Which Living Building are you most excited for?
In the Pacific Northwest, there are a number of living buildings in different stages of development. But in Seattle, Portland and Vancouver, B.C., there are three projects that stand out and will be fascinating to compare.
The projects are Seattle's Cascadia Center for Sustainable Design and Construction, Portland's Oregon Sustainability Center and Vancouver's Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability. Though each is very different, they are large and significant enough to be comparable. Unlike most living buildings, which have to date been smaller structures in isolated landscapes, each of these is in the center of a city. Each are being built by nonprofit or educational organizations. Each will act as a nexus of sustainability for their respective communities.
Of the three, CIRS in Vancouver is furthest ahead, and should be ready for occupancy this summer. The 60,000-square-foot, four-story structure is a dry-lab research facility for the University of British Columbia. It's budget is $37 million Canadian. It was designed by Busby, Perkins + Will. I wrote a previous post about the project here.
Next, comes the Bullitt Foundation's headquarters in Seattle. The Bullitt project, on Capitol Hill, will be six stories and a basement over 52,000 square feet. It is designed by The Miller Hull Partnership and Schuchart is the general contractor. Point32 is the development partner. Completion is planned for next summer. Bullitt is not releasing its budget but plans to release other detailed information on performance and development. At the design presentation for the project earlier this month, Jason McLennan of the Cascadia Green Building Council said “I think this is the most important building being built in the country today,” he said. “It's going to open up a whole new set of eyes.”
Third, is the Portland project. It recently completed final design and should begin construction in early 2012, with an opening in late 2013. The team includes Gerding Edlen, SERA Architects, GBD Architects and Skanska Construction. The Portland Daily Journal of Commerce reported that the project's budget is $59.3 million, not including $4 million needed to align streetcar tracks beneath it. The seven-story building will be 130,000-square-feet. It's funded by the City of Portland, the Portland Development Commission and the Oregon University System.
Though each is similar, a "green competition" has sprouted from the beginning between the Seattle and Portland projects. Time recently published a post on the "green war" here.
Though each building must accomplish the broad goals of the living building challenge (provide all energy, treat and provide all water) they are meeting the goals in different ways. In large part, jurisdictional codes and requirements have influenced design. The Vancouver building, for example, is essentially becoming its own waste treatment plant and will provide all its own water. The Bullitt project will use composting toilets, and is struggling with the ability to treat rainwater. I'm excited to see how each performs.
Which building are you most excited for? Which one do you think is the prettiest, or the one that you respond to best aesthetically? Answer our poll at right or comment below with your reasons!
P.S. For more on Seattle's first building designed to living building standards that is complete, the Science Wing at the Bertschi School, click the living building tab or go here. It hasn't received certification yet but is on track to do so!
Read the DJC’s free Building Green Special Section
If you don't have a subscription to the DJC or don't click on our articles as they are locked, you might not know about our free special sections.
Special sections, written by people in a targeted industry for people in the industry, are free to read, meaning even you non-subscribers can access valuable information. Special sections come out about once a month and each section focuses on a different topic. This month's excellent topic is Building Green and I am thoroughly impressed with the breadth of this year's coverage.
The free special section is here.
In it, you'll find this excellent article by Michelle Rosenberger and Nancy Henderson of ArchEcology called "Watch out for 'greenwashing' by service providers." Among its interesting points, the article examines whether consultants can truly bring a LEED approach to a project without rigorous third party LEED certification. Interesting item to bring up.
There's this article by Constance Wilde of CB Richard Ellis reflecting on her personal experience of becoming a Certified Green Broker, and its values and benefits.
There's this great article by Joel Sisolak of the Cascadia Green Building Council called "Two Seattle projects set 'net-zero' water goals," which looks at the region's water infrastructure and two living buildings (The Bertschi School's Science Wing and the Cascadia Center for Sustainable Design and Construction, both covered previously in this blog) that plan to go off the water grid and their challenges in doing so.
Then there's this article by Elizabeth Powers at O'Brien & Co. on whether green parking lots can be (gasp!) green. I'll let you read the article to learn more.
The section also has articles from representatives of Skanska USA Building, Mithun, MulvannyG2, GGLO, Scott Surdyke, Sandra Mallory of the city of Seattle and CollinsWoerman on topics ranging from the city's role in evolving practices to big box stores, student housing and public housing.
So go ahead, check it out and enjoy!
Skanska’s Seattle development division bodes well for sustainability
One of the hottest real estate stories of the week is the news that Skanska is bringing its commercial development division to Seattle, signifying it sees growth in the regional market.
My colleague at the DJC, Benjamin Minnick, reported the news here. In the story, he reports that
The move is especially notable because Skanska will self-finance all its projects and says it won't necessarily develop projects owners are currently doing, such as apartments in today's times. Instead, the story says Skanska will look at the long term and what is a good buy now.
That's interesting obviously, because of the freedom Skanska has to build what it wants. But it also speaks to the potential for sustainable buildings.
Most developer's green goals are constrained by the cost of super green technologies. I've been told that green projects up to around LEED gold can be done at cost if you begin early. But if you want to go for the super green stuff - net zero energy, Living Building certification, fancy new technologies - there's still a hefty premium, even if there's a huge benefit.
According to the story, Skanska has already said all its projects built locally will meet LEED gold or higher standards, and will be located in urban core areas with strong employment growth. To read the company's sustainability policy, click here (beware- it's pretty overwhelming).
By self-financing its own projects, Skanska, already a leading green general contractor, has the opportunity to do some really incredible things. Additionally, if they plan to hold onto projects for a long time, rather than flip them, they have more of an incentive to invest in green technologies that only pay off over the long term.
I'm curious to see what kind of projects they pursue, what kind of sustainable goals they target, and what kind of green technologies they might choose to pursue that others wouldn't be able to. Of course, they could simply go the LEED gold route. Or they could build something really innovative.
If projects were self-financed and held onto for a longer amount of time, do you think we'd end up with a larger quantity of super green buildings? Or do you think teams would stick to the status quo?
In 2011, Seattle moves towards district energy
This week, we ran this story in the DJC about Yesler Terrace, CollinsWoerman and the effort to start considering resources on the broader scale.
For those of you that don't live in the area, Yesler Terrace is a 28-acre publicly subsidized housing community owned by the Seattle Housing Authority. It is in the process of being redeveloped.
District energy systems are common in Europe, especially Denmark. They allow buildings to connect to each other, increasing efficiency and reducing costs by letting several buildings share energy from a main source, such as steam, geothermal, biomass or waste heat.
But they are often cost prohibitive because streets must be torn up for a network of pipes to be built underground.
Steve Moddemeyer, principle of sustainable development at CollinsWoerman, said according to a CollinsWoerman study for SHA, a district water system could cut water use by half for Yesler Terrace and reduce wastewater flows by 70 percent for the same or less cost as a traditional system. Just imagine if you could do that for an entire city!
The fact that Yesler Terrace is considering a water and energy district is really exciting. But what's more interesting is what it says about Seattle. District energy has long been a buzz-term in the city's green community. It seems like we might finally be moving towards getting momentum on new projects.
The city of Seattle hired AEI and Cowi to study district energy opportunities for the city. They are looking at where these systems would be feasible and will identify the top three places. Moddemeyer has seen such interest in district energy and water, he said Yesler Terrace might not be the first project to employ the system. If private developers move forward, he said district systems could be the norm within five years. (Can you even imagine that scenario...?!)
Separately, the city is also working with Trent Berry, a partner with Vancouver, B.C.'s Compass Resource Management. Berry is also providing expertise on district energy systems.
The city of Bothell is also looking at installing a district energy system.
The new projects point in the direction Seattle is heading. But we are also lucky to have Seattle Steam here. Seattle Steam, a district heat provider for 200 downtown buildings, has been around for over 100 years. I'm sure there's a lot of experience they can add to this discussion.
It seems like Seattle has an opportunity here to be a real leader.
Moddemeyer said the biggest obstacle to progress is our faith in the current system. Projects like King County's $1.8 billion Brightwater Treatment Plant put all our water treatment eggs in one basket, betting that water will continue to be treated the way it is in years to come.
What do you think?
P.S. Like me on Facebook for regular updates on blog posts and similar green building information: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Katie-Zemtseff/301025823604
Don’t be a massive louse – check out the passive house!
A few years ago during an interview, I spoke with a source who told me about something called "passivhaus." I remember listening attentively and I remember being surprised and impressed with the ideas behind the method, specifically the tight, efficient envelope it supports. I can't recall who my source was. But I do remember getting this Feb. 2009 notice that the Passive House Institute U.S. was going to be speaking in Seattle. In fact, I was registered but did not attend.
Now, almost two years later, the first passive houses are completing construction. One of them is currently located in a very public space - at the parking lot of the Phinney Neighborhood Center. The
Mini-B is a 300-square-foot dwelling designed to meet the city's requirements for a backyard cottage on a single-family lot. It has a bathroom, kitchenette and sleeping area. The project will have a grand opening at 10 a.m. on Saturday, Jan. 15. Then, it will be open for weekend open houses starting the weekend of Jan. 29 and lasting for six months. After that, it will be sold. Partners in the project include South Seattle Community College and the Phinney Neighborhood Center. After paying back development costs, any profits will go to those partners and to a nonprofit housing organization, Giampietro said. The goal is provide exposure for the method. Giampietro thinks similar units could be developed for $80,000 each and thinks it has potential for affordable housing units. Weekday tours will be available by appointment.
Giampietro said there another passive house in South Seattle is nearing completion, and that there are 12 others in the works in the area. He said there are about 40 passive house consultants in the area. There's also this organization - Passive House Northwest - which holds really fascinating conferences from time to time on the passive house method.
For more information, visit the project's Web site. PhinneyWood also had a really nice write-up of the project last month, available here.
Is modular the next big thing?
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?
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
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.
In a perfect world, what would our new waterfront look like?
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
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?
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.
Is this building ugly or not?
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
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.
Where Vancouver, B.C. trounces Seattle: density
I'm back in Seattle and the haziness of the Globe Conference (so many conference sessions on giant, world changing ideas!) is finally lifting from my head.
However, I must return to a theme I explored last week in this post about whether Vancouver or Seattle is greener. In that post's comments, Mhays said Seattle needs to encourage density to really be the greenest it can be. "We’re doing a good job in many ways, but way behind Vancouver," he said.
After spending some time there and paying particular attention to the density issue, I couldn't agree more. Sure, Vancouver has its problems. In one session at Globe, Peter Busby explored one of these saying people in Vancouver that live near the center of the city have lower greenhouse gas emissions than those who live further out. To counter this, he proposes creating density nodes throughout the rest of the city that would allow people to live, work and play in their neighborhoods rather than having to go downtown. (More on Vancouver's stance on density here).
But when you look at the variety of housing types in Vancouver's downtown, it just blows Seattle out of the park. Basically, in Seattle, you can live downtown if you want to - or can afford - a condo. In Vancouver however, you don't have to be confined to a condo to live downtown. They have - gasp! - row houses!
Here are a few images of downtown housing types. They are just a small tidbit of the many varieties of styles I saw:
Photo by Payton Chung
The pictures don't show the difference as clearly as you would see with your own eyes. But basically, in parts of Vancouver's downtown, you can live in units that are much more like townhouses than they are condos. This row-housing type is shown in the first image and last image. If you look closely, you can also see this type of housing at the base of the second image.
The variety of housing types is sure to attract different kind of people. Not everyone wants to live downtown in a condo... but if you could live downtown in something resembling a townhouse with a bit more private space, suddenly you attract a whole other market.
So... why can't Seattle do this? Why can't we bring other housing types downtown? What stops us from having that variety? And is there anything we could do now to encourage it?
Busby had an interesting observation. As cities grow, he said, many new inhabitants will be immigrants from Africa and other areas that are already used to living densely. Generally, he said they are used to small living areas and to lots of walking. We can take advantage of this influx, he said, to "change the pattern of organization" in cities.
Now, I don't mean to knock Seattle. We have a great city that is moving forward on a number of fronts. But as far as diversifying housing use in downtown... it seems like the same old same old. (And by diversifying, by the way, I mean doing so for different price points as well as in unit styles).
Even in Vancouver, these things aren't easy. But the important thing is to keep improving. Mayor Gregor Robertson said, "There's angst about the transition here and potential political disaster associated with that but in Vancouver, we see huge opportunities for change."
P.S. Nick Christensen of OregonLive.com has an interesting article from January on a similar topic here.
What role do cities play in sustainability? Seattle and Vancouver at the Globe 2010 Conference
I'm at the Globe 2010 Conference in Vancouver, B.C. where I just attended the keynote session. For those of you that don't know this conference, it is focused on the business of sustainability, and the idea that environmental problems provide an opportunity to create business and economic solutions.
Speakers during the keynote included Gregor Roertson, mayor of Vancouver; Frank Wouters, chief executive of Masdar Power, Abu Dhabi, UAE; and James Suciu, president of global sales and marketing for GE Energy in Atlanta, Ga.
The speakers discussed a number of things: Robertson talked about how the successful 2010 Olympics has
But all of them focused on cities in some way, and the power cities have to effect change. Robertson discussed how Vancouver, B.C. aims to be the greenest city in the world by 2020 and how it is moving towards that goal. But Vancouver is just one of many cities moving in this direction. He said it is the city's job to push policy and business forward, as national governments have become "frustratingly stagnant."
"The cities are destined to be the major partners with green business in creating the change and prosperity that we need."
He said cities that aggressively target this sweet spot between supporting business and driving public policy will lead the future, while pulling more business to them, causing economic success.
I'm wondering where this balance exists. How much of the responsibility rests with cities, and how much rests with federal governments? Anyone have an answer?
Vancouver is doing this in a number of ways. The city council recently voted to have all new buildings going through the rezoning process in the city shoot for LEED gold as of July of this year, he said. It also has the highest number of entrepreurs in North America and a number of federal and municipal incentives, such as paying half the salary of R+D workers.
"A generation ago, our goals would have been seen as an obstacle to business but in 2010, they are a huge opportunity."
Of course, when I hear about Vancouver and all the great goals they are targeting and achieving, I inevitably compare it to Seattle. It is striking to me that in Vancouver, all buildings going through the rezoning process (representing most buildings built in Vancouver) will have to be LEED gold while in Seattle, you can still get away with building a project in the city that doesn't have to achieve any green certification at all. Seattle's green building team is currently working on an update of its green code and is looking at enhancing it... but on these sweeping issues it seems like Vancouver is always one step ahead of us.
(Is Vancouver greener than Seattle overall? Answer our new poll at right!)
In this post, Brent Todarian, director of planning for the city of Vancouver, says the LEED gold move wasn't made without difficulty, but still, it happened. Here's how he described it: "Although Council conveyed sympathy and understanding for the industry's challenges, and sought to provide flexibility and further consultation and partnership on the details, they ultimately chose to take another key step toward our greenest city goal."
What would happen if Seattle took that lead, especially in this down market? Would we be able to achieve a similar goal and would we even want to? In this down market, is it the time to be making these type of changes or should we leave it for another day? Thoughts to chew on.
Anyway, I'll be here until Friday and will post more updates as the conference goes on. I have a feeling cities and their power to create change is going to be a big theme....
DJC Green Building Blog
Welcome to the Daily Journal of Commerce Green Building Blog. Our focus is on green building issues in Seattle, the Pacific Northwest and anywhere that might interest you. If you have any comments or questions, please email maudes@djc.com.
Opinions expressed by bloggers are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce.
Polls
Sorry, there are no polls available at the moment.Recent Posts
- What can we learn from D.C.’s green building law?
- Got a green building start-up idea? Here’s help
- Light recycler helps businesses dispose of fluorescent lights
- Scrap metal demolition is green, but not always easy
- New module from Marysville solar manufacturer
Recent Comments
- JakeyM on New module from Marysville solar manufacturer
- JakeyM on Silver lining of the recession: better homes?
- JakeyM on Solar home tour tomorrow
- JakeyM on The 10 best green jobs
- JakeyM on GreenBuild Day 2: bifacial solar panels and natural swimming pools that use plants, not chlorine!
Energy information
- BetterBricks
- Earth Advantage Blog
- New Buildings Institute Blog
- Washington State University Extension Energy Program
Green blogs
- Best Green Blogs
- Building Capacity Blog
- Building Seattle Green Blog
- City Tank
- Climate Solutions
- Earth Advantage Blog
- GreenbuildingsNYC
- GreenFab News and Media
- Greenversations
- Inhabitat
- Jetson Green
- Landscape and Urbanism
- Metaefficient
- New Buildings Institute Blog
- Portland Architecture
- SeattleScape
- The Greenworkplace
- Thinkspace
Green Building organizations
- Built Green
- Cascadia Chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council
- City of Seattle Green Building
- City of Seattle Green Building Program
- DJC.com
- Environmental Services Directory for Washington State
- Green Infrastructure Wiki
- King County GreenTools
- Lifecycle Building Challenge
- Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Resources
- Puget Sound Partnership
- Seattle Great City Initiative
- Whole Building Design Guide
Green events in the Seattle area
- AIA Seattle
- Cascadia Green Building Council Events Calendar
- Master Builders of King and Shohomish County Built Green Events Calendar and News
- Seattle Department of Planning and Development Events