Cothran

Mission Theatrical
I'm a sucker for anachronisms. That's why I always linger as I pass outside the old theaters on Mission Street.

You know the ones. Five grand houses that have fallen on hard times, some shuttered, others chipped and desecrated with cheap paint jobs and filled with ugly, prefab furniture offered at sale prices. Single-screen facilities, they are economically obsolete in this age of multiplexes. None is currently used to screen films or host plays.

Still, they could easily be given new life. As nightclubs, dance clubs (think salsa nights; think swing kids), or performing arts centers. Properly renovated, the theaters would go a long way toward bringing back some of the old glory to Mission Street. They might even remind the city of the time when the thoroughfare was a main commercial and entertainment district, when a mayor named Sunny Jim came down to celebrate Roaring '20s film premieres.

Sadly, events are moving in the opposite direction.
The most historically and architecturally significant of the old dames, the New Mission Theater at 2550 Mission St., is slated for demolition to pave the way for the construction of a new Mission campus for City College. Plans for the new campus show a shapeless, soulless, concrete block of a building. What it would replace is a priceless treasure.

Built in 1907 by locally renowned neoclassical architects Merritt and John Reid, the theater went through a major renovation in 1932, when the facade and most of the interior was totally redone by famed art deco designer and architect Timothy L. Pflueger.

For the uninitiated: Pflueger is the man who designed the stunning Paramount Theater in Oakland, which is now a national landmark; he was responsible for the Italianate splendor of the Castro Theater, the Pacific Stock Exchange, and my personal favorite, the Pacific Bell building at 140 New Montgomery St., the gray tower east of the Museum of Modern Art. (Just looking at the latter art deco masterpiece makes me want to have a martini and call women "dames." Obviously, my fondness for anachronisms runs deep.)

Just because I like old things doesn't mean I'm a knee-jerk preservationist. A new City College campus in the Mission is a fine idea. It's just that college officials had seven other sites to choose from -- most of which, according to the environmental report on the new campus, seem workable. And none of the other sites involves obliterating what could become one of San Francisco's cultural trademarks.

At the very least, in their rush to pick the theater site, college officials ignored or misrepresented the historic value of the theater. I understand why this may be. From a purely pragmatic perspective, building a new campus where the theater is located -- on Mission Street, in a central location, almost smack on top of a BART stop -- might seem an enticing prospect.

But from a preservationist or economic development point of view -- actually, from any point of view that respects the cultural legacy of the neighborhood -- the proposal to raze the theater can only be seen as a ridiculous waste.

After spending $2 million to acquire the theater and an adjacent building, the college district has no money to spend on a new campus. Officials are counting on voters to pass a November bond measure that would gin up more cash to pay for demolition of the theater and construction of the campus. Even if the voters acquiesce, it will be at least five years before ground is broken on the new campus.

So there's no hurry. There's plenty of time to work a deal that saves the New Mission Theater and gives City College the new campus it deserves.

The suspects who are usually so vocal about protecting the integrity of the Mission District have been largely silent on the planned demolition of the New Mission Theater. This seems strange; just five years ago, a group of Mission residents went to great lengths to ask that the area be declared a theater preservation district. (The city, unwisely, turned them down.)

One neighborhood powerhouse, Raquel Medina, wife of Supervisor Jose Medina and executive director of the Mission Economic Development Association, says she loves the theater and wants to see it saved. "I used to go there as a kid," she says.

But, she contends, it's too late. Attempts by her organization to attract the three big theater companies -- United Artists, AMC, and Landmark Theaters -- failed for one reason or another, she says. (Although, she notes, all three companies agreed that the Mission could easily support a modern theater.) And now that City College owns the property, she can't see how it's possible to turn the situation around.

There are other reasons for the silence of prominent Mission pols. Generally, Hispanic leaders don't want to be seen as blocking educational opportunity for moderate- to low-income students. More specifically, those leaders have no special reason to go head to head with the dean of the City College Mission campus, Carlota del Portillo, a powerful Latina pol from the Mission and an elected member of the San Francisco school board.