Equity-Based History of San Francisco's Freeways

The interstate highway system revolutionized transportation in the United States but inflicted irreparable damage on urban communities in the process (Ware, 2021). Freeways became increasingly popular throughout the mid-twentieth century to connect suburbs to urban centers, however they often cut through communities and displaced residents and current land uses. Across cities in the United States, freeway placement depended heavily on who occupied that land and the amount of decision-making power, or lack thereof, these communities held.

Freeways were recognized early on as powerful tools to segregate neighborhoods and transportation policy often worked in tandem with other policies to perpetuate racial segregation. Two policies, redlining and urban renewal, and their relationship to freeway placement in San Francisco are highlighted below.

Between 1935-1940 the Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC)  developed maps for cities across the United States  that reflected their “mortgage security”. Neighborhoods were assigned grades A: “best”, B: “desirable” C: “declining”, and D: “hazardous” and were recorded on maps accompanied by text descriptions of neighborhood characteristics. These grades, referred to as redlining, were based heavily on the neighborhood’s racial, ethnic, and class, explicitly favoring White affluent neighborhoods while downgrading low-income communities of immigrants or non-White people.

A redlined map of San Francisco was developed by HOLC in 1937, and identified the eastern portion of San Francisco as "hazardous" and "declining" while the western portion was primarily graded as "best" and "desirable". Areas around the South of Market (SOMA) neighborhoods were marked as industrial use and did not receive a grade, however, the area was not exclusively industrial and was home to residents.

Highway construction followed similar spatial patterns to redlining. In San Francisco, people living in redlined areas were more likely to have freeways within their census tracts than residents living in better-graded neighborhoods (Johanna Paper).

Mid-twentieth-century urban renewal policy enabled governments and private developers to seize properties through eminent domain, often with little payment and no relocation assistance to make way for freeway construction (Archer, 2020). Urban renewal aimed to eliminate “blighted” and “unsightly” conditions, often targeting areas that housed low-income, people of color, and renters. Freeways were recognized as a tool to address "blighted" conditions, as the San Francisco City 1945 Redevelopment Plan states:

The Mission District shows a large, spotty area of blight. Conditions here are getting worse and only redevelopment or comprehensive rehabilitation of certain key areas will arrest this decline. In the Mission an exceptional opportunity is presented for the creation of a modern motor freeway serving this populous section of the City and the residential areas to the southwest. Wherever possible such byproduct values should be sought in every redevelopment project.” (San Francisco City Planning Condition, 1945)

In 1940 San Francisco, much of the housing that Black residents occupied was considered substandard by authorities, and areas with high concentrations of Black residents were deemed "blighted". According to the Work Projects Administration’s (WPA’s) 1939 Real Property Survey, a comprehensive survey of housing conditions in the City, San Francisco’s Black population occupied housing that tended to be “in poor condition and more congested than homes occupied by white families.” When investigating the spatial distribution of areas that were deemed "blighted" and freeway placement it is evident that relationships exist.

While redlining and urban renewal maps can help the understanding of how certain areas were perceived at the time, they are inherently biased. U.S. Census data became available at the census tract level in San Francisco in the mid-twentieth century. Mapped socio-demographic and socio-economic data reveal spatial variability across the city. The observed trends in the 1950 census follow similar trends to San Francisco's redlined maps, with more affluent and privileged communities living along the western parts of San Francisco and working-class persons living along the eastern edge.

(In Progress) The California Department of Transportation purchased land for freeway construction throughout the mid-twentieth century. Land for freeways was frequently taken under eminent domain and displaced residents in the process.

In progress work: 2,000+ parcels digitized, ownership, date purchased, type of deed, etc. recorded

Estelle West, a 65-year-old widow and long-time resident of Potrero Hill was one of the many San Franciscans displaced by freeways. She lived with her 18 goats which were reportedly her primary source of income and were like family to her. Her property was ordered to be razed for the Bayshore freeway. West was offered $3950 dollars for her two-story abode on San Bruno Avenue in the 1950s, but repeatedly refused to sell her land. When given a Sheriff's writ of possession, West allegedly fed it to her goats stating: Why don't they build a tunnel under me or go around the house".

Placeholder Text & Image-- Interview Forthcoming!

"Barbara Fenech has lived in the Portola for 85 of her 86 years. Her parents, immigrants from Malta, brought her to the neighborhood when she was a baby, and she has watched the neighborhood decline and now begin to flourish again.“When I was growing up, the Portola was like a city within the city: It was a walking neighborhood where everyone knew everyone,” she said. Her childhood home was torn down to make room for Highway 101 in the 1950s — and that construction, coupled with the decline of the local flower industry, decimated the area’s commercial sector. Ms. Fenech’s parents stayed in the neighborhood, eventually buying a three-bedroom house with wide bay windows on a 4,000-square-foot lot. Ms. Fenech still lives  there ..." Additional interview  here 

The legacy of freeway construction is evident: currently, nearly all of San Francisco’s designated environmental justice communities, are located along freeway corridors (San Francisco Planning, 2023). Conversely, all but one of San Francisco’s well-resourced neighborhoods, are located away from freeways along the western edge of the city (San Francisco Planning Department, 2021).

Where freeways were placed within San Francisco, and where they were not, reveals an inequitable history with impacts that are still being felt today. Freeways displaced people, homes, and businesses and tore through communities, particularly socially vulnerable ones. With serious and longstanding environmental justice concerns, the future of freeways must be carefully assessed in order to ensure equity, health, and safety for all of San Francisco's residents moving forward.

What can San Francisco do to remedy this inequitable situation, and what are those significant measures that need to be taken?

• Finalize Parcel maps and report statistics on the number of buildings lost, land use, and demographics
• Interview Barbara Fenech and additional residents to convey the impacts freeway construction had on communities across San Francisco
• Link StoryMap to San Francisco's equity policies and freeway plans