just one note of caution of how do you prevent kind of third-party data integrators from owning that data. i think jay was talking about it earlier on. it's just a note of caution for you guys. >> how do we prevent vendors from holding the data? >> yes. >> we're still working on this piece with our legal department. we're looking to do and this is very exploratory right now, really looking at the contracting process itself and how we can use that as a mechanism. basically we want to do business with you if you're willing to share your data. as jay mentioned we don't want to be held hostage. we don't want our data to be held hostage to the companies. as we figure this out, we'll continue going about it and providing updates. yeah, i think that there's actually a lot of companies out there that are being powered right now with our open data program. so, if there's any that aren't represented here today, please let us know.

we would love to feature you. because this is the other story that i was talking about. open data is demonstrating economic growth and job creation. so, yes, it's about transparency, yes, it's about openness, but it's also about creating jobs and this is a really exciting piece of the story. >> we have another question. >> thanks, everybody, great panel, great things going on. i have a question around strategies that you guys are facing to monetize somehow this data. of course, having companies that create applications and then they sell these somehow is fantastic. but is government thinking about ways in which they can directly monetize these data sets? >> can i say one quick thing first? i remember we were at the white house innovation panel and there was this exact conversation came up because we are looking to monetize everything we do. and the city is also looking to monetize this and make revenue. one of the biggest conversation

pieces that came out of the talk and some of the questions from the crowd was opening up apis for transactions, permitting, reservations and those type of things, which would be an incredible influx of private industry working with governments and also providing incredible efficiency for the public to be able to make these transactions. i'll probably say that ian might want to talk more on this, but that would be something that would be highly encouraged from the private sector and from my company specifically. >> that's a great point. and i'll say the short answer to your question is the federal government is trying to not charge for this data. the way we did was with tax dollars. you already paid for it, we're trying to give it back to you. and, so, we take a wholesale retail. we want to be the providers of the data as a fuel, but fuel, gasoline is useless to get you from point a to point b unless you consume that ultimately drives value to the american

economy. our customer, i can completely agree with what shannon said in terms of our business objective, so to speak, is to empower entrepreneurs and innovators, to create jobs. that's a metric of success, not revenue generated per data set or some other per ifervance metric. the other piece of that looking back to the example of weather and gps, my monetization, is that together they contribute $100 billion to the american economy last year. last year alone from just those two data liberations. so, that is the way in which we are approaching from a strategy perspective, the ultimate impact to our customers. >> one super quick. one thing the city of san francisco or big cities or federal, right, the other smaller cities, smaller cities have smaller budgets. having a structure to support all this open data takes a lot of money. so, when these small cities are thinking about this, they should think about a way of

somehow equalizing because they are putting into having these open data team, right? so, what does make sense? this is kind of an open question to get your point of view. >> do you want to take that, shannon? >> i think that there is actually quite ah few examples. we can probably talk to this more with smaller cities that are making open data efforts. but what i would say is that it's proven more than the value of the investment. the return that we've gotten just by opening up the data has actually given back more. so, that would be my short answer to it, but i think you probably have more experience working directly with some of the cities. >> so, i grew up in a small city so i care about small cities a lot, 15,000 people, southern illinois. i'm a card nastionv fan. -- cardinals fan. i should say that. the city of santa cruz, for

instance, it's a smaller city. they're a leader in open data. they've been doing this for a long time. the working with the city of make on, georgia, they're doing it as well. * macon. the smaller cities are taking advantage of easily reusable solution thextion, right, so open source technologies that make it easy for them to make a data catalog, and they're bag borrowing and stealing whatever they can from the bigger cities. whenever we get the chief data job description up, we should put that online and the city can take that. you can see cities sharing resources so that way even if they don't have the resources themselves, they can work together and pool those resources. >> maybe just to add one more thing to that, when we passed our legislation in 2009, we actually documented and shared our best practices for how we laid forth this program for other cities to use as well. >> great. so, i think we've actually already gone significantly over what i was hoping. i was hoping to [speaker not understood] also. we're going to wrap it up. thanks to all our panelists and

the hatchery for hosting us. anything else you need to say before we wrap up? okay, wrap up. (applause) >> >> oh. >> if anyone would like to support the federal open data movement please follow us at twitter project open data all one word, or check us out on data.gov. (applause) >> thanks.

. >> welcome to the department of building inspection brown bag lunch. this is our market tour. we're on market street on kearney and third. we're at the fountain, which was a major landmark at the time of the 1906 earthquake. this is a landmark because this is where people posted notices and notes to connect with people they were looking for.

families and people in their business. most of this area was -- >> pretty much burnt out. >> pretty well burned out. we have pat with us, a structural engineer who has done work to upgrade the buildings around this area. >> or researched their history. >> or researched their history. we will look mostly at buildings. we have a lot of other experts in the audience. i hope they will share with us. we have craig from the planning department. we have david bono witz, all kinds of folks here. feel free to chirp in. our plan is to take a couple-block tour and look at buildings, some of which survived the quake and some retrofitted. we will end up at 1230 at the mos connie center. we will look at them burning four model buildings.

>> trying to burn. >> okay. where are we walking to. >> first let's know why we're meeting here. in 1906, this was the main drag into san francisco. this is how you came into san francisco. at this intersection, there were three major buildings. the call building, the examiner, and the chronicle. and the three major papers at that time all wanted to be at this intersection. this building has been enlarged and a number of stories added so you can't see the historic character from this building from what it looked like in 06. it survived a fire as most steel framed buildings -- i'm sorry. survived the earthquake as most steel-framed buildings did. here is the chronicle building. it also survived the earthquake. the chronicle building is made up of two buildings in front.

at the time of the '06 earthquake they were building the rear annex, which was the tallest building west of the mississippi. this building survived until the fire came. the fire did a lot of damage here. there is the examiner building. it also survived the earthquake, and the fire came. >> really interestingly, steel-framed buildings were a newish thing in the turn of the century. how many do we have in the city? >> from that vintage, that are actually still here, we probably have 30 or 40. but what was interesting is, the robeling steel institute sent a team out here. there is a document where they went through the buildings. all the buildings they reported on went through the earthquake

just fine. >> one didn't. the williams building. >> interestingly enough, the williams building was not in the book. they chose to ignore that. it was like a statistical throw out. >> all the ones they looked at were great. >> great. the one building they didn't include did poorly. in the '89 earthquake i was the engineer retrofitting that building. it sustained a lot of damage. we did some research, and we're able to actually find the daughter of the engineer who built the building. according to her, the building was severely damaged. instead of going hmm not a good idea we better change it. they pulled out the building and rebuilt it to the same specs. >> after the 1906 earthquake the codes did not change and the standards didn't change and people generally rebuilt

buildings as fast as they could without substantial seismic upgrades. can anybody tell us what is going on here with the building? here we have craig. go ahead. >> speak this way and loudly. >> what is going on here is an 8 to 14-story addition on the top of the historic building. first of all, you should know the original building here is steel and terra cotta building that in the '60s was clad with metal panels on little steel panels to give it that look. some of the terra cotta was scraped off. the current project will restore the facade of the historic building designed by burnam and root, a famous chicago architectural firm, with one of our most renowned architects

working on the detail. the addition will be setback and made of a different color brick. the building will be changed from office use to a mix of hotel, time share and residential units. that is the story on the old chronicle building. >> we have a question over here. hold on. >> when is it due to be complete? >> my guess is, i don't know for sure, but on the order of a year and a half from now. >> this is affordable housing? >> surprisingly what it did was generate the restoration of another landmark two blocks up designed by the reed brothers, all the affordable housing component will be two blocks up the street in a landmark building. >> when people do development, there is trade-off for affordable housing. it is not always within the ritz carlton itself.

it can be relocated or paid into a fund and used another way. >> we will walk a block down this way down commission street. we are down here at the corner of third street and mission street. there is lots of construction going on. some old buildings. this is not necessarily a historic walking tour. this is to talk about buildings and earthquake issues. let me mention something more modern about earthquakes. i have been at this earthquake conference for a whole week. one of the big issues is what is the public expectation of the performance of a building. this is a good time to point out to you, the buildings only have to be built as well as the code that was in effect when they were built. if somebody said is my building up to code, i will say yes it is up to code. it is up to the 1909 code.

in 1909 there was no requirement for earthquake design. >> until 1933 when the reilly act went into effect after the disastrous 1933 santa barbara -- >> long beach. >> destroyed elementary schools. they were brick. if the kids were in school, we would have lost thousands of kids. that banned brick construction and required seismic designs to be incorporated in buildings. >> there was a major -- there are a number of thresholds over the course of the development. the big one is in the mid '70s, but a whole threshold, series of these thresholds. many of the older buildings, like the 1 across the street have been upgraded to meet some modern standards. this is the williams building

that we were talking about that is the replacement of the building that was damaged in the 1906 earthquake. it was built just like it with the plans. >> this building they were going to dynamite it. in '06, they dynamited buildings to clear the path. >> from an interesting point of view, spencer is here, this building is incorporating into the brand-new building next to it, which makes the new building an addition. it is not a new building. it is a brand-new building meeting today's code. we say you are a gigantic addition to an old historic building. >> did it change the permit fees? >> of course. >> one thing about publication able is how well buildings will perform. the brand-new building down

there which is what? >> the brand-new glass and steel building. when we build brand-new high rise buildings they're required to meet the minimum standard of the building code. the building code is a minimum standard document. can you choose to build beyond it. few people choose to build buildings that are immediately occupiable after an earthquake. most build buildings that won't collapse, which is what the building standard is. they won't collapse and they can be repair side whed is what we reasonably expect. >> potentially repaired. >> that is not what the public may think. earthquake proof. >> earthquake resistant. >> exactly. a lot of streets fill up with a

lot of debris. the cornice, signs, glass, all that falls off the building. we have seen that in other earthquakes. the question is will we see that from new buildings as well? actually new buildings are designed so the buildings can sway or drift and there is enough so the glass doesn't pop out. >> my best advice don't run out the door. if it is big enough you can't stand up. probably the best place to be is the building you're in, stay put. >> do not run outside. the most hazardous place is right outside the building where all the stuff might fall down. i was in japan at the time of the big earthquake. i was a few miles away. i went and looked at it. the sidewalks were filled.

filled all the debris from the front of the building. stay in the building. we are in the danger zone. what are we doing here. if there is an earthquake now. >> it will be on film. >> it will all be on film. >> we have a question. >> i was wondering, did i understand correctly that this whole new tower is grandfathered in by being part of the older building? is it being done with the old requirements? >> no, the new construction has to meet the requirements of today's code. they could have by law built the new tower to meet today's code and leave the old building to meet the old conditions. >> it was so badly damaged the city required it to be retrofitted. there was a retrofit done while debating whether to dynamite it. >> any new addition has to meet

today's code. any part of the old building that supports the new addition vertically or laterally has to address today's code. we will walk a block down and look at the rialto building. (♪ music playing ) >> we're still here on mission street at the corner of annie alley. they're named, somebody told me they're named for san francisco's early famous ladies. (chuckling). >> i want to point out the building here at 660 mission street, which i believe is an unreinforced masonry building retrofitted, seismically upgraded. once it is seismically upgraded, it is safe, right? >> when you seismically upgrade it, it is to a standard it doesn't collapse, but it may not

be reusable or repairable. >> it was an economic decision of how much money the city could afford versus the benefits to retrofit the buildings. >> we have done about 90% of the upgrade. the standard is low enough that in a major upgrade most will have to be replaced and we lose these beautiful buildings. many of the details are not what they appear to be. these are sheet metal details and trims. sheet metal cornices. san francisco was famous for the sheet metal work. when you go into the sheet metal shop, the whole front of the building is made of sheet metal. that is pacific? no, powell. >> i trick on how you can date old brick buildings, after the

'06 earthquake they made windows with steel plates. before that earthquake if you see an arch, it is a pre '06. it is an easy way to date the buildings. >> you can see the great depth. that indicates these are exceptionally thick walls which indicates it is masonry construction. >> pretty much everything on this block here is post '06, except for that building right there. and this building here, with the available sign on it, i used to own it a long time ago. i retrofitted it to a very high standard. can you retrofit brick buildings to a high standard, if you choose to, since i was going to occupy it. it would be embarrassing for an engineer to be in a building that is damaged. >> there is an issue of what

standard. is it collapse prevention or immediate occupancy or immediate use. often i have found that the marginal cost difference is quite low to go to that next level. maybe a little more when you go up to the -- when you want to keep using immediate occupancy. but people need to understand that and make a conscious decision. do not leave the decisions to the engineer. these are not engineering decisions. they're your personal decisions as an owner. >> since i was the owner i made the decision to go up. >> very informed owner. we will walk up to the rialto building on the corner up here. keep walking. (♪ music playing ) >> we are here just a little further down mission street past annie alley toward new montgomery. it was badly damaged. this was also burned? >> it also experienced fire damage. >> and dynamite damage? >> we will talk about the

dynamite damage. people don't understand how much dynamiting they actually did. >> let's start with this brick building we are in front of. this is a building built after the 1906 earthquake and it was seismically retrofitted. you see the key elements you will notice when it is seismically retrofitted. if we look at the building we see the diagonal steel bracing which is a key feature of many. >> most buildings have diagonal bracing for the earthquake because it is the most efficient, cost-effective way to carry the load. it has an effect of the architectural statement of the building, but the most efficient way to do the earthquake design. >> this building will be demolished is that right. >> yes. spurs, san francisco planning research bought this for the new

headquarters building and they wanted something that was going to be more efficient and near square footage. in the planning process now to demolish this and build a snew structure. >> spur will demolish it and build a taller building. it is a great organization. we hate losing old buildings, but spur of all organizations is careful about the historic value of the city. there are the pictures of the building that will be a terrific building. let's look across the street. >> talk about the small one first. >> if you go in there it was my offices for a number of years. if you go in looking for the braces they don't exist because they're not there. we used moment frames to hide the braces from the architectural statement of the building. just because you don't see braces don't mean the building

hasn't been retrofitted. i as an informed owner didn't want to see the braces. >> the braces are the big diagonal thing. he put very large, like a big vertical and steel column with a big beam across and welded it up and hid it inside the frame of the building. >> you won't see it if you go in there and have lunch. the new owners opened up a lunch place. >> it just opened up. i don't have a chance to say yes or no. >> after this we will go in and have lunch. we have a comment here by mr. bonowitz. >> you retrofitted the small building and adjacent to it i see two brick buildings. >> how do you feel about the big buildings. >> that is a hard question to answer. i put very thick plywood on the roof. >> how thick to support a story falling? >> (laughter). >> thanks for helping me out.

(laughter). >> the rialto building. this is interesting building that survived the '06 quake. >> it did. in some of the reports it is reported it had undergone earthquake damage. if you look more into the building. in the 1907, they basically explain the damage is dynamiting. this is a building they tried dynamite apart to create a fire break, and the building wouldn't do it. it said no because it is a steel framed building. and as a class steel frame buildings are very resistant to both earthquakes and dynamite. >> am i right? i think steel frame buildings are resistant, it is the composite action of the steel frame and other elements that are together with the frame that help make them support; is that right? >> yes. that includes the walls, the floor diaphragms. but the fire was really bad.

this is what they were trying to do here is a fire break here. in addition to the heroic fire break that stopped the fire on van ness. >> dynamited around here. not just earthquake or fire damage, it was dynamite damage. >> one of the interesting stories is the amount of dynamiting they were doing in some cases was so excessive it was damaging buildings that survived the earthquake and fire because they were blowing up the building 2 blocks away. the classic story is on the post office. it survived the earthquake and fire fine, but didn't survive the dynamiting of the next-door neighbor's building. >> they threw up flaming shards. and set the buildings alight. >> for an old steel frame, you see the beam and column and you can see the frame is shown there. on the side of the building, it is more solid