San Francisco's downtown revival ideas are flying fast and furious, from biotech labs to theme parks. But are these proposals grounded in reality? City leaders are rethinking old assumptions about urban planning and economic diversity, aiming to reshape the city's core with fresh perspectives.
In recent months, San Francisco’s downtown recovery brainstorming process has become something of a mad science laboratory.
Mayor London Breed has suggested turning vacant office or mall space into biotech facilities. Or a university campus. Or a soccer stadium.
Other city stakeholders and influencers have suggested a theme park, casino, satellite museum, carnival, or Burning Man sculpture garden in no particular order.
But are all of these suggestions based on faulty assumptions?
Here are four problematic assumed beliefs currently fueling the downtown discussion:
BAD ASSUMPTION #1:
CITY HALL NEEDS TO FIND A NEW PRIMARY USE CASE FOR DOWNTOWN
It’s a widely-held belief among city officials that the downtown San Francisco we used to know in 2019 is not coming back.
But what if the pandemic’s urban planning lesson was less about the rise of stay-at-home tech workers and more about the dangers of any metro area being concentrated too much in one or two industry sectors — or focused exclusively on office work — making it vulnerable to macroeconomic or sociocultural shifts.
San Francisco is certainly not the first urban area to experience this. Consider 1950s Pittsburgh — at one time the eighth largest city in the U.S. — and its historic dependence on the steel industry.
More recently, cities like Calgary (energy sector dependence) and Washington D.C. (government sector dependence) had to reimagine ways to diversify.
“I think we would be making this mistake again by putting all of our eggs in one basket,” said Rodney Fong, CEO of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. “I think you have to think about downtown San Francisco as an investment portfolio, and we’re diversifying our uses, the types of people, when they're here, and how many.”
BAD ASSUMPTION #2:
THE CITY’S PLANNING CODE NEEDS TO DICTATE HOW DOWNTOWN SPACES WILL BE USED
Across the U.S., cities with greater resilience to post-pandemic challenges have embraced policies that entrust residents — rather than government bureaucrats — with the power to find their own novel solutions.
Case in point: Austin, Texas.
This past November, the Austin City Council voted to eliminate parking mandates — ordinances that specify how many parking spots a new development must provide — from the land development code.
The dramatic shift from Austin’s prior prescriptive approach was designed to spark a re-imagination of what city residential and commercial buildings could look like — plus create more housing overall.
Could we do something similar in San Francisco? Could we entrust San Francisco’s people to find diverse uses of our downtown core that the politicians haven’t dreamed up?
Even the city’s most prolific contributor to complex planning codes, Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, has been convinced recently to suspend some of his most prescriptive rules.
“This temporary reduction in affordable housing obligations,” said Peskin in a recent announcement with Mayor Breed to address the housing shortage, “is intended to kickstart housing development.”
If reduced rules can kickstart needed city objectives, why not suspend those rules permanently instead of temporarily?
BAD ASSUMPTION #3:
REVITALIZING DOWNTOWN SHOULD BE ABOUT THINKING BIG
When big brands like Nordstrom, Office Depot, and Old Navy depart downtown San Francisco, it generates newspaper headlines.
But smaller businesses hunting for bargain spaces and reimagined storefronts could fill in the gaps if we got out of their way.
“We used to treat small businesses like weeds that just grow,” said San Francisco Bar Owner Alliance founder Ben Bleiman, who also serves as president of the San Francisco Entertainment Commission and executive manager of the Discover Polk community benefit district. “If a small business went out of business, I literally heard politicians who are still in office say it doesn't matter at all because somebody else will move in there.”
According to Bleiman, San Francisco’s attitude toward small businesses has historically been worse than indifferent — it’s been “hostile.”
What could we do as part of downtown planning to reduce hostilities?
We could start by removing antiquated rules, fees, and permitting processes that greatly impede small businesses for no good reason.
Why does San Francisco still choose to assess a $220 annual license fee to “billiard parlors,” a $649 annual fee to “public bath houses,” or a whopping $1,710 fee to “tattoo or piercing facilities”?
Trust me, no one knows.
And the labor required to enforce these fees, in many instances, costs more than the amount of revenue raised.
BAD ASSUMPTION #4:
DOWNTOWN SAN FRANCISCO IS WHERE THE SKYSCRAPERS ARE
One of the most confusing parts of any downtown planning efforts is that it’s unclear where downtown starts and ends.
Is downtown just the Financial District? Does it encompass Mid-Market, East Cut, or Fisherman’s Wharf?
If you ask Google Maps, Apple Maps, neighborhood business associations, or the city’s planning department, you’ll get all different answers.
But if we can all agree that downtown is where the city’s economic engine resides, then perhaps a downtown revitalization plan would be better defined in terms of economic impact instead of a physical location.
An expansion of the definition of downtown makes sense in the context of San Francisco’s 7x7-mile configuration: The City’s core is much more accessible and walkable from other neighborhoods when compared to other cities.
If our goal is to revitalize San Francisco’s economy, would it matter if commerce happens inside or outside of specific city blocks? For instance, The City’s hottest company, Open AI, is headquartered in The Mission and recently subleased substantial space in Mission Bay. That’s hugely significant for our turnaround even though it’s not technically downtown, right?
Maybe then, a Valencia restaurant recovery plan or a plan to support Chinatown businesses could be part of the city’s 2024 makeover.
Better yet, if we include more adjacent neighborhoods in this process and let them have real input, City Hall’s Roadmap to San Francisco’s Future would read less like a laundry list of potential tactics and more like a cohesive strategy.
Former DA Chesa Boudin confronts San Francisco's homelessness crisis with sharp critiques of City Hall’s failures. As he calls out judicial blame-shifting and champions diversion programs, Boudin pushes for a compassionate yet secure approach to solving this persistent issue.
Catherine Stefani's triumphant primary election night reveals her stance on public safety, housing, and education. Her endorsement of Mayor London Breed, views on Proposition B's defeat, and commitment to nonprofit accountability and victims' rights highlight her vision for a safer, more equitable San Francisco.
As the March 2024 elections conclude, it's time to explore the broader trends and new rules shaping San Francisco politics. From moderates organizing effectively to the significance of Asian voter turnout, discover the five key insights that define the current political landscape.
