This is the greatest unforced error in American urban planning. Chicago got a plan and built half of it. San Francisco got a better plan, on a more dramatic site, from the same architect, and built almost none of it. The difference was not vision. The difference was political will. Chicago had James Simpson and the Commercial Club. San Francisco had Eugene Schmitz and Abe Ruef.
"Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood and probably will not themselves be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will never die, but long after we are gone will be a living thing, asserting itself with ever-growing insistency."
- Daniel Hudson Burnham, the year he submitted the San Francisco plan
The plan did not come from City Hall. It came from a private civic association of merchants, attorneys, and former public officials who believed San Francisco could be the great Pacific capital and were willing to pay for the proof.
In January 1904, James D. Phelan, the former mayor and reformer who had spent his term battling the Southern Pacific Railroad and the saloon-machine politics of Christopher Buckley, founded the Association for the Improvement and Adornment of San Francisco. Phelan put his own money into it. He recruited Willis Polk, William Bourn of Spring Valley Water, and a roster of the city's commercial and cultural leadership. The Association's single mission was to retain Daniel Burnham, then America's most accomplished planner, to deliver a comprehensive plan for the city.
Burnham agreed to the commission and refused a fee. He had done the same for Chicago. He believed civic plans were a public obligation, not paid work. The Association covered his expenses and the salary of his right hand, Edward H. Bennett, the British-born architect who would later co-author the 1909 Plan of Chicago.
From the late spring of 1904 through the summer of 1905, Burnham and Bennett lived in a wooden cottage built for them on the slope of Twin Peaks, six hundred feet above the city. The Association financed the structure. Burnham used it as a field office. From the porch he could see the entire urban basin from the Presidio to Hunters Point, the bay islands, the Marin headlands, the Golden Gate, the open Pacific. He spent fifteen months sketching the city from above.
This is the part the histories miss. Burnham did not design the plan from drawings. He designed it from the actual landscape. He walked every ridge. He measured the elevation of every hill. He recorded sight lines from forty-three named summits. The radial boulevards in the final plan are not abstractions. They are routes Burnham personally walked or rode, picked because the topography itself demanded them.
On September 27, 1905, Burnham delivered the bound 184-page report and atlas to Phelan and the Association at the Merchants' Exchange. Mayor Schmitz accepted a copy on behalf of the city. The Board of Supervisors received its copies the following week. The plan was scheduled for adoption hearings in early 1906.
The plan did not appear out of nothing. Burnham had directed the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago, the White City that defined American civic architecture for the next forty years. He had then served as the lead author of the McMillan Plan for Washington in 1902, restoring L'Enfant's intent and producing the modern National Mall. He had drafted the Group Plan of Cleveland in 1903 with John Carrere and Arnold Brunner. He had drafted the plan for Manila and the new mountain capital at Baguio in 1905 for the U.S. War Department. The San Francisco commission was his fifth major civic plan in twelve years and the first one for a city west of the Mississippi.
The City Beautiful movement had a thesis. Cities are not collections of private lots. Cities are public works. Streets, parks, civic buildings, transportation, and waterfronts had to be designed as one coordinated artifact, with the city's natural site as the starting point. Burnham believed San Francisco was the most extraordinary natural site in North America and that the failure to plan it coherently was a national disgrace. His 1905 report opened with that argument explicitly.
The bound 1905 report ran 184 pages of text plus seventy-three plates. It was titled Report on a Plan for San Francisco by Daniel H. Burnham, Assisted by Edward H. Bennett, edited by Edward F. O'Day, and printed in Sausalito at Sunset Press. Phelan paid for the printing. The document is structured in nine chapters and one architectural atlas:
The Civic Center was the heart of the plan. Burnham did not draw a generic plaza. He specified six buildings, their materials, their height, their setbacks, and their relationship to one another.
The plaza itself was a 1,200-foot oval, the long axis running from Hayes Street up to McAllister, with Van Ness Avenue widened to a 200-foot promenade through the center. The plaza was crossed by Market Street on the diagonal, with the diagonal preserved as a 100-foot esplanade. At the center of the oval, a 200-foot Doric column carrying a colossal bronze statue, modeled on the Vendome Column in Paris.
The six anchor buildings, all in the same Beaux-Arts limestone palette, were specified as: a domed City Hall on the south side, modeled on the Pantheon at Rome and Saint Paul's at London; a State Building on the southwest, modeled on the Petit Palais; an Opera House on the southeast, modeled on Garnier's Opera in Paris; an Art Museum on the northeast, modeled on the Petit Trianon; a Public Library on the northwest, modeled on Labrouste's Bibliotheque Sainte-Genevieve; and a Federal Building on the north, modeled on the U.S. Treasury in Washington. Underneath the plaza, an underground concourse with surface streetcar stops, a precursor to the Muni Metro that opened seventy years later.
What was actually built between 1912 and 1936 sits in the same location and uses the same Beaux-Arts vocabulary, but at roughly half the scale Burnham specified, with the Doric column never erected, the diagonal Market esplanade never cut, and the Federal Building substituted with a courthouse three blocks away. The current Civic Center is the diluted version of Burnham's design.
The diagonal boulevards were the part of the plan that died hardest. Burnham named eleven of them by route. Each one was specified to a hundred-foot right-of-way, lined with double rows of trees, with mid-block traffic circles, and with grade-separated crossings at the heaviest intersections. The Outer Boulevard alone was forty miles. The total new mileage proposed was approximately one hundred and twenty miles of new arterial.
The Treatment of Hills chapter was the part of the plan no other American city had ever attempted. Burnham proposed that every hill in San Francisco above 200 feet be treated as a public asset, with the summit reserved for park, terrace, or monument, and the slopes subject to a contour-following street pattern with restrictions on building height to preserve the silhouette.
Forty-nine summits were marked. The principal ones, with the use Burnham specified for each:
Forty-three more summits were marked at the next tier. About six of the forty-nine total were preserved as public space. The other forty-three are private. Every one of those decisions was made between 1906 and 1925, while the plan was in a drawer.
The Treatment of the Bay Front chapter ran the full shoreline as a single coordinated public artifact. Burnham specified an unbroken 200-foot esplanade from Fort Mason around Black Point, along North Beach, around the foot of Telegraph Hill at the Pan-American Plaza, south through what is now the Ferry Building site, past the China Basin, around the Hunters Point promontory, and ending at Candlestick Point. Twenty-two miles of continuous public waterfront.
The plan also specified the relocation of the freight railyards and the industrial wharves to a single consolidated port at China Basin and Hunters Point, freeing the central waterfront for purely public use. This was the most economically aggressive proposal in the plan. It would have required condemnation of dozens of private wharf operators including the Belt Railroad, the Pacific Mail, and the Southern Pacific freight terminus. Burnham knew this. The plan said it anyway.
What was actually built was the opposite. The railyards stayed. The Belt Railroad ran along the Embarcadero until the 1990s. The Embarcadero Freeway, completed in 1959, walled the public off from the water for thirty-two years. The current waterfront, finally unwalled in 2000, runs about three of the proposed twenty-two miles.
Two chapters that historians of the plan tend to skip past entirely. Both were ahead of their time and both are still pending.
The Athenaeum at Lake Merced. A national university campus on the southern lakeshore, with a library modeled on the Bibliotheque Nationale, an observatory, formal gardens, rowing courses on the lake itself, and a residential quadrangle for two thousand students. Burnham positioned it as the intellectual anchor of the Pacific city, the West Coast counterpart to Harvard and Columbia. The site became San Francisco State, the SF Zoo, the Olympic Club golf course, and the Lake Merced Boulevard suburb. None of it is the campus Burnham specified.
The Regional Plan. The ninth chapter looked across the bay. Burnham sketched a regional rail loop crossing the Golden Gate at Lime Point, a second crossing at the southern Bay near Hunters Point, a continuous parkway around the entire bay perimeter, and coordinated regional governance among San Francisco, Oakland, Alameda, Berkeley, and Marin. He drew the bridges sixty years before they were built. He drew BART sixty-five years before it opened. He drew the regional park district seventy-five years before ABAG. The Bay Bridge, the Golden Gate Bridge, BART, and ABAG are all partial executions of Chapter IX.
September 27, 1905 plan delivered to the Association for the Improvement and Adornment of San Francisco
184 pages of text, with seventy-three plates including renderings by Edward Bennett and Jules Guerin
15 months Burnham and Bennett lived in a cottage on Twin Peaks while drafting it
49 hills reserved as public parks or boulevard anchors
0 diagonal boulevards built from the plan
April 18, 1906 earthquake and fire destroy 28,000 buildings, four square miles of city
$0 Burnham charged for fifteen months of work
The plan was at City Hall when City Hall fell down. On the morning of April 18, 1906, the printed copies of the report and the master atlas were stored in the Board of Supervisors' chambers at the old City Hall on McAllister. The earthquake struck at 5:12 a.m. and the building collapsed within forty seconds. Most of the master atlas was destroyed. Burnham himself was in Chicago. Phelan's offices burned. Bennett's drafting set was lost.
What followed was not a planning failure. It was a political theft. Mayor Eugene Schmitz and political boss Abe Ruef, who had run the city as a tribute system since 1901, were already under federal investigation for graft. The fire commission, the police commission, the supervisors, the prizefight commissioners, the French-restaurant licensing board, every board that handled money was on Ruef's pay. The federal grand jury that would indict them was empaneled in October 1906. Schmitz was convicted of extortion in June 1907. Ruef was convicted of bribery in 1908 and went to San Quentin.
While the indictments were being prepared, the same machine ran the rebuild. The Committee of Forty on the Reconstruction of San Francisco was nominally bipartisan. In practice the property owners on the committee wanted their lots back on the old lines and wanted permits issued in days, not months. Burnham's plan required widening, condemnation, regrading, and a coordinated capital program. None of those could be delivered by a city government whose mayor and boss were on trial.
By the autumn of 1906 the rebuild was already locked into the old grid. By the spring of 1907 the new buildings were going up on the old foundation lines. The plan was never voted down. It was simply ignored. By the time Phelan returned to public life as U.S. Senator in 1915, the window had closed.
Not nothing. The bones are visible if you know where to look.
The Civic Center. The current Civic Center, built between 1912 and 1936 in the Beaux-Arts style, sits exactly where Burnham proposed his monumental complex. City Hall, the War Memorial Opera House, the Asian Art Museum, the main library, the state building. The grouping is Burnham's. Architect John Galen Howard, who served on the Civic Center planning commission, had been Burnham's draftsman in Chicago and knew the plan.
Twin Peaks Boulevard. The road that loops Twin Peaks, opened in 1923, follows the contour Burnham sketched for the hilltop drive. The parkland and the figure-eight viewpoint at the summit reflect his proposal for civic terraces on the high points.
The Panhandle to Golden Gate Park axis. Already partially built before Burnham. His plan reinforced the corridor and influenced the later cutting of Park Presidio Boulevard north toward the Golden Gate Bridge approach.
The Embarcadero. Eighty-five years late. The Embarcadero Freeway came down in 1991 after Loma Prieta and the current waterfront boulevard opened in 2000. The promenade Burnham drew in 1905 was delivered in 2000 by a different earthquake.
Mount Sutro and Mount Davidson. Both reserved as public open space, more by accident than by plan, but both consistent with Burnham's proposal that the major summits be public.
The diagonal boulevards. This is the big one. Burnham proposed avenues that cut diagonally across the grid, following ridgelines and connecting hilltops, creating efficient routes and dramatic vistas. San Francisco's grid was laid flat across hills without regard for topography. The diagonals would have given the city the kind of dramatic street perspectives that make Paris and Washington memorable. Without them, a five-mile cross-town trip in San Francisco still requires forty intersections and ten thousand vertical feet of climb.
The hilltop terraces. Most of San Francisco's hills are covered in private houses right up to the peak. There are no public terraces, no formal viewpoints, no civic monuments on the summits. The views exist, but they belong to whoever owns the top lot, not to the public. Burnham wanted those views to belong to everyone. He marked forty-nine summits for public reservation. About six were saved.
The Pan-American Plaza. The federal civic complex at the foot of Telegraph Hill was never built. The Embarcadero now has the Ferry Building, Pier 39, and a row of office buildings. None of it is the monumental plaza Burnham proposed.
The Outer Boulevard. The forty-mile parkway circling the western and southern flank of the city was never built. Skyline Boulevard partially follows the route. Most of it was never even surveyed.
The athenaeum at Lake Merced. The site became San Francisco State University, the SF Zoo, and the city's golf course. None of it is the public university campus Burnham specified.
The same architect produced both plans within four years of each other. Chicago's plan was published in 1909, four years after the San Francisco plan was delivered. The two cities had similar populations. The two plans had similar ambitions. Chicago built most of its plan. San Francisco built almost none of it.
The political escort. Chicago had Charles Wacker, the chairman of the Chicago Plan Commission, who served from 1909 to 1926 and personally drove the plan into reality. He was backed by the Commercial Club, the Chicago Tribune, and the Chicago Association of Commerce. San Francisco had James Phelan, who left for the U.S. Senate in 1915, and the Association for the Improvement and Adornment, which dissolved during the rebuild.
The textbook. In 1911 Walter Moody wrote Wacker's Manual, a textbook version of the Plan of Chicago, and the Chicago Board of Education made it required reading for every eighth grader. An entire generation grew up understanding the plan and voting for the bond measures that built it. San Francisco never produced anything like it.
The clean government. Chicago in 1909 was not honest, but its civic class was strong enough to push the plan past the machine. San Francisco in 1906 had the mayor on trial for extortion and the political boss heading to San Quentin. The plan needed clean government and got organized graft.
San Francisco in 2026 is at the lowest civic ebb of any major American city. Downtown office vacancy above thirty-five percent. Population down. The Tenderloin a national emblem of failed governance. The Mission, once the tightest neighborhood fabric on the West Coast, hollowed out by chain-store flight and tent encampments. The waterfront, the most valuable mile of urban shoreline in North America, surrounded by surface parking and shuttered ferries. The city government still functioning, but the civic vision evaporated.
This is the inflection point Burnham was waiting for. The plan does not need a new commission. It already exists. The hills have not moved. The ridgelines still point at the Golden Gate. The 1905 plan was the work of fifteen months by the most accomplished planner in American history, on the most extraordinary urban site in North America, paid for by the city's own civic class. It was buried by an earthquake and a political ring. The earthquake is over. The political ring went to prison a hundred and fifteen years ago. The plan is still good.
Burnham Civic is making the case to open the plan back up. The diagonal boulevards. The hilltop parks. The Outer Boulevard. The Pan-American Plaza. The waterfront promenade where it is still missing. Each one is an unfinished public infrastructure project with a fully drafted design, a fully described public benefit, and nobody currently working on it. The work is to put them back on the table.
We are connecting with San Francisco civic organizations, planning historians, the SPUR, the Telegraph Hill Dwellers, the Bernal Heights and Twin Peaks neighborhood councils, the Commonwealth Club, and the descendants of the original Association. The goal is simple. Finish what Burnham started. Build the city he drew. Make San Francisco great again.
Want to support this work, contribute research, or connect us with San Francisco civic organizations? Tell us who you are.
Thread preview - 12 posts. Visualize how this lands on X. Each post has its own image card. Drop into your scheduler or paste manually.
Read the full article: burnhamcivic.org/burnham-plan-sf