The Yard at Mission Rock

Last month at a SPUR forum entitled Activating San Francisco's Southeast Waterfront, I learned more about the history and current activity in this unique part of the city. I do know a few things about this area, as my best friend works at a restaurant off 3rd and 16th Streets. First, it doesn't really feel like San Francisco. The streets are wider, it lacks car and people traffic, and empty lots, parking lots, and big commercial style buildings are common. It doesn't feel walkable, especially absent storefronts and housing - I kind of feel like an ant walking around in a giant maze-park when I'm here, and this doesn't happen often in this city. Part of this may be due to the spot's shipyard history, or maybe because of the large UCSF/Mission Bay campus. Nonetheless, I will definitely agree with SPUR that this tiny 1-mile stretch of SF will blow up in the coming years. Based on proximity alone, but also with the Warriors Stadium going up at the 3rd and 16th Street intersection, and being connected to the waterfront as well as MUNI, this place has a lot of potential. 

The point of this post, though, was to draw special attention to the Yard at Mission Rock, a "pop-up shipping container village" located in this neighborhood across the water from AT&T Park. The space is a "unique neighborhood gathering spot created out of repurposed shipping containers to provide daily shopping, food and beverage & cultural and community events." This concept curiously reminded me of my experience at Papirøen, a "public space experiment" in Copenhagen, Denmark. Much like Papirøen, a re-purposed public space that once served as paper storage, the "Yard" at Mission Rock once housed shipping containers. I think it's a beautiful comparison and more importantly an incredible idea to conduct an "experiment" that draws people to a place that was formerly off-limits or separate from the public. It's a chance to use the space without much planning or construction, and to quite literally experiment with how people interact with and feel about a space. Whether the space will turn into something else, time will tell, but for now it's a great way to make use of it! 
 

It's quiet today, but I bet it's poppin' on game day.

HUGE parking lot at the old Port of SF

Eat, drink, socialize, rest.

Welcoming space facing the ball park.

Step across the street to China Basin to get next to the water.

Wide streets...lots of potential :)

Pano!

Must Watch! Kent Larson: Brilliant designs to fit more people in every city

Measuring the Health Effects of Sprawl

Smart Growth America  published the first national study to establish a direct association between the form of the community and the health of the people who live there... over a decade ago. The report that was also covered by BBC, the New York Times, USA Today, and NPR confirms the adverse relationship between urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity, and morbidity. The results are not surprising. Here's what we found out:

• people living in counties marked by sprawling development are likely to walk less and weigh more than people who live in less sprawling counties
• sprawling counties are more likely to suffer from high blood pressure
• the results hold true for factors of age, education, gender, race, ethnicity
• people in sprawling areas are missing out on significant health benefits that are available simply by walking, biking, climbing stairs, and being active as a part of everyday life
• 55 percent of Americans would like to walk more instead of driving;
• 52 percent would like to bike more

Now, onto the shocking part: We've been building, are building, and will continue to build communities - and not just ex-urban, but places we classify as cities - that prove detrimental to our health (think of many southeastern cities, like Atlanta). Instead we should be putting limits to our growth and thinking about maximizing space and becoming as efficient as possible. There are several reasons to do so besides the health benefits; less reliance on automobiles as well as the non-renewable fuel sources that come with transportation, conservation and preservation of land and habitat, the ability to create a more localized economy, closer-knit communities, etc. For starters that means less parking lots which is essentially dead space that promote driving. It's alarming that in some cities parking space covers a third of the land area, becoming such a dominant feature of our built environment that it has started to define it. Such dull environments obstruct our motivation and creativity. Limiting growth also means establishing city limits, mixed-use zoning regulations, transit-oriented development, narrow streets, and not just dense but compact development.

While American cities may not have much on our European counterparts, below are the 10 cities with the largest share of their populations in functional urban cores (most compact), and they may compare the closest. It wouldn't come as a surprise if some of these cities were also the most fit.
 

1. New York City (97.3 percent)

2. Buffalo (94.5 percent)

3. San Francisco (94.0 percent)

4. Boston (89.7 percent)

5. Hartford (87.4 percent)

6. Providence (86.5 percent)

7. St. Louis (84.1 percent)

8. Minneapolis (83.5 percent)

9. District of Colombia (83.4 percent)

10. Philadelphia (83.4 percent)

These should be the years for compact growth, urban infill, core renewal. How much containment and smart growth is possible? Hopefully the possibilities are not endless - at least spatially. But it all starts with a plan. 

_________

Sources & Links:

Measuring the Health Effects of Sprawl / Smart Growth America 

Almost Half of America's Biggest Cities Are Basically Built Like Giant Suburbs 

Urban Cores, Core Cities and Principal Cities  

America's Suburb Future

Urban vs. Suburban Growth in U.S. Metros 

U.S. Cities Are Slowing But Suburbs Are Growing

City Sprawl from 2000-2010 / CityLab 

Most Sprawling US Cities by Rank / CityLab

Parking Lots as Public Spaces / NY Times

Street Design Shapes Lifestyle

Picture this:

You live in the neighborhood on the left where the streets were designed with the passive approach. You have errands to run so you get in your car, driving from store to store, even though each store is located just a few hundred feet from each other. You get into your car, likely just to drive across the street and park in another massive and identical looking parking lot. Get out of your car, get back into your car, spend 5-10 minutes to travel .02 miles. Your errands take 2 or 3 hours out of your Saturday.

Or picture this:

You live in a "proactively-designed-streets" neighborhood, and you spend 5-20 minutes a day, stopping for your errands down the block as you walk home from work/school/etc.

What lifestyle sounds more appealing? Which is better for health, happiness, and what is easier on our natural resources?

________

Image adapted from the National Association of Transportation Officials Urban Street Design Guide

TED Talk: Jeff Speck, Walkable Cities

Highlights

• Invest in walkability: Portland as a great example
• Has fundamentally changed how Portlanders live
• Portlanders drive 20% less than the average American, they are saving 3% of their GDP, and are able to spend that on recreation
• Educated, young people are moving there in droves; it's a place people want to be because it offers a quality of life that people want
• 2004: Urban Sprawl and Public Health
• The suburbs are killing us and the cities can save us
• Obesity, diabetes, etc.
• Urban/Suburban lifestyle relates to diet, but it seems to correlate even more with inactivity
• The American health care crisis is really an urban design crisis, with walkability at the heart of the cure
• The correlation between sustainability of communities and quality of life
• Does "being sustainable" make our quality of life better? No. The things that make us sustainable make our lives better. That thing is living in a walkable community
• How to get people to walk? Requirements:
• A reason to walk (balance of uses)
• A safe walk (reality and perception)
• A comfortable walk (space and orientation)
• An interesting walk (signs of humanity)

More from Jeff Speck

TED Talk: Amanda Burden, Cities, Public Spaces

Everything Amanda says in on point.

Start watching at 14:10

The New York High-line: an elevated railway running through 3 Manhattan neighborhoods that once carried trains but has been converted into a green public space.

"You know, it's true, commercial interests will always battle against public space. You might say, "How wonderful it is that more than four million people come from all over the world to visit the High Line." Well, a developer sees just one thing: customers. Hey, why not take out those plantings and have shops all along the High Line? Wouldn't that be terrific and won't it mean a lot more money for the city? Well no, it would not be terrific. It would be a mall, and not a park. (Applause) And you know what, it might mean more money for the city, but a city has to take the long view, the view for the common good." 

I love and firmly stand behind the general idea that an investment in public spaces for people and greenery should be valued over commercial or economic interests. When you make an investment in public spaces that positively contribute to peoples' health and well-being, you are making a higher impact and longer-term investment in that place as a whole. SOCIAL CAPITAL.

Understanding Human Needs and Well Being

In order to dive deeper into one of my greatest interests (urban design for well being), it's necessary to understand what contributes to individuals' well being. The meeting of basic human needs are the foundation for a healthy and happy life, but also the foundation for a lifestyle characterized by high living standards on a societal level.
I start by looking at two popular definitions of fundamental human needs. Ultimately it boils down to physiological (physical) and psychological (mental) needs.

1. Manfred Max-Neef's fundamental human needs:

Subsistence
Protection
Affection
Understanding
Participation
Leisure
Creation
Identity
Freedom

2. Maslow's Hierarchy of needs:


In addition to these, and to take things a step further, I will share my own ideas about basic well being. Within the past year, these ideas have come up at least twice; first in working with and learning about Native American culture and second in reading Stephen Covey's "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People." Each time it comes up I not only gain new insights but it reinforces its importance to and relevance in my interests. 

Paraphrasing Covey:

"Human nature is four dimensional -- body, mind, heart, and spirit.
Body - healthy, preventative 
Mind - continuous education, broad and deep
Heart - serving others brings great fulfillment and joy; deep, respectful listening
Spirit - recognize that the source of our basic need for meaning and of the positive things we seek in life is principles or external natural laws

Native American Medicine Wheel

An individual's balance of the mental, spiritual, emotional, physical aspects creates beauty and harmony.

 















Covey Principles: fairness, integrity, honesty, human dignity, service, quality/excellence, potential/growth, patience, nurturance, encouragement)
Anishinaabe/Indigenous Principles: love, respect, truth/honesty, generosity, bravery/courage, wisdom, humility

A quote from Max-Neef acknowledges a necessary balance: "Human needs must be understood as a system; that is, all human needs are interrelated and interactive. With the sole exception of the need of subsistence, that is, to remain alive, no hierarchies exist within the system. On the contrary, simultaneities, complementarities and trade-offs are characteristics of the process of needs satisfaction."
 
How does well being relate to urban planning? I'd like to make several points. 

First, as more people move into urban areas, cities need to be places where peoples' basic needs are met, both physically and (arguably a more difficult challenge, especially in developed nations) mentally. I would argue that effective urbanization is one of the majors conflicts of our time. How we urbanize - whether we plan sustainably for the future or not - dictates how we use energy and resources, and in turn, implications for a changing global climate. In the 12,000 year history of "human civilization" (characterized by the onset of the Agriculture Revolution), 2006 marked the first year that the majority of the worlds population make their home in an urban area. As people migrate from rural to urban, the scales at which life has always existed are transformed. Simple turns complex. In this transformation, and most importantly, basic human needs must be met in order to create and build upon a functioning society. In some ways, the natural laws and principles that have guided us for thousands of years are lost in translation. For the first time in history, millions of people are congregating in a geographic location and competing for the limited resources that meet basic needs. 

Second, just as human needs are to be understood as a system, cities require this same school of thought, and must function under the constraints of the resources, economy, and people/culture of that place. Furthermore, when these factors are in balance with each other, the product is harmony, beauty, and flourishing individuals. Since everything is connected, looking at the city as a whole is a necessary part of urban planning and design.

To summarize, I believe that contributes of well being can and should be expanded to include principles of urban design; particular elements are conducive to positive lives and overall well being. And not just in the physical aspects of needs and well being, but mentally as well. Personal well being can inform design for life at urban levels; being physically healthy plays a huge role in well being; commuting by bicycle keeps you physically fit and has been proven to boost your mood - inclusively leading to greater well being. And, as we continue learn more about the human brain and study the relationship between city life and quality of life, we will only gain insights about the factors that will allow people to live life to their fullest. It's time to explore those patterns and rules and project them onto our cities.


Sources:
Wikipedia 
Max-Neef; quote
Maslow
Action for Happiness

A Cycle Utopia: Copenhagen, DK

This post is intended to make a point about what prioritizing bicycle infrastructure can accomplish.

In a previous post I mention numerous benefits to bicycle commute. Read it here if you don't know why biking is so amazing. But, for me, the single most fascinating statistic about the bicycle culture in Copenhagen is the reason most people (56%) give for why they bike: "it's faster and more convenient." 

Um. What? I want to live in a place where it's easier to get to work, school, etc., by bike than it is by car. Can someone please start redesigning my city...now? What many people don't realize (besides the fact that a bicycle utopia is a real place) is that it is entirely possible to make this happen. You just need the right people pursuing the right priorities; a pretty stellar template exists for how to do it.

From a recent Copenhagen news source:

"We say that we don’t have a bicycle culture – we just have lots of people riding their bike. It’s like a ‘Vacuum Cleaner Culture’ — a tool to make their everyday life easier.” Said Mie Dyreberg Haldrup at Copenhagenize Design Co., an urban planning company which works closely with the City of Copenhagen’s Bicycle Office.

“It’s simply not (entirely) a question of branding ourselves as sustainable and healthy, but just a matter of getting quick and easy from A to B. We call it ‘A2Bism’.” Said Haldrup.

Many residents think the same, since according to a government poll, 56 percent of interviewed residents said the reason they bike is because “it’s faster and more convenient”.

The point is not that biking is great for a number of different reasons. The point is that biking is the fastest and most convenient way to get from point A to point B AND that biking is great for all those other reasons. But it's also just funny that Copenhageners could care less about biking being good for reasons x, y, z; they do it because it's easiest. And the only reason it's easiest for ~40% of commuters to bike rather than drive is because the city is being designed and advancing this way.

"Basically, Copenhagen is a great role model for other cities around the world considering the infrastructure, where cyclists has a great priority.” Said Haldrup. “The bicycle infrastructure of Copenhagen is intuitive, well designed and the city takes cycling seriously as transport and not as a fringe activity. We focus on ‘Citizen Cyclists'"

So... what can prioritizing bicycle infrastructure accomplish? Remember, this could be anyone's city.

You really have to see to believe how beautifully the CPH bike system works (my pictures do not do justice):

Stranded, broken down bikes everywhere? It could be worse... (I am Legend, anyone?)

President Clinton Lecture on Public Service

First Lecture by President Bill Clinton at Georgetown University in May 2013.

Below I paraphrase parts of the lecture (it's long!) that resonate with me and fit well with the themes of this blog:

• Twenty-first century citizenship requires us to do some public good as a private citizen - around the corner, or around the world, in public office, or out. Compose a life where service is important. It is important because the world is so interdependent and full of opportunities.
• The world we are living in is clearly unsustainable. There is too much inequality and too much instability.
• Public service work has four requirements. One, you should be obsessively interested in people, especially people who are different from you. You should want to understand them and understand how they perceive the world and understand what they need and what their dreams are. Two, you should care about principles - about the end of all this. What is the purpose of service? What's the role of government, what are the roles of the NGOs, how do you organize this in your mind, why are you doing this? Three, what are the policies that you believe will advance these purposes? And four, what are the politics of the situations? How are you going to turn your good intentions into real changes? People, purpose, policies, and politics. To me, the most important thing is the first.
• This might be my favorite quote of this lecture. I am deeply motivated by people and purpose and these words substantiate my passion for serving people in the realm of urban design. And of course the policies and politics are also important when it comes to planning cities.  
• Most people get in real trouble and abuse power when they forget that the purpose of their power is not to impose their will on others but to let other people be empowered to live their own lives better, or as I always say, to have better stories.
• Don't belittle people who know less than you do or have less than you do... what we have in common in our soul is important.
• Americans are not hearing enough stories from other people, from people are are different from themselves. And it's a big mistake... We have one remaining bigotry in America: we just don't want to be around anybody that disagrees with us. People are organizing massive living patterns in this country around being with somebody that agrees with them.
• The purpose of service is to help other people. Not to make you feel good about yourself, although you will. Not to impose everything you think should be done on other people. But to create a world where we can all live together, because it’s so interdependent. If we don’t, the consequences to us, to our families, to our future will be adverse and severe.
• Every place in the world where they’re trying to cooperate, they’re doing pretty well. Every place in the world that elevate our differences over our common humanity. Where we can no longer hear what people who are different from us are saying, where our ears our closed and minds are more closed – there is trouble. 
• I believe that it’s very important that every person in your generation have a worldview. We need a common understanding of what is the nature of the modern world. What are it’s biggest challenges, opportunities. What evidence do we have about how best we can deal with them.