SPUR Urban Center Opens
Via Curbed
Amid much pomp last afternoon, the new SPUR Urban Center opened on Mission Street. There was even dancing in the streets! Other than the party though, the building shows the dedication to studying what direction our city needs to take. They even lead by example, with a hopefully LEED Silver certification coming soon.
Via Curbed
The 4 floor center has two large meeting spaces, offices, and a ground floor exhibition. I spent quite a while looking over the installation- Agents of Change: Civic Idealism and the Making of San Francisco. In case you have any sort of curiosity about our city, such as why our grid goes over hills, or why we don’t have freeways, this is place to go. You can watch interviews with the people who made it all happen, view an extensive timeline, and use a computer to view the local densities over the past 150 years from any angle. Be sure to block off enough time to see the whole thing!
Japantown Plan, Part 3: Transportation
Infill - courtesy of the Planning Department
The most important part of the Japantown zoning is the new Geary BRT. Geary at present is one of the most traveled streets in San Francisco, and the new transit system should suit it well. Many neighborhoods along the route should expect major growth, especially those areas closest to the Central Business District.
After covering the Geary BRT, the Japantown Plan shows that most of the area is well served by transit. Large amounts of people will be coming through on other lines just to transfer to the BRT as well While many people envision the future of Geary BRT to be light rail, this is a positive first step. I was very excited to see the neighborhood preference as re-routing Geary to be at grade instead of though the tunnel. This revisioned intersection can shave time off of transit, and help make the neighborhood more transit friendly. The new proposal is shown at left, versus the existing condition shown below. It might delay traffic to some extent, but it will remove one of the major scars of the Redevelopment Agency, and help reunite the neighborhood.
Of course, any further design is subject to many departments’ review and commentary. I just happen to think that any idea of routing more transit along one of the city’s busiest streets is always a winning idea. Not to mention the capacity of the adjacent proposed towers, and the addition of the Webster Park. All in all, this project deserves our approval.
Existing Condition - courtesy of the Planning Department
Japantown Plan, Part 2: Zoning
Courtesy of the Planning Department
The most ambitious aspect of the Japantown Plan is the zoning specifically for new towers. Even better is the reasoning behind it – the Planning Department really *really* wants the Japan Center to be redone, and knows that a large residential development is the only way to make it financially feasible for a private developer. The document goes through all of the specific reasons why, but the conclusion is great news for both the area and the city as a whole. Typically the legacy of The Redevelopment Agency is seen as one of destroying neighborhoods, but now we have large blocks to work with, and broad community support.
Other issues presented in the plan include: The Peace Plaza legally cannot get any smaller, nor have any shadows cast on it. The Japan Center Parking Lot is technically owned by the city, so any development has to include their interests as well. The new owner, 3D, has put off any grand plans for the time being, but the planning has stretched several years into the future to aid the approval process. The proposed new zoning map show several areas that could support new towers north of Geary – all good ideas in my belief.
The dark gray areas show proposed new towers, and the dotted and hatched zones show new raised height limits. As I mentioned before, I greatly appreciate that development is seen as a benefit in this neighborhood, and that raised height and density limits are being used to draw in customers. Similarly to the Transbay Area, the city has a very big carrot. Of course, the city will still levy large development fees for the other issues cited in the plan, but I’m sure some developer (if not 3D) will be able to make the best out of the situation.
The one other aspect I was particularly interested in was the street-dieting of Webster. I’ll touch more on the transportation issues in the next post, but this idea also is based on the post redevelopment landscape. Webster was originally widened to become part of a local expressway through the city. Unfortunately, it doesn’t really connect anything, and the current traffic levels don’t require more than the standard two lanes of traffic. In yet another aspect of well-coordinated thinking, the Planning Department has proposed removing one lane of traffic in each direction between Geary and Bush, and instead allocating the land to bike lanes and a linear park. This new park would add to the overall open space in the area, while also creating a much more fluid pedestrian experience.
This is a theory that should be carried out in other areas around the city. I’m sure there are parts of roads in other neighborhoods that could become parks. The 17th & Market plaza is one idea, but changing an entire strip into a linear park is a great way to enliven the pedestrian feeling. Why not go further and take some seldom used roads and reduce them to one lane (one way) of travel? I know places like Folsom St and certain avenues have already been examined for just such a theory. Street Diets could be used around the city to connect pedestrian and bike friendly destinations, just as the Japan Center plan proposes.
Japantown Plan, Part 1
Courtesy of SFgate.com
Last week the Planning department released the draft report for re-creating Japantown. As with all of the other neighborhood plans, there is lots of discussion of the history of the area, but this plan differs from the Eastern Neighborhoods plan by focusing very specifically on a few blocks. We learn in the Community Heritage section that the area is greatly diminished in size, which makes the remaining part even more important.
San Francisco’s Japantown is one of 3 in the country, so it’s in vital need of preservation. That said, what’s left is a hollow shell representing a culture that has had better days in our city. After being squeezed out post earthquake/fire, the Japanese Relocation Act and the Redevelopment Agency did their best to distort what was left. The blocks in focus stretches mainly from Fillmore to Laguna, and Geary to Bush. The actual area encompassed by the plan is quite small, which directly leads to the specific recommendations for certain blocks.
As I mentioned before, the fact very precise zoning is implemented shows much promise for the area. Currently the towers of The Sequoias stand out as the tallest buildings for blocks around, and the long expressway of Geary provides an unrelenting wall for the pedestrian.
Tomorrow I’ll discuss the new zoning plans in particular, but I want to praise the effort by the Planning Department to reign in the region after regaining control from the Redevelopment Agency. Through their timely efforts, what is left of the culture of the area can be preserved, and the promise of such a large and vital neighborhood can be realized.
Transbay Area Developers Asked to Pay for Privilege?
Plan Boundary, courtesy of the Planning Department
Add this to the list of fees that developers are asked to pay: approximately $850 million over 20 years to build in the Transbay Area. According to the SF Chronicle, “The surcharges of up to $35 a square foot would be in addition to a package of downtown-only fees for things such as public transit, affordable housing and wastewater treatment.” This of course doesn’t cover: environmental impact reports, potential historical reports, biological reports, school fees, sidewalk construction, variances, design review hearing and others, on top of the premium already charged by the Planning Department just for the sake of applying.
And then – what do they get out of it? Premium location, bonuses for density and building heights, close access to the future Transbay Terminal/HSR, and of course – profit. This is the balancing act played out every time a new project is proposed. The planners (and supervisors, and building inspectors, and any other official) try to get as much as they can, and the owner tries to turn a profit. During the good years, everyone comes out on top. During the bad years, projects get delayed or shut down, and the government complains. It really shouldn’t be a surprise, considering how closely to the line each development rides.
So then, what can we change? The idea to actually announce the fees ahead of time is the best news I’ve heard. Often the fee changes are announced mid-project, or Supervisors take it upon themselves to extort developers. When everything is laid out on the table, the calculus is easy to see. Predictability is what development is all about. The second the city changes the math, that’s when we’re all in trouble.
The long term benefit is that we’re looking ahead. The fees are a one time affect, but the chance to construct many new buildings downtown, most of them multiple stories above their neighbors, is lasting. This privilege to create an enduring legacy in San Francisco is what will draw construction, fees or not. And that’s what The City is counting on.
Potential View of Downtown
Car Sharing vs. Parking
This is the last in the series of posts from TransForm’s Summit last Saturday. Check out the other posts from this week for more information.
Amy Anton from City CarShare and Jessica ter Schure from Nelson\Nygaard presented their case studies about car sharing in San Francisco developments. Their report is focused on large multi-family projects with unbundled parking, with at least one designated spot for City CarShare. They examined 5 new projects which cater to different types of occupancies (studios, multiple bedrooms, students and families). The report isn’t available online yet, but I’ll be sure to update as soon as it is.
The summary of the report is that carsharing provides a great opportunity to reduce dependence on car ownership, and to reduce to amount of parking built at each project. One aspect I found most surprising was the success rate of the carsharing program. It is very dependent on the amount of parking available at the site. Their basic rule of thumb is that there must be fewer parking spots than units to allow for built in demand. I would have thought that fewer people would own cars given the large size of the developments, but apparently not enough demand was present. This is rather important given the new Planning Department regulation that requires carsharing when more than 50 units are built.
I enjoyed learning more about the practical side of the City CarShare program, and how it relates to building planning. It’s really important to know what types of projects actually make it profitable for both the car company and the developer, because we need more options in our building. One variation that I found particularly interesting is in Berkeley, where city employees use the cars during the day, then share them in the evenings. We need to explore all options, because our cities have been developed to facilitate auto travel – and that’s not going away any time soon. Until then, we can mitigate the damage, and design for a future after personal automobiles.
The End of ‘Drive til you Qualify’
The keynote speaker at the conference was Scott Bernstein from the Center for Neighborhood Technology. His topic was the combined cost of housing and transportation. With the end of cheap gas now at hand, the expenses of driving are truly coming to a head.
The old theory of ‘Drive til you Qualify’ was used for years as a justification for living further from a city. The tradeoff was mortgage vs. time in traffic. This encouraged people to continue to sprawl further and further away, living the American Dream in their single-family home. Now a critical third part of the equation enters in, as car ownership becomes more and more expensive.
CNT developed maps for many of the nations urban areas to demonstrate affordability levels. One shows housing costs alone (<30% of average area income), and a 2nd showing combined housing and transportation costs (<48%). Under the simple assumption that rent controls location, the far suburbs seem like the place for low income people to aim for. Areas of San Francisco also are deemed affordable (again, based on average area income). Quite naturally, this area shrinks when car costs are taken into affect, but the area within cities remains the same. This is just an empirical study proving what the TOD movement has been preaching – alternatives to car ownership are necessary.
This handy graph shows the basic relation between proximity and cost of living. Ideally we will design communities in the top right area – both connected and prosperous. Areas that are connected have more options available, and reduce dependance on expensive car ownership and land issues. The bottom left region charts the intersection of isolation and poverty. In this location we see formerly booming suburbs that don’t have the network required to survive downturns in the economy.
Now that residents have to juggle so many factors, finding an area that integrates housing, jobs and transit is the perfect solution. We just have to create more of them so that they’re affordable.
Health & Planning II
As a continuation from yesterday’s post, I introduce Part 2 from the “Planning Tools for Healthier Communities” segment of TransForm’s Annual Summit on Saturday. Yesterday I discussed how our environment affects our health. Now I’d like to have a discussion about correcting that disparity.
Robert Ogilvie spoke explicitly about how we can help solve this problem. We all have an idea of what I healthy community looks like, but it’s the journey that often hinders us. His suggestion was to use the power of the Redevelopment Agencies and Economic Development Agencies to examine the state of a neighborhood at large. They have the ability to acquire and assemble tracts of land through eminent domain (among other laws), and to use financing strategies to make large projects viable. But to me, his mention of one particular strategy was most interesting.
Blight is a word I mostly associated with boarded up buildings and dark alleys. I seldom thought of the technical definition as it applies to codes and regulations about quality of life. Mr. Ogilvie introduced the two forms: physical and economic. Physical blight is the typical run-down broken building image that we all have when hearing the term. Economic blight is when an area affectively doesn’t live up to it’s potential. It’s simply saying that an area is really underperforming; they often have undesirable elements like liquor stores and lack community elements like groceries and banks. Both types of blight are a part of creating redevelopment, and spurring change in neighborhoods.
To put it bluntly, this is saying that a lack of economic activity, or an abundance of bars and overcrowding is pretense for blighting an area. This tool can help transform areas that are unhealthy for inhabitants into communities that ensure good well-being. There is, of course, always a fear of gentrification and profiling with redevelopment agencies, which must be addressed. All large government powers must be balanced – but the potential for great assistance and bettering of lives is truly astounding.
Modern day planning is all about increasing the quality of life, which can be measured by the health of a community.
Health and Planning
On Saturday I attended TransForm’s Annual Summit in Oakland. During the day there were many different seminars to attend, and I’m going to write a bit about each one. For me, the most enjoyable one was titled “Planning Tools for Healthier Communities”. Honestly, it really wasn’t what I expected, but it opened my eyes to a new aspect of the planning and design fields, and that’s what this blog is all about!
When I saw the term ‘healthy’ next to ‘planning’, I thought it was one of our fun colorful words used to describe a well functioning design. In fact, it was strictly about improving the mental and physical well-being of a city’s inhabitants. The seminar featured three speakers; Robert Ogilvie from Public Health Law & Policy, Bob Prentice from Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative, and Chris Schildt from TransForm. Mr. Prentice opened the discussion by talking about the simple fact that health care doesn’t account for the difference in life expectancies between the US and other countries. We rank 30th (or 45th) in the world, right below Bosnia. Even with all of our fantastic technology, something is going wrong. The theory is that after genetics, violence and money are taken out of the picture, environment accounts for about 80% of that disparity. This is illustrated rather clearly by the life expectancies in San Francisco. The difference between Rincon Hill and the Bayview regions is 14 years of life.
In terms of precedent, Mr. Prentice cited that health was a large part of planning early on with the advent of zoning and sewers. Since then, healthcare has ignored large parts of the environment. Now we’re beginning to see more and more studies showing the effect of your neighborhood on your well-being. Things such as the Food-Environment (availability of fresh goods), designing for walk-ability, and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED).
For me, these issues go straight to the heart of urban design. A well planned neighborhood or building contributes much more than we give it credit for. We can even help lengthen lives while aiding the economy and providing needing housing and services.
Visitacion Valley finally getting attention
At long last, Visitacion Valley is getting a new chance at development. The T-Third line first began to open up the area two years ago, but with the development of the Schlage Lock factory, and now the Cow Palace, the poverty and violence in the area might finally be mitigated.
The far southern edge of the city, over the hills and far away. This area is should have a lot going for it. Views of the bay, quick access to Cal Train and Highway 101, the type of isolation typically only found on the back of Twin Peaks. Instead, the industrial nature of the area turned it to waste, and then the industries left. Now all that remain are closed factories and railyards, with a collection of neglected houses.
One benefit of the critical density of San Francisco is that any neighborhood won’t stay homogenous for long. The forces of gentrification are strong, and now this area is poised to benefit from new development. My firm has even had a hand in developing several projects in the area, adding some much needed new housing stock. But that pales in comparison to the new proposals.
The Planning Department has created a new development plan for the Schlage Lock (large pdf) site, focused on the ideals of Transit Oriented Design. In reading the proposal, I must say that they’ve hit the nail on the head in terms of scale. Mid-rise mixed-use development, centered around open areas, with a focus on the adjacent T-line (with a possible extension to Brisbane). My typical complaint is that density and height limits aren’t high enough for each site, but in this area 5-6 stories seems perfect. My only real concern is that the design guidelines are the typical fare that are in every planning document. If every project follows the guidelines, then the city will end up as one homogenous goop. The Board of Supervisors recently approved the EIR, and demolition just began, so we’ll have to wait until the first designs actually come out.
The big news of the day is the possible sale of the Cow Palace lot. Last year an attempt was made to sell the lot, only to be vetoed by Schwarzenegger. At least market forces are bringing some sanity to government finally. State Senator Leland Yee has put music in my ears, “Developers could be wooed, despite the poor economy, because the city and state would be motivated to cut red tape associated with their projects.” No real word yet on what could be put there, but it has to be better than tattoo expos.
