The Northern California megaregion

Transcript

Issue 466
11|12.07
SPUR
News at SPUR p3
Northern California Megaregion p4
Silver SPUR p28 Inside SPUR p32
Forums p34
Urbanist
Urban
ist
Published monthly
by San Francisco
Planning & Urban
Research
Two-hour
drives from
urban centers
Sacramento
Oakland
San Francisco
San Jose
megaregion
Northern California
will add 10 million
people by 2050.
Where will they go?
11/12.07
letter from the executive director
Northern California dreaming
Gabriel Metcalf
is the Executive
Director of SPUR.
When you think of Northern California, what comes
to mind? Is it the mixing of good living with cultural
progressivism—organic food, good wine, lefty
politics? Is it the combination of urbanity and nature,
as expressed by that quintessential image of the
San Francisco skyline against the green of the Marin
headlands? Is it the economic churn of start-ups,
technological innovation, and venture capital?
Or does your mind go to the dystopian side of our
region? Do you think about office “parks,” schlock
housing tracts, endless traffic jams? Do you think
about the economic segregation that forces the vast
majority of the region’s poor to live far away from the
economic engines of the region? Do you think about
the pervasive selfishness of not-in-my-back-yard-ism
that seems to allow people to close their eyes to the
broader implications of their personal choices?
Northern California is all of these things, the good
and the bad. We live in an amazing part of the world,
a place that is wealthy, beautiful, culturally tolerant; a
place that has changed American culture for the better
over and over. And yet it is a place that has not always
been able to plan effectively for its own future.
The Bay Area experienced a heroic age of regional
planning, which created the institutions that have
allowed us to get this far: BART in 1957, ABAG in
1961, BCDC in 1965, and MTC in 1970—as well as
the establishment of the GGNRA in 1972. But a lot
has changed since then.
While those institutions have served us well,
we are today confronted with new problems, tied
fundamentally to the failure of the past generations of
citizens to manage growth. While the region has been
able to preserve land as parks, institute agricultural
zoning, and establish greenbelts around cities, the
region has not been willing to accommodate growth
within existing cities. Instead of adding density as the
counterpart to saving open space, we have pushed
suburban sprawl to other locations. The result should
2 Urbanist > November/December 2007
have been predictable: today the vast majority of
trips in the Bay Area are by car and the places where
growth is taking place are outside our official region.
The Bay Area is merging with Sacramento and the
Central Valley, and increasingly, the Sierra foothills as
well.
In this issue of the Urbanist we explore the
consequences of this emerging megaregion, centered
on the four cities of San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland,
and Sacramento.
Our hope is to begin a conversation with civic
organizations, public officials, environmentalists, and
business leaders across Northern California about
these issues. The Bay Area Council, the Great Valley
Center, and others have already been thinking along
these lines and we are pleased to be working with
them.
SPUR’s work on megaregional planning has been
generously under-written by the Wallace Alexander
Gerbode Foundation—and it is this funding that has
allowed us to publish this issue, with its wonderful
maps, in full color. I am also pleased to announce
that the Gerbode Foundation has funded the Center
for Global Metropolitan Studies at U.C. Berkeley to
develop a series of papers on the Northern California
megaregion. Watch for these in 2008.
If you think regional planning is hard today, just
wait—wait till half of the people in our region live
outside the boundaries of our “official” region. But
if we have learned anything from the past 40 years
of regional planning, it’s that we cannot ignore the
“spillover” effects of our local decisions on other
places. Our quality of life, our economy, and certainly
our environmental impact on the planet depends on
embedding healthy neighborhoods within healthy cities
within a healthy region.
Even with all of its problems, Northern California is
still an amazing, unique part of the world. It’s not too
late to keep it that way. Y
News at SPUR
transportation plan
fights warming, saves
local residents money
Eastern Neighborhoods
rezoning key to
economic future
The Planning Department
recently has issued new zoning
proposals for San Francisco’s
Eastern Neighborhoods. What
we allow or don’t allow there will
have a huge impact on the future
economy of our city. Many are
expecting the area to be filled
not only with new residents, but
also with new industries that
employ local workers in good
jobs. SPUR wants to ensure
that the new zoning is written
to achieve those outcomes. In
particular, we want to make sure
that we allow companies to start
there and then grow to a level at
which they can hire significant
numbers of local workers. We
also want to ensure that existing
companies can stay there as
the area evolves. These firms
often serve an important role as
suppliers to our City’s exportbase. See www.sfgov.org/site/
planning_index.asp?id=25288
for more information on the
Planning Department’s rezoning
process.
SPUR has signed on to support the
platform that will guide the advocacy of the
Transportation and Land Use Coalition as
it seeks to “support exceptional, affordable
public transit and healthy, walkable
communities throughout the Bay Area” in
the renewal of the region’s transportation
plan. The platform, which SPUR helped
to craft, would reward places that build
more housing in walkable and bikeable
neighborhoods close to transit. It would build
a great transit system and provide smooth,
safe roads paid for with a global warming
fee on gasoline. TALC’s platform calls for
a transportation system that would save
residents money while helping us meet the
goals for emissions reduction spelled out
in California’s landmark, bipartisan Global
Warming Solutions Act. TALC’s platform is
SPUR supports
available at www.transcoalition.org.
S.F. needs its own
green building policy
A group of housing and
sustainable development experts
convened at SPUR over the
past few weeks has developed
draft recommendations for a
new citywide green buildings
policy. In a letter to the mayor
and Supervisor Aaron Peskin,
who both have proposed
green building policies, SPUR
suggested that San Francisco
adopt its own tailored green
building policy that tasks
existing departments with
administering new green building
requirements, rather than using
a third-party rating agency.
For more information, contact
Laura Tam at [email protected].
integrated regional
rail plan
There’s “high-speed rail” and
there’s “very fast” rail. There’s
also commuter rail, and metro
service. And don’t forget freight.
The Metropolitan Transportation
Commission has analyzed all
these options and needs, and has
proposed a variety of integrated
rail systems to serve the region in
the next century. The Regional
Rail Plan is available at
Nov./Dec. 2007
What we’re doing
www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/rail.
SPUR has reviewed the plan
and is excited to support a
new system that uses regular
rail in the East Bay and on the
Peninsula for very fast (120 mph)
commuter rail service, employs
BART for metro-like service,
and provides new connections
between systems to quickly and
conveniently get passengers
around and into and out of the
Bay Area. We also reviewed the
high-speed rail environmental
impact statement, and asked for
the statement to include better
consideration of the potential
benefits of applying some of the
high-speed rail investments to
our regional rail needs.
New life for CAPSS?
CAPSS, the Community Action
Plan for Seismic Safety, finally
may be nearing completion.
Conducted in three phases, this
important study is charged with
developing and implementing
a work plan for reducing
earthquake risks to privately
owned buildings in San Francisco.
Begun in 2000, CAPSS was
halted several years ago, before
its Phase II report was completed
and made public. Thanks to the
efforts of several persistent and
committed individuals, including
SPUR Board member Debra
Walker, and SPUR member John
Paxton, CAPSS is in the process
of being restarted. SPUR hopes
that this important study can be
completed as quickly as possible.
Read about CAPSS in the 2004
SPUR Newsletter at: www.
spur.org/documents/040801 _
article _ 01.shtm.. Y
Urbanist > November/December 2007
3
update
by Gabriel Metcalf and Egon Terplan
The Northern California megaregion, home to 14 million people,
is expected to add at least 10 million people by 2050. How we
plan for and accommodate that growth is the defining question
for urban planing in Northern California today.
Regional planning
Growth management
Sustainable development
The Northern California
megaregion
We’ve outgrown the original boundaries of the
Bay Area. It’s time to face this fact and start solving
problems at the scale of the megaregion.
Gabriel Metcalf
is executive
director of SPUR.
Egon Terplan
is economic
development
and governance
policy director
of SPUR.
The United States population is projected to grow
by more than 45 percent in the next half-century.
The total population today of more than 303 million
will surpass 400 million before 2050.1 Unlike
Europe and Japan, we face the question of where
our larger population will go. In an era when people
distrust government, dislike taxes and in many
cases are opposed to growth itself, how will we
provide the infrastructure to enable a continued high
quality of life for a country that will be much larger
than it is today?
Demographic trends suggest that America’s
growth will be clustered, virtually all of it going to
10 to 12 large “megaregions” of the country. Other
parts of the country will actually lose population.
A group of civic organizations, think tanks,
universities and public agencies, led by the Regional
Plan Association of New York, has been working
over the last several years to lay the foundations
for a proactive planning approach to the country’s
growth. Under the name America 2050, this group
of organizations is creating a national framework
or approach to guiding the country’s physical
evolution.2 The RPA has identified 10 megaregions
in the United States. One of the megaregions is in
Northern California.
SPUR has initiated conversations with the
University of California, the Bay Area Council, the
Great Valley Center and others about the future of
Northern California. This region of 14 million people
is projected to add at least 10 million more people
by 2050. How we plan for and accommodate that
growth is the defining question for urban planning
in Northern California today. Whether we become
a series of interconnected and sustainable cities
ringed by greenbelts or a continuous blanket of
urban sprawl between the coasts and the Sierra will
be defined by the actions we take over the coming
years.
This issue of the Urbanist looks at the idea of
a megaregion in Northern California — one of the
nation’s most important and economically dynamic
megaregions. In it, we explore:
>The historic relationships that have defined the
region.
>Evidence of increasing Northern California
integration.
>Various approaches to defining the boundaries
of our megaregion.
>Planning strategies that become possible by
using the new megaregion frame.
Historic relationships that
have defined the region
How do we know we have a megaregion? If
nothing else, it is because the cities and suburbs
of Northern California are increasingly growing
together. Growth has outstripped the traditional
nine-county Bay Area and has leapt north, south
and east, joining with Sacramento and its suburbs.
There is increasingly a single urbanized area with
limited undeveloped land along Interstate Highway
80 from Vallejo through Vacaville, Fairfield, Dixon,
Davis, Sacramento, Roseville, Rocklin and to
Auburn. Heading east past Interstate Highway 580,
we see a string of cities from Dublin and Livermore
to Tracy and Manteca. Along State Highway 99 to
the north and south is another series of increasingly
1
Current population from
“Population clocks” of US
Census, www.census.gov.
Projected population growth
from US Census, www.
census.gov/population/
projections/nation/
summary/np-t1.txt
2
The historian of city
planning in America, Robert
Fishman, has written a
piece for the RPA about the
two great national planning
efforts in American history,
the 1808 Gallatin Plan
commissioned by Thomas
Jefferson, which proposed
a network of canals and
roads, as well as a land
distribution system, to
settle the West; and the
1908 efforts of Theodore
Roosevelt, which proposed
a series of massive land
conservation programs,
dams, and inland waterways
to bring prosperity to
the South and West of
the country. See Robert
Fishman, “1808 – 1908
– 2008: National Planning
for America,” Regional Plan
Association, July 8-13, 2007
(www.rpa.org/pdf/temp)
Americapercent2020
50percent20Website/
Fishmanpercent
20Nationalpercent
20Planningpercent20
Final.pdf)
Ten emerging megaregions of the United States
Source: Regional Plan Association, America 2050
3
Gray Brechin, Imperial
San Francisco: Urban
Power, Earthly Ruin,
Berkeley: University of
California Press (1999),
p. XXV.
contiguous cities from Sacramento through Elk
Grove and Lodi to Stockton, Manteca, Modesto,
Turlock and beyond. From San Jose south along
U.S. Highway 101 we see a string of sprawl past
Morgan Hill and Gilroy and south toward Salinas.
Even Los Banos, more than 80 miles from San
Jose in the Central Valley, is a fast-growing low-cost
suburb of Silicon Valley. Its growth trajectory looks
similar to Tracy’s and is further evidence of our
emerging megaregion.
But the economic connection between the
coastal cities and interior lands far from the Bay
Area is not new for Northern California. In fact, our
emerging megaregion is overlaid on top of a rich set
of historical relationships.
Since Gold was discovered in El Dorado County
in 1848, San Francisco and Sacramento have
been deeply enmeshed with the Sierra Nevada.
Both cities served as headquarters for the natural
resource exploitation of the Sierra, providing the
jumping-off point for industrialists to manage first
mining (gold in the Sierras and silver in Nevada),
then logging, then agriculture — and eventually
serving as a proving ground for a template for
natural-resource exploitation around the entire
Pacific Rim. Companies such as Wells Fargo and
the Bank of California emerged as the financiers
for these industries. The Bank of Italy (later Bank
of America) emerged as the lead financier of
agribusiness in the Central Valley. Other prominent
San Francisco companies such as Chevron (formerly
Standard Oil), Del Monte, Pacific Gas and Electric,
and Bechtel all grew out of this process.
Geographer Gray Brechin describes this
relationship between San Francisco and the broader
region, stretching up into the Sierras, with the Italian
word contado, a phrase for territory or hinterland,
which encompasses villages that pay tribute to
the central city, provide natural resources and are
economically — if not politically — subjugated.3
It has been more than half a century since the
powerful in San Francisco even had the ambition to
exercise that kind of influence — major independent
economies have taken root in Silicon Valley,
Most of the
nation’s
growth will be
concentrated
in 10 emerging
megaregions.
5
Evidence of increasing Northern
California integration
Change in population, Bay Area and
surrounding 12 counties, 1900-2050
12
PEOPLE (IN MILLIONS)
10
Bay Area
8
6
4
Surrounding 12 counties
2
0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
YEAR
Note: Neighboring counties are defined as Mendocino, Lake, Colusa, Yolo,
Sacramento, Placer, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, San Benito, Monterey,
and Santa Cruz counties.
Source: www.census.gov/population/cencounts/ca190090.txt
At the beginning of
the 20th century,
Northern California
was a relatively
unpopulated place
with under a
million residents.
Then during WWII,
the population
exploded in the
Bay Area. As
growth has
somewhat slowed
in the Bay Area, it
has picked up in
the surrounding
12 counties which
are projected
to surge past 8
million by 2050.
Emeryville, Oakland, Napa and Sacramento; the
region’s port and industrial center moved to the East
Bay — and yet it is helpful to remember the early
economic geography as we explore for resonances
that explain the way our region functions today.
The early economic geography was itself grafted
onto the physical geography of the region, with the
waters of the Sierra draining into California’s two
great rivers, the Sacramento and the San Joaquin,
which in turn flow through the Delta and into the
Bay. San Francisco was the closest port to ships
from around the world; Vallejo, Benicia, Stockton
and Sacramento provided access to seagoing ships
inland. These river systems still provide the drinking
water for the urbanized Bay Area, with the San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission providing
most of its water from the Tuolumne River and the
East Bay Municipal Utility District getting most of
its water from the Mokelumne River — two major
rivers that drain the Sierra into the San Joaquin.
Finally, it is worth noting that the old rural
hinterland — the source of food, energy, water,
and raw materials that feed the urban metabolism
— has become the playground for city-dwellers.
Under the influence of the modern environmental
movement, the natural areas came to be seen
as having recreation and aesthetic value in their
own rights, and were redefined as the places of
leisure for urbanites to hike, camp, ski and boat. In
short, there has been an interconnected Northern
California region for quite a long time, defined by
physical, economic, and cultural geography.
Today, a new set of connections isSurrounding
being layered 12 counties
onto the old ones. New communities are being
Area
built all along Highways 80 and 50 Bay
up into
the
foothills of the Sierra. High cost housing in the
inner core of the Bay Area has prompted private
land owners and local governments in San Joaquin,
Stanislaus, and Merced Counties to rezone prime
agricultural land to support new housing tracts for
new mega-commuters — heading either west to the
Bay Area or north to Sacramento. The phenomena
of compressed work weeks — people who visit
their work address less than five times a week
— extends feasible commuting distances for people
who officially work in the Bay Area well into the
Sierra and even to Reno.
Four key patterns of regional integration are
the evidence for an emerging Northern California
megaregion that connects the Bay Area and greater
Sacramento:
>A contiguous spatial integration through
rampant land consumption and sprawling
development.
>A corridor network integration through
increased commuting and goods movement on
interstates between counties and across hundreds
of miles.
>An economic integration through trade
relationships, employment location, and use of
different parts of the region as platforms for lower
cost production.
>A cultural integration with shared youth culture
and a growing second home market.
Land consumption
The nine-county Bay Area will grow to 8.7
million by 2030, an increase of 1.5 million. During
the same period, the surrounding 12 counties are
forecasted to grow to 6.6 million, an increase of 2.1
million.4
As anyone stuck in traffic congestion in the
Altamont Pass or on Sunol Grade knows, travel
demand is exploding on the 580/680 corridor
connecting the Central Valley, Tri-Valley and Silicon
Valley. Throughout the fast growing and congested
corridors, there has been an obvious landscape
transformation as subdivisions, office parks and
strip malls have replaced farmlands and open fields.
By 2040 another 1 million acres of land could be
consumed for urban growth in the San Joaquin
Valley alone, nearly tripling the current extent of
urbanization.5
Since the 1970s, our region’s growth has
increasingly taken place outside the traditional
4
State of California,
Department of Finance,
Population Projections
for California and Its
Counties 2000-2050,
2007. www.dof.ca.gov/
html/DEMOGRAP/
ReportsPapers/
Projections/P1/P1.php
5
“Urban Development
Futures in the San
Joaquin Valley,” Michael
B. Teitz, Charles
Dietzel, and William
Fulton, February 2005.
www.ppic.org/main/
publication.asp?i=341
Source: Rand
California. ca.rand.
org/stats/community/
popdensity.html Note:
The one exception was
Yolo County that saw 93
percent growth over that
period, greater than all
Bay Area counties except
Solano and Sonoma (at
130 percent and 116
percent respectively).
7
Still, most commute
patterns are within,
not between counties.
Among the top 25 largest
commuter flows in
California, only three
are between counties
– and the 25th is the
only one in Northern
California (Contra Costa
to Alameda) with about
96,000 daily commuters.
8
The growing challenges
of Northern California
congestion — on
highways and rail — and
the need for appropriate
transportation
investments has resulted
in new collaborations
and studies. Both the
major transportation
planning agencies in
Northern California
(the Metropolitan
Transportation
Commission in the Bay
Area and Sacramento
Area Council of
Governments in greater
Sacramento) have
recently completed
studies of goods
movements through and
from their respective
regions. The Bay Area
report extended the
traditional 9-county
focus and included
central San Joaquin
County in their analysis.
9
Bay Bio, History of
the Industry. www.
baybio.org/wt/home/
Industry _ Statistics
10
MTC, Goods Movement
Study (2002) www.mtc.
ca.gov/planning/rgm/
6
Transportation flows and
commute patterns
Today, Northern California has strongly defined
job centers in key counties — Santa Clara,
Alameda, San Francisco, and Sacramento —
with commuters arriving from ever further away to
reach these jobs.
As new residents settle into the subdivisions
beyond the historic boundaries of the Bay Area,
the megacommute becomes an increasing reality.7
Between 1990 and 2000, thousands of new
daily commuters began arriving in the traditional
9-county Bay Area from further outlying counties.
Between 1980 and 2000, the number of
commuters from 12 neighboring counties into the
Bay Area 9-county core nearly quadrupled from
30,000 to over 117,000 daily. Given that the vast
majority of commuters were driving alone, nearly
90,000 new cars were added to already congested
roadways from these trips alone.8
Economic integration
If the old northern California economy revolved
around the command and control of resource flows
from the hinterlands into the central cities, today’s
patterns of economic integration provide much more
potential for the sharing of economic benefits.
For example, the biotech and biomedical
industries were formed in the Bay Area in the
1970s (tied to the University of California, San
Francisco, the University of California at Berkeley
and Stanford University) but then began expanding
beyond those boundaries towards Sacramento. In
1986, UC Davis (in Yolo County) began its own
Ag-biotech program and is now an international
leader in that aspect of biotech.9 In more recent
years, major biotech firms such as Genentech are
locating in Vacaville, also in Yolo County and along
the Highway 80 corridor.
Other technology sectors formed in Silicon Valley
had a similar migration. Starting in the 1980s,
major Silicon Valley firms opened branch plants
for manufacturing and back-office work in the
suburbs around Sacramento. For example, Hewlett
Packard has a major facility in Roseville, outside
Sacramento. While these firms also expanded in
other locations around world, the choice of the
Increase in commuting to Bay Area
from 12 neighboring counties
120
S.F./San Mateo
D A I LY C O M M U T E R S ( I N T H O U S A N D S )
nine-county Bay Area. Between 1972 and 2004,
the only Bay Area counties that more than doubled
the number of people per square mile were Solano
and Sonoma. However, every county in the
Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys more than
doubled the number of people per square mile.6 Over
the coming decades there will be further growth and
integration of the Bay Area and Central Valley.
Contra Costa
100
Alameda
80
60
Santa Clara
40
20
0
Solano, Sonoma,
Napa, Marin
1980
1990
2000
YEAR
Note: Neighboring counties are defined as Mendocino, Lake, Colusa, Yolo,
Sacramento, Placer, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, San Benito, Monterey,
and Santa Cruz Counties.
Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission, www.mtc.ca.gov/maps _ and _
data/datamart/census/county2county/
Central Valley was based on the close proximity to
the headquarter firm as well as access to a lower
cost business climate.
One of the megaregion’s economic engines
— the Port of Oakland — has also been engaged
in collaborations that reinforce the megaregional
concept. It has a joint operating agreement with
an inland port in Shafter, over 250 miles away at
the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley. Unlike
most other ports in the West Coast, the Port of
Oakland is export-oriented. Of the total value of
nearly $80 billion that flows through the port, a
larger share is exports than imports.10 In this way,
the Port serves an important economic function
for the technology economies of the Bay Area and
agriculture economies of interior Northern California
to get goods to foreign markets.
Commuting into
the Bay Area
from surrounding
counties has
quadrupled
between 1980
and 2000 with
the biggest growth
going to Alameda
and Santa Clara
counties.
Cultural integration
In the 20th century, “California” as an idealized
place and identity was developed and reinforced by
infrastructure, investment, foresight and marketing.
Yet, while outsiders perceived California as a
more or less unified economic and political entity,
residents increasingly saw the distinctions between
north and south and identified strongly with one or
the other.
Water formed a part of the divide between north
and south. Northern California made ample use of
the waters of the Sierras for economic development
and growth, but as Southern California laid claim
7
History of the megaregion concept
The megaregion concept was inspired by Jean
Gottman who coined “the megalopolis” in the
early 1960s to describe the urbanized northeast
corridor between southern Maine and northern
Virginia.1 Even when that megaregion was first
identified, there was a recognition that other
regions in the United States would see growing
integration. At the time, sociologist Jerome Pickard
predicted that by 2000 there would be three
major urbanized areas in the country. The largest
would be an “Atlantic Seaboard” megaregion
extending from southern Virginia to Maine and
west to Chicago and Milwaukee. The second
largest would be a “California” one extending from
Santa Rosa to Tijuana and including Sacramento.
The third largest would be called the “Florida
Peninsula” and include the entire state minus the
panhandle and the Everglades. While Pickard
failed to identify the tremendous growth in and
around Atlanta and Houston (as anchors of their
respective megaregions), he did identify that the
largest megaregions would grow by connecting
preexisting metropolitan regions with each other.
More recently, the notion of connecting existing
metropolitan regions has been explored by Robert
Lang, a leading demographer. He has argued for
the notion of a “megapolitan” region that has the
following criteria:2
>Will have more than 10 million residents
by 2040.
>Can be traversed by car from one end to
the other in less than a day’s drive.
>Combines two or more metropolitan areas
(that have a strong central city) and are located
between 50 and 200 miles apart.
>Connects contiguous metropolitan
and micropolitan areas (with counties as the
base unit).
>Has an established transportation
infrastructure between its centers.
>By 2040 will have commuting flows of at
least 15 percent between the larger and the
smaller areas within the megapolitan area (this
is also referred to as reaching an “employment
interchange measure” of 0.15 by 2040).3
The other prominent methodological approach
to megaregion geography comes from the
Regional Plan Association, the convener of the
America 2050 project, of which SPUR is a
participant. The RPA has identified five major
categories and layers of relationships that define
megaregions.
>Environmental systems and topography
> Infrastructure systems
> Economic linkages
>Settlement patterns and land use
>Shared culture and history
The RPA’s criteria are less stringent than Robert
Lang’s, relying on either a more broad-based or
more intuitive set of relationships (depending on
your perspective) to define the boundaries. Of the
map of the ten megaregions in the US, some have
fairly contiguous development (the Northeast, the
Tucson-Phoenix “Sun Corridor”, the two regions
in California). Others cover much larger areas with
widely separated urban places (the Midwest, the
Piedmont-Atlantic Region). The RPA is interested
in the traditional physical planning connections
like integrated labor markets, infrastructure, and
land-use systems across networks of metropolitan
regions. But the RPA is also interested in cultural
connections, communications flows, and
landscapes.
The megaregion concept is also being used
in Europe and Asia as a way to organize large,
often cross-national, regions. These emerging
“global integration zones” use high-speed rail and
separated goods movement systems to increase
mobility and competitiveness. While sometimes
large in scale (i.e. London to Paris to Brussels),
this approach links individual metropolitan regions
over a broad area. The resultant  megaregions
have strong urban centers or “central cities” that
each generate their own growth and dynamism
but also retain a strong connection to each other. Having had the benefit of looking at the other nine
regions’ attempts to map their own boundaries,
we are happy to offer the maps in this issue as a
first attempt at mapping our own megaregion.4
For SPUR’s own analysis and
maps of the megaregion, see
pages 16 through 25.
1
www.america2050.
org/2005/11/
reinventing _
megalopolis _
the _ no.html
2
www.lincolninst.
edu/pubs/PubDetail.
aspx?pubid=1039 and
www.mi.vt.edu/ (see
“Presentation to the
Civic Council Board
Retreat by Robert Lang,
Ph.D. on March 3,
2007”).
3
The Employment
Interchange Measure
(EIM) is defined by
the Bureau of the
Census as the sum
of the percentage
of commuting from
the smaller area to
the larger area and
the percentage of
employment in the
smaller area accounted
for by workers residing
in the larger area. www.
census.gov/sdc/www/
metrostandards.ppt
4
See www.
america2050.org for
a complete listing of
all the reports about
megaregions
11
Youth culture has
also spawned different
linguistic markers that
continue to reinforce
a cultural identity of
Northern California
as distinct from Los
Angeles. While Southern
California was the
genesis of the “Valley
Girl” speech patterns
in the 1980s, in more
recent years, Northern
California spawned the
expressions of “hecka”
and “hella” as synonyms
for “very” or “extremely”.
These “Norcal” words
are used to reinforce a
geographic identity that
extends east from the
Bay Area and includes
Sacramento and its
suburbs. The derivations
of these words are
likely in Berkeley. See:
Berkeley High School
Slang Dictionary, Rick
Ayers, Berkeley High
School. See also Jennifer
Roth-Gordon. Slang
and the Struggle Over
Meaning. www.brown.
edu/Departments/
Race _ Ethnicity/rothgordon/JenRothGordon _
diss _ total _ noimages.
pdf Residents of “SoCal”
would be identified as a
Northern Californian by
use of these words. See
Colleen Cotter, Lonely
Planet USA Phrasebook:
Understanding Americans
& Their Culture, 2001.
12
Note: All data presented
is for California counties
only. The proposed
Nevada counties in the
sphere of influence of
the megaregion are not
included in the data.
13
These data are based
on comparing the
counties in the Northern
California sphere-ofinfluence with the State
of California as a whole
but does not include data
on the Nevada counties.
In recent years,
San Jose has
become Northern
California’s
largest city. As
employment in
Silicon Valley has
recovered, the
southern part of
the megaregion
is again luring
residents and
commuters. The
way to San Jose
along Highways 1,
5 and 101 define
the southern edges
of the megaregion.
to different Sierra waters, residents of Northern
California felt — with righteous indignation — that
“their” water was being taken for use by Los
Angeles to feed its growth.
In the 1960s and 1970s, the identity of the north
revolved more around environmental consciousness
and alternative culture. Consider, for example,
Ernest Callenbach’s 1975 novel, Ecotopia, which
postulated the secession and creation of a new
society by Northern California, Washington and
Oregon (but not including Southern California).11
This notion of cultural integration is perhaps the
least empirical of the four indicators of an emerging
Northern California. However, it is among the
most important when we begin tackling solutions.
Ultimately, the way we grow and how we live will
be an expression of our identities.
Defining the megaregion
To determine our own megaregional boundary,
we mapped four key features — travel times,
population growth and land consumption,
environmental features, and pre-existing,
government-defined regional groupings. Our intent
is to share our thought process and methods in a
transparent way, and to build up to a reasonable
composite definition of the region. Some analysis
is presented at the statewide level and some at the
megaregional level (i.e. Northern California).
Based on these maps, we propose to define the
Northern California megaregion with both a core
and sphere of influence. The core area combines
the primary urban areas around San Francisco Bay
Photo: www.flickr.com/photo _ zoom.gne?id=87204847&size=l
with the greater Sacramento region and includes the
nearby commuting counties in the Central Valley,
foothills, and central coast. The sphere of influence
extends south to the Fresno area, east into the
undeveloped Sierra counties and Reno and north
beyond Santa Rosa past Ukiah.
The Northern California megaregion has 14
million people and over 5.7 million jobs.12 Over
the next several decades, the Northern California
megaregion is projected to grow slightly faster than
the state as a whole and will increase its share of
the state’s population to 40 percent by 2050.
When we look at the difference between the core
and sphere-of-influence counties in the megaregion,
there is a striking contrast. The core of the Northern
California megaregion is defined by connecting the
commute sheds of greater Sacramento with the
Bay Area. These 21 counties account for nearly
85 percent of the population of the megaregion.
Beyond the core are the sphere-of-influence
counties to the north (to Mendocino), east (to the
Sierras and Reno) and south (beyond Fresno). There
are 16 counties in California and five in Nevada.
These counties in the sphere of influence of the
core and are thus a part of the Northern California
megaregion. They are growing faster than the core;
have higher unemployment and lower wages; and
are more Latino and far less Asian or black than
the core or the State of California as a whole. They
also take up a larger share of the state and have 4
million more acres of land.13
As a whole, our Northern California megaregion
is one of the most prosperous and dynamic regions
9
Downtown San
Francisco and
downtown Oakland
both offer a model
of concentrated
employment along
transit with nearby
housing. Making
better use of the
existing urban
cores throughout
the megaregion
will reduce
urban sprawl
and automobile
reliance. Northern
California today
must invest in
extensive transit
between and within
communities to
increase mobility
and access. We
have a choice
about whether or
not we channel
the projected
growth in a way
that improves the
quality of life.
in North America, if not the world. Its residents
are highly-educated, it has a diverse and growing
economic base, and its natural lands range from
Yosemite to Big Sur and from Lake Tahoe to Point
Reyes. The megaregion combines several commute
sheds and overlaps strongly with the San Francisco
Bay’s watershed and historic hinterland. In short, this
is a region that we should feel proud to call home.
Solving problems at
the megaregional scale
Looking at the long history of regional planning
efforts, both in the Bay Area and elsewhere,
we find mostly failure. Why would anyone
propose a new, larger region when we haven’t
even begun to do real planning for the nine
counties that currently constitute the official
nine-county Bay region?
The answer, simply, is that there are certain
problems that are taking place at this larger scale.
We can choose to ignore them but that doesn’t
make the problems go away. Sprawl, fueled by
the economic dynamism of the Bay Area, is filling
up the Central Valley, with the possibility of even
more unchecked growth over the next half-century.
Exurban development is eating up the Sierra
foothills, with second homes, retirees and those
active in the work force but who have either flexible
schedules or compressed work weeks.
The functional economic region of daily
commuting comes increasingly to match the
hinterland region that supplies our water and the
The functional economic region
of daily commuting comes
increasingly to match the
hinterland region that supplies
our water and the cultural region
of the weekend getaway.
cultural region of the weekend getaway.
Because development is clearly taking place
at the megaregional scale, transportation problems
occur at the same scale. So the basic physical
planning questions — How should human
settlement be arranged over the land? And what
kind of infrastructure is necessary to support those
land use patterns? — can only be answered by a
strategy that is cognizant of the larger scale.
This doesn’t mean we should be creating some
sort of megaregional government. It is impossible to
imagine a new jurisdictional level being acceptable
within the highly ossified political structure of
America. What it means is that we have to discover
new strategies that can solve some of the specific
problems we are facing at the megaregional scale.
Our hypothesis is that the right approach is
to think in terms of campaigns, projects and
initiatives rather than to create new general-purpose
institutions of governance or coordination. At this
early stage in the process, when civic groups and
http://www.flickr.com/photo _ zoom.gne?id=485353841&size=o
An example of megaregional planning:
The Regional Rail Plan
The Regional Rail Plan undertaken by
BART and the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission is one of the first official planning
efforts to actually work at the megaregional scale,
and therefore it deserves special mention here.5
This plan was conceived of as the successor to
the 1957 BART Plan, with the ambition to guide
transportation and development for another
half-century. And it was framed to take in not
just the Bay Area, but also Sacramento and
the core commuting areas of the Central Valley.
MTC adopted the plan in September of this year,
providing the following major ideas for the region:
>The BART system is essentially complete,
aside from needing to tie it off at logical major
transfer points. The next set of investments in
rail will be in modern, rapid, European-style
passenger trains, connecting to BART just as
Paris’ RER, a commuter rail network more
formally known as the Réseau Express Régional,
complements the urban subway system, the
Métro.
>The Regional Rail Plan recommends
upgrading the Altamont Commuter Express
corridor to two dedicated passenger tracks
running rapid, frequent, electrified trains. While
ACE has been successful in this corridor, it is
highly constrained by the single track it shares
government officials in Northern California have
barely begun to even recognize their shared fate,
we cannot predict what the answers will be. But we
can suggest a few ideas that seem interesting.
A Northern California rail network
Given the inter-related problems we face with
sprawl, car dependency, long commutes and
loss of farmland, one of the most obvious things
Northern California is missing is a regional rail
network that could out-compete the automobile
for inter-city trips. Such a rail network would
facilitate daily commuting and greater economic
cooperation, reduce pollution from driving, and,
most importantly, provide an armature to structure
the next 50 years of growth in the region.
This first proposal for action is at the top of
the list of many other megaregions in America.
The Regional Plan Association’s work on the
Northeast Corridor, linking the five major cities
with slow-moving freight trains. It is further limited
by regional funding policies that direct resources
to where people live rather than where they work.
The challenge will be getting the three regional
transportation planning and funding agencies
in the corridor to work together to prioritize rail
improvements over endless freeway widenings.
>With ridership second only to the Northeast
Corridor, the Capitol Corridor (Bay Area to
Sacramento, along the edge of the Bay and
Delta) will also see a huge increase in passenger
demand between San Jose, Oakland and
Sacramento. But its narrow trackway is edged on
both sides by environmentally sensitive wetlands
and the Bay, limiting options for widening and
straightening the track. More importantly, it is
owned by Union Pacific, which expects a doubling
of freight demand by 2020, limiting speed,
frequency and reliability of passenger trains in the
important I-80 corridor. As a result, the Regional
Rail Plan urges a high-speed rail connection from
San Francisco to Sacramento via the Altamont
Pass, which would also serve Central Valley
commuters traveling to jobs throughout the TriValley and inner Bay Area.
These are examples of the kinds of
infrastructure projects that make sense at the
megaregional scale.
5
See the Regional
Rail Plan at www.mtc.
ca.gov/planning/rail/
of the Northeast (Boston, New York, Philadelphia,
Baltimore and Washington) along with many
smaller sub-centers, is perhaps the best example.
The RPA has convened business leaders and
economic policy organizations to build political
support for increased investment in the Northeast
Corridor, working on a multiyear funding
authorization for Amtrak in Congress (currently
the Lott-Lautenberg Senate Bill) and, in the longer
run, exploring a long-term capital plan for the
corridor and branch lines and alternative models
of governance for the core line.
In many ways, the Northeast’s identity as a
coherent region is defined by the existence of the
only moderately high-speed rail line in America
(75-150 mph versus 200 mph in Europe and
Japan), running like a spine through the major
cities, as well as the multiple regional rail services
that share the Corridor with Amtrak. So this is a
region with a high degree of awareness about
11
Downtown
Sacramento
as seen from
Yolo County to
the west. The
capital of the
state presents an
evolving vision of
an urban center
with a downtown
job core,
commuter rail,
and increasinlgy
dense nearto-downtown
neighborhoods.
Nevertheless,
Sacramento is
still plagued
by challenges
of regional job
and housing
sprawl which
are stretching
commutes and
consuming
farmland
and open
space. Making
concentrated
growth a success
in Sacramento
is inevitably
part of Central
Valley landscape
preservation
campaigns.
what is has to lose from any decline in service
— and what it has to gain from new rail linkages.
In the Northeast, the expanding commute
distances and merging of formerly distinct urban
commute sheds is at least partially structured
ºby the preexisting network of old rail lines. As
housing throughout the New York metropolitan
region becomes unaffordable for many,
development pressure follows New Jersey Transit,
Metro North and the Long Island Railroad commuter
services that extend radially from Manhattan. With
Amtrak’s Acela Express service cutting travel time
from Philadelphia to New York, people are referring
to Philadelphia as the “sixth borough.” Of course,
the East suffers from car-based sprawl as well,
but the possibility of channeling growth along
upgraded (rather than new) rail lines into restored
(rather than new) town centers is very real.
The West has old rail lines, too, many of which
linked cities and towns that were built before the
automobile. The Altamont Commuter Express,
bringing commuters from more affordable housing
in Stockton to work in Silicon Valley, is a potential
analogue to the East Coast dynamic. But the West
has a much higher proportion of building stock
that was built around the assumption of cars,
highways and endless petroleum. For us, the
expanding commute distances that comprise the
emerging megaregion are truly terrifying signals of
environmentally destructive sprawl.
And this is precisely why we need a high-speed
network — in fact, we need it more than the
Northeast does. We simply have no other hope of
structuring growth into socially and environmentally
productive forms without it.
While California’s planned High Speed Rail
system is often referred to as “S.F. to L.A.”, the
reality is that it may have its biggest impacts
on travel within Northern California and within
Southern California. It is within each of the state’s
two great areas of urbanization that High Speed
Rail can actually restructure patterns of growth and
development.14
A landscape preservation campaign
for the Central Valley
If infrastructure investments have sometimes
managed to galvanize people across large
geographies, so too have efforts to protect natural
landscapes. The movement to save San Francisco
Bay, which did so much to cement the identity
of the Bay Area as a region, is perhaps the best
example close to home. On a national scale,
consider the Appalachian Trail. From the first
proposal of the idea by Benton MacKaye in 1921,
the landscape was preserved through countless
thousands of appropriations by legislatures, fundraising drives, activist campaigns and acts
http://www.flickr.com/photo _ zoom.gne?id=27864145&size=l
The fight over the
alignment in Northern
California (Pacheco pass
to the south vs. Altamont
through the East Bay)
is partly a fight over the
purpose of the network:
the Pacheco alignment
may be better for NorthSouth travel, while
Altamont is more useful
for connecting the Bay
Area to Sacramento.
14
$100
50
Percent of Renters Who Spend
>35 Percent of Income on Rent
80
35
60
25
PERCENT
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME (IN THOUSANDS)
Household income and rent burden, 2006
15
40
5
20
0
0
Sacramento
Modesto
Elk
Grove
Fresno
Stockton Oakland Salinas San Jose Fremont
CITY
San Sunnyvale
Francisco
Source: American Community Survey, 2006. factfinder.census.gov/servlet/CTGeoSearchByListServlet?ds _ name=ACS _
2006 _ EST _ G00 _ & _ lang=en& _ ts=211294072236
15
See www.greatvalley.
org. For example, in the
“Valley Futures” project
they ask the following
questions: “What will
living in California’s Great
Central Valley be like in
2025? Will the residents
of the San Joaquin
Valley come together to
craft a multiethnic New
Eden with clean air, a
diverse economy, and
a strong agricultural
industry? Will the sixcounty Sacramento
Region mature into a
world-class center of
jobs and innovation
driven by collaborative
leadership and foresight?
And further north, will
the people of the rural
North Valley create The
Good Life by making
the most of their fragile
natural resources while
meeting the challenges of
growth?”
16
See James M. Ferris
and Elizabeth Graddy,
“Philanthropic Activity
in California’s Central
Valley: 1996-2002,”
August, 2004: www.
usc.edu/assets/cppp/
dl.php?file=central _
valley _ report.pdf
17
See www.tuolumne.org
of generosity. There is no “government” that
manages it all, but the Appalachian Trail is an
idea that has been realized through cooperation
across a large region.
One of the key implications of a megaregional
analysis is that we need to do a better job protecting
the Central Valley, not as an attempt to turn it
into a nature preserve but as an attempt to save
farming as a viable part of the economy of the state.
Drawing the Central Valley into the megaregional
discussion is not without its challenges. Central
Valley communities have been largely left out of the
prosperity of the Bay Area and are understandably
eager for growth and development; talk of
preservation or growth management by people
closer to the coasts can sound condescending and
unwelcome. The aggrieved farmers who defend
their right to sell land to developers as potentially
their only path to any kind of economic security
require some sort of a thoughtful response. And yet
the answer can’t be to do nothing and allow most
of the Valley floor to be converted into subdivisions
and office parks.
We see many signs of hope in the efforts of
civic organizations. The most important of all is the
Great Valley Center, which is providing broad and
thoughtful leadership on a whole series of planning
and economic development issues for the Central
Valley.15 The Irvine Foundation, which studied
Despite having a lower
cost of living, some
communities in the
Central Valley face
a much higher cost
of living burden with
greater than 40%
of renters spending
over 35% of income
on rent. Only Oakland
had a similar (though
slightly lower) level
of rent burden. This
graph also shows that
the higher the average
household income, the
lower percent of people
are overspending on
rent. An equity agenda
for Northern California
invariably must
address the income
and affordability gaps
between coast and
interior.
The real goal is to find a way
to create good jobs and
affordable housing throughout
the megaregion without
exacerbating sprawl.
patterns of philanthropy across the state, has made
a major commitment to direct funding to the Central
Valley as a way to begin addressing imbalances
in funding for civic efforts.16 The Tuolumne River
Trust works across a slice of the megaregion,
asking people who drink water from the Tuolumne
River — 2.5 million people in San Francisco, San
Mateo and Santa Clara Counties — to care about
the health of the river system and the land it flows
through.17 Perhaps it is time to begin a series of
campaigns to save specific pieces of habitat as
a way of drawing attention to the Central Valley’s
precariousness.
Or perhaps we need also to work at a much
larger scale, using the power of the state
government. Do we need a reform of the Williamson
Act that would provide real financial incentives to
keep land under agriculture? What would it take
to finally get Caltrans out of the sprawl-enabling
business, to use state infrastructure money to
13
how people commute to work, 2006
100
80
Other Bicycle
Walk
Work at home
Transit
Carpool
P E R C E N TA G E
Drive alone
60
40
20
Traveling to work
by car is the most
common commute
form throughout
the megaregion.
Part of the goal
of more closely
linking our centers
will be to increase
the share taken
by transit as well
as walking and
bicycling.
0
COMMUTE MODE
Note: Not all counties in the megaregion are included due to
low counts. The counties in the core which are not included
are San Benito, Sutter, and Yuba. The counties in the sphere
of influence that are not included are Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Colusa, Glenn, Lake, Mariposa, Mendocino, Sierra,
and Tuolumne.
Source: US Census, American Community Survey, 2006,
factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet? _
program=ACS& _ submenuId=& _ lang=en& _ ts=
support only center-oriented growth? Is it possible
to imagine transfer-of-development-rights programs
working among counties in California, allowing
builders inside cities to buy extra development
rights from farmers in the form of easements? Or
do we simply need to spend a lot more money on
habitat acquisition, through organizations such as
the Nature Conservancy and the Trust for Public
Land? These are the kinds of conversations we
need to be having across the megaregion.
An equity agenda for
Northern California
One of the main benefits of megaregional
thinking is the opportunity to further link
underperforming parts of the region with the
dynamic centers. The real goal is to find a
way to create good jobs and affordable
housing throughout the megaregion without
exacerbating sprawl.
Over recent decades, most new jobs created
in California tended to be at either the high end
of the income spectrum or the low end, with fewer
job opportunities at or near the median income.
This is particularly true in the Bay Area, where
fast-growing industries range from financial services
at the high end to hospitality at the low end. The
middle segment of the population, in both income
and education, often moves out of the high-cost
regions to seek affordable housing, particularly
in the Central Valley. So far we see tremendous
population growth in the Central Valley, but little
job growth in high-wage emerging industries.
The Northeast offers an interesting comparison
for Northern California. While there is substantial
housing pressure on some of the Northeast’s
“hot market” cities (New York, Boston,
Washington, D.C.), the Northeast also contains
many “cold market” cities that have experienced
disinvestment over the past several decades
(Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Haven). The
Regional Plan Association has suggested that one
potential strategy is to better link “hot market”
cities with “cold market” cities through enhanced
transportation. The equity benefits, these studies
argue, are twofold: First, residents of hot-market
cities would be able to access affordable housing
opportunities in cold-market cities; and second,
residents of cold-market cities would be able to
access job opportunities in hot-market cities.
Once again, it will be difficult for this model
to translate well to California. The Northeast is a
much older region than Northern California and
has many more older, transit-oriented cities located
in close proximity to its major cities than Northern
California does. Nevertheless, better transit linkages
between Northern California’s cold-market cities
and its existing job base could be one solution
to easing the region’s housing pressure. This is
particularly true for the older central cities of the
Central Valley — Sacramento, Stockton, and
Modesto.
The goal for Northern California is then to
concentrate new jobs and housing in core areas
at the coast and inland, including existing
downtowns such as Sacramento, Oakland,
Stockton, and Modesto. We should then create
direct transit linkages between these nodes to
enable workers from throughout the megaregion
access to the greatest range of job opportunities.
Further, we should look to build economic districts
around other key transportation nodes such as
high-speed rail stops and airports, so long as
there are plans for transit linkages to the airports.
This approach must be linked with a strategy to
create career-ladder employment opportunities
for low wage workers in high-cost regions,
because fewer middle-income jobs remain, as
well as to retain and grow the industries in the
lower cost regions that offer middle income
employment.
The waters of the
Tuolumne River,
captured by the
O’Shaughnessy
damn in Hetch
Hetchy, flow
from the
Sierra Nevada
providing power
to Central Valley
communities and
drinking water
to millions in the
Bay Area. This
infrastructure
initially linked
the coast to
its distant
hinterland in the
mountains. Today
it reinforces a
shared ecology
and the need
for working
on common
problems across
the megaregion.
Our perspective is that the megaregion approach
will help create new middle-income opportunities
that spread the prosperity of California to a
broader range of households and communities.
While the competitiveness of the coastal regions
in the Northern California megaregion depends
on our leading-edge universities, entrepreneurs,
and an abundance of risk capital, the economic
opportunities for the inland regions of the state
will depend on building bridges to these innovative
industries, particularly in manufacturing and other
industries.
Conclusion
There is a long list of
authors who have written
about the loss of the
dream of California. From
Peter Schrag’s Paradise
Lost to Richard Rice’s
The Elusive Eden to Mike
Davis’ The Ecology of
Fear to Robert O. Self’s
American Babylon, it has
been popular for writers
of California to describe
the state as having lost
its sense of promise with
a hopeless future. We
offer the megaregion as
part of a new vision of
optimism for the state
whereby we become
better able to manage
growth.
18
While the scale of our region is expanding today
largely because of changes in daily commute
patterns (the compressed work week, the need
to live far away to find affordable housing),
today’s patterns have their roots in the economic
organization of the late 19th century. While no one
is suggesting that we do away with our existing
councils of governments or metropolitan planning
organizations, we need to recognize that for some
purposes those old boundaries are outmoded. We
need to invent new strategies appropriate to the
problems of the emerging scale of our Northern
California region. We need to recognize the
shared fate of the Bay Area and Sacramento, the
Central Valley and the Sierra. We need to build
on the incredible economic strength and natural
abundance of our region.
We need to recognize the
shared fate of the Bay Area
and Sacramento, the Central
Valley and the Sierra.
We have a choice today to shape a Northern
California future that offers hope and optimism
amidst dramatic change. Growth properly managed
can increase mobility and yield opportunities
to share California’s prosperity to an ever-wider
population. But if not properly managed, growth
will fuel the creation of separate and distinct
communities and continue to draw resources
out of older communities while destroying viable
agriculture and natural lands.18
We believe it will be useful to think in terms of
a Northern California megaregion for many kinds
of planning problems we will face in the years
ahead. Our hope is that this article can begin a
conversation with citizens, planners, public officials,
and community leaders around the region about the
future of Northern California, and our opportunities
for working together. Y
15
Redding
The driving region: Two hour car travel from central cities of Northern California
Reno
Sacramento
Ne
Ca
lif
or
va
ni
da
a
Stockton
San Francisco
Oakland
Fremont
Modesto
San Jose
Where can you drive
in 2 hours from...
Fresno
San Jose
San Francisco
Sacramento
Oakland
Urban or Built Up Area
Highway
Fixed rail transit and railroad
0
15
30 Miles
Bakersfield
1
Robert Lang argued that
a megalopolis should
be no more than a day’s
drive from one end to
the other. Our driving
distance maps show
that even the four-hour
distance from each of
the four central nodes
creates an extent that
could be traversed end to
end in nine hours.
2
This is similar to the NYNJ-CT region, which has
about a 2-hour radius of
driving time from NYC.
Source: ESRI, GreenInfo analysis
Travel time provides one of
the most common-sense ways
to define the region we live
in. This is how we experience
our options for where we work
and play in our daily lives.
So we begin by looking at
the areas accessible within a
two-hour and four-hour driving
distance, from each of the four
central cities of the region:
San Francisco, San Jose,
Sacramento and Oakland.1 (We
can only hope that in the not
too distant future, high speed,
inter-county transit extends
the places that are accessible
beyond what can be reached
by car during the same time
periods.)
Two hours of driving from
these cities reveals a region
that extends east to Lake Tahoe
on Highways 80 and 50, north
to Red Bluff on I-5 and Ukiah
on Highway 101, and south to
Merced on Highway 99, King
City on Highway 101, and Big
Sur on Highway 1.
Two hours from the core
cities yields an end-to-end
driving time of nearly six hours
(without traffic) from the
northeastern end of Lake Tahoe
to Big Sur. Interestingly, none
of the four key central cities
can reach Fresno within two
hours, thus suggesting, in part,
that Fresno is not core to the
Northern California megaregion.
When we extend this out
to four hours from each of the
central cities, we still maintain
a region that can be traversed
The driving region: Four hour car travel from central cities of Northern California
Redding
Reno
Sacramento
San Francisco
Oakland
Fremont
Stockton
Modesto
San Jose
N
ev
ad
lif
or a
ni
a
Ca
Fresno
Las Vegas
Bakersfield
Where can you drive
in 4 hours from...
San Jose
San Francisco
Sacramento
Los Angeles
Oakland
Anaheim
Santa Ana
Long Beach
Highway
Fixed rail transit and railroad
San Diego
0
50
100 Miles
Source: ESRI, GreenInfo analysis
in one day. From Yreka in
the north 550 miles south to
Santa Maria south of San Luis
Obispo, we have a region that
is less than 9 hours driving
time.
The travel-time maps reveal
several main conclusions that
are relevant to the definition of
the megaregion:
>The two-hour driving
distance reveals a 31 county
area.2
>Central and southern San
Joaquin County are equally
accessible to the Bay Area
or Sacramento. At either two
or four hours, the distances
traveled from the central cities
to the San Joaquin Valley are
quite similar. This suggests
that businesses and residents
in many of these fast-growing
communities have nearly
equal access to the main
central cities. For example,
Merced is equidistant from
Sacramento and the East Bay
(specifically Oakland). Fresno
is nearly the same distance
from Sacramento and San
Francisco.
>Accessibility to the
“Redwood Empire” north of
Sonoma County is limited. Only
southern Mendocino County
can be reached within two
hours from Oakland and San
Francisco, and a limited part of
Lake County from Sacramento.
Even at four hours, much of the
coastal north is inaccessible.
>The greatest distances
traveled out of the central
17
The sprawling region: Exurban and rural land threatened by development
Redding
Reno
Ne
Sacramento
va
Ca
lif
Oakland
San Francisco
or
da
ni
a
Stockton
Modesto
Fremont
San Jose
Fresno
Landscape patterns of
exurban growth to 2030
Exurban
Suburban
Urban
Rural
Undeveloped
0
15
30 Miles
Bakersfield
Source: David M. Theobald, 2005. www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art32/
One key constant in California
has been tremendous
population growth. Future
projections show the growth
moving from the coast and
accelerating in all of the Central
Valley counties, many of the
foothills counties, and east
of Los Angeles in the “Inland
Empire” and north of San Diego.
The state’s Department of
Finance has detailed population
growth for each county in
California to 2050. Using these
projections, we identified where
the growth will go — both on
an aggregate county level as
well as how that growth will
be distributed onto private land
shown as an increase in density
(based on county land area
divided by projected population
growth).
Using population-growth
projections, we can identify
where the megaregion will
grow if today’s assumptions
are correct.
The population growth
reveals several key conclusions:
>California has two distinct
megaregions in the north
and south. They are merging
together in the San Joaquin
Valley.
>The potential for continued
sprawl and loss of open space
may be greater in Northern
California than Southern
California because of the
The sprawling region: Projected increase in population densities on private land, 2000-2050
Redding
Reno
Sacramento
San Francisco
Oakland
Fremont
N
Ca ev
lif ad
or a
ni
a
Stockton
Modesto
San Jose
Fresno
Private Land Population
Density Change 2000 to 2050
Las Vegas
Change in number of
people per square mile
Bakersfield
-0.5 - 0
0 - 50
50 - 150
Los Angeles
150 - 340
Anaheim
Santa Ana
Long Beach
340 - 1,000
1,000 - 1,768
Public Land
0
50
San Diego
100 Miles
Source: CA Department of Finance, 2007. www.dof.ca.gov/Research/Research.php
greater presence of privately
owned land in the north that
can be converted into sprawl
development. For the most
part, Southern California is
surrounded by federally owned
land. While the inner Bay Area
has a protected greenbelt and
much of the Sierra Nevada
in Northern California are
permanent open space, most
of the land in the Central Valley
and to the north and south
along Highway 101 is in private
hands and thus in danger of
sprawl development.
>The threat of exurban
growth is not only along
Interstate Highway 80 and
Highway 99. The foothills, the
rural areas of Lake County and
the area inland of Monterey Bay
are all threatened by significant
exurban growth. Unlike the
Central Valley growth, there is
no real prospect of serving these
areas with high-speed rail, so
the transportation challenges
here require special attention.
The population-growth
maps reaffirm the need for the
megaregional thinking to begin
planning for and managing the
growth that is occurring in the
San Joaquin Valley. It is no
longer the problem of another
region, but a problem generated
by both our lack of growth and
lack of proper planning within
the core of the megaregion.
19
Redding
Shasta Multi-county
The government-defined region:
Councils of Government in Northern California
Humboldt
Lassen
Trinity
Pershing
Tehama
Plumas
Washoe
Butte
Glenn
Sierra
Mendocino
Reno
Churchill
Storey
Nevada
Yuba
Colusa
Sutter
Lake
Placer
Carson City
Lyon
Douglas
Sonoma
Sacramento
Napa
Solano
Alpine
Sacramento Amador
N
San Joaquin
Mono
Alameda
San Mateo
Mineral
Tuolumne
Stockton
Oakland
San Francisco
ev
ad
a
lif
or
ni
a
Ca
Calaveras
Marin
Contra Costa
Nye
El Dorado
Yolo
Modesto
Stanislaus
Fremont
Esmeralda
Mariposa
San Jose
Santa Clara
Merced
Madera
Santa Cruz
Multi-County COG's
Association of Bay
Area Governments
(ABAG)
Fresno
Inyo
Fresno
San Benito
Association of Monterey
Bay Area Governments
(AMBAG)
Tulare
Monterey
Kings
Sacramento Area
Council of Governments
(SACOG)
0
15
San Luis Obispo
30 Miles
Kern
Bakersfield
Source: ABAG, www.abag.ca.gov, AMBAG, www.ambag.org, SACOG, www.sacog.org
We have mapped Censusdefined regions such as
“Metropolitan Statistical Areas”
and the larger “Core Based
Statistical Areas,” which are
the Census Department’s
version of a megaregion. Those
maps reveal four contiguous
census “megaregions” — the
Bay Area, Sacramento, Reno
and Fresno. When we look
at the contiguous MSAs we
include the three fast-growing
Central Valley counties of San
Joaquin (Stockton), Stanislaus
(Modesto) and Merced
(Merced), each as its own
distinct MSA. To the north,
only Butte County (Chico) is
contiguous. To the south, every
county is a contiguous MSA,
in part because the counties to
the south are all quite large.
The metropolitan planning
organizations and councils
of governments help clarify
which counties are appropriate
in the Northern California
megaregion. We mapped
the cross-county councils of
government. The three COGs
— Bay Area, Monterey Bay
and Sacramento — extend
from Monterey County to Lake
Tahoe (other counties have
councils of government but
they are not cross-county).
These two sets of maps
allow for the following
conclusions:
The government-defined region: Census-defined metropolitan regions
Redding
Reno
Sacramento
Oakland
San Francisco
Stockton
Fremont
Modesto
N
Ca ev
lif ad
or a
ni
a
San Jose
Fresno
Las Vegas
Bakersfield
Metropolitan Statistical Area
Multi-County Metropolitan Statistical Area
Fresno - Madera
Los Angeles - Long Beach - Riverside
Los Angeles
Reno - Sparks - Fernley
Anaheim
Santa Ana
Long Beach
Sacramento - Arden-Arcade - Yuba City
San Jose - San Francisco - Oakland
0
50
San Diego
100 Miles
Source: US Census, http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metrodef.html
>The core of the
megaregion combines the
Bay Area commute shed with
greater Sacramento.
>Monterey and San Benito
counties are in the core of
the megaregion. They are
both in a cross-county COG,
while San Benito is part of
the greater Bay Area census
area. They are also captured
in the Association of Bay
Area Governments’ 17-county
commute shed (which also
includes the Central Valley
counties of San Joaquin,
Stanislaus, and Merced).
>The “north coastal range”
counties of Mendocino, Lake,
Glenn and Colusa are not in
the core of the megaregion as
they are neither in MSAs nor
the neighboring COGs.
>Greater Fresno (Madera,
Fresno, Inyo and Kings
counties) is outside the core
of the megaregion.
>Extending the core of the
megaregion to Tahoe and the
Nevada border (and perhaps
beyond) is logical as the
Sacramento CSA includes a
county in Nevada.
21
The bioregion: Rivers and waterways that drain into the San Francisco Bay
Redding
Reno
Sacramento
San Francisco
Oakland
Fremont
N
Ca ev
lif ad
or a
ni
a
Stockton
Modesto
San Jose
Fresno
Las Vegas
Bakersfield
Los Angeles
San Francisco Bay Watershed
Anaheim
Santa Ana
Long Beach
San Diego
0
50
100 Miles
Source: US EPA, www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/
The waters that flow from the
Sierra Nevada into the Great
Central Valley all pass through
the San Francisco Bay to the
ocean. These waters begin as
snowpack (and glaciers) in the
high Sierra and make their way
into the Sacramento or San
Joaquin rivers, into the Delta,
and then the Bay. Mapping this
area with the addition of the
adjacent coastal portions of
the state, as an approximation
of our “bioregion,” yields a
map that captures all the
major cities and most of the
counties in Northern California.
Interestingly, the upper
boundary of the watershed
share the county boundaries
with Mono and Inyo counties in
the high desert beyond.
We draw these conclusions
from the watershed maps:
>The Sierra Nevada as the
historic hinterland of the Bay
Area is a part of the Northern
California megaregion because
it captures the critical natural
resource flow of water.
>The Great Central Valley
is intrinsically linked to the Bay
Area through the natural flows
of the rivers.
For the Northern California
Megaregion, water is
important. The river system
helped define the routes of
commerce, which structured
the early economic geography,
so it is no coincidence that the
water system and the historic
contado (or hinterland) of San
Francisco overlap.
SPUR’s proposed core and sphere of influence map of the Northern California megaregion
Humboldt
Redding
Shasta
Lassen
Trinity
Pershing
Tehama
Washoe
Plumas
Butte
Glenn
Sierra
Mendocino
Reno
Yuba
Colusa
Sutter
Lake
Churchill
Storey
Nevada
Placer
Carson City
Lyon
Douglas
Sonoma
Sacramento
Napa
Alpine
Ca
Calaveras
Marin
San Joaquin
Tuolumne
Stockton
Contra Costa
Oakland
Alameda
San
Mateo
Mineral
Sacramento
Amador
Solano
San Francisco
Nye
El Dorado
Yolo
N
ni
ev
ad
a
a
Mono
Modesto
Fremont
lif
or
Esmeralda
Mariposa
Stanislaus
San Jose
Santa Clara
Merced
Madera
Santa Cruz
Northern California
Megaregion
Core
San Benito
Fresno
Inyo
Fresno
Tulare
Monterey
Sphere of Influence
Kings
0
15
San Luis Obispo
30 Miles
Kern
Bakersfield
Source: SPUR analysis
We present a composite map
of the proposed boundaries
of the Northern California
megaregion.
Each of the prior maps
shows a slightly different
region. In part, this reaffirms
the concept that the
megaregional boundaries
depend on what one is trying
to use it for. When we look at
population growth, we see a
booming Central Valley that
continues to expand south
past Fresno toward Bakersfield
and to the northern boundary
of the Central Valley. But we
suspect that both ends of the
Central Valley are in fact not
very tied to the core of the
region. We argue that the
Northern California megaregion
has both a core and a sphere
of influence. The core includes
the historic centers and the
most accessible areas of
growth, particularly for firm
and family relocations (which
tend to be within a localized
area). The core includes all
the counties in the Bay Area
and Sacramento councils of
government, plus the three
fast-growing Central Valley
counties (San Joaquin,
Stanislaus and Merced). This
is a 21-county area.
Surrounding that core are
a number of closely related
counties that are the sphere
of influence. To the north we
include Mendocino and Lake
counties. We also include
the relatively unpopulated
23
The Northern California megaregion
general
Total jobs (2005)
Megaregion is 35% of the state’s land and
37% of its population.
Entire megaregion 5.7 million
Urbanized core
4.9 million
Population in 2006
education
Entire megaregion 14 million
Urbanized core
11.6 million
>Home to 5 of 10 University of
California (UC) campuses.
>Home to 10 of 23 California
State University (CSU) campuses.
>20.3% of adults in the megaregion
have a college degree compared with 18.8%
of the state. Nearly 22% of the urban core
have a college degree.
Population in 2050
Entire megaregion 24 million
Urbanized core
19.1 million
LARGEST CITIES IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA (2006)
1,000,000
P O P U L AT I O N
800,000
Alameda
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
San Jose San Francisco Fresno
Sacramento Oakland
Stockton
Fremont
Modesto
YEAR
Source: Employment Development Department, Department of Finance, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
American Community Survey
Glenn and Colusa counties
(with I-5 running through
them) and Butte County
(with Chico). To the east we
include Sierra County (the one
county projected to decline
in population by 2050)
and Nevada County (which
includes Truckee) and then the
foothills and Sierra counties
of Alpine, Amador, Calaveras,
Tuolumne and Mariposa. We
are also proposing to include
five counties in Nevada
— Washoe, Storey and Lyon
that make up the Reno CSA,
Douglas which is in the
Sacramento CSA, and Carson
City county which is right
beyond Lake Tahoe. To the
south we combine the Fresno
CSA (Fresno and Madera) with
the two closely connected
agricultural counties of Kings
(Hanford) and Tulare (Visalia),
which retain close linkages
with Fresno. This Northern
California Megaregion on the
map takes up the large center
of the state.
We arrived at this
provisional definition of the
megaregion by layering all
the maps presented here
and looking at the available
data on connections between
places. The overlap we have
found between the bioregion,
driving distance and the areas
of growth is something that
Quick facts at a glance
Transit is a very small share of all trips to work in most
counties in Northern California. Only San Francisco
and Alameda counties have greater than 10% of their
residents take transit to work. No county outside of the
Bay Area has more than 5% of residents who commute
to work via transit.
Percent of residents who commute
to work via transit, 2006 estimate
Poverty is a major challenge for many counties in the
megaregion.In particular, counties in the Central Valley face
the highest incidence of poverty, particularly for children.
Poverty is also greater among the sphere of influence
counties relative to the core counties. In the Bay Area,
Alameda and San Francisco counties have the highest
poverty among children at 13.5% each.
Children under 18 in poverty, Counties
in the Northern California megaregion
35%
30
30
Alameda
Source: US Census, American Community Survey, 2006,
factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet? _ program=
ACS& _ submenuId=& _ lang=en& _ ts=
appears unique among the
10 megaregions in the United
States. We have a “thick” set
of relationships that define
Northern California.
Our composite map of the
Northern California megaregion
excludes the far north and
south ends of the Valley:
>Bakersfield, Kern County.
Although a part of the
watershed and connected via
contiguous MSAs, Bakersfield
cannot be reached within four
hours of any of the key central
cities. It also has the greatest
gaps in potential exurban
growth between it and the
rest of the San Joaquin Valley
cities. In this way we will
Sacramento
COUNTY
Stanislaus
COUNTY
Sutter
CORE
0
Lake
Yolo
Men-docino
Monterey
San
Joaquin
Sacramento
Kings
Santa
Cruz
Butte
San
Santa
Mateo Clara
Glenn
San Alameda Contra Marin
Francisco
Costa
Yuba
5
Tulare
0
Alpine
5
10
Madera
10
15
Merced
15
20
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
20
Alameda
25
Fresno
25
PERCENT OF CHILDREN
PERCENT OF RESIDENTS WHO COMMUTE
35%
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
(1999), www.census.gov/
exclude Kern County from even
the extended version of the
megaregion.
>Redding, Shasta County.
Although Redding is within four
hours of all the main central
cities in Northern California,
though not by much, it is a
part of its own MSA that does
not connect to any other one
in Northern California. Growth
in Redding is being driven
more by trends in retirement
and tourism than from the
economic growth in greater
Sacramento. As such,
Redding and Shasta County
are outside the boundaries of
the megaregion.
25
11/12.07
inside spur
New faces at SPUR
Policy Intern
Development Intern
James Rogers is a senior at
San Francisco State University
working on a bachelor’s degree
in geography with an emphasis
on land-use planning. As a
former longtime resident of
Fremont, James has become
an avid advocate for curbing
urban sprawl. James says the opportunity to intern
at SPUR is very exciting for him, and he hopes to
use the experience as a platform for advancing his
education in smart growth and public policy. In
addition to griping about bad development, in his
spare time he enjoys biking, cooking, going to the
gym and hanging out at the beach.
Dhivya Balasubramanian completed a bachelor’s
degree in history and a master’s in tourism
development. Her research interests include
sustainable development, ecotourism and planning.
She is pursuing a master’s degree in urban and
regional planning at San Jose
State University to gain more
specialized knowledge in
environmental sustainability,
land-use planning and urban
design. Dhivya is excited about
joining SPUR as an intern,
as it provides her with an
opportunity to interact with and learn from people
who are actively engaged in the causes about
which she is passionate.
Development Intern
Mary-Alice McDevitt has joined SPUR for six
months as a development intern and will be
helping with Silver SPUR 2007. She has traveled
from England to gain practical experience in event
organizing and development,
having completed a bachelor’s
degree in political science and
a master’s degree in humanrights law.
12 museums,
one day,
free admission
Policy Intern
Erik Martinez is a senior at the University of San
Francisco working toward a bachelor’s degree
in economics. His specific
interests include development
economics and urban planning.
Erik helped SPUR conduct
research on the northern
California megaregion (this
issue). Erik is excited
to be interning at SPUR and
sees it as a great opportunity to learn how urban
planning relates to economic development and
policy outcomes.
Member’s
Notice
The SPUR Nominating
Committee is officially
notifying members that it
is receiving nominations
for the Board of Directors.
All members are invited
to submit names and
resumes of recommended
candidates for the March
19, 2008 election of
directors. The nominating
period is open until
December 19, 2007.
Terms are two years,
with a maximum of
four consecutive terms.
Names of nominees will
be published in the March
2008 newsletter. Please
forward all nominations to
Virginia Grandi at vgrandi@
spur.org.
SPUR is a proud sponsor of the first-ever free
day for the cultural institutions in our new
neighborhood. The SPUR Urban Center will soon
be joining the list of participating institutions!
Saturday, November 10, 2007,
11 a.m. – 5 p.m.
yerba buena arts and culture
www.yerbabuena.org/Free4All
27
2007
SILVER SPUR AWARDS
Once a year we pause and cast the spotlight on individuals who have
contributed in remarkable ways to the civic life of San Francisco and the
Bay Area. The Silver SPUR awards are given in recognition of a lifetime of
achievement. Thank you to everyone who joined us this year in acknowledging
the contributions and dreams of four remarkable San Franciscans.
2007 HON0REES
Congratulations to our outstanding honorees. We commend you for leading the way.
PAULA R. COLLINS
Ceo of WDG Ventures, Inc. is an outstanding leader in San francisco’s urban landscape who has devoted more
than 25 years to developing real estate in the Bay area. She exemplifies commitment to community in her work
with organizations such as the Glide economic Development Corporation, California automobile association,
Special olympics of northern California and presidio Bank.
DR. MARCOS GUTIERREZ
brings over 40 years of media expertise to his work as a teacher and advocate for community based media. he
has the distinction of being one of the first latino reporters on kron and received an emmy nomination for his
documentary on Carlos Santana. his extensive board service includes: Mission Cultural Center, latino’s In
Communication, and the latino heritage preservation foundation.
JON OSAKI
is the executive director of the Japanese Community youth Council, a national model for youth organizations.
Jon’s commitment to San francisco’s asian/pacific Islander community and leadership with city-wide youth
initiatives has earned him numerous accolades. he was an active member of the original Japantown planning,
preservation and Development Taskforce, and is currently a Steering Committee member of the Japantown
Better neighborhood planning process.
WALTER H. SHORENSTEIN
is an exceptional leader in both the philanthropic and real estate communities of San francisco and the nation.
founder of Shorenstein Company llC, his honors include chairing the united nations 50th anniversary
Celebration in San francisco, induction into the Bay area hall of fame and the Democratic national
Committees lifetime achievement award.
Thank you to all of the 2007 Silver SPUR Sponsors
CHAIR
presenting
Keystone
Shorenstein Company LLC
Academy of Art University
BRE Properties Inc.
Coblentz, Patch, Duffy &
Bass, LLP
The Collins Family
& YMCA of
San Francisco
Comcast
Degenkolb Engineers
Ellman Burke Hoffman
& Johnson
Emerald Fund, Inc.
Forest City Development
Gerson Bakar &
Associates
Spire
The Koret Foundation
Pacific Gas and Electric
Company
San Francisco Waterfront
Partners, LLC
Vincent and Amanda
Hoenigman
Wilson Meany Sullivan LLC
Pillar
A.F. Evans Company, Inc.
Alexandria Real Estate Equities,
Inc.
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble
Mallory & Natsis LLP
Arup North America Ltd.
AT&T
Bank of America
Bank of the West
Beacon Capital Partners LLC
BergDavis Public Affairs
Bingham McCutchen, LLP
Bingham, Osborn & Scarborough
Borel Private Bank
Boston Properties
Bovis Lend Lease, Inc.
CAC Real Estate Management
Company, Inc.
California Pacific Medical Center
California State Automobile
Association
Cannon Constructors, Inc.
Cassidy, Shimko, Dawson &
Kawakami
Catellus Development Group
Catholic Healthcare West
Charles Pankow Builders, Ltd.
Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.
Christiani Johnson Architects
Circle Point
CityMark Development
Clark Construction Group California, LP
Clark Pacific
Cox Castle & Nicholson, LLP
David Baker + Partners
Architects
DPR Construction, Inc.
EDAW, Inc.
EIP/PBS&J
Environmental Science
Associates
Farella Braun + Martel LLP
Field Paoli Architects
Fine Arts Museums of San
Francisco
Flack & Kurtz
FME Architecture + Design
Forell/Elsesser Engineers, Inc.
Friends of the San Francisco
Public Library
The Fremont Group
Gordon Development
Handel Architects LLP
Hathaway Dinwiddie
Construction Co
Hines Interests
HOK
Holland & Knight
Hornberger + Worstell
Howard S. Wright
George and Leslie Hume
Hyatt Regency San Francisco
The John Stewart Company
Kaplan McLaughlin Diaz
KMD Architects
Kwan Henmi Architecture/
Planning
Lamberson Consulting
Lennar
Linda Jo Fitz
Luce, Forward, Hamilton &
Scripps LLP
McCarthy Building Companies,
Inc
McKesson Corporation
McLarand Vasquez Emsiek
& Partners
Millennium Partners
MJM Management Group
Morrison & Foerster LLP
Moscone, Emblidge &
Quadra, LLP
NAI BT Commercial
Nishkian Menninger
Old Republic Title Company
Pacific Marketing Associates
ParkMerced Investment
Properties
Parsons Corporation
PIER 39 / Blue and Gold Fleet
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
LLP
Polaris Group
Port of San Francisco
Presidio Trust
Project Management Advisors,
Inc.
ROMA Design Group
RREEF
San Francisco Giants
Seifel Consulting Inc.
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &
Hampton LLP
SMWM
Summerhill Homes
The Swig Company
Swinerton Builders
TMG Partners
Tom Eliot Fisch
Treasure Island Community LLC
Turnstone Consulting
Corporation
U. S. Bank Northern California
UCSF, University Advancement
and Planning
Universal Paragon Corporation
Urban West Associates
URS Corporation
Valley Crest Landscape
Development
Heller Manus Architects
IBM
Jackson Pacific Hawthorne,
LLC
Lurie Management, LLC
MBH
Nibbi Brothers
General Contractors
Norcal Waste
Systems, Inc.
Northern California
Carpenters Regional
Council
NRG Energy Center
Reuben & Junius, LLP
Roselyne C. Swig
San Francisco
International Airport
SHN
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill,
LLP
Tishman Speyer Properties
Texas Pacific Group
Walker/Warner Architects
Wells Fargo & Co.
Westfield San Francisco Center
and Metreon
Cornerstone
A. R. Sanchez-Corea &
Associates
Ajmani and Pamidi Inc.
Avalon Bay Communities
Andy & Sara Barnes
Barnes Mosher Whitehurst
Lauter & Partners
Bogdan & Frasco
Jim Chappell
Charles M. Salter Associates
Carmel Partners
Colliers International
Credit Suisse
Daoro Zydel & Holland
First Republic Bank
Jean Fraser
Freebairn-Smith & Crane
Fritzi Realty
John and Marcia Goldman
HKS Architects, Inc.
International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers Local 6
Kay and Merkle
Kirby Sack Properties
Patricia Klitgaard
KSW Properties
Leddy Maytum Stacy Architects
Martin Building Company
Beverly Mills
Moss Adams
Pacific Coast Capital Partners
Plant Construction Company
Presidio Bank
Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey
Kimberly Smith
Solomon Cordwell Buenz
STUDIOS Architecture
The Prado Group, Inc.
Top Vision Development LLC
William Wilkinson
Capstone
Alvin Baum
BAR Architects
Byron Meyer & Co
CB Richard Ellis
Consulting/Sedway Group
City CarShare
Claudine Cheng
A.W. Clausen
Curtis + Partners
Development, LLC
Stanley D. Herzstein
HMS Associates
Keyser Marston Associates,
Inc.
Terry Micheau
Morgan Stanley
Nixon Peabody
Public Financial
Management
Safeway Inc.
The San Francisco
Foundation
Unico Properties, Inc.
media
San Francisco Business Times
in-kind
BPS Reprographics
Sutdion Moon Visual Identity
Colin McRae Photograpy
Pr
A complete list of all
sponsors will appear in the
January 2008 Urbanist.
A special thank you to our event chair, Andy Ball,
President and CEO of Webcor Builders.
29
urban
Field notes
Seven “Private” Spaces
Built for You: The Public
An additive archive of good urban design collectively
compiled by San Francisco Planning and Urban
Research Association members and friends.
Caseworker: Blaine Merker
San Francisco’s 1985 Downtown Plan
created a unique breed of urban place
in response to cries for open space that
emerged from the highrise-revolt era
— and government’s limited ability to pay
for open space amid valuable downtown
real estate. At least 14 privately owned
public open spaces, otherwise known as
“POPOS,” have been created in the past
20 years, and as new developments are
poised to begin downtown they promise to
become even more common. Over time,
the intent is to create a mix of 20 percent
indoor and 80 percent outdoor POPOS.
Unlike a density bonus, POPOS are
required by the zoning code. For every
50 feet of floor area in a new building,
one square foot of open space is required.
POPOS can be built up to 900 feet from
the address with which they are associated.
As hybrid spaces, POPOS are overlaid
by a complex set of governance structures
— not all of them apparent. Building
security usually acts as the first arbiter
of behavior, often responding to building
tenants’ preferences and management
concerns about liability. Most are under
heavy surveillance. The particular legal
status of POPOS is, as yet, undetermined:
What rights are protected there and how
activities are regulated are subjects not
covered by the any of the City’s municipal
codes.
The artist collective REBAR recently
concluded a yearlong exploration of POPOS
called Commonspace, as a part of Southern
Exposure Gallery’s OFFSITE program. More
information and a complete list of POPOS
are available at www.rebargroup.org.
Blaine Merker is a designer/artist/activist and
member of REBAR, a San Francisco-based
collaborative that engages in explorations of
urbanism and absurdism. He also practices
landscape architecture with Royston, Hanamoto,
Alley and Abey.
case
study #5
505 montgomery St. Don’t be confused: “Empire Park” is actually located
on Commercial Street, just around the corner (and less than the 900-foot distance limit from
505 Montgomery). This hidden pocket-park gem literally backs right into Chinatown: Sheets
are often hung to dry from the apartment windows that form Empire Park’s rear wall, and the
delicious smells of cooking season the space. This POPOS is patrolled by a different kind of
security: Neighbors have been known to shout down unruly visitors from upper-story windows.
55 second St.
What’s this — a POPOS for
napping in? This old post office
was enveloped by the KPMG
building and preserved as
a “Solarium.” Until recently,
impromptu yoga classes
and a massage studio used
the unprogrammed expanse
of hardwood floor. Hines
Management has installed
tables and seating, and has
plans for a food concession
stand. A little hard to find
— but worth navigating the
lobby and building security for
a quiet respite in one of the
comfy chairs.
Urban Field Notes is a monthly
illustrated feature showcasing an
urban design element that adds
to the quality of life and interest of
the physical environment in San
Francisco.
Why? Discussions of urban design
in San Francisco often tend to focus
more on what goes wrong than what
goes right. A litany of “gone wrongs”
tends to create a community that
sees any change as too risky. SPUR
is committed to raising the quality of
public debate regarding planning and
urban-design issues by emphasizing
the positive, and creating a rich visual
record of urban design “gone rights”
— both past and present, concrete
and quirky, aiming to be comprehensive but (hopefully) inexhaustible. We
hope that this archive will serve as a
resource in future discussions of urban
development, growth and change.
Who? SPUR invites planners,
designers, architects, activists, artists,
historians, poets, residents, business
people and daydreamers to contribute
to the Urban Field Notes archive. If you
have an idea for a Field Notes contribution, or would like to be a contributor, please contact Urban Field Notes
Editor and Chief Archivist Jeannene
Przyblyski at [email protected].
500 howard st.
This part of Foundry
Square, a development straddling First and Howard
streets on all four streetcorners, was intended to create
an “urban room,” albeit one quartered by rushing
urban traffic. Elevated plazas are designed to protect
pedestrians from the busyness of the streets and,
eventually, to hold movable seating for cafes on each
of the four sections. Recently, security has asked the
public to leave the space, so you may want to carry
a copy of the building’s planning approval, available
for download here: www.rebargroup.org/projects/
commonspace/500howard.pdf.
101 second st. This POPOS embraces one of the most active street
corners south of Market and the folding doors let the cafe seating spill onto the
sidewalk, and vice versa. As one of the more recent — and most successful
— POPOS, this corporate atrium serves a wide clientele, from Blackberry-fiddling
lawyers to students taking a break from the Academy of Art. The bandwidth of
behavior is similarly wide. It has almost everything a traditional public space
needs, from nearby refreshments to great people-watching. Speaking of which,
don’t forget to smile for the surveillance cameras.
560 mission st.
This is one of the POPOS that is
doing just about everything right.
The elegantly designed bamboo
garden connects Mission and
Jessie Streets next to the JP
Morgan Building is very much
a part of the street and the
building, and is still a space unto
itself. It’s a favorite with the lunch
crowd on a sunny afternoon.
200 california st. This most bizarre
of the POPOS is no more than a raised planter in the
sidewalk on Front Street, next to Charles Schwab.
When you visit, meditate on the fact that this design
“feature” enabled about 30,000 square feet of private
office space under the zoning code.
343 sansome st. One of the
city’s several roof-terrace POPOS, this
15th-floor perch is in a cloud forest of
high-rises, and boasts an evocative sliverview out to Alcatraz. Getting to it can be
daunting: Front-desk security will ask you
where you’re going. But once there, you
may just have it all to yourself to ponder
whether this is piece of “public” space is
part of the street or the sky.
31
urban drift
London could ban cars
to meet carbon goal
Will London’s controversial
congestion-pricing scheme turn
out to be an interim step? British
researchers have determined that
if the Greater London Authority
is serious about reducing carbon
emissions 60 percent by 2025,
cars may need to be banned
from the city. Such a move,
they say, could cut emissions by
72 percent, and a Green Party
representative has called for
study of a pedestrian-only zone
linking Central London parks.
A representative of business,
meanwhile, defended congestion
pricing to the BBC: “Rather than
banning cars, we should charge a
realistic amount for the use of this
finite resource with the proceeds
invested in improvements to …
public transport.”
Source: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk _ news/england/
london/6991009.stm.
Lone Star States of Mind
The largest U.S. city without
public transportation of any kind
may forfeit its title. Voters in
Arlington, Texas — population
365,000 — have thrice rejected
taxes for transit, most recently in
2002, but rising gas prices have
officials in talks with neighboring
Fort Worth about new commuter
buses. While local opponents still
describe transit as a “charitable
operation” that might attract a
“rougher” element, ridership
on nearby Dallas Area Rapid
Transit buses and trains rose 10
percent in 2006. One family in
the Houston suburb of Kemah,
meanwhile, had an ugly lesson
in the risks of a lack of zoning
this summer when a developer
erected a 96-foot-tall rollercoaster
next door. Construction of the
coaster, which has a capacity
of 800 passengers per hour,
required no public hearing.
Sources: online.wsj.com/article/
SB118964900293725997.html
www.kltv.com/Global/story.
asp?S=7020320&nav=1TjD.
Signless Dutch Streets
Go Deutsch
A German city has become the
first outside the Netherlands to
implement the Dutch concept
of woonerfs — unregulated
streets — citywide. Bohmte,
a town of 13,500 in Lower
Saxony, did away with all rules
of the road in September. Curbs
were removed and pavement
replaced by cobblestones, though
bike and pedestrian zones are
still delineated using paint. In
Drachten, Holland, accidents
dropped dramatically when
motorists, pedestrians and
cyclists were left to negotiate
shared space.
In Excelsior, Minn., meanwhile,
residents objecting to loss of lawn
space have requested removal
of sidewalks, and a resident of
nearby Golden Valley described
sidewalks to a reporter as “a fourletter word … U-G-L-Y.”
Sources: seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/
localnews/2003845912 _ sidewalks21m.html
www.startribune.com/462/story/1370417.html.
History emerges from
behind billboards
Having banned virtually all
outdoor advertising, Sao Paulo
is taking on a new look
— or rather, an older look. As
billboards are removed from
historic buildings, period details
and even whole structures are
reemerging into public view.
The city now requires owners to
restore newly revealed facades
and is weighing tax breaks to
help fund the cleanup.
Sources: www.csmonitor.com/2007/0914/p05s01woam.html
www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/jun2007/
id20070618 _ 505580.htm.
city news
from around
the globe
Arch City seeks
gateway to more
lively waterfront
Envious of cities whose restored
waterfronts have revitalized
downtown streets and local
economies, officials in St. Louis
are considering redevelopment
of parts of the 91-acre grounds
surrounding the famed Gateway
Arch. Local control would require
an act of Congress. But the
park — described by the St.
Louis Post-Dispatch as “a golf
course without any golfers” — is
more than a half-mile long and
several blocks deep, and along
with Interstate 70, it effectively
separates downtown St. Louis
from the Mississippi River. The
park replaced 37 square blocks
of warehouses. On nearby
Washington Avenue, buildings of
similar vintage have found new
life as fashionable lofts.
Source: www.stltoday.com/stltoday/
news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/
Source: www.spiegel.de/international/
zeitgeist/0,1518,505246,00.html.
Sidewalk sideshow
In the Seattle area, local
governments can’t keep up with
residents’ requests for them;
in the Minneapolis/St. Paul
suburbs, residents have rejected
officials’ offers to install them.
What are they? Lowly sidewalks,
and they’re both less common
and more controversial than one
might think. The City of Seattle
has estimated its sidewalkconstruction shortfall at $1.3
billion — that’s 650 miles, at $2
million per mile — but even after
a recent levy, just $1.5 million
is available annually citywide.
Scene
A San Francisco export: bundles of compressed plastic
and metal headed to recycling facilities in Asia
Photo by Laura Tam
Member ProfilE:
Gillian Gillett
[ Gillian lives with her partner and two children. They can be found
walking, on Muni, in their car, on bicycles or greening Guerrero Street. ]
How did you get involved
with SPUR?
After reading SPUR’s report on
Muni’s Downward Spiral online,
sI felt it was time to join.
You are one of the instigators of
the San Jose/Guerrero Coalition
to Save our Streets. How did you
become an activist? And what is
your group trying to do?
I am basically a very, very shy
person. I never thought I would
be able to overcome my shyness
and I saw no reason to try. But
I could overcome my shyness
to help my kids be safe. Our
group is working with merchants
and other stakeholders on the
Guerrero corridor, to mend the
damage caused by the severe
road widenings of last century’s
freeway-expansion plans. We’d
like our kids and seniors to be
able to cross the streets they
live on.
What would your
recommendations be to
improve neighborhood
planning in San Francisco?
Right now, there are not
enough neighborhood plans.
Neighborhoods seeking to
create a plan have to find their
SPUR committees and chairs
Board of Directors
Co-Chairs
Board Members
Ken Mintz
Tom Hart
Michael Alexander
Sandy Mori
Vincent Hoenigman
Jim Andrew
Leroy Morishita
David Baker
Dick Morten
President
Gwyneth Borden
Paul Okamoto
Jim Chappell
Margo Bradish
Lester Olmstead-
Pamela Brewster
Rose
Program
Committees
Brad Paul
Gabriel Metcalf
Julie Christensen
Teresa Rea
Emilio Cruz
Jim Salinas, Sr.
Dan Ancona
James Lazarus
John Bell, Jr.
Brian O’Neill
Vickie Bell
Brooks Walker III
Catie Biver
Reuben Schwartz
Claudine Cheng
Anne Halsted
Individuals
Patricia Klitgaard
Peter Mezey
Municipal
Fiscal Advisory
Committee
Lisa Feldstein
Oz Erickson
Kirby Sack
Brian O’Neill
William A. Barnes
Capital Campaign
Project Review
Laurence Burnett
Downtown Transit
Center Task Force
Urban Planning
Finance
Jack Fleck
Byron Rhett
Gwyneth Borden
Lisa Feldstein
Terry Micheau
Evan Goldin
Charmaine Curtis
Criss Romero
Lester Olmsted-
George Williams
Gwendolyn Statman Litvak
Sunil Daluvoy
Michael
Individual Giving
Linda Jo Fitz
Norman Luttrell
Brian O’Neill
Gary Peck
Gia Daniller
Sangiacomo
Arthur Evans
Nicole Sawaya
Luisa Ezquerro
Paul Sedway
Linda Jo Fitz
Victor Seeto
Jean Fraser
Elizabeth Seifel
Barbara French
Chi-Hsin Shao
Frank Fudem
Raphael Sperry
Bob Gamble
John Stewart
Chris Gruwell
Rose
Disaster Planning
Jacinta McCann
Operating
Committees
Peter Mezey
Doyle Drive
Task Force
Board
Development
Michael Alexander
Jim Andrew
Bill Stotler
Housing
David Hartley
Stephen Taber
Lydia Tan
Business
Membership
Travis Kiyota
Lydia Tan
Patricia Klitgaard
Jeff Tumlin
Sustainable
Development
Richard Kunnath
Brooks Walker III
Paul Okamoto
Advisory
Council Chair
Jim Lazarus
Debra Walker
Bry Sarte
Ellen Lou
Wells Whitney
Michael Wilmar
Jacinta McCann
George Williams
John McNulty
Paul Zeger
Kirby Sack
Immediate
Past Chair
Oz Erickson
Carrie Denning
Jon Ballesteros
Chris Poland
Secretary
Gia Calvillo
Vince Hoenigman
Dick Morten
Terry Micheau
Executive
William A. Barnes
Audit
Treasurer
Welcome to
our new members!
Jean Fraser
Jim Andrew
Greg Wagner
plans in an accessible
database. Create an office of
neighborhoods with standards
on how to organize, define
boundaries, what money can
be spent on. Build structures
that encourage neighbors to
have ongoing conversations
for their collective benefit. Stuff
like that.
Transportation
Ballot Analysis
Executive
Director
Vice-Chairs
own funding, and then face
an uncertain future regarding
adoption and implementation
by the City. Make it easier
for neighborhoods to do
plans.  Create parking-benefit
or community-benefit districts,
or some mechanism to collect
a pool of local funds that the
neighbors can spend together.
Publish all neighborhood
Tom Hart
Terry Micheau
Investment
Stanley Herzstein
Human Resources
Amanda Dwelley
Tom Prete
Lisa Rapaszky
Rich Shrieve
Erik Wohlgemmuth
Anne Halsted
Silver SPUR
Julie Christensen
Patricia Klitgaard
Spring Event
Businesses
Hasz Construction
On Lok Senior Health
San Francisco Community
Clinic Consortium
Claudine Cheng
Teresa Rea
Young Urbanists
Gwyneth Borden
Gia Daniller
Chris Meany
Peter Mezey
33
spur forums
Thursday, November 8
While small businesses are the backbone of the
San Francisco economy, many local entrepreneurs
struggle to get their businesses off the ground and
feel that the local regulatory and political climate is
challenging. Join Scott Hauge and representatives
from the Small Business Commission as they
discuss proposals to make it easier to open and
expand a business, as well as the plans for a Small
Business Assistance Center.
The Presidio’s Main Post is about to undergo a
major revitalization. Doyle Drive will be rebuilt.
Construction is underway on a Disney Family
Museum and Library. There are also plans to
revitalize the historic Main Parade Ground as a
green open space and interpretive “Walk Through
Time,” and a proposal for a museum to house Don
and Doris Fisher’s contemporary-art collection. Join
Craig Middleton, Presidio Trust executive director,
to hear about these exciting projects and other plans
to enhance the Presidio as a great national park.
Small Businesses in S.F.
The Presidio Main Post
Carmen Chu, Nov. 14
monday, November 12
Review of Election Results
Tuesday, November 20
Join us for a SPUR tradition, the post-election
recap. This time we will feature political consultant
Jim Stearns with pollster and analyst David
Latterman for a review of who voted, who didn’t,
and what it means. We may not know everything
about the results, but we promise a fascinating and
informative discussion.
Wednesday, November 14
The Economic Impact of
Green Building Requirements
Bike-Sharing in Barcelona
Bike Sharing, Nov. 20
San Francisco is on the cusp of adopting a
citywide green building policy. Join Ted Egan
with the City’s Office of Economic Analysis for a
discussion of his report on the economic impact
of proposed green building requirements in
San Francisco. He will discuss the potential of a
carbon tax to create incentives to construct green
buildings, and also provide an update on current
green building legislation.
monday, November 26
Sustainable Urbanism in Europe:
Istanbul and London
Presidio Main Post, Nov. 15
An Evening with Carmen Chu
Special Time: Reception 5:30 p.m.; Program 6-7 p.m.
Please join SPUR in welcoming Carmen Chu, San
Francisco’s newly appointed District 4 Supervisor.
Prior to her appointment to the Board of Supervisors
in September 2007, Chu served as deputy director
of the mayor’s office of policy and finance.
Sustainable Urbanism, Nov. 26
After decades of well-meaning but poorly
implemented free bicycle schemes in cities around
the world, major media companies finally have
made bike-sharing popular. While Paris’ Velib
system is the most famous, other cities are in on
the act. We’ll hear from José Farran, principal at
Adavant Consulting, about the scheme in Barcelona,
where 1,500 public bikes have surpassed the
most optimistic expectations for integrating bicycles
into the public transportation system. Oliver
Gajda, bicycle program manager for the Municipal
Transportation Agency, will discuss the potential for
Clear Channel to operate a similar program here in
San Francisco.
Back from a recent tour of major European cities,
armed with just a folding bike, David Baker FAIA
reflects on these cities’ different — perhaps better
— approaches to sustainable urbanism. He will
speak and share slides from the optimistic Towards
Car-Free Cities conference in Istanbul, the sleek
success of Paris’ Velib bicycle program, and the
effects of London’s congestion tax as experienced
during the week of the citywide architecture festival
Open House London.
Nov./Dec. 2007
All forums are open to the public.
Members: free. Non-members $5
Unless otherwise noted, SPUR forums are held onsite
at 312 Sutter St. #500 (at Grant) at 12:30 p.m.
Tuesday, November 27
The Northern California Megaregion
As we outgrow the Bay Area, planners and
geographers are looking to describe the emerging
megaregions throughout the world. SPUR is leading
this effort in Northern California. Join SPUR Executive
Director Gabriel Metcalf and Economic Policy Director
Egon Terplan as they describe the Northern California
megaregion and its implications for policy-making.
Transit Oriented Development
for San Mateo
The development of Bay Meadows Racetrack is
one of the largest transit-oriented developments on
the Peninsula. Phase II of the development draws
on smart-growth principles to create a compact,
Caltrain-accessible, pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly
new neighborhood with homes, retail and 15 acres of
public parks. Come hear from Chris Meany, Janice
Thacher, Keith Orlesky and Kim Havens of Wilson
Meany Sullivan as they share their plans for this
exciting project.
21st century urbanization
in the developing world
The United Nations predicts that for the first time in
history, more than half the human population will be
living in urban areas by 2008. Many of these new
urbanites are in developing countries that present
unique socioeconomic, environmental, political and
design challenges. Please join Jacinta McCann,
managing principal for EDAW San Francisco, for a
Transit-oriented Development, Nov. 28 case study of the issues as they relate to Metro Manila,
Philippines.
Tuesday, December 4
An in-depth look at the
Transit Center tower
21 Century Urbanization, Nov. 29
A 1,200-foot “slender, graceful tower” highlights the
winning proposal by Pelli Clark Pelli Architects and
Hines for the Transbay Transit Center. The center
itself will house the city’s downtown high-speed and
commuter rail station and the transbay bus terminal,
and will be capped by a 5.4-acre city park, a green
roof that is only part of the building’s sustainability
features. Paul Paradis, Hines senior vice president,
will present the proposal in detail and answer
questions about this newest, perhaps grandest,
addition to San Francisco’s downtown skyline and
streetscape.
Transit Center Tower, Dec. 4
monday, november 5
2007 Silver spur awards luncheon
Special Location: Moscone Center North; Special Time: 10:30 a.m.
Once a year we pause and cast the spotlight on individuals who have
contributed in remarkable ways to the civic life of San Francisco and the
Bay Area. The Silver SPUR awards are given in recognition of a lifetime
of achievement. We hope you will join us this year in acknowledging the
contributions and dreams of four remarkable San Franciscans. Tables and
individual tickets are still available for this event. Visit www.spur.org, call
415-781-8726 x120 or e-mail [email protected].
Urbanist > November/December 2007 36
SPUR FORUMS
Nov./Dec. 2007
sun mon
4
tues
5
6
12 conversations
weds thur fri
7
sat
1
2
3
8
9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30
2
3
4
5
6
7
Please detach and post.
All forums are open to the public
— free for members and $5 for
non-members.
Unless otherwise noted, all SPUR
forums are held onsite at 312 Sutter
St. #500 (at Grant) at 12:30 p.m.
Full info:
www.spur.org/forum/calendar
1
8
Silver SPUR Awards Luncheon
Monday, 5
Special time and location: 10:30 am, Moscone North
Thursday, 8
Scott Hauge
Monday, 12
Jim Stearns and David Latterman
Wednesday, 14
Ted Egan, Chief Economist, Office of the Controller
Wednesday, 14
Special Time: Reception 5:30 p.m.; Program 6-7 p.m.
District 4’s newly appointed Supervisor
Thursday, 15
Craig Middleton, Executive Director, Presidio Trust
Tuesday, 20
José Farran, principal at Adavant Consulting, and Oliver Gajda,
bicycle program manager for the SFMTA
Monday, 26
Architect David Baker
Tuesday, 27
Gabriel Metcalf, Executive Director, and Egon Terplan
Economic Development and Governance Policy Director, SPUR
Wednesday, 28
Chris Meany, Janice Thacher, Keith Orlesky, and Kim Havens
of Wilson Meany Sullivan
Thursday, 29
Jacinta McCann, managing principal, EDAW San Francisco
Tuesday, Dec. 4
Paul Paradis, senior vice president, Hines
Small Businesses in S.F.
Review of Election Results
The Economic Impact of Green Building Requirements
An Evening with Carmen Chu
The Presidio Main Post
Bike-Sharing in Barcelona
Sustainable Urbanism in Europe: Istanbul and London
The Northern California Megaregion
Transit Oriented Development for San Mateo
21st Century Urbanization in the Developing World
An In-Depth Look at the Transit Center Tower
JOIN SPUR!
Know your city!
If you’re reading the Urbanist and you’re not a SPUR member, please consider joining. SPUR is a
member-supported organization and our work is supported by people like you.
As a member, you get the Urbanist in your mailbox each month, free access to SPUR forums,
discounts on SPUR publications and seminars — and the inside scoop on the policy issues that will
shape our city and region.
Primary Member
___________________________________________________________________________________
Business
___________________________________________________________________________________
Address
___________________________________________________________________________________
City/State/Zip
___________________________________________________________________________________
Phone
___________________________________________________________________________________
Fax
___________________________________________________________________________________
Email
___________________________________________________________________________________
INDIVIDUAL Membership
( ) $65
Member
( ) $55
Young Urbanist
( ) $25
Student
(
(
(
(
BUSINESS Membership
( ) $750 Basic business
( ) $1,500 Donor
( ) $5,000 Sponsor
( ) $10,000 Benefactor
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
designated member
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
designated member
GIFT Membership
( ) $50 Gift Membership(s)
I want to give _ _ _ _ _ Memberships
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
gift member
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
gift member
PAYMENT
( ) Check enclosed
( ) Please charge my: ( ) Visa
)
)
)
)
$25
$250
$500
$1,000
Low income
Advocate
Planner
Visionary
( ) MasterCard
Card #________________________________________________ Exp. Date___________________
Fax to 415.781.7291, mail to SPUR, or join online at www.spur.org
SPUR is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Contributions are tax-deductible as provided by law.
Annual membership dues of $65 includes $30 for a one-year subscription to the Urbanist.
The SPUR 2007
voter guide summary
Prop
For SPUR’s full analysis of the Nov. 6, 2007 San Francisco election, go to www.spur.org.
A
“Transit Reform, Parking Regulation and
Emissions Reductions”
Charter
Amendment
Prop
MunI Reform
B
“Limiting Hold-Over Service on Charter-Created
Boards and Commissions”
yes
Charter
Amendment
Prop
Limiting commissioner holdovers
C
“Requiring Public Hearings on Proposed
Measures”
Charter
Amendment
Prop
Election sunshine
D
“Renewing Library Preservation Fund”
yes
Charter
Amendment
Prop
Library set-aside
E
“Requiring Mayor to Appear Monthly at a Board
of Supervisors Meeting”
yes
Charter
Amendment
Prop
Question Time
F
yes
NO
“Authorizing Board of Supervisors to Amend Contract Charter
Amendment
For Retirement Benefits for Police Department
Employees Who Were Airport Police Officers”
Airport Police Retirement
NO
SPUR voter guide summary
Prop
continued from other side
G
“Establishing Golden Gate Park Stables
Matching Fund”
Ordinance
Prop
Stables fund
H
NO
Ordinance
“Regulating Parking Spaces”
Prop
Parking initiative
I
NO
“Establishing Office of Small Business as
City Department and Creating Small Business
Assistance Center”
Ordinance
Prop
Small Business Assistance Center
J
“Adopting a Policy to Offer Free City-Wide
Wireless High-Speed Internet Network”
Declaration
of Policy
Prop
WiFi policy statement
K
“Adopting a Policy to Restrict Advertising on
Street Furniture and City Buildings”
yes
yes
Declaration
of Policy
Street advertising
NO
SPUR promotes good planning and good government through research, education and advocacy.
Join at www.spur.org.
San Francisco Planning & Urban Research
Your turn!
Contribute to Urbanist
Send Urban Field Notes ideas to [email protected]
Send Urban Drift Scenes (photos) to [email protected]
Or just send comments to [email protected]
SPUR Committee Meetings—Please join us!
SPUR Staff
SPUR program committees and task forces are open to all members.
Just put the date in your calendar.
SPUR staff can
be reached at
415.781.8726
followed by their
extensions.
As committee meetings sometimes change, call the office at
415.781.8726 x117 to confirm the meeting if it is your first time
attending. We welcome your participation!
Transportation (1st Mon.)
Cancelled (Come to Silver SPUR!)
Sustainable Development (2nd Thurs.)Thurs. Nov. 8th, 8:30 a.m.
Project Review (2nd Tues.)
Tues. Nov. 13th, 10:00 a.m.
Board of Directors (2nd Wed.)
Special Date: Nov. 14th, 4 p.m.
Housing (4th Mon.)
Mon, Nov. 26th, 12:15 p.m.
Urban Planning (4th Tues.)
Tues., Nov. 27th, noon
SPUR is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
Contributions are tax-deductible as provided by law.
Membership Associate
Vickie Bell x121
[email protected]
Bookkeeper
Terri Chang x128
[email protected]
President
Jim Chappell x125
[email protected]
Director, Spur
Urban Center
Diane Filippi x110
[email protected]
Executive Assistant/
Board Liaison
Virginia Grandi x117
[email protected]
Transportation
Policy Director
Dave Snyder x135
[email protected]
Events Coordinator
Kelly Hardesty x120
[email protected]
Capital Campaign
Manager
Sarah Sykes x123
[email protected]
Policy Director
Sarah Karlinsky x129
[email protected]
Development Director
Amie Latterman x115
[email protected]
Administrative Director
Lawrence Li x134
[email protected]
Executive Director
Gabriel Metcalf x113
[email protected]
Sustainable Development Policy Director
Laura Tam x137
[email protected]
Economic
Development
and Governance
Policy Director
Egon Terplan x131
[email protected]
Reserve Now
Silver SPUR Awards Luncheon Monday, Nov. 5.
Moscone North. See page 28.
First Class Mail
US Postage
PAID
Permit # 4118
San Francisco, CA
RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED
312 Sutter Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94108-4305
t. 415.781.8726
f. 415.781.7291
[email protected]
www.spur.org
Time-dated material
This newletter is printed on New Leaf Rennaissance paper: 50% recycled fiber and 30% post-consumer waste.

The Northern California megaregion

Transcript

Documenti analoghi

Giocare Alla Roulette Gratis Online | all info here!

inside shirts` corner, p3 2015 military - San Antonio Express-News

Untitled - Vacanze Monti Sibillini

2_17_11 - The Villager Newspaper Online

SAN MARINO

turismo religioso 07 ingles:turismo rural 2005

Some Middle Eastern Objects in Europe.

Energy Efficiency in Transport sector

spring in venice biennale arte exhibits boat tours

logical discoveries and journeys through the area of Rimini

Official City Guide - DICA: Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile e