Category Archives: Building Fund Updates

1/21/22: Hall Closet Being Cleaned Out

HALL CLOSET BEING CLEANED OUT
As we ready the building for the upcoming move, we’re cleaning out different areas. The front lobby closet at 2040 Gough Street has a number of coats, scarves, jackets, etc., most of which have been unclaimed for years.

Below are images of most of the items. If you want to claim any of these, contact Dale Eastman at deastman@sfjung.org to schedule an appointment to come to the Institute to pick it up.

Anything that is not picked up by Fri., Jan. 28, 2022, will be donated.

The Institute

 

 

 

 

 

3/9/2018: Institute Makes Offer On Mission Street Building

Following a meeting of the Executive Committee, the Institute made an offer to buy the building at 2610 Mission Street that I reported on last week. Through our broker, we have reached a preliminary agreement with the seller over the terms of purchase. I am cautiously optimistic that by next week we will have signed a contract and begun due diligence investigations.

In my view, this is the best location of all those we have seriously considered. It is a two-block, four-minute walk from the 24th Street BART station. There is a city-run, low-cost parking garage just one block away, and two other parking lots within three blocks. Unlike the South of Market locations we considered, this is a fully residential neighborhood with homes, grocery stores, banks, restaurants, a drugstore, and a movie theater all within a block of the building. At night, there are many pedestrians on the sidewalks.

The building itself is large. It will be safe in an earthquake and sprinklered against fire. The entire building will be easily accessible to those facing mobility challenges.

Stylistically, the building is pretty much a blank slate. With the help of our Architect Vetting Committee, (Diane Deutsch, Susan Bostrom-Wong, Johanna Baruch) we will find the right architect to give grace.

The building’s main drawback is that it is surrounded on three sides, so there is no rear exit, and windows are only on the front side. We will open skylights and supplement with well-designed electric lighting. We can make the building welcoming, comfortable, and private from the street.

Next week, we will provide an update on the contract and more information about the neighborhood.

Adam Frey

2/23/18: Institute Engages New Realtor

To speed up its search for a suitable building, the Institute has signed an exclusive agreement with a new commercial realtor: Catherine House with SVN Realty, a women and minority owned brokerage. Catherine comes highly recommended by the six of her previous clients whom we have interviewed, including one who participates in the Institute’s Public Programs.

Our aim is to find a building in the $6 – $7 million range in the eastern half of San Francisco. Locating a building that is within walking distance of parking and public transit, and that can have natural light and be made gracious continue to be the priorities.    — Adam Frey

 

Catherine House

12/1/17: $1.5 million Gift Received

Today, the Institute’s Building Fund received a gift of stock shares valued at more than $1.5 million.

The contribution comes from a member of the Northern California Jungian community whose experience and understanding of the healing potential of analytical psychology is deep and whose commitment to the Institute’s therapeutic and educational work I find profoundly inspiring.

John Beebe, MD
Chair, Development Committee

12/8/17: Due Diligence Inspections Uncovered Serious Risk

Late last week, our due diligence investigations of the building at 1155 Mission Street focused our concerns about the brick building’s ability to withstand a major earthquake. It has survived since it was built in the 1920s, but when we learned from the structural engineer’s inspection report that it might not withstand an event of the magnitude of the 1906 quake, we had to think “worst case scenario.” I sought advice from analyst Frances Tobriner’s husband, Stephen Tobriner, author of Bracing for Disaster: Earthquake-Resistant Architecture and Engineering in San Francisco, 1838-1933. Stephen strongly urged against the purchase of this building, citing the soil type that it sits on, likely interactions with the adjacent buildings in a major quake, and the potentially brittle structure and materials of the building. Retrofit techniques, he explained, cannot overcome these problems.

Safety has been a high priority throughout our relocation process, so we have heeded this warning and withdrawn from negotiations to buy 1155 Mission. We will look for another building.

The very large gift made to the Building Fund last week would not, by itself, have been enough to allow the Institute to end its fundraising, even for this building. The costs of relocating have been rising since we began our fundraising in 2015. With a very limited number of small buildings available and an eager crowd of young information technology companies and real estate speculators, selling prices have risen alongside construction costs. Mindful of not being stampeded into a building that is less than desirable, we are watching carefully for the right chance and time to make a wise move.

Adam Frey

11/3/17: Offer for New Building Authorized

The Executive Committee of the Board of Governors has voted to make an offer to buy 1155 Mission Street. (You should have received an email from Dale Eastman yesterday with a report on this building.) Images of the building can be seen HERE.

If our bid is accepted, we will have 30 days to investigate the building, more thoroughly estimate necessary renovation costs, and assess our ability to raise the remaining funds needed before making a final commitment.

The committee thanked Adam Frey for shepherding the process this far. He will continue to report to the community as events progress.

Suzy Spradlin, President

10/13/17: Community Members Envision A New Institute

Following up on a discussion with the Board of Governors about envisioning the Institute’s future, we recorded video interviews this summer with 15 Institute community members (see video HERE). These interviews are part of an effort to engage the wider community in envisioning how the Institute can better serve the psyche in Northern California after its upcoming relocation.

In the near future, we will be releasing a composite, half-hour video made from these interviews. Today, we invite you to watch a five-minute preview. You are welcomed to respond with your own thoughts and reactions as well.

Adam Frey
adamlfrey@gmail.com

7/7/17: The Institute Makes An Offer On A New Building

Following a special meeting of the Executive Committee, the Institute has made an offer on the building at 155 12th Street that was reported about in the June 22 newsletter. If the offer is accepted, there will be a period of “due diligence” investigation during which we will explore whether, upon close inspection, the building is suitable for the Institute’s purchase.

The instructions from the Board of Governors require that before purchasing a building we determine that it is “fiscally responsible” to do so and that we have raised or can reasonably anticipate raising the necessary funds to complete renovation of the building. Therefore, the focus of the due diligence is not only to physically examine the building and the location but also to vet once again the project budget to be sure that we do not undermine the Institute’s future financial soundness.

Assuming that we can gain the cooperation of the current owner, we hope to open the building on an upcoming weekend date for visits by interested Institute community members.

If we find during the due diligence period that it would be imprudent for the Institute to purchase the building, we can withdraw our offer, in which case our earnest money would be returned to us. However, since this is the most suitable building we have found in two and a half years of searching, our hope is to find a way to make the purchase work.

As always, please don’t hesitate to write with concerns, questions, and suggestions.

Sincerely, Adam Frey

 

                                           SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

The Institute’s criteria for the selection of a building were established in a survey of members, candidates, and staff early in 2015 to which 76 community members responded. These criteria, which were shared with the entire community on March 25, 2015, can be found in Appendix A below.

Appendix B gives an introduction to some features of the neighborhood that may be of interest.

Appendix C addresses the question of safety and security, reporting comparative crime data for various locations we have studied during the search.

                                 APPENDIX A: BUILDING SELECTION CRITERIA

These criteria are ranked according to the number of respondents who selected these criteria as especially important in the March 2015 Institute community survey.

  • Adequate parking is available nearby at a reasonable price (41)
  • Can be made accessible to people with disabilities at a reasonable cost (37)
  • Can be rendered beautiful at a reasonable cost (based on architectural skeleton, style, materials, ceiling height, availability of natural light) (37)
  • Can be zoned to accommodate use by all Institute programs (33)
  • Easily accessible by public transit including from BART (32)
  • Can be made fire and earthquake safe at a reasonable cost (29)
  • Accommodates a meeting space to hold up to 100 people (29)
  • Relatively low reported crime in the area (28)
  • Can be made environmentally safe at a reasonable cost (non-toxic) (26)
  • Institute can purchase without incurring long term debt or reducing programs (26)
  • Usable space is larger than Gough St. by at least 34% (7,500 sq. ft. or more) (25)
  • Building layout can allow desired adjacencies and separations (e.g. kitchen near large meeting space, library can be closed to public when unstaffed, etc.) (24)
  • Relatively low noise pollution in the area (17)
  • Time investment required of Institute leaders to complete project is practicable (17)
  • In a neighborhood accessible to, and frequented by, diverse populations (16)

 

NOTE:  The building’s suitability in respect to some of these criteria will be probed more fully during the due diligence period. For example, we expect to get evidence of an environmental inspection that will answer the question about toxicities.

 

                                                APPENDIX B: NEIGHBORHOOD

Restaurants within Two Blocks:

Gas Lamp Café. 1599 Howard St. & 12th St.

Breakfast and coffee served 6:30 a.m. – 2:30 pm

 

1601 Bar & Kitchen.  1601 Howard St. & 12th St.

Upscale Sri Lankan Food. Dinner only.

 

Big Chef Tom’s Belly Burgers, 1550 Howard St. & Lafayette.

Pork belly burgers, chicken burgers, veggie burgers.

Lunch and dinner.

 

Grandma’s Deli and Cafe, 1551 Mission St.

Weekday lunch only.

 

Manora’s Thai Cuisine, 1600 Folsom & 12th St.

Lunch and dinner.

 

Don Ramon’s Mexican Restaurant, 225 11th St. & Howard St.

Lunch and dinner.

 

Zaoh Restaurant. 1555 Mission St.

Lunch and dinner.

 

Neighborhood Groceries:

 

Rainbow Grocery (Coop; Vegetarian), 1745 Folsom St. & 13th St.

 

Ted’s Market and Delicatessen, 1530 Howard St.

 

Nonprofits Addressing Mental Health within Two Blocks:

 

Healthright 360, 1563 Mission St. & S. Van Ness Ave.

Integrated healthcare center including mental health services

 

Westside Community Services, 245 11th St.

Mental health outpatient clinic

 

The Arc, 1500 Howard at 11th St.

Services include patient advocacy for the developmentally disabled

 

                                          APPENDIX C: COMPARATIVE CRIME STATISTICS

The following crime stats are from a crime mapping site that is linked to from http://sfgov.org/services/sf-crime-maps  These statistics are derived by inputting the addresses of buildings the Institute has considered during the search and pulling up a report of all crime within 500 feet during the past 4 weeks.

 

Address                                              Crimes reported

2040 Gough St.                                              5

1850 Bryant St.                                              7

1469 Pacific Ave.                                           11

2333 Harrison St., Oakland                         12

155 12th St.                                                    16 *

330 2nd. St., Oakland                                    19

875 Sansome @ Broadway                          20

1244 Larkin St. @ Pine                                  23

430 Shotwell  @ 19th St.                               32

203 Willow @ Van Ness                                38

444 Natoma (SF Center for

Psychoanalysis)                                             45

1076 Howard St.                                           46

1419 34th Ave., Oakland (Fruitvale)            800

Of the 16 crimes reported within 500 feet of 155 12th Street, only two were on 12th Street where the building and the parking garage are located–one fraud and one burglary. Most of the other 14 crimes occurred on Mission Street between the 101 off-ramp and the Van Ness intersection. This suggests that the Institute might want to advise visitors about where it is safest to park, and walk, etc.

The 5 reported crimes within 500 feet of the Gough Street building were all in the category of car break-ins or thefts.

Recently, the Institute has hired a security guard for its monthly dinner meetings. To maximize safety, the Institute could consider continuing to hire a guard for evening events if it is able to move to the 12th Street address, at least in the beginning. In the longer term, since so many of the properties along Van Ness, Market, and Mission Street in this “Hub” neighborhood are slated for demolition and redevelopment as multi-story housing, it seems clear that in future years there will be many more employed people walking around in the neighborhood, making it safer for everyone.

 

6/29/17: Institute Receives Decisive Donation

I am humbled to share the news that the Institute has received a donation of two million dollars to be applied to the resolution of the search for a new building. The donor wishes the gift to be anonymous.

This gift transforms the Institute’s immediate options, bringing us much closer to having all the resources necessary to buy and renovate a suitable building. As a direct result of this gift, we are, for instance, able to enter into a serious conversation about the building that I reported on last week.

From this moment, every contribution the Building Fund receives can regard itself as insuring that the Institute will cross the finish line of the move. To seize the moment, I have resigned from the advisory, legally constrained role of Fundraising Counsel and am taking up instead the much greater freedom to directly seek contributions that is accorded under California law to a volunteer. In all other aspects of the work, I will continue as the Institute’s contracted consultant.

The generosity of well over 200 donors has brought the Institute to this threshold. Along the way, a number of contributions, because of their size or their timing, have been especially galvanizing, as have some creative suggestions and insights that you have shared. In every case, and certainly in this one, I have tried to mirror that impact to the donor on behalf of the community.

As I talk with people about the changes ahead, I meet a mixture of excitement over the potential for the Institute’s greater effectiveness and some uneasiness about a beloved institution moving into a future that will be different from the past. I feel both things, too.

Adam Frey

6/22/17: A Building To Consider

This past week we made a second visit to a building that is for sale and that appears to meet the criteria the Institute has established (see images at the bottom of this post).

The location, 155 Twelfth Street (between Howard & Van Ness), is one block from the SOMA Hub parking garage, which is open daily until 10 pm and charges $5 for the first 2 hours. For commuters coming by car from the East Bay or Peninsula, the location is very near the Mission St. exit of Highway 101. Coming from Marin, one might take Van Ness or Gough St. The site is in walking distance of the Van Ness MUNI Metro station (an easy connection to BART) and is served by multiple bus lines on Van Ness, Market, Mission, and 11th Streets.

The building was originally a warehouse and most recently housed a tech company. Listed at 9500 square feet (7500 square feet at ground level plus a 2000 square foot mezzanine), it precisely meets the Institute’s size requirement. (The Institute’s current building is just under 6000 square feet.)

The building has an appealing barrel-vaulted wood ceiling, the curve of which is seen from the open entry foyer and the large open space at the rear of the building that could contain the seminar room. In the center of the building, a mezzanine level has recently been added.

The building offers lots of natural light, rare for a commercially zoned building. There are many skylights, and the back of the building looks out onto Natoma, a residential street, so that there are windows at the back as well as the front.

The building is equipped with an exterior wheelchair lift from street level. An elevator would need to be added inside to provide mezzanine access. The building’s zoning appears to be appropriate for the Institute’s use.

The neighborhood is slowly but steadily being converted to new, multi-story housing as low-rise commercial properties along Van Ness (San Francisco Honda, Tower Car Wash, Goodwill, and others) are sold for redevelopment. According to City statistics, reported crime for the immediate vicinity is relatively low, though certainly not as low as in the Institute’s present neighborhood.

The building’s most recent improvements include new electrical, internet, and ventilation systems. Some of the improvements, though made with high quality materials according to our contractor/estimator, are in a contemporary glass and steel style that is probably at odds with the Institute’s preferred aesthetic. The Institute’s architect would need to find solutions. The exterior face of the building is rather plain; some redesign of the facade could be undertaken.

We will be working with the architectural consultant and contractor/estimator to get a clearer idea of what the necessary renovations would cost. At $6.6 million, the building is more expensive than the Institute had expected to pay. However, the cost of renovations may be less than the budget has anticipated.

I welcome comments and questions about the building from community members (adamlfrey@gmail.com).

Adam Frey

 

 

5/19/17: Building Fund Update

To date, more than 200 donors have contributed to the Institute’s Building Fund, including 72 first-time donors to the Institute. From conversations with donors, we’ve learned that people are giving for three main reasons:

To secure the community that gives psyche a place
Many of us who are attuned to meaning, patterns, interiority, and personal development value the opportunity to interact with others who share the same values.

To share the riches of Jungian analysis
Some people who have had a transformational experience through Jungian analysis like to make it possible for others to have a similar experience and understanding.

To save the world
Core insights of analytical psychology allow humankind to better coexist and survive. These include recognizing the importance of meaning to human life, holding the tension of opposites, and working on the shadow rather than projecting it onto others.

If you have questions or comments, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Adam Frey, Consultant
adamlfrey@gmail.com

12/16/16: Talk About It!

The United States is divided and is suffering a crisis of values and meaning. The Institute’s work helps individuals find their values and align themselves with what brings meaning. It supports people in looking at their shadow and withdrawing projections from others.

When the Institute moves out of Gough Street and into a new building, it will be able to do this important work more safely, sustainably, and effectively. As we face the challenge of inspiring Institute friends and patrons to help us gather the roughly $1.8 million still needed to carry out this $9.7 million relocation, enhancing awareness of the need is our biggest challenge.

If you believe in the Institute’s work and agree that the relocation is imperative, please don’t keep your support a secret. Talk about it! People will only contribute if they are aware of what the Institute does and why it is moving. By sharing your views, you can make it possible for others to decide if they would like to join in becoming stakeholders in the Institute and in the building that will be its new container.

Adam Frey

11/18/16: Building Fund Update

In the first quarter of this fiscal year, the Institute received payment of a substantial bequest from Bruce Detloff, the son of our long-term analyst member Wayne Detloff and his wife Virginia Allan Detloff, the Institute’s first librarian. Thanks to this very gratifying remembrance of the Institute by Bruce, and some other generous gifts, the Development Committee has already met its fundraising budget to support annual operations in the present 2016-17 fiscal year. For this reason, the Development Committee has let Adam Frey know that all fundraising work during the remainder of the fiscal year can be focused on seeking gifts to the Building Fund.

Toward this end, during October, the Building Fund received a contribution of $50,000 from a donor who was previously unknown to the Institute. Another brand-new donor has given $10,000. As new gifts to the Building Fund are received, they will continue to be matched dollar for dollar by an anonymous donor as part of the ongoing $500,000 challenge.

John Beebe, MD

7/8/16: Building Fund Update

More than two-thirds of the Institute’s analysts and candidates have now become stakeholders in the Institute’s Building Fund by contributing financially to help ready the Institute for its upcoming move.

In the last two months alone, analysts, candidates, and volunteers serving on Institute committees have contributed well over $100,000 toward the $500,000 challenge match that President Robert Tyminski announced at the beginning of May.

When we count the original gift to enhance the Clinic, donations to the Building Fund over the past year, the portion of the matching grant earned so far, and the expected proceeds from the eventual sale of the Gough Street building, the Institute has already amassed more than three-fourths of the resources that we expect to need to buy, renovate, and move into a slightly larger building suitable to the Institute’s needs. “Suitable” here means that the renovated building will be legally zoned, accessible to people with disabilities, and in compliance with fire and other safety regulations.

The Institute still needs to raise $2.3 million more. For now, we will turn our attention primarily to outside donors, but it is clear to me that we will need additional investment from Institute insiders to bring the campaign to a successful conclusion.

The Building Fund team thanks all those who have already contributed. We’re grateful for your generosity and readiness to take the initiative to help.

Adam Frey

6/24/16: Building Fund Update

The Institute has urgent reasons to move. You are invited to pledge or give now, so that when a suitable building becomes available the Institute will be in a position to make an offer. Your gift will be matched by an anonymous donor, up to a total of $500,000.

100% of Members-at-Large, 69% of candidates, and 55% of analyst members have thus far invested in the Building Fund. Counting the initial gift to enhance the Clinic, the Fund has received $2.5 million. An additional $2.3 million still needs to be raised.

When we begin meeting with outside donors this summer, it will be very helpful to raising the remaining necessary funds if we can say that nearly all of the members and candidates have already participated in giving.

June 30 is the deadline to pledge or make a donation to the Institute Building Fund and be listed as a donor in the 2015-16 At the Institute. Donors will be listed alphabetically—never by giving level. Gift amounts are confidential.

A form to pledge (payable after two years) or to give monthly by credit card is available HERE.

6/17/16: More Responses to Community Survey

Through the recent Community Survey, analyst members and others raised concerns and questions including:

  • Will it be expensive to park near the new building?
  • Why are we imagining that the new building could have skylights and an atrium?
  • Could there be a solution that separates the Clinic from the rest of the Institute?
  • Is the Institute spending too lavishly on consultants?

 
Consultant Adam Frey and Administrative Director Steve Hargis-Bullen reply below:

Q.  Will it be expensive to park near the new building?

A.  (From Adam Frey) Institute community members should expect to have to pay for parking near the new building because free, abundant, street parking is almost nonexistent nowadays in centrally located San Francisco neighborhoods where the Institute could legally be housed. This is especially true from 9 – 5 on weekdays. In some neighborhoods, free or discounted parking may be available after 6 and on weekends.

Q.  Why are we imagining that the new building might have skylights and an atrium?

A.  Buildings that are legally zoned for the Institute to occupy are normally constructed without yards. Windows appear only on the street side or facing into a narrow light well. This can lead to a shortage of natural light in the building unless skylights and atriums are used.

Q.  Could there be a solution that separates the Clinic from the rest of the Institute?

A.  We do not foresee any solution that separates the Clinic from the rest of the Institute. The Clinic committee and staff have strongly requested not to be separated from the Institute and having two locations instead of one would substantially increase the Institute’s costs in every scenario that we have seen.

Q.  Is the Institute spending too lavishly on consultants?

A.  (From Steve Hargis-Bullen) Since the project began in February 2014, the Institute has spent $102,000 on consultants, a little over 1% of the total project budget. No consultants are on retainer. Consultants only invoice for work that we request them to do.

So far, $11,000 has gone for legal consultations on zoning issues. $10,000 has been spent on architectural and engineering consultations, including about the feasibility of renovating the Gough Street building. $2,000 was spent on appraisals to determine the likely resale value of the Gough Street building. $1,000 was paid to fundraising consultant Kim Klein for group training and other work.

The remaining consultation fees ($78,000) have been paid to Adam Frey (at $100/hour) for 780 hours of work over 2 years and 2 months, first on the feasibility of relocating the clinic and then on the relocation of the entire Institute including especially on the necessary communications and fundraising. Adam invoices the Institute monthly, providing daily itemizations of the time spent on each action. The Institute’s contract with Adam caps his fees monthly. Adam has discounted his hourly fee by 50% for the entire project and also contributes a significant number of unbilled hours.

In sum, I believe we are controlling our consulting costs well and getting good value.

 

5/27/16: Consultant’s Response to Community Survey Comments

I’ve heard from many community members who are finding it hard to prepare for the anticipated separation from the building in which they have trained. For some, the effort seems uncomfortably close to the mourning process that Kübler-Ross described, moving from denial to anger, bargaining, depression and, eventually, without enthusiasm, acceptance.

It does not follow, however, that to question the plans for the move is to misuse psychic energy.

It can still be helpful for each community member to probe the assumptions and test the facts that underlie the path the Institute is on. I more than welcome communication from anyone who is skeptical of the need to relocate or of the approach the Institute is taking (415-254-5835, adamLfrey@gmail.com). It has not been practical to put all of the facts and findings that have steered our choices into writing, but I would be glad to share the relevant ones with anyone who would like to ask.

Even more immediate is an understandable concern for the future. The concern most commonly expressed has been whether we can find a suitable building. Our realtor has recently told us that there are 179 buildings in San Francisco that meet our criteria for size and zoning.

The most challenging criteria the Institute faces in finding a building are all rather practical:

  • availability of parking
  • neighborhood safety
  • suitably-sized building
  • appropriate zoning, and
  • affordable cost

 
I don’t know yet how many of the buildings the realtor has identified meet all the criteria, nor whether any of the owners would consider selling. I expect that the most likely neighborhoods will be around Jackson Square and in sections of Fillmore, Larkin and Polk, Mission, South of Market, and mid-Market.  These areas all offer good public transit.

At least two buildings that have changed hands in these areas since 2014 (Larkin St. and Green St.) would have been suitable for the Institute’s needs and were within our price range, so we know it has been possible recently to find such a space.

Should the wait to secure a building begin to seem endless, we can open the search to buildings that are larger than the Institute needs, with the aim of leasing out part of the space to tenants.

When we have raised more money, we will begin to be seen as a serious buyer. Attractive buildings do not usually stay on the market very long. The Institute cannot expect to first find a building and then raise the money to buy and renovate it, because someone who has their money in hand will buy it while we are just beginning to do that work. This is why I have focused so much on fundraising first. It’s a prerequisite to buying.

In a future newsletter, I’ll respond to other questions and issues that arose in responses to the community survey.

— Adam Frey

5/13/16: Community Survey Responses

A digest of responses to the recent Institute Community Survey, compiled by consultant Adam Frey, can be found via the link below. A tabulation of responses to multiple choice questions gives a quick overview of the 45 respondents’ evaluations and concerns. In choosing respondents’ written comments to excerpt, Adam has sought to highlight ideas and sentiments not previously expressed or emphasized, especially if they are at odds with the most commonly expressed views.

Future newsletters will provide answers to some questions raised by survey respondents.

Click HERE for digest of survey responses.

5/6/16: Building Fund Challenge Gift

As an expression of value for the Institute’s educational and therapeutic work, a donor who wishes to remain anonymous has offered a half million dollar challenge grant to the Institute’s Building Fund. For each new dollar contributed or new pledge made after May 5 to the Fund, this donor will give a matching dollar so that a total of one million dollars will have been added to the Fund when the match is completed.

President Robert Tyminski announced the donor’s very generous offer at the Analysts’ Dinner Meeting on May 5. In the next few days, Institute community members will receive a letter asking for their help in meeting the challenge, which can be in the form of a pledge. Robert Tyminski noted that the donor has placed no deadline on completing the match. “The urgency,” he said, “is inherent in our situation. The donor saw that there was no need to add urgency by naming a deadline.”

4/14/16: Building Fund Exceeds $750,000

Dear Institute Community,

I am forwarding a report from Adam Frey about progress toward moving the Institute.

With warm best wishes,

Robert Tyminski, President

 

Dear Members, Candidates, Staff, Members-at-Large, and Committee Volunteers:

I’m happy to report that the Institute has already raised over three-quarters of a million dollars this fiscal year to help underwrite its move to a new building.

In this first stage we’ve focused our fundraising efforts on the Institute’s inner community–the same groups that are receiving this report. In the past eight months, 100% of Members-at-Large, 40% of members, 35% of candidates, and 33% of committee volunteers have pledged or given to the Building Fund. The Candidates’ Association has made a substantial donation in addition to what candidates are contributing individually. Many of you have given to both the Building Fund and the Institute’s Annual Fund this year, helping to insure that the Institute’s regular programs remain supported.

Again and again, I have been surprised and moved by your generosity. Thank you.

Web page

In preparation for reaching out later this year to the Institute’s wider public for support, we have created a webpage called “Moving the Jung Institute.” I invite you to click here and have a look. The Building Fund team welcomes your suggestions for the development of this page.

Vision

The vision for the new building expressed on the web page is a distillation of the BOG’s discussion about values in January. It includes:

To be homelike, warm, welcoming and accessible
To celebrate individuality
To offer privacy
To connect past, present, and future
To be humble yet inspiring
To nourish visitors intellectually and spiritually, including through its library and its rotating exhibits of art

Location scouting and the imperative of parking

As I scout out San Francisco streets that are appropriately zoned for the Institute, I’m seeing that it is increasingly rare to find locations where there is sufficient nearby street parking to meet the Institute’s needs. Therefore, I think the Institute will probably need to seek locations that are within several blocks of public parking garages. There are many such garages throughout the city, but they are definitely not in every neighborhood.

Public transportation provides an alternative to paying for parking. As we look farther into the future, we can expect a greater reliance on public transit, including BART, buses, and services like Uber and Lyft. We are told that, in time, there will be driverless cars that won’t require parking accommodations of the kind that we need now. Since we can’t skip to the future, however, I think we have to overlay the map of parking garages with the public transit and zoning maps to find a workable location.

Community survey

If you would like to participate in the current community survey about moving the Institute and have your input reflected in the report the community will receive, please remember to complete the survey by April 18. If you did not receive the email invitation to the survey or if you need it again, please contact me at adamlfrey@gmail.com.

Sincerely, Adam Frey

(415) 254-5835