Socio-spatial segregation in San Francisco, California

Erasmus University Rotterdam IHS-Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies GIS-Methods for Urban Research UMD-18

URBAN SUSTAINABILITY ATLAS

An analysis of Socio-spatial segregation and Sustainability in San Francisco, California

Presented by: Carlos David Rivera Choscó Student ID: 628764

1 Image 1. Source: Google Earth

January, 2022

INTEGRITY STATEMENT “I will take this exam to the best of my own ability, without seeking or accepting the help of any source not explicitly allowed by the conditions of the exam.”

2

Contents Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………

05

Sustainability Indicators……………………………………………………………………….

06

01. Social component…………………………………………………………………………..

07

01.01 Population………………………………………………………………………………….

08

01.02 Population density………………………………………………………………………...

09

01.03 Ethnicity……………………………………………………………………………………

10

01.04 Median age………………………………………………………………………………..

11

01.05 Gender……………………………………………………………………………………..

12

01.06 College education…………………………………………………………………………

13

01.07 Crime……………………………………………………………………………………….

14

02. Environmental component........................................................................................

15

02.01.01 Land topography………………………………………………………………………

16

02.01.02 Natural risk…………………………………………………………………………….

17

02.01.03 Green Infrastructure…………………………………………………………………..

18

02.02.01 Road Hierarchy………………………………………………………………………..

19

02.02.02 Public transportation………………………………………………………………….

20

02.02.03 Housing typology……………………………………………………………………...

21

02.02.04 Schools…………………………………………………………………………………

22

02.02.05 Hospitals……………………………………………………………………………….

23

03. Economic component……………………………………………………………………..

25

03.01 Land Use…………………………………………………………………………………..

26

03.02 Unemployment rate………………………………………………………………………

27

03.03 Median income……………………………………………………………………………

28

Final conclusions……………………………………………………………………………….

29

References……………………………………………………………………………………….. 31

3

Annexure………………………………………………………………………………………….

4

33

Introduction As cities in the Bay Area become the most gentrified in the United States (Chamings, 2020), problems such as socio-spatial segregation and displacement have become important challenges that need to be addressed in a holistic manner in order to achieve a sustainable development that meets the needs of present and future generations with a comprehensive approach that takes into account the social, environmental and economic dimensions of sustainability (Brundlant, 1987; Elmqvist et al., 2019).

Thus, in order to understand better the territorial dynamics happening in the city of San Francisco, it is necessary to understand which factors are contributing to socio-spatial segregation. These factors can be addressed through indicators that allow to measure progress towards specific sustainability goals (Verma & Raghubanshi, 2018). As stated by Shen, Ochoa, Shah & Zhang, “Indicators have the roll of measuring performance, and in the process of urban sustainability assessment there is a need of measurable indicators” (Shen et al., 2011, p. 19).

Therefore, for the purpose of this academic report on socio-spatial segregation for the city of San Francisco, a list of indicators that addresses each of the components of sustainability has been developed. A socio-spatial analysis with the use of GIS and the compilation of different sources of information has been conducted in order to determine which neighborhoods suffer from socio-spatial segregation and to give policy recommendations to address the problem. The spatial unit of analysis is on the neighborhood scale.

Map 1. Study area. Produced by: Author.

5

Sustainability Indicators Based on different practices around the world, Shen, Ochoa, Shah & Zhang identify 4 main categories for urban sustainability indicators. These categories are based on the components of sustainability (social, environmental and economic) with the addition of the governance component (Shen et al., 2011). For the present analysis, and in order to analyze socio-spatial segregation, a set of 18 indicators within the three components of sustainability has been chosen. The list of indicators is as follows:

Component

Indicator

Description

01.01 Population

Aims to show the most populated neighborhoods in order to establish how much population is being represented by other indicators.

01.02 Population density

Measures the amount of people living in a defined area. Shows inequality of space share.

Shows the predominant ethnicities per neighborhood and which ethnic groups are being displaced from centralities.

Shows the predominant age per neighborhood and which age groups are being displaced from centralities.

Shows the predominant gender per neighborhood and which genders are being displaced from centralities.

Shows education level per neighborhood, in order to show what is the correlation of education and segregation.

Social

01.03 Ethnicity 01.04 Median age 01.05 Gender

Economic

Built Environment

Environmental

Natural Environment

01.06 College education 01.07 Crime

Shows crime and its relationship with socio-spatial segregation and social perceptions.

02.01.01 Land topography

Shows the land topography and serves to show which geographical elements have determined to localization of specific socio-economic groups.

02.01.02 Natural risk

Shows the natural risks and which areas are more vulnerable.

02.01.03 Green Infrastructure

Shows the accessibility of the population to green infrastructure.

02.02.01 Road Hierarchy

Helps to determine mobility flows and accessibility to centralities.

02.02.02 Public transportation

Shows accessibility to public transportation

02.02.03 Housing typology

Shows housing typology and which groups live in specific housing typologies.

02.02.04 Schools

Shows accessibility to public and private education.

02.02.05 Hospitals

Shows accessibility to health services.

03.01 Land Use

Shows land use and its relationship with the location of specific social groups in specific areas.

03.02 Unemployment rate

Shows how job accessibility is related to all the other factors previously shown.

03.03 Median income

Shows how economic prosperity is related to all the other factors previously shown.

Chart 1. Set of indicators. Source: Author.

6

SOCIAL COMPONENT

7 Image 2. Source: Getty images.

01.01 Population

Map 2. Population. Produced by: Author.

Based on the information shown in this map, it can be seen that the neighborhoods with the highest number of inhabitants are Sunset/Parkside with 81,050 and Mission with 58,640. Another aspect shown from the present indicator is that higher concentrations of population are located in the south and west of the city, meanwhile the north-east, where the financial center is located, is the area with the neighborhoods with less population. The only neighborhoods in the south and west that are in the lowest rage of population (color white) are those with big extensions of green/nature areas such as Lakeshore (South-west corner) with a population of 14,300, Golden Gate Park (west, north from Sunset/Parkside) with a population of 90 and McLaren Park (South) with a population of 850. As San Francisco encounters a deep problem of displacement of lower income populations, this map shows that in fact, most of population is located on the edges of the city, limiting their access to centralities.

8

01.02 Population density

Map 3. Population density. Produced by: Author.

This map shows the calculated densities of population per neighborhood, which in contrast to the previous map, shows that higher densities of population are in the neighborhoods located in the center-north of the city, surrounding the financial district and the main coastline. The neighborhoods with the highest densities are Tenderloin with an estimated density of 27,721 inhabitants/Km2, Chinatown with a density of 25,464 inhabitants/Km2 and Nob Hill with 21,157 inhabitants/Km2. The average density used to calculate these densities was 7,194.31 inhabitants/Km2.

An interesting case amongst all neighborhoods is that of Mission, which is the second most populated neighborhood in the city and has a high density compared to other neighborhoods, with an estimated density of 12,019 inhabitants/Km2.

Neighborhoods with the lowest densities are again those with the lowest populations and big park/protected areas such as Golden Gate, Presidio, Lakeshore, McLaren Park and Lincoln Park.

9

01.03 Ethnicity

Map 4. Ethnicity. Produced by: Author.

This maps shows that the most predominant ethnic groups in San Francisco are White (48%) and Asian (34%). Other important groups are Latinos (15%) and Mixed race (12%) (San Francisco, 2018). When compared to the precious maps, it is interesting to see that neighborhoods with high populations such as Sunset tend to have majorities of other racial (mostly Asian) such as Sunset/Parkside that is composed of a 57% of asian population. Another aspect shown in this map is that white population, which is a majority in the city, is located more in the center and east of the city, closer to the financial district and green infrastructure are concentrated. This, when compared to the previous maps, shows that there is a socio-spatial segregation of groups of racial minorities and lower income, which is causing a displacement of such groups far from urban centralities. As an example, an study conducted by the University of California Berkeley and California Housing Partnership found that between the 2000-2015 period, disparities between racial groups augmented and that these disparities contributed to the displacement and segregation patterns. The most affected minorities were blacks, asians and Hispanic (Urban Displacement Project & California Housing Partnership, 2016).

10

01.04 Median age

Map 5. Median age. Produced by: Author.

As shown in this map, median age in San Francisco, shows that most of population is economically productive (between 18-65 years) Most of neighborhoods have a median population between 32 and 47 years old, with a few outliers, mostly located in the north and west part of the city. Neighborhoods with the oldest populations are Lincoln Park (61.6 years), Japantown (51.2 years) and Chinatown (50.4 years).

Neighborhoods with the youngest populations are Lakeshore (25 years), Presidio (29.1 years) and Lone Mountain (31.5). An interesting aspect shown in this map is that populations younger than 30 years old and older tan 60 years old are being displaced from the center of the city, generating a process of “age gentrification”, where populations in a productive age and with higher income displace other groups age groups that are not economically active such as children and elder populations.

11

01.05 Gender

Map 6. Gender. Produced by: Author.

Based on the information shown in this map, it can be seen that in general, San Francisco has a balanced population between man and woman, with a small higher population of males (51%) opposed to that of females (49%). Nonetheless, when this is disaggregated to a neighborhood scale, it can be seen that though the pattern of relatively balanced populations remains, neighborhoods with tendency to higher male populations are concentrated in the central North-east/South axis, with neighborhoods such as Castro/Upper Market and Twin Peaks being 63% and 59% male respectively. At the same time, neighborhoods that tend to have larger female populations are more to the edges of the city such as the West and South-East. Four specific neighborhoods with equal populations are West of Twin Peaks, Outer Mission, Western Addition and Nob Hill, all located on the edges of the central Northeast/South axis.

12

01.06 College education

Map 7. College education. Produced by: Author.

This maps shows the percentage of population per neighborhood older than 25 years with a complete college bachelor´s degree. The results were obtain from the summary of those with undergrad degree and those with completed graduated degree according to the San Francisco Socio-Economic Profile (San Francisco, 2018). Based on this information, it is shown that neighborhoods located in the south edge of the city have lower percentage of populations with complete college education, making them less qualified to be integrated to a job market that is mainly focused in qualified services. An interesting outlier is that of Chinatown, located in the north-east, close to the financial district, with only a 19% of population with a complete college degree. Other neighborhoods, mostly located in the south, with low percentage of population with completed college degree are McLaren Park (17%), Visitacion Valley (18%), Excelsior and Bayview Hunters Point (Each with 25%).

13

01.07 Crime

Map 8. Crime. Produced by: Author.

This maps shows the total amount of crimes combined per neighborhood. The map shows that the Golden Gate Park is the area where most crimes of different types are concentrated. Nonetheless, on a general scale, it can be seen that the eastern part of the city is significantly more dangerous that the west part of the city, concentrating 5 neighborhoods out of 7 in the highest rage and all of the neighborhoods in the second highest rage. Besides the specific cases of Golden Gate Park and Lincoln Park, most dangerous neighborhoods are concentrated in the North-East, close the Financial district and Coastline, where most of commerce and tourism are concentrated. Neighborhoods with the highest crime rates are: Golden Gate Park (18,453.3 crimes per 1000 inhabitants), South of Market (345.1 crimes per 1000 inhabitants) and Japantown (199.5 crimes per 1000 inhabitants).

Neighborhoods with the lowest combined crime rates are Excelsior (14.2 crimes per 1000 inhabitants) and Sunset/Parkside (17.2 crimes per 1000 inhabitants).

14

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENT

15 Image 3. Source: Julia Dances

02.01.01 Land topography

Map 9. Land Topography. Produced by: Author.

This map shows the elevations in the city of San Francisco. It can be seen that the city has significant elevation changes, with have contributed to its particular urban landscape, one of the most well-known features of the city. The highest elevation points are above 375 meters and are situated in the central part of the city. This topographical features directly influence the vulnerability of certain areas of the city to floods and landslides, which will be shown in the risk map. When comparing this information to the social component previously studied, it can be seen that there is a higher concentration of white, mid-age and male populations in higher elevations, meanwhile ethnic minorities, and neighborhoods with a tendency of female majority are segregated the coastal and southern areas with tend to have lower elevations.

An exception to this analysis are neighborhoods located in the north-east, close to the Financial District and Treasure Island.

16

02.01.02 Natural risk

Map 10. Natural risk. Produced by: Author.

The San Francisco Bay Area is vulnerable to several risks such as earthquakes, landslides, and floods due to its location in the well-known ring of fire. Due the topographical composition of the city, areas with lower elevations are more prone to suffer from floods and landslides. In this map, critical areas vulnerable to flood that have been identified by the San Francisco Planning Department are shown in dark blue. A buffer zone of 500 meters from the coastline is show in gray. These areas combined, agglomerate an estimate of 171,441 people which according to the San Francisco Socio-Economic Profile, from a population of 841, 820 (San Francisco, 2018), this represents a total of 20.36% of the total population that is highly vulnerable to natural disasters and that are located in low elevations, on the edges of the city. The most vulnerable neighborhoods are Bayview Hunters Point, Mission Bay, Mission and South of Market.

17

02.01.03 Green Infrastructure

Map 11. Green Infrastructure. Produced by: Author.

The present map shows the access to green infrastructure, understanding as green spaces as any space with predominant vegetation. When the influence area of this spaces is projected, it can be seen that a total estimate of 761,805 inhabitants (90% of population) has access to a green area within a 500 meters radius. Nonetheless, when the areas are disaggregated per neighborhood, it can be seen that neighborhoods with a high concentration of green area, such as Bayview Hunters Point, actually lack green infrastructure since the areas identified as green are green spaces continuous to the port area. So, green space does not necessarily mean high quality public spaces and thus it is important to reconsider this classification. Another aspect that can be seen is that neighborhoods with high populations or high concentrations of minorities such as Sunset/Parkside and Mission have less concentration of green spaces. When all of these elements are considered, only neighborhoods with predominant recreational/green use such as Golden Gate Park, Presidio, Lakeshore, Lincoln Park and McLaren Park, as well as those concentrated in higher elevations such as Twin Peaks, Castro, West of Twin Peaks, Inner Sunset and Glen Park.

18

02.02.01 Road hierarchy

Map 12. Road hierarchy. Produced by: Author.

As it can be seen in this map, San Francisco has a well-connected road network, which allows all areas of the city to interconnect with each other. It can be seen that most of primary roads are connecting the south and west areas with the financial district. Another important element is the concentration of high-traffic roads such as primary and secondary roads in the north-east area of the city, where the financial district is located. This shows that the city is still highly zoned and dependent on high demand transportation axis as a result of modernist american planning, where residential areas and commerce/work areas were segregated. As a result, a higher concentration of residential roads can be observed in the west and south of the city.

This indicator is directly related to that of public transportation, which is analyzed in the following map. Interestingly, the Bayview Hunters Point area is highly dependent on one primary road, meanwhile other areas have several primary and secondary roads.

19

02.02.02 Public Transportation

Map 13. Public transportation. Produced by: Author.

In this map, specifically the tram and bus systems were analyzed, as they are the main transportation systems in the city. As seen in this map, the bus system is well distributed, serving all the areas of the city. On the other hand, the tram system is more concentrated in the North-East/South-West axis, which concentrates higher amounts of population, and thus a higher demand. By calculating the influence area of influence of public transportation and multiplying it by an average density of 7194.31 h/km2 we obtain a total of 672,596 inhabitants that can be served by public transportation within a radius of 250 meters. The total population of San Francisco is 805,330, meaning that an 83.51% of population is being served by the public transportation system. Most of the remaining populations are in the Sunset/Parkside area and in the south of the city.

20

02.02.03 Housing typology

Map 14. Housing typology. Produced by: Author.

As shown in this map, the predominant housing typologies in San Francisco are the single-family housing, small apartment buildings within 2-4 units and 20+ units high rise buildings. It can be observed that neighborhoods in the south and west, with the exception of Lakeshore and McLaren Park, are predominantly of single family housing. On the other hand, neighborhoods with higher amounts of 20+ units housing buildings are concentrated in the north-east, with the Financial district having the highest percentage of this type of housing (95%). When compared to the density and population maps, as well as the road hierarchy map, it can be seen the city is still highly zoned and segregated and that high amounts of population commute every day to their work/education centers.

21

02.02.04 Schools

Map 15. Schools. Produced by: Author.

As shown in this map, the area of the city accessible to elementary and secondary schools within a radius of 500m is very well distributed, covering a total population of 601,228, which represents a 71.08% of the total population. It is shown that all areas are well covered with the exceptions of green parks. In addition, when this is compared to other indicators such as those of public transportation where all the city is very well covered (mostly by bus) and median age, where most of the city is within an average age of 32 to 54 years, it can be concluded that the city is very well covered on an elementary/secondary level of education. Nonetheless, the neighborhood of Sunset/Parkside is an area of interest due to its high population and relatively low concentration of schools compared to other areas closer to the financial district.

22

02.02.05 Hospitals

Map 16. Hospitals. Produced by: Author.

Based on the information shown in this map, it can be seen that most of health facilities are concentrated in the north-east area and that very populated areas with important ethnic minorities are far from medical facilities such as those of Bayview Hunters Point and Sunset/Parkside. A calculation of distances to bus, tram, and rail distances was conducted, concluding that the transportation mean to all facilities is the bus system with a few exceptions where tram was the closest one. The closest distance from a tram station to a hospital is 33.72 meters and the furthest is 2.71 km. The closest railway station to a medical facility is 33.72 meters away and the furthest is 187.07. The closest bus station to a hospital is 50.95 meters and the furthest is 210.87 meters, meaning that all of these facilities are located within a walkable distance from public transportation.

23

24

ECONOMIC COMPONENT

25 Image 4. Source: Andrey Bayda

03.01 Land Use

Map 17. Land Use. Produced by: Author.

As shown in this map, it can be observed that the city of San Francisco is still highly segregated by use, with larger portions of single-residential use on the west and the south. On the one hand, it can be seen that most of the industrial use is concentrated on the eastern part of the city, specifically in the areas of Bayview Hunters Point and Potrero Hill. On the other hand, it can be seen that recreational uses are more concentrated to the west of the city. A point of interest is the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood and surrounding areas, where a lot of the industry is located and important ethnic minorities, as well as less qualified labor force locate is also one of the areas that is less covered by infrastructure and services and one of the areas with the higher vulnerability to natural disasters as it has been shown in previous indicators. In addition, the North-East/South-West axis is concentrating a higher diversity of uses such as institutional venues, parks, commerce, and high density residential, this remaining consistent with the areas where more infrastructure is located, less natural vulnerability and white majorities as well as people in economic productive age are located. Interestingly, this is also the area with higher combined crime rates.

26

03.02 Unemployment rate

Map 18. Unemployment rate. Produced by: Author.

This map shows unemployment rates, which is directly linked to the indicators of college education, accessibility to schools and income, which will be discussed in the following map. It can be clearly seen that neighborhoods located in the south and west of the city have higher unemployment rate than those located in the north coast and in the center of the city. The neighborhoods with the higher rates of unemployment are McLaren Park (26%), Lincoln Park (16%), Bayview Hunters Point and Treasure Island (each with 12%). The neighborhoods with lower unemployment rates are Golden Gate Park (0%), Presidio (1%) and those located in the north and central part of the city with rates between 4 and 5%.

27

03.03 Median Income

Map 19. Median income. Produced by: Author.

Opposite from previous indicator, it can be seen that neighborhoods with higher unemployment rates, mostly located in the south, or in inner city areas surrounding the financial district have lower incomes. It can be observed that neighborhoods with higher incomes are concentrated in central or northern areas with higher elevations, meaning less vulnerability to flood and well connected to services. Another important aspect to mention is that there is an important income gap, with the highest neighborhood median income being 179,537 USD annually, meanwhile the neighborhood with the lowest income is only at 16,404 USD annually. An interesting aspect is that of ethnicity. White majorities are present in both neighborhoods with the highest median incomes and low median income. Nonetheless, neighborhoods with lower median income are predominantly asian with important percentages of other ethnic minorities such as those neighborhoods located in the south.

28

FINAL CONCLUSIONS

29 Image 4. Source: https://www.waar-en-wanneer.nl/

Conclusion San Francisco is facing demographic and urban dynamics that challenge traditional urban planning in order to achieve sustainability and resilience. One aspect that has taken relevance in the last two decades is the socio-spatial segregation caused by gentrification and displacement, specifically affecting ethnic minorities such as Black, Latinos and Native Americans. As an example, the share of low-income black households living in segregated poor neighborhoods increased from 41% to 65% in the 2000-2015 period. Instead, low-income white families were up to three times more likely to live in areas with higher resources (Urban Displacement Project & California Housing Partnership, 2016).

As it has been discussed throughout this analysis, this social segregation is having spatial impacts that lead specific low-income and ethnic groups to experience higher social, economic and environmental vulnerability. This socio-spatial and economic segregation has been enforced by different factors such as access to services and landscape, where groups with higher economic income locate in places with higher elevations or close to the north and east coasts, meaning better views and more direct access to the Financial District which is located in the North-East.

In contrast, groups with lower income, less qualified for the job market due to education level or age as well as ethnic minorities are being displaced from the central parts of the city to the edges, specifically the west and the south, which is the area that faces the greatest challenges in terms of social, economic, and environmental sustainability. Interestingly, some of these areas, such as Sunset/Parkside, Mission and Bayview Hunters Point are among the most populated areas in the city.

Therefore, it is important that policy-makers and urban planners, along with the different stakeholders involved focus their efforts in the integration of these areas on the economic and social scale, as well as preserving the cultural identity and reducing environmental vulnerability through a bottom-up approach (Batty, 2008) that helps to meet the real needs of the population of these neighborhoods. It is necessary that strategic and participatory planning that allows for short-, mid- and long-term goals and actions to adapt to the changing needs of the population is implemented.

Finally, it is necessary that a specific emphasis is taken towards climate change since risks related to floods and increasing of sea levels affect more directly socially vulnerable groups.

30

References Batty, M. (2008). Generating Cities from the Bottom-up: Using complexity theory for effective design (pp. 1–24). Cluster Editions.

Brundlant, G. H. (1987). Our Common Future.

Chamings, A. (2020). Study: San Francisco and Oakland are the most gentrified cities in the US. SFGATE. https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/San-FranciscoOakland-most-gentrified-cities-in-US-15389147.php Elmqvist, T., Andersson, E., Frantzeskaki, N., Mcphearson, T., Olsson, P., Gaffney, O., Takeuchi, K., & Floke, C. (2019). Sustainability and resilience for transformation in the urban century. Natural Sustainability, 2, 267–273. https://doi.org/https:/7doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0250-1 San Francisco, P. D. (2018). San Francisco Neighborhoods Socio-Economic Profiles.

Shen, L.-Y., Ochoa, J. J., Shah, M. N., & Zhang, X. (2011). The application of urban sustainability between various practices. Habitat International, 35, 17– 29.

Urban Displacement Project, U. B., & California Housing Partnership, C. (2016).

Rising Housing Costs and Re-segreation in San Francisco. https://www.urbandisplacement.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/sf_final.pdf Verma, P., & Raghubanshi, A. S. (2018). Urban sustainability indicators: Challenges and opportunities. Ecological Indicators, 93, 282–291.

31

32

ANNEXURE

33 Image 5. Source: Alexandr Spatari

Processes used Process Drag a shapefile

Create a new layer

Description Used for shapefiles obtained from different sources of information. Symbology (Per category or graded) as well as labels were used to represent different information present in the attribute table.

New layers were created to draw specific elements such as the coastline.

Draw a new vector layer

Drawing of specific elements.

Buffer

Buffer in meters to obtain influence areas of different elements such as the coastline, schools, transportation and green spaces.

Dissolve

Dissolve was used to dissolve all the elements of one layer in order to obtain a single polygon such as the final buffer zones of schools and transportation means.

Intersection

Intersection of different elements to obtain specific areas such as the coastline buffer zone.

34

Screenshot

Union

Field calculator: Area

Field calculator: Conversion

Union of different vectors to obtain new layers such as the total area vulnerable to floods which is composed of the coastline buffer zone and the shapefile obtained from the San Francisco planning department.

Used to calculate areas of different polygons such as neighborhoods and influence radius.

Used to convert areas obtained in square meters to square kilometers.

Field calculator: Density and Used to obtain population densities or total population total population covered by specific services.

Used to filter different layers such as the land use in order to work with specific elements.

For example, the layer of land use, used also to establish the influence radius of green infrastructure.

New field and adding Adding new fields to the information to attribute table attribute table to show different indicators from different reports consulted. At the end, this database can also be exported to .csv.

Query

calculate distances Vector analysis: Distance to To between health facilities and closest point different transportation systems.

35

Layers created

Fields created

Other fields such as area and population covered where calculated in each of the new layers created.

36