Thursday, June 26, 2008

Back to the Parkmerced Landscape...(re-post)

  • Back to the landscape, the simple forms, the reason why we live @ Pakrmerced, and why it should not have been allowed to be rennovated without due review and process of city agencies. Why was the development never reviewed prior? Are rental communities to be treated differently landmark wise than individual sites? Why should tenure/tenancy dictate whether someone has any say in the projects future? Why should renter's who contribute to the economy daily not be involved directly in the decisions of the areas planning, from simple small scale improvements to larger scaled change? Where are the "options" the mitigation measures? Why did the "vision" being proposed by developers not include any alternatives as suggested by tenants? Why is the same design scope being pushed forward as the "communities" input? Why has the LPAB held off on communicating and reviewing the submitted Bulletin No. 19 since Oct/Nov. of 2006, allowing all the seen changes that drastically change a neighborhoods character? (this cannot be considered a small scale change to date.) There are many questions, and few have to date been answered....perhaps some visitors will email your input for posting or an image of what you consider important in this discusison. Jack Gold Executive Director of SF Heritage visited the site and also questioned the reasoning for the "applied-trim" I mentioned the "guilding of property" per the CA Tenant's Manual... A prime case if there ever was one, of a developer running rampid with no control. Stating it is "deferred maintenance" of past owners as reason for large scale re-vamping of the site does not sit well with tenants who only have received verbal promises, with nothing in writing...

No comments: