Issue 499 News at SPUR p3 The Year in Urbanism p4 Urban Field Notes p20 Urban Drift p22 Member Profile p23

01.11

SPUR•rnams

0 1.11 LETTER FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

The year in urbanism

Gabriel Metcalf isexecutive directorof SPUR.

So much happens in a year - good thi ngs, bad

things, th ings we're not sure about, things we don'teven notice until much later. One of our jobs at SPUR

is to try to sort it out so we can understand the bigtrends. We work on so many issues in any one year,

and we try our best to be strategic about what to do,focusing on the biggest opportunities for change.

In honor of the new year, we are devoting this

issue of the Urbanist to a review of some of the majortrends that are shaping our work.

Perhaps the starting place for this discussion is toacknowledge the start ling disconnect between the

national level and the local level in the Americanurban agenda. While the federal government failed to

pass a climate bill, an energy bill or a transportat ionbill, and while a large port ion of the national

leadership debates whether we should we doinganything about global warming, climate change isalready hitting us.

San Francisco's wastewater system is already

start ing to face problems with increased saltwaterintrusion back into the outf low pipes because ofsea-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 sewerbox under the road had to be protected by emergency

work crews - that can really stand as the marker ofwhen climate change hit the city.

We know where this is headed, even if we don'tknow exactly how quickly. Figuring out how to adapt

to climate change wi ll be a major preoccupationfor San Francisco, as it w ill be for all cities, forgenerations.

This contrast between the national and the locallevel runs through so much of our work . There isan optimism and creativity in so much of what is

happening in San Francisco and the Bay Area, as

we experiment wi th new forms of public space,as we work on an ambitious program of buildingpublic transit , as we nurtu re new models of work

and entrepreneurship, and as we try to reinvent

government to be capable of solving new problems.It was often remarked that 20 10 should have

been the "Sputnik moment" for th is generation ofAmericans - the moment when 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, justas the Russian space launch in 1957 launched a

national effor t to ramp up science and technology. It

should have been our Sputnik moment, but it wasn't.Yet, here at home, we don't need any more evidence

about the need to retool our way of life and oureconomy. We've already started.

SPUR has surveyed some of the biggest trends inthis "year in urbanism," from home foreclosures in the

suburbs to new forms of technology that are changingthe way cit ies operate. But of course we were only

able to tell a few of the important stories, and thereare many others:

• A new questioning about some long-held beliefs,e.g. the value of home ownership, and the idea that

"green jobs" will be an important growth sector.

• The beginning of a backlash against public dataand new mobile app licat ions (the very idea celebratedin th is issue's "Open Source City " piece), because

of concerns about privacy and corporate control ofinformation.

• A troubling trend toward privatizing planningfunctions in small cities across the country, as budgetcuts lead to the elimination of things wi th long-termbenefits - like planning.

• lntergenerational conflict over pension costs andtax burdens, and a new sorting of haves and have­

nots that is upending traditional defin itions of liberaland conservative.

• An obsession with Japan and the idea of a long­term cultural and economic stagnation happeninghere as it did there after the 1980s.

• A political divergence betwee n California and therest of the country.

• The crash of "consumer cities," from Las Vegasto Dubai.

So much happens in a year and we couldn' t writ e

about it all. But we hope you find the pieces in thisissue to be thought-provoking and we hope you agree

they capture at least some of the big trends that areaffect ing cities, including your own city.

There is no doubt that 20 11 will be equally

momentous, and we will be at the center of many

of the big events of the next year. We've got bigproblems to solve, from restoring the public's faith that

government can be run for the benefit of everyoneto getti ng the economy back on track, and we arenot 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. •

2 Urbanist > January2011

January 2011

What we're doing

TOP PRIORITY FOR 2011: THE BUDGETSan Francisco is projecting a $380 millionGeneral Fund deficit for the next fiscal year,which begins on July 1. Last year, labor unionsagreed to wage concessions worth hundredsof millions of dollars. Still, the City will facehuge deficits for every year as far as the eyecan see. Driven by a combination of risinghealth costs, wages and pensions, there issimply no way the City can afford the govern­ment it has today. SPUR is going to be work­ingwith our partners in City government tohelp bring costs and revenues into balance ­with the overall goal that we don't have to facethese "emergencies" every single year. Thisspring, the City will release its first-ever five­year financial plan, mandated by the Prop. Abudget reform measure approved by voters- and chaired by SPUR - in 2009. This willbe a great opportunity to both make sense ofmajor trends and shape future budget reformefforts. Stay tuned for updates.

SPUR WEIGHS IN ON NEWAIR QUALITY THRESHOLDSIn June, the Bay Area Air QualityManagement District (BAAQMD)

adopted new CEQA guidelines

containing new thresholds forgreenhouse gases, criteria

pollutants and toxic air contami­

nants (also called "comm unity

risks and hazards"). Whi le well

motiv ated, the community risk

thresholds could create newhurdles for the future develop-

ment of in-fil l housing without

providing much helpfu l guidance

on how to mit igate environmen­

tal impacts. SPUR worked with

partners in both the in-fill

housing and air-quality commu­

nities to provide BAAQMD with

recommendations for improving

air quality, while also ensuring

that good in-fill projects are able

to move forward . In December

BAAQMD voted to delay imp le­

mentation of the thresholds unti l

May 201 1 and make otherimprovements to its analyt ical

tools. Read the memo support­ing these actions at spur.org/

baaqmd .

NEW PARKMERCED PLANGOES BEFORE PLANNINGCOMMISSIONLast July, SPUR endorsed the

new developm ent plan for

Parkmerced, wh ich w ill add

approximately 5,700 housing

units to the existing 3,221 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 improvements,

inc luding new Muni stops and

an urban farm. The Parkmerced

development team is currently

making its way thro ugh the

entit lements process, and

presenting at a series of hearings

at the Planning Commission in

early 20 11. Interested in getting

involved? Contact SarahKarlinsky at skarlinsky@spur.org.

SPUR AWARDED GRANT BYTHE U.S. GEOLOGICALSURVEYSPUR was awarded a $66,300

USGS grant, part of the National

Earthqu ake Hazard ReductionProgram (NEHRP), to help

fur ther our Resilient CityInitiative. This grant augments

existing support from Degenkolb

Engineers, and will help SPUR

develop a "shelter-in-p lace" plan

for San Francisco in the event of

a major earthquake. Part of the

solution will be to define the

minimum condition for residen­

ces to be considered habitable,the acceptable duration of

infrastructure outages, and

addressing the special

considerations needed for

vulnerable populations. For more

information on SPUR's ResilientCity Initiative, see spur.org/

resilient city.

SFHAC STUDENT HOUSINGLEGISLATION PASSES THEBOARD OF SUPERVISORSOur friends at the San Francisco

Housing Action Coalition enjoyed

a major legislative victory in

December when the Board of

Supervisors unanimously

approved a Student Housing

Ordinance. This legislation,

aimed at addressing a city-wide

shortage of student housing, will

exempt new student housing

development from the City's

inciusionary housing law, which

requires developers to provide

affordable units as part of any

new housing development. Two

important details: New student

housing development cannot

result in the conversion of any

current rental housing. And 30

percent of beds must be

occupied by students whoreceive or are eligible to receive

need-based financial aid. Read

the proposed legislation at sfhac.

org. Congratulations SFHAC! •

Urbanist > January2011 3

SPECIAL FEATURE Climat e change

W it h th is issue, we're kicking off t he new year - and a new trad itionCrowdsourcing

- at SPUR. More confident in our ab ility to assess the p resent t hanHousin g

predict the future, we've taken a stab at naming t he biggest trendsJob growth

and events af fec t ing urban planning in t he Bay Area right no w. W ri t ePublic pro cess

to ed itor@spur.org with your own list!Technology

The year in urbanismWhat happened and what it means for the BayArea

·Special thanks toCarl Anthony,DenaBelzer, WillFl eissig, NancyLevinson, JohnParman,JohnRahaim, MichelSt. PierreandMichael Yarnefor their help inshapingthis issue.

4 Urbanist > January2011

[ The Environment]

Climate Change hitsSan FranciscoWHAT HA PPEN EDJu st w eeks after the w orld failed inCop enhagen to come t o an agreementabo ut how to st o p runaway cl imatecha ng e, winter storms ca usedunprecedented erosio n at SanFrancisco's Ocean Bea ch. Parts of theGreat Highway were closed and sewersystems threatened. Emergenc y c rewsspread rock revetments to hold backthe waves - for now.

WHAT IT MEANSThe long-anticipat ed impacts of globalwarming: rising seas, in crea sed st o rmsurg es and shifting coast lines are hereright now. Coasta l cities every w he reface tough cho ic es about how toadapt .

No single event can be clearly attributed to climatechange, but last winter's erosion events at OceanBeach are as close to a bellwether as we've seenin San Francisco. In January and February, nearly40 feet of bluff collapsed onto the dwindling beachsouth of Sloat Boulevard, leaving the southboundGreat Highway closed and, more ominously,

threatening the Lake Merced tunnel, a 14-foot­diameter sewer transport pipe that lies under theroad. An emergency was declared, and Departmentof Public Works crews placed rock revetments - aform of coastal "armoring" - on the beach toprevent further damage. Parts of the 1940s-eraseawall that had been buried under undulatingsand dunes in the central part of the beach remainexposed even today.

An emergency, perhaps, but hardly a surprise.Episodic erosion and armoring had occurred severaltimes over preceding decades. Two citizen taskforces studied the problem and warned that evenmore erosion was coming. Local environmentalistsand surfers, then and now, have fought emergencydeclarations and rock placement, arguing that"temporary" armoring has a way of becomingpermanent, and results in the loss of the beach.

This conundrum - when and whereto armorthe coast to protect expensive property andinfrastructure, and when and where to let naturetake its new, more threatening course- is ourfundamental climate adaptation policy challenge.Along the coast and the shoreline of San FranciscoBay, it is a basic city-planning challenge as well.

Late last year, international climate talksfoundered in Copenhagen, while at the U.S. federallevel, the House passed a relatively ambitiousclimate bill that died in the Senate and was buriedby the November election.

The upshot? States, regions and cities have tobecome leaders on both fronts of global warming:trying to stop it and dealing with its effects.

CONTRIBUTORSAlexa Arena is Vice Presidentof Development for Forest Cityand head of FC's San Franciscooff ice. She looks forward todeveloping the next participatorymonopoly where "tradables"include kale-filled taco standsand serendipitous interactions.

Anthony Bruzzone is anassociate at Arup's San Franciscooffice, and a former planner forAC Transit and Muni. He looksforward to when the Giants' nextrookie phenomenon is called upfrom Fresno and arrivesvia ahigh-speed train.

Benjamin Grant is SPUR'sPublic Realm and Urban DesignProgram Manager. He is currentlyleading a cross-agency masterplanning effort for Ocean Beach,where he's hoping someone willteach him to surf.

Sarah Karlinsky is SPUR'sDeputy Director. She has knittedseveral brightly colored scarveswhile waiting to testify at publichearings.

Jed Kolka is Associate Directorof Research and Research Fellowat the Public Policy Instituteof California (PPIC), a non-profit, non-partisan researchfoundation. At PPIC, Jed haswritten numerous reports on theCa lifornia economy, economicdevelopment, housing, andtechnology policy.

Gabriel Metcalf is ExecutiveDirector of SPUR.

Jordan Salinger is the Researchand Volunteer Coordinator atSPUR. He has been working onprojects related to congestionpricing, economic developmentin San Francisco and publiclyaccessible data. He does nothave the six votes needed to bemayor.

Laura Tam is SPUR's SustainableDevelopment Policy Director.She lives in the Ocean Beachneighborhood, where she hopesthe major bummer of inevitablesea-level rise might be a littleoffset by an uptick in warm,sunny days.

Egan Terplan is SPUR's RegionalPlanning Director. Prior toSPUR, he worked in BuenosAires, Santo Domingo andSarajevo. He is coming to termswith the reality that his youngdaughters will soon understandthe technological and spatialimplications of consumer Internetfirms better than he ever will.

Urbanist > January 2011 5

Last winter,storms hastenederosion atOcean Beach,causingnearly40 feet of bluffto collapsealong the GreatHighway nearSloat Boulevard.

Fortunately for us, California continues to leadthe way on climate policy, with voters this yeardecisively rejecting a challenge to Assembly Bill32, the state's landmark climate protection law.Regional agencies such as the MetropolitanTransportation Commission and the Associationof Bay Area Governments have begun the processof developing Sustainable Communities Strategiesunder Senate Bill 375, which will guide futuredevelopment to transit-rich locations to reducecarbon emissions from driving. Finally, the statepulled together a multiagency Climate AdaptationStrategy, meant to guide state agencies in planningfor the health, air quality, water, agricultural andsea-level implications of global warming. The SanFrancisco Bay Conservation and DevelopmentCommission has been proactive about studying andplanning 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 firstSustainable Communities Strategy, a documentthat will propose a land-use vision and policy toolsto achievethe region's target of 15 percent percapita reduction in greenhouse gases. The SCSwill constitute part of the Regional TransportationPlan, and plan for enough housing to accommodatethe region's population growth. This year, wesuccessfully advocated for the MTC to adopta stretch goal of 15 percent for its emissions­reduction target.

Since 2009, we have been running a climateadaptation task force to study the effects of globalwarming and to recommend adaptive strategies.

This work will wrap up early this year withrecommendations for local governments, includingSan Francisco, on every aspect of adaptationplanning, from sea-level rise to public healthand water resource management. Recently, wecommented on BCDC's proposa l to amend its BayPlan to include new findings and policies on climatechangeand sea-level rise (read our thoughts atspur.org/bayplan). While commending BCDC forbeing a global leader on planning for sea-levelrise, SPUR recommended that BCDC work withother agencies, and especially local governments,to identify long-term regional flood protectionstrategies and ensure consistency with SB 375 .

Finally, SPUR is leading an ambitious climatechange adaptation effort in the city's own backyard.The Ocean Beach Master Plan, funded by grantsfrom the California Coastal Conservancy, the SanFrancisco Public Utilities Commission and theNational Park Service, is convening a wide rangeof public agencies, advocates and communitystakeholders. The goal is to create a great publiclandscape in the context of a moving coastline andan uncertain climate, while balancing the needsof beach users, a fragile ecosystem and criticalinfrastructure. If the project is successful, the nexterosion episode won't be an emergency - it will bean expectation fulfilled, triggering a set of agreed­upon actions. We can no longer plan for a fixedstate, an imagined equilibrium. It is a strange anddiscomfiting kind of stewardship, but one that willbe essential in our new, uncertain age.

- Benjamin Grant & Laura Tam

Ii Urbanist > January 2011

[ High-Speed Rail ]

The tortured progressof Californiahigh-speed railWHAT HAPPENEDThe California High Speed RailAuthority, under pressure from theFederal Railroad Administration tobuild quickly and easily, decided tobuild its first stretch of a statewidehigh-speed rail system within theCentral Valley: from Borden, south ofMerced, to Corcoran, the center of theCalifornia prison industry.

WHAT IT MEANSThis could be the logical successfulstart of a huge public works projectin a place where construct ion is easyand relatively cheap, leading to anearly win and bui lding momentumfor further work. But it creates bigquestions for the Bay Area abouthow to complete projects to electrifyCa ltrain, separate train tracks fromautomobi le traffic and extend Ca ltrainto the Transbay Term ina l, g iven thatmany people had been hoping forhigh-speed rai l funds to help makethese improvements.

Transformat ional infrastru cture proj ect s require

publi c will, polit ical courage and lots of money.

But throughout history, they have created the

society that we enjoy today. When we think of

the last century, we may think of the University ofCalifornia, the freeways and the State Water Project.

A hundr ed years ago, our great-g randparents

delivered the transcontin ental railroad and the

state's early flood control projects. Modern

California is unthinkable without those expensive

and at times controversial projects - and todaynobody disputes their value, importance or

necessity.

SPUR is convinced that our grandchildren will

value high-speed rail the same way Bay Area

residents value BART or the bridges today. But , like

every other transformational project in the state's

history, the high-speed rail project is contending

with crit ics, cynics and naysayers. How we listen

and collaborate wi th the doubters is important for

a project that is going to be built incrementally

over many years. We need quick wins and more

consensus, and we need to work quickly to sett le

controve rsies and move on. Too much is at stake

to lose, and that might happen if the complaints

of a few overwhelm the needs of the many. In

20 10 we started with many quick wins, several bigdisappointments and a few big question marks.

San Francisco was at the forefront of the quick

w ins this summe r. The Transbay Transit Center,

after 10 years of planning, broke ground and

included the all- impo rtant "train box." This occurred

because the Transbay Joint Powers Authority,working with the City and assisted by SPUR (and

our decade-long involvement), managed to secure

$400 million in high-speed rail funds that were

included in the federal stimulus package. The end

result for San Francisco will be a new regional

transit center that is home to the region's transbaybus 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 iceworkers).

For the high-speed rail project, the TransbayTransit Center becomes the objective ­

geographically, economically and aesthet ically.

By building the terminal first, San Francisco is

challenging the rest of the state and the region to

embrace high-speed-rail and is showing the good

thin gs that 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 equallyhigh benefits.

This huge step forward for the high-speed rail

program couldn't have happened any sooner. The

project has been mired in controversy, and now

congressional Republicans want to kill its federal

fundin g. We need to pass on San Francisco'soptimism to the rest of the state. When railroads

were first invented, the critics of the day claimed

they caused "concussions of the brain" and that

they were the work of the devil , in addit ion to the

more technologically based concerns over boiler

accidents and collisions. Those concerns seemquaint and improb able now.

Our object ive for 201 1 must be to engage the

naysayers and reach out to our friends. San Jose is

allied with San Francisco on the need for high­

speed rail, but our strangest bedfellows are Fresno

and Bakersfield, w here the project enjoys huge

support. While we can shudder when the newly

elected members of Congress (and some Midwestgovernors) want more highway spending and no rail

funding, we need to take the big view. The history

Urbanist > January2011 7

B Urbanist> January 2011

of infrastructure projects is that when the political

support is there, the leaders will follow the people.

Imagine a futur e in which Fresno, with its own

"starchitect"-designed station in a revitalized and

renewed downtown, is only 90 minutes from

San Francisco or Los Angeles. Fresno becomes

the center of a state of more than 40 milli on

people w ho are separated by the running time ofone 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, when Fresno, Bakersfield and San

Francisco all want the same thing, the oddsfavor us. Add in Los Angeles and Anaheim, and

statewide voters' endorsement of $10 billion for the

system, and the project 's politics seem solid. Wejust need to execute.

Some will say we can't afford high-speed rail. In

an era of doubts about government spending andeffectiveness, we need to respond. Let's be serious

here: California's high-speed rail bill is more than

$40 billion. The state already has set aside $10billion. That leaves $3 0 billion for local agencies,

the federal government and the private sector. Who

needs to step up? Local agencies need to bui ldand maintain their stat ions, just as they build and

maintain their airports. The private sector needs

to leverage operational eff iciencies and the system

cash flow to finance the trains and other portions

of the system. And we'll need federal money: $15billion to $20 billion. Seems like a lot of money, but

over a 10 -year period California gets almost twice

that much federal money for highways (and thestate gets only 92 percent of what it puts into the

federal highway trust fund) .

The future stakes are too high and theopportunities too great to choose the wrong

priorities. High-speed-rail w ill have the samebenefits (with few of the downsides) as the

interstate highway program. Every community will

want to follow San Francisco's Transbay example.

Our work plan for next year: Continue to supportefforts to deliver our iconic and trendsett ing

Transbay project , including the all-important

downtown track extensions, and work with ourcolleagues in the Central Valley to deliver the first

phase of the project.

But most of our attention will be on thePeninsula, where the high-speed rail planning

process has bogged down in local concerns,

grandstanding and misunderstandings. At a time

when Caltrain cannot be supported financially, the

Peninsula communities need to realize that the

high-speed rail project offers a way out: a real,

electrified, non-p olluting, downtown San Francisco

to downtown 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 their general lack

of concern for the common good. Every urbanized,

industrialized country has found high-speed rail

to be critical to maintaining mobil ity in a moderneconomy and meeting environmental challenges at

the same tim e. California is no different (and neither

are the benefits to the Peninsula), and we need towork hard in 201 1 to get that 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 Internetand social mediacompaniesWHAT HAPPENEDOnce-small Internet and social mediacompani es - including Twitter,Zynga and Salesforce - signed dealsto become among San Francisco'slargest employers, bucking the trendof te chnology start-ups to locate in ornear Silicon Valley.

WHAT IT MEANSWhile job growth is good for the city'seconom ic base, San Francisco maysoon run out of avai lable office space.The shift to SOMA and beyond putsmany jobs in lower dens ity bu ild ingsand out of walking distance fromreg ional trans it nodes, BART andcore Muni lines. Thi s means morecommuters may choose to drive towork and worsen congestion.

One of last year's few economic brightspotswas the 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 270,000 square feet at Eighth

and Townsend. (This was the biggest lease signed

Last faII, Zynga- the world'slargest socialgame developer- signed a270,000 square­foot lease in theTownsend Centerat Showp laceSquare. TheI ,200 -employeecompanyplans to moveinto its newheadquartersthi s spring.

in San Francisco since the Barclay's expansion

to over 320,000 square feet in late 2005.) And

finally, on the same day the Giants won the World

Series, Salesforce announced plans to build a new

2 million-square-foot headquarters in Mission Bay,

occupying nearly all its remaining ent itled off ice

space. When built out, Salesforce will be San

Francisco's second- largest consumer of private

offi ce space (after Wells Fargo).

There is some irony to the decisions by these

three firms to stay and grow in San Francisco:

their products help to support a world that 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 software, Salesforce reduces the need for a

company to buy or ow n as much centralized off ice

space, and to compete with other companiesth rough these location decisions. Twitter provides

a way for organizations to develop "followers" and

connect w ith markets without face-to-face contact.

And Zynga provides entertainment without in-the­

flesh socializing. At the same time, each company

is deeply rooted in place, and making a major

com mitment to San Francisco and the innovative

labor force the city continues to attrac t.This "boomlet" in consumer Internet companies

could have a big impact on the 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 itter, Zynga and Salesforce will likely

inspire other smaller firms to locate nearby - even

dow n the 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 asthere is available land and space for growth - not

a given in San Francisco.

Export firms grow the local economy: When

firms sell goods and services beyond city borders,they net new wealth that expands the 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

downtown high-rises. Others will put people back

to work in neighborhood businesses.Doing more 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 30 0 today). Five or 10 years ago, they

would have needed many more employees to reach

that same global market. This new reality of small

firms with big impacts 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

1980s, many successful fi rms moved out of

downtown 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 the Bay - lag behind many unremarkable, low­

slung South of Market buildings sought out by techstartups. Other oppor tuni ty areas in the city wit h

great proximity to transit (the Mid-Ma rket area, forinstance) 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 the city's main transit corridorand the only place where the vast majority of

commuters arrive (from locations in San Franciscoand across the region) via public transit. As

employment continues to shift away from Market

Street, transit commuting will drop off and driving towork 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 warehouses

and other low- and mid-r ise buildings). But some

of them might actually be playing the odds and

locating between 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 off ice buildings are between

two and six stories), setbacks and increased parking

requirements contribute to an urban form that issignificantly less dense than the dow ntow n high­

rise district. This pattern is very land-intensive, and

as SOMA's warehouse 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 lyviable place for other major companies to locate.

Will some emerging firms shift to the financ ial

district? Will Mid-Market became a location ofchoice? Will we loosen restrictions on off ice space

in former industrial districts? We look forward to

considering these loomi ng questions in 20 11.

- Egon Terplan

ONE EXAMPLE OF EXTREME DEMOCRACY: LAND-USE PLANNING FOR SEA WALL LOT 351

1998No rth east ern Waterfront A reaPlan is updated.

November 2007The Port requ est s t ha t th ePlanning Depart m ent beginan environmental reviewcomplia nt w it h t he Ca lifo rn iaEnv iro nm ent al Quality Ac t o nthe 8 Washington St. pr oposal.

December 2008The Po rt receive s twoproposals, inc luding o ne th atultimately was wi t hd raw n.

1997 19 98 11111111 20 0 6 20 0 7 20 0 8

June 1997The Por t Commissio n ado pt st he Waterfron t Land Use Planth at sets fo rth land -u se pol ici esfo r all property un d er th ejurisdic ti on o f th e Po rt o f SanFranci sco .

10 Urbanist > January2011

2006San Fra nci sco Wa terfrontPartner s sub m it s to t he Porto f San Franci sco a pr o posalfo r Sea Wall Lot 351 t hatwou ld co m b ine t he SWL351site w ith the adjacent site at 8Wa shi ngto n St. Th e pr oposalis for a co ndom inium projec t84 feet tall , in keeping wi t h th eparcel 's zo ne d he ight.

February 2008A f te r alm o st o f a ye ar o fco m m unity and co m m issio nmeeting s, th e Port Co m m issio naut ho rizes the Po rt o f SanFr anc isco sta f f to issue arequ est for proposals fo r SeaWa ll Lo t 35 1, w it h d eve lopmentc r iteria c ra fted in concert w it hth e co m m uni ty.

[ Community Planning]

The Rise of ExtremeDemocracyWHAT HAPPENEDDespite the completion of aWaterfront Master Plan, an updateto the Northeastern Waterfront AreaPlan and, most recently, a 17-monthNortheast Embarcadero UrbanDesign study, the fate of a housingdevelopment proposed to be built onthe site of a parking lot and privatetennis club on the Embarcaderoremains unclear. Meanwhile, thepotential closing of Ike's sandwichshop in the Castro became a majorplanning issue, taking up countlesshours of Planning Department stafftime and generating numerous newsarticles.

WHY IT MATTERSIn San Francisco's civic culture, theprocesses by which we make land-use decisions can be long, arduousand confusing, without necessarilyleading to increased understandingand agreement among the peopleinvolved. Often, the process is solengthy and complex that it no longeris inclusive of regular citizens, insteadfavoring only the most tenaciousparticipants. Our inefficient processesbreed a lack of civility on all sides,even for small decisions - making itmore challenging to grapple with trulydifficult p lanning issues like globalclimate 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, often with overlapping juri sdiction, each

w ith its ow n rules and purview. Despite recent

effo rts at reform , our discretionary review process

remains untamed. Our planning code is the longest

February 20 0 9The Po rt Co m m iss io n awa rdst he development o f Seawa ll Lo t3S1 to San Fra nc isco Wa ter f ro ntPartner s.

20 0 9

February 20 0 9Supe rv iso r Davi d Chiu (w horep resen t s th e d ist ric t incl udingth e Northeast Embar cad ero )request s t hat th e Po rt wo rk w it hth e Plan n ing Departmen t to leada "focuse d pl anning p ro cess"for th e Port's surface park inglot s north o f Mar ket Street.In hi s letter to t he Po r t , Chiustates th at t he "co m m unity andth e Port have legitimate goa lsand co nce rns, and I ho pe t ha tby br ingi ng all st ake holders to

June 2010Th e Planning Departmentp ub lis hes the " No rtheastEm barca d ero St udy: A nUrban Desig n A na lysis fo rth e Northeast Embar ca d er oArea ." The st udy reco mmen d ssc u lp t ing th e heights o n th eSW L 35 1 and 8 Washing to nSt. parce ls, w it h low er he ig htsrang ing fr om 25 feet betw eenJackson and Pacifi c st reets ,incr easin g to an ave rage of 67t o 70 feet be tween Was hing to nan d Jack so n st ree ts . One parto f t he pa rce l wo u ld be all owedgo as high as 125 to 130 feet.

th e same tabl e, we ca n bui ldconsens us for th e futu re o fo ur water f ro nt ." In resp on se,t he Port eng ages t he Pla nni ngDepar tme nt to lead a sixm on th "p lanning ana lys is" o fth e surface pa rk ing lots o n t heNortheast Embarcad er o. A mo ngot he r resp on sib ilities, th ePlann ing De part me nt is c ha rge dw it h seek ing "com m unityco nse ns us" o n SW L 351 as we llas o t he r seawa ll lot proper tieso n th e northern wa te rf ro nt.

August 2010A se ries o f neighbor ho odgroups fil e a law su it agai nst t heCity, sta t ing t hat th e NortheastEmbarcade ro St udy did no tunder g o th e app rop riate CEQAprocess. Essentiall y, th e law su itpos its t ha t thi s level o f pr ocessan d o f fic ia l endorse me nt o f th ep ro ject is inap pr op riat e pri orto CEQA . If t his challe nge issuccessfu l, it w il l injec t a form alCEQA pro cess be fore th eco mmuni ty "buy- in" process.

20 10

July 2010Th e Planning Co m m iss io nvo tes 4 -3 to ac knowledget he st udy and recog nizest he desig n principles andrecomm en d at ion s o f th e studyfor pub lic realm improveme ntsan d new develo pme nt in th earea . San Fra nci sco Wa te rf ro ntPartners redesig ns it s proposalfo r SW L 35 1/ 8 Was hing to n St .,in corpor ating th e fra mewo rko ut lined in th e NortheastEmbarcadero Study.

October 2010The ne ig hborhood g ro upsex te nd th eir law suit t o incl udeth e Por t Co m miss io n'sendo rse me nt of th e ter m sheet.

~ePtembe r 2010Th e Port Co mmiss io n app rovesth e devel opm en t te rm shee t forSW L 351.

Urbanist > January 2011 11

such document in the entire country, causingdisagreements among experts as to how certainregulations should be interpreted.

Adding to these challenges is the fact that ourarea plans - statements of guiding principlesfor planning limited geographic areas - arebeing asked to take on a vast range of societalissues (de-industrialization, the rise of incomeinequality, the lack of sufficient state and federalfunding for infrastructure such as transit) usingthe limited tools that zoning can provide. Whilethese area plans were supposed to streamline theprocess for deciding what types of developmentshould move forward, by creating a set of rules towhich everyone agrees up front, there still existssubstantial debate about what types of developmentactually conform to our adopted area plans.

One way to characterizethis trend is to callit "extreme democracy." This trend has beenpropelled by a variety of factors, some with thebest of intentions. San Francisco is a progressivecity that values participation, inclusion andcitizen activism. When the city suffered from thedestruction of neighborhoods as the result of urbanrenewal and urban freeways in the 1950s and'60s, it was a cadre of citizen activists who roseup to stop the tidal wave of top-down planning.These planning wars created a deep distrust of"experts" advocating changethat was necessaryfor "progress ." To this day, many San Franciscansbelieve that changes to the city are presumed to bebad until proven otherwise.

This is also a city where the "haves"- thepeople who already live here and who own theirown homes - are well organ ized to prevent thosewho are not yet here from arriving. Many peopleare working overtime to ensure that as litt le newhousing as possible gets built. These people knowthat more process means more opportunities todelay, shrink, or kill plans and projects so that fewerthings get done.

The truth is that a better democratic processdoes not always mean more process. Democracy ismore complicated than that.

Democracy is easywhen people agree with eachother on the issues. But what happens when thepeople do not agree? Given that San Franciscanshave so many conflicting ideas about what theywant to see built (or not) in their city, reachingconsensus on any land use or planning issue oftenis elusive, if not impossible. So what makes a gooddemocratic process? Is it one that facilitates enoughunderstanding so that the majority of people ina neighborhood agree? How should regional andcitywide concerns be weighed? How do we ensurethat most people's views are represented, and not

12 Urbanist > January2011

just those of the people with the greatest intensityof preferences - i.e., the squeakiest wheels?

One response of the public sector to theproblems of extreme democracy has been the riseof temporary solutions. Because it takes so long tocomplete a process, and because the capacity toreach consensus is both limited and uncertain, SanFrancisco has seen a boom in pilot projects. Wehave temporary "parklets" that can be taken down ifobjections are too fierce, we have "Sunday Streets"to create car-free space one day at a time, we haveMarket Street planning trials. These pilot projectsare great ways to test out new ideas in planning,but they can't address some of the larger needs wehave, such as creating a rapid transit network andbuilding enough housing next to our Muni lines andBART stations.

The truth is that a betterdemocratic process doesnot always mean moreprocess. Democracy is morecomplicated than that.

Addressing the major planning issues of our dayis something we as a society must learn how todo. It cannot be an acceptable answer to say thatonly a dictatorship is capable of building high­speed rail or capable of making major changestoland-use patterns to deal with climate change. Weneed a process that can tackle the housing crisis,climate changeand sea-level rise while respectingthe fact that we may have conflicting ideas aboutwhat solutions will work and what trade-offs areworth making. We need to prove that democracy iscapable of solving the hard problems.

So what should be done?There are no easyanswers, but part of the solution lies in creatingprocesses that emphasize early and broadbased involvement. Issues and concerns canbe addressed up front, not resolved at the endthrough a series of protracted political battles. Mostimportantly, the outcomes of these early decisionsneed to be respected, not undermined, at laterstages of the process.

Another key step is defining the proper role ofCEQA. Many unresolved planning issues wind upgetting trapped in CEQA processes, either throughrounds of appeals or through litigation. We oughtto deal with planning issues through a planningprocess that allows trade-offs to be understood,and not overly rely on the lens of CEQA, whichby its nature defines new development as having

"impacts" that must be "mitigated" regardless ofwhetherthat new development is proposed foran already urbanized area near transit or in agreenfield.

Finally, we need to find a way to engage abroader group of people. Relatively few peoplehave the time or the inclination to attend roundafter round of community meetings or publichearings. Making use of new tools and technol­ogies to encourage broader participation mighthelp make our processes become more democraticand prevent the loudest few from dominating thediscourse.

-Sarah Karlinsky

[ Boom and Bust] .

A turnaround for BayArea housing?WHAT HAPPENEDBay Area housing prices rose in thepast year, even though housing pricesnationally continued to fall. Prices rosemost in areas closer to the coast, whilein land prices continued their decl ines,widening the already large gapbetween prices in San Francisco andprices in the far East Bay and fartherinland.

WHAT IT MEANSThe Bay Area remains very expensiverelative to the rest of the Un ited States,both for businesses and for families,despite the burst of the housingbubble. Paradoxica lly, the Bay Areaand Californ ia now face the challengesof both cont inued foreclosures anddecreasing housing affordability. Thewi d ening price gap between coasta land inl and Californ ia ma y in du celonger commutes, and may stressboth t ransportation networks and t heenv iro nment.

The national housing crisis continued in 2010.Foreclosures continued at a rapid pace, dampenedonly by questions about their legality. Numerouspublic policies- ranging from the affordable

housing goals of Fannie Mae and Freddie Macto the mortgage interestdeduction - have beencriticized for encouraging home ownership amongpeople who could not afford it, spurring a boomin construction and threatening the stability ofthe housing finance system. And the housingbust remains intertwined with the recession:Unemployed people have a harder time payingtheir mortgage, and the depressed housing marketkeeps workers in construction and other industriesunemployed.

But 2010 quietly marked the beginning of thehousingturnaround for the BayArea . In September2010 - the latest data available - Bay Areahouse prices were higher than a year earlier, in allthree metropolitan areas (San Francisco, Oaklandand San Jose). For California overall, priceswereslightly higherthan a yearagoaccordingto onesourceand slightly lower according to another, butboth sources showed California house prices risingfaster (or falling less) than the national average.In previous years of this housing bust, California'spricedeclines were- along with Nevada,Arizona and Florida - among the steepest in thecountry. In 2010, prices in those other three statescontinued to decline sharply, but not in California.The state still feels plenty of pain: The foreclosurerate in California in late 2010 is still twice thenational average, and pricescontinue to fall inmany inland and northern parts of the state. Buthousing prices in much of coastal Cal ifornia appearto have stabilized.

Why are prices turning around in much ofCa lifornia but not in the other states with steepprice declines? In Ca lifornia, the dramatic short-termprice fluctuations of the housing boom and busttook place against the backdropof our perenniallytight housing market. Throughout the boom andbust, California's residential vacancy rate remainedamong the lowest in the country, and far below thevacancy rates of Nevada, Arizona, Florida and otherstates with big price drops.

While the slight rise in housing prices in theBay Area and much of California is good news forhomeowners, it means that California now facesboth the immediate foreclosure crisis and thelong-term challengeof housing affordability. Even ifhome valuescontinue to rise modestly, economicrecovery will be slow, with unemployment expectedto remain above normal for many years. Highunemployment and adjustable mortgage re-setswill make monthly payments unaffordable formany homeowners. Defaults and foreclosures willcontinue.

At the same time, the housing price decline

Urbanist > January20 11 13

The foreclosurerate in Californiain late 2010 wasstill twice thenationalaverage, andprices continueto fall in manyinland areas,including theCentral Valley.

The average home in the SanFrancisco area costs more thantriple the average in Stocktontoday, versus less than doubleat the peak of the housingbubble.

in California made little dent in the high cost ofhousing in the Bay Area and California relative tothe rest of the United States. The average homeprice in the San Francisco Bay Area is nearly threetimes the U.S. average, and expensive real estateraises costs for businesses wanting to locate hereand for the workers businesses hope to attract. Ofall the high costs of doing business in the Bay Areaand in Ca lifornia, rea l estate costs are the most outof line with national averages .

Within California, price stabilization on the coastwidens the affordability gap with inland areaswhere prices are still falling. The average home inthe San Francisco area costs more than triple theaverage in Stockton today, versus less than double

14 Urbanist > January2011

at the peak of the housing bubble. Even within theBay Area, the gap is widening: The average SanFrancisco home is between three and four times theprice of the average Antioch home today, comparedwith only 50 percent higher at the housing bubble'speak. The gap between the average Oaklandhome price and average Antioch home price haswidened from closeto even at the peak, to two­thirds higher in Oakland today. As the gap in pricesbetween coastal and inland California widens,regional challengesthat took a back seat duringthe recession will reappear. Some workers maymove inland for less-expensive housing in exchangefor a longer commute, putting renewed stress oncongested roads and on the state's goal of reducinggreenhousegas emissions by driving less.

As 2011 begins, therefore, the Bay Area andCalifornia face complicated housing challenges.Stabilizing or rising housing prices are good forhomeowners, will help restart the housing industryand will contribute to employment growth. But thecloud of foreclosures and underwater borrowershas not yet lifted, and the silver lining of increasedaffordability is dissolving.

-Jed Kolko

[Networks 1

The open-source cityWHAT HAPPENEDSan Francisco passes legi slati on toinsti t ut e an open data polic y t hatd irects City agencies to make data setspublicly ava ilable.

WHAT IT MEANSThe movement to democratize citylife by open ing up government tonew forms of participation is gain ingmomentum.

At the very core of the idea of commun ity is the

notion that we take responsibilit y for the place inwhich we live. We do not just want to be taxpayers

and consumers of public services. We want to becitizens. We want to be co-creators.

This is part of a trend in whi ch visionary public­

sector leaders are sometimes able to redefine their

job as "governing by network":

The hierarchical model of government persists,

but its influ ence is steadi ly wanin g, pushed

by governments' appetite to solve ever more

complicated problems and pulled by the new

tools that allow innovators to fashion creative

responses. This push and pull is gradually

producing a new model of government in which

executives' core responsibi lities no longer center

on managing people and programs but on

organizing resources, often belonging to others,

to produce pub lic value. Stephen Goldsmith and

William 0 Eggers, Governing by Network: TheNew Shape of the Public Sector, The Brookings

Institution, 2004, page. 9.

One of the national leaders in this movement was

our own Brian O'Neill, the long-time superintendent

of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area.

Brian pioneered a new way of managing a nationalpark, which relied heavily on strategic partners to

"program" the park - organizations like the Bay

Area Discovery Museum, the Fort Mason Center,

and the Headlands Center for the Arts. The mostimportant partner of all was (and is) the Golden

Gate Parks Conservancy, w hich raises hugeamounts of private money for the park and runs

important stewardship programs as well. Thousands

of people volunteer to work in the park each year.

It is the networ k of volunteers, donors and strategic

partn ers that make the park so publ icly accessible

and so successful. Rather than try to "own" all

of the work inside the public entity, the GGNRA

embraced a government-by-network approach that

invited the enti re Bay Area community to become

stewards and caretakers of the park.

Brian's work has inspired people all around

the country. With any luck, the San Francisco

Department of Recreation and Parks w ill one

day have a similar model, with the help of the

Neighborhood Parks Council and the Parks Trust.

But this idea is applicable to many other realms of

community life as well, from education to economicdevelopm ent, f rom public health to pub lic safety.

Another important success story is the

community benefit district movement. CBDs

partially answer the problem of how to make local

government more responsive at the neighborhood

scale: property owners get together, decide onwh at services they would like added to their

neighborhood, vote to assess themselves, and

then form a non-p rofit to manage the services. In

1999, working with the Union Square Association,

SPUR helped organize a CBD for the Union Square

neighborhood. Since then, the movement has

taken off . Today there are ten in the city (soon to

be twe lve). In 2010, the Union Square neighbors

expanded their dist rict from 10 blocks to 27 blocks.

In anticipation of our move to the Urban Center,

SPUR worked for two years to form the Yerba

Buena CBD, the second largest in the city behind

Union Square, which 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 their own hands. Following 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, temporary, grassroots projects

throughout San Francisco. We call thi s do-it ­

yourself movement DIY Urbanism, and in 2010featured 22 DIY projects in an Urban Centerexhibition 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 construction lots,

DIY Urbanism projects gain scale through the

collaboration of project init iators with the designcommunity 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 ther steps toward empowe ring

citizens to improve the information landscape of

cities. The legislation will encourage City agencies

Urbanist > January2011 15

Across the U.S.,local governmentsare publishingdata sets to spurthe creat ionof soft wareapplications,including mobile"apps" thathelp bridge thedivide betweenthe digital andphysical spacesof a city.

to publish their data sets on the Data SF website ­

where software developers can download the setsand create useful websites and mobile applications

at no cost to the City .

New software applications created from

publicly available data are starting to change theway we experience cities. The innovations go

beyond programs like Next Bus, a website and

mobile phone application that uses GPS signals

to track Mun i trains and buses. The MunicipalTransportation Authority is currently developing

SFpark, a new approach to managing parking.

The SFpark pilot projects are a federally fundeddemonstration of a combination of smarter pric ing

and real-t ime data about where parking is available

to make it easier to find a parking space, whether atmetered spaces or in parking garages.

In early 20 11, the MTA wi ll publish data on

its website and, simi lar to Next Bus, share real­time data via an open data feed, so that anyone

- companies like Google, iPhone and Androidapplication 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 the benefits, begunby 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 competitiveness by bringing people back

to the city to shop rather than losing this business

16 Urbanist > January2011

to surrounding communities. These applications

wi ll also help reduce circling and double-parking, a

cause of congestion on narrow streets, and reducelocal greenhouse gas emissions.

Finally, new websites and softwa re applications

draw on the ideas of multiple people to solveproblems in city life. Community crowdsourcingallows groups of people to come together to

collaborate on solut ions to problems. For example

the goal of the "Urban Forest Map," launched

in 2010 by the Department of Public Works,Department of the Environment and Friends of

the Urban Forest is to document all of the trees in

San Francisco. Formerly, more than a dozen local,state and federal agencies struggled to oversee this

resource. The "Urban Forest Map" stil l encourages

these agencies to submit their information, but alsopromotes individual citizen involvement.

We can think of this wh ole set of experimentsas the attempt to create an "open-source city" - a

city that welcomes the part icipation of all of us to

help make it a wonderful place. We have a long

way to go, but the year 2010 saw a flowering ofoppo rtunities to co-c reate our city.

- Gabriel Metcalf & Jordan Salinger

[ Community]

The participationeconomyWHAT HAPPENEDIn midst of the Great Recession, wesaw a major shift in consumer behavioraway from buying material goods, andtoward buying experiences and socialconnections.

W HAT IT MEANS:The shifting consumer pattern isgiving rise to a new "partic ipationeconomy" that changes everyth ingfrom how people spend their persona ltime, to what companies decide tomake or sell, to whom t hey hi re andwh ere they locat e. Ultimately, t he newpartic ipat ion economy shou ld in formhow we v iew invest m ent in our cities.

What we have seen in the past decade, and moreacutely over the last year, is an incredib le growthin companies that are challenging our baseline

notion of consumer motivat ions and potentiallyrevolutioni zing the very notion that to be successfuland grow, we must consume more stuff.

For a long time investme nt - the pillar offurthe r economic growt h - has been rootedin products and services that cater to society'srelentless appeti te for novelty: for the new toy,house or vacat ion that is a symbol of who weare. This strategy was successful for many years.As a result , our economic growth was related tocontinually expanding consumer markets.

We fueled th is appet ite through expandingour money supply. The unsustainable debt andpersonal savings ratio that led to the GreatRecession of 2008 and beyond shows just howfragile, dangerous and limiting that st rategy is.

Simultaneously, there's an opportunity forthe economy to diversify beyond this traditionalconsumer pattern. Two movements best representthis shift toward an emerging part icipationeconomy that values community over products andthe power of collect ive intelligence:

EXPERIENTIAL, PARTICIPATORY, COMMUNITY­

INSPIRED "PRODUCTS"These businesses don't sell stuff . They sell social

connections and the chance to partic ipate in

purpose-driven comm unities .

Do-It-Yourself Movement: From Maker Fairs,where local art isans sell their products and drawmillions of people to multiple events across thenation, to Techshop, a tool-lending "library" thatoffers access to everything from laser cutters towelding machines for a monthly fee of $100, theDIY movement has spawned magazines as wellas countless new businesses. At the smallestscale are craftspeo ple making clothing, dolls andjewel ry. At the art isanal manufacturi ng scale - orsmall-batch production - you see everything from

chocolate to beer to messenger bags.

Etsy: What started out as a craft exchange forlocal makers in New York City has exploded intoa wor ld-wide platform for ent repreneurs to selltheir goods to consumers across the globe, withno real estate costs. Their vision is to build a neweconomy and present a better choice: buy, sell,and live handmade. A recent valuation estimatedtotal sales in 2011 at about $1 bill ion.

Social Gaming: Almost 57 million peopleplayed a game on a social network betweenJune and August 2010. Thirty-five percent arenew to gaming. What's happening here? Thiskind of gaming isn't about the interact ion withthe electronic tool, it' s about social connection.Second Life and CityVille are not focused onwinning but on part icipating in a community.

The Hub: A world -wide netwo rk of 25 co-working

environments, the Hub goes beyond the simplebrillia nce of sharing an expensive fixed asset likeoffice space amongst a group of entrepreneurs,

startups and freelancers. With nearly 1,000members in the Hub SOMA location alone, theHub hosts dozens of member-driven groups andevents that bring together a comm unity aroundsocial enterprise and shared intel lectual resources.

Food: From the explosion in food carts sellingeverything from creme brulee to Chinese buns, tothe Slow Food movement, to farmers markets ­this is a movement that att racts people for all sortsof reasons, but ultimately keeps them coming backbecause of the social connection it offers.

COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE

We are experiencing the transit ion from socialnetworking to social production - made possibleby a collect ive intelligence that ultimately relieson the deep comm itment of the indiv idual tothe community. The individual is motivatedto participate and meaningful ly engage in a

Urbanist > January 2011 17

community because of the possibilit y of collect ivesolut ions. These are solutions that no oneindividual could generate on his or her own .

Crowdsourcing: innocentive, a website wherecompanies can post challenge problems andthe broad community of users tries to solve theproblems, offers a cash prize that goes to thebest solut ion. Some of th e hardest companyproblems are solved in th is forum. Generally thereach of experts is far more diverse than the ta lenthoused in an individua l company, so the collect iveintelligence of that crowd can prove much bette r atsolving complex problems.

Wikiped ia: A col laboratively created encyclopedia,Wikipedia was questioned by many at itsinception. Why wou ld be people spend that typeof time when they could be watching TV? Becauseit's partic ipatory; it' s a community. This is a newform of consumption that gives part icipants socialconnections and atte nt ion. So rather than spendinga collect ive 200 billion hours of TV consumptio nevery year, some are wil ling to carve out 100mil lion to build Wikipedia.

This shift does not shut down or dest roy thenotion of economic growth and capitalism. Nordoes it require that human nature undergo someenormous change. Rather it shows that as theopportu nity for alternat ive ways to live, consume

and connect emerge, individuals are inherent lymot ivated to participate.

As a developer in cit ies, I see this as anopportunit y for reimagining the place-makingelements and overall investm ent thesis for urbanreal estate. Instead of the tradi tional financialdist rict or downtown CBD model, new modelsassume th e value of "third places" in cities ­zones to connect, share, interact , observe,learn, partic ipate and grow. The prototype forthis investm ent thesis, the 5M Project in SanFrancisco, is in its very initial stages and alreadyproving an "above market" value.

We are experiencing a rebirth of the city as thesocial connector. The place where individuals,companies and economies thrive because ofits unique ability to densely assemble a diversepopulation that has easy access to information,networks and community . As our behavioral andsocial preferences shift , as we go from passivelywatching TV to act ive part icipatio n in act ivit iesthat connect us to community, cit ies reclaim theirphysical and social value in our society. They onceagain become the organizat ional center-po int thatfu lfills a lifestyle we need and crave.

Reimagining our cit ies with this lens is crit ical.Our craving for community and authent icconnect ion is coming to a forefront. As a city, weneed to respond to these new demands.

- Alexa Arena

This block partyfundraiser atSan Francisco'sMissionCommunityMarket is oneexample ofconsumers' shiftawayfrom goods,and towardcommunity.

18 Urbanist > January 2011

Urbanist > January2011 19

URBANFIELD NOTES

7 intriguing sites revealPresidio's varied history

An additive archive of cultural landscapes and observations Caseworker: Rut h Keffercompiled by SPUR members and friends. Send your ideasto Urban Field Notes editor Ruth Keffer at editor@spur.org.

CASESTUDY #34

The Presidio is a comp licated though not

ent irely mysterious place. At nearly 1,500

acres, one cannot explore the entire site injust a day, let alone the single afternoon I

spent there recent ly. What I did grasp quickly

is that the Presidio isn't just one place, it's

many. It 's parkland and wetland , forest andbeach, golf course and cemetery. Remnants

of its 19th century history are stil l extant,

sharing space with the Internet Archive and

Industria l Light and Magic. It has more than

one governing body, the 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 Winfield Scott , having a convoluted

relationship to the first , relinquishing and

regaining its independence from the Main

Post repeatedly throu ghout its history.

My visit was confined to the area that

inclu des Crissy Field and the main comp lex of

Fort Scott. An architectura l touri st looking for

spectacular examples of this or that style will

be disappointed , but for those of us who are

int rigued by the intersectio n of ut ilitarian and

revivalist tendencies that one sees in places

with irregular layers of history, like military

bases, the Presidio offers many curiositi es.

Crissy Field itself is a star attraction. This

landscape is about to celebrate its tenth

anniversary as a restored wetlands and open

space. It is thrilli ng to stand, with the bridge

as a backdrop , on that long, low piece of

land, pummel ed, as one would expect, by

fierce wind s, and contemplate th e many

chapters of our city 's history that have

intersected with that very spot.

Ruth Kefferisafreelancecurator anddesign writer, and

editor ofSPUR's Urban FieldNotes.

20 Urbanist > January2011

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 the Officer in Charge, built in 1890.

Next to it is the Lifeboat Station, 1915, 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 1920

to house off icers and their families. Almost

immediately they were deemed too small, and

were upgraded with 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 1921, 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 building with a

footprint 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.

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 InternationalExpo, then an airstrip for the Army Air Service and the Post Office, then the site oftemporary WWII barracks, and then, for decades, a stagnant industrial waste dump.Today Crissy Field thrives as a habitat for people and wildlife.

Band barracks. Fort Scott had been a sub-post of the Presidioin the late 1800s, but its independent status as an artillerygarrison complexwas resurrected in 1912. Some deliberate carewas taken in choosing architectural styles for structures built duringthis period, as evident with this 1912 Mission Revival dormitory.

Fort Scott chapel. This chapel was built in 1942,during Fort Scott 's last heyday, as headquarters for thecoastal defense of San Francisco, from the 1920s throughWorld War II. It is isolated and forlorn, and might perfectlyevoke a quaint, small-town environment were it not for theloudspeakers plastered on the spire - a reminder thatmilitary architecture always prioritizes practicality.

Pet cemetery.The cemeterywas created foruse by familiesstationed onthe Presidio,and officialinternmentsare no longerallowed there.Though it hasits charms, thesite looks asthough it couId

• use the kindof renovationthat Doyle Driveis receivingoverhead. Nodoubt Louise,beloved rat andfriend, wouldappreciate theattention.

Urbanist > January2011 21

URBAN DRIFTcity newsfrom aroundthe globe

PUBLIC SPACE IN PHILLYPhiladelphia Mayor MichaelA. Nutter has announced aninitiative to use 500 acres ofempty or underused land for thecreation of publicly accessiblegreen space throughout the city.The plan is titled Green 2015and it seeks to "connect peoplewith parks" while also helpingthe city fulfill federal stormwatermanagement guidelines. Muchof the land in question is alreadyunder public control, while otherportions of the plan rely on thecooperation of entities such asthe University of Pennsylvania tomake private land available forpublic use. The mayor's goal is toallow 200,000 city residents whodon't have access to parks theopportunity to regularly use publicgreen space."Transforming500acres intopublicgreen space" ..PlanPhilly.com,12/7/2010

MICRO-HOUSING, MAXIMUMATTAINABILITY?The small town of Tofino, BritishColumbia, is exploring the useof micro-homes to meet thedemand for more affordablehousing. Houses as small as12 feet by 12 feetare beingconsidered as a way to provideaffordable housing. The Tofinocouncil is required to provideaffordable housing, and haslooked at a number of optionsincluding laneway housing tomeet this goal. This follows theexample of Vancouver, wherethis housing type was approvedvia the Laneway Housing Bylawthrough its EcoDensity Initiative.What these laneway or gardensuite projects have in commonis the creation of a second unit

22 Urbanist> January2011

of rental housing at the back of aparcel, usuallyaccessible from analley. All of thesestrategiesseekto create affordable housing bydesign, instead of by subsidizingmore traditional units."MicrohomesbeingexploredinTofmo asform ofattainablehousing" - Stefania Seccia ,WesterlyNews,12/02/2010.

URBAN INDIA STRUGGLESTO ADAPTUrban India is growing at astaggering pace as people flee thecountryside to find a better life.Unfortunately, the infrastructureand planningin these cities hasn'tkept up. The collapseof a Delhitenement in November, whichkilled more than 70 people,was a stark reminder of thecosts of unplanned and illegaldevelopment. Formal housingis too difficult and expensive tobuild, so illegal tenements usuallyare the step up from the slum.These buildings often have morethan one story and are built ofconcrete, but as evidenced by therecent collapse they can be veryunsafe. Even with such dangers,few are willing to go back to thecountry. It is predicted that by2030, about 590 million Indianswill be living in cities."NewArrivalsStrainIndia'sCitiestoBreakingPoint" ..l ydiaPolgreen,TheNew YorkTimes, 11/30/2010.

TORONTO TREADS BACKWARDON TRANSITToronto's newly elected mayor,Rob Ford, has declared that"the war on the car is over."What does he mean? One ofhis major goals is to scrapthe$8 billion transit improvementprogram called "Transit City" thatis already under construction.Consisting of mostly surface light-

rail lines designed to alleviatecongestion, Ford proposesscrapping them in favor of alimited subway expansion to keeptransit vehicles out of the wayof cars. Ford also would like tohave the projects done as quicklyas possible, aiming to have thefirst phase done before the 2015Pan Am Games. Some $140million already has been spenton the current plan, with moredue in penalties if the project iscanceled. Also part of endingthe "war on the car" is Ford'sintention to cancel Toronto's $60vehicle registration fee by the endof the year."'Waronthecar isover', Ford moves transit

underground" ..TessKalinowski andDavid Rider,TheTorontoStar, 12/02/2010.

PLANNING PERMISSION ISPASSE IN BRITAINThe new Conservativegovernment in the UnitedKingdom has vowed to devolvegovernment powerto local

communities, and one of thefirst examples of this focus is anew bill that will eliminate manyplanning permissions in favorof gaining support through localreferendums. The "localism bill,"as it is known, would createnew neighborhood groups thatwould be able to let residentsdecide among themselveswhat would be allowed intheir own communities. Theseneighborhood groups also wouldbe able to dictate a plan for thetype of development that wouldbe allowed in the area. Financialincentives would be provided toneighborhoods that approvedgrowth. Projects of nationalinterest would be exempt fromthese regulations, preventingthese groups from blocking keyprojects."Torybill will let homeowners extend without traditionalplanningpermission" ..NicholasWat t. Cuardian.cc.uk,12/05/2010

SPUR Board of Directors Chairs and committees Welcome to our

Co -Ch airsnew members!

Bo ard Members Janis Mackenzie PROGRAM Downto wn Transit Faci lit y Rental

Andy Barnes Carl Anthony John Madden COMMITTEES Center INDIVIDUALS Elizabeth StampeBill Stotler

Linda Jo Fitz David Baker Jacinta McCann Emilio CruzRobin Azevedi Joe Starkey

Ballot Analysis Executive Susan Greg StepanicichFred Blackwell John McNulty

Bob Gamble Doyle DriveCo-Vice Chairs l ee Blitch Chris Meany

Andy Barnes Baumgartner Cindy TalleyPeter Mezey Amanda

Mary McCue Margo Bradish Ezra Mersey Finance Noah Christman Wietske van Erp

Bill Rosetti l arry Burnett Mary Murphy Disaster PlanningHoenigman

Bob Gamble Ryan Cooksey Taalman Kip

Jim Salinas, Sr. Michaela Cassidy Paul Okamoto Jacinta McCannEph Hirsh

Mary Davis Emily Weinstein

Dick MortenPeter Winkelstein Human Resources

l ydia Tan Charmaine Curtis Brad Paul Jean FraserStaniey Edwards Nicole Wheaton

V. Fei Tsen Gia Daniller Chris Poland Chris Poland Regional Plann ing Stephen Gliatto Ian Williamson

Oscar De l a Torre Teresa Rea Housing l arry Burnett Individual Otto GrajedaBUSIN ESSES

Secre tary Kelly Dearman Byron Rhett Ezra MerseyLibby Seifel Memb ership David Groves

Tomiquia Moss Shelley Doran Wade Rose Bill Stotler Vanir Construction

l ydia Tan Kathryn GwatkinManagement

Oz Erickson Victor Seeto OP ERATING Investment Goulding

Treasurer Norman Fong Elizabeth (Libby) Proj ect Review COMMITTEESBrown and

Ann l azarus Karl Hasz

Bob Gamble David Friedman Seifel Charmaine Curtis Caldwell

Mary Beth Sanders Aud it Majo r Donor sRose Haynes

Gillian Gillett Chi-Hsin Shao

Immediate Chris Gruwell Raphael Sperry Reuben Schwartz Peter Mezey linda Jo Fitz l ou Huang

Past Co-Chair Anne Halsted Bill Stotler BoardAnne Halsted Katherine King

Sustainabl e She!ali l akhinaTom Hart Dave Hartley Stuart Sunshine Developme nt Developm ent Plann ed Giving

Mary Huss Michael Teitz Paul Okamoto lee Blitch Michaela CassidyHin S. l eung

Advisory Counci l Chris Iglesias Will Travis Bry SarteHadasa l ev

Buitding Silv er SPURCo-Chairs l aurie Johnson Jeff Tumlin

Robert l itt ie

Michael Alexander Ken Kirkey Steve Vette lTran sport ation Management David Hartley Peter A. Mye

Gillian Gillett l arry Burnett Patricia KlitgaardPaul Sedway Travis Kiyota Debra Walker Katherine Nesbitt

Patricia Klitgaard Brooks Walker, III Business Young Urbani sts Robert PassmoreTASK FORCES

Fiorence Kong Cynthia Wi lusz- Membersh ip Gwyneth Borden Paul Peninger

Rik Kunnath l ovell Central Subway Tom Hart Gia Daniller Jessica Rothschild

Ellen l ou Stephen Taber Terry Micheau Caleb Savala

Climate Adapt ation Capi tal Campaign 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.

Winter Events Calendar

See our upcoming events atspur.org/events

2011 Good GovernmentAwa rds March 21, 2011at San Francisco City Hall

I

-iIm-<rn»:;0

zc:;0OJ»z<.n3:

~I

~I»'U'UrnZmo»zo~I

~-i3:m»z<.nTlo:;0

-iImOJ

~»:;0m»

Nonprofit Org.

US Postage

PAIDPermit # 4118

San Francisco, CA

SPUR Staff Deputy Director Urban CenterSarah Karlinsky x129 Event Manager

SPUR main numberskarlinsky@spur.org Sue Meylan x130

415.781.8726smeylan@spur.org

Public Engagement

AccountantDirector Research and

Terri Changx128Julie Kim xl 12 Volunteer Coordinatorjkim@spur.org Jordan Salinger x136

tchang@spur.orgjsalinger@spur.org

Publications AssistantDevelopment Director

Mary Davis x126Arnie LaUermanxl 15 Business andalatterman@spur.org Foundation Gifts

mdavis@spur.orgManager

Urban Center DirectorDevelopment Sarah Sykesx123Associate ssykes@spur.org

Diane Filipp i xn oRachel Leonard x1I 6

dfiiippi@spur.orgrleonard@spur.org Sustainable Develop-

Executive Assistant!ment Policy Director

Administrative Director Laura Tam x137Board Liaison

Lawrence Li x134 Itam@spur.orgVirginia Grandi xl l ?

lIi@spur.orgvgrandi@spur.org

Regional PlanningPublic Programming Director

Public Realm and Intern EgonTerplan x131Urban Design Heather Jones x122 eterplan@spur.orgProgram Manager fmeacham@spur.orgBenjaminGrantx1l9bgrant@spur.org

Executive Director

Events ManagerGabriel Metcalf x1l3

Kelly Hardesty x120gmetcalf@spur.org

khardesty@spur.org

SAN FRANCISCOPLANNING + URBAN RESEARCHASSOCIATION

Time-dated material

654 Mission StreetSan Francisco, CA 94105-4015tel. 415.781.8726fax 415.781.7291info@spur.orgwww.spur.org

RETURN SERVICE REQU ESTED

~~ 634.MO

O SPUR

spur.org/ggawards

Save the date!

Now online!

This newsletter is printed on New LeafReincarnationpaper: 100% recycled fiber and 50% post-consumer waste.