Propose destroying Presidio in SF

Trump-supporting urban planners propose destroying Presidio in SF

In this column, SFGATE's Silas Valentino prefers the Presidio over pandering to Trumpism

By Silas Valentino

In anticipation of a second Trump administration, a pair of conservative policy advocates published a disturbing vision in a conservative urban policy magazine that calls for destroying the Presidio in favor of building housing.

The authors, Mark Lutter and Nick Allen, suggest that obliterating the iconic San Francisco landmark would “unleash” the city’s full potential by building “Paris-level density and six-story apartment buildings” to “add 120,000 residents.” 

Their proposal is a direct appeal to President-elect Donald Trump. Last year, Trump first suggested transforming federal land into housing for an initiative he dubbed “freedom cities.” His plan calls for repurposing federal land to “reignite American imagination” by creating a hub for flying car ports and offering incentives to people who procreate.

Lutter and Allen argue that the Presidio is an “ideal” locale for a Trump freedom city, citing its proximity to Silicon Valley and San Francisco’s “existing talent density.” The pair allude to the stymied California Forever project in Solano County as an example for how entrepreneurs can try (and, for now, fail) to establish new cities unburdened by “cultural and regulatory barriers.”

Even the most outspoken San Francisco supporter admits the city is in dire need of more housing. The state mandated that San Francisco build 82,069 housing units by 2030, which is a lofty goal considering that the city could only manage to complete 1,205 units in 2024. This glacial pace for addressing one of our most flagrant issues is frustrating, but the response is not to raze one of the prevailing charms of living here. 

San Francisco was the first American city to have a park within 10 minutes of every single resident, and they’re a beacon of celebration for each neighborhood. And while more people should have the opportunity to relish these public spaces, adding 120,000 people to the population is an answer to the wrong question. San Francisco’s population is already on the rise, but before building homes for additional residents, there are more than 8,000 unhoused people already living here who should be considered first. 

Six-story apartment buildings to ameliorate the housing shortage are long overdue, but to suggest they should replace our parks is drastically out of touch with San Francisco. The co-authors hail from East Coast cities, where Lutter is the founder and executive director of the Charter Cities Institute and Allen is the president of the Frontier Foundation. Although they lead groups that seek to rethink urban policy, they both appear tragically ignorant of the Presidio’s priceless beauty. 

They define it, erroneously, as “a two-acre national park” when in fact it’s nearly 1,500 acres. However, a more glaring obliviousness is their lack of consideration for the splendor that’s lost if the Presidio is replaced with Parisian density. 

Lutter and Allen effectively miss both the forest and the trees. The Presidio is at the mouth of the Golden Gate, kissing a bridge that’s instilled wonder throughout the world for nearly a century. The park’s seaside shoulder is Baker Beach (the birthplace of Burning Man and where the nude freely roam) and Crissy Field sets the stage for kites and kite surfers performing their dazzling pirouettes with the wind. Presidio Tunnel Tops Park is a booming success for city tourism that’s expanding its food hall next year. The two celebrated hotels onsite dominate lists for the best in the city. And the Presidio remains a distinct place to live within a city that’s famous for unique neighborhoods.

The authors even managed to overlook the San Francisco National Cemetery, where 30,000 soldiers are laid to rest on a hillside overlooking the bay. Notably absent in their grand scheme is an admission that a six-story apartment is worth exhuming Medal of Honor recipients.

Lutter and Allen’s proposal was published Friday in City Journal, a magazine produced by the Manhattan Institute. It’s a fitting home for their half-baked and unenlightened perspective. The New York think tank has been accused as being “extremely conservative” and “corporate-funded,” and recently supported a controversial lobbying campaign to prevent taxes on the wealthy.

Their unserious proposal for the Presidio’s future, a desperate bit of pandering to the incoming administration, is doomed because neither writer thought to understand an icon they so recklessly dismissed as replaceable.