New Geography

Author: Adam Mayer

  • Infrastructure and Aesthetics

    In his 2005 book Infrastructure: A Field Guide to the Industrial Landscape, Brian Hayes surveys the built environment with an undaunted appreciation of the vast networks of infrastructure systems in America. Hayes, a writer for American Scientist, argues that common understanding of infrastructure is just as important as an understanding of nature itself. Without the ubiquitous power lines, the oft disparaged garbage dumps, or the controversial mining industry, the United States would not have been able to achieve status as the paragon of 20th Century modernization – a pattern now emulated by the likes of China and India.

    Yet it seems that ‘infrastructure’ has lost its fabled status in America. Our parents – or grandparents, depending on your age – celebrated achievements such as the building of the Hoover Dam or the California Water Project. But starting with the 1970s, as the environmental movement began to gain steam, and more recently after Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth, large scale infrastructure has increasingly become something to be reviled.

    The only time we are reminded of our infrastructure is when tragedy strikes, be it a mining accident, a bridge falling down or a collapsed levee. It’s as if we wish to keep the very things that support our modern lifestyles ‘out of sight out of mind’. No one really wants to know where their trash ends up or what the intricate processes for treating sewage are, nor does anyone want to be a neighbor with a coal burning power plant.

    At the same time what had once been centers for productive industry have also been redeveloped into hip and trendy neighborhoods marketed to those looking for an ‘edgy’ urban experience. To be sure, part of the allure of once industrial areas such as San Francisco’s South of Market and Brooklyn’s Williamsburg lies in the gritty aesthetic and adaptability of warehouse and manufacturing buildings for reuse.

    Yet even though residential development may be halted for the foreseeable future, it is critical to not lose sight of the aesthetic value of the industrial landscape. This ‘diamond in the rough’ appeal applies not only to converted lofts and art galleries but to both our current functioning and yet-to-be built infrastructure as well.

    The potential for infrastructure to please the eye and to uplift the soul is not lacking in historical precedent. Some of the greatest monuments to the genius of ancient architects remain those which served as essential infrastructure, the most notable example the aqueducts constructed by the Romans.

    Yet today, aside from exceptions like the bridges of Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava, the world of high architectural design has largely ignored the possibility that infrastructure could be beautiful. Instead, design media is relentlessly focused on museums and other elitist structures with the more mundane and common buildings being “left to the engineers”.

    LeCorbusier, the late Swiss/French architect and one of the ‘godfathers’ of modern architecture would be rolling in his grave if he knew this was the case. In his seminal manifesto Towards a New Architecture, LeCorbusier speaks of his appreciation for the industrial aesthetic: “Thus we have the American grain elevators and factories, the magnificent first-fruits of the new age”.

    LeCorbusier, or ‘Corb’ as he is called, went on to apply the industrial aesthetic to socialist housing schemes while proclaiming that the “house is a machine for living in”. Although the jury is still out on whether or not living in a machine has mass appeal, Corbusier’s celebration of the simple and repetitive massing of structures such as grain silos is a good reminder that beauty can be derived from infrastructure.

    Early 20th Century American city builders also celebrated infrastructure. Willis Polk, a prominent San Francisco architect, was commissioned in 1910 to build a water temple in Sunol, California. Sunol, about 40 miles outside of San Francisco, was where converging water lines met before feeding into the city. Sensitive to the importance of getting fresh water to a growing population, some of San Francisco’s wealthiest citizens hired Polk to design the structure, which was inspired by the Temple of Vesta at Tivoli. Soon after, the area around the iconic structure became a popular spot for park goers.

    Similarly, Los Angeles architect Gordon Kaufman was hired to add aesthetic merit to the Hoover Dam. Still generating power for parts of Southern California, Nevada and Arizona, the massive dam symbolizes one of the most ambitious pieces of infrastructure in American history. At the time, the dam was the world’s largest concrete structure, yet Kaufman softened the aesthetics by adding a simple and elegant Art Deco touch to the otherwise imposing structure.

    The marriage of aesthetic beauty and infrastructure does not always have to take place at the grand scale of the Hoover Dam or the Golden Gate Bridge. In contrast, the barn, according to Brian Hayes, remains “the unmistakable icon of American agriculture and rural life.” The barn, a prevailing theme in American literature, represents function and flexibility of the highest order: one day it could be housing livestock while the next it could serve as a dance hall. Whatever the function, there is no questioning the charm of these structures dotting the rural landscape. With a renewed interest in family and organic farming in current popular culture, these buildings – including new barns – could assume a renewed meaning.

    With the Obama stimulus plan comes not only an opportunity to create jobs but to advance a cultural appreciation for the structures and systems that have made the United States a model to be emulated. Wind turbines, for instance, are gaining traction as the symbols of clean energy. When driving past large scale wind farms like the San Gorgonio Pass near Palm Springs, the movement of the out-of-proportion blades coupled with the dizzying repetition of turbines results in something similar to a pleasant hallucination. The appreciation for wind turbines is a start in the right direction, yet if we are to ensure that the systems that run the country are suited to last for generations to come, the culture needs to once again celebrate, rather than demonize, our infrastructure.

    Adam Nathaniel Mayer is a native of the San Francisco Bay Area. Raised in the town of Los Gatos, on the edge of Silicon Valley, Adam developed a keen interest in the importance of place within the framework of a highly globalized economy. He currently lives in San Francisco where he works in the architecture profession.

  • Corporate Sponsorship of the Golden Gate, the Ultimate Sign of Failed Infrastructure

    The most anticipated tourist attraction in the city where I live, The Golden Gate Bridge, is a testament to the lasting utility of a well executed infrastructure project. The world’s most famous suspension bridge still serves as the critical artery connecting San Francisco to the bedroom communities of Marin County to the north, where much of the city’s workforce resides. Remarkably, this marvel of engineering was completed in the late 1930s – a time when the U.S. was coming out of the Great Depression.

    The New Deal brought about an expansion of infrastructure that should inspire us. Yet nearly 70 years after its completion, the sobering reality remains: it’s difficult to imagine a project of that moxie being constructed today.

    One indicator of the distance between then and now can be seen in the story of Doyle Drive – the one-and-half mile southern approach to the Bridge. In 1993, USA Today reported that the elevated portion of Doyle Drive is the 5th most dangerous bridge in America. After years of EIR studies and bickering amongst a myriad of stakeholders and governmental agencies, San Francisco voters in 2003 finally passed Proposition K, a sales tax increase ensuring the city’s funding for an upgrade of Doyle Drive.

    Sales tax revenue generated from Proposition K is slated to cover only $67.9 million of the $1.045 billion estimated cost of the project. State and Federal funding has also been committed for the project, yet there is still $414 million of cost yet to be accounted for. Along with hopes of securing additional funding from the Fed, The Golden Gate Bridge District is responsible for providing $75 million for the Doyle Drive retrofit. To meet the cost of this and other projects, such as the addition of a suicide-prevention net, the Bridge District is seriously considering soliciting corporate sponsorship of the world-famous span.

    The appalling fact that corporate sponsorship is on the table for one of the most iconic pieces of infrastructure in the modern world confirms the failure of the public sector in regards to maintaining an aging infrastructure. For the past few years, politicians at all levels of the government seeking office have beaten the drum of tax reductions in order to secure votes, only to find themselves with budget crises on their hands once elected. With city and state budgets strapped, local politicians often look to the federal government in order to help pay for repairing roads and other basic services, not to mention the huge pensions of public employees.

    The other place local governments look for money to balance the budget is from the private sector. In many cities across America, elected officials have responded to these kinds of crises by partnering up with private enterprise to generate jobs and sales tax revenue by developing ‘convention and retail districts’. Oftentimes these developments will also include hotels, luxury condominiums and even sporting or arts venues. Even before the recent economic downturn, many of these developments were representing white elephants, sitting empty while the issues of sustained job creation and infrastructure repair remain unresolved.

    Examples of infrastructure from the past, such as the ruins of Roman Aqueducts on the Iberian Peninsula and the dams of the ancient city of Petra in Jordan, remind us of the great lengths societies will go through in order to function more efficiently. Although today the concept of infrastructure is primarily associated with industrial economies and modernization in the developing world, the truth is that ever since the earliest agrarian communities humans have been building physical systems that harness the powerful forces of nature and make life more convenient.

    Years from now, the built environment of America will provide one of the primary measurements for historians seeking to quantify 20th Century achievements. Today the vast networks of roads, bridges, ports, airports, power plants and water lines built in the U.S. over the past 150 years remains the standard for nations undergoing industrialization. Yet while other countries are busy catching up to the American paradigm, the U.S. system is falling behind. Entropy is setting in, and repeated policy failures prevent retrofitting and repair to take place at a mass scale.

    With all the current hubris surrounding the “New New Deal” proposed by the incoming Obama administration, discussion about the fundamental role of infrastructure seems to be missing from the conversation. Primary focus about the infrastructure package remains on rapid job creation rather than long term economic health. New Orleans remains a grim reminder of how infrastructural failure can destroy an economy for good, and misplaced investments in convention centers and other ephemera have limited impact.

    There has also been much press about a ‘green revolution’. While looking for cleaner alternatives to powering our society is an important issue, there is almost no acknowledgment that the most sustainable approach lies in fixing and updating what is already in place. Already, speculators are foaming at the mouth at what will end up probably being the next bubble – clean tech.

    In the coming days, it will be critical that careful attention be paid to a basic approach to ensure that stimulus money is not squandered on pork. As state and local governments – as well as big business and special interests – vie for handouts from Papa Fed, the United States government must seek ways to allocate funds for maximum investment in future generations.

    This is not to say such investments should not be bold and even beautiful. I know it’s possible every time I look at, or cross, the Golden Gate.

    Adam Nathaniel Mayer is a native of the San Francisco Bay Area. Raised in the town of Los Gatos, on the edge of Silicon Valley, Adam developed a keen interest in the importance of place within the framework of a highly globalized economy. He currently lives in San Francisco where he works in the architecture profession.

  • Architecture in an Age of Austerity

    “Architectural publication, criticism and even education are now focused relentlessly on the enticing visual image. The longing for singular, memorable imagery subordinates other aspects of buildings, isolating architecture in disembodied vision.” – Finnish architect Juhani Pallasmaa, from his essay “Toward an Architecture of Humility”

    Anyone paying even remote attention to the domain of high architectural design in the past decade will surely recognize the name Frank Gehry. The celebrity architect (or if you prefer to use the portmanteau word used to describe such practitioners: starchitect) is best known for his unconventional creations-buildings that billow, swoop and shimmer. Whether the project is a concert hall, museum, or university building, the clientele hiring Gehry is paying for a brand name product. In this sense, a ‘Gehry-designed building’ is akin to a piece of fashion – with the value of the building based primarily on the name of the designer and not on how well it operates for end users as a work of architecture.

    Gehry was not alone in this respect. Real estate developers were quick to jump on the trend toward ‘signature’ buildings. Hiring other marquee architects such as Zaha Hadid, Daniel Libeskind, and Santiago Calatrava, high-end condo developers everywhere from Manhattan to Dubai were willing to deal with paying exorbitant design fees for the assumed marketing advantages of associating with such big names.

    But now the obsession with starchitecture may now itself be outdated. Thanks to the financial meltdown, the party may be ending both for starchitects and their credit wielding developer patrons. Not surprisingly, ambitious projects like the Gehry designed Grand Avenue development in Los Angeles and the Calatrava designed Chicago Spire have been put on hold and perhaps consigned to oblivion.

    These are just some of the most visible examples of the construction slowdown as it relates to high architectural design. Less renown figures in the architectural profession, both sole practitioners and those working in corporate firms, also find themselves struggling to retain projects. The imagined career trajectories of wannabe starchitects may be yet another casualty of the financial slowdown.

    Ironically, the economic crisis relates back to the very thing architects are entrusted with – the built environment. Of course, architects had a hand in only a very small percentage of what is actually built in the United States. During the most recent boom cycle of construction – at least until the last year or two – the single family detached housing developments in the suburbs and urban fringes dominated the market. These developments were often promoted in a manner that made the house as an investment vehicle paramount to it being a place of long-term inhabitance and raising a family.

    The subprime mortgage crisis has since debunked the commonly accepted strategy that real estate is always a ‘safe’ investment for the average American. But this is not only a suburban phenomenon, despite the claims by many in the architecture and urban planning professions that the real estate meltdown represented the triumph of the city over the suburbs. In reality the city development scene is also collapsing, a bit later perhaps, but largely because it took a while for the financial fallout to reach large urban projects.

    Ironically the starchitecture so celebrated by the popular media may have contributed to this. The fact that the majority of architecturally revered high-rise housing developments built in the past decade are geared toward the ‘luxury market’ may have slowed the potential market for in-city living. In too many cases, developers in the urban luxury condo market have relied on cash-wealthy individuals to purchase their units as second homes, a market that is certain to crash as the asset bubble bursts.

    The current recession is a trying time for most Americans, and as such, it could prove a pivotal time for architects, planners and those who care about the built environment to reassess their roles in a democratic culture. Great or monumental architecture – from imperial Rome to Napoleon III’s Paris and Dubai today – has often been built at the discretion of powerful religious institutions, monarchies or omnipotent dictatorships. Democratic architecture, in contrast, tends more to the functional and efficient, whether in the form of William Levitt’s suburbia or the high-rise towers that accommodated corporations.

    The future of urban development in the United States is likely to follow a different trajectory. For one thing environmental sustainability is likely to frame the decisions made in regards to urban planning in the coming years. In this context, metallic structures like those favored by Gehry and his acolytes do not represent a very energy-efficient form; in places like Los Angeles, Phoenix or Dubai they reflect sunlight and heat up the surrounding environment. The next era of American architecture will have to deal with such issues and also with the restrictions of a strapped fiscal environment.

    With funding for flashy and iconic buildings screeching to a halt, the era of the architect as detached genius and artiste appears to be coming to a close. In order to retain relevance at this crucial point in time, architects would be wise to come out from their ivory towers and shift their focus to becoming more civically engaged and oriented towards the needs of the middle class.

    At the dawn of the 21st Century, as the definitions of traditional urban centers, suburbs and metropolitan regions become more blurred, so does the role of the architect and planner. After the chaos of the current economic recession is settled, most construction is likely to be focused on updating existing infrastructure and building new ‘green’ infrastructure. What America needs most right now from the architectural profession is not more Frank Gehrys but a new commitment to build an environment that is both sustainable and affordable.

    Adam Nathaniel Mayer is a native of the San Francisco Bay Area. Raised in the town of Los Gatos, on the edge of Silicon Valley, Adam developed a keen interest in the importance of place within the framework of a highly globalized economy. He currently lives in San Francisco where he works in the architecture profession.

  • San Francisco and the Meltdown

    Initially San Francisco and the Bay Area market seemed to be immune to the financial meltdown resulting from the mortgage crisis. After all, the City and its accompanying affluent suburbs had not suffered drastic drops in home prices as seen in many other regions of the country. Yet as the mortgage crisis has snowballed into a complete meltdown of the worldwide financial system, the poster child of the ‘new economy’ now appears less and less immune from the turmoil dominating our news headlines.

    The region that consists of the City by the Bay and the adjacent Silicon Valley is no stranger to drastic market corrections. Silicon Valley was front and center of the dot-com bubble burst at the early part of the decade. As it became abundantly clear that the dot-com frenzy was unsustainable, the region retracted as investment in internet startup companies waned severely.

    This time the crisis is different. The current economic realignment is not limited by region but affirms the global interdependence of financial systems. The Bay Area may sit atop the economic food chain more than most regions, but its vulnerability to the crisis is not necessarily less than that of less elite areas.

    Initially, much of core San Francisco’s resilience to the current economic conundrum can be attributed to the fact that the majority, approximately 65% of the city’s residents, are renters. But the greater Bay Area is being affected in other ways as a result of the financial crisis. As large banks fail, credit gets tighter and consumer confidence slows, business in sectors unrelated to real estate is beginning to be impacted. Case in point is Silicon Valley giant EBay recently laying off 10% of its workforce. Yahoo!, another large Bay Area employer, has also announced a significant reduction in staff. Even more troubling are moves by venture Capital Firms such as Sequoia Capital and Benchmark Capital to force companies in which they are stakeholders to ‘cut costs significantly’. With VC Firms tightening their belts, technology start-up companies, a primary driver of the Bay Area economy, are also likely to cut spending and employment.

    These cuts will hit San Francisco proper, but far less than the Peninsula, where the vast bulk of the tech-related work takes place. In contrast, San Francisco is increasingly a ‘museum city’ for those wealthy enough to afford a vacation home. This will help keep local businesses in the retail, restaurant and hospitality industries somewhat strong.

    The problems in the global, national and regional economy have touched off some alarms at the local level in San Francisco. Last week, Mayor Gavin Newsom announced his own version of an ‘economic stimulus plan.’ Under this plan, the city will lay off some government workers and continue to enforce a hiring freeze. The plan also calls for encouraging more foreign investment to the city. Capitalizing on a drop in lavish vacation spending by local residents, the Mayor is also looking to Bay Area dwellers to consider ‘staycations’ by spending time and money in the city rather than traveling outside the region. In a somewhat encouraging measure, the stimulus plan mentions reducing fees for local business and fast-tracking $5.3 billion worth of capital projects – both steps in the right direction.

    San Francisco’s relative buoyancy in the dire economic situation also can be attributed to the fact that the city has lost much of its once powerful financial sector. In addition, the one financial giant that remains headquartered in the city, Wells Fargo, happens to be one of the U.S. banking institutions faring quite well due to its careful avoidance of subprime home loans. The ongoing strength of Wells Fargo means that more people who work in the San Francisco financial services industry will be able to hold onto their jobs.

    Yet for all the relative good news, it is critical to realize that San Francisco remains an anomaly within the United States and should by no means serve as an economic model for other American cities. Most cities do not have the stunning geography and postcard-worthy locations needed to sustain a tourist economy. The unfortunate reality of San Francisco is that the gap between rich and poor residents continues to grow as the city’s middle class dwindles. Many of the city’s hospitality and retail workers are commuters from outside the city.

    In fact, the situation in San Francisco reveals a growing irony: wealthy, sometimes very liberal bastions often have the least equality. As one of the most unaffordable places to live in the nation, the Bay Area has developed an economy that has little room for the middle or working class. It may have become far less vulnerable to the nation’s economic crisis, but in a manner that neither solves society’s broader problems nor provides a model for the vast majority of American communities.

    Adam Nathaniel Mayer is a native of the San Francisco Bay Area. Raised in the town of Los Gatos, on the edge of Silicon Valley, Adam developed a keen interest in the importance of place within the framework of a highly globalized economy. He currently lives in San Francisco where he works in the architecture profession.

  • Baby Boomers: A Millennial’s Perspective

    The retiring of the vast sect of the population collectively known as Baby Boomers has several economic alarms going off. Due largely to this phenomena, by the year 2030, the number of people in the U.S. age 65 and above will double in size.

    Concerns abound about whether there will be enough Social Security funds to cover retirement and what the impacts on the economy will be with this large group leaving the workforce. While these concerns are real, making an accurate assessment of the future requires going beyond analyzing demographic data by also taking into consideration cultural tendencies.

    The Baby Boomer generation covers an immense swath of the population making it difficult to generalize much about them. If one is to look at the 1960s and ‘70s, the social movements reflected an earnest attempt to manipulate the future into one where peace would be king. The optimistic spirit of the time led a small but influential group of Boomers to join communes and relinquish traditional American values altogether.

    By the time the 1980s rolled around, many Boomers had no problem reneging their oft-stated egalitarian values. Conspicuous consumption became the order of the day and newly christened Boomer parents became preoccupied with gaining an advantage over one another by vicariously living through the achievements of their young children — a notion parodied in the 1989 Ron Howard directed movie ‘Parenthood.’

    Yet, ironically, Boomers still often clung to the values and culture of their youth. Even Apple CEO and founder Steve Jobs, who created a technological empire based on marketing of the idea of individuality, cites the use of the hallucinogenic drug LSD as ‘one of the two or three most important things he has done in his life.’

    So now, we have the ultimate irony. Boomers have tended to think of themselves as ‘forever young,’ either in spirit or by heading down to the local Botox clinic, but they are becoming as elderly population. Of course, many will put off the acknowledgement of aging. Often self-defined by their work, many will retire much later or not at all. In addition, with concerns about Social Security, some will continue working in order to support their accustomed lifestyle.

    Not surprisingly, real estate speculators and developers are taking aim at predicting where Baby Boomers will retire. Much has been talked about a mass ‘return to the city’ by empty nesters. The amenities that are offered by a cosmopolitan lifestyle will most likely appeal to some, but the fast-paced nature of the big city — and high prices in the most attractive urban cores — will probably keep the majority seniors out in the suburbs or moving to the countryside.

    Similarly, Boomers generally will avoid living in an ‘old-folks’ home — unless totally necessary. The idea of not being self-sufficient, even in old age, contradicts core Boomer values. Many hope, rather, that their children will reciprocate the years of generous financial support and let them live with them.

    The previous generation has shown that if indeed retirees are to move away from where they have spent the previous years of their lives, there is a propensity to go to where the climate is warm. This leads me to believe that, although both Florida and Arizona, are suffering from the mortgage crisis, these and other warm-weather states will retain their attractiveness. Indeed, the lower prices now offered could spark a resurgence of retirees in the coming years.

    But the main place for aging boomers will be precisely whey are now: the suburbs. While the suburbs are definitely not the same place characterized by Ozzie and Harriet, Baby Boomers show a preference for places where neighborhood and community are of high importance. This would partly explain why suburban college towns, even in states with dwindling real estate values, are showing strong resilience. College towns, despite their transient student populations, have a tendency to foster communities based around the functions and cultural amenities offered by a University. College towns also tend to have ‘traditional’ downtowns that remind Boomers of the kinds of places where they grew up.

    The only sure thing about the Boomers is they are a generation rife with contradictions. They can be seen as the beginning of the postmodern era, where America began the descent from its cultural apex in history. To Boomers, hard work and manufacturing was passé. Largely because their parents had come out victorious in World War II, they started in their early years to think it was party time. Even as Boomers got older and started having children, ridding themselves of platform shoes and polyester suits, they carried on some of their social values. As Boomers enter the next phase of their life, retirement, values — like a quest for independence and a search for authenticity — will continue to inform their choices.

  • The Great Exception: San Francisco’s SoMa Neighborhood

    In recent months, one has not been able to open a newspaper without being reminded of the havoc that is being wreaked on the U.S. economy. The subprime mortgage debacle coupled with skyrocketing energy prices have caused many middle class Americans to lose confidence in taking out home loans and putting a screeching halt to consumer spending.

    But one place that seems somewhat impervious to the chaos: San Francisco. Part of this can be attributed to the continuing popularity of the city as a tourist destination for foreigners. Also keeping the local economy afloat is the investment in luxury real estate from those with disposable wealth purchasing second homes in this geographically desirable locale. Unfortunately, this does not spell good news for the city in terms of middle class aspiration and sustainable socio-economic diversity.

    Nowhere is this discordance with national realities than in the South of Market district. Two decades ago this was largely a hardscrabble district of industrial warehouses and factories. Its transformation to becoming a high income haven began with the dot.com boom of the late 1990s. Even when that boom went bust in the early 2000s — triggering an exodus of some 25,000 people between 2000 and 2003 — the dot-com fortune seekers had left their mark on the transformation of the district, as well as the nearby, largely Latino Mission district.

    Several factors drove this transformation, including the restrictive economics of starting a business in older, more upscale neighborhoods in the northern portion of the city, proximity to freeway access to the peninsula suburbs and Silicon Valley, and abundance of warehouse space contributing to an ‘edgy’ cityscape, SoMa and the Mission District took the crown as the most hip neighborhoods to live and start a business during the late 90’s.

    The character of the two districts, however, are quite distinct. The Mission District continues to be a mecca attracting hipsters and ‘creative’ types, while SoMa is now often derided as ‘sterile’ and rife with ‘yuppies’. One reason is that much of the residential development there is quite new, creating a distinct lack of character.

    Even with the abundance of recently built condos and converted lofts, only during Giants home baseball games at AT&T Park does SoMa feel like the vibrant neighborhood that is shamelessly touted by real estate agents. The elevated freeway, which feeds into the Bay Bridge as one drives east towards Oakland, acts not only as a physical but a psychological barrier between South Beach and the rest of the city.

    Yet not all those who live in San Francisco find the particular conditions of the location to be such a bad thing. Tai Nicolopoulos, an acquaintance who is a resident of the area and works at a technology company in a peninsula suburb, finds the area to be convenient for her commute on Caltrain-the commuter rail line that connects San Francisco with Silicon Valley. She is willing to admit, though, that when it comes to variety in terms of restaurants and entertainment options, she has to leave the area and head out to other neighborhoods.

    It’s not just the architecture and street life that is lacking. So too is the prescence of children. In SoMa and the adjacent Mission Bay neighborhood you hardly see the little tykes. Much hype surrounds the the Arterra, for example, a brand-new 16-story, 269 unit condominium building in Mission Bay designed to be “San Francisco’s first LEED-certified, green high-rise.” The building, called and developed by Intracorp Companies on a former brownfield site, has already sold 60 percent of its units. Despite this success, according to the sales agent, not even one family with young children has purchased a unit. The townhouse units, which are marketed more towards families with children, are having a harder time being sold than tower units. This is not surprising considering that there is a lack of amenities for children in the neighborhood.

    Yet in many ways, what is happening in SoMa and Mission Bay represents the future of San Francisco. Some of this has to do with politics. Since the 1960s, San Francisco has had a reputation for being a city where vocal citizens who take a ‘Not-In-My-Backyard’ attitude towards any new development are prominent. In the storied well-established neighborhoods of the city — Nob Hill, Russian Hill and North Beach — getting a building permit for even just a home remodel can be an arduous task.

    But for the former warehouse and industrial areas like SoMa, the story is completely different. Here the San Francisco Planning Department can press densification without significant opposition. In fact, the new pro-development attitude is visible in the handful of new high-rise buildings that dot the skyline. One of the most visually prominent new buildings is the 45-story One Rincon Hill condo tower just north of the western approach of the Bay Bridge. Dubbed the ‘Ionic Breeze’ for its resemblance to an object from a Sharper Image catalog, the One Rincon Hill tower foreshadows things to come.

    In May of this year, the city of San Francisco presented a new zoning plan for the Transbay Terminal area in SoMa. This plan allows for significant height increases for new buildings built in this zone, crowned by the proposed 1200’ tall Transbay Tower at 1st and Mission Streets. Other areas of SoMa are currently being studied by the city block by block to see what impact rezoning would have on the resulting skyline. To appease the vocal citizens who are concerned about losing their view of the topographic landscape San Francisco is famous for, the city is basing the rezoning effort around a conceptual height scheme that will make the skyline appear to “mimic” the rolling hills with “peaks and valleys” – the Transamerica Building and proposed Transbay Terminal tower being the “peaks.” The jury is still out on how this overly didactic scheme will fly with developers and NIMBYs alike.

    Conveniently, the current zeitgeist has a green tint provided by the density movement, something that has blunted NIMBY opposition to the city’s ongoing Manhattanization. And to be sure, dense housing makes sense when there is a demand for it like there is in San Francisco.

    But the question remains: what kind of city are we building? Current trends suggest the new residents of these largely “luxury units will be independently wealthy individuals buying second homes and Silicon Valley weekend warriors whose careers are based on the Peninsula but who party on in San Francisco in their often meager space time.

    Unlikely to settle there will be the old timers who live in rent controlled apartments in North Beach or Russian and Chinese immigrant families who call the Richmond and Sunset districts home. The developments in SoMa may well show that there is a future for a high end urban core, but the kind of diversity that long made cities such as joy may increasingly be harder to find.

    Adam Nathaniel Mayer is a native of the San Francisco Bay Area. Raised in the town of Los Gatos, on the edge of Silicon Valley, Adam developed a keen interest in the importance of place within the framework of a highly globalized economy. He currently lives in San Francisco where he works in the architecture profession.

  • Home is Where the Wi-Fi is: Millennials and a Sense of Community

    The modern day forums for which people are able to express themselves and ‘stay connected’ include the much talked about websites Facebook, MySpace, Youtube, among many others. It seems like not a day goes by where there is not another article discussing the revolutionary merits these websites have on changing the socio-cultural landscape.

    Another hot topic that has been getting an abundance of press coverage lately is that of the so-called ‘Millennial Generation’ – the primary users of these ‘social-networking’ tools. Much of the information reported about the Millennials tends to focus on profiling this generation, born between approximately 1980 and 2003, and how to manage their supposedly fickle and entitled dispositions in the workplace. Yet there has not been much discussion regarding the effect that this generation is going to have on the future of our cities.

    Of utmost importance to the Millennials and their sense of identity are the places in which they reside and have traveled to. In every MySpace and Facebook profile, photos abound showing the user in a plethora of different environments. Recently a viral video called ‘Where the hell is Matt?’ has been making the rounds on the internet. In the video, the young man Matt is shown dancing a jig in every corner of the globe with locals joining him wherever he happens to be. He covers enough ground to make even the most well-traveled Millennials envious. The message of the video is clear: that we are all united on this earth and can connect with each other through the universal languages of bad dancing and the internet. The final cut of the video, edited in a manner which shows each location for only a few fleeting seconds, causes one to wonder if the notion of place is of any value in contemporary society. At the end of ‘Where the hell is Matt?’ we are left with the feeling that the means which enabled Matt to produce and distribute the video are more relevant than the actual places he visited.

    The privilege of mobility, coupled with ‘experiencing’ a multitude of locales, both exotic and domestic, has contributed to Millennials having a complex frame of reference regarding civic milieu. Encouraged by their parents, Millennials will oftentimes attend college in cities far from their home – not to mention the obligatory semester studying abroad and even the possibility of attending graduate school in yet another place. Others choose to join organizations like the Peace Corps that enables them to participate in community service and live somewhere off the beaten path simultaneously.

    Due to the ease of movement and the blasé attitude towards staying put, the city becomes a commodity – another item to be consumed and talked about fashionably at cocktail parties. Whereas migration patterns have traditionally been based on economic opportunity, the ability to choose one’s city based on lifestyle is the equivalent of making a selection from a platter of pastries.

    There is even a growing discourse regarding this concept. Earlier this year, a book titled ‘Who’s Your City?’ by the urban theorist Richard Florida came out touting itself as a guide for choosing which city to live in. Though Florida does factor in considerations like what cities are good for certain industries, the premise still weighs heavily on the idea of the city as a fashionable piece of merchandise for consumption.

    The disjointed and schizophrenic city hopping would lead most to believe that Millennials, perennially insatiable, would be deep in a perpetual state of malaise due to frayed social connections. On the contrary, it is the new geography of communication technology, easy access to email, and the aforementioned social networking websites that has allowed them to stay in contact with their peers no matter where they happen to be.

    The transient nature of Millennials begs the question of where they will ultimately end up settling. With older Millennials now approaching their late 20s, settling down, getting married and starting a family is becoming more of a consideration. Despite all the hype of a return to the inner city, the jury is still out on whether the majority of Millennials will choose to raise families in a part of town where there is a dearth of amenities for children. Though young and single Millennials may have momentary love affairs with the much sought after superstar cities like New York, San Francisco and Boston, the restrictive cost of living coupled with questions of safety and quality of public schools will weigh heavily on their decision.

    Coincidentally, it is the climate of connectivity that will allow Millennials to keep in touch with aspects of city life, even as they move back to suburbs to raise families. Though the desire for a larger living space, a backyard and a clean neighborhood may become more important than being in close proximity to the newest nightclubs and celebrity chef owned restaurants, an interest in civic engagement will most likely not wane.

    One thing Millennials excel at compared to other generations is their ability to distill vast quantities of information – simply because they have been exposed to much more of it. This in turn has made them much more open to diversity – both in terms of culture and modes of thought. The implication here is that if they are to move back to the suburbs, the concept of a ‘suburb’ to them is no longer that of a homogenous place where life is ultimately dull and boring. Some prime examples of this new concept of the suburb can be found on the San Francisco Bay Peninsula with the renaissance of towns like Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Redwood City, where tech companies, both large and small, are in close proximity to many of their employee’s homes. Each of these towns has a thriving downtown, an assortment of ethnic restaurants, and even independent coffee shops and art house movie theaters.

    What exactly does this mean for the future of the big cities? Big cities are definitely not going away – even as Millennials begin leaving to start families. Big cities may no longer have the edge up over suburbs when it comes to diversity, access to information and social cohesion, but the physical form of older cities, including density and architecture, will become a living museum to times before the age of the internet when physical proximity was necessary for commerce and personal interaction. In the future, Millennials will most likely reflect positively on the time when they lived in Manhattan in their 20s and paid $1800 a month for that cramped studio apartment they found on Craigslist. By that time, chances are they may even be encouraging their own children to ‘go out and discover the world’ just like their Baby Boomer parents did for them.

  • Letter from the Ephemeral City

    “How is it living in a real city now?” friends and family ask with smug earnestness now that I reside in much coveted San Francisco. The response ranges from a straightforward ‘nice’ to a heated diatribe against their assumption that the city to the south I resided in for the previous seven years was not a ‘real’ city. The defense of Los Angeles is futile to those who won’t listen – those who judge it based on what has been projected through television and movies: unrelenting smog, apocalyptic fires, drug addicted actresses, road rage wars and the like.

    Yet there is never any need to defend my recent move to San Francisco – a supposed paragon of progressiveness loved by people from all corners of the globe (aside from the right wing media who will use any opportunity to poke fun at the political lunacy that often takes place here). Even the critics of San Francisco cannot deny the sheer beauty of the city’s geography: at the tip of a peninsula bounded by San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. Taking its georgraphy into account, it becomes readily apparent that San Francisco is what it is because of the Bay and ocean around it – the inhabitants and architecture are secondary. The city as we know it is merely an homage to the forces of nature.

    Beyond the spectacle of the Bay and the favorable weather, what impressions come to mind when San Francisco is mentioned? Aside from icons such as the Golden Gate Bridge, Alcatraz, and cable cars, most people remember the city for its historically liberal political climate.Who can forget about the Beat Generation, the Summer of Love and the Gay Rights Movement? There is no doubt that these social benchmarks have had positive reverberations throughout the world –leading to broader acceptance of a diversity of cultures and lifestyles and the elevation of the peace movement.

    Unfortunately, because of these successes, the city is currently suffering from an identity crisis in an attempt to live up to its past glory. The city is not unlike a child prodigy, who at a very early age garnered a lot clout but burned out before it was able to fully mature.

    It is a tragic observation that liberal politics has become a parody of itself within San Francisco. Just recently, when the Olympic torch for the 2008 Beijing Games arrived in the city, Mayor Gavin Newsom was forced to abruptly reroute the path of travel in order to avoid violent protests from disrupting the event. Even though the good Mayor was looking out for the reputation of his city, the majority of people who waited hours to witness the historic event ended the day in bitter disappointment.

    Also in the headlines recently, Barack Obama was chastised for making a disparaging remark about the people of rural Pennsylvania – a key voting block for that state’s primary election – at a dinner party in a donor’s mansion. Of course, the media subsequently put every effort into emphasizing the fact that Mr. Obama’s blunder was made in none other than San Francisco, the poster child of leftist elitism. Even pop culture outlets like the television show South Park and the stand-up comic Dave Chapelle have notably poked fun at the city and its hypocrisy.

    There is nothing wrong with liberal political viewpoints. After all, the United States is a country where individuals can freely express their voice for what they believe is fair and just. The breakdown occurs at the point in which the residents and politicians of San Francisco fail to realize that we have entered an era that has superseded identity politics. Instead of focusing on critical issues facing the city, being identified as part of the ‘left’ or any number of ‘special interest groups,’ is actually more important; hence, nothing gets done and real progress is hindered. In other words, the city no longer has a can-do attitude.

    Part of the reason for this has to do with the fact that for those who can actually afford to live comfortably in San Francisco, the quality of life is really good. It is not difficult for one to become complacent with the numerous cultural venues and fine dining and drinking establishment in this small city.

    It is also easy to forget about what actually makes a city function – like maintaining basic infrastructure, keeping the streets safe and clean, and making sure that the service workers, who are so critical to the prominent San Francisco tourist industry, are treated justly. These issues are not as glamorous to someone more focused on saving the world by ‘going green.’ For someone with a higher than average income, purchasing a sustainable good from a trendy yet over-priced ‘green’ boutique is sufficient for self-satisfaction – there is no need to face more urgent issues head-on.

    Like the fog that oftentimes comes in and shrouds the city in a white mist blurring the landscape, so is the ephemeral quality of the city itself. Only 760,000 residents strong and 47 square miles in area, the city can seem provincial. Trumped both in area and population by San Jose, just 50 miles to the south, the Silicon Valley has for the last 30 years or so become the business center of the Bay Area. Many outside the area are not aware that companies like Apple, Google, and Yahoo are headquartered in no-name suburbs with names like Cupertino, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale – a good 45-minute to an hour drive outside San Francisco.

    Actually, businesses have been leaving the city for some time now, yet many people who commute outside San Francisco still choose to live within the city limits, contributing to what is ironically called a ‘reverse commute.’ Lifestyle, in essence, is beating out commerce when it comes to the desirability of living in San Francisco. The implications are many for this observation due to the fact that in order for a city to continually be successful, it must promote the possibility of upward mobility and have an entrepreneurial spirit. In this regard, San Francisco is failing.

    Growing up in the Bay Area, my impressions of what a city is has been defined by my excursions with my family as a youngster to San Francisco. I would beg and plead my parents every weekend to take me to the city, just so I could be among the tall buildings, be in awe at the topography and views, and people watch in Union Square. Now I live here and the ephemeral feeling of being in a dream state is ever present. Yet, as I have grown older, I am savvy to the nuances of city life and complexities that go into making a place successful. I just hope that San Francisco can wake up out of its slumber, get out of its collective social hangover and take advantage of what cultural capital is left by once again becoming a place where change is possible and ordinary citizens have the opportunity to dream.

  • Adam Mayer