So far in this series I have examined three elements of Colorado’s cities–pedestrian malls, an active populace, and nature. Really, these elements are not separate at all and tie into one-another: great pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure with plenty of trees and streams will make people want to get outside and take advantage of such a pleasant setting. Therefore, it’s no coincidence that Colorado has such a strong culture of activity and such a low obesity rate. But up until now I’ve mostly looked at Downtowns and suburban areas, rather than urban neighborhoods. Why? Because I had to save the best for last.
10 years ago, Denver’s Central Platte Valley district was nothing more than a blighted wasteland that served as an eyesore to the rest of the Downtown area. While the area boasted a great location immediately adjacent to the trendy LoDo and Highland districts, Coors Field, the Pepsi Center, and Downtown, any redevelopment faced the enormous challenge of dealing with four barriers which fragmented the district and isolated it from adjacent neighborhoods: two rail lines, a river, and a freeway.
In spite of these challenges, Denver set the ambitious goal of adding 3,000 new housing units, four parks, a new light rail transit center, and more than 3 million square feet of commercial and office space in this area of less than one square mile. How has Denver accomplished this goal without creating a traffic disaster? By making the area almost entirely pedestrian and bicycle oriented.
The fragmented pieces of land in Central Platte Valley are joined together by three brand-new pedestrian bridges which connect the district to the LoDo and Highland districts and line up with the 16th Street Transit Mall. Not only are the bridges beautifully designed and conducive of walking by themselves, they serves as the fastest and most-direct link to downtown and between neighborhoods. Development is centered along the pedestrian mall created by the trio of bridges, making walking and bicycling truly the modes of choice in the area.
Commons Park, with the Mellenium Bridge in the background.
The Platte River Bridge, with the Highland Bridge in the background.
The Highland Bridge
Central Platte Valley is also oriented around the natural assets of the South Platte River and Cherry Creek. Apart from the great riverfront bike trails which I already discussed, Central Platte Valley has an absolute gem in Confluence Park, a new beach right in the middle of Central Platte Valley at the site of Denver’s founding 151 years ago:
Nothing beats a trip to the "beach" on a hot summer day in Denver.
The last piece in the transformation of Central Platte Valley is the redevelopment of Union Station, which will become its own district in itself. Just behind the actual train station is a giant piece of land that will soon house the new transit center, another pedestrian bridge, and the remaining 1,000 new housing units along with lots of commercial space and a new hotel. Once complete, the are will have much-improved transit facilities seamless connection to LoDo and Downtown.
This giant chunk of land behind Union Station will be the final piece in redevelopment...
...Which will become a new pedestrian and transit-oriented neighborhood
UPDATE: Construction on the new Union Station area just began September 7th. Check out the project’s new website here.
While the planning process for redevelopment began back in the 1980s, the magnitude of what Denver has accomplished in the last 10 years is simply amazing. Central Platte Valley had a sense of cohesiveness and vibrancy to it that few other large-scale redevelopment projects have, and it is one of the best examples in the country of how to create a lively new neighborhood from scratch.
If you’re interested in Denver’s redevelopment, I strongly recommend you check out www.denverinfill.com, which provides an excellent summary of every major redevelopment project happening in Denver.
The 16th St. Transit Mall in Denver is just one example of the outstanding urban design which I encountered in Colorado
Colorado is not always a state that comes to mind when you think of progressive urban policies, but having spent the past week exploring the cities of Fort Collins, Boulder, and Denver, Colorado has become one of the most cutting edge states when it comes to urbanism. Granted, I am by no means saying that Colorado cities are even near perfect; in fact, cities on the Front Range have experienced a tremendous amount of sprawling growth over the past few decades which now threatens to consume a significant portion of the farmland and open space along the I-25 corridor. But while urbanist projects in the Bay Area have been caught up in political battles and bureaucratic red tape, cities across Colorado have managed to accomplish numerous recent projects which have put them at the forefront of livability and sustainability.
Most of Colorado’s population lies along the Front Range urban corridor, with 3.1 million of the state’s 4.9 million people living along the 75 mile stretch of I-25 between the Denver Metro area and Fort Collins, and an additional 1.1 million in the adjacent 100 miles (including Colorado Springs and Cheyenne, Wyoming).
Three overarching aspects of Fort Collins, Boulder, and Denver put these cities years ahead of the Bay Area: pedestrian malls and public spaces, bicycle friendliness, and smart redevelopment. I plan on discussing each of these topics in the following days, as well as their implications for Colorado’s future and what the Bay Area can learn from them.
Also, I would like to draw your attention to the new 21st Century Urban Solutions Flickr, in which you can view pictures from my trip to Colorado along with other photos as they come. Enjoy!
Boulder, along with Fort Collins and Denver, has an extensive network of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure which helps foster an active and green populace
Along with a new Bart Station in the San Antonio district of Oakland, the $522 million appropriated to the Oakland Airport Connector could do wonders to transform Oakland with a streetcar network. Oakland is the perfect city for a streetcar system–more so than any other city in the Bay Area, Oakland is a collection of individual neighborhoods, each of which with its own clearly-defined center. The majority of these neighborhoods are within less than three miles of the Downtown transportation hub and hotels, but by and large they remain disconnected from one another.
The idea of a streetcar network in Oakland is not a new one–many of Oakland’s neighborhoods were streetcar suburbs built around the Key System in the first half of the 20th century. More recently, Bart studied the possibility of a streetcar linking Downtown Oakland with Jack London Square, but it came up inconclusive since many of the options were either too limited, way too complicated, or both. Within the blogging world, SFCityscape has made a good crack at a more developed streetcar network, but what I propose is a much more comprehensive system that would reshape a diverse array of neighborhoods in Oakland.
-New streetcar lines always, always, get more passengers than the bus routes they replace.
-The upfront costs are higher for streetcars than buses–but that is more than made up over time in lower operating and maintenance costs.
-There is a compelling “coolness” and “newness” factor attached to streetcars.
-Streetcars feel safer from a crime point of view.
-Buses are noisy. By comparison, streetcars are virtually silent.
-Low floors are standard, for easy-on easy-off curbside boarding. Wide doors allow passengers to enter or exit quickly. So streetcar stops take less time than buses.
-Streetcars create more walkable streets. This is because streetcars, as mentioned above, are more attractive to riders than buses, which in turns prompt to more mass transit usage in general, which in turns prompts to more walking–a virtuous cycle that creates more attractive city streets.
-You know exactly where a streetcar is going – but have you ever tried looking at a bus route map?
-Perhaps the most over looked and significant difference between street cars and buses is permanence. You’ll notice that development will follow a train station, but rarely a bus stop. Rails don’t pick up and move any time soon. Once a trolley system is in place, business and investors can count on them for decades. Buses come and go.
While Human Transit recently questioned the performance benefits of streetcars vs. buses, I’d argue that an improved bus system could never achieve the same transformations as a new streetcar system for Oakland. Streetcars attract a wide range of people to ride transit–including those who refuse to ride buses in the first place–along with significant reinvestment into the urban core which would otherwise not take place. A streetcar network is exactly what Oakland needs: a catalyst to create safer, more livable communities through both infill development and reinvestment into the existing framework of the city. With this proposal, Oakland could finally become an interconnected city rather than a disjointed collection of neighborhoods.
The Concept
I propose a four line, 14-mile streetcar network to tie Oakland together:
I also made a few extra modifications to the existing system, such as BRT or Rapid bus corridors for the 1R, 51 (not pictured), 57, and the San Antonio Bart feeder bus (labeled 11R), as well as extending the 40 (AC Transit’s third-highest ridership line) through West Oakland to Emeryville, and adding a limited service for it (giving a much-needed Emeryville-West Oakland-Downtown-East Oakland connection). In addition, this proposal would allow the elimination of the 18 line, and parts of the 12, 14, 19, and 59 lines (the latter two already slated to be cut).
The streetcar network doesn’t necessarily follow the lines with the highest ridership volume–I’m leaving the San Pablo, Telegraph-International, and Webster/Posey tube lines for BRT/Rapid Buses. I tried to connect as many neighborhoods as possible within the confines of a good streetcar network–each line is approximately 25 minutes and would have 8-9 minute headways (the Orange Line, which is a one-way clockwise circulator, would run every 10 minutes). Overlayed with current and future BRT corridors (not to mention Bart lines), the streetcar network would have a diverse ridership base and wide range of uses, connecting (just to name a few):
-Oak to Ninth (Red and Blue Lines, 72R)
-Rockridge (Blue Line, 51R)
-Glenview (Green Line, 57R, NL, 11R)
-San Antonio i.e. Merritt, Cleveland Heights, Ivy Hill (Green Line, 1R BRT, 40/40L, 11R, 57R, NL)
-Chinatown (Red Line, Green Line, Orange Line, 1R BRT, 51R)
-West Oakland i.e. Oak Center (Green Line, NL, 40/40L)
-Temescal (Blue Line, 1R BRT, 51R)
-Grand Lake/Lakeshore (Red Line, 57R, NL)
And keep in mind other integral neighborhoods, such as Laurel, Dimond, central Temescal, and Fruitvale will be connected with the Rapid Bus/BRT system as well.
Note: one of the essential aspects of the Oakland streetcar network is that the streetcars should be modern low-floor vehicles (i.e. Portland or European style). San Francisco already has vintage PCC cars, and Oakland needs to forge its own identity. Modern streetcars provide better service, and would help reshape Oakland’s image into a 21st Century city.
San Francisco's Vintage PCC cars are beautiful, but Oakland needs to redefine its own identity with a more modern image.
Economic Development
A streetcar network can work wonders for revitalizing a city. Merchants and property owners in Jack London square have been practically begging for a streetcar for years now, since the neighborhood is just barely out of the reach of the Bart system. This desire for a streetcar system to generate economic activity is not without precedent: Portland’s four mile streetcar has generated a 6,363% return on the initial 55 million dollar investment: approximately $3.5 billion in new investment into 10,000 new housing units and 5,000,000 sq. feet of office and hotel space in just eight years. At 14 miles, the potential for approximately $10 billion in new investment into 35,000 new units along with substantial office, hotel, and retail space in under 10 years would work wonders for Oakland. Other cities have experienced similar results–Seattle’s line attracted 2,000 new housing units even before the line opened!
Portland's 4 mile, $55 million streetcar line has generated $3.5 billion in new investment
As streetcar systems expand throughout the country, America is finally getting back into the streetcar manufacturing business. An American-made fleet of streetcars for Oakland could bring jobs to struggling automobile factories in Fremont or Milpitas, or even a new factory in Oakland or Richmond.
What if streetcars could be manufactured in the East Bay?
The Red Line in the Waterfront/Produce District would have the most similar impact to Portland, creating a thriving transit-oriented neighborhood virtually from scratch. The Red Line would also provide the impetus for an economic boom in the Grand Lake/Lakeshore/Adams Point area, which in spite of its success has still not achieved the necessary safety and vitality of a good urban neighborhood. The Blue Line could transform the Broadway corridor into a thriving urban boulevard from Jack London Square to the Auto Row and beyond. It would also give Rockridge a better connection to the rest of Oakland. Both the Red and Blue Lines would play a huge role in facilitating the growth at Oak-to-Ninth devleopment (and avert a traffic disaster that would otherwise result). The Green Line would be more of a revitilization line (except for pockets of TOD by the West Oakland Bart station and Lakeside areas) which could take dense but automobile-dependent neighborhoods in West Oakland and east of Lake Merritt and turn them into safer, transit-oriented neighborhoods. It would also be great for Glenview, an original streetcar suburb. The Orange line would tie Downtown together and be a big boost to the Lakeside and Chinatown neighborhoods. All in all, a streetcar network would spur billions in reinvestment into Oakland and facilitate cross-neighborhood economic activity and an increase in tourism.
Note: in any proposal like this, the potential negative effects on neighborhoods, such as gentrification, must be considered. Some areas, such as the Park Blvd corridor east of the Lake, are already built out and dense enough to support a streetcar line, so redevelopment shouldn’t be a priority. Others, such as West Oakland, should have clear growth plans and strict guidelines on the type of housing that could be built, emphasizing mixed-income housing and at least 1/3 of the units under market rate (projects that strengthen the neighborhood framework, such as the Fruitvale Bart station TOD, should be encouraged). Ensuring that Oakland stays affordable for everyone will need to be a priority as redevelopment occurs, but I think that there is enough potential land to be redeveloped (particularly in Jack London Square, the Produce District/Waterfront, Oak to Ninth, and along Broadway) that supply should keep up with demand and no bubble should occur.
Ridership
Eight years after opening, ridership on Portland’s four mile streetcar line has tripled from 4,000 to 12,000 daily riders. My conservative estimates for Oakland’s daily ridership are:
Line 2009 2020
Blue 7,000 14,000
Green 3,500 6,500
Red 2,500 7,000
Orange 1,000 2,500
Total 14,000 30,000
A key component of attracting and increasing ridership is making the system easy to use. Fare machines should be located at stops to pay for tickets in advance, and the system should be fully integrated into AC Transit and have easier Bart transfers. I also think that a free-fare zone, such as Portland’s, should be explored (or at least make the Orange Line free with no transfer). The system could also have color-coded streetcars to make riding the streetcar as simple and user-friendly as possible.
Color-coded streetcars would make the system both attractive and easy to use
Cost
At $15-35 million per mile, a 14 mile network (subtracting overlap) would cost $250-450 million. Parts of the system will be able to piggy-back off of the Telegraph-International BRT, and the option is there to give the Blue Line a dedicated right of way (which would put the cost on the higher end). In many cities, public-private partnerships able developers to pick up a portion of the cost in exchange for development rights. The system could also be built in phases. To break down the costs into individual segments (assuming 25 million/mile, and in order of construction):
Blue Line…..125 million (+$30 to $50 million for dedicated lane if necessary)
Green Line…..136 million
Red Line…..62 million (half of the tracks already built)
Orange Line…..22 million (40% of tracks already built, only one track required)
Total…..345 million
So, for those of you counting, we’ve got (cost, 2020 ridership):
Therefore, a complete streetcar system, multiple Rapid Bus lines, and a San Antonio Bart station could be built for the same price as the Oakland Airport Connector while potentially attracting 10 times the riders and completely transforming Oakland.
Conclusion
With this proposal for a 14-mile streetcar system, Oakland would become America’s streetcar capital. At $345 million, a streetcar network would induce billions of dollars in investment and reduce emissions, oil consumption, and traffic congestion in Oakland. Most of all, a streetcar network would tie together Oakland into a unified city, reinvigorating Oakland’s economy and creating safer, more livable neighborhoods.
The Hunters Point Naval Shipyard and Candlestick Point will be redeveloped into two new neighborhoods over the next 10-15 years, adding a minimum of 25,000 new residents
Walking down Third Street in Bayview, one cannot help but notice the rapid changes occuring–construction of new apartments and the opening of new businesses line the streets–yet, this is only the beginning for Bayview-Hunters Point. After decades of disinvestment that left Bayview-Hunters Point an impoverished ghetto, two current projects—the Third Street light rail line and the Hunters Point/Candlestick Point Redevelopment projects—are poised to completely remake the district.
The relatively-new T-Third Muni Metro line along Third St.
Opened in 2007, the T-Third Street Muni Metro line has brought much-needed transit access to Bayview-Hunters Point, re-integrating the district with the rest of the city and inducing residential and commercial development along the corridor. The T-Third line has provided an excellent opportunity for smart growth and economic revitilization in Bayview and finally shows that City Hall is beginning to take notice of Bayview-Hunters Point.
Condos under construction in Bayview
This process of reintegration and reinvestment will be augmented by the redevelopment of the Hunters Point Shipyard and Candlestick Point stadium area. Encompassing nearly 3% of San Francisco’s total land area, the Shipyard and stadium redevelopment is projected to bring at least 10,500 new residential units to Bayview-Hunters Point with 1/3 below market rate, likely amounting to 25,000 new residents over the next decade (and potentially more if/when the 49ers move to Santa Clara). While these projects generally follow sound urbanist and smart growth principles and will expedite the environmental cleanup of the area, many residents view this transformation as the final attempt to push Black and low-income residents out of San Francisco.
Even before the latest redevelopment, San Francisco’s Black population has been decreasing at an alarming rate, a phenomonon that many label the “Black Exodus.” San Francisco’s Black population has decreased 46% since 1970, from 96,018 to 51,795 (2007 ACS), in large part due to urban renewal, rising cost of living, and the opening of the suburbs to Blacks as housing discrimination decreased. While cities like Richmond, Oakland, and East Palo Alto, and more recently Vallejo, Pittsburg, Antioch, and Stockton have seen their Black populations soar, San Francisco now has a lower proportion of Blacks than cities with traditionally low Black populations such as Seattle, Portland, and San Diego. This general trend is also true for Bayview-Hunters Point, which has seen its Black population decrease 22% since 1970, and Blacks currently account for less than half of the population.
Once again, a look at racial trends in Bayview-Hunters Point. Notice the recent decline in the district's Black popluation coupled with a large increase in the Asian/Pacific Islander population.
Some hope still exists in preventing wholescale gentrification and preserving the diversity and Black character of Bayview-Hunters Point. Recently, Bayview-Hunters Point has been targeted for reindustrialization as “green industries” move into the area–including the recycling, biodiesel, and solar panel industries. In addition, Hunters View, one of the worst housing projects in Hunters Point, just received 6 million dollars from the Stimulus package to finally be torn down and completely redeveloped, going from 250 public housing units to 800 mixed-income units. In general, the city has tried to reach out to the community in the redevelopment process and ensure the availability of affordable housing, but these efforts have not healed the anti-government sentiments in the district.
Bayview-Hunters Point is San Francisco's new center for "Green Jobs"
"Were you displaced from Bayview or Fillmore in the 1960s and 1970s? You may qualify for buyers priority" -SF Housing Development Corporation
"No government money of any kind built or maintains this facility" -Community Awareness in Action, conveneintly located next to Bayview Liquors
All in all, this project left me feeling conflicted. On the one hand, Bayview-Hunters Point could very well add 35,000-45,000 new residents by 2030 in an environmentally-friendly and energy-conscious manner. On the other hand, it will without question be the most changed district in San Francisco, and gentrification will inevitably occur. Situations like this pose some of the most complex and conflicting choices for me as someone who supports infill projects and Smart Growth while at the same time wanting to aid neglected low-income communities in economic development while preventing gentrification. But then again, the only thing that’s been constant in Bayview-Hunters Point the past 100 years is change. Hopefully, redevelopment will not be as destructive as postwar urban renewal, and finally stabilize the district while allowing it to remain diverse and affordable. Whether or not this can actually occur is yet to be seen.
A recent post at the Transbay Blog reminded me of one of the biggest sources of blight and misuses of land in the Bay Area: surface parking in Downtown Oakland. Of the 51 public Downtown lots, 24 are surface lots. Yet, surface parking accounts for less than 15% of parking in the area (private surface lots, such as AC Transit’s, are not accounted for here). The merits of parking garages are debatable (I think they are overdeveloped and a waste of money, but many retailers would beg to differ) and deserves a separate post, but I think everybody can agree that when assessing the economic potential of land in such a transit-rich and up-and-coming area (see projects such at the Uptown development), charging 50 cars $10 per day doesn’t exactly do much for anybody.
Douglass Parking is responsible for most of the blight, especially in its great wall of surface parking which surrounds the Gold Coast neighborhood , one of the highest-density areas in Oakland. Not only is this land underused, it serves as a significant barrier between the Gold Coast and the restaurants and shops on 17th and 19th streets, discouraging walking (especially at night) through the ghost-town of empty parking lots.
The point is, Downtown Oakland should not resemble a strip mall. Luckily, there are numerous infill projects in the pipline to make better use of this land and connect the Gold Coast and other affected areas with one another. But, there is still a lot of room for improvement. If I was working in the Oakland Planning Dept., this would be my number one priority to remake downtown into a truly urban environment with a unified set of neighborhoods.
