San Francisco's Great Highway: A Battle Between Cars and Coastal Recreation

The Great Highway in San Francisco, running along Ocean Beach, is one of the city’s most iconic roadways. In recent years, the future of the Great Highway has become a contentious issue, with proposals to limit vehicular traffic or close it entirely to cars. This debate has pitted environmentalists and community activists against motorists and residents who rely on the road for convenience. 

Background on the Great Highway and its Challenges

The Great Highway was constructed as a key coastal route, linking the western edge of the city and providing scenic views along the Pacific Ocean. It has long served as a convenient transportation artery for drivers heading north and south along San Francisco’s western coastline. However, over the years, rising tides, coastal erosion, and climate change have threatened the stability of the road, with frequent closures due to sand buildup and flooding.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the city temporarily closed portions of the Great Highway to cars, turning it into a space for pedestrians, bicyclists, and outdoor enthusiasts. This move was popular among many San Francisco residents who saw it as an opportunity to reimagine the space, providing much-needed recreational areas in an urban setting. Yet, as restrictions lifted, the debate over whether the Great Highway should remain closed to cars, or be reopened fully to traffic, heated up.

Proposition K: Reopening the Great Highway to Cars

Proposition K, one of the measures presented to voters, specifically called for reopening the Great Highway to vehicular traffic, effectively ending its status as a pedestrian and bicycle-friendly zone during weekends. Proponents of the measure argued that the Great Highway is a vital transportation route and that closing it off has caused significant inconvenience to residents, particularly those in the Sunset District and nearby neighborhoods who rely on it for commuting. The closure of the highway has also increased congestion on nearby roads, leading to complaints about longer travel times and safety concerns on alternate routes.

Supporters of Proposition K have emphasized that the Great Highway was designed as a road for cars, not solely as a recreational space. They argue that its closure has disproportionately impacted those who need to travel by car, especially working-class residents who might not have the luxury of biking or walking long distances. Additionally, they have pointed out that reopening the highway would help alleviate traffic issues elsewhere in the city, where congestion has worsened since the closure.

Opposition to Proposition K: Reimagining Public Space

On the other side of the debate, those who oppose reopening the Great Highway to cars have focused on environmental and community-oriented concerns. Many environmentalists argue that the coastal erosion and flooding risks along the highway make it unsustainable for long-term vehicular use. By restricting traffic, the city can minimize damage to the road and preserve the coastline, while also addressing the environmental impact of carbon emissions from cars.

Opponents of Proposition K have also championed the closure of the highway on weekends as a way to create more public spaces for people, rather than cars. They argue that San Francisco, like many other urban areas, suffers from a shortage of green and open spaces, and that the Great Highway offers a unique opportunity to expand access to recreational areas, particularly for underserved communities.

In addition, there is a strong advocacy for shifting urban priorities away from car dependency and towards more sustainable forms of transportation. By keeping the Great Highway closed to cars, they believe San Francisco can lead by example in promoting walkability, cycling, and public transportation as the future of city planning.

Real Estate Implications of the Great Highway Debate

From a real estate perspective, the future of the Great Highway has significant implications, particularly for property values and quality of life in the neighborhoods adjacent to the roadway. As a real estate professional in San Francisco, I see the impact of such public infrastructure debates on homebuyers, renters, and investors.

1. Impact on Home Values:  The reopening of the Great Highway to cars would likely appeal to prospective homebuyers who prioritize convenience and car access. Properties in the Sunset District, Outer Richmond, and other nearby areas could see increased demand from buyers who value the ability to commute more easily along the highway. The ability to drive along the coast quickly and with minimal traffic congestion could make these neighborhoods more attractive to a wider pool of potential buyers, leading to an increase in home values.

Conversely, keeping the highway closed to cars may enhance the appeal of the area to a different kind of buyer. Those who prioritize walkability, access to outdoor space, and a quieter, less traffic-dense environment might find neighborhoods near the Great Highway more attractive as a result of the closure. For buyers who prioritize environmental consciousness, a car-free Great Highway could symbolize the city’s commitment to sustainability, thus aligning with their values. This could create a niche market, potentially leading to higher property values for homes situated close to the now recreational zone.

2. Quality of Life Considerations:  The Great Highway debate also touches on broader quality-of-life issues for residents. For families, seniors, and individuals with limited mobility, easy car access to major roadways is often a key factor when choosing a place to live. A permanent closure of the highway to vehicular traffic could create frustration for these groups, particularly if it leads to increased congestion on surrounding streets.

On the other hand, for families with young children, outdoor enthusiasts, or those who work remotely, living near a car-free Great Highway could be seen as a major quality-of-life enhancement. Imagine living near a wide-open recreational space where you can safely walk, bike, or jog with views of the ocean — that lifestyle is highly desirable to many San Francisco residents, especially in a dense urban environment.

3. Long-Term Environmental and Investment Considerations: From an investment standpoint, real estate near the coastlines is always subject to environmental risk. Climate change and rising sea levels have made coastal areas more vulnerable to flooding and erosion, and the Great Highway is no exception. The decision to close the highway to cars could be seen as a pragmatic approach to mitigate long-term risks and preserve the value of coastal real estate. By addressing these environmental concerns head-on, the city might actually protect the long-term property values of homes near the coastline rather than seeing them decline due to future road instability and flooding.

For developers and real estate investors, the outcome of this debate could impact the kinds of projects that are viable in the area. A decision to reopen the highway to cars might encourage more traditional residential or mixed-use developments. However, if the city commits to a pedestrian- and cyclist-friendly vision, future developments may need to cater to a different kind of urban lifestyle, perhaps focusing more on sustainability, outdoor living, and proximity to public transit.

Conclusion

The debate over Proposition K and the future of the Great Highway encapsulates larger issues facing San Francisco: the tension between maintaining traditional car infrastructure and the push for more sustainable urban planning. As a real estate professional, I see the value in both sides of the argument. Still, it’s crucial to consider not just short-term convenience but also long-term environmental and lifestyle impacts. How this issue is resolved will undoubtedly influence the desirability and character of the surrounding neighborhoods, shaping the city’s future in profound ways.