02.11
LETTER FROM THE SUSTAINABLE DEYELOPMENT DIRECTOR
Greening up
Laura Tam is SPUR's Sustainable Development Policy Director.
I was a tenant in San Francisco for more than six years, and I saw first-hand how much opportunity there is to make the city's apartment buildings work better from an environmental perspective. In one of these buildings - a nine-unit Edwardian with an old boiler that needed frequent repairs - one tenant regularly jammed up the trash chute with extra large pizza boxes, prompting the owner to fire off letters pleading with everyone to use the chutes and manage waste properly. Ironically, she would not provide us with compost bins (this was before they were required), saying they attracted rats - which is not particularly sensible considering that that same food waste would otherwise just be in the black bins instead. When we reported a leaky tap, she was upset that we hadn't told her on day one instead of day five - understandable I think, since she paid for all of the building's water. But when the heat from the c1anky old radiators became too much on warm spring evenings, we had to open the windows: lacking a thermostat to set our own comfort level, there was nothing else we could do but let the heat dissipate into the sky. She was probably spending more than $10,000 a year to keep that boiler going. There were clear opportunities for the owner to save resources (and money) by making some capital improvements, and also for tenants (us) to be more conservation-minded. Now that I own a home, for better or worse, I see why it's so hard to make green improvements - even those I can readily identify. First, there's the inertia of going along with whatever building systems you've got, as long as they're not broken. Second, it's hard to figure out how to prioritize these improvements in a cost-effective way, especially given the lurking sense that almost anything big will be expensive. It's been easy enough to install dimmer switches and efficient faucets and showerheads - but double-paned windows 7 Solar hot water7 An ultra low-flush toilet? I want to get all these things. The path forward is just a little bit obscure. In the meantime, I'm encouraged that the City has made it possible for composting and recycling to be part of my two-year-old son's world, as they definitely weren't in mine at that age. This generational shift, along with ever-improving green building technologies, means that tomorrow's apartment tenants may be even more conservation-minded and resourceefricieriliharl luuay's.
Z Urbanist> February 2011
One size does not fit all when it comes to identifying and implementing green improvements. This issue of the Urbanist is devoted to the opportunities and challenges of greening multi-unit residential apartment buildings, which have more than two-thirds of the city's housing units, and are 81 percent tenant-occupied. These buildings are all unique - in vintage, size, occupancy and more. One size does not fit all when it comes to identifying and implementing green improvements. SPUR's task force on greening multifamily buildings explored numerous tools and resources available from the City and from our utilities that can help both owners and tenants participate in the process of "greening-up." We learned that there are significant veins of financing - rebates, incentives, direct-install programs and more - available for all kinds of building improvements, from major rehab projects to unit "green-ups" at tenant turnover. The challenge is figuring out what's right for each building: what upgrades to perform now, and what to do at future trigger points in the life of a building, such as when a system fails or a tenant moves out. With new navigation tools coming online, courtesy of the state agencies that are charged with reducing California's energy use, it should be easier than ever for the City of San Francisco to do as SPUR recommends in this report: package the incentives, rebates and other tools in an easy-to-read format that addresses cross-utility greening issues. Then, work with the San Francisco Apartment Association and other networks to distribute these tools and create a strategic marketing plan across building types and owners to make greening seem clear and easy. Today, the sheer number and eligibility requirements of the incentives already available are mind-boggling, perhaps even a turn-off for doing upgrades altogether. But if the City makes good on our recommendation, it will be easier for all of us to prioritize and implement green improvements in our buildings. Tomorrow, let's take energy, waste, and water savings all the way to the bank. •
February 2011 What we're doing
POTRERO POWER PLANT SHUT DOWN JANUARY I! Over the past two years, SPUR has been a strong advocate for closing the old Potrero Power Plant, which ceased operation January 1, 2011. At times, this was a lonely quest, with some advocates pushing for the SFPUC to operate "peaker" natural gas power plants on the same site in exchange for shutting down the old plant. Ultimately, an unusual coalition, spearheaded by our partner Brightline Defense Project, succeeded in convincing state regulators and the City's elected officials that there was enough redundancy in the City's power supply with the new Trans Bay Cable and operational improvements by PG&E - that we could do without older, more polluting power plants inside the city. This is a major environmental justice victory that SPUR was instrumental in helping to win. For more of the story see spu r.orgjpotrerovictory. SPUR MOVES TO IMPLEMENT ITS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HIGH SPEED RAIL In our recent report, Beyond the
Tracks, SPUR proposed a series of recommendations to facilitate better land-use planning and development around high-speed rail stations. We called for a new environmental permit process for high-speed rail stations, encouraging major employment
and dense retail uses in station areas, tying train scheduling to planning and development, and station accessibility plans focused on connecting to and from important destinations beyond the half-mile station areas. We are now beginning to implement some of the recommendations. In addition, we are working with the California High Speed Rail Authority and members of the
State legislature on bills to encourage good station area planning and development. We are hoping, however, that some of the important tools for value recapture (such as tax increment financing) remain as mechanisms for funding infrastructure and do not fall victim to the current budget crisis. As we argue in the report, high-speed rail can become an effective armature for organizing the physical and economic growth of California. If this growth is contained (and connected by transit), it will also cost less while simultaneously enabling economic growth. Stay tuned for updates. To read the full report, download it at spu r. org/beyondthetracks.
SAN FRANCISCO ESTABLISHES AN EARTHQUAKE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE In one of his last acts as Mayor, Gavin Newsom established a group to oversee the implementation of the Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS). Among other things, CAPSS documented the need for a program to retrofit wood frame multifamily buildings with seismically weak ground floors (known as "soft-story" buildings). We look forward to the creation of this new Earthquake Safety Implementation Committee and to seeing action on the CAPSS recommendations, which are critical to the creation of a Resilient City.
PENSION COSTS EVEN WORSE THAN ANTICIPATED The news continues to get worse for people who care about San Francisco's ability to continue to provide high levels of public service. Pension contributions in the coming fiscal year, which starts July 1, are now projected to grow to $375 million (and the following year up to $439 million). It is a virtual certainty that there will be reform measures on this November's ballot - the question is how many reform measures and how much of the problem they will solve? We are working hard to make sure that voters have the option to enact at least one serious, practical measure to bring costs under control for the long term.
SPUR STAFFER APPOINTED TO RENEWABLE ENERGY TASK FORCE In January, Laura Tam, SPUR Sustainable Development Policy Director, was appointed to a new city task force on renewable energy. The task force has the ambitious charge of developing a strategy for having 100 percent of citywide electricity come from renewable energy by 2020 By the end of 2011, this task force will produce a report identifying opportunities and barriers, providing recommendations and laying out a timeline to achieve the 100 percent renewable goal. •
Urbanist> February 20ll 3
02.11
SPUR REPORT
Two-thirds of San Francisco's housing stock is multi-family buildings. Retrofitting these apartments to use less water, energy and materials is a significant step to improve the sustainability of San Francisco. While new green building codes are important, changing the environmental impact of existing buildings has a more immediate effect.
What will it take to green the buildings we already have?
GREENING APARTMENT BUILDINGS This report was reviewed, debated and adopted as official SPUR policy by the Board of Directors on January 19,2011. SPU Rstaff: Laura Tam SPUR interns: Alexis Smith, Timothea Tway Task force members: Ron Miguel (chair), Linda Corso, Lowell Chu, Papia Gambelin, Paul Giusti, Barry Hooper, Whitney Jones, John Legnitto, John Madden, Mike Martin, Gabriel Metcalf, Janan New, Jennifer Rakowksi, Bill Rosetti, Todd Rydstrom, Raphael Sperry, Brook Turner
4 Urbanist> February 2011
Improving the resource efficiency ofbuildings innovation and creates future environmental benefits. But in a built-out city like ours, existing is an important way to reduce our city's ecological footprint. Buildings account for about buildings are going to be responsible for the vast half of San Francisco's greenhouse gas emissions majority of resource use over any meaningful (and indirectly account for more), consume planning period. New buildings and major water and generate waste. Reflecting the city's renovations account for 1-2 percent of total progressive values, San Francisco has been a square footage in San Francisco buildings per national leader in green building policy, creating year, so it would take more than 60 years to a green building program in 1999 and adopting green half of the building stock in San Francisco municipal green building standards in 2004. through construction and major renovation.' Thus, one ofthe greatest challenges in urban In 2008 the city adopted a landmark ordinance requiring all new residential and new larger sustainability today is retrofitting or greening commercial buildings to meet high performance the buildings that we already have. standards under the LEED or GreenPoint Rated SPUR convened a task force in February 2010 systems. This ordinance was updated in 2010 to to explore issues in greening existing residential buildings in San Francisco. We specifically affect every new building in the city. Raising the bar for new buildings - especially focused on multifamily buildings, which have more than two-thirds of the city's residential given the explosion of new green building technologies, and the growing popularity and units, and are 81 percent renter-occupied (Figure accessibility of sustainable design - stimulates 1). In theory, green improvements to apartment
I Mayor's Task Force on Existing Commercial Buildings Final Report, December 2009, page ii; 1'/I'II'I.sfenvironmenLorg/downloads/ library/sf existing commercial buildings _ task _ force ~ report _ l.O.pdf
San Francisco's multifamily housing stock comes in varied forms. These buildings have unique combinations of ownership, management, structure, occupancy and financing that affect their ability to take on significant green upgrades.
Urbanist> February 20tl 5
FIGURE 1: NUMBER OF UNITS IN MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS IN SAN FRANCISCO
150,000
120,000 . - - - - - - - - - - Multifamily Housing Vl
~
~
90,000
u..
o
D: UJ
m ~
60,000
z
30,000
o More than two-thirds of San Francisco's residential units are in multifamily buildings, which are 81 percent renter-occupied.
2009, the city through an ordinance spearheaded by the SFPUC updated the water efficiency standards and expanded compliance requirements to commercial properties. 2 In
6 Urbanist> February 2011
Single family
2-4 units
5-9 units
10-19 units
20+ units
HOUSING TYPE
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey I-Year Estimates, Table B25024.
buildings could save utility costs for both owners and residents while reducing environmental impacts. Our task force sought to determine if there were any significant barriers to achieving these savings, including policy barriers, and if so, what San Francisco could do to overcome them. We considered opportunities to improve water efficiency and conservation, waste diversion, and energy efficiency, including electricity and gas. We also explored how San Francisco's 1979 rent stabilization law affects the decision-making process for building owners to perform upgrades. For decades, the primary San Francisco policy tool to upgrade the energy and water efficiency of residential buildings has been the Residential Energy Conservation Ordinance (RECO), which requires properties to either have or install certain energy and water-saving fixtures when they are sold? Various financial incentives and favorable financing resources from state and federal governments, as well as utilities, have provided policy support for retrofits as well. In 2009, a City task force made recommendations to require the measurement and improvement of energy efficiency in existing commercial buildings; those recommendations may be adopted this year. While
In a built-out city like ours, existing buildings are going to be responsible for the vast majority of resource use over any meaningful planning period. these initiatives are a good starting place, we have not thoroughly examined what we can do to take advantage of new green building techniques to improve the environmental performance in multifamily residential or mixed-use buildings, which constitute the majority of the housing stock in San Francisco. These buildings often have unique combinations of ownership, management, structure, occupancy and financing that affect their ability to take on significant green upgrades. While there is a wealth of resources available for residential building owners who wish to retrofit their properties, these resources can be confusing and difficult to locate. If the unique needs of multifamily and mixed-use buildings are not addressed directly in a comprehensive, integrated
fashion, they could miss out on significant new lines offunding from federal and utility sources, as well as the opportunity to contribute to citywide environmental goals and gain direct energy and water cost savings.
OVERARCHING ISSUES FOR MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS Multifamily and mixed-use buildings are already some of the most resource-efficient housing that we have. They tend to be energy efficient, on a per capita basis, because their shared-wall geometry means that less heating and cooling is lostto the exterior. 3 They tend to be water efficient because they often have shared clothes washers and use less outdoor water per capita - especially with the limited lot sizes typical in San Francisco. Their efficient form utilizes limited urban space to add density that supports public transportation, walkability and a vibrant public realm. However, multifamily buildings - especially rented apartment buildings - have a complex set of conditions that make prescribing a "one size fits all" standard for green improvements more challenging than for other types ofbuildings. Within the sector, the variety of physical configurations - from low-rise to high-rise, from all-residential to mixed-use - have different reference standards for efficiency and energy analysis. Owners of affordable versus market-rate buildings are faced with different financial and regulatory realities that have implications for their decision-making process. Within buildings, there are private areas and common areas, and a range of individual systems and central systems, which have different rules for participation in various utility and rebate programs. Renovating an existing multifamily building that already has residents living in place is usually more complicated than building efficient features into new construction. Many owners prefer to perform improvements at unit turnover, when the unit is vacant and existing tenants will not be disturbed. However, by renovating on a unit-by-unit basis, owners lose the economies of scale gained from retrofitting the entire building at once. The timing of the renovation becomes particularly important if the owner wishes to take advantage of rebates, which are not realized until after the improvements are installed. Split incentives are commonly thought to be a key reason for underinvestment in efficiency in renter-occupied buildings. Split incentives exist when different parties, with different
economic motivations, are responsible for equipment selection, usage and utility payments. For example, in a rented building, often the building owner will pay the entire water bill, leaving tenants - who control actual water use and total water consumption - with little incentive to conserve. On the other hand, those same tenants commonly control and pay for the electricity used by kitchen appliances or lighting
From "Improving California's Multifamily Buildings, Opportunities and Recommendations for Green Retrofit & Rehab Programs," Findings from the Multifamily Subcommitlee of the California Home Energy Retrofit Coordinating Committee (MF HERCCl, Draft Report. October 7, 2010. l
Case study: Cathedral Hill Plaza Apartments
Cathedral Hill Plaza, a mid-1960s building with 169 units on 13 floors, has taken a piece-by-piece, unit-by-unit approach to greening that has yielded significant energy and water savings within just a few years. In 2002, the building received a new domestic hot water system, reducing gas use by approximately 5 percent. General Manager Linda Corso and Property Manager Maherah Silmi have utilized free audits from the Department of Environment and SFPUC to identify and prioritize green improvements, which so far have included installing Energy Star lighting, dishwashers and refrigerators, new cook tops and ovens, ultra low-flush toilets, compact fluorescent lighting and dimmer switches. New appliances and fixtures are installed in each unit upon unit turnover, resulting in a smooth transition for tenants. The building management was able to identify significant rebates for most of the improvements, and install the toilets, faucet aerators and low-flow showerheads for free, courtesy of the SFPUC. Cathedral Hill has provided compost bins and kitchen compost pails to residents since 2008, but to make waste diversion even easier for tenants, recycling and composting containers were set up in each floor's trash room in December 2009 instead of only in the garage. They also regularly invite the Department of the Environment to staff a table in the lobby to educate residents on waste sorting. The next big improvement planned for the building is to replace the boilers for the heating system, which will reduce gas use by 10 percent each year, and pay for themselves in approximately seven years. Cathedral Hill's greening strategy shows that a gradual, tune-up approach can be affordable and effective when the building is highly occupied and does not otherwise need major renovations.
Urbanist> February 2011
7
Toolbox for greening buildings Individual Metering or Sub-metering. In individually metered or submetered buildings, residents' utility bills are based on how much electricity, gas or water they actually use, rather than a set portion of the overall building usage. When bills reflect utility usage, residents are more likely to conserve. Rebate. Rebates are incentives in which a portion of the cost of a specified green building improvement is returned to the purchaser after installation. Rebates are offered by a wide variety of organizations, from utility companies to local governments, covering everything from insulation to clothes washers. Direct-install program. Most commonly offered by utilities for non profits or small businesses, these programs typically involve an on-site water or energy audit followed by the installation of appropriate water- or energy-saving equipment. Equipment and installation can be completely free, or a portion of the costs can be repaid as part of subsequent utility bills. Audit. An evaluation of an existing building to assess current energy or water use, or accessibility of waste/recycling bins, etc., and prioritize potential improvements. There are many tools available online to assist owners and tenants in conducting their own audit, or the audit can be done by a professional who can give specific improvement recommendations. Cost-sharing. Capital improvement pass-throughs are one mechanism by which landlords of rent-controlled buildings can pass on all or part of the cost of green improvements, amortized over a set period of time, to the tenants, who will benefit from the improvements through reduced utility bills or improved comfort. Education. In the form of either general awareness building or technical assistance, education is critical all around for owners of small buildings with limited resources, and for property managers to ensure continued efficiency of building systems. Outreach programs aimed at transforming tenant behavior can reduce overall energy demand and encourage better recycling. Device/appliance giveaways. Where a portable and relatively inexpensive device can transform a users' demand on water or energy - such as efficient showerheads, or compact fluorescent light bulbs - utilities may give them away or subsidize them to promote usage. Green labels or certification. A sustainable building, particularly one that has earned branded labels or awards, can be a powerful marketing tool for attracting tenants. Two common ones in the Bay Area are Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), administered by the U.S. Green Building Council, and GreenPoint Rated, administered by Build It Green. Building standards are guidelines that encourage green building techniques in a range of areas, from site planning to energy efficiency. These standards can come in the form of voluntary certification programs or mandatory building codes, such as San Francisco's RECO. Standards can be performance-based, which require a building to achieve target efficiency levels without specifying how these targets should be reached, or prescriptive, which specify certain types of technologies that must be used.
B Urbanist> february 2011
fixtures, but they cannot select or replace those appliances and fixtures, because they may not have the authority, financial resources and/or the expectation of cost recovery during their tenancy. SPUR's task force found that the presence of split incentives appeared to be less of a barrier in the decision-making process for greening buildings than we expected. From the case studies we explored and from our discussions, we learned that investments in efficiency and conservation that did not directly benefit the building owner were often undertaken anyway for non-financial benefits, such as occupant comfort, general building improvement and maintenance, unit marketability, or just because they are the "right thing to do." Rent control is another overarching issue for multifamily buildings in San Francisco. The Rent Board estimates that 75 percent of tenants live in rent-controlled apartments, which are generally units built before 1979. San Francisco's rent control law creates several disincentives for owners to undertake building retrofits, including green improvements. The largest disincentive for big capital improvements is that most tenants must be paid $5,10101' more to be relocated temporarily. Not all green retrofits require relocation of tenants, but many projects with the largest potential for energy and water savings do, such as insulating exterior walls, replacing windows or reconfiguring plumbing. The law specifies over what period an improvement may be paid for by cost-sharing or passing through costs to tenants - usually between 10-20 years. It also specifies what percentage of those costs may be passed through: 100 percent of certain capital costs may be passed through in smaller buildings, but buildings with more than five units may only pass through 50 percent of costs. A 2003 ordinance allowed for 100 percent passthrough ofjust one type of energy conservation improvement: high-efficiency refrigerators in units where the tenant pays the electric bill. Because appliances are not cost-effective to amortize over 10 or more years, this provision has never been utilized. Besides exploring the prevalence of split incentives and the challenges of rent control, SPUR's task force sought to explore the ease of undertaking voluntary efficiency improvements, and the availability of greening tools and financing for both building owners and tenants. We found that challenges and opportunities for the different resources - water, waste, energy - were distinct, though some greening luols
apply across categories (See sidebar: Toolbox for greening buildings). Many of these tools are used in combination by different utilities and by the City to incentivize greater green performance; however, some of the tools are not maximized or utilized to their greatest possible extent. SPUR's task force concluded that the three biggest barriers to greening multifamily buildings in San Francisco are: 1. Lack of awareness of available greening
tools and opportunities, and how to use them; 2. Inability to systematically share improvement costs and benefits in ways that mutually benefit building owners and tenants; and 3. Lack of access to external financing. Of these, we believe number one is the most important area for the City to make improvements now. Because greening challenges for multifamily buildings vary so much by resources and utilities, we explored and will present each one, and its opportunities, in turn.
WATER Multifamily buildings are responsible for 40 percent of total water use in San Francisco and 60 percent of residential use. Although per-capita water use is actually declining in San Francisco, there is still wasted water, and with a growing regional population we still need to conserve: San Francisco has committed to conserving 4 million gallons a day through conservation by 2018. 4 Multifamily buildings have access to several greening tools provided by the SFPUC, including free building audits, free water-saving devices such as efficient faucet aerators and showerheads, and rebates for high-efficiency clothes washers. Lowincome customers and affordable housing
It would take more than 60 years to green half of the building stock in San Francisco through new construction and major renovation. Typical indoor, residential water-use patterns, based on national studies, suggest that high efficiency toilets may be the single largest water-saving opportunity in multifamily buildings.
FIGURE 2: HOW HOMES USE WATER
VI 0::
• For more information on San Francisco's plan to save 10 million gallons aday of Tuolumne River water by 2018 (about 12 percent of our current supply), view SPUR's March 2010 article, "Water, water everywhere: Alook at San Francisco's urban water plan," \'/I'/I".spurorg/publications/library/article/water _ water _ everywhere.
30%
0 0
c
~
c
25
llJ VI
::::> 0:: llJ
!;t
20
:;: C
....I
0
::t:
15
llJ VI
::::> 0
::t: lI.
10
0
llJ (.ll
;:! zllJ
5
U
0:: llJ D-
o
Toilet
Clothes Washer
Shower
Faucet
Leaks
Other
TYPE OF FIXTURE Source: American Water Works Association. 1999.
Urbanist> February 2011 9
TABLE 1: WATER CONSERVATION CASE STUDIES IMPROVEMENT
WATER SAVINGS
COST SAVINGS
Replaced 36 old toilets with high-efficiency models (received $4500 in rebates); installed free showerheads, fixed leaks
57% reduction, 600,000 gallons/year
55% reduction, $5,000/year
1755 Geary
Replaced 166 old toilets (received $20,750 in rebates), fixed leaks
42% reduction, 2.2 million gallons/year
47% reduction, $26,000/year
Fillmore Center
Replaced almost 6,000 fixtures including toilets, showerheads, kitchen and bathroom faucets
38% reduction, 6.3 million gallons/year
62% reduction, $159,000/year
Replaced 19 toilets and repaired leaks in two older ones; installed free devices in 8 units, including showerheads and faucet aerators
55% reduction, 1.15 million gallons/year
55% reduction (estimated), $15,000/year
PROPERTY 11455 Filbert St.
Water conservation audits, rebate utilization and leak repairs resulted in four San Francisco properties finding significant water and cost savings.
I 309 Hyde Street
Source: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and the Fillmore Center owners can take advantage of an SFPUC directinstall program for high-efficiency toilets. The SFPUC has found that the largest water-saving opportunities in multifamily buildings are often replacing toilets and fixing leaks. In apartment buildings in San Francisco, water service is typically not sub-metered to bill individual tenants for their incremental water use. The building owner usually has a one-toone relationship with the SFPUC, which has a master meter for the whole building located on the sidewalk. This is especially true for large buildings. Tenants typically pay for water service through their rent, but the cost is not related to individual utilization. Because of this payment structure, any reduction in water use will result in direct savings for the building owner, which is a powerful
Multifamily buildings have a complex set of conditions that make prescribing a "one size fits all" standard for green improvements more challenging than for other types of buildings. incentive to install water-efficient features. SPUR's task force agreed that in theory, sub-metering or individually metering water service is a best practice, to align incentives for conservation. But we learned that in reality, it is expensive and physically challenging to
10 Urbanist> February 2011
-
retrofit a building with sub-meters. Not only is it difficult to carve out the space to route pipes within the building - and nearly impossible to complete such retrofits outside of a gut rehab but there typically isn't space on the sidewalk to accommodate separate utility meters, especially for larger buildings. Each installation of an SFPUC meter costs around $8,000. Another option is to install sub-meters monitored by a qualified third party within the building that create a new billing relationship between an owner and tenants. (The owner retains a billing relationship with the SFPUC for the whole building.) These meters must be certified by the Weights & Measures division of the Department of Public Health, and are generally cheaper and more practical to install as a retrofit than new SFPUC meters. However, billing practices surrounding such meters are loosely regulated; rates and fees must be negotiated between the owner and the sub-metering company. Finally, within the scope of existing leases for buildings covered by rent control, water service responsibility cannot be shifted to tenants without the landlord providing a tenant with a commensurate rent reduction, so sub-metering benefits are clearer with new tenancies. Switching out plumbing appliances and fixtures, however - supported by the free devices, audits and rebates provided by the SFPUC - is much simpler, unlikely to be a problem under rent control, and cost-effective (See Table 1: Water conservation case studies). Both owners and tenants can take advantage of these opportunities. The payback period for installing water-efficient toilets, showerheads and faucet aerators is very
short, usually within two years. Water audits are an especially effective tool for building owners because multifamily buildings typically have higher leak rates due to unreported leaks, many in the valves of toilets and showers, and many have not undergone major plumbing retrofits in the last 20 years. Existing SFPUC technical assistance programs have been very successful, reaching hundreds of multifamily properties and distributing thousands of rebates and free devices. Logistically, replacing fixtures is a relatively straightforward improvement. Owners do not need to wait for unit turnover, nor do they need to relocate tenants; the fixtures can be installed in a matter of hours with the tenants in place.
different materials, but these are rare. For larger buildings, a successful strategy is retrofitting chute systems with mechanized diverters or baffles that sort waste within a single chute, but space must be available at the bottom of the chute. These systems, while expensive, can have a payoff ofless than one year because
5 For more
information on San Francisco's plan to save 10 million gallons aday of Tuolumne River water by 2018 (about 12 percent of our currenf supply), view SPUR's March 2010 article, "Water, water everywhere, Alook at San Francisco's urban water plan," WI'/W.Spur. org/publications/library/article/water _ water _ everywhere.
Case study: 1515 Greenwich Street
WASTE San Francisco already has the highest waste diversion rate in the country, measured in late 2010 at 77 percent, which exceeded our citywide goal of 75 percent! The biggest challenges for continued success in this area for multifamily buildings are twofold: dealing with the different physical layouts of buildings to configure three bins for sorting waste, and improving residents' awareness of how to sort trash, recycling and compost properly. The Department of Environment (SFE) and the City's waste-collection company, Recology, continue to conduct extensive outreach and education to implement the City's 2009 Universal Recycling Ordinance, which requires all properties to separate trash, recyclable materials and compostable waste in accordance with San Francisco's three-cart collection program. In the first half of 2010, SFE and Recology had conducted outreach to more than 400 multifamily buildings. The ordinance has proven very successful, increasing our citywide waste diversion 5 percent within its first year. SPUR's task force agreed that we have not tapped out the full potential of this ordinance, and we expect continued improvement in the future. Continued outreach, building by building, will be the most important strategy to directly educate building owners and tenants, and to work out the most efficient arrangement for three carts on site. Cart configuration - to provide equally convenient opportunities for building residents to dispose of trash, recycling and compost - is an especially big challenge in existing buildings that have waste chutes. Chutes have typically been used for trash alone. Some buildings have more than one chute and can designate them for
At 1515 Greenwich Street, a major rehab project created an opportunity to retrofit a typical San Francisco Edwardian with some of the greenest technologies available. Owner Bob Mayer's goal was to save resources by sub-metering water and hot water to create user incentives to conserve - since tenants would be paying for their unit's use of water - but also to remodel the building so that tenants would not have higher utility costs than other buildings where they might choose to rent. In 2008, the 35-unit building, which was largely unoccupied at the time, added parking and a new roof deck, and received seismic upgrades, a new elevator, windows, insulation, wiring and gas pipes. But perhaps its most innovative and efficient new component was its sub-metered water system. Each unit was equipped with wireless water meters, visibly accessible to tenants in the garage, that could enable units to be billed for their individual use of water. Mayer, who continued to pay the building's master meter charges, then contracted with a third party company to monitor these meters and bill new tenants for their individual use. Kitchens and bathrooms were equipped with motion sensors to trigger hot water circulation when someone would enter one of these rooms. By keeping water hot through efficient pipe insulation and recirculation, the user would have instant hot water, and not waste water running the tap while waiting for it to warm up. Bob Mayer told SPUR's task force that tenants are now paying generally less for all utilities than they used to pay for just electricity and gas. He did not try to passthrough any costs of this improvement and did not have to relocate tenants for this project, due to existing vacancies. However, he said that the specific circumstances surrounding the building's operation and financing were what enabled him, with so few existing tenants, to take on such a major remodel; generally, such a project might be cost-prohibitive due to the challenges of financing capital improvements under San Francisco's rent stabilization law.
Urbanist> February 2011 11
Nine ways to green multifamily apartment buidings
o 01--
,
12 Urbanist> February 2011
.
o c()O:O:s
o •••
_________
11
t
Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC). Three-quarters of SF's housing stock predates the first energy efficiency codes of the 1970s. Substantial energy savings can be achieved by replacing outdated boiler and fu mace systems. Waste Diversion. Mechanized diverters installed in existing waste chutes - to sort trash, recyclables and compost ~ can have a payback period of less than one year by reducing a building's trash volume, thus requiring fewer collection days.
.J
Appliances. Cooking and refrigeration make up a larger portion of energy use in multifamily housing than in single family housing. Efficient dishwashers and clothes washers save both water and energy.
I I It
Water Heating offers the largest single opportunity to save energy in multifamily housing. Strategies include increasing the thermal efficiency of the water heater, installing solar hot water systems and improving distribution systems.
I I
Common Area Lighting creates a significant energy load that is unique to multifamily housing. This load can be reduced through photocells or timers (for exterior lights) and occupancy sensors (for garage and laundry areas). Water Fixtures. With a typical payback period of less than two years, aerators and high-efficiency faucets and showerheads are some of the easiest ways to conserve water. Free audits can help to prioritize improvements.
o
Toilets. In a typical household, toilets use more water than any other fixture. Those installed before 1994 use over twice as much water as the standard toilet available today. Weatherization. A multifamily building's shared walls mean that less heating and cooling is lost to the exterior. However, older buildings can still benefit from new windows, cool roofing and better insulation. Small Fixtures within individual units - such as programmable thermostats, compact fluorescent lighting, and efficient ceiling fans - can save both electricity and gas.
Urbanist> February 2011 13
'U.S. Census Bureau, Current Housing Reports, Series HI70/98-39, American Housing Survey for the San Francisco Metropolitan Area, 1998, Table 2-5.
Fewer than 10 percent of multifamily buildings in San Francisco have air conditioning. Larger buildings have fewer in-unit clothes washers, but more diverse types of heating systems.
they significantly reduce the volume of trash, allowing a building to pay for fewer trash carts or fewer collection days each week. SPUR's task force agreed that it would be helpful for SFE and Recology to show building owners examples of this technology in action. Improving tenants' awareness of and commitment to recycling is the other significant challenge to further improving waste diversion in multifamily buildings. In San Francisco, tenants (except perhaps in the smallest buildings) typically do not pay for waste management services. While many tenants do a superior job of recycling and kitchen composting, it only takes a few mistakes - unintentional or not - to "contaminate" an entire building's bins with the wrong kind of material (e.g. plastic bottles in the compost bin). At first, a building owner or manager will receive a written warning about this, and the opportunity to meet with SFE and Recology to improve the building's recycling set-up, but if violations continue, the bins may not get picked
up, creating a health hazard and frustration for everyone in the building. Although building owners are now required to conduct outreach and tenant education annually, these communications can sometimes feel like a reprimand to tenants. SPUR concluded that it would be helpful for tenant organizations, possibly with technical and/ or financial assistance from the City, to conduct more education and outreach to tenants on proper waste diversion.
ENERGY Energy use in multifamily buildings is a broad area, and includes lighting, appliances, water heating, outdoor lighting, mechanical ventilation, heating and cooling. Over two-thirds of all households in San Francisco use gas for heating, and 88 percent of households use gas to heat hot water. 6 In multifamily buildings, electricity use is commonly individually metered, with the building owner paying for electricity in common areas, but gas use for cooking, heating and water heating
TABLE 2: APPLIANCE USAGE AND HEATING TYPES IN SAN FRANCISCO, MARIN AND SAN MATEO COUNTIES 2-4 UNITS
5-9 UNITS
10-19 UNITS
20-49 UNITS
50+ UNITS
ALL MULTI路 FAMILY
Clothes Washer in unit
39%
15%
13%
10%
11%
22%
Dishwasher
35%
28%
32%
42%
38%
35%
APPLIANCES
-
~
AIR CONDITIONING
-
I
Central Air Conditioning
2%
1%
2%
3%
8%
3%
Room Unit Air Conditioning
4%
9%
5%
5%
6%
6%
HEATING
61%
55%
48%
43%
40%
52%
I Steam or hot water system
6%
10%
19%
23%
29%
15%
I
Built-in electric units
6%
9%
16%
22%
21%
13%
Floor, wall or other built-in hot air units without ducts
13%
15%
13%
10%
7%
12%
Other
13%
8%
3%
2%
3%
8%
None
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Warm-air furnace
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Housing Reports, Series H170/98-39, American Housing Survey for the San Francisco Metropolitan Area: 1998 Table 2-23.
14 Urbanist> February 2011
FIGURE 3: AGE OF BUILDINGS IN SAN FRANCISCO 40% ::.:: u
35
0
I-
en
30
'"C
25
Z
...J
:::> a:l
Ll..
20
0 lJJ
'"i=!=z
15
u
10
lJJ
c::
lJJ
0-
5 0
1929 or earlier
1930-1949
1950-1969
1970-1989
1990-2009
YEAR BUILT
Sources: u.S. Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25034; U.S. Census Bureau, Current Housing Reports, Series H170/98-39, American Housing Survey for the San Francisco Metropolitan Area: 1998, Table 2-23.
is typically centrally metered. Energy use in multifamily housing is different from singlefamily housing in a number ofways:7 • Common area (hallways and elevators) and garage lighting in multifamily properties can use significant amounts of energy; • Taller buildings have a smaller roof relative to the building envelope, so efficiency measures like attic insulation and "cool roofs" have less impact on overall energy use, and there is limited room for installation of solar photovoltaics to generate renewable energy; • Multifamily buildings often have central mechanical systems, such as hot water and HVAC systems that serve multiple dwelling units. The ventilation and exhaust for kitchens, bathrooms and laundry rooms can use a lot of energy; • Because exposure to exterior walls is lower and air infiltration is less of an issue, cooking and refrigeration comprise a larger portion of the energy budget of multifamily homes.
San Francisco's coastal climate is one of the mildest in the country, with a low demand for heating and, especially, cooling. (See Table 2). In coastal climate zones, appliances and lighting comprise 40 percent of energy demand by multifamily buildings, whereas these systems are responsible for only 13 percent of energy demand in inland climates. s Still, three-quarters of San Francisco's housing units predate the first energy efficiency codes of the 1970s, so building envelope improvements could yield savings and improve occupant comfort (See Figure 3). The Multifamily Subcommittee of the California Home Energy Retrofit Coordinating Committee (HERCC), a collaboration of utilities, government agencies and building experts convened in 2009 to coordinate residential
Three-quarters of the city's housing stock predates the first energy efficiency codes of the 1970s. Building envelope improvements to those structures could yield savings and improve occupant comfort.
, From "Improving California's Multifamily Buildings: Opportunities and Recommendations for Green Retrofit & Rehab Programs," Findings from the Multifamily Subcommittee of the California Home Energy Retrofit Coordinating Committee (MF HERCCl, Draft Report. October 7, 2010, page 17. I According to a presentation by Heather larson, Green Building Program Manager for Stopwaste.org, presented to SPUR's task force on October 27, 2010.
We have not tapped out the full potential of the City's Universal Recycling Ordinance requiring all properties to separate trash, recyclable materials and compostable waste. Urbanist> February 2011 15
Case study: The Fillmore Center
The Fillmore Center, built in 1991, is a multifamily mixed-use property covering three city blocks, ten buildings and more than one million square feet, including 1,114 residential units. In October 2010, it received LEED for Existing Buildings (LEED-EB) Silver certification, making it the largest multifamily housing project to receive LEED-EB in the United States. Elie Rothschild, CEO of Sustainable Energy Partners, provided an overview of the Fillmore Center project to SPUR's task force. For this property, the motivation to pursue LEED certification was to improve property values and create a showpiece in the portfolio of Prudential, the owner, and the Laramar Group, the property manager. Before the LEED-guided renovation, the building had some deferred maintenance problems, including significant problems with its ventilation system. The first step in the process was to improve air handlers and install new efficient boilers - one in each tower - which boosted boiler energy efficiency by almost 25 percent. The building implemented composting and set aside areas for electronic and other hazardous waste. All water fixtures were swapped for high-efficiency models, including faucet aerators and dual-flush toilets; at the same time each unit received these upgrades they received new energy-saving refrigerators and efficient lighting fixtures. Common area and outdoor lighting was equipped with newer fixtures and compact fluorescent bulbs. One of the most innovative aspects of the greening included designating one week each year as "tenant education week" and one week as "staff education week." Staff were educated on pest management, proper waste sorting and green purchasing. Tenants were provided with free compact fluorescent bulbs for their fixtures and free biobags for composting; through better education, the buildings improved waste diversion by 40 percent. Although the project managers considered installing solar panels, they found less than 10 percent of electricity and natural gas costs could be offset by solar photovoltaics or solar thermal installations, so they declined this option. Most of the upgrades were supported by numerous and substantial rebates, making the cost recovery term very short.
16 Urbanist> February 20ll
retrofit programs across California, recently reported that the single largest opportunity to save energy in multifamily housing is in water heating. This opportunity is even more significant and cost-effective when water heating is centralized in the building. Key strategies include increasing the thermal efficiency of the water heater, combining the water heater with solar hot water systems, 9 and improving distribution systems through pipe insulation, recirculation controls, and highefficiency pumps.lO Rebates are a key tool for promoting energy efficiency. SPUR's task force found that there are already numerous rebate programs available to multifamily buildings, but the number and variety ofthe programs is confusing, and awareness of these opportunities is not as high as it could be. PG&E and SFE's Energy Watch offer local rebate programs to multifamily properties. A large number of federal and state energy upgrade programs, with a recent significant boost from federal stimulus financing, are available only to permanently affordable housing. Of those available to marketrate buildings, some are available to both owners and tenants, some are available only to owners for common areas, some are based on a performance improvement, and some are based on a device improvement. A full listing of utility-supported rebates available to buildings in San Francisco is on SPUR's website at spur. org/greenbuildings. All of these programs have different rules for eligibility, requirements for participation and levels of rebate. The statewide multifamily HERCC recently recommended that utilities and agencies offering incentives begin to reward a performance-based approach for multifamily buildings, in addition to the current approach of awarding incentives and rebates for changing out specific pieces of equipment. This approach would help asset managers identify and implement the most cost-effective set of improvements first, through energy analysis software and with technical assistance from certified energy raters. The performancebased approach - as opposed to a package of prescriptive measures - was recommended on a state-wide level because prescriptive packages would vary dramatically between climate zones and building types. The downside to a performance-based approach is that it can be less accessible, particularly for nonprofessional owners of smaller propertics who
TABLE 3: EVENTS THAT TRIGGER ENERGY AND GREEN UPGRADES TRIGGER EVENT
I Tune-up/ Spruce-up
I
I
SCOPE OF UPGRADE Ongoing maintenance of mechanical equipment or lower cost, easier-to-implement measures that spruce up a property at time of sale or purchase such as servicing mechanical equipment, repainting common areas, or making landscape and irrigation improvements.
Replacement
Replacement of specific central or individual equipment that is broken or aging, including water heaters, boilers, furnaces, air conditioners, appliances, lighting and irrigation systems.
Unit turnover
Unit-specific improvements made when occupants vacate. Upon vacancy, it is common practice to paint units, replace carpets, address moisture intrusion and other minor repairs, replace appliances, and make accessibility improvements.
Retrofit
Usually more limited in scope than a whole-building rehab, retrofits typically consist of a package of coordinated improvements designed to achieve a specific goal, such as seismic safety or energy efficiency.
Rehab
Building-wide overhaul may include remodeling common areas, upgrading structural elements, installing new electrical, plumbing and mechanical equipment, and more.
I
These trigger points are opportunities for different types of green upgrades. The scope of upgrades will depend on factors such as the age and condition of the building, type of occupancy, and whether the building is an affordable or market-rate property.
I
I
I
Source: Multifamily Subcommittee of the Home Energy Retrofit Coordinating Committee (MF HERCC), Draft Report. October 7,2010.
may not understand what will be required to meet performance targets. The applicability of a prescriptive program versus a performance program to a particular project is dependent upon the "trigger event" or motivator for a level of investment in building improvements (see Table 3). SPUR concluded that better outreach and information for property owners and tenants would go a long way towards increasing the use of available rebate programs in San Francisco. Property owners often need assistance to determine which programs, resources and approach are appropriate for their property or portfolio. To move forward with this outreach, navigation tools are currently being developed by Stopwaste.org and Energy Upgrade California, a partnership of the California Public Utilities Commission and California Energy Commission,
There are already numerous rebate programs available to multifamily buildings, but the number and variety of the programs is confusing, and awareness of these opportunities is not as high as it could be.
to clarify and facilitate property manager participation in these programs. 1I The tools will also be designed to help property managers engage in ongoing improvements as their buildings reach certain trigger points (see Table 3). Besides the various rebates, incentives and audit tools available to multifamily stakeholders, voluntary certifications or green labels can provide a whole-building approach with some added marketing potential. In the Bay Area, the principal voluntary green certification programs are LEED for Existing Buildings (LEED-EB) and GreenPoint Rated, which launched the GreenPoint Rated system for existing multifamily homes in 2010. 12 While LEED is a better-known label, it is based upon a commercial standard, and widely considered to be a time-consuming and substantial investment, even for buildings with professional management. GreenPoint Rated, a rating system for residential green building, based upon California's building codes and implemented by the Bay Area nonprofit Build It Green, is the standard required for all new homes built in San Francisco as of 2009. However, it is less well known nationally, so its ease of use and marketability potential are less documented. Finally, the City of San Francisco has developed a financing tool, GreenFinanceSF, that would provide city bond money to property owners to upgrade the energy performance of their buildings, to be repaid through property
, Solar hot water systems, which heat water to a base temperature, are acompletely different technology from solar photovoltaics, which generate energy. The laller has proven complicated to install in multifamily buildings because of limited per capita roof space and because these buildings are generally individually metered tor electricity. Solar hot wafer, on the other hand, is ideal for multifamily buildings because they typically rely on asingle hot water system that is shared by all tenants. IOMF HERCC Draft Report, October 2010,
p.17. II For more information, visit www.energyupgradecalifornia .com.
12 More information on LEEO can be found at the U.S. Green Building Council's website, wI'II'I.usgbc.org; more information on GreenPoint Rated is available at 1'11'11'1. builditgreen.org.
Urbanist> February 20ll
17
tax payments over 10-20 years via a lien on their property. This program, and others of its kind recently launched in California and collectively referred to as PACE (Property-Assessed Clean Energy), are all on hold due to an intervention by the Federal Housing Finance Authority on concerns related to federal mortgage lenders' financial requirements. SPUR's task force agreed that if this program is ever able to launch, it could be an important source of financing for green improvements, especially for those buildings subject to rent control and its restrictive pass-through rules.
CONCLUSION
13 For more information, visit www. energyupgradecalifornia.com, aproject of the California Energy Commission and California Public Utilities Commission. For more information, visit www. energyupgradecalifornia.com.
1B Urbanist> February 2011
SPUR's task force considered many tools and barriers to improve the resource efficiency of existing multifamily housing in San Francisco. We found that there are specific challenges to widespread adoption of green upgrades, including low awareness, lack of capital and a confusing, difficult-to-navigate slate of incentive programs. However, we also found that these barriers would not likely be solved by local policy changes we can recommend at this time. In fact, many of them are being addressed through new statewide initiatives and utility programs, which seek to ensure that the multifamily sector is not excluded from tools and financing newly available for performance testing and weatherization of single family homes. Instead, SPUR recommends that the City, through the Department of the Environment, work together with the SFPUC, PG&E and Recology to create a "one-stop shop" or webbased tool for property owners to trackdown how to take advantage of the many free audit, rebate, direct install and compliance assistance programs that currently exist among the various utilities serving San Francisco. The City should incorporate the navigation tool being developed by Stopwaste.org that will guide property owners or managers through a step-by-step process to identify and prioritize needs, and match them to available programs, as well as a similar tool from Energy Upgrade California to be launched statewide.'3 The City's tool should include a significant education component to provide information to tenants and property managers about recycling and composting, water conservation and more. It could also link the building community to case studies of some of the newer or not-yet-common green building technologies that could be especially beneficial and cost-effective in multifamily buildings, such
SPUR recommends that the City create a web-based "one-stop shop" for property owners to better access the free audit, rebate, direct install and compliance assistance programs that currently exist among the utilities serving San Francisco. as solar hot water and mechanized waste chute diverters. We further recommend that the City, working with the San Francisco Apartment Association and tenant organizations, use these tools as the basis of a strategic outreach and marketing plan that would identify and provide assistance to buildings that could benefit from green upgrades. Existing multifamily buildings are a significant part of San Francisco's built environment, and will continue to be for decades to come. SPUR's task force was encouraged by the many recent efforts of utilities, building experts and government agencies to close the "green gap" between these buildings and ones to be built in the future, which are required to be more efficient in almost every respect. We believe the most important next step for the City is to continue to build awareness and help buildings implement these opportunities, so they may serve as models to others, and move San Francisco ever closer to the sustainable future it seeks.•
URBAN DRIFT TRILLIONS IN DEBT DROWNING CITIES Scores of cities across the United States are on the verge of defaulting on their debt as the hard economic times continue. U.S. states have spent nearly half a trillion dollars more than they collected in taxes which, combined with a $1 trillion deficit in pension funds, adds up to an estimated debt of $2 trillion. Detroit, a city that has seen decades of population decline, has had to further cut public services to save money, while Illinois is now six months behind on payments to creditors. The problem is not limited to the U.S. In Europe, Madrid, Florence and Barcelona are all in trouble, with the Spanish regions of Catalonia and Valencia issuing debt to their own citizens to stay afloat. '$2tn debt crisis threatens to bring down 100 US cities" Elena Moya, The Guardian 12/20/2010.
RUST BELT CITIES LOOK FOR OLD WORLD IDEAS Representatives from a number of midwestern cities traveled to the European cities of Turin, Italy, Liepzig, Germany, and Manchester, England, to look at precedents for redevelopment in the wake of deindustrialization. All three European cities have been able to attract new investment in recent years, building areas of shopping, new housing and art venues. The exchange is part of the Cities in Transition program sponsored by the German Marshall Fund and the Kresge Foundation. While the European examples were inspiring - the cities had managed to plan development
that combined transit, housing, business education and a variety of other sectors into large-scale . plans - many of the participants recognized a direct translation to the Rust Belt would be difficult. Alan Mallach, a planner from New Jersey, remarked on the differences between Europe and the U.S,: "You're talking about a way of thinking about how local government operates that is just really, really different from how it's done [here)." "Rust Belt cities look to Old World for new growth ideas: John Gallagher, The Los Angeles Times 01/03/2011.
WORLD HERITAGE HINDERS PROGRESS IN MALI Djenne, Mali, has the coveted distinction of being a UNESCO World Heritage site. Its historic and picturesque mud brick architecture, including a huge mud mosque recently restored in the city center, is of immense historical value. Yet the local residents are not happy, as the benefits of expanded tourism have not reached most of the population. In fact, the restoration of the mosque led to a riot in 2006 as young people watched the imam and prominent families rake in money while they lived in squalor. Now, the UNESCO status is leading to new problems as residents of historic houses find that they are not allowed to upgrade their homes. Most of the homes have mud floors and require people to stoop while entering low doors, Most homes lack a room large enough to fit a double bed. Compounding these problems, the city has poor infrastructure and no working sewage system. While residents
are proud of the city, they debate whether it is worth the struggle to keep their World Heritage status. "Mali City Rankled by Rules for Life in Spotlight: Neil MacFarquhar, The New York Times 01/08/2011.
BEIJING BETS ON BIG SUBWAY INVESTMENT Beijing recently opened five new subway lines - 108 kilometers of track - one year ahead of schedule, growing their network from 228 to 336 kilometers, The subway was built in the 1960s with national defense in mind, only opening to the general public in 1971. It has grown to carry five million passengers per day, with a large expansion of the network built for the 2008 Summer Olympics Beijing is trying to address massive traffic gridlock as quickly as possible, adding transit while also putting in place a lottery system to limit the number of new car sales in the capital to 20,000 per month.
city news from around the globe
SAINT PETERSBURG SPARED FROM NEW SPIRE Opponents celebrated the defeat of plans for a 1,299-foot highrise in the center of the historic low-rise city of Saint Petersburg, Russia. The city's governor stated that after failing to meet a consensus, the project would have to be moved. The plan had been under consideration since 2006, with many notable architects opposing it and the United Nations threatening to remove the city's World Heritage Site status if the tower were constructed. Gazprom, the Russian utility giant behind the project, will still have the option of presenting other plans to the city. At least two other locations are expected to be considered by the end of the year. "Gazprom Tower 'will be moved," Orlando Crowcro!!, Construction Week, 01/05/2010.
"Beijing tackles transit, with stunning results," Bill Schiller, The Toronto Star, 01/08/2010.
Urbanist> February 2011 19
URBAN
4 iconic buildings should inspire mid-Market revival
FIELD NOTES An additive archive of cultural landscapes and observations compiled by SPUR members and friends. Send your ideas to Urban Field Notes editor Ruth Keffer at editor@spur.org.
Living at 8th and Mission gives me a front row seat to the day-to-day life of the mid-Market area and a strong desire to see the often-discussed revival come to fruition. With the recent approval of the CityPlace mall and the ground breaking for the remodel of the 50 U.N. Plaza federal building, it's possible to see some momentum toward a more vibrant streetscape. That momentum has heightened my awareness of the great buildings along Market and my hopes that some of this architecture be revived to preserve the character of neighborhood. Here are four buildings I'd like to see be part of a midMarket revival: Hibernia Bank Building - Empty since 2000, it is now in the hands of a real estate investment group who intend to remodel and lease the space. Odd Fellows Hall - While still home to the Fellows today, one of the building's main tenants is a ballet school, making it possible to see this space as a future hub for performing arts organizations. Eastern Outfitting Company Building Appearing idle from the street, this space could be renovated to become a home to hip startups who would be well served by the building's distinctive style and great location. San Francisco Mart/Market Square - Its blocky nature and large mass mean thousands of square feet ready for mixed-use redevelopment. It would be great to see some of the space go to a large permanent marketplace in the style of Toronto's St. Lawrence or Philadelphia's Reading Terminal markets. The future of this section of Market Street remains unclear. Regardless, great architectural stock is on hand and waiting to be part of any renewal. Originally from Portland and more recently Seattle, Saul Ettlin is anew San Franciscan with history working in politics and government. He has astrnng interest in urban sustainability, transit policy and civic engagement. More of his photography can be seen at flic.kr/saul_xavier. 20 Urbanist> February 2011
Caseworke r: Sa uI Ett Ii n
CASE STUDY #35
Hibernia Bank Building. At the corner of McAllister and Jones, the Hibernia Bank has been straddling the Tenderloin and mid-Market areas since 1892. Having served as a bank for most of its life, the building was most recently home to the SFPD Tenderloin Task Force. Its distinctive dome, long colonnades and rounded stairway spilling onto the street make it easy to see this space, designed by Albert Pissis, becoming a neighborhood centerpiece. Eastern Outfitting Company Building. With "Furniture and Carpets" emblazoned across its frieze, this building near 6th and Market was originally home to the Eastern Outfitting department store and subsequently Union Furniture. Architect George Applegarth's 1909 treasure has large windows that open on a pivot not often seen on buildings from this period. The windows, combined with the two massive Corinthian columns that flank the fa~ade, make it a Market Street keeper.
Odd Fellows Hall. At 7th and Market, this 1909 structure was designed by George Dodge. The building replaced the original Odd Fellows Temple that was destroyed in 1906. Sitting in the shadow of Morphosis' Federal Building, the hall is in stark contrast to its modern backdrop. It has many classic architectural details and great arched windows on the top floor.
SF Mart/Market Square. SF Mart's Mayan-inspired art deco details can be missed on its sometimes austere exterior, which stretches along Market from 9th to 10th. The building was designed by Capitol Architects and completed in 1937. Urbanist> February 2011
21
SPUR Board of Directors
Chairs and committees
Co-Chairs
Board Members
Janis Mackenzie
Andy Barnes
Carl Anthony
John Madden
Linda Jo Fitz
David Baker
Jacinta McCann
Fred Blackwell
John McNulty
Co-Vice Chairs
Chris Block
Chris Meany
Lee Blitch
Margo Bradish
Ezra Mersey
Mary McCue
Larry Burnett
Mary Murphy
PROGRAM COMMITTEES Ballot Analysis
Doyle Drive
Andy Barnes Linda Jo Fitz
Disaster Planning
Michaela Cassidy
Paul Okamoto
Jacinta McCann
Brad Paul
Dick Morten
Lydia Tan
Gia Daniller
Chris Poland
Chris Poland
V. Fei Tsen
Oscar De La Torre
Teresa Rea
Housing
Kelly Dearman
Byron Rhett
Ezra Mersey
Secretary
Shelley Doran
Wade Rose
Lydia Tan
Tomiquia Moss
Oz Erickson
Victor Seeto
Norman Fong
Elizabeth (Libby)
Bob Gamble
Gillian Gillett
Chi-Hsin Shao
Chris Gruwell
Raphael Sperry
Project Review Charmaine Curtis Mary Beth Sanders Reuben Schwartz
Immediate
Anne Halsted
Bill Stotler
Sustainable
Past Co-Chair
Dave Hartley
Stuart Sunshine
Development
Tom Hart
Mary Huss
Michael Teitz
Paul Okamoto
Chris Iglesias
Will Travis
Bry Sarte
Advisory Council
Laurie Johnson
Jeff Tumlin
Co-Chairs
Ken Kirkey
Steve Vette I
Michael Alexander
Travis Kiyota
Debra Walker
Paul Sed way
Patricia Klitgaard
Brooks Walker, III
Florence Kong
Cynthia Wilusz-
Rik Kunnath Ellen Lou
Lovell
Transportation Emilio Cruz Anthrony Bruzzone
TASK FORCES Climate Adaptation Will Travis
Hoenigman Eph Hirsh Peter Winkelstein Regional Planning Larry Burnett Libby Seifel
Urbanist> February 2011
Finance Bob Gamble Human Resources Lydia Tan Individual Membership
OPERATING COMMITTEES Audit Peter Mezey
Bill Stotler Investment Ann Lazarus Major Donors
Board
Linda Jo Fitz
Development
Anne Halsted
Lee Blitch Building Management Larry Burnett Business Membership Tom Hart Terry Micheau Capital Campaign Chris Meany
22
Executive
Amanda
Charmaine Curtis
Seifel
INDIVIDUALS
Bill Stotler
Bob Gamble
Bill Rosetti
David Friedman
Emilio Cruz
Facility Rental
Peter Mezey
Jim Salinas, Sr.
Treasurer
Downtown Transit Center
Welcome to our new members!
Planned Giving Michaela Cassidy Silver SPUR Dave Hartley Patricia Klitgaard Young Urbanists Gwyneth Borden Gia Daniller
German Aparicio lac Appleton Cynthia Armour Quinn Arntsen
Joya Banerjee Alma Basurto Simon Bertrang Marsha Boyette Matthew Bruno Andrew Buhrmann
Paula Chiu Erin Coppin Matthew Cunha-Rigby
Denise D'Anne Jason Dewees JeH Dewey Jack Douglas Mark Dwight Howard Fallon Blake Felson Jeff Gard Jack Gold Catherine Gowen Helene Gregoire Samantha Hartley Ronald Heckmann Patricia Holden Mari Hunter Kati Jackson Glen Jones Aditi Joshi Sean Joo Kim Brian Korver Amit Kothari Skyler Kressin Mary Kuhn Maureen Ladley Susan Lassell WilHam Lee Paul Levin Marcia Lieberman Suzanne Manhire Jill Manton Julia Mates Benjamin McCloskey Wesley McCullough Mary McDonald Trevor McNeil Olga Milan-Howells Jordan Miller Alexander Mitra
Brendan Monaghan Susana Morales Konishi N. Claire Napawan Michelle Nelson
Teresa Ojeda Newton Oldfather Teresa OUe Jessee Parish Nick Perry
Meghen Quinn Chirag Rabari Jessica Rafferty James Rogers S Jason Sarfen Gary Scharlach
lelia Scheu Chris Schroeder Michael Schwartz John Sealander Nadia Secreto Ben Seisdedos Neil Sekhri Geoff Sharp Sandy Sherwin Brooke Ray Smith Maria Solorzano Sprague Terplan & Uli Weitzl James Stillman Kent Strauss Peter Thomas Strauss Mimi Sullivan Lynn Sywolski Usa Taylor Michael Thomas Meredith Trauner Jessica Tse Hillary Turner Mark Turner Julia Van Roo Asiya Wadud Gerald Warburg & Joy Jacobson Alex Werth DarryU White Tyler White Marika Wiggan Jessica Yin BUSINESSES
EPIC Insurance Brokers Hugh Groman Catering
31st Annual Good Government Awards
Monday March 21, 2011 5:30 PM
spur.org/ggawards
Please join the Honorary Awards Committee of the Municipal Fiscal Advisory Committee (MFAC), and the chair of this year's event, Michael Walker, President of U.S. Bank Northern California, in honoring this year's Public Managerial Excellence Award winners: DR. SUSAN FERNYAK Communicable Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Public Health
DANA KETCHAM Permits and Reservations, Recreation and Park Department
CHERYL NASHIR Revenue and Management Development, San Francisco Airport Commission
JOBS NOW MANAGEMENT TEAM Human Services Agency: Dave Curto, Tony Lugo, Leo Sauceda, Jim Whelly
CAPITAL PLANNING PROGRAM TEAM General Services Agency: Brian Benson, Fran Breeding, Brian Strong, Adam Van de Water
Awards Ceremony & Reception
2077 Award Winners and Nominees with Mayor Gavin Newsom
HONORARY AWARDS COMMITTEE
The Honorable Gavin Newsom San Francisco City Hall, North Light Court 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
The Honorable Willie L. Brown, Jr. The Honorable Frank Jordan The Honorable Art Agnos The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
CHAIR
Michael Walker President, Union Bank Northern California
~bank.
Mrs. Gina Moscone
SPONSORSHIPS AVAILABLE Tickets $85/person Visit spur.org/ggawards or call 415.644.4288
Urbanist> February 2011 23
Join SPU R today!
The San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association
is a member-supported nonprofit organization. We rely on your support to promote good planning and good government through research, education and advocacy, Find out more at spur.org/join.
OSPUR
G) ;::0
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING + URBAN RESEARCH ASSOCIATION
Nonprofit Org. US Postage PAID Permit # 4118 San Francisco, CA
m m
z z
G)
()
--l
RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED
-<
»
654 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94105-4015
j;
tel. 415.781.8726
;::0
fax 415.781.7291
--l
info@spur.org
m
~
z
www.spur.org
--l
(f)
Time-dated material
I
\9~634-MO
o
~
SPUR Staff
Planning an event?
SPUR main number 415.781.8726
Rent the Urban Center!
Accountant Terri Chang x128 tchang@spuLorg
Ask about our 10% discount for Business Members spur.org/rentals
Tickets and sponsorships available!
2011 Good Government Awards March 21, 2011 at San Francisco City Hall spur.org/ggawards
Publications Assistant Mary Davis x126 mdavis@spuLorg Urban Center Director Diane Filippi x110 dfilippi@spuLorg Executive Assistant! Board Liaison Virginia Grandi x117 vgrandi@spur.org Public Realm and Urban Design Program Manager Benjamin Grant x119 bgrant@spuLorg Sponsorships and Special Events Manager Kelly Hardesty x120 khardesty@spuLorg
This newsletter is printed on New Leaf Reincarnation paper: 100% recycled fiber and 50% post-consumer waste.
Public Programming Manager Gretchen Hilyard x122 ghilyard@spuLorg Public Programming Intern Heather Jones x122 publicprogramming@ spuLorg Deputy Director Sarah Karlinsky x129 skarlinsky@spuLorg Development Director Arnie LaUerman x1l5 alatterman@spuLorg Development Associate Rachel Leonard x116 rleonard@spur.org Administrative Director Lawrence Li x134 lIi@spuLorg Good Government Policy Director Corey Marshall x125 cll1arsl1all@spur.U1g
Executive Director Gabriel Metcalf x113 gmetcalf@spuLorg
o
o ~
m
Urban Center Event Manager Sue Meylan x130 smeylan@spuLorg
G) ;::0
Research and Volunteer Coordinator Jordan Salinger x136 jsalinger@spuLorg
--l I
Business and Foundation Gifts Manager Sarah Sykes x123 ssykes@spuLorg
r
Sustainable Development Policy Director Laura Tam x137 Itam@spuLorg
m m
z
m
OJ C
o Z
G) (f)
~ m
» r ;::0
Regional Planning Director Egon Terplan x131 eterplan@spuLorg
m
» o -<
I
~
m
,'"