THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING HAS NO CLOTHES: THESE DEVELOPMENTS ARE NEITHER TOD* OR GREEN

I like local architect David Baker: he runs a cool firm, supports good orgs and causes, bikes everywhere, and has designed a lot of in-fill, multi-family projects around the Bay in recent years, with a lot more on the drawing boards.

And I'm a big supporter of SPUR--the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association--and their work and programming, which until recently was headed by the amazing Jim Chappell.

But two recent SPUR events were billed as tours of new green, *transit-oriented development (TOD) projects designed by Baker: Ironhorse in West Oakland and Tassafaronga Village in East Oakland. And I would venture that ultimately, because of where they are and how unconnected they are, they are definitely not TOD, and ultimately not green.

Ironhorse is one of the new developments around the historic, but still abandoned, Central Station in West Oakland. The tour included a twenty-five minute walk through blocks of empty lots, warehouses, and manufacturing from the West Oakland BART station--how is that TOD? We know there are few places to build new, affordable housing in the Bay Area, and I believe fervently in brownfield remediation, but how green is it--in fact how healthy is it--to build new housing between manufacturing, the Nimitz Freeway, and the Bay Area's major shipping port?

It's nice to see that the tour of Tassafaronga Village involved getting SPUR members out on their bikes, but that's probably because again, it's a twenty-five minute walk through warehouses, empty lots, manufacturing, and major trucking routes to the Coliseum BART station.

I'm not saying that these are not worthwhile, well-designed, and much-needed affordable housing developments; but they are not TOD; and I think we need to have more thought and discussion about the inaccessible, unhealthy places we build new affordable housing in the Bay Area, and that ultimately, 'affordable' housing where residents need to own cars isn't even affordable housing.

And in case you've never seen the inside of Central Station, abandoned since rail service was discontinued in the 70s, here are some pictures from a recent event I attended there--pretty amazing:

DOES THOM MAYNE HATE BICYCLES??? (and insider photos from special tours of two Thom Mayne-designed buildings)

A short piece in Momentum, a magazine for urban cyclists, about the struggle by employees to get bike racks installed in San Francisco's newish Thom Mayne-designed Federal Building, made me remember these posters I saw put up by frustrated students advocating for bike racks in the brand-new, Mayne-designed Cooper Union academic building in New York.

We know that architects can only design in response to their clients' project programs, but Mayne and his morphosis architecture firm--who have utilized their starchitect heft to ensure specific design elements remain in their projects--pride themselves on their progressive green and urban vision. But how sustainable and connected can new, large-scale, central city projects be without secure and accessible bike storage for tenants?

I actually love the overall aesthetic and design vocabulary for both these projects (I grew up in a mid-60s Brutalist/Corbu inspired building so I get my affinity for raw concrete honest) the way they fit into and relate to their urban contexts, and the attempt to create gathering spaces within the buildings. But I think the bike issue is a good example of a lack of follow-through: I saw first-hand that the implementation isn't well-done, detailing and construction are not top-drawer, and most importantly, many of the spaces and connections within the buildings don't work well for users.

I also got a look inside the newish, Caltran Los Angeles District headquarters when I was working with the City, Caltran, and Metro on a Los Angeles TOD (Transit-Oriented Development) Strategic Plan.