Last week, I attended a Town Hall lecture by David Owen, a columnist at the New Yorker and author of the book ‘Green Metropolis.’

Owen spoke about his own experience of living in both Manhattan and in the countryside, and about which is greener (cities because people have everything they need at their fingertips).

But he also said something striking: that big, tall buildings in cities are actually the greenest projects we

Inherently green?

have, not projects that are LEED certified. High-rises get lots of people working in one space. That gets lots of people living nearby and walking between the two. The effects of this and the concentration of people, he said, is far, far greener than a LEED certified project in the middle of nowhere (though he didn’t mention if it were greener than a LEED certified high-rise in the city). The premise touches on one of the main problems of LEED: that it only looks at pieces instead of the whole.

For example, Owen discussed Sprint’s (now Sprint Nextel) headquarters outside of Kansas City, Mo. The corporate campus, he said, consists of 15,000 employees spread among a 50 building low-rise campus. The space also has 15 parking lots and an underground parking garage, providing one parking space per worker because everyone has to drive to the headquarters in the middle of nowhere. Though the campus was planned before LEED came out, one of the buildings at the site ended up receiving LEED certification. The space also preserves 200 acres of property as open space.  How is this a greener situation, he asked, then simply letting the farmland be that had previously existed?

He argued that setting up a business in a location that requires car travel is not green, even if the buildings are certified as such.

Should buildings in the middle of nowhere receive LEED certification? And should organizations that are about sustainability - like the Rocky Mountain Institute and its headquarters in Snowmass, Colo. - be held to a higher level of accountability and locate in a dense area? Or is there value to having great environmentally friendly buildings in the wilderness?

I suppose it comes down to what you prioritize and what you think the future of cities and urban planning is.

In this economy as well, it’s worth noting that cities across the nation have vacant high-rise buildings that currently are not at capacity, and are likely wasting large amounts of energy.

What do you think? Is Owen right on or way off base? If Owen is right - and the greenest project is in a city be it LEED certified or not is a high-rise - than should LEED reflect this in its rating system and how so?

Incidentally, his book also argues that New York City is the greenest city in the world. That seemed to touch an interesting nerve at Portland’s The Environmental Blog here.

In the last couple of weeks, I wrote two different articles in the DJC that looked at making public city space more pleasant for the pedestrian. Though one is an ice skating rink and one is a “park boulevard,” they are essentially riffs on the same theme.

Both projects are looking at new ways of creating friendly, inviting open space in a dense, urban area. I’m wondering if this is the future of open space in Seattle?

Let’s start with the park boulevard. The idea for the park boulevard seems very Scandinavian. If approved by city council, the Seattle Department of Parks and

Re-imagining Bell Street

Recreation would take away a lane of traffic on Bell Street from First to Fifth Avenues downtown and add a park in the extra space. The park would have a couple kid’s play areas, picnic space and places for people to linger. It would also act as a connector through downtown. To see what the street looks like now, go here.

The ice rink would go in Occidental Square Park, in Pioneer Square. Though the area is already a park, it’s also a center for homeless people to hang out and doesn’t always

Occidental Square Park

present the most friendly of faces (for example, while taking a picture there last week, I managed to get cat-called three times in about as many minutes). The idea is that the ice rink would bring more people to the square at more times, making it a tad more friendlier. To see comments on posts relating to this story in the PI, click here. For comments in the Stranger, click here.

I spoke with Donald Harris, property and acquisition services manager at the parks department for the Bell Street story, and he said one of the reasons the park boulevard makes sense is that land is simply too expensive to buy in downtown Seattle to turn into parks. In addition, the department has also had trouble with some of the parks that are there such as Regrade Park, another magnet for homeless people and drug dealing.

One could say that the same potential will exist on Bell Street, once it’s a park. I’m guessing the argument against that is because it’s not enclosed, people will be continuously moving along it. Also, once it’s a park, park rangers will be allowed to patrol it.

Do you think this is the future of our parks and open space? To take existing rights of way, and to re-imagine them as public space, or to reconfigure existing parks to bring more people to them? If you had limitless power, what public area would you reconfigure into a park? How would you re-invent the city?

It seems like we might be seeing more of these ideas. According to City Council Resolution 31073, relating to the Parks and Green Spaces Levy,

“In an increasingly dense urban environment, such projects present an opportunity for the city to improve the quality of life for its residents without having to incur the significant expense of property acquisition and major park development.”

Are you one of those people who is dismayed by the elevation of the pedestrian over the car or is this where the city should be heading? I, for one, will be curious to see how Bell Street turns out.

But what really strikes me, is that the reason parks decided to do this project now is Seattle City Light is replacing utilities along Bell Street from Second to Fifth Avenues, and someone made the connection between that work and reinventing the street as a park. What if that person never made the mental connection? How many other opportunities are we, as a city, missing?

P.S. If you read this today - Thursday - parks will be discussing the boulevard at a meeting tonight at 7 p.m. at the Woodland Park Zoo Activity Center. If you’re reading this Friday, city council’s Parks and Seattle Center Committee will hear a preview of the project at 9:30 a.m.

In today’s edition of The Seattle Times, Eric Pryne examines how the recession is affecting Seattle’s premier Green Lake neighborhood. For the most part, the article focuses on apartment and condo complexes. But it also mentions that Pryde Johnson’s LEED platinum Ashworth Cottages is in the process of foreclosure.

According to the article, only two of the 20 homes have sold though it also mentions that another four of the houses are in various stages of possible sale.

Of course, the obvious reason for the project’s current state is the economy. But

Curt Pryde and Fawn Johnson at the grand opening of Ashworth Cottages in August, 2007

Ashworth Cottages came on the market in the summer of 2007 - before the economy really tanked. So my question is why is it where it is today?

First, some background: Ashworth Cottages opened to a lot of media attention. They were the first LEED platinum residential project in the state (seventh in the country), and thus received a press conference attended by Mayor Greg Nickels. The 20 cottages are on a lot originally zoned for six houses. To get it rezoned for 20, Pryde Johnson waited an extra 6 months, and had to get it approved by Seattle City Council.  I wrote an article about the project’s grand opening. It’s available here.

At the time, Curt Pryde and Fawn Johnson said they were confident Seattle buyers would appreciate the quality and health benefits of the platinum projects and pay between $739,000 and $950,000 for the ultimate green two-to- four-bedroom home. Apparently, that has not been the case.

But why?

The interior of an Ashworth Cottage, August 2007

I live on the other side of Green Lake - and what many people would say is the more expensive and disireable side. Even in this recession, houses around me are for the most part being snapped up. Sure, they might be on the market longer than usual but it seems like they’re still selling. Heck, even a gross ex-college party house I toured with rooms that smelled of urine sold for a pretty good price. If Ashworth Cottages were on the other side of the lake, would they have sold? Is it location, location, location?

By the way, you dear readers, have voted Ballard/Fremont the greenest neighborhood in my poll at right, followed by Capitol Hill, followed by Green Lake/ Wallingford. Maybe this project would have done better in a different neighborhood?

Maybe it’s a question of what people want for their $750,000. The Ashworth Cottages are very quaint but they don’t really have yards (the argument here is that Green Lake is basically a person’s yard). At the July 2007 grand opening, they were touted as a model example of what the city should be striving for in density. But could it be that people want more space for their money and don’t really want to spend $750k for “the model” of dense living?

Or is it the elephant in the room …. that people just do not put that high a price on green features yet and aren’t willing to pay a premium for them?

Was it the recession after all?  What do you think the problem was? If you had $750k, is this the house you would spend it on? Comment below and tell me what you’re thinking…..

By the way, the project’s Web site now says homes begin in the mid-$500s.

This week, I covered the giant new Thornton Place develoment next to Northgate in the DJC here.

The nine-building project is 109 condos, 278 apartments, 50,000-square-feet of retail and restaurant space and a 14-screen movie theatre with two IMAX theatres. There’s a 143-unit senior living center on the site called Aljoya, developed by Era Living, and a large portion of Thornton Creek that has been daylighted by Seattle Public Utilities.

It’s targeting LEED silver certification under LEED for Neighborhood Development. Its buildings are also shooting for separate LEED NC silver certification. Green features include easy access to transit, project walkability, water efficient and energy efficicient features, and extensive daylighting. For more info, see its Web site here.

The story got a lot of press - in the DJC, the Stranger, and the Seattle Condo Blog, for example - so if you want more info on it, you can read about it there. I’ll get straight to the photos.

A view of the piazza. Developers say they need to do something with this roof, though they aren\'t sure what!

An inside view of a condo unit.

The area where Thornton Creek will flow.

View of the park-and-ride from inside an apartment unit.

Era Living\'s Aljoya project

An inner pathway.

Yesterday, the New York Times published an opinion piece by David Brooks called “I Dream of Denver.” The piece, based on the late January news on what cities Americans want to live in, calls into question what Americans want from their cities, from density and from their lifestyle.

Reading the piece, I kept thinking about how the descriptions of how people want to

Illustration courtesy of Doug Boehm

live are quintessentially Seattle culture. One thing Americans want, the article says, is a stuffed garage “filled with skis, kayaks, soccer equipment, hiking boots and boating equipment. These are places you can imagine yourself leading an active outdoor life.” If that’s not Seattle, I don’t know what is. Then again, Seattle was named third on the list of cities Americans would most want to live in.

This sentiment, of people from other cities knowing Seattle and identifying with it, never struck me harder than at the U.S. Green Building Council’s 2008 Greenbuild conference in Boston when faced with a trio of reporters from the Eastern half of North America. When I said I was from Seattle, all three of them (two from New York City and one from Toronto, I believe) all sighed and said, “I want to live in Seattle!”

One of the New Yorkers went so far as to say, “Everyone wants to live in Seattle.”  Which stuck me as funny because from my experience, everyone wants to live in New York. And when going to college in Boston, nobody I spoke with had really ever heard of Seattle.

The reporter went on to say that once people realize they can have an urban lifestyle … and not live in an apartment, they fall in love.

(Not sure if they also fell in love with this city’s must-have-a-car mentality or the lack of a subway but that’s a different story.)

Cabin

A remote log cabin

The mix of home-life and city-life has always been my favorite thing about Seattle. But the NYT opinion piece points out that urban-living is still an ideal of the young, and I am in that demographic. Even here in Seattle, there seems to be a large amount of baby boomer residents who just want more space, whether it be in another state, on one of the islands or in a more spacious city neighborhood. My mother, for example, recalls the excitement of living in urban Chicago in her youth but now wants nothing more than a remote log cabin in Montana.

Is the desire to live in an urban environment a sentiment of youth? Will we, like our parents prefer to retire in a more remote space? … or is it generational? Will today’s younger generations (meaning Xers, Yers….etc.) still idealize open space and isolation or will we choose density?

What do you think? Comment below or answer my poll at right.

P.S. If you read the NYT article, also check out the comments. They’re pretty interesting.

Today, Sightline issued a new update to its Cascadia Scorecard. Sightline is an environmental think tank, based in Seattle. Its scorecard is a progress report that tracks seven trends in the Pacific Northwest including pollution, population, sprawl and economy.

The scorecard is a plethora of information. Here are some of its findings:

• In 2008, the Northwest states or Oregon, Idaho and Washington spent almost $30 billion on imported fossil fuels, what it says is a record high. That breaks down as $16.6 billion for Washington, $9.4 billion for Oregon and $3.6 billion for Idaho. Regionally, that’s the equivalent of $10,000 for every family of four.
• The share of residents living in walkable or transit-oriented neighborhoods has increased in each major Northwest metropolis since 1990. But the scorecard says if recent trends continue, it will take 56 years for the Cascadian city average to match the compact-growth record of Vancouver, BC. Today. 
• People in this region consume the energy equivalent of just over 2 gallons of gasoline per person every day, which is nearly double the scorecard’s model of Germany.
• People in British Columbia live an average of two years longer than residents of the Northwest states. Also, if BC were an independent nation, it would have the second longest lifespan in the world after Japan.

To see more fun facts about the intersections of our lives, the environment and the future, read the scorecard for yourself at http://scorecard.sightline.org/.

This post is by Jared Silliker, a new contributor to the Building Green Blog.

Want some inspiration in our current housing crunch? I’ve had the good fortune to tour a couple Central District projects designed and built by the architect/developer duo of Brad Khouri and Graham Black. And the back stories are just as impressive as

Urban Canyon

the finished products.

To start, both Khouri, who runs b9 architects, and Black, owner of gProjects, bicycle to all their projects and strive for designs that integrate with the neighborhood’s character and scale. They are big fans of the design review process, which they say encourages better and more profitable projects.

While Khouri designs efficient and smart use of space for these human-scale homes, Black concentrates on salvaging building materials for reuse. A couple projects, for instance, use reclaimed wood from old Fort Lewis barracks that dates to the 1930s. And Black employs all his own builders in order to maintain quality and pay competitive rates. The final result are modern homes that fit and work–efficient on resources and high on function and style.

And with the market bearing down, the best inspiration may be that the homes are selling. There’s plenty of evidence to build green, but clear market success will most quickly drive more quality sustainable projects.

AIA Seattle is hosting a case study and tour tomorrow at the Urban Canyon (pictured above), Khouri’s and Black’s latest project at 19th and Pine, which is the first 5-Star Built Green multi-family development in Seattle. The Alley House, a Madison Valley urban infill residence seeking LEED Platinum, by Urbanmix and Cascade Built, will also be highlighted. Check out www.aiaseattle.org as space is limited.

Readers, I’m sorry I haven’t posted in a couple days here, but like I mentioned in an earlier post, September is CRAZY. Tuesday, that craziness was exemplified by my calendar, which had me rushing from the Urban Land Institute’s launch of the Quality

Busy, busy times!

Growth Alliance in downtown Seattle, to a panel discussion (that I moderated) in Bellevue, and back to our offices in Pioneer Square to write up the story. Whew.

In case you missed both those events (and the recommendations put out by the Western Climate Initiative to boot) here is a rundown for your viewing pleasure:

The Quality Growth Alliance. Anyone remember Reality Check in April? The huge event that got 250 big-wigs playing with Legos? At that event (DJC story on it here), I spoke with Jim Potter of Kauri Investments who told me it was a great planning exercise as long as the results didn’t fade away into the sunset. Well the alliance is the attempt of prominent groups - from the UW’s College of Architecture and Urban Planning to NAIOP - to make sure the results stick around and influence future planning policy. More info in my story in today’s DJC or at their Web site.

The Panel Discussion. In case you missed this one, it was a lot of fun. Hosted by SMPS, panelists represented various fields of the AEC community (architecture, engineering, construction) and were Eric Anderson of MulvannyG2, Jeffrey Cox of Triad Associates, Rae Anne Rushing of Rushing and Yancy Wright of Sellen Construction Co. Among some of the interesting tidbits:

• Collectively, panelists said sustainable or green design is changing so quickly, that as soon as you read about it, it’s old. If you want to know what’s going on you need to work to educate yourself. This is true for everyone, and especially for marketers.
• Marketing and public relations professionals, they said, need to be really careful about sounding really stupid. Oftentimes they (and I incidentally) get press releases that virtually make no sense. If you’re going to write about green systems or projects, understand it, otherwise you run the risk of major embarrassments (I can’t tell you how often I get press releases that tell me a product will get me 10 “Leeds” points).
• Green building doesn’t have to be more expensive if you start from the beginning and have the right leaders on board. If you start thinking about integrative design and green systems midway through a project, there’s a good chance it’s going to be more expensive.
• Everyone needs to be on board with green building, even those who have been in the industry for many years and are hesitant to change the way they work. Panelists said they need all disciplines at an eco-charette and that bringing and open mind really, really helps.
• Definitions aren’t clear and because everyone has different definitions…. it’s hard to understand what a word, be it ‘eco-charette,’ ’sustainability’ or ‘integrative design,’ means to a specific person. Define those definitions for your project, or your company.

Western Climate Initiative. And don’t forget yesterday’s announced recomendations by the Western Climate Initiative for a regional cap and trade system. If you want to learn more about this one, read the Seattle Times or the PI.

Also, if you’re looking for an interesting way to fill your Thursday evening, Patrick Bellew of Atelier Ten will speak at the downtown Seattle Library at 5:30.

That’s all for today folks. If I don’t thank you enough, thanks for reading!

If you, like me, are interested in green building, live in the Seattle area and always have your ears perked up for a good party, I’ve got a scoop for you.

Wednesday, CascadeBuilt debuts its Alley House (at left) in Madison Valley at a free open house. It’s at 222 26th Ave. E., Seattle, and runs from 5 to 8 p.m.

I wrote about the Alley House at the end of June in the DJC here. In case you missed it, it’s a pretty interesting project. The house itself is going for LEED platinum through your usual green suspects… SIPs, healthy finishes, solar heating that pre-heats water etc.

In Seattle, LEED platinum houses are still pretty rare - there’s only two (so far) in the Seattle area… Ashworth Cottages and Mike Mastro’s personal residence (more on that in the DJC next week).

But what I found most interesting about the project was the developer - Sloan Ritchie. First, the Alley House is infill and was built in Ritchie’s back yard. Second, Ritchie has only been a developer for three years (wireless engineer before that). Third, he talked about LEED platinum not at all being the pinnacle of green design, but rather the best he could achieve at this time. His goal, he said, is to keep pushing each project further. I hear this a lot from big firms but it’s a whole different story coming from the little guy. Next up (at some point) will be a netzero project.

To RSVP to the open house, e-mail 222@cascadebuilt.com. To learn more about the project, visit its Web site here. To read Ritchie’s blog on project progress, go here.

P.S. It’s priced at $770,000. Also, if for some reason you can’t make it Wednesday, there will be a Greendrinks tour of it on Aug. 23 (more here).

When talking density in the Pacific Northwest, Seattle is inevitably compared to Vancouver, BC. Heck, all you have to do is drive through both cities and the differences are staggeringly obvious: Seattle has its traditional tiny section of skyscrapers, all of downtown Vancouver IS skyscrapers.

…. And Vancouver is often lauded for its density. I myself have looked at the two cities (to see past posts, look under tag Vancouver BC) and wondered why Seattle can’t do some of the density wonders Vancouver can. But a recent sprawl analysis from the Seattle-based think tank Sightline says Vancouver’s leadership in smart growth is slipping.

Boiling it down, the report says that in the 1990s, 67 percent of Vancouver’s growth was in compact neighborhoods while between 2001 and 2006, compact growth slipped to 56 percent of new urban and suburban development.

(I don’t know what Seattle’s numbers are in this field).

To conduct the study, Sightline mapped population density trends in the greater Vancouver area using data from the last four Canadian censuses.

Clark Williams-Derry wrote the report. This is a warning signal, rather than an alarm bell, he said. “Greater Vancouver is still a smart growth leader. But in light of BC’s ambitious climate goals and the rising costs of gasoline, the Lower Mainland should redouble its efforts to foster neighborhoods where residents can walk, bike, or use transit to for their daily travel.”

To see the report, go here. To see an animated sprawl map or where exactly sprawl is growing, click here.

Vancouver also has a very nifty Web site totally dedicated to its push for density, which it calls ‘EcoDensity’. To see it, go here. To read about the local fight for and against EcoDensity, go here or here.

P.S. Readers: I will be out of town for a few days so if you don’t see any new posts, now you know why!!!