guerrilla curatorship

Why it’s important for San Franciscans to vote Yes on J in November. Alternatively titled, What the Fuck, SPUR!?

I am hugely disappointed in the current SPUR voter guide’s recommendation to vote “no” on Proposition J on San Francisco’s November ballot. I find this to be shortsighted and potentially damaging, and a departure from their usual carefully-reasoned, highly educated and pro-urbanist perspective on ballot measures. I have always been grateful for the voter guide (and on most other measures, this one is no exception.) But their assessment of Prop J clearly exhibits both political bias and an uncharacteristic lack of whole-picture consideration.

I offer a little background on the issue for my friends for whom preservation rarely enters the consciousness, but I urge you to read the links in this post and do your own research for more expanded information. Basically, Proposition J would create an independent Historic Preservation Commission to regulate the treatment of San Francisco’s landmarks and historic buildings. The way it works now, there is a mayor-appointed board that is part of and subordinate to the Planning Commission (called the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board), which has no real power other than to make “recommendations” to the Planning Commission which only sometimes (at the whim of the planner assigned to the project and other more subjective factors) have a real impact on the final decision about what happens to a building or an old neighborhood. This has proven itself to be problematic; a breeding ground for political struggle. Since the post-war era of misguided “urban renewal,” it has been made clear that most people care about the old houses and historic buildings that compose their neighborhoods, and the old neighborhoods that make up their cities, and they’re willing to get all up in your business about it. In San Francisco, we have learned the lesson about wanton disregard for historic neighborhoods. Please see: the Western Addition.

So, quick background for my friends who don’t think about this as much as I do. Historic Preservation is a fusion of the technical fields of architecture, urban planning, real estate and construction with the academic fields of history, art history and design. It’s a little-understood, highly nuanced field most people don’t consider to be very important. However, anyone even casually interested in urban spaces and the ecology of cities knows how important it actually is to respect and preserve existing fabric of the built environment (buildings, streetscapes, landmarks and more), because of its effect on the collective psychology and the identity of place. (See above.)

In plainer language, San Francisco derives a large amount of its identity from its historic architecture. This can’t be refuted when our city branding is rife with “painted ladies,” tourists flock en masse to the “Full House house,” and the words “Victorian” and “Edwardian” are used ad nauseam (mostly incorrectly) to sell and rent real estate for astronomical premiums (so ironic, when it is the real estate community so often opposed to preservation efforts!)  When residents and visitors gravitate to Hayes Valley or the Inner Mission or Pacific Heights bubbling over with how “cute” and “pretty” those neighborhoods are, they are expressing in less conscious terms that the aesthetic value of a place is making them want to interact with the public space, which is a no-brainer factor in city vitality and one I would expect SPUR to support. Further, we are and have always been a city that coasts on its aesthetic value, both as an offset to less desirable conditions (at first the uncouth wild west and inhospitable natural environment, and now shitty schools and weak transit infrastructure), and as a livelihood (millions of tourist dollars every year, comprising a sizeable sector of our economy.) So if historic preservation isn’t a significant enough concern for this city to “elevate the importance” of it, then perhaps we should stop using our historic fabric as our branding device?

Back to Prop J. Because our one regulatory forum for preservation (the LPAB) is relatively toothless, in a city where the populace is vehemently and fastidiously involved in the aesthetics of their neighborhoods, most historic preservation planning happens ad hoc by groups of concerned neighbors whose only tool is throwing a wrench in the permitting process of private developers or property owners. Sometimes this manifests as neighbor-on-neighbor strife, and sometimes as groups of concerned citizens (the “little man”) versus big bad developers (the “Man.”) Either way, the lack of regulatory authority is creating a vacuum that pits people against each other who really ought to be working together. There is no reason that preserving existing buildings and building new ones can’t peacefully coexist; they just need the right regulatory environment. And that is exactly what Prop J provides.

There are many reasons I was surprised to see SPUR take such a closed-minded position on this.

1. I would expect them to appreciate the expertise it would add to the process. By requiring that six of the seven Commission members be experts in the field, these often technically sensitive decisions about modifying buildings would ostensibly be made by trained architects, builders, specialists in historic architecture, or preservation planners who understand the locational context, rather than a motley and adversarial assortment of real estate developers, (well-intentioned) busybody neighbors, and the occasional historian or retired architect. This would ideally result in a more efficient, balanced consideration of projects on a case-by-case basis. SPUR must know our Landmarks Board has a history of very nearly having its status as a Certified Local Government to conform to state and national standards revoked because a former mayor stacked the board inappropriately? Though we’re no stranger to the feeling, that just makes us look provincial and stupid.
2. This isn’t the hastily-thrown-together, crappy piece of legislation that SPUR typically disapproves of. This is a carefully considered, reasonably crafted, relatively low-impact Charter Amendment that is endorsed by the National Trust, which doesn’t ordinarily have the time or resources to meddle in local legislative affairs.  And, it is modeled on existing systems in New York, Chicago, Boston and Philadelphia, so again, we play catch-up out here in the wild west. (And if you receive the Urbanist in the mail, you know SPUR looooooves to ogle other cities.) Further, many of the people involved with Prop J are longtime fixtures in the local preservation and planning communities, and I’ve seen and met many of them in conjunction with SPUR lectures and events. IN FACT, SPUR was given the chance to comment on the legislation as it was being drafted, the authors incorporated their changes, and then SPUR recommended against it. What the shit is that!??
3. SPUR is clearly concerned with sustainable development and practicing environmental responsibility in planning for regional growth, whether it’s “green” building or promoting a cleantech economy. So it is entirely hypocritical for them to declare historic preservation NOT a significant enough concern to be elevated ONE priority level in city government. The preservation, conservation and adaptive reuse of existing and historic building stock is the most significant form of recycling! We need to build a regulatory environment that fosters retaining existing fabric in conjunction with, not adversarial to new construction and new development, in order to infill our city and our megaregion in the most sustainable way. Because, on the sustainability tip, the reason this is SO important is that our stock of historic buildings is a finite, non-renewable resource. Buildings built before World War II were built stronger and with better-quality materials. That is generally a fact, and it’s why in San Francisco today, they are more expensive and desirable real estate than new or shitty post-war construction. (Why do you think there is such a market for architectural salvage!?) They are expensive and desirable because they are scarce and endangered, and it is time for increased education, and a stronger public policy of protection. I was really disappointed to hear no opinion at all from SPUR’s sustainable development policy representative at the recent ballot analysis happy hour.

Speaking of said happy hour (thrown for the under-40 set to better understand the complex and onerous ballot of local initiatives - something that for the record, I’m very grateful they do), I had a chance to ask Egon Terplan, SPUR’s Policy Director for economic development and governance, for a brief justification of why they opposed this. His answer was basically that it gives historic preservation too much importance relative to the powers of the Planning Commission, and it’s really not important enough to warrant its own commission. “There’s no Affordable Housing Commission, or Transit-Oriented Development Commission,” he said, and then moved quickly on to illustrate that the issue wasn’t significant enough to warrant further discussion. The thing is, our city government DOES represent a wide range of concerns, and there IS a Redevelopment Agency, and there IS a Housing Authority, and there IS an SFMTA and an SFTEP, and there IS a Mayor’s Office on practically any issue you can think of and there IS EVEN a Taxi Commission (full of people who know nothing about the industry because there is no requirement they be experts or really anything other than the mayor’s friends) so I really don’t think this is elevating historic preservation to significance that the people of San Francisco haven’t shown themselves to value commensurately. Theoretically, perhaps preservation of architecture and neighborhoods doesn’t *seem* as important as transit infrastructure or affordable housing (both of which I also care deeply about), but it IS as closely connected with the long-term health of the city as either of those, and whether or not you like that, or want it to be, it will continue to force itself into prominence via the citizenry.

So what is the deal, SPUR? You’re actually making the Bay Guardian look reasonable here.