Issue 499
01.11
SPUR
News at SPUR p3 The Year in Urbanism p4 Urban Field Notes p20
Urban Drift p22
Member Profile p23
•
rnams
0 1.11
LETTER FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
The year in urbanism
Gabriel Metcalf is executive director of SPUR.
So much happens in a year - good thi ngs, bad things, th ings we're not sure about, thin gs we don't even notice until much later. One of our jobs at SPUR is to try to sort it out so we can understand the big trends. We work on so many issues in any one year, and w e try our best to be strategic about what to do, focusing on the biggest oppo rtunities for change. In honor of the new year, we are devoting this issue of the Urbanist to a review of some of the major trends that are shaping our work. Perhaps the starting place for this discussion is to acknowledge the startling disconnect betw een the national level and the local level in the American urban agenda. Wh ile the federal government failed to pass a climate bill, an energy bill or a transportation bill, and while a large port ion of the national leadership debates whether we should we doing anyt hing about global warming, climate change is already hitti ng us. San Francisco's wastewater system is already starting to face problems with increased saltwater intrusion back into the outf low pipes because of sea-level rise. But it was the storms at Ocean Beach last w inter - causing so much erosion that the Great Highway was undermined and the huge trunk sewer box under the road had to be protected by emergency work crews - that can really stand as the marker of when climate change hit the city. We know w here this is headed, even if we don't know exactly how quickly. Figuring out how to adapt to climate change wi ll be a major preoccupation for San Francisco, as it w ill be for all cities, for generations. This contrast between the national and the local level runs through so much of our work . There is an optimism and creativity in so much of w hat is happening in San Francisco and the Bay Area, as we experiment wi th new forms of pub lic space, as we work on an ambitious program of building public transit , as we nurtu re new models of work and entrepreneurship, and as we try to reinvent gove rnment to be capable of solving new problems. It was often remarked that 20 10 should have been the "Sputnik moment" for th is generation of Americans - the moment w hen the oil spill, climate change, and new competition from successful economies around the world shocked the country out of its complacency and put it on a new path, just as the Russian space launch in 19 57 launched a national effor t to ramp up science and technology. It
2 Urbanist > January 2011
should have been our Sputnik moment, but it wasn't. Yet, here at home, we don't need any mo re evidence about the need to retool our way of life and our economy. We've already started. SPUR has surveyed some of the biggest trends in this "year in urbanism," from home foreclosures in the suburbs to new forms of techn ology that are changing the way cities operate. But of course we were only able to tell a few of the import ant stories, and there are many others: • A new questioning about some long-held beliefs, e.g. the value of home ownership, and the idea that "green job s" will be an important growth sector. • The beginning of a backlash against public data and new mobile app licat ions (the very idea celebrated in th is issue's "Open Source City " piece), because of concerns about privacy and corporate control of informatio n. • A troubling trend toward privatizing planning functions in small cities across the country, as budget cuts lead to the elimination of things wi th long-term benefits - like planning. • lntergenerational conflict over pension costs and tax burdens, and a new sorting of haves and havenots that is upending traditional defin itions of liberal and conservative. • An obsession with Japan and the idea of a longterm cultural and economic stagnation happening here as it did there aft er the 1980s. • A political divergence betwee n California and th e rest of the country. • The crash of "consumer cities," from Las Vegas to Dubai. So much happens in a year and we cou ldn't writ e about it all. But we hope you find th e pieces in this issue to be thought-provoking and we hope you agree they capture at least some of the big trends th at are affecting cities, including your own city. There is no doubt that 20 11 will be equally momentous, and we w ill be at the center of many of the big events of the next year. We've got big problems to solve, from restoring the pub lic's faith that government can be run for the benefit of everyone to getti ng the economy back on track, and we are not going to waste any time gett ing to wo rk. We appreciate your support for SPUR as we do everyth ing we can to provide ideas and action for a better city. •
January 2011 What we're doing
TOP PRIORITY FOR 2011: THE BUDGET San Francisco is projecting a $380 million General Fund deficit for the next fiscal year, which begins on July 1. Last year, labor unions agreed to wage concessions worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Still, the City will face huge deficits for every year as far as the eye can see. Driven by a combination of rising health costs, wages and pensions, there is simply no way the City can afford the government it has today. SPUR is going to be working with our partners in City government to help bring costs and revenues into balance with the overall goal that we don't have to face these "emergencies" every single year. This spring, the City will release its first-ever fiveyear financial plan, mandated by the Prop. A budget reform measure approved by voters - and chaired by SPUR - in 2009. This will be a great opportunity to both make sense of major trends and shape future budget reform efforts. Stay tuned for updates. SPUR WEIGHS IN ON NEW AIR QUALITY THRESHOLDS In June, the Bay Area Air Quality Manageme nt District (BAAQMD) adopted new CEQA guidelines containing new thr esholds for greenhouse gases, criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants (also called "comm unity risks and hazards"). Whi le w ell motiv ated, the community risk thresholds could create new hurdles for th e future develop-
ment of in-fill housing w ithout providing much helpfu l guidance on how to mit igate environmental impacts. SPUR wo rked w ith partners in both the in-fill housing and air-quality com munities to provid e BAAQMD with recommendations for improving air quality, w hile also ensuring that good in-fill projects are able to move forward . In December BAAQMD voted to delay imp lementation of th e thr esholds until
May 201 1 and make other improvements to its analyt ical tools. Read the memo supporting th ese actions at spur.org/ baaqmd .
NEW PARKMERCED PLAN GOES BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION Last July, SPUR endorsed the new developm ent plan for Parkmerced, wh ich w ill add approximately 5,7 00 housing units to th e existing 3,22 1 units on the 155- acre site near San Francisco State University. The project also reconfigures an auto -oriented street grid and provides substantial transit and sustainability improvem ents, inc luding new Mu ni stops and an urban farm . The Parkmerced developm ent team is currently making its way thro ugh the entit lements process, and presenting at a series of hearings at th e Planning Commission in early 20 11. Interested in getting involved? Contact Sarah Karlinsky at skarlinsky@s pur.org.
SPUR AWARDED GRANT BY THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SPUR was awa rded a $66,300 USGS grant, part of th e National Earthqu ake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP), to help fur ther our Resilient City Initiative. This grant augments existing support from Degenkolb Engineers, and w ill help SPUR develop a "shelter-in-p lace" plan for San Francisco in th e event of a major earthquake. Part of the solution w ill be to define the
minimum condition for residences to be considered habitable, the acceptable duration of infrastructure outages, and addressing t he special considerations needed for vulnerable populations. For more information on SPUR's Resilient City Initiative, see spur.org/ resilient city.
SFHAC STUDENT HOUSING LEGISLATION PASSES THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Our friends at the San Francisco Housing Action Coaliti on enjoyed a major legislative victory in December w hen th e Board of Supervisors unanim ously approved a Student Housing Ordinance. This legislation, aimed at addressing a city-w ide shortage of student housing, w ill exempt new student housing developme nt from the City's inciusionary housing law , w hich requires developers to provide aff ordable units as part of any new housing development. Two important details: New student housing development cannot result in th e conversion of any current rental housing. And 30 percent of beds must be occupied by students w ho receive or are eligible to receive need-based financial aid. Read the proposed legislation at sfhac. org. Congratulations SFHAC! •
Urbanist > January2011 3
SPECIAL FEATURE W it h th is issue, we're kicking off t he ne w year - and a new trad ition - at SPUR. More confident in our ab ility to assess the p resent t han predict the future, we've taken a stab at namin g t he b iggest trends and events af f ec t ing urban plann ing in t he Bay Area right no w. W ri t e to ed itor@spur.org with your own list!
Climat e change Crowdso urcing Housin g J ob gro wth Public pro cess Technology
The year in urbanism What happened and what it means for the Bay Area 路Special thanks to Carl Anthony, Dena Belzer, Will Fleissig, Nancy Levinson, John Parman , John Rahaim, Michel St. Pierreand Michael Yarne for their help in shapingthis issue.
[ The Environment]
Climate Change hits San Francisco WH AT HA PPEN ED Ju st w eeks after th e w orl d f ailed in Co p e n hag e n to com e t o a n agreement a b o ut how to st o p run away cl imate c ha ng e, winter storm s ca used unpreceden ted e ro sio n at Sa n Francisco's O cean Bea ch. Part s of the Great Highway were c lose d and se we r systems threatened. Emer genc y c rews spread rock revetments to hold back th e waves - for now. WHAT IT MEAN S The long-anticipat ed impacts of global warming: rising seas , in crea sed st o rm su r g es and shifting coast lines ar e here right now. Coasta l citi es every w he re face tough c ho ic es about how to ada p t . No single event can be clearly attributed to climate change, but last winter's erosion events at Ocean Beach are as close to a bellwether as we've seen in San Francisco. In January and February, nearly 40 feet of bluff collapsed onto the dwindling beach south of Sloat Boulevard, leaving the southbound Great Highway closed and, more ominously,
4 Urbanist > January2011
threatening the Lake Merced tunnel, a 14-footdiameter sewer transport pipe that lies under the road. An emergency was declared, and Department of Public Works crews placed rock revetments - a form of coastal "armoring" - on the beach to prevent further damage. Parts of the 1940 s-era seawall that had been buried under undulating sand dunes in the central part of the beach remain exposed even today. An emergency, perhaps, but hardly a surprise. Episodic erosion and armoring had occurred several times over preceding decades. Two citizen task forces studied the problem and warned that even more erosion was coming. Local environmentalists and surfers, then and now, have fought emerge ncy declarations and rock placement, arguing that "temporary" armoring has a way of becoming permanent, and results in the loss of the beach. This conundrum - when and where to armor the coast to protect expensive property and infrastructure, and when and where to let nature take its new, more threatening course - is our fundamental climate adaptation policy challenge. Along the coast and the shoreline of San Francisco Bay, it is a basic city-planning challenge as well. Late last year, international climate talks foundered in Copenhagen, while at the U.S. federal level, the House passed a relatively ambitious climate bill that died in the Senate and was buried by the November election. The upshot? States, regions and cities have to become leaders on both fronts of global warming: trying to stop it and dealing with its effects.
CONTR IBUTORS Alexa Arena is Vice President of Development for Forest City and head of FC's San Francisco office. She looks forward to developing the next participatory monopoly where "tradables" include kale-filled taco stands and serendipitous interactions.
Gabriel Metcalf is Executive Director of SPUR.
Anthony Bruzzone is an associate at Arup's San Francisco office, and a former planner for AC Transit and Muni. He looks forward to when the Giants' next rookie phenomenon is called up from Fresno and arrives via a high-speed train.
Jordan Salinger is the Research and Volunteer Coordinator at SPUR. He has been working on projects related to congestion pricing, economic development in San Francisco and publicly accessible data. He does not have the six votes needed to be mayor.
Benjamin Grant is SPUR's Public Realm and Urban Design Program Manager. He is currently leading a cross-agency master planning effort for Ocea n Beach, where he's hoping someone will teach him to surf.
Laura Tam is SPUR's Sustainable Development Policy Director. She lives in the Ocea n Beach neighborhood, where she hopes the major bummer of inevitable sea-level rise might be a little offset by an uptick in warm, sunny days.
Sarah Karlinsky is SPUR's Deputy Director. She has knitted several brightly colored scarves while waiting to testify at public hearings.
Egan Terplan is SPUR's Regional Planning Director. Prior to SPUR, he worked in Buenos Aires, Sa nto Domingo and Sa rajevo. He is coming to terms with the reality that his young daughters will soon understand the technological and spatial implications of consumer Internet firms better than he ever will.
Jed Kolka is Associate Director of Research and Research Fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), a nonprofit, non-partisan research foundation. At PPI C, Jed has written numerous reports on the Ca lifornia economy, economic development, housing, and technology policy. Urbanist > January 2011 5
Last winter, storms hastened erosion at Ocean Beach, causing nearly 40 feet of bluff to collapse along the Great Highway nea r Sloat Boulevard.
Ii Urbanist > January 2011
Fortunately for us, California continues to lead the way on climate policy, with voters this year decisively rejecting a challenge to Assembly Bill 32, the state's landmark climate protection law. Regional agencies such as the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments have begu n the process of developing Sustainable Communities Strategies under Senate Bill 375, which will guide future development to transit-rich locations to reduce carbon emissions from driving. Finally, the state pulled together a multiagency Climate Adaptation Strategy, meant to guide state agencies in planning for the health, air quality, water, agricultural and sea-level implications of global warming. The Sa n Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission has been proactive about studying and planning for future sea-level rise in the Bay. SPU R also is working on both of these fronts. We are actively involved in shaping the region's first Sustainable Commun ities Strategy, a document that will propose a land-use vision and policy tools to achievethe region's target of 15 percent per capita reduction in greenhouse gases. The SCS will constitute part of the Regional Transportation Plan, and plan for enough housing to accommodate the region's population growth. This year, we successfully advocated for the MTC to adopt a stretch goal of 15 percent for its emissionsreduction target. Since 200 9, we have been running a climate adaptation task force to study the effects of global warming and to recommend adaptive strategies.
This work will wrap up early this year with recommendations for local governments, including San Francisco, on every aspect of adaptation planning, from sea-level rise to public health and water resource management. Recently, we commented on BCDC's proposa l to amend its Bay Plan to include new findings and policies on climate change and sea-level rise (read our thoughts at spur.org/bayplan). While commending BCDC for being a global leader on planning for sea-level rise, SPUR recommended that BCDC work with other agencies, and especially local governments, to identify long-term regional flood protection strategies and ensure consistency with SB 375 . Finally, SP UR is leading an ambitious climate change adaptation effort in the city's own backyard. The Ocean Beach Master Plan, funded by grants from the California Coastal Conservancy, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and the National Park Service, is convening a wide range of public agencies, advocates and community stakeholders. The goal is to create a great public landscape in the context of a moving coastline and an uncertain climate, while balancing the needs of beach users, a fragile ecosystem and critical infrastructure. If the project is successful, the next erosion episode won't be an emergency - it will be an expectation fulfilled, triggering a set of agreedupon actions. We can no longer plan for a fixed state, an imagined equilibrium. It is a strange and discomfiting kind of stewardship, but one that will be essential in our new, uncertain age. - Benjamin Grant & Laura Tam
[ High-Speed Rail ]
The tortured progress of California high-speed rail WHAT HAPPENED The California High Speed Rail Authority, under pressure from the Federal Railroad Administration to build quickly and easily, decided to build its first stretch of a statewide high-speed rail system within the Central Valley: from Borden, south of Merced, to Corcoran, the center of the California prison industry. WHAT IT MEANS This could be the logical successful start of a huge public works project in a place where construct ion is easy and relatively cheap, leadi n g to an early win and bui lding momentum for further work. But it creates big questions for the Bay Area about how to comp lete projects to electrify Ca ltrain , separate train tracks from automobi le traffic and extend Ca ltrain to the Transbay Term ina l, g iven that many peop le had been hoping for high-speed rai l funds to help make these improvements. Transf ormat ional infrastru cture proj ect s require publi c w ill, polit ical courage and lots of money. But t hroughout history, th ey have created th e society th at we enjoy today. W hen we think of th e last century, we may think of th e University of California, t he freeways and th e State Water Project. A hundr ed years ago, our great-g randparents delivered the transcontin ental railroad and th e state's early flood control projects. Modern California is unthinkable w ithout th ose expensive and at tim es cont roversial projects - and today nobody disputes th eir value, imp ortance or necessity. SPUR is convinced that our grandchildren w ill value high-speed rail th e same way Bay Area resident s value BART or th e brid ges today. But , like every other transformational project in th e state's history, th e high-speed rail project is contending w it h crit ics, cynics and naysayers. How we listen and collaborate wi th th e doubt ers is import ant for a project th at is going to be built incrementally
over many years. We need quick w ins and more consensus, and we need to wo rk quickly to sett le controve rsies and move on. Too much is at stake to lose, and th at might happen if t he complaints of a few overw helm the needs of the many. In 20 10 we started w it h many quick w ins, several big disappointments and a few big question marks. San Francisco was at the forefront of t he quick w ins this summe r. The Transbay Transit Center, after 10 years of planning, broke ground and included th e all-impo rtant "train box." This occurred because th e Transbay Joint Powers Aut hority, wo rking w ith th e City and assisted by SPUR (and our decade-long involvement), managed to secure $400 million in high-speed rail fun ds th at we re included in th e federal stimulus package. The end result for San Francisco w ill be a new regional transit center th at is home to th e region's transbay bus fleet, a new icon for the City and the region , and a new anchor to a neighborhood of more than 2, 500 residential unit s and 6 million square feet of off ice space (enough space for about 25,000 off ice wo rkers). For th e high-speed rail projec t, the Transbay Transit Center becomes th e objective geographically, economically and aesthet ically. By building th e terminal first, San Francisco is challenging th e rest of th e state and th e region to emb race high-speed-rail and is showi ng the good thin gs th at happen w hen we invest. With $ 150 million in local sales tax money and almost $200 milli on more in local redevelopm ent tax increments, San Francisco sets a high bar and receives equally high benefits. This huge step forward for th e high-speed rail program couldn't have happened any sooner. The project has been mired in cont roversy, and now congressional Republicans want to kill its federal fundin g. We need to pass on San Francisco's optimism to t he rest of th e state. When railroads we re first invented, th e critics of the day claimed th ey caused "co ncussions of th e brain" and th at th ey we re th e wor k of th e devil, in addit ion to th e more technol ogically based concerns over boiler accidents and collisions. Those concerns seem qu aint and improb able now. Our object ive for 201 1 must be to engage th e naysayers and reach out to our friends. San Jose is allied w ith San Francisco on th e need for highspeed rail, but our strangest bedfellows are Fresno and Bakersfield, w here t he project enjoys huge support. W hile we can shudder w hen the newl y elected members of Congress (and some Midwest governors) wa nt more highway spending and no rail fun ding, we need to take t he big view. The history
Urbanist > January2011 7
of infrastructure projects is that w hen the political support is there, the leaders w ill follow the people. Imagine a futur e in w hich Fresno, w ith its own "starchitect "-designed station in a revitalized and renewed downtown, is only 9 0 minutes from San Francisco or Los Angeles. Fresno becomes th e center of a state of more than 40 milli on people w ho are separated by the running time of one Hollywood movie. Geography can have its advantages. High-speed rail wi ll change Fresno, it w ill change San Francisco, it w ill change the state and it eventually wi ll change the country. Realistically, wh en Fresno, Bakersfield and San Francisco all want the same thing, the odds favor us. Add in Los Angeles and Anaheim , and statewide voters' endorsement of $ 10 billion for th e system, and th e project 's politics seem solid. We just need to execute. Some w ill say we can't aff ord high-speed rail. In an era of doubt s about government spending and effectiveness, we need to respond. Let' s be serious here: California's high-speed rail bill is mo re than $40 billion. The state already has set aside $ 10 billion. That leaves $3 0 billion for local agencies, the federal government and the private sector. Who needs to step up? Local agencies need to build and maintain th eir stat ions, just as th ey build and maintain their airports. The private sector needs to leverage operational efficiencies and th e system cash flow to finance th e trains and other portions of the system . And we'll need federal money: $ 15 billion to $2 0 billion. Seems like a lot of money, but over a 10 -year period California gets almost twi ce th at much federal money for highways (and th e state gets only 92 percent of w hat it put s into the federal highway trust fund) . The future stakes are too high and th e opportunities too great to choose the w rong priorities. High-speed-rail w ill have the same benefits (with few of the dow nsides) as the interstate highway program. Every community will want to follow San Francisco's Transbay example. Our work plan for next year: Continue to support efforts to deliver our iconic and trendsetting Transbay project , includin g the all-im portant downt own track extensions, and work with our colleagues in th e Central Valley to deliver the first phase of the project. But most of our atte ntion w ill be on the Peninsula, w here the high-speed rail planning process has bogged down in local concerns, grandstanding and misunderstandings. At a ti me w hen Caltrain cannot be supported financially, the Peninsula communities need to realize that the high-speed rail project offers a way out : a real,
B Urbanist > January 2011
electrified, non-p olluting, downtown San Francisco to downt own San Jose rapid transit system that also is used by longer, faster trains traveling longer distances. We are frustrated w ith the narrow view of some Peninsula residents and th eir general lack of concern for th e common good. Every urbanized, industrialized country has found high-speed rail to be critical to maintaining mobil ity in a modern economy and meeting environmental challenges at th e same tim e. California is no different (and neither are th e benefits to the Peninsula), and we need to wo rk hard in 201 1 to get th at message out. It is SPUR's job to continue providing practical support to get th is project built.
- Anthony Bruzzone
[ Future of Work]
A boomlet for Internet and social media companies WHAT HAPPENED O nce -s mall Internet and social media comp ani es - includ ing Twitter, Zynga and Sa lesfo rce - sign ed deals to become among San Francisco's largest emp loyers, bucking the trend of te chno logy start-ups to locate in or near Silicon Valley. WHAT IT MEANS Wh ile job growth is good for the city's econom ic base, San Francisco may soon run out of avai lable office space. The shift to SOMA and beyond puts many jobs in low er dens ity bu ild ing s and out of walking d istance from reg ional trans it nodes, BART and core Muni lines. Thi s means more commuters may choose to drive to work and worsen congestion. One of last year's few economic bright spots was th e fast job growth - and major real estate deals - of a few select consumer Internet and social media companies. In early 2010 , Twitter doubled its presence at Fourth and Folsom Streets to over 60,000 square feet, or enough space for 350 employees. Soon after, Zynga expanded its headquarters to 270, 0 0 0 square feet at Eighth and Town send. (This was the biggest lease signed
Last faII, Zynga - th e world's largest social game developer - signed a 27 0,000 squarefoot lease in the Townsend Center at Showp lace Square. The I ,20 0 -employee company plans to move into it s new headquarters thi s spring.
in San Francisco since the Barclay's expansion to over 320,0 00 square feet in late 2005 .) And finally, on th e same day the Giants won th e World Series, Salesforce announced plans to build a new 2 m illion-square-foot headquarters in Mission Bay, occ upying nearly all its remaining ent itled off ice space. Wh en built out, Salesforce w ill be San Francisco's second- largest consum er of private offi ce space (after Wells Fargo). There is some irony to th e decisions by th ese three firms to stay and grow in San Francisco: th eir products help to support a world t hat is less tethered to physical space, posing a challenge to one of any city's most competitive assets (real estate). By offering virtua l access to servers and soft wa re, Salesforce reduces the need for a company to buy or ow n as much centralized off ice space, and to compete w it h other companies th rough th ese location decisions. Twitter provides a way for organizations to develop "followers" and connect w ith markets w ithout face-to-face contact. And Zynga provides entertainment w ithout in-th eflesh socializing. At the same tim e, each company is deeply rooted in place, and making a major com mitment to San Francisco and the innovative labor force th e city continues to attrac t. This "boomlet" in consumer Internet companies could have a big impact on th e city's economy and spat ial organization in the followin g ways:
Success begets followers: As has been much reported in the media, the presence of marquee firms like Tw itt er, Zynga and Salesforce w ill likely inspire other smaller firms to locate nearby - even dow n th e hallway in some cases. Some of the emerging smaller firms wi ll become larger and more successful and encourage a new crop of startups to locate around them . This process works so long as there is available land and space for growth - not a given in San Francisco. Export firms grow th e local economy: W hen firms sell goods and services beyond city borders, they net new wealth that expands th e local economy. The presence of a growing company means it wi ll spend more on services (accountants, caterers, painters, paper suppliers and lawyers) and goods (computers, food, sporting equipment, etc.), Some of those businesses w ill fill vacant space in dow ntow n high-rises. Others w ill put people back to work in neighborhood businesses. Doing mor e with less: Today, you don't need as many employees to scale up a business. Twitter had a global reach w ith only 100 employees (they're at 3 0 0 today). Five or 10 years ago, t hey wo uld have needed many more employees to reach that same global market. This new reality of small firms with big im pacts reinforces San Francisco's competitiveness as a business location despite its space constraints and high costs.
Urbanist > January2011 9
Trending south (not north) of Market: In the 19 8 0s, many successful firms moved out of dow ntow n San Francisco to locations several blocks north - for instance, near Levi Plaza. The trend has since reversed, and many of the city 's fastestgrowing companies are now seeking spaces in SOMA. Rental rates in the financial district - even in high-qua lity "Class A" office build ings wi th views of th e Bay - lag behind many unremarkable, lowslung South of Market buildings sought out by tech startups. Other oppor tuni ty areas in the city wit h great proximity to transit (the Mid-Ma rket area, for instance) are not desirable locations for many firms. Unti l a major tenant leases the vacant Furniture Mart on Market and Tenth Streets, a change in perception is unlikely. Changing preferences for regional transit: Market Street is th e city's main transit corridor and the only place w here the vast majority of commuters arrive (from locations in San Francisco and across the region) via publi c transit. As employment continues to shift away from Market Street, transit commuting w ill drop off and driving to wo rk wi ll likely increase. At first glance, the decision of many firms to locate farther from Market Street could reflect a lower preference for proximity to
public transit (in addit ion to a high preference for large Iloorplates offered by converted wa rehouses and other low- and mid-r ise buildings). But some of them might actually be playing the odds and locating betw een Caltrain and BART - to access both a broader workfo rce and as a nod toward the increasing integration of Silicon Valley and San Francisco. Changing density of the workplace: As firms choose larger floorplates and shorter buildings (most viable SOMA office buildings are between two and six stories), setbacks and increased parking requirements contribute to an urban form th at is significantly less dense than th e dow ntow n highrise dist rict. This pattern is very land-intensive, and as SOMA's wa rehouse spaces fill up, it means San Francisco may run out of office space soon. The fast growt h of key San Francisco firms is proof that San Francisco remains an economical ly viable place for other major companies to locate. Will some emerging firms shift to th e financ ial district? W ill Mid-Ma rket became a location of choice? W ill we loosen restrictions on off ice space in former industrial districts? We look forw ard to considering these loomi ng questions in 20 11.
- Egon Terplan
ONE EXAMPLE OF EXTREME DEMOCRACY: LAND-USE PLANNING FOR SEA WALL LOT 351
November 2007 The Po rt requ est s t ha t th e Plann ing D ep art m e nt begin an e nviro nm e ntal revi ew comp lia nt w it h t he Ca lifo rn ia Env iro nm e nt al Qua lity Ac t o n the 8 W as hington St. pr oposal.
1998 No rth east e rn Waterfro nt A rea Plan is updated.
1997
19 98
June 1997 The Por t Comm issio n ad o pt s t he Waterfron t Land Use Plan th at sets fo rth land -u se p ol ici es fo r all p rop erty un d er th e jurisdic ti on o f th e Po rt o f San Franci sco .
10 Urbanist > January2011
11111111
20 0 6
2006 San Fra nci sco Wa t e rfront Partn er s sub m it s to t he Port o f San Fr anci sc o a pr o po sal fo r Sea W all Lot 3 51 t hat wou ld c o m b ine t he SWL351 site w it h t he adjacent sit e at 8 Wa shi ngto n St. Th e pr o p o sa l is for a co ndo m iniu m projec t 84 f eet t all , in keeping wi t h th e parc el 's zo ne d he ight.
20 0 7
December 2008 The Po rt receive s two p roposal s, inc luding o ne th at ultimate ly was wi t hd raw n .
20 0 8
February 2008 A f te r alm o st o f a ye a r o f co m m un ity and co m m issio n meeting s, th e Port Co m m issio n a ut ho rizes the Po rt o f San Fr anc isc o sta f f to issu e a requ est for proposa ls fo r Sea Wa ll Lo t 35 1, w it h d eve lopme nt c r ite ria c ra fted in concert w it h th e co m m uni ty.
[ Community Planning]
The Rise of Extreme Democracy WHAT HAPPENED Despite the completion of a Waterfront Master Plan, an update to the Northeastern Waterfront Area Plan and, most recently, a 17-month Northeast Embarcadero Urban Design study, the fate of a housing deve lopment proposed to be built on the site of a parking lot and private tennis club on the Embarcadero remains unclear. Meanwhile, the potential closing of Ike's sandwich shop in the Castro became a major planning issue, taking up countless hours of Planning Department staff time and generating numerous news articles.
February 2 0 0 9 The Po rt Co m m iss io n awa rds t he deve lop ment o f Seawa ll Lo t 3S1 t o Sa n Fra nc isco Wa ter f ro nt Part ner s.
June 2010 Th e Pla nnin g D epart m ent p ub lis hes the " No rtheas t Em b ar ca d e ro St udy: A n Urban Desig n A na lysis fo r th e North ea st Emb ar ca d er o Area ." T he st udy rec o mm en d s sc u lp t ing th e hei ghts o n th e SW L 35 1 a nd 8 Was hing to n St. parce ls, w it h lo w er he ig hts rang in g fr om 25 fee t b et w een Jac k son a nd Pacifi c st reets , in cr easin g to an ave rage of 67 t o 70 f eet be tween Was hing to n an d Jack so n st ree ts . O ne part o f t he pa rce l wo u ld be all o w ed go as hi gh as 125 t o 130 f eet.
20 0 9
February 20 0 9 Su pe rv iso r Davi d Ch iu (w ho rep resen t s th e d ist ric t incl uding th e North east Embar c ad ero ) requ est s t hat th e Po rt wo rk w it h th e Plan n ing De p artm en t t o lead a "foc use d pl annin g p ro cess" for th e Port's su rface park ing lot s north o f Mar ket Street. In hi s lette r to t he Po r t , Chiu st ates th at t he "co m m unity and th e Port have legitimate goa ls a nd co nce rns, and I ho p e t ha t by b r ingi ng a ll st ake holders t o
WHY IT MATTERS In San Francisco's civic culture, the processes by which we make landuse decisions can be long, arduous and confusing, without necessarily leading to increased understanding and agreement among the people invo lved. Often, the process is so lengthy and complex that it no longer is inclusive of regular citizens, instead favoring only the most tenacious participants. Our inefficient processes breed a lack of civility on all sides, even for small decisions - making it more challenging to grapple with truly difficult p lanning issues like global climate change. So many things are moving San Francisco in the direction of more process. We have an increasing numb er of commissions and cit izen advisory bodies, ofte n w it h overlapping juri sdiction, each w ith its ow n rules and purview. Despite recent effo rts at reform , our discretionary review process remains unt amed. Our plannin g code is the longest
August 2010 A se ries o f nei ghb or ho o d gro ups fil e a law su it agai nst t he City, sta t ing t hat th e North east Embarcade ro St udy did no t und er g o th e app rop riate CEQA process . Essenti all y, th e law su it pos its t ha t thi s level o f pr o c ess an d o f fic ia l e ndo rse me nt o f th e p ro ject is in ap pr op ri at e pri or to CEQA . If t his c ha lle nge is successf u l, it w ill injec t a form al CEQA p ro c ess be fore th e co m muni ty " buy- in" process .
October 2010 The ne ig hbor hood g ro ups ex te nd th e ir law suit t o incl ude th e Por t Co m miss io n's endo rse me nt of th e t er m sheet.
2 0 10
th e sa me t a bl e , we ca n b ui ld conse ns us f or th e futu re o f o u r wate r f ro nt ." In resp on se, t he Port e ng ages t he Pla n ni ng Depar tme nt t o lead a six m on th "p la n ning ana lys is" o f th e su rface pa rk ing lots o n t he N orth east Emba rc ad er o. A mo ng o t he r resp on si b iliti es, th e Pla nn in g De part me nt is c ha rge d w it h seek ing "co m m u nity co nse ns us" o n SW L 351 as we ll as o t he r se awa ll lot p rope r ties o n th e north ern wa te rf ro nt.
July 2010 Th e Pla nning Co m m iss io n vo tes 4 -3 t o ac know ledge t h e st udy and recog nizes t he desig n prin cipl es a nd recomm en d at ion s o f th e study for p u b lic realm imp rove me nts an d new deve lo p me nt in th e area . San Fra nci sc o Wa te rf ro nt Partn ers re desig ns it s p ropos a l fo r SW L 35 1/ 8 Was hing to n St ., in c orpor atin g th e fra mewo rk o ut lined in th e Northeast Emba rcadero Study.
ePte mber
~
2010 Th e Port Co mm iss io n app roves th e d evel o pm en t te rm shee t for SW L 351.
Urbanist > January 2011 11
such document in the entire country, causing disagreements among experts as to how certain regulations should be interpreted. Adding to these challenges is the fact that our area plans - statements of guiding principles for planning limited geographic areas - are being asked to take on a vast range of societal issues (de-industrialization, the rise of income inequality, the lack of sufficient state and federal funding for infrastructure such as transit) using the limited tools that zoning can provide. While these area plans were supposed to streamline the process for deciding what types of development should move forward, by creating a set of rules to which everyone agrees up front, there still exists substantial debate about what types of deve lopment actually conform to our adopted area plans. One way to characterize this trend is to call it "extreme democracy." This trend has been propelled by a variety of factors, some with the best of intentions. San Francisco is a progressive city that values participation, inclusion and citizen activism. When the city suffered from the destruction of neighborhoods as the result of urban renewal and urban freeways in the 1950s and '60s, it was a cadre of citizen activists who rose up to stop the tidal wave of top-down planning. These planning wars created a deep distrust of "experts" advocating change that was necessary for "progress ." To this day, many Sa n Franciscans believe that changes to the city are presumed to be bad until proven otherwise. This is also a city where the "haves"- the people who already live here and who own their own homes - are well organ ized to prevent those who are not yet here from arriving. Many people are working overtime to ensure that as litt le new housing as possible gets built. These people know that more process means more opportunities to delay, shrink, or kill plans and projects so that fewer things get done. The truth is that a better democratic process does not always mean more process. Democracy is more complicated than that. Democracy is easy when people agree with each other on the issues. But what happens when the people do not agree? Given that Sa n Franciscans have so many conflicting ideas about what they want to see built (or not) in their city, reac hing consensus on any land use or planning issue often is elusive, if not impossible. So what makes a good democratic process? Is it one that facilitates enough understanding so that the majority of people in a neighborhood agree? How should regional and citywide concerns be weighed? How do we ensure that most people's views are represented, and not 12 Urbanist > Janua ry2011
just those of the people with the greatest intensity of preferences - i.e., the squeakiest wheels? One response of the public sector to the problems of extreme democracy has been the rise of temporary solutions. Because it takes so long to complete a process, and because the capacity to reach consensus is both limited and uncertain, San Francisco has seen a boom in pilot projects. We have temporary "parklets" that can be taken down if objections are too fierce, we have "Sunday Streets" to create car-free space one day at a time, we have Market Street planning trials. These pilot projects are great ways to test out new ideas in planning, but they can't address some of the larger needs we have, such as creating a rapid transit network and building enough housing next to our Muni lines and BART stations.
The truth is that a better democratic process does not always mean more process. Democracy is more complicated than that. Addressing the major planning issues of our day is something we as a society must learn how to do. It cannot be an acceptable answer to say that only a dictatorship is capable of building highspeed rail or capable of making major changesto land-use patterns to deal with climate change. We need a process that can tackle the housing crisis, climate change and sea -level rise while respecting the fact that we may have conflicting ideas about what solutions will work and what trade-offs are worth making. We need to prove that democracy is capable of solving the hard problems. So what should be done? There are no easy answers, but part of the solution lies in creating processes that emphasize early and broad based involvement. Issues and concerns can be addressed up front, not resolved at the end through a series of protracted political battles. Most importantly, the outcomes of these early decisions need to be respected, not undermined, at later stages of the process. Another key step is defining the proper role of CEQ A. Many unresolved planning issues wind up getting trapped in CEQA processes, either through rounds of appeals or through litigation. We ought to deal with planning issues through a planning process that allows trade-offs to be understood, and not overly rely on the lens of CEQA, which by its nature defines new development as having
"impacts" that must be "mitigated" regardless of whether that new development is proposed for an already urbanized area near transit or in a greenfield. Finally, we need to find a way to engage a broader group of people. Relatively few people have the time or the inclination to attend round after round of community meetings or public hearings. Making use of new tools and technologies to encourage broader participation might help make our processes become more democratic and prevent the loudest few from dominating the discourse.
housing goa ls of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the mortgage interestdeduction - have been criticized for encouragi ng home ownership among people who could not afford it, spurring a boom in construction and threatening the stability of the housing finance system. And the housing bust remains intertwined with the recession: Unemployed people have a harder time paying their mortgage, and the depressed housing market keeps workers in construction and other industries unemployed. But 2010 quietly marked the begin ning of the housing turnaround for the Bay Area . In September -Sa rah Karlinsky 2010 - the latest data available - Bay Area house prices were higher than a year earlier, in all three metropolitan areas (San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose). For California overall, prices were slightly higher than a year ago according to one source and slightly lower according to another, but both sources showed Ca lifornia house prices rising [ Boom and Bust] . faster (or falling less) than the national average. In previous yea rs of this housing bust, California's price declines were- along with Nevada, Arizona and Florida - among the steepest in the country. In 2010, prices in those other three states WHAT HAPPENED continued to decline sharply, but not in California. Bay Area housing prices rose in the The state still feels plenty of pain: The foreclosure past year, even though housing prices rate in California in late 2010 is still twice the nationally continued to fall. Prices rose national average, and prices continue to fall in most in areas closer to the coast, while many inland and northern parts of the state. But in land prices continued their decl ines, housing prices in much of coastal Cal ifornia appear widening the already large gap to have stabilized. between prices in San Francisco and Why are prices turning around in much of prices in the far East Bay and farther Ca lifornia but not in the other states with steep inland. price declines? In Ca lifornia, the dramatic short-term price fluctuations of the housing boom and bust WHAT IT MEANS took place against the backdrop of our perennially The Bay Area remains very expensi ve tight housing market. Throughout the boom and relative to the rest of the Un ited States, bust, California's residential vacancy rate remained both for businesses and for families, among the lowest in the country, and far below the despite the burst of the housing vacancy rates of Nevada, Arizona, Florida and other bubble. Paradox ica lly, the Bay Area states with big price drops. While the slight rise in housing prices in the and Californ ia now face the challenges Bay Area and much of California is good news for of both cont inued foreclosures and homeowners, it means that California now faces decreas ing housing affordab ility. The both the immediate foreclosure crisis and the wi d ening price gap bet ween coasta l long-term challenge of housing affordability. Even if and inl and Californ ia ma y in du ce home values continue to rise modestly, economic lo ng er comm utes, and ma y stress recovery will be slow, with unemployment expected both t ra nsportation networks and t he to remain above normal for many years. High env iro nment . unemployment and adjustable mortgage re-sets will make monthly payments unaffordabl e for The national housing crisis continued in 2010. many homeowners. Defaults and foreclosures will Foreclosures continued at a rapid pace, dampened continue. only by questions about their legality. Numerous At the same time, the housing price decline public policies- rangi ng from the affordable
A turnaround for Bay Area housing?
Urbanist > January20 11 13
The foreclosure rate in California in late 2010 wa s still twice the national average, and prices continue to fall in many inland areas, including the Central Valley.
The average home in the San Francisco area costs more than triple the average in Stockton today, versus less than double at the peak of the housing bubble. in California made little dent in the high cost of housing in the Bay Area and Ca lifornia relative to the rest of the United States. The average home price in the San Francisco Bay Area is nearly three times the U.S. average, and expensive real estate raises costs for businesses wanting to locate here and for the workers businesses hope to att ract. Of all the high costs of doing business in the Bay Area and in Ca lifornia, rea l estate costs are the most out of line with national averages . Within California, price stabilization on the coast widens the affordability gap with inland areas where prices are still falling. The average home in the Sa n Francisco area costs more than triple the average in Stockton today, versus less than double
14 Urbanist > January2011
at the peak of the housing bubble. Even within the Bay Area, the gap is widening: The average San Francisco home is between three and four times the price of the average Antioch home today, compared with only 50 percent higher at the housing bubble's peak. The gap between the average Oakland home price and average Antioch home price has widened from close to even at the peak, to twothirds higher in Oakland today. As the gap in prices between coastal and inland California widens, regional challengesthat took a back seat during the recession will reappear. Some workers may move inland for less-expensive housing in exchange for a longer commute, putting renewed stress on congested roads and on the state's goal of reducing green housegas emissions by driving less. As 2011 begins, therefore, the Bay Area and California face complicated housing challenges. Stabilizing or rising housing prices are good for homeowners, will help restart the housing industry and will contribute to employment growth. But the cloud of foreclosures and underwater borrowers has not yet lifted, and the silver lining of increased affordability is dissolving. -Jed Kolko
[Networks 1
The open-source city WHAT HAPPENED San Francisco passes legi slati on to insti t ut e an open data polic y t hat d irects City agencies to make data sets pub licly ava ilable. WHAT IT MEANS The movement to democratize city life by open ing up government to ne w forms of participation is gain ing momentum . At the very core of the idea of commun ity is th e notion that we take responsibilit y for th e place in w hich we live. We do not ju st wa nt to be taxpayers and consume rs of public services. We want to be citizens. We want to be co-creators. This is part of a trend in whi ch visionary publicsector leaders are sometimes able to redefine their job as "governin g by network": The hierarchi cal model of government persists, but its influ ence is steadily wanin g, pushed by governments' appetite to solve ever mo re complicated problems and pulled by th e new tools t hat allow inn ovators to fashion creative responses. This push and pull is gradually producing a new model of government in w hich executives' core responsibilities no longer center on managing people and programs but on organizing resources, ofte n belonging to others, to produce pub lic value. Stephen Goldsmith and William 0 Eggers, Governing by Network: The New Shape of the Public Sector, The Brookings Institution, 2004, page. 9. One of the national leaders in this movement was our ow n Brian O'Neill, th e long-time superintendent of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Brian pioneered a new way of managing a national park, w hich relied heavily on strategic partners to "p rogram" th e park - organizations like th e Bay Area Discovery Museum , the Fort Mason Center, and the Headlands Center for the Arts. The most important partner of all was (and is) the Golden Gate Parks Conservancy, w hich raises huge amo unts of private money for th e park and runs im portant stewardship programs as well. Thousands of people volu nteer to work in th e park each year. It is the networ k of volunteers, donors and strategic partn ers th at make the park so publ icly accessible and so successful. Rather than try to "ow n" all of th e work inside th e public entity, th e GGNRA
embraced a governm ent-by-network approach that invited the enti re Bay Area com munity to become stewards and caretakers of the park. Brian's wo rk has inspired people all around th e country. With any luck , th e San Francisco Departm ent of Recreation and Parks w ill one day have a similar model, with th e help of the Neighborhood Parks Council and the Parks Trust. But thi s idea is applicable to many other realms of com munity life as we ll, from education to economic developm ent, f rom publi c health to pub lic safety. Another important success story is the comm unity benefit district movement. CBDs partially answer the problem of how to make local government more responsive at th e neighborhood scale: property owner s get togeth er, decide on wh at services th ey would like added to th eir neighborhood, vote to assess themselves, and th en form a non-p rofit to manage the services. In 1999, wor king w ith th e Union Square Association, SPUR helped organize a CBD for the Union Square neighborhood . Since th en, th e movement has taken off . Today there are ten in the city (soon to be twe lve). In 20 10, th e Union Square neighbors expanded their dist rict from 10 blocks to 27 blocks. In anticipation of our move to th e Urban Center, SPUR work ed for two years to form the Yerba Buena CBD, th e second largest in the city behind Union Square, w hich became fully operational in 2010 . Today there are one thousand such districts in Canada and the U. S. In some cases, citizens have - literally - taken matters into th eir ow n hands. Follow ing in the footsteps of Rebar, a local design collective, and the guerilla-greening movement spearheaded by neighborhood leaders Jane Martin and Gillian Gillett, several nonprofit groups have led citizens in small-scale, tempo rary, grassroots projects throughout San Francisco. We call thi s do-it yourself movement DIY Urbanism, and in 20 10 featured 22 DIY projects in an Urban Center exhibitio n and issue of the Urbanist. From sidewalk rain gardens, to parking spots converted to cafe seating, to art installations in empty storefronts, to vegetable gardens on vacant const ruction lots, DIY Urbanism projects gain scale through the collaboration of project init iators w ith t he design community and City agencies. What's possible on one particular site, in one particular neighborhood, becomes possible citywide. The launch of Data SF in August 2009, and San Francisco's new open-data policy (passed last November) signal fur th er steps toward empowe ring citizens to improve th e information landscape of cities. The legislation w ill encourage City agencies
Urbanist > January2011 15
Across th e U.S., local governments are publishing data sets to spur the creation of soft ware applicati ons, includin g mobile "apps" that help bridge th e divide betw een the digital and physical spaces of a city.
to publish their data sets on the Data SF website w here soft wa re developers can dow nload the sets and create useful websites and mobile applications at no cost to the City . New soft wa re applications created from publicly available data are starting to change the way we experience cities. The innovations go beyond programs like Next Bus, a website and mobile phone applicatio n that uses GPS signals to track Mun i trains and buses. The Municipal Transportation Authority is currently developing SFpark, a new approach to managing parking. The SFpark pilot projects are a federally fu nded demonstration of a com bination of smarter pric ing and real-time data about w here parking is available to make it easier to find a parkin g space, w hether at metered spaces or in parking garages. In early 20 11, t he MTA wi ll publish data on its we bsite and, simi lar to Next Bus, share realtime data via an open data feed, so t hat anyone - companies like Google, iPhone and Android application developers, and even in-vehicle navigation systems - can develop products to make sense of the data and use it as the basis for new software applications. And th e benefits, begun by the City and furthered by its citizens, could be huge: Changing the perception that parking is diffi cult to find in San Francisco w ill improve our economic com petitiveness by bringing people back to the city to shop rather than losing this business
16 Urbanist > January2011
to surrounding communities. These app lications wi ll also help reduce circling and doub le-p arking, a cause of congestion on narrow streets, and reduce local greenhouse gas emissio ns. Finally, new websites and softwa re applications draw on the ideas of mu ltiple people to solve problems in city life. Com mu nity crowdsourcing allows groups of people to come together to collaborate on solutions to problems. For example the goal of the " Urban Forest Map," launched in 2010 by th e Depart ment of Public Work s, Departm ent of th e Environment and Friends of the Urban Forest is to document all of t he trees in San Francisco. Formerly, more than a dozen local, state and federal agencies st ruggled to oversee this resource. The "Urban Forest Map" still encourages these agencies to submit their inform ation, but also promotes individual citizen involvement. We can think of this wh ole set of experime nts as th e attempt to create an "open -source city" - a city that welcomes the part icipation of all of us to help make it a wo nderful place. We have a long way to go, but the year 2010 saw a flowering of oppo rtunities to co-c reate our city. - Gabriel Metcalf & Jordan Salinger
[ Community]
The participation economy WHAT HAPPENED In midst of the Great Recession, we saw a major shift in consumer behavior away from buying material goods, and toward buying experiences and social connections. W HAT IT MEAN S: The sh ifting consumer pattern is giving rise to a new "partic ipation economy" that changes everyth ing from how peop le spend the ir persona l time, to what companies decide to make or sell, to whom t hey hi re and wh ere they lo cat e. Ultimately, t he ne w partic ipat ion economy shou ld in f orm how w e v ie w inv est m ent in our cities. What we have seen in the past decade, and more acute ly over the last year, is an incredib le growth in com panies that are challenging our baseline notion of consumer motivat ions and potentially revolutioni zing the very notion th at to be successful and grow, we must consume more stuff. For a long time investme nt - t he pillar of furthe r economic growt h - has been rooted in products and services that cater to society's relentless appetite for novelty: for the new toy, house or vacat ion that is a symbo l of who we are. This strategy was successful for many years. As a result , our economic growt h was related to continually expanding consumer markets. We fueled th is appetite t hrough expanding our money supply. The unsustainable debt and personal savings ratio that led to the Great Recession of 2008 and beyond shows just how fragile, dangerous and limiting that st rategy is. Simultane ously, th ere's an opportunity for the economy to diversify beyond this tr aditi onal consumer pattern. Two movements best represent this shift toward an emerging participation economy that values community over products and the power of collective intelligence: EXPERIENTIAL, PARTICIPATORY, COMMUNITYINSPIRED "PRODUCTS" These businesses don't sell stuff . They sell social connections and the chance to partic ipate in purpose-drive n comm unities .
Do-It-Yourself Movem ent: From Maker Fairs, w here local art isans sell their product s and draw millions of people to multiple events across th e nation, to Techshop, a tool-lending "library" that offers access to everything from laser cutters to welding machines for a monthly fee of $100, the DIY movement has spawned magazines as well as countless new businesses. At the smallest scale are craftspeo ple making clothing, dolls and jewel ry. At t he art isanal manufacturi ng scale - or small-batch production - you see everything from chocolate to beer to messenger bags. Et sy: What started out as a craft exchange for local makers in New York City has exploded into a wor ld-wide platf orm for ent repreneurs to sell the ir goods to consumers across th e globe, with no real estate costs. Their vision is to build a new economy and present a better choice: buy, sell, and live handmade. A recent valuation esti mated total sales in 2011 at about $ 1 billion. Social Gaming: Almost 57 million people played a game on a social network between June and August 2010 . Thirt y-five percent are new to gaming. What's happening here? This kind of gaming isn't about the interaction with th e electronic tool, it' s about social connection. Second Life and CityVille are not focused on winning but on participating in a community. The Hub: A world -wide netwo rk of 25 co-working environments, the Hub goes beyond the simple brillia nce of sharing an expensive fixed asset like office space amongst a group of entrepreneurs, start ups and freelancers. With nearly 1,000 members in the Hub SOMA location alone, the Hub hosts dozens of member-driven groups and events that bring together a comm unity around social enterprise and shared intellectual resources. Food: From th e explosion in food carts selling everything fro m creme brulee to Chinese buns, to the Slow Food movement, to farm ers markets this is a movement th at att ract s people for all sorts of reasons, but ulti mately keeps them coming back because of the social connection it offers. COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE We are experiencing th e transition fro m social networking to social production - made possible by a collective intelligence that ultimately relies on the deep comm itmen t of th e indiv idual to the community. The individual is motivated to participate and meaningful ly engage in a
Urbanist > January 2011 17
community because of th e possibilit y of collect ive solut ions. These are solutions th at no one individual could generate on his or her own . Crowdsourci ng: innocentive, a website where companies can post challenge problems and the broad community of users tries to solve the problems, offers a cash prize that goes to the best solution. Some of th e hardest company problems are solved in th is forum. Generally the reach of experts is far more diverse t han th e ta lent housed in an individua l company, so the collect ive intelligence of that crowd can prove much bette r at solving complex problems. W ikiped ia: A collaboratively created encyclopedia, Wikipedia was questioned by many at it s inception. Why wou ld be people spend that t ype of time whe n th ey could be watc hing TV? Because it's partic ipatory; it' s a community . This is a new form of consumption that gives part icipants social connectio ns and atte ntion. So rather th an spending a collect ive 200 billion hours of TV consump tio n every year, some are willing to carve out 100 mil lion to build Wik ipedia. This shift does not shut down or dest roy the noti on of economic growth and capit alism. Nor does it require t hat human nature undergo some enormous change. Rather it shows th at as th e opportu nity for alternative ways to live, consume This block party fundraiser at San Francisco's Mission Community Market is one exa mple of consumers' shift awayfrom goods, and toward community.
18 Urbanist > January 2011
and connect emerge, individuals are inherent ly mot ivated to participate . As a developer in cit ies, I see this as an opport unit y for reimagining th e place-making elements and overall investm ent thesis for urban real estate . Instead of the tradi tional fin ancial dist rict or downtown CBD model, new models assume th e value of "third places" in cities zones to connect, share, interact , observe, learn, partic ipate and grow. The prototype for t his investm ent t hesis, the 5M Project in San Francisco , is in its very initial stages and already proving an "above market " value. We are experiencing a rebirth of the city as th e social connector. The place wh ere individuals, companies and economies thrive because of its unique ability to densely assemble a diverse population that has easy access to information, netw orks and community . As our behavioral and social preferences shift , as we go from passively watching TV to active part icipatio n in act ivities th at connect us to community, cities reclaim th eir physical and social value in our society. They once again become the organizational center-po int t hat fu lfills a lifest yle we need and crave. Reimagining our cities wi t h t his lens is critical. Our craving for community and authentic connect ion is coming to a forefront. As a city, we need to respond to these new dema nds. - Alexa Are na
Urbanist > January2011
19
URBAN
7 intriguing sites reveal Presidio's varied history
FIELD NOTES An additive archive of cultural landscapes and observations compiled by SPUR members and friends. Send your ideas to Urban Field Notes editor Ruth Keffer at editor@spur.org.
Caseworker: Rut h Keffer
CASE STUDY #34
The Presidio is a comp licated tho ugh not entirely mysterious place. At nearly 1,500 acres, one cannot explore th e entire site in just a day, let alone the single aft ernoon I spent there recently. What I did grasp quickly is that the Presidio isn't just one place, it's many. It's parkland and wetland , forest and beach, golf course and cemetery. Remnant s of it s 19th century history are stil l extant, sharing space with t he Internet Archive and Industria l Light and Magic. It has more than one governing body, th e Presidio Trust and the National Park Service. It isn't even just one forme r military facili ty but two (or thr ee, if one considers Fort Point) , with the second, Fort Wi nfield Scott , having a convoluted relati onship to the first , relinquishing and regaining its independence fro m the Main Post repeatedly throu ghout its history. My visit was confined to the area that inclu des Crissy Field and th e main comp lex of Fort Scott. An architectura l touri st lookin g for spectac ular examp les of this or that style will be disappointed , but for those of us who are int rigued by th e intersectio n of utilitarian and revivalist tendencies t hat one sees in places with irregular layers of history, like military bases, the Presidio offers many curiositi es. Crissy Field itself is a star attracti on. This landscape is about to celebrate its tenth anniversary as a restored wetlands and open space. It is thrilli ng to stand, with th e brid ge as a backdrop , on th at long, low piece of land, pummel ed, as one would expect, by fierce wind s, and cont empl ate th e many chapters of our city 's history that have int ersected with th at very spot. Ruth Kefferis afreelancecurator and design writer, and editor ofSPUR's Urban Field Notes.
Overlook. Prominent in the splendid view from this vantage point is the historic Coast Guard complex (center left) . On the left is the former residence of th e Officer in Charge, built in 189 0. Next to it is the Lifeboat Station, 19 15 , once a dorm for guardsmen and now occupied by the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. The palm trees, though lovely, seem especially anomalous.
Pilots Row. These thirteen homes sit on the bluff above the airfield, and were built in 19 20 to house officers and their families. Almost immediately they we re deemed too small, and were upgraded w ith a second bedroom, a servant's room, and a glassed-in porch . Today these homes, w ith their coveted Bay views, rent for close to $ 5 ,0 0 0 a month.
Guard house. This small structure, built in 19 21, is a curious mix of Georgian and Mediterranean Revival, with its red roof tiles, port ico, and elaborate fan window. That's a lot of detail to lavish on a buildin g with a footpri nt of barely 1,000 square feet, but the airfield's flagstaff stood in front, so it served as the public face of the facilit y.
20 Urbanist > January2011
Crissy Field. In a city known for its hills, the former airfield is an oasis of flatness. Originally a salt marsh, it became a racetrack for the Panama Pacific International Expo, then an airstrip for the Army Air Service and the Post Office, then the site of temporary WWII barracks, and then, for decades, a stagnant industrial waste dump. Today Crissy Field thrives as a habitat for people and wildlife.
Fort Scott chapel. This chapel was built in 1942, during Fort Scott's last heyday, as headquarters for the coastal defense of San Francisco, from the 1920s through World War II. It is isolated and forlorn, and might perfectly evoke a quaint, small-town environment were it not for the loudspeakers plastered on the spire - a reminder that military architecture always prioritizes practicality.
Band barracks. Fort Scott had been a sub-post of the Presidio in the late 1800s, but its independent status as an artillery garrison complex was resurrected in 1912. Some deliberate care was taken in choosing architectural styles for structures built during this period, as evident with this 1912 Mission Revival dormitory.
Pet cemetery. The cemetery was created for use by families stationed on the Presidio, and official internments are no longer allowed there. Though it has its charms, the site looks as though it couId • use the kind of renovation that Doyle Drive is receiving overhead. No doubt Louise, beloved rat and friend, would appreciate the attention. Urbanist > January2011 21
URBAN DRIFT PUBLIC SPACE IN PHILLY Philadelphia Mayor Michael A. Nutter has announced an initiative to use 500 acres of empty or underused land for the creation of publicly accessible green space throughout the city. The plan is titled Green 2015 and it seeks to "connect people with parks" while also helping the city fulfill federal stormwater management guidelines. Much of the land in question is already under public control, while other portions of the plan rely on the cooperation of entities such as the University of Pennsylvania to make private land available for public use. The mayor's goa l is to allow 200,000 city residents who don't have access to parks the opportunity to regularly use public green space. "Transforming500acres intopublicgreen space" .. PlanPhilly.com,12/7/2010
MICRO-HOUSING, MAXIMUM ATTAINABILITY? The small town of Tofino, British Columbia, is exploring the use of micro-homes to meet the demand for more affordable housing. Houses as small as 12 feet by 12 feet are being considered as a way to provide affordable housing. The Tofino council is required to provide affordable housing, and has looked at a number of options including laneway housing to meet this goa l. This follows the exa mple of Vancouver, where this housing type was approved via the Laneway Housing Bylaw through its EcoDensity Initiative. What these laneway or garden suite projects have in common is the creation of a second unit 22 Urbanist > January2011
of rental housing at the back of a parcel, usually accessible from an alley. All of thesestrategies seek to create affordable housing by design, instead of by subsidizing more traditional units.
rail lines designed to alleviate congestion, Ford proposes scrapping them in favor of a limited subway expansion to keep transit vehicles out of the way of cars. Ford also would like to "MicrohomesbeingexploredinTofmo asform of have the projects done as quickly attainablehousing" - Stefania Seccia , WesterlyNews, as possible, aiming to have the 12/02/2010. first phase done before the 2015 Pan Am Games. Some $140 URBAN INDIA STRUGGLES million already has been spent TO ADAPT on the current plan, with more Urban India is growing at a due in penalties if the project is staggering pace as people flee the canceled. Also part of ending countryside to find a better life. the "war on the car" is Ford's Unfortunately, the infrastructure intention to cancel Toronto's $60 and planningin these cities hasn't vehicle registration fee by the end kept up. The collapse of a Delhi of the yea r. tenement in November, which "'War onthecar isover', Ford moves transit killed more than 70 people, underground" ..TessKalinowski and David Rider, The TorontoStar, 12/02/2010. was a stark reminder of the costs of unplanned and illegal PLANNING PERMISSION IS development. Formal housing is too difficult and expensive to PASSE IN BRITAIN build, so illegal tenements usually The new Conservative government in the United are the step up from the slum. These buildings often have more Kingdom has vowed to devolve government power to local than one story and are built of concrete, but as evidenced by the recent collapse they can be very unsafe. Even with such dangers, few are willing to go back to the country. It is predicted that by 2030, about 590 million Indians will be living in cities. "NewArrivalsStrainIndia'sCitiestoBreakingPoint" .. l ydia Polgreen, TheNew YorkTimes, 11/30/2010.
TORONTO TREADS BACKWARD ON TRANSIT Toronto's newly elected mayor, Rob Ford, has declared that "the war on the car is over." What does he mean? One of his major goals is to scrapthe $8 billion transit improvement program called "Transit City" that is alrea dy under construction. Consisting of mostly surface light-
city news from around the globe
communities, and one of the first examples of this focus is a new bill that will eliminate many planning permissions in favor of gaining support through local referendums. The "localism bill," as it is known, would create new neighborhood groups that would be able to let residents decide among themselves what would be allowed in their own communities. These neighborhood groups also would be able to dictate a plan for the type of development that would be allowed in the area. Financial incentives would be provided to neighborhoods that approved growth. Projects of national interest would be exempt from these regulations, preventing these groups from blocking key projects. "Torybill will let homeowners extend wit hout traditional planningpermission" ..NicholasWat t. Cuardian.cc.uk, 12/05/2010
SPUR Board of Directors Co -Ch airs
Bo ard Members
Janis Mackenzie
Andy Barnes
Carl Ant hony
John Madden
David Baker
Jaci nta McCann
Fred Blackwell
John Mc Nulty
Co-Vice Chairs
l ee Blitch
Chris Meany
Mary McCue
Margo Bradish
Ezra Mersey
Linda Jo Fitz
PROGRAM COMMITTEES Ballot Analy sis
Peter Mezey
Amanda
Mary Murphy
Jim Salinas, Sr.
Michaela Cassidy
Paul Okamoto
Jacin ta McCann
l ydia Tan
Charmaine Curtis
Brad Paul
Dick Morten
V. Fei Tsen
Gia Danill er
Chris Poland
Chris Poland
Oscar De l a Torre
Teresa Rea
Housing
Kelly Dearman
Byron Rhett
Shelley Doran
Wade Rose
Oz Erickso n
Victor Seeto
Tomiquia Moss
Tr easurer
Norman Fong
Bob Gamble
David Friedman
Elizabeth (Lib by) Seifel
Emilio Cruz Doyle Drive
l arry Burnett
Secre t a ry
Downto wn Transit Center
Bob Gamble
Disaster Planning
Bill Rosetti
Welcome to our new members!
Chairs and committees
Ezra Mersey
Hoenigman Eph Hirsh Peter Winkelstein
Faci lit y Rental Bill Stotler Executive Andy Barnes
Greg Stepanicich
Baumgartner
Ryan Cooksey
Human Resources
l arry Burnett
Individual
Libby Seifel
Memb ership Bill Stotler Inv estment Ann l azarus
Charmaine Curtis Peter Mezey
Susan
Bob Gamble
Regional Plann ing
Aud it
Joe Starkey
Noah Christman
l ydia Tan Proj ect Review
Elizabeth Stampe
Robin Azevedi
Finance
Jean Fraser
OP ERATING COMMITTEES
INDIVIDUALS
Majo r Donor s
Staniey Edwards
Nicole Wheaton Ian Williamson
Otto Grajeda
Karl Hasz
Reuben Schwartz
Past Co-Chair
Anne Halsted
Bill Stotler
Sustainabl e
Board
Tom Hart
Dave Hartley
Stuart Sunshi ne
Developme nt
Developm ent
Plann ed Givin g
Mary Huss
Michael Teitz
Paul Okamoto
lee Blitch
Michaela Cassidy
Chris Iglesias
Will Travis
Bry Sarte
Buitding
Silv er SPUR
Co- Cha irs
l aurie Johnson
Jeff Tumlin
Robert l itt ie
David Hartley
Michael Alexander
Steve Vette l
Tran sport ation
Management
Ken Kirkey
Peter A. Mye
l arry Burnett
Patricia Klitgaard
Travis Kiyota
Debra Walker
Gillian Gillett
Paul Sedway
Busin ess
Young Urbani sts
Rik Kunnath Ellen l ou
l ovell
Brown and Caldwell
Rose Haynes
Raphael Sperry
TASK FORCES
Management
Goulding
Chi-Hsin Shao
Brooks Walker, III
Vanir Construction
Kathryn Gwatkin
Chris Gruwell
Cynthia Wi lusz-
BUSIN ESSES
David Groves
Gillian Gillett
Fiorence Kong
Taalman Kip Emily Weinstein
Stephen Gliatt o
Immediate
Patricia Klitgaard
Wietske van Erp
Mary Davis
Mary Beth Sanders
Advisory Counci l
Cindy Talley
linda Jo Fitz
l ou Huang
Anne Halsted
Katherine King She!ali l akhi na Hin S. l eung Hadasa l ev
Katherine Nesbitt Robert Passmore
Memb ersh ip
Gwyneth Borden
Paul Peninger
Central Subway
Tom Hart
Gia Daniller
Jessica Roth schild
Stephen Taber
Terry Micheau
Caleb Savala
Cli mat e Adapt ation
Capi tal Camp aign
Angela and Barzel
Wi ll Travis
Chris Meany
Segal
Urbanist > January2011
23
Join SPUR today!
The San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association
is a member-supported nonprofit organization. We rely on your support to promote good planning and good government through research, education and advocacy. Find out more at spur.org/join.
O SPUR
-i I
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING + URBAN RESEARCH ASSOCIATION
Nonprofit Org. US Postage PAID Permit # 4118 San Francisco, CA
RETURN SERVICE REQU ESTED
m
-< rn
» :;0 z c
:;0
OJ
» z
654 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94 105-40 15 tel. 415.781.8726 fax 415.78 1.729 1 info@spur.org www.spur.org
<.n
3:
~
I
~
Time-dated material ~ ~ 634.M O
I
» 'U 'U
SPUR Staff
Now online!
SPUR main number 415.781.8726
Winter Eve nts Calenda r
Accounta nt Terri Chang x128 tchang@spur.org
See our upcoming events at spur.org/events
Save the date!
20 11 Good Government Awa rds March 21, 2011 at San Francisco City Hall spur.org/ggawards
Publications Assistant Mary Davis x126 mdavis@spur.org
Deputy Director Sarah Karlinsky x129 skarlinsky@spur.org Public Engagement Director Julie Kim xl 12 jkim@spur.org Development Director Arnie LaUerman xl 15 alatterma n@spur.org
Urban Center Director Diane Filipp i xn o dfiiippi@spur.org
Development Associate Rachel Leonard x1I 6 rleonard@spur.org
Executive Assistant! Board Liaison Virginia Grandi xl l ? vgrandi@spur.org
Administrative Director Lawrence Li x134 lIi@spur.org
Public Realm and Urban Design Program Manager Benjamin Grant x1l9 bgrant@spur.org Events Manager Kelly Hardesty x120 khardesty@spur.org
This newsletter is printed on New LeafReincarnation paper: 100% recycled fiber and 50% post-consumer waste.
Public Programming Intern Heather Jones x122 fmeacham@spur.org Executive Director Gabriel Metcalf x1l3 gmetcalf@spur.org
Urban Center Event Manager Sue Meylan x130 smeylan@spur.org Research and Volunteer Coordinator Jordan Salinger x136 jsalinger@spur.org Business and Foundation Gifts Manager Sarah Sykes x123 ssykes@spur.org Sustainable Development Policy Director Laura Tam x137 Itam@spur.org Regional Planning Director Egon Terplan x131 eterplan@spur.org
rn Z m
o
» z o
~
I
~
-i
3:
m
» z <.n Tl
o:;0
-i I
m OJ
~
» :;0 m »
I