The mobility of space
Deconstructing the politics of parking in San Francisco


Cars crowd both sides of Dolores

sarah@sfbg.com

Jason Henderson is standing on Patricia's Green in Hayes Valley, shielding his eyes from the midsummer sun, as he explains how this area, which once lay in the shadowy underbelly of the Central Freeway, was reclaimed as a pedestrian-friendly park.

"In 1989 the freeway went all the way to Turk Street," said Henderson, an assistant professor of geography at San Francisco State University, describing how the raised concrete roadbed, built in the 1950s, cut across this neighborhood and blocked the sky — until the Loma Prieta earthquake hit and damaged the final section so badly it had to be torn down.

That natural disaster triggered a public discussion about the use of the surrounding space, and a 15-year fight that culminated in 2005 in the dedication of the Green, which is part of the Octavia Boulevard Project. Neighbors and business owners pushed the city to convert a damaged freeway into a landscaped park.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T


That sort of change fascinates Henderson. "I am interested in how people move around cities, and how urban space is configured for movement," he said.

The young professor was raised in New Orleans and wrote his dissertation on transportation and land use debates in Atlanta — which, as Henderson notes, is "the poster child for sprawl but became a hotbed in the '90s of a national discourse about how we should grow, which became this very interesting debate about reurbanizing."

Henderson's research focuses on the politics of mobility. He decided to move to San Francisco in 2003 because he saw it as an opportunity to live in a city where a car is not necessary and to study the history of the city's freeway revolt, which began in the 1960s.

And while he is proud of this park, which was dedicated as Hayes Green then renamed for the late Patricia Walkup, a Hayes Valley resident who tirelessly advocated for the park until her death in 2006, Henderson thinks the local politics of parking have reached "a spatial stalemate."

"During the freeway revolt of the 1960s, San Francisco rejected the freeway but not the automobile," Henderson explained. "But even as San Francisco residents decided that they did not want big gashes of freeway through their waterfront, the Marina, and Golden Gate Park, the city continued to have laws that said every housing unit was to have one parking space.

"So the city adopted a transit-first policy on paper, but didn't take space away from cars. And if you don't do anything, you're not solving the problem."

The problem in San Francisco is what he called the "essentializing of cars."

"A core idea within the parking debate is that there is a universal love affair with the automobile," Henderson explained. "But Obama is downsizing GM and Chrysler, and for the first time since 1960, vehicle miles traveled have started to go down. Until last year, the mantra was that Americans are going to drive. But then we found out that at $4 a gallon, this country freaks out and changes."

Earlier this year, Henderson published a paper that analyzes the city's politics of parking through the lens of two ...

Read more... Page: 1 | 2 | 3

( 1 comment | Comment on this article )
marcos on Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 12:50 PM
The problem with Jason's analysis here is that unbundling parking does not drop the price of condos sufficiently to make a difference in affordability, and that anyone who can afford a market rate unit who is not clipping coupons (do people still do that?) from a trust fund and doesn't really have to get to work would probably have to actually get to work in a feasible time frame.

I do not find it realistic that given the current threadbare and disjoint regional transit system, the underpinning of TOD and lower parking ratios: that most condo dwellers will not get a car when they have to work further than 40 min out on transit. It is less expensive for them to deal with offsite parking and infractions than it is to suck down that much time commuting. And those mortgages still need to be paid.

Outsourcing the costs of commuting onto workers by expecting them to consume 1/3 of their waking hours unpaid, paying to commute, with 10+ hour work days is simply not progressive. The sum total of this unpaid labor would finance a good chunk of an ambitious regional rapid transit network.

Transit oriented development requires a robust, rapid and reliable regional network that links robust, rapid and reliable local networks, infrastructure that simply does not exist. Until that happens, we are just privatizing developer profit and socializing those impacts on the greater community.

This is all predicated on the poppycock of "Metcalfe's Fallacy," the notion that housing in San Francisco competes in the same market segment with sprawl housing in the exurbs. This "think tank policy" needs to be unmasked for what it is: developer lobbying.

The impulses here are noble, however the error here is believing that existing infrastructure is sufficient to get new condo residents out of their cars. There is simply no evidence about SF Bay Area commute patterns over someone's working lifetime which would make the case for TOD under current contexts.

-marc

Comment on: The mobility of space

In order to comment on an article, you must Log In.

SFBG Classifieds