Last month I wrote about plans for extensive renovations of the Beach Chalet soccer fields. The project calls for major facility improvements including converting the fields to synthetic turf, installing lights for night play, new restrooms, parking lot improvements, better walkways and lighting, and the addition of a designated spectator area.
A public information meeting was held on December 7 and according to our neighborhood paper, The Richmond Review, there was heated debate about the plan (sorry, article’s not online or I would link to it).
To paraphrase the article, Richmond residents who attended the meeting said they had never heard of the project until recently, and others worried about the environmental impacts of the artificial turf that would be installed. Neighbors also expressed concern about the night lighting that would enable games to be played until 10pm.
Growing up here in the city, I played soccer on the Beach Chalet fields for many years. In high school, I would practice there several days a week during our season. The things I remember most about the fields were their poor condition (ankles beware!) and the fact that often, one or more fields were closed due to rain or poor drainage. As an adult, I played recreational soccer there and the same problems existed. And it was a shame because as far as venues go, you can’t get much better than Golden Gate Park.
The Chronicle ran an editorial (thanks to reader 415 Native for the tip) on Monday in anticipation of the Rec & Park Commission vote on January 21 on whether to approve the project. I echo the Chron’s sentiments that this renovation would be a boon to to soccer players across the city. Artificial turf is already in use in several fields across the city, and the lower maintenance and increased playing time it offers make it a sound choice.
And unlike many city projects, half of the $8.9 million renovation costs would be shared by the City Fields Foundation who to date, have renovated five facilities in the city. They know what works and so far, have been very successful in their efforts.
In its current condition, the Beach Chalet fields can host just over 4,000 hours of play in a year. With the renovations in place, the amount of hours for both soccer and lacrosse games to take place would almost be tripled.
In a time when the game of soccer is on the rise, kids are in need of more physical activity and city budgets are being slashed, why wouldn’t we say yes to this project? Let’s turn Beach Chalet into the sports facility it was always meant to be. It would be a great benefit to soccer enthusiasts throughout San Francisco, and would be a facility that all of the Richmond District would be proud to have, especially this one.
Sarah B.
I am in complete agreement. My kids play on the artificial fields at 40th & Wawona, and they are great. The Golden Gate Park soccer fields are remote, so the lights won’t bother people living either north or south of the park, and people using the fields won’t have to park on neighborhood streets. I don’t see any reason to oppose this.
I live very close to these fields and I strongly support this project. Besides the outstanding health and recreational benefits of field sports for kids and adults, I think this project will help clean up some of the downright creepy areas in the southwest corner of the park. We need to support more responsible use in this area (including the planned BBQ pits, picnic tables, and a small playground) rather than the overgrown & isolated status quo that exists now. The lights issue is a red herring raised by a vocal few that would rather turn the park into a designated ‘natural’, ‘wilderness’ area. The fields are surrounded by tall trees and the project designers have done a lot to limit excessive lights in any event.
I, too, live very close to these fields and I also strongly support this project. This is a win-win opportunity for everyone–neighbors, soccer enthusiasts, kids, families, and the entire community of San Francisco.
I sent a message to recpark.commission@sfgov.org encouraging a YES vote for the plan.
Good idea, Susanne. Thanks for the email address!
Sarah B.
This project is completely nuts! Here is my letter to the Supervisors:
Dear Supervisors:
I am writing to express my concern regarding the planned astroturf of the soccer fields and the installation of lights at Ocean Beach.
I have been flabbergasted by Eric Mar’s introduction of legislation to astroturf these soccer fields. First of all, the lights will have a detrimental effect on the area’s ecology. Secondly, we don’t know what the negative effects of toxic astroturf will be on the sea, soil, and the health of athletes.
Third, it is less than clearly established how and who will pay for the renovation of these fields in the coming decades. The Fishers either have friends who produce this product and/or have investments in it. These financial interests are certain to benefit when the City has to cough up funds to renovate these fields.
Fourth and finally, I would like to quote from an essay that appeared in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/opinion/nyregionopinions/16NJcrain.html?_r=2&sq=astroturf%20AND%20lead&st=cse&scp=10&pagewanted=print
“When children do get outside, it is usually to play organized sports. Until recently, sports gave children at least some contact with nature. But now, with the widespread installation of synthetic turf fields, even this contact with nature is being reduced.”
This fine essay also goes on to explicitly detail the toxicity of these fields. Soccer moms and dads who support this project are evidently willing and eager to compromise the health of their children. Astounding!
To my knowledge, no environmental impact study has been done. Furthermore, Supervisor Mirkarimi told me that the board has no jurisdiction over this project. A phone call to Mar’s office for clarification has gone unreturned.
Given Mar’s avowed positioning as an “environmentalist,” I am unclear as to why he has put this before the Board.
I strongly suggest that he withdraw this legislation, and, if he does not, the Board should definitely vote it down!
The Fishers should cough up the money to regenerate grass on fields; we may use to use these fields on a “sustainable” basis to ensure that there is grass.
Harry S. Pariser
(415) 665-4829