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?
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
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.
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
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
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?
