Distinctly Different or Dysfunctional? The San Francisco Federal Building

J.M. Syken

Course Outline

In this course we will examine the controversial San Francisco Federal Building (SFBB) by prominent modernist architect Thomas Mayne of the architectural design firm Morphosis. Conceived as part of the General Service Administration’s (GSA) Design Excellence program, the building was not initially conceived to achieve USGBC (U.S. Green Building Council) LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), though energy efficiency was part of the GSA’s brief and one of the reasons Mayne’s design was selected. Ultimately, the building would receive a silver LEED certification (rather than the platinum rating sought).

In particular, we will focus on the controversial sustainable design features of the building which includes the use of natural ventilation in lieu of a standard HVAC system (above the fifth floor); skip-stop elevator service (whereby only every third floor is served by the main passenger elevators; locating the employee cafeteria outside of the main building (in an adjoining plaza) and the result of a GSA report: Re-assessing Green Building Performance, which surveyed twenty-two federal office buildings nationwide (including the SFFB) providing data on thermal comfort, lighting/acoustic quality, general workplace satisfaction etc. We will try to understand why the SFFB scored in the lowest percentile/s in the aforementioned report areas.

This course includes a multiple-choice quiz at the end, which is designed to enhance the understanding of the course materials.

Learning Objective

At the conclusion of this course, the student will:

• Understand/appreciate the background and body of work of architect Thomas Mayne including his previous commissions for the GSA and other governmental agencies;
• Understand/appreciate the motivations for the creation of the GSA’s Design Excellence program;
• Understand/appreciate the goals Mayne and his firm Morphosis had for the SFFB project from both an architectural and sustainable design perspective;
• Understand/appreciate the reasoning, cost savings, practicality, success/failures of sustainable design features for the SFFB including: use of blast furnace slag in the concrete mix; daylighting work areas; use of natural ventilation in lieu of a traditional HVAC system; problems with the use of a skip-service elevator system, and; locating a cafeteria for the SFFB’s 2,400 employees outside the main building
• Understand/appreciate the results of the GSA’s comprehensive survey of twenty-two federal office buildings and where the SFBB succeeded and failed in comparison;
• Understand/appreciate the failure of the SFFB to achieve the sought-after platinum LEED certification, achieving the lesser silver certification instead; and
• Understand/appreciate the legacy of the SFFB to its occupants, GSA, City of San Francisco and sustainable BD+C.

Intended Audience

This course is intended for architects, engineers and other design professionals.

Benefit to Attendees

The attendee/s will gain an intimate knowledge and insight into the controversial sustainable design features and legacy of the San Francisco Federal Building

Course Introduction

The course includes an in-depth PowerPoint presentation and a documentary film

Course Content

In this course, you are required to view/study the following slideshow and the materials contained in the web pages:

Distinctly Different or Dysfunctional? The San Francisco Federal Building (printable handout in PDF, 1 MB, see Note A below for downloading instruction)

Distinctly Different or Dysfunctional? The San Francisco Federal Building (non-printable slideshow for screen-viewing only, 3 MB, see Note A below for downloading instruction)

Archival/Documentary Film:

TITLE: Greening the Federal Government
LINK: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xrme8z_pbs-design-e2-greening-the-federal-government_lifestyle
DURATION: 25:13

Note A: Please click on the above underlined hypertext to view, download or print the document for your study. Because of the large file size, we recommend that you first save the file to your computer by right-clicking the mouse and choosing "Save Target As ...", and then open the file in Adobe Acrobat Reader from your computer.

Course Summary

Was it good intentions that led the San Francisco Federal Building to achieve a dismal 13% employee satisfaction rating in an internal GSA survey? It seems to be so, this despite the fact that the building has won wide praise and many distinguished awards from many quarters of the architectural world for its bold “machine aesthetic” design. The building scores well in energy efficiency; due in large part to its lack of a traditional HVAC system saving $11 million in construction costs. But the use of superfluous, non-essential design features sets off that gain and the fact that many of the building’s employees find their workplace intolerable, for a variety of reasons, is troubling indeed. Architect Thom Mayne’s intentions seem to have been noble: save energy by taking advantage of San Francisco’s temperate climate, make use of natural light, promote worker health, social interaction etc. However, it appears many of Mayne’s social experiments put into practice in the architectural and sustainable design of the SFBB were valid theoretically, but proved invalid in application.

Related Links

For additional technical information related to this subject, please visit the following websites:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Federal_Building

http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-19369.pdf

Quiz

Once you finish studying the above course content, you need to take a quiz to obtain the PDH credits.

---

DISCLAIMER: The materials contained in the online course are not intended as a representation or warranty on the part of PDH Center or any other person/organization named herein. The materials are for general information only. They are not a substitute for competent professional advice. Application of this information to a specific project should be reviewed by a registered architect and/or professional engineer/surveyor. Anyone making use of the information set forth herein does so at their own risk and assumes any and all resulting liability arising therefrom.

---