Despite years of wrangling and design, it would appear as though the plan to redevelop San Francisco’s Fairmont hotel and convert up to 286 of the hotel’s rooms to condominiums is DOA as the hotel workers’ union has voted against backing the plan.
No word on which side consumed more Mai Tai’s in the Tonga Room following the vote.
∙ New And Improved? The Latest Fairmont Hotel And Condo Rendering [SocketSite]
∙ Fairmont Hotel Plans Front And Center And Up For Approval Thursday [SocketSite]
∙ Fairmont Hotel Revitalization And Tower Rebuilding As Proposed [SocketSite]
∙ Saving Tatanka The Tonga Room [SocketSite]
This may be obvious, but WHY is it DOA because the union is against it? Obviously we’re a pro-union town, but they don’t get absolute veto power, do they?
Good- the proposal is an ode to the can’t do spirit. I actually prefer the current tower.
I’m on the fence about the condo project on a philosophical level (can the economy really support yet another high-end hotel/residential project?), but I just can’t understand why the unions should have any say in how this proceeds. I’m not exactly the most pro-union person out there (as I can think of a few examples in recent history that show flagrant misuse of power: this, BART strikes, other hotel strikes), I know, but this seems out of control.
Also, they might have just sealed their fate if this causes the Fairmont to close down in the long run. Then no one would have jobs.
Didn’t union opposition to containerization (in order to protect union jobs) contribute to the long-term decline of the port of San Francisco, and ever great job losses? Seems to me this the same kind of myopia.
I wonder if there is a compromise solution of remodeling the existing tower. Demolishing the entire tower seems pretty extreme. (Also, how is this safely done, with explosives?)
zzzzzzzzz,
I believe the containerization agreements were done more or less simultaneously at all the west coast ports. What really doomed the port of SF was the limited rail access. Oakland trains don’t need to divert down the peninsula to get anywhere, and don’t have tunnels that limit the height of trains.
But I could very well have my history wrong.
@fred and @curmudgeon: you seem to be unclear on the concept – it is long-time City policy that “no jobs” is better than “non-union jobs” (condo owners and condo boards tend to hire help who work harder and competitively). As the Chron correctly reported, it is an election year (isn’t every year?), therefore no decision can be made in this town before November that is not pre-approved with the unions.
Honestly, as arm chair planning personnel, it is none of our business how they planned to safely demolish the existing tower – or whether or not the economy can support more condos.
I’m disappointed in this decision, because It was a proxy vote on change in SF. Can SF support new architecture and innovation – no. Can SF support adaptive reuse of a historic structure ? No
All because of a union which would have lost jobs in multiples of TEN and because some people like shit*y overpriced drinks in a museum bar.
@ Joe: you said it very well. I agree completely.
Once again, many of the arm chair critics here just throw out random opinions with little knowledge or backup evidence. None of us can look into the future and know how the economy with change, and certainly not know if our economy can “high end” condos. That sounds more like more anti-growth and anti-change attitude to me.
The unions seem pretty selfish and small minded as well, for voting against this project. They just seem to want to protect the status quo at any cost to others.
This new project is an excellent example of adaptive reuse and adding income, jobs and taxes to the city. Yes the owner will benefit too, and they have that right.
As for the fear of demolishing the tower safely, that’s pretty much unfounded. The contractor selected for that project would be a heavy hitter and there are intense procedures in place for the demo. It’s done all the time in big cities.
sorry for the missing words. I need more coffee.
“Adaptive reuse?” “proxy vote on change?” LOL…Chicken Little much? That it’s being blamed on a union certainly seems to be pushing some hobby-horse buttons here.
Wait, is “adaptive reuse” a euphemism for not tearing the whole thing down?
@noearch: Slow day at the office noearch? Just making up more stuff?
No, I don’t pretend to know the ins and outs of this exact case, but unions have served a useful purpose at times in our country’s history by protecting people who otherwise would have been exploited and discarded in the name of profit.
Maybe some more real info about this project would help all of us understand what happened and why.
Yea, right. and who said unions don’t serve a useful purpose “at times” in our country. Certainly I didn’t, nor implied that either.
My comments, as you know well, was specifically referring to one union on this one particular project. I love your false indignation on one person’s comment and opinion.
Educate yourself on this project. SS has provided excellent material and links to this on going project. Plenty to read and be informed about.
Now, back to work. Busy today but always time for SS.
All the political stuff aside, I’m just happy the Tonga Room is sticking around.
It would be Chicken little if this same process was not repeated every single time anyone plans anything of significant size in this town.
I live in the district and I received a mailer against the fairmont that cried out “SAVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD”
That headline is the real chicken little
It seems like whatever union jobs might be lost, more would be gained for a certain period of time for the new construction…And, most of the doormen and other staff in large residential condominiums are all Union anyway so I just don’t get it. We do live in a strange city, where an outdated and underused hotel must be saved to preserve a small number of jobs. By that same logic, we should continue cutting down all forests so we don’t lose those logging jobs.
I haven’t been following this proposal closely at all, but I’m with Russian Hill Dweller: the hotel workers should have allowed it to go forward and then used all the time they had before it was completed and staffed to plan aggressively to organize the workers in the condo part of the building. That’s what Cesar Chavez would have done.
I’m with Russian Hill Dweller and Brahma.
The proposed new tower is so much nicer than the old one — even it it is not an architectural masterpiece.
More important, it is baffling that the unions somehow have veto power over these. City Planning does not exist to guarantee union members jobs. Sure there would be some job losses, but if there hotel doesn’t make sense there, that is inevitable. And, why aren’t the construction unions arguing in favor of this? I don’t mind Unions negotiating for their members etc. But when they go around intimidating politicians and preventing people from using their property in a reasonable manner, then they have gone way too far. And, that is what has happened here.
Actually, the proposed new tower’s construction would create more union jobs than would be lost…perhaps x 100…they would just be different unions.
Are unions the new bully in town?
It would be Chicken little if this same process was not repeated every single time anyone plans anything of significant size in this town.
I live in the district and I received a mailer against the fairmont that cried out “SAVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD”
I’m cool with tossing the plan if both sides are insane.