Missing Traits in the Trade

Analysis of Third Street Economic Development and Corridor Strategy

CYP 200 Planning Histories and Practice: Frameworks, Opportunities, and Dilemmas Fall 2022

Dini Fauziah Amattullah

Executive Summary

Project Background and Historical Context

The Third Street corridor is often described in the news media and by city agencies as an “underdeveloped” neighborhood. In the 1960s, the downtown section of Third Street was known as San Francisco's "skid row" and became the city’s last predominantly Black neighborhood in the present day. The plan to improve the Third Street corridor is part of the “Jobs Parks and Housing Initiative” from Proposition G, which was voted back in June 2008. The economic development and corridor strategy plan address three main goals to improve the district's social, economic, and physical conditions. Despite its benevolent objective, the plan fails to address the long history of disinvestment and displacement embedded in the neighborhood. Through abandonment of political-economic decisions and social crises of the past, the program lacks historical connecting traits tied to its strategies. This paper examines how the plan deals with the legacy of the past and creates inclusive opportunities beyond looking at the high commercial vacancy rate

Key findings

Our findings show that in Hunters Bayview Point, as in most black communities, black women have shouldered the burden of public responsibility and brought progressive change In terms of corridor strategy, the residents are likelier to have a public realm improvement over the festive brand to lift the economic gains. Furthermore, the plan also missed addressing the unemployment issues and engaging with the thriving existing local cultural assets embedded in the economic plan.

As the plan leaves out community participation, plan intersectionality, physical upgrade, and cultural value for an economic boost, this paper analyzes causes and possible cures from prior research The focus of this analysis would emphasize four crucial elements as connecting traits of the profound history of Third Street in Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood with their prospect. The four aspects are a social-bias improvement, incomplete economic strategy, unfriendly physical design, and unrevealed local assets and cultural determinants.

Recommendations

Working with a community with a long history of being marginalized and continuing to be displaced by the system behind seemingly part of the city’s progress, the development plan should reflect deeply not to repeat the same narration. These are recommendations for the authority to incorporate:

• Engage

• Explore

• Encourage

• Elaborate

• Evaluate

In conclusion, creating a vibrant, profitable, and flourishing economic development and corridor strategy must start beyond analyzing the high vacancy rate problem and asking more inclusive questions. More importantly, not to repeat the same traumatizing urban revitalization glooming over the neighborhood.

Introduction

The plan to upgrade Third Street along the Bayview Hunters Point Neighborhood of San Francisco has progressed since Proposition G, “Jobs Parks and Housing Initiative,” was voted in June 2008 The declaration would serve as the legal basis for developing the Third Street corridor that will encapsulate an area of a 1.5-mile-long retail corridor. The plan is a subset of the Bayview Hunters Point Area Plan with the objection of improving the use of land by creating compact commercial areas, establishing nodes for complementary uses, and restricting unhealthy uses.1 Despite its benevolent objective, the plan fails to address the long history of disinvestment and displacement embedded in the neighborhood. Through abandonment of political-economic decisions and social crises of the past, the program lacks historical connecting traits tied to its strategies. Moreover, given multiple previous initiatives that have been done previously, it is critical to examine how the plan deals with the legacy of the past and creates inclusive opportunities beyond looking at the high rate of commercial vacancy. This paper tries to unfold the missing traits in the trade of economic development and strategic plan embedded in the Third Street corridor.

The economic development plan of Third Street Corridor is visioned to address three main goals to improve social, economic, and physical conditions in the district. While this plan calls for revitalization, it stipulates that no residents have their homes taken from them and no resident is displaced. Hence, displacement is the breadth of progress,2 not a one-time event. To be adamant about it, the plan should serve as a broader strategy, advocating for housing and allinclusive community needs, which is not stretched in the program. On the other hand, as part of the impact of lengthy disinvestment, the district nonetheless lacks the vitality and vibrancy that exist in most other San Francisco districts, self-explain its long-suffering. Therefore, this analysis will:

1. Connect the historical context underlining the Economic Development and Corridor Strategy.

2. Confront the Plan’s objective to improve the district's social, economic, and physical conditions through community engagement, cross-cutting elements of a comprehensive neighborhood strategy, and design lens.

3. Examine the local asset and cultural determinants missing in the plan.

4. Provide recommendations as advocacy for a comprehensive and inclusive strategy.

Research Methods

This paper mainly examines Third Street Economic Development and Corridor Strategy report, identifying crossing elements from the city’s development plans, such as San Francisco’s General Plan, Housing, Sustainable Neighborhood Program, Better Streets, Transportation Element, Small Business Initiative, and Cultural Heritage Preservation.

The focus of the analysis would be on connecting traits between the historical context and prospects of the neighborhood depicted in the plan. Despite being exercised in multiple programs since 1993, the most updated plan in 2015 still lacks the true spirit of the Third Street corridor, which might indicate part of the planning failure. Our findings show that in Hunters Bayview Point, as in most black communities, black women have shouldered the burden of public responsibility and brought progressive change.3 In terms of corridor strategy, the residents are likelier to have a public realm improvement over the festive brand to lift the economic gains. Lastly, the plan also missed addressing the unemployment issues and engage with the thriving existing local cultural assets embedded in the economic plan.

The following sections provide the historical context and background of the Thirds Street of Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood. The analysis continues to delve into the missing elements that the plan failed to redress. Lastly, the recommendations offer possible alternatives for each cause and stretched strategy for a more comprehensive plan

Historical Context and Project Background

The Third Street Corridor runs through multiple neighborhoods, mainly in Bayview Hunters Point, one of San Francisco’s oldest and most diverse communities (Figure 1). Historically it has been the location of the City’s heaviest industries, some of its poorest residents, and its most significant concentration of public housing. Its history includes contact between early Spanish explorers and native Ohlone dwellers along the shore of Islais Creek.4 The African American communities grew significantly during WWII as they worked in the naval shipyard starting in 1940.

The Third Street corridor is often described in the news media and by city agencies as an “underdeveloped” neighborhood.5 In the 1960s, the downtown section of Third Street was known as San Francisco's "skid row" and became the city’s last predominantly Black neighborhood in the present day.6 In many ways, the closure of Hunters Point Shipyard in 1974 made a prolonged impact on the district’s economy, which has never fully recovered. The dramatic decline in population due to the clearance of the old war housing on Hunters Point Hill led to crisis and isolation, shifting the market structure of Third Street as once a vital shopping area.

One of the persistent issues says that as the planning statement boasts a couple of public and private investments, such as the Third Street Light Rail (T-Train), the neighborhood still struggles to be back on its feet. It does not mention the use of transportation planning as the means of segregation, gentrification, and community displacement hiding the more critical issues such as housing, health, and economic discrimination The plan needs a call for action not only to make a vibrant corridor development but also to retain Bayview’s historical authenticity by not oversimplifying the ‘hardly erase citizens’ long histories of distrusting planning and public authorities.7

At least five studies have been done prior to the most recent study by Economic Development of Third Street (EDoT) in 2015 (Figure 2). Besides the main identification of the economic aspect, the corridor still lacks a comprehensive strategy that ties the collective issues surrounding the economic and corridor development The analysis section examines the missing traits within the four elements of community participation, plan intersection, physical improvement, and cultural determinant that would enhance the economic development to be more inclusive and comprehensive.

1993 Sedway, Third Street Corridor Study

1998

Pittman Hames and Keyser Marston Associates (With MUNI)

1996

Keyser Marston Associates,Inc (KMA), Bayview Hunters Point Concept Plan

2003

Conley Consulting Group ‘Third Street Retail Assessment’

2008

Social Compact’s the ‘San Francisco Neighborhood Market DrillDown’

2015

EDoT/Bay Area LISC Third Street Economic Development and Corridor Strategy

5 “Bring Back the Block Fridays Activate Bayview’s Third Street Corridor - SF Weekly.”

6 “Homelessness Looks the Same as It Did 20 Years Ago.”

7 Forester, Dealing with Differences, 134.