COOPERATIVE HOUSING AND THE RISE OF SOLARIN SUNSET PARK: THE STORY OF SUN GARDEN HOMES

AHERE COMES

PUBLICATION

CREDITS

Author:Reena Shah, Writer/ Researcher Solar One

Editor:Chris Neidl, Director of Here Comes Solar, Solar One

Published by:Solar One

Acknowledgements: Several individuals offered valuable time and input to tell this story. These include:

McGowan Southworth, SGHA Shareholder and former Board President

Mike Weiss, SGHA Shareholder

Cynthia Lamb, SGHA Shareholder and current Board President

Peter Bracichowicz, SGHA Shareholder and former Board President

Richard Heitler, Former Chief Operations Officer at the Urban Homesteading Assistance Board

SOLAR. IN NEW YORK CITY. NOW.

1

THE SUN GARDEN HOMES ASSOCIATION (SGHA) sits on the steep hill of 41st Street between 6th and 7th Avenues facing Sunset Park. Affectionate-ly known as the “Long House” by local residents, the 69 unit, 4 story building spans nearly an entire Brook-lyn block, with an exterior dominated by two arched, wrought iron entrances, broad, tan fire escapes, and sand colored stone work. It’s solid looking and old, the kind of building you might walk by and sense history within but nondescript enough to keep you walking.

While SGHA does not physically stand out from its neighbors, the building is a historical and contempo-rary trailblazer. Established in the 1920s by Finnish immigrants, SGHA was among the first nonprofit co-operative housing developments in the United States. While no longer a not-for-profit, shareholders - a di-verse group who collectively speak 10 different lan-guages - take pride in their ability to self manage and solve problems for the building.

Its latest endeavor is only visible from above but is per-haps the best illustration of the building’s commitment to self-reliance — a 50 kilowatt photovoltaic system that shareholders approved and installed in 2012. Solar has stabilized electricity bills for all residents while provid-ing a source of long term revenue for the building. Yet, just as remarkable as the system itself is the process by which SGHA arrived at the decision to go solar and then overcame financial and technical hurdles along the

way. While modern cooperative housing developments are often regarded as complex entities characterized by contentious debates that slow down decision mak-ing, SGHA used the diversity of its members as an as-set rather than a hindrance. Moreover, the story behind SGHA’s solar project is closely tied to its progressive roots and to the history of cooperative housing in gen-eral. How shareholders became producers of their own electricity is in line with how the building, along with roughly 25 other buildings in Sunset Park, got their start. While the rows of sleek solar panels may be new, the principle of self-sufficiency embodied by rooftop solar technology is part of the very fabric of coopera-tive living. As operational costs for co-ops rise across New York City, investments in solar present an oppor-tunity for shareholders to not only promote fiscal and environmental sustainability but also to be on the fore-front of normalizing solar in the region, pioneering new innovation in housing in a manner that is continuous with the history of cooperative housing in New York.

COOPERATIVE HOUSING IN NYC

The simplest definition of a cooperative housing de-velopment, according to Richard Heitler, former Chief Operations Officer for the Urban Homesteading As-sistance Board (UHAB), is “a building in which there is real resident control, resident democracy, and board transparency. The building is then run to further the

“ How shareholders became producers of their own electricity is in line with how the building, along with roughly 25 other buildings in Sunset Park, got their start.”

The Sun Garden Homes in Sunset Park, Brooklyn

2

interests of people who are living there.” Cooperative businesses in the United States date back to the mid-1700s for a variety of goods including food, insurance, and electricity, with the first recorded cooperative project in the United States being Ben Franklin’s Mu-tual Insurance Company founded in 1752.1

Cooperative housing models appeared later, brought to the United States by European immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. While the wide va-riety of cooperative buildings ranging from luxury apartment complexes to shared equity developments have led to conflicting accounts as to what was the first co-op in the city, the Rembrandt on 152 West 57th Street in Manhattan is by and large considered the first privately developed building founded on cooperative principles. Created in the late 19th century and inspired by housing models in Scotland, the Rembrandt sought to address concerns about poorly used space in pri-vate houses and expensive developer-built apartments that dominated the Manhattan market. The Rembrandt targeted a well-off clientele as well as artists who were generally open to unconventional housing options. The building also fulfilled a social purpose, referred to as a “home club” with tenants congregating to make de-cisions for their building. Unfortunately, poor finances led to a short life for the Rembrandt, which was bought by the industrialist Andrew Carnegie in 1903. The build-ing went through a series of downward incarnations and was finally demolished to install a parking lot for Carnegie Hall, later replaced by Carnegie Hall Towers, a luxury commercial building.2

Yet the demise of the Rembrandt signaled not the end of cooperative housing in New York City but rather just the beginning. Alongside the rise of exclusive for-profit cooperative apartment buildings was a parallel com-munity-based effort to address the shortage of qual-ity, affordable housing for working class families and individuals in the early 1900s. As the deplorable condi-tions of tenements became more widely known, several groups, including unions and activists, began address-ing these issues, and in 1926 New York State passed the Limited Dividends Housing Companies Act to advance the construction of more affordable housing ventures.3

1 For a deeper discussion on co-op history, see Lynn Goodman’s “The Cooperative Century: A Historical View of Residential Co-ops”

2 See Christopher Gray’s “An Innovation, Packed with Artists” 3 See Cooperative Village’s “A Brief History of Cooperative

Housing on the Lower East Side”

While the Amalgamated Clothing Workers Cooperative is often, mistakenly, cited as the first nonprofit coop-erative housing development in the United States, the real credit goes to the Alku in Sunset Park.4 Well be-fore New York established the 1926 law, an enclave of Finnish immigrants had already built their own not-for-profit housing development. As a socialist community, the Finns of Sunset Park, an area then known as Goat Hill or Finntown, were influenced by the fiery rhetoric of Matti Kurikka, the editor of the Brooklyn-based New Yorkin Uutiset newspaper and a promoter of a particu-lar brand of utopian socialism that had taken hold in Finland. Kurikka introduced the idea of cooperation that sparked discussions among small groups of Finns about how to dramatically improve their housing op-tions and provide a path to ownership. An initial team of six families pooled a total of $11,000, borrowed another $12,000 from local residents, and took out a $25,000 bank loan to lay the foundation for the first Finnish co-operative housing development, aptly named “Alku” or “New Beginning.” The families, which included a num-ber of masons and carpenters, constructed the building themselves, and once completed in 1916, it was quickly followed by “Alku Toinen” or “Alku II.”

Over the next 15 years nearly 30 cooperative build-ings, including Sun Garden Homes, followed the Alku’s example and rose up around the park. The buildings were notable for several reasons. First, they showed that working class people could own their own homes. Second, the developments came with amenities usu-ally reserved for the upper-middle classes, such as hot water, showers, and gas stoves as well as attention to aesthetic details like marble window sills. And lastly, maintenance costs were much lower than in most pri-vate buildings because residents efficiently managed and operated the developments themselves. At the time, the Finnish co-ops of Sunset Park were nothing short of revolutionary and took the housing industry by storm. The concept of nonprofit cooperative hous-ing was so new to the country that the state of New York did not have a formal classification for this kind of housing and had to place it under the closest thing it could find - the Department of Agriculture, which regulated cooperative farms.5

4 For a detailed discussion see Esther Wang’s “Bread + Butter Socialism: A History of Finnish-American Co-ops”

5 See Montrose Morris’s “Building of the Day: 826 43rd Street”

3

SUN GARDEN HOMES AND SOLAR

Fast forward to February 2012. Sun Garden Homes elected a new, unlikely board president, McGowan Southworth, a recording artist originally from New Hampshire. “I came to the meeting from an eventful week in London working with different artists,” Mc-Gowan recalls. Foggy-headed from jet-lag, he found himself nominated for board president. “There were no other nominations and everyone said okay. I tried to explain why they didn’t want me to be president, that I was really interested in maximizing our assets to keep costs down, which involved solar panels. Then a couple people nominated someone else but no one wanted to do it.”

McGowan’s interest in solar was not new, nor was his experience with cooperative boards. Before moving to Sun Garden Homes in December 2007, McGowan was a shareholder at nearby Sun Homes Association (SHA) and served as board president from 2006 - 2008. Along with another shareholder and board member, Matthew Myshkin, who is also a certified solar installer, McGowan had rallied for solar installation at SHA. “So-lar was important to me because I wanted to live in a building that was in sync with my values.” As the son of water-powered sawmill owners and brother to the designer of the first passive house in New Hampshire, sustainability was in McGowan’s roots. While McGowan and Matt came close to reaching board approval for the project, ultimately concerns about the upfront costs, the ability to claim federal and state tax incen-tives for solar, and hesitancy to undertake something

so unfamiliar won over. McGowan recalls that the two main concerns expressed were “members’ ability to take the tax incentives and the roof… We didn’t have a lot of reference material - few people knew of so-lar owners and there wasn’t a co-op that had already done what we wanted to do.”

As he took on the role of board pres-ident at SGHA, McGowan used what he’d learned from his experience to alter his approach. In his previous building he recalled being so enthu-siastic about solar that he didn’t suf-ficiently address residents’ concerns. At SGHA McGowan took the time to get to know people and learn what was important to them. He and Mike Weiss, another SGHA resident who became actively involved in the so-lar effort, developed a maintenance committee well before McGowan’s tenure as board president. It pro-vided an opportunity to work with a cross section of residents on various initiatives including assessing the

northern wall and developing a plan to waterproof it along with smaller projects like helping residents with radiators, assessing water damage in apartments, and generally responding to issues. The process connect-ed McGowan to residents, and many of the volunteers on that committee became key players in the solar project later. “Most people are cool - even the tough ones are cool if you break down the barriers. Your en-emy is the person you don’t know. That was one of the real beauties of this experience. I really started to care for our residents. I worried about the older tenants with fixed incomes and whether the tax credit system would work.”

McGowan Southworth, former board president of SGHA

“ As the son of water-powered sawmill owners and brother to the designer of the first passive house in New Hampshire, sustainability was in McGowan’s roots.”

4

After being elected board president, McGowan formed a core team around the solar initiative that pooled vari-ous resources and included residents who represented the diverse communities in the building, both new and old. Among them were Mike Weiss, a carpenter by trade who moved to SGHA in 2009, Peter Bracichowicz, the former board president from 2001-2006, Zibigniew So-larz, an owner of a print shop and long time resident of SGHA, and Janusz Osinski, another former board presi-dent. Matthew Myshkin was also closely involved and provided technical advice throughout the process.

As the team explored solar, the self-managed nature of the building proved to be both an asset and a hur-dle. The benefit was an active membership that sought to capitalize on internal resources and talent to oper-ate the building. By handling much of SGHA’s physi-cal maintenance, avoiding management companies and costly subcontractors, shareholders have kept the spirit of self-reliance alive, giving rise to a strong co-op culture that encourages members to be involved. Res-idents like Jan Goraj, the house manager who does the bulk of the building’s plumbing, hold valuable institu-tional knowledge about SGHA and keep the building running efficiently and economically. While there were pockets of resistance to solar, most shareholders were not afraid of the scale or scope of the project.

However, for SGHA self-management also meant that finances were tightly controlled, leaving little room for major repairs and upgrades and leading to yearly as-sessments and rising maintenance fees as infrastruc-ture aged. In the last five years maintenance costs increased from $75 per room to $100. While still low compared to most co-ops in Brooklyn, the rise was significant, especially for those on fixed incomes or with financial hardships. For McGowan and his team, ensuring long term financial stability for the building became a major priority.

The team moved quickly to assess the roof and deter-mine what kind of solar system would be viable. Matt Myshkin’s guidance in this process was invaluable as was the input of an independent engineer who could

provide detailed analysis on the structural require-ments for solar and answer questions and concerns about the impact on the roof and electrical system. Once it became clear that installing a sizable solar ar-ray was possible, the core team began hashing out both financing and how savings would work. Over the next few months the team had several meetings with the board that outlined in detail how investing in solar would ultimately reduce financial stress and preserve SGHA’s self-sustaining principles. “I approached the roof as an asset, one that could help us build stability. The long term liability of energy costs was a big part of our argument.” McGowan explains. “From a manage-rial perspective you needed an income stream — some people are on a fixed income or don’t have a lot of money. Most of our members are carpenters or teach-ers — nurses, not doctors. To tap them for more money all the time is very burdensome and doesn’t work for interpersonal relationships. We’d had a series of as-sessments in that building prior to this and I looked at our capital improvement needs, including a boiler replacement, and saw big expenses down the road.” Solar became an opportunity to build a much needed reserve for SGHA and avoid future assessments.

A key component to using solar as a revenue stream while also passing on a percentage of savings to each resident was changing the building’s metering system. Before pursuing solar, the building was individually metered with each household maintaining an indepen-dent account with Con Edison, New York City’s sole investor-owned utility. While individual metering is typically encouraged over master metering - in which an entire building’s consumption is measured through one meter and divided equally regardless of usage - as the SGHA team investigated bills they noticed roughly $18-20 in delivery and administrative costs charged to each household’s meter. Multiply that times 69 meters and that’s roughly $1200 a month or $15,000 a year, a huge area for potential savings. The team decided that they needed to incorporate submetering into the project. This meant converting to one master meter for the building that held an account with Con Edison and

“ By handling much of SGHA’s physical maintenance, avoiding management companies and costly subcontractors, shareholders have kept the spirit of self-reliance alive, giving rise to a strong co-op culture that encourages members to be involved.”

5

then installing submeters to determine individual bills based on usage. Roughly 40% of the savings from the connection charge would be passed on to residents, with the other 60% allocated to the building reserve. Presenting this savings to shareholders became critical to garnering support for solar as a revenue generator to replace costly assessments.

Another area of concern that McGowan and his team had to address was distrust of financing and loans among many shareholders. While the building took advantage of a NYSERDA rebate and a property tax abatement to reduce the overall cost of the system by roughly $110,000, SGHA still needed a loan to cov-er the balance. SGHA prided itself on not having an underlying mortgage, and this fact helped in secur-ing a $250,000 loan that financed not only the solar project and metering but also future plans to replace the boiler. However, many veteran residents, including members of the core team like Zibigniew Solarz, were hesitant to take on this kind of debt. Mike Weiss also recalled having his own initial doubts about the eco-nomics of the system and found that the process of dispelling skepticism among the central team and the board ultimately helped make their presentation stron-ger for the shareholders’ meetings May and July when members would decide on the project. “McGowan had to show me how it would work,” Mike explains, “which was a good thing. It helped him convince.”

To pay for the loan, maintenance costs would increase by $20 per room for five years. For residents who could file for federal and state tax incentives, this in-crease would be covered for a few years. For those who couldn’t claim these incentives, McGowan ex-

plained that not making these upgrades would lead to even large assessments down the line and that almost half of the maintenance increase would be offset by individual savings on monthly electricity bills. Despite the fact that some residents could claim tax incentives while others couldn’t, what proved most important was that all residents felt their voices were heard and their concerns given consideration.

As the central team became more invested and ex-cited about the project, they were able to share in-formation and build support among other residents before the official presentation and vote. Both Peter Bracichowicz and Zibigniew Solarz were instrumental in helping McGowan reach out to the large number of Polish shareholders at SGHA. There was a cautious and vocal group within this community who were con-cerned about major changes to the building, and these members needed to be won over. Peter remembers a similar crossroads when he became board president in 2001, the first non-Finnish board president the co-op elected. “It was such a surprise for me — a conserva-tive community that decided to take a risk. When I became president I encouraged people to participate, made meetings more transparent. This caused some long time board members to step down but I got the involvement of new members and it started to work — we took better care of the community and building and took initiative for changes.”

Both Peter and Zibigniew used their influence as long time members to foster trust and approval through in-formal meetings and conversations. “I explained to peo-ple how they would save money… I could put this in plain language,” Peter states. “Since McGowan and Mike were

NYSERDA REBATES, PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT, AND FEDERAL AND STATE TAX INCENTIVES

• NYSERDA Rebate: A one time rebate that immediately lowers the cost of a solar system

• Property Tax Abatement: A rebate over four years that SGHA allocated to the building, not individual shareholders, using accelerated depreciation to its benefit

• Federal Tax Incentives: 30% of the cost of the system that SGHA shareholders could claim on their tax return for 2012 if they qualified

• State Tax Incentives: 25% of the cost of the system that SGHA shareholders could claim on their tax return for 2012 if they qualified

6

still new or seemed new, it helped to have people who could show their points.” Mike Weiss also stresses the importance of inclusion in the project - to consult with various members before taking decisions. “The invita-tion was important to have even though [all residents] didn’t get involved.” Through these efforts, what began as one person’s vision became a project with collective ownership, a crucial step in moving forward.

The board brought on Fiveboro Solar as the potential installer for the project after exploring a number of bids from other companies. As a small company, the board felt Fiveboro was open to working with the co-op’s do-it-yourself spirit and approached the project as an important learning opportunity. The company’s CEO Brett Heilig oversaw the project and worked closely with the SGHA team to answer technical ques-tions and concerns. At the same time, Matt Myshkin’s expertise and presence was crucial to educating and reassuring residents about solar, helping many mem-bers who were simply unconvinced early on that the technology would actually work.

SGHA shareholders came together twice, first in late May 2012 for an information session and then in July to cast two votes. McGowan chaired both meetings and led much of the presentation but with significant support from many others who contributed to the re-search. This included Matt, who served as an indepen-dent solar expert, and Zibigniew, who created seven foot posters through his print shop that clearly broke down how the property tax abatement, incentives, re-bates, and savings would work - what would be passed on to residents and what would go toward the build-ing’s reserve. Zibigniew also laid out how the system would be paid for, including the assessment spread across five years in maintenance fees. The visual dis-play, in which Zibigniew, out of habit, spelled ‘solar” as “solarz,” demystified a complex process and helped shareholders understand how the benefits outweighed the costs. At the same time, shareholders were en-couraged to ask critical questions, and the tone of the meeting was one of healthy scrutiny. McGowan wanted

shareholders to “take me to task on this. [There was] one guy that that didn’t believe in the accounting. So I showed him. This was all just in the courtyard — be-fore and after the meeting — people asking questions and figuring stuff out.” This openness to questions and doubts was essential to winning approval and fostering shared knowledge about the project.

A few weeks later in early July shareholders convened for two votes. The first was whether or not to go for-ward with a solar system to generate revenue for the building, which passed by 70%. The second vote fo-cused on the size of the system. Surprisingly, while some shareholders still held reservations, this sec-ond vote received even more support, with 85-90% of shareholders voting for the largest system possible, despite the need for a loan. Once shareholders de-cided to move forward with solar, they were largely undaunted by the process and wanted to do it right.

As the project moved forward, the real challenge be-came the metering process. Bids from metering com-panies proved higher than the $30,000 the team had budgeted. Mike Weiss became invested in figuring out how to bring the cost down, an example of how share-holders engaged not only to debate issues but to find internal solutions to often daunting problems, a re-sponse ingrained in the co-op’s character. As he inves-tigated the numbers, Mike realized that the main ex-penses were reading the meters and generating bills. “We decided we could do that ourselves,” he said. He began reading more about metering online and re-searched options, including Ebay, for buying their own meters. While the process took time and effort, in the end the building was able to transition to submetering for under $10,000. “I just learned more about it and found out I could actually buy these things.” Mike ex-plains. “It was just a matter of spending the time and acquiring knowledge.”

THE IMPACT

Despite some delays caused by Hurricane Sandy in October 2012, SGHA’s solar array was installed by De-cember 31, 2012 in time to take advantage of NYSER-DA rebates and less than six months after sharehold-ers’ final vote on the project. The metering process, extended another seven months as Mike worked with Con Edison to combine the building’s two feeders into one and to move from direct metering to master

“ This openness to questions and doubts was essential to winning approval and fostering shared knowledge about the project.”

7

metering. Con Edison was also severely backlogged after Sandy and couldn’t conduct the electrical in-spection required after solar installation until late January, with installation of the master meter further delayed until July 2013. The rest of the metering shift was handled in-house with Mike and Slawek oversee-ing the installation of submeters and then Mike and Zibigniew setting up the meter reading devices. In the end, dealing with New York’s utility and subme-tering regulations proved to be the most challenging aspect of the metering project. Mike notes that “go-ing from direct metering to master metering was not a well trod path, so not streamlined.”

In the meantime, Cynthia Lamb, Mike’s neighbor across the hall, became interested in helping the team figure out the billing process. As an information tech-nology professional, Cynthia was able to find and adapt relevant software to generate individual bills for residents. The Con Edison lag gave Cynthia time to play with sample data and work out kinks in the billing system so that the process was fully function-

al by the time the master meter was installed. SGHA now generates its own electricity bills with a picture of its solar array displayed proudly across the top.

SGHA’s solar array has now logged over a full year’s worth of production and the results are astounding. The system is producing on average 60 megawatt hours of solar a year, with daily rates ranging from 100 kwh a day in the winter to 250 kwh a day in the summer. This translates to solar producing roughly 50% of the building’s electricity. Residents experi-ence roughly 20-25% of savings on their electricity bills each month, with the balance set aside for the building reserve, which has reached historic propor-tions. The board has not increased maintenance since the system went live (aside from the increase to pay off the initial loan), has had no yearly capital improve-ment assessments, and has more money on its books now than ever before, upwards of $200,000. In addition to the financial benefits of the system, go-ing solar has added to the draw of the building and buoyed the community. Cynthia Lamb, inspired by her involvement, is now the board president and ob-serves that being a solar co-op inspires pride among residents, including herself. “People brag about the system - we’re the building with solar panels. There is recognition in the neighborhood for sure.” The proj-ect also highlighted what she loves most about the co-op - the collaboration among neighbors to take concrete steps toward making improvements, even if that requires learning or creating something new. While there are few Finns left in the community, SGHA continues the biannual Finnish tradition of “talkoot,” a day when neighbors gather together to complete a necessary task. Going solar was like an extended talkoot for the residents of SGHA, and as McGowan states, “The whole process connects with the entire history of co-ops and why they exist in the first place.”

“ Residents experience roughly 20-25% of savings on their electricity bills each month, with the balance set aside for the building reserve, which has reached historic proportions.”

Copy of Sun Garden monthly electricity bill, developed by coop members

8

COOPERATIVES AND THE RISE OF RESIDENTIAL SOLAR IN NYC

The story of Sun Garden Homes’ transition to solar il-lustrates that shareholders and co-op boards can work together to make dramatic, positive changes to their housing communities. The major challenges, as Rich-ard Heitler from UHAB outlines, are educating boards and finding financing. As a board member in his own co-op, a nonprofit development created under the Mitchell-Lama Act, Richard notes that trustworthy information is the first thing a board needs in order to take the next step. When he and his board sought to make major energy efficiency improvements four years ago “we wanted a source of information that was independent from the sales people. You also have to educate building managers and supervisors.” For solar, Richard recognizes that sifting through contrac-tors can be daunting. “You don’t know who is good. Everyone is an energy efficiency expert this week.”

The second area is financing. Richard works with doz-ens of nonprofit cooperative developments, including 30 Mitchell Lama properties. These developments are generally more complicated than private cooperatives

when it comes to making large changes and capital improvements to their buildings. And yet Richard still finds that most boards are willing to pursue energy ef-ficiency and solar and can take the long view. “We want to keep our energy costs down, some of us care about our carbon footprint, and we want to do as much as we can afford.” The key element is figuring out affordabil-ity and sorting through and securing financing that can be paid back with savings in a timely manner.

Like SGHA, cooperative buildings with many residents on fixed incomes will also have to discuss the uneven distribution of tax incentives and come to terms with how this works. Richard points out that in lower in-come co-ops, many residents do not itemize their de-ductions. “So even getting the benefit of standard de-ductions like mortgage interest and real estate taxes are often not taken. For incentives to work in these types of co-ops, the subsidy has to flow to the build-ing rather than the shareholder.”

It is important to note that incentives do not pose an obstacle but rather an opportunity for boards and shareholders to work through a problem together. While most buildings are not self-managed, man-agement companies do not have to preclude active shareholder involvement in daily operations and new initiatives. Issues like tax incentives are areas where board members and shareholders can make deci-sions without third party involvement.

Taking a step back to look at the broader picture, co-operative housing developments, which account for an estimated 16% of all owner occupied housing in Brooklyn alone according to the latest New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey in 2011, are in a position to lead large scale solar adoption in the city. Given that buildings account for 75% of New York City’s greenhouse gas emissions, the time to act is now. In his plan One City: Built to Last, Mayor Bill De Blasio an-nounced in September 2014, ahead of the U.N. Climate Summit, an emphasis on solar development as part of his strategy to reduce carbon and increase resiliency. While the mayor’s initiative focuses on public housing and pressures private owners to make similar changes, cooperative buildings are in a unique position in that they do not need to wait for government mandated regulations to make improvements.6 In highlighting

6 See Matt Flegenheimer’s “De Blasio Orders a Greener City, Setting Goals for Energy Efficiency for Buildings”

Mike Weiss and Cynthia Lamb with the SGHA solar array in 2014

9

the difference between cooperative housing and rent-als, Richard states, “What’s wonderful about [co-ops] is that the people using the service are the ones mak-ing the decisions — policies for the place, who gets to live there, what the monthly charges will be. What capital improvements get made, how they will be paid for, loans, assessment fees.” While condominium com-munities can also make large changes, the ownership structure in condos does not automatically lend itself to the collective decision-making that underpins co-operative housing.

Ironically, the decision-making process in cooperative buildings is often the very element that poses major challenges to solar installers. Many board and share-holder meetings are known for infighting and inef-ficiencies that make it difficult for projects to move forward, and very few are self-managed entities like SGHA. As one local installer describes, “If the whole co-op doesn’t want to go forward, then our hands are tied. It’s hard to allocate a lot of sales resources to that market since timelines are so long.”

Given this perception, SGHA’s accomplishments are especially striking in that they illuminate how diversity and shareholder involvement can be resources rather than hindrances to large-scale initiatives such as so-lar. Like the early Finnish developments, co-ops today can precede and even catalyze wider policy changes, becoming agents for fast tracking solar as a viable clean energy source in the city. Illustrating this abil-

ity is Cabrini Terrace in Washington Heights, one of the first solar-powered private cooperative buildings in New York City. The co-op successfully advocated for and changed New York State’s tax code in 2008 to broaden incentives for homeowners and residential buildings to include larger systems up to 50 kW.7 Such efforts reveal that cooperative communities have the potential to originate novel approaches in solar invest-ment when boards and shareholders are committed to working together to find solutions and the support — technical and financial — that they need.

For SGHA, the effect of going solar has reverberat-ed beyond its walls. Not only does the system attract new members to the co-op with units selling at higher prices according to local realtors, McGowan and Mike are helping other co-ops in Brooklyn explore solar for their own buildings. While the financial and environ-mental benefits are attractive, what many people find inspiring is the sense of community that the project created. Peter Bracichowicz notices that opposition to new projects has dissipated with members feeling more trust among one another. “The conservatives are not voicing disagreement. They just smile… People walk in the park and point at the building’s roof and say that’s my building with solar panels. I am part of the most progressive building in Sunset Park, maybe even Brooklyn.”

7 See Jim Dwyer’s “(Solar) Power to the People Is Not So Easily Achieved”

10

REFERENCES

Cooperative Village. “History: A Brief History of Cooperative Housing on the Lower East Side, the story of a revolutionary idea to address the lack of affordable housing.” Web: http://coopvillage.coop/history.php

Dwyer, Jim. “(Solar Power to the People Is Not So Easily Achieved.” The New York Times 23 January 2008. Web: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/nyregion/23about.html?_r=0

Flandro, Xshusha Carlyann, Christine Huh, Nagen Maleki, Mariana Sarango-Manacas, and Jennifer Schork. “Progressive Housing in New York City: A Closer Look at Model Tenements and Finnish Cooperatives.” Colum-bia Graduate School of Architecture, Preservation, and Planning: Historic Preservation Studio. Spring 2008. Web: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2963635/Progressive-Housing-in-New-York-City-A-Closer-Look-at-Model-Tenements-and-Finnish-Cooperatives#scribd

Flegenheimer, Matt. “De Blasio Orders a Greener City, Setting Goals for Energy Efficiency of Buildings.” The New York Times 21 September 2014. Web: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/nyregion/new-york-city-plans-major-energy-efficiency-improvements-in-its-buildings.html

Goodman, Lynn. “The Cooperative Century: A Historical View of Residential Co-ops.” The Cooperator: The Co-op and Condo Monthly. June 2000. Web: http://cooperator.com/articles/540/1/The-Cooperative-Century/Page1.html

Gray, Christopher. “An Innovation, Packed with Artists.” The New York Times 7 April 2013: NY ed. Web: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/realestate/the-idea-behind-the-co-op-building.html?_r=0

Hickok, Guy. “Around the World in Brooklyn.” Daily Brooklyn Eagle 1 February 1935. Web: http://bklyn.newspa-pers.com/image/52833115/?terms=finntown

Jacobs, Greg. “Co-ops vs. Condo: What You Need to Know.” Huffington Post. June 28, 2013. Web: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-jacobs/coop-vs-condo-what-you-ne_b_3460551.html

Kaysen, Rhonda. “ Financing a Solar Energy System: How One Board Got Paid to Install One.” Habitat. Febru-ary 21, 2013. Web: http://www.habitatmag.com/tags/view/geotags/New+York+City/Brooklyn/Sunset+Park/Sun+Garden+Homes

Lee, Moon Wha. “Housing New York City: 2011.” The City of New York Department of Housing Preservation and Development. November 2013. Web: http://www.nyc.gov/html/hpd/downloads/pdf/HVS-report-2011.pdf

Morris, Montrose. “Building of the Day: 826 43rd Street.” Brownstoner. February 12, 2013. Web: http://www.brownstoner.com/blog/2013/02/building-of-the-day-826-43rd-street/

Wang, Esther. “Bread + Butter Socialism: A History of Finnish-American Co-ops.” Open City. June 12, 2014. Web: http://opencitymag.com/finntown-esther-wang/