Wastewater map, via SFWater.org
While most people know the source of our delicious drinking water, few know what happens when we’re done with it. Now is also the time of year to think about rainfall, and the effect that water has on our design decisions. In San Francisco, we have a combined sewer system, which is to say we don’t discriminate between sewage and stormwater. Of course most of this infrastructure is also quite old. San Francisco’s first sewers were built over 100 years ago, but the brick construction holds up quite well.
Originally a cost-cutting measure, San Francisco is unique in having one pipe for all water. Now it’s actually quite beneficial to the environment when we treat everything before dumping it in the bay. The only problem is during extended periods of rainfall, the system gets backed up. The current infrastructure is quite amazing – several large storage tanks under our largest streets, simply to store water prior to treatment. Rainfall gets treated over the course of several days, before heading out to the bay or ocean. Even though the 3 treatment plants can process about 500 million gallons a day, we end up dumping water about 10 times a year. Investments into stormwater absorption could greatly help alleviate the sewer issue, but it also raises other problems.
The other aspect is water that is absorbed into the ground. This is always preferable to treating wastewater, but we have to acknowledge our limitations. San Francisco was once populated by many creeks and tributaries, beginning on hilltops and carving our many valleys. While the surface ones are almost all diverted, many still run underground. But of course they’re not gone, simply forgotten, ignored, or rerouted. We only have a rainfall of about 20″ a year, but we have a large collection of springs and other unexplained sources of water to power these streams. The Hayes River is powerful enough that BART has to pump 2.5 million gallons of water from the Powell Station each day. Many other buildings have to continuously worry about inundation while planning their basements or foundations. One project I’m working on is undergoing Discretionary Review partially because people are worried about the change in water flowing through the underground river. Changes in hydrology can cause landslides and flooding if not properly accounted for, just one more unique design challenge in San Francisco.
Subsurface water storage, via SFWater.org
Every day we live with the decisions of the past, and our water infrastructure is no exception. Sewers and stormwater are the same system, and now we have to pay extra fees for each toilet or sink that we build. Culverted streams carry a large source of potable water directly to the bay, instead of being used for irrigation or drinking. We don’t live in a desert, but we’ve designed our city to be completely independent of the weather. Each rainy season we should think what our priorities are when rain drains pollution to the bay, but we’re worried about Sierra snowmelt for drinking. We need to design all of our buildings and infrastructure to be ready for changing climate and rain patterns. Relying on old systems will no longer be enough – it’s time to make sure each addition can stand on it’s own.
Balboa Park Station Area Plan, via SF Planning
Recently the Balboa Park Station Area Plan has come back into the news as the plan slowly comes to fruition. As with all things political, the frustrating pace is necessary to make sure that it’s done correctly. Especially in this case, when so much of the work is meant to correct for the horrendous design visited upon this area in the past 50 years.
This formerly residential neighborhood is blessed with some of the best transit connectivity in San Francisco. It’s BART’s busiest station outside of Downtown SF, and it is a transfer station for many Muni lightrail and bus lines. It also was cut in half by I-280, which made a gouge through the namesake park and the affordable housing nearby. With the main campus of City College in it’s midst, this neighborhood, for good or ill, is based on transit.
The new plan makes several admirably ambitious steps forward. I’ll try to summarize as best as I can (organized roughly West to East), but there’s no substitute for reading it yourself.
- The newsmaker recently has been the relocation of the “Phelan Bus Loop”. This would take what is effectively a parking lot and convert it to multi-family affordable housing, combined with the nearby vacant Kragen store. Then a new Bus Loop would be constructed around the existing Firehouse, complete with bathrooms and a rest area for the drivers. This new configuration would provide great connectivity to the CCSF campus, and create a more interesting street face along Ocean Ave, while providing much needed housing.
- Adjacent to the Bus Loop sits two enormous vacant properties owned by the City of San Francisco. Two unbuilt reservoirs hold only cars and dirt. The Plan would use the eastern half of each parcel to construct additional housing, and create open space on the western half. This would effectively reserve area if the reservoirs are needed in the future, while allowing for construction of homes in a very desirable location. The Campus could have a much better entrance, and Phelan has much more capacity than is used right now.
- Along with rebuilding Phelan, Ocean and Geneva are in dire need of a face lift. The basic idea is to construct them in terms with SF’s Better Streets Plan, doing their best to create a more pedestrian and family friendly streetscape. There is also a plan to encourage more mixed use zoning to get more people on the street. This would also help re-link the two sides of the freeway.
-
Section through SPUI and Freeway Deck, via SF Planning
The gem of the plan is the SPUI and freeway deck above 280. Single Point Urban Interchanges funnel traffic entering and exiting the highway through one chokepoint, helping to control car’s speed, while also creating an easier to navigate crosswalk. The interstate area between Ocean and Geneva would have a deck above it, creating a pedestrian and transit plaza. MUNI’s existing turnarounds would be transferred to the deck, putting it closer to both sides of the neighborhood, and also the CCSF campus. Of course BART would get a facelift also, trying to lighten up the trench-like station. The deck might also host additional housing and stores, as part of the overall plan to announce the Station as a destination rather than a view from a culvert.
- Lastly, San Jose would also receive the same treatment as Ocean and Geneva. There would be an effort to reclaim some land from MUNI to create more housing and shops, again all trying to create walkable neighborhoods.
Naturally this is a plan that will take decades to enact. And many millions of dollars. But this is an area that is absolutely ripe for more development. Where else can you find schools and houses so close to BART for such affordable prices? As I’ve written before, why not take advantage of what we have? The question is, how can we best work to enact the needed changes? We needed this project 25 years ago.
Proposed Freeway Deck and SPUI, via SF Planning
Ever since the installation of the new detour in the Bay Bridge, I’ve heard many anecdotal stories about the terrors of the S curve. When I was racing back to San Francisco to return a rental car (the one time I’ve driven the detour) I could see the point. Most of the bridge is straight and flat, and people tend to speed up. The whole reason that many newer longer bridges (think of the San Mateo Bridge) have slight curves is to avoid this false sense of security.
With the big-rig crash earlier this week, I thought of something else though. It’s that many drivers have a sense of complacency, if not invincibility behind the wheel. There is plenty of signage to warn of the impending curve and lowered speed limit, so what else can it be? Maybe it’s just that we base our driving on habit rather than thinking. This is the fundamental difference between cars and bikes/pedestrians.
I bike to work, and I have to make hundreds of life or death decisions on the roads each day. This constant fear is what keeps me on my toes, and always aware of what’s around me. Luckily my route follows the panhandle bike path, and a portion of golden gate park, so I’m segregated from many cars. But it also means I have to bike on Fell or Oak for a few blocks. If an engineer wants to call the new S curve ‘negligent’, then what would you call a bike path that ends into a 4 lane high-speed free-for-all?
Pedestrians and bikers have to always be thinking. If there’s something in your way, you adapt. Each day presents new challenges and puzzles. Yet I don’t blame the designers for it. The design is safe only if people are aware of it. There are many ways of making people pay attention: curves, bumps, signs, paint, etc. But if a driver chooses to go well over the posted speed limit, it’s not negligent design.
Yesterday the Land Use and Economic Development Committee of the Board of Supervisors had a hearing about reforming the Discretionary Review process. The Planning Department has proposed several different revisions to the protocol in an effort to make everything more efficient. Mainly, the revisions would require a more thorough early notification, but would give the department power to reject frivolous challenges. This was not the first hearing in this process, nor will it be the last, but I wanted to provide some first person perspective on the proposal.
Anyone who works in the design field in San Francisco is all too familiar with the headaches caused by the DR process. After negotiations with the department, the plans get sent to the neighbors, and the struggle starts anew. In a worst case scenario, someone believes that the plans are illegitimate, and demands a review by the Planning Commission. Well, demand is a little strong – for $300 you can cause any project to be delayed by months, costing the project sponsor thousands. It is this power that forces negotiation, even when the Design Standards are met. Supervisor Maxwell several times cited this as the power to ‘kill’ a project. The idea that an uninformed public should be able to override professional planners, architects and designers stings the brain, but there it is. I think this was the main sticking point in not immediately passing the legislation.
The new version of the rules will still allow the public to bring the decision in front of a public board, however. Any DR that is negated by planning may still be brought before the Board of Appeals. The power to kill a project still remains valid, but yes, slightly lessened. Because nobody should be able to kill a valid project that meets all the criteria.
The most important part of the reform has already been accomplished through administrative changes. Pre-application notices are now required for all projects, and the information has been standardized. Any applicable party will have the initial contact, and be able influence the design in it’s early stages. This will prevent the type of blackmail we’ve seen when the project hangs on one ornery neighbor. These pre-app changes are long past due, but welcomed nevertheless. The problem is that now we’re doing too much. A Residential Design Team has also been added to look at all projects for uniform application of the Design Standards, thereby increasing the consistency of the review. The extended pre-application, along with the unlimited DR privileges will put too much strain on the planning staff. That is why we must pass these reforms to the DR process as well – they’re complimentary in placing the review earlier in the process.
At the meeting many of the speakers were of this mind. Design professionals and homeowners spoke about the intense pressure they’ve felt from one unhappy neighbor. Neighborhood groups often spoke that the earlier they knew about a project, the less likely they were to DR a project. Only one person spoke passionately about keeping the DRs ‘as-is’, and that was a lawyer who profits from DR clients. Most everyone knows the process is broken and overburdened. The effort to push forward the neighborhood notification is an effort to please everyone from the beginning. We all like to work with happy neighbors. And who knows, maybe we’ll end up with better buildings as a result.
A few weeks ago I wrote a quick analysis of my thoughts about California’s Architecture Exam requirements. I’m happy to report that I passed the exam, and in a few short weeks will be a licensed architect. Notice the extra delay in the process – another 6-8 weeks is required to get everything else in order. In case you’re counting, these are the steps I’ve taken:
- 4 years at UC Berkeley, majoring in Architecture (The non-professional degree).
- Completion of the Intern Development Program, where I documented about 3 years of work experience at various firms.
- California IDP, nearly the same thing as above.
- Completion of 9 ARE exams, in theory covering the entire scope of architecture.
- Waiting until the years of experience were finally logged correctly at NCARB, and then forwarded to the California Architects Board.
- After acknowledging my experience, waiting until an open exam date. Passing the California Supplemental Exam, waiting for the results, paying another $200, then waiting 6-8 weeks for confirmation.
There has to be some time in there that we can shave a little time off. Granted, I’m about as young as you can be to actually qualify, and I have California’s rules to thank for that. CA doesn’t require the professional degree, as most other states do. Instead of spending another 2 years in graduate school, I was able to work in many different facets. In my view, this experience was much more helpful than any amount of schooling would ever be.
California is unique in this sense. We require less schooling, but have a much more difficult exam process (and the CIDP, which is at least well-intentioned). I am now eligible for reciprocity with other states, and I got to skip some of their more burdensome requirements. Each state has exceptions for designers with many years of experience, but is this “no-school” loophole a good thing or not?
As I mentioned before, I’ve learned much more through working that through school. Of course my education opened doors for me, but in terms of real live architecture and workplace skills, there is no comparison. Maybe I’ve just been lucky in my circuitous employment. I have worked for contractors as a framer, for purely development driven clients, and for engineering firms. But I still think I passed the last exam only because of a summer internship during college, where I learned all about the bidding process in public buildings. It’s the things you pick up along the way, with your first-hand knowledge that really shine when you need it.
California’s method of skipping an extra year or two of schooling may result in less design-y buildings, we will be guaranteed to have smarter architects.
Vote Nov. 3rd! (via lhecht.wordpress.com)
I finally figured out my positions on San Francisco’s upcoming ballot measures. While no life or death issues are included this year, I realized something about my own position about the legislative process as it exists in our fair state. It’s the minutiae that make elections interesting.
Prop A is a so-called ‘good government’ measure. The plan is to account for two years at a time with each budget to help overcome the variations in funding that the city faces. But few other requirements are installed, such as mandatory penalties or taxation to maintain basic services. It all seems well intentioned, but without any particular teeth to make it effective. (Please pardon the summaries, as I am no legislative analyst). It doesn’t go far enough, but I plan to vote for this, because it seems like a good idea.
Prop D also seems like a good idea, and also doesn’t go far enough. It would create more funds for the Mid-Market Community Business District – ideally to help create a more vibrant area. Again, this is where the specifics are quite lacking. Each new billboard might be offensive in its design or content, and there is no way to take it down afterwards. Not to mention that the CBD is a private entity asking for an exemption from a city-wide sign ban, and there are no controls for the spending of the money.
Both measures do seem well intentioned. Both lack enforcement measures if they were to be enacted. The problem is that A’s lack of enforcement would mean the status quo, while D could lead to many unexpected changes. Not to mention the fact that I generally do trust the government’s transparency propositions more than one from a private property owner who stands to make fistfuls of money.
Just a quick note today, spurred on by a dangerous column by CW Nevius in the Chronicle. He basically rants that pedestrians in San Francisco get in the way of cars too often, and end up causing accidents. The problem is, that is a perfectly normal point of view. Not to say that it’s accurate, inaccurate, or inbetween, just that it’s to be expected. Because he’s writing from the perspective of a driver.
This is problem that is all too common, when you don’t understand the perspective of other people. But it’s more than that. Whatever method of travel you’re engaging in tends to be the one you’re intent on enforcing at that moment. It’s called Modal Bias. Bikers feel like they own the road. Pedestrians dominate crosswalks. Automobiles want to be everywhere. Unless you’re one of the other two.
I feel this myself, on the rare occasions that I get behind the wheel of a car, and I get upset that I have to slow down for a pedestrian, or go around a bike. I generally adjust pretty quickly, but the instincts from growing up in suburbia don’t go away that fast. When my brain actually kicks in, I realize that I should give bikes the lane, and walkers get to use crosswalks. But that’s with much experience biking and walking in San Francisco, so I partially know what to expect. The problem lies in inexperience from the driver’s point of view- part of the above average driver thinking, “What’s wrong with that guy?”
I’m also an above average cyclist, and an amazingly diligent pedestrian. Until I’m not. The problem is that the big guy always wins, regardless of any legal precedent. Rock beats scissors : car beats pedestrian. In a city that features such huge numbers of pedestrians, transit users, cyclists, and whatever else – the burden lies on those that have the ability to kill people to be on the lookout.
If one spends much time reading through the achievements of local planning and transportation activists recently, one word keeps cropping up. This is the result of many complex systems, but “temporary” is the newest kid in on the block.
- Pedestrian Plazas: Castro (at 17th St) and Guerrero (at San Jose).
- Studies for permanent closure: Mason St in North Beach.
- Stair steps for traffic calming: Market St past 8th and various Presidio thoroughfares.
These studies have much in common, which is what I’d like to focus on. Besides all be temporary, the thing these all have in common is that they close areas off to private cars, while all remaining open to transit, bikes and pedestrians. This by itself should be complimented as a forward thinking breakthrough. While areas around the country are using their new stimulus money to create new highways (or an unnecessary 4th bore), San Francisco uses its resources to seek more open space and pedestrian environments.
The funny thing is that many of these seem to be done purely to avoid any environmental analysis. CEQA exempts temporary installations from the lengthy EIR and notification process. Basically, as long as the city departments all agree with each other, it’s a done deal. This is exactly the reason the Bike Plan has taken so long to get off the ground – something that was seen as undoubtedly good for the environment was thought to be OK skipping the EIR. Not to short-change anyone, because I’m sure many groups had a lot of planning to do behind the scenes, but it all just seems to be *so easy* to temporarily fix the problem. The beauty is that this overcomes humankind’s great tendency to resist change.
Inertia is a great thing. It keeps the earth rotating the sun. It also makes shopkeepers incorrectly think that most people drive to their stores. Instead of having endless hearings and studies about the effect of road closures, San Francisco has decided to simply close the roads, and do the study in real life. The thing is, once the earth doesn’t stop rotating, and the sky doesn’t fall, people should actually come to appreciate the fact that you can get down Market on a bus or a bike just as easily. Not to mention, we will have real life data for the EIR, should it ever come to that.
I’ve tended to present this is exploiting a loophole in CEQA, but that’s not entirely true. Yes, the environment needs to be taken into account, but I’m just excited to see something actually being attempted. I assume the furious partisans will picket a plaza if they are determined to drive on every single street in San Francisco. Lawsuits and hearings will happen, and we should prepare to defend them for the betterment of our town. But hey, at least we should applaud the city for trying.
After a few weeks reflection on my latest exam, I’ve come to some conclusions on the state of architects in California. On September 15th I took the California Supplemental Exam, the 10th test in my quest to become a licensed architect. Naturally I’m still waiting for the results, but that’s given me time to think about what I was supposed to study, and what actually will become of all that knowledge.
First a quick discussion on the rigors that licensed architects must go through: Minimum 4 years of school, preferably in architecture. Graduate school is a plus, but not required. While accumulating an additional 4.5 years of work experience, you must document your hours in through the Intern Development Program, as well as the California IDP. Midway through this, you may begin to take the 9 Architecture Registration Exams required nationwide. Yet, after all this, California still insists on an extra test. And not any quiz, this CSE will be a 1.5 hour oral exam on the legal and technical side of architecture.
The reason I mention all of this is that design is never questioned. It is never tested. Nowhere in the process is a candidate actually required to *make* anything. And then the public wonders why many of the buildings we see everyday look so cookie-cutter. Granted, much of this has been taken up by Planning Departments, and Design Commissions, but the architect’s historical role is constantly being diminished.
At one point, the Architect was the go-to person for a building’s location and design, relations to the client and city, and coordinating the construction process. Now because of legal liability, the architect is relegated to merely getting the building approved by government agencies, and then stepping back into the shadows. Very few Howard Roark type projects will ever get approved by committees, and design intent frequently gets altered in construction anyways. The architect is forced to hide behind legal contracts, and keep silent.
This is what has created the need for so many consultants in today’s construction climate. Siting, Design, Planning, Permit Approval, Construction Administration, Construction Management, and many more – all created by lawyers. I would like to bring the profession back to the days when we could take pride in designing and creating buildings, and being able to shuffle them through the full process. Maybe it’s time for California to realize that the process is stopping good design in its tracks.
There are two issues I wanted to *very briefly* discuss today that greatly affect the development of affordable housing in San Francisco. I know that these are much larger topics than can be covered here, I just wanted to link these ideas to the cost of living here. The first category is limitations in zoning and planning laws. The second is the idea of rent control, and its unintended consequences.
The idea of restricting what can be done on private land have been around for about 100 years now, and are constantly being tinkered with. Zoning laws were created to separate residential neighborhoods from industrial areas. Now this differentiation has grown to include not just use, but also occupancy, height, bulk, setbacks, and appearance. Laws now restricting what can be built where. In actuality there are two types of zoning, inclusive and exclusive. Some say Use A is permitted, while other says anything except Use B. There is also the difference between being explicitly allowed, or being not illegal, it’s all a matter of context. To this extent, we have to realize more areas of the city need to be upzoned. Instead of requiring single family zoning, we can merely allow two (or more) units on a lot. The classic example of this is the in-law apartment. Reality has to be acknowledged as well – in law apartments exist all over, and quite frankly are desirable.
The other big issue is rent control. There are two different types of restrictions put on rent in San Francisco, and there needs to be a line drawn between the good and the bad. The difference between what we think of as rent control, and what we think of as tenants rights is the main problem. Originally they were one package, but there are economic rules, and quality of life rules. I understand that markets must be regulated to an extent, but arbitrary dates and shifting laws are anything but sane. When Chris Daly proposes even more restrictive and draconian laws, then the landlords really will pull a John Galt.
The moral restrictions on evicting people are a great theory, but sometimes end up as blackmail. In many cases a remodeling project is stalled or delayed because a tenant refuses to move, even if remdial measures are proposed. Current law requires a payment to the tenant to move out, but it almost always escalates. Obviously some controls are required, but the stigma of evicting a tenant is often enough to prevent a bank from issuing a construction loan, or to prevent the Planning Commission from approving the plan. The difference between the legally required moving fee of some $5,000, and the going rate of about $50,000 to vacate is only passed on to the new owner.
The main issue referred to as “rent control” is the artificial fixing of prices, contrary to market rates. When over 90% of economists agree that rent control actually increases the cost of living, shouldn’t we pay attention? These controls remove any motive for the repair or renovation of existing buildings, and more importantly, remove the motivation for building new rental housing. Landlords live in fear of the post-1979 buildings being roped into the existing laws, even though they’re currently exempt. I don’t want to be citing the CATO institute, but just look at what happened when Massachusetts removed rent control in 1994. Rents didn’t go up, elderly people weren’t kicked to the curb, but new construction and property taxes receipts went up. Of course there are good ways and bad ways of changing the restrictions, this is just an introduction.
The rules as stated are not doing their perceived duty. There is a well established system of getting around the rules, and it’s a very expensive compromise. Developers buy out tenants, have fewer lots to build on, and may be affected by development fees and restrictions. All of the uncertainty is what makes construction so costly. Make the process easier, allow for more to be built, and costs will come down.
