About Steve

Viewpoints from the Publisher's View

RebuildDecember Issue, 2009, Potrero View

By Steve J. Moss

Throughout Southeast San Francisco, half-century old public housing complexes are in the process of being redeveloped.  Over the next decade Alice Griffith, Hunters View, Potrero Annex and Terrace, Sunnydale, and Westside Courts are slated to be transformed from mostly rows of barracks-style near-shacks, to higher-density, mixed-income neighborhoods.  Although significant financing and design issues need to be addressed before hammer is placed on nail for these projects, let’s first breathe out a collective “hallelujah!”  Hallelujah, after decades of isolating the needy in substandard “temporary” housing that reinforced a sense that we just don’t care about them, breeding crime and reinforcing poverty, we’re now working to make things right.

These projects come with high expectations.  Current residents, who are guaranteed places in the new developments, hope to settle into more secure and comfortable homes, safe launching pads from which to create better lives.  They, along with their neighbors, look forward to reduced crime caused by isolation and desperation.  And all eagerly anticipate the elimination of the boundaries that have been created by the existing complexes.  There shouldn’t be places where Bayview-Hunters Point, Potrero Hill, or Visitacion Valley residents are too afraid to visit – or even drive through – especially when they’re living right across the street.  And everybody should feel welcomed in the communities’ open spaces and shops, no matter where they live.    

Bridge Housing, which is responsible for the Potrero Annex/Terrace rebuild, and Mercy Housing, which is leading Sunnydale’s redevelopment, have been building affordable housing for more than a quarter century.  Both developers are deeply committed to creating communities that work.  But how the projects will be financed remains a central concern, affecting the speed and characteristics of new construction.  The current plan is to build and sell enough market-rate housing to pay for the subsidized homes, which is why existing densities at the sites are expected to double or triple.  Although this approach may be plausible for the Annex-Terrace – if not completely desirable – given its breathtaking views and proximity to the rest of high-priced Potrero Hill, it seems speculative for Sunnydale and the other projects.

Alternative approaches would quicken the pace of redevelopment, and fully or partially liberate design and density from financing.  A general obligation bond could be used to help pay the freight, or any manner of special districts could be employed, in which the tax revenue increases prompted by redevelopment could be funneled back into the projects.  In cases were notable new structures are being contemplated – such as a “life center” in Sunnydale – public-private partnerships should be developed to create mixed used facilities that can accommodate local nonprofits and anchor recreational centers.  Southeast San Francisco residents have every interest in pushing for citywide bond financing – and supporting responsible creative partnerships – which would vastly enlarge the developers’ ability to create first-class homes and appealing public amenities.  We should start advocating for such an approach now.

From the community’s perspective higher density is both a threat and an opportunity.  Unless the additional population is matched with necessary services – particularly transportation infrastructure, schools, and recreational and educational amenities – it’ll cause increased traffic congestion and associated pollution, and disenfranchised families.  On the other hand, a denser neighborhood could increase demand for nearby businesses, prompting more jobs and greater prosperity.  And if planned in concert with expanded high-quality educational opportunities, higher density can help support better neighborhood schools.  If we live in integrated communities, they’ll be no mandate to bus our children across town in the name of racial equity.

Communities may also want both mixed-income residents and a diversity of demographics, with an emphasis on families and seniors, both of which provide for greater neighborhood stability and long-term commitment.  What better place to site an aging population than nearby a revitalized San Francisco General Hospital and the University of California, San Francisco Mission Bay campus?  Families, in turn, need three to four bedroom, two bath, homes, with concomitant amenities, such as playgrounds, backyards, and recreational facilities. 

Appropriate retail space should be created – including ground floor retail in multi-story buildings – both to serve the new residents and to attract neighbors to the development.  While early plans for both Sunnydale and Potrero Annex-Terrace include large open spaces, perhaps this vision should be more ambitious, including European-style plazas that feature public art, green areas, and playgrounds surrounded by shops and restaurants.  If situated correctly such a feature could have among the best views in the City, within the sunniest micro-climate around.

Redevelopment offers the opportunity to deploy state-of-the-art telecommunications and environmental infrastructure.  Low-income residents, typically last in line for the latest technology, could leap to the front.  Utility infrastructure could be owned by the City or the community itself, and could include high-efficiency co-generation along with small scale wind and solar, and the advanced water recycling that’s already being contemplated.  Appliances and other energy-using devices could be owned by a nonprofit, with a stake in ensuring the lowest amount of energy use possible, serviced by an independent retailer located on-site that employs residents trained as energy conservation specialists.  Homes could be ready-made to provide low-cost access to wireless internet, leaping over the digital divide.

A careful eye must be kept on properly transiting current residents to their new homes, as well as ensuring that the new developments have the best possible chance of attracting higher-income families, thereby becoming truly integrated.  And there must be a clear pathway to pay the ongoing costs associated with the newly-created public amenities.  The nightmare of recently planted recreational spaces becoming trash-choked, graffiti-filled, and vandalized, or steadily deteriorated building stock due to a lack of maintenance or poor construction, is all too easily conjured. 

After more than a year of community meetings, it’s still not clear that the City’s redevelopment projects have a pathway to success.  Proper financing needs to be secured; it’s the essential basis on which adequate housing design and associated amenities will be created.  U.S. history is chockfull of public housing initiatives that ended up doing more harm than good.  While we need to move briskly towards redevelopment, let’s not rush to repeat this history.