Design - the fourth aspect

Executed within the framework of sustainable urbanism, design becomes the major determinant of the extent to which we achieve urbanscapes that are livable (including walkable) and memorable. Design, then, becomes the fourth aspect of the lens of sustainable urbanism, adding the aesthetic to the application of smart location factors and transit-oriented new urbanism principles and the construction of high performance buildings. It is through this multi-faceted lens that we should view, consider and evaluate projects large and small.

A case in point is seen in the civic dialogue regarding the replacement of the central library in Madison, Wisconsin. Two designs have been suggested by developers who would like to make the new library the principal tenant in a larger downtown development.

Both designs provide the space required for the facility. One is probably better than the other with regard to access and walkability, but both are downtown and consistent with the area's mass, scale and density. I haven't seen the energy budgets for the two designs but I would imagine that both could be constructed to meet high efficiency standards.

The issue for both proposals concerns the fourth aspect of the lens - aesthetics. When you gaze at the rendering of either of these structures, you are neither captivated nor inspired. There is nothing memorable about either design.

I lived in Salt Lake City when the new City Library was designed and constructed. Pictured here, the City Library was designed by Moshe Safdie, an architect from Boston with previous library design experience. It was such a pleasant surprise to see Safdie's creative design statement gain acceptance and then earn support from the community. Once constructed, the library received accolades and awards. The building is both functional and memorable. I've attended lectures and meetings, seen films, worked on projects, found books and enjoyed a cup of coffee while sitting in the entrance gallery just enjoying the space, light and views.

Salt Lake did not miss the opportunity to create a civic institution and edifice that would serve the needs of the community in multiple ways. When I look at the renderings of the two proposals for a similar facility in Madison, my impression is that they both represent opportunity lost. While the proposals are similar in the way that they respond to location, urbanism and performance factors, they both fall flat when it comes to creating a memorable central library. Please judge for yourself - you can view the renderings via links on the Madison Public Library Web site.

Smart Growth Principles

Sustainable Urbanism, as articulated by Doug Farr in his book of the same name, includes three components - application of smart growth principles, transit-oriented new urbanism design of communities and neighborhoods, and use of high performance infrastructure and buildings. The first component is a reference to the 10 principles identified in 1996 by the Smart Growth Movement:

1. Create a range of housing opportunities and choices
2. Create walkable neighborhoods.
3. Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration.
4. Foster distinctive, attractive places with a strong sense of place.
5. Make development decisions predictable, fair and cost-effective.
6. Mix land uses.
7. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas.
8. Provide a variety of transportation choices.
9. Strengthen and direct development toward existing communities.
10. Take advantage of compact building design.

Farr suggests that smart location focuses new development on land that is immediately adjacent to existing development and on infill sites. However, as you can see by reviewing all 10 principles, smart development is more than just a consideration of location. There are overlaps with new urbanism design concepts, including: walkability, involving stakeholders, creating a sense of place, providing a mix of land uses and preserving open space and critical environmental areas.

There are those who continue to espouse and create suburban and exurban neighborhoods and communities where autos rule. There are others who are quite vocal in opposing smart growth, reacting regressively and emotionally to what they perceive as the end of the American dream and loss of property rights. These perspectives, which need to be understood to be overcome, beg the question - is more of the same sustainable over time?

Metro Area Carbon Footprints

A recent study, conducted by the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, compiled partial carbon footprints for the 100 largest metropolitan areas. The study compared 2000 and 2005 data describing passenger and freight highway transportation and energy consumption in residential buildings. Note the use of the word “partial” - the footprints don’t include emissions from commercial buildings, industry, or non-highway transportation. In addition, much has happened since 2005 to increase awareness of and response to levels of carbon emissions. Nonetheless, the exercise provides useful baseline and trend information and provides perspective on the sustainability of metropolitan areas.

The trend information

1. Carbon emissions have increased approximately 1% per year since 1980 in the U.S.
2. Carbon emissions increased more slowly in metropolitan America than in the rest of the country between 2000 and 2005.

Per capita emissions were found to vary by metropolitan area, reflecting the impact of development patterns, availability of rail transit, fuel used to generate electricity, pricing of electricity and weather. High density cities with good rail systems fared well. Lower density cities with high heating and cooling loads and those that rely on coal to generate electricity suffered.

Surprises emerged from the rankings. Los Angeles fared well – the region’s freeways and autos were apparently offset by increased rail ridership and a mild climate. Madison, Wisconsin fared poorly, notwithstanding the area’s often-recognized livability, quality of life and high percentage of bike ridership. In Madison, it was the harsh winter, lack of rail transit and reliance on coal that created high per capita emission levels.

The study recommends a number of targeted policies that are directed at reducing per capita carbon emissions in metropolitan areas:
1. Promote more transit and compact development options.
2. Work toward more efficient, regionally planned freight operations.
3. Require home sellers to provide historical energy cost info and allow homeowners to finance. energy efficiency improvements using energy savings.
4. Use Location Efficient Mortgages and other incentives more aggressively.
5. Issue a challenge to all metropolitan areas to develop and share innovative approaches.

The perspective on sustainability

Notwithstanding the rather incremental approach to the recommendations, the underlying analysis did serve up a number of factors that affect carbon emissions across contemporary metropolitan areas:

• Location and weather


• Density of development


• Availability of transit options


• The interplay between development and transit


• Efficiency of freight systems


• Fuel used to generate electricity and unit pricing

Metro areas with high heating and/or cooling requirements really have no choice but to improve performance. This means attention on a number of fronts: effective community and neighborhood design, siting of buildings and use of passive design techniques, implementation and enforcement of energy efficient building codes, and use of efficient hvac and lighting systems.

While not the best housing solution for everyone, high density developments served by public transit have to be a significant part of the housing mix. There is recent evidence that exurban property values and sales have suffered disproportionately as a result of higher gas prices. Other evidence suggests that demand for housing in transit-oriented developments is increasing. These changes - perhaps trends - also represent incremental thinking that assumes little change in transportation and communication technologies at least in the near term.

Finally, as directed in the Architecture 2030 Blueprint, the subject of an earlier article, coal power plants have to be replaced with cleaner means of generating electricity.

Subsequent articles will examine other perspectives regarding sustainable development patterns and changing technology.

What are we going to build and where?

Roof structure, Warner Park - Madison, Wisconsin

Click for larger view

As noted in Architecture 2030’s Blueprint for action to reduce CO2 emissions, we have an opportunity to transform the built environment and dramatically reduce energy use in buildings as we construct, renovate and demolish 11 to 12 billion square feet of buildings each year in the U.S. But, what are we going to build and where will we build it?

Will population continue to concentrate in metropolitan areas, as has been the dynamic for the last century? If so, will the concentration continue to occur in existing metropolitan areas where many of the expensive investments in infrastructure have already been made? Or will changes in transportation, information and energy technologies make less dense living feasible and preferable for increasing numbers of individuals and families?

Ray Kurzweil, in his challenging and fascinating book The Singularity is Near, describes the exponential development curves we’re experiencing in artificial intelligence, genetics, nanotechnology and robotics. Applied to transportation, nanotechnology guided by artificial intelligence will surely make existing modes of transport smarter, lighter and more energy efficient. Longer term, virtual experiences which change the way we define travel and completely new modes will portend changes in the way we self-organize in communities and in the shape of our living spaces.

Subsequent posts will explore sustainable self-organizing, beginning with an effort to make sense of what we are doing now.

Architecture 2030 issues Blueprint to reduce carbon emissions

Pictured: moveable sun screen of the Milwaukee Art Museum - click image for larger view

In April, 2008 Architecture 2030 issued a Blueprint for action to reduce CO2 emissions. The logic behind the Blueprint is summarized as follows:

1. The atmosphere presently contains 385 ppm of carbon.
2. That level is increasing at the rate of 2 ppm per year.
3. The acceptable level of atmospheric carbon is 350 ppm if we are to avert catastrophic climate change.
4. Coal use is responsible for 81% of the CO2 emissions associated with electrical production.
5. 76% of all electricity produced is used to operate buildings.

Conclusion: we should be focused on reducing the electricity required to operate our buildings.

The Blueprint's logic stream continues:

1. Buildings account for 38.5 QBtus of energy consumption annually; of that, 27.3 QBtus is in the form of electricity.
2. Existing energy efficiency options could reduce building energy use by 11.1 QBtus.
3. To provide 1 QBtu of energy: new nuclear capacity would cost $222B, new coal capacity with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS or so-called "clean coal") would cost $256B. Incorporating energy efficiency measures to negate the need for 1 QBtu would cost $42.1B.
4. Coal CCS is estimated to be 20 years away. New nuclear would take 10-12 years to build and bring online.
5. Each year in the U.S., we build approximately 5 billion square feet of new buildings. We renovate approximately 5 billion square feet and demolish approximately 1.75 billion square feet of existing buildings.

Conclusion: we have an immediate opportunity to make an impact on the use of fossil fuels in buildings by maximizing energy efficiency, and it is a far better use of capital resources than is building nuclear or coal (CCS) power plants.

This is not new news. Years ago, Amory Lovins (Rocky Mountain Institute) urged Americans to think in terms of negawatts - that is, eliminating the need for additional megawatts. It is already happening, but not fast enough to silence the proponents of coal CCS and nuclear power.

Having made the case for investment in energy efficiency in buildings, Architecture 2030 lays out its Blueprint for action, with the following key components:

1. Declare an immediate moratorium on the construction of new coal-fired power plants and phase out existing coal plants by 2030.
2. Require all federally funded developments to meet the 2030 challenge targets. As a reminder, the targets begin immediately:

• All new buildings should be designed to use 50% less fossil fuel energy than previously


• An equal amount of building area should be renovated to use 50% less fossil fuel energy


• The 50% fossil fuel reduction standard increases to 60% in 2010, 70% in 2015, 80% in 2020, 90% in 2025 and 100% in 2030. We can reach these targets through energy-efficient design, use of renewable energy, and purchase of renewable energy offsets to a maximum of 20%.
  

3. Strengthen the National Energy Conservation Code requirements to reflect the 2030 targets.
4. Invest approximately $22B annually during each of the next five years through existing federal programs to drive the use of energy efficiency measures.
5. Fund and implement a joint labor-management program for retraining workers in the coal industry to help them make the transition to new jobs.

What we are building and remodeling today will be in place for years to come. It is important that every project explore the possibilities and strive to meet, at a minimum, the immediate and progressively increasing 2030 targets. Please read the Blueprint for additional detail and source information for the data cited.

The Architecture 2030 Challenge

(Image - transit-oriented development in Murray, UT)

Utilizing data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the folks at Architecture 2030, a non-profit organization based in Santa Fe, New Mexico, concluded that buildings use 48% of the energy consumed in the U.S. The calculation includes the energy that is embodied in the products used to construct the buildings (8%). The remaining 52% is used in transportation (27%) and industry (25%). Looking just at electricity, as much as 76% of our annual consumption is used in buildings to operate space and water heating systems, appliances and lights. CO2 emission levels correspond, with approximately 45% attributed to buildings of all types.

With these numbers providing context, it is clear that reducing the energy consumption associated with buildings should be a priority. The Architecture 2030 Challenge puts some numbers on this priority, stipulating that new buildings should immediately utilize 50% less fossil fuel energy than was previously considered standard practice. The savings target increases to 60% as of 2010 and rises to 100%, or carbon neutrality, by 2030. Carbon neutrality means that no fossil fuels would be used in the operations of new buildings.

The group also stipulates that 50% of the buildings being renovated should achieve the same targets. Importantly, they also call for design schools to change the curriculum as necessary to train new architects and designers to prepare them for their roles in achieving these objectives. The U.S. Conference of Mayors and the American Institute of Architects have endorsed the 2030 targets, as have governmental jurisdictions and others.

How will these targets be met? First, by utilizing creative design strategies such as:

1. appropriate neighborhood and project designs that reflect smart growth, acceptable levels of density, and a pedestrian and transit orientation

2. attention to building shape, color, placement and orientation so as to maximize effective use of daylighting and passive heating and cooling

3. use of materials with lower embodied energy and with properties that reduce energy use and emissions

4. landscaping that complements energy efficient structures and that reduces water and energy use

Second, by integrating appropriate renewable energy technologies, including solar water heating and solar electrical generating (photovoltaic) systems, and technologies such as shading systems, in a way that complements the design of the building.

Third, by offsetting up to 20% of the energy requirements by purchasing renewable energy and/or certified renewable energy credits.

In the following posts I'll look more closely at the Challenge and the recommended strategies.

Is New Urbanism necessarily a model of sustainability?

Homes in Middleton Hills, WI from Web site - right

Utah's TRAX light rail - lower right

New Urbanism has become an important model for developing new neighborhoods, communities and towns, and for designing for the infilling and redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities. The Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU), formed to promote the principles of new urbanism, counts 320 completed projects in the U.S.

The application of new urbanism planning principles is intended to build community by creating environments in which the impact of the automobile is reduced and the scale of the place provides walking access to neighborhood and community-serving commercial and institutional uses such as schools, churches, post office, markets and shops. At the neighborhood level, new urbanism draws on Traditional Neighborhood Design concepts, including narrow streets designed to reduce the speed of traffic, garage access from rear alleys, and small front yards and functional porches that encourage interaction with neighbors.

At the level of individual structures, design standards assure the construction of homes and other buildings that support the intended look and feel of the place. Owner associations typically enforce the rules and provide services so as to assure maintenance of the community and associated values.

Developments like Seaside in Florida, and the others reviewed in previous posts on the subject, are successful to varying degrees in implementing these principles. They are very appealing places that have been received favorably by people who want to live or vacation in them. On the other hand, does that mean that they are necessarily sustainable? While I have visited a small sample of the entire new urbanism project universe to date, I've seen enough to have some concerns:

1. While autos have been downplayed within new urbanism communities, thousands of automobile trips are generated each day getting to, from and through each of these communities.

2. Many of these communities were designed without alternative or mass transit options in mind. Even if there is a transit option in the plan, it may be years before it takes form.

3. I have yet to visit a new urbanism community where significant numbers of jobs are located in the community.

4. It is only lately that energy efficiency has become a design criterion at the level of the individual building in these communities. However, current green building standards are too low to have the impact needed to meet even the interim standard of 50% reduction in fossil fuel use in buildings by 2010 as advanced by the Architecture 2030 Challenge. (More about the Challenge in subsequent posts.)

5. New urbanism projects are challenged to include housing that is affordable to start and that remains so over time. As a result, diversity in terms of age, race, and income level is often lacking in these neighborhoods and communities. Yet, it is an important principle, articulated in the Charter of the Congress of New Urbanism. According to a CNU survey, 234 of the 320 existing new urbanism projects are considered market rate projects. Only 15% of these projects included affordable housing in their mix.

While I am firmly in the camp of the new urbanists, believing that its principles provide strong counterpoint to the realities of urban sprawl, much work needs to be done to make the model truly sustainable. In fact, the CNU has a number of initiatives in place to focus resources and bring about the changes needed in building codes, transportation and land planning, and consumer attitudes and habits to address these concerns. During my travels I plan to visit as many of the new urbanism neighborhoods and communities as practical, with this perspective as a lens.

New Urbanism is now a pervasive model

Alys Beach pictured at right, Loreto below right

Seaside was the start of what has become one of the most significant models for development of the built environment. While its roots are in Walton County, Florida along the beautiful Emerald Coast, the impact of new urbanism can be found in neighborhoods and communities throughout the country and abroad.

Duany, Plater-Zyberk (DPZ) developed the concepts involved and has pretty much owned the space since designing Seaside in 1980. Recently, they returned to Walton County as designers of the newest project in the County, Alys Beach. This new urbanism community has also embraced regional green building standards of construction.

I was surprised to learn that Alys Beach is a DPZ design. The community is starkly white, apparently influenced by styles seen in Bermuda and Antigua, Guatemala. Perhaps purposefully different from the DPZ-designed Seaside and Rosemary Beach, what is off-putting is the very fact that it is so completely disconnected from the other vernacular references in the area. To buy in, lots are offered at $400K and finished residences at $1.9M.

From a style perspective, another new coastal project that was influenced by DPZ has greater appeal. Loreto is connected to the historical fishing town of the same name on the east coast of Baja California Sur, Mexico. My attention was drawn to Loreto by a recent article in the New York Times. Several years ago the government of Mexico identified a number of areas that would be developed as tourist destinations. Somewhat belatedly, investment in Loreto has begun, driven by the vision of The Trust for Sustainable Development, a group from Vancouver, British Columbia. Loreto will ultimately have 6K homes on 8K acres situated between mountains and the Sea of Cortez. Prices in Loreto range from $300K to $900K - approximately $350 per square foot.

Closer to home, I've had the opportunity to explore other New Urbanism communities in Wisconsin and Utah. Middleton Hills is another DPZ-designed community, located west of Madison in the city of Middleton. Architecturally, styles include contemporary interpretations of prairie, craftsman and bungalow. One of the intended consequences of new urbanism and its use of traditional neighborhood design is an increased sense of community. A resident of Middleton Hills recently observed that it took 2 hours to walk around the community of 400 homes, not because of the rolling topography but because of the success of the place as a community and the conversations with neighbors that bear witness. As elsewhere, consumer response has been very strong. Available homes are listed at $150 - $250 per square foot.

The first sign of New Urbanism appeared in Utah when a neighborhood was built at South Mountain, at the south end of the Salt Lake valley, more than ten years ago. More recently and more dramatically, Kennecott Land (part of Rio Tinto) kicked off the development of 80,000 acres on the West side of the Salt Lake valley with its Daybreak community. The entire 80K acres has been master planned by Calthorpe Associates, a California planning and design firm that has embraced new urbanism and sustainable design. One of the progressive requirements in place at Daybreak is that all builders have to build Energy Star homes. Consumer demand has been strong and values fall in the range of $150 - $200 per square foot.

Finally, DPZ has also had a hand in designing a mixed-use infill project called Cottonwood Mall on the east side of the Salt Lake valley. This project replaces a tired shopping mall and is owned by Capital Growth Properties. Take a minute to view the extensive list of projects that DPZ has designed using the interactive map on their Web site.

In the next post I will look at the limitations of new urbanism as a development model reflected by experiences to date.

Seaside spawns other New Urbanism communities

Click on image of Rosemary Beach for larger view

Seaside is recognized as the first neotraditional town, based on the principles of new urbanism developed by Duany Plater-Zyberk (DPZ). In response to its success, similar developments took form along Highway 30A in the panhandle of Florida and in other parts of the country.

The second such development in the area was Rosemary Beach, incorporated in 1995 and so named because of the wild rosemary in the area. Rosemary Beach, also designed by DPZ, integrated many of the design elements found at Seaside as well as new elements:

• front doors that open onto boardwalks instead of streets
• garages located off alleys at the rear of the property
• density more like that of an urban village
• architectural style that is heavily influenced by the West Indies

A check of current real estate listings showed 90 homes on the market with asking prices ranging from $280 to more than $1600 per square foot. To give you an idea of the other costs of ownership in these communities, the Rosemary Beach association fees run $950 per quarter and annual property taxes on a home valued at $1M would be approximately $9K.

Surrounding Seaside is the new community of WaterColor, developed by the St. Joe Company. St. Joe is the largest landowner in the state and has several communities in development. WaterColor, designed by Jaquelin Robertson, covers 499 acres and does a reasonably good job of adjoining Seaside though it lacks the charm of the original. Density seems comparable to Seaside. Homes reflect various architectural styles including shotgun, craftsman, and classic southern with wraparound screened porches and metal roofs.

Values in WaterColor range from $350 to $650 per square foot. According to a local realtor, the development added too much inventory too fast, causing the relatively lower values seen today. WaterColor brought more commercial space to the area, including a Publix grocery store, providing competition to the small local markets and eliminating the need to drive 25 miles each way to find groceries and necessities.

WaterSound is the other St. Joe development in Walton County. Covering 256 acres, WaterSound is unique in that it is the only gated community of the group. Designed by Robert A.M. Stern, it is the most affordable of the communities. Lots are offered at $150K - $200K; homes are listed for $250 to $400 per square foot or $500K to $700K. The architectural style is fairly unappealing and regionally disconnected. I would describe it as evolutionary beach - you will find in the mix shake and shingle homes that would be more at home in the northeast.

These new urbanism communities are all beach towns located on one of the most beautiful stretches of shoreline in the country. They are not conventional towns in which residents live and work year-round and they are not affordable for most. They are connected by the beach and by the scenic drive that is highway 30-A but there is no public transportation connecting the communities to each other or to the world outside south Walton County. But, I'm getting ahead of myself. In Post 3, I'll look beyond Walton County at the now widespread influence of Seaside and new urbanism.

Seaside, Florida and the roots of New Urbanism

Family and friends have been traveling to Seaside, Florida for a week at the beach for at least a dozen springs. Several years ago, in response to the growing cost of Seaside rentals, nearby Grayton Beach became the place to stay. The higher costs in Seaside are testament to the public response to the place, the first community to be built using the precepts of new urbanism, or neotraditional town planning.

Property owner and developer Robert Davis worked with Miami husband-and-wife architects Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, to create a master plan in the early 80s that prescribed the use of a number of key traditional beach design principles:

- a highly walkable community of moderate density (20 residential units per acre) where every home is within a 5 minute walk of the town center

- automobiles are acknowledged but downplayed by the use of narrow streets and the absence of garages

- very individual interpretations of vernacular beach architecture, guided by a design code that encourages the use of

• functional and decorative belvederes (see slideshow upper right)
• porches
• deep overhangs to provide shade during the hot and humid summer months
• one-of-a-kind picket fences
• lots of windows to allow cross-ventilation

- landscaping that is mostly native vegetation and avoids the use of grass

- unique pavilions at the end of each street that serve as gateways to the beach

As Seaside was built, the size of the homes increased, in part, to maximize seasonal rentals and accommodate extended families. Today, you will find a total of 489 residences; only a few lots remain vacant. While resales are currently slow, reflecting the larger slowdown in the real estate market particularly for higher-priced vacation properties, values are still in the rarefied range of $750 to $2000 per square foot, varying with proximity to the beautiful half-mile long white beach.

What does Seaside feel like? It has the style and the feel of an earlier time, as was intended by the return to traditional town design. It is a great place to go to slow down, enjoy simple pleasures and appreciate its significance in shaping the way that hundreds of other communities have been designed and built because of its founding.

Subsequent posts will focus on the larger new urbanism movement as a model for sustainable development.

Passive and active systems at the Aldo Leopold Legacy Center

image from Legacy Center Web site - click for larger view

Fresh air for the main building is drawn in through a network of concrete pipes buried several feet deep to take advantage of ground temperatures that are consistently near 52 degrees Fahrenheit.

The interior of the main building is heated and cooled using both passive and active systems. Active systems require the use of technology and energy to heat and cool. The passive system is part of the building's siting, orientation and design. Extensive use of windows on the south side of the building, with proper overhang to reduce overheating during the summer, combine with the thermal mass of the concrete floors and other building materials to provide heat from fall through spring. At the Center, a hallway on the south side of the building serves as a thermal flux zone to buffer the passive system from the rest of the building.

A ground-source heat pump system takes advantage of relatively constant ground temperatures to provide additional heat and cooling for the building. Fluid is circulated through a 200 foot loop of pipe that is buried vertically near the building. The fluid is then heated or cooled as necessary by a heat pump before being circulated through a radiant floor system in most of the building, and through radiators in the meeting room. Wood stoves and a Rumford fireplace burn locally harvested wood to provide additional heat when and where required. The Rumford fireplace, tall and shallow, is designed to reflect more heat into the space. I had previously seen Rumford fireplaces at the LEED Gold-rated Schlitz Audubon Nature Center in Milwaukee.

The Legacy Center is a net-zero energy consumer, thanks in part to reduced energy demand resulting from the energy efficient building design, use of day lighting and low energy lighting, and energy-efficient heating, ventilating and air conditioning. The Center captures renewable energy on site through a solar water heating system and one of the largest photovoltaic systems (solar electric) in the state of Wisconsin.

The solar water heating system at the Legacy Center utilizes an evacuated tube solar collector on the roof of the main building. The collector is quite unlike the flat-plate hardware that I was accustomed to seeing during my 10 years in the solar energy industry in Southern California during the ‘70s and ‘80s. Copper pipe encased in glass tubes carries a glycol solution to collect available energy; the fluid is circulated using a fractional horsepower pump. The collector was partially covered by snow on the day of the tour; when fully operational, the heat transfer fluid circulates through a heat exchanger in a storage tank to preheat the water going into the electric water heater. The system should provide most of the hot water required by the Center from spring through fall.

A much larger array of 198 photovoltaic (PV) panels fills the south-facing roof of the main building. These panels convert solar energy to direct electrical current. Inverters – streamlined boxes mounted on the wall of the mechanical room - convert the current to AC before it is fed into the utility grid. Graphic displays on the inverters documented the production of electrical energy, even on the overcast day of the tour. This type of system does not require on-site storage batteries which are expensive, have a limited life, utilize space, and create disposal challenges. Instead, net metering is used to account for the energy delivered by the system to the utility. The Legacy Center’s 39,6 KW PV system is designed to deliver 110% of the annual electrical energy required for operation of the Center. Thus far, actual performance of the system has matched design performance.

While the spirit, the words and the example of Aldo Leopold are timeless, I can’t help but wonder what he might think about all this new technology pressed into service in the name of efficiency and sustainability. After all, a cleaned-out chicken coop seemed to suit his purposes quite nicely. Thanks to Jennifer Kobylecky, the very knowledgeable and well-spoken Education Coordinator at the Legacy Center, for a great tour of this significant project and her follow-up help. For more information on the Center's carbon neutral design and water-conserving features visit the online tour of the center, or better yet, make the trip to Baraboo.

LEED Platinum for Aldo Leopold Legacy Center

The Aldo Leopold Legacy Center encompasses 12,000 square feet in three buildings: the main structure, a freestanding classroom and meeting space that is used seasonally and neither heated nor cooled, and a garage/maintenance facility. The Foundation spent $4.9 million, or more than $400 per square foot of space, to construct the Center as a showcase for sustainable building and energy efficient ideas.

The Center sits on a ledge on the upper end of a parcel that was selected, in part, because it is the place where Leopold died in 1948 while fighting a fire. The property is located approximately one mile via scenic byway from Leopold’s farm on the Wisconsin River near the community of Baraboo. The Shack, a chicken coop that Leopold and his family restored as a cabin to house them during their visits, is the only structure on the farm. Leopold purchased the farm with a commitment to restore the health of the land, which had been exhausted by farming methods that were not appropriate for the soil and the times. In the process, Leopold and his family planted more than 90,000 trees on the property.

A small number of Leopold’s pines and cherry and oak trees were harvested in accordance with sustainable forestry practices and milled to provide the beams and lumber used to construct the Legacy Center. Exterior wood on the three buildings was left to weather; after less than a year some boards have already taken on a silver-gray patina or show the effects of rain and the unusually high snow depths of the year.

The mostly-wood interior walls and ceilings combine with concrete floors and counters, SkyBlend particleboard wall panels and custom glass doors to create a rustically comfortable and fragrant place to work and meet. SkyBlend wall panels are fabricated using 100% pre-consumer recycled wood fiber with no added urea formaldehyde. The panels and interior woodwork were finished with Timber Pro UV Crystal Urethane.

The quality of light also contributes to the overall feel of the Center. Windows and light shelves are positioned to maximize the use of daylight and minimize the need for area lighting during working hours. At noon on the day of the tour, the building spaces were well-illuminated without the use of supplemental lighting.

In the thid and final post on the Center, I'll look at the passive solar design and the mechanical systems used in the main building.

Celebrating Aldo Leopold's Legacy

Conservation is our attempt to put human ecology on a permanent footing.
(Aldo Leopold in Land-Use and Democracy – 1942)

The new Aldo Leopold Legacy Center near Baraboo, Wisconsin, is touted as the highest rated LEED building in the country, having achieved 61 of 67 possible points and a Platinum rating. (LEED - Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design - is the built-environment certification system developed by the U.S. Green Building Council. Subsequent posts will explore LEED in greater detail.) I had an opportunity to tour the Legacy Center on the first of March during the celebration of Aldo Leopold Weekend.

Aldo Leopold is best known for authoring A Sand County Almanac, in which he reflects, month by month, on the passage of time. His observations reflect that which is unique to this part of the country. Leopold’s writing blends the notes of a naturalist with prose that is rich in imagery. The Boston Globe characterized the Almanac as a forerunner to Annie Dillard’s description of creek ecology in Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, and Edward Abbey’s observations about the environs of Moab, Utah in Desert Solitaire. Both of these personal favorites can be found on my list of recommended reading.

The Almanac also includes a number of essays on various aspects of conservation. Leopold's essay on the land ethic is credited with formally changing the way we view ourselves within the larger ecological community, and spurring the development of the environmental movement.

In short, a land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it. It implies respect for his fellow-members, and also respect for the community as such.
(Aldo Leopold in A Sand County Almanac, 1949)

Leopold's exemplary life's work should be understood and appreciated by all, as perpetuated by his words and by the work of the Legacy Center. In Part II I'll describe the experience of visiting the Aldo Leopold Legacy Center and touring its many sustainable design features.

Repurposing shipping containers

This post is a diversion from the initial thread of Sustainable Dezine – the lessons I learned while remodeling my home. The diversion was motivated by seeing the accompanying image of a small condo project proposed for construction near downtown Salt Lake, in an article in the Salt Lake Tribune.

This project is post-worthy for a number of reasons:

1. Used shipping containers will be the primary building component, stacked creatively to a height of 7 stories secured in a steel and glass frame. The building, designed by innovative architect Adam Kalkin, will include 8 homes that are described as post-industrial. While this is not the first time building containers have been used for housing in the U.S., it is in Salt Lake City where it has to be a challenge for the City’s building department.

2. It draws attention to the reality that we have an excess inventory of these steel shipping containers; as a result, they are available for creative reuse at relatively modest prices. It is apparently cheaper to build new containers in countries like China, with which we have a huge trade imbalance, than it is to send them back (likely empty) for reuse. Reuse of materials reduces demand for raw materials and saves the energy needed to fabricate the steel - and they were designed to be shipped. The potential remains as long as the trade imbalance prevails or until the excess inventory is exhausted.

3. The project in Salt Lake will replace a building that was, in anticipation of its demolition, converted to a canvas for use by 150 artists to express their talents in a collective artistic celebration called the 337 Project. At each step of the property’s evolution, the owners have thought and acted creatively in a way that has benefited the community and will, undoubtedly, pay off in financial terms, as it should.

Resonance with The Nomadic Museum

This example of creative repurposing of shipping containers into building components takes me back to a memorable experience I had a couple of years ago. I was living temporarily in Santa Monica, where I was working on a software project. Fortuitously, it was then that The Nomadic Museum designed by visionary architect Shigeru Ban was installed on a beachfront parking lot next to the Santa Monica Pier.

The Museum’s walls were constructed of 156 stacked shipping containers. Its roof was supported by columns made of paper. The floor of the museum was a combination of smooth stones and a wooden walkway.

The walkway served to guide museum visitors through a show entitled Ashes and Snow, a collection of incredible sepia and umber-toned photographs of human beings interacting with animals. Screens showing video with the same subject matter and feel served to define segments of the exhibition. The large-format photographs by Gregory Colbert were printed on hand-made paper and suspended so as to float in the dimly-lit space. The effect was awe-inspiring, like being in a minimalist zen cathedral, if such were ever to take physical form.

The Nomadic Museum created an opportunity to reflect and to think differently about the images presented, wherever they took the individual viewer. As importantly, the Museum was also a beacon, startling all who witnessed it into thinking differently about the built environment and the materials we typically think about for construction. It is encouraging to see an innovative, more permanent interpretation take form in Salt Lake City.

Remodeling lessons: Italian porcelain

I looked at a lot of tile before selecting a 16” porcelain called Montagna Cortina by Marazzi from Home Depot. I checked a number of local tile retailers as well as ProSource to find the right tile to cover more than 800 square feet.

I purchased the tile on sale at HD, rewarded with a 10% discount for using a new HD account. I paid off the HD card balance after 6 months with no interest. I got the tile I wanted at a great net price ($1.80 per square foot plus tax) and the result was beautiful. However, this highly durable and beautiful tile was made in Italy, causing me to wonder once again about the long-term sustainability of shipping construction materials that are bulky and heavy over long distances. I'll post once I do this analysis.

Prior to installing the tile, I invested 90 minutes on a Saturday morning at a tiling class at Home Depot. I highly recommend it if you are a relative neophyte. Notwithstanding my previous tiling experience, I learned a lot about techniques and product choices. Then, with experienced help, I installed the new tile.

Wire mesh or cement backerboard?

After looking at the options, I installed most of the tile over a base of wire mesh. Wire mesh is a cost-effective solution for large areas for do-it-yourselfers, but be prepared to put a lot of staples into the mesh to secure it properly to the plywood sub-flooring. You will save about 40% on the base layer using mesh rather than cement backerboard. I did use Hardibacker brand backerboard in the master bath on the floor and shower walls. I found the grid on the product to be quite helpful when laying out the tile. Recently, I've discovered a couple of new underlayer products and will post on the topic once I've had hands-on experience with them.

After installing the tile and grout, I sealed the grout. Choice of grout sealant posed another eco dilemma. The water-based sealant that I had used on an earlier project did not hold up for more than a couple of months. During the class at HD, the instructor recommended an oil-based product called 511 Impregnator. It worked very well, but was obviously oil-based and required proper ventilation during the process. I have since seen other water-based products at Lowes that claim to be durable and I hope to test some of their claims on my next tiling project.

Remodeling lessons: Starbucks should have sponsored this project

Perhaps it was a sign of the times that many of the materials I selected had colors in the coffee palette. Upstairs, the walls were painted with what looked like a smooth cappuccino; actually, the color was Nomadic Desert from Sherwin Williams. Sherwin Williams offers Duration Home brand low-VOC (volatile organic compound) paint and Harmony brand no-VOC paint at price points that are closing in on conventional paints. For more, check out the Sherwin Williams GreenSure Initiative.

The stain I used on the front door was “Java” and the new kitchen and bath cabinetry was finished in “Latte.” The very effective two-part acrylic concrete paint I used on the floor of the new basement laundry room was - what else - "Mocha" and then there was that caramel streak in the granite.

On more than one occasion I told my barista friends at Starbucks that they should be sponsoring my project. After all, I was willing to put up a banner or wear a Starbucks T. Truth be told, I was really hoping for a Starbucks cap to wear while playing volleyball. Apparently it just wasn’t in the ad budget, notwithstanding the fact that part of my morning ritual was to consume a grande Casi Cielo, Fincas de Chiapas or other Central American brew to get fired up for the day’s construction. Casi Cielo is my favorite coffee. I'm planning a trip to Guatemala to verify that the coffee, the product of four farms near Antigua, is genuinely fair-trade and sustainably grown, as claimed.

If not Starbucks, Home Depot?

I made a similar pitch to my new friends at Home Depot with similar results. The folks at HD were incredibly helpful, particularly those in the flooring department at the Midvale Home Depot. Among other things, they vallidated a lot of my design decisions. Toward the end of the project, my friend RV gifted me with a new cap that was emblazened "Home Depot Pro" - he had spotted the cap at a thrift store in Salt Lake. Feeling like I earned the moniker, I now wear the cap with pride. Eat your heart out Starbucks.

Remodeling lessons: a llama, four goats and a horse

The title sounds like something Johnny Carson’s Carnac the Magnificent character would have said while holding an envelope to his turbaned forehead. Instead, it describes the animal population on the property next door to my home in Midvale, Utah during the summer of 2007. The horse, a good looking Arabian, was a permanent resident, boarded at the back of the very narrow and deep ¾ acre lot that was immediately to the north of my home. The property was a throwback to the days when the area was agricultural; vestiges of small farms remain scattered throughout the community.

Around the first of June, I awoke to the distinctive bleat of a goat. As I looked out over the property next door, which sat slightly lower than mine, I counted four goats and one llama in addition to the horse. Oddly, all six animals were facing north, locked in a group stare – at what, I couldn’t say.

You can imagine the conversations that ran through the community in response to our new neighbors. While there were occasional issues with regard to odor, we came to appreciate the unusual diversity they lent to the neighborhood.

During a visit to the City to schedule a four-way inspection for the basement build out, I inquired about the animals. I learned that the property owner had been cited for allowing weeds to get out of control. Given the agricultural history of the property, the owner was allowed to bring in animals to control the weeds during the growing season. So, instead of using herbicide or frequent mowing, she found an elegant, entertaining and sustainable solution to the problem.

On August 31st I was working in my home office when the peace of the late summer day was interrupted by the rather desperate trumpeting of the Arabian. I rushed to the backyard to find my neighbor’s son, overweight and a smoker, chasing the goats around the property with lasso in hand. He was clearly frustrated by the unwillingness of the goats to join the llama in the trailer that had been brought in to return them to their home farm. It was hard not to watch and laugh – you can imagine who had the upper hand. Persistence did pay off and the property became, once again, the Arabian’s domain. The only thing that remained uneaten was a large thistle plant that no self-respecting goat or llama would touch.

Remodeling lessons: choosing granite

Like countless others involved in home improvement, I was enchanted with the vision of granite countertops in the new kitchen and bathrooms. The granite I selected for the kitchen was Juparana Fantastico and fantastic it was. Caramel-colored streaks coursed through brown and beige stone, interspersed with veins of gray. The granite I used in the bathrooms on the main level was more pedestrian but still beautiful. I had made my selections after visiting a local distributor, where the range of granite options was really amazing.

However, as should be the litmus test with any product choice, the question is whether granite is truly a sustainable choice. Does it make sense to carve granite from a quarry in Brazil, ship it to China for cutting, and then to the U.S. for sale and installation? Just think about the investment in time, labor, energy, and emissions to do that.

I visited the Green Building Center in Salt Lake City during the remodeling process. There I saw a variety of alternative countertop materials that I liked to varying degrees, including Vetrazzo which is fabricated from recycled glass and a masonry medium. Vetrazzo is available in a variety of colors, reflecting the use of a single color of glass or combinations of colors. I had seen the product used in the green remodeling project accomplished last season in Austin, Texas by This Old House. I also liked PaperStone, made from recycled paper and priced at $40 per square foot. Elsewhere I inspected and reacted favorably to composition quartz and bamboo countertops.

I discovered that the product I saw in Salt Lake, Vetrazzo, was manufactured in California. Cost for the product at the time was $125 per square foot, or three times what I had paid for granite from Brazil by way of China! It is now listed on the Green Building Center site at $75 per square foot. Notwithstanding the fact that the price is coming down, the question is begged: why aren’t we manufacturing such countertops locally, made from glass that is recycled locally, rather than paying to ship a heavy and bulky product over a long distance? I posed this question to a dealer at a local home show in Wisconsin recently. He smiled, said that he had asked the same question and was collaborating with a local concrete company to create a similar product.

While it appears that the folks at Vetrazzo are out ahead on this, there must be an opportunity for entrepreneurs throughout the country. At the same time, it frustrates me that some recylcing facilities refuse to accept anything other than brown glass because there isn't a ready market for it.

I enjoyed spending time during the winter helping a niece and her husband finish remodeling their 1908 vintage home, located just a block from Lake Winnebago in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Mel and Jason opted for locally made concrete countertops to complement their colorful, contemporary update. It was a great choice not only because of the look but because of reduced embedded energy in the materials, and the benefits to local businesses.

For the same reasons, concrete was also the material of choice for the countertops at the new Aldo Leopold Legacy Center in Baraboo, Wisconsin. The Center is currently the highest rated LEED project in the country. More about countertop choices, my visit to the Center and the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED rating system in upcoming posts.

Remodeling lessons: realities of reuse and recycling

I spent most of the last year working on two residential remodeling projects. The first was a 4600 square foot home, relatively new but in need of updating throughout. As we filled an over-sized dumpster with demolition debris, for the second time, the impact was profound. This process is repeated hundreds of times each week just in my county, resulting in demand for more land for dump sites and other environmental consequences that are not sustainable. (In Dane County, Wisconsin, 46% of what goes into landfill is construction and demolition debris. If you request a demolition permit, you have to provide a reuse and recyling plan.) Only minor victories were achieved on this project as a result of recycling packaging materials and donating fixtures to the Community Development Corporation for reuse in low-income housing in the area.

At the end of this project, I decided that I would tackle another remodel, but only if it were my home. Eight weeks later I closed on a 9 year old home in Midvale, Utah – one of 19 in a park-like gated community. The home had nearly 2700 square feet of great potential. It begged for a complete update on the main level, including a new kitchen and was a perfect candidate for a basement build out.

During demolition I was able to reuse some of the old kitchen cabinets as garage storage and donate light fixtures and other items to the Community Development Corporation. (I was happy to find that the local chapter of Habitat for Humanity was overstocked with donations of this kind.)

I was also able to recycle the carpet pad that I removed from the main level. However, I was disappointed to discover that, in Utah, it is not possible to recycle the carpet itself. If I had been in Denver or countless other metropolitan areas, carpet recycling would have been an option. The coordinator of the County’s recycling program practically begged me to start a carpet recycling facility so that she could refer others with the same interest. Subsequent to completing the project, I learned a great deal more about carpet recycling and the broader context of cradle-to-cradle design as it applies to carpeting. Look for more on these topics in upcoming posts.