Westwood Gate - Housing, Transit and Public Space for the Next San Francisco Century
A concept-stage proposal that could create homes for over 6000 people and spark a transit revolution while adding acres of park and public space would be a win-win for everyone in the city. Are conservative south side neighborhood groups ready for change?
Story and concept images by Jon Schwark - @vjon on twitter
For those not familiar with the neighborhood, the 16-acre parking lot adjacent to CCSF and used by students during the day time seems like a vast ocean of underutilized space. The parcel, known as Balboa Reservoir, is a 16-acre site just off of Ocean Avenue that is owned by the Public Utilities Commission. Half a century ago it was slated to become a reservoir for the city water system, and the name stuck.
In the last decade, this site and the area to the south and east, came under the Balboa Park Station Area Plan. Approved in 2009, before the currently acute period of the decades long housing shortage, that plan included some relatively modest zoning changes along Ocean Avenue that have resulted in some small scale multifamily housing construction. The BPSA Plan also includes some historical renovations and notably, ambitious plans for a giant deck over the freeway between Ocean and Geneva to create better flow across the highway and connect the splintered neighborhoods to Balboa Park, the BART station, CCSF, and each other. (If you are interested in all the details, skim through the renderings and maps here.)
The vicinity around Balboa Reservoir. Click here to enlarge.
Last year, in an attempt to make a show of doing something to address the biggest issue facing the people of our fair city, the Mayor’s office included the PUC Balboa Reservoir land in the new "Public Land for Housing” program.
Those of us with our eyes on planning, zoning and the neighborhood gestalt realized that this meant the city was about to squander the largest undeveloped plot of land in the city that is 2 blocks from a subway station. There is a real chance that if neighbors have their way, the city will simply put in some row houses and a few 3-story projects and call it a day.
Many of the neighbors actually want it to stay a parking lot (CCSF), be turned into a park (Westwood Park residents), or be used for its original purpose as water storage. Possibly all three. Who can blame them really? Just on purely selfish grounds, if the city would give you a public park, a giant parking lot and a scenic lake right next to your house, what would you be asking for?
Vertical development offers more “place”
Westwood Gate Main Diagram. Click here to enlarge.
One of the benefits of vertical development is that you can sometimes have your cake and eat it too. Westwood Gate could easily triple or quadruple the amount of parking on the site. What if it could be done in a way that vast unused underground parking could be converted to vast underground water storage at some future date? It is within our power to come up with a plan that is parking and water storage neutral. We could actually create acres of new park space (much of it elevated, like the Transbay Terminal park). We could add other valuable public space like a piazza and arcade with shops restaurants.
We could even add a SkyTransit hub that eventually connected to towers across the entire Twin Peaks and South Side.
We could do all this AND add homes for 6000 people.
My proposal is one of several concepts being put forward by members of the San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation, a group I am active in that advocates for housing supply and jobs-housing balance across the region. You can see other proposals here as we post them. You can also see some of the public input on the plan to put housing on Balboa Reservoir on the community forum the planning department put up here.
Transit and housing in one structure
When you look at the project layout, the “SkyTransit” platforms between the double Pylon Towers stand out as the signature element of the project.
Although it sounds like science fiction, aerial lift systems are proven technologies that have recently been adapted to mass transit. You can read case studies for several cities that use them and see my sketch for a South Side of San Francisco system here.
The important thing to know is that SkyTransit (probably operated by Muni) would be the most cost effective way to provide frequent service to connect neighborhoods isolated by hills, highways, and suburban street patterns. Except for the stations and cars, the only expense is a steel cable. By building the station as part of the benefits package of a major development, a significant cost of the system is already paid for.
SkyTransit at night. Click here for larger image
A tower on Balboa Park Station’s parking lot and Westwood Gate could become the central interconnects between SkyTransit lines, Muni rail, bus, and BART. This would have a positive transformative effect on the lives of neighborhood residents and CCSF students. Adding transit and housing in the same structure addresses traffic and congestion concerns, especially on Ocean Avenue, and could open public transit to hill dwellers who never considered it possible before. It expands on the transit-oriented thinking of the Balboa Park Station area plan for the next generation. It also suggests new mini-plans that could crop up around each tower in the future, distributing future south side development in a fairly equitable way that leads to more transit and local services for everyone.
Back at Westwood Gate, there would probably be a platform level commuter mall, with a tourist view level and sky park, possibly a food court and destination restaurants. The potential for these elevated public spaces – very rare in San Francisco, but common in other big vertical cities – are endless. In a whole system, they would become a way of life for commuters of all classes in the most egalitarian possible way. As far as convenience goes, we could imagine a daycare and even school bus stops at Westwood Gate where people could drop off their kids as part of their routine, and get right back on the next car to Balboa Station on their way to work.
In the 750′ main Pylon Towers, I propose three categories of housing. First, high-end large units on the top floor to raise maximum capital for the project. This could be replaced or augmented by luxury hotel as needed to raise funds. In the middle levels, market rate housing, the largest group. Lastly, the bottom levels would be allocated for permanently affordable housing for a range of incomes. I’m going to leave you all to discuss the details of how many of what another day, with the caveat up front that this is going to be an expensive development.
The inner wrap of the low slung Park Building around the piazza could also accommodate smaller scale housing or hotel uses. I’m not adding those into the total. I think entertainment and neighborhood commercial are better uses there.
A second block and tower enmeshed in the Park Building structure called the Heritage Towers could be designated as market rate and retirement housing (mix to fund). It could also be used to for neighborhood musical chairs, with developers offering a lifetime retirement rental and cash annuities to owners of single family homes who wish to retire but stay in the neighborhood. If used right, this could free up even more real estate for further development adjacent to the site as the neighborhood becomes comfortable with and grows into its new scale over multiple decade time spans.
An optional housing development on the CCSF side of the parking lot could include a classroom or multipurpose pedestal, and student housing on top. I’m estimating that 2 to a room, about 1000 students could live here.
Just for fun, I’m going to suggest looking into Plyscraper technology for this component. Developed in Scandinavia and Vancouver, these use high tech bonded wood in place of steel beams. There is a green component to these buildings in that they don’t use a lot of cement, which is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Although they are very new, they are considered sturdy up to 30 or 40 stories in earthquake zones. These would be much lower.
One possible funding mechanism for the dorm (since we know CCSF tends to be “funding challenged”) would be to allow one or more of the towers to be leased to a hotel operator who was also contracted to run the dorms. Conceivably, more hotel rooms at the beginning of the buildings lifespan could pay off the construction. More hotel rooms could be interchangeable with dorms at a later date till a desired ratio of hotel to student housing was reached that could support the dorm upkeep and administration. The school could even turn some towers into retirement housing for employees. We all know that pensions are going to be an issue in the future, and a voluntary housing for pension swap could be a mutually beneficial option.
Alternately, the administration of CCSF could revive plans for an Art Center here if it were ready to shift gears and pull the trigger on that project. A redesigned Arts Center could also go at ground level between the double Pylon Towers on the PUC side of the lot, enmeshed into the Park Building in the rear. A smaller second stage could double as an IMAX or special event venue to pay for upkeep. It is understood that a large auditorium can’t have any sort of tower on top of it because of the need for a large unbroken space with no pillars.
Some may protest that CCSF shouldn’t be losing any more parking. Hopefully there will be ample parking under the Piazza, and with on-campus dorms and a great new transit system, fewer students will need to drive to school anyway. Otherwise, there is already the possibility of putting more parking under the dorms.
Research and historical influences
Can we still build monumental structures like this that add functionality, scale, and housing to our neighborhoods? No doubt the legal inertia and emotional resistance will be great. That said, it is not hopeless. No one complains about Coit Tower marring the landscape of Telegraph Hill, or the Bay Bridge blocking their view. They are beloved landmarks. I refuse to believe it is impossible for us to create something that lives up to that legacy.
As part of my research journey for this project, I studied the architectural forms of various iconic structures around the city to achieve a deep understanding of what would “feel right” to us as San Franciscans. I believe this elusive emotional connection is the most important ingredient in gaining acceptance for large buildings that would otherwise seem out of scale. What I realized is that over time, good architecture isn’t seen as imposing or disturbing the character of a neighborhood. It adds to the character of the neighborhood. It becomes the character of the neighborhood.
I also looked to traditional town center architecture and urban space in Europe. The Cathedral at Köln, Europe’s most visited tourist site, is beautifully out-of-scale with its surroundings. It was even more so when construction started in the Middle Ages. The Piazza form common in European cities, with its wide open spaces and arcades, has always been home to various sized structures. Those piazzas served as the nodes connecting the street system and activating public life.
Relationships to neighboring sites
We’ve already discussed optional CCSF elements, but one of the big requests planning has heard form the community is that the site should integrate well with CCSF. While the main Pylon Towers are oriented toward the Balboa Park Station SkyTransit terminal, the overall site plan does relate well to the main axis of the CCSF campus.
A new street down the southern edge of the property could provide auto access to the different levels of interior parking and delivery docks in the Park Building. Particular attention should be paid to the corner of Lee Avenue. The Avalon Hill development isn’t particularly friendly at its back, so the street would hug the wall to allow maximum green space and a wide walking path. Ground level trees will be important here to provide a visual step up to the park.
Note that the rooftop park will have
A lot more work could be done here, but you get the idea.
The west side of the development transitions to the Westwood Park neighborhood. The main feature here is an ample natural space buffer and a ground-level walking path (roughly corresponding to the current berm, but lower) with a new ramp up to the elevated park for “power joggers”. Pedestrian permeability at the ground floor should include several entrances through to the inner Piazza and elevators up to the park that line up with the Westwood Park street structure. The main goal here is to provide maximum pedestrian access through to the arcade while still maintaining a green privacy buffer for the adjoining residential neighborhood that improves on the existing berm. Property facing back yards of residents should still get great light for much of the day, and the tall building to the west will mostly be blocking light only in the evenings when the berm and trees already did anyway. What people will see out of their back windows is a park that slopes up a bit higher but farther away than the berm was. It might have a few skylights.
Continued greenscaping will wrap around around the northwest corner, with the edge pulled back for shadow mitigation leaving a ground level natural green space about the same size as the baseball diamond. The sports field will be shadowed during midday, but will still get good light in the morning and late afternoon. Overall it will still get more natural light than the turf in most professional sports stadiums. The sculpted hillside of the public elevated park would be a great place for students to watch practices and games after school. On the far north of the stadium, neighbors will only get a couple of hours of shadow a day, often less than what they get from existing greenery in their back yards. As you get further from the property, shadowed time drops exponentially.
Conclusion - Politics and Reality
I am completely aware that the first reaction many will have on seeing these plans will be a nervous chuckle under their breath as if to say “Oh dear God, THAT will never happen.” My proposal is absurdly large by San Francisco neighborhood standards. I think i have shown how most of these are manageable and outweighed by the significant public benefits. Nevertheless, there are always endless excuses and roadblocks to be made when people don’t want to think outside their comfort zone. Becasue of very broad interpretations of State “environmental” law (CEQA), shadows, views, construction noise, congestion, parking, and the highly amorphous concept of “neighborhood character” are all legally entrenched levers of power that can be used to block even the tiniest apartment building in San Francisco. Zoning and process are considered sacrosanct in San Francisco, even to the point of damaging our ability to do ANYTHING.
Historically speaking, we know there were people who had the same types of complaints about the Golden Gate Bridge and the Transbay Tube. What is different is that our current entitlement process gives immediate neighbors a tremendous amount of power over what happens near them. It is doubtful that any of San Francisco’s iconic projects could get built today.
In reality though, if not current political practice, everyone in our shared housing market has a legitimate interest in how Balboa Reservoir gets used. Certainly all residents of San Francisco are co-owners of this public property, and have a right to have a say in what happens there.
Unfortunately, most functionaries of the political and planning process know the resistance and inertia will be massive, and would probably prefer to just get something built with as little screaming and legislative hassle as possible and move on to the next task. We should demand more of them.
Remember, the scale of our current problems are also massive. In terms of housing, we could calculate on the back of a napkin that with 200k households overpaying by at least $1000 a month for housing, San Franciscans are probably burning through $2.5 BILLION a year due to artificially induced shortage conditions. Our elected leaders wring their hands and say “If only it were possible to actually build enough housing we could solve this issue." We constantly hear from residents that this part of the city is at a breaking point in terms of traffic. Nearby but hard to access neighborhoods are farther from downtown (by time travelled) than much of Oakland.
Today I bring you news of a magical third dimension that can multiply the number of houses we can put on a given area of land. We can use this dimension to send traffic over the top of existing roads and hills. The only thing standing in our way are mental roadblocks and pieces of paper. All we have to do is look up.
I should admit here, at the end of our journey, that I am not an architect or urban planner by trade. At best this version of the Westwood Gate concept should be considered a sort of speculative fiction – an evocation of the spirit of Adolph Sutro, the Earthquake Reconstructors, and the Bridge Builders that made our city one of the most beautiful places on earth. I have put in the time and research to make this proposal worthy of your consideration, but to become a reality, I recognize it would need to be changed beyond recognition or at least greatly improved upon by people who know far more than I do.
It is delivered here to inspire you all to create the the city the future citizens of San Francisco deserve. We will all need to think long term, dream big and act selflessly to solve our current problems. Let’s at least require our politicians, planners, and anyone dismissing Westwood Gate as "fantasy” to present their own alternatives that aspire to these higher motives.
If you want to help solve the housing crisis in San Francisco, come to the planning meeting the evening of May 5th or any meetings and activities we have in the future. Go to SFBARF.ORG for more info.
Story and concept images by Jon Schwark - @vjon on twitter.
You may use photos without permission if you credit the concept and link back to this post.
