I'll miss the defenestration building

09.14.09 - 1:05 pm | Tim Redmond |

(9)

By Tim Redmond

I'm not about to start a campaign here; I know the place is falling apart and a hazard to everyone and ought to be turned into affordable housing, so there's no rational reason to protest the Redevelopment Agency's plan to bulldoze the old Hugo Hotel.

But I have to say: I'm going to miss the place.

It just sat there for so long, a weird piece of street art, an abandoned building with furniture flowing out of the windows and hanging on the walls defying gravity and progress. Every time I'd pass by, I'd say: God, I love this fucking city.

It was just art for art's sake, no money in it, no sign describing the vision of the artist, no discussion of what it means or meant ... just old stuff miraculously bolted to the old crumbling walls of an an old crumbling building. I always wondered what would fall down first and what the green couch would look like after it hit the sidewalk.

It was never meant to be permanent. And now it will be gone. That's appropriate, in a sad kind of way.

But every time something truly strange goes away, San Francisco loses a bit of itself. I hope we don't forget this one; maybe Redevelopment can find the cash to hire a photographer to document the place, and put great big color pictures of it up in the lobby of the new, clean, sterile project that takes its place, just to remind us that things were different here, once.

Comments

Jessica

Cities and buildings forever change. Its appalling that a perfectly good structure was allowed to fall apart, on the upside it created a memorable corner in SF. I second the nomination for photo documentation of the temporary Defenestration installation so character and history can be remembered. Hopefully, whatever new building goes up in its place, is well designed and incorporates a NEW permanent or ever changing temporary art installation. If the designers come up with a creative way to reference the historic installation, fabulous, but to remake Defenestration on the new building would equate this corner to Disneyland's Main St.

Posted by Jessica on Sep. 24, 2009 @ 10:53 am

Lucretia Snapples

I love this column for so many reasons. Tim's lionization of a derelict dump of a building which smelled like piss and harbored all manner of human filth - a metaphor for what San Francisco has turned into: "an abandoned building with furniture flowing out of the windows and hanging on the walls defying gravity and progress." LOL - I wonder if he realizes the irony in that statement.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Sep. 14, 2009 @ 7:02 pm

Paul Hogarth

Tim, I have never disagreed with you on anything more strongly.

The Hugo Hotel being vacant for 20 years was an utter disgrace, allowed to decay by greedy landlords who wouldn't give a rats ass that people were out living on the street. When I first came to the neighborhood in 2000, it was the height of the dot-com boom -- and SRO rooms like that were renting for $800-$1000 per month. At one point, we had six burned out Hotels on 6th Street because of a rash of Hotel fires -- and yet, that building just stood there vacant.

My good friend Jeoflin Roh, a long-time SRO tenant activist who died last year, was part of the "defenestration" art project that created this. He would always tell me that it was NEVER meant to be permanent, and to see it stay for years and years -- when people couldn't afford a place to live -- always made his blood boil.

I love art, but not when it prevents affordable housing from being built. This is one of the most exciting things to happen on 6th Street in years, and there is ABSOLUTELY NO ONE in that neighborhood who would defend keeping it the way it is.

Posted by Paul Hogarth on Sep. 14, 2009 @ 9:04 pm

Mr Hogarth, your vitriol is

Mr Hogarth, your vitriol is gravely misplaced. The art in question in no way "prevents affordable housing from being built." That building was vacant for ten years before the art project was born, and it remained vacant until the City used Eminent Domain to remove it from the owner. The art project had nothing to do with it, has had no bearing on any of the timing.

In fact, we had hoped the huge amount of effort we poured into it would help improve the neighborhood - and I for one firmly believe that it *has*. From day one, it brough more positive interest and economic activity into the area than anything before in living memory. *Many* other local artists were inspired and contributed to the piece directly or to pieces associated with it. These days, theres even a big new art gallery across the street, in what was vacant space. The man who ran the only viable business in the area at that time was a big fan of the project, and consistently testified that the neighborhood was improved -right up until his business was pushed out by a new building project, diagonally across the street from the Hugo. A group of artists is currently expertly renovating another building one half block away, and have told me Defenestration was a big factor in their decision to come and invest in the neighborhood.

Quite aside from the art, theres one other strage twist of history to ponder: the fact that the Hugo stood empty for so long, which is the sole reason the City could pursue Eminent Domain proceedings, is thus the main reason its going to become the most protected low-income housing in the neighborhood. If the property had been developed during the dot com boom, it would have wound up as just more redicu-expensive (and maybe now half-vacant) condos, like the rest of the neighborhood - and that wouldn't have gotten anyone off the street.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 17, 2010 @ 2:37 pm

Bob

Everytime I pass a pile of human waste on the sidewalk, I say God, I love this fucking city!

Posted by Bob on Sep. 15, 2009 @ 10:25 am

Josh

I do wish that the property owners had gotten it together and repaired the building - which is beautiful in and of itself. It's a real shame it was allowed to get to the point where the city has to seize it and tear it down.

Posted by Josh on Sep. 15, 2009 @ 11:06 am

tim redmond

Paul, I think you miss my point: The building HAS to be torn down, and I'm NOT campaigning for it to remain in place. Of course it was never meant to be permanent. I just think we ought to remember it, as cool street art, and not just let it pass away unremarked.

Posted by tim redmond on Sep. 15, 2009 @ 11:59 am

tim redmond

Oh and Lucretia -- Defying gravity and progress are both interesting challenges, and sometimes worthy ones.

Posted by tim redmond on Sep. 15, 2009 @ 12:05 pm

Voitek S

I suggest we hire the artist to recreate a part of Defenstration somewhere in the new building, and pictures of course are great too. As a San Franciscan I'd like to see more affordable housing, built sustain-ably and incorporating local public art.

Posted by Voitek S on Sep. 21, 2009 @ 4:34 pm