OSPURIdeas + action for a better city Issue 510/ February 2012

Sarah KarlinskyisSPUR's deputydirector.

O SPUR

SPUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Co-Chairs Board Members GordonMarLeeBlitch Carl Anthony JacintaMcCannLindaJoFitz Alexa Arena ChrisMeany

ChrisBlock EzraMerseyCo-Vice Chairs Larry Burnett Terry MicheauEmilioCruz MichaelaCassidy Mary Murphy

David Friedman MadelineChun JeanneMyersonMary McCue Charmaine Curtis BradPaulWadeRose Gia Daniller-Katz Chris PolandV. Fei Tsen Kelly Dearman Teresa Rea

Shelley Doran ByronRhettSecretary OzErickson VictorSeetoBill Rosetti MannyFlores ElizabethSeilel

GillianGillett Chi-HsinShaoTreasurer ChrisGruwell OntarioSmithBobGamble AnneHalsted Bill Stotler

DaveHartley Stuart Sunshineimmediate Mary Huss Michael TeitzPast Co-Chair ChrisIglesias JamesTracyAndy Barnes LaurieJohnson Will Travis

Ken Kirkey Steve VettelAdvisory Council DickLonergan DebraWalkerCo-Chairs EllenLou CynthiaWilusz-Michael Alexander JanisMacKenzie LovellPaul Sedway JohnMadden Cindy Wu

CHAIRS& COMMITTEES

Program Good FinanceCommittees Goverment BobGambleBallotAnalysis BobGambleBob Gamble Human

Regional Planning ResourcesDisaster Larry Burnett Mary McCuePlanning LibbySeilelJacinta McCann IndividualDickMorten Operating MembershipChrisPoland Committees BillStotler

AuditHousing John Madden InvestmentEzraMersey Ann LazarusLydiaTan Nominating

Stuart Sunshine Major DonorsProject Review Linda JoFitzCharmaineCurtis Building AnneHalstedMary BethSanders ManagementReubenSchwartz Larry Burnett Planned Giving

MichaelaCassidySusta inable BusinessDevelopment Membership SilverSPURPaul Okamoto TomHart DaveHartleyBrySarte Terry Micheau TeresaRea

Transportation ExecutiveEmilioCruz LeeBlitchAnthony Bruzzone LindaJoFitz

2 FEBRUARY 2012

LETTER FROM SPUR

Time to ActSince SPUR's last round of Resilient City report s was released, the

wor ld has been rocked by earthquakes. Over the past two years,

the wor ld has watched as reports of massive earthquakes in New

Zealand, Chile, Hait i and Japan rolled in. We've seen substant ial damage

to cit ies and towns, deaths and disrupt ion of community life. All

of this 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 unstable

region. Scient ists at the U.S. Geolog ical Survey have project ed that we

have a 63 percent chance of a major earthquake occurring in the Bay

Area somet ime in th e next 30 years. We know many of the thing s th at

we need to do in order to prepare ourselves for the inevit able.

We want to bui ld a resilient city - one that can rebound qui ckly afte r

a disaster. This means we need our peop le here, in San Francisco, working to get our city

going again. Afte r th e earthquake strikes, we want San Franciscans to be able to stay

in their hom es while the city recovers and while limited damage is repaired. San

Francisco's housing doesn't need to be built to a standard where it would be complete ly

undamaged afte r an earthquake, but it needs to be strong enough so that most of it

is safe to occupy afte r a major earthquake so peopl e can shelter in place. We call thi s "safe

enough to stay."

To achieve this goal, we need to retrofi t our most vulnerable buildin g types that house

large numbers of San Franciscans. One of those buildin g types, wood-f rame soft-sto ry

buildings with three or more stories and five or more units, has been studied by the city

through its Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS). Soft-s to ry buildings,

ofte n recognizable by first-story 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

about 2,800 of these buildings. They are home to roughly 58,000 people, 8 percent of San

Francisco's population.

Hundreds of pages have been written abo ut why soft-s to ry buildin gs need to be

retrofitted and how the work should be done. Those involved with CAPSS worked for years

to figur e out what to do about soft-s tory buil dings. In 2010, th en Mayor Gavin Newsom

convened a task force to move a mandatory soft-sto ry retrofit program forward. An

ordinance creat ing that program is wr it ten and ready to go but has yet to be introduced.

Mayor Ed Lee cares deeply about disaster resilience. He put forward a very detailed plan

- th e Earth quake Safety Implementat ion Program - to implement CAPSS. That plan

calls for a mandatory retrof it program for soft-sto ry multifamily buildings to be introduced

thi s year. Our perspective is: the sooner, th e better. We hop e the mayor reads this

lett er, drops The Urbanist on his desk, picks up the phone and introdu ces the ordinance.

When that happens, he'll be able to hear us cheering from th e Urban Center.

Of course, there is more to be done than retrofitt ing soft-s tory buildin gs. To get housing

that is safe enough to occupy, we're going to need to retrofi t our vulnerable housing stoc k.

We're going to need to come up with plans to ensure that our housing codes don't make

it illegal fo r people to stay in their damaged homes afte r the earthquake, while ensuring

that housing is safe enough to live in and that it is being repaired in a tim ely fashion.

We're going to need to find ways to sta ff and manage neighb orhood support cente rs

to provide help and assistance to peop le living without wo rking telephones, elect ricity or

sewers so that these residents choose to stay.

None of this wil l be easy, but the cost of doing nothin g is too 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 NIST

FEBRUARY 2012

Newsat SPURThe End of Redevelopment:What's Next?On December 20, the California Supreme

Court upheld t he legi slature's elim ination of

redevelopment - and struck down t he o ption forredeve lopment agencies to pay back a port io n of

t heir share of property ta x increment to continue

to exist. Th is outcome represents t he worst-cas e

scenario for suppo rte rs of red eve lopment . Hav ing

spent all of 2011 as part of various coa litions to

reform rather than elim inate red evelopment, we

were, needless to say, disappointed . In a state that

has destroyed so mu ch of its system of taxation , we

have jus t witnessed the destruction of one more

part. But at this point, knowing what we do about

wh at was righ t and wrong with redevelopment, we

think it 's time to look tow ard th e future and figu re

out what comes next. W e need a new model of

urban red evelopment for th e 21s l century. W e wi ll be

work ing hard at SPUR, w ith peop le from around the

state, to co me up w ith st rate g ies for all of t he things

we used redevelopment for: affordab le housing ,

infrastructure f inancing, economic development andeve ryt hing else. We loo k forward to figuring out the

next chapter. Read more at http://b it.ly/ xDwXpv

SPUR Weighsin onPUC UrbanAgriculturePilot SitesThis past fall the Public Utili tiesCommission (PUC) authorized

its staff to prepare a feasibility

study and application process

for two pilot urban agriculture

project s on PUCprop ert ies

within San Francisco: College

Hill Reservoir in Bernal Heights

and the Southeast Wastewater

Treatment Plant in Bayview. This

represents a great opportunity

to support food product ion and

THE URBANIST

help foster commun ity in two

important San Francisco neigh­

borhoods. In December, SPUR

encouraged the PUCto consider

a variety of urban agricultureproject types and to use these

project s to create model leaselanguage and oversight mecha­

nisms that can be repl icated

for other PUC sites. SPUR will

cont inue to track the progress of

these proposals and advocate for

quick act ivat ion of the proposed

sites. For background, see http://

bit.l y/ wgEY4J

SFDeficit ChallengeContinuesFollowing recurring citybudget deficits app roaching

$500 million, San Francisco hasbeen project ing a $263 mill ion

shortfall for the fiscal year

starting July 1, 2012. That numb er

has recently increased to at least

$320 milli on. When combined

with projected increases in labor

costs dr iven by collecti ve bar­

gaining of 27 employee cont racts,

the eliminat ion of redevelop­

ment agencies and various other

trigger cuts, the city could once

again be facing a $400 million

short fall for the coming year. The

projected deficit for fiscal year

2013-14 - the second year of

the city's biannual budget - is

est imated to be at least $375

million. Even with voter approval

of pension reform in November

2011and improving tax revenues,

the city's structural deficit

continues to be a significant

challenge, and SPUR will cont inue

working to devise revenue and

operat ing solut ions in 2012.

An Honest LookatMuni's Structural DeficitSPUR execut ive directo r GabrielMetcalf is co-chairing a broad­

based effort at the San FranciscoMunicipal Transportation

Agency (SFMTA) to balance

that organizat ion's budget. SPUR

has made enormous progress on

Muni over the past decade, from

givi ng the transit agency control

over the streets to reform ing the

way it negotiates labor contracts.

Now it is t ime to squarely face

the agency's long-t erm funding

challenges. For years, Muni has

tr ied to provide more service than

it actually 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 cuts when vehicles,

tracks and overhead lines arenot available for daily service.

We est imate that SFMTA needs$150 million more per year in

operat ions fund ing (more than

70 percent just for Muni) to reach

the service standards in the city

charter and $260 mill ion more

per year to address the repair

of transportat ion assets. These

numbers are sobering: SFMTA will

either need to come up with the

addit ional funding or reinvent

the way transportat ion services

are deli vered in the city .

Expansion and RenewalPlanned for theMoscone CenterSF Travel (for merly the Conven­

t ion and Visitors Bureau), along

with the Mayor 's Office of Eco­

nomic and Workfo rce Develop­

ment, is hard at work on an ambi­

tious set of plans to expand the

Moscone convent ion center. The

renovation provides an opportu­nity not just to expand the square

footage and add meet ing rooms

but to rethink the role of the

convention center in the 21st cen­

tury. Can we use this as an oppo r­

tunit y for urban repair that would

create a more permeable and

active edge around Moscone?

Can we improve walkability and

create new, direct connect ions

to the Central Subway? Moscone

is a key driver of our economy,

one that San Francisco taxpayers

don't pay for themselves. We are

excited about the possibilit ies

that this investment may provide

to the neighborhood and the city.

FEBRUAR Y 2012 3

DISASTER PLANN ING

SafeEnoughto Stay

This report is generously funded

by the U.S. Geological Survey.

What w ill it take for San Franciscans to livesafely in their homes after an earthquake?

Wh en a major earthquake strikes th e Bay Area, the

region could face tho usands of casualties, hundre ds

of thousands of displaced households and losses

in the hundreds of billion do llars. The lives of San

Franciscans will be enormously disrupt ed, and it could

take months to re-establ ish essent ial services.

Recovery wi ll be slow, depending on the extent of

the building damage, the amount of business lost , the

availability of uti liti es and how quickly communities

can repair and rebui ld their housing.

In order to rebound quickly afte r a major earth­

quake, San Francisco needs to become a resilient city.

Resilience is the abil ity of the city to contain the effects

of earthquakes when they occur, to carry out recovery

act ivities in ways that minimize social disruption and

to rebuild in ways that mitigate the effects of futur e

earthquakes. The more quickly a community 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-enough) add resses one

consideration: housing. Aft er a major earthquake

hits, how many San Franciscans wi ll be able to shelter

in place, i.e., stay in their homes while those homes

are being repaired? What does it mean for the city's

overall resilience if some neighborhoods suff er more

damage than others? What steps can cit y gove rnment,

building owners and residents take now to ensure that

homes are safe to occupy aft er an earthquake strikes?

Housing is only one element in the complex

web of factors that contribute to the city 's earthquake

4 FEBRUARY 2012

resilience, but we believe it is an especially important

one. Housing is linked to every other aspect of the

city's recovery: Businesses, neighborhood distri cts,

schoo ls and cultural inst itut ions all rely on residents

being in the city. If peop le can stay in their homes,

they wi ll be more able to put th eir energy and

resources into rebuilding th eir neighbo rhoods. If

they must leave the city , their resources will go with

th em, perhaps permanent ly.

In thi s art icle, we answer the follow ing questions:

1. How much of San Francisco's housing sto ck needs

to meet shelter-in-place standards in order for

the city to be resilient?

2. What engineering criteria should be used to

determ ine whether a home has shelter-in-place

capacity that's adequate for a major earthquake?

3. What needs to be done to enable residents to

shelter in place for days and months afte r a large

earthquake?

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?

The quest ion of how much housing in a city can be

damaged by an earthquake before the city's viabilit y

is undermin ed is not easily answered. However, afte r

Shelter-in- Place Task Force

Christopher Barkley,URSCorporation

JackBoatwright, U.S. Geologica l Survey

David Bonowitz, StructuralEngineer"

MaryComerio,Professor ofArchitecture,

University ofCalifornia, Berkeley

Bryce Dickinson,Rutherfordand Chekene

LauraDwelley-Samant,Consultant..

LucasEckroad, Departmentof Emergency

Management,City andCounty ofSan

Francisco

David Friedman, Forell/Elsesser EngineersInc.

LaurieJohnson, LaurieJohnsonConsultingIResearch

KeithKnudsen, U.S.Geological Survey

LaurenceKornfield, EarthquakeSafety Imple­

mentationProgram,City and County of San

Francisco"

Joe Maffei, RutherfordandChekene

MikeMieler, DoctoralCandidate,University of

California, Berkeley

Steven Murphy, Seifel Consu lting

JohnPaxton, Real EstateConsultant

ChrisPoland, Degenkolb Engineers'

David Schwartz, U.S. Geological Survey

HeidiSieck, KennedySchool ofGovernment

Debra Walker, BuildingInspectionCommission,

City andCountyofSan Francisco

Staff: Sarah Karlinsky,SPURDeputy Director

Interns: Amy Dhaliwal andJohnPham, Pacific

Earthquake Engineering Research Center

• Task force chair, .. Subcommittee chair

THE URBANIST

,

Sources:

SFGIS, Census 2000

and SPUR ana lysis

ofCAPSS HAZUS

Output Data

THE URBANIST

Sunset

FIGURE A

How Will the Expected Earthquake Impact San Francisco?Different neighborhoods have different housing stock and soil conditions, which means

the degr ee of earthquake damage will vary across the city. After a magnitude 7.2

earthquake on the San Andreas Fault, we expect the percentages of housing in red to

be unusable, meaning not safe enough for residents to shelter in place.

Unusable Units

Usable Units------

1mile

FEBRUARY 2012 5

DISASTER PLANNING

What Does It Mean toShelt er in Place?

SPURdefines "shelter in place" asa

resident'sability to remain inhisor

herhomewhile it isbeingrepairedafter

anearthquake- not just for hoursor

daysafter anevent, but for themonthsit

may taketo get back to normal. For

abuildingto have shelter-in-place

capacity, it must bestrong enoughto

withstandamajor earthquake without

substantial structural damage. This is

adifferent standard thanthat employed

by thecurrent buildingcode, which

1 There are approximately 330,0 00 households in San

Francisco. The est imate of 85 ,000 househ olds comes

from analysis of CAPSS HA ZUS out put dat a - see

Figure B.

2 l aurie Johnson and Lucas Eckroad, "Sum mary

Report on the City and Cou nty of San Francisco's Post­

Disaster Interim Housing Pol icy Planning Workshop,"

July 11, 2001, San Francisco Department of Emergency

Management.

3 Eemall correspon dence with Robert Stengel , Depart­

ment of Emergency Management , Septembe r 1,2011.

4 Vacancy rates in SF are currently 4%and are continu­

ing to tighten due to high demand from grow ing

employment secto rs, potentially exacerba t ing int erim

housing needs should a d isaste r stri ke. First quart er

2011. Data from Reis, Inc. as quoted in "U.S. Housing

Market Conditions: Pacific Regional Report, HUD Re­

g ion IX - lst Quarte r 2011." Availabl e at www.huduser.

org/portaVregional.htm l.

6 FEBRUARY 2012

promisesonly thata building meets

life-safety standards, that is, the

buildingwill not collapse but maybeso

damagedasto beunusable. Ashe lter­

in-place res idencewill notbefully

functional, likeahospital wou ld need to

be, but it will besafe enough for people

to livein it duringthemonthsafter

anearthquake.While util itiessuchas

water andsewer linesarebeingrepaired

andreconnected, residentswhoare

shelteringin place will need to bewithin

walkingdistanceof aneighborhood

centerthat canhelp meetbasicneeds

notavailablewithin their homes.

assessing th e city's exist ing capa city for short- te rm

hou sing (she lte r beds) and medium -t erm or "inte rim"

housing (hote l room s, tr ailers) and analyz ing how

housing damage in recent relevant di sasters affec ted

comm unity resilience, we conclude th at 95 percent is

an ap pro priate goa l.

San Francisco's emergency and interim housing

capacity

After a magnitude 7.2 earthquake on th e San

Andreas Fault (see "D ef in ing th e Expect ed

Earthq uake" on page 8 for mor e on why we use th is

metr ic), app rox imate ly 85,000 households (roug hly

25 percent of San Francisco's populat ion') could

need interim housing for severa l months, gr adu ally

dec reasing to 45,0 0 0 households (approx imate ly

13 percent) by t wo yea rs after th e earthquake. Up

to 15,0 00 hou seholds (approx imate ly 5 percent )

could require int erim housing fo r up to f ive years."

San Francisco's Depar tm ent of Emerge ncy

Management est imates th at it s t op shelte r capac ity

is 60,0 0 0 persons, or roughly 7.5 percent of

San Francisco 's ove rall populat ion. Shelte ring this

many peop le wo uld require maximi zing shelte r space

at larg e convent ion faci liti es like th e Moscon e Cente r

and also making use of some outdoor or sof t-s ided

shelters to sup pleme nt ind oor space . If we we re

only to use indoor facilit ies, capac ity wo uld be

redu ced to 45,000 persons, or rou gh ly 5.5 percent

of San Francisco's populati on .'

Af te r th e emerge ncy pe riod has subsided,

resident s w ill need to find int erim housing during

th e per iod w hen repairs to da mage d housing are

being completed and new replacement housing

is const ructe d. San Francisco's op t ions for prov iding

interim housing are severely constra ined and could

lead to resident s being dispersed to ot her parts of

th e sta te (or poss ibly even farther) .

Recent comparable d isasters

Perhaps th e bes t way to invest igate whether a goa l

of 95 percent shelter in place is reasonabl e for

San Francisco is to conside r how other communit ies

fa red af te r major disasters (See Figure B). Several

relevant lessons for San Francisco emerge from th e

experiences of di sasters in other communit ies:

1. Rebuil d ing housing takes a long time, even if the

per centage of units rendered uninhabitable is

relatively sma ll . It took at least two years for a

signif icant port ion of housing to be rep laced

in all of th e prof iled d isasters for which info rmat ion

was available. After th e 199 5 earthquake in Kob e,

Japan - an area often cited as similar to th e Bay

Area - it took th e cit y f ive to 10 years to reach it s

rebui ldin g goa ls.

2. Multifamily and affordable housing is much more

difficu lt and slower to rep lace than single-family,

market-rate housing. Finan cing and legal issues

are some of th e man y factor s th at slow down thi s

wo rk. After th e Bay Area's Loma Prieta earthquake

in 1989, it took seven to 10 years to rep lace all

of th e damaged affo rdable housing. If afforda ble

housing is lost. it is possibl e th at some might

never be rep laced, leadi ng to a significant shif t in

post-event popu lat ion .

3. Large losses of housing lead to permanent

losses of popu lation. Hurri cane Katrina and th e

Kobe earthquake had housing losses greate r

than 25 percent. Both events caused large popula­

t ion losses and demographic shifts . Even where

housing losses were mu ch sma ller - such as

the Christc hurch earthq uakes in New Zealand ­

large losses in popu lati on were felt.

4. lnt erim housing matters. After th e 1994

Northr idge earthquake in Los Ange les, most of th e

people disp laced were able to relocate nearby

du e to th e area's pre-earthquake 9.3 percent

vaca ncy rate. Vacant rental units serve d as int erim

housing. In San Francisco, th e vaca ncy rate is

t yp ically mu ch t ighter, current ly 4 percent .' mean­

ing the city will need more act ive measures to

house it s di splaced resident s ove r longer period s.

We believe that San Francisco wo uld experience

signif icant consequences if even on ly 5 percent of

it s housing un it s were unu sabl e af te r an eart hquake,

g iven th e city 's low vaca ncy rates, densit y and

THE URBANIST

FIGURE B

Comparison of Recent DisastersEven in disasters that damaged a relatively small number of

housing units, cities experienced substantial outmigration.

Uninhabitable unitsasa Percentageofuninhabit-

percentage of housingin able unitsthat were in Housing reconstruction

Event Uninhabitable units theaffected area multifamily build ings Outmigration timeframe

Lorna Prieta 11 ,SOO More th an 1% Oakland 60 % More th an 1,000 left 2 years for single-

earthquake and San Francisco; Santa Cruz/Watson- family and most

1989 10% Watsonv ill e and vil le area. Oakland market-rate apart -

San Francisco Santa Cruz reported 2,SOO new ments, 7-10 years to

Bay Area hom eless; similar rep lace/repair

num bers assumed for affordable housing

San Francisco. units in 3 counties

Hurricane 80 ,000 6% in Sout h Dade 29% Perma nent dispersion 7S% of single-family

Andrew County of 2S,OOO-30,000 in 2 years, very

1992 househo lds (exacer- limited mu ltifami ly

Miami bated by 21,000 jobs

lost with Homestead

base closure)

Northridge 60,000 3% of San Fernando 88% Minim al: people 80% in 2 years;

earthquake Valley; 1.S% of Los rehoused in vacant ty pically 2 years to

1994 Angeles units due to pre- repair and 4 years

Los Ange les earthquake 9.3% to rebuild da maged

vaca ncy rate uni ts

Kobe Nearly 4S0,000 24% in th e six cent ral Approx imate ly SO% 6.3% as of October Limi ted construc tio n

earthquake housing units either urb an war ds of th e 1995 (9 months afte r in th e first 2 years

1995partially or comp lete - City of Kobe th e earthquake) afte r the earthquake;

Kobe, Japan Iy dest royed . Abo ut (approx imate ly 1S% S-lO years to reach

400,000 peopl e in in th e City of Kobe and exceed the city's

the region left at as a wh ole - which rebuilding goa l.

least temporari ly include s some Ult imately around

homeless, and more suburban areas) 200,000 uni t s were

than 316,000 peop le bui lt, rough ly doub le

sought pub lic shelter. the city 's goal.

Hurricane 100,000 uni ts dam- SO% of all New 43% 80% of resident s 13%fewer unit s in city

Katrina aged or dest royed Orleans household s; init ially evacuated; in 2010 and vaca ncy

20059-21%loss of after S years, rate now 2S% (p re-

New Orleanspop ulat ion by po pulatio n had storm rate at 12%)

neig hborhoo d (wi th returned to 80% of

some as high as 49%) its pre-Katr ina levels;

however, th is inc ludes

significant in-migra-

t ion of new residents

Christchurch Approximately 2-3% of Christc hurc h Neg ligib le, probably Total outmigration Too early to evaluate

earthquakes 1S,OOO homes will and surrou nd ing less th an 1% could be roug hly

2010 and 2011 not be allowed to distri ct s 30 ,000 (6-8 months

Christchu rch, New rebuil d after the 2011event);

Zealand could increase as

famili es resolve

insurance claims

Source: Pleasesee p.10, Footnotes 12-21 intheSP UR report at www.spur.org/safe-enough

DISASTER PLANNING

Defining the Expected

Earthq uake

Forthepurposes of defining resilience

anddevelopingmitigationpolicies to

achieveit, SPUR uses one of thescenario

earthquakes developedbytheCommunity

Action PlanforSeismic Safety (CAPSS):

amagnitude7.2earthquake onthepenln-

5 Defining build ing perfo rmance in terms of shelter

in place is a new concept. The CAPSS project used

the best info rmat ion and me thods available at the

time to estimate the amo unt of housing that would

be usable aft er an earth quake. This task force has

now developed impr oved methods to ident ify wh ich

residences could be used to shelter in place. but

th is new approac h has not yet been app lied to San

Francisco's bu ilding stoc k. The analys is presented in

this report is basedon the CAPSS analysis. We are

hop efu l that an imp roved analysis wi ll be conducted

som etim e in the future using the methods developed

by t his task force, producing upd ated and refined

estimates of housing damage .

6 This assumes a high standard o f retrofit, referr ed

to as Retrof it Scheme 3 in the CAPSSreport "Here

Today - Here Tomo rrow : Ear thqua ke Safety for

Sofl-Story Build ings" (ATe 52-3). There are 4,400

wood-frame buil dings wit h three or more sto ries

and fi ve or more units in San Francisco, an unkn own

number of wh ich have a so ft -story conditio n.

8 FEBRU ARY 2012

sula segment of theSan Andreas Fault.

We refer10 thisscenario asthe

"expectedearthquake" because anevent

of thismagnitude can beexpected ­

conservativelybutreasonably - to occur

once duringtheuseful life ofastructure

orsystem, and morefrequently if the

structure isrenovated toservemore than

oneor twogenerations.

limited capac ity for interim housing. If more housing

were damag ed, the potential social and economic

consequence s could be devastat ing.

How will San Francisco's neighborhoods be

impacted by the expected earthquake?

After a magnitud e 7.2 earthquake on the San Andreas

Fault, approximately 25 percent of San Francisco's

housing unit s wou ld be unsafe for residents

to occupy. In other word s, we currently expect 75

percent of residences to be available for sheltering

in place aft er the expected earthquake.

SPURhas refined estim ates of housing damage

provided by th e Commun ity Action Plan for Seismic

Safety (CAPSS) so that they could be repo rted in

greater detail by neighborhood and structure type."

The analysis makes clear that housing in every San

Francisco neighborhood would be damaged heavily by

the expected eart hquake. The neighborhoods that

will see the most damage are those with large amounts

of multi family housing, which is genera lly more

vulnerable than smaller residences, and those that

have significant areas of soft or liquef iable soils, which

can exper ience magnified shaking and ground failure.

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 adopted by the City and County of San

Francisco, eith er in the Community Safety Element

of the General Plan or as a stand-alone piece of

legislation adopted by the Board of Supervisors.

The city should set a 30 -year time frame to reach

thi s goal, mirroring the 30 -year time frame ident i­

fied to implement the CAPSSrecommendations.

2. lmplement the Commun ity Act ion Plan for

Seismic Safety (CAPSS) recommended

mandatory soft-story retrofit program.

Estim ated increase in shelter-in-place capacity:

5-6 percent

As SPUR noted in its 2009 resilient cit y report, the

single most imp ortant step San Francisco can take

to increase its resilience is to adop t a mandatory

retrofit program for wood-frame soft -story

build ings with three stories or more and five units

or more. If these build ings were seismically

retro fitted, we estimate that 80 percent of city

resident s would be able to shelter in place after the

expected earthquake."

3. Develop soft-story retrofit program fo r smaller

soft-story bu ild ings .

Estim ated incr ease in shelter- in -place capacity:

6-9 percent

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 earthquake. A ret­

rofit program is needed for these build ings as well.

4. Develop retrofit programs for other vu lner-

able housing types that impact San Francisco 's

resilience and also have the potential to severe ly

injure 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 buildings, that will not

serve as shelter-in-p lace housing and also have

the potent ial to be significant ly damaged, causing

injur y and significant loss of life. As we do not

curr ent ly know how many of these buildi ngs

exist, the city should beg in by developing a reliable

inventory of them.

S.Focus on deve lop ing an int erim hous ing strategy

for San Francisco.

The city should complete it s interim housing

planning process and adhere to its object ives to

keep as many residents as possible in their homes;

keep residents within their neighborhoods;

keep people within the city ; and finally, if resident s

are relocated, have a plan to bring them 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 the

THE URBAN IST

Seismically Vulnerable Structures:An Engineer's Rogues' Gallery

Unrelnforcedmasonrywasprohibitedafter the1933LongBeach earthquake butthousandsof older buildingsremained.Themost commonhazardinvolvesunbracedparapetsfallingontosidewalks andpeelingtheupper wallsaway fromthe roof.

Soft-storywood frame. Anabundance ofwall openings inthe first story, typicallyforgarage bays orstorefront windows, makesthese bui ldingsvulnerabletocollapseastheflexiblefirststorysways sideways.

House over garage. Thisisthesmaller,single-familyversionof thesoft-storyproblem.Ona25-foot lot thereisusuallyenoughwallareatoaccommodatearetrofitsufficient tostiffenthestructure toprevent

collapse.

Non-ductileconcrete frame.UnlikeURMor soft-storybuildings, NDC structuresarehard tospot fromthesidewalkandtheirevaluationand retrofit canrequire relativelysophisticatedengineering.

Tilt-up.Thechiefweak spot inpre-1995tilt-ups istheconnectionbetweentherigidwallsandtheflexibleroof.When thatconnectionfails, theconcretepanel wallfallsaway fromthebuildingandtheroofcollapses.

Cripplewall.The short woodstudwallaroundahouse'scrawl space.Lackingstiffplasterfinishesor roompartitions,perim­etercripplewallsoffer inadequatesupport.Theyare easily retrofitted byaddingplywoodsheatinginsidethe crawl space.

Nonstructuralcomponents. Any part of abuilding that'sheavy,brittleor looselyat­tached isvulnerabletodamage.Theheavypartscanbelifethreatening.Gaslinesandgas-firedequipment can start fires.Therestcantakeabuildingout ofservice.

' ASCE 2003

earthquake, the ability to assess an individual build­ing's expected performance is needed beforehand.

SPUR recognizes that San Francisco's resiliencerequires more than basic safety during the earth ­quake. It requires that buildings remain habit able andrepairable so that occupants can live safely in themeven before repairs begin.. To support the move to resilience-based

earthquake planning, the city's exist ing structural­evaluation criteria need to be revisited. Specifically,the city needs to determine what shelter inplace means from an engineering perspect ive andto develop a criteria for analyzing now, beforethe earthquake, whether a building is likely to serve asshelter-in-place housing afterward.

We recommend that feasible shelter-in-placeevaluat ion criteria be based on exist ing standardsalready familiar to practicing engineers and codeofficials. Those standards should account for:

-7 Cost-effect ive procedures;-7 The range of residential structure types in San

Francisco;-7 Differences betw een new and exist ing structures

(unlike most building code provisions); and-7 Nonstructural condit ions that affec t shelter-in­

place habitability.

We recommend the use of the national standardcalled Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings,? also

known as ASCE 31.To determine whether a building has shelter­

in-p lace capacity, the ASCE 31criteria should be

modified to consider only the types of damage thatare crit ical for sheltering in place with reference toapproved maps of relevant hazards and expected

infrastructure perfor mance.

SPUR's Recommendat ions6. Further develop shelter-in-p lace evaluat ion

crite ria for volunt ary, mandatory and tr igge red

seismic work on residential buildings.

We have described one approach to developingshelter-in-place evaluation criteria. However, muchwork is yet to be done. SPUR recommendsthat the Off ice of the City Administrato r, theDepartment of Building Inspection and theDepartm ent of Emergency Management furth erdevelop shelter-in-place evaluation criteria.

7. As draft crite ria are developed , generate a new

loss estimate for the magnitude 7.2 San Andreas

and othe r scenario earthq uakes.

Our best estimate of housing loss and its impact

TH E URBAN IST FEBRUAR Y 20 12 9

DISASTER PLANNING

What Is ACSE 31?

ASCE 31 isanationalstandard for

seismic evaluationof existing buildings

developed bytheAmericanSociety

of Civil Engineers(ASCE). ASCE 31's

mainfeatureisaset of checkliststhat

guidetheengineerto look for critical

deficienciesinabuilding'sstructure,

architectureand systems, basedon

observeddamage patterns frompast

earthquakes.With these checklists,

supplementedbyengineeringcalcula­

tions, abuildingcan beevaluated

with respect to howwecanexpect it

toperforminafutureexpectedearth­

quake: whetherit will likelybesafeand

occupiable; safe and repairable; ornot

safe. Because ASCE 31 does notdirectly

address thequestion ofshelter inplace

aswedefine it here, weareproposing

waystoadapt it 10 thisnewthinking

aboutearthquakeresilience.

FIGURE C

Phased Habitability

Standards Following an

Earthquake

After anearthquake, even housingthatis

safeenoughto occupy will notmeetexist­

ing codes.Aphasedstandard needstobe

definedin thispost-earthquakeperiod.

CODE STANDARD FOR HABITABILITY

on recovery (based on the 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 with draf t

engineering criteria in progress, the Department

of Building Inspect ion and the Departm ent of

Emergency Management should undert ake

a new loss est imate focused on shelter-in-p lace

perform ance.

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 define alternat ive

shelter-in-place housing standards that are safe

enough to allow peop le to stay in their homes

but not so str ingent that ot herw ise safe bui ldings will

be deemed unsuitable for occupancy. How do we

set a post-earthquake standard that is "safe enough"?

We need to define alternative standards that would

supersede regular code requirements and standards

dur ing a housing-emergency period declared by

the city afte r a major earthquake. Such an emergency

period might extend for days, weeks or long er.

Shelter- in-place standards should be phased, with

the expec tat ion that repairs need to be made

over tim e to restore habitabilit y. Certain standards

that would be considered acceptab le immediately

followin g the eart hquake (such as using port able

outdoo r toilets) would not be considered acceptable

three month s afte r the earthquake. The shelter-in­

place standards should def ine which needs will be

met by the buil ding itsel f and which will be met out­

side the building for each t ime phase. Those

resources that must be met outside the building will

need to be provided at a neighborhood service

center located in close proximity to shelter-in-place

housing.

Figure C illust rates the idea of alternative habit­

abilit y standards that would apply in emergencies but

graduall y revert to norma l code requir ement s. The

blue line represents the code standards for habit­

ability that norm ally apply. When an eart hquake

occurs, some damage might result, but if th e damag e

is light , it would not affect the city 's overall resilience,

so no relaxat ion of the normal standards wou ld be

justif ied. A declared housing emergency, however,

indicates that damage - and possibly housing loss ­

is significant enough to just ify special measures to

speed response and recovery. The red line represents

the minimum standard to be met within a residence.

The pink shaded area represents elements that will

be provid ed outside of the home by a neighb orhood

service center. The red shaded area represents the

actual loss of habitable housing. As repairs are made,

the loss is recovered, and buildings return to normal.

Minimum habitability requirements for occupancyafter the earthquakeSPURhas identified five different post-earthquake

t ime periods and defined the major habitabi lity

requirements for each:

1. The immediate post-earthq uake period

2. One week aft er the earthquake

3. One month after th e earthquake

4. Three months aft er the earthquake

5. Aft er the declared housing emergency is over

HABITABILITY ELEMENTSPROVIDED BY NEIGHBORHOODCENTE RS ~' ..........~

EARTHQ UAKEOCC URS

10 FEBR UA RY 20 12

...HABITABILITYELEMENTS TOBE MET WI THINRESIDENCE

DAYS

EMERGENCYDECLARED

WEEKS MONTHS

END OFHOUSING

EMERGENCY

Increasingly robust habitability standards wi ll need

to be met in each phase, as described in Figure D.

Building evaluation and inspectionAfte r a major earthquake, engineers and design

professionals come from all over the country to help

conduct form al building inspectio ns using what is

known as the ATC-20 evaluat ion procedure. They

evaluate bui lding structures and tag them depending

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 either

requires further evaluat ion or is okay to occupy ex­

cept for designat ed areas; and green tags mean that

no unsafe condit ions were found or suspected.

Shelter-in-p lace evaluat ions are not a buildin g tag­

ging program. Instead, th ey wi ll provide immediate

THE URBANI ST

FIGURE 0

Shelter-in-Place Alternative Habitability StandardsA 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.

After All normalhabitability requirementswill applyat theendof the

emergency declared housing-emergencyperiod.

is over

1".

Immediatepost­earthquakeperiod

II1 weekafter theearthquake

Meet all of the

conditions above,

plus the following.

Thebuildingmustbesafe

Residentswill notbepermitted tooccupybuildingsor portionsof

buildingsposted asUnsafe(red tag)orSecured. Priortoaformal

inspection byanauthorized person,ownersandtenantsmayself­

inspect using asimplifiedchecklist prov ided bythecity.

Theremustbeat least oneusableexit pathoftravelavailablefrom everyoccupiedarea.Blockage bybuildingcontentsorother nonstructuralelements

thatcan readilybecleared isacceptableasausablepath of travel.

PortablefireextinguishersMustbeinplaceif required formultifamily residences

Weatherprotection: roofWeatherprotection: wallsWeatherprotection:windowsMaybeatemporaryplasticcovering

Provisionofabuilding addressMaybeatemporary address placard

SmokedetectorsCO,detectorsBattery-poweredokay

Elevators inbuildingsoffiveor morestoriesMust worksevendays following restorationofelectrical service

1 monthafter theearthquake

Meet all of the

conditionsabove,

plus the following.

3 monthsafter theearthquake

Meet all of the

conditionsabove,

plusthe following.

Electricity

GasWaterFirealarmsystems and otherrequiredalarmsEmergencyexit illumination

Electricallight: at least one fixedorcord-and-plugtypeperroomHot watersupplyRefrigerationforfood

Mustwork30 daysfollowing restorationofservice

SewerandtoiletMustwork inhome30 daysfollowing restoration of service. Where

sewers arenot workingor pipesareleaking,wastemustbebagged,

treatedwithchemicalsanddisposed of according to localinstructions.

Formore information,see sewersmart.org/disrupted.html

Automaticfiresprinklers, sprinklerwet standpipesandfirepumpsMust work90 daysfollowingrestorationof water service

Entrance doors andhardware/locksMustwork90 daysafter theearthquake

Secondexit, if requiredFireescapes are acceptableas secondexits

Heatingservice

Mustwork90 daysfollowing restorationof utilityservice

TH E URBANI ST

guidance for residents as to whether nonstru ctur al

and related conditio ns are suitab le for cont inued

occupancy. Resident s will need to review shelter-in­

place condit ions within 24 hours of an earthquake

so that they know whether they can remain in

their homes. Meanwhil e, it may take a periodof several days or weeks for inspectors 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 assesstheirown buildings. But many residents will need help and

guidance in applying shelter-in-p lace standards to

their buildin gs wh ile they wait for design profession­

als to complete an ATC-20 evaluation. Private

community volunteers can be trained to help resi­

dents dete rmine if shelter-in-place standards are met.

SPUR's Recommendat ionsA post-ea rthquake alte rnat ive shelter-in-place

habit ability standard should be established and

impl emented in order to encourage residents to re­

main in their homes. The following recommendations

will help to achieve this goal.

8. Create a San Francisco interdepartmentalshelte r- in-p lace task force.

The Mayor 's Office should create an interdepart­

mental task force that will ensure coordinat ionwith the Departm ent of Building Inspecti on,

the San Francisco Fire Departm ent, the

Department of Public Health and the Departm ent

of Emergency Management. Other agencies

to be involved should include the Departm ent

of Public Works, the Mayor' s Office on Disability,

the Mayor 's Office on Housing and others.

9. Prepare and adopt regulations that allow for the

use of shelter-in-place habitabili ty standards in a

declared housing-emergency per iod.

Shelter-in-p lace standards may be adopted in

advance of an emergency or be completed and

FEBRUARY 20 12 11

Source:

SeismicHazard Zones. City

andCounty of San Francis­

co," (California Department

of Conservation, Division

of Mines andGeology.

November 17, 2000) http://

gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/

download/pdf!ozn_sf.pdf

Lincoln

12 FEBRUARY 20 12

FIGURE E

Liquefaction and Lands lide Zones in San FranciscoSan Francisco is vulnerabl e to seismic hazards afte r an earthquake.

including liqu efaction (wh ere wet ground is shaken to the point that it

behaves like a liquid ) and landslide (when a slope becomes unstabl e).

80

TH E URBANIST

DISASTER PLANN ING

THE URBA NIST

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 . Theseshould include comp laint, inspect ion and enforce­

ment procedures.

During a declared emergency, a separate

housing emergency may also be declared, which

wou ld allow the enforcement of the alternative

shelter-in-place habitability standards. A declared

housing emergency may cont inue as a special

emergency period past the general declared

emergency period and may be app lied to specific

areas where housing is most severely impacted.

10. Develop a plan for impl ementati on of a

shelter - in-place progra m.

This impl ement ation plan should include the

creatio n of public tra ining materia ls, coor dinat ion

wit h existi ng post-disaster building evaluat ion

proced ures and the stockpiling of materia ls

needed to achieve shelter in place in the post ­

disaster period.

A. Preparation of public training materials

The interagency task force recomme nded above

should develop simp le and clear t raining materials

fo r residents to help them deter mine whether or

not they can shelter in place. These should include

a set of graphic illust rations and a shelter-in-place

checklist, which should be incorporated in outreachand training materials to building owners and

residents to inform them of shelter-in-place habit­

ability requirements, standards, inspecti on

procedures and repair expectatio ns. These couldinclude such elements as door tags that say " I'm

OK!" or " I Need Help." Addit ionally, residents could

receive special t raining in shelter in place prior

to an event, much like the current Neighborhood

Emergency Response Team (NERT) 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

focus on shelte r in place, ATC-20 inspectors will

need to be trained in San Francisco-based shelter­

in-place habitabil ity standards.

C. Storing materials necessary to allow shelter ­

in-place standards to be met

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 these materials

and the quant ities that will be needed.

11. Develop plans for neighborhood support cente rsto provide necessary support for shelte r- in-p lace

communities.

Neighborhood support centers are not emergency

shelters. Rather, they are resource centersnear residences that support and encourage

people to stay in their homes by providing essent ial

services and information and ensuring that

the balance of human needs, outside the shelter­

in-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 distributionof supp lies, water and food; and referrals to com­

munity serv ice organizations and agencies.

The Path to Resilience

It is hard to plan for the unknown. We know that

future earthquakes will damage the Bay Area,

but we don 't know where, when or how large these

earthquakes will be. But there are things that

San Francisco can do now to help its buildin gs

surv ive the expected earthquake and enable its

residents to stay and rebuild their homes.

The steps we propose aren't easy. They require

money, polit ical capita l and coordinat ion

among many public agencies. Yet the risk of doing

noth ing is enormous . If San Francisco does

not take the steps outlined in this report, 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 this demand. San Franciscans need to be

able to shelter in place.

Throug h a comb inat ion of retrofit 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 won't be ready when the

next large eart hquake strikes. SPUR believes that is a

risk too great to take. •

FEBRUARY 20 12 13

URBAN FIELD NOT ES

Case Study #45:

China's NewBiking CultureWhat role will the bicycle p lay in creating a more

susta inab le future for China? A landscape designe r

bikes f rom Beiji ng to Shanghai to find out.

Caseworker: Amirah Shahid

In September 2011, I biked more than 1,000 miles

from Beijing to Shanghai. This was no mere joy ride:I was tr ying to gain a first hand understanding of

the bicycle's role in Chinese life while investi gating

how cycling culture and bike infrastruct ure can be

integrated into efficie nt and sustainable transporta­

t ion design. I pedaled through a number of dramati­cally diffe rent communit ies, from the dense, teeming

municipalit ies of Beijing, Tianjin and Shanghai to

sweeping expanses of rice fields dotted with cows.

I headed to China with a multit ude of questions.

As the country cont inues to grow, how can it accom­

modate bot h cars and bikes? Cars are not affordablefor many Chinese citizens, and public transportation

in China's largest cit ies can only accommodate 25

percent of the pop ulat ion. What kind of role can thebicycle play to guarantee equal access for everyone?

What sort of highways, art erials and bike paths

are needed to make sure people can efficient ly and

safely travel between established areas and themany new developments being constructed?

How can the necessary infrastructure 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, terr if ied. But as soon as

I began rid ing out of Beijing, I realized this place wasmade for bicycles. For nearly two centuries, China

has placed a heavy emphasis on bikes as a primary

mode of t ransportat ion. But today the conf lict

between tradition and modernization leaves Chinese

bicycle culture at a crossroads, where it could beoverta ken by new technology or grow into an im­

por tant part of everyday urban life. Urban designers

work ing in China can playa role in decid ing whichway the bicycle will go by determining hierarchies of

circulation and providing spaces for amenit ies critical

to thriving urban bike culture. Successfu l integration

will help lead China toward a more sustainable futur e.

14 FEBRUARY 20 12 THE URBAN IST

Bike SecuritySince the economic reform init i­

ated in the early 1980s, bicycles

have become a major target

of criminal act ivit ies in China

because of their availability,ut ility and monetary value ­

and because of the diff iculty

of securing them. Concerns about

bike security hold many people

back from using their bikes as

a primary mode of transportation.Programming pub lic plazas with

secure bike parkin g - using

bike valets and parking guards ­

offers one solut ion.

f- Bike MaintenanceProper support and working

machines are essent ial to maintaina lively bike culture for both uti li­

tarian and recreational purposes.

Bike sto res and mechanics wereeverywhere along my route, set up

in everything from a neon- lit retail

sto re to a ragtag roadside stand.

f- Controlled TrafficBikes must share the road with

cars, pedest rians, motorcycles and

electric bikes in China's urban

centers. Infrastructure designedfor each of these users gives

everyone - including cyclists -

a sense of contro l and belonging.

Confusion and accident rates arereduced when bike-specific t raffi c

contro ls are imp lemented .

THE URBAN IST

Cycling CultureA poster advert ises an event put

on by a Beijing bike sto re. As

the pop ularity of cars grows in

China, there is an increasing st igma

against two -wheeled conveyance.

Making bikes cool again is an

important step in establishing

a sustainable transportation

network. This shop, with help from

a bike-centric nonprof it, organizescycling events and races to

help cata lyze a culture centered on

bikes, wi th a parti cular focus

on youth involvement. •

. Amirah Shahid isa landscapedesigner in

SWA's SanFranciscooffice. Thistrip was

inspired byher loveof cycling, the large

amount of new developmentworkshesees

happening inChina, and theneedto form

apersonal relationshipwith Chinaasasite

andculture.

FEBRUA RY 20 12 15

CITY NEWS FROM AROUND THE GLOBE

UrbanDrift

Parkand GrowVancouver, Brit ish Columbia­

based Valcent Products haspart nered with EasyPark to

construc t a 6,OOO-square-foot

greenhouse atop a central

down town Vancouver parkinggarage. The greenhouse is

expected to produce 95 metr ic

tons of at least 20 variet ies oflettu ces, herbs and greens each

year - equal to roughly 16

acres of California fields. Due

to its locat ion, the rooftop

greenhouse wi ll require noart if icial lighti ng and only

low-carbon, hydroelec trically

powe red heat during the colder

months. City officia ls jumped

at the project , confident that

it will move them closer to theirgoal of becoming the world 's

greenest city by 2020.

"High-tech Greenhouse Planned for City Parkade

Rooftop:' The Vancouver Sun, 12/ 14/ 2011

l' ButWill It Be PackedFlat?What wi li lKEA think of next? The

answer is Strand East, a completeneighborhood in East London.

LandProp, an IKEA partn er, will

begin construct ion in 2013on

shops, cafes, 1,200 residences and

a 350- room hotel. According to

the Huffington Post UK, "The aim is

to create a fri endly neighbourhoodidyll, with courtyards and a public

square to encourage interact ion,

and the unsight ly aspects of life

will be kept to a minim um. Cars

will be parked underground andrubb ish will be discreet ly disposed

of through underground tunnels.

A school, health surgery and

nursery will be built to minimise in­

convenient travel." Housing priceshave not yet been determined.

"Strand East: IKEA Hopes to Build an Entire l ondon

Neighbourhood," Huffington Post UK, 10/21/2011

l' Shipping IncludedBoxpark 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 world'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 forgotten 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 ContainersUsedfor First 'Pop-up' Shopping Mall,"CNN.com. 12/9 /2011

The Big Madrid DigBurying half a dozen miles of the obstruct ive M-30 expressway in

Madrid, Spain, has allowed the city to create a six-mile- long park,connect ing previously disjointed neighborhoods to the city center with

dozens of new metro and light-rail stat ions. Four years and $5 billion

in the making, the Madrid Rio boasts wad ing pools, gardens, ball fields

and miles of pedestrian and bike paths and bridges while preserving

the histor ical authen ticity of Spain's capital. This transformation follows

in the direction of cit ies such as San Francisco, Boston and Seoul

in reclaiming waterfronts and transforming freeways into pub lic space.

"In Madrid's Heart, Park BloomsWhere a Freeway OnceBlighted," New York Times, 12/ 26/2011

16 FEBRUARY 2012

Greeningthe Windy CityIn just a few years, Chicago will be home to the largest urban park in

America: the Millennium Reserve. Illinois' plan for the 140,000 acres

of austere, post-indu strial land would dwarf what is current ly the largest

urban park in America: Phoenix's South Mountain Park, which consists

of a relative ly palt ry 16,000 arid, ratt lesnake-rid den acres. With $17

million in state funding already in hand, Governor Pat Quinn is hopeful

that the project will acquire private funding , as the reserve is expected

to boost the economy and create hundred s of jobs.

"A Plan for America's Largest Urban Park," The Atlant ic, 12/19/2 011

THE URBANIST

MEMBER PROFILE

On theWaterfront(and Beyond)

Richard MarshallJointCEO, WoodsBagot

Rich ard Marshal l jumped feet first into urban design. His very f irst project

af t er graduating from the University of Adelaid e wa s to design a 5,OOO-acre

master pl an for the strangely named Multifunction Poli s. A joint initiative

between the Japanese and Au stra lian governments to cr eate a science and

techno logy city dedicated to technology innovati o n, the project wa s a dream

job for Mars hall and kicked off a li felon g fasc ination w ith larger-scale 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 nsult ing f irm, which recently added

to its global ros ter with offices in New York and San Francisco. " We see [ San

Francisco] as an ec onomic hub to global opportunities," Marshall says . "A n eli te

city on t he West Coa st of t he U.S. and on the eastern bo rd er of Asia centra l

to our 'one g lo bal studio ' bu siness st rategy."

You've workedon masterplanning projects inAustralia and throughoutAsia. What canwe learnfrom those endeavors?A lot can be learned fro m their

economic policies and market ing

strateg ies, where urban plan-

ning is seen as a key componen t.

Australian cities vie for the status

of "most livable city." So Austra lian

planners act ively look to increase

lifestyle and cultural amenit ies

as well as increase the resident ial

densit ies in orde r to create vibrant,

rich living environments. Cities in

Asia understand that planning and

urban design are key components

to branding a cit y's success.

In this way cities are essentially

compet ing with each other for

global investment and resources.

THE URBANIST

Are youseeing any evidencethat the United States isfollowingthosecues?In European, Canadian or Austra­

lian cit ies where livability indices

are high, there have been broad

and government-sponsored

redevelopment init iatives focused

on cultural and lifestyle ameni-

ties linked with efforts to increase

inner-cit y housing. In the U.S.,

there are some signs of this but to

be honest this has slipped recent ly,

and certainly with the demise

of redevelopment authorit ies one

wonders how this will happen.

There is a kind of competition in

the United States between subur­

ban and urban locations. The price

advantages of suburban locat ions

win out, meaning that successful

companies are quite happy locating

there, robbing cent ral urban situa­

tions of the possibi lit y of much­

needed revenue. Now it is the

workforce that is demanding cer­

tain cultural and social amenities

and compa nies are follow ing their

lead. The redevelopment south of

Mission is a great example of young

tech wor kers wanting to be in San

Francisco rather than dow n the

peninsula. This is not something

the government created, but it 's so

much more interesti ng!

You wrote a book onwaterfronts in post­industrial cities.How doits observations relate towhat's happening with SanFrancisco's waterfront?Four themes form the basis of

Waterfronts in Post-Industrial

Cities: connectio n to the water­

f ront, remaking the city, po rt and

city relat ions, and new water­

f ronts in histo ric cit ies. As cit ies

shift from industr ial to serv ice

economies, a major aspect of their

success will be the qualit y of their

public spaces. This is where the

waterf ront plays a crit ical role. The

waterfront is that place in a city

where designers and planners can

create contemporary visions of

the city and, in doing so, artic u­

late values that contribute towa rd

urban culture.

[Look at the] fascinat ing event

that is the Americas Cup. In and of

itself it is not a permanent solut ion

to waterf ront rejuvenation. But

it does br ing a certain spectacle

and will hopefu lly bring with it

opportunities to address the public

realm and may lead to broader

acceleratio n of tourism and hospi­

talit y project s within the city -

in much the same way as hosting

the Olympics creates opportunit ies

(albeit at a different scale). •

Above, RichardMarshall

and someexamplesof

WoodsBagot'sglobal

portfolio of design and

planning work.

FEBRUARY 2012 17

32nd AnnualGood Government Awards

MondayMarch 19, 20125:30 PM

San Francisco City Hall

spur.org/ggawards

Please join Mayor Edw in M. Lee and event chair, Wade Rose, of Catholic Healthcare West, in honoring

this year's Public Manageria l Exce llence Award winners:

STEVE N CASTILEGolf and Turf Operations Manager, Recreati on and Park Department

HARLAN L. KELLY JR.Assistant General Manager, Infrastructu re, SF Public Ut iliti es Commission

JOCELYN QUINTOSBusiness Services Div ision Manager, Finance and Administration,Depar tment of Publi c Works

MUNI CIPAL TAX A UTOMATION TEAMOff ice of the Treasurer and Tax Collector: Darrell Ascano, Tajel Shah,Rebecca Villareal-Mayer

SFpa rk PILOT PROGRAMSan Francisco Municipal Transport ation Agency: Lorraine Fuqua, Steven Lee,Jay Primus, George Reynolds

CHA IR +Wade Ros e Catholic Healthcare West

HON O RA RY MFAC COMMITTEET he Honorable Edwin M. Lee

T he Honorable Gav in Newsom

Th e Ho norable Will ie L. Brown, Jr.The Honorable Fran k Jord an

The Honorable A rt A gnos

The Honorable Dia n ne Fei nstein

Mrs. Gi na Moscone

MFAC FINA NCE COMMITTEE CHA IR

Ch r is Gruw ell , Presid en t, Platinum Advisors

20 12MFA C Award Winners, Event Chair, Wade Rose andMayo r Ed win M. Lee

ABOUT MFACA project o f San Franc isco Planning & Urban Research (SPUR),the Municipal Fiscal Ad visory Co mmittee (MFAC) has been

at th e service of eac h San Francisco mayor for more than30 years. Through a network of communit y par tn ers, MFAC

connec ts city departments to pro bono consu lt ing resources

to help im prove city servi ces .

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

call 415.644.4288

INT RODU CING...

NewFacesatSPUR

l' Tomiquia MossCommunity Planning Policy DirectorPrior to joining the sta ff at SPUR, Tomi quia Moss

served on the SPUR Board of Directors . She was the

founding projec t director of the San Francisco

Community Justice Center (CJC) of the Superior

Court of Califo rnia, City &County of San Francisco.

Prior to the position with the Superior Court , she

was the director of community organizing for the

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 master'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 explains. "They offer a rich cultural exper ience full

of opportunity, which is why I love being an urbanist :'

THE URBA NIST

Naomi Grunditz, Development InternWhile pursuing her bachelor's in sociology at Yale,

Naomi worked at the Yale Center for British Art

as a publications and exhibition assistant. Along with

her SPUR inte rnship, Naomi is the med ia and

marketing manager for Power of Two Marri age, a

nonprof it that provides online relat ionship educat ion.

She is passionate about publ ic art and is especially

fond of the Raygun Gothi c Rocket installation at

Pier 14, which she helped construct as a memb er of

the arts collect ive Five Ton Crane.

JacobKraemer, Front Desk AmbassadorIn May 2010 Jacob received his bachelor' s in

history, with a focus on urban stud ies, f rom Columbia

University. Along wi th volunteering 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 found eat ing salted caramel ice cream from

Bi-Rite Creamery or nerding out abo ut vernacula r

architecture, Art Deco and land-use history.

Nathan Marsh, Front Desk AmbassadorNathan comes to San Francisco after a stint in France,

where he was an architectural intern for Marc

Vit toz, an architec t and developer working to open

one of the fir st modul ar home factories there.

What Alabama-born Nathan especially appreciates

about his new home is the comb ination of vivid,

diverse neighb orhoods within a few minutes' walk

of each other, and the fact that the city 's many parks

and waterways are available for long bike rid es or

kayaking trips.

Samantha Roxas, Front Desk AmbassadorPrior to joining SPUR, Samantha worked at City

Hall as the legislative and admini strative intern 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 Samantha received

her bachelor's in internat ional relat ions from San

Francisco State and is hop ing to further her academ ic

career by gett ing a master's in city management

and urban policy. Ult imately. she hopes to become

a leader in commun ity developm ent and sustainable

urban po licy and maybe even run for public office .

FEBRUARY 2012 19

Join SPURtoday!

The San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association is a member­

supported nonprofit organization. We rely on your support to promote good

plann ing and good government through research, education and advocacy.

Find out more at spur.org/join.

O SPURIdeas + action for a better city

654 Mission Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-4015

tel. 415.781.8726

info@spur.org

www.spur.org

Nonprofit Org.

US Postage

PAID

Permit # 411 8

San Francisco, CA

Ul»"'T1mmZoCG)I-4oUl

~~

Time-dated mat erial

',.' : .. II'

I I I

'11

-'I'

, ,

"

'I

• • • 't

• • 'I

, I

I,

..

:

't ..I ,

• . . '0'I.

... .." ,

I •

"

I,

....

.. ,

,II

I,

I,

, ,' II

' "

....

....

.. ,

..• •

. . t ,• I to

, ,

,.' ' ...'I •• •

O SPURThe 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 .