|
|
|
|
|
 |
Jane Martin, Founding Director
Plant*SF
Ironically, the very imprecision of the term ‘greening’ may be its strength – for the concept is hollow if not holistically applied. To some “green” connotes a cosmetic layer of beautification. To others it is a degree of material sustainability. For all, it is a reminder of our society’s prevailing mode of facilitation, money. It is only through the mutual inclusion of these three aspects, however, that the application of greening to San Francisco’s streetscapes will be truly successful.
By way of example, traditional forms of public space plantings such as raised beds and hanging flower baskets may provide an immediate beautification lift, but because their soil is isolated and exposed to wind and sun, they require frequent watering even when climate adapted plants are selected. This is neither environmentally supportive nor fiscally responsible.
If a planted stormwater retention area (such as a median or sidewalk planting) is not designed and maintained with aesthetics, cultural or district identity in mind, it may fail from the standpoint of neighborhood acceptance. Likewise, if not positioned strategically within a drainage basin, its potential will be limited, resulting in an inefficient use of funds.
Similarly, it is sufficiently common for major capital investments in streets and infrastructure to in fact work against the forces of beauty and sustainability that targeted efforts are made to counteract that trend.
A more comprehensive approach integrating these three aspects may be seen in the recent sidewalk plantings initiated and maintained by property owners, especially where those plantings are done in groups and include such features as native edible plants. An example of this is transforming a 12 foot wide sidewalk into a 6 foot wide walking path with an adjacent 6 foot wide garden. The city permit process for such plantings, the Sidewalk Landscaping Permit administered by the Bureau of Urban Forestry, is barely one year old yet its successes are numerous. Translating this model to the larger scales of neighborhood and watershed is the next step.
San Francisco public agencies are currently planning the renovation of what collectively comprise its largest public spaces: its streets and sidewalks. Such projects include the interagency Better Streets Plan, the Planning Department’s Better Neighborhoods Plans, DPW’s Green Gateways and Community Corridor Partnerships, the Transportation Authority’s Bus Rapid Transit plans, and the SFPUC’s 30-Year Clean Water Master Plan, as well as sizeable capital investments through the SFPUC five year projects, potential utility undergrounding and ongoing private sector development. Treasure Island and areas of the Bayview are in the midst of major redefinition. The configuration of these massive undertakings is intended to set the tone for the next several decades of our city’s approach to public space and infrastructure. This is San Francisco’s opportunity to create a holistically green city.
A useful model for coordinating the beauty, sustainability and financing of greening on a large scale is the concept of the “working landscape”. Conventionally used in reference to farmland, its premise is that there is an inherent value to the earth’s natural attributes (soil, rock, water, air, plants, topography, etc), and that this value is acknowledged for providing such services as water and air filtration, water storage, toxics remediation, cooling, nutrient transmission (ie. food), natural beauty and providing a sense of place. Many of these natural systems occurred in San Francisco’s pre-development condition, while others may be introduced or enhanced. It is our choice to allow them to perform – or not.
For natural systems in our urban context, the street is where it all comes together. Covering fully one quarter of the land area in the city (more than all our parks combined), our public right-of-ways – streets, medians and sidewalks – are currently dedicated to the movement of goods, utilities, people and waste and for storing private vehicles. They facilitate emergency access, accommodate underground reservoirs, and provide a degree of stormwater overflow. They offer areas for parades, fairs and protests. As a result of both purposeful and less mindful neutralizing of the landscape, our right-of-ways have been fully paved – “wall to wall”.
San Francisco is not alone, of course, in the harsh characteristics of its public space. Following an international trend to promote walkability and beautification, the plans mentioned above tend toward the inclusion of ‘greening’. Typically plans of this sort aim to achieve modest traffic calming and a light dressing of friendliness (ie. banners, flowers, benches and cafes). But, a more robust version could accomplish traffic congestion reduction and stormwater diversion. A working landscape approach could help San Francisco achieve much higher goals of eliminating traffic congestion, establishing a natural-system based infrastructure, creating fruitful abundance and resulting in zero waste.
A working landscape approach would look to convertible land areas such as redundant streets, underutilized and excessively wide streets, the more than 400 acres documented as “unaccepted streets”, as well as paved school yards and vacant lots. The configuration and function of curbs, parking lots, plazas and ‘greens’ would be reconsidered. Re-conceiving what San Francisco expects from its public spaces could provide: locally produced food, essential wildlife habitat and fodder, direct access to nature, a distinct sense of place, stormwater diversion, aquifer recharge, carbon sequestering, heat sinks, shading and energy production. It could deter crime, establish neighborhood identity, encourage walking and recreation, improve health, calm traffic, increase safety, reduce noise, mediate the scale between buildings and people, encourage gathering and social interactions, improve educational performance, reflect culture, create color and produce fragrance. It could provide an awareness of natural cycles and stewardship, control erosion and landslides, conserve water, slow stormwater rate flows, treat sewage and effect wind patterns. Further, passive natural systems can offer increased reliability, reduced maintenance and energy savings over their mechanical system counterparts.
Applying this approach mindfully and systemically implies that city government work collaboratively both internally and interdepartmentally, as well as with sustainability-focused civil engineers, hydrology consultants, small scale farmers, permaculturalists and citizens. It means addressing obstacles inherent in oil- and antiseptic-era policy. It means viewing the city less in terms of political boundaries or financially segregated enclaves and more in terms of its watersheds, soil types, microclimates and natural history. It would define a citywide performance-based model which would be realized and connected at the neighborhood level over time, giving structure to input from localized groups and individuals.
This approach would both behave and look differently from the deadened public spaces we have acclimated to. As living systems, they evolve over time to embody a design vision which is less harsh and more abundant. Such an approach would provide guidelines resulting for instance not in single rows of pollarded or non-fruiting trees isolated and confined to miniscule ‘pits’, but rather multi-level productive, fragrant, colorful, diverse and lively green spaces that accommodate movement and utilities, provide for universal access and social activities, evoke our place, reflect our cultures and change with the seasons.
An urban working landscape alternative is not only possible, but within reach, within the scope of current planning initiatives. It is ours for the making.
- - - - -
Jane Martin is founding director of Plant*SF and principal of Shift Design Studio. She is a member of the Mayor’s Green Vision Council, SPUR’s Sustainable Development Committee and the Better Streets Plan CAC, and is a Commissioner on the Environment. She holds a Bachelor of Science in Architectural Studies from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and a Master of Architecture from Cranbrook Academy of Art. She has lived in San Francisco since 1994.
Note: Articles are posted for the purpose of generating ideas and honest debate on how San Francisco can live up to its full promise and potential. Posting of an article does not imply an endorsement by the author of Gavin Newsom for Mayor, nor an endorsement by Gavin Newsom for Mayor of the positions set forth in the article.
- : 6.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 24th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
i was thinking that it might be a good idea to plant fruit trees and/or perennial seed-bearing plants in gardens on rooftops in SF to create habitat for parrots and other avian wildlife - www.likroper.com
July 24th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
I love San Francisco. I’m a 4th generation native and my family has been in the Sunset - on the same block - since the 1920s. I also love the idea of the “greening” of San Francisco. But I have no faith in the actual application of the concept.
Why? Drive around the neighborhood and see all the lawns that have been concreted over and the City does nothing to stop it. Those lawns and plantings are “greening” for the City. Look at the planting spaces on the sidewalks that are full of weeds and trash. Does the City want more “greening” in those planting spaces or is it just looking for holes in the sidewalk to catch water so it doesn’t go into the sewer system?
Sunset Boulevard is exactly the sort of public space Ms. Martin refers to in her article. It looked like crap for years until the PGA tournament tournament came to town. Then it got all pretty and watered and mowed because “company” coming. Once the tournament was over it went back to being unmowed, untended and underwatered. Now it is brown from Golden Gate Park to Lake Merced.
If you cannot take care of the public green spaces you already have what right have you got to create more?
July 24th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
I agree with Patti and Ms. Martin. Seems like we could BOTH more effectively maintain our current “greeen” public spaces AND design for a whole lot more! Lawns on Sunset Blvd and other places are out - who wants to drain the Hetch Hetchy at an annaul cost of millions of $ to keep unproductive, annual grasses green? who wants those grasses and inappropriate plantings turning brown every summer as we try in vain to dump water on them at great expense only to see the water immediately drain through our predominantly sand soils? I want to see a lush Sunset Blvd filled with lush, draught tolerant, useful, edible, medicinal perennial polyculture ecosystems brimming with vibrant colors and buzzing with beautiful butterflies and other fauna. Of course, I’d also like to see exclusive bike paths, child-friendlyu walking paths, less cars and, ultimately, silent magnet, solar powered light rail running down what used to be car lanes, as well. I’d like to see Ms. Patti Dillon’s property skyrocket in value because San Francisco has the most secure, local food supply of any city in North America, a healthy local watershed, the safest, “greenest” streets and the most culturally diverse and wonderful urban ecosystem in the region. Yes, Ms. Dillon and yes, Ms. Martin, let’s enhance what wee have and design for what we need now!
July 26th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Home owners do not want to plant trees in front of their houses because the City makes the homeowners liable and responsible for the maintenance of the sidewalks.
I have been sued because someone has “slipped and fell” on the edge of the curb because the street tree’s roots had raised the sidewalk and the curb and this woman supposedly slipped and fell at 2:00 a.m. coming back from the clubs. She wanted $250,000.00 for her “injured arm” and her husband wanted $50,000 for “loss of consortiumship” even though his arm wasn’t broken. The insurance company finally settled for $30,000.00 after two years.
From then now, I am advising homeowners never to plant trees in front of their houses since I have spent about $15,000.00 to pave the sidewalks, trim back street trees, and have rotor rooter out to unclogged my sewer pipes from the tree roots.
If San Francisco is serious about “greening” its streets, it must rescind the policy of making homeowners responsible and liable for maintaining the sidewalks in front of their homes.
August 6th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
I agree with John as well, having trees planted where they will break up concrete creating potential pedestrian hazards does not seem like a smart idea in this litigious age. Also, trees with aggressive root systems placed near storm drains or other utilities can create a cost. Thankfully, it does not seem, to me, to be a trees or sidewalks issue. If we remove extraneous sidewalk and use appropriate plantings - like perennial berry shrubs or small trees on dwarfing rootstalk it seems like we can have the best of both worlds - the increased property values and environmental benefits from plants and permeable surfaces AND less risk of litigation (less sidewalk that can ’cause’ falls, etc.) AND no risk of roots messing with utilities. I am so glad this is not a black and white issue, but more of a green issue!