Dolores Park, blissfully reservation-free. REUTERS/Robert Galbrait

The life and death of a pilot program in San Francisco’s Dolores Park shows that the cringeworthy idea was doomed from the start.

Well, that was quick.

Not 24 hours after SFist broke the news of the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department’s three-month pilot program allowing people to reserve plots of grass for $33 to $260 (plus a $200 security deposit), it’s over. Kaput. Left to expire after it runs its course through July.

In a statement, Rec & Park explained themselves:

Given the recent debate regarding the reservation of specified lawn areas for large group picnic, wedding, and birthday parties in our beloved Dolores Park, the Recreation and Park Department, in consultation with Supervisor Scott Weiner, is suspending the issuance of permits for this use.

Reading between the lines: they screwed up, and they know it.

Dolores Park—like many public parks—has a longstanding policy requiring reservations for picnic tables. But the new pilot also slapped an online reservation process and a hefty fee onto what a now-vindicated Change.org petition that sprung up in the wake of the program’s announcement described as a “park for the people.”

Once word of the pilot hit the Internet, the outrage came fast and furious. The Change.org petition collected 14,000 signatures (and counting). Jane Kim, a member of the SF Board of Supervisors and a candidate for the California senate, Tweeted: “Our city’s not for sale and shouldn’t be for rent, either.”

“This should end well,” read another Tweet. Another, simply: “Facepalm.”

For longtime San Francisco residents and natives, who have watched their numbers dwindle as the tech industry boom pulls rents to ever-more-impossible heights, the commodification of the park in the midst of the rapidly gentrifying Mission District was the last straw.

One especially virulent Tweeter, who grew up playing in the park, wrote that through the program, Rec & Park had devised yet another way of cordoning off the city for the rich. “They’re literally making this a playground for the gentrifiers,” she wrote. “And designing it for their liking…it’s sad to see and witness the direction this city has been heading in. Bland. Culture-less. Lacking so much diversity.”

Essentially, the pilot program separated the “public” from the park. And San Francisco was right not to stand for it.  

About the Author

Most Popular

  1. photo: South Korean soldiers attempt to disinfect the sidewalks of Seoul's Gagnam district in response to the spread of COVID-19.
    Coronavirus

    Pandemics Are Also an Urban Planning Problem

    Will COVID-19 change how cities are designed? Michele Acuto of the Connected Cities Lab talks about density, urbanization and pandemic preparation.  

  2. Equity

    We'll Need To Reopen Our Cities. But Not Without Making Changes First.

    We must prepare for a protracted battle with coronavirus. But there are changes we can make now to prepare locked-down cities for what’s next.

  3. photo: a bicycle rider wearing a mask in London
    Coronavirus

    In a Global Health Emergency, the Bicycle Shines

    As the coronavirus crisis forces changes in transportation, some cities are building bike lanes and protecting cycling shops. Here’s why that makes sense.

  4. photo: a For Rent sign in a window in San Francisco.
    Coronavirus

    Do Landlords Deserve a Coronavirus Bailout, Too?

    Some renters and homeowners are getting financial assistance during the economic disruption from the coronavirus pandemic. What about landlords?

  5. photo: an empty street in NYC
    Coronavirus

    What a Coronavirus Recovery Could Look Like

    Urban resilience expert Michael Berkowitz shares ideas about how U.S. cities can come back stronger from the social and economic disruption of coronavirus.

×