As I mentioned in my past post, I’ve been on a series of vacations over the past couple of weeks. And during my series of nine flights, I had a lot of time to read magazines, catalogues and view countless adds on nameless airport walls. And do you know what I discovered? Green is really, really hip! Before you scoff and say in your head ‘hello Katie, where have you been?’ let me explain:

Over the past two years, even with a recession, sustainability and green promotion has become more than just a tactic. It has become necessary. Flipping through the Crate and Barrel catalogue, furniture

good-news

is advertised as being “sustainably harvested and sustainably engineered.” In that same magazine, Calphalon advertises a new recycling program where they promise to responsibly recycle your old cookware, while simultaneously advertising a new green nonstick finish for pots and pans. The message is pretty clear: Crate and Barrel cares about sustainability (hence you should buy their stuff, which I am in no way supportive of or not supportive of, by the way).

At my stay at the Omni Parker Hotel in Boston, it advertised green alternatives like most other hotels nowadays. But unlike many other hotels, it connected those green services to its premium Select Guest program, thereby making sustainability (and not washing your sheets) special.

Starbuck’s has upped the content of recycled fiber in its cups (now 10 percent, not sure when they did that) and touts its eco-consciousness on the side of current cups.

Heck, even Clorox has its Greenworks natural green cleaners label. It just never ceases to amaze me.

Do you agree? Are you constantly amazed?

Anyway, back to the news.Kevin Daniels of Daniels Development is currently in New Orleans where he is repairing homes that are still damaged from Hurricane Katrina. He’s there with the National Trust for Historic Preservation and is blogging about the effort. To read the blog, click here. To learn more about the effort in general, click here. We also wrote about the trip here.

While I was gone, the DJC Green Building Blog was named to two “best of” lists. We were named number 71 on a list of  ”100 Innovative Blogs for Architecture Students.” We’re under the category “Eco-friendly architecture.” The list is compiled by a site called onlineclasses.org that is “dedicated to bringing you the absolute best resources and online educational tools.”

We were also named number 21 (but first under the “Green Construction” category) on a list called “Top 50 Construction Blogs.” This list is compiled by The Construction Paper.

The format of both sites look suspiciously similar though I’m not positive they are related. Hmmm. Either way, they both present a comprehensive list of great blogs, many of which I read on a daily basis to keep informed. It’s a good resource to see viewpoints from around the country and world on construction and architecture.

Incidentally, on one of my many flights, a gentleman I met who owned a construction company in rural Georgia said green building techniques are not used in every project, but are becoming much more common, especially in the major cities and in office projects. He said he’s taking classes on it and suspects they are moving slower than we are on the West Coast, though the south is still moving in that direction.

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!

Yesterday’s New York Times has a great overview on the the elephant in LEED’s room. The story, “Some Buildings Not Living Up to Green Label,” by Mireya Navarro, discusses how many buildings aren’t as efficient as they were planned to be, or should be.

It’s a good overview for those who don’t already live the problems and issues discussed in it. Though the article discusses a very valid question, I don’t know that it’s really fair, considering the

Should your building get retested?

USGBC did not even require a LEED building be more energy efficient than a standard building until June of 2007. Plus, both the main building cited in the article and the study of 121 buildings mentioned in it looked at buildings certified through 2006. (Doing a similar study looking at buildings designed and built since then would be fascinating but I digress.)

Anyhow, what I find most interesting is the last line of the story where Scot Horst of the USGBC says LEED may eventually move towards the EPA’s Energy Star Model where buildings must attain the label each year in order to keep it. “Ultimately, where we want to be is, once you’re performing at a certain level, you continue to be recertified,” he said.

This raises two main questions in my mind. First, if that’s where the USGBC wants to be, why isn’t it there now? LEED 2009 has some major changes in it, but it will be another couple years until the next version is released. I understand that LEED is still a growing tool (and money-maker) but if this is really the way it will be in the end, why not just bite the bullet and figure out a way to incorporate the goal now? The Living Building Challenge had some pretty audacious goals as a part of its first incarnation. Why can’t LEED make these changes now?

Which brings me to my other main question. Is the idea of making LEED something that can be rescinded even realistic? While there is no denying that it would be valuable to require LEED buildings be tested every year to retain their certification, LEED is an investment and an expensive one at that. Would it become a less attractive investment from a business perspective if your pretty little plaque could disappear due to let’s say a crummy building manager?… or to a changing system? What if further versions of LEED required changes that you simply couldn’t add on to a building. Would you be penalized and lose your certification because you, or the person you bought a building from, didn’t make a significantly different decision in design?

Maybe commissioning should become a required part of LEED. But that also adds costs to a project.

What do you think?

This is a guest post by Dave Bennink, owner of Re-Use Consulting.

I recently was asked to speak at the California Resource Recovery Association Conference in Palm Springs.  I know, Palm Springs, it sounds like a vacation, but the high for each day was 112 degrees.  Anyway, this year’s theme was ‘zero-waste’.  The CRRA had asked me to discuss building deconstruction in the context of it helping to achieve zero waste goals in many California cities.  It caused me to pause and think about what zero waste means and how to achieve it.  I came up with a couple of interesting points.

Betraying the mission:

Some of the projects that I have been involved with or have read about that have strived for zero-waste or very high diversion rates may have succeeded in doing so, but at what cost?  It may have taken weeks to accomplish and cost much more than demolition.  Therefore, even though the project stands as an example of what is possible, the general public may see this as confirming their belief that building deconstruction (and perhaps other green building methods) cost too much and take too long. 

Looking at this another way, we see that the single project may divert 70 tons from the landfill during

Is this going to a site or from one?

its 3.6 week schedule.  A less agressive approach that we frequently follow would divert 60 tons in 1.2 weeks or 180 tons during the same 3.6 week schedule.  So, in the end, who is closer to zero-waste? 

There are different ways to achieve zero-waste, by achieving zero-waste on one project and building off of that and using it as a bar that others can reach, or to achieve high-diversion on 10 projects at a cost-competitive price and time-sensitive schedule.  In the end, we really do need the zero-waste projects to push us forward, we just need them to admit that we still have a ways to go before achieving zero-waste on a regular basis. 

Designing for disassembly:

When planning our presentation, we reviewed past projects that we had completed and sent the materials in three directions: reuse, recycling and disposal.  Our focus was on how we could have eliminated the disposal category on projects performed in the ‘real world’.  Our conclusion was that if we design waste into a structure, it is not surprising that we get waste out of projects. 

Designing for disassembly is a movement in architecture to admit that their structures will likely not live out their entire lifespan and that when the building is removed someday in the future, the materials that make up that structure will be worth harvesting and that the design should favor this disassembly.  The more fasteners, ADHESIVES, and other waste producing or labor consuming building systems that are battled when the building is taken apart, the more unlikely that deconstruction will be a viable choice for building removal. 

Having deconstructed 500 structures in the last 16 years, RE-USE Consulting has gained a unique perspective on this problem and is moving ahead with its own solutions to be applied to today’s buildings.  We hope that tomorrow’s buildings will be made of reusable panels that can be reused and are perhaps constructed on multiples of 16″ or 24″, floating floor panels, paneling set in channels with fewer fasteners, and well thought out use of adhesives.  

I have seen what zero waste looks like.  It is an amazing thing.  Imagine a job site where the building was removed and the stacks of materials sitting on the ground confuse the passer-by.  Is a building about to be built, or did it just come down? 

Should we focus first on zero-waste, or should we focus on increasing the percentage of materials that are diverted for reuse?  In the end, the reuse of materials can be many times better than simply recycling them due to the preservation of energy, job creation associated with it, and from resource conservation.

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.

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!

What is the purpose of a new green building aesthetically? Should it look like every other energy hog on the block? Or should it look different to call attention to the fact that it’s special?

That’s what I’m wondering after your comments to the post below, regarding the new LEED platinum headquarters building for the U.S. Green Building Council. Holz says “it’s got no soul,” while a conversation between Nate and I revolved around the image that the USGBC is trying to project. Nate says “USGBCs goal seems to be to bring green to the mainstream, and thus it is not surprising that they wanted their office building to look like a traditional office building.”

But why go traditional when you can go exciting?

I don’t even work in the field and I can come up with a number of reasons. It’s less of a risk if you design something that looks like everything else. And while many people might think the idea of LEED is great, there are also people out there who think it’s a load of hogwash. And heck, if you’re standing in a standard-looking building, you’ve got to search out the single USGBC plaque and know what it means before realizing you’re in a green building. What percentage of the population would even recognize the seal if they saw it?

But if you’ve got a green building that’s obviously a green building from its architecture, who knows how it will be accepted? Who knows if people will like it, or if tenants will choose it over a more common counterpart. It’s also more obvious to nay-sayers that the people who developed the building - and use it- are committed to green practices (or at least want to appear that they are).

Then again, one has to assume that if you’re going to the USGBC’s offices, you know that the people you’re about to be speaking with are green-minded.

And if the envelope is never pushed, you won’t get buildings like this:

The roof of the LEED platinum California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco by Renzo Piano

or Nate’s favorite:

CK Choi Building for the Institute of Asian Reserach by Matsuzaki Architects

or possibly the first living building in the country….

The Omega Center for Sustainable Living by BNIM Architects

Or the LEED gold Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 headquarters in Denver. From the outside…

From the outside, designed by Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Architects

And from the inside

Though to be fair, all the above photos are of buildings for private institutions or agencies that don’t really have to worry about market forces.

What do you think? Should really green buildings look like everything else or do they need to look mainstream for reasons of marketability, etc.? Answer my poll at right or share your thoughts below.

And if I missed a great example of a green building that pushes the aesthetic envelope, please comment with a link to a photo of it…..

The U.S. Green Building Council sent out a press release this morning announcing that its headquarters in Washington, D.C., has been certified LEED platinum under the new version of LEED. It also sent out a whole powerpoint presentation of photos, which gave the viewer a pretty good idea of what the space looks like.

But before I show you the eye candy, please stop and take a moment to think about what you think the headquarters should look like. First, it is important to know that the USGBC is the creator of LEED, the environmental rating system which has produced some really innovative and exciting pieces of green architecture. So it stands to reason that their building should be the epitome of everything green that it possibly can. Second, it’s also important to understand the building’s context before you judge it. The office is 75,000 square feet that is divided between two floors and connected by an open staircase. It’s also in an urban area, so realistically, this building was going to look like an office building from the outside.

Here’s what Rick Fedrizzi said he wanted it to be: “The vision of the space was to exemplify everything a LEED building is: high-performing, resource-efficient, healthy and productive.”

Alright. Look at the photos below and tell me: did they suceed? Is this how you imagined it would look? If so, what did they get right? If not, what would you have done differently?

This is the exterior view. Rendering courtesy Envision Design

Entering the office... all photos by Eric Laignel

The stairway and conference area

A giant USGBC seal

Happy colorful cubicles

Colorful chairs and a flat screen TV. I hope it's an efficient model...

So readers, what do you think?

This may seem strange but I basically grew up in a Starbucks store. Not literally, of course. But it’s been a fixture in my life from childhood to teenagerdom to adulthood.

Sarbucks' older design at Green Lake

My earliest memory of the now-global-chain is awaiting my cherry Danish pastry (sadly, no longer the same amazing recipe) at a Northgate location on special treat days before school when I was somewhere around age six. Mom would get a vanilla latte and I’d feel like the luckiest kid in the classroom.

Then, as a teenager, I liked to visit local coffee houses (many of which are now defunct) to study or socialize. But whenever I didn’t feel like driving to Capitol Hill for Bauhaus, Charlie’s or Cafe Septieme, I ended up in one place near my home: the University Village Starbucks.

On a cool summer evening, there was nothing better. Back in the good ol’ days, it was open until midnight and you could while the hour’s away over one venti latte. Since then, my relationship with the chain has varied. But needless to say, I knew the old Starbucks store well.

Starbucks\' new store design at the University Village

I say the old Starbucks store because Starbucks recently unveiled the new store. And man, are things different!

In place of standard walls and windows are movable glass walls that allow air to naturally ventilate the space and daylight to come in. In place of the blocky displays in the middle of the space and separated cafe area, is one big place with community tables, dark nooks and barista bars.

It’s funny but sometimes, a place has to change before you realize how outdated it was. When I visited the original store, it was just the store. But now, it seems to have been a very 1990s incarnation of the coffee house. Passing by the Green Lake location yesterday, I found myself comparing the store to the new location and imagining how much nicer it would be if the walls peeled back to allow total views of the lake. 

The interior of the new store

The new University Village store is sleek. It’s kind of sexy. It’s modern. And it’s got sustainable features. It’s got LED and CFL lighting, energy efficient hand driers, and water efficient features like dual flush toilets that will save 1,000 gallons of water per day. During construction, teams diverted 80 percent of construction waste from the landfill.

(Of course that still means 20 percent of construction material ended up in the landfill. Is a new design really worth the waste?)

The community table was repurposed from a fallen ash tree in Wallingford

The store’s biggest sustainability focus is in sourcing, reusing and recycling local materials. These materials in the store include slate from Garfield High School, redwood siding from hop vine poles in Eastern Washington, merbau wood from existing buildings, scrap leather from car and shoe factories, burlap coffee bags from a Starbucks roasting plant, Douglas fir from school bleachers and metal from old espresso machines.

It’s all part of the company’s goal to make Starbucks relevant to its community, and to turn it into a customer’s “third place” (if you just said third what? click here). Will it work? Will it be enough to lure you in? Should Starbucks be doing more or is this a good start? Did the space need to be redesigned in the first place or would it have been greener to have just stuck with what was there? Feel free to share your opinion, comments or personal memories below. I’d love to hear if you, like me, grew up in a Starbucks or if you didn’t hear about it until you were 45.

The design is only one element of what Starbucks is trying to do as part of its Shared Planet Strategy. For more information on that, go here.

For more information on Starbucks’ new design concept or the sustainability features of the store, read the story in the DJC.

An interior bar at UV that is dedicated to showcasing small batch coffee, and its stories

Last week, I had the incredible good fortune of being invited to listen in on a living building charrette. If you ever have this opportunity, drop what you’re doing and go. It’s worth the effort.

This charrette was for a project developed by GreenFab, a team headed by Johnny Hartsfield. If you don’t know Johnny, this is from his profile: “After working as an

Johnny Hartsfield

engineering technician for Snohomish County Surface Water Management and as a sustainable project designer for Mithun and Gustafson Guthrie Nichol Ltd., he realized that developers, not designers, control our built infrastructure.”

So Hartsfield formed GreenFab and is in the process of developing a modular living building house. He envisions his project being well-priced, easily replicable and super green. (He also has a great blog here that he has taken a break from recently. He promised me however that it would be up and running again soon.)

The charrette last week was the first step in developing that project and seeing how it would really work. Just listening to the differing viewpoints between the people in the room - and then between the “greenies,” if you will, and the folks representing the modular construction company, Guerdon Enterprises of Boise, was fascinating.

For example, one of the living building challenge prerequisites says that a building either needs a green roof or needs to be set above the ground, so as not to take away

A house from Brad Pitt\'s Make it Right project in New Orleans sits above ground. Would a house like this attract or disturb you?

from the site’s ability to perform functions of natural hydrology. One of the gentlemen from the modular company was pretty disturbed by the idea of raising a house above the ground and the living area that would create for vermin below. He said he could not imagine anyone wanting to live in a house above the ground, or seeing that as an attractor.

But the whole point of this project, Hartsfield said, is to educate people and change opinions (while of course also creating a profit to keep the company in business). He said, “I’m doing this because I don’t want to work in any system that’s out there now. I’m tiered. I’m pissed off. And we’re going to get there…. Our job is to create the demand.” 

What do you think? Would you ever consider living in a building that was sited above ground? If a living building was available to you that cost around $120,000 plus the cost of land …. so let’s say $400,000 on the low side - would you do it? Or would you stick with whatever you can find in Seattle for that price?

You can weigh in below or answer my new poll at right.

Hybrid Architects is designing GreenFab’s modular home. Bright minds that attended the charrette and were fleshing through ideas included Jon Alexander of Sunshine Construction, Mike Broili of Living Systems Design, Judith Heerwagen of J.H. Heerwagen & Associates, Jonathan Heller of Ecotope, Chris Meek of the UW’s Integrated Design Lab and Sage Saskill of SAGE Designs NW, among others. Marni Evans of The Living Project led the charrette. 

On the other end of the fence, the Bullitt Foundation is also planning to develop a living building. I wrote about this in today’s paper here. The Stranger asked some great questions about urban density in regards to the project here.

What exactly the Bullitt project will be is still entirely in the air, though it could be a five story mixed-use project with retail, office and residential. More to follow later as the project progresses.

Bullitt also recently held a living building charrette, though I wasn’t invited to that process. Teams tend to be a bit cagey about letting a reporter sit in and hear the process of arguing through and figuring out what a project is going to be.

But listening in on GreenFab’s process was invaluable to me. So if you plan on developing a living building, please send this reporter an invite!