Giving ArchiPorn a Bad Name
End of ReignIn case you’ve missed it, thus far 5 people have had to leave the Planning Department because of charges related to viewing pornographic material at work. Insert bad joke here. Originally the discipline was for ‘receiving emails’, but now we’re up to ‘spending hours a day’ looking for photos. So when does a little work day relaxation get so out of hand?
I, like many, have had my frustrations with the department. I’ve met several people whom I’ve felt don’t work hard enough, but many astound me with their knowledge and work ethic. I think that while pornography at work is certainly in bad taste, that in itself should never be a fireable offense. But if you were to tell me that a Planner spends hours each day looking at photos of kittens, then they should be out the door. It’s certainly easy to focus on the lurid nature of pornography, it’s the ineffectiveness that really bothers me.
Upon last report, around 20 people are meant to be admonished for this behavior. This is out of a staff of around 80 people. Planning Director John Rahaim surely must have know about this prior to May, if 25% of his staff are affected. Why hasn’t his leadership been questioned? Oh wait, an anonymous underground petition has been making the rounds questioning the behavior of Mr. Rahaim. Honestly, if 1/4 of your staff is being punished or fired, how do you avoid any scrutiny?
Lastly, the rather uneven nature of all this is what truly frightens me. I of course have not been at any of the hearings, but it seems as though anyone fired specifically for pornography should find a good lawyer. Pornography is perfectly legal in all 50 states. And last I heard, the internet is an amazing place that sometimes shows you things you’d wished you hadn’t seen. For this offense, some get counseling, and some get stripped of their pensions that they’ve contributed to for 30+ years. At least this scandal would benefit from more disclosure about why people are actually being fired – because right now it sounds pretty indefensible.
—————————–
Update -
I don’t want to make excuses for harassment. But the original explanation of receiving pornography in email is no grounds for termination. Also, here’s the petition going around:
Great MUNI representatives
Just a quick story from my experience on the N-Judah last week…
I reverse commute on the N every day, and often take the train to downtown or City offices on Van Ness during the workday. I’ve never seen fare enforcement during anything other than the evening commute. And they always manage to catch at least one person, which always makes me feel like they’re earning their keep.
Last Wednesday I was headed back to the office and the officers boarded the train at the East Portal of the Sunset tunnel, and checked everyone during the ride to the other side. This time – no problems. Usually the officers hop off and wait for the next train, but not this time. A young woman gets on the train for a stop or two before the officers ask her for a transfer, at which point she says she doesn’t have one. The Law actually took about 10 minutes to listen to her story and try to avoid giving her a ticket. But her aliby of being from LA and thinking the train was free just didn’t hold up. Muni enforcement behaved perfectly, explained everything to the woman, even stating that she could get the fine cancelled if she could eventually prove her LA residence.
That’s a long way of saying that many bash MUNI everyday in print and online, but they generally do a great job of getting 700,000 people where they’re going in a friendly manner. Now if only they could agree to not bankrupt the city too, that would be great.
What can a planner actually do?
Our small corner of the blogosphere is seemingly up in arms about Stanley Saitowitz’s designs, and what the Planning Department says. While many architects have their own stories about designs being ruined, there’s also the Planner’s point of view. After many years of training and experience, they know what works best in different areas of San Francisco.
Bay windows and stucco.
It’s a punchline that works every time. I have of course had my own struggles with the Planning Department, and their comments on our designs. It’s come to the point that we don’t even bother making our first few drafts look good, because we know the building will be scaled back by neighbors, community groups or committees. There’s no point in expending effort designing something when everyone else has their own priorities. This is something we’ve been dealing with for the past few years.
But today I had to laugh upon seeing finished photos of a building I designed. The exterior was completely different that what I had drawn. All the trim, moulding, overhangs, siding, and details were gone. And all that remained? Say it with me – Bay Windows and Stucco. We spent days working with the Department to get our front facade approved, but that means nothing in the field. Because as long as the building is safe, the Inspector will approve it. Because if the neighbors don’t care, nobody will call it in. Because the Planning Department has no follow through on the designs they work so diligently to interfere with. It’s simply that much cheaper to build a plain ordinary building.
Don’t get me wrong. What was built is really pretty ugly, but I have to say it does fit the neighborhood pretty well. I’m definitely not putting any photos on our website. But what recourse does a Planner have? Maybe if they worked with a little more good faith, the architects, contractors and project sponsors of the world might actually want to build the building correctly.
How to read building plans
How would you exit this flaming building?
Without going into potentially compromising detail, recently I had an eye opening experience. Someone who has authority over one of my building permits simply didn’t know how to read plans. I’m not talking about anyone unimportant here, but a major figure who can weigh in on all building permits. Couldn’t tell where the rear yard was, how much her proposed modification would affect the design, or even what a closet looked like in plan view.
Maybe it was second nature for me, growing up with a father for an engineer. But at this point, I don’t know how you can go through life without knowing this very basic skill. If there’s a fire drill, how would you leave a building? If you’ve ever been able to read a map – congratulations! You can also read building plans.
Have you ever looked at a photograph of a building, or perhaps even seen a building in real life? Congratulations! You know what an elevation looks like.
Have you ever carved a pumpkin? or had a slice of pie? Congratulations! That’s a section.
Have you ever used a cookbook with photos? That’s your basic detail.
Of course this is second nature to me. I can even understand people’s lack of understanding around the entirety of the building trades. Heck, most architects don’t know how to actually build anything. But that doesn’t excuse an official’s complete incompetence in the world of construction. Or at least pretend like you know – that’s apparently what everyone else is doing.
Eastern Neighborhood Zoning
In the past few weeks our office has had our hands full in trying to learn the intricacies of the new Eastern Neighborhood zoning. The problem is, there is no easy answer – and that’s exactly the way land use should be dealt with.
We’ve had projects in UMU (Urban Mixed-Use), MUR (Mixed-Use Residential) and MUG (Mixed-Use General). I’ve put in a few calls to friends in the Planning Department, and it seems like we’re all on the same learning curve. Residential density is no longer based on the lot size, just the massing of the building. All of these, as their names give away, require at least some amount of mixed use, and the Commercial FARs are much higher than previously allocated in some areas. Height and bulk are still fixed, but setbacks are much more flexible.
And that’s the main idea behind land use. Flexibility in allowing for good design. Too much of recent development has been the same 500′ towers, built to the maximum possible envelope. Now the code gives you payoffs for setbacks, and allows density for height, even lets you *gasp* put the appearance before the profit.
Of course, with this comes other costs. There is the new, and very large, Impact Fee. Requirements for Historic Preservation Committee Hearings on almost any change to a building. And full Commission hearings on any “Large Projects”. And of course there are the good planning ideas which our clients tend to hate, such as limited parking, active ground floors, and public open space.
I’m optimistic that these new changes can allow for better working conditions between designers and planners. I think it provides for a better starting point in negotiations, knowing that each party has something to offer. Now if only we could rezone other parts of San Francisco in less than 10 years…
Discretionary Review Reform, Part 2
Yesterday I again spent an afternoon with the Land Use & Economic Development Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. While I would love to report that the goal of Discretionary Review Reform has been achieved, it once again has been tabled for further discussion. What follows is a quick summary of what has changed in the past few months since I last wrote.
In the slow process that is our city government, each successive meeting is a series of the Supervisors asking the Planning Department for more information, then asking for more at the next meeting. Planning has done it’s best to present their case for reforming DR. Director John Rahaim reiterated the 5 benefits he sees coming out of this reform: Better Design, Consistent Design, Clarity and Transparency in the Planning Process, Improved Design Standards, and a Planning Commission focused on policy instead of individual projects. They’re simply trying to do what we always ask of Bureaucracies - become more efficient by getting rid of waste and excess. Planners saddled by frivolous DRs are not able to actually do their job, and instead have to referee spats between neighbors.
The big new was proposed amendments by Supervisor Mar. Some were no big deal, such as codifying the 2 year sunset of the trial reform, and improving the design standards (nee guidelines). He also wanted to have a written policy for the Planning Commission to call a project up by the vote of 2 commissioners. The biggest waves had to deal with Neighborhood Associations. Mr. Mar’s first proposed amendment was to always allow Neighborhood Groups the right to DR a project. Typically this is not a problem, because associations have a history of working with architects and planners. Many issues arose when Supervisor Mar asked for an additional 60 day period for Neighborhood Groups to finalize a DR, after the 30 initial period. Everyone was so confused at first that it required the Deputy City Attorney to step in and clarify – Neighborhood Groups were to be given 90 days, instead of the 30 they’ve dealt with for the past dozens of years.
Much discussion was had on both sides, with the typical talking points raised by everyone. Architects, consultants, neighborhood groups and owners all spoke their piece. Some were wildly off topic, and others mentioned by everyone at the podium. You can hardly blame the Supervisors for working on their anti-smoking legislation instead. After public comment was done, the commission (surprise!) asked for more information from the Planning Department, but I do feel like we’re getting closer. Supervisor Maxwell made several comments which to me signal that she understands many of the more issues at play. Hopefully once Mar’s amendments get addressed, we can get some actual work done, and help the Planning Department approve some projects!
Proxy War at 555 Washington
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.
A New Jobs Proposal
What if there were something would create or save thousands of jobs in San Francisco and California, yet save money, energy, and people’s lives? Inevitably every proposal along these lines has some crazy caveat, but not here. The only catch would be finding a politician with enough gusto to actually get it done. I’m sure any proposal here would inevitably be torn to shreds, but I’m an optimist.
Here’s the plan: Required retrofitting of all older buildings for energy use and seismic safety. But wait, you say, what about the money? Why would anyone waste time and energy on this? What’s to save? What benefit would this be?
The money part is actually the easiest to answer, at least for energy audits. Many simple measures can be done to cheaply save heat and electricity from flying out the window. Some legislation is beginning to require energy audits at sale of a house, but this needs to be done now. Just look to Berkeley, where solar installations are paid for by the city, and the cost (far less than the money saved) is added to property tax. Money for seismic retrofits would be harder to control, but I’m sure some insurance savings would go a long ways to motivating people.
Beyond the fiscal motivation, there are also more noble concerns: Saving the planet. Less money going to OPEC. Cleaner Air. Fresher water. Saving historic buildings. Saving lives. Each of these should be enough to consider your options as a building owner, but the combination is almost irresistible.
Lastly, there is the job factor. While the ARRA (Stimulus Bill) went to great lengths to provide funding for new jobs in large infrastructure projects, the little guys were ignored. Of course I’m biased in this, being an architect, but small scale construction is one of the last things to come back online after an economic rebound. Even though there are plenty of new houses in the ex-urbs, the 100 year old houses in San Francisco simply aren’t safe or efficient. A stimulus plan on this note would help employ design professionals (architects, engineers, surveyors, and interior designers), manufacturers, and construction workers. Huge segments of the economy could be rehabbed from the top-down.
I’m sure everyone who feels under-employed is asking for government help right now, but that’s not the whole story. This project would create jobs while aiding safety and energy savings. We would actually make things, instead of simply moving money around, and you can easily see the results in lower monthly payments. Of course these would all be local jobs too, with local benefits. And one can hope that we would end up with a better looking and functioning city at the end of it.
Back Door!
New Hybrid Doors, via sf.streetsblog.com
As a regular rider on SF Muni, all too often I see people confounded by the multitude of door opening mechanisms. Several times a week I see people unfamiliar with the various systems, and either have to watch them struggle, or yell out at the driver to open the door. The familiar chime of “Back door!” should never be this prevalent.
The busses have three different methods of egress, plus the simple use of the front door. The oldest system is the ‘step down’, another chorus you may hear when unfamiliar with that trigger. Seeing as this is rather difficult for elderly or disabled people to do quickly, or if the driver is in a hurry, newer busses feature the press bar. This mechanism works well enough, unless your hands are full. The newest method is the ‘touch here to open’ strip, which is really just an optical sensor. The sensor doesn’t open the door unless you correctly hover your hand in the right place for about a second, which was nothing to do with touching. Clearly tiny signs aren’t very helpful in instructing people how to operate doors.
Muni trains, on the other hand, are at least standardized. The problem here is that the press bar is located well too low to actually be reachable. Half of the people I see simply kick the bar, which can’t be good for maintenance. It’s either that or bend over, and hope that you’ve pressed it in time to activate. If you’re in the rear train, there’s no option of yelling at the driver that you wanted to get out. My personal favorite is when the door is out of order, and they simply apply a barely visible sticker, about 6′-0″ above the floor. How hard is it to put some red tape across a door to show it’s broken? And I would be remiss if I didn’t harp on the piercing squeal the doors make if held ajar. I’m sure everyone recognizes when a door has been held open, so why subject the entire train to that awful sound?
Any one of these mechanisms would be totally fine if they were uniform across the system. Of course this would cost too much to happen in my lifetime. Naturally the best option would to simply open the doors automatically at each stop. With the increasing usage of Translink and monthly passes, we should encourage people to enter through the rear door anyways (of course with more fare enforcement). And if that doesn’t work, try considering a system like Seattle, where you pay while boarding for inbound, and pay upon exiting for outbound stops. Overall it would decrease the dwell time, and help get people smoothly home. Certainly our ears would be all the healthier for it.
Running on our streets
Lyon St Stairs, via crossfitsweatshop.com
It’s time to discus the combination of two of my loves, exercise and city design. San Francisco is often considered one of the most fit cities in the US, and we have an amazing climate for running. Many bike commuters make great use of these traits, but don’t have to worry about one key issue: where to go?
Sure, we have Golden Gate Park with its miles of roads and trails. The Presidio is rebuilding their extensive off road network. Ocean Beach, the Embarcadero and Crissy Field all have great linear paths. The problem is that so few of these peripheral trails are located near people, and are not interconnected. For me, the thought of driving to exercise is one of the most hypocritical things in our culture. It’s time to design streets that would actually make people want to get out and move.
The easiest way to see this at work is the Sunday Streets series, reintroducing many San Franciscans to the wonders our city has to offer. This easily overcomes two of the three largest problems – hills and sidewalks. Traffic is still abundant in the people dodging sense. If you were starting from scratch, there are many things you might want to think about, but how can we take our existing grid and make it work for us – and make people want to get outside?
-
Safe sidewalks? via Streetsblog
Stairs: often necessary to overcome our hills, stairways can either be the public right of way, or merely accompany the steep streets. As much as cyclists try to avoid steep hills, runners often flock to them for speed training. If you’ve ever been to the Lyon St steps adjacent to the Presidio, you have seen the teams of runners endlessly going up and down. This type of civic construction not only increases our circulation possibilities, but it makes it fun and desirable.
- Sidewalks: As many of us can attest, all of out infrastructure is failing. Seldom it’s less obvious than a crumbling sidewalk, which poses a great threat to pedestrian safety. Naturally when running, uprooted pavement comes at you much faster. But for me, the bigger problem is the width of the sidewalk. With the combination of new street trees, warped sidewalks for driveways, and other pedestrians I often find it safer to run in the street.
- Traffic: Contrary to my experience on a bike, occupying the road seems the surest bet. Traffic on the sidewalk from other pedestrians is often more indignant than from cars on the street. I stay out of traffic by hugging the cars, but don’t fear a bicyclist’s fate of being doored. Surely this could all be alleviated by wider sidewalks, but that’s a future project.
Our streets, sidewalks, and other right of ways are resources that should be a large part of our civic pride. Everyone knows about Lombard St, but it isn’t even the steepest (Filbert St and 22nd St at 31.5%) or curviest (Vermont) street in San Francisco. But what about these other famous streets or stairs? The truth is, unless you are an amateur detective or a bibliophile, you’ll probably never find some of the more interesting areas of our city. These make for great running/hiking, and also great sightseeing for tourists and our economy. I love going for a run and discovering a new stair or path, but I would love all running to be so accessible and exciting.
