If you’re a developer who’s been asking for “expedited permitting” for green buildings in Seattle… you’re not going to get it any time soon. What you are going to get, however, is “facilitated permitting.”

Facilitated permitting means that for pilot projects accepted into the program (like Bruno Lampert’s Capitol Hill project pictured at left), you get one contact person at DPD who will identify problem code areas and help work through the issues with you. Only super green projects (comparable to LEED gold or platinum) will be accepted into the program… sorry LEED silver, you’re just not green enough. 

There are a number of code issues that sit in the way of going after really green systems. In fact, they pretty much run the gamut of topics depending on what you’re looking to do.

Bradley Khouri, architect with b9 Architects, is working on Urbansight, a project in the Priority Green pilot program. He said to really encourage green building, permitting needs to be quicker for green projects, it needs to be easier to deconstruct a project and the city needs to better recognize the use of stormwater on site. He also said zoning for infill development needs to be rewritten, but that’s another story.

What do you think are the code issues that need to change? (To read a past post on this topic, click here).

The city has been talking about launching an expedited permitting process for months, but when it came down to it, they didn’t want to guarantee projects going through the program would get through quicker than others, because they would have tougher code issues to deal with. For more on this topic, read my story in the DJC here.

So Seattle developers, if you want ”expedited green permitting,” you’re going to have to go to Kirkland…. they’ve got it for single-family green houses and are looking at it for commercial buildings. If on the other hand, you’re willing to pursue super green systems and are cool with the “facilitated” title, Seattle’s just the place for you.

Steve Nicholas, one of the most constant faces in Seattle sustainability politics, has left the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability and Environment. In fact, he’s even leaving the state!

That’s right. Nicholas, who has been the director of OSE for eight years (longer than the mayor has been mayor), will begin a new job in Montpelier, Vt. in October as director of climate programs at the Institute for Sustainable Communities.

His spot will be filled, as in interim position, by Michael Mann, the deputy director of the Office of Policy and Management. Mann recently led the department’s Transportation and Infrastructure Team. 

Sadly, Nicholas has already left the building and I have no forwarding address. But what I can tell you is back in 2001, when he had just been appointed the office’s first director, Nicholas told the DJC here, “My goal is to work the Office of Sustainability out of existence in 10 years.”

Back then, the article reads:

“If, on the other hand, his office becomes a “repository for all things sustainable. That’s an abject failure,” he says.”

A lot of things have changed since that article. But some things haven’t changed. The office is still around. The city is still looking at a streamlined permitting process for green buildings. We’re still wrestling with the word ’sustainability.’

Readers, it hasn’t been 10 years yet — only eight. But what do you think the office has accomplished in that time? Has Seattle done everything it could to encourage sustainable development, living, business etc., in eight years or not? And is the mayor’s office a repository for all things sustainable or slowly being worked out of existence? What do you think are the biggest green development changes in that time?

Oh, and if anyone has Steve’s e-mail, tell him I’m lookin’ for him!

For more DJC articles on Steve Nicholas, see this article he wrote for us in 2004, this one he wrote in 2005, this one he wrote in 2002, this one about the mayor’s crusade for trees, and this one about smart growth.

Sometimes, I get really cool things in my in-box. The Earth Day Network Ecological Footprint Calculator is one of those things.

The calculator, created by the Global Footprint Network and launched today, measures how many planets it would take to sustain your lifestyle. Like most calculators, you go through a series of questions, pick the answers that fit your lifestyle and watch the results come in. But there are two things that set this calculator apart from the pack: the interactivity and the measurement of an ecological footprint.

First the interactivity. Maybe it’s because I grew up in a world of video games but if a tool like this is fun as opposed to bland, I’m a lot more likely to pay attention. And this tool is fun. First, you get to design an avatar (mine had blue spiky hair), and then you get to watch the avatar’s world change as you enter choices that correspond to your life. Fun, no?

Second, and more importantly, the ecological footprint. Most calculators out there measure a person’s carbon footprint. But how much carbon you generate is only part of your impact as a human being. A carbon measurement doesn’t count more esoteric things like how much meat you eat, where you get it and how that affects your impact on the world. 

The ecological footprint, on the other hand, creates a full picture and represents the overall human demand on nature; it compares human consumption with what it takes to regenerate natural resources.

Using this idea, the calculator measures how many planets it would take if the rest of the world lived like you. It’s a really visual way of seeing how much you impact the world… versus seeing a large number that you don’t really understand. For example, even though I recycle everything, almost always carpool, live in an urban environment etc. etc., if all the world lived like me it would apparently take 3.8 planets. And the majority of that (46 percent) is in services. That surprised me. 

The idea of measuring your impact by planets, then decreasing it, is the push behind One Planet Communities and BioRegional, the groups that brought the world BedZed (at left), one of England’s poster children for sustainable living. I wrote about BedZed and One Planet Living in December here in the DJC. According to their numbers, it would take 5.3 planets if the rest of the world lived like the United States does.

There are plans in the works to create One Planet Communities across the world, for more visit www.bioregional.com.

The calculator also offers suggestions after you’re done on what you can do to decrease your result, and lets you change your choices so you can see what exactly affected the final total.  

Though it’s fun, I don’t know how they calculate their numbers and can’t comment on whether the amounts are accurate or not. If you have a favorite calculator that you like better than this one, or can comment on the accuracy of the numbers used, please share your information below. New resources are always appreciated.

More info on the calculator at Plime here.

If you do, there’s one simple way to get it: reduce your drive-alone trips by 60 percent between now and May 2009 by biking around town.

That’s right, the Green Bike Project, a partnership between King County Metro Transit, Washington State Department of Transportation, Cascade Bicycle Club and REI, is giving away 300 bikes, along with training and tune-ups.

The bikes are Novara commuter bikes, courtesy of REI. The program is geared towards major employers in King County who are required by law to have an employee commute program. Employers must have five to 15 employees willing to participate to be eligible. So far, Expedia, ZymoGenetics, Perkins Coie, Boeing, Kirkland, Kent, SeaTac, Renton, Quadrant Homes and the Washington State Department of Ecology have signed on. If you’re an employer that wants to participate, contact Susan Whitmore at susan.whitmore@kingcounty.gov. 

And hey if you already bike to work, REI is offering 100 free tune-ups for those who already commute but want to participate in the project.

This is a monthly post by different representatives of the Northwest Building Efficiency Center. This post was written by Margaret Thomas. 

As a librarian for several years at a library specializing in the area of energy, I responded to questions about energy-efficiency from homeowners, and those responsible for building, renovating or maintaining commercial buildings.

Often, what they wanted to know is: are there any rebates or other financial incentives to help me pay for energy-efficiency improvements? Of course there are, but they are as scattered and unpredictable as mercury on a marble floor.

A variety of utility, local, state and federal organizations offer help. But their programs are buffeted by budget cycles and political whims—they come and go with the seasons. Who keeps up? The Database for State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency.

The Web site comes with a dangerous URL: dsireusa.org. Get it wrong and you may be in for a shock. Get it right and you are connected to the single most useful and up-to-date source I know of for information about financial incentives.

DSIRE has been around for more than a decade and established itself as a central clearinghouse for information about financial incentives from every source. Funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, the database is managed by the North Carolina Solar Center and the Interstate Renewable Energy Council. They contact program managers regularly and update the database daily.

Posted on the front page is a clickable map of the United States. Choose any state and you get a menu including applicable grants, rebates, tax exemptions, and loan programs. The site also keeps track of relevant rules, regulations and policies.

If you don’t have time to clip coupons or shop around for energy incentives, bookmark DSIREUSA. It’s sites like this that can make a librarian feel as useless as the Maytag Repairman.

Obvious headline, I know, but it had to be done.

Yesterday, I received an e-mail from the USGBC announcing that the Olympic Village in Beijing that houses 17,000 athletes (at left) had been certified gold under leed for neighborhood development, and is the first international project to be certified under that program.

And I thought finally! Enough with Michael Phelps, let’s learn about some buildings! (Sarcasm. Partially….) Unfortunately, the USGBC doesn’t say much about the green features of the space so I have to rely on other sources.  The Environment News Service says it uses solar cells, geothermal heat pumps, solar heat, solar hot water, solar thermoelectric cogeneration and intelligent control devices.

The announcement, however, seems to be drawing its bit of attention. On the Archinect site, the comments are particularly vehement with one commenter named Apurimac stating, “Show me a development in the states at that scale with a LEED gold rating and I’ll eat my hair.”

I am interested in seeing how the Beijing village will compare with the Olympic Village in Vancouver, B.C. for the 2010 Winter Olympics. I attended a forum put on by the Network for Business Innovation & Sustainability in February and based on that, there’s certainly going to be some competition.

Vancouver’s got two villages - one in the city proper in the Southeast False Creek area (in the yellow rectangle in the picture at right) that is already billing itself as a model in sustainability, and one in Whistler. The Southeast False Creek village is planning on using many of the same devices as Beijing including intelligent control devices and nifty solar technology.

To see a video on the villages, click here. To learn more about the details of the Vancouver villages, click here.

Vancouver calls its villages sustainable because, like the Beijing project, they will be lived in after the Olympics are done. The Southeast False Creek project also considers itself sustainable because it is creating a mixed-use, walkable neighborhood on a historic industrial site. The details are much too much to include in this posting, but I’ll keep you updated as it moves along. It should be fascinating to watch. To see the original sustainability goals for the Southeast Village, click here. To see how it was updated this July, click here.

Of course, like Apurimac’s comments show, many would question whether a project of this size should be considered sustainable at all. But that’s a question for another day.  

Is anyone else out there waiting to make the comparison? Is the Vancouver project going to be more sustainable just because it will be able to benefit from green technology improvements in the next couple years? I, for one, will be waiting to find out.

For more on the comparison, check out Basil and Spice here. For more photos on the Beijing Olympic Village, visit Inhabitat here, or check out Curbed San Francisco for more here. More on the Vancouver Olympic village here.

Beijing village photo courtesy of the official Web site of the Beijing Olympics. Vancouver picture courtesy of Vanoc.

There’s a lot of news out there people. But possibly the most entertaining thing in my in-box doesn’t have to do with green materials or green buildings…. it revolves around a penguin.

The Environmental News Network reports that Norway has knighted a king penguin named Niles Olav. Sir Niles Olav is the third penguin to serve as the mascot of the King’s Guard. The first mascot penguin was chosen in 1972, and named after then-King Olav V. Sir Niles Olav (the penguin) lives in the Edinburgh Zoo in Scotland and was promoted from regimental sergeant major to honorary colonel-in-chief in 2005. Just think, I never knew a penguin could be a knight! For more on this, click here.

In other (green building) news, Portland Architecture reports that Houston developer Hines has withdrawn from the competition for the San Diego city hall project, leaving the door wide open for Gerding Edlen and ZGF, though it doesn’t guarantee them the job. For more on the project, click tag ‘Gerding Edlen’ below or click here.

Jetson Green reports on a Yale grad school student who built her own tiny house that is off the grid. The home will cost about $11,000, is 8′ x 18′, and has a sleeping loft, storage loft, study nook, kitchen area, living area and bathroom.  For more, click here.

And Landscape + Urbanism has some awesome photos of green rooftops in NYC. For more, click here.

Happy news hunting! (penguin photo courtesy of ENN. Tiny house courtesy of Stephen Dunn, via Jetson Green). 

My recent post called “Is green building dangerous?” raised a number of comments. In the post, I mentioned a project that had won a significant green award but was “poisoning” its inhabitants. One commenter asked for more information on the subject, so I went to Dan Morris, the indoor air quality specialist mentioned, for specifics on the project. Here is his response (WARNING, may be overly technical):

Morris said the problem with the green house in question was the location of things. It had a large gas water heater used to heat the hydronic infloor heating and domestic hot water that was in a small laundry room with a washer, dryer, an exhaust fan and a fixed window. The occupants were not “poisoned” (as I originally stated) but were exposed to somewhat elevated levels of carbon monoxide over long periods in the house (either way though, it’s not good for you). 

Morris said the carbon monoxide and other trace pollutants found in the flue gasses from gas combustion were drawn into the house whenever the dryer or exhaust fan was operated when the water/space heater was operating. The dryer or exhaust fan took air out of the laundry room with no provision for make-up air from outdoors. The only open hole to the outdoors was the water heater flue. The make-up air was drawn down the flue pipe and back drafted the water heater. In short, it was out of balance and pressure.

In Morris’ words: “What was so disturbing about this house was that no one understood the basics of building science, or were not paying attention. This includes the: architect or building designer, builder, homeowners, code officials/inspectors, green building award people.”

Obviously, this isn’t every green designer or builder or award program… but how common is it? And whose responsibility was it to notice that all those things should not have been in the same room?

Another commenter, SteamboatEcoBroker, said with newer green buildings, air quality and ventilation systems are a must because they are much tighter than older buildings. So should more attention be paid to the air quality systems in a green building? Do green building systems focus too much on energy and not enough on other important aspects?

If you have any insights, please share them with me below.

Wondering what that LEED platinum home looked like? Here are some photos for your entertainment:

That’s Sloan Ritchie, the project’s developer, walking into the house.

That’s the pretty green roof outside the master bedroom.

That’s open house visitors enjoying the living room.

This is kirei board, an engineered panel product made from the leftover stalks of the sorghum plant, which is used for food.

Here’s Ritchie with a SIP - a structural insulated panel or polystyrene panel that combines framing, insulation and exterior sheathing in one system. They can be used for roofing, walls or floors over crawl spaces.

Seattle Public Schools has decided to cut down 92 trees at Ingraham High School in North Seattle. I don’t know much about the politics of the decision. But I do know about the trees and what it meant to grow up near them.

When I was little, I spent eight years on the Madison Mad Dogs (are the best!) swim team directly next to the trees in question. Being an environment reporter, I know the trees are a valuable resource. But looking back in my memories, I remember a sense of horror whenever I got too close to them. The few times I did venture into them (via dares from other children) I found things that no six-year-old should ever find - used condoms, drug paraphernalia, beer bottles etc. After that I took care to stay away from them with super hero-like force.

Even when I got older and worked at the pool, I took care to park far away from the trees when I closed up at 11 p.m. Maybe I was being paranoid, or maybe I was being safe. At the same time, the trees have always been a part of the school, and I don’t remember anything really sinister coming from their existence. In fact all the sinister things seemed to happen in buildings.

It seems a good example of when environmentalism comes face to face with other issues …. like security.  Which one do you think should win out?

For more, visit the PI’s blog here, the Stranger here or Majority Rules here (photo above courtesy of Majority Rules).