Parking’s Influence on Sustainable Cities

After leaving Santa Barbara at the age of 18, I lived in San Francisco for about ten years, and then its antithesis, Orange County, for the subsequent ten years.  Parking was impossible in San Francisco, and I quickly relinquished my car and used public transportation (which cost me $28 per month), my own two feet (which was free and also saved money on a gym membership), and taxis when absolutely necessary (about $40 per month).  After moving to Orange County, cars were so a part of the culture, I purchased a new one every year, and they just got bigger and bigger.

Upon moving back to my home town a few years ago, I bought a Vespa.  I didn’t do it necessarily to be more “green,” although that was a nice fringe benefit.  My incentive was free parking, or the lack thereof, with my office and clients located downtown. 

Except in the downtown area, the city requires that a minimum number of parking spaces are provided on a property in order to permit a new building.  On-site parking requirements are typically based on the use and square footage of a building.   Changing the use of a building is sometimes not possible due to the increased parking requirement, making adaptive re-uses more difficult, potentially stunting economic development.  When this is the case, buildings are often demolished and rebuilt instead of re-used or modified.  This is especially true for older buildings.    Many home addition projects are squelched due to the number of parking spaces that would be required on the property by current ordinances.          

I recently completed a new building for Our Lady of Guadalupe Church.  We were able to get a variance approved for the parking requirement which would have been even more significant if we had been constructing the church on a new site instead of replacing the existing church.  Even so, the amount of parking required for this building which is used primarily one day a week is astounding.  The parish’s neighborhood is compact and most parishioners live within a 10-minute walk of the church.  

Free parking encourages more driving, resulting in more parking lots, wider roads, and more freeways, and thus, more driving.  It’s a vicious cycle.   Increased driving results in less opportunity for social interaction and a decreased sense of community.  I didn’t know a single neighbor in Orange County as opposed to San Francisco where I consistently interacted with neighbors on walks to the corner store or dry cleaners.

Large parking lots and parking garages have other effects too.  Water run-off from the abundance of asphalt and concrete causes contaminants flooding into the system systems and ocean.  They also contribute to the heat island effect, heating up our cities.  

I am not suggesting we eliminate parking, but instead eliminate some of the mandated requirements which may not make sense.   Perhaps the amount of parking should be determined by the market’s interest in paying for parking stalls.  In other words, there should be at least a small fee to pay for parking which would incentivize people to walk, ride a bike, scooter, take public transportation, or carpool.  This may sound like a discriminatory approach, leaving the low-income folks out in the cold, but they are already paying for parking, whether they need it or not, either through tax dollars or increased prices of housing or business services. 

And, let’s face it, I think everyone would agree that parking lots and garages are simply unattractive, and land could be used in a more productive and beautiful way.

5 Tips to a Healthy Home

whole house water filter

The more we find out about the harm buildings are having on our health and our planet, the more I feel like trading in my business suit for some Birkenstocks, moving into a yurt, and living off the land.  Alas, I was probably born a decade too late, and am simply too fond of technology and cleanliness to do so, although I do have a fondness for comfortable shoes.  At least as an architect it’s possible to do something about this problem.  Let’s take a look at just a few factors for a healthy building.

1.  Water.

When it comes to keeping our families healthy, water and air are the two most important things.  Clean water is so important to every aspect of our health.  We’re lucky to live in a country with good water quality, but even in the U.S., water treatment leaves many toxins in the water supply.  A good quality whole house water filter eliminates toxic chemicals such as chlorine and lead out of our water. 

Most people simply buy a small filter for their kitchen faucet, however, in just one shower, we absorb about eight cups of water through our skin, so filters aren’t just for drinking water.  And while we’re on the subject, filling up on filtered water instead of buying bottled water is a good idea because the transportation of water from a south pacific island or the Swiss Alps is extremely wasteful, and the plastic bottles must be recycled (hopefully) or, worse, put in a landfill. 

In order to conserve our precious and limited water supply, older faucets and toilets should be replaced with newer water-saving fixtures.  It is also fairly easy to use gray water – the water used from sinks, showers, and washers – as well as rain water for landscaping.  A single solar panel on the roof can heat all of a home’s water, and is relatively inexpensive to install.

2.  Interior Materials.

The products we put in our interiors greatly affect our air quality.  Hard finishes and particle board on and in furniture and cabinets can outgas life-threatening fumes for years and years.  Additionally, soft surfaces such as sofas, chairs, pillows, and draperies hold toxic chemicals.  Hemp and organic linen, wool, and cotton are natural fabrics that don’t have any chlorine bleach or pesticides, and are non-toxic.  Organic materials for bedding is especially important.

Utilizing used or refurbished furniture whenever possible not only avoids toxins, but reduces the energy used in producing new furniture.   Older furniture pieces can even be used for bathroom vanities.  When refurbishing furniture, it’s important for organic lacquer to be utilized.  High quality pieces, although more expensive, will last much longer than cheap, non-sustainable pieces.

Carpets and throw rugs are a big source of toxic fumes as well as dirt and dust mites.  It’s important to choose a truly green carpet or rug, or better yet, a durable hard flooring material that is easy to clean.  Taking off your shoes at the front door avoids tracking dirt and chemicals into your home.  Non-toxic (no-VOC) paint is also paramount for good air quality.

3.  Lighting.

Daylighting is important not only for energy-efficiency, but for our physical and psychological well-being.  Windows are the most significant source of daylighting.  Window placement and type are as important as quantity.  Solar tubes are inexpensive to install and provide good quality daylighting while utilizing no electricity.  Skylights and light shelves are other viable options.

Unless you’ve been living in the dark ages, you know that incandescent light bulbs should be replaced with compact fluorescent bulbs.  Compact fluorescents use about ¼ of the power as incandescent bulbs, but give the same output.  They also last much longer than incandescent, and don’t need to be changed nearly as often. But one complaint about compact fluorescents is that they don’t dim well.  Where dimming and a higher quality of light are needed, halogens can be used.

4.  Cleaning Products.

It’s no use building a clean environment, and then bringing all sorts of poisonous chemicals into it.  All of the old, familiar cleaning products are toxic and certainly not biodegradable.  They should be thrown away now.  Keep in mind that touching or breathing something is similar to eating it.  And we wonder why cancer has become so widespread.  Choosing some of the many options in natural cleaning products is the healthy way to go.

5.  Landscaping.

Fertilizers and pesticides from gardens can be tracked into our buildings and into our air, so it’s important to use only organic fertilizers and pesticides.  Planting fruit trees and vegetables not only provides more delicious produce, it is also healthier and less expensive than what can be purchased at the store.

It’s true that implementing some of these healthy lifestyle tips can cost a bit more, but any upfront cost is certainly offset by the amount of money, not to mention woe, saved through better health.

Is Going Solar a Bright Idea?

In an effort to increase technological innovation in the field of solar power, the Department of Energy has invested $1 billion in solar energy in the last 10 years resulting in a 60% drop in the cost of solar energy.  Now, it has just pledged another $27 million in funding for a plan that is aimed at cutting the cost of solar energy by an additional 75% in the next decade.  Its efforts are paying off.  With an increase in new technologies and the number of solar panels getting manufactured and installed, solar power is finally becoming more economically viable. 

Utility companies, the military, universities, and large corporations are constructing huge solar arrays. Businesses that utilize large amounts of power can benefit from a solar power system more than residences due to the economy of scale.  But individual building owners are starting to wonder if they should do the same.

Rooftop photovoltaic panels are the most well-known type of solar power system.  Solar panels convert the sun’s energy into electricity, and an inverter converts the electricity from the panels into AC power.  This type of installation often provides all of the power a building will require, and can even provide surplus power which can be sold back to the utility company. 

Rooftop solar panels are still a rather pricey venture with a 20 to 25 year payback timeframe.  But government and utility rebates help.  Leasing is another way solar systems are made more affordable in the short-term.

A smaller investment for a solar water heating system, costing less than a couple thousand dollars, will yield a much faster payback time period of less than two years.  In hot climates, solar pool heating is the best and most cost-effective use of solar energy.  With an installation cost of a few thousand dollars, the payback timeframe can be as low as 1-1/2 years.

There are many other ways to collect solar energy without rooftop photovoltaic panels such as windows, roof shingles, and window blinds that have coatings that collect energy.  The amount of energy collected from the sun, thus the savings and payback time periods, varies greatly depending on the location and number of sunny days.

It is not only important to figure out ways to produce energy, it is even more important to reduce energy usage.  It is crucial to combine alternative energy systems with more cost-effective energy-reducing methods such as the replacement of old appliances, light bulbs, HVAC systems, water heaters, windows, and insulation in existing buildings.

We have access to a source of energy that is totally renewable:  the sun.  Solar energy is the most recognized renewable energy source, but it is not the only option.  Others include wind, geothermal, and tidal power.  A newly released study asserts that we can kick our dependency on fossil fuels by 2030 with renewable technologies that are available now.  However, it’s doubtful that the current political and economical environment will allow such a quick change in infrastructure.  Climate change is still controversial although there is near scientific consensus that it’s a dire reality.

Research and new technology in the field of alternative energy are happening at the speed of light.  Creative companies are designing ways to utilize everything from ice cream to tequila to body heat to power buildings.

Financing for Green Projects

Here’s a complilation of three informative articles on financing green projects by Shari Shapiro:

Basically, there are only a few mechanisms for financing projects. Self-finance (your bank account); equity finance (someone else’s bank account); debt finance (the bank); government finance (Uncle Sam’s bank account); and grant finance (your parents’ third party bank accounts). 

These mechanisms are no different for green projects. However, there are some interesting variants that have developed for financing green projects of various types. Many of the financing concepts are not mutually exclusive. To the extent that one of the models, like energy efficient mortgages, is applicable mostly to a specific sector, it can be used as a model for a specific project’s financing arrangement with a particular financier. 

Leases

For commercial scale (and even residential) green and renewable energy projects, variants on leases have become an interesting project financing model. Essentially, a provider leases the equipment (typically to the owner of a facility through a long-erm lease), which reduces the up front costs.

There are a wide variety of leases available, and the decision among which lease is the best solution is largely based on tax and payment considerations. Most leases radically reduce or eliminate up front costs. Some leases allow the lessee to take advantage of the tax incentives, renewable energy credits and depreciation on the green equipment, others do not. 

Performance Contracting

Performance contracting is essentially a loan from the provider of the green/renewable equipment (known as an Energy Services Company, or ESCO) that is paid for out of the savings or benefits of the green project. For example, suppose you want to install energy efficient improvements on a facility which will cost $1,000 and will save $100 per year.

Typically, the ESCO arranges the financing, and you pay the ESCO through reduced energy bills, sharing the energy cost savings over a predetermined length of time, after which all of the energy savings revert to you. The ESCO often guarantees the energy savings from the project. This mechanism is used for both energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, and can be used with projects of almost any scale. The DOE has a handbook on performance contracting available here. Grants In Lieu As part of the stimulus bill, the Department of Treasury made available “1603 grants,” which are grants in lieu of tax credits that reimburse up to 30 percent of the cost of installing certain renewable energy projects. Here are the Department of Treasury’s full description of the program and an FAQ (pdf). Energy Efficient Mortgages and Energy Improvement Mortgages A form of debt financing, energy efficient mortgages (and their friend, Energy Improvement Mortgages) work on the premise that implementing energy efficiencies on a property will free up cash which can pay down a debt. The Department of Energy has a great handbook and other resources available here. HUD has qualifications guidelines, approved lenders, etc. available here. Mortgageloan.com has a nice overview here: Green, or “Energy efficient” mortgages, let you borrow extra money to pay for energy efficient upgrades to your current home or a new or old home that you plan to buy. The result is a more environmentally friendly living space that uses fewer resources for heating and cooling and has dramatically lower utility costs…At this time, Energy Efficient Mortgages aren’t second mortgages. Though they are created separately from your primary mortgage, they are ultimately rolled into your primary mortgage—so you only make only one payment per month. Technically, energy efficient mortgages: give borrowers the opportunity to finance cost-effective, energy-saving measures as part of a single mortgage and stretch debt-to-income qualifying ratios on loans thereby allowing borrowers to qualify for a larger loan amount and a better, more energy-efficient home. And energy improvement mortgages: are used for existing homes and allow borrowers to include the cost of energy-efficiency improvements in the mortgage without increasing the down payment. The problem with energy efficient mortgages is that they are pretty small scale. For example, the FHA program only backs EEMs for one to four units.

A few rules for green project finance:

1. Find a bank or financial institution committed to green projects. Some banks now have financial arms that are dedicated to financing renewable projects.

2. Pick a model. It’s easier to tweak an existing project finance model than to create a new one from scratch.  Construction? Equipment? 

3. Recognize the need for tweaks. Whatever the model (see No. 2), it will need to be tweaked for the unique features of green building and renewable projects.

4. Set out the deal terms in advance, particularly the obligations of the parties in the event of default.

5. Identify and address the roles of the lender and borrower with respect to any incentives or other government financing that is part of the project. Each incentive has its own requirments regarding transferability and assignment, and ownership status is often an important factor.

6. Make sure your green project pencils out. Seems simple and obvious, but when seeking financing, it is important that the project actually be a wise investment.

7. Provide as much data about the beneficial financial features of the green project as possible. The growing body of data about the financial benefits of green buildings and the balance sheets of renewable energy projects should enable borrowers and lenders to better evaluate the risks and benefits of green projects. 

8. Where available, use green specific financing tools, like energy efficient mortgages. A good primer is available here.

9. Be prepared to cross-collateralize. There is so much risk aversion that many financial institutions seek cross-collateralization of non-green projects to alleviate the fear, real or imagined, associated with financing green projects.  

10. Acknowledge a longer financing timeline. Getting all parties on the same page regarding the financing deal and the documentation may take longer than traditional projects. But, as lenders and borrowers get more projects under their belts, this timeline will shorten.

The Good News About Government Incentives

1. Programs are available at almost all levels of government — The federal government offers grants, tax breaks, loan guarantees and technical assistance for green building and renewable energy components of commercial, residential and industrial projects. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has a pretty user friendly site. States also run incentive programs, and many states have renewable energy credit trading programs (also known as RECs or green tags or SRECs, etc.), which enable producers of renewable energy to get an extra stream of income from their property. For special groups, like Native American tribes and veterans, additional resources are available.
2. Some programs come from unusual sources — Not all green building and renewable energy incentives come from government. Utilities sponsor a lot of programs for both commercial and residential projects (for example, see the programs available from PECO here). Some nonprofits and even faith-based organizations are providing green incentives. A loyal Twitter follower highlighted this program by the Jewish Free Loan Association (available to those of any faith) that provides interest free loans of up to $5,000 for energy efficient upgrades for homes and small businesses in the Los Angeles area.
3. Don’t neglect technical assistance programs — One of the most underutilized incentive is technical assistance. Of course, homeowners and businesses can access technical assistance programs. Municipalities, small businesses and Native American tribes also can get thousands of dollars in technical assistance for free or reduced cost. For example, in New York Con Edison provides small businesses with a free energy audit. This can ensure you maximize the benefit of your green project both environmentally and financially. 

And The Bad News…

1. The new House is seeking to cut almost all federal green incentives — According to Green Building Chronicle, the Republican Study Group, made up of more than 100 GOP House members, is targeting the wholesale elimination of funding for:

• Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization, $530 million annually;
• EPA’s Energy Star Program, $52 million annually; and
• Federal office space acquisitions (which have helped the government build a market for LEED-certified buildings), $864 million annually.

Just to be clear, in a bill seeking $2.5 TRILLION in cuts, these reductions would account for .14 percent of the savings.

1. States and municipalities are strapped for cash — Like the federal government, states and municipalities are strapped for cash, and may cut their green incentives to provide things like trash pick up and police.  
2. Some programs are not worth the effort to apply — All programs require paperwork, verification and in some cases, prevailing wage rates. Sometimes the benefit is not worth the hassle.  
3. Some programs reward green bling rather than cost effective green improvements — Some programs reward the installation of renewable energy components or other “green bling” as opposed to better insulation or new windows. It is key to do a cost benefit analysis of any proposed green project to ensure that it has the greatest return on investment.

For more information, the DSIRE database of federal and state renewable energy and energy efficiency programs is always useful, and be sure to check your state and local environmental departments and local utilities.

Green Walls, Roofs, and Buildings for the Greater Good

Have you noticed the many lush vine-covered walls around Santa Barbara like the one on the Ortega Street parking garage along Anacapa?  Yes, they are beautiful, but many people’s first response is “but rats!”  The latest technology in living walls, also known as bio-walls or green walls, is quite different than what is currently seen around town.  The plants on these newer walls are not vines.  They do not harm the architectural finish of a building the way vines can, nor are they jungle gyms for rodents. 

With the green building movement finally gaining ground, numerous companies offer proprietary systems that are typically square modules with a soil-like substrate and internal drainage system that can support various types of plants, even edible options.  Denser than vines, the plants often completely hide the wall behind it.  If designed correctly, they are low maintenance, and require minimal water.

Green roofs are seeing an even bigger resurgence than walls. Both living roofs and walls can enormously benefit our cities’ air quality and overheated microclimates, save energy with their insulating properties, help manage water run-off, and provide park-like settings for the enjoyment of building occupants. 

Green roofs are not new.  They’ve been around for thousands of years.  But in modern times, flat roofs have been covered in tar, asphalt, and equipment which needed a lot of maintenance, but architects didn’t worry much about them since nobody could see them.  Now, many of these roofs are being converted into gardens, a relatively inexpensive and easy undertaking.

These roofs, sometimes in the form of half buried buildings with public parks on top, are helping buildings get approved by cities that would otherwise be impossible to get through the political process. They have turned into planning tools to help put buildings where no building has gone before, are radically changing the architectural form of buildings, and the respective roles of architects and landscape architects.  Architects are using green roofs to make buildings become part of the landscape with the line between architecture and landscape architecture disappearing.

What’s an architect to do when they come to realize that the product of their livelihood is destroying both our planet and our health?  Most architects went into the profession to change the world for the better.  When designed well, buildings enhance and improve lives.  Yet buildings account for about half of all carbon emissions and energy consumption, more than any other single contributor to our environmental woes.  Moreover, one quarter of what is in our landfills is construction waste. 

The challenge has been that most American developers don’t want to pay the additional upfront cost that green buildings require.  Fortunately, this upfront cost is decreasing with better technology and design.  Moreover, the initial cost of constructing a building is only about 10% of the overall cost of maintaining the building over its life.  We can no longer afford not to build green buildings.  Europeans have known this for some time, and have led the way.

Many architects have accepted the challenge to design only “net-zero” buildings – building that have no negative environmental impact – by the year 2030, and governments have finally started to mandate some form of green design for new buildings.  But existing buildings, not new buildings, are responsible for the vast majority of energy consumption.  Therefore, renovations are crucial to the cause.  Since 1992, federal law has required all existing commercial and multi-family residential buildings to be upgraded to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, enabling access to buildings by the disabled.  Why isn’t there a federal law mandating that all existing buildings are upgraded for energy efficiency, enabling a healthy lifestyle for all?

Green remodels have become trendy, but it is not green to rip out materials, most of which will end up in a landfill, only to install new “green” materials that used some, although perhaps minimal, energy to produce.  It is greener to live with existing materials as long as possible with a few exceptions.  If materials are off-gassing hazardous chemicals, as many carpets, paints, cabinets, and fabrics do, they should be removed.  Replacing insulation, appliances, HVAC systems, lighting, windows, faucets, and toilets for new efficient models is absolutely worth doing.  Numerous government and utility rebates can assist with the upfront cost of doing so. 

Although hugely important, green buildings alone cannot solve our environmental and health problems.  Adopting alternative modes of transportation such as rail systems, walking, and biking is also critical in redesigning not only our buildings, but our cities for increased livability with less dependence on cars.

Our culture’s short-sightedness and disposable mindset helped create an economic landfill – the worst recession in eighty years.  Now that we’ve seen the error in our way of thinking, our country has finally started to embrace the idea of sustainable design.

Higher Density Living = Higher Quality Living

Over 40,000 people are killed in the U.S. each year in auto accidents. Worldwide, the total is about a million per year. Why are we as a society okay with this? Why have we made convenience a priority over human life when there are alternative ways to get around?

A few more compelling facts:

Cars are highly polluting, destroying not only our planet, but our health. The American Lung Associate says air pollution from cars causes $40 to $50 million in health-care costs and approximately 120,000 pollution-related deaths per year.

Time Magazine stated that the average American spends 6 months of their life waiting at red lights, and over 5 years sitting in congested traffic, leaving us isolated in our cars, with less time for the more important things in life.

One third of household expenses are for owning and maintaining a single car. The average suburban family owns two cards, spending twice as much.

$200 million is spent every day by our government on road expansion and maintenance.

The solution is not to build more roads, which only encourages more driving. The solution is to densify our suburbs into compact, walkable and bike-able towns connected by rail systems.

Recently, Santa Barbara’s City Council debated heatedly about the amount of new building it would allow over the next twenty years. A native Santa Barbaran, and an architect with a 20-year focus on sustainable design and sustainable communities, it surprises me that many eco-conscious residents are anti-development, sighting traffic congestion as one of their biggest fears of higher-density development when higher concentrations along with mixed-use development eliminate the need for cars. The fear must result in being so close to Los Angeles, the epitome of urban sprawl. But Los Angeles’s traffic congestion is not a result of too much density. It’s a result of too little.

Santa Barbara’s downtown is already a good example of a sustainable community meeting many of the prerequisites: narrow walkable and bike-able streets on a grid system, a mix of uses, quality architecture, green transportation. Having lived in San Francisco and then Orange County, each for ten years before returning to my home town, it’s my opinion that Santa Barbara is a near-perfect balance between those two extremes. It could be even better if there were more residential units in the heart of downtown. With eyes on the streets at all hours of the day and night, streets are safer. A sense of community is created when residents walk, bike, and interact with their neighbors. This is starting to happen more with the recent residential buildings on Chapala and Anapamu Streets, although many of our citizens have not supported this type of development. Higher density housing also translates to more affordable housing.

Once one leaves the downtown area, even our beautiful city feels like a suburb. Imagine if San Roque, La Cumbre, or parts of Goleta, had a small-town “main street” feel with two to three blocks of slower traffic, and high-density mixed-use buildings with offices, shops, and restaurants with residential units above the commercial uses. Similar to San Francisco, each neighborhood would be completely sustainable, with all of one’s needs within a 5-minute walk.

Sprawl is less of a problem in Santa Barbara than in most places since our city is landlocked between the mountains and ocean. Yet, there are still opportunities to keep our un-built areas at the perimeter of the town untouched. By providing more affordable, compact living options within sustainable neighborhoods, we can reduce traffic congestion, increase walking, and achieve connectivity with fellow citizens. Sustainable communities create healthier lives and a healthier planet.

Simple Is Better: No-Cost Sustainable Design

Buildings account for 40% of the nation’s energy consumption.  Homes account for about half of this total.  When I was in architectural school 20 years ago, strict and unforgiving professors, aware of this issue, drilled passive design concepts into our idealist minds.  Architects, as a rule, are environmentalists, but those who hire us, the developers, are not.  Until now that is.  It is only recently that clients are finally ready to embrace sustainable, or “green,” design, something many architects have been passionate about since the late 1960’s. 

The biggest roadblock to designing greener buildings has been cost which, until recently, did not achieve an appropriate payback time period.  Providing air-tight, well-insulated buildings with energy-efficient appliances offers the biggest bang for the buck, however there’s an upfront cost in utilizing the latest technologies to achieve these goals.  But sometimes, an old-fashioned and simple design is better than the latest technology. “Passive design” techniques that have been around for ages can be easily implemented for new construction projects with no added cost whatsoever.  Below are a few basic approaches that will save a great deal in air conditioning, heating, and lighting expenses over the building’s life as well as at the time of construction. 

Consider the orientation of the building to the sun.  If the size and shape of the property allow, the longer sides of a building should face north and south with the shorter sides facing east and west.   The north side receives no direct sunlight as the south side basks in the sun’s golden rays.    To the east and west, the sun is at a low elevation as it rises and sets, so its rays hit the house almost horizontally, translating to more heat gain.  The hottest and most detrimental rays are in the late afternoon as the sun sets in the west.  

Windows are a double-edged sword when it comes to designing sustainably.  They are crucial for adequate day lighting, fresh air, and a view to the outdoors.  But even the most energy-efficient windows are like gaping holes in a building envelope when it comes to heat gain and loss.  Glass, not to mention the air gaps in window assemblies, transfers heat or cold significantly more than typical wood-framed walls do.  Therefore, window placement is critical in passive design.

Windows facing north offer great day lighting with no solar gain, but can result in a ton of heat loss when submitted to northern winter winds in cold climates.  Heat gain and loss is easiest to manage on the south side where well-designed shading devices allow the sun’s rays to hit the windows in the winter when the sun is lower in the sky, but protect the windows from direct sunlight in the summer when the sun is higher.  Southern windows offer the best of both worlds when designed appropriately, but can backfire big-time when not.

Western-facing windows should be avoided altogether, if feasible, where it is best to place rooms that do not require them such as closets or the garage.  East-facing windows should be minimal since the morning sun, although not as hot as in the afternoon, also enters almost horizontally.

Providing low windows on the walls that predominantly receive cool summer breezes, and high windows on the leeward walls permits a way for cool air to enter a building and hot air to escape.  Of course, other considerations, like views, are also significant determining factors in window placement and must be balanced with passive design needs.

Heat that is absorbed into the building during the day can quickly escape from the windows during the cold night when it is needed most.  To maintain a comfortable temperature at night, a thermal mass can be utilized.  This is typically a thick masonry or concrete wall or floor that receives solar gain directly or through glass.  Masonry or concrete slowly release the heat it stored during the warm day.  This is just one of the several benefits ofexposed concrete floors.

Passive design not only helps the environment, it also supports the health and wellbeing of a building’s occupants.  Heating and air-conditioning are not as comfortable or healthy as natural ventilation.  Many have been overly focused on green finishes like bamboo flooring and recycled glass tile, because those are the things we can see and feel.  Finishes are fun, don’t get me wrong.   But the biggest impact on our wallets and on the environment is in reducing consumed energy over the life of a building.

Generate Income by Adding A Rental Unit to Your Property

If you’re a home owner in need of additional income, you may have considered renting out a portion of your house.  But the lack of privacy is probably the deal breaker.  Therefore, many consider adding a separate unit onto their house, or creating one within the existing footprint. 

The first thing to look at is how your property is zoned.  Even if a property is zoned R2, there are many other requirements in Santa Barbara, such as adequate lot size, parking, and open yard area, that must be met for a second unit to be allowed.  Once it has been determined that a second unit is allowable, the design can begin.

When dividing a space, providing a separate entry, kitchen, and bathroom for each unit are obvious necessities.  Access to the washer and dryer should also be a consideration.  What may not be obvious is the need to separate the infrastructure, specifically, the HVAC and lighting systems.  Each unit needs control of its own temperature.  And you don’t want to flip a light switch in one unit and have the light go on in the other.   Proper sound insulation between the units is also important. 

In Santa Barbara, any exterior changes, such as a new entry door for the second unit, must be approved by the Architectural Board of Review.  Once ABR approval is obtained, construction drawings must be submitted to the building department for approval.  The City might take this opportunity to require other upgrades to both the site and the building.   It may be tempting to try and skip the permitting process, but the City is constantly on the lookout for illegal units, so doing so can be an expensive mistake if caught.  The design and permit approvals typically take a few months. 

Adding a rental unit significantly increases the value of a property.  Creating a small unit within an existing house might cost about $100k, but the return on that investment is relatively high when you consider the monthly rental income which will be generated by it.

“Why Does This Office Remodel Cost So Much?”

These days, many companies are choosing to make a few minor revisions to their office space instead of building new office buildings or undertaking “gut-and-rebuild” interior overhauls. Whether demising space to sublease a portion of it, or making changes that improve productivity, attract customers, or recruit the best employees, businesses are focused on ways to increase revenue with minimal expense.

We recently met with a new client, the principal of a law firm, who wanted to make some interior changes to their office suite. After she explained her wish list, I provided a ballpark construction cost estimate. Although doing this can nip a potential project in the bud, we don’t want to see clients waste money on design drawings only for a project to be cancelled when the construction bids come in too high. “Why so much?” this attorney wondered, “We just want to move a few walls.” This is very a common question.

Moving walls is not as straightforward as many people think. Actually, walls are not moved at all. Existing walls are demolished, and new walls, in different locations, are built from scratch. Changing wall locations requires relocating HVAC vents, light fixtures, sprinkler heads, electrical wiring and outlets, telephone and data cabling, and sometimes moldings or wainscoting. Where existing walls are demolished, new areas of flooring and ceiling material are usually needed, because patching the wounds left by demolished walls would be unsightly. This might mean re-carpeting a room or an entire office suite so the carpet matches throughout.

Many construction trades are needed to relocate even one wall, and a General Contractor is typically hired to coordinate the necessary sequence of events amongst the various trades. The GC will hire framing, drywall, HVAC, electrical, cabling, flooring, and demolition subcontractors, and, of course, charge a fee for their services. A minimum amount is charged to make their efforts worthwhile, so small projects cost more per square foot than large projects.

Wall moves require a building permit. The building department requires a licensed architect to submit construction drawings for approval. A minimum amount of drawing work is required regardless of the project size, so design fees, like construction costs, cost more per square foot for small projects. For this reason, “moving just one wall” is often cost-prohibitive.  There may be other, more cost-effective ways to accomplish the client’s goals such as the use of partial-height walls which do not require permits and HVAC, light fixture, and sprinkler rework, or the use of furniture panels.  Often, goals can be met in a different way than the client originally envisioned.  There are potentially multiple solutions of varying effectiveness and prices.  It is an architect’s job to offer out-of-the-box ideas.  The first thing I always ask myself is, “What is the simplest way to solve this problem?”  Phasing a project is another way to keep costs manageable.  We can develop a master plan which can be implemented in two or three phases over a couple of years.  The total cost will be slightly more, but the smaller chunks may be easier to swallow.

Also most remodels occur in older buildings that are not up to code, and code upgrades are triggered by the permit process. Upgrading the toilet rooms, handicapped signage and parking, lighting, and the life-safety system are commonly required code upgrades.  However, a hardship waiver is usually granted for small projects, capping the cost of code upgrades to 20% of the remodel cost. So a $50,000 remodel would cost $60,000 with the required code upgrades added.  The building department may also require asbestos testing if there is any significant amount of demolition work. If asbestos exists, abatement in the area of demolition will be required in order to proceed with the project.

If a lease is coming up for renewal, it is common for a portion of remodel costs to be paid by the landlord. A property owner typically offers new tenants a “tenant improvement allowance” anywhere from $5 to $45 per square foot, and will do so for a renewing tenant as well. It makes sense to postpone a project, if possible, until a lease renewal can be negotiated.

Construction expenses can be depreciated, and it’s a good idea to consult with your accountant, in addition to an architect, when determining the feasibility of a project.  There are many creative ways to get the most for your money.

Prefab: Custom and Cost-Effective Buildings

There’s been a lot of buzz lately about prefab buildings.  Yet there’s a great deal of mystery about what prefab is.  As a young architect, I often wondered why buildings weren’t built like automobiles, especially once I started seeing first-hand how time-consuming and expensive it was to create construction drawings.  “Why do we build the same way we did 100 years ago and re-invent the wheel with every project?” I’d ask my bosses.  They said I should be thankful that was the case since we’d be out of a job if it wasn’t.  But being a pragmatist and an efficiency-seeker, I never gave up on the question.

Tract homes are the most common answer to this question.  They allow a much reduced price over a custom home.   Although providing affordable housing is imperative, cookie-cutter communities are not always very appealing.  Most people have an appreciation for unique houses.  Even more efficiently constructed than tract homes, manufactured or mobile homes are built in a factory utilizing an assembly-line approach with many automated processes.  But again, this solution is not typically the American dream. 

Prefabricated homes are different.  It is true that many prefab homes are pre-designed and selected from a list of standard options, with several plan or façade alternatives to choose from.  However, many are custom homes designed by an architect hired by a client.  These structures are built within a factory very similar to how they would be built on-site.   The trades are bid out, and the subcontractors are hired by the factory.  However, the buildings must be designed and constructed in modules that are small enough to transport on truck beds to the jobsite.  Typically 10 to 15 feet wide, these modules join together via a double wall or, where expansive spaces are needed, a beam.  These modular buildings can be any style, modern or traditionally, but tend to lend themselves to a contemporary design.

Factory-built buildings, even custom-designed ones, are usually less expensive than those that are site-built, because factories are located where labor is cheap.  The transportation cost to the site, however, can offset the savings if the site is too far away.  The buildings are typically delivered to the site with the interiors already completely built-out, including kitchens and bathrooms, so once at the site, they can be completed within about a week.  There is less waste produced when a building is factory-produced versus site-built.

In towns where the cost of construction is expensive, taking the prefab route may be the only way to afford a new custom home.  In many parts of California, a site-constructed, average middle-class house runs about $300 per square foot.  The same home built in a factory might cost about 25% less with the added environmental benefits of being more eco-friendly even with the transport factored in.   Passing over the local contractors may be frowned upon, however.  Of course, remodels, additions, and other specific types of projects are still better suited for on-site construction.

Multi-family residential buildings and commercial buildings can be prefabricated as well.  I worked on several Bank of America branches that were prefabricated.  This approach cut the construction schedule in half.  These buildings were built in the factory in approximately six weeks while the site work, such as the foundation, paving, and utility hook-ups, were completed simultaneously.  They were then transported, erected, and finished within two additional weeks.

Many prefab companies are really architectural firms, development companies, or dealers that have created a new brand and outsource the building fabrication to a factory  Other prefab companies are true manufacturers, although they are not complete one-stop-shops since the site work must still be designed and permitted.