We Don’t Need Nostalgia to Save Fisherman’s Wharf. It’s Time For a New Chapter 

Fisherman’s Wharf is a working waterfront and one of San Francisco’s oldest neighborhoods. Since they were first built on filled tidelands between 1853 and 1924, the wharf’s piers have handled crabs, seafood, Central Valley produce, Italian millstones, South American chocolate, striking longshoremen, Native American protestors, hulking warships, and millions of ferry passengers. 

Tourism evolved organically from the hustle and bustle. Fishermen sold their daily catches first to each other, then to hungry and curious visitors. Eventually the neighborhood gained a reputation as a must-visit place to dine on fresh seafood caught on the quaint colorful boats in the beautiful harbor.

The scene even gave hitmaker Peggy Lee a little fever – and she wrote a song about it.

By the 1960s, the wharf’s identity as a tourist destination had crystallized, thanks to a combination of rising land values, disappearing sardine stocks from Northern California waters, and the rise of container shipping that decamped San Francisco’s commercial industry to the more spacious Port of Oakland. 

Around this time, the Port of San Francisco, which manages the waterfront land along all 7.5 miles of the city’s harbor, conceded that the wharf’s fishing industry needed to share space with the economics of tourism. The Port is required by law to be financially solvent.

Plenty of locals turned up their noses, and still do, but the wharf nevertheless became the most visible face of San Francisco, attracting more visitors than any city destination other than the Golden Gate Bridge.

When COVID hit, the empty wharf radiated the vibe of a dead shopping mall. Since then, leaders and pundits have fretted over its post-pandemic recovery as a bellwether for the city. A two-year move of the SkyStar ferris wheel from Golden Gate Park to the wharf is one attempt to bring visitors back. 

According to 2024 foot traffic data from the Fisherman’s Wharf Community Business District (FWCBD), however, just 75 percent of 2019’s visitors have returned. Iconic restaurants in the heart of the wharf like Alioto’s, Tarantino’s, and Castagnola’s have remained closed since 2020, so it’s possible that the overall picture is skewed by one specific part of the wharf, Pier 39, where sales data show a near return to 2019 levels. 

Pier 39 is managed by a private company, which makes upgrades and coordination among tenants easier, says FWCBD executive director Randall Scott. It also has the advantage of the sea lion colony: Never underestimate the power of big, furry, floppy animals to attract a crowd. 

Just a couple blocks away, however, the owners of those shuttered restaurants have a different explanation for the discrepancy. They say the essence of the wharf is in jeopardy, they blame city officials, and they’re lawyering up to prove their point. 

Breach or frivolity? 

Two months ago, the restaurant group Herringbone Tavern sued San Francisco for alleged “failure to maintain the character of Fisherman’s Wharf.”

In 2016 and 2018, Herringbone acquired Fisherman’s Grotto and Tarantino’s and took over the 66-year leases they signed with the Port of San Francisco in 1970. In those leases, SF agreed to “maintain the character of Fisherman’s Wharf” as a “major tourist attraction” for the length of the lease. 

Herringbone alleges that during its ownership there has been a “drastic increase” in homelessness and crime, particularly car break-ins and unlicensed vending, at the wharf and across the city. Meanwhile, the seawall underneath the wharf has deteriorated and become structurally unsound.

The lawsuit claims Herringbone was “uniquely affected” by these factors and has “sustained significant damages including […] lost profits due to being forced to close its doors for extended periods of time” and “reputational harm.”

Because the city “has taken no action to address these ongoing problems and hazards […] Fisherman’s Wharf has suffered a substantial decrease in its once thriving tourist activity,” the suit alleges, and the plaintiffs say this constitutes a breach of contract. Herringbone is asking for at least $2 million in damages.

“It’s a frivolous lawsuit at the end of the day,” says FWCBD’s Scott, who adds that the city “bent over backwards” to provide economic relief to businesses during the pandemic. The port forgave more than $13 million in rent to its tenants, including restaurants, in 2020. 

The city attorney’s office has called the lawsuit an attempt to evade more than $1 million in back rent owed to the port, which served the plaintiffs eviction notices last year. Many of Herringbone’s neighbors at the wharf have also called the litigation “absurd.” 

The plaintiffs did not respond to multiple requests for comment. 

The long-term trend 

The lawsuit claims the pandemic and the city’s response have damaged the character of Fisherman’s Wharf. But in the 1960s and 1970s, the wharf faced similar challenges: newspaper archives describe hustlers hawking fake brand-name watches and touristy wares, while burglars stole vehicles and boat electronics.

As a whole, crime in San Francisco is down long-term. Property crime dropped roughly 20 percent from 2018 through 2023. Tucked into those years was a pandemic spike that helped fuel the current political discourse, but numbers continue to drop this year, which SF officials are happy to take credit for. 

At the wharf, with tourists often oblivious to our local “never leave anything visible” rule, a sample of car break-in data follows the same pattern. The neighborhood — bounded by Van Ness Avenue, Mason Street, Bay Street, and the shoreline — experienced a sharp rise in break-ins during the pandemic. There were 114 car-break-ins in June 2019, then more than 250 in June 2021. This past June saw 17 reported break-ins, the same number as June 2020, when there was no one visiting at all. 

The lawsuit also cites an increase in homelessness between the city’s 2022 and 2024 point-in-time counts. Based on those counts, this is true. But city data also show that the 7 percent rise from 2022 to 2024 is mainly driven by people in shelters, not living on the streets. It’s difficult to say how much visible homelessness increased in Fisherman’s Wharf.

The biennial tallies only break out numbers by larger districts. In District 3, which spans the wharf, Chinatown, North Beach, and more, the official count went from 341 in 2019 to 391 in 2022. 

Back is not an option. Been there, done that. It’s not 1970, it’s 2024.

fisherman’s wharf community business district executive director randall scott

Standard caveat for these counts: They are based on a one-night snapshot and likely an undercount. But the lawsuit’s allegation that the city has “taken no action” to address the systemic, complex problem is refutable. Whether one supports them or not, actions include opening “shelter in place” hotels during the pandemic, plus more shelters of various types and housing the past couple years.  

The suit’s allusion to the aging seawall, meanwhile, comes from an SF Port study required for implementation of the $425 million bond voters approved in 2018 to start renovation of the critical infrastructure. That project has since grown into a $13.5 billion partnership with the US Army Corps of Engineers to rebuild SF’s waterfront. 

In an interview, SF Port executive director Elaine Forbes acknowledges that the pandemic had an impact on public perceptions of the wharf and that during the early “shelter in place” days, “unlicensed vending came in, and car break-ins.” 

“When folks came back, it was very hard for small businesses, especially restaurants, to get their footing because they didn’t have their customer base, but they had all the same costs,” Forbes recounts. 

But she also gives another reason that many businesses are struggling. Their dated character is no longer doing it for modern consumers. 

Some of the restaurants, for example, “were designed in the 1950s for 1950s tastes: three-story dining, white tablecloths, hundreds of tables,” says Forbes. “All of that is coming together right now, creating this unusual time of flux.”

Private bucks for new character 

Frivolous or not, the lawsuit raises important questions for Fisherman’s Wharf during a period of transition: How do we define the character of a neighborhood? Who should be responsible for maintaining it? 

Scott says the wharf is receiving “a lot of investment attention” right now from the private sector. One group called Fisherman’s Wharf Revitalized has won exclusive rights to negotiate its proposal with the port. It’s led by Lou Giraudo, a local businessman who knows the wharf well. He helped turn his family’s Boudin sourdough bread into a megabrand. 

Port director Forbes says proposals like these are “exciting” because they offer private funds for public priorities, such as infrastructure upgrades and support for the fishing industry. Together with the shoreline renovations on deck, these investments could dramatically transform the wharf over coming decades. The time is ripe to build consensus around what “character” to strengthen, preserve, or retire. “Back is not an option. Been there, done that. It’s not 1970, it’s 2024,” says Scott. 

In his view, that means doubling down on “experiential tourism,” with features like interactive art pieces, games, and other ways to draw a social media-savvy crowd. (The Revitalized proposal includes one space that would combine museum, fish processing plant, and market.) 

The port isn’t waiting for an ambitious overhaul to make improvements. With port grants of more than $3.8 million, FWCBD launched a free concert series that attracted 17,000 visitors last summer and says it’s on track for higher numbers this year. 

Also coming: more public seating, colorful murals, greenery, bistro lighting, and pop-up retail kiosks between Piers 43 and 45 to make the area feel more like a promenade than parking lot – and, says the FWCBD, hopefully discourage unlicensed vending. 

Scott describes their strategy as “adopting proven approaches from other cities and implementing them in San Francisco.”

It’s the same tactic Gehl Architects recommended way back in 2010, when SF hired the firm to make revitalization recommendations for the wharf. Gehl’s final report highlighted precedents including pedestrian connectivity and waterfront benches in New York City and Toronto, seafood markets in Seattle and Sydney, and outdoor dining along car-lite streets in Copenhagen and Oslo.

Commercial and crucial

To some San Francisco tastes, copying what’s been successful elsewhere could be the worst outcome possible. Character preferences, after all, are subjective. But Fisherman’s Wharf already has the water, the fog, the views, the boats. Perhaps the city just needs to simplify — and repeat what it already does best.

For example, during his inaugural visit to California, Raul Briceno Brignole, an urban planner from Lima, Peru, says the hour-long coastal walk that he and his family took to Fisherman’s Wharf from the Golden Gate Bridge was the highlight of their trip. 

The whole time, Raul thought about his hometown: “We have a similar coast in Lima called La Costa Verde, but Lima has missed a lot of opportunities because there are a lot of cars. It was really cool to see what it would be like if there wasn’t a highway. There were a lot of kids, people walking, biking, running with their dogs.” 

The wharf’s greatest strength is its connection to the water. Since the 1960s, city planners have thought about unblocking waterfront views. Many vacant storefronts along Jefferson Street need maintenance, so add more windows and pathways to the harbor, open up the scenery.

In contrast, the family found Fisherman’s Wharf underwhelming. “It felt like the main point was not about the scenery or the public space or environment, but commercial activity.”

But the wharf’s commercial activity – especially from visitors – is crucial for San Francisco. Sup. Aaron Peskin once called the neighborhood the “goose that lays the golden egg day in and day out for the city.” In the 12 months leading up to the pandemic, its businesses generated $171 million in sales and $34 million in rent to the port. 

The challenge is to create the best of both worlds: A more welcoming space for tourists and locals alike, integrated with the city’s shoreline and natural beauty, with a healthy economic heart beating in the middle of it all. 

A new old wharf

In 2023, the SF Port released the first update to its Waterfront Plan since 1997. The document is a policy blueprint and vision for the intermediate future of San Francisco’s waterfront land and a good starting point for those eager to reimagine Fisherman’s Wharf. 

Here are some of the best ideas from that plan, with my own interpretations added: 

Focus on location. The wharf’s greatest strength is its connection to the water. Since the 1960s, city planners have thought about unblocking waterfront views. Many vacant storefronts along Jefferson Street need maintenance, so go a step further: add more windows and pathways to the harbor, open up the scenery. The seawall rebuild should also incorporate accessible steps to the shoreline or floating walkways.

Let industry lead. Fisherman’s Wharf is the largest commercial fishing hub on the California coast, and business is hurting. Environmental challenges have delayed, curtailed, or canceled Dungeness crab and salmon commercial fishing seasons.

Though the many forces that sway annual harvests are beyond the scope of one neighborhood, wharf restaurateurs can introduce demand for more ecosystem-friendly seafood to ease reliance on overstressed species. And since tourism often follows what’s authentic, there’s opportunity to educate visitors about economic and environmental realities, too. 

Make tourism inclusive. Wharf visitors hail from around the world, and come in all ages, sizes, and interests. For a resilient tourism industry, widen the range of activities and dining choices to meet different price points, moods, and cultural preferences — including that of locals and residents. Same goes for artistic programming and interpretive signage. More points of entry not only diversifies the visitor pool but also gives the neighborhood a more exciting milieu and hedges against future market disruptions. 

Prioritize public transit. It should be easy for tourists and local non-drivers to visit the wharf without a car. Follow through on proposals to extend Muni to the wharf. Make it easy to transfer directly to ferries that connect to other Bay Area destinations. 

Preserve what deserves it. While there’s much to love about the history and architecture of Ghirardelli Square and the Hyde Street Pier, we also need to look to the waters beyond. To keep water quality pristine for both observers on the edge and swimmers within, ocean-friendly garden and landscape design, like permeable pavement and bioswales, can block polluted runoff from reaching the Bay.

If we get this right, we’ll look back on 2024 as the year one of San Francisco’s most iconic neighborhoods began its transformation. Maybe then, if we’re lucky, the tenants of 2070 will sue the future Port to keep the changes we’ve made.

The post We Don’t Need Nostalgia to Save Fisherman’s Wharf. It’s Time For a New Chapter  appeared first on The Frisc.