The Year in UrbanismThe End of an Era for Big Planning / Urban Ag Goes Legit / The Riseof Tactical Urbanism / Car Sharing Comes of Age / Parking Gets Smart

____I LETTER FROM THE EDITOR1 12 .11

The Year of the City

Allison ArieffisEditor of TheUrbanist

It is with great exciteme nt that I join SPUR as editor

of The Urbanist - especially right now. Has there

ever been a bette r moment for cities?

The conversation around urbanism has never been

so energetic, vital or so diverse in its voices. And

that's perhaps for this very good reason: Every day

more of us are living in cit ies. The world population

hit 7 billion this year, and for the first time in history,

a majority of that 7 billion is urban. By 203 0, it is

estimated that 5 billion people will live in cities , wit h

urban growth concentrated in Asia and Afr ica. This

urban shift is positive for so many reasons, and we

have a multitude of reasons to feel optimistic about

the futu re of cit ies.

The issues facing cit ies, economic ones in

particular, have come to domin ate polit ical and

cultural discourse, and it 's hard to recall a time

where a more diverse amalgam of problem-solving

cit izens working with, against or in lieu of government

have come together to tackle them. We've witnessed

solutions of every stripe, from grassroots effo rts to

beautify neighborhoods block by block to policy­

driven Sustainable Communities Strategies. We've

seen how technology has asserted itself even more

into the ways we experience the city. On a global

scale, it has helped facilitate status quo-upending

protests everyw here from Cairo's Tahrir Square to

New York's Zuccott i Park to the Bay Area's BART

stations; locally, a multitude of sites, sensors and

apps have helped facil itate everyth ing from couch

surfing to car sharing to kids' clothes swapping.

We've also witnesse d a retooling of ideas around

permanence. 2011 may have seen the passage of

two major megaprojects - Treasure Island and

Parkmerced - but it also saw the proliferation of

f lexible, temporary ones as an appropriate response

to a civilization in flux.

The challenge for th e next few decades is learning

how to exploit the enormous possibilities urbanization

offers. It 's ever-evolving of course, and comes in fits

and star ts . Any of us involved in the shaping of cit ies

recognize the paradox of time inherent in the activity.

Things move so slowly wit h regard to the issues we

care about , yet so much can, and does, happen in a

year. The Year in Urbanism is an opportunity to take

stock of the good and the bad, to be reminded of

progress made (and not made), and to refocus on the

year ahead.

You'll also notice a change to the cover of thi s

issue (designed by Shawn Hazen), which provides

a sneak peek at exciting changes to come in 2012.

I'd love to hear your feedback as we work on making

The Urbanist an even more essential and engagingread for our members. I'm at aarieff@spur.org. _

I . -

I,I

I

810

Allison Arieft is editor of The Urbanist and a contributing writer for The New York Times and The Atlantic Cities.

She also consults on media, design and sustainability, most recently for the Rauch Foundation and IDEO.

Arieft was editor-at-large for both Sunset and GOOD magazines, and was editor-in-chief (and founding senior

editor) of Dwell. Author of the books Prefab and Trailer Travel: A Visual History of Mobile America, she began

her editorial career in book publishing with stints at Random House, Oxford University Press and Chronicle

Books. She received her B.A. in history from UCLA, her MA in art history from UC Davis, and completed her

Ph.D. coursework in American studies at New York University. Arieff lives in San Francisco where she has a

50 0-square-foot urban farm in her backyard.

Cover images, clockwise from topright: car, skyscraper,highway (Michael O'Neall; beergarden(Envelope A+D). SausalitoFactory(HeathCeramics); Proxy(Envelope A+D); sign (VJP:flickr); fog (O'Neall; garden(LittleCity Ga rdens); cityview (KristaJahnke); and Bi-RiteMarket (Aya Brackett)

2 Urbanist > December2011

December 2011

What we're doing

depend on driving, downtownSan Francisco is dense, walkableand well-served by transit. Halfof its 250,000 workers walk,bike or take public transit to theirjobs. The Transit Center DistrictPlan provides much-neededadditional office space in exactlythe right location. SPUR lendsits support to the draft report foradequately analyzing the impactsof the plan while supporting thegoals of compact job growth inthe region's most transit-richlocation.

HIGH-SPEED RAIL BUSINESS PLANPAINTS REALISTIC PICTURE OF COSTSAND BENEFITSSPUR remains as committed as ever tothe building of a high-speed rail networkconnecting northern and southernCalifornia. The updated cost figures fromNovember's California High-Speed RailProject Business Plan are sobering butrealistic. While the price tag of high­speed rail is high, it is roughly halfthe cost of adding equivalent capacitythrough highways and airports. Now isthe time to move the project forward,begin construction and identify regionalrevenues to help pay for related upgradeslike electrifying Caltrain and extendingthe train to the Transbay Terminal. Thebusiness plan can be found at l.usa.gov/HSRbusinessplan.

SPUR SUPPORTS TRANSBAYTRANSIT DISTRICT PLANThe San Francisco PlanningDepartment recently releasedthe Draft Environmental ImpactReport for the Transit CenterDistrict Plan, one of the city'smost important and ambitious todate. The plan proposes severa ltowers for the district, including aI ,OOO-foot tower at the TransbayTransit Station. SPUR believesthe passage of this plan is criticalto the future of the city and theregion. While other job centers

FOCUSING ON TRANSITEFFICIENCYOver the past decade, operatingcosts for transit in the Bay Areaincreased far more quickly thaninflation. At the same time,ridership and other measuresof performance have been flator declining. To fix this, theMetropolitan TransportationCommission launched the TransitSustainability Project (TSP).SPUR has participated closelyin this project, which focuseson making transit financiallysustainable by reigning in ever­esca latingoperating costs. Formore information: mtc.ca.gov/planning/tsp/

PENSION REFORM COMESTO SAN FRANCISCOIn spite of the potential confusioncaused by competing ballotmeasures, San Francisco votersapproved the Proposition Cpension reform measure onelection day. Crafted in anintensive process involvingcity officials, SPUR staff andrepresentatives from businessand labor, Prop. C passed withmore than 69 percent support.This makes San Francisco thefirst big city in Ca lifornia to passa significant pension reformpackage, with projected savingsof as much as $1.29 billion over10 years. While these savingsrepresent only a fraction ofthe overall pension challengefacing the city, this victory isan important first step towardsanswering the question of how topay for public employee benefits.In addition to pension reform,

SPUR's other recommendationsalso fared well at the ballot.Voters approved bond funds torepair and retrofit schools androads, and voted down a salestax measure that did not have anexpenditure plan of any kind.

MAYOR ADOPTSEARTHQUAKE SAFETYPROGRAMLast month Mayor EdLee released a draft ofthe Earthquake SafetyImplementation Program, a 30­year road map for strengtheningSan Francisco's stock of privatelyowned buildings, so our city canbe well situated to withstand amajor earthquake. The programincludes 50 objectivesthatcomprehensively address SanFrancisco's building stock. Oneof the most important is a planto retrofit San Francisco's "softstory" apartment buildings ­those that have large openingslike garage doors or storefrontwindows on the ground floor.These buildings house asubstantial number of SanFranciscans and are also veryvulnerable to damage. SPURhas long called for a program ofmandatory retrofits for soft-storybuildingsand enthusiasticallyendorses the Earthquake SafetyImplementation Program.•

Urbanist > December2011 3

The Year in UrbanismIt's a fool's game to try and predict the future. Instead,in our second annual Year in Urbanism issue, SPURaims to capture some of the biggest trends that haveshaped the city over the past year. What did we leaveout? Let us know at editor@spur.org.

What's Next for Big Planning?Special thankstoAnthonyBruzzone,Corey Cook,Neal Gorenflo,Jay Primus,KateSofis,andLorraineWoodruff-Long.

I 2009HousingElement:Parll , TableA-2.1 onebayarea.org/pdf/alternative/SCS AlternativeScenanos Aug -2011pdf

WHAT HAPPEN EDTwo major projects-Treasure Islandand Parkmerced-were adopted bythe Board of Supervisors in 2011.Collective ly these projects will lead tothe creat ion of more than 13,0 0 0 newunits of housing.

WHAT IT MEANSWhile the passage of Treasure Islandand Parkmerced represent a greataccomplishment for the city, thereare fewer and fewer opportunities for"megaprojects" like th is left in the city.At the same time, there are not manynew neighborhood plans in the worksthat propose major land-use changes.All of th is raises questions about whatthe future of forward- looking planningwill be in San Francisco.

In the past ten years, San Francisco has completeda remarkable amount of planning work. The EasternNeighborhoods Plans rezoned four neighborhoods,including East SoMA, the Mission, Potrero/Showplace Square and the Central Waterfront.The Better Neighborhoods Plans including theMarket/Octavia Plan and the Balboa Park Planalso secured passage. Add to this megaprojectslike Hunters Point Shipyard, Treasure Island andParkmerced, and the city has added capacity formorethan 30,000 1 additional units of housing. Thisis a major accomplishment. But at the same time,regional agencies have projected that San Franciscowill need to add between 76,000 and 110,000units over thirty years, so our work is not yet done.'

Land-use plans come in essentially two forms:neighborhood plans, which encompass manyparcels, buildings and owners; and megaprojectsencompassing large, single-ownership parcels.Because they are owned by a single entity,megaprojects have the potential to supportsubstantial changes to both buildingsandinfrastructure. Megaprojects provide greateropportunities to changethings like circulation,stormwater management and energysupply, andcan sometimes generate higher levels of affordablehousing because of the economies of sca le inconstruction. However there are often greaterplacemaking challenges to overcome to ensure thatdevelopment feels varied and organic as opposed tohomogeneous and sterile.

Neighborhood plans by contrast cover a widevariety of parcels and are implemented over timethrough the actions of individual property owners,creating a varied and interesting environment. Butbig changes in public realm improvements andinfrastructure are more difficult to achieve this way.

The road to adoption for both neighborhoodplansand megaprojects is long and winding. TheMarket and Octavia Better Neighborhood Plantook more than a decade to complete. Mission Baytook more than three decades. There are manyreasons for this, but it comesdown to the fact thatpeople in San Francisco don't agree about whatkinds of development should take place, or evenwhether there should be development. State lawslike the California Environmental Quality Act createlots of opportunities for these disagreements toplayout in protracted public processes. And SanFranciscans with many differentagendas try to getnew development to payfor as many public needsas they can, resulting in lengthy negotiations.

4 Urbanist > December 2011

The likely elimination of redevelopment inCalifornia, a key initiativeof Governor Jerry Brown,will bring further changes to the field of large-scaleplanning. Redevelopment has been the major waythat neglected areas slated for new developmentare able to pay for infrastructure, as well as a majorsource of funding for affordable housing in thestate.

For some cities, such as San Jose, whichhad the largest redevelopment agency in thestate, redevelopment is truly over, and this willmean a sea change in how planning works. Forcommunities like San Francisco, redevelopmentmay be able to continue more or less as it hasin the past, but with reduced resources to fundaffordable housing and other public benefits.

In the midst of all these changes, San Franciscoappears to have become reticent to take on newlarge-scale planning work. Some of the majorplans currently in the works were initiated manyyears ago and are now nearing completion, suchas the Transbay Transit Center and Western SoMA.Others, such as Glen Park and Japantown, arecalled land-use plans but propose almost no land­use changes that increase zoning capacity. Stillothers are "strategies," not land-use plans, i.e. theCentral Market Economic Strategy, which primarilydoes not propose changes in what can be built.Only the newly initiated Central Corridor plan forSOMA between 2nd and 6th streets contemplates

substantial new land-use changes.But what does this all mean if you care, as

SPUR does, about building a substantial numberof housing units and adding new jobs near transit?Should we assume that over the next 30 yearswe have a few more megaprojects and only verytargeted neighborhood plans to complete beforeSan Francisco is "done"? Do we continue to doneighborhood plans, in spite of how long theytake and how expensive they are? Do we continueto argue for the importance of city building, evenwhen it is long and often painful to do?

The answer, we believe, is all of the above. It iscritical to the city and the region that San Franciscocontinue to find new places to add housing andjobs. Stonestown Shopping Center, Pier 70, theair-rights over the 4th and King Caltrain Station andSchlage Lock are all potential new megaprojects.Surely there are others as well. There aresmall­scale changes to the Planning Code that will helpwithout significantly changing the scale of allowabledevelopment. And of coursethere are manyneighborhoods that would benefit from the kindof careful, intensive planning work we saw in theBetter Neighborhoods process.

City building is not easy to do. But even in thisdifficult climate, San Francisco needs to be up tothe task.

-Sarah Karlinsky

A compact,transit-orientedcommunity is atthe heart of themaster plan forTreasure Island.Will weseemore of these inthe future?

Urbanist > December2D ll 5

112 .11 I THE YEAR IN URBANISM

The Rise of Tactical Urbanism

WHAT HAPPENEDProxy, the temporary two-blockproject designed by EnvelopeArchitecture+Design, transformed aseries of vacant lots in Hayes Valleyinto a destination for food, art andculture. It also made the case for suc ­ces sful short-term use of undevelopedland in San Francisco. Mixed-use, high­density development, including af fo rd­ab le housing, is eventually planned forthe site, but in the me antime, Proxywill act as a placeholder through 2016 .

WHAT IT MEANSProxy represents a unique comingtogether of entities typically at oddswith each other - planning and bui ld ­ing departments, communit ies, archi ­tects. As a model for interim use ofvacant land, Proxy is deve loping policyand protocol along the way to helpassuage the diverse concerns of thegovernment, city residents, landow n­ers and developers.

In 20 05, Envelope Arc hitect ure+Design wonf irst prize in the Octavia Boulevard Housing

Competition, designing housing for one of six

city-owned parcels freed up by the removal of the

Central Freeway. Then the economy tanked andw ith it drowned any hope of gett ing the innovative

housing proposals built.

But a few years later, Envelope got a nice

consolat ion prize when the firm responded toa request for proposals from the San Francisco

Mayor's Off ice for tempo rary uses on the very same

vacant lots. What they proposed was a temporary

project built from durable, portab le shippingcontainers that would help create a vibrant place for

both commerce and culture in the heart of Hayes

Valley. Since the city is still committed to building

affordable housing on the site some day, the project

was of necessity conceived as something temporary

in nature, hence the name "proxy."

Both the city and local residents were keen

to avoid a proliferation of parking lots, and theirpreference for a vibrant and vital alternative

helped Proxy come into being. Equally important

was the collaboration among the architects,

the Mayor's Office of Economic and Workforce

Development, the Planning Department, the Hayes

Valley Neighborhood Association and the local

community .

6 Urbanist > December2011

The little village of local restaurants, cafes and

retail that make up Proxy (cur rent tenants includ e

Ritual Coffee Roasters, Smitten Ice Cream and

the Suppenkuche Biergarten) has temporarily

transformed an underused but high-value urban

area into a thri ving cultural space - and w ill do so

for five more years. The project reveals temporary

interventions as an apt response to a civilization in

flux, and could easily be applied to other sites in

San Francisco or in other cit ies.

It is important to note, however, the considerable

challenges in creating such projects. Envelope

has had to obtain more than 25 permits to date,

and the firm expects that numb er to exceed 50by the end of the project. Each separate structureat Proxy required its own address. Environmental

review was necessary - at a cost of $5,000 ­despite the temporary nature of the project. The

building department didn't quite know w hat to

do w ith Proxy as its many facets didn 't adhere to

conventional build ing code; in response, some

have suggested the introduction of a "Renewable

Temporary" category, allowing more flexibility for

future endeavors.

The path to Proxy was fueled by the success

of temporary projects initiated by New York's

Departm ent of Transportati on Commissioner

Jeanette Sadik-Khan in recent years. Her

groundbreaking work has helped bring about a

change in conventional wisdom in the development

community, empowering the city to work w ith

developers to allow for desirable uses on their

properties on an interim basis. We're seeing the

impact of this in cities throughout the country.

Historically, vacant lots, empty storefronts and

dirt plots wait ing for development have blighted

their surroundings and have dragged down property

values. Proxy has demonstrated how posit ive

changes can be made to a neighborhood; the

challenge ahead is how to mitigate the losses w hen

a popular project is eventually removed to make

way for futur e development. Having explored and

experienced the potential of the pub lic realm, the

neighborhood w ill demand more of the same in

the futur e. The hope is that the project can change

both public and bureaucratic perceptions of what is

possible in San Francisco.- Allison Arieff

The Proxysite beforeas parkinglot (left) and,below right, itstransformationinto cafe,and (above)biergarten.

Urbanist> DecemberZOll 7

112 .11 I THE YEAR IN URBANISM

Finally, a Dent in the Payroll Tax

WHAT HAPPENEDThe San Francisco Board ofSupervisors passed two critical piecesof legislation enabling companies thatuse stock options as compensationto stay in the city as they grow,rather than leaving once they getbig enough to go public: a payrolltax exclusion for up to eight yearsfor companies that locate in the Mid­Market neighborhood, and a payrolltax exclusion for all stock-basedcompensation until 2017.

W HAT IT MEANSThe current law has discouragedbusinesses from growing, created asystem of governing by exception andundermined the stability of businesstax revenue. For years SPUR andothers have pushed for a change tothe payroll tax without real success,as the city has long resisted reformof its payroll tax structure. These twopieces of legislation are the first realacknowledgment that the payroll taxas current ly structured does not work.

San Francisco's businesstax requires companieswith payrolls of more than $250,000 to paythe equivalent of 1.5 percent of total employeecompensation in taxes. No other city in the statelevies a payroll tax in the same manner. In thewakeof the most recent recession, a renewed focuson job creation and excitement over a resurgenttechnology sector this year resu lted in a fierce battleto retain someof the city's new companies - likeTwitter, Zynga and Yelp - before they leave townfor good.

While the payroll tax discourages new hiring inany company that hasthe ability to easily move itsjobs elsewhere, the problem has been particularlybad for new companies that rely on stock options.In the year a company "goes public" with aninitial public offering (IPO), it pays enormoustaxes because the value of the stock options istaxed. Relatively tiny companies would be paying

8 Urbanist > December 2011

more payroll tax in those years than much larger,established companies. The result has been afamiliar pattern in which San Francisco nurturesnew companies, only to seethem leave oncetheyare successful.

The Mid-Market legislation solved this problemfor companies located in one neighborhood. Wewould have preferred a citywide approach, butat least there was some policy merit to the ideaof geographic targeting to create an incentive toadd jobs in an area that has experienced chronicdisinvestment.

We have bought ourselvessome time to come upwith a more enduring solution. SPUR has arguedfor years that the city should restructure its taxsystem to remove disincentivesto hiring. While wehave been supportive of targeted exemptions-by industry or geography - we also believe thatcontinued governing by exception has exposedthe weaknesses of the current tax structure andreinforced the need for a permanent solution thatis more equitable and less volatile. This pattern ofexceptions has resulted in a system where barely10 percent of businesses pay the payroll tax. SPURbelieves we shouldn't be making tax policy byexception, scrambling to save specific companiesfrom leaving at the last minute. What we needinstead is a tax structure that will work across theboard . Yes, there needs to be a business tax (or,rather, several different business taxes). But wehave the opportunity to structure it in a way thatdoes the most good, and the least harm, to oureconomy. The next year will be telling in terms ofwhether we have the political will to build on thesuccesses of 2011.

-Corey Marshall

. .

I 12.11 I THE YEAR IN URBANISM I

Prioritizing Neighborhood Schools

WHAT HAPPENEDThe San Francisco Board of Educationadopted a new policy for t he 2011-12school year t hat aga in attempts toaddress commun ity concerns and theacadem ic needs of students. The newsystem g ives g reater w eight to t hoseapply ing to a neighbo rhood schoolwi th priority g ive n to students Iivin~in census tracts wit h low academicperformance to provide increasedopportunity.

WHAT IT MEANSEve n w ith greater neig hbo rh oodweig ht ing, there was no increase inparents choos ing their area schoolduring the f irst year of the new system.The long term resu lts of this po lic ychange rema in to be seen .

San Francisco has a long and complicated historyof striving toward a student assignment system thatis fair and equitable for families and that providesthe best academic outcomes for students.

In the 1970s, the San Francisco Unified SchoolDistrict (SFUSD) - like many urban districts ­adopted the policy of busing students in order todesegregate schools. Reverberations from this policywere swift and widely felt: Private school enrollmentskyrocketed from 15 percent to near 30 percentof all San Francisco children. Additionally, familiesbegan to leave the city once their children nearedschool age. These trends have continued, andtoday San Francisco has the smallest proportion ofhouseholds with children of any major U.S. city.

SFUSD eventually returned to a neighborhoodassignment policy and developed magnet schoolsto attract families. But to address lawsuits inthe 1980s by the NAACP and the 1990s fromChinese-American families and also appeasefamilies that now were clamoring to opt out of theirneighborhood schools, the choice-based diversity­index student assignment policy was born. In 2001,the district implemented a lottery-style choicesystem employing non-race-based factors, suchas eligibility for food stampsor residence in public

housing, as a proxy for race to balance out studentpopulations. Parents could list up to five, and laterseven, schools of their choice to participate in thelottery. More recently, increased parent activism anda mini baby boom have helped bring about changesin enrollment patterns. In 2007, kindergartenenrollment increased for the first time in 30 years.Families began to choose a wider variety of schoolsinstead of a select few. Still, a minority of parentsmake their designated area school their first choice.

With more schools perceived as qualityeducational options, many parents faced increasingcompetition from families throughout the city for aspot in a nearby school. Additionally, a distraught15 to 19 percent of parents received none of theirfirst choicesand were left to fend for spots insubsequent roundsThe achievement gap widenedin San Francisco as manyschools once againbecame more segregated. Disadvantaged anddisconnected families often found themselves leftout of the application process, resulting in limitedschool options and increasing racial isolation.

In 2011, the school district introduced a newschool assignment system that is weighted moreheavily toward neighborhood schools than in recentyears . However, SFUSD reported no increase inparents choosing their area school in the first yearof the new system. Furthermore, the November2011 Proposition H advisory measure encouragingincreased focus on neighborhood resulted in avirtual dead heat, indicating that San Franciscoremains divided on the issue.

All things being equal, families reportthat theylike the idea of a neighborhood school. But for toomany, the "right school" - whatever that meansto them - trumps proximity. Uneven schoolleadership and program placement, coupled withwide disparities in neighborhood crime, housingpatterns and socia l challenges, result in limitedoptions in many neighborhoods. It remains to beseen if the new system will do any better thanprevious schemes, but based on past experience wecan expect that the current system will not be thelast. Hopefully, though, it will provide some respitefor the community to refocus on the root issue:ensuring that all San Francisco public schools arequality schools.

- Lorraine Woodruff-Long

Urbanist > December 2011 9

____I THE YEAR IN URBANISM1 12.11

Urban Ag Goes Legit

WHAT HAPPENEDBoth San Francisco and Oaklandpassed legislation making it legalto grow and sell produce within citylimits. Selling homegrown fruits andvegetables was previously illegal inboth cities.

WHAT IT MEANSThe passage of the legislation putsthe Bay Area at the leading edge ofpolicy on this issue, providing a modelfor other cities across the country. Butit raises an underlying question forpolicy: Should the goal be significantfood production for the localpopulation? Or should a city insteadpromote urban agriculture as a wayto educate city residents and betterconnect them with local food systems?To explore these questions, SPURlaunched a Food Systems and UrbanAgriculture program this year.

On April 20, Mayor Ed Lee, Supervisor David Chiuand Supervisor Eric Mar led what may have beenthe first "salad toast" at Little City Gardens in theExcelsior District. Raising bowls of San Francisco­grown mixed greens, they were joined by dozens ofurban agriculture supporterscelebrating the mayor'ssigning of urban agriculture zoning legislation. Thebill explicitly welcomes gardens and small urbanfarms throughout the city and, more importantly,allowsgardenersto grow food for sale in anyzoning district. This change, comingon the heels oflegislative reforms in cities such as Kansas City andSeattle, placed San Francisco at the leading edgeof urban agricultura l reform. Later in the year, SanFrancisco's policy was cited as a model by urban agadvocates and planners in Oakland, Chicago andBritish Columbia.

Oakland soon followed San Francisco's lead byupdating its land-use and health codes. In October,the Oakland City Council changed the definition ofhome occupations to allow residents to grow foodfor sale in their yards with minimal fees. The city isstill working on updating its regulations for urbanagricultureon non-residential lots and for animalhusbandry in the city. Advocates in Berkeley havealso begun pushing for urban agriculture codechanges, but the city has yet to pass any legislation.

While policymakers in San Francisco andOakland deserve credit for shepherding thesechanges, in both cases the driving energycamefrom grassroots efforts. The legislative ball gotrolling in San Francisco when Brooke Budnerand Caitlyn Galloway, the farmers/proprietors ofLittle City Gardens, decided that rather than get aconditional-use permit for their operation they wouldget the law changed. In Oakland, forces mobilizedafter the city cited urban farmer and author NovellaCarpenter of Ghost Town Farm for growing food ona vacant lot without first obtaining a conditional-usepermit, which costs $2,800. In both instances,community groups rallied around the issue andhelped advocate for change. Decades earlier, citieshad pushed farming away; now energized urbanfarmers spearheaded efforts to bring it back.

Overflow crowds attended the San FranciscoPlanning Commission hearing in February, whichcity planning staff described as an unprecedented"love fest," with commissioners competing to

10 Urbanist > December 2011

=~ "~~~~r#.c.BsID=

~§m~:~o

==

demonstrate the depth of their farm cred beforeunanimously approving the proposed changes.In Oakland, the Planning Department held aweeknight community meeting to discusschanges.Nearly300 people showed up. How to regulateanimal husbandry was the hot topic of the evening.(At press time, Oakland was still developing itsproposa l.)

The zoning change in San Francisco hasinfluenced similar changes in other cities, but itsimpact within San Francisco is still unknown. Thenumber of urban farms on private land rema insquite small, and few gardeners have applied fora permit under the new law. Though the legalobstacles may havebeen navigated, many otherones still stand in the way. That two high-profilefarms - Hayes Valley Farm and Little City Gardens- both faced land tenure issues in 2011 points tothe challenges ahead.

The picture on public land is a bit more mixed.In October the San Francisco Public UtilitiesCommission took a step toward further supportingurban farms and gardens by offering to waivefees for a limited number of new water hookupsand commissioning a feasibility study for urbanagriculture projects on two of its properties. Butother public agencies have not been as active inpromoting new community gardens or farms onpublic land, despite the persistence of long waitinglists for existing plots.

Land access, land tenure and commercialviability remain issues for city farmers. Lookingahead, cities will need to determine how to focustheir efforts. Urban farming began to take rootthis past year, but it will take more work by bothadvocates and policymakers to ensure that urbanagriculture flourishes in the future.

-Eli Zigas

From left , theproprie torsof Littl e CityGardens andthe fru its (andvegetab les)of their labor;Mayor Ed Leesigning newlegilsat ion inApri l.

Urbanist > December 2011 11

I THE YEAR IN URBANISM1 12.11'-------

Sharing the City

WHAT HAPPENEDCity CarShare celebrated 10 years ofproviding access to a car without thecosts of ownership.

WHAT IT MEANSW e are witnessing a redefinitionof the basic concept of prosperity,especia lly for younger people. Ratherthan emphasizing material owners hip,people want experience. If they canget what they want without having toown it, so much the better. Of courseone can't discount the inf luence of therecession - sharing emerges at a t imewhen the need to spend, and consume,less is paramount. The mass popularityof car shar ing is the most obviousexample of a much broader economyof sharing .

In the sharing economy, prosperity is achievedthrough an economy that supports healthyrelationships, civic participation, meaningfulexperiences, creative expression and purposefulwork. Here material cultureconnects us rather thandividing us by status symbols, and thus supportshappiness. Access trumps the burden of ownership.Sharing resets the focus on where prosperityis centered - with loved ones in our homes,neighborhoods and cities. (It is worth noting that atthis stage the sharing movement seems decidedlyurban. Expanding these beliefs and behaviorsbeyond the urban core is essential to our futurehealth and success.)

This may sound like the fantasy of an idealist, butrecently scores of new companies have emergedto help people share a surprisingly wide varietyof assets - mostly in cities, the perfect platformfor sharing. They include Airbnb (rooms andapartments), Loosecubes (coworking openings),TechShop (industrial machinery), La Cocina(commercial kitchen space), ParkatmyHouse(parking spaces), Zimride (ridesharing), Weeeis(taxi sharing), YardShare (gardens), Grubwithus(restaurant dinners), Housefed (home dinners),Vayable (experiences), Skillshare (skills), ThredUP

(children's clothes), NeighborGoods (general) andmany more. There are thousands of such startups.Many are small, local or struggling. Others - likeAirbnb, Zimride and ThredUP - have substantialuser traction, venture capital funding and nationalor international footprints.

The positive dynamics of car sharing, whichis undergoing its own global boom, suggestwhat's possible if these companies prevail andthe economy is restructured for access insteadof ownership. Car sharing is the decades-oldarchetype of the sharing economy, but it hasarguably only come of age recently with moresophisticated technology, a global footprint and thefirst publicly traded car-sharing company, Zipcar,which went public earlier this year. With maturitycomes rea l metrics:

• A 2010 UC Berkeley survey of 6,281 NorthAmerican car-sharing members showed that morethan 50 percent of households who joined did notalready have access to a car, and that the totalvehicle count in the sample dropped by 50 percentafter joining.

• The same study showed that one car-sharingvehicle replaces 9 to 13 owned cars.

• A 2011 eGo CarShare study showed thatmembers' car travel dropped an average of 52percent after joining.

• The American Public TransportationAssociation estimates that people save an averageof $9,900 a year for each car eliminated from ahousehold.

• The Intelligent Cities project estimates that acity can keep $127 million in the local economyannually by reducing the number of privately ownedcars by 15,000.

These findings suggest that a city cansignificantly broaden citizen access to resources,dramatically reduce resource consumption, savecitizens money, and strengthen the urban economy,all through sharing. And recent developments incar sharing suggest a pathway for the rest of thesharing economy. At the center of this possiblefuture is RelayRides, one of the first peer-to-peercar-sharing services. Within the last year RelayRideshelped pass AB 1871, a California insurance lawenabling car owners to keep coverage if they renttheir car to a neighbor; received venture backing ~

12 Urbanist > December2011

____I THE YEAR IN URBANISM1 12.11

Clipper Card Takes Off

WHAT HAPPEN EDWith great fanfare, the Clipper cardarrived on Muni in 2011. After firstrolling out on AC Transit and BART in2010, Clipper now allows passengers touse one card to pay for fares on sevendifferent regional transit lines. By thisfall, about 500,000 transit passengerswere using the Bay Area's transit smartcard every day.

WHAT IT MEANSOne of the Bay Area's biggestheadaches is its huge number of pub lictransit agencies. Clipper is one bigstep toward making the reg ion's 27agencies function more like one. Butright now, Clipper's primary benefit isto make it easier for transit agencies tosqueeze money out of their customers.In fact, Muni used the technology toenact a fare increase for Muni monthlypass holders who also use BART.

The original promise of bringing smart-cardtechnology to the Bay Area was to improvecoord ination among transit agenciesand encouragepassengers to move easily between modes. Clipperwas promoted as benefiting passengers, but so farit's the agenciesthat appear to be profiting. SPURand other groups need to help the region thinkinnovatively about usingsmart-card technologyfor concepts that benefit both passengers andtaxpayers - and will help get more people out of

their cars. Some of the more interesting possibilitiesinclude:

• Getting cash off the bus: Traditional farecollection is a massively inefficient way tocapture passenger revenue. As the bus idleswhile passengers deposit cash into the fare box,dollar bills are floating out the door; fare collectionaccounts for more than 10 percent of Muni'srunning time. Clipper speeds boarding and reducesdwell time and that saves money.

• Discounting reverse commutetrips: Every day,BART trains carry lots of people into San Franciscobut are relatively empty as they return to the EastBay. Clipper's technology allows for discount faresin the off-peak direction, encouraging ridership thatdoesn't cost anything for BART to provide.

• Agencies have struggled for years to coordinatefares between operators, with almost no success.The Clipper technology could enable interagencyfare rebates and other concepts that incentivizetransit agencies to deliver more passengers to eachother. As an example, if BART paid Muni directlyfor each passenger Muni delivered to BART (similarto a finder's fee), BART might get more passengersand more revenue, and Muni would get morepassengers and ideally more revenue. Muni mightdevelop a discounted fare for passengers connectingto BART to get the money that BART would paythem. Everyone - BART, Muni and especiallypassengers - could benefit.

In the long run, Clipper can be a great tool toinnovate in transit - a traditionally stodgybusiness- and to help makethe region's transit systemsseamless.

-Anthony Bruzzone

Continuedfrompage12

from Google, which recently developed driverlesscars; and forged a strategic partnership with GM'sOnStar service, which will lead to car-sharingtechnology being installed at the factory.

The implications of these developments arefar-reaching - picture the emergence of a real­time, on-demand, self-organized, quasi-publictransportation system that automatically allocatesand routes available carsand seats in cars to thosewho request a lift from their smartphone. Taken

to its extreme, our material rea lity is reorderedaccord ing to the architecture of the Internet, theultimate self-organized commons. Of course,this future is not assured. And it should becomplemented by other low-cost, low-tech waysto enable sharing. Just as RelayRides needed tochange laws, so must other sharing enterprises.The sharing economy will require its own regulatoryframework, as the growth economy did before it.

- Neal Gorenflo

Urbanist > December 2011 13

____I THE YEAR IN URBANISM112.11

Ranked Choice Voting

WHAT HAPPENEDSan Francisco's first competitivemayoral election using ranked-choicevoting is on the books, and by mostobjective measures the system held uprather well: The election results wereclear and uncontroversial, individualballots contained fewer errors than inpast contests and most voters chose toparticipate fully by ranking their first-,second- and third -choice candidates.

WHAT IT MEANSDespite these results, it's still unclearwhether ranked-choice votingaccurately reflects popular opinion.While 73.2 percent of voters rankedthree different candidates in themayoral election, only 52.4 percentdid so in the five-candidate race fordistrict attorney and 42.6 percent inthe four-candidate race for sheriff.Bullet vot ing (voting only for onecandidate) remains prevalent: Inthe mayoral election 16 percent ofvoters indicated a preference for onlyone candidate, as did 27 percent inthe DA's race and 38 percent in thesheriff's race. It's not clear if a sizab leblock of voters sincerely preferredonly one candidate or whetherthey were unsure what to make of aranked-choice ballot. Meanwhile, 1.2percent of voters marked more thanone cand idate as their first choice.This figure is higher than in standard"vote for one" candidate races, and itinvalidated a couple thousand votesoverall .

The deeper questions about the relative effectsof ranked-choice voting are difficult to answer. Inaddition to the voting system, the context of theelection included generous public financing, anincredibly deep pool of serious contenders anda popular acting mayor who entered the race at

the last minute. It's impossible to disentangle theindependent effects of ranked-choice voting. But it'seasy to see the deep flaws in this election.

The clear results from November'selectionincluded abysmal turnout - right around 42percent - the lowest in a contested mayoralelection since at least the 1960s. Only MayorGavin Newsom's 2007 landslide re-election waslower. Voters are rational. They weigh the costsand benefits of casting a ballot in determiningwhether or not to participate in an election. Andthis was a costly election: Sorting through therelative strengths and weaknessesof twelve seriouscandidates and ranking one's three choices takesquite a bit of information. And it was not clear whatthe benefits of voting would be to an individualvoter. Aside from the fact that the twelve candidatesoperated within the relatively narrow ideologicalspectrum of San Francisco politics and might haveappeared similar to voters, polls indicated (correctlyas it turned out) that acting Mayor Ed Lee waswell ahead. This signals to voters that their vote isunlikely to matter in the outcome.

The mayoral race, generally uneventful for thebetter part of a year, became exceptionally nastyin the final month. While ranked-choice voting hasbeen said to discourage negative campaigning,it only really discourages negative hits on thoselower in the standings, whose ballots are likelyto be redistributed. The front-runner is still fairgame because her or his votes are unlikely to betransferred to another candidate - which meansthere is no need to worry about offending the front­runner's supporters. Whether by chanceor design,as the relative positioning of the candidates becameclear in the month or so before the election, therace turned decidedly ugly.

And while the election produced no surpriseupsets like the one in Oakland's 2010 mayoralcontest, the seeming clarity of the margins of victoryin the three contests hides another fact: In 15 ofthe 18 ranked-choice contests held so far in SanFrancisco, the winning candidate did not receivea majority of the votes cast. Mayor Ed Lee onlyappeared on 43.9 percent of ballots. Sheriff-electRoss Mirkarimi appeared on 46.9 percent. Their"majorities" were secured in relation to their nearestcompetitors and rested upon on tens of thousands

14 Urbanist > December 2011

VOTES GAINED BY EACH CANDIDATE PER RCV ELECTION ROUND

,-~I

as ca ndidates are elimi­nated votesare transferredto rema iningcandidates

Winner, with 60.45% of total votes

;-~ .-----------------------------; --~---;-i - ......,. •

; - ~ : ...-------;_-~ -i-i-••••

; -~ : .....-----;--~ --i-i---.. III • • • •

i • ••••• •;-~ ;-~ ; -~~•••••••i . i • • •• • ••••••• ••••• ••••••••••••••••••••• ••

12

11

10

090 0 8z::::l0 070::z

060i=u 05l.LI...Jl.LI

04

03

02

01

P.> v(:' o" I.. ~ !<-""-\ ~ .J..00 ~V 1..'0 0" O°-<.['<0'0 «-0 Q,0 -<-'0

QV '00 o ,0 ?; v~o "(-C> -<-0' ~

",-0"(-

CANDIDATES

Graphic by Noah ChristmanSource: City & County of San Francisco Department of Elections

of ballots that were eliminated early in the countingrounds because they did not include second or thirdchoices. These elections did not simulate a majorityrunoff.

Only District Attorney-elect George Gascon wonan actual majority of votes, an outcome that largelyrested on his good fortune to compete in the finalround against David Onek rather than SharminBock. While Bock's votes were split in Gascon'sfavor, had she receiveda couple thousand morevotes and leapfrogged Onek, the race would havebeen exceptionally close, as Onek voters preferredBock to Gascon by a wide margin.

The critical question is whether this impactselected officials' ability to govern effectively. Theconcept of a "mandate" is a highly contested onein political science. All of the winners on electionnight received the legal mandate to govern. Andit is likely, given the margin of victory, that the

vast majority of voters will see these outcomes aslegitimate (unlike what appears to have happenedin Oakland, where a mayor who did not win amajority now faces a lack of support). And thereis no evidence that any of the city supervisorswho were elected without a majority have had toconvince their constituents that they legitimatelywon. Still, particularly for a mayor, there is anadvantage to securing a majority electoral coalitionwhen it comestime to govern. And a city facingsignificant economic, institutional, fiscal andsocial challenges needs effective leadership. Thejury remainsout on whether ranked-choice votingfacilitates this.

-Corey Cook

Urbanist > December2011 15

I 12.11 THE YEAR IN URBANISM

The Return of Manufacturing

WHAT HAPPENEDAs many industries continued tostruggle and hiring across mostremained flat, San Francisco's urbanmanufacturing scene revealed aglimmer of hope. Since the start ofthe recession, not only has this sectorg iven rise to dozens of new compan ies,but also both new and ex istingmanufacturers are creat ing jobs:Between 2010 and 2011 San Francisco­based manufacturers added close to 10percent net new jo bs, as compared toSan Francisco's overa ll job growth rateof 2.1 percent. Manufacturers here havefound part icu lar strength in marryingthe craft-based skills of urban andimmigrant communities w it h prowessin the design and creat ive sectors.

WHAT IT MEANSThe resurgence of new and modernforms of urban manufacturing in SanFrancisco holds the potential not onlyto add much-needed jobs to the localeconomy but to incr ease the diversityof employment opportunities for SanFranciscans and add to the v itality ofour urban community. Th is should notbe v iewed as a blue-collar renaissance;rather, modern manufacturing inSan Francisco is a rich and diverseamalgam of long -st andi ng businesseslike Anchor Brewers and Disti llers,which has weathered the decadesand continues to reinvent itself; smalland nimble young manufacturerslike Betabrand, which re leases newclothing designs almost weekly andsells entirely onl ine; and compan iesthat are a hybrid of technology, designand craft, like DodoCase, which usestraditional bookbinding to create casesfor the contemporary iPad .

16 Urbanist > December2011

In recent years, San Francisco manufacturershave touted their localness as a keycompetitivedifferentiator. Many now collectively marketunder the shared brand of SFMade, a non-profitorganization (of which I am executive director)formed in early 2010 to help support the localmanufacturing sector. Along the way, perceptionsthat San Francisco is indeed a place to make things- not just design them - have helped attractthe likes of venerable companies such as HeathCeramics, which recently announced the expansionof its manufacturing into San Francisco with a30-year lease on a 60,OOO-square-foot productionspace in the Northeast Mission.

San Francisco continuesto face challenges,particularly around mitigating the overallcomplexities and higher costs of doing businessin this dense, expensive city. San Franciscomanufacturers are inherently labor intensive, as theyleverage human skill heavily in order to differentiatetheir products from mass-made goods and to imbuetheir products and process with flexibility andcustomization capability. Many struggle with thecost and complexity of hiring and compensatingtheir workforce. Policymakers at City Hall need towork harder to help well-intended policies like theSan Francisco Healthcare Ordinance work betterin practice for smaller manufacturers who need touse a flexible mix of full-time and part-time workers.We can alsodo a better job of helping localmanufacturers take advantage of existing incentives,such as the state Enterprise Zone program. It allowslocal businesses to offset the higher cost of doingbusiness in the city by claiming both state and localtax credits - potentially worth almost $40,000 peremployee - for hiring local residents from our mosteconomically challenged communities. The programhas a particularly low rate of use considering that90 percent of San Francisco's manufacturers arelocated in an eligible zone.

On the land-use front, industrial real estate inSan Francisco is still at a premium as compared tothat of smaller, lessdense cities, suburban areasand other parts of the United States. The city'srecent rezoning of the eastern neighborhoodshas helped to identify desirable industrial areasfor manufacturing, and a combination of zoningcontrols and the economic climate have alleviated

the most severe land-use competition. The resultis a comparatively more affordable industrial realestate landscape, and manufacturers have beenresponding favorably by trying to grow in place,rather than leaving the city oncethey begin toscale. However, San Francisco will still need toclosely monitor its industrial real estate availabilityand prices as we begin to pull out of the recessionand commercial industrial markets begin to heatup once again. We also need to pay attention tomix of uses: today's manufacturers are inherentlyhybrid businesses, blending design, manufacturing,administration and factory retail into the samespace. But there are early signs that the prominentmanufacturing industrial zoning type - production,distribution and repair (PDR) - may not be keepingpace with the way that actual manufacturersuse their space, especially where accessory useallowances are concerned. Wewill need to ensurethat the very industrial zoning intended to protectlocal manufacturing remains flexible enough toaccommodate this ever-changing landscape ofcreative and shape-shifting urban producers.

Today, manufacturing is local, regional andglobal at the same time. It is happening in otherAmerican cities- from New York to Chicago,Cleveland to Atlanta - as evidenced by the growingmembership of the Urban Manufacturing Alliance, anational coalition of U.S. cities launched by SFMadeand the Pratt Center in New York in 2011. It's alsohappening in other parts of the world, with therecent launches of Made in Copenhagen and HelloEtsy in Berlin. San Francisco manufacturers haveglobal supply chains, and almost 50 percent ofthem export to one or more countries. But perhapsmost important, San Francisco manufacturers relyon their regional connections most of all: fromsuppliers in Oakland to distributors in Los Angelesand contract manufacturing partners in Marin.Urban Manufacturing 2.0 may be a very individualexpression of each city's core capabilities, but weare only as strong as the other urban manufacturingeconomies to which we are inherently connected.

- Kate Sofis

Manufacturingis reemergingas an economicforce in SanFrancisco.Heath Ceramics,for example,will open anew productionfacility andretail spacein thecity asannounced byco-owner RobinPetravic, shownhere at a pressconference withMayor Ed Lee inSeptember.

Urbanist > December2011 17

12.11 I THE YEAR IN URBANISM

Parking Gets Smart

WHAT HAPPENEDIn 2011, the San Francisco MunicipalTransportation Agency launchedSFpark, a pilot project of smartmetering technology that is arguablythe world's most advanced parkingmanagement system. Sensors,installed in on-street parking spacesand in city-owned garages, trackwhen and where parking is available.Sensor data is uploaded wirelesslyto SFpark's data feed and madeavailable free to the public throughan SFpark app, online, via textmessaging and eventually through 511.

WHAT IT MEANSLess circling, double parkingand congestion will mean moreconvenience for drivers, but SFparkalso helps to achieve a host ofother goals important to the city.A major test of many of the bigplanning ideas SPUR has beenpromoting, SFpark could improveMuni's speed and reliability, reducecollisions, make our neighborhoodcommercial areas both more livableand more economically competitive,and reduce transportation-relatedgreenhouse gas emissions.

UnderSFpark, the SFMTA is implementing afederally and regionallyfunded pilot demonstrationof best-practice approaches to parkingmanagement. The goal is to usea transparent,rules-based and data-driven approach to manageparkingdemand so drivers can find parking quicklyrather than circling or double parking. And all ittakes to access the program is a cell phone.

Elements of SFpark include demand-responsiverate adjustments at 25 percent of the city's meteredon-streetparking spaces as well as 14 of its 20public parking garages; real -time information ­available online and via cell phone - about openparking spots; new parking meters that make

18 Urbanist > December 2011

it easier to payvia debit or cred it card; betternavigation in parking garages; and an emphasis ongood design and communication. The projecthasalso developeda data warehouse and businessintelligence system, which is critical for processingparking occupancy data used to make rate-changerecommendations, enabling comprehensiveevaluation and, more broadly, positioning theSFMTA to use this tool and approach for more of itsplanning, management and operation of the city'stransportation system.

SFpark makes San Francisco the first city in theworld to have put in place a full package of smartparking-management technology and policies insuch an extensive area . If the pilot projects deliversignificant benefits, it could set a powerful examplefor other citiesas an effective, easy-to-implementsolution for congestion management and leadership.

- Jay Primus

____I INSIDE SPUR1 12 .11

New Faces at SPUR

Trafton BeanPublic Policy Intern

Trafton is a recent graduateof the University of Oregonwith degrees in publicpolicy and environmentalstudies. Born and raisedon the San FranciscoPeninsula, he's excitedto be working to make

his home region greener and more sustainable.When not at SPUR, you can find him working as apolicy intern with the SF Bike Coalition and eagerlyawaiting the Giants' next run for the World Series.

JesseSleamakerFront Desk Ambassador

Jesse is an SF nativeinterested in howtechnology and planningcan create more just andsustainable cities andurban food systems. Athis day job at The Hub,he helps entrepreneurs

solvesocial and environmental challenges. For fun,he plays the fiddle, surfs and attempts to growfood. Jesse holds a B.A. from Northwestern, anda master's in environment, international and urbandevelopment from Cambridge.

Alan LeungFront DeskAmbassador

Prior to joining SPUR, Alanworked as a residentialmortgage underwriterin Burlingame. Years ofcommuting up and downthe Peninsula taughthim the importance ofdeveloping job centers

around transportation hubs. At SPUR, he hopesto learn more about waysto make his native SanFrancisco a more liveable city. He holds a B.A. inpolitical science from Reed College in Portland, Ore.

Lauren SeydaDevelopment Intern

Lauren, a recent transplantfrom the Pacific Northwest,is passionate about howcitiescreate desirablespace. With a geographydegree from WesternWashington University,Lauren has conducted

field research on salmon migration patterns andurban stream restoration with the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, and has consulted with scienceeducation organizations on strategic businessplanning. She hopes to pursue a graduatedegree in city planning and urban design.

Michael WaldrepVideo Production Intern

Michael is a graduate ofthe film studies departmentat UC Berkeley andthe new video intern atSPUR. He's worked withindustrial robots and inwomen's fashion, hasassisted on sexology

documentaries and has handled wildly expensivemovie cameras. He's also into urbanism, and thinksit'd be neat to do J.B. Jackson/Mike Davis-stylereportage with a video camera. If you ever wantto talk about Google Street View, he's your man.

Katherine BellFront DeskAmbassador

Katherine is a recentaddition to SPUR'sfront desk team. Shereceived her B.A. inurban studies from theCollege of Wooster inOhio and is now exploringwhat it means to be

a Bay Area urbanist. Her current interestsare in sustainable development, urban infillprojects and public engagement projects.

Urbanist > December 2011 19

URBANFIELD NOTES

Light, sculpture celebratedin five PG&E substations

An archiveofcultural landscapes and observations Caseworker: Jessie Allen-Youngcompiled bySPURmembersand friends. Sendyour ideasto Urban Field Notes editor Ruth Kefferateditor@spur.org.

CASESTUDY #43

. .

Mission Substation. Thissubstation at Mission and 8thStreet, designedby WilliamMerchant in 1948, is cladin smooth, dark compositetravertine stone blocks. Theeastern facade hastwo carved,WPA-style reliefs titled "Power"and "Light," created by RobertB. Howard, a notable BayArea artist from this era.

Larkin Substation. This1962 substation.created byPG&E's own design team,wasbuilt in two stages out ofconcrete and steel. The exterioris made out of turquoiseand '"

8beigeconcrete with visible 15aggregate. The Eddy Street :.:J

~facade has a section composed :3

of vertical bands of thinly cut .~

stone that were lit from behind w:ro

at night.The strikingresults are '"obvious in a 1964 photo, in ~

which thecompany. with some sdisregard for light pollution, ~

showcases its product. c

~'-------------- --------------------'

Jessie Allen-Young isanarchitectura l designerfascinatedby buildinguse(and the resulting wear andtear). Whi lenot practicingandstudying architecture, orriding herbiketoandfrom workacrosstheGolden GateBridge, Jessieistheeditorandlayoutgeekfor theHayes ValleyNeighborhood Association'snewsletter.

Short ly after moving to San Francisco,I was wandering the many neighborhoodsand st reetscapes of the city, trying to getmy bearings. One building in particularstruck me - it was massive, with anoutward Brutalist thrust. The stylereminded me of some of the historicFascist architecture of Italy. Along its baseI found an engraving: the Pacific Gas andElectric Embarcadero Substat ion.

Five years later, this building stillfascinates me as a statement of purefacade/exterior skin architecture, with noneed to obey an intensely complexprogram. Inside it is devoid of humanpresence, functioning only to housetransformers to convert electricity todifferent voltages. After finding theEmbarcadero Substation, I set out to findothers. In some cities and townssubstations are disguised as houses, buthere in San Francisco, the facades arecelebrated.

Substations are peculiar because they donot engage a pedestrian or livablestreetscape, and in these examples, theydefy human scale. They can be purelysculptural forms, or forms that reinforcethe ideals of an era and the companybehind them. Since these buildings are allPG&E substations, the exterior lightinghighlights the facades while showcasingthe owner's product: electricity in the formof light.

20 Urbanist> December 2011

Substation J. This Beaux Arts buildingon Commercia l Street was mysecond find in mywalking search for substations. With its monochromaticsurface and minimal detailing, thestation seemsquiet and hidden away.Its location on a narrow alleymakes it hard to take in the whole buildingat once. In the midst of the bustle of the Financial District on a weekday,I was pleased to come acrossit. Designed by Frederick H. Meyer andHenry C. Vensano (a PG&Eengineer and designer) in 1908 and addedonto in 1914, it is now on the national historic register.

Embarcadero Substation. Built in 1973, this monochromatic,cast-concrete building on Folsom Street features slightly exposedaggregate that is not detectibleto the human eye from across the widestreet. Discoloration from smog helps accentuate its subtlecurves andmakes the building read as even more massiveand brawny.

Jessie Street Substation.Designed by Willis Polk in 1907and 1909, this substation is nowthe siteof the ContemporaryJewish Museum. (The buildinggot an addition and interiorremodel by renowned architectDaniel Libeskind in 2008). ThisClassical Revival building, withits red brickfacade, cast-ironwindowsand white terra cottaarchitectural moldings, wasoriginally a power generatingstation built in 1881. After beingdamaged in the 1906 fire, it wasrenovated twice by Polk to itscurrent footprintandfacade, andwas converted into a substation.

Urbanist > December2011 21

URBAN DRIFTcity newsfrom aroundthe globe

'" '!

BUILDING INNOVATIONUNDERGROUNDA team of Mexican architects ispitching renderings of a 65-story"earthscraper" for proposedconstruction in Mexico City. Ifbuilt, it would be the first of itskind, protruding 300 metersunderground, housing both officeand living space. Esteban Suarezof BNKR Arquitectura, the firmbehind the proposals, explainsthat "there is very little room formore building in Mexico City ...so the only way is down." But ata projected cost of $800 millionto build, it remains to be seenif this exercise in densifying thesubterranean will take off."Could 'Earthscraper"reallyturn architectureon itshead?" George Webster,CNN, 10/27/2011

BIKING THE BIG EASYCheck your rea r-view helmetmirror, Portland. New Orleansmight just be the next holderof the "Bicycle-Friendliest City"title. Using approximately $100million of federa l rebuildingmoney to repair 56 miles ofthe city's most heavily usedroads, it hastransformed itsonce troubled streets to createdense, mixed-used, bike- andpedestrian-friendly infrastructure.Pa inted bike lanes have beenadded to 15 streets, making fornearly 40 miles of bike-friendlyroads to date. Since 2005, bikecommuting has risen 84 percentand organized social rides havebeen launched. Despite thecity's momentum, however,cyclistscontinue to fight trafficcongestion, bike theft andreckless drivers."Newroadspost-stormmakeNewOrleanscyclingcity:' AssociatedPress, 10/12/2011

22 Urbanist > December2011

LIBYA'S TRANSITIONALGOVERNMENT PLANS NEWCONSTRUCTIONThe death this past Octoberof Muammar Gaddafi hasquelled security issues in Libyaand released frozen assets,opening the borders to newopportunities for development.The European constructionindustry is anticipating newwork, though Libya is beingadvised to impose - and highlyregulate - incoming contracts toensure that calculated planningand sustainable building ensue.Libya's National TransitionalGovernment is seeking Europeanfirms to assist with thisconstruction (though without anofficial government, it is too earlyfor Libya to sign these contracts) .Libya's Tripoli airport and Misratahospital are the first plannedprojects."Gaddafi'sdeathpromptsgo-ahead tor Libyanconstructionprojects," ElizabethHopkirk, bdonline.co.uk, 10/24/2011

MONGOLIA GROWS GLACIERTO COOL ITSELFIn November, the Mongoliancapital of Ulan Bator beganconducting an ambitious"geoengineering trial" that will seethe formation of an urban glacierthat will cool the city throughoutthe summer months. Thescientists behind the $700,000project believe that the glacierwill emit enough cool air to bepumped throughout the city inthe summer, while alsosupplyingvaluablewater resources fordrinking and irrigation as theice gradually melts in the hottemperatures. The Mongolianengineering firm ECOS & EMI

will begin "building" the glacierby forming artifical naleds ­essentially, meters-thick sheetsof ice formed over rivers in thewinter as water pressure breaksthrough the ice envelope andthe subsequent water seepagefreezes."Mongoliabidstokeepcitycool with 'ice shield'experiment," JonathanWatts, The Guardian,11/15/2011

FARMVILLE FOR HOMEENERGY MANAGEMENT?Facebook has partnered withthe Natural Resources DefenseCouncil and Opower, a growingnetwork of more than 60 utilitycompanies across the country,to provide a way for the public tomonitor its energy consumption.Expected for release in early2012, a new app will allow usersto access their homeenergy­usage data from their providerand, once imported into the app,track their energy consumption,"compete" with

fellow users, and share energy­saving tips. CommonwealthEdison (Chicago and environs),the city of Pa lo Alto, and GlendaleWater & Power (Los AngelesCounty) are the first three utilitiesto sign on, allowing a combinedtotal of 4 million customers to usethe new app when it launches."Facebook unveils'social energy' app," Matt Hickman,forbes.com, 10/18/2011

GOING FROM BLIGHT TO"BLOTS"That's the latest solutionfor shrinking cites. Across ahandful of troubled Midwesterncities, homeowners in troubledneighborhoods are snapping upadjacent vacant lots for their ownuse, creating block-lots or "blots."Coined by Brooklyn designerfirm Interboro, blotting is gainingtraction, especia lly in Detroitwhich is working to reducepopulation density."IsBlottingthe Best SolutionforShrinkingCities?",DavidLepeska, TheAtlanticCities, lilli/II

SPUR Board of Directors Chairs and committees Welcome to ournew members!

Co-Chairs Board Members John Madden PROGRAM Regional Planning Human Resources

COMMITTEESINDIVIDUALS Shirley Huey Randy Wiederhold

Lee Blitch Carl Anthony Gordon Mar Larry Burnett Lydia Tan Kristine Agardi LorettaJimenez Rebecca Wood

Linda Jo Fitz Alexa Arena Jacinta McCann Ballot Analysis Libby SeilelIndividual

Courtney Aguirre Paul KrupkaBUSINESSES

Fred Blackwell ChrisMeany Graham Babbitt Wei Ching (Mei)2CVBob Gamble Membership

Co-Vice ChrisBlock Ezra Mersey OPERATINGLynn Bayer Kwong

Bi· Rite MarketTomiquia Moss

COMMITTEESBill Stotler Alicia Berenyi Eva Langman

BirminghamChair s Larry Burnett TerryMicheau Matthew Bamberg Kristen Lease

Mary Murphy Disaster Planning Investment Rit limphongpandDevelopment

Emilio Cruz Michaela Cassidy AuditPeter & TerryBoyer

LLC

David Friedman Madeline Chun Jeanne Myerson Jacinta McCann Ann Lazarus Sarah Brownell Jeffrey lopusDuane Morris

John Madden JonathanBuckalew ArnieMacPhee

Mary McCue Michael Cohen Brad Paul Dick Morten Gelfand PartnersMajor Donors JenniferChan Heather Madison

Chris Poland Nominating Architects

Wade Rose Charmaine Curtis Chris Poland Marian Richard MarinLindaJo Fitz Market-Turk

Bill Rosetti Gia Daniller-Katz Teresa Rea Stuart Sunshine Chatfield-Taylor Charles MarloweHousing Anne Halsted PerkinsCcie

Betty Chau PaulMcGrath

V. Fei Tsen Oscar De La Torre Byron Rhett Ezra Mersey Build ing Raines Cohen Emily McKay

Kelly Dearman Victor Seeto LydiaTan ManagementPlanned Giving Robert Collins EzraMersey

Sec r et a ry Shelley Doran Elizabeth (Libby) Michaela Cassidy NicolasCranmer Maria Miller

Project ReviewLarry Burnett

lawrence Cronander Paul E. Murphy

Tomiquia Moss Oz Erickson Seilel Silver SPUR Reuel Daniels Anthony NachorCharmaine Curtis Business

Manny Flores Chi-Hsin Shao Dave Hartley Colin Dental-Post AmarPal

Tr easurer Norman Fong Ontario SmithMary Beth Sanders Membership lisa Drogin Joanna Perez-Green

Teresa ReaReuben Schwartz Tom Hart Mary Durbin Ezra Pincus-Roth

Bob Gamble Gillian Giliett Bill Stotler JonathanFaller BenjaminPollockTerry Micheau

Chris Gruwell Stuart Sunshine Sustainable EllieFiore StacyRadine

Immediate Anne Halsted Michael Teitz Development Facility Rental SupaneatFisher Jessie Raeder

Pas t Co-Chair Dave Hartley James Tracy Paul Okamoto Bill StotlerAllegraFortunati DavidReddy

YusefFreeman Melinda Richter

Andy Barnes Mary Huss Will Travis Bry Sarte Tony Garza Santiphap RuangsinExecutive

Chris Iglesias Steve Vettel l oni Gray PaulSargent

Transportation Lee Blitch Craig Hamburg vlsha!i Sluga!

Advisory Laurie Johnson Debra WalkerEmilio Cruz Linda Jo Fitz Aysha Handley Mathew Snyder

Counci l Ken Kirkey Cynthia Wilusz-Anthony Bruzzone Brian Hanlon Sarah Sobel

Co -Ch airs Florence Kong Lovell Finance John Harvey Christopher

Dick Lonergan Cindy Wu Bob Gamble RichardW. Hedges Sommerfeld

Michael AlexanderTASK FORCES Will Heywood Jason Su

Paul Sedway Ellen Lou Maria Holder Sophia Tao

Janis MacKenzie Climate Adaptation Ted Holman Daniel Tischler

Will TravisDeborahHolmes Alyssa Vore

ChristopherHams AmyWang

Jonathan Hubbard JosephWhite

Urbanist > December2011 23

JainSPUR taday! 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

654 Mission StreetSan Francisco, CA94105-40 15tel. 415.781.8726fax 415.781.7291info@spur.orgwww.spur.org

Time-dated material~54 0

SAN FRANCISCOPLANN ING + URBAN RESEARCHASSOCIATION

Nonprofit Org.

US Postage

PAID

Permit # 4118

San Francisco, CA

-jIm-<m»:::0

ZC:::0OJ»Z(J)

3:

SPUR Staff

SPUR main number Public Realm and Development Director Publications and415.781.8726 Urban Design Arnie LaUerman x1l 5 Communications Manager

Program Manager alatterman@spur.org Karen Steen xl 12Editor of The Urbanist Benjamin Grant x1l9 ksteen@spur.orgAllison Arieff x142 bgrant@spur.org Development Associateaarieff@spur.org Rachel Leonard xl 16 Sustainable

Development Assistant rleonard@spur.org DevelopmentAccountant LizaHadden xl18 Policy DirectorTerri Chang x128 Ihadden@spur.org Administrative Director Laura Tam x137tchang@spur.org Lawrence Li x134 Itam@spur.org

Sponsorships and lIi@spur.orgPublic Programming Intern Special Events Manager Regional Planning DirectorNoah Christman x122 Kelly Hardestyx120 Good Government Egon Terplan x131publicprogramming@spur.org khardesty@spur.org Policy Director eterplan@spur.org

Corey Marshall x125Publications Assistant Research and Volunteer cmarshall@spur.org Assistant to theMary Davis x141 Coordinator Executive Directormdavis@spur.org Will Heywood x136 Executive Director Jennifer Warburg x1l7

wheywood@spur.org Gabriel Metcalf xl 13 jwarburg@spur.orgUrban Center Director gmetcalf@spur.orgDiane Filippi x110 Public Programming Manager Food Systems anddfilippi@spur.org Gretchen Hilyard x122 UrbanCenter Urban Agriculture Program

ghilyard@spur.org Event Manager ManagerSue Meylan x130 Eli Zigasx126

Deputy Director smeylan@spur.org ezigas@spur.orgSarah Karlinsky x129skarlinsky@spur.org

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