CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
California News
Multimedia News
Graffiti showdown set at ‘Toxic Tire Beach’
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: SAN FRANCISCO
)
Neighbors of Warm Water Cove want to clean up the graffiti that has marred the park for decades.
SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - A small park in southeastern San Francisco has become the site of a turf war between graffiti artists who consider the space their blank canvas and community members who plan to stage a coup with paintbrushes and trash bags this weekend.
More than 100 volunteers are expected to join city officials at Warm Water Cove on Saturday to clean and paint the park and rally for neighborhood leaders to become stewards of the desolate space where 24th Street hits the Bay.
Graffiti artists and members of the underground community who have been throwing unannounced concerts and parties there without proper permits are also expected to show up in force.
Warm Water Cove — also known as Toxic Tire Beach — is two acres of dry, yellow grass with one concrete bench, ailing trees and heaps of debris. Every inch — from the trees to the sidewalks and the bench — is covered in graffiti, as if the park has been used as a training ground for taggers and graffiti artists for decades.
In some ways, it has. The Port of San Francisco, which owns the park, has only one gardener who takes care of six parks and cannot keep up with the graffiti and other vandalism at Warm Water Cove. Graffiti artists and musicians took the lack of cleanup as a sign that The City was turning a blind eye and claimed the park as their own.
“This is one of the few areas in The City where there is free public art that still goes on in an unregulated and unrestricted way,” said singer and guitar player Josh Babcock, whose band, the Society of Rockets, has played an annual show at the park since 2002 — without a permit.
But with the new Third Street light rail operating a few blocks from the park and more residential developments popping up nearby, the park is an area demanding more attention, said Mohammed Nuru, deputy director of The City’s Department of Public Works, which is one of the agencies sponsoring Saturday’s cleanup.
“The community is trying very hard to make the park as usable as it can,” he said.
Corinne Woods, who walks her dog at the park and works part time for the San Francisco Neighborhood Parks Council, said people are nervous to visit Warm Water Cove because graffiti artists have dominated it for years.
“It just doesn’t seem fair that a small group of people can intimidate the rest of the community,” Woods said. “I love art in the parks, but it has to go through the appropriate process.”
Area merchants have also become fed up with the vandalism, Nuru said, adding that the graffiti has begun to spill out onto neighboring businesses, which are required by law to remove the graffiti within 30 days.
Graffiti artists say a one-day cleanup will only make the situation worse.
One graffiti artist who did not want to give his name said there would likely be a backlash of tagging — considered lower-quality art than graffiti — at the park after the Saturday pickup.
Voice your opinion at examiNation SF: How do you feel about graffiti in public parks?
Comments from Examiner Readers
9:04 AM MST on Tue., Apr. 1, 2008 re: "Plan floated for S.F. Warm Water Cove cleanup"
Report as inappropriate
10:59 AM MST on Tue., Aug. 28, 2007
re: "Warm Water Cove may not be graffitti-free long"
Report as inappropriate
11:37 PM MST on Tue., Aug. 7, 2007
re: "Warm Water Cove may not be graffitti-free long"
Report as inappropriate
11:36 PM MST on Tue., Aug. 7, 2007
re: "Warm Water Cove may not be graffitti-free long"
Report as inappropriate
10:34 PM MST on Tue., Aug. 7, 2007
re: "Warm Water Cove may not be graffitti-free long"
Report as inappropriate
9:26 PM MST on Tue., Aug. 7, 2007
re: "Warm Water Cove may not be graffitti-free long"
Report as inappropriate
4:46 PM MST on Tue., Aug. 7, 2007
re: "Warm Water Cove may not be graffitti-free long"
Report as inappropriate
12:14 PM MST on Tue., Aug. 7, 2007
re: "Warm Water Cove may not be graffitti-free long"
Report as inappropriate
6:58 AM MST on Tue., Aug. 7, 2007
re: "Warm Water Cove may not be graffitti-free long"
Report as inappropriate
11:17 AM MST on Mon., Aug. 6, 2007
re: "Graffiti showdown set at ‘Toxic Tire Beach’"
Report as inappropriate
9:46 AM MST on Mon., Aug. 6, 2007
re: "Graffiti showdown set at ‘Toxic Tire Beach’"
Report as inappropriate
10:09 AM MST on Sun., Aug. 5, 2007
re: "Graffiti showdown set at ‘Toxic Tire Beach’"
Report as inappropriate
4:25 PM MST on Fri., Aug. 3, 2007
re: "Graffiti showdown set at ‘Toxic Tire Beach’"
Report as inappropriate
4:15 PM MST on Fri., Aug. 3, 2007
re: "Graffiti showdown set at ‘Toxic Tire Beach’"
Report as inappropriate
3:31 PM MST on Fri., Aug. 3, 2007
re: "Graffiti showdown set at ‘Toxic Tire Beach’"
Report as inappropriate
3:11 PM MST on Fri., Aug. 3, 2007
re: "Graffiti showdown set at ‘Toxic Tire Beach’"
Report as inappropriate
2:32 PM MST on Fri., Aug. 3, 2007
re: "Graffiti showdown set at ‘Toxic Tire Beach’"
Report as inappropriate
12:44 PM MST on Fri., Aug. 3, 2007
re: "Graffiti showdown set at ‘Toxic Tire Beach’"
Report as inappropriate
11:10 AM MST on Fri., Aug. 3, 2007
re: "Graffiti showdown set at ‘Toxic Tire Beach’"
Report as inappropriate
11:06 AM MST on Fri., Aug. 3, 2007
re: "Graffiti showdown set at ‘Toxic Tire Beach’"
Report as inappropriate
8:57 AM MST on Fri., Aug. 3, 2007
re: "Graffiti showdown set at ‘Toxic Tire Beach’"
Report as inappropriate
berkeley said:
Warm Water Cove is one of the few places I can think of where yuppy people really can't be bothered by graffiti being there. I would assume you'd rather have it concentrated in areas far away from you. Warm Water Cove was a haven for delinquents. Now we can't even have shows there. I think the spot should really be left alone. If you take places like this away from us, we won't disappear, we're just going to come pouring into places you already thought were safe and change that.
2 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Golden Rule said:
I think that the point that is being made in the last few posts and my original post is that there are many artists who have respect for private property and other people's art. This relates to the steel fance in the park or the big walls at Psycho City. Unfortunately, the graffiti community cannot manage itself and the "art" ends up spilling over onto the picnic tables, paths, posts etc...in the case of the park or ends up on store fronts, etched windows etc... around Psycho City. Maybe the "artists" need to "school" the taggers and instill a code of conduct that promotes the art, yet demands respect. In reference to painting graffiti to the home of the parents of any of these "artists", violence was not the intended message about this act, rather it was to demonstrate how someone would be upset with someone messing with their property. I would expect that just as much as you would not want me to tag your house, I do not want you to tag mine. "Golden Rule"...get it???
151 agree | 116 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
This is a shame. Had anyone else even noticed that park before? In an atmosphere of homeless people camping around, rancid waste, needles on the ground, and weeds everywhere the graffiti artists I ran into there were nice guys, never gave me any problems if I got off my bike and watched for a bit, and added the closest thing to a sign of civilization to an otherwise utterly neglected "park". These weren't the dopes who marker buses and put post office stickers on stop signs - they were painting beautifully on a wall that was virtually impossible to see unless you went to look at it. Also, who volunteers to be the first person to let an off-leash dog anywhere near glassy banks of that fetid swamp?
188 agree | 116 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Counterspinner said:
"Seven": you're totally right about acid-etching and glass-scratching graffiti. That stuff is just plain destructive, and I don't like it either. But that is NOT what we are talking about here. We're talking about a fence made of solid steel plate, in an abandoned park way off in the corner of the city, far, far away from any storefronts. Just a few years ago, the steel was exposed to the elements, and beginning to rust. Graffiti writers began to paint on it, and now it's coated with many layers of paint. Not only has the graffiti not damaged the fence in any way, it has actually helped protect it from the elements!
156 agree | 114 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Seven said:
To those who think graffiti is benign -- practically every business on my street has graffiti ETCHED into their storefront windows with some kind of acid. This is expensive to fix (replace the entire window), unsightly to look at, and can even result in businesses leaving.
166 agree | 138 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Counterspinner said:
"Golden Rule", you're making several false assumptions here. First off, graffiti writers ("taggers" as you call them) are not generally violent people. They're just painters who have chosen to paint in places where they're not allowed. Secondly, this is not anybody's mother's house they're painting on here. It's a steel fence adjacent to a patch of weedy grass, surrounded by a cove full of sulfurous sludge and rotten tires. I know the story of Psycho City on Market Street, but there's no reason that history has to repeat itself. If the city makes a genuine effort to reach out, and the graffiti community reciprocates, I believe some accord can be reached. It only takes the will, and the good faith on both sides, for that to happen. I'll make you a deal: I won't prejudge city officials, if you don't prejudge these artists, whom you clearly have never met. Can you handle that?
176 agree | 151 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The city often does not allow anything that it considers "graffiti" -- even on property you own -- so it does no good to tell graff artists to paint their own homes or businesses. The city has forced businesses who choose to allow graffiti pieces on their walls to paint over said pieces because *other* people consider it blight; the Market/Van Ness "Psycho City" gallery is a good example of this. While not all graffiti is fine art (e.g., tagging), walls that are flat expanses of white or a single color are hardly a superior alternative. One would consider that sort of wall to be painted a "uniform" color, meaning homegeneous or conforming to a singular code. Thus the anti-graffiti people in this debate seem to prefer homogeneity to diversity. And to call all graff artists "vandals" shows a latent bias against anyone who doesn't share the same class or cultural status. Don't you understand that it is EXACTLY that property-based snobbery which causes graffiti in the first place?
169 agree | 184 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Golden Rule said:
I know that if I ever tagged the home of some tagger or his/her mother's home, I would get my face pounded in. Taggers cannot have it both ways. There are many places in this colorful city where property owners have allowed graffiti art. This park is not one of them. I would love to see the giant gray wall painted with an amazing graffiti mural. Unfortunately, like dogs to a fire hydrant, not only do the taggers not respect other people's property, they cannot even respect each others "art". The Market Street public graffiti walls ended in disaster because the taggers could not contain themselves to these walls and subsequently tagged everything around and outside the area. How about if the taggers were allowed to paint a mural or individual murals like 6th and Howard? Let them take care of it, but as soon as it is "vandalized" with other tags or scribbles that disrespect the integrity of the "art", clean it up or just paint it gray. Y'all made yer bed...lie in it!
172 agree | 139 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Counterspinner said:
I'd like to point out some biased language here: according to this article, those who favored the paintout are "community members", while the only ones against it are "graffiti artists". This is false and misleading. The many people who opposed this paintout are members of the community too, and we are not graffiti artists-- we're tax-paying professionals who spend more time in that park than anyone. And there are a lot of us. Speaking of numbers: according to other sources, there were not "more than 100 volunteers" at this event. The actual number was more like 70-80 people. (Only 49 people had RSVP'ed to the event as of the day before it occurred.)
186 agree | 122 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Suburban Yuppy Go Home said:
Earth you sound bitter. Should have had the foresight that I did and bought your house 8 years ago too. Sorry dude, I'm born and raised in California and lived in San Francisco and Oakland for over 14 years. I don't make a ton of cash either. Guess I was just more money savvy than yourself.
187 agree | 122 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Earth to "Suburban Yuppy Go Home" said:
I'm 53 and dont make a ton of cash. I was born and raised in San Francisco's Richmond District. First off I'm not sure there is anyone now which is a "Yuppy" except you since you own property. I am sure that your attitude of "acceptance" is just the thing that makes this City so open and accepting....NOT. I suggest that you go back to the mid-west town that you left left a few years ago. How's about leaving the City to the the people that grew up here since its apparent that you as an outsider are creating the housing demand. Why not go to the Suburbs with the rest of the Tunnel and Bridges gangs.
116 agree | 105 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Suburban Yuppy Go Home said:
As much as you yuppy jerks have increased my property values, you guys are hell bent on stamping out the unique character of the city that drew me here in the first place. No amount of equity is worth loosing your soul. Take your chain stores and fascistic mentality and LEAVE!
164 agree | 137 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Cleaning up the park is an excellent idea. But painting a colorful mural grey is not "cleaning up" anything. It's an act of vandalism. Note how, in this article, the emphasis is on the lack of proper permits, not the quality of the art or music made in the park. Also note the lack of any mention of the positive changes have occurred as a direct result of the art and music that happens in the park. The city neglected it. The artists and musicians moved in, and made it a much safer place. Now this misguided group wants to "reclaim" control, like an absentee father suddenly asserting his parental rights. I'm sure once this publicity stunt is over, they'll go right back to their old ways. Instead of attacking the artists, this group should focus their efforts on something we can all agree on: pulling up weeds, tidying up the trash, and getting rid of the toxic sludge that gives this park its unfortunate nickname.
189 agree | 134 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Gretchen said:
As someone who has "adopted" my street corner and paints over grafitti/tagging every week or so, I can tell you a couple truths. One: the quicker you are to cover grafitti/tagging the better off you are; otherwise it multiplies. With quick coverups, my neighborhood has improved. Two: It never ends. Even when you paint over grafitti/tagging immediately, it only slows it down - in a couple weeks it's back. So, a one-weekend-clean-up is a major first step, but you will need to recruit neighborhood residents to adopt the park area and be willing to maintain its newly refurbished condition. One good note - the city provides the paint in the exact color you need! Mailbox blue, trash can green, mailbox green, etc. Neighbors donate only their time and energy because the city funds the materials. Ask the "Adopt-a-Street" folks to be on hand with adoption forms and supplies to ensure the area is maintained.
208 agree | 141 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
This park is disguesting. the poluted water gives the whole place a horrid stench. anyone who would want to bring their kids there should have their head examined. graffiti artists picked the most decrepid, disguesting, hole in the wall peice of doo doo park to do their work and some yuppies moving into new apartments 5 blocks away are trying to take it away. GOOD LUCK
194 agree | 120 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
"They're artists until they work their magic on your property. Then, they're vandals." *** Nope, they're just vandals.
154 agree | 170 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
This happened years ago in downtown san francisco on market street..there was huge place for everyone to do graffiti and when they painted over all of it and closed it down it went rapid in the streets....it wont change anything it will only encourage less skilled graffit everywhere...
193 agree | 151 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Realist said:
Graffiti is an attempt to intimidate. It says, "I do not respect you, your home, your property, or your city -- and therefore I am in charge." If you think it isn't, you do not understand the "art form." Ask any tagger.
193 agree | 181 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Great idea, have "artists" and taggers do their parents or relatives homes and businesses. I am sure they wouldn't have a problem with it eh?
208 agree | 143 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Ok somebody please help me out on this...the other newspaper says "It's the graffiti that has led to a battle in the park on the far edge of the Dogpatch neighborhood. The city plans to provide volunteers with buckets and paintbrushes Saturday to whitewash the walls as part of a broader attempt to make the park a cleaner place where someone might want to bring a family. The graffitists' defenders say the cleanup is another attempt to gentrify San Francisco and erase its unique character." I grew up in the city and do not get it, why do graffiti defenders equate painting over tags and "art" which by the way is on someone else property going to gentrify the City. Why dont the artists and taggers just do their families houses instead? I live in SOMA and as far as i know we never gave permission to tag our neighborhood. Here is an idea, to really make a statement why not have taggers help pick up trash? Or better yet not drop it on the ground. Nawww that would gentrify the hood.
212 agree | 154 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
They're artists until they work their magic on your property. Then, they're vandals.
206 agree | 139 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree