Report: Richard Hu on the Future of the CBD
SPUR has a program they call ‘SPUR Forums’ which has guest lecturers come in during lunchtime and give a brief presentation and answer some questions. Yesterday they had visiting scholar Richard Hu:
Throughout the U.S., planners have heralded the notion of a “mixed-use downtown” to bring residents into what was traditionally an employment-focused central business district (CBD). However, many cities throughout the world take a different approach by expanding their CBD’s to improve their competitiveness in the global economy. Join visiting scholar Richard Hu as he takes us through the history and evolution of the concept of the “central business district.” This talk will examine how the CBD has evolved and changed both as a place and a concept. Richard will also discuss the contemporary debate on the future of the CBD across global cities.
It was a very interesting talk, and Hu seemed very informed. Here are some notes I took:
- Visiting Scholar at UC-B Institute of Urban and Regional Development
- His doctoral thesis will compare Sydney to SF.
- SPUR does not think the CBD is dead and maybe neither does Hu - suggested by SPUR rep.
- Presentation Title:Â “CBD as a Concept and Place”
- CBD is an American concept.
- no legal or political existence, just mental construct
- concept only 100 years old
- Original CBDs used to be religious center, as in China, an agrarian society
- Stages of the CBD: 1) Power, 2) Business (current form), 3) Diversification (?)
- A new CBD can be developed outside an original CBD, as in Shanghai.
- Forms of CBD development: Concentric (Chicago), Sectoral, Multiple Nuclei
- Bid rent theory -> manufacturing pushed out of CBDs for more profitable enterprises, like financial services
- Rail brought the growth of the CBD, following by auto bringing decline, and now information highway is bringing resurrection. These stages correspond to centralization, decentralization, and diversification, respectively.
- CBD is going through post-industrialization transition.
- 1990 - New Urbanism, Peter Calthorpe
- 3 prototypical American cities:
- LA - showing pictures, Hu said, ‘This is terrible’. This brought some laughs. “I’d heard it was bad, but when I visited I was still shocked.” Described LA as ‘the way to the death of a city’ - borrowing language from The Death and Life of Great American Cities.
- Vancouver - auto speeds should be in 30-40 KPH range.
- SF - Allen Jacobs. SF planning director from 86 to 97 (dates could be wrong). Lewis Mumford said cities are an urban stage - “expressions of the human spirit”. 24/7 is the new future of the CBD.
- More notes on SF:
- Growing as visitor/tourist center, but shrinking in info mgmt, financial services, business management, etc. Financial services has shrunken 50%.
- Two ways SF needs to be competitive - locally, competing against satellite cities and suburbs (e.g. Oakland, etc.), and globally (SF is a ‘beta’ city; LA is ‘alpha’).
- SF is #1 tourist destination (??).
- Vancouver has not outlawed all new residential housing in CBD core - not enough room for more office space for new jobs.
- Regional government to coordinate all Bay Area transit would be very helpful. Greater Toronto has done this.
- Folsom Street will become residential - suggested by audience member.
- New subway line to Soma, Chinatown, etc. The Central Subway.
- People are having 2nd and 3rd houses, which is not good (??).
- Density is sustainable; Suburbs are not, or at least, are very expensive. [Editor note: see this.]
That’s it. It was a very informative, thought-provoking session.
Leave comment (2)[p.s. The Forums are open for participation.]
October 9th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
I wasn’t at the forum, but I might be able to shed light on why second and third homes aren’t great for SF.
When we plan for, promote, and facilitate new housing construction in SF, as a community we’re doing so with the intent to bring about certain beneficial results.
Among those anticipated community benefits are increased density and thus efficiency (within the larger, metropolitan context)–more homes here hopefully means fewer homes needed out in the autopian sprawl–and increased supply better meeting demand, thus making a dent in the cost of housing here.
If a signficant number of the newly-constructed housing units, however, are only occupied part of the year by wealthy residents from other places, then the benefit of sprawl reduction is endangered (full-time residents likely will still have to buy out in Antioch) and demand for full-time homes–still the vast majority of the market everywhere–is not alleviated by the supply of, in essence, vacation homes.
October 9th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
ah, thanks greasybear. i kinda was thinking ‘vacation homes?’ at first, but then i thought, ‘no - nobody would actually do that, would they?’ i guess they would.
i kinda lost track of the conversation there for a few seconds, and then i heard something that sounded important and perked up.