Obvious headline, I know, but it had to be done.

Yesterday, I received an e-mail from the USGBC announcing that the Olympic Village in Beijing that houses 17,000 athletes (at left) had been certified gold under leed for neighborhood development, and is the first international project to be certified under that program.

And I thought finally! Enough with Michael Phelps, let’s learn about some buildings! (Sarcasm. Partially….) Unfortunately, the USGBC doesn’t say much about the green features of the space so I have to rely on other sources.  The Environment News Service says it uses solar cells, geothermal heat pumps, solar heat, solar hot water, solar thermoelectric cogeneration and intelligent control devices.

The announcement, however, seems to be drawing its bit of attention. On the Archinect site, the comments are particularly vehement with one commenter named Apurimac stating, “Show me a development in the states at that scale with a LEED gold rating and I’ll eat my hair.”

I am interested in seeing how the Beijing village will compare with the Olympic Village in Vancouver, B.C. for the 2010 Winter Olympics. I attended a forum put on by the Network for Business Innovation & Sustainability in February and based on that, there’s certainly going to be some competition.

Vancouver’s got two villages - one in the city proper in the Southeast False Creek area (in the yellow rectangle in the picture at right) that is already billing itself as a model in sustainability, and one in Whistler. The Southeast False Creek village is planning on using many of the same devices as Beijing including intelligent control devices and nifty solar technology.

To see a video on the villages, click here. To learn more about the details of the Vancouver villages, click here.

Vancouver calls its villages sustainable because, like the Beijing project, they will be lived in after the Olympics are done. The Southeast False Creek project also considers itself sustainable because it is creating a mixed-use, walkable neighborhood on a historic industrial site. The details are much too much to include in this posting, but I’ll keep you updated as it moves along. It should be fascinating to watch. To see the original sustainability goals for the Southeast Village, click here. To see how it was updated this July, click here.

Of course, like Apurimac’s comments show, many would question whether a project of this size should be considered sustainable at all. But that’s a question for another day.  

Is anyone else out there waiting to make the comparison? Is the Vancouver project going to be more sustainable just because it will be able to benefit from green technology improvements in the next couple years? I, for one, will be waiting to find out.

For more on the comparison, check out Basil and Spice here. For more photos on the Beijing Olympic Village, visit Inhabitat here, or check out Curbed San Francisco for more here. More on the Vancouver Olympic village here.

Beijing village photo courtesy of the official Web site of the Beijing Olympics. Vancouver picture courtesy of Vanoc.

Green building is fairly new, so naturally there are a lot of questions about it. But somehow, amidst the excitement of pursuing new technologies and arguing about what works and what doesn’t, it seems a fundamental question has been left in the dust…. is green building dangerous?

Like any good question, it can be answered with another question: dangerous to whom? Dangerous to the developer, the inhabitant, the team members, the insurer, or to the economy? That answer, dear reader, is a mixed bag.

Now, I’ve most likely caused a number of you to see red by even suggesting that green could be dangerous. But remember that other cultural innovations through history - the atomic bomb and nuclear energy to name a few - have been viewed at times with the frenzied level of expected salvation that green building and green products have recently encountered.

Obviously, green building isn’t about to physically blow up and kill people, so it’s not “dangerous” in that way. Theoretically at least, it might even be increasing people’s life spans by taking harmful chemicals out of buildings like volatile organic compounds.

But remember, green building is just a kid. And kids grow up into amazing - or horrifying - adults. What happens when green building suddenly spawns a spate of lawsuits (which local LEED certified lawyers assure me will happen, the only question is when). What happens when someone discovers a green building sacred cow does more harm than good (biofuels anyone?) What happens when the greenest greenie we know inevitable turns out to be clear cutting Amazon forests in their backyard?

Will the increasing green momentum implode or is green building and the ideals behind it stronger than that? It probably depends who you’re asking.

A while back I spoke with an indoor air quality expert who said he’s been in green buildings - LEED, Built Green, etc - that had such bad indoor air quality the house was effectively poisoning the people that lived in it.  While it’s (hopefully) an anomaly, what if it isn’t?

If we look at the legal aspects of green alone, the trial has just begun. I wrote a story in February here about the legal issues facing green buildings. Just getting information for the one article was excruciating because there just isn’t that much information, or people willing, to talk about the subject. In the past few months however, I’ve heard more and more people saying that green developers need to protect themselves in contracts against possible green building issues. Green building, they say, is a whole new ball game. And many clients aren’t aware of what they could be doing for protection. For more on this issue, check out the excellent green liability subject on greenbuildings NYC, especially this post.

So is green building dangerous? You know as well as I there is no answer to that right now. But it’s still a question that can be raised, and often isn’t. If you’ve heard it raised before in any printed form, please comment below to tell me about it, or just tell me what you think.

 I suppose even if there were an answer, it could be answered by yet another: if green building is dangerous, does the good it does outweigh the danger?

Most everybody agrees that the key to great green buildings is integrated design - where different professional disciplines work together in an integrated way to create a building, rather than cutting a project up into sections and having different companies separately work on those sections.

But when I hear it discussed, people are often doing one of two things: patting themselves on the back for doing such a great, fantastic job on a particular project, or explaining the necessity of the process to newcomers.

Rarely do you hear it criticized or analyzed. But the proof is in the pudding and if you’re really wondering how well the process is working, why not ask your client?

That’s just what Tracy Bowen (right) of The Alice Ferguson Foundation in Maryland is. She’s developing a living building project in Accokeek, (across from Mt. Vernon), and the lady tells it like it is. She chose to go after a living building, rather than LEED because “I felt like LEED was a really good baseline but it was going to create a ceiling… (that) wasn’t high enough.”

Using her experience with integrative design as a baseline, Bowen says the process is in its infancy. In fact, the process was shocking to her. “It’s boxy. It’s very linear.”  - What do you think?

Boiling it down- Bowen said the charette is great because it gets so many minds thinking about the same problems that solutions can actually be achieved - but once it’s done, she said the whole process of design becomes ”less organic” and is dealt with by professional subsection again.
Read more to hear her advice! (more…)

What’s the greenest kind of new building, you might ask? For many people here in the Pacific Northwest, that answer would be ‘a living building’.’

What’s that you say? A building doesn’t live; it exists! People live!

That’s the way buildings are thought of now, but the whole premise behind a living building is to change that idea to make a building function - (skeptics don’t roll your eyes yet) - like a flower that gives and takes from its environment. (more here).  Living buildings are self sustaining. They produce their own energy, treat their waste and reuse water, among other bits.

Developed by Jason McLennan of the Cascadia Green Building Council, I wrote one of the first stories about the green guideline in April 2007 here.

Only problem is, there aren’t many of them out there yet.

There are a handful of them however, and one is being developed by the Alice Ferguson Foundation in Accokeek, Md.  (more…)

Yesterday, the American Institute of Architects Committee on the Environment announced its high profile list of the top ten greenest projects in the country. One of them is from Seattle.

For any of you that don’t know this competition, this is a very….. big….. deal. For those of you that do know it, do you think it should be as big a deal as it is? And are these really the greenest projects in the country? What do you think?

The winning Seattle entry was the South Lake Union Discovery Center by Miller/Hull (at left). I’d tell you more about it, but there’s been lots written on this unique modular building that is designed to break about in four pieces, move to another location and be reconfigured. If you want to learn more about it, read a story I wrote on it last summer here.

It’s also worth noting that this project did not win the regional version of this award…. judges at the AIA Seattle COTE mentioned it and praised its ability to move, but said its lack of “living environment” led the panel to pick another project as a regional winner.  To see the projects they chose, click here. Which judging team do you think made the right decision?

Like I said, this award is a big deal. The only other project to win the award this year on the West Coast was the Nueva School, Hillside Learning complex outside San Francisco (at left). Other winners this year were in New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Arizona.

The Queens Botanical Visitor & Administration Building in Flushing, New York is pictured above right. Below left is the Cesar Chavez Library in Laveen, Ariz. Below right is the Pocono Environmental Education Center in Dingman’s Ferry, Penn.

I could talk about these projects for hours, but really, I just want to show you the pictures. The AIA’s Web site is a comprehensive source of information. For an overview, go here. To learn more about a specific project, go to the link at left and click on any underlined project’s name. For an overview, see my story here . For more pictures, check out the slideshow that goes with my story, currently on the Web site at www.djc.com.

By the way, it’s clear from these pictures that the accessory of the year was the slanted roof, eh? What do you think the accessory of next year is going to be? And check below for my first posting on green buildings galore!

Being a reporter, I’m always struck by how magazines or newspapers choose to put words like “green” in quotations. The designation implies a term is not yet known to the general public and says a lot about a publication’s readership.

Here at the DJC we put quotations around phrases like ”netzero” (a goal of producing all the energy a building uses) or “regeneration” (making a site better than what was originally there), but not LEED or green. Then again, we have a focused readership.

So, while reading Vanity Fair’s third annual green issue last weekend, I was struck by the magazine’s presentation of green buildings, and by its use of quotations around words like LEED “gold,” “living roof,” and “cradle to cradle.”

The coverage raised a question in my mind: when one of the foremost investigative magazines in the country covers green buildings but still assumes its readership doesn’t know much about them,  just how mainstream can green building be?

What do you think, is green building mainstream? 

Three pieces between the magazine’s covers, all written by VF Special Correspondent Matt Tyrnauer, take on the subject. To read an interview with Tyrnauer about the projects, click here. 

The first is a photo and long caption of New York-based Neil M. Denari Architects’ Manhattan condo project called HL23, pictured above left. Denari is designing a 14-floor cantilevered building on a 40-foot-wide lot that gets wider as it gets taller. Vanity Fair uses quotation marks to say it is reaching LEED “gold.”

(more…)

Yesterday, I asked the question ‘what do you think is the greenest project(s) in the region‘ and so far, I have received no comments. Unless  I get some comments soon, I will be forced to conclude that you, dear reader, have no opinion on the topic (which I just know isn’t true).

So tell me, what do you think are some of the greenest projects in the region? 

If there ever was a post to comment on, comment on this one. You are more than welcome to post anonymously, as evidenced by a past comment by ‘Rico Suave’ (to hear the hilarious song about the real Rico, click here). To read the overview post of the AIA Seattle COTE’s green awards and see pictures of award winners, see below.

To get your creative juices flowing, I’ll broaden the question: what is the greenest project(s) you have worked on, or know of, in the Pacific Northwest (or Pacific region)? It can be built or unbuilt. What do you think is particularly green about it? Perhaps you think it’s the Oregon Health & Science University’s Center for Health and Healing by GBD Architects (above left) or the “inhabit” unit in Seattle by Mithun and HyBrid Architecture (right). P.S. the DJC has written stories on both those projects here and here.

Until you answer, I will be sitting here at the computer, waiting for your response. Come on, I’m begging here!

The AIA Seattle Committee on the Environment announced its top 10 greenest projects in this region but my question to you is did they make the right choices?

Winners of the competition are included in the photos at left and right. At right is Home on the Range in Billilngs, Mont. by High Plains Architects. Below left is Lake Sammamish State Park Beach Boathouse in Issaquah by Patano and Hafermann Architects and below right is the Bertschi Center Project at the Bertschi School in Seattle by Miller/Hull.

The thing is, a competition is only as good as its entrants. Judges said these were great examples of green projects, but said there might be greener projects out there with teams that didn’t know about the competition, or didn’t have time to put together an entry. Entries were open to built and unbuilt projects.

So dear reader, if you were judging this competition and could choose any green project in the Pacifc Northwest and Pacific region, either built or unbuilt, what would your 10 picks be and why?

The competition was open to any project in Alaska, Guam/Micronesia, Hawaii, Hong Kong, Idaho, Japan, Montana, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. There were 56 entries, of which 10 awards and three honorable mentions were doled out at the ReGeneration conference this week. For more on the process, check out today’s story on the awards here.

Do you think AIA Seattle COTE made good choices or not? If you were at the event, what project do you think deserved recognition that maybe didn’t get it, or what project did the judges choose that truly deserved the award?

If you can’t think of 10, I’d still like to hear what you think the greenest top two or three projects in the region are. Let me know!

So you know what the greenest projects in the Puget Sound are…. but what about the country? If you want to find out, the AIA will host a reception in Seattle FOR FREE on April 6 that features submissions and project judging for the year’s AIA COTE Top Ten Green Projects. 

But to attend, you have to register first, and being a high profile event, this might fill up quickly. To do that, press here.

To whet your appetite for what you’ll see, I’ve included pictures of last year’s winners. The picture above is the Hawaii Gateway Energy Center in Kailua-Kona, Hi., by Ferraro Choi and Associates. The middle picture is Heifer International Headquarters in Little Rock, Ak., by Polk Stanley Rowland Curzon Porter Architects. The last picture is the Whitney Water Purification Facility in New Haven, Ct., by Steven Holl Architects.

Award judges include Glenn Murcutt, winner of the 2002 Pritzker Prize. The award winners will be not be announced until Earth Day.

The reception and viewing of award submissions will be at Kane Hall at the University of Washington from 6 to 8 p.m. This is the first year since the AIA COTE’s inception that the judging for the awards is taking place outside of Washington, D.C.

For more information on the awards, go here, or to check out a list of past winners and more photos, press here .