In case you missed it, I wrote a story in yesterday’s DJC about how Intracorp Marketing & Sales had been hired by Bank of America to finish and sell the remaining 17 properties at Ashworth Cottages. Ashworth Cottages, Seattle’s first LEED platinum housing project, went into foreclosure in August.

Last May, I wrote a post about what went wrong at Ashworth here and it has been one of my most popular

Image courtesy Intracorp

posts ever since. Most commenters said the prime problem was houses were simply priced too high. Judging by how they’re being snapped up now, you were right.

When the homes came on the market, they were priced between $739,000 and $950,000. Today, they are priced between $399,000 and $649,000. Of the original 20 homes, 17 went into foreclosure. Since those 17 homes went on the market in a soft opening last week, eight of them have received purchase and sale agreements as of Wednesday, according to Jeff Smallwood of Intracorp.

In the article, I reference a few of your comments that said the price point was too high, even if they were LEED platinum. I wish I could have referenced more comments; they were so varied and insightful.

Today, Smallwood said the homes are probably selling at a little below market value and that the LEED features are mentioned by every buyer so far. But what does this say about green, expensive projects? While Ashworth is the prime example because it has had such a public story told, it’s not the only one. A number of super green expensive projects - haven’t sold. Or are being used for different purposes by the developer.

In my original Ashworth post, Anne Whitacre had a great comment that developers may expect green buyers to pay more because their utility bills will be lower over the life of a building. But if people don’t expect to stay in a building for years, then they can’t really take that value into account. This is why institutions, schools and nonprofits are often more likely than private developers to jump on the green bandwagon.

A few other commenters said they had been excited and interested in Ashworth but the price tag was just too much. How much of a premium would you pay for a super green house? Five percent? Ten percent? Nothing?

Similarly, if my price range is $950,000 I have a lot of options.  I could buy a great, old house with a lot of character for $650,000 (especially in today’s market) and then spend $300,000 rehabbing it with super green features. For that much money, I could make a lot of green improvements that were functional and tailored to what I wanted AND I would be saving and improving an old structure, rather than sending whatever originally existed to the dump. Even if you recycle the majority of your construction waste, some of it still ends up being tossed.

A number of green builders believe that the market is ready to pay more for green projects and a number of studies support this to different variations. (There’s this study on local green certified homes, this study on national commercial buildings and this one on four local examples).

But in today’s economy, where is the line drawn? How much more are people willing to pay if they’re willing to pay more at all? And would this be a different situation in a better economy?

I’d love to hear your thoughts, your response to Ashworth’s situation and anything you know about other high priced green projects that haven’t sold or have been in a similar situation.

If you (like me) are busy thinking about Greenbuild, the Cascadia Chapter of the USGBC is way ahead of you: they’re thinking of next May’s Living Future Conference and they want your presentation submissions. Now.

For those of you that have never been, Living Future is an “unconference,” meaning that it is presented in a

Photo Credit : A. Zucca / Roger-Viollet as seen on Fashion Nation

Living Future is a lot like these ladies. A little odd but very chic.

unique, somewhat non-traditional way (while still being a conference by definition of course). Living Future is a bit like your eclectic cousin - the one that wears vintage shirts from the 1960s, pants from the 1980s, fancy modern shoes and weird jewelry from who knows when. They might look a little odd but they always say interesting things. In comparison, Greenbuild is the buttoned up family patriarch.

Anyway, if you have something to share that’s innovative, creative or a bit off center, Living Future is looking for conference submissions. Entries are due by Oct. 30 and priority will be given to localized, community level efforts to solve “the problems we face.” Examples may be urban food production, decentralized water and energy production, eco-districts and local economies.

This year’s conference will be held in Seattle (the conference alternates every three years from Seattle to Vancouver, B.C., to Portland) and I’m excited for it to be back in my home town. It runs from May 5-7. This year’s theme is “Building Hope, Revaluing Community.”

To learn more, click here.  If you want to speak with a person about this opportunity, contact Jon Gordon at JGordon@brn-engineering.com.

Speaking of Living Future, I have attended all three so far. If you have been to multiple Living Future Conferences, which one was your favorite?

Today, I was listening to the Seattle City Council pass legislation that accepts over $6 million in stimulus funds from the U.S. Department of Energy for a multitude of energy upgrades. Among the many things it funds is a new position in Seattle’s Office of Sustainability and the Environment. It will be a “strategic advisor I” post and the person will be hired to handle reporting and requirements of the stimulus grant. The position is funded for two years. The job will likely be posted on the city’s job page here. Other than that, I don’t know any more about the position.

It never fails. August ends, September begins and the green building community GOES CRAZY WITH EVENTS! It’s like the green people fall asleep sometime in mid-July and wake up after Labor Day energetic and raring to go.

Anyway. As I will be out of the office for the next week, I figured I would make a short list of what’s going

Stop sleeping green people! It\'s September!

on. Here are some (not all) of the many green things to fill your September with:

On Sept. 8 the Master Builders Association hosts an introduction to Built Green at the MBA Housing Center from 8 to 10 a.m. It costs $30. More info here.

On Sept. 9, the Univeristy of Washington Professional and Continuing Education hosts a webinar on its new certificate in low impact development. The free Webinar runs from 5 to 6 p.m. For more information, click here.

On Sept. 10, the Cascadia Region Green Building Council is hosting a workshop on zero net water buildings and super low impact development. It will be at the Wyckoff Auditorium at Seattle University from 4 to 6:3- p.m. and costs $10. More info here. (P.S. last time I went to a talk in this series it was awesome. I’m sad I can’t go to this one….)

On Sept. 15, Carol Sanford will speak about attracting, incubating and holding business and sustainability at REI. Tickets are $18. More info here.

On Sept. 17, Sustainable Industries hosts its annual Economic Forum. Paul Hawken will speak. A panel of local business leaders will also discuss the economy. The morning event runs from 7:30 to 10:30 a.m. It costs $75. More info here.

On Sept. 17, the AIA hosts its latest Regeneration lecture at the Seattle Art Museum on “the architectural challenge of 2030.” Amanda Sturgeon of Perkins + Will is speaking. Tickets run from $10 to $25. More info here.

On Sept. 23, the Urban Land Institute is hosting a morning presentation on the future of the Puget Sound region and challenges in urban development. Former governor Dan Evans will speak. Tickets are $15 at the door. More info here.

On Sept. 23, SMPS is hosting a lunch panel as part of Kirkland’s Sustainable September Initiative on sustainabiity and the state of the economy. The talk is called “After the recession - where is the work, what will it look like and are you ready?” It will run from 11:30 to 1:30 at the Bellevue Athletic Club. Tickets range from $40 to $55. For more information, go here.

On Sept. 25 the Northwest Ecobuilding Guild is hosting its annual 10×10x10 green building slam at the downtown Seattle Public Library. It costs $20. More info here.

If I missed your event, feel free to post it below in the comment section. Enjoy!

Teams install the solar panels

In June, the Seattle Aquarium installed its first solar hot water demonstration system. The system preheats water used in the second flood cafe by way of five solar panels that are located on the building’s south facing wall.

A press release from A&R Solar Corp., the company that installed the system, says the solar system isn’t just doing well. It says the solar collectors are offsetting almost double their expected amount. Reeves Clippard, president and co-founder of the company, said if solar works this well in Seattle, “the rest of the country has no excuse not to act now.”

Honestly, I don’t really know what to make of this. It’s a good thing that the system is performing so well. But a system that produces double what the models said it would makes me wonder what exactly that baseline was. Then again, we have had an amazingly hot, bright and sunny summer.

The system has a monitoring device that will eventually allow visitors to see how it is performing in real time. It uses Heliodyne Gobi flat-plate solar hot water collectors.

An outside view of the solar and the aquarium

Looking up at the panels

On Thursday, the DJC published an article I wrote on a new report that says codes are getting in the way of cutting edge green buildings. This, in itself, is really nothing new.  Last August, I wrote this article about the city’s Priority Green program. In it, DPD’s Peter Dobrovolny (whose last name is almost as difficult as mine!) said many projects consider innovative ideas but drop them when they realize how much extra time it will take under city code. However, having the problems and possible solutions written down in an actual report - well that is new.

However, the report. Is. Huge. If you dare to read it, click here . It manages to be very

The Rubik's Cube of codes

comprehensive and vague at the same time. It is comprehensive in that it studies code barriers across the country, identifies problems and makes recommendations. But because it is dealing with national issues, some of the solutions are vague in their range. For example, one solution is to “identify and address regulatory impediments to green building and development” while another is to “create incentives matched with desired goals.”

I spoke with one of the study’s primary authors, David Eisenberg of the Development Center for Appropriate Technology, this week. Essentially, he said codes are built incorrectly in that they are hundreds of ad hoc responses to problems. Codes, he said, should instead be built comprehensively to support a specific kind of development or project. Basically, he said the entire system needs to be rebuilt.

Ouch.

In Seattle, it can take months or years for changes (especially large ones) to occurr. Can you imagine what it would take to wipe out all the city departments responsible for allowing development to get built… and then to rework the system from scratch? 

Eisenberg said he realizes that what he’s asking might be impossible. But even if it is impossible, by voicing the idea, he hopes to get people talking about it. Everyone - he said - whether it’s greenies or permitting people or anyone really - wants healthy buildings. And our current code system does not encourage healthy buildings because it pawns risks relating to climate change and environmental degradation off on future generations.

What do you think about all of this, dear readers? Is there any possibility that our overall codes could be reworked and if so, what would you want them to encourage? Here in Seattle (where we are pretty progressive in environmental issues, at least compared with some parts of the country) do we even need to be considering reworking the system or do we need to tweak it? If you could totally rework one code or issue, what would it be?

The AIA Seattle’s Forum magazine is seeking submission proposals for an upcoming issue on design for healthy living. Proposals for features run up to 2,500 words and columns run between 600 and 700 words. Proposals must address some aspect of design for healthy living in the Seattle metro area, Puget Sound or Washington state.

For more info on Forum or the submission process, visit http://www.aiaseattle.org/forum . Proposals are due by August 21.

BigBelly trash compactors that is. What’s that you say? You don’t know what a BigBelly is, other than the thing that seems to sit on your father in law’s middle? Well friends, a BigBelly is a trash compactor that holds five times the trash of a normal can. And Seattle - which had three in March of 2008 - is about to be getting 20 more.

First, some history. I wrote about the BigBelly in March of 2008 here in the DJC after meeting

James Poss at the Globe 2008 conference, photo by Katie Zemtseff

its inventor, James Poss, at the Globe Conference in Vancouver, B.C. The BigBelly uses a solar panel to create energy, which it then uses to compact the trash inside it. This means waste haulers have to pick them up less often, which means the people paying haulers save money.

In 2008, Poss said the cans cost between $3,000 and $4,000 but pay for themselves quickly. Poss also said Seattle is a great climate for these things, because they work on ambient light, which exists when it is cloudy or rainy.

In Seattle, the 20 BigBellys will be placed along Third Avenue between Stewart and University streets by the Metropolitan Improvement District and Seattle Public Utilities. There will supposedly be a celebration at the first installation tomorrow (Saturday) from 10:30 to 11 a.m. at the west side of Third Avenue near the Stewart Street intersection.

Now, 20 BigBellys (which at $3,000 a pop totals $60,000) may seem like a big deal. But it’s not. Not when you compare it to Philadelphia, that is, which has replaced 700 downtown garbage cans with 500 BigBellys, according to the AP story which ran in the DJC last week. The story says the cans cost between $3,195 and $3,995 each (do the math, even at the lower end, it cost Philly about $1.6 million) but should save $875,000 per year, basically paying for itself in two years and then continuing to save money after. A press release for the MID says Philly plans to save $13 million over the next 10 years from the compactors

The BigBelly in action

and recycling containers that will go next to them.

The story says the cans in Philly will be emptied five times a week as opposed to 19 times for a regular trash can. The cans also have a wireless monitoring system to tell the city when they are full.

But here’s the interesting part: how many cans has Seattle been testing for over a year now? Three. How many cans did Philly test for a year before ordering 700? Three. I’m sure part of that difference has to do with the fact that Philly got some sort of a grant (the story doesn’t say what) for installations. But I think it still underscores how cautious Seattle is about making big decisions. Is Seattle too cautious here or is it smart not to jump into something like this too quick? (If you want to read the negative perspective of BigBelly, check out EcoMetro here.)

The AP story says Philly’s not the only one with BigBelly fever. Boston has 160, says they aren’t concentrated enough and wants more. Entities in New York are using 100. Chicago has 60, and they are being used in parts of Australia, Israel and France.

Seems like somebody at least thinks they’re a good concept.

And even if if weren’t a good concept, the BigBelly sure inspires some great quotes. When I spoke with Poss for the 2008 article, he described BigBelly as “carpooling for trash.”

And the AP story says Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter inititially asked, “What? Who’s got a big belly?” when he was introduced to the devices.

What do you think? Is there enough of a payoff for Seattle to invest in more of these or is our system just fine the way it is?

Keep in mind, this picture was taken during lunch break…..

Courtesy Weber Thompson, thanks Dan Albert!

Weber Thompson is based in a naturally ventilated building (as am I!) So the staff there are thinking of novel ways to stay cool on this record breaking day of heat. If you’re wondering just how “unbearable” it is to work in a naturally ventilated space (I say it’s not so bad) read the comments on the post below. Stay cool!

This week, the DJC ran an excellent article from Arthur H. Rotstein with the Associated Press called “Commercial projects in Tucscon must start harvesting rainwater.” The article says that the Arizona city has enacted the nation’s first municipal rainwater harvesting ordinance for commercial projects. The ordinance requires developers building new business, corporate or commercial structures to supply half of the water needed for landscaping from harvested rainwater starting next year.

Apparently, landscaping accounts for about 40 percent of water use in commercial

Water

development and for 45 percent of household water consumption in Tucson. That. Is. Crazy.

The article also mentions that a half-dozen other communities in Arizona are looking at replicating the approach, and that rural Santa Fe County in New Mexico has required harvesting using cisterns or similar structures for commercial and residential development since last year.

Which brings me to the next question: why isn’t this a requirement everywhere? Water is cheap, yes. But even though it is cheap, it still costs money. If Tucscon - which the article says gets 12 inches of rain a year - requires rainwater harvesting, why don’t we? (Other than little details like the state owning the rain that drops down from the sky….) 

Now I know Tucson and Seattle are very different. I know Tucson uses so much water on landscaping because the city is in a desert, which means for most anything to grow, it is going to need extra water. But the underlying principal is the same. Water is a free resource. When water falls on the ground, it flows along roadways, picking up dirty icky things like metals and nutrients, eventually ending up in a water body like the Puget Sound, where it

The new LOTT Alliance project in Olympia will be all about water treatment and water conservation. Lisa Dennis-Perez of LOTT said the more conservation there is, the more the organization can delay the need to build additional water treatment plants.

does real damage or at a treatment plant, where it goes through an extensive process to get clean. So why don’t we, as a country, require that at least some of that water is captured and used for something productive?

It just seems like a really wasted resource.

Where am I wrong here? Please tell me why this would not work.

By the way, water is going to become an even greater issue of importance as more people move to the Pacific Northwest. I wrote this article a couple weeks ago that discusses the challenges between the desire to get off the water grid and traditional infrastructure.

In that story, a number of experts from our region discussed where we are going with water treatment and the difficulties that lie ahead. It covers a range of opinions but all speakers could agree on one thing: water needs to be more expensive for change to happen.

Kurt Unger of the Department of Ecology pretty much spoke for the crowd when he said “Water is too damn cheap… We need to assess a fee on water to enable so many more things to happen.”