McLaren makeover:
Some McLaren Park users say renovations will kill seclusion
Park patrons fear renovations will spoil the tranquillity of their retreat.
For nearly 35 years, Alex Aldrich has relied on the tranquillity and pleasant seclusion he finds at San Francisco’s McLaren Park to temporarily transcend the bustling city surrounding him.
Alongside his intrepid 12-yearold dog, Concha, Aldrich is a daily user of the 312-acre park’s vast network of sometimes rugged hiking trails, which meander through a medley of grasslands, forests and marshes.
“There are certain sections that are so quiet, you’ll think you’re somewhere else,” Aldrich said. “You can be there for an hour and a half, and you won’t see anyone. Being able to just sit and hear nature all around you — that’s a great thing.”
But with a sweeping $8.9 million package of renovations at McLaren up for consideration before San Francisco’s Recreation and Park Commission on Thursday, Aldrich and a growing chorus of park patrons say they’re concerned that they could soon lose some of their cherished trails. As part of the park department’s proposal to make McLaren Park safer and more accessible, some trails will be closed and portions of others will be widened to accommodate both hikers and cyclists.
After McLaren has spent most of its life as the eternal understudy to Golden Gate Park, many of its supporters are welcoming the city’s decision to reinvest in its second-largest patch of open space. The funding for the proposed improvements would come from the Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond that voters approved in 2012.
“The city as a whole — not just the neighborhoods surrounding it — are beginning to understand and appreciate the jewel that (McLaren) is,” said Rec and Park General Manager Phil Ginsburg. “We need to make these investments to sustain it and protect it, and make sure it’s around for our children and our children’s children.
But some of the park’s most strident enthusiasts are chafing at the prospect of seeing trails transformed or closed down.
“It would change the whole feeling of the park,” Aldrich said. An online petition he posted two weeks ago opposing the park department’s trails plan topped 600 signatures Sunday.
“I really think these narrow, winding, interlaced trails are just the most iconic and charming part of the park. The trails themselves are the destination, really,” said Tom Borden, a director at the San Francisco Forest Alliance who frequents the park and has been a critic of the city’s proposals to shut down some of the trails. “Their plan just neuters all of it,” he said.
Most of the details of the park department’s plans for McLaren still need to be worked out, including exactly which trails might be affected. But the proposal that the parks commission will vote on next week would set aside $2 million to refurbish the park’s trails and pathways.
In many cases, Ginsburg said, some untamed trails need to be closed because of erosion. Rainwater sluicing down a rugged trail after a rainstorm can leave it dangerously slippery and difficult to navigate. Other trails might be taken out of commission to clarify designated park routes and to protect sensitive native plants near the trails from being trampled. Keeping McLaren Park open for future generations, Ginsburg said, requires taking steps to ensure that its natural resources are handled sustainably. He added that all of the department’s plans for McLaren Park were crafted with the goal of preserving its untamed essence.
“The idea that you’re not going to be able to get lost on a trail in McLaren Park is just not true,” Ginsburg said. “To keep the park wild, we need to be able to make sure that its wildness is sustainable, which means protecting against erosion and preserving natural resources.”
The park department is also considering widening up to 3½ miles of trails from 3 feet to 5 feet to accommodate more cyclists and, the park department hopes, attract more people to the park. Some critics say widening the trails is likely to invite collisions between hikers and cyclists.
But widening some trail sections, Ginsburg said, is essential for broadening the types of activities available to park patrons.
“Multiuse trails are unquestionably a best practice in urban parks,” he said. “Our space is precious and limited, so we want to give people a diverse array of opportunities to explore the park.”
Despite the discord about the future of the park’s trails, McLaren Park’s supporters have found common ground when it comes to the other planned improvements. The proposed $8.9 million suite of renovations includes $1.45 million for upgrades to the Jerry Garcia Amphitheatre, $1.7 million for a new restroom near the park’s group picnic area, $1 million for a multiuse courtyard for activities such as tai chi, and $700,000 to refurbish sections of the park’s paved areas.
Linda Litehiser and her organization, the McLaren Park Collaborative, a collection of community groups dedicated to improving the park, have tried to serve as a neutral party amid the debate, acting as an informational clearinghouse and avoiding taking a position on specific proposals.
The dire premonitions about the park’s natural wonder being diminished represent “the worst-case scenarios,” she said. “Some people feel like the widening of any trail is creating a freeway. That’s silly.”
But ultimately, Litehiser, said, such sentiments stem from a place of deep affection for the park and a desire to see it prosper.
“Everyone loves the park in their own way. They all have their own corner of it that, to them, is the most important part,” Litehiser said. The Rec and Park Department “has been striving ... to get a consensus — how can we still have places that are private, but also aren’t abandoned because no one goes there?”
“Change is really tough, and democracy is messy,” she said.