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

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).