Part II PPGIS case studies © 2002 Taylor & Francis A voice that could not be ignored: community GIS and gentrification battles in San Francisco Cheryl Parker and Amelita Pascual Chapter 4 4.1 INTRODUCTION In May 1998, San Francisco residents, night club owners and workers held a town-hall meeting to protest the ‘Soho-ization’ of their South of Market neighbourhood, affectionately known as ‘SoMa’. The focus of their protests were the new developments being made next to or in place of diverse, mixed- use buildings that currently housed immigrant families, artists, start-up com- panies, and manufacturers. Geographic data about SoMa showed that it was fast transforming from a blue-collar neighbourhood into a chic residential and retail district. One central source of data was the SoMa community’s GIS-based ‘living neighbourhood map’. Used to start a conversation with policy-makers, the map sought to illustrate changes in development that portended zoning changes at a city-wide level. The May 1998 meeting came to represent the beginnings of a complex deliberative and democratic process focused around parcel politics and the politics of space. Parcel politics is the politics of space at the smallest and most complex level. It is grounded in the idea that a great urban place is composed of a complex mix of spaces and places that can accommodate a wide variety of interdependent users. Until recently, few planning tools have enabled the kind of deliberation or debate characteristic of parcel politics. Instead, for the latter half of the twentieth century, planning tools and the political arena have focused on area-wide planning and development. For example, zoning practices have segregated land-uses and created vast districts of single use, while redevelopment and urban renewal practices have often razed neigh- bourhoods, thereby erasing intricate webs of streets and mixed uses, and replacing them with mega-block developments of just one or a few uses. SoMa’s zoning, on the other hand, was an experiment created to foster a highly mixed-use district. This zoning, combined with SoMa’s stock of highly flexible warehouse structures, presented the potential for the district to evolve in a myriad of ways. Market-driven competition among builders and consumers at the parcel level poses an interesting challenge to the ideal of democratic planning. © 2002 Taylor & Francis Under such competitive development pressure, only informed and sophistic- ated voices will be heard. Politics at such a small scale, however, risks los- ing sight of a larger urban design and economic development vision. The story of SoMa illustrates the paramount role that PPGIS can play as a demo- cratic planning tool by addressing both the complexity of development competition at the parcel scale while maintaining the larger economic and physical vision of an evolving neighbourhood within the context of a city. The story shows that information-based maps helped to educate a diverse neighbourhood about powerful and rapid forces of change and empowered its community to act. After mapping their neighbourhood and seeing abstract statistics portrayed as maps, SoMa’s community of hundreds of very different, angry, reactive voices united into just one informed and very sophisticated collective voice. This collective then backed an alternative vision that embraced the existing character and flavour of the neighbour- hood, while also accommodating its growth. 4.2 CONTEXT AND HISTORY As the name implies, the South of Market area is just south of Market Street, one of San Francisco’s most prominent streets (see Figure 4.1). SoMa is next to the financial district and near the bayfront, yet is not an area often asso- ciated with San Francisco tourism. Historically, it hosted the city’s manufac- turing and light industry and provided infrastructure serving the port. Long blocks, wide streets, and large areas of flat terrain unhindered by San Francisco’s rolling hills made the area ideal for industry. Historically, SoMa also served as a transient zone by acting as a portal where immigrants and urban poor could establish themselves before moving to a higher standard of living. As such, it hosted one of the last remaining affordable housing stocks in San Francisco, with over 30 Single Room Occupancy Residential Hotels (SROs) and several hundred units of low-rent family housing. By 1995, a network of non-profit neighbourhood service providers were catering to the needs of SoMa’s small businesses and low-income residents. This network provided job training and placement, built affordable housing, served small businesses, provided healthcare and childcare, and provided recreation and education programmes for inner-city youth. One of these non- profit service providers, the South of Market Foundation (SOMF), developed a GIS living neighbourhood map of SoMa, linking information about build- ings, businesses and residents to produce a dynamic physical map. After nearly 30 years of fighting development pressures in the city, this non-profit network established a strong political neighbourhood voice. This voice influenced the 1985 San Francisco Planning Department South of Market re-zoning study. The study revealed that SoMa was evolving into an 56 C. Parker and A. Pascual © 2002 Taylor & Francis South of Market area Source: San Francisco Planning Department South of Market Foundation, Copyright 1997 MARKET ST Figure 4.1 South of Market area. Community GIS and gentrification battles in San Francisco 57 important service district for the financial core and it was a haven for start-up businesses. Recognizing the district’s increasing importance to the financial district, the Planning Department proposed zoning controls on a large area. Inside of the boundaries, a large mix of uses were permitted, from residential to light industry. In an effort to control gentrification and limit the displacement of industrial businesses that provided blue collar jobs and served San Francisco’s Financial and Retail districts, office development was restricted to a few small pockets. ‘Live–Work’ was created at this time as a special type of mixed-use devel- opment that allowed people to legally have studios and workshops in the same space where they lived. It was created with the intent of legalizing a practice found all over SoMa, where artists, photographers, graphic design- ers and various other light-industrial artisans lived in old warehouses where they also had their studios and workshops. The new zoning plan worked very well for a short time. SoMa evolved into a vibrant mix of service businesses, light industry, low-cost housing and artisans. Its mix of artists and abundant low-cost space was paramount in hosting San Francisco’s so-called ‘Multimedia Gulch’ where hundreds of high-tech companies were incubating. © 2002 Taylor & Francis Up until 1996, there were few requests to construct new live–work hous- ing. Based on the few requests to build live–work housing that did come in, the Planning Department quickly became aware that the code was difficult to enforce. It was almost impossible to verify whether people were actually working in the same spaces they were living in. Despite these problems, however, Planning Department staff did not attempt to correct the situation, because they did not anticipate much demand for live–work housing. 4.3 WINDS OF CHANGE Intrigued by SoMa’s evolution, in 1996 the San Francisco Planning Department collaborated with the SOMF in a series of GIS studies docu- menting traditional manufacturing and emerging high-tech industries (see Figure 4.2). In addition to documenting the complex side-by-side growth of two very different industry clusters, these studies revealed that construction of new live–work units was a serious threat to SoMa’s economy due to business displacement caused by incompatible uses or evictions. The explos- ive growth of Silicon Valley high-tech firms led computer workers from throughout California and the United States to move to the Bay Area. Bay Area cities were not able to provide an adequate housing supply for this new demand, and consequently requests for housing permits, especially live–work permits, sky-rocketed in SoMa. The demand for housing among young, newly re-located high-tech workers, their inflated salaries and the stylish allure of loft-living in an industrial and night club district, all combined to cause an unforeseen demand for industrial land and, consequently, in con- flicts between existing inhabitants and newcomers. In a short time, com- plaints about noise and truck traffic were commonplace, causing industrial and night club businesses to be cited, fined and eventually to relocate or close. For builders, live–work was a popular type of development. Considered by planners to be commercial rather than residential development, the building codes for live–work did not require creation of open space, payment of school tax fees, notification of neighbours, conditional review, or parking develop- ment. In addition, live–work development could be built higher than could any other type of development, aesthetic concerns were minimal, and such devel- opment was permitted in industrial areas of the city with few existing residents and thus little risk of organized resistance. Finally, banks allowed developers to finance live–work construction with residential loans rather than commer- cial ones, and it is much easier to secure a residential construction loan. Shortly after the first Planning Commission public hearing between live–work builders and the community regarding live–work-related land- use displacement, the GIS-based traditional manufacturing and multimedia industry studies were shelved by the Planning Department. This was a major blow to the community because the studies documented live–work as a 58 C. Parker and A. Pascual © 2002 Taylor & Francis South of Market area South of Market area Garment Manufacturing in San Francisco Multimedia Businesses in San Francisco South of Market Foundation, Copyright 1997 Source: San Francisco Planning Department, Dun & Bradstreet, 1996 MARKET ST MARKET ST Figure 4.2 Location of traditional and high-tech industries. © 2002 Taylor & Francis major threat to important industries in San Francisco. In another blow to the community, the mayor proclaimed that he was not going to ‘take sides’ and that, as far as he was concerned, ‘the displaced businesses, residents and artists could all move to another part of the city’. The reality, however, was that many firms were moving out of the city or going out of business. ‘Not taking sides’ was just another way of saying ‘let the market go out of con- trol and have its way’. During the next year, realizing that the political climate had changed and that their neighbourhoods were now in jeopardy, the residents, workers, artists, non-profits and night club owners began organizing to confront the city Planning Department and Planning Commission regarding compatibil- ity issues between small businesses and residents. They formed a coalition of artists and small businesses called SOS, for Save Our Shops. At the same time, SOMF used its GIS model and industry research to docu- ment the impact that live–work construction was having on the local busi- ness climate. They combined, in one database, information about the location of demolition, renovation and new building permits with employment and sales information for local businesses. All businesses that were once located where demolition or new construction had taken place were telephoned to find out why they moved. If reasons given included eviction due to demoli- tion or new construction, it was noted as ‘business and job displacement due to gentrification’. Change among commercial rent prices was also mapped, as were important economic links broken due to job and business displacement (see Figure 4.3). Without GIS, this type of analysis would have been almost impossible. In February 1998, the Planning Department proposed at a public hearing, a revised set of short-term controls for live–work by establishing Industrial Protection Zones. The proposed zones offered absolutely no protection for small businesses. Boundaries were drawn in obscure places and did not even appear in the SoMa area. In fact, some of the boundaries were drawn out into the San Francisco Bay. During that public hearing, over a hundred small business owners came out to speak of the displacement problem. Four hours of often emotional public testimony was summed up by a city executive as: ‘We did not learn anything new tonight.’ The Planning Commission then voted not to apply any new controls to protect industry in the SoMa area, despite that SoMa zoning contained the only true existing Industrial Protection Zone in the city. This zone only allowed live–work devel- opment if work was the principal use of the property, and only allowed hous- ing if it was for low-income people. The Planning Commission thus publicly agreed to ignore the Planning Code. In addition, an addendum exempted 2,300 live–work units with permit applications pending prior to the hearing, thereby excepting them from the newly adopted short-term policies. Perhaps the most detrimental outcome of the public hearing, however, was the announcement that over the next six months, the Planning Department 60 C. Parker and A. Pascual © 2002 Taylor & Francis would undertake a land-use study which would likely conclude that there is an abundance of industrial land in San Francisco. If this is the case, then these industrial lands will be re-zoned. Furthermore, given the short time period involved, there would be ‘no community participation’. 4.4 COMMUNITY RESPONSE The community’s defeat at the hearing illustrated the political weakness of many disparate, emotional voices unable to present a unified, intelligent, Community GIS and gentrification battles in San Francisco 61 6 t h S t 5 t hSt 4 th St 3r d S t 8 t h S t 7 t h S t 9 t h S t Displaced businesses displaced may leave Lifestyle lofts Displaced businesses: – Direct displacement: 22 businesses, 345 jobs – Indirect displacement: 2 businesses, 56 jobs Threatening to leave due to indirect displacement: – Businesses: 9 – Jobs: 380 Source: Dun & Bradstreet, 1996, San Francisco Building Permits 1993–1997, Phone & In-person Interviews South of Market Foundation, Copyright 1997 Mar k e t S t M i ss io nS t H o w a r d S t F o l som S t H ar r i s o nSt Figure 4.3 Companies displaced or threatening to leave due to lifestyle loft displacement. © 2002 Taylor & Francis fact-based argument or vision. In response to the proposed city-wide land- use and re-zoning study, which invited no community participation, the SOS group organized itself into a larger and more powerful organization called the Coalition for Jobs, Artists and Housing (CJAH). This group dedicated itself to developing a unified, sophisticated, and intelligent community voice on the issue of development. CJAH was divided into three smaller neighbourhood groups, each respons- ible for reaching out to the various constituencies affected by rezoning. A network of non-profits and community activists provided technical support for the group. This included a land-use lawyer who offered legal services pro-bono, filing lawsuits against developers and assisting businesses with displacement battles and several non-profit housing developers and com- munity activists who were very experienced in leading community-initiated referenda in San Francisco. This group had at its disposal a very powerful GIS database, which helped disprove false claims made by developers regard- ing job and industry displacement and assisted in identifying potential new zoning boundaries. This technical support group also served as a steering committee that met every Saturday morning in strategy sessions. CJAH meetings were informal affairs held at various nightclubs through- out the SoMa area. Initial meetings were educational and informative in nature. The steering committee gave lessons in planning codes, economics and the history of SoMa. GIS data were key to this educational process. Computer-generated maps presented otherwise complicated statistical infor- mation in a very easy-to-understand manner. Given the many different community interests represented at CJAH meet- ings, it was frequently difficult to develop consensus. Some people did not understand the complexities of a local economy. They just understood that they did not want to be displaced. In addition, everyone had his or her own preconceptions about what was happening. The living neighbourhood map became a tool that helped people move beyond their own opinions, judge- ments and naiveté. Maps allowed people to see complex information more easily. Economic jargon and statistics became clearer when re-drawn as pictures. In addition, voluntary data-gathering efforts, composed of teams of people from ‘oppos- ite sides of the fence’, were paramount in reconciling conflicting opinions and positions and helping everyone see the situation for what it really was. These consequences of mapping, in turn, made people much more know- ledgeable at public hearings. Rather than reacting emotionally, people could present intelligent and well-informed fact-based economic arguments. Mapping also fostered a sense of connection and commitment to place. People really started to ‘know’ their neighbourhood and its streets. Due to the enormous pressures and time commitments associated with countless battles before the Planning and Building Commissions, CJAH self- destructed in August 1998. However, the small technical support group 62 C. Parker and A. Pascual © 2002 Taylor & Francis stayed together and continued meeting on Saturday mornings. This group included weathered San Francisco activists who were prepared for a long fight, and this core group capitalized on the momentum established by CJAH in order to maintain the interest of the media and politicians. By this time, public protests had forced the Planning Department to engage in its own rigorous study of the controversy, employing the same GIS methodology used by the community. In January 1999, the Planning Department finished its land-use study and came to the opposite conclusion that it had reached a year earlier. The study concluded that all industrial land in the city was being used to capacity and was needed in order to support the predicted growth in business services over the next 20 years. The study also concluded that the city was experiencing a housing supply crisis, but that there was sufficient land outside industrial areas to accommodate new resi- dential units. The Planning Department recommended that interim Industrial Protection Zones should be established in the SoMa area, the Potrero Hill District and the Mission District. Ironically, given that this would be a hard sell to developers and some of the public at large, the Planning Department now needed the backing of the community to support them. The remaining core CJAH group used the media and mailing lists compiled by the SoMa Coalition to re-assemble a larger group of community members to come to another public hearing to advocate on behalf of the plan. The public hearing at which the Planning Department’s findings were presented to the public lasted seven hours and was attended by over 400 people from the community. Attendees who testified during the hearing were articulate and well-informed, demonstrating the benefits of community edu- cation gained through the work of the previous coalition. Community argu- ments were now fact-based rather than grounded in emotion. At the end of the hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve an Interim Industrial Protection Zone. Both their decision and the Planning Department proposal reflected the complex dialogue among the neighbour- hoods, developers, planners, and politicians that had occurred throughout the year, and that was presented in its entirety that evening. This Industrial Protection Zone was a best-compromise solution. It did not cover all of SoMa, although it stretched across a fair portion of the dis- trict. The areas outside of the zone were designated as mixed-use areas encouraging development of housing and retail. Buffer zones of affordable housing were proposed between the industrial and mixed-use areas. In essence, it was a mixed-use plan designed to control gentrification. 4.5 CONCLUSION Although the Industrial Protection Zone was a very significant step, the story of SoMa’s gentrification is far from over. The proposed zone is an Community GIS and gentrification battles in San Francisco 63 © 2002 Taylor & Francis [...]... very informed and sophisticated group of community activists At the core of this effort was the GISgenerated living neighbourhood map, which empowered the community, educated community members, and offered a means by which people could shed their individual opinions and judgements in order to see the situation for what it truly was By both improving the quality of information available and providing... 64 C Parker and A Pascual interim measure and it allows conversion of industrial space to office use In truth, rent-sensitive light industry and business services will not be protected by the plan at all; too much damage has been done because most businesses have already left Looking back, one can find several significant outcomes of this struggle First, a lesson was learned about which land-uses... momentum of this voice and its message began in the SoMa area The new Board of Supervisors is far more sympathetic to the culture of existing neighbourhoods than to unplanned-for market-driven development The SoMa story illustrates the important role PPGIS can play in an era when cities are becoming re-populated, and existing uses of land are in jeopardy of being displaced Mixed-use zoning can lead to... together, the living neighbourhood map allowed people to stop reacting based on emotion, hearsay, and opinions and develop a more credible and powerful voice with which to argue in the public arena for their rights as a community In turn, the Planning Department employed the same GIS-based methodology and came to the same conclusions In addition, in November 2000, nearly the entire Board of Supervisors... a highly mixed-use district: some uses are appropriate neighbours, while others are not Second, if disparate uses are to co-exist, then enforcement of the zoning code is essential Lastly, perhaps the most significant outcome was that the community s voice was heard and documented It is unlikely that the Planning Department would have engaged in such a detailed study and invited public participation. .. serious threat If such a practice is to work within the context of parcel politics and a volatile market, then channels must exist for the voice of the existing community to be included in the dialogue Clearly, GIS technologies can educate a community and help it to develop a voice that can challenge powerful market-driven interests Thanks in part to the benefits of PPGIS, that voice – a voice that . Francis fact-based argument or vision. In response to the proposed city-wide land- use and re-zoning study, which invited no community participation, the SOS group organized itself into a larger and. inflated salaries and the stylish allure of loft-living in an industrial and night club district, all combined to cause an unforeseen demand for industrial land and, consequently, in con- flicts between. public hearing between live–work builders and the community regarding live–work-related land- use displacement, the GIS-based traditional manufacturing and multimedia industry studies were shelved