This week, I wrote an article in the DJC that looked at green building programs outside of Seattle.

The story quoted King County GreenTools, a program that supports green building in the county, as saying every suburban city is interested in green building but to

Built Green project in the Issaquah Highlands

different levels. So far, it said there are only two suburban jurisdictions, Kirkland and Redmond, which have started green building programs. (I have since learned via a representative of the city of Issaquah that that city also has an official green building program. Issaquah has supported green building practices for over eight years.)

Even in the DJC offices, the story struck home on two very different levels. One of my colleagues, let’s call them Randall Potersdam, was surprised that Redmond’s green building program had been around less than a year. Having spent a lot of time on the Eastside, this person thought there would have been a green building program in Redmond ages ago.

Another colleague, let’s call them Tallulah Jillian, was surprised by the extent of cities that were interested and actually working on aspects of green building. When you think of green building, Tallulah said, you usually think of it as an urban thing… but if 39 cities in King County are interested in it, it might not be such an urban thing after all.

How about it, is green building an urban thing?

Duo, a Built Green project in Kirkland

If so, there are a lot of reasons why it could be more prevalent in big cities. Big cities have more money and more staff members through which to spread the work of developing green building programs and policy. They also tend to own utilities, which can be a source of funding or product or project investigation.

But smaller cities, that have buy in from residents, can make things happen without the bureaucracy of large city government. For example, Kirkland, Issaquah and Redmond have no problem calling expedited permitting “expedited”. Seattle calls a similar, newly launched program “facilitated” because it doesn’t want to guarantee the project’s permitting will actually take less time.

So what do you think? Is green building an urban thing or not? Do you think building green is easier or more difficult in urban or suburban cities?

Tune in for my next post for a breakdown of where LEED buildings actually are spread across the state. You might be surprised.

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.

Being a reporter, you learn a lot about your beat. But what you write on a day to day basis is often influenced by the press releases you get. It’s unfortunate, but I simply have not found a way to be in five different places at once. Hence, a good PR person, whether private or government, can be a reporter’s best friend (or worst nightmare).

Today I got a press release from the city of Kirkland on its sustainability efforts. So, just for being proactive, I’m going to tell you, dear reader, about all the things Kirkland is telling me.

First off, I don’t live in Kirkland so I can’t really understand the green things that they’re doing… because I don’t see it with my own eyes. But I do know that they’re making a concentrated effort to become a green city. I also know other cities have complained that they don’t have the time or money to think about green issues because they’re thinking about things like affordable housing. Does the balance matter? You decide.

Recently, Kirkland comissioned a survey to study the “sustainability of its economy.” Though I’m not positive what that means, it’s certainly something. According to that press release the survey wanted to figure out where residents shop, what eco-sound products, services or practices should be available or practiced in Kirkland, etc. (P.S., Kirkland people, I’d love to learn more about these results.)

So here’s what Kirkland wants you to know about it’s green-ness: it has won three awards recently for everything from smart planning to counting its greenhouse gas emissions.

It won a 2008 Smart Communities Award from Gov. Chris Gregoire for city-wide zoning regulations that allow for cottage, carriage and two/three unit homes. It won a ICLEI milestone award for conducting a greenhouse gas emission inventory, after which Kirkland adopted reduction goals of 10 percent below 2005 emission levels by 2012, 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 80 percent below 2007 levels by 2050. And it won a Cascade Land Conservancy Stewardship Legal Award for the Green Kirkland Partnership. The partnership commits resources to remove invasive plants and replant parks with native trees and shrubs.

So is Kirkland really as green as it sounds, or does it just have a great pr machine? If you live there I’d appreciate your input, as I don’t and therefore, do not know.

Want to know more about Kirkland’s amazing green-ness? Check out the official site here. More for life in Kirkland? Check out The Eastside Life blog here. Want Kirkland news? Check out Kirkland Views here. And the Kirkland Highlands Real Estate Buzz has some green news here.

Live in another non-Seattle city that can never seem to get out of the Seattle sustainability shadow? Tell me about what your city’s doing below, or e-mail me at katiez@djc.com. I’d love to know what I don’t.

To learn more about the Smart Communities Awards, read the DJC’s story here.