Citing a lack of compliance with maintenance guidelines and neighbors’ complaints, the City of San Francisco has decided not to renew the permit for the parklet in front of Martin Macks on Haight Street, the first such decision not to renew a permit since the parklet program began.
Martin Macks has two weeks to appeal the Department of Public Works’ decision or remove the parklet at their own expense. No word on whether or not the piglet parklet over on Castro Street could be next.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by curmudgeon

    Re: the Castro Street one…the new owners of the restaurant that fronts it have cleaned it up a bit, and it’s not as actively annoying as it once was. But their business model doesn’t really use the parklet (it’s a sit down restaurant, and they don’t have any tables in the parklet). I think they’re a bit confused about what to do next, frankly, with a rather tacky thing they inherited from the former restaurant operator. I suppose this is an inevitable issue with the program, since parklets are privately generated, and businesses change. But parklets can always be removed, and at pretty minimal cost, if they are no longer necessary or appreciated.

  2. Posted by Mark

    I can only guess what the complaints were about given the number of squatters and riff raff in the area.

  3. Posted by Joe

    Who thinks its smart to build unreinforced brick anything in EQ country?
    All it would take is a small shake, or even really a bump from a car to push an extremely heavy wall onto someone. Very poor design.

  4. Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

    What? Seriously? You’re concerned about the seismic safety of a couple of 2 ft high planters? Please tell me you’re trolling.

  5. Posted by UGH!

    For “World Class” “Paris on the Pacific”,these parklets look very Third World. The day will come when a car/truck/bus slams into one of these and causes injuries, and guess who will be paying the damages for this poor transportation planning?
    You and every other homeowner and taxpayer in the city.

  6. Posted by Valenchia

    Parklets seem mainly to serve as outdoor seating for various restaurants — otherwise they get very little use. While I like a sidewalk cafe as much as the next person, I don’t really think the parklets serve any larger purpose — perhaps the need for outdoor space is not quite as great as proponents suggest. One sense that the Planning Department likes them mainly as way to reduce parking.

  7. Posted by redseca2

    The profoundly weird thing about those brick planters is that they are built on top of the wood deck.
    So yes, it would take very little for them to tip right over – probably another season of dry rot.

  8. Posted by condoshopper

    if you sit down in one of these public parklets will the staff assume you are a customer and come wait on you?

  9. Posted by James

    no, cafes are not allowed to serve people at these tables. You must bring the food out yourself. Some cafes have to put up signs making this clear because patrons think they will get a waiter outside if they sit down.

  10. Posted by condoshopper

    Good to know, James. Thanks.

  11. Posted by wc1

    They need to have say 5-10 city approved designs for applicants to choose from.
    When people get creative with them and they work, they look great, but mostly they are just anywhere from ‘meh’ to disasters in design.

  12. Posted by Joe

    Yes, I am concerned about the safety of a 4 foot brick wall built on top of wood pilings sitting right on the street.
    Do you know how heavy a four foot brick wall is? Do you want to test having it fall on you?

  13. Posted by R

    I don’t know how you get through life if you worry about so many things. Do you just stay in your house and cower under the bed?
    Highly unlikely this walls are going to fall over anytime soon.

  14. Posted by grove_cole

    This particular parklet is just plain ugly and not used very much. I hope they’ll bring back 2 or 3 parking spaces it takes.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles