There are a couple newsworthy items related to the city’s Office of Sustainability and Environment. First, it is losing Amanda Eichel, senior climate protection advisor, to the New York City office of Mayor Mike Bloomberg. Second, it recently hired Joshua Curtis, formerly executive director of urban advocacy group Great City. Great City was founded by Mayor Mike McGinn, previous to his political role. Curtis’ title is community power works non-residential grant manager. He was brought on to manage a portion of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program, funded by the federal stimulus. The role is funded by the grant.

Jill Simmons, acting director of the OSE, said she is reassessing the role Eichel played. Someone else will likely be hired to fill her post.

It’s interesting that Eichel is leaving to work with Bloomberg’s office, which seems to be snatching up

Eichel heads to New York City

talented Pacific Northwest players. Bloomberg also recently hired David Bragdon, former president of Portland’s Metro Council, as head of environmental policy. There’s an article here about what the switch-up means for New York.

It’s also interesting that OSE is hiring in today’s tumultuous market when so many other city employees risk losing their jobs. In the Department of Planning and Development for example, the city is planning to lay off up to 40 employees in October. The city has had multiple rounds of layoffs since the start of the recession.

Simmons said OSE considered people from other departments for Curtis’ post but he was the best fit. She said the office recently brought someone into the department who otherwise would have been laid off. There is no word yet whether the office will face any layoffs in the coming year as the city’s budget has not been released.

McGinn founded Great City but resigned his post to run for mayor. In May of 2009, Curtis succeeded McGinn. At the end of June, Great City went all-volunteer and Brice Maryman seems to have taken over general duties. Curtis was hired by OSE at the beginning of August.

Simmons wanted to make it clear that the city didn’t hire Curtis because of his past involvement with McGinn’s project. In an e-mail, she said Curtis was unequivocally not hired because of his connection to Great City, and the mayor:

“OSE conducted a competitive hiring process in June and July to fill the EECBG Grant Program’s Nonresidential Sector Manager position. We received nearly 30 applications, and interviewed a number of strong candidates. Joshua was the best of these; he is exceptionally well-qualified to ensure the city successfully implements the ambitious grant program. OSE lost one great talent with Amanda’s departure, but thankfully gained another with Joshua’s hire.”

In the fallout from the recession, I’m hearing a little bit here and a little bit there about green housing projects. But what I seem to be hearing a lot about is prefabricated, modular projects or buildings constructed of pieces made at a factory. Whether cottage dwellings to go in a backyard or totally separate houses, this field seems to have an underlying invigorating energy, leaving me to wonder if it’s the next big thing?

The GreenFab demonstration home, courtesy GreenFab

Locally, two companies come to mind. I recently met and interviewed the owners of GreenFab- Johnny Hartsfield and Swen Grau - about their very first modular housing project in Jackson Place, pictured at left. GreenFab’s overarching goal is to revolutionize housing. But it plans to start now by building well-designed, sustainable, affordable modular projects, or by consulting for others who want to do the same thing. Look for a story soon on this company in the DJC.

You might remember my mentioning GreenFab in a post from last summer here (as a disclaimer from that post, GreenFab’s projects will likely not pursue the Living Building Challenge now, though Hartsfield plans to do so in the future). The project is targeting LEED platinum certification.

The other company, Backyard Box, was founded by Seattle green developer Sloan Ritchie. This concept is focused more on backyard cottages. Customers select a design they want with a set price, can choose to pay

A Backyard Box project by Blip Design, courtesy Backyard Box

for upgrades, and leave permits and construction to Backyard Box. I wrote a story about the business in April here.

Then there was June’s Backyard Cottage Design Challenge Showcase, hosted by Method Homes (another local developer of prefab projects) and Infiniti RED. The challenge showcased the work of 35 local architects and designers who submitted prefab friendly backyard cottage designs. That showcase can be viewed here. Ideabox of Salem, Ore., is yet another regional prefab company.

On the less-local front, Charles Redell at Sustainable Industries wrote a piece here on August 19 called “Modular Could Lead Commercial Construction Market.” In it, he discusses a new partnership between YKK AP America, a manufacturer of building components, and Project FROG, a panelized modular building company. In it, Oliver Stepe of YKK says his company is repositioning towards the next innovation of the built environment.

Then there’s this article by Dave Walsh from last October that discusses modular buildings’ growth in Holland. If it’s growing in Holland, you know there’s a chance it will catch on here: http://www.djc.com/news/ae/12011276.

If you’ve been paying attention, you know 2010 has been a pivotal year for Seattle’s waterfront.

In March, the city awarded a contract for seawall work, worth about $18 million, to a multi-disciplinary team led by TetraTech. At the same time, it sped up the schedule to redesign and redevelop its Central Waterfront Project

What the waterfront looks like today. Image courtesy Clair Enlow

. The timing will allow seawall and waterfront teams to spend more time working together.

Wednesday was the RFQ deadline for central waterfront work. A team is expected to be chosen by the end of September. The budget for design work over the first two years is expected to be about $6 million while the estimated budget for planning and design of the entire project is between $50 and $70 million. It got 30 proposals on the urban design/public space side.

Not to mention the process (or sometimes lack thereof) for the replacement on the Alaskan Way Viaduct, which is crucial to how the city’s waterfront will be opened up.

Make no mistake about it, these projects combined will totally reshape our downtown. However, in all the hustle and bustle, it can be really hard to imagine just what that end result will be. Or what it is Seattleites want it to be.

If the city proceeds with the deep bore tunnel option, the goal is for the seawall to be done by the time the bored tunnel is complete, currently scheduled for 2016. Construction on the waterfront work could begin this same year.

The seawall may seem like the smallest of the three but how it is designed and managed will be incredibly important to the foundation of the other two projects. One big push is to create places along the waterfront for the public - for you and I - to interact with the water. Places that aren’t separated by physical walls but allow us to connect with water, the cultural backbone of our city.

In June, Bob Chandler, city program manager for the viaduct and seawall replacement, said the city is looking for a seawall that supports the waterfront while providing habitat value and creating space for people to interact with the water. “We have an opportunity,” he said. “We need to come up with an approach here that provides protection in a seismic event but that doesn’t necessarily mean this is a 35-foot high straight wall. It doesn’t mean that at all.”

My question is - how do you envision this?

What should it look like? How do you want to interact with the water, related to the seawall? Once the seawall is complete, what would your optimal redeveloped waterfront look like? Sustainably, what should its function really be?

Rhodes, Greece. The old town at night. Could we get this kind of energy along our waterfront?

At the core of this is the need to get normal people to want to hang out on Seattle’s waterfront during evenings and on the weekend, rather than just visiting when family and friends come into town.

I recently spent my honeymoon in Greece and Turkey. In each city I visited on the water, there were vibrant spaces located along its edge. I couldn’t help wondering what it would take to create the same kind of energy in our city: a bustling mix of tourists and locals that waxes on until the early hours of the morning every day. In Greece and Turkey, the answer is built on history, combined with making these spaces centers of tourism and city life.

These are a lot of questions, often without answer. Part of the point of the design process is to come up with that answer, and there will be a number of opportunities to participate in the formal process. One will be a meeting with teams shortlisted for the central waterfront design work at Benaroya Hall on Sept. 15 - mark your calendar. For now, I’d love to hear your thoughts.

pocketpark_web

Cast architecture, a Seattle firm that focuses on using renewable energy, sustainable construction and innovative design to improve urban life, has an idea it says could lead to a network of solar-powered pocket parks that generate energy.

Cast said it is working with two community groups, Groundswell NW and the Sunset Hill Community Association, to turn a decommissioned electrical substation on 65th Street in Ballard into a park with photovoltaic solar canopies.

Matt Hutchins of Cast said the idea surfaced when Seattle City Light began the process of selling surplus land, including a substation in Sunset Hills. Neighbors wanted more open space rather than a new development, he said.
The proposal shows a 32-kW solar canopy, a large play area, plantings and a sculptural landscape element nicknamed the “Wedge.”

It would provide a gathering place as well as demonstrating renewable energy. Stormwater collected off the panels would feed a water feature, irrigate plants and could be filtered for potable use during an emergency.

Solar panels and equipment would be made in Washington to take advantage of new incentives to create green-collar jobs. Cast estimates the canopy would generate about 35,000 kWh a year. Revenue from selling the electricity would help maintain the park.

Hutchins said the group has finished a feasibility study and is starting to raise funds, expecting a mix of grants, public money, and private donations. The parkscape would be funded by private individuals.

Based on current estimates, the hard and soft costs would total around $996,000, Hutchins said. Land acquisition could add another $570,000.

He said construction is tentatively slated for 2011.

Cast is working with Puget Sound Solar and  Studio 342 Landscape Architecture.

More information about the project is at www.SunsetSubstation.org.

Lovely readers! This blog shouldn’t change much in the upcoming weeks as I’ll be gone the month of July. I’ll be doing last minute planning, getting married and going on our honeymoon.

I will return in the month of August. Please visit the DJC Green Building Blog then and we’ll get all caught up with the newest green news. In the mean time, you can read the DJC itself or check out our SeattleScape Blog, which focuses our changing city, or the Nuts and Bolts Blog, which focuses on the construction industry.

Thanks for reading!

- Katie

The Washington State Department of Natural Resources, the Seattle Parks Foundation and Friends of Waterway 18 have restored one of the last natural remaining beaches on Lake Union. The beach is located at 2199 North Northlake Way, just east of Gasworks Park.

This video documents the site’s change… it’s pretty interesting stuff!

For more information, go here.

The city of Seattle’s Office of Sustainability & Environment is hiring a sector manager for its retrofit ramp-up non-residential program. But hurry! The closing date to apply for this job is June 25- tomorrow.

Seattle received money through the federal Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant, as part of the federal stimulus. This position will manage retrofit delivery for the non-residential sectors of the grant, in partnership with the grant team, staff from other city departments and the project steering committee. The person chosen will also be responsible for developing a sustainability plan to ensure the programs created through the grant continue after the three-year grant period.

The job is funded for three years. The salary will be between $32 and $48 per hour. Applications are due to Jeanie Boawn, executive assistant in the Office of Sustainability and Environment by 4 p.m. tomorrow. Her email is jeanie.boawn@seattle.gov.

Here’s the full job description. Good luck!

Green readers! Today I got a shock in my inbox: Lucia Athens, a constant presence in Seattle’s green building scene, is moving to Austin, Texas to become chief sustainability officer for the city.

For those of you that don’t know Athens, she is presently the senior sustainable futures strategist with 

Lucia Athens

CollinsWoerman (a title she made up - pretty nifty, eh?) She previously spent 10 years with the city of Seattle, leading its green building program. Athens wrote “Building an Emerald City: A Guide to Creating Green Building Policies and Programs,” about her experience with the city. She also has served in sustainability leadership positions with the board of directors for the U.S. Green Building Council and the International Green Building Certification Institute.

Lucia is a fountain of knowledge, an engaging speaker and someone whose skills are sure to be missed in this emerald city. The Austin Chronicle has an article on the move here. In an e-mail, Athens said she loves Seattle but already has connections to Austin as she grew up in San Antonio and has family there.

The DJC has carried a number of articles involving Athens over the years. In February, she wrote the article “7 trends that will shape the future of green building.” In 2008, we wrote about a BetterBricks award she won for being a green building advocate. In 2002, she wrote this article about how Seattle was leading the way for the nation in green building. In 1999, she was on a panel discussing the evolving standard for green buildings.

This was a pretty sought-after job so it will be interesting to see how it all unfolds. I, for one, will be keeping my eye on Austin. Good luck, Lucia!

This week, Dan Bertolet published a great post titled simply ‘McNeighborhood,’ over at Publicola. The post discusses a project called The Corydon Apartments/Merril Gardens, located a few blocks north of University Village. Bertolet characterizes the project (which is pretty giant at two city blocks long) as a McNeighborhood and has this to say about its design:

“The overall effect is, well, just fine, I guess. Pleasant, though not inspiring. Sort of like the Pottery Barn aesthetic writ large—it looks good on a superficial level, but the soul is missing.”

I read the post with interest, then I read the comments. Many are quite positive. Commenter Cook says: “The building is actually quite nice compared to what could have gone in there.” Commenter Gomez said the design criticism has weight but the project is better than what was on site before — nothing.

Commenter giffy says: “I’d say this is exactly the kind of development we need more of in this city. And

Image courtesy Dan Bertolet, Publicola

really, much of the “lack of soul” is simply because it’s new. Wait fifty years and people will be bitching when they knock it down to put in support columns for our Jetson houses.”

Taken together, I think the post and comments pose an interesting question: just how much should we require of design? Should this project be commended for being better than what previously existed or should it be penalized (in our opinion) for not being as good as it could be?

In the interest of total disclosure, I’ll tell you that I grew up in this neighborhood and now live in it, so I’ve watched this site change and develop over a period of many, many years. Yes, the Corydon/Merrill Gardens is a big, big development for the area. But at street level, it is less jarring than a number of other nearby projects. Additionally, the storefronts are filling up with (mostly) local, user friendly shops. A liquor store, a clothing boutique, a Peet’s Coffee and a Japanese restaurant.

The new project is also a lot better than the burned out husk of an Italian restaurant that used to be there (Ciao Bella, though in all fairness, the space wasn’t a husk for too long and was renovated following the fire in 2003).

So here’s my question: just how ugly is this building? Is it an example of poor design? Or is it pretty darn good for the area it is in. What do you think? To see more pictures, click on the link to Bertolet’s post above or click on the link to Corydon.

Image courtesy The Corydon

This week, the DJC published my story on the Bullitt Foundation’s desire to go off the water grid and the underlying politics of the decision. I’ve written about this topic before in this March 17 post “Bullitt wants to go off the water grid: realistically will it be able to?” Basically, the problem centers around the idea that Bullitt wants to capture and treat all its own water. That means it wants to do the impossible: drink the water that falls on its site and treat the toilet waste the occupants produce. I say impossible because the barriers seem endless. (Clarification: I do not actually think it is impossible. As a journalist I don’t take sides and have no opinion on the topic. But if you were to look at the issue before Bullitt started talking with agencies, it was an impossibility. That’s the point of the Living Building Challenge… to break down barriers).

The barrier I discussed in the story is King County’s capacity fee. According to an internal county

Here is a current rendering of Bullitt's project

document, a different project (part of Amazon’s new headquarters in South Lake Union) wanted to go partially off the water grid and requested a waiver of the capacity fee. The waiver would have resulted in a loss of over $700,000 for the county in 2008, the document says. Because the building would still be hooking into King County’s water system for some services, the county declined the waiver. Even though a building may be water independent, it still needs to be connected to the county system in case of emergency. This means it needs to be able to function at any given moment.

Developers and green enthusiasts say the fee should be waived because it encourages innovation, and developers won’t pursue these projects otherwise. The county says it’s a social equity issue: by waiving the fee, other less fortunate individuals will end up paying for infrastructure and the county has already counted on new development to support that work. Specifically, the county is in the middle of building the $1.8 billion Brightwater Treatment Plant.

I’m really interested in this dilemma, especially the validity of the social justice claim. I had a brief conversation via Twitter this week with @bruteforceblog (whose very interesting blog is here: http://bruteforcecollaborative.wordpress.com/). Bruteforce said if this were a rural site he’d be all for cutting the capacity fee but in a city, the less affluent will be burdened by the cost. He suggested priority permitting as an incentive. However the city already provides priority permitting for super green projects and in this economy, the quickened pace doesn’t equal the amount of savings it once did. I asked him what other ideas he might suggest. Bruteforce said perhaps a FAR or height incentive could be the answer, adding that no matter the incentive, developers will always argue it isn’t enough. However, a commenter on our DJC story, Kent Andersson had another opinion: “It’s not about punishing the poor. It’s about everyone paying the true costs of the services they use. We should allow the exemption to spur the future, however if they need to discharge, then they should pay a higher rate.”

Regarding the capacity fee, the county is currently considering three pretty black and white options, again, according to the internal county documents: waive the fee for projects that go off the water grid, partially waive it or do nothing and keep the structure as it is.

But there’s another option. Why not let innovative projects go off the grid and then charge them crazy insane fees if and when they do use the system? Just a thought.

Where do you stand on this issue? Do you think the county is right on with its social justice reasoning or is that an excuse? What incentives do you think should be offered to developers, if any should be offered at all to get them moving in this direction? Or maybe we all should pay the “true costs” of water and agree to much higher water rates? I’d love to hear your thoughts!

Don’t feel like commenting? Answer our new poll at right!