For a Greener Santa Barbara: Stop the Demolition Derby

By CHERI RAE — April 16, 2009

“The greenest building is the one already built.”

                                                    --Carl Elefante, architect; AIA, LEED AP

At a recent hearing of the Historic Landmarks Commission, one of Santa Barbara’s fine architects, Michael Holliday, presented his concept for a mixed-use building at the corner of Figueroa and Santa Barbara streets. Instead of making the case for the all-too-typical tear-down and take-away, he spoke instead about retaining the existing building, adding to it, and designing around it. He matter-of-factly addressed the obvious economic, historical and environmental advantages of preserving and reusing it rather than demolishing it.  

It’s about time.

In this community, developers make every effort to portray themselves as environmentalists of the highest order—each one greener than the next. They tout their LEED certification on one hand, while blithely demolishing and carting off existing buildings to make way for their new construction all over town—as though that’s a sustainable way to go. And no official governing body objects.

Citizens appalled by this squandering of resources are left to make the case for the historic value of buildings to save them from the scrap heap, but without much luck these days. It’s unimaginable to most of us—but apparently not all—that demolition of the El Encanto Hotel, as well as buildings designed by Santa Barbara luminaries Bernhard Hoffmann and Edward Plunkett would be proposed, much less approved.

The time has come to face the environmental consequences of all this unsustainable destruction and development in our community.

At the national level, the American Institute of Architects, the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the U.S. Green Building Council are working together to encourage preservation and adaptive reuse of existing buildings as a way to combat global warming. Citing reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, diverting demolition waste from landfills, and acknowledging the concept of embedded energy in existing buildings, the NTHP’s Sustainability Initiative contains some eye-opening data:

Constructing a new 50,000 square foot commercial building takes the same energy as driving a car 20,000 miles a year for 730 years;

It takes about 65 years for an energy efficient new building to save the amount of energy lost in demolishing an existing building.

Maintaining and renovating historic structures, instead of building new high performance buildings, can be the more sustainable choice.  http://www.aia.org/akr/Resources/Documents/AIAP072833

For a city so determined to be seen as green and smart, we’re lagging behind in the area of adaptive reuse—an smart, sustainable approach to development that is recognized in cities considered to have far less environmental credibility than Santa Barbara. In Jersey City, New Jersey, for example, the community’s long-shuttered St. Francis Hospital (!) was transformed into a 125-unit condo complex featuring green elements including bamboo flooring, low VOC paint and high efficiency heat and air. The units sold out immediately, and there’s now a waiting list for the highly desirable hospital-turned-housing.

No such luck in this town. Our St. Francis Hospital awaits enthusiastically approved demolition—because the development team didn’t want to consider, and the city didn’t want to require—an independent study of adaptive reuse.

Although the fundamental benefit of adaptive reuse is to save energy and resources—pleas to consider it as sustainable alternative to demolition have fallen on deaf ears at every level around here. And the concept of “embodied energy”—the energy used in production of an existing building, including materials, delivery and construction—has gained no ground whatsoever, except when introduced by progressive architects and developers who exhibit true environmental leadership and understanding of sustainability.

There’s a fascinating tool called the Embodied Energy Calculator ( HYPERLINK "http://www.thegreenestbuilding.org/" http://www.thegreenestbuilding.org/) that puts the energy cost of demolition and teardown in perspective—in terms of MBtus as well as gallons of gasoline. But our “approval” process never even broaches the subject of the environmental or economic costs of demolition.

Instead we remain focused on the individual and micro level: the use of plastic bags and recycling our water bottles and soda cans. Author and restoration consultant Jane Powell points out, “If a 5000 square foot building is bulldozed, it wipes out the environmental benefit from the last 1,344,000 aluminum cans that were recycled.”

When we flock to Earth Day this Sunday in Alameda Park, we’ll be inundated with lots of information about LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) and the principles of Smart Growth. There will be green cars and green clothes and green energy, and lots of talk about Life After Oil and becoming Fossil Free by 33. But in a place that’s embraced demolition as desirable, you won’t find a single source of information about the best way to go green: keep the buildings we have and make the new projects fit in with them.

Adaptive reuse: it’s the ultimate way to reduce, reuse and recycle. It’s time for Santa Barbara to catch up with Jersey City, as well as countless communities across the country, and get up to speed with the latest in sustainable development.

Comment on this article

Subject:

Body:

Poster:

Enter text seen above:

: 4/16/2009

The only thing I will bring to Earth day is my green puke.

---

What a waste : 4/17/2009

Right on! I've seen at least 3 decent houses on Shoreline Drive get demo'd, without even trying to recycle the materials. What a waste of resources. All I can say is: too much money makes you stupid.

mesagirl

---

: 4/17/2009

I think you have to look hard at whether the buildings have redeeming value. Too many of our older buildings were shoddily built in the first place and are full of mold and rotting wood. Many wouldn't be allowed under today's building guidelines. This reminds me of the effort some years ago to save the Santa Claus on top of the building at Santa Claus Lane -- a large, plastic piece that was falling apart -- sometimes its ok to let go.

---

St. Francis Hospital : 4/17/2009

I totally agree...the city claiims to "Be Green" but with their approval of the demolition of St. Francis Medical Center, and not even considering adaptive reuse, having been shown several hospitals and other buildings throughout the country that had been converted to beautiful condos during many meetings with deaf ears, their presence at Earth Day this year will be a farce.

Concerned citizen

---

Agreed on some counts, but... : 4/17/2009

...there's plenty of poorly designed & constructed 50's and 60's vintage construction in this town that isn't energy efficient, is falling apart, makes poor use of its lot footprint, and over-archingly privileges car infrastructure at the expense of nearly everything else. Where possible, those buildings should be modified, retrofitted, added on to, and similar to make them more energy efficient, usable, and useful. And in my view, regardless of whether we're talking demo & rebuild or modify & re-use, what this city really needs is more mixed use, less vast wasted space in the form of parking lots, and more encouragement for alternative transport and (gasp) car-free lifestyles. We have a fantastic, human-scale, walk & bike-able city, and we need to expand on that them. Not to make it bigger - but to make better use of its existing footprint. Not necessarily in the form of the large buildings recently developed on Chapala, but - something that provides for nice, urban living in the downtown sector. It's insane that so much of our daily downtown population is car commuting from points far to the north and south - let's build nice, affordable and energy-efficient housing in mixed use buildings (be they new constructions or remodels) that let us break our addiction to our truly unsustainable energy-crazy culture. Take a parking lot, build mixed use on half and a park on the other. Put parking underground (or encourage car-free living). Walk to your job, your shopping, your entertainment, and your child's school. It's possible and it should be done, because it's a much better life for everyone, our planet, and our future.

surfimp

---

Unsustainable? : 4/19/2009

At what point do people go careening off into this environmental abyss? I couldn't contain my giggles as I made it through the article and Ms. Rae's repeated use of various versions of the word "sustainable." (If you hijack ambiguous terms and claim them as your own, people will take your politics much more seriously -- it's a fact!) Notions such as "embodied energy" and "adaptive use" are silly for many reasons, not the least of which is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with consuming energy. In fact, we should consume more! Let's create jobs in this city; start tearing those old buildings down and let's start anew. It's nature's way and the American way and it has proven "sustainable" throughout all of recorded history. Heck, forget the structure at Figueroa & Santa Barbara streets; let's tear it down, put up an oil derrick, and start mining the resources with which nature has blessed this community! No oil, no peace! No oil, no peace! No oil, no peace! Loud Whispers

Loud Whispers

---

GREAT GREEN RECYCLE ARTICLE : 9/9/2009

Thanks for helping to get the news out about great architects in Santa Barbara and their sustainable practices in our community! Fred in SB

GREEN RECYCLING IS GOOD IDEA

---