Back to the Waterfront
Before and after the Embarcadero Freeway
Elizabeth Boyd CPLN 752
April 15, 2005
- 1 - TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...... 3
HISTORY...... 4
THE FERRY BUILDING...... 4 THE RISE OF THE CAR...... 4 TRANSIT FIRST...... 6
WATERFRONT ...... 7
POST-FREEWAY DEVELOPMENT ...... 7 NORTHEASTERN WATERFRONT PLAN ...... 9
EARTHQUAKE...... 10
URBAN DESIGN STRATEGY...... 12
FERRY BUILDING AREA ...... 12 UPLAND AREA...... 15 EMBARCADERO CORRIDOR ...... 22
CONCLUSION ...... 23
BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 26
- 2 - Introduction In 1989, an earthquake centered more than 50 miles south of San Francisco had a lasting impact on the development of the city and its waterfront. The fifteen seconds of shaking did what decades of activism and political will had not been able to achieve. The city was finally able to move forward on what so many had spent decades of planning on, hoping to accomplish. The earthquake did not bring changes by itself. In fact, if it had not been for the forward thinking of certain politicians and planners, the post- Figure 1: Ferries and trolleys meet at the Ferry Building earthquake San Francisco waterfront could have continued http://www.harborcourthotel.com/hcthist/index.html in the same patterns that it had experienced before. The earthquake merely opened the door to the plans and hopes that had been waiting to step out into the light. The resulting development on the waterfront has brought its designers and the city acclaim and recognition. Boston reporter, Robert
Campbell, stated that “There's a lot to be learned from things that San Francisco has tried, some good and some not so good.”1
In order to learn from San Francisco’s waterfront revitalization, this paper will bring the reader through the history leading up to the city’s disengagement from its waterfront and what brought the city back. It will cover the design that reunited the city and its waterfront, how and how well the design was implemented. Because most of the design/hopes/aspirations have been built, this paper will also critique what is on the ground and how well it fulfills the dreams and plans of its planners and how well it works for those visiting the area.
1 Campbell, Robert Bay watch May 14, 2002 Boston Globe http://www.boston.com/beyond_bigdig/cases/sanfrancisco/index.shtml
- 3 - History The Ferry Building The story that leads up to the Embarcadero project is closely tied to transportation and the changing views on it. Changing policies regarding preferred modes of transportation have been one of the most pressing forces on the development surrounding the Ferry Building. After the gold rush, San Francisco began to grow steadily. Like many cities, San Francisco grew up around its water. Figure 2: Bay Bridge constructed http://www.discountgraphics.net/photo-sbloom/sbloom/sbferry.html Its only connection to other communities in the
Bay Area was through an extensive ferry system. The waterfront was a lively place that welcomed visitors and was used constantly. And at the center of activity was the Ferry Building. A wooden ferry house had been built in 1875 but the amount of traffic that came through on the ferries called for a larger structure. The Ferry Building was planned and designed starting in 1892 as an impressive and welcoming structure, with a clock tower to “serve as a welcoming beacon on the Bay.”2 The new building opened to commuters in 1898. Commuters streamed in and out, up to 100,000 a day at the height of its use. It stood proudly at the terminus of Market Street on the San Francisco Bay and
San Francisco met at the Ferry Building. As you can see in Figure 1, the Ferry Building welcomed ferries on its bayside and trolleys on its city-side.
The Rise of the Car 1936 dawned a new day for the Ferry Building area. It was in this year that the Bay Bridge was finished and opened to automobile and train traffic. With the popularity of the automobile came the
2 Ferry Building marketplace History of the Ferry Building 1998 http://www.ferrybuildingmarketplace.com/html/history.html
- 4 - demise of the Ferry Building’s prominence. Ferry service slowed to the Ferry Building and then
stopped altogether.
Mass transit around the city followed the same
pattern as the ferries. The share of transit trips of
those visiting downtown San Francisco steadily
decreased from 82.6% in 1912 to 40.9% in 1965
while auto travel increased. 3 Slowly, the trolleys
that ran down Market Street were retired; cable Figure 3: 1948 Transportation Plan http://www.spur.org/documents/000701_report_01.shtm car routes were fewer and fewer. The kind of development that had caused all San Francisco to be gathered around the old transportation centers like the Ferry Building was no longer relevant in the auto-dominated age. Guided by the federal program to build a nationwide network of highways, a transportation plan adopted by the planning commission in
1948 highlighted the new emphasis on the car. A more expansive plan, the Trafficways plan, was adopted in 1951 and money for implementation made available soon after through state gas tax funds. The first of the freeways to open was the Bayshore Freeway in 1953. In 1956, the San
Francisco Chronicle published a map showing all the Figure 4: 1951 Trafficways Plan From presentation given by Rebecca Kohlstrand planned freeways and mentioned detractors to the freeways.4 As soon as the freeways became a reality, people began to change their minds about whether they really wanted them. By the time the Embarcadero freeway was under construction, so
3 Kohlstrand, Rebecca APA Conference 2005 Aging Infrastructure’s Silver Lining 4 Carlsson, Chris The Freeway Revolt http://www.bikesummer.org/1999/zine/freewayRevolt.htm
- 5 - was the “Freeway Revolt, triggered by the advancing Embarcadero Freeway and planned obliteration
of the Golden Gate Park Panhandle.”5
Decades of complacence about the changing transportation context ended in fights against the
California highway department that were headed by Casper Weinberger, a lawyer and backed up by
the many thousands of citizens that turned up
to protest at Supervisor public hearings or
sign petitions. By the time the Embarcadero
freeway was finished in 1959, most of the rest
of the highway grid had been removed from
the plan. Although it was too late to save the
Ferry Building and that waterfront area, the Figure 5: “Save us from the Freeway” northern waterfront was spared the ignominy Urban Design Strategy
of a bulwark-like freeway construction.
Transit First The changing attitude that the “freeway revolt” highlighted not only revealed itself through stopping
highway construction, it also raised awareness in San Francisco of the need for transit. This change of attitude about the rising ascendancy of cars began to show itself through city policy. A successful proposal for the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system was made in 1957 and approved in 1962. In
1973, the planning commission and the board of supervisors adopted the “Transit First” policy. This policy stated that the city should not expand highway capacity, that increased demand should be accommodated via transit, that parking should not be expanded in the downtown area, and that the pedestrian environment should be enhanced.
5 Walker, Richard A. The Battle to Save San Francisco, 1960-1990 Working Paper February 1997 http://geography.berkeley.edu:16080/PeopleHistory/faculty/R_Walker/AnAppetiteForTheCity.html
- 6 -
BART was built and opened for service to San Francisco in 1974. Although the original plan for
BART did not include a station at the Embarcadero because of the nature of the state financing, San
Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) led a lobbying effort to fund such a station. In the 1970s a return to transit was seen as the share of transit trips began to grow, auto trips shrank, ferry system was restored to Marin, and San Francisco expanded its transit service with
surface and subway light-rail.
Waterfront Post-freeway development The “freeway revolt” and subsequent policies were effective for the portions of San Francisco that
did not already have a freeway. But for the waterfront separated from the city by the Embarcadero,
it was too late. In the 1940s and 50s, the
port was active and dirty. It was treated
more as a back door service area than an
important commodity. Additionally,
downtown was still several blocks away. The
Ferry Building was inactive. The
Embarcadero freeway was built in front of
Figure 6: View down Market St. from Ferry Building - 1964 the Ferry Building in the late 50s, at a time http://webbie1.sfpl.org/multimedia/sfphotos/AAB-6611.jpg when it was no longer in use for ferries,
when the city was far enough away that no one imagined the waterfront as a vital part of the city and
when the port activities were considered unattractive.
- 7 - At the same time that San Francisco was implementing its “Transit First” policy, downtown was beginning to grow towards the bay. But by that time, the damage had been done. The Embarcadero freeway had been built and stood as a wall that could be seen from far down Market Street. In 1971, a design for Justin Herman Plaza, directly west of the freeway and north of Market, included landscaping that attempted to hide the freeway as well as a large, industrial design fountain designed by Francois Vaillancourt. In addition to hiding the freeway, new ways that the waterfront could be brought back to life were considered.
One of these ideas was a
retail/restaurant and
marina complex that
would have been located
adjacent to the Ferry
Building. This project
ultimately was built on
Pier 39 in 1978. Although
it was very successful, it
also raised awareness and
fears for San Franciscans Figure 7: Pier 39 Before and After http://webbie1.sfpl.org/multimedia/sfphotos/AAC-2374.jpg that worried that tourist- oriented development would take over the waterfront. San Franciscans began to question where their waterfront was and how future waterfront development could serve them. “San Francisco voters
- 8 - narrowly passed Proposition H, the waterfront planning proposition, in 1990. It forbade hotels on
the waterfront, and indeed, any development until a master plan was developed by the port.”6
Northeastern Waterfront Plan In part to address these concerns, a planning effort for the Northeastern Waterfront was put
underway in the late 70s. The 1980 version of the Northeastern Waterfront Plan and the studies and
surveys that contributed to it made several policy recommendations. It “called for the demolition of the freeway and reconfirmed the value of the waterfront as a unique resource which needs to be
reintegrated with the city. It reconfirmed the role of the Embarcadero as a point of embarkation and arrival for maritime uses as well as an open space and recreational corridor of citywide significance.
The plan called for the diversion of automobile traffic away from the water’s edge and the improvement of the roadway to better serve transit, pedestrian and bicycle functions.”7
Influenced by the plan, the board of supervisors decided to remove the Embarcadero freeway. Funding had been available to extend Interstate 280 to connect into the
Embarcadero structure. Early in the process, it was decided that this should not happen and the funding from that project was diverted to demolishing the Embarcadero and improving the surface street. The mayor and the board were all on board with the planning. In 1985, the city approved the plans and set aside $80 million to improve the
Embarcadero roadway with wider sidewalks, art, a new Figure 8: Ferry Building Tower Tyler Pollesch historic street car line, and other improvements. Tearing
6 SPUR History of SPUR http://www.spur.org/about_history.shtm 7 ROMA Central Embarcadero Urban Design Strategy June 2003 Pg 1
- 9 - down the Embarcadero was put on the ballot in 1986 and was voted down. San Franciscans may not have liked the freeway, but they liked the unknown even worse.
Earthquake It is rare that one gets the chance to undo a mistake that they have regretted. Rarer still to be able to recover what is lost after all subsequent efforts to rectify a situation have been unsuccessful. But on October 17, 1989 San Francisco was given a chance to reclaim the waterfront that it had separated itself from when the Embarcadero freeway was
completed in Figure 9: Damage to the Nimitz Freeway 1956. The 7.1 http://www.ladder54.com/Photosmisc.htm
scale earthquake struck in early evening; its epicenter
more than 50 miles south of San Francisco. The damage
was shocking and immediate. “Interstate 280 rocked so
viciously during the earthquake that sections of the
freeway slammed into one another, cracking off pieces.
Some columns actually fractured, exposing the
reinforcing steel in places where the concrete
disintegrated. The Embarcadero Freeway along the
Waterfront was nearly destroyed by the shaking, though
8 Figure 10: Damage to the Bay Bridge Caltrans said it could be repaired.” http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/docs/geologic/ca/dds-29/bay_bridge.html
8 SF Museum San Francisco Earthquake History http://www.sfmuseum.org/alm/quakes3.html
- 10 - In the damage that the freeways had sustained, freeway opponents saw a once-in-a-lifetime
opportunity. San Franciscans had a reputation for not liking change. In 1986, although there was
great support for tearing down the freeway, a ballot measure to do so had been voted down. But
now there were new choices that the earthquake had made available. Caltrans said that the freeway
could be repaired but the “Transit First” policy established in the 1970s said that money should be
spent on pedestrian and transit improvements. Because this policy existed and the planning had
already been established, Mayor Agnos immediately asked that the freeway come down. The board of supervisors also voted for the freeway to come down and voted for its demolition which began in
1991 and continued until 1993.
Damage from 1989 earthquake was also responsible for helping to influence another policy for
positive change. During the earthquake, a huge panel of the top deck of the Bay Bridge had fallen
onto the lower. Because
of this, the east bay was
cut off from a direct
auto route to the city
and ferries were used to
fill the gaps. This
highlighted how vital
maintaining a
connection via a ferry Figure 11: Urban Design Concept Sketch system was and gave Urban Design Strategy more impetus towards
bringing back a waterfront that was useable for transit.
- 11 - Urban Design Strategy In order to accomplish the goals the city had already outlined in the Northeastern Waterfront Plan the city worked with ROMA design group to create an urban design strategy for the newly uncovered waterfront area; to tie it back into the urban fabric as well as to make the waterfront
cohesive. ROMA had already worked with the city twenty years before to help it create the updated
Northeastern waterfront plan that was adopted in 1980. The urban design strategy stated the goals
of the city as “integrating the waterfront and the city, enhancing public access and pedestrian
movement, creating a public gathering space of citywide significance, and reestablishing the civic
stature of the Ferry Building.”9
The strategy broke up the area into three areas of special needs of the area around the Ferry Building,
the area closest to the city (Upland Area), and the continuous corridor that would be the
Embarcadero Boulevard. This paper will cover these three areas and highlight where the design
strategies have been carried out successfully.
Ferry Building Area The Ferry Building has a special place in
San Francisco history. At close to 110 years
old, it is one of the oldest buildings in a city
where “historic is 50 years”10. It is one of
the only buildings to survive the 1906
earthquake and the fires that followed. In
fact, it has survived several earthquakes, Figure 12: View of Ferry Building - 1926 including a 1957 earthquake that damaged http://webbie1.sfpl.org/multimedia/sfphotos/AAD-6279.jpg
9 ROMA Central Embarcadero Urban Design Strategy June 2003 pg 3,4 10 Comment heard from several different people such as Fred Foote, Geoffrey Nelson, and Boris Dramov.
- 12 - its tower, and the 1989 earthquake which, though it stopped the clock in the tower, helped to bring about the Ferry
Building’s renaissance that resulted in both building and clock being brought back to life in 2003 when it reopened after extensive remodels.
The Ferry Building and the area containing it was an essential part of the urban design of the waterfront. It was the centerpiece of the recovered waterfront. After years of modifications, the Ferry Building needed to be recovered Figure 13: Ferry Building at night through sensitive remodeling. The urban design strategy http://www.ferrybuildingmarketplace.com/html/history.html document recommended that the Ferry Building be made more penetrable, that the bottom floor should be used to support ferry services, that the ground level uses should help to activate the space, and that the bayside should be opened up to the views by having windows where blank walls had
been. Additionally, it recommended that the upper
level should be restored and a large public room
could be made that overlooked the bay. Lastly, the
document stated that the surface parking
surrounding the Ferry Building should be placed in
unobtrusive structures. Figure 14: Farmer’s Market http://www.inetours.com/images/Snglimg2/FB_FrmrMkt_1025.jpg The Ferry Building reopened in 2003 to a new life with a ground-level marketplace for gourmet and organic foods, and a second level of commercial office space. As of 2005, the marketplace space was fully rented out to a variety of vendors who included restaurants, grocers and other specialty stores. Even before the marketplace had opened,
- 13 - work to enliven the ground around the Ferry Building had been underway. A farmer’s market of organic produce and products met, and still does meet, several days a week on the sidewalk in front of the
Ferry Building. The restaurants, shops and the farmer’s market are all well visited. Although most of the marketplace is closed at night, there do exist some Figure 14: Inside Ferry Building - Marketplace Tyler Pollesch restaurants that extend the hours of activity. One such is the Slanted Door and is on the farthest corner of the Ferry Building as seen in figure 15.
The arcades in front of the Ferry Building that had
been closed off when the Ferry Building was
converted to office space have been opened up
again and educational photo murals have been
posted up by CUESTA (Center for Urban
Education about Sustainable Agriculture) which
Figure 15: Bayside of Ferry Building runs the farmer’s markets and the marketplace Tyler Pollesch shops. When the marketplace was being opened, many of the vendors that had been part of the farmer’s market were invited to open up permanent stalls inside the Ferry Building.
The second floor commercial space was developed by Wilson Meany with a total of 175,000 sq ft of space. In 2003, a law firm signed a 12-year lease for 73,000 sq ft to be the anchor tenant. An additional 33,000 sq ft was leased to a financial firm. This early success, right before the Ferry
Building was to open, was encouraging. The San Francisco Business Times felt that these leases
- 14 - really validated the work that had gone into restoring the Ferry Building.11 It looks as though the
Ferry Building has no vacancies as of the present.12 One difference between the strategy document
and what has been built is the lack of a large, public room. One might wonder if the financing made
more sense if there was more commercial space and this may be the reason why this was never acted
on. The Ferry Building is a vital place, fully leased out, active and seems to have recaptured its place as an icon of San Francisco and center of the revitalized waterfront.
Upland Area As part of the plan to bring
the Ferry Building back into
civic importance, the area in
front of it had to be changed
as well. When the freeway
was demolished, the space
that had been occupied by
surface parking and parks Figure 16: Space in front of Ferry Building was large enough to hold Urban Design Strategy
several European plazas. It was evident that this space would have to be carefully organized to take
advantage of the situation. When the freeway was demolished, the upland area showed how
obviously it had been developed with the freeway in mind. There was surface parking where the
freeway had been and the parks were designed to turn their back to the freeway and consequently,
the waterfront as well. The fountain in Justin Herman Plaza had been designed by Francois
Vaillancourt in 1971. The fountain was large and bulky. It seemed to mimic and hide the large
11 Temple, James Law firm's lease anchors office space with a view San Francisco Business Journal March 28, 2003 http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2003/03/31/focus5.html 12 Wilson Equity http://wilsonequity.com/properties_space/building.aspx?buildingId=2787
- 15 - freeway structure behind it. The landscaping for the park
was also chosen to hide the freeway. Large conifers lined
the east part of the park, and cement barriers were also
present. All the landscaping items had been chosen to put
their back to the freeway. With the freeway down the way
that this area related to the waterfront had to be changed. Figure 17: Vaillancourt Fountain Tyler Pollesch It was felt that the amount of space here and the newly rediscovered civic importance of the Ferry Building called for this to be an area suitable for large gatherings; that it would have “citywide significance”. At the same time, because it was to serve as the front-yard for the Ferry Building and the day-to-day uses that would occur there, it should also be pedestrian-oriented. The design should be of such a scale as to welcome large crowds and automobile traffic while still remaining friendly for one person crossing it when it was empty.
The document outlined several recommendations that would help make these goals a possibility.
The recommendatio ns included creating an open space that has a “clear configuration that is legible and coherent”, Figure 18: Post-freeway and post-development aerials Urban Design Strategy Document pg 17 and that it should http://www.baycrossings.com/Archives/2002/06_July/ferry_building_update.htm have a “simple rectilinear shape”, that it be symmetrical around Market Street, that it be made
- 16 - comfortable for programmed and spontaneous uses, that the edges should be well defined, and that adjacent buildings should have uses that help enliven it.
Specific recommendations given in the document included encouraging buildings such as one market to orient their ground-level uses to the open space, to integrate the Vaillancourt fountain into the new context, to make the fountain operable “so as to enliven the northern edge of the open space”, and to create a transit stop on the south of the open space that could be used for
Figure 19: The Ferry Building and Upland Area today http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/10/17/MNCITY1_TIMELINE.DTL performances as well, and that “park lands north of the fountain should be combined and traded with Caltrans property to create a contiguous open space” and that parking should be replaced with structures.
- 17 - After the urban design strategy was published in 1993, the design process continued. The design that
was implemented in the upland area kept the goals stated by the urban design strategy in mind.
Figure 20: Variations on Ferry Building Plaza area Image of models found in APA presentation. Not for reproduction. No permission received from original creators. Some of the issues that were discussed, and have continued to be discussed, are the Vaillancourt fountain, music concourse, and the former parking areas.
As stated earlier, the Vaillancourt fountain was designed at a time where the object was to hide and/or celebrate the freeway. With the changing context, came arguments to tear down the fountain.
The fountain has been in and out of use all during its lifetime. There were enough people that
treasured the fountain that it was kept and has been on since August 2, 2004. Another issue of the
park area is what to do with the space shown above in the red circle. When ROMA had put together
the urban design strategy, it was felt that this would be a great area for programmed activities. They
- 18 - even suggested that a transit stop placed here could double as a stage. During the 1989 earthquake,
an organ that had been built
for the 1915 Panama Pacific
Exposition, was in the
basement of the Civic
Auditorium. It experienced
substantial damage in the
earthquake and FEMA money
Figure 21: Proposed music concourse area for pipe organ was given for repairing this http://www.baycrossings.com/Archives/2001/04_May/waterfront_organ.htm piece of San Francisco history.
Since then, proponents of the organ have fought for it to have a new home. This seemed to coincide
perfectly with the need for there to be programmed activity in the new upland area park. The idea of a “music concourse” or “waterfront pavilion” has come to be celebrated by some and violently
contested by others. Both sides
seem to be concerned about the fate
of the organ. Proponents such as
the San Francisco Chapter of the
Guild of Organists, Friends of the
Waterfront Pavilion and the
Committee for a Safe Embarcadero
all have argued that the organ needs
a new home. They feel that it is an
important piece of history that Figure 22: Parking available for Ferry Building visitors http://www.ferrybuildingmarketplace.com/html/parking-2.html
- 19 - needs to be used and continue to be experienced by San Franciscans. The opponents against having
the organ in the park say that
the organ should not be
outside, that the air would be
damaging to the organ. Boris
Dramov of ROMA, when
confronted by these
arguments said that an Figure 23: View of Vaillancourt fountain from Pier 1 appropriately designed
building could be built to protect the organ and that should not be a consideration. Although the
pavilion for the organ seems to have plenty of proponents from Mayor Newsom to the guild of organists, the pavilion project is ultimately dependent on funding. Funding to renovate the organ,
among other historic preservation projects, was placed on the ballot in 2004 as proposition B. It
needed a 2/3 majority and received
just over 57% of the votes, not
enough to allow it to pass. The quest
for funding the organ pavilion will
continue.
Figure 20 shows a few of the
variations that the design for the plaza Figure 24: Trolley stop in front of Ferry Building in front of the Ferry Building went http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?m=/c/pictures/2004/10/17/mn_embarcadero- d056_mac.jpg&f=/c/a/2004/10/17/MNCITY1.DTL&type=columnists
- 20 - through. The ultimate choice for the design is shown in figure 19. This plaza ended up being sandwiched between the two travel lanes of the Embarcadero. One of the reasons this choice was taken was the ability to hold large queues of people waiting for the street cars.
Creating an active plaza and park area was an important component of a Figure 25: View from a Hotel Vitale guest room renewed upland area. When the freeway http://www.hotelvitale.com/gallery/photogallery.php?navigation=hotel&id=1 had still been there, much of the space underneath it and beside it was taken up by parking. As one can see in figure 18, this area has been made into the plaza mentioned previously and something that one cannot see from an aerial image.
“The Muni bus layover facility on the
southern edge of the plaza recalls the
service role of the area and is
essentially a parking lot on prime
waterfront land.”13 The location where
the Muni bus layover used to be there
opened a new hotel early this year. On
March 9, 2005 the Hotel Vitale
opened with some of the best views
of any hotel in the city.14 Although it Figure 26: Cross-section for area in front of Ferry Building Urban Design Strategy
13 ROMA Central Embarcadero Urban Design Strategy June 2003 pg 16 14 Hotel Vitale http://www.hotelvitale.com/
- 21 - is too soon to see if it is successful, it is thought that it will be a success.
Embarcadero Corridor As was described earlier when talking about the Northeastern waterfront plan and the ballot
measures that followed it, much work had already
been planned and had begun to be implemented
north and south of where the Embarcadero freeway
had been. The general design guidelines for the
improved boulevard were to include an extension of
the F-line historic line, bike lanes, parking lanes and
landscaping. This was continued for the area under
the freeway.
The complication that was present behind the
design was the requirement that the improvements
should accommodate the same amount of traffic as
the freeway had. As part of the Mid-
Embarcadero/Terminal Separator Structure Figure 27: Street cars on Market Street http://www.streetcar.org/msr/history/ EIS/EIR, traffic studies were done to assure that the new improvements would accommodate an equivalent number of trips. “Improvements included three new traffic signals, various signal upgrades and lane striping changes, as well as various Muni improvements.”15
One of the most visible Muni improvements is the F-Market & Wharves historic streetcar line. As
seen earlier, street cars had been on Market Street previously. They were heavily used as part of the
15 Caltrans New Fremont/Folsom Street Off-ramp opens in San Francisco http://www2.dot.ca.gov/dist4/safer/docs/fremont_folsom_offramp050323.pdf
- 22 - transit network in early San Francisco history. In 1983, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
and Muni, put on a summertime historic trolley festival. This was meant to be a one-time event to act as a substitute attraction while the cable car routes were being reconstructed. Everyone loved it
and it became an annual tradition until 1987. New track was laid on Market Street and the F-line became a permanent addition to the transit network in 1995. Extending the F-line to Fisherman’s
Wharf became part of the Embarcadero plans and this extension opened in 2000.
Conclusion Many of the recommendations that were
made in the Northeastern Waterfront plan
and the urban design strategy have come to
fruition. The Ferry Building opened in 2003,
the park space is redesigned and the area is
becoming more and more active. The
waterfront is coming to life with the Ferry
Building as the centerpiece. As was
mentioned in the beginning of the paper,
there are many things that can be learned
from this revitalization. Although most of
the following critiques are about the
Figure 28: Ferry Building with the Embarcadero Freeway physical environment, it is important to http://sfgate.com/cgi- bin/object/article?m=/c/pictures/2004/10/17/mn_embarcadero_ferrybldg_joh.jpg& consider that this would not be possible if f=/c/a/2004/10/17/MNCITY1.DTL there had not been the political will and planning that allowed them to take advantage when the
earthquake created the opportunity.
- 23 - The Ferry Building has gotten a lot of attention since it opened. It is bright and airy inside. Many
people seem to frequent it for lunch and, with the Slanted Door restaurant, for dinner as well. It is very active during the day but because it is surrounded by mainly office uses, is not very active at
night. This
may change
as there are
other and
housing being
added to the
waterfront Figure 29: Ferry Building 1956, 1964, Present http://webbie1.sfpl.org/multimedia/sfphotos/AAB-3613.jpg area. The http://www.baycrossings.com/Archives/2002/12_January/the_ferry_building_nears_its_return_to_glory.htm http://www.mistersf.com/new/index.html?newferryplz09.htm signage in
and around the Ferry Building is excellent.
The area is very well served by transit. A block away from the Ferry Building is a Bart and Muni
subway station. The historic trolleys stop directly in front of the Ferry Building and have won a lot
of acclaim for themselves. There are also several bus routes that come close to this area.
Farmer’s markets and vendors help to animate the parks and open space though there seems to be
too much open space that is not activated. Globe reporter, Robert Campbell, observed that the area
around Vaillancourt fountain seems to be empty continuously and that it lacks “activity
generators”.16 At times this area is animated with some vendors selling clothing, jewelry and other
items but there are no permanent active uses that face onto the open space. Boris Dramov, the
designer/planner working with the city also felt that there is too much open space and that the city
16 Campbell, Robert Bay watch May 14, 2002 Boston Globe http://www.boston.com/beyond_bigdig/cases/sanfrancisco/index.shtml
- 24 - has not done enough to act on creating activity for the park space. He referenced the organ pavilion
that has not yet gotten the funding to be built.
The canary palm trees have had their share of positive, and some negative, comments. When they were first put in, some thought they were “too Los Angeles” but most people felt that they were a
great addition. Robert Campbell described them as powerful and helping to create the feeling that
this place is special. When asked “why palm trees”, Boris Dramov commented that the palm trees could stand up to the poor soil found at this location (this area is all fill), and that they were the appropriate scale right away. On a waterfront tour, he pointed out the sad specimens of deciduous trees that were very small and seemed sick. They had been planted at the same time as the tall, gracious, canary palms and their condition pointed to why the canary palms were important.
There are many successes found in the San Francisco waterfront revitalization. The thing that has stood out the most in this case study is not the success that this project has experienced, but the amount of work that went into making it a reality. This case study shows how important it is to be ready so that when an opportunity presents itself, a plan that takes advantage of the opportunity is ready to go. The earthquake helped the project forward but would not have been enough if people had not already begun to plan before it happened.
- 25 - Bibliography
A21 Design Vanished Embarcadero August 26, 2000 http://cypress.he.net/~arch21/A21900.html AGC of America. [Online]. Last Revised: 2004. Retrieved November 14, 2004 from: http://www.agc.org Bay Crossings Pipe Up May 4, 2001 San Francisco Bay Crossings.com http://www.baycrossings.com/Archives/2001/04_May/waterfront_organ.htm Bay Crossings Waterfront Design Roundtable December 11, 2000 San Francisco Bay Crossings.com http://www.baycrossings.com/Archives/2000/11_December_2000_January_2001/waterfront_desi gn.htm Bay Crossings Boris Dramov, architectural visionary and creator of a new waterfront and gateway to San Francisco October 9, 2000 San Francisco Bay Crossings http://www.baycrossings.com/Archives/2000/09_October/newsmaker.htm Bay Crossings Ferry Building Update #4 July 6, 2002 San Francisco Bay Crossings http://www.baycrossings.com/Archives/2002/06_July/ferry_building_update.htm Campbell, Robert Bay watch May 14, 2002 Boston Globe http://www.boston.com/beyond_bigdig/cases/sanfrancisco/index.shtml Carlsson, Chris The Freeway Revolt http://www.bikesummer.org/1999/zine/freewayRevolt.htm Ferry Building Marketplace http://www.ferrybuildingmarketplace.com/ Ferry Plaza Farmers Market http://www.ferryplazafarmersmarket.com/ Garcia, Ken In S.F., a fountain of bad ideas never runs dry March 22, 2004 San Francisco Chronicle http://www.sfgate.com/cgi- bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/22/EDGRU5O1B21.DTL Ginsberg, Steve Ferry Building pulls in two anchors October 18, 2002 San Francisco Business Times http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2002/10/21/story1.html Harbor Court Hotel http://www.harborcourthotel.com/ Hotel Vitale http://www.hotelvitale.com/ Hwang, Lucia Study slams Muni hotel plan July 12, 2000 San Francisco Bay Guardian http://www.sfbg.com/News/34/41/41ogmuni.html iNeTours Embarcadero Waterfront & San Francisco Ferry Building 2005 http://www.inetours.com/Pages/SFNbrhds/Embarcadero.html King, John 15 Seconds that changed San Francisco Oct 17, 2004 San Francisco Chronicle http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/10/17/MNCITY1.DTL Kohlstrand, Rebecca APA Conference 2005 Aging Infrastructure’s Silver Lining
- 26 - Kurumi San Francisco’s Freeway Plan http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/sanfran.html Market Street Railway http://www.streetcar.org/ Mister SF http://www.mistersf.com/ ROMA Central Embarcadero Urban Design Strategy June 2003 San Francisco Historical Photograph Collection http://sfpl.lib.ca.us/librarylocations/sfhistory/browse.htm San Francisco Museum http://www.sfmuseum.net/ SFAGO SF/AGO Newsletter October 2004 San Francisco Chapter of the Guild of Organists http://www.sfago.org/SFAGO-10-2004.pdf SF Chronicle Timeline October 17, 2004 San Francisco Chronicle http://sfgate.com/cgi- bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/10/17/MNCITY1_TIMELINE.DTL Shaping San Francisco http://www.shapingsf.org/ Smart Voter Proposition B December 15, 2004 Smart Voter http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/sf/meas/B/ SPUR http://www.spur.org/ Temple, James Law firm's lease anchors office space with a view March 28, 2003 San Francisco Business Times http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2003/03/31/focus5.html Walker, Richard A. The Battle to Save San Francisco, 1960-1990 Working Paper February 1997 http://geography.berkeley.edu:16080/PeopleHistory/faculty/R_Walker/AnAppetiteForTheCity.ht ml Wilson Equity http://wilsonequity.com/
- 27 -