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

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.

Wondering what that LEED platinum home looked like? Here are some photos for your entertainment:

That’s Sloan Ritchie, the project’s developer, walking into the house.

That’s the pretty green roof outside the master bedroom.

That’s open house visitors enjoying the living room.

This is kirei board, an engineered panel product made from the leftover stalks of the sorghum plant, which is used for food.

Here’s Ritchie with a SIP - a structural insulated panel or polystyrene panel that combines framing, insulation and exterior sheathing in one system. They can be used for roofing, walls or floors over crawl spaces.

This is the first in a series of guest posts by different representatives of the Northwest Building Efficiency Center. This post was written by Vicki Zarrel. 

It will be interesting to watch as San Diego picks from competing designs for a new city hall in downtown San Diego. Last week, two designs were revealed, each with goals for achieving LEED ratings.

Developer Gerding Edlen of Portland presented the most ambitious proposal. The tall, curved structure (at left) would be surrounded by about 2 million square feet of private development. On-site wind and solar panels would generate energy for the entire complex, and an onsite wastewater treatment and reclamation system would bring about a net-zero water system. The Gerding Edlen proposal is designed to meet or exceed LEED platinum standards.

The other development proposal, by Houston-based Hines Corp., is designed to qualify for LEED gold. Hines is proposing a four-story glass city hall with a 19-story office building across the street (below). Hines calls the design “the most viable, cost-saving and low risk proposal.” A company press release gives no specifics on the proposal’s energy or water-saving measures.

For more information, see the article and reader comments in San Diego’s Union-Tribune (both renderings are also courtesy of the Union-Tribune).

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?

If you, like me, are interested in green building, live in the Seattle area and always have your ears perked up for a good party, I’ve got a scoop for you.

Wednesday, CascadeBuilt debuts its Alley House (at left) in Madison Valley at a free open house. It’s at 222 26th Ave. E., Seattle, and runs from 5 to 8 p.m.

I wrote about the Alley House at the end of June in the DJC here. In case you missed it, it’s a pretty interesting project. The house itself is going for LEED platinum through your usual green suspects… SIPs, healthy finishes, solar heating that pre-heats water etc.

In Seattle, LEED platinum houses are still pretty rare - there’s only two (so far) in the Seattle area… Ashworth Cottages and Mike Mastro’s personal residence (more on that in the DJC next week).

But what I found most interesting about the project was the developer - Sloan Ritchie. First, the Alley House is infill and was built in Ritchie’s back yard. Second, Ritchie has only been a developer for three years (wireless engineer before that). Third, he talked about LEED platinum not at all being the pinnacle of green design, but rather the best he could achieve at this time. His goal, he said, is to keep pushing each project further. I hear this a lot from big firms but it’s a whole different story coming from the little guy. Next up (at some point) will be a netzero project.

To RSVP to the open house, e-mail 222@cascadebuilt.com. To learn more about the project, visit its Web site here. To read Ritchie’s blog on project progress, go here.

P.S. It’s priced at $770,000. Also, if for some reason you can’t make it Wednesday, there will be a Greendrinks tour of it on Aug. 23 (more here).

Last week, I mentioned Seattle’s new green building task force. Their job is to figure out how to make Seattle’s buildings (both old and new) 20 percent more efficient by 2020. Your job, should you choose to accept it, is to tell me (and possibly them) what you want to see.

The team is discussed in an article today in the DJC. The story discusses multiple viewpoints: Ash Awad of McKinstry thinks Seattle is behind New York City and Chicago in some ways in energy efficient programs and incentives, and the task force can help shore up that deficiency. Douglas Howe of Touchstone is concerned about maintaining Seattle’s commercial viability.

But there are 50 people on the task force. Doesn’t that mean there are (honestly) going to be 50 different opinions? Especially when the force is looking at everything from density bonuses and expedited permits to green investment funds and “carbon feebates.”

So how about you, 51st task force member? Does one of these ideas strike you as being better? What would it take to get you to update or upgrade a building or system, and would any of these ideas do it?

For those of who who have already taken the efficiency plunge, don’t look so smug. Mark Frankel, technical director of the New Buildings Institute and task force member, said there isn’t a building in Seattle that couldn’t improve its energy efficiency, even by commisioning alone. Hemmmmm.

In other news, MarketWatch has a story on how the Electrical Contractor Magazine’s 2008 Profile of the Electrical Contractor says almost half of electrical contractors used green or sustainable feature. For more go here.

The New York Time’s Dot Earth covers what Google’s energy czar thinks we should do about energy in America.

EcoMetro Seattle has a post on green fabrics appearing on Project Runway (for any fashion geeks out there).

JetsonGreen has two Puget Sound area stories, including an announcement of a green open house in Mt. Baker tomorrow.

Hold the presses Seattle sustainability people! Marni Kahn is taking an extended sabbatical from the Cascadia Chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council and has resigned her position as Washington State director!

This, my friends, is a big deal.

For those of you that don’t know, Cascadia is pretty much the main face of green in this region. It hosts conferences, trainings, brings speakers to town and is the official information source for LEED and Living Building information. In Washington, the go-to girl for the last two years has been Marni Kahn.

Marni specializes in providing sustainable design and construction educational training curriculum to… well just about everybody. She is a “firm believer,” according to her profile on Cascadia, that people, not technology make great places.

She also smiles through everything, whether it’s hosting world famous speakers or managing gigantic conferences. Seriously.  Good luck Marni in your next step, whatever it may be!

Yes, this does mean there will be an open position for the Washington director, and it’s a choice position. Stay tuned and I’ll tell you all about it once the information is public.

The move is just the most recent in a series of job changes for longterm Seattle green people (witness both Lynne Barker and Lucia Athens of Seattle’s Green Building Team). Has any other mover and shaker moved on to a new position? Is this a trend or just general business?

Let me know what you think below, or wish Marni good luck!  For more on Marni’s history, visit the bio page of Building Seattle Green here.

Over the last few days two articles in New York Times affiliated newspapers caught my eye:

Spanish Region Limits Golf Development  by Kevin Brass in the International Herald Tribune is about how the government in Andalusia in “golf-happy Spain” has passed a new law restricting the development of golf courses. One of the golf courses there is pictured at right. The regulations limit how many houses a developer can build around a course and require new courses to use recycled water for irrigation.  It’s an interesting story about the relationship between a crashing housing market, “thirsty” golf courses in an area prone to droughts, and houses.

Plus, it’s always amazing to me how controversial golf courses can be. Doubt me? Read Alex Shoumatoff’s The Thistle and the Bee from Vanity Fair’s green issue.

The New Trophy Home, Small and Ecological by Felicity Barringer in the New York Times is basically a total overview of LEED for homes.

The Hollywood house profiled in the article is LEED platinum and $2.8 million. Kelly Meyer, one of the people behind the house, points out green houses can be stylish, while the article compares LEED platinum to Prada… but not all LEED homes, platinum or not, cost $2.8 million. Sheesh. Some are just Besty Johnson or Eddie Bauer. Though they do tend to be a tad more expensive…  locally Pride + Johnson’s Ashworth Cottages (also platinum and pictured below) cost between $739,000 and $950,000. Read my story on that here.

Barringer highlights LEED for its certification process, but doesn’t mention other programs, like Energy Star homes , are third party certified too. And while describing what third party certification is and how much it costs, there is no mention of why it is needed (to prove that everything works like it says it does) or where some people say it falls short (verifiers don’t actually see buildings, just read and verify the documents).

It barely touches on LEED as a marketing and selling tool… Like it or not, marketing is why lots and lots of people are doing LEED projects. For more on this, read the Building Seattle Green blog’s overview of a study that tackles that topic here.

I’m also interested in why the USGBC isn’t asked to comment. Then again looking at a topic like this in two pages seems momentous to me to begin with. And the reporter did cover a lot of ground. Judge for yourself.

Happy reading everyone!

For those of you not from the Pacific Northwest, Gerding Edlen Development Co. is widely regarded here as one of the best role models for sustainable project development. People want to know what they’re working on - and what they think is the next big thing in sustainability, as evidenced by my story on their Casey Condominium project being the DJC’s most read and most e-mailed story on Friday. 

So when I spoke with Mark Edlen, Gerding Edlen’s managing partner last week, and he said within a year LEED platinum would be “an absolute yawner” in his office, you better believe my ears perked up. Instead, he said it’s on to net zero buildings that consume more trash than they produce!

We were talking about the platinum rating because The Casey (at right), a $60 million, 61-unit building, is supposedly the first LEED platinum multifamily high rise in the world.  

It’s also the firm’s first foray into “eco-luxury”  - a combination of ultimate ecological consciousness and luxury (something not often associated with green buildings).

In fact, it is widely agreed upon that the green building movement has done a particularly bad job of combining function and beauty, something that most agree must become a stronger focus. But Mark’s focus behind developing green projects is that a project should not compromise anything from site to construction to occupancy comfort, just to be sustainable.

So why not go after green luxury, the same way you’d go after green office or hospital space?  What do you think? Can a building be both?

To read a local perspective, click here or here. For real estate stats, go here. For more go here. If you’re interested in Gerding Edlen, you can read about another one of their project’s in a December story I wrote here.

But if you want to learn more about the Casey, its green features, the difficulty of building green multifamily to such a high level, and the building’s art component, there’s only one place to look: the story in the DJC. Check it out here.