More Than One Battle After Another: Building a Movement for Preservation

By Woody LaBounty

In 1980, writer and philosopher Michel de Certeau compared two cities:

Unlike Rome, New York has never learned the art of growing old by playing on all its pasts. Its present invents itself, from hour to hour, in the act of throwing away its previous accomplishments and challenging the future.”

—Michel de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life, trans. Steven F. Rendall (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988)

San Francisco is not Rome or New York City, and it is no longer 1980, but the observation resonates here and now.

We live and work in one of the world’s most unique and beautiful places, but San Francisco and California share a preoccupation, almost a founding principle, that change and the new are both inevitable and desirable. The solution to any problem, even when the problem is difficult to define, is to scrap the past, dismiss the last lesson learned, and forge ahead with a big, transformative vision. 

Some of our city’s great achievements and much of our state’s cultural and economic successes can be credited to this approach, but also, some of our worst moments.

In architectural and cultural preservation, 2025 was not a good year, and our shared tendency to devalue the past in favor of the new was at the heart of much of the decision-making. 

Public open space downtown and public art—the Vaillancourt Fountain—were slated to be removed for new private interests and enterprises. San Francisco delisted a city landmark—447 Battery Street—to make way for a tower project and a replacement fire station. This was the first time a city landmark was intentionally approved for demolition in San Francisco’s history.

An upzoning plan for a large part of the city was approved in December, and while we were able to get some accommodations for preservation, tens of thousands of historic properties and some of our most iconic neighborhood streetscapes—Haight Street, Clement Street, Broadway—are now far more vulnerable to being lost. 

Through regional mandates and new laws, state policymakers have removed much of any local control or decision-making with housing projects. We aren’t getting much new housing (much less affordable housing), but we are increasing the risk of losing beautiful and historic places. In the last month, new building projects were announced to replace the historic first “Marina style” Safeway store beside Fort Mason and the Empire Theater building on the first block of West Portal Avenue.

San Francisco Heritage has never objected to more housing, new construction, or increasing building heights. Our focus and efforts are centered on sensible and clear processes to ensure we do not lose special places as the city grows and changes.

One example of how new statewide “streamlining” laws subvert our shared desire for retaining San Francisco’s beauty and historic character can be shown with a Victorian cottage at 2083 Ellis Street in the Western Addition.

In 2021, the owner proposed to add housing to the large lot (137.5 feet long). The plan was to renovate the 1889 cottage and add a structure with eight new units behind. Neighbors were not happy with the height of the proposed new construction, but, working together, there seemed to be a compromise to add units and retain a 19th century house.

In June 2024, state law SB-423 went into effect, creating a ministerial review path for code-compliant projects of 2-9 units, and the 2083 Ellis plan changed: the cottage would be eradicated, and new construction would run all the way to the sidewalk. To claim the State Density Bonus, an additional unit was squeezed in for a qualified affordable to moderate-income household.

The change gave the city one extra unit, but would demolish an 1880s house, representative architecture which makes the city feel historic and beautiful. If asked, most San Franciscans wouldn’t take the trade.

But under new state laws and without any formal historic designation of the property, there is nothing the Planning Department, neighbors, supervisors, or mayor can do to stop or modify such projects. The city had to approve and did so on August 25, 2025.

With the entitlements, the lot is now much more valuable, and as of January 2026, the property is for sale for $3.5 million. Ironically, in the end, we may not get any new housing units, but the future of the deteriorating cottage—left empty and deteriorating for five years now—is certainly determined. It is no longer a residence, but a financial instrument.

So, this is where we are. Much of our ability to review, negotiate, and find common ground on housing projects have been taken away, while at the same time the recent upzoning has increased the speculative-investment value of thousands of potentially historic properties. Over the past year, city leadership has made clear that it is prioritizing economic possibilities and investment over artistic and cultural retention, especially downtown.

How do we who love San Francisco’s architectural and cultural heritage move forward in 2026?

Playing on All Pasts

To return to the de Certeau quote, our key mission at San Francisco Heritage has always been managing change, being the advocate for a future that plays on all of San Francisco’s pasts and doesn’t throw away its accomplishments. 

The good news is that there are some well-resourced people and organizations who feel the same way, who appreciate the value and opportunities of historic preservation. Examples include the Power Station and Pier 70 projects in the Central Basin, the restoration of the former San Francisco Art Institute campus on Chestnut Street (see Heritage News, July-September 2025), and now an effort to bring back Fillmore Street’s Clay Theater as a center for film appreciation.

But we can’t just rely on those with deep pockets to turn the tide or tackle small projects like 2083 Ellis Street.

San Francisco Heritage is the advocate for a future that plays on all of San Francisco’s pasts and doesn’t throw away its accomplishments.

When San Francisco Heritage was founded in 1971, many small movements had coalesced for appreciating the city’s beauty, for nurturing and celebrating San Francisco’s cultural treasures. City leadership and the business community still prioritized and touted transformative projects and investments, but knew that the majority of San Franciscans strongly believed the city’s unique character needed to be supported and preserved.

We need to return to building a broad and deep community to advocate for our city. San Francisco Heritage will not stop showing up for special places, but we need to move beyond fighting single battle after single battle. We need a larger movement, one working from optimism, inclusiveness, and a love for San Francisco.

With that in mind, we have launched a new communications and membership initiative called Special City. It has a fun, youthful, and accessible vibe. It will be educational and celebratory in spirit, but its core purpose is to expand the preservation community through a love for San Francisco.

Join us there at www.sfheritage.org/join. Only by growing our community will we be able to bring business and our elected leaders back around, to strengthen preservation in law, to celebrate the best of our city, and to build a future which plays on all of our pasts.