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 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.

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.

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!

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!!!

If you had ultimate super-human power, how would you design the region you live in to support more people? Would it look like the picture of sprawl directly below or would it look like Vara in Fremont, the project pictured below right? Or would it look like something else? 

That was the question on the mind’s of the Puget Sound region’s top 250 most powerful political, environmental, development, business and nonprofit leaders, who gathered at the University of Washington on April 30 for Reality Check 2008 (for more on this see posts below or my story in Friday’s edition of the DJC).

The overall results of Reality Check? Leaders want a region with compact and livable transit-oriented communities that are also beautiful and support the region’s quality of life. Easy, right?

… Or is that too much to ask and if so, why? If not, what do you do to create those communities? Bill Krieger of Mithun said it means local politicians will have to reinvent zoning and reinvent the entire process of land use, permitting and transportation….. are any of our politicians quite that brave? 

If density is the answer, what’s the best example of good density in your city? Or if density is a word you associate with ‘nightmare,’ why does it have such bad connotations? Where’s an example of how density went wrong?

Ed McMahon of the ULI was the keynote speaker. He said our country is doing some really good work on cleaning air, and cleaning water - but our sense of place is slowly being replaced with convenience stores and Wal-Mart’s.

“The truth is…  the special, unique character (of our towns and cities)… has been in many ways disappearing faster than ever.”

“I could drop you in any U.S. city and you couldn’t tell where you were because it all looks exactly the same,” he said.

If regions plan better and decide what sort of a community and quality of life they want, he said they can keep their character and quality of life. Dense, compact developments are a part of that, he said.

So what do we do? What should the Puget Sound region do? What should the U.S. do? Is there anything to do or is this just a hopeless situation. What would help you build dense communities, or convince you to live in one? Let me know what you think!

Legos have been played with. Leaders have created their plans for people and transit. Gov. Chris Gregoire has extrolled the benefits of compact communities, and Washington’s role as an international leader. In short, Reality Check 2008 is halfway under way and will soon be done (for a definition of Reality Check, see the post directly below).

The fact that so many regional leaders are playing with Legos is definitly interesting and will no doubt be the major focus of the plethora of different news organizations that are here from NPR to TV to print papers. But something else is happening beneath the surface of the Legos… people are listening to the concerns of other regional leaders they might not necessarily otherwise hear.

That’s one of the main points of this excercise, said Greg Johnson, ULI Seattle chair and president of Wright Runstad & Co. For example, members of my table included representatives of Microsoft, Fort Lewis, a Snohomish County economic council member, and the Washington Roundtable. Other people at my table were Seattle City Council Member Sally Clark, Seattle developer Jim Soules, Executive Director of the Puget Sound Clean Air Agnecy Dennis McLeran and Bert Gregory, president of CEO of Mithun.

Representatives of ULI said they spent an awful lot of time planning those tables, and making sure differnet groups were represented, to come up with broader solutions.

What do you think? Will this event come to anything, or will it become yet another regional plan that people trumpet as the next big thing, then forget about a month later? Does this region have any hope of coming up with a comprehensive plan to deal with density, jobs and people?

If you live in an area that has went through this excercise already - Sacramento, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles…. have you seen any differences because of this process? Tell me what you think, you never know who may be listening.

I’m about to head out to Reality Check 2008, along with 250 of my closest business, environment, political and civic leader friends.

Held at the University of Washington and presented by the Urban Land Institute, it’s a high profile day-long event where leaders in their field come together to play with Legos. Yes, I’m serious. After a series of welcome speeches, the 250 leaders will do a planning exercise that uses Legos to represent people, transit and other things. They will physically plan for where a whole lot of people projected to come to this area by 2040 - 1.7 million people and 1.2 million jobs, to be exact - will go.

Perhaps the most impressive thing is the guest list, and the group of people ULI has been able to get it one place. Attendees should include Gov. Chris Gregoire, U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, the mayors of Auburn, Redmond, Bothell, Sumner, Lynnwood (and other cities), and an impressive list of council members from different city and civic councils.

On the business front, there’s going to be representatives from Mithun, CamWest Development, Vulcan Inc., Microsoft, Opus Northwest, Wright Runstad and Co., Boeing, and Uwajimaya. Most of the attendees are high level executives, if not presidents. Basically, anybody who is anybody in planning and development is going to be there (or at least is sending a representative). The event is by invitation only.

The exercise has already been done in Washington, D.C. and Sacramento. For more information on it, press here. I’ll keep you updated as it moves along.

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…)