Garfield Pool.

Changes are coming to Garfield Park and Pool and at a public meeting on Thursday neighbors clashed over a proposed shortening of the existing 100-foot pool, with many arguing it would further crowd an already popular pool.

Architects proposed a wall that would effectively shorten the pool to 75 feet and allow for a smaller, shallower recreation swim zone. The pool would be the same, but separated into a lap area and a children and senior swim area.

Those opposed advised against any change to a pool that is a “lifeline” for seniors and other pool goers.

“There are a lot of people in poor health who rely on this pool,” said one local resident. He argued that city officials should consider installing a second pool instead to keep the swimming lanes their current length. “There will simply be less room,” if the changes are made, he said.

Early in the meeting, which followed one in November 2015 which saw other concerns, a woman shot up out of her seat and interrupted a speaker to take a preliminary tally. Holding a clipboard and pen, she asked the crowd to sign their name if they were against the shortening of the pool.

“I’d like to collect anyone’s info who is opposed to shortening the pool,” she said.

“Excuse me? Could you let her finish?” said another woman, before the conversation moved on.

Early on, Bob Palacio, a superintendent of neighborhood services at the Recreation and Parks Department, described the meeting as a relative calm in a national context of confirmation hearings and inauguration protests.

“There’s lot of crazy stuff going on in the country and in the world,” he said of the  the 40 odd people crammed into the recreation room at Garfield Park at 26th and Harrison streets to watch a presentation on the project plans. “This isn’t one of them.”

That was perhaps wishful thinking.  

The yells and interruptions that sometimes dominate local meetings were absent, but lap swimmers argued fervently that a 100-foot pool is a precious resource that should not be shortened. They were met with arguments by parents, many with babies and toddlers in their laps, that a kid’s play area should be created.

“I really think it’s important that the features are designed for kids of all ages,” the man, whose first name was Steven, said, emphasizing the “recreation and water safety” aspect of a separate pool area.

The project for a revamped pool would expand the clubhouse by building an extension to the building currently on-site and create a courtyard between the new building and the pool building. The courtyard would have tables, a splash zone, and planters, with as-yet undefined art opportunities.

“This is one of the places where the cultural heritage of the Mission can be expressed,” said Alyosha Verzhbinsky, a principal at the architecture firm Tef Design, responsible for the design of the project.

The pool locker rooms would also be refurbished with new toilets and showers and the recreation room at the clubhouse expanded to twice its size. Publicly-accessible restrooms would be added, separate from the pool and open to all park-goers.

But it was the pool itself that drew the most controversy. Many said they themselves learned how to swim in the current pool and did not understand why children need a separate space.

Toks Ajike, the project manager with the Recreation and Parks Department, said that after improvements at Hamilton Pool in the Western Addition, the pool saw increased usage of 40 percent. Adding a recreation area for children and seniors, he said, would allow for more city-provided classes and programs that would mean more total pool-time.

Sean McGrew, a fourth generation San Franciscan who lives in the Sunset, said the trade-off in pool length was worth it for children to have a dedicated play area. In an attempt to back the project, he said the shorter pool would only mean more laps to be swum.

“I think I’d rather have the access than 20 fewer laps,” he said. “This community has a lot of kids in it.”

Others had different concerns. One man asked whether a water slide was still being considered for the pool — it’s too “cost-prohibitive,” city staff said. Another wondered whether the increased activity might bring more people who stay at the park into the night and said a curfew should be enforced.

“It’s a quality of life issue,” she said.

The pool project is a result of Proposition B, a 2012 bond passed by San Francisco voters that allocated $195 million to the Recreation and Parks Department for various spending — including upgrades to the nine pools throughout the city.

Balboa Pool is undergoing improvement that will end in 2017. Garfield Pool will follow, with groundbreaking planned for June 2018 to and completion in September 2019. It will be followed by improvements to Rossi Pool in the Richmond.

The total cost of the project is estimated at $16.3 million — some $5 million more than initially planned under the bond.

Though little was resolved at the meeting, the second of three planned meetings, city officials pledged to take comments into consideration and come back with a more fleshed-out, final proposal before beginning the permitting process.

“Nothing’s been decided,” said James Wheeler, a recreation manager with the Recreation and Parks Department. “Nothing’s been decided.”

Follow Us

Join the Conversation


Please keep your comments short and civil. Do not leave multiple comments under multiple names on one article. We will zap comments that fail to adhere to these short and very easy-to-follow rules.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. I am BOTH a lap swimmer and am planning to be future parent. I support the shorter pool. It is still a standard length for laps and for competition (we would love a youth swim team in the neighborhood). We could also have great senior aquatics and youth aquatics programs run at the same time.

    I imagine longer lap swim periods would greatly reduce crowding. In my mind the proposal is a no brainer and a win-win for the community.

  2. I support the wall. Currently you cannot have two groups using the pool simultaneously. With a divider you can have seniors, the disabled, learners and children and lap swimmers use the pool at the same time. With the current set up, it is either one group or another.

    So what about a movable wall? The cost is prohibitive, but more importantly it doesn’t fix the problem with the pool now, which is only one group can use the pool at a time. The lap users will still want the full length, so the wall will be moved to give the full length meaning that everyone else (kids, seniors and disabled) cannot use the pool while lap swimmers are, just as it is now.

    It is probably also worth mentioning the current schedule:

    Lap swim – 32.5 hours per week
    Seniors – 5 hours per week
    Exercise* – 3 hours per week
    Recreation (kids) – 4 hours per week
    SFUSD swim teams – 0 hours per week

    I feel like a divided pool, one with a wall, allows for more equitable use of the pool by all members of the community. I realize 75 instead of 100ft is less desirable when swimming laps but it seems that excluding all other users is the worse choice.

    Lastly I’d like to see some dedicated hours for the local school swim teams and preferably a couple diving boards for them as well.

    *Exercise is typically for either disabled or seniors or both

  3. San Francisco has the LOWEST % children in ANY US Metro. This is a fact.
    We are significantly less than NYC. This is a matter of shame.
    The City should be making an effort to making the pool friendly to ALL. The residents need to be helping the City.
    Its shocking to see the level of Entitlement and complete arrogance of a few folks without children who refuse to share the facility with other demographics. This is a PUBLIC pool, and every should not only be allowed to use is, but actively welcomed. Lap swimming will continue with a more standard length.
    The current pool is about 40″ deep and CAN NOT be used by kids, let alone Kids with physical disabilities.
    Its shocking that this is even a discussion and its a gross abuse of democratic process.
    As more programming is available, the times for lap swimming will likely increase. This is a HUGE benefit. I no longer have a narrow window of time.
    Kudos the Team for being patient with such rude entitled neighbors. I was ashamed of the way my neighbors behaved last week, especially the lady who interrupted the City official and would not stop speaking.

  4. competitive and practice lengths are traditionally 25 yards, 25 meters, and 50 meters.
    and if the division resulted in more lap hours then it would be a net plus.
    this shouldn’t be a big deal.
    the bigger deal would be using some of that money to expand hours.

  5. Why is everyone acting like $16.3 million to build a wall is normal? You could build a whole new building with a pool for less.

    1. I was at the meeting and they are using the money to build a new club house, as is BADLY needed. Its not just a “wall”, which I believe is actually called a bulk head.
      Its not about the swimmers, as vocal and entitled a group as they may be. They are also spending $$ on the landscape and adding batrhooms for the park.
      The drawings shown at the meeting were great and explained all that is happening with the money. Overall this is a great plus for the area and I wish this would be built SOON!
      Think before you type.

  6. Well, maybe “neutral” isn’t the word. But I’m able to put myself in the shoes of those who would benefit from a feature I probably wouldn’t use, but appreciate others having.

  7. Maybe if people saw a pool with the proposed setup, like the Embarcadero Y, they would change their minds. It would actually free the lap pool for lap swimming 100%. Having to swim extra laps to make up for a shorter length is a trivial inconvenience, at worst. I don’t have kids and I swim laps, so I think I have a neutral attitude. The people opposing this are very selfish and shortsighted. They don’t see how having a pool for the little ones/physically disabled frees up the lap pool for lap swimming. The unwillingness of people to look beyond themselves and share and be part of a larger community is really disheartening.

  8. Today, Garfield pool has a minimum height requirement of 4 feet for children. Kids under 4 feet tall cannot swim without a parent, and they cannot take Youth swimming lessons.

    Because of this restriction, my family rarely uses Garfield pool, even though we live nearby.

    If my kids (who will both be under 4′ for a while) could swim and take lessons at Garfield pool, we would be there all the time.

    That is one reason why families are pushing for a separate children/senior swim area at Garfield pool.