Green Cities

More on the "Pavement to Parks" program, and other greening projects. Gavin Newsom touts himself as a green mayor, and certainly, San Francisco's sustainability program is one of the best in the country. Their "zero waste by 2020" goal is laudable, and they've taken a lot of concrete steps towards that goal--apparently we reuse, compost or recycle about 72% percent of our waste at this point. But part of "greening" a city has to do with making it more user-friendly for those on foot, on bikes, and taking public transportation, and in this regard, San Francisco still leaves a lot to be desired.

Why not have certain streets permanently designated for bicycles and pedestrians only, and more bike lanes on some of the wider streets? Closing JFK Drive on Sundays is all well and good, but that's just for recreational activities; there should be a better way for bicyclists to cross the city during commute hours. Moreover, our public transportation system is just so unpleasant to use--it seems like even the newer buses are noisy and uncomfortable, and the Muni cars are loud and ugly and, sometimes, desperately slow. Especially in comparison to the Metro in Paris, the subway in New York, the Tube in London, Washington DC's fantastic municipal railway system, and other systems in places like Boston and Portland, taking the bus or Muni in San Francisco is a depressing experience.

On a more aesthetic level--San Francisco just doesn't have enough good public places. Golden Gate Park isn't bad in spots, like Stow Lake or the Strybing Arboretum; but too much of the rest of the Park is dominated by the noise of passing cars. Downtown San Francisco has a surprising number of rooftop gardens and miniature plazas where people can take a break from work or eat lunch in the sun if they want, but in the residential neighborhoods, one is often hard-pressed to find a good public place to relax.

Why is this important? A place for the young to meet, mingle, and flirt with each other, without being propositioned by drug dealers or gang members; a place for an old woman walking home with her heavy bags of groceries to sit for a few minutes, take in the sun, and watch the city go by; a place for a mother out for a stroll with a growing, curious, 8-month-old baby to stop and bounce him on her leg and introduce him to a passing dog or another mother and her baby--such a place, however humble and small, serves a vital function in any neighborhood. We just don't have enough of them, and many of the ones we do have are just too poorly designed.

In The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs writes about the problems created when a city neighborhood is not designed for mixed use--some commercial and some residential, for instance, or goverment offices mixed in with shops and movie theaters, so the neighborhood does not shut down completely or become threatening at night. She used San Francisco's Civic Center as an example of a neighborhood that lacks this kind of diversification. And it's true. Nobody feels like strolling there, even during the daytime. It's not the fault of the homeless, although one does have to run the gauntlet of aggressive panhandlers at times. It's the whole layout of the place, where one is walking across empty pavement or past grey government buildings for what seems like a mile before one arrives anywhere. The only time this environment changes and becomes somewhat bearable is when there's a farmer's market in the plaza--then the place comes to life, but only for a short time. Mixed use, or the lack of it in many parts of this beautiful city--one key problem with this place, I think, that many of the environmentally-minded types that live here do not think about often enough. Or if they do think about it, their solutions (see yesterday's post on Pavement to Parks) leave much to be desired.