Veronica Cargay, Camila Stacchetti, Sam Golla, Michelle Hernandez
January 2021
PROBLEM
With the rise of Covid-19, the landscapes of cities have changed, highlighting some existing problems while still bringing forward new ones. As much of the tech oriented population here in the Bay Area was forced to start telecommuting due to stay-at-home orders, San Francisco found itself with office vacancies at 14.1% in the end of September; a number that has not reached that height since 2011 (See Figure 1.1). While this number may fall as the pandemic ends and offices reopen, many companies based in San Francisco have announced plans to remain at least partially online - leaving office space less valuable and not as essential to a company’s survival. Pinterest is a prime example of this, paying an “$89.5 million termination fee for the 490,000-square-foot office space it was planning on moving into in San Francisco'' (Li). These vacancies provide an unforeseen opportunity to combat other continuous problems that live within the city - namely the shortage of affordable housing and lack of community development and green space within the city’s economic hubs.
Figure 1.1
It is easy to begin illustrating these problems through research, finding much of the city in what some have called a “housing crisis.” As you can see, in Figure 2, a significant amount of the city can be labelled as either “Advanced Gentrification” or “Stable/Advanced Exclusive” meaning that many neighborhoods are currently experiencing, or have already experienced, displacement and exclusion, in parallel with rising housing costs.
Figure 1.2 (Karlinsky, SPUR)
,
In fact, San Francisco County’s job to housing ratio is 6.26 (Figure 1.2), the second highest in recent years (Napa being first due to the wine industry), according to a report by the San Francisco Bay Area’s Public Policy and Urban Research Association (SPUR). The city has historically not produced enough housing to match its job market, and continues to lack proper infrastructure in that area, specifically finding a need for housing below market rate (Figure 1.3 & 1.4).
Figure 1.3 (Karlinsky, SPUR)
Figure 1.4 (Karlinsky, SPUR)
In 2019, the homeless population in the city was at 8,035, a 15% increase since 2013, and it’s only continuing to rise with COVID-19. The SF Chronicle said, “It’s unclear how much the city’s homeless population has increased since the pandemic began, but experts and providers say it could have jumped by as much as 20%” (Thadani). As housing becomes a more obvious problem in the city, we find an opportunity to convert vacant office spaces to community-minded housing. Many of these office vacancies are within sought-after neighborhoods such as SoMa and the Mission, due to their close proximity to jobs, especially for those who work in and around the financial district. These areas could specifically benefit from commercial to residential/mixed use retrofits not only due to their lack and subsequent need for housing, but also due to their lack of substantial green space. Figure 1.5 is taken from the San Francisco General Plan, and notes all public green space throughout the city. When compared with SFMTA’s neighborhood map (Figure 1.6), one can see that the majority of green space is on the Western side of the city, while areas facing displacement and increased vacancies are more commonly on the Eastern side (where SoMa, the Financial District, and the Mission are found). This makes these areas prime places for such proposed retrofits.
Figure 1.5 (San Francisco General Plan) Figure 1.6 (SFMA)
SITE
We have yet to decide on a single site but have outlined the qualitative characteristics the final site should contain. Given the scope of our identified problem, the site of intervention should be in an area or neighborhood that currently lacks sufficient affordable housing, is close to public transportation such as BART stations and MUNI stops (Figure 3 & 4) and economic activity, and is in a block that has undergone or is experiencing gentrification (Figure 2). The gentrified tracts outlined in the Urban Displacement Project SF Map have very low percentages of lower-income or mixed-income residents, and rent increases are only affordable to middle- and upper-income households. This project aims to provide affordable housing for homeless folks and low-income families, while also reversing or slowing down the rate of gentrification of the neighborhood it is located within by creating affordable units for the long-term residents.
Figure 2. Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Source: SFMTA, Muni Map
Figure 5.
Our final, specific building lot should consist of a vacant office building with an interior or exterior area in which urban agriculture could be implemented. A classification of B or C is preferred for the office building as our research into zoning codes suggests that these lower grade buildings will be easier to convert--from a policy-side perspective. We hope to collaborate with the Urban/Suburban Agriculture thesis group in order to incorporate green spaces and agricultural systems within our retrofitted site that would be accessible to residents and further community interaction between the building’s residents and the neighborhood. This could take shape in either an urban garden at the street level, roof level, or spread throughout the building site as pockets of green space or hydroponic systems.
SITE ANALYSIS:
Figure 6.
SITE 1:
Recent Pinterest HQ:
651 and 631 Brannan Street San Francisco, CA 94107
Site description:Located between the Mission and SoMa districts near downtown San Francisco, the Pinterest HQ is an ample candidate for our site. Using maps produced by the Urban Displacement Project we can determine that gentrification at this location is on a critical level, as well as a lack of affordable housing. The building itself is 4 stories tall, the ground floor being the lobby and gathering area for meetings, eating, and lounging. The 3 stories above consist of office spaces and meeting rooms. It extends through to the back on Bluxome Street, and there is no parking lot. The structure is sandwiched between a floral supply company on the left and Residential units on the right when facing the entrance. The ground floor is a traditional, well-designed open lobby with a unique staircase planted in the middle that only goes up to the second floor. Fire escapes and elevators are accessible through the building. The middle of the building is hollowed out due to the installation of the staircase, and considering the concrete structural pillars, possible wood framing, height, and number of stories, the building is a B (Business) occupancy type-2 or type-3 construction building. Public transportation is on the same block as the building, allowing easy access for people who work away from home and have no access to private transportation.
SITE 2:
Recent Lyft HQ:
2300 and 2295 Harrison Street San Francisco, CA 94110
Site description:A less fancy building in comparison to the Pinterest HQ, the former Lyft HQ is another candidate for our site. Located in the middle of the Mission District, which has high economic activity and low levels of affordable housing, the Lyft HQ is a structure that would help counteract the critical level of gentrification occurring in this area while integrating low-income residents back into the community. This building, which is still owned by Lyft and is being subleased for office space by other companies, is three stories tall, built and structured out of concrete, and is a B (Business) occupancy type 2 construction. With an expansive parking lot, this location provides a level of open space that can be converted into a community garden or more housing. Unlike the Pinterest HQ, this building exemplifies industrial warehouse characteristics. With picture windows, blue walls, and the same fluid design and height floor to floor, it isn’t anything special but would work well with our intended project. There is a rooftop space for gathering, large open floor plans designed for collaborative work, meeting rooms, and individual offices. Across the street is a temporarily closed warehouse used for rock climbing. Considering the sheer size of the structure, property tax and electricity costs to run the building without maximum customers must be difficult. So, assuming its permanent closing in the near future, this is another option that can work in sync with the Lyft headquarters. Stretching an entire block, this one-story warehouse doesn’t fit the office profile we are looking for but could be a site for the garden group due to its expansive single-floor layout, which could be used for a large hydroponics system. Public transit is accessible, with a BART station located on 1985 Mission Street 8 blocks away, allowing residents to work in other locations without private transportation.
The Tenner Center provides a framework for affordable housing that includes actions such as tax credits for low income families, housing policy that transcends jurisdictions, and the requirement for regional housing needs assessment--just to name a few. This paper focuses on the policy-side efforts, and is useful for our research in understanding how to holistically approach our model for affordable housing, as changes to the built environment are just one piece of the puzzle.
The zoning code in San Francisco will be important to understand, since we will be proposing the conversion of a building use, which will then be different from the original zoning of the area. We will explore the option of requesting a “variance” or applying for a “letter of determination” that will grant us an exception for the intended use of the property.
This source provides detailed information of properties in San Francisco. It will allow us to gather further information about our intended site of intervention such as zoning information, environmental information, and past building permits.
Garde, Ajay. “Affordable by Design? Inclusionary Housing Insights from Southern California.” Journal of Planning Education and Research, vol. 36, no. 1, 2015, pp. 16–31., doi:10.1177/0739456x15600033.
This academic article examines the use of incentives and construction alternatives by developers to address the affordable housing crisis. For example, the use of a density bonus “ranks highest among the incentives available from cities, other incentives—design flexibility, subsidies, and fast-track processing—contribute considerably” (Garde). This is useful, considering our project focuses on affordable housing and Garde specifically describes how certain incentives can fast track projects.
Remøy, Hilde & Van der Voordt, Theo. (2007). A new life: Conversion of vacant office buildings into housing. Facilities. 25. 88-103. 10.1108/02632770710729683.
This article goes into depth about the pros and cons of converting vacant offices into housing opportunities. There is a detailed step-by-step process of how this conversion is performed, and Remøy also includes the methodology and approach. This level of detail can be insightful for our own project proposal in how we plan to implement this new development.
This data will be used for our suitability map analysis in finding areas in San Francisco that are in most need of affordable housing. Some of the data from this map has already been applied in a preliminary suitability map (Figure 3 & 5) for this proposal. We are specifically interested in the areas that are going through gentrification, either in earlier or advanced stages, as these locations could benefit from more diverse representation of income groups, and would continue to include low income populations central to economic activity and other opportunities.
This source maps out existing affordable housing developments in San Francisco, which is something we included in our suitability map (Figure 3 & 5). We want to apply our proposed solution to areas where there are gaps in affordable housing.
This source links planning codes and program manuals that are necessary in understanding how to successfully launch an affordable housing project in San Francisco. We will need to consider how our design meets these restrictions in order to realistically be implemented in the city.
This article cites various studies and statistics regarding COVID-19, telecommuting, and changing office spaces. These topics are relevant for our research because we want to track the impact that the pandemic has had on office space use in San Francisco. Ward also mentions the “adaptive reuse” strategy that has been implemented through city housing policies like Los Angeles, which aligns with our own proposal for converting building space use.
Zhang, Yujia, "20-Century Building Adaptive-Reuse: Office Buildings Converted to Apartments." (2020). Theses (Historic Preservation). 697. https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/697
Zhang’s thesis “aims to analyze 20-century office buildings in New York City converted to apartments in order to examine the possibility of this kind of adaptive-reuse solution for historic office buildings in China.” Their analysis could prove insightful for the same strategy applied in San Francisco. This is a medium-ranked source as the differences in location will need to be considered in understanding the full impact of the design related to the community and region.
Elmendorf, C. S, Elkind, E., Lens, M., Manville, M., Marantz, N., Monkkonen, P., et al. (2020). “Regional Housing Need in California: The San Francisco Bay Area”. UCLA: The Ralph and Goldy Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/69j2b63r
This paper notes the Bay Area’s housing shortage, specifically the strain in San Francisco to meet the demand for housing. The authors “estimate that the announced target of 441,000 new housing units was at least 245,000 units short of the mark.” This report details the current state of housing in San Francisco, and gives further insight into the problem we are trying to address in our thesis.
This article describes the tech companies affected by the switch to partial or full time remote working. This switch means that several companies in the Bay Area have either sold, subleased, or pulled out of contracts to buy/rent office spaces. This has left large tech campuses and office buildings vacant, and is a trend that will continue post-pandemic. All are potential sites for our project’s location of intervention.
This source includes two maps--one that demonstrates the homeless population in San Francisco, and the other that shows the amount of affordable housing located in the city--that are useful in helping our understanding of where to locate our site of intervention. These maps have not been included in our draft of the suitability map, but are actively being used to consider the effectiveness of sites that currently fit the criteria of the suitability analysis.
This SFMTA map details all the MUNI bus and light rail routes within San Francisco that operate during non-pandemic years. A relevant source to refer to in selecting a project site due to the accessibility of the housing units to residents that use different forms of transportation.
This resource list currently available affordable housing units in the city. It gives us an idea of what existing options are like, and what the process looks like from the consumer perspective.
Gewirtzman, Dafna Fisher. “Adaptive Reuse Architecture Documentation and Analysis.” Journal of Architectural Engineering Technology, vol. 05, no. 03, 2017, doi:10.4172/2168-9717.1000172.
This paper provides critical analysis of the adaptive reuse strategy from an architectural standpoint. Some of the formal qualities highlighted in this paper could help us in our design approach to the solution, but can be considered as not the most pertinent piece of research compared to our other sources on the social, economic, and physical aspects of the issue of affordable housing.
Local article on the recent office vacancy trends in San Francisco. This resource also lists potential sites for intervention (i.e. companies that intend to/have vacated their office spaces in the city).
Soe Won Hwang & Seog Jeong Lee (2020) Unused, underused, and misused: an examination of theories on urban void spaces, Urban Research & Practice, 13:5, 540-556, DOI: 10.1080/17535069.2019.1634140
This article conceptually examines the process of urban voids, which are defined as “unused, underused and misused urban spaces, including abandoned buildings, vacant lots, and derelict areas.” This is currently happening in cities like San Francisco, due to companies vacating their offices in the central city, and thus is something we are tracking for our project.
This article lists three California State Assembly bills that were introduced in 2020. These bills could make commercial-to-residential retrofits more easy to do at the state scale.
Markiewicz-Zahorski, Przemysław, et al. “Building Energy Performance Analysis after Changing Its Form of Use from an Office to a Residential Building.” Energies (19961073), vol. 14, no. 3, Feb. 2021, p. 564.
EBSCOhost, doi:10.3390/en14030564.
This source provides an assessment of office-to-residential buildings from an energy performance perspective. This could be one potential design aspect for our proposed development, but is not necessarily needed for the affordable housing building.
INTENDED RESEARCH
The majority of our research thus far has focused on case studies of such retrofits, zoning, and evaluations of vacancies, housing conditions and so on. As we continue forward, we intend to further this research, first looking into specific additions to the suitability map such as distinguished transit lines. Continued research will look at Net Zero Energy and other green building designs that have been used in conjunction with affordable housing designs. This will include a look at what other resources are available, especially to help lower amenity and construction or retrofit costs. Adaptive reuse architecture will also be looked at, considering what conditions a building should be in, in order to qualify for adaptive reuse and rezoning. Further research will focus specifically on cases and characteristics of San Francisco itself, looking at research around bringing low income residents back into a downtown or central city area and the benefits/detriments of such possibilities. There will also be an increased research into future conditions and possible resiliency systems/structures that might be able to apply to the project site itself, taking into consideration the changing background of the city in the future. Contacts for specific, San Francisco based information have been outlined below, and all will be interviewed as to gain more personal accounts and perspectives around the proposal.
Potential Interviews:
Lawrence Badiner, owner of Badiner Urban Planning Department, INC. is a Bay Area urban planner who works with development professionals, government agencies, project sponsors and land use attorneys. Badiner Urban Planning has also worked with non-profit organizations that are pursuing development opportunities (like us!). With a deep understanding of zoning laws, building development code, policy, and community relations, landing anything from an interview to a phone call would make all the difference in getting our project a step further in understanding the process one would have to go through in order to execute a project like this.
Mission Housing Development Corporation deals with and manages 100% of all affordable housing in San Francisco in coordination with the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development. Speaking with an employee or someone here who can give our team more information on the process, regarding funding and placing residents in affordable housing, is important to our cause. Finding candidates for the housing opportunities is important because it can’t be a residence without residents in it.
474 Valencia street, Suite 280 San Francisco, CA 94103
Bar Architects is one of the Bay Area’s most elite design firms that specializes in multi-family housing and mixed use properties. With more than 40 years of experience in the multi-family housing scene and in affordable housing, speaking to an employee that is familiar with the building process and conversion process at Bar Architects would give our team insight into the complications in developing an affordable housing unit for multiple residents and families in the Bay Area. The San Francisco firm is one of the few that is a Certified San Francisco Bay Area Green Business.
Information:
BAR Architects San Francisco 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111
Liza Gregory (Director of Human Resources) hr@bararch.com
David Baker Architects is an architectural firm mainly based in San Francisco and Oakland. While their portfolio ranges, they do a significant amount of high quality affordable housing, focusing on neighborhood dynamics and designing for density. Their team would give us insight on the challenges and needs of affordable housing while incorporating green space and community engagement.
Information:
David Baker Architects 461 Second Street, Loft c127, San Francisco, CA 94107
The Emerald Fund is a real estate development company based in San Francisco, that “has successfully developed more housing projects and more housing units in San Francisco than nearly any other developer in San Francisco history,” according to their website. They just finished a commercial-to-residential retrofit on 100 Van Ness, making them a great resource on not only zoning approvals but also the actual design of retrofits here in San Francisco.
Information:
The Emerald Fund 235 Montgomery Street, 27th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104
Shane Harris (Principal/Head of Construction) https://www.linkedin.com/in/shane-harris-4111b212/
Taylor Emerson is the manager of strategic planning for the SF Recreation and Parks Department, directing policy development and implementation related to equity and zero waste. She leads performance management and operational reporting, collecting and visualising data in order to support the city’s resource allocation. Her expertise and understanding would be useful in our pursuit of green space within this design, understanding the implementation and challenges around public green space as well as strategies to implement zero waste. (Mutual Introduction)