Comments on: Jane Martin is a Force of Nature

By: Marilyn Picariello

Marilyn Picariello — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:54:17 +0000

I just left a comment. No sure it went. Anyway I love this idea. The Mission never looked better. As someone who has hung out in the Mission since the early 1980′s the urban transformation is astonishing and I want more. It’s a good thing, a very cool thing….

By: Marilyn Picariello

Marilyn Picariello — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:48:41 +0000

As a 30+ year resident/realtor in San Francisco I am aware of the many neighborhoods/urban gardens that the city has to offer. This notion is so interesting to me because it completes an awareness I had had. Last Fall I had a listing on Shotwell at 20th St that I had sold to my friends in 2000 before the new and improved Shotwell sidewalk gardens project.What a transformation Shotwell under went. Just beautiful! I couldn’t believe it. As a gardener myself, I was amazed at the transformation and overall beautification of Shotwell. I love it and say let’s do more!!!!

By: Ryan Whitacre

Ryan Whitacre — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:21:06 +0000

I echo Hilary’s “Go Jane!” and add a further “Yay Hilary!”

Working within the current contexts of the City is the most practical way to effectively address the problems at hand, and Jane Martin is doing a wonderful job of this. I struggle to sympathize with naysayers and those concerned with sidewalk width. Restructuring landscapes completely is not a financially reasonable pursuit. Also, I toured these beautiful creations as well as many others throughout the City just yesterday and found the sidewalk on this section of Shotwell to not only be comfortable, but far more enjoyable to venture down than other wide-bodied, wasteful, and dare I say, boisterous avenues. 6 feet is a lot of space! Though I completely support promoting pedestrian traffic, a simple sidewalk-widening will not achieve the desired ends. The space should be used for more inviting purposes — resources that will impel people to walk. Jane Martin’s gardens are one example of more inviting resources. I bet you could think of others.

What would you prefer to see on your block? More cement, or more green space? What if all the excess space used for large pedestrian walkways was converted into gardens? What if sidewalks were smaller and the square footage of your home was larger? What if that wasted resource could be transformed into space for more affordable housing for the disabled?

It should also be noted that though work may have been done in this area, the sewage problem has not been taken care of. It’s a City-wide issue due to the combined sewer system, which lurks beneath us. We can thank past City designers and dated-thought for the pollution and back-ups. Permeable driveways are not only sustainable, they promote resilience!

I’d also like to give due kudos for the easily navigable template Jane has provided, which enables much needed remediation of other areas in the City’s landscape. Like I said, Go Jane!

By: Hilary

Hilary — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 05:21:14 +0000

Go Jane! These blocks are vastly more appealing than those without the curb plantings. Even a narrow strip of plantings gives visual relief as well as affording habitat space and permeabilility. I am surprised at the concern for narrow sidewalks…this is not Mission Street, people! I dont mind touching another human in the city anyway. Close your eyes and envision Market street with less brick, but instead with some of these kinds of plantings. (Now keep dreaming and erase all the car traffic…now the pavement is getting ripped up….) I am not even mentioning (til now) the benefit for other creatures these kinds of plantings provide…especially when native plants are used. Plus, scientific studies demonstrate that our brains function better when natural spaces are in view in urban places. (See, e.g., How the city hurts your brain…And what you can do about it. By Jonah Lehrer January 2, 2009 Boston Globe) I am not commenting on the previous commenters’ brains…at least not consciously.

By: CBrinkman

CBrinkman — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 23:37:23 +0000

Our Livable City Park(ing) space in 2007 focused on parking spots and storm water runoff. From numbers supplied by the PUC: each paved parking space generates about 1,875 gallons of stormwater run off each year. Greening the space could reduce that by 1,250 gals, and permeable paving would reduce it by 625 gals. Since we have a combined sewer and stormwater system in SF all that water has to be treated before being released….except when the system can’t handle it all. I think greening the sidewalks can be a great first step to get people thinking about de-paving some of the street. A lovely and green first step.

By: Josh

Josh — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 23:17:25 +0000

The sewage problem was actually fixed by a massive PUC project that took about a year (if I recall correctly). That said, permeable pavement can prevent problems like that from happening again.

6′ should be the minimum, but this recommendation of the BS”P” is an improvement over the ADA requirements (currently the only legal requirements for sidewalks) of 48″

Regarding the current level of ped traffic on Shotwell; it’s a narrow residential street, so traffic isn’t constant. But Shotwell and the adjacent inner mission streets have a decent number of pedestrians on them all the time.

In either case though I’d argue that narrowing sidewalks is never a good idea (nor can they ever be “underused” as mentioned in the article) because pedestrian traffic, like car traffic, can be induced by wide rights of way.

By: Fritz

Fritz — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:39:43 +0000

I don’t know the amount of traffic that walks on that street so it’s hard to make too much of a judgment. But, this great idea which helped mitigate an important problem (i.e. sewage) and help the area look less like a concrete blob needs to be met with on street changes by the city. With sidewalk extensions this would have been perfect. A little more sidewalk and maybe a protected bike lane on one side and then you can have the gardens, walkable sidewalks and better bike facilities. The problem here is that it’s sewage at the expense of pedestrian space… but the reason there can be so little drainage is cars. I think with limited space like that you need to be very careful about how you address it. But, she has started a change in the right direction.

By: Eric Fischer

Eric Fischer — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:55:43 +0000

Yes, this is probably the biggest problem with the Better Streets Plan as currently formulated — it specifies 6 feet as the amount of space that should be left for pedestrians under the best of circumstances, when that ought to be about the minimum instead.

By: Josh

Josh — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 23:20:12 +0000

The planting strips in front of the PG&E yard are actually a nightmare. They took a comfortable sidewalk and reduced it to a strip of concrete so narrow that two people can’t even pass each other. The stretch of Shotwell (the street I grew up on, incidentally) is better, but still pushing it. On 18th just off Shotwell is another bad one.

Please don’t get me wrong, I really really really support streatscape planting and permeable pavement, but i want very badly for it to not take away from a street’s walkability. Compounding the problem is a requirement that no plantings can be closer than something like 18 inches to the curb if there is street parking. This tends to push the planting even closer to the middle of the sidewalk.

In my perfect world I’d like to see more street parking removed and donated to plantings like these. Fortunately, the Better Streets “plan” recommends planting trees and other things in extensions into parking real estate, rather than pedestrian rights of way.