Survey: Share your thoughts about strategies for the Richmond District


Supervisor Mar’s Office and the San Francisco Planning Department have teamed up on a Richmond District Strategy initiative:

This process will provide a comprehensive understanding of the District’s current trends, needs, and opportunities. The goal is to create a vision for the future of District 1 to ensure a sustainable and high quality of life for current and future generations who live, work and visit District 1.

Phase 1 of the project – a very thorough, 101 page Existing Conditions onhealthy uroxatral generic Report – describes the current trends and conditions in the neighborhood.

This next phase – Community Needs Assessment – includes a survey of the people who live, work and visit the neighborhood. The survey, which takes about 10 minutes to complete, asks questions about housing, businesses, public facilities, public transportation, parks and more.


The final phase of the Richmond District Strategy will identify opportunities and recommend solutions to help shape the future of the neighborhood.

Sarah B.

[via PAR]


  1. Cool and interesting report. Top three needs of the district:
    1. Transit
    2. Transit
    3. Transit

  2. Thanks for the link to the survey, I just took it.
    Interesting questions and it’s good there are plenty of places to add other comments. I encourage everyone who loves the Richmond to take the survey!

  3. It’s all too emblematic of San Francisco’s upside-down priorities that a Web page ostensibly about a S.F. neighborhood, the Richmond District, features a tourist shearing facility that was stuck on top of an art museum solely to indulge tourists. Among other things not shown in the picture are slack-jawed idiots on Segway “tours” of the park.

    Today, one of S.F.’s biggest problems is that tourism has ceased to serve residents; instead residents are increasingly seen to be “in the way” of tourism conglomerates and over-sized events promoters. The choice of pictures for this page / site is a lovely example of that…

  4. Unfortunately I have to agree with Ric to a large degree. I’d just assume the mayor’s office not take notice of us–given the results their attention generates. It’s inevitable, but I feel like this is will end up not being to Richmond residents like myself, feels a bit cross hair.

  5. I just looked over the survey. I don’t think too much of it. I seriously doubt it would pass any sort of peer review. Certainty, since it is not a survey based on random selection, any data generated will have little real world validity. In survey speak the little “n” will not equal the large “N”.

    As someone who once had the responsibility to design and run a very large scale survey, I am not only not impressed, but saddened as this junk is passed off as science.

  6. JD – Sorry to inform you that the reviewers have recommended against publishing your strange dialect of “survey speak”. N always just means sample size and adequately (or not) provides the power to measure an effect size in a suitably (or not) homogenous population.

    Not sure I saw anything that referred to that survey as scientific or anything but a way to get a very rough sense of what some people in the neighborhood thought about various forms of development and recreation. I’m sure N will be small enough to just look through the surveys by hand. If you get over your sadness maybe you can let us know what led you to believe that the surveyors were claiming that this was a scientific survey (and if that’s the case and they intend to use it directly as a basis for policy decisions I’d agree with you that there might be some room for concern).

  7. As a home owner in this fantastic hood there are only three things I’d like to see: upzoning all of geary and Fulton, a subway to the deyoung and ocean, more commercial licenses for corner markets/cafes etc.

  8. Streetcar line from the beach to downtown on par with the N Judah. A viable grocery store with quality meats & produce instead of Fresh & Weird or the Gross(ery)-Out(let). Airlift service over GG park during Outside Lands, Hardly Strictly, etc. so we can actually leave our homes.

  9. Survey filled out…. not really sure what they are looking for from answers…. or why Supervisor Mar is suddenly interested in his district? And Ric – I kind of enjoy the view from the top of the DeYoung once in a while – its’a cool perspective of our neighborhood & city!

  10. My takeaway from the report and survey are ABAG’s desire to add 200,000 residents to SF population with the westside as the next target. In order to continue growing City Hall’s Budget (doubling every 10 years) property tax revenues have to be escalated with new development via backyard infill and elimination of single family homes. We have but a few years remaining to enjoy the 40 foot building height limit in most of the district.

    Willie wasn’t kidding when he said as Mayor that he envisioned Fulton and Lincoln Way bordering Golden Gate Park with highrises like Central Park.

  11. A survey for any public policy review, development, or analysis must be a scientific one or it has zero meaning and can lead to crap decision making.

    The so-called survey is nothing more than an internet based structured letter writing campaign in the false clothing of something scientific and by extension more meaningful. It is not.

    In this case, the likes of Eric Mar and his ilk will think they know what the Richmond District is thinking when in reality they we only be seeing what a very skewed subset of the Richmond District is thinking.

    The results will have zero validity as to what the total population of the Richmond District thinks about any of those questions.

    Junk science in the hands of a politician or a bureaucrat is a dangerous thing.

  12. Frank, The original BART plans had one line running out Geary to Park Presidio, then turning north and going to Marin on a lower deck to be constructed on the Golden Gate Bridge with several Marin stops before connecting to Richmond across the (then newly constructed) Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. I recall having conversations with my father about where he thought it would surface from Market Street and how it would cross over tracks in the southbound direction. I learned the Geary portion was planned to be all underground in San Francisco. The specifications for constructing a lower deck on the Golden Gate Bridge is why BART runs on non-standard track gauge and thus requires custom built rolling stock at a much higher cost as the train cars cannot be combined with orders from other transit agencies nor can surplus inventory from other agencies be used.

    Once voters in Marin, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties nixed adding a half cent to sales tax to fund construction, the loop around the Bay was abandoned.


  14. Hi JD. Im a professional statsitician focusing on outcomes research. I would give this survey validity a score of F+. whoever put this together is not a statistical or survey scientist and it has little value from a quantitative perspective. no decisions should be based off this hopefully, but qualitatively may provide some nuggets of what people are not happy with

  15. Motor, I wonder how many survey responses will be from Richmond District residents not affiliated with City Hall, ABAG or SFDCCC. It certainly is not well publicized other than to us blog readers.

  16. im sur it will be skewed by one group or the other. you can pretty much take it as many times as you want if you have different computers. for instance, if the bicycle coalition sends it to their consitiuency, we will have all motorized vehicles banned from the RIchmond and remove all laws for bicyclists. too many special interst groups for a non-validated survey like this to be meaningful. not surprising. Eric Mar is not exactly a rocket scientist. he is more or less one of those people who has a hard time distinguishing from his butt and a hole in the ground.

  17. Seems like this survey was mostly a promotion of Prop A. Not enough questions about transit.

  18. More reliable, convenient transit and bike lanes that span more than a few blocks for those who don’t need to add to traffic and pollution! Less government subsidized parking distorting its true cost! Less single family homes and driveways and more high rise apartments to accommodate more people. If you want to live a suburban life, then move out of the city and into the suburbs. Low density areas are wasteful, and no one who wants to live in the city should be kept out due to a supposed lack of space. (Maybe someday that will be a valid problem here, but currently lack of space is not one, just poor managing of the space we do have.)

  19. its importnat to keep parking spots, to regulate illegal scofflaw cyclist activity, to build a subway and to increase housing. All of these things can be done.

  20. @Dylan (and others) – exactly – there was no clear place on this survey to say “Upzone Geary!” or “Build a Geary subway!” (or even “get rid of the private ride-share parking spaces and restore them to public use.”) This survey was predisposed to assume that I’m concerned about painting more crosswalks and visiting a school playground than really integral and long-term structural issues.

  21. This is a ruse with the hidden intention of figuring out the best way to develop the Richmond a’la the Mission. Develop develop develop. Condos and all that jazz. Beware my fellow Richmondites! Don’t fall into the trap!

  22. developing parts of the RIchmond would be bad. Reconfiguring some of the 1 story businesses on Geary as 1 story business plus 4 stories of condos above that would be a nice addition. Having the entire Geary from Masonic to Park Presidio at 5-6 floors would not be a bad thing. We just need a subway to support it. I dont think other streets in the Richmond would be good for a lot of new development

  23. i meant would NOT be bad in my 1st sentence. WOULD NOT BE BAD under above scenario

  24. Well said- transit, transit, transit. And also cars (gas or electric) ARE a necessary evil. Make one street CAR friendly to get east-west to allow cars to go a significant number of blocks at 35 mph. We have the technology. We have the will. Pedestrians can deal with it. We CAN do it.

  25. Kris and others haven’t been around very long. On my Block, which was completely built out when I grew up, the number of housing units has increased 50%. Primarily by removing off-street parking, and building illegal, tenement-quality in-law units. What we don’t need in SF and in particular the Richmond, is 1,000,000 people. If that is what YOU want, move to NYC. Don’t turn my town into NYC.

Comments are closed.