THE MYTH OF THE CITY: SAN FRANCISCO AS AN AMERICAN URBAN LEGEND

by

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Bryan L. Norton, Department of American Studies

Myths illuminate the origins of collective ideas, they provide practical ways for resolving contradictions and conflicts in a society, and they are an impetus for learning and ingenuity. Myths are a powerful unifying force in a community because they bind disparate individuals and generations into one group. An understanding of these commonly held convictions is important because a society’s mythology creates a standard of behavior that dictates and controls the actions of the group. A community’s spatial environment is just one reflection of its mythic beliefs and is a valuable means of further identifying and examining these forces.

While there are readily apparent examples of myths that do provide great insight into the development of San Francisco, it is necessary to delve into the less obvious myths that have had such a powerful influence on the creation of San Francisco’s cityscape. This study seeks to uncover and explain these powerful and deep-seated myths as a means of better understanding the factors behind the creation and development of San Francisco as a Myth of a City, and as an American Urban Legend.

In a broad sense, all of the factors that influence the development of San Francisco, including its history, can be considered myths. However, to understand better San Francisco as a unique urban environment it is essential to begin with the identification of some of the controlling myths that have united San Franciscans and played an important role in shaping the City by the Bay. It is imperative to recognize how these myths have become the compelling force dictating the development of the city. The following six myths are explored in this examination of San Francisco: The Myth of the Garden, The Myth of Lemuria, The Myth of ElDorado, The Myth of Empire, The Myth of Bohemia, and The Myth of Old Frisco. These controlling myths express themselves in the public and private spaces that have been created by San Francisco and its Community.

From its inception San Francisco has been a city of myth. The city’s unique history and experiences have created a unique body of myth that has dictated and determined the shape of the city. These controlling myths have not only unified San Franciscans but have also acted as a means of communicating the dreams, hopes, ideals, and values of the city’s collective unconscious. The Myth of the Garden has united San Franciscans in their efforts to maintain a balance between the natural beauty of their city and the city’s foreseeable development. While committing themselves to the garden idea, San Franciscans have instigated the development of parks and urban gardens dedicated to urban renewal and in open rejection of the creation of an urban jungle. The Garden Myth evidences itself in the values and ideals of San Francisco residents as does the Myth of Lemuria. Again, a dedication and common belief in maintaining an edenic society has evidenced itself in the collective unconscious of Lemurian minded San Franciscans. In an effort to reconstruct their distinctive past, San Franciscans have laid claim to their ties with Lemuria by gathering together in varied and distinct neighborhoods and committing themselves to spatial living in harmony with nature. And in the utmost of symbolic gestures to the Motherland of Mu, San Franciscans have evidenced open acceptance of the Pyramid with the burning beacon that looms above their city. Not unlike the beacon on the waterfront which symbolizes ties to Atlantis. The Golden Gateway center is an edifice tied to the myth of El Dorado. Much like the fortune hunters seeking famed El Dorado, San Franciscans maintain a commitment to the ascertainment of wealth and glory. The downtown and financial districts are the culmination of businesses and services that cater to the wealthy and promote conspicuous consumption. And while the garden ideal exists as an aesthetic of place, the collective ideals of spurning democracy and celebrating segregation dominate as the prevailing forces in many of the area’s developments. Just as the Golden Gateway center beckons those seeking the American El Dorado of San Francisco so does it also heighten the Myth of Empire in the minds of San Franciscans. Not unlike the unifying forces of the Lemurian ideal, the dedication to an imperial city promotes a visually distinct landscape with panoramic vistas, public statuary, and premiere services for city residents. Although Skyscrapers have replaced the Panama Pacific Exposition as a means of vaunting the city’s imperial nature, San Francisco’s dedication to gigantic business corporations continues unwavering. The city’s historic desire to create a “City Beautiful” is furthered by the continued development of the civic center and the construction of grander skyscrapers which ensure that the power of this myth will not be lost on the city. If every Bonanza King can have his castle than every San Franciscan can create a personal empire in some form or another. Perhaps no other group have taken this idea to heart like the restless bohemians of San Francisco. The myth of Bohemia still “Howls” a social gospel of avant garde aesthetics, social alienation, and complex subcultures dedicated to diversity, eccentrics, and rebellion.

Yet somehow in this dedication to the creation of myth, San Francisco and its inhabitants have confused the realization of their dreams with the creation of images which are mistakenly applauded as social achievement and civic success. San Francisco’s dedication to the fulfillment of myths has in many cases led the city to replace vibrant realities with hollow images. The Yerba Buena Redevelopment is an idealistic Garden that is promoted as a means of taming civic blight, but its construction eliminated almost every vestige of the community that once resided in South of Market. San Franciscans maintain a passion for the Transamerica Pyramid, but they forget that it is also the symbol of a multibillion dollar corporation. The Golden Gateway Center is a model urban redevelopment if economic segregation is not considered. The build-up of the downtown and financial districts is to be applauded as long as it is remembered that these areas provide numerous white-collar jobs for commuters, but little for the city’s working poor. The gentrification of the Castro can be exulted as a bohemian triumph until it becomes apparent that the area has been transposed into an upscale, ‘guppie’, or gay urban professional environment that drives immigrants and the working poor from the city.

The Myth of Old Frisco encompasses all of the other myths that have influenced the city’s development. In short, the Myth of Old Frisco is dedicated not just to the creation of the image of a beautiful garden, the image of an imperial capital, the image of a treasure city, or the image of a free-spirited community, but to the creation of all of these images and more. The Myth of Old Frisco would create an image composed not of what San Francisco should be, but what San Francisco should have been. San Francisco’s devotion to the myth has led to the development of an urban environment that is dedicated to the creation of visual constructs that will be pleasing to the city’s residents, but even more pleasing to the city’s visitors. San Francisco’s dedication to the creation of myths has transformed so much of the city into just that, a Myth of a City.

References

  • Becker, HowardS. , and Irving Louis Horowitz. “The Culture of Civility.” Culture and Civlllty in San Francisco, Ed. HowardS. Becker. N.p.: Transaction, 1971. 4-19.
  • Caen, Herb. “Sunday Punch” section. San Francisco Chronicle 1 May 1983: 1.
  • Cerve, Wishar S. Lemuria: The Lost Continent of the Pacific. San Jose, CA: Rosicrucian P, 19 31.
  • Churchward, James. The Children of Mu. New York: Ives Washburn, 1931.
  • Collins, Richard C. , Elizabeth B. Waters, and A. Bruce Dotson. America’s Downtowns: Growth. Politics, and Preservation. Ed. Constance Epton Beaumont. Washington D.C.: Preservation P, 1991.
  • Dana, Richard Henry, Jr. Two Years Before the Mast. New York: Penguin, 1964.
  • Davis, Mike. “Fortress Los Angeles.” Variations on a Theme Park: The New American City and the End of Public Space. Ed. Michael Sorkin. New York: Noonday P, 1992. 61-93.
  • Delehanty, Randolph. The Ultimate Guide San Francisco. San Francisco: Chronicle, 1989.
  • Godfrey, Brian J, Neighborhoods in Transition: The Making of San Francisco’s Ethnic and Nonconformist Communities. Berkeley: U of California P, 1988.
  • Hartman, Chester. The Transformation of San Francisco. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanhead, 1984.
  • Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random, 1993.
  • Kahn, Judd. Imperial San Francisco: Politics and Planning in an American City. 1897-1906. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 1979.
  • Kirk, G.S. Myth: Its Meaning and Functions in Ancient and other Cultures. London: Cambridge UP, 1970.
  • Mauphin, Armistead. Tales of the City. New York: Harper, 1994.
  • Muscatine, Doris. Old San Francisco. New York: Putnam, 1975.
  • Parr, Barry. San Francisco and the Bay Area. Oakland, CA: Compass American Guides, 1992.
  • Relph, Edward. The Modern Urban Landscape. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1987.
  • Robertson, James Oliver. American Myth American Reality. New York: Hill and Wang, 1980. San Francisco Planning Commission. The Golden Gatewav. San Francisco:
  • Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill, n.d. San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. Yerba Buena Gardens Information Pamphlet. San Francisco: SFRA, n.d.
  • Scott-Elliot, W. Legends of Atlantis and Lost Lemuria. Wheaton, IL: Theosophical Pub., 1990.
  • Sletteland, Greggar. “Economics ofHighrise,” The UltimateHighrise: San Francisco’s Mad Rush Toward the Sky . . . Ed. Bruce Brugmann and Greggar Sletteland. San Francisco: San Francisco Bay Guardian, 1971. 41-61.
  • Smith, Neil. “Gentrification, the frontier, and the restructuring of urban space.” Gentrification of the City. Ed. Neil Smith and Peter Williams. Boston: Allen and Unwin, 1986. 16-41. “New City, New Frontier: The Lower East Side as Wild, Wild West.” Variations on a Theme Park: The New American City and the End of Public Space. Ed. Michael Sorkin. New York: Noonday P, 1992. 61-93.
  • Wirt, Frederick M. Power in the City: Decision Making In San Francisco. Berkeley: U of California P, 1974.
  • Woodbridge, Sally B., and John M. Woodbridge. San Francisco Architecture. Ed. Elizabeth Douthitt Byrne. San Francisco: Chronicle, 1992.