October 15, 2008
Let's Dream of a Non-Wretched Fisherman's Wharf
Oh, sure, you've seen all the coverage of Jan Gehl's plan to turn Fisherman's Wharf into something tolerable. But wouldn't you like to know more? The excellent SPUR is holding a forum TODAY about the city's plan to alleviate pedestrian-congestion by updating the neighborhood's 1950s-style freeway-inspired urban design: widening sidewalks, installing benches, and adding bike lanes, injunction be damned. After all, be honest: when's the last time you went to Fisherman's Wharf? Probably when you had out-of-town guests.
SPUR's guest will be urban designer Neil Hrushowy, explaining the plan and answering questions. It's at SPUR's office at 312 Sutter St. (at Grant), Fifth Floor, from 12:30 to 1:30 pm. "Feel free to bring a lunch," says SPUR, which is a nice way of saying, "no we're not feeding you; what do we look like, a Waffle House?" It's free for SPUR members and $5 for everyone else.
And!
Don't miss their Thursday forum on high-speed rail! Rail expert Rod Diridon, Sr. is visiting. Says SPUR, "Let him lead you on a world tour of high-speed rail systems and then enjoy a spirited and informed discussion of the practicalities and politics of California's proposed high speed rail." Same time, place, and catering arrangements as before.
| 
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
Since this plan wants to kill off all the cars, how about giving us some free parking?
That's what the benches are. Parking spots for your bottom.
The reason why I don't go to Fisherman's Wharf has nothing to do with the transit infrastructure or pedestrian access.
It has to do with the lack of appealing things to do. The restaurants are largely mediocre tourist-trap corporate eateries of the "Bubba Gumps" ilk. I don't need a Golden Gate Bridge snow globe or an "I Left My Heart in San Francisco" t-shirt.
There might be a couple of fun things (e.g., Musee Mecanique), but Fisherman's Wharf is a cultural wasteland and the value proposition of the area's eateries is questionable at best.
I agree that we should make the area more friendly to pedestrian tourists, but it's not going to entice me to visit.
I agree with cv. It's just junk stores and sub-par overpriced restaurants.
I do hope Gehl's proposals come to fruition, though, because my Greyhound loves it when random people come up and start petting her. She gets a lot of that at Fisherman's Wharf, so we walk her there regularly.
But spending money at Fisherman's Wharf? It's going to take a lot more than widening sidewalks to do that. There is nothing down there for a local to spend money on.
You know, I really have to disagree about it being a cultural wasteland. Some parts, sure. But there are actually some rather nice areas -- a lovely view of the bay, a handful of actually-good restaurants and art galleries, and some very nice places to stroll and sit.
Tear out the tourist traps and replace with parks.
I'd only go the wharf for the best voted donuts. Trish's at Pier 39.
I work near fisherman's wharf and love going out to lunch and sitting by the boats in the small marina, seeing the sea lions and sitting and staring at the gorgeous bay.
The problem with fisherman's wharf is that there is so much noise and blocking views.
The main culprit is pier 39. Do you thinkt he city would ever touch this? Hell no, it drives tourists from all over the world. It's the sad fact that the best parts of a city can be ruined by capitalism and gov't greed. (SF Gov't exists because of tourism industry)
I still remember the Musee Mechanique when it was down here at the cliff house, and I lived so close to it! Now I have to ride the horrid 38L and the 47 while being cussed at by bums on the wharf.
If it weren't for In 'n Out and those delicious little cinnamon donuts there would be no reason for Fisherman's Wharf to exist. It's seriously not even worth the effort to take your family there. You'll just lose them in the mass of people watching Bushman, and once you find them, they're all wearing novelty Alcatraz sweatshirts.
Cultural wasteland or not, the issue is over how space is being allocated for traffic. Whether the sidewalk is being used by locals or tourists, there's still 15 times more of them than cars.
What's worse is the pedestrian space is split between two 15' sidewalks. Everyone has to have been blocked at some point by a wall of tourists who all walk side by side completely oblivious to their being other people on the sidewalk.
What Jamison said.
I pretty much think of FW as having been annexed by the rest of the country. And for what they pay, I'm okay with it.
There's an In-N-Out at the Wharf. That alone makes it worth the trip.
Pier 39 is great. Tourists come, stay there, spend all their money, and don't bother those of us who actually live here. Outta sight outta mind.
We should put in more crap for tourists up there then ban them if they want to leave the area and see the actual city.
Although SPUR as Waffle House is an endlessly amusing concept. Need to keep that in mind for upcoming meetings.
Who wants to grab some tourist money? Let's set-up a 3-card Monte table.
I have to say, although the wharf brings in the big tourist bucks, I personally hate the atmosphere there. The cheap shirts, fake jackets, and overpriced crap all a lure for your money. And don't forget Muni, only morons ride the packed F-Market and wait in a long line at the Cable Car turnaround.
Oh look, another tourist dogpile on SFist
You know what?
When middle America stops pissing all over "San Francisco values" then we'll be nicer to them on comment threads.
Way to generalize about "middle America."
How about we charge an extra $50 per day for parking or cable cars for any tourist voting Yes on 8?
It's a thought.
I absolutely agree with Generic. During my preparations to move out here, I had to listen to so many idiotic derogatory comments about "SF Values" from the morons in my homestate, that I feel perfectly fine deriding their overweight, Alcatraz Psycho Ward t-shirt wearing, wandering four abreast on a sidewalk, mouths agape, spending lots of money to waddle in and out of crap restaurant, McSame voting selves.
Since the current design of Fisherman's Wharf is beloved by the Middle Amurrican planets with hair who trek here on the budget vacations they collected Blue Stamps to earn (or however they do it). I see no reason whatsoever to change it. The strip mall ambiance appeals to their sense of familiarity, as does the Hooters restaurant, and keeps them safely contained within that tawdry district as is only right and proper. Changing the design would only antagonize these knuckle dragging creatures and risk the potential for their escape into other parts of the city. Is this really what you want? I know I don't. Someone might get hurt when they wander into the street, staring at miracles like public transportation, gays, etc. and a taxi cab runs them down. Therefore, The Angry Young Man orders you to vote no on SPUR's redesign of Fisherman's Wharf (and I'm even a SPUR member).
@ Joel
Yes, that's what we do when we infer general rules from specific cases.
You don't need me to cite the specific cases, do you? Of course not.
Yes, that's what we do when we infer general rules from specific cases.
That's your problem then and doesn't particularly indicate the enlightened critical thinking that so many folks here love to thump their chests about.
Life isn't a logic 101 class, and you may as well use that kind of reasoning to legitimize any number of ugly (and wrong) generalizations because, you know, there are specific cases.
Joel, you so didn't go to law school.
... or community college. That's where we learn that Logic 101 and Critical Thinking are not the same.
Generalization is value-neutral. It can be used responsibly or irresponsibly. What else would you have someone do when referring to a large swath of the country?
What's your point? That middle America is (generally) in tune with San Francisco values? That my generalization is incorrect? Because that really really isn't the case.
My exact point was that critical thinking and inductive reasoning are not the same. Maybe that went to the wayside in your pursuit to post some links from various nutbags in an effort to somehow tie those particular views to those of everyone in "Middle America" much less those of the people who come to our town as tourists, who tend to be less the sterotypical homophobic racist from rural Kansas and much more often those from such backwards places as Chicago or New York or Asia or Europe.
Are. You. Kidding. Me?
The assertion that the typical tourist is from "Chicago or New York or Asia or Europe" isn't just false, it's demonstrably false.
Have you spent any time at Fisherman's Wharf? The notion that the throngs of Pier 39 are mainly internationals or urbanites is ludicrous.
Fail.
Also, logic: demonstration, inference. Things I did. Useful. Do I need to draw a diagram?
Where did I say "tourists at Fisherman's Wharf"? My initial comment was referring to the fact that every thread at SFist remotely regarding tourism turns into some kind of dogpile on tourists.
Let's talk about Fisherman's Wharf, if you want. No, I don't believe all the throngs down there are "internationals and urbanites." Nor do I believe it's all of these walking-stereotypes from Peoria. (If we're using anecdotal evidence to declare something "demonstrably false," which you appeared to want to do, I was there last year, and I heard just as much Chinese and German and Japanse and British accents as I did flat Midwestern affects or Southern twangs.) Nor do I believe the fact they're there makes them inherently bad people. So some people like buying trinkets or watching the sea lions or eating overpriced sundaes and cheeseburgers? You don't. I don't. I think it's silly. Some people do enjoy it. Not everyone from "Middle America" does. Who the fuck cares?
And as far as demonstration goes, you posted a much-mocked ad from a guy running for Congress in the Midwest as proof that they're just not like us "out there" (the "rest of the country," in your words). Congressmen currently or recently representing those backwards Middle Americans: Paul Wellstone (RIP), Tammy Baldwin, Russ Feingold, Barack Obama.
(Meanwhile, of course, our governor is an aged conservative action-movie star who played hardball with the state's budget on the backs of the state's working people, and we come from a state that gave "the rest of the country" Ronald Reagan and Dick Nixon, not to mention Bob Dornan. Yeah, they're from SoCal...it's no diferent than you painting entire swaths of the country as cro-mags based on the fact that 50% of them voted for W)
Unless, of course, you're indeed just using "Middle Americans" as the tired kind of over-reaching political slur to mean "everyone I don't agree with." Good luck going through life wielding that broad brush.
I always wonder how their PR works, since every one of my visiting guests expressly asks to go there, even when I tell them it's not the Seattle waterfront-esque place they are expecting.
On the other hand, they also ask me where they can get some FAMOUS SAN FRANCISCO SOURDOUGH BREAD, and Boudin's is the only place I can think of that will give them a more epic experience than, say, the nearest Safeway.
Send them over to the Acme at the Ferry Building. Easier to get to, they'll still have nice bay views to enjoy, it's quieter there (usually), and the bread's pretty great, too.
I'd tell them to visit the Boudin bakery on Geary and 10th (or is it 11th?). Not just the super fresh sourdough, but you get to see the gambling buses with the old Chinese ladies drop by.
Where did I say "tourists at Fisherman's Wharf"?
The thread, the post, is about Fisherman's Wharf. Other landmarks draw a more cosmopolitan crowd? Agreed. And the largest draw, in time spent, is Fisherman's Wharf. It's an excellent example of what we mean when we say "San Francisco Tourist."
I was there last year, and I heard just as much Chinese and German and Japanse and British accents as I did flat Midwestern affects or Southern twangs
Demonstrably false, I say. Since I can't walk you down there to demonstrate, I'll see your anecdote and raise you. I worked behind the bar of the Rainforest Cafe for a year, and lived a few blocks up. The idea that there is a 1:1 ratio of Europeans to Peorians is just wrong.
Paul Wellstone, Tammy Baldwin, Russ Feingold, Barack Obama
... are cherry-picking. I can do it too: Dennis Hastert, Sam Brownback, Norm Coleman, John Boehner, Roy Blunt. We can do this all day.
So some people like buying trinkets or watching the sea lions or eating overpriced sundaes and cheeseburgers? You don't. I don't.
I love trinkets. And cheeseburgers.
Unless, of course, you're indeed just using "Middle Americans" as the tired kind of over-reaching political slur to mean "everyone I don't agree with."
Middle Americans (i.e. the heartland, the swing states, the bellweather counties) do not agree with San Francisco Values. This isn't really debatable. Take any signature San Francisco issue:
Gay rights
Gun control
Military recruitment
Immigrant Sanctuary
Poll those places you define as "middle America." (Chicago & Madison, as an urban center and a college town, do not count.) Mix and serve over a chilled glass of mutual disdain.
... our governor ... Ronald Reagan and Dick Nixon, not to mention Bob Dornan.
... are all false equivalencies. The divide is not between red & blue, but the city and county of San Francisco, and middle America.
i.e. the heartland, the swing states, the bellweather counties)
Well, this was ultimately the basic (and admittedly often somewhat strained) point I was trying to make (and I apologize if I got pissy doing so)--even places you define here as Middle America (swing states, bellwether counties) are often deeply divided and I just don't believe the people from there can't merely be generalized as gigantic (literally) congruous masses of bigoted megachurch-going dunderheads, as so many in this town often do, including when they complain about tourists.
(As one last aside, you say places like Madison and Chicago don't count, but Feingold and Obama don't get elected merely by working the UW campus or Quimby's Books in Wicker Park or wherever: Feingold has to make inroads across the industrial and agricultural corridors in his state, and Obama has to win places like the suburban collar counties and downstate Illinois. The fact that those same Middle American voters in Schaumburg and Springfield and yeah, Peoria, rejected Alan Keyes' hateful rhetoric--he basically ran a platform that was the opposite of SF "values"/issues--in Obama's senatorial election didn't hurt.)
Anyway, perhaps I'll see you with the rest of these miserables in line at In-N-Out some day. Trinkets are on you.
"I just don't believe the people from there can't merely be generalized "
Oops. Scratch "can't," add "can."
Fuck In-N-Out Burger.
I'm going to Zuni! :P
The middle Americans who agree with us moved here. That's part of how we know the difference. A lot of people living here or in other major cities couldn't tolerate those places and left. This is why these generalizations are somewhat true. People are self-selecting where they want to live and moving accordingly.
I mean, there's a good reason why I left Kansas to move here.
Belgand sums it up perfectly for me.
The middle Americans who agree with us moved here.
All of them, right? That's why any generalization is always only "somewhat" true, and I wish people would avoid making them as often as they do and treating them as given fact.
I trust you guys have seen this:
http://politicalmaps.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/2004-purple-america.jpg
It's just not that black and white and it's why I'm always so wary to treat Wharf tourists in general from "the rest of the country" as some kind of "them" to be despised--if someone's from Kansas or Wisconsin or Ohio or Texas or wherever and they're spending a lot of time at Fisherman's Wharf on their SF vacation, yeah, it probably means they have questionable taste and/or bad information. It doesn't necessarily mean they're of course hateful, ignorant, racist, homophobic, conservative-voting assholes. Some of them probably are, sure.