OSPUR Ideas + action for a better city
Issue 510/ February 2012
LETTER FROM SPUR
O SPUR SPUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Co-Chairs LeeBlitch LindaJoFitz Co-Vice Chairs Emilio Cruz David Friedman Mary McCue Wade Rose V. Fei Tsen Secretary Bill Rosetti Treasurer Bob Gamble immediate Past Co-Chair Andy Ba rnes Advisory Council Co-Chairs Michael Alexander Paul Sedway
Board Members Carl Anthony Alexa Arena ChrisBlock Larry Burnett Michaela Cassidy MadelineChun Charmaine Curtis Gia Daniller-Katz Kelly Dearman Shelley Doran OzErickson MannyFlores Gillian Gillett ChrisGruwell Anne Halsted DaveHartley Mary Huss ChrisIglesias LaurieJohnson Ken Kirkey Dick Lonergan EllenLou JanisMacKenzie JohnMadden
GordonMar Jacinta McCann ChrisMeany Ezra Mersey Terry Micheau Mary Murphy JeanneMyerson BradPa ul Chris Poland Teresa Rea Byron Rhett VictorSeeto Eliza beth Seilel Chi-HsinShao OntarioSmith Bill Stotler Stuart Sunshine Michael Teitz JamesTracy Will Travis Steve Vettel DebraWalker CynthiaWiluszLovell Cindy Wu
CHAIRS & COMMITTEES Program Committees BallotAnalysis Bob Gamble
Good Goverment Bob Gamble
Transportation EmilioCruz Anthony Bruzzone
Executive LeeBlitch LindaJo Fitz
Finance BobGamble
Human Regional Planning Resources Larry Bu rnett Mary McCue Disaster Planning LibbySeilel Jacinta McCann Individual Operating Membership Dick Morten ChrisPoland Committees BillStotler Audit Housing John Madden Investment EzraMersey Ann Lazarus Nominating LydiaTan Major Donors Stuart Sunshine Project Review Linda Jo Fitz Building CharmaineCurtis AnneHalsted Mary BethSa nders Management Planned Giving Larry Burnett ReubenSchwartz Michaela Cassidy Sustainable Business Development Membership SilverSPUR Pau l Okamoto TomHart DaveHartley TeresaRea Terry Micheau Bry Sarte
2
FEBRUARY 2012
Time to Act Since SPUR's last round of Resilient City report s was released, th e wor ld has been rocked by eart hquakes. Over th e past t wo years, th e wor ld has watc hed as report s of massive eart hquakes in New Zealand, Chile, Hait i and Japan rolled in. We've seen substa nt ial damage to cit ies and towns, deaths and disrupt ion of community life. All of t his should serve as a wake-up call to San Francisco. But it hasn't. It isn't news that San Francisco is located in a seismically unstabl e regi on. Scient ists at th e U.S. Geolog ical Survey have project ed th at we Sarah Karlinsky have a 63 percent chance of a major eart hquake occurring in th e Bay isSPUR's deputy Area somet ime in th e next 30 years. We know many of th e thing s th at director. we need to do in order to prepare ourselves for th e inevit abl e. We want t o bui ld a resilient city - one th at can rebound qui ckly afte r a disaste r. This means we need our peop le here, in San Francisco, wo rking to get our city go ing again. Afte r th e eart hquake st rikes, we want San Franciscans to be able to stay in th eir hom es while th e city recovers and while limited damage is repaired. San Francisco's housing doesn't need to be built t o a sta ndard wh ere it would be complete ly und amaged afte r an eart hquake, but it needs to be st rong enough so that most of it is safe t o occupy afte r a major eart hquake so peopl e can shelte r in place. We call thi s "safe enoug h to stay." To achieve thi s goa l, we need to retrofi t our most vulnerable buildin g types that house large numb ers of San Franciscans. One of th ose buildin g typ es, woo d-f rame soft-sto ry buil dings wit h thr ee or more sto ries and five or more unit s, has been studied by th e city th rough its Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS). Soft-s to ry buildings, ofte n recognizable by fir st-stor y walls fu ll of openings for windows and garage doors, are very likely to see damage or even collapse in an expected eart hquake. San Francisco has abo ut 2,800 of th ese buildings. They are home to roughly 58,000 people, 8 percent of San Francisco's pop ulation. Hundreds of pages have been written abo ut why soft-s to ry buildin gs need to be retrofitted and how th e wo rk should be done. Those involved wit h CAPSS wo rked for years to figur e out what to do abo ut soft-s tory buil din gs. In 2010, th en Mayor Gavin Newsom convened a task force to move a mandator y soft-sto ry retr ofit prog ram for ward. An ordinance creat ing th at program is wr it te n and ready to go but has yet to be intr oduced. Mayor Ed Lee cares deeply abo ut disaste r resilience. He put for ward a very detailed plan - th e Earth quake Safety Implementat ion Program - t o implement CAPSS . That plan calls for a mandator y retr of it program for soft-sto ry multifamil y building s to be introdu ced thi s year. Our perspecti ve is: the sooner, th e better. We hop e th e mayor reads thi s lett er, drops The Urbanist on his desk, picks up th e phone and intr odu ces th e ordinance. When that happ ens, he'll be able to hear us cheering from th e Urban Cente r. Of course, t here is more t o be done than retrofitting soft-s tory buildin gs. To get housing t hat is safe enough to occupy, we're going to need to retrofi t our vulnerable housing stoc k. We're go ing to need to come up wit h plans to ensure that our housing codes don't make it illegal fo r people to stay in th eir damaged hom es afte r th e eart hquake, while ensuring th at housing is safe enough to live in and th at it is being repaired in a tim ely fashion . We're go ing to need to find ways to sta ff and manage neighb orhood support cente rs to provide help and assista nce to peop le living wit hout wo rking telephones, elect ricity or sewers so th at th ese resident s choose to stay. None of t his will be easy, but t he cost of doin g nothin g is t oo enormous to bear. The tim e for us to take th e next steps toward creat ing a resilient cit y is right now. We can't afford to wait. • THE URBA NI ST
FEBRUARY 2012
Newsat SPUR The End of Redevelopment: What's Next? O n December 20, the Ca lifornia Sup rem e Court up held t he legi slat u re's elim ination of redeve lopme nt - and struck dow n t he o ptio n for redeve lopment agenc ies to pay back a po rt io n of t heir share of property ta x inc rem en t to continue to exist. Th is o utcome represents t he worst-cas e scenario for su p po rte rs o f red eve lopm en t . Hav ing spent all of 2011 as part of variou s coa lition s to refo rm rather than elim ina t e red ev elopment, we were, needl ess to say, disappointed . In a sta t e tha t has destroyed so mu ch of its syst em of t axation , w e have jus t witn essed the destruction of one mo re part. But at this point, knowing what we do about wh at was righ t and wrong with redevelo p me nt, we think it 's tim e to loo k t ow ard th e future and figu re out what com es next. W e need a new mod el of urban red evelopment for th e 21s l century. W e wi ll b e work ing hard at SPUR, w ith peop le from around the state, to co m e u p w ith st rate g ies for all of t he things w e used redeve lopm ent for: affordab le ho using , infrastructu re f inancing, eco nom ic deve lopm ent and eve ry t hing else. W e lo o k forward to figuring out the next chapter. Read more at http://b it.ly/ xDwXpv SPUR Weighsin on PUC UrbanAgriculture Pilot Sites This past fall t he Public Utili ties Comm ission (PUC) authorized its staff to prepare a feasibility stud y and application pro cess for two pilot urban agriculture project s on PUC prop ert ies wit hin San Francisco: College Hill Reservoir in Bernal Heights and t he Sout heast Wastewater Treat ment Plant in Bayview. This represent s a great oppo rt unity to support food product ion and THE URBANI ST
help foster commun ity in t wo important San Francisco neighborhoods. In December, SPUR encouraged t he PUCto consider a variet y of urban agriculture project types and to use th ese proj ect s to create model lease language and oversight mechanisms that can be repl icated for ot her PUC sites. SPUR will cont inue to tr ack the progr ess of these proposals and advo cate for quick act ivat ion of th e prop osed sites. For background , see http:// bit.l y/ wgEY4J
SF Deficit Challenge Continues Following recurring cit y budget deficit s app roaching $50 0 million, San Francisco has been project ing a $263 mill ion shortfall for th e fi scal year starting July 1, 2012. That numb er has recently increased t o at least $320 milli on. When combined wit h project ed increases in labor costs dr iven by collecti ve bargaining of 27 employ ee cont racts, t he eliminat ion of redevelopment agencies and various ot her trigger cuts, th e cit y could once again be facing a $40 0 million short fall for the coming year. The projected deficit for fiscal year 2013-14 - t he second year of th e city's biannual budget - is est imated to be at least $375 million. Even with voter approval of pension reform in November 2011and improving t ax revenues, th e cit y's st ruct ural deficit continues to be a significant challenge, and SPUR will cont inue wo rking to devi se revenue and operat ing solut ions in 2012.
An Honest Lookat Muni's Structural Deficit SPUR execut ive directo r Gabriel Metcalf is co-chairing a broadbased eff ort at t he San Francisco Municipal Transport ation Agency (SFMTA) to balance t hat organizat ion's budget. SPUR has made enormous progr ess on Muni over th e past decade, f rom givi ng the tr ansit agency cont rol over t he st reets to reform ing t he way it negotiates labor cont racts. Now it is t ime to squarely face the agency's long-t erm fun ding challenges. For years, Muni has tr ied to provi de more service t han it act ually has money for while
under-investi ng in expenses like cleaning and maintenance in order to try to meet pub lished schedules. This has resulted in de facto service cut s when vehicles, tr acks and overhead lines are not available for daily service. We est imate t hat SFMTA needs $150 million more per year in operat ions fund ing (more than 70 percent ju st for Muni) to reach th e service standards in th e city charter and $260 million mo re per year to address t he repair of transportation assets. These numb ers are sobering: SFMTA will eit her need to come up wit h th e addit ional f unding or reinvent th e way t ransportation servi ces are deli vered in th e city .
Expansion and Renewal Planned for the Moscone Center SF Travel (for merly t he Convent ion and Visitors Bureau), along wit h th e Mayor 's Office of Economic and Wo rkfo rce Development, is hard at work on an ambiti ous set of plans to expand th e Moscone convent ion center. The renovation provid es an opport unity not just to expand th e square footage and add meeting rooms but to rethink th e role of the convention center in the 21 st cent ury. Can we use thi s as an oppo rt unit y for urban repair th at wo uld create a more permeable and active edge around Moscone? Can we improve walkab ility and create new, direct connect ions to t he Central Subway? Moscone is a key driver of our economy, one t hat San Francisco taxpayers don't pay for t hemselves. We are excited about th e possibilit ies th at thi s investm ent may provide to th e neighborh ood and th e cit y.
FEBRUAR Y 2012
3
D ISASTER PLANN ING
Safe Enough to Stay What w ill it take for San Franciscans to live safely in their homes after an earthquake?
This report is generously funded by the U.S. Geological Survey.
Shelter-i n- Place Task Force Christopher Barkley,URSCorporation JackBoatwright, U.S. Geologica l Survey David Bonowitz, StructuralEngineer" MaryComerio,Professor of Architecture,
Wh en a major earthq uake st rikes th e Bay Area, t he region could face tho usands of casualties, hundre ds of th ousands of displaced households and losses in th e hundreds of billio n do llars. The lives of San Franciscans w ill be enormously disrupt ed, and it could take month s to re-establ ish essent ial services. Recovery wi ll be slow, depend ing on th e extent of the building damage , th e amount of business lost , the availability of uti liti es and how qu ickly communiti es can repair and rebui ld t heir housing. In order to rebound qu ickly afte r a major earthquake, San Francisco needs to become a resilient city. Resilience is th e ability of th e city to contain the effect s of eart hquakes when th ey occur, to carry out recovery act iviti es in ways th at minimize social disruption and to rebuild in ways t hat mitigate the effects of futur e eart hquakes. The more quickly a communit y is able to rebound from a major event, the more resilient it is. This art icle, based on our report "Safe Enough to Stay" (www.spur.org/s afe-e nough) add resses one consider ati on: housing. Aft er a major eart hquake hit s, how many San Franciscans wi ll be able to shelter in place, i.e., stay in t heir hom es while t hose hom es are being repaired? What does it mean for the city's overa ll resilience if some neighborhoods suff er more damage t han ot hers? What steps can cit y gove rnm ent, buildi ng owners and residents take now to ensure th at
resilience, but we believe it is an especially impo rta nt one. Housing is linked to every ot her aspect of t he city's recover y: Businesses, neigh borhood distri cts, schoo ls and cultural inst it ut ions all rely on residents being in t he city. If peop le can stay in their hom es, th ey wi ll be more able to put th eir energy and resources into rebuil ding th eir neighbo rhoods. If th ey must leave the city , their resour ces will go wit h th em, perhaps permanent ly. In thi s art icle, we answer t he follow ing questi ons:
hom es are safe to occupy aft er an earthquake st rikes? Housing is only one element in th e complex web of fact ors th at cont ribute to th e city 's eart hquake
The quest ion of how much housing in a cit y can be damaged by an eart hquake before th e city' s viabilit y is und ermin ed is not easily answered. However, afte r
4
FEBRUAR Y 20 12
University of California, Berkeley Bryce Dickinson,Rutherfordand Chekene Laura Dwelley-Samant,Consultant.. LucasEckroad, Departmentof Emergency Management, City andCounty of San Francisco David Friedman, Forell/Elsesser Engineers Inc. LaurieJohnson, Laurie JohnsonConsulting I Resea rch Keith Knudsen, U.S. Geological Survey La urence Kornfi eld, EarthquakeSafety Imple-
1. How much of San Francisco's housing sto ck needs to meet shelte r-in-place sta ndards in order for th e city to be resilient? 2. What engineering criteria should be used to determ ine whet her a home has shelter-in-place capacity th at's adequ ate for a majo r eart hquake? 3. What needs to be don e to enable resident s to shelte r in place for days and months afte r a large eart hquake?
mentation Program, City and County of San Francisco" Joe Maffei, Rutherford and Chekene MikeMieler, Doctoral Candidate,University of California, Berkeley Steven Murphy, Seifel Consu lting John Paxton, Real Estate Consultant ChrisPoland, Degenkolb Engineers' David Schwartz, U.S. Geological Survey Heidi Sieck, KennedySchool of Government
I. How much of San Francisco's
housing stock needs to meet shelter-in -place standards in order for the city to be res ilient?
Debra Walker, BuildingInspection Comm ission, City andCountyof San Francisco Staff: Sarah Ka rlinsky,SPURDeputy Director Interns: Amy Dhaliwal and JohnPham, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center • Task force chair, .. Subcommittee chair
THE URB A NI ST
FIG URE A
How Will the Expected Earthquake Impact San Francisco? Diff erent neighborhoods have different housing stock and soil condition s, whi ch means th e degr ee of eart hquake damage will vary across th e city. After a magnitude 7.2 earthquake on th e San Andreas Fault, we expect th e percent ages of housing in red to be unusable, meaning not safe enough for resident s to shelter in place.
Unusable Units
Usable Units------
Sources: SFGIS, Census 2000 and SPUR ana lysis ofCAPSS HAZUS Output Data
, 1 mile
Sunset
THE URBAN IST
FEBRUARY 2012
5
DISASTER PLANNING
What Does It Mean to Shelt er in Pla ce?
promisesonly that a building meets life-safety standards, that is, the building will not collapse but maybeso
SPUR defines "shelterin place " asa
damagedasto beunusable. A she lter-
resident's ability to remain in hisor
in-place res idencewill not befully
her home while it is being repaired after
func tional, likea hospital wou ld need to
an earthquake - not just for hoursor
be, but it will besafe enough for people
daysafter an event, but for themonthsit
to livein it duringthe monthsafter
may taketo get back to normal. For
anearthquake.While util itiessuch as
a buildingto have she lter-in-place
water and sewer linesarebeing repaired
capacity, it must bestrong enoughto
andreconnected, residents whoare
withstanda major earthquake without
she lteringin place will need to bewithin
substantial structural damage. This is
walkingdistanceof a neighborhood
a different standard than that employed
centerthat can help meetbasic needs
by thecurrent buildingcode, which
notavailablewithin their homes.
lead to resid ent s being disp ersed to ot her parts of th e sta te (o r poss ibly even f arth er) . Recent comparable d isasters Perhaps th e bes t way t o invest igat e w het her a goa l of 95 p ercent shelt er in place is reasonabl e for San Francisco is t o co nside r how ot her co m m unit ies fa red af te r major disast ers (See Figure B). Several relevant lessons for San Francisco eme rge fr om th e ex pe riences of di sasters in ot her co mm unities:
1. Reb uil d i ng housing takes a lo ng time, even if the p er centage of units rendered uninhabitable is relatively sma ll . It t ook at least t w o yea rs for a sig nificant portion of hou sing t o b e rep laced in all of th e pr of iled d isasters for w hich info rmat ion was available. Afte r th e 199 5 eart hquake in Kob e, Japan - an area ofte n cite d as sim ilar t o th e Bay
assessing th e city's exist ing capa city for sho rt- te rm
Area - it t ook th e cit y five t o 10 yea rs t o reach it s
hou sing (she lte r beds) and medium -t erm or "inte rim"
rebui ldin g goa ls.
hou sing ( hote l room s, tr ail ers) and analyz ing how hou sing da mage in recent relevant di sast ers affec te d
2. Multifamily and affordable housing is much more
co mm unity resilien ce, we co nc lude th at 95 percent is
difficu lt and slower to rep lace than single-fam ily,
an ap pro priate goa l.
market-rate housing. Finan cin g and legal issues are so me of th e man y f act or s th at slow down thi s
San Francisco's emergency and interim housing
wo rk. Afte r th e Bay A rea's Loma Prieta eart hq uake
capacity
in 1989, it t ook seven t o 10 years t o rep lace all
Afte r a m agnitud e 7.2 ear t hquake on th e San
of th e dam ag ed affo rdable hou sing . If afforda ble
A ndreas Fau lt (see "D efin ing th e Exp ect ed
hou sing is lost. it is p ossibl e th at some might
Eart hq uake" on page 8 for mor e o n w hy we use th is
never be rep laced , leadi ng t o a significant shif t in
m etr ic), app rox imate ly 85 ,000 hou seho lds (ro ug hly
post-event popu lat ion .
25 percent of San Francisco's populat io n') could need int erim hou sing for seve ra l month s, gr adu ally dec reasing t o 45, 0 0 0 hou seho ld s (approx ima te ly
Kobe eart hq uake had hou sing losses greate r
t o 15,0 00 hou seho ld s (app rox ima te ly 5 percent )
th an 25 percent. Bot h events caused lar ge popul a-
San Francisco's Dep ar tm ent of Eme rge ncy
There are appro ximat ely 330,0 0 0 ho useholds in San
Francisco. The estimate of 85 ,0 00 househ olds comes
the Christc hurc h eart hq uakes in New Zealan d -
is 60 ,0 0 0 p ersons, o r roughl y 7.5 percent of
large losses in p opu lati on we re felt.
San Francisco 's ove rall pop ulat io n. Shelte ring this many peop le wo uld require maximi zin g shelte r space
Figure B.
at larg e co nve nt ion faci liti es like th e Moscon e Cente r
l aurie Jo hnso n and Lucas Eckroad , " Sum ma ry
tion losses and de mog raphic shifts . Even w here hou sing losses we re mu ch sma ller - suc h as
Managem ent est ima tes th at it s t op shelte r capac ity
from analysis of CAPSS HA ZUS out put dat a - see
2
losses of popu lation. Hurri cane Katrin a and th e
13 percent) by t wo yea rs afte r th e eart hq uake. Up co uld require int erim ho using fo r up t o five yea rs."
1
3. Large losses of housing lead to permanent
4. l nt eri m housing matters. Afte r th e 1994 Northrid ge eart hq uake in Los A nge les, mo st of th e
Report on the Cit y and Cou nty of San Francisco's Post-
and also making use of so me out door o r sof t-s ided
people disp laced we re able to reloc at e nearby
Disaster Int erim Housing Pol icy Planning Workshop,"
shelters t o sup pleme nt ind oor space . If we we re
du e t o th e area's pr e-earthquake 9.3 percent
July 11, 2001, San Francisco Departm ent of Eme rgency
o nly t o use indoor fa cilit ies, capac ity wo uld b e
vaca ncy rat e. Vaca nt rent al units serve d as int erim
Management. 3
Eemall corre spon dence with Robert Stengel , Depart-
ment of Emerge ncy Manag em ent , Septe mbe r 1, 20 11. 4
Vacancy rates in SF are currently 4% and are continu-
ing to tighten due t o high d emand fr om g row ing
redu ced t o 45,00 0 person s, or rou gh ly 5.5 pe rce nt
hou sing. In San Francisco, th e vaca ncy rat e is
of San Francisco's p opul ati on .'
t yp ically mu ch t ighter, current ly 4 percent .' mean-
Af te r th e eme rge ncy pe rio d has subside d,
ing t he city w ill need m or e act ive m easur es t o
employment secto rs, potentially exacerba t ing int erim
resid ent s w ill need t o find int erim hou sin g during
ho using needs should a d isaste r stri ke. First q uart er
th e per iod w hen rep airs t o da mage d hou sing are
We beli eve t hat San Francisco wo uld expe rience
bein g co m pleted and new repl acem ent hou sing
sig nif ica nt co nsequences if even on ly 5 p ercent of
2011. Data fro m Reis, Inc. as qu oted in " U.S. Housing Market Conditions: Pacific Regional Report, HUD Re-
hou se it s di splaced resid ent s ove r longer peri od s.
g ion IX - lst Quarte r 2011." Availabl e at www.huduser.
is co nst ructe d. San Francisco's op t ions for prov iding
it s hou sing un it s we re unu sabl e af te r an eart hq uake,
org/po rtaVregio nal.htm l.
int erim hou sing are seve rely co nstra ined and co uld
g iven th e city 's low vaca ncy rat es, densit y and
6
FEBRUARY 2012
T HE URBANI ST
FIGURE B
Even in disasters that damaged a relatively small number of
Comparison of Recent Disasters
housing units, cities experienced substantial outmigration.
Uninhabitable unitsasa percentage of housingin Event
Uninhabitable units
Lorna Prieta earthquake
11,SOO
theaffected area Mor e th an 1% Oak land
60 %
and San Francisco; 10% Wat sonv ill e and
1989
Santa Cruz
San Francisco Bay Area
Hurricane Andrew
Percentage of uninhabitable unitsthat were in multifamily buildings
80 ,000
6% in Sout h Dade County
29%
1992
Housing reconstruction Outmigration
timeframe
More th an 1,000 left
2 years for single-
Santa Cruz/Watso nvil le area. Oakland
market-r at e apart -
fam ily and most
reported 2,SOO new
ments, 7- 10 yea rs to
hom eless; similar num bers assumed for
rep lace/repair afford abl e housing
San Francisco.
units in 3 counties
Perma nent di spersio n
7S% of single-fam ily
of 2S,OOO-3 0,0 0 0
in 2 years, very
hou seho lds (exacer-
limited mu ltifami ly
bated by 21,0 0 0 jobs
Miami
lost w ith Homestead base closure)
Northridge earthquake
60,0 0 0
1995 Kobe, Japan
88%
Vall ey; 1.S% of Los Angeles
1994 Los Ange les
Kobe earthquake
3% of San Fern and o
Nearly 4S0,000
24% in th e six cent ral
housing units eit her
urb an war ds of th e
App rox imate ly SO%
Minim al: people
80% in 2 yea rs;
reho used in vaca nt units due to pre-
ty pically 2 years to
earthquake 9.3%
to reb uil d da maged
vaca ncy rate
uni ts
6.3% as of October
Limi ted const ruc tio n
1995 (9 months afte r th e eart hq uake)
in th e first 2 yea rs
parti ally or comp lete -
City of Kobe
Iy dest royed . Abo ut
(approx imate ly 1S%
S-lO years to reach
afte r th e eart hq uake; and exceed th e city's
400,000 peopl e in
in th e Cit y of Kobe
t he regi on left at
as a wh ole - w hich
rebuil ding goa l.
least temporari ly
include s some
Ult imat ely around
hom eless, and mor e than 316,000 peop le
suburban areas)
200,000 uni t s we re bui lt, rough ly doub le
sought pub lic shelter.
Hurricane Katrina
repair and 4 years
t he city 's goal.
100,0 0 0 uni ts dam -
SO% of all New
aged or dest royed
Orleans hou sehold s; 9-21%loss of
20 0 5 New Orleans
43%
80% of resid ent s init ially evac uate d;
13%fewer unit s in city
after S yea rs,
in 2010 and vaca ncy rate now 2S% (p re-
pop ulat ion by
po pulatio n had
storm rat e at 12%)
neig hborhoo d (wi t h
return ed to 80% of its pre-Katrina levels;
some as high as 49 %)
however, th is inc ludes significant in-migrat ion of new residents
Christchurch earthquakes 2010 and 2011 Christchu rch, New
Approximate ly
2-3% of Christc hurc h
Neg ligib le, probably
Tot al outmigration
1S,OOO homes will
and surrou nd ing
less th an 1%
co uld be roug hly
not be allowed to
di stri ct s
rebuil d
Zealand
30 ,000 (6-8 mon ths after t he 2011event); co uld increase as famili es resolve insurance claims
Source: Pl easesee p. 10, Footnotes 12-21 intheSPUR repo rt at www.sp ur.org/safe-enough
Too early to evaluate
DISASTER PLANNING
Defining the Expected Eart hq uake
sula segment of theSan Andreas Fault. We refer10 thisscenario asthe "expected earthquake" because anevent
Forthepurposes of defining resilience
of thismagnitude can beexpected -
anddevelopingmitigationpolicies to
conservatively but reasonably - to occur
achieveit, SPUR uses one of thescenario
once duringtheuseful life of astructure
earthquakes developedbytheCommunity
or system, and morefrequently if the
Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS):
structure isrenovated to servemore than
a magnitude7.2earthquake on thepenln-
oneor twogenerations.
limit ed capac ity fo r int eri m housing. If more housing were damag ed, t he pote ntial social and econo mic consequence s coul d be devastat ing. How will San Francisco's neighborhoods be impacted by the expected earthquake? After a magn itud e 7.2 earthquake on th e San Andreas Fault, approximate ly 25 percent of San Francisco's housing unit s wou ld be unsafe fo r resident s to occupy. In ot her word s, we currently expec t 75 percent of residences to be available for sheltering in place aft er th e exp ect ed eart hquake. SPUR has refined estim ates of housing damage provided by th e Commun ity Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS) so t hat th ey could be repo rt ed in greater detail by neighborhood and st ructure t ype." The analysis makes clear that housing in every San Francisco neighborhood wou ld be damaged heavily by t he expected eart hquake. The neighborhood s t hat will see th e most damage are those wit h large amounts of multi family housing, which is genera lly more vulnerable th an smaller residences, and th ose t hat have significant areas of soft or liquef iable soils, which can exper ience magn ified shaking and gro und failure .
5
Defining build ing perfo rmance in terms o f shelter
in place is a new concept. The CAPSS project used th e best info rmat ion and me thods available at the time to estimate t he amo unt of housing that would be usable aft er an earth quake. This task fo rce has now develop ed impr oved methods t o ident if y wh ich resid ences could be used to shelter in place. but th is new approac h has not yet bee n app lied t o San Francisco's bu ilding stoc k. The analys is presented in
this report is based on the CAPSS analysis. We are hop efu l that an imp roved analysis wi ll be conducted som etim e in the future using th e me th od s developed by t his task fo rce, produ cing upd ate d and refined estimat es of housing d amage .
6
This assumes a hig h standard o f retrofit, referr ed
t o as Retrof it Scheme 3 in the CAPSS report "Here
SPUR's Recommendations 1. Adopt recovery targets for the housing sector as a who le, based on what is necessary for citywide resilience in a large but expected earthquake. SPUR recommends 95 percent shelter in place as th e appropriate goa l for San Francisco. This target should be ado pt ed by th e City and Count y of San Francisco, eith er in th e Communit y Safety Element of th e General Plan or as a stan d-alone piece of legislation adopte d by th e Board of Supervisors. The city should set a 30 -year time fr ame to reach thi s go al, mirroring the 30 -year time frame ident ified to implement t he CAPSSrecommendations.
Tod ay - Here Tomo rrow : Ear thqua ke Safety for Sofl-Story Build ings" ( ATe 52-3 ). There are 4,400 wood-frame buil dings w it h three o r more sto ries and fi ve or mo re units in San Francisco, an unkn ow n number of wh ich have a so ft -st ory cond itio n.
8
FEBRU ARY 2012
2. l mplement the Commun ity Act ion Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS) recommended mandatory soft-story retrofit program.
Estim ated incr ease in shelter-in-place capacity:
5-6 p ercent As SPUR not ed in its 2009 resilient cit y rep ort, th e single most imp ortant ste p San Francisco can tak e to increase its resilience is to adop t a mandatory retr ofit program for wood-fram e soft -story build ings with t hree stories or more and five units or mor e. If th ese build ings were seismically retro fitted , we estimate that 80 percent of city resident s would be able to shelter in place after th e expected eart hquake." 3. Develop soft-story retrofit program fo r sma ller soft-story bu ild ings . Estim ated incr ease in shelter-in -place capacity: 6-9 p ercent Smaller wood-frame soft-s tory build ings also pose a major challenge to San Francisco's resilience. These buildings are represented in large numbers in the Sunset and Richmond distr icts, both of which are highly vulnerable to the expected eart hquake. A retrofit prog ram is needed for these build ings as well. 4. Deve lop retrofit programs for other vu lnerab le hous ing types that impact San Francisco 's resilience and also have the potential to severe ly inj ure or kill people. Estimated increase in shelte r-in-place capacity: 7percent There are a numb er of build ing typ es used for housing, such as non-d uct ile concrete build ings and unreinforced masonr y buildi ngs, t hat will not serve as shelte r-in-p lace housing and also have the pot ent ial t o be significant ly damaged, causing injur y and significant loss of lif e. As we do not curr ent ly know how many of t hese buildi ngs exist, th e cit y should beg in by developing a reliabl e inventor y of th em. S.Focus on deve lop ing an int erim hous ing strategy for San Francisco. The cit y should complete it s interim housing plannin g proc ess and adhere to its obje ct ives to keep as many resident s as possibl e in th eir homes; keep resident s wit hin their neighborhoods; keep peopl e wit hin th e city ; and fin ally, if resident s are relocated, have a plan to bring th em back.
II. What engineering criteria should be used to determine whether a home has adequate she lter-in-p lace capacity? While shelter-in-place capacity is needed after t he
THE URBAN IST
Seismically Vulnerable Structures: An Engineer's Rogues' Gallery earthquake, the ability to assess an individual building's expected performance is needed beforehand. SPUR recognizes that San Francisco's resilience requires more than basic safet y during the earth quake. It requires that buildings remain habit able and repairable so that occupants can live safely in th em even before repairs begin. . To support the move to resilience-based earthquake planning, the cit y's existing structuralevaluation criteria need to be revisited. Specifically, the cit y needs to determine what shelter in place means from an engineering per spect ive and t o develop a crit eria for analyzing now, before th e earthquake, whether a building is likely to serve as shelt er-in-place housing aft erwa rd. We recommend that feasible shelter-in-place evaluat ion crit eria be based on existing st andards already famili ar to practi cing engineers and code officials. Those standards should account for:
Unrelnforcedmasonrywasprohibited after the1933Long Beach earthquake but thousandsof older buildingsremained.The most commonhazardinvolvesunbraced parapetsfallingontosidewalks and peeling theupper wallsaway fromthe roof.
Soft-storywood frame. Anabundance of wall openings inthe first story, typically for garage bays or storefront windows, makes these buildingsvulnerabletocollapseas theflexiblefirststorysways sideways.
House over garage. Thisisthesmaller, single-fa milyversionof thesoft-story problem. Ona25-foot lot thereisusually enoughwall areatoaccommodatearetrofit sufficient tostiffenthestructure to prevent collapse.
-7 Cost-effec t ive pro cedures; -7 The range of residential structure t ypes in San
Francisco; -7 Differences betw een new and existing structures
Non-ductileconcrete frame. UnlikeURM or soft-storybuildings, NDC structuresare hard tospot fromthesidewalkand their evaluationand retrofit canrequire relatively sophisticatedengineering.
(unlike most building code provisions); and -7 Nonstr uctur al conditions that affec t shelter-in-
place habit ability. We recommend th e use of the national st andard called Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings,? also known as ASCE 31. To determine whether a building has shelterin-p lace capacity, the ASCE 31criteria should be modified to consider only the types of damage that are critical for sheltering in place with reference to approved maps of relevant hazards and expected infrastruct ure perfor mance.
Tilt-up.Thechiefweak spot inpre-1995 tilt-ups istheconnectionbetweenthe rigidwallsandtheflexibleroof.When that con nectionfails, theconcretepanel wall fallsaway fromthebuildingand theroof collapses.
SPUR's Recommendat ions 6. Furt her develop shelter-in-p lace evaluat ion
Cripplewall.The short woodstud wall aroundahouse'scrawl space. Lackingstiff plasterfinishesor roompartitions, perimeter cripplewalls offer inadequatesupport. They are easily retrofitted byadding plywoodsheatinginsidethe crawl space.
crite ria for volunt ary, mandatory and tr igge red seismic work on residential buildings.
We have described one approach to developing shelter-in-place evaluation criteria. However, much work is yet to be don e. SPUR recommends that the Off ice of the City Administrato r, th e Departm ent of Building Inspecti on and the Departm ent of Emergency Management furth er develop shelter-in-place evaluation criteria.
Nonstructural components. Any part of a building that'sheavy, brittleor looselyattached isvulnera bletodamage.Theheavy partscanbelifethreatening. Gaslinesand gas-firedequipment can start fires.Therest cantakeabuildingout ofservice.
7. As draft crite ria are developed , ge nerate a new loss estimate for the magnitude 7.2 San Andreas and othe r scenario earthq uakes. ' ASCE 2003
TH E URBAN IST
Our best esti mate of housing loss and it s impact
FEB RUAR Y 20 12
9
DISASTER PLANNING
Wh at Is A CSE 31? ASCE 31 isanationalstandard for seismic evaluation of existing buildings developed bytheAmerican Society of Civil Engineers(ASCE). ASCE 31's main featureisaset of checkliststhat guidetheengineerto look for critical deficienciesin abuilding'sstructure,
on recovery (based on t he CAPSSdata referenced above) does not account specifica lly for what we have now def ined as shelter-in-place performance . Wi th the new definit ion in place, and wit h draf t engineering crite ria in pr ogr ess, th e Depart ment of Building Inspect ion and th e Departm ent of Emergency Management should und ert ake a new loss est imat e focused on shelte r-in-p lace perf orm ance.
architectureand systems, based on observeddamage patterns frompast earthquakes. With these checklists, supplemented byengineeringcalculations, abuildingcan beevaluated with respect to howwecan expect it to performin a futureexpectedearthquake: whetherit will likely besafeand occupiable; safe and repairable; or not safe. Because ASCE 31 does not directly address thequestion of shelter in place aswedefine it here, weareproposing waysto adapt it 10 thisnewthinking aboutearthquake resilience.
FIGURE C
Phased Habitability Standards Following an Earthquake After an earthquake, even housingthatis safeenough to occupy will not meet exist-
III. What needs to be done to enable residents to she lter in place for days and months after a large earthquake? SPUR believes it is crit ical to defi ne alte rnat ive shelter-in-place housing sta ndards t hat are safe enough to allow peop le to st ay in th eir hom es but not so str ingent t hat ot herw ise safe bui ldings will be deemed unsuit able for occupancy. How do we set a post-earthquake standard that is "safe enough" ? We need to define alternativ e standar ds that wo uld supe rsede regul ar code requ irement s and sta ndards dur ing a housing-emerge ncy period dec lared by th e city afte r a major earthquake. Such an emergency period might exte nd for days, weeks or long er. Shelter- in-place sta ndards should be phased, wit h th e expec tat ion that repairs need to be made over tim e to restore habitabilit y. Certain sta ndards th at would be considered acceptab le immediately foll owin g t he eart hquake (such as using port able outdoo r toil ets) wo uld not be considered acceptable three month s afte r the eart hquake. The shelter-inplace st andards should def ine which needs will be
ing codes. A phasedstandard needsto be definedin thispost-earthquakeperiod.
met by th e buil ding itsel f and whi ch will be met outside the building fo r each t ime phase. Those resources th at must be met outside t he building will need to be provided at a neighborhood service center located in close pr oximity to shelter-in-place housing. Figure C illust rates th e idea of alternative habitabilit y sta ndards th at would apply in emergencies but graduall y revert to norma l code requir ement s. The blue line repr esent s th e code st andards for habitability th at norm ally apply. When an eart hquake occurs, some damage might result, but if th e damag e is light , it wo uld not affec t th e city 's overall resilience, so no relaxation of t he normal sta ndards wou ld be justif ied. A declared housing emergency, however, indicates th at damag e - and possibly housing loss is significant enough to just ify special measures to speed response and recovery. The red line repr esent s the minimum sta ndard to be met within a residence. The pink shaded area repr esents elements that will be provid ed outsi de of th e home by a neighb orhood service center. The red shaded area represents the actual loss of habit able housing. As repairs are made, the loss is recovered, and buildings retu rn to normal.
Minimum habitability requirements for occupancy after the earthquake SPURhas identified fiv e diff erent post-earthquake t ime period s and defin ed t he major habitabi lit y requirement s for each: 1. The imm edi ate post-earthq uake period 2. One week aft er th e eart hquake 3. One month after th e eart hquake 4. Three months aft er the eart hquake 5. Aft er the declared housing emergency is over
CODE STANDARD FOR HABITABILITY
Increasingly robu st habitability standards wi ll need to be met in each phase, as described in Figur e D.
Building evaluation and inspection Afte r a major earthquake, engineers and design professionals come fr om all over the count ry to help conduct form al buildi ng inspectio ns using what is known as th e ATC-20 evaluat ion procedure. They evaluate bui lding st ruct ures and t ag them depe nding on their level of damage : Red tag s mean a build ing is unsafe and should not be entered or occupied; yellow tags indicate rest ricted use, meaning a build ing eit her requir es furth er evaluat ion or is okay to occupy ex-
HABITABILI TY ELEMENTS PROVIDED BY NEIGHBORHOOD CENTE RS ~ ' . . . . . . . . . .~
...HABITABILITY ELEMENTS TO BE MET WI THIN RESIDENCE
DAYS
EARTHQ UAKE OCC URS
10
FEBR UA RY 20 12
EMERGENCY DECLARED
WEEKS
MONTHS EN D O F HOU SING EMERGENCY
cept for designat ed areas; and green tags mean that no unsafe condit ions were fo und or suspected. Shelte r-in-p lace evaluat ions are not a buildin g t agging program . Instead, th ey wi ll provide immediate
THE URBA NI ST
FIGURE 0
Shelter-in-Place Alternative Habitability Standards
Electricity
A post-earthquake alternative standard will need to take into account the safety of the housing unit, the need for weather protection and the availability of utilities.
Gas Water Firealarmsyste ms and otherrequiredalarms Emergencyexit illumination
1".
The buildingmustbesafe
Immediate postearthquake period
Resid entswill not bepermitted to occupybuildin gsor portionsof buildingsposted asUnsafe(red tag) or Secured. Pri ortoaformal inspection byanauthorized person, own ersandten ants may selfinspect using asimplified checklist prov ided by thecity.
1 month after the earthquake
conditionsabove, plus the following.
Must work30 daysfollowing restorationofservice
Meet all of the
Sewer andtoilet Mustwork inhom e30 daysfollowing restoration of service. Where sewers arenot workingor pipesareleaking,wastemust bebagged, treatedwithchemicalsand disposed of according to localinstructions. Formore information, see sewersmart.org/disrupted.html
Th eremustbe at least oneusableexit pathoftravel ava ilable from everyoccupiedarea . Blockage by buildingcontentsor other nonstructuralelements thatcan readily becleared isacceptableasa usabl epath of travel. Portablefireextinguishers Must bein placeif required for multifamily residences
II 1 week after the eart hquake
Weather protection: roof Weather protection: walls Weatherprotection:windows May beatemporary plasticcove ring Provisionofabuilding address May beatemporary address placard
Electricallight: at least one fixedorcord-and-plugtype per room Hot watersupply Refrigerationforfood
Automaticfiresprinklers, sprinkler wet standpipes andfire pumps Must work90 daysfollowingrestorationof water service Entrance doors andhardware/locks Must work 90 daysafter theearthquake
3 months after the earthquake
Secondexit, if required Fireescapes are acceptableas second exits
Meet all of the
Meet all of the
Heatingservice
conditions above,
conditionsabove,
Must work 90 daysfollowing restorationof utility service
plus the following.
Smokedetectors CO,detectors Battery-powered okay
plus the following.
After Elevators inbuildingsoffiveor morestories Must wo rksevendays following restorationof elec trical service
emergency is over
guidance for residents as to whet her nonstru ctur al and related conditio ns are suitab le for cont inued occupancy. Resident s will need to review shelter-inplace condit ions wit hin 24 hour s of an eart hquake so th at th ey know whether th ey can remain in th eir homes. Meanwhil e, it may t ake a period of several days or weeks for inspect ors and design professionals to undert ake ATC-20 evaluat ions. Shelter-in-place standards need to be clear enough so that most residents wi ll be able to assess their own buildings. But many resident s will need help and guidance in applying shelter-in-p lace standards to th eir buildin gs wh ile th ey wait for design professionals to complete an ATC-20 evaluation. Private community volunteers can be tr ained t o help residents dete rmine if shelter-in-place sta ndards are met.
All normalhabitability requirementswill applyat theend of the declared housing-em ergen cy period.
impl emented in order to encourage residents to remain in their homes. The followin g recommendations will help to achieve thi s goal. 8. Create a San Francisco interdepartmental shelte r- in-p lace task force. The Mayor 's Office should create an int erd epartment al task force th at will ensure coo rdinat ion wit h th e Departm ent of Building Inspecti on, th e San Francisco Fire Departm ent, th e Departm ent of Public Health and th e Departm ent of Emergency Management. Ot her agencies to be invol ved should include th e Departm ent of Public Works, th e Mayor' s Office on Disabilit y, th e Mayor 's Office on Housing and ot hers. 9. Prepare and adopt regu lations that allow for the use of shelter-in-place habitabili ty standards in a
SPUR's Recomme ndat ions A post-ea rt hquake alte rnat ive shelter-in- place
habit abilit y sta ndard should be esta blished and TH E URBANI ST
declared housing-emergency per iod.
Shelter-in-p lace sta ndards may be ado pted in adva nce of an emerge ncy or be completed and
FEBRUARY 20 12
11
FIGURE E
Liquefaction and Lands lide Zones in San Francisco San Francisco is vuln erabl e to seismic hazards afte r an eart hquake. including liqu efaction (wh ere wet ground is shaken to th e point that it behaves like a liquid ) and landslide (w hen a slope becom es unstabl e).
Source: Seismic Hazard Zones. City andCounty of San Francisco," (California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines andGeology. November 17, 2000) http:// gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/ download/pdf!ozn_sf.pdf
80
Lincoln
12 FEBRUARY 20 12
TH E URBANI ST
DISASTER PLA NN ING
ready to adopt as part of the city's emergency measures. Adm inistrative bulletins and similar regulations should be adopted by various agencies to detail how code requirements and polic ies will need to be imp lemented . These should include comp laint, inspect ion and enforcement procedures. During a dec lared emergency, a separate housing emergency may also be declared, which wou ld allow t he enfo rcement of the alternative shelter-in-place habit ability sta ndards. A declared housing emergency may cont inue as a special emergency period past th e general declared emerge ncy period and may be app lied to specific areas where housing is most severely impact ed. 10. Develop a plan for impl ement ati on of a shelter - in- place progra m.
This impl ement ati on plan should include th e creatio n of public tra ining materia ls, coor dinat io n wit h existi ng post-disaster building evaluatio n proced ures and the stockpiling of materia ls needed to achieve shelter in place in t he post disaster period. A. Preparation of public training materials The int eragency task force recomme nded above should develop simp le and clear t raining mate rials fo r residents to help th em deter mine whet her or not t hey can shelter in place. These should include a set of graphic illust rati ons and a shelter-in- place checklist, which should be incorporated in out reach and tr aining materials to building ow ners and resident s to inf orm t hem of shelter-in-place habitability requirement s, standards, inspecti on procedures and repair expectatio ns. These could include such elements as door tags that say " I'm OK!" or " I Need Help." Addit ionally, residents could receive special t raini ng in shelter in place prior to an event, much like th e curre nt Neighborhood Emergency Response Team (N ERT) program . B. Coordination with existing post-disaster evaluation procedures
After an earthquake, professionals will come from all over the country to help evaluate buildings using the ATC-20 evaluation procedure. If San Francisco's evaluation proced ures are modified to foc us on shelte r in place, ATC-2 0 inspect ors will need to be trained in San Francisco-based shelterin-place habitabil ity sta ndards. C. Storing materials necessary to allow shelter in-place standards to be met
THE URBA NI ST
The city will need to have certain materia ls, such as plastic sheeting for weather protection, on hand for use after a major earthquake. SPUR recommends that the Department of Building Inspect ion, the Depart ment of Emergency Management and the Department of Public Health coord inate to develop a list of th ese materials and th e quant iti es that will be needed. 11. Develop plans for neighborhood sup port cente rs to prov ide necessary support for shelte r- in-p lace communities.
Neighborhood support centers are not emergency shelters. Rat her, th ey are resource centers near residences t hat suppo rt and encourage people to stay in th eir homes by providing essent ial services and information and ensuring t hat th e balance of human needs, outside t he shelterin-place home, is met. A sto re, restaurant, small business or religious or social facilit y could provide necessary local space. A large garage or other covered area could be equipped to provide these services. Neighborhood support centers will need to be staffed and equipped to provide information and services such as distribution of supp lies, water and food; and referrals to com munity serv ice orga nizations and agencies.
The Path to Resilience It is hard to plan fo r t he unknown. We know that fut ure eart hquakes will damage t he Bay Area, but we don 't know where, when or how large th ese eart hquakes will be. But t here are t hings t hat San Francisco can do now to help it s buildin gs surv ive th e expec ted eart hquake and enable it s resident s to stay and rebuild t heir homes. The steps we propose aren't easy. They require money, po lit ical capita l and coordinat ion among many pu blic agencies. Yet th e risk of doing noth ing is enormous . If San Francisco does not take the steps outlined in thi s repo rt, the city wi ll need to find ways to provide interim housing for approximately 85,000 households - rough ly 25 percent of its population . There are not nearly enough shelter beds and interim housing capacity to meet t his demand . San Franciscans need to be able to shelter in place. Throug h a comb inat ion of ret rofit s and careful planning we can make San Francisco's housing safe enough to stay. It won 't happen overnigh t. But if we don't begin work now, we wo n't be ready when the next large eart hq uake st rikes. SPUR believes th at is a risk too great to t ake. •
FEBR UARY 20 12
13
URBAN F IELD NOT ES
Case Study #45:
China's New Biking Culture What role will th e bicycle p lay in creating a more susta inab le future for China? A land scap e d esigne r bikes f rom Beiji ng to Shanghai to find o ut. Caseworker: Amirah Shahid In Septe mbe r 20 11, I biked more than 1,000 miles from Beijing to Shanghai. This was no mere joy ride: I was tr yin g to gain a first hand understandi ng of the bicyc le's role in Chinese life while investi gatin g how cycling culture and bike infrast ruct ure can be integrated into efficie nt and sustainable tr ansportat ion design. I pedaled through a number of dramatically diffe rent communit ies, from th e dense, teeming mun icipa lit ies of Beijing, Tianjin and Shanghai to sweeping expanses of rice fields dotted wit h cows. I headed to China wit h a multit ude of questions. As the country cont inues to grow, how can it accommodate bot h cars and bikes? Cars are not affordable for many Chinese citizens, and public tra nsportation in China's largest cit ies can only accommo date 25 percent of th e pop ulation. Wh at kind of role can th e bicycle play to guarantee equal access for everyo ne? What sort of highways, art erials and bike paths are needed to make sure peop le can efficient ly and safely tr avel between established areas and th e many new developm ent s being const ructe d? How can t he necessary infrast ructure be smart ly incorporated into landscape design while minimizing harmfu l environmenta l impacts? Before I embarked on my three -week bicyc le jou rney, I was, t ruth be told, terrified. But as soon as I began rid ing out of Beijing, I realized this place was made for bicycles. For nearly two centuries, China has placed a heavy emphasis on bikes as a primary mod e of t ransportat ion. But t oday t he conf lict bet ween t raditi on and mod ernization leaves Chinese bicycle cult ure at a crossroads, where it could be overta ken by new tec hnology or grow into an impor tant part of everyday urban life. Urban designers work ing in China can playa role in decid ing which way t he bicycle will go by determining hierarchies of circulation and providi ng spaces for amenit ies critical to thriving urban bike culture. Successfu l int egr ation will help lead China to ward a more sustainable futur e.
14 FEB RUARY 20 12
THE URBAN IST
Bike Security Since th e economic refor m initiated in t he early 1980 s, bicy cles have becom e a major t arget of criminal act ivit ies in China because of th eir availability, ut ility and monet ary value and because of th e diff iculty of securing th em. Concerns about bike security ho ld many peop le back f rom using th eir bikes as a primary mod e of tr ansport ation. Programming pub lic plazas wit h secure bike parkin g - using bike valet s and parking guards offers one solut ion.
f- Bike Maintenance Proper support and wor king machines are essent ial to maintain a lively bike culture for both uti litarian and recreational pur poses. Bike sto res and mechanics were everywhere along my rout e, set up in everyt hing fr om a neon- lit retail sto re to a ragt ag roadside stand.
f- Controlled Traffic Bikes must share the road wit h cars, pedest rians, motorcycles and elect ric bikes in China's urban centers. Infrast ruct ure designed for each of th ese users gives everyo ne - including cyclists a sense of contro l and belo nging. Confusion and accident rates are reduced when bike-specific t raffi c contro ls are imp lemented .
Cycling Culture A poster advert ises an event put on by a Beijing bike sto re. As t he pop ularit y of cars gr ows in China, th ere is an increasing st igma against two -w heeled conveyance. Making bikes coo l again is an import ant step in establishing a sustainable t ransport ation net work. This shop, wit h help from a bike-cent ric nonprofit, organizes cycling events and races to help cata lyze a cult ure centered on bikes, wi th a parti cular focus on youth involve ment. •
. Amirah Shahid isa landscapedesigner in SWA's San Francisco office. Thistrip was inspired byher loveof cycling, the large amount of new developmentwork shesees happening inChina, and theneedto form apersona l relationshipwith Ch inaasasite and culture.
THE URBAN IST
FEBRUA RY 20 12 15
CITY NEWS FROM AROUND THE GLOBE
Urban Drift Parkand Grow Vancouver, Brit ish Columbiabased Valcent Prod ucts has part nered with EasyPark to construc t a 6,OOO -square-foot greenhouse atop a cent ral down town Vancouver parking garage. The greenhouse is expected to produce 95 metr ic tons of at least 20 variet ies of lettu ces, herbs and greens each year - equal to roughly 16 acres of California fields. Due to it s location, t he roofto p greenho use wi ll require no art ificial lig hti ng and only low -carbon, hydroelec trically powe red heat during the colder mont hs. City officia ls ju mped at th e project , confident that it will move t hem closer to th eir go al of becoming th e wo rld 's greenest city by 2020. "High-tech Greenhouse Planned for City Parkade Rooftop:' The Vancouver Sun, 12/ 14/ 2011
l' Shipping Included l' But Will It Be PackedFlat? What wi li lKEA t hink of next? The answer is St rand East, a complete neighborhood in East London. Land Prop, an IKEA partn er, will begin const ruct ion in 2013 on shops, cafes, 1,20 0 residences and a 350- room hotel. According to the Huffing ton Post UK, "The aim is to create a fri endly neighbourhood idyll, with courtyards and a pub lic square to encourage interact ion, and the unsight ly aspects of life will be kept to a minim um. Cars will be parked und erground and rubb ish will be discreet ly disposed of through underground t unnels. A school, healt h surgery and nursery will be built to minimise inconveni ent trav el." Housing prices have not yet been determined.
Boxpark has just opened for business on East London's chic Shoreditch High Street. While not the first project to use shipping containers for commercia l use, Bo xpark is the wor ld's first ma ll to make use of the eco-friendly crates (though denizens of Brooklyn's Dekalb Market might quibble). Anna Surgenor, senior technical advisor at the UK 's Green Building Council , notes that " 'embodied' carbon emissions - all the carbon released into the atmosphere when the building materials were manufactured in the first place" are often forgotte n when calcu lat ing energy efficiency. In addition to preserving timber resources, the containers are innovative, as th ey allow businesses to easily pick up and move to more lucrative locations. "Crate Expectations: Shipping Containers Usedfor First 'Pop-up' Shopping Mall," CNN.com. 12/9 /2011
"Strand East: IKEA Hopes to Build an Entire l ondon
Neighbourhood," Huffington Post UK, 10/21/2011
The Big Madrid Dig Burying half a dozen miles of t he obst ruct ive M-30 expressway in Madrid, Spain, has allowed th e city t o create a six-m ile- long park, connect ing previo usly disjointed neighbo rhoods to th e city center with dozens of new metro and light-rail stat ions. Four years and $5 billion in the making, t he Madrid Rio boasts wad ing pools, gardens, ball fields and miles of pedestrian and bike pat hs and bridges while preserving the histor ical authen ticity of Spain's capital. This transformation follows in th e direction of cit ies such as San Francisco, Boston and Seoul in reclaiming waterf ronts and tr ansforming fr eeways into pub lic space.
Greeningthe Windy City In just a few years, Chicago will be home to th e largest urban park in America: t he Millennium Reserve. Illinois' plan for th e 140,0 0 0 acres of austere, post-indu strial land wo uld dwarf what is current ly th e largest urban park in America: Phoenix's Sout h Mountain Park, wh ich consists of a relative ly palt ry 16,000 arid, ratt lesnake-rid den acres. Wit h $17 million in st ate funding already in hand, Governor Pat Quinn is hopeful that the project will acquire private funding , as th e reserve is expected to boost t he economy and create hundred s of jobs. "A Plan for America's Largest Urban Park," The Atlant ic, 12/19/2 011
"In Madrid's Heart, Park BloomsWhere a Freeway Once Blighted," New York Times, 12/ 26/2011
16 FEBRUARY 2012
TH E URBAN IST
MEM BER PROFILE
On the Waterfront (and Beyond) Richard Marshall JointCEO, Woods Bagot
Rich ard Ma rshal l jumped feet first into urban d esign. His very f irst project af t er graduating from th e University of Ad el aid e wa s to d esign a 5,OOO-acre mast er pl an for the strang ely nam ed Multifuncti on Poli s. A joint initiative between the Japanese and Au stra lian governments to cr eat e a scie nce and techno logy city dedicated to t echno logy in nov ati o n, the project wa s a dream jo b for Mars ha ll and kicked off a lifel on g fasc ination w ith larg er-scal e issues of p lanning, design and urban development. Today, Marshal l is joi nt CEO of Woods Bagot, a 142-ye ar-old d esign and co nsu lt ing f irm , whi ch rec ently add ed t o its global ros t er with offices in New York and San Francisco. " We see [ San Fra nc isc o] as an ec o no mic hub t o global op portunities," Marshall says . "A n eli t e city on t he W est Coa st of t he U.S. and on th e eastern bo rd er of A sia centra l to our 'one g lo bal studio ' bu sin ess st rateg y."
You've workedon master planning projects in Australia and throughout Asia. What can we learn from those endeavors? A lot can be learned fro m their economic policies and market ing strateg ies, where urban planning is seen as a key componen t. Austr alian cities vie for the stat us of "mo st livable cit y." So Austra lian planners act ively look to increase lifestyle and cultural amenit ies as well as increase th e resident ial densit ies in orde r to create vibrant, rich living environments. Cities in Asia und erstand t hat planni ng and urban design are key components to branding a cit y's success. In this way cities are essentially compet ing wit h each ot her for globa l investment and resources.
T HE URBAN IST
Are you seeing any evidence that the United States is following those cues? In European, Canadian or Aust ralian cit ies where livability indices are high, th ere have been broad and government-spo nsored redevelopment init iatives focused on cultural and lifestyle ameniti es linked with eff orts to increase inner-cit y housing. In the U.S., th ere are some signs of thi s but to be honest thi s has slipped recent ly, and cert ainly with th e demise of redevelopment aut horit ies one wonders how this will happen. There is a kind of competition in th e United States between suburban and urban locations. The price advantages of suburban locat ions win out, meaning t hat successful companies are quite happy locating
th ere, robbing cent ral urban situati ons of th e possibi lit y of muchneeded revenue. Now it is the wo rkforce t hat is demanding certain cult ural and social amenities and compa nies are fo llow ing the ir lead. The redevelopm ent south of Mission is a great examp le of young tech wor kers wanting to be in San Francisco rather th an dow n th e peninsula. This is not somet hing the government created, but it 's so much more interesti ng!
You wrote a book on waterfronts in postindustrial cities. How do its observations relate to what's happening with San Francisco's waterfront? Four t hemes form t he basis of Waterfronts in Post-Industrial
Cities: connectio n to th e waterf ront, remakin g th e city, po rt and cit y relat ions, and new wate rf ront s in histo ric cit ies. As cit ies shift from industr ial t o serv ice economies, a major aspect of their success will be th e qu alit y of th eir public spaces. This is wh ere the waterf ront plays a crit ical role. The waterfro nt is t hat place in a city wh ere design ers and planners can create conte mpo rary visio ns of th e city and, in doing so, artic ulate values th at cont ribute towa rd urban cult ure. [ Look at th e] fascinat ing event that is t he Am ericas Cup. In and of itself it is not a permanent solut ion to waterf ront rejuvenation. But it doe s br ing a certain spectacle and will hop efu lly bring wit h it op portunities to address t he public realm and may lead to broader acceleratio n of tourism and hospitalit y project s wit hin t he cit y in much the same way as hosting th e Olympics creates opport unit ies (albeit at a diff erent scale). •
Above, Richard Marshall and someexamples of Woods Bagot's global portfolio of design and planning work.
FEBRUARY 2012 17
32nd Annual Good Government Awards
Monday March 19, 2012 5:30 PM
San Francisco City Hall spur.org/ggawards
Please join Mayor Ed w in M. Lee and event chair, Wade Rose , of Catholic Healthcare West, in honoring this year's Pub lic Manageria l Exce llence Award winners: STEVE N CAS TILE Golf and Turf Op erations Manager, Recreati on and Park Departm ent
HARLAN L. KELLY J R. Assista nt General Manage r, Infrastructu re, SF Pub lic Ut iliti es Commissio n
JOCELY N Q UINTOS Business Services Div ision Manager, Finance and Administration, Depar tment of Publi c Wo rks
MUNI CI PAL TAX A UTOMATION TEAM Off ice of th e Treasurer and Tax Collect or: Darrell Ascano, Tajel Shah, Rebecca Villareal-Mayer
SFpa rk PILOT PRO GRAM San Francisco Municip al Transport ation Agency: Lorraine Fuqua, Steven Lee, Jay Primus, George Reyno lds
CHA IR Wad e Ros e
+
Catholic Healthcare West
HON O RA RY MFAC CO MMITTEE T he Honorable Edwin M . Lee T he Honorabl e Gav in Newsom Th e H o norable Will ie L . Brown, Jr. T he Honorabl e Fran k Jord an The Honora bl e A rt A gnos The Honorable D ia n ne Fei nstein M rs. Gi na Mosco ne MFAC FIN A NCE CO MM ITTEE CHA IR Ch r is Gru w ell , Pre si d en t, Plati n um Advisors
2 0 12 MFA C Award Winners, Event Chair, Wade Rose and Mayo r Ed win M. Lee
ABOUT MFAC A p roject o f San Fra nc isco Planning & Urban Research (S PUR), the Municipal Fiscal Ad visory Co m m ittee ( MFAC) has been at th e service of eac h San Fra ncisco ma yor for more than 30 ye ars. Through a network of co m m unit y par tn er s, MFAC co nnec ts city d ep artm ents to p ro bo no co nsu lt ing resources to help im p rove city ser vi ces .
SPONSORSHIPS AVAILABLE Tickets $85/person Visit spur.org/ggawards or call 415.644.4288
INT RO DU CI NG...
New
Faces at SPUR
Naomi Grunditz, Development Intern While purs uing her bache lor's in sociology at Yale, Naomi wo rked at the Yale Center for British Art as a publications and exhibition assistant. Along with her SPUR inte rnship, Naom i is t he med ia and marketing manager fo r Power of Two Marri age, a nonprof it that provid es online relat ionship educat ion. She is passionate abo ut publ ic art and is especially fond of th e Raygun Gothi c Rocket installation at Pier 14, which she helped construct as a memb er of th e arts collect ive Five Ton Crane.
Jacob Kraemer, Front Desk Ambassador In May 2010 Jacob received his bachelor' s in histor y, wit h a focus on urban st ud ies, f rom Columbia Universit y. Along wi th vol unteering at SPUR, Jacob is a researcher and blogger for the Bank Migrat ion, a campaig n to inform and educate peop le about community banking . In his dow nt ime. he can ofte n be fou nd eat ing salted carame l ice cream from Bi-Rite Creamery or nerding out abo ut vernacula r architecture, Art Deco and land-use history.
Nathan Marsh, Front Desk Ambassador Nathan comes to San Francisco afte r a sti nt in France, where he was an architec t ural intern for Marc Vit toz, an architec t and develop er working to ope n one of th e fir st modul ar hom e fact ori es th ere. What Alabama-born Nath an espec ially appreciates
l' Tomiquia Moss Community Planning Policy Director Prior to joining th e sta ff at SPUR, Tomi qui a Moss served on the SPUR Board of Directors . She was th e founding projec t dir ector of the San Francisco Community Justi ce Center (CJC) of t he Superior Court of Califo rnia, City & County of San Francisco. Prior to t he position with the Superior Court , she was the director of community organizing for t he Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation . Tomiquia has been a social worker and community activist for more than a decade . She has been an advocate for social just ice and economic equality in many comm unit ies around the country. She attended the Universit y of Denver School of Social Work and holds a maste r's degree in public adm inistration from Golden Gate Universit y. Growing up in a rural Ohio town fueled her love for cities. "Cities are magnetic," she exp lains. "They offer a rich cult ural exper ience full of opportunit y, which is why I love being an urbanist:'
THE URBA NI ST
about his new home is th e comb ination of vivid, diverse neighb orh ood s within a few minutes' walk of each other, and th e fact th at th e city 's many parks and waterways are available fo r long bike rid es or kayaking t rips.
Samantha Roxas, Front Desk Ambassador Prior to joining SPUR, Samant ha worked at City Hall as the legislative and admini strative int ern for Supervi sor David Chiu and was also the community leaders and city partners liaison for San Francisco State University's Institute for Civic and Commu nity Engagement. This past December Samant ha received her bachelor's in internat iona l relat ions from San Francisco State and is hop ing to furth er her academ ic career by getting a master's in city management and urban poli cy. Ult imately. she hopes to becom e a leader in commun ity developm ent and sustai nable urb an po licy and maybe even run for publi c office .
FEBRUARY 2012
19
Join SPUR today!
The San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association is a membersupported nonprofit organization. We rely on your support to promote good p lann ing and good government through research, education and advocacy. Find out more at spur.org/join.
Ul
O SPUR
Nonprofit Org. US Postage
Ideas + action for a better city
PAID
Permit # 411 8 San Francisco, CA
» "'T1 m m Z
o C
654 Mission Street
G)
San Francisco, CA 94105-4015
I
te l. 415.781 .8726
-4
o
info@spur.org www.spur.org
Ul
~ ~
Tim e-dated mat eri al
: -'I'
I,
',.'
:
..
.. ,
, I
.. ,
I
II'
,
'11
't ..
"
• •
• • 't •
'I 'I
"
....
•. I,
. '0'
I.
..
I,
'" ,II
....
.. . . •
I
,,
• O SPUR
I
I
I
.....
,
t ,•
I,
" ,
' II
,
,,
....
I •
to
,.' ' ... 'I
••
•
The Urbanist is edited by Allison Aneff and designed by Shawn Hazen, hezencreative.corn . It is printed on Finch Casa Opaque paper : 30 % post-consumer waste, 66 % renewable energy, chlorine-free, acid-t ree .