Rendering of the rejected proposal 555 Washington St.with the Transamerica Pyramid behind
San Francisco reaffirmed its position as the most antagonistic to development city in America once again when it rejected a proposal for a new 38-story condo tower two weeks ago. The tower at 555 Washington Street, designed by local architecture firm Heller Manus, takes the form of a torqued cylinder, adding what would be a graceful and understated new member to the San Francisco skyline. Yet nice design does not matter when it comes to politics. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to turn down the proposal based on an EIR (environmental impact report) study that they claimed was 'fatally flawed'.
Preparing an environmental impact report is a fairly standard procedure for new development projects in California - this is in accordance with CEQA (The California Environmental Quality Act of 1970) which makes submitting an EIR a requirement for approval. Developers are cognizant of this and accept the up front costs of putting together an EIR in order to proceed with building their project. In the case of 555 Washington St., the developer had already spent upwards of $6 million dollars before the EIR was finally rejected. According to the developer representative, Andrew Segal, recirculating the EIR would cost an additional $1 million - an amount that essentially kills the project.
Preparing an environmental impact report is a fairly standard procedure for new development projects in California - this is in accordance with CEQA (The California Environmental Quality Act of 1970) which makes submitting an EIR a requirement for approval. Developers are cognizant of this and accept the up front costs of putting together an EIR in order to proceed with building their project. In the case of 555 Washington St., the developer had already spent upwards of $6 million dollars before the EIR was finally rejected. According to the developer representative, Andrew Segal, recirculating the EIR would cost an additional $1 million - an amount that essentially kills the project.
Real estate developers tend to have a negative reputation in the eyes of the public. To many, they are a ruthless, greedy and unscrupulous group of people out to destroy historic neighborhoods and natural habitats with their irresponsible yet highly profitable building projects. And to be sure, this reputation is not entirely unfounded. Stories like the epic battle between Jane Jacobs and Robert Moses and historically-based fictional narratives like the movie Chinatown have influenced the public consciousness to a point where the 'evil developer' has become a cultural archetype.
Preventing irresponsible development is why we have checks and balances like EIR studies and city planning commissions in the first place. Yet, San Francisco, notorious for its anti-development climate, takes the 'evil developer' archetype much too far. For a city that flaunts itself as a paragon of sustainability, San Francisco contradicts itself when it shoots down projects that would increase density - which would allow more people to call the city home. Instead, the lack of new development activity keeps prices unaffordable for the middle-class, contributing to the much despised 'sprawl' seen at the eastern fringes of the Bay Area. The hypocrisy is so palpable in fact that even Chris Daly, one of the most left-leaning San Francisco Supervisors, purchased a house in exurban Fairfield for his family last year.
Preventing irresponsible development is why we have checks and balances like EIR studies and city planning commissions in the first place. Yet, San Francisco, notorious for its anti-development climate, takes the 'evil developer' archetype much too far. For a city that flaunts itself as a paragon of sustainability, San Francisco contradicts itself when it shoots down projects that would increase density - which would allow more people to call the city home. Instead, the lack of new development activity keeps prices unaffordable for the middle-class, contributing to the much despised 'sprawl' seen at the eastern fringes of the Bay Area. The hypocrisy is so palpable in fact that even Chris Daly, one of the most left-leaning San Francisco Supervisors, purchased a house in exurban Fairfield for his family last year.
I will concede that the developer for 555 Washington St. took an enormous risk by proposing a tower that exceeds the height limit of the site by 230 ft. In a last-ditch attempt at saving the project, the developer told the Board of Supervisors that they would lower it to comply with the 200 ft. height limit, but to no avail. This brings up another problematic issue in regards to development in San Francisco: zoning.
Architects are usually the first ones to take the blame for the poor aesthetics of a building - especially with something as visible and prominent as a skyscraper. Yet what most people do not realize is that zoning codes (building use, height limit, floor-to-area ratio, setbacks, bulk limits, etc...) set forth by local municipalities is what dictates the parameters of what can be built on a given site. This means architects must comply with these constraints when designing a project. All too often, complying with zoning codes while at the same time fulfilling the needs of the developer leads to a building that lacks proportional harmony. Architects can only do so much to 'dress-up' a building that is proportionally flawed. Poorly conceived zoning codes is why there are so many 'ugly boxes' dotting the skylines of American cities, not architects.
With the consideration of skyline aesthetics, it becomes apparent as to why the developer and architect for 555 Washington St. took the risk of breaking the height limit. At a height of 430 ft., the building still complies with the allowable F.A.R. (floor-to-area ratio) of the site. Early on, the design team probably realized that if they complied with the 200 ft. height limit while maximizing the F.A.R., the result would be a short, squat-looking building. Instead, they took a leap of faith and came up with a design that is proportionally sound and adds dynamism to the San Francisco skyline without being visually arrogant. Not only does the taller, slender tower look better aesthetically, the smaller footprint means that the developer could propose expanding the adjacent Redwood Park - which would create more open space for the city.
Ultimately none of this mattered to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Despite the effort put forth by the developer and the design team, the Board defaulted to their usual NIMBY stance and were able to play into the 'evil developer' archetype by claiming that the EIR was too lackadaisical. The failure of 555 Washington St. to get approval is especially harsh at a moment when most development in the U.S. is still frozen due to the unwillingness of banks to give out construction loans. Not only would've 555 Washington St. added much-needed residential square-footage to the city, it would've provided hundreds of construction jobs for unemployed workers.
One can only hope that other American cities do not follow the San Francisco model of (anti)development. While the majority of Americans are likely to continue preferring the suburban model of low-density living in the future, there remains a growing market of Americans who would instead opt for an urban lifestyle were it more affordable. In conclusion, I'll leave you with a New York Times blog post by Harvard Professor Ed Glaeser, who does an excellent job of articulating the need for more tall buildings in regards to the issue of housing affordability in cities: Taller Buildings, Cheaper Homes.
Outstanding article Mr. Mayer. Hits home - as NOT in the city....
ReplyDelete