2700 Bryant Street Mural

Working with San Francisco Architectural Heritage and Precita Eyes, a Planning Department summer intern has created an inventory and historical index for the murals that adorn San Francisco’s Mission District, an overview of which will be presented to San Francisco’s Historic Preservation Commission tomorrow afternoon.

The point of the Mission Murals Inventory Project: to create “an internal tool for Planning Department staff in identifying properties [and proposed projects] which may require further preservation review.”

And speaking muraled Mission District buildings, the compound known as 2700 Bryant Street, which is adorned with the Precita Eyes “Be the Change You Want To See In the World” mural pictured above and failed to sell when on the market for a reduced $4.295 million earlier this year, was flagged as potential illegal short-term rental last month, the City’s review of which is underway.

30 thoughts on “Mission District Murals Inventoried for Preservation Review”
  1. Just what we need! More ways to prevent parking lots and shuttered auto repair shops from turning into housing. The Palo Alto-fication of SF – preserving everything at the cost of exorbitant rent – continues.

    1. I was going to point out the pictured project in reference to the recent SS Bayview post. Great example of the city losing their handle on reason. I can’t wait to hear the arguments over murals and graffiti.

    2. Right, Scott, the affordable housing crisis is due entirely to resistance to turning every last PDR property into luxury condo hi-rises. The affordable housing crisis has nothing to do with billions of dollars of excess and indolent wealth trying to seek its highest return in a lifeless economy by dumping everything into assets whose value is empirically implicitly guaranteed by the central bank (which also explains your all-time stock highs in the face of sluggish data).

      That you would attribute exorbitant rent in Palo Alto to preservation instead of its happening to be ground zero for the tech bubble is actually pretty funny — maybe your bizarre statement was just intended irony?

  2. Does that mean if we paint murals on our streets the SFMTA won’t be allowed to turn them into empty red “ghost lanes?” I would love that. The murals could be an endless parade of low riders, just to get Precious Eye Makeup on board.

  3. a paradox — more regulation is a tragic response in a time of desperately needed housing, yet the community’s fear of change is understandable in the onslaught uninspired, white-washed architecture.

    1. I don’t think architecture is why community residents in the Mission resist development. Maybe for rich NIMBY snobs.

      1. And yet much of the Mission residents live in very sub-standard, wood frame, unsprinklered buildings; many of which amount to slum housing.

        Building new housing in the Mission, some affordable and some market rate in the 5-7 story range would help a lot of these people and improve the negative conditions in this neighborhood.

  4. One glance proves that this is a Work of Art of great importance to the world, a manifestation of the highest level of human creativity. It is comparable to the work of the other great artists of our time, Koons and Banksy. When else in history has there been so much talent? How do we account for the Great Flowering?

    1. I know, right? And all those other “great” street artists, like Basquiat, Twist, Kilgallen, BLF, Fairey, OS Gemeos, Haring, English — not to mention “great” muralists like Rivera, Orozco, Siquieros, and some guy named Picasso — who do they think they’re fooling? My kid can do better than that! Art only belongs in an empty room with white walls. I don’t know what’s great art, but I know what I like, and I like those paintings of the sad little children with big eyes. Now, if you put one of those on the side of a muffler shop, maybe I would agree to a little preservation!

  5. the mural in this post certainly doesn’t look worthy of saving. couldnt they just repaint it on the 1st floor of a 20 story building?

  6. The owners should re-paint this pronto, any way they want.
    Should never have let ‘Precita Eyes’ have their way, they don’t know how to edit a color palette.
    SF is ridiculous, a new paint job would be more appealing to most folks in SF, but not the activist complainers who prefer bad art.

  7. Fire the intern! What a waste of our taxes.
    We don’t need more rules in SF, especially not to protect bad art.
    Just imagine – no one will be offering their building for ‘Precita Eyes’ to paint on. For goodness sake, let property owners manage their own paint decisions, it’s not not the property of the planning dept, and the intern doesn’t have any skin in the game.

  8. Whether you like the aesthetic or not, murals give the city vibrance and character. There are books and tours and people come visit the city to see them.

    You don’t have to love how the murals look to appreciate that they add to the city. The fact that many are painted from the vantage of marginalized people also makes them interesting, and possibly what makes them less attractive to some people.

    I don’t attend street fairs in SF because the food and wares on offer generally don’t appeal to me—but I appreciate that they exist and that others get to enjoy them, even if I am even paying for it a little bit in some way with taxes or increased traffic. There are city benefits that I enjoy that others pay for but don’t use or like. And we all live in this city together. I don’t understand why people don’t get this pretty basic concept—is it lack of empathy?

    I do admit though, it is a bit disturbing to think that as a property owner if I allow my property to become interesting then the city will take away my free use of it by declaring it historic. Not sure I agree with that.

    1. I think paint jobs are like fashion – if you want to change the finish appearance of your building or the dress/tie your wearing who should be stop you! Even if you’re contributing to the pleasure of those around you.

      It’s equivalent to some intern staying they like ‘a persons dress style’ or ‘Mission tattoos’, and therefore they are never allowed to change. That is ridiculous.

      NO OWNER should be subjected to silly rules. Paint is a finish, typically paid for by the owner!

  9. I like many of these murals in the Mission and elsewhere (those around the Lower Haight are better imho – e.g. there is one at Haight and Pierce that has a similar feel to the one in this post but is much more interesting and skillfully done). And I’m grateful that building owners permit these as they add vigor. However, when one paints something on the side of a building, exposed to the elements and pollution, one does not really reasonably expect it to be permanent. “Preservation review” for something which is necessarily ephemeral seems like a big waste.

  10. I see that most of you are fighting the good fight and doing what you can do to make San Francisco as bland as Houston.

    1. Which is more vibrant? This one story building? Or a four story building that houses four times as many people? Oh, and the four story building could also be covered with a mural.

    1. im starting to think you are a homeowner or landlord who is trying to restrict new housing to increase the value of your property

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *