Tag Archives: street

San Francisco’s private-public spaces go public-public

San Francisco’s private-public spaces go public-public

It may be one of the most expensive places to live in the country, but San Francisco is still sticking to its hippie roots and trying to look out for its commoners. A city mandate requires that downtown developers include a space in every new building for the city’s scruffy thousands who can’t afford Financial District condos. Some of these privately owned public spaces, or POPOS, look especially nice and fancy. Some have weird but glorious monster head sculptures. All languish relatively unused — but that may be about to change.

Scott Beale

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

The provision of privately owned public open spaces is governed by the city’s 1985 downtown plan. The formula “to meet the needs of downtown workers, residents and visitors” requires 1 square foot of public space per 50 square feet of office space or hotels.

At least 15 such spaces have been created since then because of the program. In addition, at least two recent projects not covered by the downtown plan include distinctive publicly accessible spaces: the San Francisco Federal Building with its three-story “sky garden” cut into the 18-story tower, and an expansive landscaped passage between the clover-shaped towers of the Infinity condominium complex. …

The 1985 plan states that when public spaces are located within or on top of buildings, “their availability should be marked visibly at street level.” But because the guidelines are so vague, it’s easy to fulfill their letter but not their spirit.

C’mon: If you were a downtown developer, would you want the street rabble accessing your luxury loft building’s glorious roof garden, even though the city requires it? Hell no. They must build it, but they can make it very difficult for you to come. ”Stay in the streets, plebes!” the developers cry as they ash their cigars off the 101st floor.

But not anymore! An update to the city’s ordinance now requires much clearer signage for the public benefit. From Atlantic Cities:

“It should create a branding to get to the question, ‘does the public understand what these spaces are?” [city manager of legislative affairs AnMarie] Rodgers says. “It should really help people to see it as not just one space, but a network of downtown open spaces.”

A new online tool maps all the POPOS and lets you sort by open hours, food availability, and public restrooms. Many have seating and views of the city, and some even have power outlets for your new pop-up flash-mob coworking space.

Can you imagine if all cities did this? We’d have public bathroom maps for every downtown!

Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for

Twitter

.

Read more:

Cities

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

See more here: 

San Francisco’s private-public spaces go public-public

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on San Francisco’s private-public spaces go public-public

Wanna know what’s in that fracking fluid? Tough

Wanna know what’s in that fracking fluid? Tough

arimoore

As of last year, Texas has a law that requires fracking companies to reveal the chemicals used in their fracking fluids. Unless that fracking fluid is considered a “trade secret” by the fracking company, which, surprise surprise, companies have claimed 19,000 times in the first eight months of this year.

From Bloomberg:

A subsidiary of Nabors Industries Ltd. (NBR) pumped a mixture of chemicals identified only as “EXP- F0173-11” into a half-dozen oil wells in rural Karnes County, Texas, in July.

Few people outside Nabors, the largest onshore drilling contractor by revenue, know exactly what’s in that blend. This much is clear: One ingredient, an unidentified solvent, can cause damage to the kidney and liver, according to safety information about the product that Michigan state regulators have on file.

A year-old Texas law that requires drillers to disclose chemicals they pump underground during hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” was powerless to compel transparency for EXP- F0173-11. The solvent and several other ingredients in the product are considered a trade secret by Superior Well Services, the Nabors subsidiary.

While the ability of fracking companies to hide their ingredients is not a new problem, the Texas law demonstrates its extent. The specific makeup of fracking fluid is one of the innovations that led to the current shale gas boom; it’s justifiable — in the respect that fracking can be justified — to claim that the combination of chemicals is proprietary information. The question that arises is how to balance that secrecy with public health. (A possible solution: Ban all fracking everywhere! This solution is unlikely to be adopted.)

For neighbors of fracked wells, the omissions mean they can’t use the disclosures to watch for frack fluids migrating into creeks, rivers and aquifers, because they don’t know what to look for, says Adam Briggle, who is chairman of a citizen’s group in Denton, Texas, called the Denton Stakeholder Drilling Advisory Group. …

The 19,000 trade-secret claims made in Texas this year through August hid information that included descriptions of ingredients as well as identification numbers and concentrations of the chemicals used. Overall, oil and gas companies withheld information on about one out of every seven ingredients they pumped into 3,639 wells.

And you will not be surprised to learn who thinks the legislation is just perfect as is.

Recently, more states are following the Texas model — with an assist from industry. In December 2011, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a Washington-based public policy organization that brings together corporations and legislators to craft bills for states, adopted model legislation that is almost identical to the Texas rule.

The model bill was sponsored inside ALEC by Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM), which also advises the council from a seat on its “private enterprise board,” according to ALEC documents obtained by Common Cause, a nonprofit group in Washington.

ALEC has long-standing ties to the fossil fuel industry, so this shouldn’t be a surprise. Nor should Exxon’s interest in protecting fracking; the company has made a big bet on natural gas.

Internationally, The Wall Street Journal reports, fracking isn’t catching on, due to a combination of shale locations and availability of technology. Exxon itself killed a project in Poland after deciding that drilling wasn’t worth it. That is good news for the rest of the world — but bad news for the United States, which becomes both a laboratory experiment and a deeply profitable business venture.

After all, there’s a massive windfall trapped in that shale. And it’s far cheaper to seek forgiveness via an eventual class-action suit than it is to seek permission by providing full information.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

See original article:  

Wanna know what’s in that fracking fluid? Tough

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Wanna know what’s in that fracking fluid? Tough