Removing and Restoring

Excess right of way is San Francisco’s legacy from past projects. Each successive layer of development has created bigger, taller and wider paths through San Francisco.  The natural landscape, and the man made, has been distorted to suit the immediate needs of the past.  Hilltop development, waterways divergence, railroad construction and highway development  have all shaped the physical environment.  Now we struggle to correct those mistakes, but also to realize the benefits afforded to us from these processes.  The legacy of the past has since become many different things, differentiating wildly from their original purposes.  The leftovers become parks, paths, boulevards, buildings, or vacancies.  Each space is of course unique, and has generally been treated as such. What follows is a listing of a few unexpected and sometimes profound usage of the disassembled past.

Ferry Building With and Without, via vision63 at flikr

The most commonly cited highway removal project is the Embarcadero Freeway.  Originally built in the 1950s, this was also the last straw.  While the Bayshore (101) and Southern (280) Freeways were built without much argument, the homeowners in San Francisco’s more exclusive neighborhoods decided to fight back.  Those in Russian and Telegraph Hills were among the most vocal in opposing the completion of the partially built skyway.  After the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and subsequent damage, the freeway was finally removed, and a scar healed.  One of the most important things to remember from this struggle is that the land along the Embarcadero had been completely industrial usage before.  The construction only slowed when it approached neighborhoods.  That outcry wasn’t heard from the people of the Bayview when 280 ran roughshod through their homes.  And now we have a vibrant boulevard and park system, which almost everyone would agree is a resounding success.  It may have taken the destruction of our waterfront before we realized what we had lost, and clamored to have it back.  For more images, this movie does a great job of explaining.

Remains of the Central Freeway

Another example of a destruction making things better, the Central Freeway finally came down in 2003.  Much of the same struggles happened similarly to the Embarcadero Freeway, and only a portion of the planned construction was ever completed.  The problem was the large numbers of commuters in the western neighborhoods who relied on easy access to Fell and Oak to reach their homes.  Even though it was rebuilt after Loma Prieta, it too would eventually come down.  The current design retains the 133′ right of way, which allows for local and express traffic to travel on the surface level, and for some sunlight in the yards.  The problem is that much still needs to be done.  It’s easy to spot the scars of past onramps through the Hayes Valley.  In the image at left, the blue shows the approximate location of the ramps, and the other colors indicate other lots that were demolished.  Green shows the areas that are now parking lots, while red shows the land that’s not being used at all.  This region along Market is part of a study from the Planning Department to create more of a ‘neighborhood’ feel, but little has been done to address the lots that are now vacant, or worse – parking lots.  We can also dream of one day when the entire structure will be removed.  Until then, we have more parking lots, and a new skatepark!

Juri Commons, from egoodman on flikr

Part of the legacy from the railroad through the mission are the akward lot shapes.  Instead of wedging in an akward building, Juri Commons has since become a quaint neighborhood park.  Other examples abound of past railroad right of way becoming a corner park, a parking lot, or even a street, reverting back to public use is one of the best options.  Last time I visited, it was very well populated, even though it’s not more than 20′ wide.  Part of Octavia has become parkland, perhaps it’s time to make the rest officially open to the public.

Lastly, I wanted to briefly touch on a piece of infrastructure that we seldom think about.  While not transit related, our water supply greatly affects how we plan and build cities.  As San Francisco continues to grow, we have to think about better ways of using our resources.  We continually praise efforts to remove divisive freeways, but the removal of the O’Shaughnessy Dam deserves our advocacy as well.  The Hetch Hetchy Reservoir is only a small part of the water system, but has destroyed a section of Yosemite National Park.  As with highways, after the dam is gone, we’ll continually ask why it was ever there.  If even the Bush and Schwarzeneggar administrations decided to do a study about removal, the onus is on San Franciscans to get our act together.

This concludes my short mini-series on scars from our past.  Hopefully you will now begin to think about the many ways in which the past has shaped our city.  But more importantly, think about ways in which San Francisco can continue to alter and improve herself.  Many things are taken for granted now, but we need dreams before we can take action.  One thought can summarize this type of advocacy: if it wouldn’t be allowed to be built now, shouldn’t it be removed?

Highways Divide

Freeway Revolts, via sfcityscape.com

The history of freeway creation, protest and removal has been well documented on many other sites, so I’ll leave it to the reader to perform their own due diligence.  This series is about what remains in the built environment.  Even after all of the Freeway Revolt, most of what had been built still stands, and they still serve as the main method of transit in San Francisco.  This fact is not likely to change any time soon, no matter how convenient BART, Cal Train and the ferries become.  So, I’ll instead discuss the landscape of our expressways, and how the personal automobile has shaped our city.

Imagine the Bay Bridge when it opened in 1936.  Originally designed to carry cars on only the top deck, the western approach touched down on Rincon Hill, and also near the existing 5th St. exit.  Until the construction of the Central Freeway and the connection to the Bayshore Freeway, the soon-to-be I-80 was almost innocuous.  The new freeways created a broad swath of cars only land use, right through vibrant neighborhoods.

Freeway Plan, via foundsf.org

As I wrote in the water and railroads post, the construction of highways typically follows existing roads, but this is not always the case.  The most damage comes when a street serving a neighborhood commercial district becomes a multi-lane, grade separated expressway.  Luckily the stalled construction of San Francisco’s highway grid didn’t disrupt *too* many homes and businesses.  To me, the more interesting aspects are the pieces that were actually built, but only in stages.

• Geary St Expressway.  Stretching roughly from Gough to Collins St, this Boulevard was one of the legacies of the infamous Redevelopment Agency.  Everything was done to make car access the sole purpose of this street, including the removal of the streetcar, and the exclusion of crosswalks at key intersections.  Thankfully, much of this is en route to being corrected with the Japantown Plan, and the creation of the Geary BRT.  If you like to dream, take a look at the powerpoint presentation created by rescuemuni.org.
• Webster St.  4 separated lanes, from Hayes to Bush.  Also created as part of the redevelopment in the 1960s, this was meant to be an expressway similar to Geary.  The only problem is that it really doesn’t connect to anything.  Restricted by the boundaries of the redevelopment district, the North-South alignment still serves very few people, and by all accounts is over sized.  Again, the Japantown Plan proposed to use the excess right-of-way to makes a park – a policy that should be continued the length of the street.
• San Jose Ave.  Southern extent of the planned Mission Freeway, from 280 north to Randall St.  Continuing the idea of a Freeway paralleling a major artery, the Mission Freeway was planned for the blocks between Mission and South Van Ness.  Only about 1 mile was built, mainly around the interchange with 280.  This is a textbook example of converting arteries to highways – just imagine how a Mission District would feel after being split in half.
• 

  Central Freeway proposal through the Inner Sunset, via foundsf.org

  Junipero Serra Blvd and Brotherhood Way.  Junipero Serra is 6 lanes until its norther terminus at Sloat, and Brotherhood Way connects Junipero with 280.  Both of these roads were constructed to expressway standards, with separated directions of travel, and wide shoulders.  Junipero Serra was planned to actually tunnel underneath large portions of the western side of the city.  It was essentially going to tunnel under Forest Hill, join with another highway alongside Laguna Honda and 7th Ave, and then tunnel under Golden Gate Park to join the Park Presidio freeway.  It’s amazing now to consider the costs incurred and the havok wreaked by such a plan.

There are plenty of other ‘stubs’ around town, such as the Central Freeway and Doyle Drive, each with their own issues.  This is only meant to be a guide to look for other relics of past planning gone awry.  The next post will try to show more of what has been done to correct the mistakes of the past, but as we’ll find out, there isn’t much that can be done when a neighborhood becomes divided and housing torn out.

Route Proposal, via cahighways.org

Rail Rumbles In

Southern Pacific Yard

Railroad was hitting prime time just as San Francisco was founded.  As the largest city on the West Coast, and with the influx of trade required by the gold rush, a connection to rail transit was quickly deemed necessary.  Even though the Transcontinental Railroad came to its official end near Oakland, much more expansion was soon to happen.  Much of this right of way was acquired before any development occurred, and the future infrastructure simply takes place around it.  There are three distinct areas I’d like to focus on: Bayshore, Potrero Hill, and the Mission.

To this day, more than any other district, the Bayshore/Vistacion Valley remains railroad country.  Perhaps because of the distinction of being the southernmost part of San Francisco, but it is also because the rail line still exists.  This is no shock to anyone who has ridden on CalTrain southbound.  The shock is most likely to occur in a few years, after the completion of the Vistacion Valley Plan.  What was once the sprawling Southern Pacific yard will become a developed landscape, much like the rest of San Francisco.

Potrero Hill Cuts, via foundsf.org

Potrero Hill has some of the more interesting stories to tell.  The Southern Pacific line continued north past the Bayshore yard, to its terminus in SOMA/Mission Bay.  In the way stood Potrero Hill.  Originally the hills were cut, and trains went all the way around.  To save time, the route now passes through several tunnels – Bayview, near Silver Ave, and then Potrero.  You’ll also notice that the train line marks the end of the Islais Creek culvert covered previously.  The train slices through the resulting infilled marshes/industrial zones, ducks under Potrero Hill, and then emerges in near Mission Creek.  The original alignment was much the same as the CalTrain line, except for the huge yard under UCSF Mission Bay.  Again, most of the development occured after the rail was built, with one exception.  There exists another tunnel under Potrero Hill, which has since been sealed off (but not filled in).  The scar still remains as a diagonal slash across the grid.

Again, as I wrote previously, Islais Creek proved to be a fantastic grade on which to run transportation.  Before becoming part of Highway 280, it was the Southern Pacific Railroad.  Compared to the Potrero alignment, this route was much more circuitous, but again it cut through undeveloped terrain.  Because the goal of these posts is to illustrate the remains of previous generations, there is no better explanation that this map.  It compares the rail line from an early map, to the existing satellite imagery.  In some places you can easily see the ghosts of trains, while other times it disappears.  The Mission truly is the best location for spotting such idiosyncrasies, because streets like Treat and San Jose never seem to fit in until you know the past.

Fort Mason Tunnel, via theoverheadwire

The last word today, is about the rail tunnel in Fort Mason.  This one is also incredibly easy to spot, even if you don’t know what it is.  As part of the railroad all along the Embarcadero, the Army made a tunnel through Fort Mason, which would eventually continue on to serve the Presidio and Crissy Field.  The rails are still visible under the sidewalk along Marine Green.  But, because the infrasturcture still exists, why not use it?  Two campaigns are under way to use the tunnel, either as a continuation of the F Muni Line (or a new E Line), or as a bike tunnel.  While this is still being studied, we should appreciate the fact that our past can always benefit us as much as it can rope us in.  Next up, when highways were king.

Water Becomes Land

Original Coastline in Downtown, via foundsf.org

San Francisco exists because of Water.  Without the Bay, our fair city simply wouldn’t have gotten off the ground.  Before the discovery of the Golden Gate, settlements had been made at any semi-decent cove along the coast.  But San Francisco’s possibilities easily surpassed the likes of Monterey and Bodega Bays.  The original anglo settlement was near the current downtown.  To be more precise, Montgomery was was the coast, as well as First Street south of Market.  As I mentioned in the last post, many changes were made to flatten and otherwise develop the new city.  As the map shows, existing piers soon became land.  Ships were abandoned during the gold rush.  A seawall was constructed along the Embarcadero, and the deep-water piers we know today resulted.  The early history of San Francisco’s water-based development is similar to the treatment of hills.  It moves from an attempt to conquer, towards a slow understanding of natural processes that define our environment.

It would be quite an extensive list to describe all of the areas of our city that have been filled for new land.  Areas such as North Beach, South Beach, Mission Bay, and Hunters Point were all part of the attempt to provide as much area along the sheltered bay for ships to anchor and unload.  Other areas were simply controlled because they were a nuisance, or because a ‘better’ use was envisioned for them.  Islais Creek would often overflow its banks, and flood nearby houses.  While the Marina and Treasure Island were created for the Panama Pacific International Exposition and Golden Gate International Exposition.  The map at the bottom does a far better job of explaining than words can ever do.

The ostensible goal behind this series is about the awkward shapes that exist in San Francisco’s streets, and how they got there.  Now I’ll discuss some particular examples as illustrative of themes.

• The most famous deviation from the curve is San Francisco’s Mission Street.  Mission Dolores existed well before downtown was laid out, and the road between settlements followed a more or less direct route.  Originally serving as a toll road, the path went over wetlands and marshes, often built on a causeway next to the Mission Creek.  The original creek had a bend where the road does now, which was also the inlet from another creek flowing from the Panhandle region.  The road actually stopped near a small freshwater lake that served as the water source for the original settlement.  Roads downtown began their orientation based on the coast (Montgomery Street), and went orthogonally after that.
• As other regions of San Francisco strayed from the grid, few had more reason than the southern regions.  The ultimate precedent came when Islais Creek was placed in a culvert.  During the 20s-30s the channel was placed underground, to try and control the seasonal fluctuations in the water flows.  This alone is not unique, but notably this ‘low path’ through southern San Francisco was once creek, then road, then rail, then highway.  When it finally daylights on the eastern side of 280, it is only a shadow of its once mile-wide delta.
• 

  Original Southern Coastline, via owenswatershedplanning.com

  Also of note are the areas where the grid simply shouldn’t exist.  Similarly to Mission and Islais Creeks, Precita and the Potrero Creeks were filled in.  The most stunning example is a published map showing the street names of yet to be created land in Bayview/Hunters Point.  Thankfully much of the infill was stopped, but it’s still an interesting exercise to imagine what might have been.

  

  The Grid over the Bay, via owenswatershedplanning.com

• The most obvious area where a grid doesn’t exist is the Marina district.  At least this has a simple explanation, in that the streets were leftover from the Beaux-Arts design of the Exposition.  The broad diagonal boulevards and seemingly random intersections now framed by multi-million dollar homes in place of exhibitions from all around the world.

In summary, we expect the natural coast line to have great effects on our landscape.  But the original treatment inflicted on wetlands and creeks has created a lasting mark on San Francisco’s build landscape.  Even this is to be expected of any modern city to some extent.  Just remember, that at one point the Army Corps of Engineers had a proposal to completely fill the bay to create more sprawl and highways.  Then you can truly be glad to know what has been the motivation behind the unique twists and turns of San Francisco’s streets.

Original Coastline and Creeks, via http://www.joelpomerantz.com

Grids Over Hills

Topographical Map, via lib.berkeley.edu

San Francisco is famous for its hills.  It’s said to be the 2nd hilliest city in the world after La Paz.  For a while, these features were seen as something to be conquered.  In many cities of the world, the higher areas are less desireable, because they’re harder to reach.  That was the beginning of our city as well.

If you look at a topographical map of San Francisco, it’s easy to notice the grid going up and over the hills of the downtown region.  The original city planners plotted roads over and through peaks with abandon.  Continuing to look at the map, you notice a change as the city expands to the south and west.  Beginning in Pacific Heights and the Western Addition, tops of hills were dedicated to parks: Bernal Heights, Alta Plaza, Lafayette Park.   In the southestern section, the grid is skewed to align with the slope of the hills.  Lastly the southwestern region is a series of planned developments like Forest Hill and St. Francis Wood, with roads curving to hug the contour lines.

Before, via foundsf.org

This demonstrates the changing theory of city planning over time, and also illustrates the odd effects of hills on a grid.  This first segment actually goes against the grain of the rest of this series, in that the topography didn’t leave many unexplained scars on the landscape.  The most pertinent example from early history is the 2nd Street Cut.  To summarize, the railroads all ended south of Market, and there wasn’t a level path through to downtown.  Thus, a path was cleared along 2nd St through Rincon Hill.  In reality, most of the downtown hills we take for granted are partially man-made, as they were all graded for advancing levels of transit.  

Like most of the first 4 portions of the story, I think it’s safe to say that the topography won’t have any more lasting effects on the shape of the city.  All of the hills have been developed or preserved, an that isn’t likely to change.  It’s interesting to note that the greatest changes in our vertical landscape happened when we had the least technical knowhow, but those early changes are the ones that last.

After, via foundsf.org

The Shaping of SF: Scars of the Past

As I wander through different areas of San Francisco, I wonder about what has shaped our city.  Apart from topography, our past has had the largest influence on the outcome.  Once constructed, it’s hard to erase the built memories.  The majority of the city is laid out in a grid, even though there are 16 different versions.  Eventually the roads starting growing in contours around hills, but the grid has been shaped on several layers of history.  Everything is dependent on what came before.  I’ll go through each stage in more detail in subsequent posts, but here’s a teaser.

2nd Street Cut, via sfist.com

Part 1, The Hills:

The original plans for the city involved leveling hills and filling the bay.  The grid was pursued relentlessly over the peaks of downtown.  Rincon and Irish Hills were mostly flattened, and the 2nd Street cut tore through SOMA.  As San Francisco grew, we had fewer choices to build out, with higher hills to conquer, and curved routes uphill became the norm.

Islais Creek, via bendeannet.jpg

Part 2, Water:

Downtown Portsmouth Square was built along the water, as was North Beach.  Fill from extinct hills made new land.  Ships left by gold miners are covered by foundations of skyscrapers.  But the grid also gave way to once large bodies of Mission and Islais Creeks, as well as the marsh lands along the eastern shore.

Cal Train Tunnel, via Funston on Flikr

Part 3, Trains:

Many competing companies had various routes into and through the city.  Following creeks and lowlands, burrowing through hills, ignoring the grid in search of a level path.  Large blocks of land were created in the bayshore, and SOMA.   Rights of way still exist through Fort Mason and along the Marina.  Trains and shipping helped make San Francisco the city it is, but their life here is almost over.

Embarcadero Freeway, via foundsf.org

Part 4, Highways:

Roads were widened along existing pathways, only higher and faster.  Acting like large walls, cutting off neighborhoods along their once main axes.  A large network was imagined for San Francisco and the region during the 1950s and 60s, including a future Bay crossing.  Now we have a patchwork of sub-standard highways, semi-completed expressways and dissected districts.

17th St. Plaza, via blog.streetcar.org

Part 5, Dismantling:

This network of history is beginning to be unwound in places.  One time rights-of-way, with their origins hard to decipher, are coming back to the community.  But we still have questions about their shape.  Why does Mission St curve?  Why do Treat and San Jose cut across the grid of the Mission?  Why does Webster alternate from 2-4 lanes?  What happens to areas like the 17th St Plaza?  What will remain when the next layer is peeled away?

Bay Bridge Repair

Construction at Yerba Buena Island

Yesterday I had the chance to join SPUR on their annual Bay Discovery Cruise, with a special detour to examine the new construction of the Bay Bridge.  Sadly my photos are of low quality, but they still present a rarely seen vantage point.  For more information with photos and video, you can head to Bay Bridge 360, or Bay Bridge Info.

While this is purely a transit issue, we have to keep in mind the amazing work that is being done – all without affecting the day to day lives of commuters and building occupants.  The Bridge has been closed only a few days in the past couple of years of construction, while the Western Approach was completed in the same footprint.  As you drive across the span, think of how close the construction is to the foundations of 1 Rincon, and then try to imagine the coordination necessary.  Very often we complain about the cost and hassle of construction, but so far CalTrans has a good record, if only the politicians had taken their hands off of it.

The Completed Skyway

Cost of Parking, Part 2

I’m back to answer some questions I’ve received about my previous post.

No regulations required 2 parking spots, it was designed that way to better conform to the neighborhood.  Very often we hear from neighbors of proposed projects that any shortage of included parking will lead to more reliance on street spaces.  This is a huge NIMBY factor when designing in a crowded area.

The site is very difficult to begin with, being triangular and on a steep slope.   Two garages are forbidden under the design guidelines, so the only option is a narrow garage door leading to all parking.  This leads to tandem parking, or a large enough garage to maneuver into a side-by-side arrangement.  In order to save space on the compact property, we opted for the stacker solution.

This house is already going to be very expensive to build (again due to the site), with the current estimate at about $600,000.   That points to the fact that one extra parking spot would add another 16% to the construction cost.  The fact is, currently there is plenty of on street parking available (there is a large city-owned property adjacent), but what if there weren’t?  How much would you pay to have dedicated parking?

In many San Francisco neighborhoods, we’re beginning to see parking as a luxury, not as a requirement.  Other places see on-street parking as a requirement, because the garage is already filled in.  It’s often a just a function of location and access to transit.  The truth is, we can regulate and zone all we want, but until there’s a viable option, people will spend through the roof to use their cars.

The true cost of parking

Via Harding Steel

Today at my firm, I came across an odd story that I found too humorous not to share.  Normally in the discussion of reducing parking in a development, we speak of the costs of car ownership, the impact on the environment, the burden on our roads, and the actual physical cost of building more stalls.  A typical construction cost estimate for a parking spot is somewhere between $2000 for a surface spot, or up to $50,000 for a structure.

In one of our residential projects, we wanted to use a car stacker to fit two cars in place of one.  Because we are limited to one garage door and curb cut, this would dramatically reduce the garage area without resorting to tandem parking.  In fact, two cars would fit in a space of about 300 square feet.

The hitch is that the Fire Department requires car stackers to be fire sprinklered.  In this region of town, a sprinkler requires water supply from a 4″ pipe, but the service in the street is only 2″.  Plan B is to double the fire-rating of the garage (more material and labor costs only) and extend the 2″ pipe with 2 meters to supply domestic water and sprinkler water.

When that seemed overwhelmingly costly, we reanalyzed the need for the additional parking.  It comes out like this:

1. 

   Via Harding Steel

   Retaining Wall for below grade storage of car: $30,000.

2. Additional piers for retaining wall: $30,000.
3. Additional excavation and debris removal for pit: $5,000
4. Sprinkler System: $15,000
5. Extra meter for sprinkler supply: $2,000
6. Extending pipe from street, including repaving: $10,000
7. Extra costs for 2-hour fire rating: $5,000
8. Car Stacker itself: $10,000

Total cost – approximately $110,000 just for one more parking spot in a detached residential zone.  Not to mention, there is plenty of on street parking right next door.

The debate now begins; is it good to make parking more expensive, or are we just making the typical house that much more expensive and unafordable?

Market Street of the Future

Yesterday’s post included a few small steps that can be implemented in the short term.  Today I’ll go over some of the more transformative plans, and what their associated issues may be.  I recognize that by definition, this will be an incomplete list, so I welcome any input from my readers.  I’ll try to organize my list in terms of Roads, Transit, & Built Form, and then in order of difficulty.

Roads:  Surface issues are what it’s all about in this category.  Different transit plans and street alignments that can fix Market.

• Re-route significant portions of the South of Market area to handle more traffic.   Many streets in SOMA have extra capacity, with the goal being to shift auto traffic towards them.  This is the natural progression as the center of mass of the business district moves further south.
• Create Pedestrian/Transit Malls and Boulevards.  Apart from Market St, Folsom has also been mentioned as a possible Boulevard.  Along with the above plan, this can help reduce the dependancy on Market as a transit and commerce destination.  
• Create more linear parks, by closing lanes or even single parking zones.  See Webster in the Japantown Plan.  We could also include skylights to the subways below.
• Remove the overhead section of Highway 101 above Division/13th St.  While this mostly affects Upper Market, this is not unprecedented.  I like to think of it as finishing the job that began in 1989, and we just need to tear out one more scar through our neighborhoods.

From SF CityScape

Transit: This is generally thought of as the reason Market St is so important.  Of course is has two huge transit tunnels, and is the destination of most of the city’s Muni lines, but we need more that the TEP.

• Central Subway!  Time to look at extending the line out to Fort Mason or Fisherman’s Wharf.
• Again, create a Folsom St Boulevard, serving as another transit destination for commuters.
• Remodel BART/Muni stops to be more like underground malls.  Similar to Tokyo and many other cities, we could make the idea of being underground actually enjoyable.  Powell Station connects directly into a shopping center, and 19th St in Oakland has a Subway, so why not integrate more services into our stations.
• Connect transit stations underground.  Transferring from the Central Subway station to Powell will be done underground, as will transfers from the new Transbay Terminal.  Any other Subway lines will need to connect underground as well, so why not make everything more seamless?
• Geary BART, new Transbay Tube, Folsom BART.  These are the hallmarks of dreamers.  As SPUR indicates in their Downtown Report, Montgomery and Embarcadero are at capacity.  It’s time to begin planning for the next alignment, whatever that happens to be.  

Built Form: The buildings we see (or ignore) every day really affect our feeling of space.  Market street contains some of the best and worst.

• Create a plan to revitalize the new ‘Arts District’ from 8th to 5th Streets.  These long ignored blocks should be some of the most valuable in the city.  They have great transit access, and proximity to many jobs, yet they remain blighted.  It’s time to be proactive.
• The Transbay Plan doesn’t encompass much of Market, but it can inspire development nearby.  More office space leads to more condominiums and apartments nearby.
• Rewrite the planning code to allow for more commercial zoning downtown.  This is where transit is, and it’s the best location for future density.
• Ease the Historical Preservation restrictions.  Many buildings along Market are old, and have the faults of older buildings.  If it were profitable to remodel or reuse them, then it would have been done already.  It’s time to acknowledge that not everything is worth saving.
• Remove some of the decrepit buildings near the Tenderloin.  The Planning Department will tell you that any loss of affordable housing is a crime, but one has to question the level of standards that are employed.  Many buildings are rotten beyond repair, but there is no reason to fix them.  If we allow owners to replace buildings (while promising to house current tenants), but add more on top, then it’s a win-win.

As you might be able to tell, this was all off the top of my head.  Again, if you have any suggestions, please feel free to add them!