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.
SF State Station, M Line, via wikipedia
Picking up on a thread from my last post, I want to focus on increasing the TOD potential along existing transit routes in San Francisco. The basic fact is that new (rail and BRT) transit is incredibly expensive to build, but generally well worth it in social costs. Our question is – what do we do with existing transit that is underused?
If you look at the transit ridership numbers from the Transit Effectiveness Project, the majority of the boardings on the K,L & M lines are in the tunnel along market. The busiest stop is typically Castro or Montgomery or Embarcadero. So does that mean that we should increase the level of service in the Metro Tunnel? What about the future? Of course, the reason is that those stops serve more people, as in they serve a denser population.
Instead of trying to increase the service from one point in the line, why not increase the demand along the length of the route? Part of the Eastern Neighborhoods plan was the introduction of Transit Zoning to areas near BART and the T line. This zoning should be utilized to try and increase the population with access to transit, but also the ability to live ‘away’ from the city. I understand that people enjoy the idea of living apart from Downtown, but in a city that’s this small, it will soon become inescapable.
Park Merced Plan, via socketsite
One great example of this is the Park Merced neighborhood trying to increase their density. The 1940s car-centric development is trying to add more towers to their land and take advantage of the M line running just a few blocks away. Instead, the residents are fighting to preserve one of the last bastions of suburbia within San Francisco. One resident says “”There is no reason why this shouldn’t remain as it is indefinitely” (from SFgate) – but that is the exact opposite of the truth. There is no possible way for the neighborhood not to change, due to the large increases in population that San Francisco needs to absorb.
Again, it all comes down to basic economics. More dwellings = cheaper houses. Living near transit = less reliance on personal cars. Developing around existing transit is much more effective than building lines through established neighborhoods. So, what kinds of arguments can we make to appease NIMBYs? It all starts with changing the government regulations.
There is one main problem with trying to accommodate more people into San Francisco: residents don’t want any additional neighbors. Many such NIMBYs will state that new housing should be built away from them, typically in the Downtown and SOMA areas. After all, it is closer to most jobs, many towers already exist, and it’s the densest part of our city. The reason they’re wrong? New dwelling units built downtown easily break $1 million, while units in The Sunset go for half of that, with southern regions being even more affordable. This policy has added greatly to the dearth of affordable housing.
What is it that makes certain areas of the city less attractive? Certainly it’s not solely distance. Neighborhoods such as West Portal and the Outer Mission are bustling commercial centers, despite their distance. The easiest argument is that these areas are less exciting, perhaps even less ‘San Franciscan’. After all, the reason many of us live here is for the feeling as much as anything else. The Sunset is famous for its constant grid, and relentless monotony. Instead of accepting that certain areas might be less desirable, why not try to bring them in line with our dreams and expectations? Perhaps if we focused on re-creating the western regions, we might be able to build more units and attract more residents.
Sunset District, Robert Campbell Photography
My architecture firm has had no shortage of interest from builders in the outer regions of The Sunset, Portola, Excelsior, etc. Fairly often we are confronted by two concerns – the unit cost will be low, so have to design differently; and neighbors don’t want us to build any denser, or to change their neighborhood. Even if we start with a empty lot, or a blighted building, the adjacent residents often want to maintain the status quo.
This of course is a bit of a chicken and the egg conundrum. Do we try to rezone certain areas to encourage a build out, or do we try other planning efforts to draw people to the neighborhood – thus increasing rents/purchase prices – and incentive to developers. The exciting point is that the Sunset is basically a blank slate, with which we can try several ideas. Already the density along Taraval is increasing, and Ocean Ave is getting a much needed rezoning in Balboa Park. I’m advocating a much more sweeping plan, but I think we need more neighborhood outreach. The idea is ruined unless we can get resident buy in. After all, the height limit is 40′ through most of the city, but you rarely see that.
With increased investment in the outer regions, we can easily add housing for many, many more people. This increase in available housing, particularly in a family environment, is much needed in San Francisco. Any additional housing will increase the competition for tenants, and help reduce the rent prices we all struggle with. So, instead of looking to Oakland or Daly City, look West towards affordability!
Home to 800,000 people, and the 2nd most dense city in the country, San Francisco has hit the wall. We’re surround by water on 3 sides, and have nowhere else to build. The rapid population growth in the region in the next decades will require new ways of thinking in order to accommodate the legions of new residents. In the next few posts I’d like to introduce a few ideas I’ve had on ways to incorporate new housing without disturbing the neighborhood feel that makes San Francisco the city we love.
This lack of housing is the simple fact that makes it expensive to live here. At the SPUR meeting on Tuesday, July 28, former Planning Director Dean Macris plainly stated what we all know: we can never build ‘enough’ housing. People will always want to live here, no matter the price point. Rent Control makes it affordable for some, along with other government controls. Some rules also make it untenable to provide more living space. Basic market forces are needed to bring down the cost of housing, which equals more supply.
In this city, either we build up, or we build out. It turns out that we need both. The long and expensive process of constructing more residential towers will not make enough housing to be competitive. The only other option is to better use the less populated southern and western areas of the city. Through more generous zoning, and the utilization of in-law apartments, we can easier absorb more people.
Lastly, my favorite topic about putting more housing near transit. I usually focus on areas like The Mission and SOMA for having good access to transportation, but as we’ll see, the southwestern regions served by the KLM lines are ripe for more growth. Naturally plans for Visitacion Valley and Balboa Park will contribute greatly to this goal, but more is needed. Areas with single family detached housing can still be allowed to be more dense than they currently admit.
After 3 weeks abroad, I’m now back in my favorite city in the world. The nice thing about traveling is that it makes you notice the small things that you take for granted. Of course you also notice what you might be missing back home as well. While these things might typically be clean water, good beer, or salads, the same theories apply to one’s experience of cities as well. What follow is a short essay on what we should be grateful for, and some ideas that urban designers might want to import.
I spent time in many cities of differing sizes, but the specific ones I wanted to mention are Arequipa, Cuzco and Lima, Peru, and Quito, Ecuador. Of course the first thing you notice is that most cities above a particular size have the same basic language. Once you can reliably figure out what direction you’re facing and have a basic knowledge of the grid, you’re all set. The first city I landed in was Arequipa, which is dominated by a several 19,000′ volcanoes, in case you ever lose North. The first impression I had was that the streets and sidewalks were all very narrow by US standards. This not so subtle code was an easy way of saying that pedestrians were meant to stay along the main plazas and arcades. Combine that with the prevalence of cheap taxis, and you have a town that has been overrun by car use.
Cusco was ruled by it’s topography, and it’s more than 500 year old history. The Incas designed the urban core it in the shape of a Puma, so there’s a long legacy of planning and symbolism. Again the tourists were mainly confined to the historic Plaza de Armas and pedestrian malls as the taxis whizzed around. Similar to San Francisco, most of the grid goes over the hills instead of around, and it was fairly easy to navigate. The busses, as in Arequipa, were along no set routes, making taxis the only real option. The city is also served by one rail line, even if service is rather limited. The main problem was the streets too steep for cars were generally cobblestones stairs, and generally impossible when new to the 11000′ elevation.
I was only in Lima for a few hours, so my experience was very limited. I walked through the main downtown area, El Centro, and along the waterfront. The basic summary is that it’s a lot like LA – historic center, massive sprawl, desert climate & dry riverbed. As was typical, the main plazas and pedestrian areas were very heavily used, but the other streets were rather barren. The waterfront (mostly dry creekbed) had some interesting new development, including an archeological theme park, and new public housing. Then even had a beautiful pedestrian bridge crossing the river and highway. Because of my admittedly low expectations, I was pleasantly surprised with the city, perhaps exactly because I didn’t get that far outside the center.
Quito also has a rather interesting history of urban design. Because of the surrounding mountains, the layout is essentially 5 miles wide, and 30 miles long. The benefit of this is that the 3 BRT lines all ran parallel N-S routes and were always packed. The Old Town, as its affectionately called, is the colonial center. Much better preserved than the rest of the Latin America, I found it very interesting that the historical section is very much still a vital part. Commerce, residences and industry were throughout. The new town, named Le Mariscal (created by white flight in the 50s), is now overrun by tourists and yuppies. The saving grace of the town is the overwhelming natural beauty. Many volcanoes and other hills encompass the region, and Quito contains many parks to take advantage of the topography and rivers.
The one organizing factor that stands out most upon visiting each city is their plazas. Impressive public areas anchored the main areas for commerce, recreation, religion, and employment. These plazas were always bustling with activity, and always seemed safe, both because of design and usage. Their shape might vary from linear, to the traditional square + fountain, but they were omnipresent. They also often linked to large pedestrian malls with bustling shopping zones. San Francisco contains many plazas, almost all of them underused by locals; Union Square, Justin Hermann, Civic Center, Embarcadero Plaza, Portsmouth Square. In my experience our plazas are only used for mid-week lunch breaks, and then everyone heads to the parks in the rest of the city on the weekends. Perhaps our wide sidewalks have become our versions of mini-plazas, where we covet a small portion of exterior public space.
The last comment I’ll make, is that even though we complain about Muni all the time, it’s better than 90% of the public transit services in the world. Most of the transit available in Peru and Ecuador was very shady at best, so I often resorted to taxis. Because of the overall pedestrian unfriendliness of many cities, very few people would walk any distance. Muni’s grid typically gets people where they want to go, whereas the ‘collectivos’ were a very haphazard method of mass transit. The BRT in Quito was nice, but the lines were filled to capacity at all times – which generally means it’s time for light rail. Of course most cities could benefit from much more urban planning, but these are the things you notice when traveling with an injured friend. Sometimes walking just isn’t appropriate!
This is the end of my diversion into foreign affairs. Tomorrow I’ll try to return to my regularly scheduled programming.
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?
