Architectural Furlough

The current economic downtown has exposed some of the terrible inefficiencies in San Francisco development.  Grim reality has to be faced, but there is still room for a bright future.

Central to the problem, is the funding mechanism for the Planning Department and the Department of Building Inspection.  The vast majority come from application fees paid for by developers and others who seeks permits.  Now that new projects are few and far between, staff in both departments are being pared down, and otherwise valuable programs are being waylaid.  The true problem comes when, rather than cut staff, the solution is to raise fees.  This only makes things worse, further cutting into developer’s profits and motives.  Econ 101.  Granted, in recent years large companies have made many millions by creating great building projects, even with sometimes egregious fees.  But we only have to look at the half-completed  One Rincon Towers to see what happens.  Enough with the sticks, it’s time for a bigger carrot.

Every large project in San Francisco has to be approved by the Planning Department, often at several different levels.  When I submit a set of drawings, I know not to have my heart set on the first rendition, because inevitably things will be added and taken away.  Why not be pro-active, and actually create a vision for what they want?  I’m not saying that city employees should all become architects, but that the process can be consistent, and even cooperative. Design Guidelines should delineate who is responsible for what requirements, and this should be discussed at pre-design meetings, rather than after weeks/months of work and delay.   

Not only that, but development needs to be encouraged.  If new permit applications feed the process, it’s in everyone’s best interest to keep the ball rolling.  We all know the concerns of property owners, but a well thought out master plan can help alleviate concerns.  Perhaps before re-zoning a neighborhood (i.e. Eastern Neighborhoods Plan), developers can be consulted to find the sites, and make it easier.  Instead of creating fees for extra density, we should reward them with taller height limits.  And especially, transit availability needs to be taken into account for parking and density (this is part of the EN plan, but not yet city-wide).  

Call it a zoning-stimulus plan for San Francisco.  More and better housing/office/retail, attractive buildings, and jobs for all.  A bit of the ruby glasses, I know, but anything is better than where we’re headed now.

A Brief History of Transit Oriented Design

The first thing to notice is that I use the term Design instead of Development.  The simple reason is that all areas of a city should have some overarching design principle, to which a developer/architect can direct her project.  This may not be the traditional definition, but I feel it more adequately describes the theory instead of the practice.

In the most basic sense, TOD is what sprang up after the first development of transit systems.  Pre-historic towns were built along rivers and trade routes.  Busier roads led to greater development and density.  Growing cities expanded their services, and eventually put larger roads.  The first real mass-transit (apart from ferries) appeared in the 1800′s.  San Francisco’s own legacy has been cemented as the progenitor of the cable-car, which was soon supplanted by electric-traction streetcars.  Each generation of technology allowed for more people in a smaller place, but also allowed for faster commutes to a larger central buisness district.

As newer technologies developed, instead of urban living, the auto-oriented suburb became the norm.  Then, as highways became more and more clogged, came the advent of true fixed-rail mass transit.  Even though most rail lines had already been torn up, by the 1960s the Bay Area was looking for a better way to move people.  Still, BART was conceived as a car-based mass transit system.  Essentially, people drove to the stations solely for their work commute.  Transbay Blog has a great article about how this is now finally changing.  Even the Muni rail network made little effort at getting people anywhere but downtown.  

After the realization set in, and people accepted that transit is oriented towards commuters, we’ve seen a much more concerted effort to locate both jobs and transit near fixed lines.  The best developers have taken advantage of well sited properties to produce win-win results.  Yet still BART lags behind in developing it’s own properties.  Through eminent domain, BART has some of the most valuable parking lots in the region.  The problem, as in Fruitville Station, is that few changes are made regarding its prime location.  

Any location next to transit should take advantage of its location by

• Reducing or eliminating parking requirements.  Households that commute by transit seldom require more than 1 vehicle.
• Raising density and height limits.  Demand for proximity will help sell the units, and allow for better designs.
• Integrating mixed-uses into the project.  If people are walking to the station, pedestrian malls become key to the project’s success.
• Making a bold statement.  The Metro line in Paris is famous for its entryways, much as the Central Railroad Stations around the world are legendary entrees to each city.  Why not make grand buildings into transit beacons?

This is of course a very rudimentary history and scheme, but that’s the point.  Even though this thinking has really existed since the 70s, little progress has been made in cementing the specifics.  Each project and location are unique, but the case studies are showing what really works.  Now we might actually be glad to have BART’s blank slate, so we can design truly successful projects.

San Francisco’s dilemma – Part 2

In the previous post, I made the basic argument that we’re running out of space for new housing in San Francisco.  It follows that we’re also out of room for major infrastructure projects as well.  When the Embarcadero Freeway was successfully stalled in 1959, it signaled ‘mature’ city.  In the decades since, we’ve created BART (1960s), opened the Market St Subway (70s), removed the Embarcadero Freeway (80s), reshaped the Central Freeway (90s) and dedicated the T-Third line (00s).  Of course there are also several projects now in the works, including several of the city’s key corridors (Central Subway, VanNess & Geary BRTs).

This is all good news from a purely transit-centric platform.  We have fewer car trips, and more public options.  The bad news is that little has been done to make use of these infrastructure improvements.  We need to form complete city-wide plans for development of transit and movement.  Not purely from service level point of view (See the TEP), but from a where *should* transit “best serve”, and what are the best options for expansion.  The T-Third was rightfully criticized for being overpriced and over-promised, but so is the majority of the Muni Rail system.  The most important corridors in the city (again, based on the TEP), are Van Ness, Geary, and Mission.  All are served by bus lines.  

Ideally after the creation of a fixed-rail node, one would expect to see developers clamoring to built projects nearby.  That’s a central tenet of TOD – built it, and they will come.  In San Francisco, we’ve instead decided to pursue the status quo.  Projects get built, and the immediate neighbors complain about the construction noise and tourists.  We need to establish a system, perhaps through zoning, that recognizes the distinct advantages of locating near fixed transit.  

Imagine if, after exiting 16th St BART, instead of seeing formula retail below decrepit housing, there existing new mixed-use office buildings and apartments.  7-8 story tall buildings lining major corridors.  Geary, with its huge width, could allow 100′ buildings and not worry about shade.  Van Ness could actually live up to it’s posted signs as being Highway 101.  This is what can happen when transit talks to zoning, who coordinates with architects, who get the most from developers.  Instead of fragmented, reactionary design, we need a bold vision for the future, and the wherewithal to actually pull it off.

San Francisco’s dilemma

San Francisco is one of the densest cities in the United States.  We also have some of the busiest transit systems (BART, Muni, Golden Gate, Ferries, etc.).  These two things should make a perfect location for Transit Oriented Development.  

TOD doesn’t have a technical definition, but the theory is to provide more housing within a 1/2 mile of a fixed transit system.  People then walk, bike or use transit instead of personal automobiles.  Housing then can use less space for parking, and the entire neighborhood becomes walkable and ‘complete’.   

In these terms, nearly all of our 7×7 city meets or exceeds expectations.  Muni’s busses service every neighborhood, and BART and Muni’s Rail system provide faster service from farther distances.  The problem is, despite our rather high density of 16,000 people per square mile, we’re out of room.  Yes, single family houses are still wedged onto tiny lots, but to accommodate more housing, we need to build up.  

Much of San Francisco’s charm lies in its neighborhoods.  People enjoy the 2-3 story buildings that line our hills.  But any attempt at preserving character typically becomes a matter of stopping any development.  After the creation of Planning Department, the rise of neighborhood associations, and several Propositions, most large projects have been torpedoed.  

I acknowledge that awkward towers on Russian Hill are anachronous, but many area have great capacity for growth.  Sustainable growth that can reshape the city and take advantage of existing transit.  We need to come to terms with denser and higher buildings, because it is inevitable.  Population growth and environmental concerns demand that we reexamine our priorities, and begin designing a new San Francisco.

Welcome to SFTOD!

Thanks for reading!  I’m creating this blog to document the intersection of local architecture and transit planning.  I’ll be featuring my own take on the influence of different disciplines, as well as establishing a collection of related blogs and articles.  The main goal is to show effects from seemingly unrelated fields, such as historical preservation and building codes to bus fares and routing decisions.  After all, it’s not simply an intersection, but a complex interplay that results in a well designed environment. 

Early on I’ll be posting several articles a day to try and establish a background, and then I’ll aim for about 3 posts a week, as new issues come up.