Shanghai Sister City Chinese
Garden
proposed for Western Golden Gate Park
There seems to be no end to the pressure to develop parts of our greatest public park into little fiefdoms. The San Francisco ˆ Shanghai Sister City Committee, announced several weeks ago in the Examiner their dessire to build a traditional Chinese garden near the east end of Spreckels Lake in Golden Gate Park. A replica of the Yu Yuan Garden in Shanghai, this garden would consist of a pond, surrounded by walkways and bridges, with waterfalls, pavilions, special trees and rock sculptures enclosed by a classic Chinese wall. A wall? Pavilions? Bridges and waterfalls? A garden is one thing, but the accompanying structures would be a violation of the Golden Gate Park Master Plan. As yet uncounted trees in the forest east of Spreckels Lake would have to be removed on this one and one-half acre site between 31st and 32nd Avenues near Fulton Street. For the first time on September 6 the Recreation and Parks Commission received a brief update on the project during Director Yomi Agunbiade‚s remarks the first week of September. Apparently, the staff has already "approved" the selection of the site! All of this would be a violation of the Golden Gate Park Master Plan which the planners do not think applies to this project. Further privatization of the park does not seem to faze them very much. Would this area be cordoned off from the public? Our premier public park seems to be compartmentalized already with miles and miles of chain link fence. A garden is one thing, but the accompanying structures would be a violation of the Golden Gate Park Master Plan.
Originally the Sister City Committee proposed a healing garden at UCSF Osher Center and in November of 2005, Mayor Newsom signed an MOU with the city for a 4575-square-foot Shanghai Healing Garden at the Osher Center. But by winter of 2006 the Shanghai Sister City Committee decided that the Osher Center space was too small and began discussions with Recreation and Parks Department (RPD) regarding moving the garden to an RPD site.
This proposal should have been stopped dead in its tracks. First of all, the City‚s GENERAL PLAN requires that new cultural buildings should be located outside existing parks. The GOLDEN GATE PARK MASTER PLAN restricts construction of additional buildings, structures or monuments in Golden Gate Park because additional structures would disrupt the balance that presently exists between open space and already built special uses that require buildings.
A new road into the Park with parking areas would be created along with the walled garden, pavilion, etc. How many tree removals would be necessary? How would the new structures be visible from Spreckels Lake and Lindley Meadow? How would access be controlled and security of the site maintained? By chain-link fence all around? Would a visitor‚s fee be imposed? What is likelihood of commercialization of park land? Is this not precedent-setting for the other 13 sister cities of San Francisco to have similar access to park land for the building of memorials and special use structures?
Before this project gets any further, and before public expense for an EIR occurs, there must be public discussion of the land use issues involved and the precedent-setting likelihood of commercialization of public resources. We recommend that, through the outreach possible by the Mayor‚s office and Supervisor McGoldrick‚s office, a series of workshops be held to inform and receive comment on the relevancy of the adopted Master Plan to constructions like these within the sacred grounds of our parks and open space.