What started out as a rumor in June is now a reality: A giant sign in the window at Patxi’s Pizza at 4042 24th St proclaims the pizza shop’s “notice of application to install and maintain a parklet” out front “for the purpose of placing tables, chairs, benches, landscaping and/or bike parking on a Parklet.” The application was filed by Jim Howard, head of marketing for Patxi’s.
 |
| Parklet permit - click the image to see it large |
Hmmm. So it’s not a done deal and it’s unclear if the NVA can block the application, but hope springs eternal. Also of note – in this earlier post, when we first heard about the possible parklet, several commenters mentioned Patxi’s hasn’t always been the best neighbor – and unfortunately the double-parking delivery drivers may be compounding neighbors' ill will.
The final day for comment on the parklet application is August 5, 2015. If no protests are received, Patxi’s can submit a detailed plan for approval with the San Francisco Department of Public Works.
Update: An astute follower on Twitter reminded us that Patxi's has also applied for a parklet on Irving.
What do you think? Does 24th Street need a new parklet - and is this a good place for it?
21 comments:
Yes to parklet. There are not enough plazas in the city, a place to just sit and relax if you want to. Parklets are the best option.
A thousand times no..! Patxi is a horrible neighbor that wants to remove a couple of parking spots in addition to the rampant & illegal double parking of their delivery drivers when they are not hogging space in the tiny lot across the street.
Although - & as we all are supposed to know - parklets are public open space the actual practice of parklets in front of food service establishments is that they become de facto outside dining areas. The odious "Squat & Gobble" over in the Castro is a textbook example.
Just ridiculous.
I agree. No to this parklet in front of a private business. IF it is approved make sure we are ALL ALLOWED to sit in it and not have to order any of their food.
The more parklets the better. And the solution to the perception it is proprietary is simple: just sit there. Nobody can chase you away.
Most commerce on pedestrian friendly streets like 24th and Valencia is pedestrian anyway. Parking turnover is so slow that it's infeasable to park in front of a target business. Best is to embrace the transit and pedestrian friendliness of the road and allow the parklet. Any issues with delivery trucks should be addressed directly.
Anything that increases our ability to gather on 24th instead of just being consumers on 24th is A Good Thing.
So let me get this right @ anon@9:19: If we just hang around, so to speak, and "gather" as you say, rather than BUY anything or spend ANY money on our local businesses, it will be a GOOD THING?
Got it. Then watch how fast the businesses dry up and close down.
I agree that the more "hang out" friendly 24th street is the better. Better for local shops and restaurants, better for locals (like me) who want to pass a few hours in our little village, and better for the kids who need a place (other than Starbucks) to meet friends. I'd even go so far as to say I'd love to see 24th (between Castro and Church) closed to vehicle traffic and open to popup stands sundays 9am - 3pm). But that's just me.
This is a mini-chain who was sued by the City for $320,000 for charging customers an additional 4% surcharge then pocketing it - nothing going to employee healthcare - Google is your friend.
Less than 2 years later we are going to reward them with giving up public space for what - I guarantee - will become no more than an outdoor dining room extension gratis.
Because people in general - and Noe Valleyans in particular - are such wusses they will not feel comfortable sitting in a space that looks like it's a restaurant area. Doesn't happen in front of other parklets fronted by restaurants. Not much evidence down the street at Martha's either though those good ol' boys sure know how to drag out a small coffee.
And like a couple of earlier posters point out Patxi's drivers are the worst offenders when it comes to double parking (which SFMTA seldom enforces due resources) and taking space across the street in the lot.
You just don't reward bad behavior. It's dumb.
Anonymous @9:47: believe me, I spend plenty on 24th. I stand by my preference, for 24th to be a place to go in and of itself, for neighbors, for kids, for people outside the neighborhood. If people come to hang out, some significant portion of them will spend money. And more people will spend time *being* in the neighborhood, not just being at a specific business.
I like the idea of a parklet on that block but not in front of a food merchant. The one in front of Just For Fun is an example of a parklet to which everyone feels welcome. Parklets shouldn't be allowed in front of restaurants. They become a patio for the place.
How about we just close 24th Street from Church to Castro and only allow am deliveries and [MUNI] transit through like they do in Europe?
I second support for a parklet on the street that is not in front on any restaurant. I think parklets are a nice place for people to gather and chat (in a place other than the sidewalk) but do think when they are in front of a restaurant they are perceived as outside seating and therefore loose their value as a gathering spot.
If they open this parklet I'll come back just to sit in it.
Consider that.
A parklet is one of the stupidest "improvements" in SF. These aren't parks for people to enjoy; they are publicly subsidized annexes for the businesses they sit in front of. There's not much parking as it is, so I'm not seeing why Patxi's gets to take the space? How about Patxi's donates a few thousand bucks to city youth rec league, doing something for the PEOPLE of SF, not its business.
Walked down 24th this morning. There's a prominent sign on the Just for Fun parklet with wording to the effect "This is a Public Space" plus four or five tables each with a couple of chairs. Further down at Martha's no such sign.
This reinforces my thinking that food service spaces view parklets as an extension of their dining areas.
I'm pretty neutral on parklets but say definitely "no" to Patxi's - they are a bad neighbor on many fronts - and perhaps yes to any other location.
Here here, more parklets are needed on 24th Street. As an added bonus it removed one more parking space, which will discourage people from driving.
Paxit's is always running specials where they raise money based on 5% of the ticket for local schools and other deserving charities, like the Bicycle Coalition. They are great neighbors, I wish more businesses would give back to the community.
"How about Patxi's donates a few thousand bucks to city youth rec league, doing something for the PEOPLE of SF, not its business."
Patxi's does this all the time. I've personally dined there on nights where they were donating a portion of the gross to Alvarado and SFBC. Of course, if you have a worthy cause for them to donate to, it is probably more effective to simply go into the store and ask them, rather than complaining on a blog that they don't do something that they actually do very well.
It's all well and good they do charitable giving though a closer look at their website has it on the three quietest nights of the week and the recipient organizations are responsible for driving turnout. Anyway I don't want to be a part of "let no good deed go unpunished.." Kudos to them they do anything, though pizza is recognized as doling out the highest food service margins - when Delfina opened a couple of pizzarias it's wasn't because they've just discovered Neapolitan cuisine,
And let's not forget they were pocketing 4% of every single employee healthcare designated dollar seven days a week then beating their chest about giving back then 5, now 10, percent on the three quiet nights. Until they were caught and names as one of the City's biggest offenders.
Time to refocus on the core issue: if a parklet is opened in front of Patxi it will be - from day one - no more or less than an extension of the restaurant. Every other example in the city bears this out.
The restaurant will pay whatever it is they do to make a nice little parklet/outdoor extension and zero financial impact thereafter - only increased revenues from their expanded seating.
I'm all for parklets - just not in front of food service. I'd object if Haystack wanted to do it, not that any Patxi client would ever deign to set foot in there.
Not only do patxi drivers double park, they also drive around the city like its some sort of video game. there are so many children in this neighborhood -- what are they thinking?
Considering the number of Patxi cars needed for their take out business wouldn't it make more sense for Patxi to use the space for their own cars instead of double parking on 24th St and hogging spaces in the parking lot across the street including the spaces reserved for handicapped drivers?
Post a Comment