As many of you know by now, last Thursday February 11th, the Planning Commission and Rec and Parks held a joint hearing on the proposal for 555 Washington St. Instead of a simple proposal for a residential tower, it has become a proxy war between the forces of growth and the preservationists. Both sides were out in force at the meeting, and have been encouraging all of their constituents to share their opinions. That’s the problem – the process is no longer in the hands of trained professionals, and has become a shouting match instead.
Almost all of the discussion at the meeting centered around a few key points, and few of them related solely to this address. Construction workers want jobs. Urban Designers like the density and location. Architects admire the form. Opponents worry about zoning exemptions, shading and views. These are all city-wide and regional concerns. NIMBYs fear that if this is allowed through, it will make precedent for more and larger towers. Of course the developers know that it will never be easy, and the fights continue to be elongated with each attempt. In case you were wondering why it’s expensive to live here, this would be a good place to investigate.
The real issue is the identity of San Francisco. I can’t say that I know more than others, living here only 5 years myself, but even in that short period we’ve made huge changes. Eastern Neighborhoods have been rezoned, Muni LRT extended to Bayview, and Rincon Hill has been dotted with ever taller towers. Faced with this uphill battle against progress, it seems that the forces of NIMBY-ism have decided to become ever more loud and obnoxious. A single voice has stalled the Bike Plan. Typical renovations and additions are stuck in Discretionary Review. Supervisors propose rewriting Prop-K to make shading on parks even more forbidden.
This all makes us trained professionals feel like our jobs are on every ballot. I understand that members of the government are responsible to the people, but I don’t believe that every policy should be fought over. There comes a time when expedience and necessity dictate otherwise. Recently, many of my office’s projects have been sent through many rounds of Planning Department reviews, ultimately changing the building beyond all recognition. Happily this seems to be changing, as everyone has begun to notice that nothing is being built any more. Before the developers go John Galt on us, we are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Discretionary Review reform is working through the Board of Supervisors, the BOS has dropped the ballot initiative, and the Bike Plan’s EIR is certified.
But again, where does this leave us? I have to admire the tenacity and determination of the NIMBYs, but I can only wish that their efforts were put to better use. Architects, Engineers, Planners, et cetera, all work very hard to make the absolute best of any given project. We are all licensed by the State of California to do our jobs to the utmost. If someone misrepresents one of their projects, we can lose our licenses. The public opinion has its place, but it doesn’t need to be inserted into each and every building. Instead they should focus on city-wide policies to truly shape the philosophy of growth.
Comments
Leave a Reply
Pedestrianist on 02.17.2010
It’s important to separate the concepts of “new projects” and “progress;” there are a great many new projects that work against the direction of progress… and we don’t have to agree on which specific projects those might be to agree that such projects exist.
Also, before we’re so quick to cry ‘NIMBY,’ remember that it’s the trained, professional planning department’s own Downtown Plan that forbids this building in this form, not Aaron Peskin and Nancy Shannahan. Clearly not everyone opposed to this tower in this location is a NIMBY.
In my opinion, this is not a great location for residential density. There are legitimate concerns over shading parks but, moreover, this is not a transit-rich area of the city. Anyone who lives here will be very likely to drive their car, and I think we can all agree that more cars in the Financial District is bad urban planning.
Jeff on 02.21.2010
” this is not a transit-rich area of the city”
I’m not sure what you mean by this. According to Google Maps it is a 9 minute,.5 mile walk to the Montgomery Bart/Muni station. Multiple Muni Bus Lines criss cross the building site. Sam Trans serves the financial district. Could you please explain why you think this is not a transit rich area??
joe on 02.25.2010
I go by the site on a daily basis in the bus. The 41, 45, the 1 all stop within a block of the site. Additionally, the site is very close to all of the market street rail lines and subways. This is some of the most transit rich land west of the mississippi.
Some people just dont want anything to change.
Pedestrianist on 03.02.2010
Now joe, don’t assume anything about my motivation and I won’t assume you have an interest in this project.
Far from not wanting anything to change, I would love to see this case as an example of how San Francisco is finally moving toward smart growth. A condo tower in the FiDi with 1:1 parking is not smart growth. Yes, there are a few bus lines that run near this site, but that doesn’t make it transit-rich. And the developers know that everyone who lives here will drive, which is why they’re spending so much money to build so many parking spaces.
Remember, this project breaks a number of provisions in the downtown plan, which was written by Dean Macris’ Planning dept… hardly a NIMBY stronghold.
Regarding transit access in the area, the Montgomery station is reasonably close as a regional connection point (BART access) but too far to be convenient for most trips within the city. The 41 and 45 serve almost identical routes (and the 45 in fact stops several blocks away). The 1 also serves the same area of town. There is no access to SoMa (the 10 runs infrequently and ends early) or to a wide swath of the city between Market and Sacramento St.
And where will residents buy their groceries?
The reason it’s worth discussing is that there are a large number of locations with better transit access where you can put this many units and not have it violate the planning code. I don’t think any of us would agree that every building is appropriate for every location, what makes this a project worth bending over backwards to support?
Chris on 03.07.2010
^I agree with most of your points, but there is a Safeway less than three blocks from this location – less than a five minute walk, which is closer than almost any housing built on Market or Van Ness, for example.