Ingleside Native Examines Urban Growth In Forthcoming Book

A new book examining American urban planning, both good and bad, proudly wears its San Francisco influence.

Thirty-year-old Benjamin Schneider’s “The Unfinished Metropolis: Igniting the City-Building Revolution,” is due out Oct. 21 from Island Press and available for pre-order through Bookshop.org.

Schneider, a writer who now lives in New York but grew up in Ingleside, said he closely follows the changes to San Francisco’s urban fabric — especially Ingleside.

“I've watched Ingleside's development my entire life,” he said. “On recent visits, Ocean Avenue has been the liveliest I've ever seen. There are many more occupied storefronts and more people on the street than when I was growing up.”

Schneider believes there are too many empty storefronts, particularly large ones, but that new apartment buildings have brought more people and more businesses to the corridor. More people are biking and scootering on Ocean Avenue than 15 or 20 years ago, to boot.

“In an area where single-family homes make up the vast majority of the housing stock, more apartment buildings will almost by definition house a more diverse set of people: younger people, older people, less wealthy people than would be able to, or want to, live in a single-family home,” he said.

Schneider, who worked as a reporter covering urban issues, uses his book to tackle subjects like affordable housing, transit and America's seeming obsession with single-family homes. His writing is partly based on his travels to more than two dozen major cities.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

What's your new book's thesis?

The book is a wide-ranging exploration of urban planning in America, analyzing the policies that have worked and those that have failed, from way back in history to the present day. The overarching thesis is that the built environment of American cities does not serve the needs of present-day residents. To solve some of the biggest problems facing our society, from racial and economic inequality to housing affordability, from climate change to mental and physical health, we need to reimagine the form and function of our cities.

What’s your background, and what brought you to this subject?

I studied urban studies at Columbia University, and have covered urban planning for the past eight years as a journalist, including stints at SF Weekly and the San Francisco Examiner. I'm by no means a professional urban planner, but I have a broad sense of the state of the practice and how it intersects with larger political and economic forces.

How much of the new book centers on San Francisco?

My hometown plays a major role in the book! It probably gets name-checked more than any other city. It's also a hugely important city in terms of its urban planning innovations and problems. There are vignettes on San Francisco's Victorian houses, the freeway revolt, urban renewal, the development of Muni and BART, the city's recent embrace of bus lanes and the recent attempts to reimagine downtown, among others. There's also a shoutout to Stonestown Galleria.

Have political changes — the 2024 elections — forced you to recast the predictions you make in the book?

President Donald Trump has been no friend to cities or their diverse residents. In the urban policy arena, most of the administration's moves have involved attempting to claw back already approved funds, as it is trying to do with California high-speed rail. In the upcoming budget, the administration is poised to dramatically reduce housing assistance, which could put millions at risk of homelessness. There are some bright spots in federal policy, however. Among many, many, harmful provisions, the One Big Beautiful Bill expanded the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, which is the primary way the U.S. finances affordable housing projects. There's also a bipartisan bill making its way through Congress that will incentivize cities to adopt better zoning rules and legalize cheaper forms of prefabricated housing construction.

Mostly, however, cities and states that want to make progress will need to do so on their own. Cities control streets, and they control zoning. There's a tremendous amount they can do with those powers alone. Streets, and by extension, transportation, can be transformed with bus lanes, bike lanes, and parklets. Zoning rules can be changed to allow office-to-housing conversions, to legalize "missing middle housing" like townhomes and ADUs everywhere, and high-density housing right next to transit stops. My book also describes the nascent social housing movement, which offers innovative ways of financing and developing affordable housing. Hopelessness is not an option! There are opportunities for positive change if we are willing to seize them.

Are there any San Francisco officials leading the way for a better urbanist future?

Though it may not always seem like it, San Francisco is an innovative place when it comes to urban planning. Many public officials and civil servants are well-versed in the best practices of urban planning. The challenge is that even when public officials recognize that there ought to be a change in policy, it can be very hard to enact because of the city's rules and culture. There's an expectation in San Francisco that changes to the built environment need to be slow, deliberative, and minor. That's starting to change. The pandemic-era Slow Streets program, which has matured into the full-time closures of JFK Drive and the Great Highway, showed that radical changes to the built environment can happen instantaneously at a very low cost. And the benefits, in my opinion, are huge. The upcoming rezoning of the west side will be a big test. Can city leaders imagine a different, better future, where the city is a living thing that can evolve with our changing needs, or will they cling to some idealized vision of the past?

Any suggestions or advice you have for San Francisco’s leaders?

Be bold! Do what you know is right. As I said, most city leaders understand urban planning best practices. They also, historically, have been wary of disrupting the status quo. But recent years have shown that status quo politics isn't necessarily the safe way to go. A built environment that hasn't changed in 70 years — at least on the West side of the city — is no match for today's challenges. Time to try something different.