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?

It’s called the Quick Guide to Green Tenant Improvement series, and is a guide that shows users how to do sustainable commercial improvements in a variety of ten topics. The guides are a product of Seattle’s Department of Planning and Development’s City Green Building team.

The guides are available online here, though I haven’t had time to study them yet. They are

The guides come in many handy flavors

meant to help project managers, owners, interior designers and architects apply sustainable building practices to commercial remodel projects, though a press release says the guide works equally well for interior construction or renovation. Each guide includes an overview of a topic, key benefits and strategies, quick facts, a case study, a checklist, additional resources and potential LEED-CI credits. Helpful? Only you can be the judge.

If you want a hard copy of the series, contact Rebecca Baker at (206) 615-1171.

According to the press release, the guides come in the following fun flavors:

01 Green Lease — A green lease can enhance recruitment, lower healthcare expenses, yield productivity gains and lower operating costs.

02 Connecting with Nature — Interiors with natural elements foster positive connections between people and enhance physical and mental well being.

03 Adaptable Design — “Future-proof” office space by providing for the integration and adaptability of various building systems.

04 Office Equipment — Using energy efficient office equipment reduces energy costs, ambient noise, air-conditioning loads, electromagnetic fields and greenhouse gas emissions while extending equipment life.

05 HVAC: Heating, Ventilation & Air Conditioning — Energy efficient HVAC equipment can reduce energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and utility costs while increasing thermal comfort and improving indoor air quality.

06 Lighting — Energy efficient lighting systems can reduce a significant amount of electrical energy costs while enhancing aesthetic design inside and out.

07 Employee Well-Being — The quality of the indoor environment directly affects employee well-being and performance.

08 Healthy Building Materials — A healthy workplace is built, furnished and operated to minimize exposure to sub-stances harmful to human health.

09 Regional Resources — Purchasing locally supports our local economy and reduces transportation costs and emissions.

10 Construction Waste Management — Many construction, demolition and land-clearing waste materials have high value for salvage and reuse.

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

This last week has been full of bad news relating to major corporations cutting jobs.  These job cuts are nothing compared to the amount of jobs that have been shipped overseas in the past decades.  Did you know that the City of Buffalo used to have

Image courtesy Dave Bennink

600,000 people in it and now it only has about 290,000?  First the jobs left and then the people followed.  This has left Buffalo wondering what to do with tens of thousands of abandoned homes. 

So where are we heading?  Jobs disappearing, economic slowdowns and global warming are just the start of our problems.  Fortunately, there is some good news to share:  The building deconstruction industry is creating thousands of green collar jobs, and these jobs cannot be shipped overseas! 

For years, building deconstruction has been much slower and more expensive than demolition.  Building deconstruction is the systematic disassembly of a structure to maximize reuse and recycling.  In recent years, hybrid deconstruction has allowed deconstruction and adaptive reuse companies to take down buildings faster and cheaper, completing 2,000-square-foot homes in 3 to 4 days as one example.  Even with these improvements, building deconstruction still creates 10 to 20 times more jobs than demolition while hoping to achieve an on-site landfill diversion rate of 70 percent or more (before comingled recycling options). 

These are all local jobs that cannot be shipped overseas and we are working to make them living wage jobs requiring different levels of experience and potentially launching workers into other related careers.

One thing that is clear to me is that building owners don’t want their structures demolished, they just want them removed.  Almost everyone I have talked to would rather see the their building moved intact, deconstructed, or at least salvaged or even preserved in place through adaptive reuse as long as it doesn’t take much more time and it doesn’t cost more money.  That helps the building deconstruction contractors by basing their efforts on a solid foundation. 

People realize that deconstruction creates more jobs, helps the environment, preserves local architectural elements, and assists lower-income home owners to maintain their homes.  It is also a sustainable effort, unlike some green solutions that just slow down the problems.  Deconstruction is not just saving energy and resources compared to producing all of those materials new again, but reversing problems like global warming and natural resource depletion. 

In Buffalo, we have begun to think of the streets full of abandoned homes as an asset to the community instead of a liability.  If it is decided that they must be taken down, then by deconstructing them, some of the value they hold is returned to the community, and I can tell you after 16 years in this field, it’s a great feeling knowing that you are making a difference. 

I am excited about efforts by the city of Seattle and King County, among others, to promote building deconstruction. 

The Building Materials Reuse Association is leading the way, holding a conference on the subject in Chicago in April 2009 (www.bmra.org).  Cities and groups across the Country are starting job training programs by forming deconstruction crews.  Demolition contractors are converting to deconstruction companies by performing deconstruction when their clients ask for it or it makes economic sense.  General contractors hoping to keep their crews from quiting in slow times, are beginning to offer deconstruction to their clients, knowing that they may be able to provide work to their laid-off crews.  Some schools are considering classes on deconstruction and some businesses are forming around the sales of the salvaged materials or the manufacturing of products (like tables, chairs, etc.) made from reclaimed materials. 

So if you are tired of this economic slow down and want to make a difference, join us by considering building deconstruction and considering buying reclaimed materials.  It’s  ’buying local’ and ‘employing local’ all at the same time while heading toward our goal of zero waste.

- Dave Bennink, RE-USE Consulting

The Internet has been awash with green trend predictions for the last year, so I figured I’d show you where the predictions are in case you missed them.

What do you see in green's crystal ball?

First, there’s Jetson Green’s Seven Green Trends to Watch in 2009. The post from one of the top national blogs in the country calls out broad idealogical trends for the most part, like “non green will not survive,” “change leadership will thrive,” and “everything will shift.” For more on what that means, check out the post.

There’s Jerry  Yudelson’s Top 10 Predictions for the Green Building Industry 2009. Culled from conversations Yudelson’s had with building leaders in the U.S., Canada, Europe and the Middle East, it’s a wide range of predictions (that might be worth paying attention to, considering Yudelson knows almost everybody that’s worth knowing in green). Among the predictions, Yudelson says green building will benefit from the Obama administration, the focus of green building will begin to switch from new buildings to greening existing buildings, awareness of the coming global crisis in fresh water supply will increase, LEED platinum rated projects will become more common place and zero net energy designs for new buildings will gain increasing acceptance in both public and private buildings.

And earlier today, I listened to the Sustainable Industries Webinar on its nine trends for 2009. Among the trends, it said the smart grid will take off, this will be the year of the carbon market, green building sets the code (meaning it becomes a larger part of city’s building codes), and there will be a green jobs hiring blitz. While I can’t find this information for free on the Web, it is in next month’s edition of the magazine, and will likely be available online at some point here.

As for Seattle, I’m a reporter so I’m not going to predict what this year will bring in green building. It could bring a living building or a passifhaus to the city. It could bring more incentives. Or all new initiatives could dry up, due to the economy.

On the city side, the year will likely bring an official priority permitting program (rather than just a pilot program), and a deconstruction permit that is decoupled from the demolition permit. On the state side, Ecology might revamp SEPA to specifically include greenhouse gas emissions in its measurement requirements (for more on this, click tag SEPA below).

What do you think this year will bring to Seattle? And what do you think will be the biggest trends in the region?

Want a job as the sustainable infrastructure advisor for the city of Seattle Green Building Team and Planning Department? Well the job is open and waiting for you. There’s only one catch: the position closes on Tuesday.

Before you get angry on me for last minute posting, be warned that I just received

Is this the job for you?

this e-mail today. Now it’s your responsibility to move quickly!

The e-mail says the job is “a mid to senior level position.” Salary range is $32.42 to $48.63 per hour. The job that requires the person to have:

• Technical expertise in low impact development, district energy/thermal distribution systems, on-site water and wastewater processing and other decentralized technologies.
• Strong communication skills.
• Financial skills to develop the business case for solutions that may provide distributed benefits to a variety of business units and stakeholders.

You also have to have a BA degree and five years experience in government policy and public utilities. To apply, click here. Happy hunting!

I’ve spent the last two days at two very different but very intersting conferences. The first, King County’s Green in Place: From Policy to Practice conference, featured Gary Lawrence as the keynote speaker and during his talk (discussed at length in an article in the Sept. 19 DJC.. read it if you’re at all intersted in ths subject) he said something a little out of the typical routine:

 “If you’re involved in sustainable design and (not) addressing issues of equity and justice, you’re not involved in sustainability.”

Arup's Treasure Island project in San Francisco

He defined social equity or social justice as considering the impact your building and designing choices have on other humans. So instead of putting on that green roof, you consider how the extra steel needed to reinforce the roof will affect the lives of the people who will mine the steel. Basically you look at your choices from an all inclusive roundabout way.

It takes a lot of thinking. And for those people just entering into green building or sustainable design, it might be too much work to add on (at the beginning stage of the game).

But intrinsically, is Lawrence right? Can you, Mr. Architect or Ms. City Planner really call your work sustainable if you don’t consider all the different people your choice will affect both in the past and in the future? Or is it just too much to handle?

The question in itself is fascinating, and one that I, by my lonesome, cannot answer. What do you think?

P.S. (Lawrence’s resume could make most people’s eyes widen. He has been a former DPD planning director, UW professor, adivsor to the Clinton Administration’s Council on Sustainable Development, the United Nation’s Habitat II, the Brazilian President’s Office, the British Prime Minister’s Office, not to mention currently running Arup’s sustainable urban development globally.)

For more information, it turns out King County Executive Ron Sims has already tapped this topic in a keynote talk of his own. Read the press release. I don’t know much about the Holcim Foundation for Sustainable Construction, but it has some interesting definitions here.

The end of summer has been a big month for trees in Seattle. First, there was the Ingraham High School Debacle (if you missed it, read the Seattle Times story here). Then three trees on the Burke Gilman were murdered (see my colleague Shawna Gamache’s blog SeattleScape here). Now, Mayor Greg Nickels has announced interim

Trees at Ingraham

Trees at Ingraham

regulations to better protect our green leafy friends.

Now, for background, trees are one of the city’s priorities this year and both DPD and the Seattle City Council have been looking at ways to increase urban tree cover. But it seems like these two issues - Ingraham and the Burke Gilman - were the last straw to break the camel’s back. (Or just a shrewd move on the mayor’s part, either way.)

Chambers Bay carnage

null

The new regulations, which would need to be approved by the city council to take affect and would only last until the official string of regulations are proposed, deal with an “exceptional tree.” Before, an exceptional tree was one with unique historic, ecological or aesthetic value, and was an important community resource. If the council passes this interim regulation, an exceptional tree will be one with substantial tree canopy, as well as groves of trees. The regulations will then prohibit the removal of all exceptional trees unless the removal is associated with a corresponding development permit.

For other trees, the regulations will prohibit the removal of more than three non-exceptional trees, 12 inches or greater in diameter in one year when not associated with a permit.

It will also increase penalties for willful or malicious violations of tree protections. Think this doesn’t happen often? See the gruesome cut in the tree above? That happened last spring at Chambers Bay (to read more click here).

Will make people think twice or will they keep employing gardeners who “accidentally” remove the trees in the backyard that were coincidentally imparing a view?

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.

This week, I (and a packed crowd at Seattle City Hall) heard Svend Auken, Denmark’s former minister for energy and the environment, speak about everything from energy to economics to the U.S.’s responsibility in a climate-conscious world (sign a post Kyoto agreement, lead the way).

Then, I sat down with him in a one-on-one interview to focus his attention a little bit more on buildings. What should we do, I asked? How should the construction industry attack the problem of a changing world?

His answer?  Government.

Government, he said, needs to make very, very strict rules and make it clear to people what they want out of a building. A good way to encourage that, he said, is by requiring an energy goal per square foot of a building rather than a whole-building goal. Once the goal is set, the industry will follow.

Of course government in Denmark is managed differently than government in Seattle and Washington. On multiple occasions, for example, Diane Sugimura, DPD’s director, has expressed exasperation at creating a balance between energy codes and letting untested technologies be used.  As a city government, she’s said, you don’t want to just start using something that might be more efficient but hasn’t been adequately tested. In Denmark, you can be fairly creative as long as you achieve the end energy goal.

But Auken said government has to be very strong on this. Yes, people will moan for a while, he said, but in the end it will make them more creative and will be more profitable (especially in an age of rising oil costs where energy bills are sure to “skyrocket”).

“Once you let architects think in terms of energy efficiency, they get more creative,” he said. “Architects love to do low energy, it’s so much more fun.”

How about it architects? Are energy efficient buildings (like London’s BedZED project above) more fun or a pain in the bum?

For more on Denmark, read my post from last week (click tag ‘Scandinavia’ below). For more on Auken’s talk, what Denmark did and how we could do it, check out my story here.

Face it: everyone who’s anyone in green design says the U.S. is way behind Europe. And one of the areas outpacing us further and further… is Scandinavia. 

Scandinavia’s sustainable strengths are no new feat in Seattle. Local group International Sustainable Solutions has been taking local building and city professionals there for years on a whirlwind eco-tourist trip. It is just about getting ready to kick of a Portland version of the trip,  more here.

Scandinavian speakers have also graced the Seattle scene every couple of months to teach us what we don’t know. One of them, Svend Auken, is going to be in Seattle again on Monday from noon to 1 p.m. He will be speaking at Seattle City Hall in the Bertha Landes room.

Scandinavia also reared its green head when I attended a forum at the UW a couple of weeks ago. At that forum, Jayson Antonoff of Seattle’s green building team (formerly with ISUSTAIN) spoke about how Scandinavia has focused on energy efficiency by looking at different energy producers, varying it’s idea of energy, and requiring buildings to meet an energy requirement per square foot.

For more on that story, and to learn what other sustainability leaders in the Pacific Northwest think about green solutions, check out the story in the DJC here. (more…)