Please see the screenshot in the file about the assignment requirement
There is some information in the
1977: San Francisco City College District leases 8 locations from San Francisco Unified School District. The site 940 Filbert Street was selected and intended to be a temporary site for a college facility for the Chinatown/ North Beach community.
What was supposed to be only temporary became semi-permanent. Two decades would elapse before plans reemerged to once again find a physical location to propose a permanent City College Chinatown / North Beach campus.
1997: City College of San Francisco attains the money, land and develops architectural plans for a new campus to serve the area;
Photo of Former CCSF Chinatown Campus
The building was originally built in 1911. Many of the materials used in the construction of this building was recycled bricks
The obvious public safety hazards were one of the primary reasons why City College of San Francisco was eager to find, build and develop a new location for the CCSF Chinatown/North Beach Campus.
Another reason why there was
The idea was that a new CCSF campus would house and centralize all campus operations, programs, services, classes, etc..
Photo of CCSF Chinatown/North Beach Campus (Washington Street side)
The proposal for the new CCSF Chinatown/North Beach
- 20 Smart classrooms
- 26 Labratories
- A Library
- A Student Center
- Administrative & Faculty Offices
- 7 New Programs
- A Small Theater
One of the primary goals of the new campus was to ensure that the new building was able to
The architects who designed this new campus made certain that the campus energy efficient and contained an aesthetic that complimented the sensibilities of the community.
The proposal of a new CCSF Chinatown/North Beach campus was mired with controversy and confusion. There were those who opposed the building and development of the new building, many of which expressed cited preservationist and environmental concerns. [More details can be found in Professor Ling Chi Wang’s essay: Not In Your Backyard in Assignment #30.]
To state the matter somewhat briefly, those who opposed the proposal
Photo of stacked $100 Bills
Both sides employed tactics and strategy to promote their interests. Those who opposed the construction of the new campus took a shrewd approach. In the beginning they targeted the allocation of state approved funds that City College of San Francisco was allotted for the construction of the new campus. Those who opposed the new campus that if they could create enough delays, it could result in loss of state funding and hence the new campus could not /would not be built. What was
Those who supported the new campus took employed various tactics and strategy. There were generally two forms of action. A group called Friend of Educational Opportunities in Chinatown (aka FEOC) were held weekly meetings, in many cases meeting 2-3 per week.
Forms of Advocacy:
Personal Lobbying: a direct way to communicate with the intent to influence individuals.
Press Conferences: a direct way to spread a message through different channels/media.
Publication of News Articles: a direct way to increase public awareness.
Attendance at Public Hearings: a direct way to express
Petition Signings: a way to document correspondence and quantify the amount of support
Forms of Grassroots Organizing:
Elected Officials: Obtaining support from local politicians and their constituents.
Commissioners (SFUSD): Obtain support from local politicians and their constituents.
Community Leaders (CBOs): Obtain support from local residents to increase scale and critical mass.
Student & Immigrant Groups: Obtain support and develop a core group of supporters who are most likely affected by the outcome of a cause failing or succeeding.
CCSF, and SFSU Students: As mentioned above, obtaining support from local college students was vital because this “group” is most likely affected by the outcome of the campaign to support the proposal of a new campus.