the urbanist #500 - feb 2011 - greening city apartments

02.11 LETTER FROM THE SUSTAINABLE DEYELOPMENT DIRECTOR

Laura Tam isSPUR'sSustainableDevelopmentPolicy Director.

Greening up

I was a tenant in San Francisco for more than sixyears, and I saw first-hand how much opportunitythere is to make the city's apartment buildings workbetter from an environmental perspective.

In one of these buildings - a nine-unit Edwardianwith an old boiler that needed frequent repairs - onetenant regularly jammed up the trash chute withextra large pizza boxes, prompting the owner to fireoff letters pleading with everyone to use the chutesand manage waste properly. Ironically, she would notprovide us with compost bins (this was before theywere required), saying they attracted rats - which isnot particularly sensible considering that that samefood waste would otherwise just be in the black binsinstead. When we reported a leaky tap, she wasupset that we hadn't told her on day one instead ofday five - understandable I think, since she paidfor all of the building's water. But when the heatfrom the c1anky old radiators became too much onwarm 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 heatdissipate into the sky. She was probably spendingmore than $10,000 a year to keep that boiler going.There were clear opportunities for the owner to saveresources (and money) by making some capitalimprovements, and also for tenants (us) to be moreconservation-minded.

Now that I own a home, for better or worse, I seewhy it's so hard to make green improvements - eventhose I can readily identify. First, there's the inertiaof going along with whatever building systems you'vegot, as long as they're not broken. Second, it's hard tofigure out how to prioritize these improvements in acost-effective way, especially given the lurking sensethat almost anything big will be expensive. It's beeneasy enough to install dimmer switches and efficientfaucets and showerheads - but double-panedwindows7 Solar hot water7 An ultra low-flush toilet? Iwant to get all these things. The path forward is just alittle bit obscure.

In the meantime, I'm encouraged that the City hasmade it possible for composting and recycling to bepart of my two-year-old son's world, as they definitelyweren't in mine at that age. This generational shift,along with ever-improving green building technologies,means that tomorrow's apartment tenants may beeven more conservation-minded and resource-efricieriliharl luuay's.

One size does not fit allwhen it comes to identifyingand implementing greenimprovements.

This issue of the Urbanist is devoted to theopportunities and challenges of greening multi-unitresidential apartment buildings, which have morethan two-thirds of the city's housing units, and are81 percent tenant-occupied. These buildings are allunique - in vintage, size, occupancy and more. Onesize does not fit all when it comes to identifying andimplementing green improvements. SPUR's task forceon greening multifamily buildings explored numeroustools and resources available from the City and fromour utilities that can help both owners and tenantsparticipate in the process of "greening-up."

We learned that there are significant veins offinancing - rebates, incentives, direct-installprograms and more - available for all kinds ofbuilding improvements, from major rehab projectsto unit "green-ups" at tenant turnover. The challengeis figuring out what's right for each building: whatupgrades to perform now, and what to do at futuretrigger points in the life of a building, such as whena system fails or a tenant moves out. With newnavigation tools coming online, courtesy of the stateagencies that are charged with reducing California'senergy use, it should be easier than ever for the Cityof San Francisco to do as SPUR recommends in thisreport: package the incentives, rebates and other toolsin an easy-to-read format that addresses cross-utilitygreening issues. Then, work with the San FranciscoApartment Association and other networks todistribute these tools and create a strategic marketingplan across building types and owners to makegreening seem clear and easy.

Today, the sheer number and eligibilityrequirements of the incentives already available aremind-boggling, perhaps even a turn-off for doingupgrades altogether. But if the City makes good onour recommendation, it will be easier for all of us toprioritize and implement green improvements in ourbuildings. Tomorrow, let's take energy, waste, andwater savings all the way to the bank.

Z Urbanist> February 2011

February 2011

What we're doing

POTRERO POWER PLANT SHUTDOWN JAN UARY I!Over the past two years, SPUR has been astrong advocate for closing the old PotreroPower Plant, which ceased operation January1, 2011. At times, this was a lonely quest,with some advocates pushing for the SFPUCto operate "peaker" natural gas power plantson the same site in exchange for shuttingdown the old plant. Ultimately, an unusualcoalition, spearheaded by our partnerBrightline Defense Project, succeeded inconvincing state regulators and the City'selected officials that there was enoughredundancy in the City's power supply -with the new Trans Bay Cable and operationalimprovements by PG&E - that we could dowithout older, more polluting power plantsinside the city. This is a major environmentaljustice victory that SPUR was instrumental inhelping to win. For more of the story seespur.orgjpotrerovictory.SPUR MOVES TO IMPLEMENTITS RECOMMENDATIONS FORHIGH SPEED RAILIn our recent report, Beyond theTracks, SPUR proposed a seriesof recommendations to facilitatebetter land-use planning anddevelopment around high-speedrail stations. We called for a newenvironmental permit process forhigh-speed rail stations,encouraging major employment

and dense retail uses in stationareas, tying train scheduling toplanning and development, andstation accessibility plansfocused on connecting to andfrom important destinationsbeyond the half-mile stationareas. We are now beginning toimplement some of therecommendations. In addition,we are working with theCalifornia High Speed RailAuthority and members of the

State legislature on bills toencourage good station areaplanning and development. Weare hoping, however, that someof the important tools for valuerecapture (such as tax incrementfinancing) remain asmechanisms for fundinginfrastructure and do not fallvictim to the current budgetcrisis. As we argue in the report,high-speed rail can become aneffective armature for organizingthe physical and economicgrowth of California. If thisgrowth is contained (andconnected by transit), it will alsocost less while simultaneouslyenabling economic growth. Staytuned for updates. To read thefull report, download it atspu r.org/beyondthetracks.

SAN FRANCISCOESTABLISHES ANEARTHQUAKE SAFETYIMPLEMENTATIONCOMMITTEEIn one of his last acts as Mayor,Gavin Newsom established agroup to oversee the implement-ation of the Community ActionPlan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS).Among other things, CAPSSdocumented the need for aprogram to retrofit wood framemultifamily buildings withseismically weak ground floors(known as "soft-story" buildings).We look forward to the creationof this new Earthquake SafetyImplementation Committee andto seeing action on the CAPSSrecommendations, which arecritical to the creation of aResilient City.

PENSION COSTS EVENWORSE THAN ANTICIPATEDThe news continues to get worsefor people who care about SanFrancisco's ability to continue toprovide high levels of publicservice. Pension contributions inthe coming fiscal year, whichstarts July 1, are now projectedto grow to $375 million (and thefollowing year up to $439million). It is a virtual certaintythat there will be reformmeasures on this November'sballot - the question is howmany reform measures and howmuch of the problem they willsolve? We are working hard tomake sure that voters have theoption to enact at least oneserious, practical measure tobring costs under control for thelong term.

SPUR STAFFER APPOINTEDTO RENEWABLE ENERGYTASK FORCEIn January, Laura Tam, SPURSustainable Development PolicyDirector, was appointed to a newcity task force on renewableenergy. The task force has theambitious charge of developing astrategy for having 100 percentof citywide electricity come fromrenewable energy by 2020 Bythe end of 2011, this task forcewill produce a report identifyingopportunities and barriers,providing recommendations andlaying out a timeline to achievethe 100 percent renewablegoal.

Urbanist> February 20ll 3

This report was reviewed,debated and adopted as officialSPUR policy by the Board ofDirectors on January 19,2011.

SPU Rstaff: Laura Tam

SPUR interns: Alexis Smith,Timothea Tway

Task force members: RonMiguel (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

02.11 Two-thirds of San Francisco's housing stockis multi-family buildings. Retrofitting these

SPUR apartments to use less water, energy and materialsis a significant step to improve the sustainability ofREPORT San Francisco. While new green building codes areimportant, changing the environmental impact of

existing buildings has a more immediate effect.

What will it take to green the buildings wealready have?

GREENING APARTMENTBUILDINGS

Improving the resource efficiency ofbuildingsis an important way to reduce our city'secological footprint. Buildings account for abouthalf of San Francisco's greenhouse gas emissions(and indirectly account for more), consumewater and generate waste. Reflecting the city'sprogressive values, San Francisco has been anational leader in green building policy, creatinga green building program in 1999 and adoptingmunicipal green building standards in 2004.In 2008 the city adopted a landmark ordinancerequiring all new residential and new largercommercial buildings to meet high performancestandards under the LEED or GreenPoint Ratedsystems. This ordinance was updated in 2010 toaffect every new building in the city.

Raising the bar for new buildings - especiallygiven the explosion of new green buildingtechnologies, and the growing popularity andaccessibility of sustainable design - stimulates

innovation and creates future environmentalbenefits. But in a built-out city like ours, existingbuildings are going to be responsible for the vastmajority of resource use over any meaningfulplanning period. New buildings and majorrenovations account for 1-2 percent of totalsquare footage in San Francisco buildings peryear, so it would take more than 60 years togreen half of the building stock in San Franciscothrough construction and major renovation.'Thus, one ofthe greatest challenges in urbansustainability today is retrofitting or greeningthe buildings that we already have.

SPUR convened a task force in February 2010to explore issues in greening existing residentialbuildings in San Francisco. We specificallyfocused on multifamily buildings, which havemore than two-thirds of the city's residentialunits, and are 81 percent renter-occupied (Figure1). In theory, green improvements to apartment

I Mayor's Task Force on Existing CommercialBuildings Final Report, December 2009,page ii; 1'/I'II'I.sfenvironmenLorg/downloads/library/sf existing commercial build-ings _ task _ force ~ report _ l.O.pdf

San Francisco's multifamilyhousing stock comes invaried forms. These buildingshave unique combinationsof ownership, management,structure, occupancy andfinancing that affect their abilityto take on significant greenupgrades.

Urbanist> February 20tl 5

150,000

20+ units10-19 units

these initiatives are a good starting place, wehave not thoroughly examined what we can do totake advantage of new green building techniquesto improve the environmental performance inmultifamily residential or mixed-use buildings,which constitute the majority of the housing stockin San Francisco. These buildings often haveunique combinations of ownership, management,structure, occupancy and financing that affecttheir ability to take on significant green upgrades.While there is a wealth of resources available forresidential building owners who wish to retrofittheir properties, these resources can be confusingand difficult to locate. If the unique needs ofmultifamily and mixed-use buildings are notaddressed directly in a comprehensive, integrated

In a built-out city like ours,existing buildings are goingto be responsible for the vastmajority of resource use overany meaningful planning period.

5-9 units

HOUSING TYPE

2-4 units

.---------- Multifamily Housing

Single familyo

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey I-Year Estimates, Table B25024.

FIGURE 1: NUMBER OF UNITS IN MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS IN SAN FRANCISCO

buildings could save utility costs for both ownersand residents while reducing environmentalimpacts. Our task force sought to determine ifthere were any significant barriers to achievingthese savings, including policy barriers, and if so,what San Francisco could do to overcome them.We considered opportunities to improve waterefficiency and conservation, waste diversion, andenergy efficiency, including electricity and gas.We also explored how San Francisco's 1979 rentstabilization law affects the decision-makingprocess for building owners to perform upgrades.

For decades, the primary San Francisco policytool to upgrade the energy and water efficiencyof residential buildings has been the ResidentialEnergy Conservation Ordinance (RECO), whichrequires properties to either have or install certainenergy and water-saving fixtures when they aresold? Various financial incentives and favorablefinancing resources from state and federalgovernments, as well as utilities, have providedpolicy support for retrofits as well. In 2009, aCity task force made recommendations to requirethe measurement and improvement of energyefficiency in existing commercial buildings; thoserecommendations may be adopted this year. While

30,000

120,000

Vl~~ 90,000u..oD:UJm

~ 60,000z

2 In 2009, the city through an ordinancespearheaded by the SFPUC updated thewater efficiency standards and expandedcompliance requirements to commercialproperties.

More than two-thirds of SanFrancisco's residential unitsare in multifamily buildings,which are 81 percentrenter-occupied.


Urbanist> February 2011 7

Case study: Cathedral Hill Plaza Apartments

l From "Improving California's MultifamilyBuildings, Opportunities and Recommenda-tions for Green Retrofit & Rehab Programs,"Findings from the Multifamily Subcommit-lee of the California Home Energy RetrofitCoordinating Committee (MF HERCCl, DraftReport. October 7, 2010.

Cathedral Hill Plaza, a mid-1960s building with 169 units on 13 floors, hastaken a piece-by-piece, unit-by-unit approach to greening that has yieldedsignificant energy and water savings within just a few years. In 2002,the building received a new domestic hot water system, reducing gas useby approximately 5 percent. General Manager Linda Corso and PropertyManager Maherah Silmi have utilized free audits from the Department ofEnvironment and SFPUC to identify and prioritize green improvements,which so far have included installing Energy Star lighting, dishwashers andrefrigerators, new cook tops and ovens, ultra low-flush toilets, compactfluorescent lighting and dimmer switches. New appliances and fixtures areinstalled in each unit upon unit turnover, resulting in a smooth transitionfor tenants. The building management was able to identify significantrebates for most of the improvements, and install the toilets, faucet aeratorsand low-flow showerheads for free, courtesy of the SFPUC. Cathedral Hillhas provided compost bins and kitchen compost pails to residents since2008, but to make waste diversion even easier for tenants, recycling andcomposting containers were set up in each floor's trash room in December2009 instead of only in the garage. They also regularly invite the Departmentof the Environment to staff a table in the lobby to educate residents on wastesorting. The next big improvement planned for the building is to replace theboilers for the heating system, which will reduce gas use by 10 percent eachyear, and pay for themselves in approximately seven years. Cathedral Hill'sgreening strategy shows that a gradual, tune-up approach can be affordableand effective when the building is highly occupied and does not otherwiseneed major renovations.

economic motivations, are responsible forequipment selection, usage and utility payments.For example, in a rented building, often thebuilding owner will pay the entire water bill,leaving tenants - who control actual wateruse and total water consumption - with littleincentive to conserve. On the other hand, thosesame tenants commonly control and pay for theelectricity used by kitchen appliances or lighting

fashion, they could miss out on significant newlines offunding from federal and utility sources,as well as the opportunity to contribute tocitywide environmental goals and gain directenergy and water cost savings.

OVERARCHING ISSUES FORMULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS

Multifamily and mixed-use buildings arealready some of the most resource-efficienthousing that we have. They tend to be energyefficient, on a per capita basis, because theirshared-wall geometry means that less heatingand cooling is lostto the exterior.3 They tend tobe water efficient because they often have sharedclothes washers and use less outdoor water percapita - especially with the limited lot sizestypical in San Francisco. Their efficient formutilizes limited urban space to add density thatsupports public transportation, walkability and avibrant public realm.

However, multifamily buildings - especiallyrented apartment buildings - have a complex setof conditions that make prescribing a "one sizefits all" standard for green improvements morechallenging than for other types ofbuildings.Within the sector, the variety of physicalconfigurations - from low-rise to high-rise, fromall-residential to mixed-use - have differentreference standards for efficiency and energyanalysis. Owners of affordable versus market-ratebuildings are faced with different financial andregulatory realities that have implications fortheir decision-making process. Within buildings,there are private areas and common areas, and arange of individual systems and central systems,which have different rules for participation invarious utility and rebate programs.

Renovating an existing multifamily buildingthat already has residents living in place isusually more complicated than building efficientfeatures into new construction. Many ownersprefer to perform improvements at unit turnover,when the unit is vacant and existing tenants willnot be disturbed. However, by renovating on aunit-by-unit basis, owners lose the economies ofscale gained from retrofitting the entire buildingat once. The timing of the renovation becomesparticularly important if the owner wishes to takeadvantage of rebates, which are not realized untilafter the improvements are installed.

Split incentives are commonly thought to bea key reason for underinvestment in efficiencyin renter-occupied buildings. Split incentivesexist when different parties, with different

Toolbox for greening buildingsIndividual Metering or Sub-metering. In individually metered or sub-metered buildings, residents' utility bills are based on how much electricity,gas or water they actually use, rather than a set portion of the overall buildingusage. When bills reflect utility usage, residents are more likely to conserve.

Rebate. Rebates are incentives in which a portion of the cost of a specifiedgreen building improvement is returned to the purchaser after installation.Rebates are offered by a wide variety of organizations, from utility companiesto local governments, covering everything from insulation to clothes washers.

Direct-install program. Most commonly offered by utilities for non profits orsmall businesses, these programs typically involve an on-site water or energyaudit followed by the installation of appropriate water- or energy-savingequipment. Equipment and installation can be completely free, or a portionof the costs can be repaid as part of subsequent utility bills.

Audit. An evaluation of an existing building to assess current energy or wateruse, or accessibility of waste/recycling bins, etc., and prioritize potentialimprovements. There are many tools available online to assist ownersand tenants in conducting their own audit, or the audit can be done by aprofessional who can give specific improvement recommendations.

Cost-sharing. Capital improvement pass-throughs are one mechanism bywhich landlords of rent-controlled buildings can pass on all or part of the costof green improvements, amortized over a set period of time, to the tenants,who will benefit from the improvements through reduced utility bills orimproved comfort.

Education. In the form of either general awareness building or technicalassistance, education is critical all around for owners of small buildings withlimited resources, and for property managers to ensure continued efficiencyof building systems. Outreach programs aimed at transforming tenantbehavior can reduce overall energy demand and encourage better recycling.

Device/appliance giveaways. Where a portable and relatively inexpensivedevice can transform a users' demand on water or energy - such asefficient showerheads, or compact fluorescent light bulbs - utilities may givethem away or subsidize them to promote usage.

Green labels or certification. A sustainable building, particularly one thathas earned branded labels or awards, can be a powerful marketing tool forattracting tenants. Two common ones in the Bay Area are Leadership inEnergy and Environmental Design (LEED), administered by the U.S. GreenBuilding Council, and GreenPoint Rated, administered by Build It Green.

Building standards are guidelines that encourage green buildingtechniques in a range of areas, from site planning to energy efficiency.These standards can come in the form of voluntary certification programsor mandatory building codes, such as San Francisco's RECO. Standardscan be performance-based, which require a building to achieve targetefficiency levels without specifying how these targets should be reached, orprescriptive, which specify certain types of technologies that must be used.

B Urbanist> february 2011

fixtures, but they cannot select or replace thoseappliances and fixtures, because they may nothave the authority, financial resources and/or theexpectation of cost recovery during their tenancy.SPUR's task force found that the presence of splitincentives appeared to be less of a barrier in thedecision-making process for greening buildingsthan we expected. From the case studies weexplored and from our discussions, we learnedthat investments in efficiency and conservationthat did not directly benefit the building ownerwere often undertaken anyway for non-financialbenefits, such as occupant comfort, generalbuilding improvement and maintenance, unitmarketability, or just because they are the "rightthing to do."

Rent control is another overarching issue formultifamily buildings in San Francisco. TheRent Board estimates that 75 percent of tenantslive in rent-controlled apartments, which aregenerally units built before 1979. San Francisco'srent control law creates several disincentives forowners to undertake building retrofits, includinggreen improvements. The largest disincentive forbig capital improvements is that most tenantsmust be paid $5,10101' more to be relocatedtemporarily. Not all green retrofits requirerelocation of tenants, but many projects with thelargest potential for energy and water savingsdo, such as insulating exterior walls, replacingwindows or reconfiguring plumbing. The lawspecifies over what period an improvement maybe paid for by cost-sharing or passing throughcosts to tenants - usually between 10-20 years.It also specifies what percentage of those costsmay be passed through: 100 percent of certaincapital costs may be passed through in smallerbuildings, but buildings with more than fiveunits may only pass through 50 percent of costs.A 2003 ordinance allowed for 100 percent pass-through ofjust one type of energy conservationimprovement: high-efficiency refrigerators inunits where the tenant pays the electric bill.Because appliances are not cost-effective toamortize over 10 or more years, this provisionhas never been utilized.

Besides exploring the prevalence of splitincentives and the challenges of rent control,SPUR's task force sought to explore the ease ofundertaking voluntary efficiency improvements,and the availability of greening tools andfinancing for both building owners and tenants.We found that challenges and opportunities forthe different resources - water, waste, energy- were distinct, though some greening luols


Typical indoor, residentialwater-use patterns, based onnational studies, suggest thathigh efficiency toilets may bethe single largest water-savingopportunity in multifamilybuildings.

For more information on San Francisco'splan to save 10 million gallons aday ofTuolumne River water by 2018 (about 12percent of our current supply), view SPUR'sMarch 2010 article, "Water, water every-where: Alook at San Francisco's urbanwater plan," \'/I'/I".spurorg/publications/li-brary/article/water _ water _ everywhere.

Leaks Other

It would take more than 60years to green half of thebuilding stock in San Franciscothrough new construction andmajor renovation.

WATERMultifamily buildings are responsible for

40 percent of total water use in San Franciscoand 60 percent of residential use. Althoughper-capita water use is actually declining inSan Francisco, there is still wasted water, andwith a growing regional population we stillneed to conserve: San Francisco has committedto conserving 4 million gallons a day throughconservation by 2018.4 Multifamily buildingshave access to several greening tools providedby the SFPUC, including free building audits,free water-saving devices such as efficientfaucet aerators and showerheads, and rebatesfor high-efficiency clothes washers. Low-income customers and affordable housing

VI 30%0::00c

~c 25llJVI::::>0::llJ 20!;t:;:C....I0 15::t:llJVI::::>0::t: 10lI.0llJ(.ll;:! 5zllJU0::llJD- o Toilet Clothes Shower Faucet

WasherTYPE OF FIXTURE

FIGURE 2: HOW HOMES USE WATER

apply across categories (See sidebar: Toolbox forgreening buildings). Many of these tools are usedin combination by different utilities and by theCity to incentivize greater green performance;however, some of the tools are not maximized orutilized to their greatest possible extent.

SPUR's task force concluded that the threebiggest barriers to greening multifamilybuildings in San Francisco are:

1. Lack ofawareness ofavailable greeningtools and opportunities, and how to usethem;2. Inability to systematically shareimprovement costs and benefits in ways thatmutually benefit building owners and tenants;and3. Lack ofaccess to external financing.

Of these, we believe number one is themost important area for the City to makeimprovements now.

Because greening challenges for multifamilybuildings vary so much by resources and utilities,we explored and will present each one, and itsopportunities, in turn.

Source: American Water Works Association. 1999.

TABLE 1: WATER CONSERVATION CASE STUDIESPROPERTY IMPROVEMENT WATER SAVINGS COST SAVINGS

11455 Filbert St. Replaced 36 old toilets with high-efficiency 57% reduction, 55% reduction,models (received $4500 in rebates); 600,000 gallons/year $5,000/yearinstalled free showerheads, fixed leaks

1755 Geary Replaced 166 old toilets (received $20,750 42% reduction, 2.2 47% reduction,in rebates), fixed leaks million gallons/year $26,000/year

Fillmore Center Replaced almost 6,000 fixtures including 38% reduction, 6.3 62% reduction,toilets, showerheads, kitchen and bathroom million gallons/year $159,000/yearfaucets

I 309 Hyde Street Replaced 19 toilets and repaired leaks in 55% reduction, 1.15 55% reductiontwo older ones; installed free devices in 8 million gallons/year (estimated),units, including showerheads and faucet $15,000/yearaerators

Source: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and the Fillmore Center-

Water conservation audits,rebate utilization and leakrepairs resulted in four SanFrancisco properties findingsignificant water and costsavings.


owners can take advantage of an SFPUC direct-install program for high-efficiency toilets. TheSFPUC has found that the largest water-savingopportunities in multifamily buildings are oftenreplacing toilets and fixing leaks.

In apartment buildings in San Francisco,water service is typically not sub-metered to billindividual tenants for their incremental wateruse. The building owner usually has a one-to-one relationship with the SFPUC, which has amaster meter for the whole building located on thesidewalk. This is especially true for large buildings.Tenants typically pay for water service throughtheir rent, but the cost is not related to individualutilization. Because of this payment structure,any reduction in water use will result in directsavings for the building owner, which is a powerful

Multifamily buildings have acomplex set of conditions thatmake prescribing a "one sizefits all" standard for greenimprovements more challengingthan for other types of buildings.

incentive to install water-efficient features.SPUR's task force agreed that in theory,

sub-metering or individually metering waterservice is a best practice, to align incentives forconservation. But we learned that in reality,it is expensive and physically challenging to

retrofit a building with sub-meters. Not only isit difficult to carve out the space to route pipeswithin the building - and nearly impossible tocomplete such retrofits outside of a gut rehab -but there typically isn't space on the sidewalk toaccommodate separate utility meters, especiallyfor larger buildings. Each installation of an SFPUCmeter costs around $8,000. Another option isto install sub-meters monitored by a qualifiedthird party within the building that create a newbilling relationship between an owner and tenants.(The owner retains a billing relationship with theSFPUC for the whole building.) These meters mustbe certified by the Weights & Measures divisionof the Department of Public Health, and aregenerally cheaper and more practical to install as aretrofit than new SFPUC meters. However, billingpractices surrounding such meters are looselyregulated; rates and fees must be negotiatedbetween the owner and the sub-meteringcompany. Finally, within the scope of existingleases for buildings covered by rent control, waterservice responsibility cannot be shifted to tenantswithout the landlord providing a tenant with acommensurate rent reduction, so sub-meteringbenefits are clearer with new tenancies.

Switching out plumbing appliances and fixtures,however - supported by the free devices, auditsand rebates provided by the SFPUC - is muchsimpler, unlikely to be a problem under rentcontrol, and cost-effective (See Table 1: Waterconservation case studies). Both owners andtenants can take advantage of these opportunities.The payback period for installing water-efficienttoilets, showerheads and faucet aerators is very


At 1515 Greenwich Street, a major rehab project created an opportunityto retrofit a typical San Francisco Edwardian with some of the greenesttechnologies available. Owner Bob Mayer's goal was to save resources bysub-metering water and hot water to create user incentives to conserve - sincetenants would be paying for their unit's use of water - but also to remodel thebuilding so that tenants would not have higher utility costs than other buildingswhere they might choose to rent. In 2008, the 35-unit building, which waslargely unoccupied at the time, added parking and a new roof deck, andreceived seismic upgrades, a new elevator, windows, insulation, wiring andgas pipes. But perhaps its most innovative and efficient new component wasits sub-metered water system. Each unit was equipped with wireless watermeters, visibly accessible to tenants in the garage, that could enable units tobe billed for their individual use of water. Mayer, who continued to pay thebuilding's master meter charges, then contracted with a third party company tomonitor these meters and bill new tenants for their individual use. Kitchens andbathrooms were equipped with motion sensors to trigger hot water circulationwhen someone would enter one of these rooms. By keeping water hot throughefficient pipe insulation and recirculation, the user would have instant hotwater, and not waste water running the tap while waiting for it to warm up. BobMayer told SPUR's task force that tenants are now paying generally less for allutilities than they used to pay for just electricity and gas. He did not try to pass-through any costs of this improvement and did not have to relocate tenantsfor this project, due to existing vacancies. However, he said that the specificcircumstances surrounding the building's operation and financing were whatenabled 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 offinancing capital improvements under San Francisco's rent stabilization law.

5 For more information on San Francisco's planto save 10 million gallons aday of TuolumneRiver water by 2018 (about 12 percent of ourcurrenf supply), view SPUR's March 2010article, "Water, water everywhere, Alook atSan Francisco's urban water plan," WI'/W.Spur.org/publications/library/article/water _ wa-ter _ everywhere.

different materials, but these are rare. For largerbuildings, a successful strategy is retrofittingchute systems with mechanized diverters orbaffles that sort waste within a single chute,but space must be available at the bottom ofthe chute. These systems, while expensive, canhave a payoff ofless than one year because

Case study: 1515 Greenwich Street

WASTESan Francisco already has the highest waste

diversion rate in the country, measured in late2010 at 77 percent, which exceeded our citywidegoal of 75 percent! The biggest challenges forcontinued success in this area for multifamilybuildings are twofold: dealing with the differentphysical layouts ofbuildings to configure threebins for sorting waste, and improving residents'awareness ofhow to sort trash, recycling andcompost properly.

The Department of Environment (SFE) andthe City's waste-collection company, Recology,continue to conduct extensive outreach andeducation to implement the City's 2009 UniversalRecycling Ordinance, which requires allproperties to separate trash, recyclable materialsand compostable waste in accordance withSan Francisco's three-cart collection program.In the first half of 2010, SFE and Recologyhad conducted outreach to more than 400multifamily buildings. The ordinance has provenvery successful, increasing our citywide wastediversion 5 percent within its first year. SPUR'stask force agreed that we have not tapped out thefull potential of this ordinance, and we expectcontinued improvement in the future. Continuedoutreach, building by building, will be the mostimportant strategy to directly educate buildingowners and tenants, and to work out the mostefficient arrangement for three carts on site.

Cart configuration - to provide equallyconvenient opportunities for building residentsto dispose of trash, recycling and compost - isan especially big challenge in existing buildingsthat have waste chutes. Chutes have typicallybeen used for trash alone. Some buildings havemore than one chute and can designate them for

short, usually within two years. Water audits arean especially effective tool for building ownersbecause multifamily buildings typically havehigher leak rates due to unreported leaks, manyin the valves of toilets and showers, and manyhave not undergone major plumbing retrofitsin the last 20 years. Existing SFPUC technicalassistance programs have been very successful,reaching hundreds of multifamily propertiesand distributing thousands of rebates and freedevices. Logistically, replacing fixtures is arelatively straightforward improvement. Ownersdo not need to wait for unit turnover, nor dothey need to relocate tenants; the fixtures can beinstalled in a matter ofhours with the tenants inplace.

o, .

01--

Nine ways to green multifamily apartment buidings



Water Heating offers the largest single opportunity tosave energy in multifamily housing. Strategies includeincreasing the thermal efficiency of the water heater,installing solar hot water systems and improvingdistribution systems.Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC).Three-quarters of SF's housing stock predates the firstenergy efficiency codes of the 1970s. Substantial energysavings can be achieved by replacing outdated boiler andfu mace systems.Waste Diversion. Mechanized diverters installed inexisting waste chutes - to sort trash, recyclables andcompost ~ can have a payback period of less than oneyear by reducing a building's trash volume, thus requiringfewer collection days.Appliances. Cooking and refrigeration make up a largerportion of energy use in multifamily housing than insingle family housing. Efficient dishwashers and clotheswashers save both water and energy.Common Area Lighting creates a significant energy loadthat is unique to multifamily housing. This load can bereduced through photocells or timers (for exterior lights)and occupancy sensors (for garage and laundry areas).Water Fixtures. With a typical payback period of lessthan two years, aerators and high-efficiency faucets andshowerheads are some of the easiest ways to conservewater. Free audits can help to prioritize improvements.Toilets. In a typical household, toilets use more waterthan any other fixture. Those installed before 1994 useover twice as much water as the standard toilet availabletoday.Weatherization. A multifamily building's shared wallsmean that less heating and cooling is lost to the exterior.However, older buildings can still benefit from newwindows, cool roofing and better insulation.Small Fixtures within individual units - such asprogrammable thermostats, compact fluorescent lighting,and efficient ceiling fans - can save both electricity andgas.

oc()O:O:s t

o

o

I IIt

11 I I

_________ .J

TABLE 2: APPLIANCE USAGE AND HEATING TYPES IN SAN FRANCISCO, MARIN AND SANMATEO COUNTIES

2-4 UNITS 5-9 UNITS 10-19 UNITS 20-49 UNITS 50+ UNITS ALL MULTIFAMILY

APPLIANCES

-

Clothes Washer in unit 39% 15% 13% 10% 11% 22%

Dishwasher 35% 28% 32% 42% 38% 35%

~

AIR CONDITIONING

-

Central Air Conditioning 2% 1% 2% 3% 8% 3%

I Room Unit Air Conditioning 4% 9% 5% 5% 6% 6%-

HEATING

-

Warm-air furnace 61% 55% 48% 43% 40% 52%

I Steam or hot water system 6% 10% 19% 23% 29% 15%IBuilt-in electric units 6% 9% 16% 22% 21% 13%

Floor, wall or other built-in 13% 15% 13% 10% 7% 12%hot air units without ducts

Other 13% 8% 3% 2% 3% 8%

None 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Housing Reports, Series H170/98-39, American Housing Survey for the San FranciscoMetropolitan Area: 1998 Table 2-23.

'U.S. Census Bureau, Current HousingReports, Series HI70/98-39, American Hous-ing Survey for the San Francisco MetropolitanArea, 1998, Table 2-5.

Fewer than 10 percent ofmultifamily buildings in SanFrancisco have air conditioning.Larger buildings have fewerin-unit clothes washers, butmore diverse types of heatingsystems.


they significantly reduce the volume of trash,allowing a building to pay for fewer trash cartsor fewer collection days each week. SPUR's taskforce agreed that it would be helpful for SFE andRecology to show building owners examples ofthis technology in action.

Improving tenants' awareness of andcommitment to recycling is the other significantchallenge to further improving waste diversion inmultifamily buildings. In San Francisco, tenants(except perhaps in the smallest buildings) typicallydo not pay for waste management services. Whilemany tenants do a superior job of recycling andkitchen composting, it only takes a few mistakes- unintentional or not - to "contaminate"an entire building's bins with the wrong kindof material (e.g. plastic bottles in the compostbin). At first, a building owner or manager willreceive a written warning about this, and theopportunity to meet with SFE and Recology toimprove the building's recycling set-up, but ifviolations continue, the bins may not get picked

up, creating a health hazard and frustrationfor everyone in the building. Although buildingowners are now required to conduct outreach andtenant education annually, these communicationscan sometimes feel like a reprimand to tenants.SPUR concluded that it would be helpful fortenant organizations, possibly with technical and/or financial assistance from the City, to conductmore education and outreach to tenants on properwaste diversion.

ENERGYEnergy use in multifamily buildings is a broadarea, and includes lighting, appliances, waterheating, outdoor lighting, mechanical ventilation,heating and cooling. Over two-thirds of allhouseholds in San Francisco use gas for heating,and 88 percent of households use gas to heat hotwater. 6 In multifamily buildings, electricity use iscommonly individually metered, with the buildingowner paying for electricity in common areas, butgas use for cooking, heating and water heating

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.

FIGURE 3: AGE OF BUILDINGS IN SAN FRANCISCO


Three-quarters of the city'shousing stock predates thefirst energy efficiency codesof the 1970s. Buildingenvelope improvements tothose structures could yieldsavings and improve occupantcomfort.

, From "Improving California's MultifamilyBuildings: Opportunities and Recommenda-tions for Green Retrofit & Rehab Programs,"Findings from the Multifamily Subcommitteeof the California Home Energy RetrofitCoordinating Committee (MF HERCCl, DraftReport. October 7, 2010, page 17.I According to apresentation by Heatherlarson, Green Building Program Managerfor Stopwaste.org, presented to SPUR's taskforce on October 27, 2010.

1990-20091970-1989

We have not tapped out the fullpotential of the City's UniversalRecycling Ordinance requiringall properties to separatetrash, recyclable materials andcompostable waste.

San Francisco's coastal climate is one of themildest in the country, with a low demand forheating and, especially, cooling. (See Table 2). Incoastal climate zones, appliances and lightingcomprise 40 percent of energy demand bymultifamily buildings, whereas these systems areresponsible for only 13 percent of energy demandin inland climates.s Still, three-quarters ofSan Francisco's housing units predate the firstenergy efficiency codes of the 1970s, so buildingenvelope improvements could yield savings andimprove occupant comfort (See Figure 3).

The Multifamily Subcommittee of theCalifornia Home Energy Retrofit CoordinatingCommittee (HERCC), a collaboration of utilities,government agencies and building expertsconvened in 2009 to coordinate residential

1950-1969

YEAR BUILT

40%

::.:: 35u0I- 30en

'"ZC 25...J:::>a:l 20Ll..0lJJ

'"15

i=!=zlJJ 10uc::lJJ0- 5

01929 or earlier 1930-1949

is typically centrally metered. Energy use inmultifamily housing is different from single-family housing in a number ofways:7

Common area (hallways and elevators)and garage lighting in multifamily propertiescan use significant amounts of energy;

Taller buildings have a smaller roofrelative to the building envelope, soefficiency measures like attic insulation and"cool roofs" have less impact on overall energyuse, and there is limited room for installationof solar photovoltaics to generate renewableenergy;

Multifamily buildings often have centralmechanical systems, such as hot water andHVAC systems that serve multiple dwellingunits. The ventilation and exhaust forkitchens, bathrooms and laundry rooms canuse a lot of energy;

Because exposure to exterior walls islower and air infiltration is less of an issue,cooking and refrigeration comprise a largerportion of the energy budget of multifamilyhomes.

Case study: The Fillmore Center

The Fillmore Center, built in 1991, is a multifamily mixed-use propertycovering three city blocks, ten buildings and more than one million squarefeet, including 1,114 residential units. In October 2010, it received LEEDfor Existing Buildings (LEED-EB) Silver certification, making it the largestmultifamily housing project to receive LEED-EB in the United States. ElieRothschild, CEO of Sustainable Energy Partners, provided an overview of theFillmore Center project to SPUR's task force. For this property, the motivationto pursue LEED certification was to improve property values and create ashowpiece in the portfolio of Prudential, the owner, and the Laramar Group,the property manager. Before the LEED-guided renovation, the building hadsome deferred maintenance problems, including significant problems with itsventilation system. The first step in the process was to improve air handlersand install new efficient boilers - one in each tower - which boostedboiler energy efficiency by almost 25 percent. The building implementedcomposting and set aside areas for electronic and other hazardous waste.All water fixtures were swapped for high-efficiency models, including faucetaerators and dual-flush toilets; at the same time each unit received theseupgrades they received new energy-saving refrigerators and efficient lightingfixtures. Common area and outdoor lighting was equipped with newerfixtures and compact fluorescent bulbs. One of the most innovative aspects ofthe greening included designating one week each year as "tenant educationweek" and one week as "staff education week." Staff were educated on pestmanagement, proper waste sorting and green purchasing. Tenants wereprovided with free compact fluorescent bulbs for their fixtures and free bio-bags for composting; through better education, the buildings improved wastediversion by 40 percent. Although the project managers considered installingsolar panels, they found less than 10 percent of electricity and natural gascosts could be offset by solar photovoltaics or solar thermal installations, sothey declined this option. Most of the upgrades were supported by numerousand substantial rebates, making the cost recovery term very short.

16 Urbanist> February 20ll

retrofit programs across California, recentlyreported that the single largest opportunityto save energy in multifamily housing is inwater heating. This opportunity is even moresignificant and cost-effective when waterheating is centralized in the building. Keystrategies include increasing the thermalefficiency of the water heater, combining thewater heater with solar hot water systems,9 andimproving distribution systems through pipeinsulation, recirculation controls, and high-efficiency pumps.lO

Rebates are a key tool for promoting energyefficiency. SPUR's task force found that thereare already numerous rebate programs availableto multifamily buildings, but the numberand variety ofthe programs is confusing, andawareness of these opportunities is not as highas it could be. PG&E and SFE's Energy Watchoffer local rebate programs to multifamilyproperties. A large number of federal andstate energy upgrade programs, with a recentsignificant boost from federal stimulusfinancing, are available only to permanentlyaffordable housing. Of those available to market-rate buildings, some are available to bothowners and tenants, some are available onlyto owners for common areas, some are basedon a performance improvement, and some arebased on a device improvement. A full listing ofutility-supported rebates available to buildingsin San Francisco is on SPUR's website at spur.org/greenbuildings. All of these programs havedifferent rules for eligibility, requirements forparticipation and levels of rebate.

The statewide multifamily HERCCrecently recommended that utilities andagencies offering incentives begin to reward aperformance-based approach for multifamilybuildings, in addition to the current approachof awarding incentives and rebates forchanging out specific pieces of equipment. Thisapproach would help asset managers identifyand implement the most cost-effective set ofimprovements first, through energy analysissoftware and with technical assistance fromcertified energy raters. The performance-based approach - as opposed to a package ofprescriptive measures - was recommendedon a state-wide level because prescriptivepackages would vary dramatically betweenclimate zones and building types. The downsideto a performance-based approach is that itcan be less accessible, particularly for non-professional owners of smaller propertics who

TABLE 3: EVENTS THAT TRIGGER ENERGY AND GREEN UPGRADES

Source: Multifamily Subcommittee of the Home Energy Retrofit Coordinating Committee (MF HERCC), Draft Report. October7,2010.

Urbanist> February 20ll 17

II For more information, visit www.ener-gyupgradecalifornia .com.

12 More information on LEEO can be found atthe U.S. Green Building Council's website,wI'II'I.usgbc.org; more information onGreenPoint Rated is available at 1'11'11'1.builditgreen.org.

, Solar hot water systems, which heat waterto abase temperature, are acompletelydifferent technology from solar photovolta-ics, which generate energy. The laller hasproven complicated to install in multifamilybuildings because of limited per capita roofspace and because these buildings aregenerally individually metered tor electricity.Solar hot wafer, on the other hand, is idealfor multifamily buildings because they typi-cally rely on asingle hot water system thatis shared by all tenants.

IOMF HERCC Draft Report, October 2010,p.17.

These trigger points areopportunities for differenttypes of green upgrades.The scope of upgrades willdepend on factors such asthe age and condition of thebuilding, type of occupancy,and whether the building isan affordable or market-rateproperty.

to clarify and facilitate property managerparticipation in these programs.1I The tools willalso be designed to help property managersengage in ongoing improvements as theirbuildings reach certain trigger points (see Table3).

Besides the various rebates, incentives andaudit tools available to multifamily stakeholders,voluntary certifications or green labels canprovide a whole-building approach with someadded marketing potential. In the Bay Area,the principal voluntary green certificationprograms are LEED for Existing Buildings(LEED-EB) and GreenPoint Rated, whichlaunched the GreenPoint Rated system forexisting multifamily homes in 2010.12 WhileLEED is a better-known label, it is based upona commercial standard, and widely consideredto be a time-consuming and substantialinvestment, even for buildings with professionalmanagement. GreenPoint Rated, a rating systemfor residential green building, based uponCalifornia's building codes and implementedby the Bay Area nonprofit Build It Green, is thestandard required for all new homes built inSan Francisco as of 2009. However, it is lesswell known nationally, so its ease of use andmarketability potential are less documented.

Finally, the City of San Francisco hasdeveloped a financing tool, GreenFinanceSF,that would provide city bond money to propertyowners to upgrade the energy performance oftheir buildings, to be repaid through property

TRIGGER EVENT SCOPE OF UPGRADE

I Tune-up/ Ongoing maintenance of mechanical equipment or lower cost, easier-to-implement measures that ISpruce-up spruce up a property at time of sale or purchase such as servicing mechanical equipment, repainting

Icommon areas, or making landscape and irrigation improvements.

Replacement Replacement of specific central or individual equipment that is broken or aging, including waterheaters, 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

Ipaint units, replace carpets, address moisture intrusion and other minor repairs, replace appliances,and make accessibility improvements.

IRetrofit 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 energyefficiency.

IRehab Building-wide overhaul may include remodeling common areas, upgrading structural elements, Iinstalling new electrical, plumbing and mechanical equipment, and more.

There are already numerousrebate programs availableto multifamily buildings, butthe number and variety ofthe programs is confusing,and awareness of theseopportunities is not as high asit could be.

may not understand what will be required tomeet performance targets. The applicability ofa prescriptive program versus a performanceprogram to a particular project is dependentupon the "trigger event" or motivator for a levelof investment in building improvements (seeTable 3).

SPUR concluded that better outreach andinformation for property owners and tenantswould go a long way towards increasing the useof available rebate programs in San Francisco.Property owners often need assistance todetermine which programs, resources andapproach are appropriate for their property orportfolio. To move forward with this outreach,navigation tools are currently being developed byStopwaste.org and Energy Upgrade California,a partnership of the California Public UtilitiesCommission and California Energy Commission,

13 For more information, visit www.energyupgradecalifornia.com, aprojectof the California Energy Commission andCalifornia Public Utilities Commission.For more information, visit www.energyupgradecalifornia.com.

1B Urbanist> February 2011

tax payments over 10-20 years via a lien on theirproperty. This program, and others of its kindrecently launched in California and collectivelyreferred to as PACE (Property-Assessed CleanEnergy), are all on hold due to an interventionby the Federal Housing Finance Authorityon concerns related to federal mortgagelenders' financial requirements. SPUR's taskforce agreed that if this program is ever ableto launch, it could be an important source offinancing for green improvements, especially forthose buildings subject to rent control and itsrestrictive pass-through rules.

CONCLUSIONSPUR's task force considered many tools and

barriers to improve the resource efficiency ofexisting multifamily housing in San Francisco.We found that there are specific challengesto widespread adoption of green upgrades,including low awareness, lack of capital and aconfusing, difficult-to-navigate slate of incentiveprograms. However, we also found that thesebarriers would not likely be solved by local policychanges we can recommend at this time. Infact, many of them are being addressed throughnew statewide initiatives and utility programs,which seek to ensure that the multifamilysector is not excluded from tools and financingnewly available for performance testing andweatherization of single family homes.

Instead, SPUR recommends that the City,through the Department of the Environment,work together with the SFPUC, PG&E andRecology to create a "one-stop shop" or web-based tool for property owners to trackdownhow to take advantage of the many free audit,rebate, direct install and compliance assistanceprograms that currently exist among the variousutilities serving San Francisco. The City shouldincorporate the navigation tool being developedby Stopwaste.org that will guide propertyowners or managers through a step-by-stepprocess to identify and prioritize needs, andmatch them to available programs, as well as asimilar tool from Energy Upgrade California tobe launched statewide.'3 The City's tool shouldinclude a significant education component toprovide information to tenants and propertymanagers about recycling and composting, waterconservation and more. It could also link thebuilding community to case studies of some ofthe newer or not-yet-common green buildingtechnologies that could be especially beneficialand cost-effective in multifamily buildings, such

SPUR recommends that theCity create a web-based"one-stop shop" for propertyowners to better access thefree audit, rebate, direct installand compliance assistanceprograms that currently existamong the utilities serving SanFrancisco.

as solar hot water and mechanized waste chutediverters. We further recommend that the City,working with the San Francisco ApartmentAssociation and tenant organizations, use thesetools as the basis of a strategic outreach andmarketing plan that would identify and provideassistance to buildings that could benefit fromgreen upgrades.

Existing multifamily buildings are asignificant part of San Francisco's builtenvironment, and will continue to be for decadesto come. SPUR's task force was encouraged bythe many recent efforts of utilities, buildingexperts and government agencies to close the"green gap" between these buildings and onesto be built in the future, which are required tobe more efficient in almost every respect. Webelieve the most important next step for theCity is to continue to build awareness and helpbuildings implement these opportunities, so theymay serve as models to others, and move SanFrancisco ever closer to the sustainable future itseeks.

URBAN DRIFT city newsfrom aroundthe globeTRILLIONS IN DEBTDROWNING CITIESScores of cities across theUnited States are on the vergeof defaulting on their debt as thehard economic times continue.U.S. states have spent nearlyhalf a trillion dollars more thanthey collected in taxes which,combined with a $1 trillion deficitin pension funds, adds up toan estimated debt of $2 trillion.Detroit, a city that has seendecades of population decline,has had to further cut publicservices to save money, whileIllinois is now six months behindon payments to creditors. Theproblem is not limited to the U.S.In Europe, Madrid, Florence andBarcelona are all in trouble, withthe Spanish regions of Cataloniaand Valencia issuing debt to theirown 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 FOROLD WORLD IDEASRepresentatives from a numberof midwestern cities traveledto the European cities of Turin,Italy, Liepzig, Germany, andManchester, England, to look atprecedents for redevelopment inthe wake of deindustrialization.All three European cities havebeen able to attract newinvestment in recent years,building areas of shopping, newhousing and art venues. Theexchange is part of the Cities inTransition program sponsoredby the German Marshall Fundand the Kresge Foundation.While the European exampleswere inspiring - the cities hadmanaged to plan development

that combined transit, housing,business education and a varietyof other sectors into large-scale

. plans - many of the participantsrecognized a direct translation tothe Rust Belt would be difficult.Alan Mallach, a planner fromNew Jersey, remarked on thedifferences between Europe andthe U.S,: "You're talking about away of thinking about how localgovernment operates that is justreally, really different from how it'sdone [here).""Rust Belt cities look to Old World for new growthideas: John Gallagher, The Los Angeles Times01/03/2011.

WORLD HERITAGE HINDERSPROGRESS IN MALIDjenne, Mali, has the coveteddistinction of being a UNESCOWorld Heritage site. Its historicand picturesque mud brickarchitecture, including a hugemud mosque recently restoredin the city center, is of immensehistorical value. Yet the localresidents are not happy, as thebenefits of expanded tourismhave not reached most of thepopulation. In fact, the restorationof the mosque led to a riot in2006 as young people watchedthe imam and prominent familiesrake in money while they livedin squalor. Now, the UNESCOstatus is leading to new problemsas residents of historic housesfind that they are not allowed toupgrade their homes. Most ofthe homes have mud floors andrequire people to stoop whileentering low doors, Most homeslack a room large enough to fita double bed. Compoundingthese problems, the city has poorinfrastructure and no workingsewage system. While residents

are proud of the city, they debatewhether it is worth the struggle tokeep their World Heritage status."Mali City Rankled by Rules for Life in Spotlight: NeilMacFarquhar, The New York Times 01/08/2011.

BEIJING BETS ON BIG SUBWAYINVESTMENTBeijing recently opened five newsubway lines - 108 kilometersof track - one year ahead ofschedule, growing their networkfrom 228 to 336 kilometers, Thesubway was built in the 1960swith national defense in mind,only opening to the general publicin 1971. It has grown to carry fivemillion passengers per day, witha large expansion of the networkbuilt for the 2008 SummerOlympics Beijing is trying toaddress massive traffic gridlock asquickly as possible, adding transitwhile also putting in place alottery system to limit the numberof new car sales in the capital to20,000 per month."Beijing tackles transit, with stunning results," BillSchiller, The Toronto Star, 01/08/2010.

SAINT PETERSBURG SPAREDFROM NEW SPIREOpponents celebrated the defeatof plans for a 1,299-foot high-rise in the center of the historiclow-rise city of Saint Petersburg,Russia. The city's governorstated that after failing to meeta consensus, the project wouldhave to be moved. The planhad been under considerationsince 2006, with many notablearchitects opposing it and theUnited Nations threatening toremove the city's World HeritageSite status if the tower wereconstructed. Gazprom, theRussian utility giant behind theproject, will still have the option ofpresenting other plans to the city.At least two other locations areexpected to be considered by theend of the year."Gazprom Tower 'will be moved," Orlando Crowcro!!,Construction Week, 01/05/2010.


URBANFIELD NOTES

4 iconic buildings shouldinspire mid-Market revival

An additive archive of cultural landscapes and observations Caseworker: SauI Ett Iincompiled by SPUR members and friends. Send your ideasto Urban Field Notes editor Ruth Keffer at [email protected].

CASESTUDY #35

Living at 8th and Mission gives me a frontrow seat to the day-to-day life of themid-Market area and a strong desire to seethe often-discussed revival come to fruition.With the recent approval of the CityPlacemall and the groundbreaking for the remodelof the 50 U.N. Plaza federal building, it'spossible to see some momentum toward amore vibrant streetscape.

That momentum has heightened myawareness of the great buildings alongMarket and my hopes that some of thisarchitecture be revived to preserve thecharacter of neighborhood. Here are fourbuildings I'd like to see be part of a mid-Market revival:

Hibernia Bank Building - Empty since2000, it is now in the hands of a real estateinvestment group who intend to remodel andlease the space.

Odd Fellows Hall - While still home to theFellows today, one of the building's maintenants is a ballet school, making it possibleto see this space as a future hub forperforming arts organizations.

Eastern Outfitting Company Building -Appearing idle from the street, this spacecould be renovated to become a home to hipstartups who would be well served by thebuilding's distinctive style and great location.

San Francisco Mart/Market Square - Itsblocky nature and large mass meanthousands of square feet ready for mixed-useredevelopment. It would be great to see someof the space go to a large permanentmarketplace in the style of Toronto's St.Lawrence or Philadelphia's Reading Terminalmarkets.

The future of this section of Market Streetremains unclear. Regardless, greatarchitectural stock is on hand and waiting tobe part of any renewal.

Originally from Portland and more recently Seattle, SaulEttlin is anew San Franciscan with history working inpolitics and government. He has astrnng interest in urbansustainability, transit policy and civic engagement. More ofhis photography can be seen at flic.kr/saul_xavier.20 Urbanist> February 2011

Hibernia BankBuilding. At thecorner of McAllisterand Jones, theHibernia Bank hasbeen straddlingthe Tenderloinand mid-Marketareas since 1892.Having served asa bank for most ofits life, the buildingwas most recentlyhome to the SFPDTenderloin TaskForce. Its distinctivedome, longcolonnades androunded stairwayspilling onto thestreet make it easyto see this space,designed by AlbertPissis, becominga neighborhoodcenterpiece.

Eastern Outfitting Company Building. With "Furniture and Carpets" emblazonedacross its frieze, this building near 6th and Market was originally home to the Eastern Outfittingdepartment store and subsequently Union Furniture. Architect George Applegarth's 1909treasure 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, makeit a Market Street keeper.

Odd Fellows Hall. At 7th and Market, this 1909 structure was designed by George Dodge. Thebuilding replaced the original Odd Fellows Temple that was destroyed in 1906. Sitting in the shadowof Morphosis' Federal Building, the hall is in stark contrast to its modern backdrop. It has many classicarchitectural details and great arched windows on the top floor.

SF Mart/MarketSquare. SF Mart'sMayan-inspired art decodetails can be missed onits sometimes austereexterior, which stretchesalong Market from 9thto 10th. The buildingwas designed by CapitolArchitects and completedin 1937.


SPUR Board of Directors Chairs and committees Welcome to ournew members!

Co-Chairs Board Members Janis Mackenzie PROGRAM Downtown Transit Facility RentalCOMMITTEES Center INDIVIDUALS Brendan MonaghanAndy Barnes Carl Anthony John Madden Bill Stotler German Aparicio Susana Morales Konishi

Linda Jo Fitz David Baker Jacinta McCann Emilio Cruz lac Appleton N. Claire NapawanBallot Analysis Executive Cynthia Armour Michelle NelsonFred Blackwell John McNulty Bob Gamble

Quinn Arntsen Teresa OjedaDoyle Drive Andy Barnes Joya Banerjee Newton Oldfather

Co-Vice Chairs Chris Block Chris Meany Peter Mezey Amanda Linda Jo Fitz Alma Basurto Teresa OUeLee Blitch Margo Bradish Ezra Mersey Simon Bertrang Jessee ParishHoenigman Marsha Boyette Nick PerryMary McCue Larry Burnett Mary Murphy Disaster Planning Finance Matthew Bruno Meghen QuinnEph Hirsh Andrew Buhrmann Chirag RabariBill Rosetti Michaela Cassidy Paul Okamoto Jacinta McCann Bob Gamble Paula Chiu Jessica RaffertyPeter WinkelsteinJim Salinas, Sr. Charmaine Curtis Brad Paul Dick Morten

Erin Coppin James RogersHuman Resources Matthew Cunha-Rigby S Jason Sarfen

Lydia Tan Gia Daniller Chris Poland Chris Poland Regional Planning Denise D'Anne Gary ScharlachLydia Tan Jason Dewees lelia ScheuV. Fei Tsen Oscar De La Torre Teresa Rea Housing Larry Burnett JeH Dewey Chris Schroeder

Byron Rhett Libby Seifel Individual Jack DouglasMichael Schwartz

Kelly Dearman Ezra Mersey Mark Dwight John SealanderSecretary Shelley Doran Wade Rose Lydia Tan

Membership Howard Fallon Nadia SecretoBlake Felson Ben Seisdedos

Tomiquia Moss Oz Erickson Victor Seeto OPERATING Bill Stotler Jeff Gard Neil SekhriElizabeth (Libby) Project Review COMMITTEES Jack Gold Geoff SharpNorman Fong Investment Catherine Gowen Sandy Sherwin

Treasurer David Friedman SeifelCharmaine Curtis Helene Gregoire Brooke Ray SmithAudit Ann Lazarus Samantha Hartley Maria Solorzano

Bob Gamble Gillian Gillett Chi-Hsin ShaoMary Beth Sanders

Peter Mezey Ronald Heckmann Sprague TerplanReuben Schwartz Major Donors Patricia Holden & Uli Weitzl

Chris Gruwell Raphael Sperry Mari Hunter James StillmanBill Stotler

Board Linda Jo Fitz Kati Jackson Kent StraussImmediate Anne Halsted Sustainable Glen Jones Peter Thomas StraussDevelopment Anne HalstedPast Co-Chair Dave Hartley Stuart Sunshine Development Aditi Joshi Mimi Sullivan

Lee Blitch Sean Joo Kim Lynn SywolskiTom Hart Mary Huss Michael Teitz Paul Okamoto Planned Giving Brian Korver Usa Taylor

Will Travis Building Michaela Cassidy Amit KothariMichael Thomas

Chris Iglesias Bry Sarte Skyler Kressin Meredith TraunerAdvisory Council Laurie Johnson Jeff Tumlin Management Mary Kuhn Jessica Tse

Transportation Silver SPUR Maureen Ladley Hillary TurnerCo-Chairs Ken Kirkey Steve Vette I Larry Burnett Susan Lassell Mark Turner

Emilio Cruz Dave Hartley WilHam Lee Julia Van RooMichael Alexander Travis Kiyota Debra Walker Business Paul Levin Asiya Wadud

Brooks Walker, IIIAnthrony Bruzzone Patricia Klitgaard Marcia Lieberman Gerald WarburgPaul Sedway Patricia Klitgaard Membership Suzanne Manhire & Joy Jacobson

Florence Kong Cynthia Wilusz- TASK FORCES Young Urbanists Jill Manton Alex WerthTom Hart Julia Mates DarryU WhiteRik Kunnath Lovell Climate Adaptation Terry Micheau

Gwyneth Borden Benjamin McCloskey Tyler WhiteEllen Lou Gia Daniller Wesley McCullough

Marika WigganWill Travis Mary McDonald Jessica Yin

Capital Campaign Trevor McNeilBUSINESSES

Chris Meany Olga Milan-Howells EPIC Insurance BrokersJordan MillerAlexander Mitra Hugh Groman Catering


31st AnnualGood Government Awards

MondayMarch 21, 20115:30 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 honoringthis year's Public Managerial Excellence Award winners:

DR. SUSAN FERNYAKCommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Public Health

DANA KETCHAMPermits and Reservations, Recreation and Park Department

CHERYL NASHIRRevenue and Management Development, San Francisco Airport Commission

JOBS NOW MANAGEMENT TEAMHuman Services Agency: Dave Curto, Tony Lugo, Leo Sauceda, Jim Whelly

CAPITAL PLANNING PROGRAM TEAMGeneral Services Agency: Brian Benson, Fran Breeding, Brian Strong,Adam Van de Water

Awards Ceremony & ReceptionSan Francisco City Hall, North Light Court1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

CHAIRMichael WalkerPresident, Union Bank Northern California

~bank.

2077 Award Winners and Nominees with Mayor Gavin Newsom

HONORARY AWARDS COMMITTEEThe Honorable Gavin NewsomThe Honorable Willie L. Brown, Jr.The Honorable Frank JordanThe Honorable Art AgnosThe Honorable Dianne FeinsteinMrs. Gina Moscone

SPONSORSHIPS AVAILABLETickets $85/personVisit spur.org/ggawards or call 415.644.4288


Join SPU R today! The San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Associationis a member-supported nonprofit organization. We rely on your support to promote good planningand good government through research, education and advocacy, Find out more at spur.org/join.

spur.org/rentals

spur.org/ggawards

Rent the Urban Center!Ask about our 10% discount forBusiness Members

G);::0mmzzG)()--l-

the urbanist #500 - feb 2011 - greening city apartments

Documents

multifamily buildings

buildings water

greening upi

old boiler

process of greening

green improvements eventhose

tomorrows apartment

green building technologies