving a tenement? Oh right, I forgot, we need to keep crappy rundown under-designed buildings to prevent gentrification, even though all that does is cause prices to be higher.
Instead of highlighting brick buildings as worthy of hysterical preservation, we should be tearing them down.
It really is going to take another Big One for this place to change...
Posted by: sfrenegade at April 29, 2011 4:15 PM
I pity the poor property owners in those areas, your property values just tanked.
Posted by: LD at April 29, 2011 4:16 PM
More insanity from our out of control and out of touch with reality SF Planning Dept.
There may be some historic properties worth preserving, but this many new "historic" districts?
This will only increase the cost of housing and make it harder to allow our neighborhoods to growth in a careful, logical way.
As I have said before, more than once, this is more of the Disneyfication of San Francisco.
Posted by: noearch at April 29, 2011 4:57 PM
7x7 = Disneyland and Anti-Gentrification Reactionary Historic District.
Posted by: sfrenegade at April 29, 2011 5:05 PM
the historic gang district will survive all attempts to gentrify the area.
Posted by: halpern at April 29, 2011 5:47 PM
sfrenegade: what do you think should be preserved?
Posted by: EH at April 29, 2011 6:15 PM
Why aren't more folks outraged about this and the previous delineation of districts in SOMA?
Yes, we in the design & development community have known something like this has been coming, but this number of ridiculously gerrymandered districts in one neighborhood is irresponsible. The additional fees, process, and years of carrying costs - as every alteration project within these districts is vetted as a "contributory" & default historic resource -stifles the very forces that give these neighborhoods character in the first place.
This is a recipe for stagnation as our city grows more & more exclusive and inaccessible to working people and those with vision.
Posted by: rubber_chicken at April 30, 2011 1:23 PM
You missed this part:
"Furthermore, in order to maintain the historic Inner Mission, it is required that residents must join a local 'glee club' affiliated either with the Nortenos or Surenos to ensure that the mosaic of the neighborhood is sustained, and that the number of empty gun casings remain above a designated threshold as defined by the San Francisco Planning Department and the Board of Supervisors."
Posted by: Toady at April 30, 2011 2:27 PM
sfrenegade: what do you think should be preserved?"
I assume you're trying to make some sort of misguided point with "watch this..." but I've already suggested ideas. For example, instead of saving every single earthquake cottage, we should save 4 and turn them into museums (the city should buy them).
But the real question is what you think is historic here? There's no reason to pull people out of context. Do you think those buildings I pointed out are worth saving? If so, why?
Posted by: sfrenegade at May 2, 2011 10:02 AM
Keep calm and carry on hysterical realtors.
Posted by: Wingnut Crusher at August 17, 2011 4:44 PM
Still watching by the way...
Posted by: sfrenegade at August 17, 2011 5:27 PM