On Tuesday morning, Erika gave us a lecture about storytelling and placemaking/peacemaking. This is an important tool especially in ethnic communities because stories and traditions are often lost throughout generations. Felicia Lowe showed us some of the projects that she had been working on throughout her career. We got to experience a VR video of the poems that were left on the walls of Angel Island. I thought it was incredible to incorporate the stories of those who have gone through Angel Island into digital art.
In the afternoon, we visited the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (PUC) building. We were given a tour of the building and got to see the cool green technology that was implemented. They also talked about San Francisco’s water system and the upcoming improvements they plan to do for the wastewater facilities. On Thursday morning, Deland led a brainstorming exercise on imagining the future of Chinatown. We tried to incorporate transportation into the picture but I would say we were mostly pessimistic about the future. However, this was perfect for the afternoon activity at SPUR. The afternoon activity was like a brainstorming exercise except based on pictures that were posted up. It really got us to think about how to plan for the future in extreme ways. - Maggie Dong
0 Comments
On July 16th, Erika began the day with a lecture about storytelling and creative peacekeeping and how stories can contribute to the perspectives of the Chinatown neighborhood. This can help engage members of the community without relying on the perspective of economic growth and sustainability. It also helps to remember the information through stories that are told time and time again. We want to build relationships with the community in order to enact upon change. After the lecture, we visited the PUC, the Public Utilities Commission in which they talked about how they are utilizing green infastructure and how that helps in making Chinatown more sustainable.
On July 18th, we finally begin working with our groups and brainstorming on how and what we are going to present our projects on. We were given an activity that helped us think about what we were going to do. We had to answer these five questions and I think it's helpful when we have questions that will guide us. In the afternoon, we visited SPUR, Planning and Urban Renewal Association. They went into their background, issues across the Bay Area, and discussed about the four future scenarios of Chinatown. The four scenarios were high and low economic growth and low and high social inclusion. It was very interesting to see the futures visually. They were drastically different from each other. Even though you might not have background in urban planning, it's very thought provoking and it makes you think about what is going to happen in the near future, which is both scary and exciting at the same time. - Michelle Mei During week five, we participated in Felicia Lowe’s VR adventure of Angel Island. It was incredible to experience a place that I have personally never been to before, but would be interested in going. It was cool to see a complete 360º view of the island, and the camera was able to capture the intensity and eeriness of the island even though we were miles away. The various poems on the wall seemed really intriguing to me, and I hope to see it in person one day. In the afternoon, we visited the PUC offices, and gained some perspective on wastewater management in SF. In some ways, it was similar to how Hong Kong manages their waste, and goes through the same process (primary, secondary treatment and UV rays/chlorine) but in other ways, it’s different, because Hong Kong also has a few underground wastewater treatment facilities.
On Thursday, we went downtown to SPUR to brainstorm the extremes of what Chinatown and SF would look like in the future. It allowed me to think about the four different ways that Chinatown could end up, whether it would be high economic development and high populations or the complete opposite, where it would be low economic development and urban blight. All the pictures reminded me of my neighbourhoods in one way or another, both good and bad, and was fairly eye opening into what could potentially happen if we weren’t careful enough. – Guinivere Yeung On Tuesday, Erika presented on Creative Placemaking and Placekeeping, and the unique contribution of arts and culture in building and sustaining communities. It was beneficial to think through more holistic ways of viewing neighborhoods, instead of simply through the perspective of economic growth and even environmental sustainability, important as these may be. This is because even if a place is growing, people might not want to live there if it is not enjoyable, and especially if they do not have a say in the ways in which art and culture is “implemented.” Collective cultural memories are necessary in creating community, and Erika shared the power of arts in disrupting and reimagining new ways of thinking. In the afternoon, we visited the Public Utilities Commission (PUC), where they discussed “green infrastructure” and their involvement in Chinatown through the “Sustainable Chinatown” initiative. It was neat to be able to see what other projects they are working on, as well as how they are implementing green infrastructure within their own building through having their own sewer recycling methods.
On Thursday, we participated in an activity to help us synthesize what we’ve learned so far in regards to our chosen final project topic. This was helpful because it both refreshed our memories of what we have learned, as well as created space to brainstorm additional questions and thoughts about the final project though the lessons and lectures we have heard. It was also good to be able to meet with our group start discussing the goal of our project, and the strategies necessary to achieve it. I also thoroughly enjoyed the afternoon session at SPUR, and seeing how think tanks look at issues across the Bay. Although they are not as involved with Chinatown, it was good to see what strategies they use while brainstorming, and we may use one of their activities for the workshop we are creating for the middle schoolers. - Sarah Session 6 – Transportation Justice In the morning, we spoke w/ some old-timer veterans, Phil Chin, Landy Dong, who were the co-founders of Chinatown TRIP, the transportation justice advocacy organization for Chinatown. I heard them advocate for bus lines and public transportation to better serve the community in various forms: - Opposing empty express lines that would go through Chinatown w/o serving its constituents - Setting up railings in a high-speed expressway tunnel to protect pedestrians - Scramble lights to allow cars to more efficiently turn and give pedestrians explicit time and space to cross intersections on Stockton - Working w/ bike / scooter share companies to reduce bike share impact on sidewalks After reading the texts on transportation justice, I’ve realized how important of a public service that transportation is. Again, my suburban upbringing hardly impressed upon me the importance of public transportation – growing up in San Ramon, I either biked everywhere or asked my parents or friends for rides to anywhere. We had one bus line that went through town that no one ever rode, so I really had not understanding of the benefits that transportation brought. The texts, as well as meeting these transportation veterans and champions (both from a practitioner and advocacy perspective), realized how much transportation can segregate or diversity, enrich or impoverish, a community. Yet, the most interesting point for the morning was asking these transportation advocates about their views on rideshare – Uber and Lyft. I feel deeply conflicted about Uber and Lyft and I wanted to hear their perspectives. On one hand, I believe in the potential of Uber and Lyft. From an engineering and network analytics standpoint, I do think that Uber truly creates more optimal routing for public transportation. Mathematically, bus routes are crude guesses at commuter flow and quite frankly, are suboptimal – the routes are refreshed every 5-10 years only after grueling policy reform and community opinion and then are static for those long periods. Conversely, Uber and Lyft are dynamic transportation networks that adjust almost instantaneously to rider demand. Whether that’s a bigger event over the weekend that calls in more drivers to meet that customer demand or whether that’s a temporary surge in calls such that drivers are routed over to FiDi from Richmond District, these are optimal network flows that adapt to customer demand. Throw in UberPool and if we drink the Uber Kool-Aid, Ubers are little vehicles of public transport that precisely factor in users’ origins and destinations to move more people at cheaper prices for the customer. Yet, ride-share is not black-and-white. While mathematically optimal, as Will said today, their implementation is shoddy. Congestion in the cities (upwards of 45K Ubers in the city) seems not to portend a reduction in car ownership. What happens to taxicabs? Declining rides aboard BART and Muni? The rapid decline in the worth of a medallion? I’ve definitely read of the suicides in front of New York’s City Hall. But as for taxis, I know that they are suboptimal network flows, in comparison to Uber and Lyft. Hand-hailing a cab is intensely suboptimal, especially if there is a customer right down the block heading to the same location, a case in point. I believe that commuter rail, however, still serves an important purpose and does relieve traffic from the road. But even buses – are they just larger, more inefficient guesses at commuter flow? Uber and Lyft not sharing data is also an intense problem for the city. Even though market force capitalism generally buck against regulation, I definitely see the aggressive, investor-beaten drive of these companies to make profits and withhold any sort of business intelligence. Especially as Uber and Lyft drastically affect urban traffic, I see that the current legal jurisdiction over taxi services residing at the state Public Utilities Commission (which results in the current laissez-faire modus operandi) leads to a free-for-all which has brought about negative effects in ride-share execution in the day-to-day of a metropolitan area. I’m not opposed to ride-share – truly, I think that ride-share does create value by more intelligently anticipating and transporting travelers. There is such a large available market here that I don’t think community organizations (unless another corporate entity, perhaps the taxicab unions, can stand together against ride-share) can simply oppose ride-share through restriction. Regulation is needed, but I think communities can stand to benefit from ride-share if both parties take a less combative stance. How can ride-share better serve the community through designated loading zones and sharing of bus / taxi zones? How can ride-share price differently for seniors and under-served populations? How can ride-share provide extensive services for the disabled? How can ride-share work w/ pubic services to subsidize fares for low-income populations? These are some of my thoughts in which communities can band together w/ ride-share to make transportation more accessible, keep it equitable, and get more people more places in less time and lower cost. Protecting the community shouldn’t be a zero-sum game w/ ride-sharing companies seeking to make a profit off connecting riders to drivers and I believe that there exists immense potential here. In the afternoon, we got to speak w/ two legislative aides who worked previously for Chinatown CDC and now work for separate members on the Board of Supervisors. After having spoken to a staffer for my US Congressman for my Hacking for Defense project about defense procurement, I really appreciated talking to these municipal aides to understand how policy is made at the municipal level. I asked them about TNCs aka Uber and Lyft and it was reassuring to hear that the legislative staffs and supervisors are aggressively working to understand the impacts of these transportation companies. The aides were less willing to share specific perspectives as they are probably hammering out their opinions as we speak, but I could tell that there was an emphasis to work w/ these companies and to understand their work. I also thought it was interesting to see that they aren’t as engaged w/ the judicial system. Although the attorney’s office is their client in that the prosecutors and defenders work in the justice system to enforce laws, the courts are quite separate – and really don’t interface all that much w/ the legislative system. It’s a bit different to what I learned about in government textbooks growing up where I always thought that our triply divided form of government meant that the executive, legislative, and judicial branches worked hand in hand, but it definitely seems like that the executive and legislative branches interact and engage much more frequently. The round-table conversation w/ the legislative aides echo what I see at the higher levels of the military and even the corporate boardroom – this funneling of information flow, this intense ground-work done by an army of staffers (be it legislative aides for a municipal supervisor or US Congressman, consultants for a client’s C-suite, or DoD bureaucrats briefing a general officer or senior executive), this watering down of information into succinct slides (that almost seem disingenuous to me, to abstract away the nuances and complexities of any decision or policy) such that these decision-makers can make a decision. In some way, it seems like the decision is already made before the briefing gets to the decision-maker – how could they unravel information that may complicate the material being briefed, how could a leader spare the time to dig for more details or even know the right questions to ask? It seems like… for every 100 page policy report, the leaders only have time to read the Executive Summary – and then make a decision promptly off that. Although I don’t like writing executive summaries and watering down months of field work and data into 5 slides or a 5-bullet point white paper, I’m slowly realize that these summaries characterize how information is funneled to leadership and how important it is to both effective write these summaries and critically analyze them as well. Session 7 – Sustainability + Community Tenants Association + Open Spaces In the morning, Deland gave us a mini-lecture on trying to define sustainability and providing a framework to understand it. This introduction was extremely helpful b/c I have never thought about what sustainability means – and I always associated it w/ environmental justice. She provided a great four-block framework that has given me an intellectual quadrant to slowly understand sustainability: - Environmental Quality - Economic vitality -Social equity - Cultural continuity I had always separated economic vitality away from sustainability and never quite understood where to place cultural continuity, so I appreciated that Deland made a space to include all these factors in achieving sustainability. Although this framework is reducing in simply naming four factors, it has been educationally helpful to me to start defining sustainability. Over lunch, we got to speak w/ the President and two Vice-Presidents from the Community Tenants Association and match a face from the pictures of their gatherings to the actual people themselves. I appreciated that Erika contextualized how important their advocacy and education has been in rallying the community for tenant rights and how their influence has been duly noted by elected leadership in acknowledging and hearing this community organizing body’s needs. In the afternoon, we paged thru architectural plans for various open spaces in Chinatown and it was quite shocking to see the differences b/w the nicely drawn design plans. Guinevere and I looked through the design layout for Chinese playground – and this was the first time I had ever seen an architectural plan for open space – how a space for net sports would encourage teenage athletics and socialization, how a clubhouse would offer indoor respite, how open space for tai chi would give seniors space, and how a play structure would give kids entertainment. I had always taken parks and open spaces for granted and the only investigation I had ever done was to look at a map to figure out how to get out of a natural park or navigate its trails, and it was fascinating to look at it from a community and urban plan perspective – how to intentionally plan and allot space for a community’s felt needs. It was always humbling to think about how these design plans actually play out – how Portsmouth Square’s bridge is under-utilized and attracts transients, how the lack of seating forces many seniors to stand, and how its actual presentation and implementation just differs from the geometrically cut design layouts underlying the actual park. andrewThis week we were fortunate to be able to meet with two legislative aids for two district supervisors and learn what it like to advocate and fight for justice from the policy/government side of the coin. It was also amazing to be able to go on the dome tour of City Hall and get a 360º view of the city (at least the parts that weren’t covered by the fog). The most fascinating thing I learned was of the four-foot dry moat circling city hall to allow City Hall to move during an earthquake, remaining isolated from the surrounding earth to try to mitigate the damage. I also really enjoyed Deland’s talk on sustainability on Thursday, and how there are a variety of issues and potential conflicts to consider when trying to make a city sustainable (e.g., cultural, environmental, political, etc.). It is also interesting that “sustainability” is something that many people say that they want to strive for, but there is no concrete definition or solid end goal, thus making it difficult to achieve or measure. Hopefully, however, the ambiguity does not dissuade people from working towards a more sustainable and environmentally friendly future. On Saturday I went to the food festival on Waverly and fair on Grant. It was a very different feeling and scene compared to during the week, as there were far more pedestrians than normal, as well as many more tourists. It was neat to be able to see the various restaurants have opportunities to market themselves, and hopefully it will help their business. Additionally, it was the youth who were running the booths, so I was curious if the restaurants had donated their food as a fund-raiser or if they were receiving a share of the revenue as well. Plus, it was interesting to see younger Chinatown residents, since during the program we mostly see seniors and/or tourists. Unfortunately, they were all busy so I did not have a chance to ask them questions, but it would have been great to learn their thoughts about Chinatown and its future, as well as whether they wanted to stay or move elsewhere. - Sarah Unfortunately, I was not feeling well and missed Deland's Tuesday presentation regarding a brief history of planning as a profession. :-( This week was also a short one as there was only one session with the 4th of July holiday falling on a Thursday. As a result, I will share more insight into one of our experiences we shared during the previous third week. An event that I genuinely enjoyed was having a sit down conversation with Mrs. Lee, a board member of PYRIA. Here, we listened to her life story through a translator. Although we heard her stories through a translator, her lively expressions and passion for her work transcended language barriers. Her story captivated me beginning to finish and I wish that I had more quickly thought of questions to ask her. Something that stuck out to me during her story was that she told us she was aware that people talked/talk behind her back in English as she is a very outspoken and driven individual, but that this did not sway her because she knows what she's doing is right for residents. I feel honestly quite privileged to hear from this older generation of community activists that we read about, are taught about, but rarely get a chance to meet in such an intimate and genuine setting. As we were dispersing, I just had to ask Mrs. Lee if she knew my late paternal grandmother as they lived in the same Ping Yuen complex around the same time. I showed Mrs. Lee pictures of my grandmother and at first I thought she did not recognize her and was a bit crestfallen, but after telling her my grandmother's name -- she knew her! Mrs. Lee said she knew everybody and it's not hard to believe as she told us she walked the complexes handing out flyers to every resident during her active organizing period. As shared before, a reason that I wanted to participate in the UI program was to become closer to my familial roots in Chinatown. Every link that I can feel closer to my grandmother, no matter how small, is so very important and special to me and I hold them near and dear to my heart. Below: Pictured here is my grandmother, Betty Ng, and her five children. She raised all of her children as single mother in the North Ping Yuen housing complex from the late 50s to late 70s/early 80s. My father is the youngest of his siblings and the shortest child pictured. I estimate the year of this photograph to be around 1970. - Megan Mah This week of UI has been the most interesting so far. Our Tuesday consisted of an overview of the planning profession presented by Chinatown CDC's Director of Housing Development, Whitney Jones. Mr. Jones’ presentation was a brief outline of what his career as a senior planner consists of. This introduction to housing development was packed full of information and I appreciated that it was broken up into understandable portions as this was my first time being introduced to this complex topic. The part that I enjoyed the most out of Mr. Jones’ presentation was the informal quiz that he created. The beginning of the quiz asked us to identify which buildings were affordable housing. I’ve seen most if not all of the provided photographs, but I had no idea that most of them were considered affordable housing. As I mentioned previously, I do not have a lot of background with affordable housing. In my naivety, I envisioned affordable housing as unkempt, unattractive, and undesirable places to live. These ideas were constructed after my father’s retelling of his experiences growing up in the Ping Yuen as a young child in the mid 1960s to early 80s. After this presentation, I realized that most of these present day locations were very carefully constructed, beautifully designed with the needs of residents in mind, well maintained, and finally that a lot of work is put into the before, during, and after stages of affordable housing.
I have my weeks and activities a little jumbled right now, but I'm pretty sure this week we also toured the Chinatown CDC property on 1535 Jackson Street. I was surprised to learn that the Chinatown CDC was in possession of this building as the area is vastly different from the heart of Chinatown and the rest of the larger Ping Yuen housing complexes. After, we were able to tour the upstairs SROs. This was my first time in a SRO and I was very surprised how small the living accommodations were. I was even more surprised to learn that these rooms were considered rather large for a SRO... Before the upstairs tour, we heard from Ms. Heather Heppner, Chinatown CDC's Senior Construction Manager. Ms. Heppner was very informative regarding the construction process as well as non-construction items of business such as figuring out ways to mesh the future residents of this property together. Coming from a Communication Studies major background, I thought that this part was the most intriguing. Ms. Heppner made us aware that Chinatown CDC is anticipating folks that are of non-Chinese descent to be renting the newly constructed SROs in the future. As a direct result, they are being proactive in their planning of how to introduce both old and new residents to each other. This proactive planning is so important towards the quality of life for all and I think that this is great foresight on behalf of Chinatown CDC. I look forward to learning how they plan on managing this. - Megan Mah The first week of the Chinatown Urban Institute has been very intriguing. Although only two sessions have passed, I am already starting to better appreciate and understand this neighborhood. Having recently completed my undergraduate degree at San Francisco State with a minor in Asian American Studies, I had a good general idea of Chinatown’s history. However, after Gordon Chin’s walking tour, I learned so much more about the residents and their struggles, triumphs, and resiliency through community activism. I was excited that we were meeting with Mr. Chin as I had written about him in my last semester final project which explored the topic of slow gentrification within SF Chinatown. During our second session, we were given a presentation by Malcolm Collier. I learned that Mr. Collier was present during the Third World Liberation Front strikes of 1968 at my alma mater. His careful photographic documentation over the past few decades was very impressive and memorable. The latter half of this session was very fun as we were given the opportunity to explore Chinatown through a group scavenger hunt. Some of the fun facts that were given as clues had us scratching our heads! This activity was a great way to get to know my small group as we worked together to brainstorm the scavenger hunt list. This first week has been great and I can’t wait to see what the following weeks bring in terms of new experiences and buildable knowledge.
- Megan Mah ON TUESDAY MORNING WE HAD A LECTURE ON THE HISTORY OF PUBLIC TRANSIT IN CHINATOWN FROM MEMBERS OF THE CHINATOWN TRIP. WE LEARNED ABOUT THE SYSTEMIC RACISM THAT HAD BEEN IMPLEMENTED BY THE PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEMS TOWARDS THE ASIAN COMMUNITY LIVING IN CHINATOWN (30 BUS). DURING THE PRESENTATION, WE HAD ALSO LEARNED ABOUT THE PROJECTS THAT TRIP OVERSAW WHILE ASSISTING THE CITY. SUCH PROJECTS BEING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CENTRAL SUBWAY SYSTEM AS WELL AS THE SCRAMBLE CROSSWALKS (SUCH AS THE ONE AT JACKSON AND STOCKTON). SO WHEN LATER THAT AFTERNOON WHEN WE WERE TAKING PUBLIC TRANSIT TO CITY HALL FOR THE DOME TOURS IT WAS NICE TO SEE THESE EXAMPLES IN THEIR PHYSICAL WORKING FORMS. THE DOME TOUR WAS EXTREMELY FASCINATING ESPECIALLY SINCE I NEVER KNEW THAT CITY HALL OFFERED TOURS OF IT TO THE PUBLIC. ALTHOUGH I HAD AN EXTREME CASE OF ACROPHOBIA DURING THE TOUR, IT WAS FASCINATING TO SEE THE HISTORY OF CITY HALL ILLUSTRATED BY THE PEOPLE AND MATERIALS THAT BUILT IT. AFTER THE DOME TOURS, WE HAD A SMALL “MEET AND GREET” WITH TWO PREVIOUS CCDC STAFF ANGELINA YU AND CALVIN YAN WHO ARE NOW WORKING AS LEGISLATIVE AIDS TO DISTRICT SUPERVISORS. ON THURSDAY MORNING’S LECTURE OF DELAND, WE DISCUSSED THE DEFINITION OF SUSTAINABILITY AND HOW IT IS IMPLEMENTED WITHIN A CITY/ SOCIETY. WE TALKED ABOUT THE HISTORY OF GOVERNMENT SUPPORT TOWARDS THE PRESERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES, SUCH AS THE PROTECTION ACTS FROM THE 1960S. WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE, WHICH BASICALLY STATES THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A EQUAL “GIVE AND TAKE” BETWEEN THE ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNITY, AND PROFIT IN ORDER TO HAVE “LONG-LASTING SUSTAINABILITY”. ONE STATISTIC FROM THIS LECTURE THAT SURPRISED ME DURING THIS LECTURE HAD BEEN THE CAUSE AND EFFECT THAT THE INTRODUCTION OF FASTER AND MORE RELIABLE PUBLIC TRANSIT COULD, IN TURN, RESULT IN THE GENTRIFICATION OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD/ COMMUNITY. LATER THAT AFTERNOON WE HAD LUNCH WITH THREE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS OF THE CTA, WHERE WE LEARNED ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION AS WELL AS THEIR CURRENT PROJECTS. ON SATURDAY I HAD ACTUALLY ATTENDED THE WE ARE THE CITY CHINATOWN: SUMMER SATURDAYS ON WAVERY STREET FAIR. WHERE I WAS ABLE TO NOT ONLY EAT A BUNCH OF TASTERS FROM THE STALLS PRESENT AT THE FAIR BUT ALSO GAINING MORE EXPOSURE TO THE ARRAY OF RESTAURANTS THAT ARE LOCATED IN CHINATOWN. - Mark |