Green building has gained momentum in the affordable housing sector, providing some of society’s marginalized residents with hip, eco-friendly—and budget friendly—living accommodations. It has been a long time coming but it is finally here: affordable housing has blossomed from the ugly ducklings of architecture into beautiful swans, complete with coveted interiors, state-of-the-art green features and unique exteriors that boost local pride. As experience plucks away the myths that surround green building expenditures, more cities seek developers who are willing to offer sustainable, beautiful solutions for low-income housing. This shift is a reasonable route to take; studies suggest that low-income residents are in the greatest need of cash savvy and health conscious resources. The Uphill Crawl Just as quickly as builders gained consciousness of sustainable development in the 60s and 70s, they seemed to forget. By the 1980s, green building lost its momentum. The housing industry witnessed a notable increase in green building projects at the turn of the 21st century. Though the economy struggled towards the end of the first decade, the number of green building projects in the pipeline continued to increase. Such proposals and have now reached record heights. While the amount of green building certifications increased for traditional housing, businesses and institutions, green affordable housing lagged woefully behind. Various organizations released reports on the benefits of green building within affordable housing—such as The Cost and Benefits of Green Affordable Housing and Green Affordable Housing Within Our Reach—but cities and builders proved slow to catch on. Within the last seven years, however, this sector has welcomed an influx of environmentally conscious projects. Planetizen released a summary of Global Green USA’s Progress and Possibilities Report, indicating that affordable green building has become a priority for many states’ Qualified Allocation Plans. States now implement...
LEED v4
Updated green guide
A thirst for improved building performance, coupled with growing awareness of the planet’s limited resources, have contributed to a new series of impressive commercial developments that boast highly efficient environments as well as reduced carbon footprints. The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) has played a major part in the worldwide growth of the green building movement. Now, USGBC is preparing the launch of the next version of its Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design system, LEED v4. Through its many programs and green initiatives, USGBC seeks to provide eco-minded developers with actual data, knowledgeable perspectives and insight on the greening process with the sole purpose of helping them build communities that are environmentally sensitive, energy-efficient and ultimately enhance quality of life. LEED applies to a broad range of projects, from single-family homes to office buildings, multifamily, healthcare and industrial outfits. Essentially, it provides third-party verification that a building or community was designed and built around green principles. Using strict parameters, LEED measures metrics such as energy savings, water efficiency, CO2 emissions, materials and resources, indoor air quality, and the overall environmental impact of a project. In addition to promoting healthy living and sustainable design, LEED provides developers and property owners with tools to increase asset value, lower operating costs and even qualify for money-saving incentives, like tax rebates and zoning allowances. Lower energy and water bills, increased comfort, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, less exposure to indoor pollutants and toxins, and lower maintenance costs are just a few of the benefits associated to living in a LEED-certified environment. LEED v4 continues USGBC’s mission to spur transformation of the built environemnt toward zero-energy green buildings, while also providing a new suite of features designed to help streamline the certification process. Changes from LEED 2009 are seen...
Micro-Size It!
How small is too small?
SAN DIEGO —Even in markets like New York and San Francisco, it may soon become prudent to ask: Can apartments be too small? In recent years, developers have begun experimenting with layout and design to determine just how tiny a space they can easily lease. During the Urban Land Institute’s 2013 Spring Meeting, Kauri Investments Ltd. chairman James Potter and AREA Real Estate LLC principal David Adelman offered some creative configuration ideas that are attracting Gen Y and empty-nesters alike. Either group may use such units as their sole residence or maintain a larger, perhaps weekend-only, additional home farther from the city. What makes these renters different from those who prefer more space, Potter noted, is their even greater focus on price point. Over the past four to five years, Potter has been striving for increasingly smaller units. With eight projects currently under development, he has achieved an average size of 100 to 200 square feet. So far focused on smaller buildings with a limited number of units, his latest, in downtown Oakland, Calif., is situated on a 40-by-100-foot site and includes six to eight “bedrooms” and a kitchen. Potter achieves such small unit sizes by considering what can be removed from the unit. A central kitchen, for instance, can be a big space saver, since people are not cooking to the extent they used to, he noted. Having discovered that a shared refrigerator does not make for good neighbors, he includes a small model in each unit, plus a sink (not a “kitchen sink” or a “bathroom sink”—just a sink, said the developer, who maintains that putting labels on the properties or their contents complicates their image). Residents must supply their own dishes, eating utensils and linens, but the central kitchen includes pots...
Creative + Sustainable...
Green development and design
As capital and operating costs continue to rise, businesses seek creative ways to reduce expenses while passing benefits to their clientele. A solution rests under their feet. Poorly-planned infrastructure leads to long term financial burdens on businesses and the communities in which they reside. By implementing sustainable infrastructure techniques, businesses can reduce maintenance expenses and minimize the need for infrastructure related tax increases. Such businesses will also appeal to the new generation of consumers who value innovation, sustainability, and responsible growth. Sustainable storm water management is a commonly overlooked aspect of green building yet it proves to be a worthy foundation upon which any business can establish better practices. A series of studies executed by American Rivers, the Water Environment Federation, the American Society of Landscape Architects and ECONorthwest uncover the numerous benefits of environmentally conscious storm water management. The report, issued by the Sustainable Cities Institute (SCI), concludes that green infrastructure can reduce upfront development costs, minimize the cost of future maintenance, and decimate daily operating costs. Those may seem like high claims for simply redirecting rainwater, but the evidence proves to be compelling. A new perspective on age-old problems Traditional urban planning treats storm water as a problem that requires billions in funds to rectify. A new line of thought approaches storm water as an asset that can be used to reduce operating costs and beautify man-made sites. The premise of the new mindset is simple: capture and treat water where it falls, rather than channeling it to a centralize system. In doing so, the water’s power may be harvested and the challenges of transporting contaminated runoff are minimized. Businesses interested in alternative infrastructure have several green options from which to choose, including porous pavement, street trees, green roofing, rain gardens and...
Beating Back Boring
Is architectural creativity dead?
Without making a few drastic changes to the way that American students see creativity, Americans will continue to lag behind other nations in innovative architecture. As the daughter of a very zealous architect, I have grown up tuned-in to the trends that pass through the world of architecture. Our coffee table was stacked with photography books depicting the boldest, most ingenious designs. As a teen, though, I looked at those texts like images from another world. They differed from the boring block school that I attended or the quadrant-riddled hospital a block from my house. Those fancy buildings were elsewhere. Like Sweden. Not much has changed since I was a teen and the rest of the world is beginning to take notice. With the exception of a few shining stars (Skidmore, Owings & Merrill and Steven Holl come to mind in recent history) American architecture seems to lack the creative edge seen in places like Singapore, Japan, Denmark, and China. The lack of innovation goes beyond aesthetics into energy efficiency, resource harvesting and conservation. Many new American firms refuse to toe the boundaries already broken by international counterparts. Some believe the cause is a lack of creativity on behalf of American clients and architects. An appreciation and pursuit of ingenuity has dwindled in our culture. Newsweek ran an article featuring the research of Kyung Hee Kim, associate professor of educational psychology at the College of William & Mary. Kim administered the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) which measures three fields of creativity, with questions including topics such as art, mathematics, engineering, science, and interpersonal relationships. After studying the results of 300,000 American participant, Kim noticed a marked decline in creativity when comparing notes to past studies. The scores for elaboration—“ the ability to develop and elaborate upon ideas and detailed and reflective thinking [that] also indicates motivation to be creative”—dropped most significantly “by 19.41% from 1984 to 1990, by 24.62% from 1984 to 1998, and by 36.80% from 1984 to 2008.” According to the tests, the nation has lost the motivation to be creative. As Kim sees it, “The recent decreases in creativity measures indicate a threat to national security.” She stands corrected on a few fronts. In the past, American ingenuity propelled a young, inexperienced nation to stand as a world leader on the forefront of science, technology, and industry. Such haughty accolades seem to be slipping through our fingers by the day. Beyond walking with our heads held high, ingenuity leads to creative ways to solve daily problems. Without that creativity, our very cities are at risk. Brent Ryan, the Linde Career Development Assistant Professor of Urban Design and Public Policy in MIT’s Department of Urban Studies and Planning believes that “bolder, more distinctive civic projects can enhance the comparative advantages of cities as dense, diverse, lively places to live.” In a recent interview he explained that shrinking cities such as Detroit and Philadelphia need a boost in inventiveness to get back on track. Good design (not nearly functional design) shows residents that a city is moving forward; without visual representations of progressive thinking, “it’s harder for [residents] to see a development in their city that leads the way forward.” Good design speaks to structures that inspire minds and solve problems: managing stormwater, recycling graywater, conserving and producing energy, and so fourth. Dying cities need buildings that cooperate with the surrounding environment and support healthy lifestyles for dwellers’ instead of working against them both. To Ryan, innovation should extend beyond opera houses and high rises to “reunite a social agenda with a progressive design agenda.” Without such a creative approach to building, struggling cities risk falling into further disarray. Harboring a tradition of mediocre design may also threaten our nation by alienating the creative minds that we have with us. Frank X. Arvan, President of the American Institute of Architects in Detroit, issued a compelling letter...
Urban Infill
Centered in the city
The city is the place to be, both for trendy apartment dwellers, who are choosing skyscrapers over suburbs, and the businesses and residences that will serve them. As a result, cities nationwide are experiencing an increase in urban infill projects. The developments sprout between existing buildings, filling gaps or replacing run-down, outdated or unsafe structures. What they may lack in square footage they make up for in accessibility, eyesore reduction, and green features. Such developments have been generally received enthusiastically by city planners, neighborhood committees, and consumers alike. Square footage isn’t always an issue. Once a wondrous architectural feat, the 2 million square-foot Sears, Roebuck & Co. building in Atlanta, Ga., became a gargantuan scuff mark on Ponce de Leon Avenue. As it accumulated a collection of graffiti, broken windows and squatters, few foresaw that the behemoth would soon regain its status as an icon in the Southeast. The largest brick structure in the region is being reborn as Ponce City Market, a mixed-use development. The news has drummed up positive buzz throughout Atlanta and beyond. Planners, relieved that the site will no longer serve as a harbor for illegal activity, can’t wait to witness the building’s transformation into an active hub of commerce. Hip young renters are snagging the lofts of the upper floors, without even waiting to see renderings of the designs. Eco-minded urbanites are excited to see the structure built on previously developed land; they’re nearly ecstatic about how much of the current structure will be recycled. Foodies and shoppers have literally popped open champagne bottles as commercial spaces fill. Similar stories are happening throughout the United States. Even smaller cities, like Santa Barbara, Calif., are seeing an influx of infill. The coastal SoCal tourism destination is seeing previously stalled projects...
Commercial Projects: Controlled but Creative...
Slower pace, remarkable projects
One very positive response to the U.S. recession has come from what may perhaps seem a surprising quarter: While the movie “Field of Dreams” gave voice to the commercial development mantra “If we build it, they will come,” in the past few years this generally enthusiastic group has been admirably cautious. In fact, having contributed to the late ‘80s/early ‘90s recession with so much office development that the term “see-through buildings” became part of the real estate lexicon, this time around developers have significantly slowed the pace of new construction to the point, arguably, of helping to keep vacancy rates under control. Office property, in fact, has exhibited the most noticeable drop-off: The amount of property under construction fell from 172.4 million square feet at the end of 2008 down to 60.7 million square feet at the end of 2011 (and 56.4 million as of Jan. 29, 2012), according to CoStar Group data. Year-over-year, the office total grew last year, but only by 3 percent. Also significant but not as extreme have been shifts in the growth of industrial and retail construction, with the industrial sector reducing its pace of construction from 170.9 million square feet at the end of 2008 to 46.8 million square feet three years later, while the amount of retail under construction dropped from 145.1 million square feet to a mere 34.3 million. Indeed, Deloitte’s report titled “Real Estate Outlook: Top Ten Issues in 2012,” released in October, found that commercial real estate is being leased or purchased faster than new units are being completed, thanks to record low levels of construction activity. Office vacancy rates averaged 12.3 percent nationally in fourth quarter 2011, according to CoStar, which predicts a drop to 11.7 percent by the same time next year....
