Today, the AIA’s Committee on the Environment selected its top ten green projects. Tomorrow’s DJC will feature a short story and slideshow of the images but there were so many great pictures, we couldn’t include them all. Here, I give you some of the pictures we aren’t about to run in the DJC.

Local winners of the awards are Weber Thompson for the Terry Thomas Building and Busby Perkins + Will for Synergy at Dockside Green.

…But before I give you the pictures, I wanted to remind readers of the jurying for last year’s AIA COTE awards, which were held here in Seattle. That event last April was one of my most favorite green events ever because the judges were - at times - brutally honest about the state of green building and how nominees need to go further in the quest for green goodness.  (I wrote a story about it called ‘U.S. green buildings don’t go far enough, AIA award judges say‘.)

Among their comments (remember, this is last year’s judging for 2008, not 2009) judges said: “We saw very much less of what I would really liked to have seen” (Glenn Murcutt); “Projects that call themselves green are not green enough and in most of the work that we see we’re not taking the big enough leaps that we need to make” (Jason McLennan); and “The last thing you want to do is have the environmental movement associated with things that are overbudget and with things that are ugly” (Rebecca Henn). Like I said, sometimes brual. But honest.

I blogged on last year’s winners here.

Unfortunately, I did not get to attend this year’s jurying as it was not in Seattle. I wonder if it was quite as critical or if the entries had improved from last year. If anyone attended, I would love to hear a short review below!

However, Rebecca Henn’s comments about the separation between beauty and performance seem to be officially part of the judging process now. An AIA press release says “In architecture, performance and aesthetics are inextricably linked. The COTE Top Ten is one of the very few awards that evaluates performance and design,” said jury members. “Other awards and organizations look strictly at performance without care for how a building looks.”

The award winners might achieve this balance but it still seems to be a pretty big issue, and one that local award programs have struggled with as well. It will be interesting to see the AIA Seattle’s COTE awards at the end of this month…. (on April 28 if you dont’ already have it on your calendar).

As for performance, it looks like most of the award winners are LEED platinum.

So, did these winners achieve both performance AND beauty? You be the judge:

Dockside Green in Victoria, B.C., courtesy Enrico Dagostini

World Headquarters for the International Fund for Animal Welfare in Yarmouthport, Mass., courtesy Peter Vanderwarker

Gish Family Apartments in San Jose, courtesy Bernard Andre Photography

Portola Valley Town Center in Portola Valley, Calif. Cesar Rubio, courtesy Siegel & Siegel Architeects

To read more about the award winners and to explore the jurying process, check out AIA’s COTE page here.

Last week, the 1.2 million-square-foot Vancouver Convention Centre West opened in Vancouver, B.C. The project is massive.

Built next to the existing east convention center, the new west building allows the convention center to triple its capacity. it will also be the broadcast media center during the 2010 Olympics where it will host 7,000 members of the media. It cost $883 million in Canadian dollars and was designed by Seattle’s LMN Architects, who partnered with local firms Musson Cattell Mackey Partnership and DA Architects & Planners, who were prime architect.

On the green front, the center is shooting for LEED Canada gold and has two real stand-out features. One is the six-acre living roof, which press materials say is the largest green roof in canada and the largest non-industrial green roof in North America (does anyone know what the largest green roof is in North America, industrial or non-industrial?) You can’t walk around on the roof but there is apparently a viewing space where visitors can see it.

The other is the building’s consideration for local habitats. For example, the team worked with scientists to reduce the building’s impact on marine animals (about half of the structure is built over water). The building has an underwater habitat ’skirt,’ or an artificial reef that emulates a shoreline and provides habitat for barnacles, fish and other sea creatures, in addition to other restorative features.

My question is - does the inside of it feel green? McCormick Place in Chicago, for example, felt just like any other convention center. And having been to a conference in the Vancouver East Centre (which again, felt just like a regular convention hall) I am curious to see if any of the green elements that influenced the west building are visible to the general user. 

For more information, check out the DJC article here.

View of the green roof

Outer view of the center

Interior view

Outside view

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/.

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.

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!!!

Dear reader, it is time to put your analytical (or more likely guessing) powers to the test: what exactly is it you see in the photo to the left?

If you said a mini-mansion, most likely inhabited by a couple or prim family of four, you are dead wrong. Instead, it’s a model of dense urban living that houses ten people in eight bedrooms.

This is where I stayed last week while attending Cascadia’s Living Future Conference in Vancouver, B.C. It’s a charming space that a developer bought, renovated and began renting out to young professionals and students in January.

It’s bright, daylit, airy and dense. It’s clean and well lit and is filled with amicable students and young professionals, including my sister. It’s within walking distance from a number of shops, bars and restaurants in a trendy family neighborhood. It’s a street away from a bus line and only a couple of the house’s inhabitants even have cars.

My only question? Why doesn’t this happen more.

(more…)