Concert promoter Another Planet Entertainment scored its biggest win yet at City Hall on Tuesday after the SF Oversight Board blocked an attempt to mark theater seats that the promoter wanted removed.
Nearly a year and a half after Another Planet Entertainment took control of the controversial Castro Theater, Another Planet (APE) met with community resistance from the very beginning of its plan to convert the old movie theater into a primary theater. I have fought. A more standard live entertainment venue.
The most intense front is opposition to APE’s plans to remove orchestral level seating and replace it with flat platforms and temporary seating that can be used for standing-only live shows. And to that end, conservationists wanted to mark the Castro Theater’s “fixed theater seating configured in a cinema style” to deter APE’s redevelopment plans.
But on Tuesday, the SF Supervisory Board voted 6-4 to exclude the theater’s fixed seating from the Castro Theater’s landmark status. APE’s Big Victory Comes Immediately After Castro Commercial Association ceased opposition to APE’s plans.
As expected, Sup. Katherine Stephanie had the deciding vote. Overseer Hilary Ronen was absent, but it would still have passed if she had voted with other progressives.
There was no public comment at Tuesday’s hearing, so the debate and vote were over in less than 23 minutes, instead of the usual three or four hours of debate at the Castro Theater.
“Clearly, both proponents and opponents of the APE project are treating this landmark construction as an opportunity to preemptively litigate the merits of the APE project,” Castro district superintendent Raphael Mandelman said before the vote. Stated. “I’m reluctant to do that, and if the purpose is to kill the APE project, then of course I’m reluctant to do it.”
The supervisory authority did pass the Castro Theater landmark, but did not approve of fixing the seating language as part of the landmark.
One of the dissenters, director Aaron Peskin, quoted Harvey Milk himself from the above letter that originally inspired the landmarking of the Castro Theater exterior in 1977. “Too often, we remove landmarks long before we realize they’re landmarks,” Milk said at the time. “Once it’s gone, it’s never coming back.”
Peskin continued with his words. “Unless genuine efforts are made to develop strong and legally enforceable conditions for the use of APEs under real community scrutiny, this rift will be long-lasting and unhealed. ” he said. “I don’t think you should rely on one-sided investment inertia to make this decision.”
I am for progress and conservation.
As a city planner and son of an architect who understands the historical significance of the Castro Theater, I know this plan will make San Francisco better.https://t.co/VskzrJyN68
— Ahsha Safai Anzeki (@Ahsha_Safai) June 6, 2023
Supervisor Asha Safay had already expressed her support for APE’s renovation plan. “We are not talking about tearing down that building and replacing the floor,” Safi said before the vote. “We allow it to be a versatile and adaptable space.”
However, another dissenting supervisor, Dean Preston, said, “If Another Planet Entertainment is restricted by this aspect of the landmark, I am not convinced that the Castro Theater cannot be used to its full potential. ‘ said. Preston added, “They could find a way to better preserve the theater, or they could create a space for others to come in if they didn’t want to. Many community groups suggest“
But director Myrna Melgar said the boards are still a landmark inside the theater. “We’re preserving the interior, and that’s what this legislation is about. At the time of the interior landmark, we’re just not including fixed seating,” she said.
And Mandelman added, “Removal of the 20-year-old seat is a reasonable option if the APE project fails, and at some point in the future another operator or purchaser will operate this. If it decides that it is, it can be completely revoked,” he added. As a non-profit film conservation organization, we are able to set up seats. “
Well, the non-profit film conservation group he refers to is outraged by this decision. “The Castro Theater is a beloved landmark and an important community asset and should be treated as such.” Castro Theater Conservancy Executive Director Peter Pastreich said in a statement after the vote: “Today’s vote shows the regulator’s willingness to allow San Francisco’s last movie theater to be desecrated so that for-profit entities can make more money, and the wider cultural significance of the Castro Theater. It shows a lack of understanding and we deeply regret it.”
The media will report that APE has won the battle for the future of Castro Theater, but there are still many battles to be fought. In fact, just two days from now, he Thursday joint meeting The SF Planning Commission and the SF Historic Preservation Commission are considering whether APE can proceed with plans to add a bar on the second floor and install tiered seating, among other proposed interior changes. will be determined.
Related: Outrage explodes as Castro Theater hosts premiere meeting with Another Planet Entertainment [SFist]
Image via Castro Theater
