The Bay Area needs more homes for its growing population, but does it make sense to house 30,000 people on unstable land, in earthquake country, that’s also at high risk of inundation by rising sea waters?
A massive development proposal on the fringes of the San Francisco bay, in one of the last potentially developable areas in the region, is raising questions about the definition of smart growth.
For urban areas, smart growth usually means city-centered growth with convenient mass transit options, open spaces, and a mix of housing, commercial and retail developments. It’s considered an environment friendly, sustainable alternative to urban sprawl and gas-guzzling commutes.
A high-density development of this kind is being proposed in Redwood City, a suburban city on the San Francisco peninsula. The project proposes partially paving over 1,436 acres of sea level salt ponds and building 12,000 homes, offices, schools and playing fields on it.
The development would put new homes close to the Bay Area's job centers in mixed-use, walkable communities that would be served by transit links from Redwood City’s new ferry terminal to its Caltrain station and the high-speed rail system. The project’s architect, Peter Calthorpe, says it would provide much-needed housing for the job-rich Peninsula and pay for bay wetlands restoration and public open space on 56 percent of the site (more than 40,000 out-of-town commuters drive into Redwood City to work every day).
Seen in isolation, it does seem a rather ideal project. But does it really take the Bay Area’s fragile ecosystem, and its extreme vulnerability to earthquakes and rising sea levels into consideration? Why build on salt flats that can be converted back to wetlands that serve as a natural buffer against rising tides and storm surges?
Using the proposed Redwood City project as a starting point, we will talk with urban planners, architects, scientists and developers to find out what constitutes "smart growth" in the Bay Area.
How will it help?
The impact of inevitable growth around the bay does need to be addressed. The Association of Bay Area Governments estimates 1.6 million new jobs in the region by 2035. At the current and historic jobs-housing ratio of 1.2 workers per home, that means the Bay Area would need 1.3 million new homes by then.
We do need to smart growth. But first, we need to figure out what that means for the Bay Area. Our reporting will hopefully give some insight on the subject and help the discussion along
By Maureen Nandini Mitra 
