In this case study, we look at the city of San Francisco in consideration of its approach to the provision of social and affordable housing, and consider what the City of Sydney can learn from this approach. From a sustainability and cohesion standpoint, our relationship with our home and neighborhood is an important one to foster for positive effect in the community. A sense of identity is linked to neighborhood and where we call home. A UK study (Glen Bramley and Sinead Power of the School of the Built Environment, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland 2007) into the role of density and housing type in social sustainability saw correlations between dwelling density, socioeconomic disadvantage and poor neighbourhood outcomes and satisfaction amongst residents. With high proportions of marginalized ethnic communities often living in dense, assisted urban estate settings these issues of cohesion impact these communities especially. We look at how San Francisco has approached this with attempts to go beyond housing to stimulate change and improve cohesion. Why San Francisco: Although very different cities, Sydney and San Francisco share several similar characteristics which provide a good benchmark for this case study.
Population – latest population figures show San Francisco (approximately 4.6 million) and Sydney (approximately 5 million) are comparable in population.
Position – both are harbour cities, with an important relationship between the city and water.
Climate - although in opposite hemispheres there are similarities in climate
Topography – San Francisco has hills and valleys – the city is not entirely in grid form and has expanded over time.
San Fran and Sydney have similar levels of multi-culturalism, although at different rates, issues of marginalization of native populations are consistent.
Poverty rates are similar in San Francisco and Sydney with A report by the Joint Venture Silicon Valley Institute for Regional studies showing that Poverty rates in the Bay Area affected around 11.3% of the population. A report by the NSW Council of Social Services showed that 15% of Sydney residents live below the poverty line. Strong expected population growth means San Francisco suffers similar issues to Sydney, with a shortage of housing supply. San Francisco Bay Area is due to see a population increase in the medium term, meaning densities must increase to cope with the change. Housing affordability issues effecting the population and some racial inequality in relation to income is evident. There is a larger disparity between the high and low-income earners, putting pressure on affordability across the city. Increasing the availability and maximizing the opportunity of affordable housing options can be seen to create better outcomes, and increasing social cohesion.
In San Francisco, The Association of Bay Area Government Regional Housing program aims to:
Build more housing, particularly in PDAs (priority development areas)
Increase affordable housing options
Preserve affordable housing to maintain neighborhood economic diversity and stability
Reduce housing and community vulnerability to natural disasters
These aims are physical and economic, but when we move beyond housing to the community level, projects that improve outcomes socially will have flow on benefits. Empowering private organisations through Government funding and other funding models to provide for affordable housing needs and community needs associated are successful ways of bridging this gap. Two projects, Hope SF and Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Scheme, have had success here – promoting cohesion in new and existing communities beyond housing.
Issues: Hope SF: “For too long, San Francisco public housing residents have lived in dilapidated buildings in neglected neighborhoods with few opportunities to lift themselves out of poverty. In one of the most vibrant cities in the nation, they have struggled with poor schools, limited employment opportunities, and with a sense of isolation. HOPE SF is the solution.” Hope SF impact statement.
Generational social and physical decay of public housing and an identified deficit in Government funding needed for maintenance of the public housing portfolio has been an issue identified in San Francisco. Coupled with extreme housing affordability issues in the private sector, this trend moves along racial lines with a large proportion of African American community affected. The impacts cause social issues within the communities and has also led to migration away from San Francisco in search of more affordable accommodation. These trends lead to dis-unity and sense of loss within these communities, a move away from cohesion.
Similarly, the Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation, established in 1981 is a community action group formed in response to over-gentrification of established low-income areas around Tenderloin. This group identified a need to protect the vulnerable and marginalized and retain the basis of the community in the face of this change.
Barriers: The barriers to projects like Hope SF come from within the communities themselves, where long-established neighborhoods inevitably face disruption through the renewal process. In order to achieve the best outcome, and retain the community, Hope SF needed to work out how to minimize disruption to the community during the building process, and engage them in the process for the best social outcomes. The planned integration of service connectors, (Service connectors are people who connect the residents in the community to the services they need) within the project was there to ensure longevity – as a key risk was a return to the past issues in the rejuvenated physical environment.
The Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation faced barriers of funding, gentrification causing further issues of cohesion between the established and new residents.
Solution: The solution in the Hope SF project was private development intervention in providing social and affordable housing. This combined with market rate housing integrated developments and mixed-use developments to improve cohesion in targeted areas. The effective integration of social outcomes with housing outcomes through service connectors and jobs training, parks and open spaces – all objects of planning aimed at improving the outcomes for existing and new residents. The integration of the private market creates a different financial model to look at affordable and social housing, with private development subsidizing social housing – using market demand to provide for the social need.
In the Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation, solutions came by the way of community benefit agreements, encouraging the private developers to engage and provide for the existing residents. In line with this Integration of affordable housing in new developments, regeneration and refurbishment of established buildings served to improve amenity for the residents.
What can Sydney learn:
Consider a new financial model for the provision of affordable and social housing – capture market demand from private developers and let this subsidize regeneration.
Integrate social and private housing effectively – create cohesive mixed income communities.
Measured social outcomes to improve cohesion – engage the community in the process; give the marginalized access to the services they need to prosper.
Retain long-held communities and empower them to be involved in the regeneration process – giving them a sense of ownership and place.
Risk – What if it didn’t happen? “In 2005, an independent assessment reported disturbing news: San Francisco Housing Authority needed to invest at least $267 million to repair and renovate its housing sites. To put that number in perspective, the federal government allocates only $16 million to San Francisco annually for those needs.”
A generational lack of maintenance to public housing property had led to the dilapidation and degradation of the community in a physical and social sense. Inaction would lead to more of this without significant government intervention.