Looking toward downtown, Ms. Carpinelli has witnessed the advance of the shiny, boxlike structures of the Mission Bay biotechnology hub on her neighborhood.

Now the Port of San Francisco is embarking on an ambitious development plan for the massive Pier 70 that involves restoring the old shipyard buildings and constructing 2.5 million square feet of new office space.

But as San Francisco officials court tech companies for what they call the “innovation corridor,” extending from Mission Bay to Pier 70 and beyond, neighbors and urban planners are asking how the architectural sensibilities — or lack thereof — of Silicon Valley will weave themselves into the urban fabric.

“The suburban tech campuses, they seem to be designed by engineers and not architects,” said Ms. Carpinelli, a graphic designer who heads up the Dogpatch neighborhood association. “I think the pressure is on to come up with something interesting for Pier 70.”

The city has thrown in with Forest City Development California, the firm behind the Westfield Center mall and the continuing transformation of the San Francisco Chronicle building, to meet that challenge. Forest City was recently chosen to plan and develop a 25-acre chunk of the 65-acre Pier 70, and envisions “a new model of innovation campus” alongside the restored historic buildings and a waterfront park.

With construction starting in 2015 at the earliest, the plans are short on detail. But the concept is a place featuring a mix of tech companies and arts organizations, public places that encourage the intermingling of people and ideas, and building designs that draw on the industrial history of the neighborhood.

Alexa Arena, a local Forest City executive, said the key was to think “beyond the physical buildings” to the tenants who could bring the space to life. That includes allowing development on the site to occur more organically and less through heavy-handed, top-down planning. It also means designing buildings that interact with their surroundings. “It’s a development that’s contextual,” Ms. Arena said.

Although vague, the ideas appear to be aimed at avoiding what everyone, from city officials to neighbors, does not want: a repeat of Mission Bay. That 303-acre development, anchored by the new hospital and research complex of the University of California, San Francisco, stretches from ATT Park to the edge of Pier 70. Formerly an industrial railyard, Mission Bay grew up quickly over the last decade, with offices for biotech companies, parking structures and condos in the sanitized, suburban look and feel that dominates Silicon Valley.

While Mission Bay has been a success from a real estate and economic standpoint, its architectural style strikes many as out of place.

“It’s a great economic base and it’s great for San Francisco, but it doesn’t look like San Francisco,” said Lou Vasquez, a longtime San Francisco developer. “If the Bay Bridge wasn’t there, I’d completely lose my bearings.”

Indeed, tech-company architecture developed explicitly as a counterpoint to the urban-industrial fabric that San Francisco wants to preserve, said Alan Hess, a prominent California architecture critic.

“There are many good reasons why Hewlett Packard settled in suburbia,” said Mr. Hess, a California architecture critic. “It was a new concept of the factory with lawns and recreation areas, which was the exact opposite of the dirty, smelly factories with their belching smokestacks from the industrial era.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/us/14bcpier.html

Looking toward downtown, Ms. Carpinelli has witnessed the advance of the shiny, boxlike structures of the Mission Bay biotechnology hub on her neighborhood.

Now the Port of San Francisco is embarking on an ambitious development plan for the massive Pier 70 that involves restoring the old shipyard buildings and constructing 2.5 million square feet of new office space.

But as San Francisco officials court tech companies for what they call the “innovation corridor,” extending from Mission Bay to Pier 70 and beyond, neighbors and urban planners are asking how the architectural sensibilities — or lack thereof — of Silicon Valley will weave themselves into the urban fabric.

“The suburban tech campuses, they seem to be designed by engineers and not architects,” said Ms. Carpinelli, a graphic designer who heads up the Dogpatch neighborhood association. “I think the pressure is on to come up with something interesting for Pier 70.”

The city has thrown in with Forest City Development California, the firm behind the Westfield Center mall and the continuing transformation of the San Francisco Chronicle building, to meet that challenge. Forest City was recently chosen to plan and develop a 25-acre chunk of the 65-acre Pier 70, and envisions “a new model of innovation campus” alongside the restored historic buildings and a waterfront park.

With construction starting in 2015 at the earliest, the plans are short on detail. But the concept is a place featuring a mix of tech companies and arts organizations, public places that encourage the intermingling of people and ideas, and building designs that draw on the industrial history of the neighborhood.

Alexa Arena, a local Forest City executive, said the key was to think “beyond the physical buildings” to the tenants who could bring the space to life. That includes allowing development on the site to occur more organically and less through heavy-handed, top-down planning. It also means designing buildings that interact with their surroundings. “It’s a development that’s contextual,” Ms. Arena said.

Although vague, the ideas appear to be aimed at avoiding what everyone, from city officials to neighbors, does not want: a repeat of Mission Bay. That 303-acre development, anchored by the new hospital and research complex of the University of California, San Francisco, stretches from ATT Park to the edge of Pier 70. Formerly an industrial railyard, Mission Bay grew up quickly over the last decade, with offices for biotech companies, parking structures and condos in the sanitized, suburban look and feel that dominates Silicon Valley.

While Mission Bay has been a success from a real estate and economic standpoint, its architectural style strikes many as out of place.

“It’s a great economic base and it’s great for San Francisco, but it doesn’t look like San Francisco,” said Lou Vasquez, a longtime San Francisco developer. “If the Bay Bridge wasn’t there, I’d completely lose my bearings.”

Indeed, tech-company architecture developed explicitly as a counterpoint to the urban-industrial fabric that San Francisco wants to preserve, said Alan Hess, a prominent California architecture critic.

“There are many good reasons why Hewlett Packard settled in suburbia,” said Mr. Hess, a California architecture critic. “It was a new concept of the factory with lawns and recreation areas, which was the exact opposite of the dirty, smelly factories with their belching smokestacks from the industrial era.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/us/14bcpier.html

But after all the grand fanfare, with impressive deals made in anticipation of city funding contributions and millions of dollars raised for design and preliminary development, the harsh reality of the national housing meltdown brought the dream crashing to a halt. Public housing residents who have been repeatedly disappointed are back in limbo, living day-to-day in homes that — in many cases — are vermin-infested, lack heat, have broken walls, ceilings or windows, and are consistently rated as dangerous and life-threatening.

In U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development inspections, a score of at least 60 out of 100 is considered passing. Scores at the eight public housing projects supposed to be upgraded by Hope SF range from 51 to 65 — and HUD found “life-threatening conditions present” at all of them.

For decades, running well into the early ’90s, the rundown condition of San Francisco’s public housing was a disgrace to The City. Executive managers were ousted and angry federal reports blasted the projects’ inadequate upkeep. Then between 1994 and 2006, money from the federal Hope VI program successfully revitalized public housing in the Mission, North Beach, Western Addition, Hayes Valley and Bernal Heights.

But the money from Washington eventually disappeared. Newsom tried to continue the work by assembling one of his bolder programs. Hope SF was a complex package partnering with private or nonprofit developers who would make money by building market-rate condos in the area. However, with the housing market and real estate financing limping along in the Bay Area, four years after Hope SF began, only two of its sites — in Hunters Point and the Bayview — actually have the public funds to move ahead.

Funding has run dry for six other developments, including the 769-unit Sunnydale housing project, sites atop Potrero Hill and in the Western Addition. The dismal news arrived in The City’s March report outlining San Francisco’s next decade of development: City Hall needs $127 million for infrastructure upgrades such as utilities, street paving and drainage before money becomes available to finish the public housing rebuild.

The fact remains that Hope SF made a four-year-old unfulfilled promise to San Franciscans whose needs have been shoved back to the end of the line for a disgracefully long time.

There can be no arguing about how difficult today’s municipal spending constraints are. But simply giving up and leaving Hope SF on the back burner will only worsen the problems plaguing these low-income communities. This is a time to try moving beyond the bureaucratic envelope. Some ways should be found to sweeten the developer deals so they become more attractive to private funding. It would seem that a task force of creative business people ought to be able to find some way to move Hope SF forward.

Article source: http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2011/04/san-francisco-public-housing-shouldn-t-be-left-hopeless