[fflint]

Harvard planner likes 'very basic' Union Square

John King
The San Francisco Chronicle
Tuesday, April 3, 2007

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/04/03/dd_reinventi3183mac.jpg
Union Square, seen through the "a" in the Macy's sign, offers a haven for those who like to sprawl on hillocks or favor terraces

The man who wrote the book on urban plazas had an iced coffee last week in Union Square, surveyed the swirl of fashionable people there, and bestowed his blessing.

"This really feels like part of the city," Jerold Kayden said on a clear day that brought bare shoulders and stylish sunglasses to the granite-paved heart of San Francisco's retail district. "You don't need to have your breath taken away to have a good public space."

Besides being co-chair of the department of urban planning at Harvard University -- how's that for name-dropping? -- Kayden is author of "Privately Owned Public Space: The New York City Experience." Specialized to be sure, this book from 2000 is also an addictive guide to more than 500 snippets of public space created as part of office and residential projects in New York.

Each plaza and passage is mapped, photographed and analyzed as to the extent to which it invites people to kick back and feel at home. And while the focus is intensely local -- skateboarders, Kayden has learned, use his book in scouting locales -- it's a primer for anyone who appreciates that urban space ultimately is judged not by appearance or design but by how it treats the public.

That's why Kayden liked what he saw at Union Square.

When the square reopened in 2002 after a $25 million makeover, I judged the result "charitably, a B+ design in an A+ location." And while I still can pick at dozens of nits, Kayden focused on the fact that the square was alive with tourists, shoppers, locals and passers-by.

The movable chairs are comfortable; the views are spacious but urban. The square is clean and well maintained without being heavily policed. All this makes an impact on whether or not people decide to come back.

Another plus, Kayden said: "It's legible and comprehensible on different scales." Grassy hillocks along Post Street attract people who like to sprawl, while the landscaped terraces on Geary Street facing Macy's have a more intimate scale. The broad granite swath in the middle offers views, seating and a convenient cafe.

"It's a very basic, plain vanilla public space that isn't trying to make a huge style statement," Kayden said as we strolled off down Powell Street. "In a way, that's kind of refreshing."

[CHapp]

Refreshing indeed, and certainly an improvement over the previous version. :tup:

[rs913]

I really liked the 2002 renovation as well, but from what I heard, a lot of people hated it. I guess getting rid of unkempt greenery and homeless people, instead of an improvement, is an attack on SF's character.

[POLA]

anyone have a photo of it before the make over?

[CUCa]

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2004/10/19/mn_usquare-layoutsgrafik.jpg

(from chron-- http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?o=7&f=/c/a/2004/10/19/MNCITY3.DTL)

[EastBayHardCore]

That graphic is awesome.

[BTinSF]

I really liked the 2002 renovation as well, but from what I heard, a lot of people hated it. I guess getting rid of unkempt greenery and homeless people, instead of an improvement, is an attack on SF's character.

I think you heard wrong. Anybody who'd been there before and after couldn't help but appreciate the improvement. Nobody but homeless entered the square before--everybody walked around the edges. Now it full of people and life.

I do disagree with the characterization of the place as "very basic" though. For a plaza or square, the new hardscape is quite elegant from my perspective. With everything from the Dewey Monument to the ticket kiosk and cafe', and pretty high end finishes, I don't know what else you'd want in what is supposed to be "open space".

[peanut gallery]

BT, it wasn't just for the homeless. I used to see stoners lighting up in Union Square all the time.:)

[rs913]

I'd be curious if someone could find a shot of what it looked like right before 2002...I haven't been able to find one yet. The 1942 graphic above captures the pattern, but not what the place really looked like right before the remodel.

One additional plus about Union Square is that it's still in pretty good shape five years after the remodel. I remember wondering in 2002 if all the landscaping would get worn and dirty over time. It hasn't.

[condodweller]

I'd be curious if someone could find a shot of what it looked like right before 2002...I haven't been able to find one yet. The 1942 graphic above captures the pattern, but not what the place really looked like right before the remodel.

One additional plus about Union Square is that it's still in pretty good shape five years after the remodel. I remember wondering in 2002 if all the landscaping would get worn and dirty over time. It hasn't.

There's a nifty panorama of it here (http://www.inetours.com/Pages/SFNbrhds/Union_Square.html), both before and after. I was OK with it before -- I used to walk through it. But, as impersonal as the new version is, it is an improvement -- the old version always felt a bit cramped. I think it could use another cafe with tables on the opposite end (where the See's Candy kiosk is). Many plazas in Europe have competing cafes in each corner, and it adds to the overall liveliness.

[trvlr70]

I miss the groves of palm trees.:wah:

[BTinSF]

Huh? There's still palm trees there--to my memory, as many as ever. Fewer arbor vitae or whatever those evergreens were though.

[fflint]

My parents and aunt and uncle joined my partner and me for a glass of wine in the Square this past Saturday. It was a very civilized way to utilize a very civilized space, and with the excellent people watching and only passable live music, a good time was had by all. Now compare that to the open toilet that was the old Square...yeah.

[ozone]

At first I didn't like the new Union Square because I remembered how it was I first saw it as a child in the early 1970's and how whole area had a different vibe back then. But I guess it had really gone downhill from the comments people are giving -but it wasn't always as so bad. It once had a certian elegance to it IMO.

Still the new Union Square has really grown on me. I like the fact that it is much more open and user friendly than the previous version. BTW I understand that there was supposed to be a planter around Dewey Monument but that it wasn't installed for some reason. Does anyone know if that's still planned?

[Coriander]

But I guess it had really gone downhill from the comments people are giving -but it wasn't always as so bad. It once had a certian elegance to it IMO.

I think some exaggeration is going on. It had not gone that downhill. There homeless people certainly but it wasn't that bad at all and in my opinion it was far more colorful and diverse than what you see today. I also remember it feeling kind of elegant a long time ago as a kid and disliked the new design which I felt had an anytown-USA-mallplaza kind of feel. But then, it's not so bad either.

[fflint]

It most certainly had gone downhill, and I challenge the claim it is less colorful and diverse today. Exactly how was the old Square more colorful and diverse?

[BTinSF]

I think some exaggeration is going on. It had not gone that downhill. There homeless people certainly but it wasn't that bad at all and in my opinion it was far more colorful and diverse than what you see today. I also remember it feeling kind of elegant a long time ago as a kid and disliked the new design which I felt had an anytown-USA-mallplaza kind of feel. But then, it's not so bad either.

I couldn't disagree more. I love the new square and, like Yerba Buena and ATT Park, go there often just to people watch and enjoy the vibe. Far from being "anytown USA", I find the new design very Euro-chic and would note that the number of actual European tourists I regularly encounter there confirms that.

I recall walking through the old square once or twice and, aside from a short-cut between Saks and Nieman's, saw no reason to do it. Not only was there nothing there to attract anyone, there were few people. And I can't understand why anyone would call the scraggly greenery (probably home to some of the city's rat population) "elegant".

[ozone]

:previous: Maybe the square itself wasn't as special as the entire Union Square area itself. IMO it once had a more refined and uniquely San Francisco feel to it. That was when the old Armenian's had their flower stands and San Francisco's 'society ladies' shopped at local department stores -like the City of Paris. Of course, the variety of shopping options today is much greater and the place has become more democratic..less elitist...and that's a good thing I guess.

[rs913]

And I can't understand why anyone would call the scraggly greenery (probably home to some of the city's rat population) "elegant".

I think that's the issue...people who say the old square was bad are probably thinking late '90s right before the remodel, when much of the greenery had gotten really ragged. People who say it wasn't so bad are probably thinking much earlier, when it was probably in much better shape (I first saw it in '94, so I wouldn't know)

Of course, the variety of shopping options today is much greater and the place has become more democratic..less elitist...and that's a good thing I guess.

Sign of the times. I'm guessing those super-high-end-only retail districts just aren't feasible anymore. The closest I can think of today is Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills, and even that street has more of a mix of stores (plus Jamba Juice) on the edges of its 3-block showcase stretch.

[fflint]

The City of Paris department store closed 30 years ago. Anybody who actually remembers the time when the old women in hats and gloves shuffled into that store, and wants to claim "those were better days" (which is by far the most common of all San Francisco stereotypes)--is welcome to it. Why? Why was the City of Paris so significant that its replacement by Nieman-Marcus amounted to a decline or a downgrading? Why was the old, underutilized Square--many of today's shops were merely offices, mind you, in the 1970s--a better San Francisco than the more vibrant area today?

[ozone]

So you're saying I'm an old fart huh?:yes:

My cyber mouth is full of words/ideas I never typed :yuck: I never said US was more vibrant back then and in fact I agreed that it there is a lot more stores today. I don't understand the hostility and mischaracterization.

But I think almost everyone who remembers the old City of Paris agrees that it was a big loss. City of Paris Building was built 1896/1909 and demolished by Neiman Marcus 1981. In 1850 the Verdier brothers, immigrants from France, opened a store aboard the ship La Ville de Paris to serve the Argonauts passing through San Francisco's harbor. In 1896 the business, which stayed in the family for more than a century, moved into a new building designed by architect Clinton Day, it was damaged by the 1906 earthquake, and its interior was reconstructed by architects John Bakewell and Arthur J. Brown (of City Hall fame). The old City of Paris building was one of the finest examples of the beaux-arts style of commercial building in California.

No public place sits in isolation. It's the quality of buildings that surround the square that also contribute to it's quality. It's funny that I can go back to some places in Paris or Rome that I visited as a child and it still looks and feels the same as I remember it. So yeah it's been 30 years ..but that is not that long along comparatively. Union Square looks great today. Good job. I prefer the new version.

[fflint]

^I saw that same website. It is, alas, a history very few in San Francisco know, or care to know.

My question stands: what is the demise of the City of Paris department store 30 years ago supposed to mean to today's San Franciscans? Why did Union Square "once ha[ve] a more refined and uniquely San Francisco feel to it," because a universally bygone era of old women in hats and gloves gave way to modern times? Or because a local department store, of all things, went out of business three decades ago?

I guess I just don't revere the "old days were better days" San Francisco narrative, and I don't think department stores--local or otherwise--are in any way meaningful beyond their utility.

[rs913]

I think one way the demise of Paris is relevant...is that Union Square's retail mix isn't as "unique" as it used to be. The current store lineup isn't all that different from what you'd find in the top suburban malls around the rest of the country, like Houston's Galleria. (granted, part of this is because of things decided outside of SF, like the nationwide Macy's takeover.) I tend to agree with the argument that unique local brand names like Marshall Field's in Chicago have some intrinsic value and relevance to civic identity, even if you're really just talking about stores.

Still, there's so many other things that define the area - architecture, restaurants, hotels, human activity, and the square itself. All of those things make Union Square unique and "better", even if the retail mix doesn't.

[fflint]

Yeah, I can't empathize with those who mourn the passing of a particular brand of department store. I understand nostalgia and all that, but not when it comes to ascertaining Union Square's status today.

I'll take an ever-growing and increasingly-chic Union Square shopping district, and a very-well utilized hardscaped plaza--over a ratty, bummy park and nostalgia for an era that has passed not only from the Union Square scene, but indeed from the world scene.

The old, white-gloved women of the mid-20th century shop no more, gentlemen, and the shops they patronized have generally closed. Gump's is still around for those who wish to pay full price for their nostalgia, however.

[BTinSF]

:previous: Maybe the square itself wasn't as special as the entire Union Square area itself. IMO it once had a more refined and uniquely San Francisco feel to it. That was when the old Armenian's had their flower stands and San Francisco's 'society ladies' shopped at local department stores -like the City of Paris. Of course, the variety of shopping options today is much greater and the place has become more democratic..less elitist...and that's a good thing I guess.

There are still two very substantial flower stands on Stockton St. just off the square, on both sides of the street, where they have been for a long time, but I wouldn't object and I bet the city wouldn't either if they wanted to sell in the square itself. The design of the square is very accomodative of that sort of thing. My guess is they moved off the square years ago because no customers came there any longer.

[BTinSF]

I can't empathize with those who mourn the passing of a particular brand of department store.

The one I sort of miss is Emporium-Capwell. It was like Macy's only ever so slightly downmarket. Still, between the two, Macy's and The Emporium, you could be pretty sure they'd have just about anything and you wouldn't have to pay through the nose for it a la Saks/Nieman's/Bloomies/Nordies.

I don't miss it enough to trash the new Union Square or even the new Westfield Mall, though.

[peanut gallery]

For me, it's not the brand, it's the local ownership and control that I miss. When department stores (or any type of store for that matter) were one-off or maybe they had a few stores, there was more local accountability. I'd also like to assume that more of the profit stayed in the community, but have no empirical data to support that assumption.

But I agree, it's certainly not something that affects the appeal of a place like Union Square. Hell, I'm not much of a shopper anyway. So as long as Union Square is attractive, vibrant and populated, I'm happy with it because I'm going to be sitting in or walking around the square while my wife drains our bank account in the various stores. :)

[Coriander]

It most certainly had gone downhill, and I challenge the claim it is less colorful and diverse today. Exactly how was the old Square more colorful and diverse?

I fully agree that had it gone downhill, so to speak, but I don't think it was that bad or that the decline was irreversible. I don't think the old design was the chief culprit there. It's a matter of taste. Have you ever seen the old Pershing Square? I find it quite beautiful. I wish I had a photo on hand.

About the diversity and color, I feel people have already spoke to that. But even in the square's more recent incarnation (when it was downhill) I liked all the skateboarders and local characters. Reminded me of Washington Square around that time.

[fflint]

Matters of taste are one thing, but the diversity of types of persons using the redesigned square is quite another thing.

If one prefers a gritty, edge-neighborhood aesthetic, then one will not likely prefer the redesign of the square at the heart of the most vibrant downtown shopping and tourist district west of Chicago.

The new plaza hosts tourists from around the world, from the Middle East to the Midwest to Menlo Park. They join office workers, nearby residents, and shoppers who also saunter through, stop for a spell, enjoy the cafe fare, peruse the art, listen to the musicians, and people-watch. There is no type of person unrepresented by the crowds in Union Square on a busy day--and busy days in the square are infinitely more common now.

And while that mix may not appeal to one's personal taste, it is in every way more diverse than the small knots of scofflaws and bums who constituted the full-time residents and only regular users of the scraggly interior of the ragged, old square.

[BTinSF]

If one prefers a gritty, edge-neighborhood aesthetic, then one will not likely prefer the redesign of the square at the heart of the most vibrant downtown shopping and tourist district west of Chicago.



Not to get too "city vs. city" but I find the new square very Mediterranean in feel and I don't think a place like it could be as successful in Chicago or any other "cold climate" place. Further, the fact that "hanging" outdoors in San Francisco is possible and even attractive 12 months of the year (if a bit damp some days in January) I think gives the environs of Union Square a vibrancy unmatched west of 5th Ave. Perhaps I say that because I have always visited Chicago in winter, but Michigan Ave. seemed to me rather bleak in January in a way that Union Square never is. The shopping there was of course, first rate, but you did not want to dawdle on the sidewalks, even wearing a Balaclava and thick gloves.

[fflint]

I shouldn't have mentioned Chicago or any other city, because it appears to have distracted from my point, which is: Union Square isn't an edgy, neighborhood park--and so it shouldn't look or work like one. Union Square is the most extensive and vibrant downtown tourist and shopping district in this part of the nation. It should be a place that immediately appeals to tourists, shoppers, workers and residents, and the old design--and its habitues--failed to do so.