Comments on: A Vision For Transforming San Francisco’s “Unaccepted Streets”

By: Heather

Heather — Wed, 11 May 2011 06:46:00 +0000

These “ghost streets” or “unaccepted streets” as the Department of Public Works calls them, are absolutely fascinating. The neighbors who have decided to engage with these spaces have been really imaginative. This kind of investigation of unusual spaces is exactly what Dubord and the Situationists wanted. They wanted people to seek out alternative possibilities to what exists “through practices such as the derive and pschyogeography ” (Pinder, Visions of the City).The maps that de Monchaux have created are “attempts to ‘undo’ elements of the current socio-spatial order and defend, articulate and promote other values” (Pinder, Visions of the City). In this case, the neighbors took it upon themselves to replenish and maintain their surrounding urban spaces with greenery. De Monchaux’s psychogeographical maps can be used in various hypotheses or attempts to outline new social spaces. The grids of San Francisco were very rigidly planned and implemented, but there are many slivers and nooks of spaces that don’t fit. There are a lot possibilities and opportunities for how these areas can be used, but it requires people to get off of their spectator’s seat and do some wandering. A more mobile engagement with the city allows for people to gain a better understanding how theses space were used in the past and also to imagine multiple future possibilities. It is very much a bottom-up, experimental, social, and local approach to urbanism.

By: Jeffrey Betcher

Jeffrey Betcher — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:59:22 +0000

It’s great to see such a powerful statement (“heat map”) about the connections between “unaccepted streets,” health disparities, and environmental issues. Social innovators living and working in the Southeast Sector of the city know these connections to be real. The theory (Broken Window theory) that fixing up these spaces will make much of a difference in people’s lives has been enriched by evidence that building community and raising social capital in a highly localized, grassroots manner is a better starting point. Top-down policy and practice can disappoint, while grassroots generation of social cohesion produces positive health, environmental and other changes more reliably and sustainably. It sounds like “chicken and egg” stuff, but the two approaches prove different in practice.

By: Gordon Hansen

Gordon Hansen — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:15:09 +0000

For those interested in San Francisco’s “unaccepted streets,” and especially in efforts to clean up and transform them, please check out the San Francisco Parks Trust (sfpt.org). According to the Trust’s website, the “Street Parks” program “is a partnership between SFPT and the San Francisco Department of Public Works (DPW) to support the development and maintenance of community-managed open spaces on DPW owned properties.”

Certainly an interesting quirk of City management — but a quirk with plenty of potential for sustainable reclamation and (daresay) beautification.

By: mattymatt

mattymatt — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 22:34:48 +0000

This is FASCINATING. Am I reading this correctly, that all of the red streets on the map above are maintained by citizens or companies?

I live close to one of the streets in questions — Atalaya, near Fulton and Masonic. You’d never know that it isn’t a publicly maintained street; it looks just like any other. (Although there is a garden at the end of it, so I guess that’s kind of unusual.)

So is the plan to turn as many of these into green spaces as possible? I can’t imagine the people who live on Atalaya would want to give up their parking.

By: Barry Hooper

Barry Hooper — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:12:35 +0000

Is there a place where one could view the full database in detail (all 1500 acres)? It would be great to identify potential parks in our neighborhood and put the idea into action.

By: Jeffrey W. Baker

Jeffrey W. Baker — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:13:01 +0000

I am wary of this. Some of these streets have been completely privatized. The one that particularly irks me is Ecker between Folsom and Clementina. The developer of a condo building on that alley simply threw up a locked gate at both ends without DPW cooperation or approval, and without permits, effectively privatizing a public asset. It’s a nice little alley and a part of the Transbay Redevelopment pedestrian improvements, but for now it might as well be in someone’s back yard. The developer, naturally, is not assessed property taxes for this little private thoroughfare.

So I’m very wary of handing over these streets to private hands. They may be lost to public use forever.

By: Justin Fraser

Justin Fraser — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:09:29 +0000

The most egregious example of an unaccepted street that I can think of is Townsend St – between 4th and 8th. How can it be that the southwestern blocks leading up to the City’s main train terminal don’t have sidewalks and people are forced to walk in the street with auto traffic. The parking is a complete mess. Funds need to be found to get this street up to par and get sidewalks – nice wide ones – put in. And even better – a 2 lane off street multi-use path going ala the Mission Creek Bikeway plan – http://www.missioncreek.org

Fix Townsend Now!