In today’s marketplace, so many things claim to be “green” that it can be really, really tough to decipher what’s green and what’s greenwashing. Sometimes, green measures even conflict with each other.

Apparently, that’s the case with LEED and Green Globes, at least in Washington State. Green Globes,

Green certifications duke it out!

administered in the U.S. by the Green Building Initiative, is a green building certification that I have only come across a few times in my travels. LEED is by far and without question the more prominent certification of the two.

However, LEED’s prominence is due in large part to its inclusion in state and city government incentives and requirements. For example, Washington State requires major buildings meet LEED silver or higher to receive public funding. Seattle requires developers meet at least LEED silver to receive a density bonus. Those requirements have gone a long way towards making Washington a leader in its number of LEED certified buildings, and LEED projects on the board.

Senate Bill 5384 would change the state mandated requirements by adding the Green Globes standard as an alternative to LEED silver.

Now, it might surprise some to learn that Cascadia, the region’s go-to organization for green building, is lobbying hard against this. But then again Cascadia is part of the U.S. Green Building Council and the U.S. Green Building Council created LEED, so it stands to reason that it would support LEED certification. The bill is also opposed by the Washington Environmental Council and the Washington Conservation Voters, which represents many different environmental organization statewide.

An advocacy e-mail appeared in my in-box today asking readers to call state legislators to make sure

A truly green globe

Green Globes is not included in state law as an alternative to LEED. The e-mail says “Green Globes was created by the timber and chemical lobbies as a much weaker alternative to LEED,” and that it is untested, funded by industry and requires no third party verification. 

I don’t know enough about Green Globes to report on whether any of the above allegations are true. I know board members of GBI represent a number of different interests from universities to business. I know a number of industry organizations heavily support their initiatives (though to be fair, industry also supports USGBC).

I also know the actual bill, available here, has a piece in it stating all major projects receiving state funds that are four stories or under must use wood and wood products as building materials in them. Not sure how that fits into the point of the bill and it seems a little odd to me but make of it what you will.

If you’re interested in this topic, Architect Online has an excellent rundown of the two systems by Christopher Swope here that I highly suggest reading. Swope points out that LEED could benefit from a bit of competition.

For still more information, visit GreenbuildingsNYC here.

What do you think? Is LEED too restrictive and is Green Globes the way to go? Is Green Globes a less strict certification? Weigh in by commenting below!

This week, I wrote an article in the DJC on Bellevue Towers, its developer, Gerding Edlen, and what the project represents for Bellevue.

Bellevue Towers is a two-tower luxury condo project with 539 units. According to

Bellevue Towers

Mike Brennan, director of Bellevue’s Development Services Department, it is the most prominent green building in Bellevue and the first multifamily high-rise that has gone for LEED certification in the city. It is targeting LEED gold and is supposedly the largest LEED-certified residential project in the Northwest, according to press materials. It is also the first project Gerding Edlen has done in the Puget Sound region.

That’s a lot of firsts. I’m wondering what this means for Bellevue.

Bellevue tends to have a mixed reputation when it comes to green buildings. In my wanderings, I’ve heard about city codes that make it difficult for projects to do low impact development, and green techniques that relate to stormwater. I’ve also heard disappointed reactions that the city wasn’t more receptive to green building earlier.  (For a reaction on how Bellevue has been MIA, see the comments to a previous post regarding Kirkland here.)

But I wonder if that is changing.

Bellevue is the first city in the Puget Sound region to have a Gerding Edlen development. Gerding Edlen, Portland’s premier green developer, is known internationally for its work. I’m sure Seattle and other cities would have appreciated one of its projects.

Phil Beyl, principal in charge of Bellevue Towers with architect GBD, said the city welcomed aggressive sustainable techniques “with open arms.” Working on this project was exciting for him, precisely because he felt like he was bringing something new to the city: “We’ve been able to bring to Bellevue an elevated level of sustainability that now I think has raised the bar quite a bit higher… and that’s very exciting.”

Brennan said Bellevue is hoping this building will serve as an example and bring other green development to the city (though he also was unsure whether it actually would or not).

Incidentally, there are only two LEED certified buildings in Bellevue, according to the USGBC’s registry. But there are 24 that are registered. Then again, some of the projects that are awaiting certification like the Mercer Slough Environmental Education Center (wrote about it a year ago here in the DJC) are pretty darn interesting. 

Then there’s my own experience with people that read this blog.

I like to track where blog readers come from, and believe me, there’s been a dramatic shift. Last summer, I was surprised by how little readers I had from Bellevue (one here and there but virtually none). I even e-mailed certain city representatives to get them to read, but readers from Bellevue remained flat.

In the last two months, something changed. Now, Bellevue is consistently the third rated city, in cities that read this blog. (Behind Seattle, and then either Portland or New York, depending on the day.)

What the heck is going on?

Did something shift or did a whole lot of people from Bellevue start reading this blog for no reason? Was it the economy? Was it the change in presidents? I’m stumped.

What do you think? Is Bellevue getting - or going to be getting greener? Has anything changed or is this really just one LEED project? Comment below or answer my poll at right.

For more on Gerding Edlen, click the tab ‘Gerding Edlen’ below. Or check out SkyscraperCity and look under Bellevue Development or Bellevue Towers.

LEED 2009 is in the process of coming out… but what happens if you’ve already received your LEED AP designation? The chief question, or course, is whether you have to test again or not.

According to the Green Building Certification Institute, there are over 1,300 LEED APs in Seattle. If you are one of them, you should be at least interested in this topic.

To clarify some earlier information I had posted, and to provide you with concrete specifics, here is the lowdown via the Green Building Certification Institute: 

The last day to register for the LEED NC v2.2 and LEED CI v2.0 exams will be March 31. Any candidate who has registered for one of those exams with http://www.gbci.org by that day will be able to schedule their exam date going forward, until a final deadline for testing is established. Candidates that take the exam after March 31 will not be able to test again because registration will be closed at that point.

Existing LEED APs will not be required to retest, assuming they enroll in the new system before summer of 2011. From summer of 2009 to 2011, existing LEED APs can enroll in the new version by agreeing to the disciplinary policy and taking on credential maintenance. After 2011, passing an exam will be the only means of becoming a LEED AP+.

Existing LEED APs who enroll in the system will receive the updated designation which most closely corresponds to the exam they passed. For example, if someone passed the LEED NC exam in 2003, they would become a LEED AP+ Design & Construction.

Hope that clears things up.

This week, I wrote a story in the DJC about the Sustainable Sites Initiative. The initiative has been in the works since 2002 and is geared to be a comprehensive certification similar to LEED but focused on landscape, rather than efficiency.

I spoke to Deb Guenther of Mithun about the initiative, as she’s been working on it

What do green certifications ignore?

since the beginning. When I asked her whether site treatment was just touched on or ignored in green building certifications, she said “a little bit of both.”

The idea that green building certifications ignore critical development considerations is a constant complaint. Here are some of the most cited aspects of what people say green building ignores:

• The historic value of a site or building
• The value of keeping a building - and recognizing its embodied energy, rather than demolishing a structure to build a new one
• Accurately measuring how well the building works
• Indoor air quality
• Beauty and aesthetic value

(For more information on what your colleagues think is most ignored, check out my poll at right.)

But a green building certification cannot be all things to all people. And LEED has a great track record of appealing to different projects in different regions, states, climates and cities. How then, should new certifications that deal with in depth, important topics only touched on by LEED - like the Sustainable Sites Initiative - be dealt with? The initiative, by the way, will be considered in future versions of LEED, though it is unclear how it will be incorporated.

Should this initiative - and future ones like it - become a part of LEED or be developed as separate certifications?

A single certificaiton might be easier, but would force those who don’t care about things like sites or historic value to consider those aspects, and would also likely raise the certification’s cost. 

But if new certification’s aren’t incorporated into LEED, they might never get off the ground or gain market value.  And would developers really want to go get multiple certifications for multiple things, just to prove they have a green project?

What do you think?

A LEED platinum project is still a pretty rare thing to see. But as of today, Seattle gets to add another LEED platinum project to the grand tally sheet. 

The project is called Kenyon House and is a supportive community with 18 studio apartments for people with HIV/AIDS. It is certified under LEED for Homes and the organization says it is the first of its kind (affordable multifamily) to receive the platinum certification in the state. It was done by Building Changes and Housing

Courtesy William Wright

Resources Group.

The first thing to understand is that LEED for homes is different than just plain ole’ LEED. The other LEED ratings (new construction, commercial interiors) are all lumped together on the USGBC’s registry. According to that registry, there are three LEED platinum projects in Washington: WPUDA headquarters, the Shoreline Recycling and Transfer Station and the Perkins + Will Seattle office’s interior.

But LEED for homes, what Kenyon is certified under, is a whole other (some might say easier) ballgame. That’s listed in a separate document here. According to that document, in Washington there are six LEED platinum homes. They are all in Seattle and turns out, I’ve written about all of them. For more on the other LEED platinum homes, click here for Ashworth Cottages, here for the Alley House and here for Michael K. Mastro’s home. Or read past blog entries here and here for Alley House.

The second thing to understand is that the other LEED platinum homes are are single family market rate projects. This is the first LEED platinum home in Washington (again according to the USGBC document) that is affordable. It’s a pretty important milestone.

“Green theory” (if you will) or the large ideas behind living in an eco-conscious way says people in affordable housing complexes are often the ones who most need the benefits of green design but also are the least likely to get them. Green buildings and affordable housing, they say, need to be linked together otherwise green is just providing a better quality of living for those who can afford to pay for it.

But green buildings are also seen as being tremendously more expensive than the cost of typical affordable housing. The fact that this group has done platinum, for $5 million, is quite something.

The team used efficient gas-fired boilers which provide baseboard hydronic heat in all units, high insulation, high efficiency windows, 100 percent fluorescent lighting. It focused on air quality due to the health of the residents and had a pre-occupancy flush of the project. There is water-resistant flooring in potential wet areas to reduce the chance of mold or rot.

For more info on the project, read the DJC’s entry on it here.

This is from a series of guest posts by representatives of the Northwest Building Efficiency Center. This post was written by Vicki Zarrell. 

I recently had a chance to tour the Washington Public Utility Districts Association (WPUDA) building in downtown Olympia, the first building in Washington to be certified LEED Platinum by the U.S. Green Building Council. The WPUDA moved into the new building late in 2007, occupying the second floor.

The first thing I noticed when walking up the steps from the sidewalk was an

Courtesy Matt Todd photography

engineered rocky stream bed with the pleasant sound of flowing water – and I wondered if it was “water efficient.” Later I went to the underground parking garage to see the huge water tank where rainwater is collected from the roof. The collection system serves the water feature, which is allowed to naturally dry up during the summer, as well as irrigation of exterior plant material.

For those times when there is TOO MUCH water from the roof or hardscape, a natural-looking swale along the east side of the building filters the runoff and recharges the groundwater. This entire system is a win-win for the City of Olympia and the WPUDA since it eliminates run-off to the city’s stormwater system and no municipal water is needed for landscaping or the water feature.

Another obvious exterior feature of the building is the large array of photovoltaic solar panels on the roof. According to the WPUDA, solar will supply about 40% of the building’s energy needs and surplus power produced by the panels will be sold to Puget Sound Energy through net metering.

Inside the building the individual carpet squares caught my eye, which are easy to replace if damaged and are part of the building’s emphasis on materials and paints with low toxicity. I also noticed exceptional views of the capitol campus and surrounding neighborhood. With generous use of windows and skylights—and with work spaces primarily arranged around the perimeter of the building and bay-type windows jutting out from the structure—90% of work spaces in the building receive natural light. Yet there seemed to be no glare from windows or light fixtures. The windows are super energy efficient and designed not to reduce visibility the way tinted glass does.

Other elements contributing to LEED certification were the fact that most of the construction materials came from 500 miles or less, that the lumber was FSC certified, and that 75 percent of all construction waste was recycled. The area of the roof without solar panels is a light colored “cool roof” that reflects the sun’s infrared rays, reducing the building’s “heat island” effect and air conditioning costs.

This is a building that made me think, “I’d like to work here.” Besides its pleasing atmosphere, knowing that the building is efficient and well designed contributes to its desirability as a workplace. For a video describing the building, visit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFefP7Ft1gg

At one of the Greenbuild session I attended last week, Andy Florance, CEO of CoStar, said the biggest lie in the construction world used to be “my building is under construction.” Now, he said, “that lie has been replaced by my building is LEED certified.”

What is the gold-green standard? Image courtesy Kristopher Lee

That got me thinking about what the highest standard of green building is. Is is LEED platinum? Is it a living building? What about a building that is netzero energy? So I’ve posed the question to you in a new poll at right, and would love to hear what goal you think all buildings should be striving for, if they should be striving for any green goal at all. Or comment below and tell me what standard you think is the best.

But I digress, back to the topic line: do green buildings sell better than their counterparts? According to CoStar, that answer is yes. 

CoStar did a study of the buildings in its entire U.S. database between the first quarter of 2006 and the first quarter of 2008, and based on that information, LEED buildings were 4 percent more occupied than their competitors, renting at $11.33 more per square foot and selling at $171 more per square foot, a 64 percent advantage. Both the occupancy rates and rental amounts climbed - from 4 to 6 percent and from an $11.33 to $18.58 advantage - if you count the past two quarters of this year.

But, Florance cautioned, that information is going to be really tough, if impossible, to measure in the future, thanks to the current state of the economy.

If you want more factual information, read my article in the DJC here that has loads more information on the topic. Or you can see a version of this study dated March here.

If you work with LEED at all, you know that this time of year is ground zero, in effect, for announcements regarding different versions of the system. Why? Because it’s Greenbuild of course, so it’s a perfect time to make those long awaited announcements and changes.

To keep you updated, here are some of the more recent developments:

LEED 2009: Perhaps most importantly, the USGBC announced this week that the newest version of LEED has passed member ballot and will be introduced in 2009. The new version of LEED incorporates regional credits, so projects can address the most pressing issues at their location. The system also underwent a scientifically grounded re-weighting of credits, changing allocation of points to reflect climate change and energy efficiency as priorities. The USGBC also says the new version creates a more “predictable development cycle.”

The updates apply to LEED for: new construction, existing buildings operations and maintenance, commercial interiors, schools and core and shell. It does not apply to LEED for neighborhood development and LEED for homes. Retail and healthcare will be aligned with LEED at a later point.

Like anything, the terminology can get confusing. LEED 2009 is part of LEED Version 3, which is also known as LEED v3. LEED 2009 is the actual rating system. Version 3 on the other hand is the “multi-faceted” initiative.

For more information on the LEED AP exam, click the tab ‘LEED’ below and read the Jan. 16 post ‘What’s the deal with my LEED AP designation?’

Comments: The USGBC is accepting comments on LEED for neighborhood development and LEED for retail. Speak now or forever (or at least for a couple years)  hold your peace.

The LEED platinum WPUDA headquarters in Olympia, photo by Matt Todd Photography

Photo by Matt Todd Photography

According to the October edition of the Green Builder, the monthly digital newsletter published by the Cascadia Chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council, there are 113 LEED certified projects in Washington and 657 that are registered. But where in the state are they?

If you missed the post about whether green building is an urban thing (click on tag ’suburban cities’ if you did), maybe the statistics below will help answer the question. 

This information is based solely on the USGBC’s LEED project registry, and does not take into account other green buildings, such as those that are Built Green. It also does not consider those buildings that are complete and awaiting certification from the USGBC, of which there are many.

According to the registry:

There are three LEED platinum buildings in the city. One in Seattle, another in Shoreline, the third in Olympia.

There are 32 LEED gold buildings in Washington. Of that, 15 are in Seattle, two are in Bellingham and two are in Vancouver. But the other 13 are spread across the diverse jurisdictions of Issaquah, Spokane Valley, Redmond, Cheney, Lacey, Spokane, Monroe, Tumwater, Retsil, Olympia, Burien, Tacoma and Bainbridge Island.

Go down to LEED silver and out of 38, it’s 15 to Seattle, four to Tacoma, three to Issaquah, two for Tumwater and one each for Monroe, Vancouver, Redmond, Olympia, Port Townsend, Walla Walla, Sammamish, Spokane, Bellevue, Auburn, Kent, Fort Lewis, Bremerton and Liberty Lake.

Obviously there are more LEED projects in Seattle, and at least more LEED silver in Tacoma. But the rest of it is a mixed bag. If we look at projects that are registered to meet LEED - but have not yet achieved it (and in today’s market where certain projects are being held indefinitely, might never make it) it’s a very different story.

In the registered list there is currently 18 pages of projects. Of those, 7 pages are in Seattle, one page in in Tacoma, almost one page is in Bellevue, a little more than a page is in Vancouver, while Spokane, Bellingham and Olympia each have about a half a page. But there are planned projects spread everywhere from Friday Harbor to Bonney Lake to Woodinville to East Wenatchee to Hoquiam. Since LEED is planned in all of these areas, does that mean that green building is not an urban thing, though there might be more of it going on in urban areas?

If you want to explore the registry, visit http://www.usgbc.org/LEED/Project/CertifiedProjectList.aspx

If you’re a developer who’s been asking for “expedited permitting” for green buildings in Seattle… you’re not going to get it any time soon. What you are going to get, however, is “facilitated permitting.”

Facilitated permitting means that for pilot projects accepted into the program (like Bruno Lampert’s Capitol Hill project pictured at left), you get one contact person at DPD who will identify problem code areas and help work through the issues with you. Only super green projects (comparable to LEED gold or platinum) will be accepted into the program… sorry LEED silver, you’re just not green enough. 

There are a number of code issues that sit in the way of going after really green systems. In fact, they pretty much run the gamut of topics depending on what you’re looking to do.

Bradley Khouri, architect with b9 Architects, is working on Urbansight, a project in the Priority Green pilot program. He said to really encourage green building, permitting needs to be quicker for green projects, it needs to be easier to deconstruct a project and the city needs to better recognize the use of stormwater on site. He also said zoning for infill development needs to be rewritten, but that’s another story.

What do you think are the code issues that need to change? (To read a past post on this topic, click here).

The city has been talking about launching an expedited permitting process for months, but when it came down to it, they didn’t want to guarantee projects going through the program would get through quicker than others, because they would have tougher code issues to deal with. For more on this topic, read my story in the DJC here.

So Seattle developers, if you want ”expedited green permitting,” you’re going to have to go to Kirkland…. they’ve got it for single-family green houses and are looking at it for commercial buildings. If on the other hand, you’re willing to pursue super green systems and are cool with the “facilitated” title, Seattle’s just the place for you.