Upload
saikofish
View
215
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Â
Citation preview
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
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 .