Sustainable
Building Technologies
Architecture, Real Estate Development
& Real Estate Master Planning Services
Leading the Sustainable Urban Living
Revolution
Office
Tel. (81342)
71518
- 0101217
Email: info @ sustainablebuildingsolutions .com
Home page:
www.SustainableBuildingTechnologies.com
Sustainable
Redevelopment
www.SustainableRedevelopment.com
What is Sustainable Redevelopment?
Sustainable Redevelopment considers land use and building practices that best manage environmental, economic, and social responsibilities for the long-term. There are many aspects of sustainable design. Using one or several of the following sustainable practices can make your development project better for the environment, the community and your project's bottom line.
1. Design your project to prevent pollution and reduce resource consumption through strategies including:
Green Building: economize on operating costs and significantly reduce impact on the environment when compared to conventional buildings.
Energy Efficiency and Clean Energy Production: reduce the lifetime energy needs of your project; use energy efficiently and choose clean energy supply options.
Alternative Storm water Management: reduce runoff and erosion during the construction phase and in the long term through practices such as erosion and sediment control low impact development techniques, green roofs, storm water management and pervious surfaces. Reducing runoff protects nearby streams and rivers, prevents flooding, and recharges aquifers.
Environmentally Beneficial/Native Landscaping: needs less irrigation and chemicals, increases wildlife habitat, and reduces stormwater impacts.
Reduce Construction and Demolition Debris: Save money by reducing, reusing and recycling materials generated during construction and demolition of buildings.Conserves landfill space reduces the environmental impact of producing new materials and creates jobs.
2. Benefit the community: Promote mixed/multiple uses, appropriate density and choice of housing; make the site
walkable; create, add to, or preserve recreational and park areas; incorporate other characteristics of Smart Growth.
3. Reuse existing infrastructure: use existing roads, rail, bus, or subway services; buildings; utility services; sidewalks; pedestrian or bicycle trails; historical preservation; recreational services; landscaping; neighborhood centers and institutions.
4. Promote transportation choices: provide car-pooling, bike-to-work and walk-to-work opportunities, locate land uses to encourage public transportation use.
What is an Example of a Sustainable Redevelopment of Brownfield Property?
Before: An abandoned gas station with leaking underground storage tanks
After: A sustainably designed parking lot and community park
Brownfields revitalization returns abandoned or underutilized properties to productive use, cleans up the environment, creates jobs and strengthens the social fabric of communities.
EPA places strong emphasis on the sustainable reuse of brownfields. Building and development are hard on the environment. Although many brownfield redevelopment projects have sustainable elements, opportunities exist to make even greater strides in sustainable brownfields redevelopment.
Redevelopment of brownfield properties is beneficial to the environment and can also be profitable for the developer and the community. These benefits can be enhanced when properties are developed in a sustainable manner. If you have an EPA brownfields grant or are seeking one, consider using sustainable design in
Smart Reuse: Building Green Is Cost-Effective
Getting Started with Sustainable Redevelopment
Building Green Is Cost-Effective
Sustainable Reuse of Brownfields: Resources for Communities
Successful Sustainable Reuse in the Mid-Atlantic States
Design Guidelines, Specifications, Rating Systems, Products and Materials
Cape Charles Sustainable Technology Industrial Park, in Cape Charles, Va. A former junkyard was transformed into a first of its kind eco-industrial park supporting a solar roof, indoor air quality monitoring, day lighting, and porous storm water runoff chutes. Additionally, nearly one-half of the land in this 200 acre park was set aside as natural habitat with boardwalks and trails open to the public.
Green buildings can have square footage costs equal to conventional building costs. In studies prepared for the U.S. Congress, building green has been shown to be cost-effective.
However, one of the ways that the cost of green building can rise unnecessarily is through excessive design expenses. If architects and engineers do not have a clear understanding of the green goals of the building from the outset, they may revert to conventional design techniques. The resulting iteration of designs between client and designer then increases the cost of the project. It is much more cost-effective to design green features in from the beginning, in an integrated fashion, than to try to tack them on at the end.
Economic Benefits
May be easier to finance because they are designed to be durable, flexible,
and healthy.
Reduced operating costs: energy efficient and water conserving strategies yield operational savings for the lifetime of the building.
Integrated design strategies allow tradeoffs that can reduce first costs. For example, strategies such as passive solar allow heating equipment to be downsized. Chiller size can be reduced with the use of high efficiency lighting, which generates a smaller heat load in the building.
Improves occupant satisfaction and productivity.
Increases marketability and sales price.
Environmental Benefits
Result in less wind/water erosion and sedimentation of waterways during construction.
Sustainability-designed sites permanently reduce stormwater runoff and watershed pollution.
Reduce waste streams.
Conserve natural resources.
Social
Minimize demand on the community infrastructure for potable water, sewage conveyance, and power generation.
Heighten aesthetic qualities.
Improve quality of life.
Reduce or eliminate stigma of brownfields.
Top of Page
Smart Reuse: Getting Started with Sustainable Redevelopment
Smart Reuse
Getting Started with Sustainable Redevelopment
Building Green Is Cost-Effective
Sustainable Reuse of Brownfields: Resources for Communities
Successful Sustainable Reuse in the Mid-Atlantic States
Design Guidelines, Specifications, Rating Systems, Products and Materials
Green rehab for the Montgomery Park Business Center in Baltimore, Md.
Below are some resources to assist you in planning and financing a sustainable brownfields redevelopment. EPA can help you get your sustainable redevelopment project off the ground.
Developing a Plan
Hiring Professionals with Sustainable Design Experience
Financing Your Sustainable Reuse project.
Design Guidelines, Specifications, Rating Systems and Building Products & Materials
Developing A Plan
The earlier you begin the process the better. Incorporate sustainable design during the environmental assessment and cleanup phase of your project. For example, if you are removing buildings or other infrastructure as part of the cleanup, can you reuse any of these materials? There are many excellent resources online to help you plan a sustainable redevelopment project. Here are a few links with tools to help you plan your project.
Natural Resources Defense Council - Building Green From Principle to Practice
Build your business case, set your budget and goals, streamline design and construction, and capitalize on your achievements.
Sustainable Building Technical Manual
With a special emphasis on local government, this guide walks planners through the major phases of a green construction project: incorporating sustainable building criteria in the pre-design phase, selecting a design team and financing options.
Minnesota Sustainable Design Guide
Set sustainable design priorities and goals, and develop appropriate sustainable design strategies to determine performance. Management tool to organize and structure environmental concerns during the design, construction, and operations phases.
SMARTe
Sustainable Management Approaches and Revitalization Tools electronic (SMARTe) is an open source web-based decision support system for developing and evaluating future reuse scenarios for potentially contaminated land.
Virginia Sustainable Building Network
Offers technical assistance and pre-construction training for green building projects in Virginia.
Greener Building
The resource center for environmentally responsible building development.
Hiring Professionals with Sustainable Design Experience
U.S. Green Building Council's member directory
Find a green architect, contractor or consultant in your area.
American Institute of Architects (AIA): Architect Finder
Search the AIA's online list of member architects in each state who specialize in sustainable design for various types of buildings.
Writing the Green RFP: Sustainable Design Language for Consultant Requests
This tool, prepared by the American Institute of Architects, provides guidance and model language for including sustainable design in requests for proposals or qualifications for architectural services.
How to Finance Your Sustainable Reuse Project
Numerous opportunities for financial and technical assistance as well as special incentives are available for redeveloping brownfields. The EPA awards grants for brownfield assessment and cleanup. Sustainable reuse of the site is a consideration when proposals are evaluated and considered for funding.
In addition to EPA, other organizations provide funding for the sustainable reuse of brownfields. EPA has compiled a list of funding opportunities and technical assistance available through other organizations on its funding web site.
Additional information can be found in EPA's new guide "Sustainable Reuse of Brownfields - Resources for Communities."
Maryland - See state and local Financial Incentives, like state tax credits, for Green Building
Pennsylvania: The Sustainable Energy Fund of Central Eastern Pennsylvania, provides creative financing options for LEED certified buildings, energy efficiency projects, renewable and alternative energy for non-profits, government, industry and small businesses. Products range from low interest loans for non-profits and small businesses to direct equity investments in technology based businesses.
Green Communities offers grants and loans to developers to help cover the costs of planning and implementing green components of affordable housing developments, as well as tracking their costs and benefits.
Sustainable
Urban Living
www.SustainableUrbanLiving.com
The Goals of our Sustainable Urban Living" or "Sustainable
Urbanization" business models and real estate developments include:
Cities have moved to the forefront of global socio-economic change, with half of
the world’s population now living in urban areas and the other half
increasingly dependent upon cities for their economic, social and political
progress. Factors such as globalization and democratization have increased the
importance of cities for sustainable development.
Accordingly it is generally accepted that cities not only pose potential threats
to sustainable development but also hold promising opportunities for social and
economic advancement and for environmental improvements at local, national, and
global levels.
The Following Article, "The Six C's of Sustainable Urbanization"
is by Gary Pivo,
who is the Chair of the Department of Urban Design and Planning at the
University of Washington.
The Six C’s of Sustainable Urbanization
Cascadia's
bustling Mainstreet; New approaches to urbanization can save region's high
quality of life
There are 7 million residents stretched along 'Mainstreet Cascadia,' the I-5
corridor between Eugene, Ore., and Vancouver, B. C. Millions more are coming —
the Puget Sound alone area will absorb 1.2 million more people in the next 20
years. Those who live in this vital region are beginning to wonder what it will
take to sustain our quality of life. Is there such a thing as sustainable
urbanization, and, if so, what are its principles?
The latest Puget Sound growth boom requires us to examine what's happening with
growth in our region.
Before the next governor is seated four years from now, our region will
experience some of the fastest growth since World War II. Unless the growth is
carefully managed using principals of sustainable urbanization, it will be
impossible to maintain our region's high qualtiy of life.
By our region, I mean the corridor along Interstate 5 from Eugene, Ore., into
Vancouver, British Columbia — a route named by some planners and researchers
"Mainstreet Cascadia."
While some politicians and lobbyists work to weaken our state's Growth
Management Act, we would be wise to remember what it takes to sustain our
region's high quality of life and what occurs when communities succumb to
unplanned development.
In the cities and counties stretched along Mainstreet Cascadia live over seven
million people. Three-quarters of them live in the urban areas that center on
Seattle, Portland and Vancouver, B.C. All three of these centers have
experienced tremendous population growth over the past few decades.
The numbers show that the population of both greater Vancouver and Metropolitan
Portland doubled between 1960 and 1990. Population in the Puget Sound region
grew by over 80 percent. These are some of the highest metropolitan growth rates
in North America.
The next four years should bring Washington's fastest growth rate in 50 years
and planners expect population growth to remain heavy for the foreseeable
future. They project that by 2020, the Puget Sound area will absorb 1.2 million
more people. The same numbers are projected to be added in Greater Vancouver.
Metropolitan Portland is expected to add 700,000 newcomers. Growth is being
generated by births exceeding deaths in the region, by domestic (U.S.)
migration, and by migration from overseas - with migration playing a somewhat
larger role than local births.
As populations grow, indications are that people all along Mainstreet Cascadia
are deeply concerned about the direction of greater urbanization. A survey done
in 1992 by the Oregon Business Council found that the biggest fears of Oregon's
citizens were overpopulation, environmental destruction, the loss of forests,
and uncontrolled growth. At that point in time, growth was a bigger worry than
either crime or the economy. A survey in British Columbia (Ministry of Municipal
Affairs, 1994) found that more than half the people questioned felt that growth
was negatively affecting their quality of life. In 1993, a survey of citizens in
the four-county area around Seattle showed growth and traffic as among top
citizen worries.
People are reacting to situations like these:
• In the relatively small university town of Eugene, at least half the local
residents find that roads are congested at various times during the day, and the
vast majority of residents find them congested during rush hours.
• In the Greater Vancouver area, with its superior transit service, there was
a 1985-1992 aggregate decline of about 12 percent in the share of all trips made
by transit, and an increase of about 5 percent in the share of drivers driving
alone (despite the fact that in certain Sky Train-served areas of Vancouver,
transit managed to hold its own).
• In agricultural areas around Greater Vancouver that are part of an official
agricultural preservation program, 8.5 percent of the farmland was still lost to
urban uses between 1973 and 1990. This was over 20 times the rate of
transformation in more remote areas of British Columbia.
• Urban growth has outpaced infrastructure capacity. Water facilities in the
Portland area, for example, will need to be greatly expanded to accommodate the
growth anticipated there.
These examples of urban growth trends - more auto congestion, a decline in
transit and carpooling, the consumption of land for building more subdivisions
at the expense of preserving agricultural and forest lands — and many others,
such as loss of wetlands and water pollution from urban runoff and construction
activities, have planners increasingly concerned with the issue of
sustainability. Is there such a thing as sustainable urbanization, and, if so,
what are its principles?
Sustainable development has been defined as development that "meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs" (World Commission on Environment and Development,
1987). Only in recent years has the concept of sustainable development begun to
be applied to the field of urban planning. Government agencies at all levels are
adopting plans to make urban growth more sustainable. A close examination of
such plans shows six basic principles derived from research -we might call them
the six C's — being applied.
1. Compactness. The first principle is that more compact, densely developed
cities are less auto dependent, less expensive to serve with infrastructure, and
put less pressure on nearby farm, forest, and environmentally sensitive areas.
One of my own studies has shown that the percentage of people who bus to work
increases as the population density rises in the city where they live. A1994
report on growth options for King County concluded that an urban containment
strategy would save taxpayers money over the long run. In Oregon, research has
shown that farms and forests are more effectively sustained when urban growth is
more compact.
2. Completeness. A second principle of sustainable urbanization is that
communities should be made more complete. A complete community is one in which
the segregation of urban activities has been reduced. The residents of a
complete community have the opportunity to work and shop in close proximity to
their homes. The elimination of long commutes reduces traffic congestion, air
pollution, energy use, and water pollution — to say nothing of psychic stress.
3. Conservation. A third principle of sustainable urbanization — conservation
— involves the use of a number of tools (in addition to development
regulations) to protect environmentally sensitive areas. Such tools may include
tax incentives, fee-simple and less-than-fee-simple land acquisition, cluster
development, and the use of transferable development rights, to name just a few.
In the category of development regulations, we know that the elimination of free
or abundant parking promotes alternatives to single-occupancy driving, thereby
saving energy, reducing air pollution, and helping to control the buildup of
greenhouse gases.
4-6. Comfort, coordination and collaboration. Comfort takes note of the fact
that it is important to create public spaces and routes that are pleasant for
pedestrians and for non-auto users, such as bicyclists. A study in Portland
found that more people walk when there are continuous sidewalks, streets are
easy to cross and not confusing, and the topography is conducive to walking.
Coordination involves joint planning by numerous jurisdictions. One example is
creating a land use and transportation plan for Oregon's Willamette Valley from
Portland to Eugene. The same project — Partnership for the Willamette Valley's
Future - illustrates the principle of collaboration. Funded by the state of
Oregon, federal agencies and private foundations, this effort is bringing
together Oregon community leaders from many interest sectors in order to
establish ongoing dialogue about issues of common concern in the Willamette
Valley.
If we view the principles above in the light of trends, we see that, over the
past few decades, Mainstreet Cascadia's "average citizen" has
experienced less compactness (and slightly more completeness). The development
of many new low-density settlements on the urban fringe has offset increasing
density in some older communities and has consumed amounts of land at rates two
to three times the rate of population growth.
Not only are many people living in non-compact communities, but the density at
which they are living is generally too low to be effectively served by public
transportation.
My own studies have shown that, in 1970, about one in three people in Washington
was living at densities high enough to support public transit. By 1990, only one
person in five was living in such places. In addition, job growth in suburbs and
along freeway corridors has reduced the relevance of commuting into the central
city. In Greater Vancouver, for example, downtown Vancouver's share of its
region's jobs fell from 51 percent in 1971 to only 39 percent in 1991.
Despite these trends, some towns and cities can be studied as models for other
communities to follow in seeking to achieve greater sustainability.
Seattle, already Washington's most compact and complete community along
Mainstreet Cascadia, has adopted a policy of putting people in compact villages
served by public transit. Across Lake Washington, the city of Kirkland is
unusual for the number of residents who also work in Kirkland (about 23 percent)
and use bus transit to get to work (about 12 percent). It's the most compact and
complete suburb in Washington.
In order to assist political and other leaders in developing policy directions,
work has been done to locate other "low-impact cities" in the region
under discussion. Communities were rated for housing density, job density, jobs
and housing in proximity, and housing and shopping/service opportunities in
proximity.
The "winners" turned out to represent a variety of community types,
from a large city like Seattle or Vancouver, B.C., to a small town like Bothell
or a rural center like St. Helens, Ore., (population 7,500). Research showed
that for the most compact and complete communities, a median of nearly 30
percent of workers work near where they live, compared to under 10 percent in
other communities. Other studies have shown that there is an unmet demand for
housing close to where people work. Public policies are needed that enable
potential housing sites that are close to jobs to compete for development with
sites in more remote locations.
While increasing housing density has been controversial policy, various
demographic trends and new research suggest that there is room for progress
toward more compact communities. We know that shifts are occurring in the
average age of populations and in household structures. People are getting older
and households are getting smaller. This is causing an increase in demand for
smaller housing units and for attached types of housing.
In addition, design studies have reached two conclusions:
• One is that traditional, single-family housing can be built at densities
much higher than those currently being achieved that still provide the privacy,
open space, and other features associated with single-family living. For
instance, Kirkland has used half as much land as other King County cities for
each new single-family lot it created between the mid-'80s and '90s.
• The other design conclusion is that the perception of density and actual
density are two very different things. People perceive a place to be lower in
density if there is greater building articulation, less "facade" area,
and smaller, "house-like" dwellings.
Of this we can be certain: Unless we work to incorporate principles of
sustainability into our planning, we face a future of more traffic, more
environmental loss and pollution, and increasingly deficient infrastructures.
Past and current patterns of urban growth cannot sustain the high quality of
life that we associate with Mainstreet Cascadia.
Environmental Accords
What are the "Environmental Accords?"
Recognizing
that for the first time in history, the majority of the planet’s population
now lives in cities and that continued urbanization will result in one million
people moving to cities each week, thus creating a new set of environmental
challenges and opportunities; and
Believing
that as Mayors of cities around the globe, we have a unique opportunity to
provide leadership to develop truly sustainable urban centers based on
culturally and economically appropriate local actions; and
Recalling
that in 1945 the leaders of 50 nations gathered in San Francisco to develop and
sign the Charter of the United Nations; and
Acknowledging
the importance of the obligations and spirit of the 1972 Stockholm Conference on
the Human Environment, the 1992 Rio Earth Summit (UNCED), the 1996 Istanbul
Conference on Human Settlements, the 2000 Millennium Development Goals, and the
2002 Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development, we see The Urban
Environmental Accords described below as a synergistic extension of the efforts
to advance sustainability, foster vibrant economies, promote social equity, and
protect the planet’s natural systems.
Therefore,
be it resolved, today on World Environment Day 2005 in San Francisco, we the
signatory Mayors have come together to write a new chapter in the history of
global cooperation. We commit to promote this collaborative platform and build
an ecologically sustainable, economically dynamic, and socially equitable future
for our urban citizens; and
Be
it further resolved that we call to action our fellow Mayors around the world to
sign the Urban Environmental Accords and collaborate with us to implement these
actions; and
Be
it further resolved that by signing these Urban Environmental Accords, we commit
to encourage our City governments to adopt these Accords and commit our best
efforts to achieve the Actions stated within.
By implementing the Urban Environmental Accords, we aim to realize the
right to a clean, healthy, and safe environment for all members of our society.
The
following 21 actions that comprise the Urban Environmental Accords are organized
by urban themes. They are proven first steps toward environmental
sustainability. However, to achieve
long-term sustainability, cities will have to progressively improve performance
in all thematic areas.
Implementing
the Urban Environmental Accords will require an open transparent, and
participatory dialogue between government, community groups, business, academic
institutions, and other key partners. Accords
implementation will benefit where decisions are made on the basis of a careful
assessment of available alternatives using the best available science.
The
call to action set forth in the Accords will most often result in cost savings
as a result of diminished resource consumption and improvements in the health
and general well-being of city residents. Implementation
of the Accords can leverage each city’s purchasing power to promote and even
require responsible environmental, labor and human rights practices from
vendors.
Between
now and the World Environment Day 2012, cities shall work to implement as many
of the 21 Actions as possible. The
ability of cities to enact local environmental laws and policies differs
greatly. However, the success of
the Accords will ultimately be judged on the basis of actions taken.
Therefore, the Accords can be implemented through programs and activities
even where cities lack the requisite legislative authority to adopt laws.
The
goal is for cities to pick three actions to adopt each year.
In order to recognize the progress of Cities to implement the Accords a
City Green Star Program will be created.
At
the end of the seven years, a city that has implemented:
19
– 21 Actions shall be recognized as a ««««
City
15
– 18 Actions shall be recognized as a «««
City
12
– 17 Actions shall be recognized as a ««
City
8
– 11 Actions shall be recognized as a «
City
Energy
Action
1 - Adopt and implement a policy to increase the use of renewable energy to meet
ten per cent of the city’s peak electrical load within seven years.
Action
2 - Adopt and implement a policy to reduce the city’s peak electric load by
ten per cent within seven years seven years through energy efficiency, shifting
the timing of energy demands, and conservation measures.
Action
3 - Adopt a citywide green house gas reduction plan the reduces the
jurisdictions emissions by twenty five percent by 2030, and which includes a
system for accounting and auditing greenhouse gas emissions.
Action
4 - Establish a policy to achieve zero waste to landfills and incinerators by
2040.
Action
5 - Adopt a citywide law that reduces the use of a disposable, toxic or
non-renewable product category by at least per cent in seven years.
Action
6 - Implemented “user-friendly” recycling and composting programs, with the
goal of reducing by twenty per cent per capita solid waste disposal to landfill
and incineration in seven years.
Action
7 - Adopt a policy that mandates a green building rating system standard that
applies to all new municipal buildings.
Action
8 - Adopt urban planning principles that advance higher density, mixed use,
walkable, bikeable and disabled-accessible neighborhoods which coordinate land
use and transportation with open space systems for
recreation and ecological restoration.
Action
9 - Adopt a policy or implement a program that creates environmentally
beneficial jobs in slums and/or low-income neighborhoods.
Urban
Nature
Action
10 - Ensure that there is an accessible park or recreational open space within
half-a-kilometer of every city resident by 2015.
Action
11 - Conduct an inventory of existing canopy coverage in the city; and then
establish a goal based on ecological and community considerations to plant and
maintain canopy coverage in not less than fifty per cent of all available
sidewalk plating sites.
Action
12 - Pass legislation that protects critical habitat corridors and other key
habitat characteristics (e.g. water features, food bearing plants, shelter for
wildlife, use of native species, etc.) from unsustainable development.
Action
13 - Develop and implement a policy which expands affordable public
transportation coverage to within half-a-kilometer of all city residents in ten
years.
Action 14 - Pass a law or implement a program that eliminates leaded gasoline
(where it is still used); and that phases down sulfur levels in diesel and
gasoline fuels, concurrent with using advanced emission controls on all buses,
taxis, and public fleets to reduce particulate matter and smog-forming emissions
from those fleets by fifty per cent in seven years.
Action
15 -
Implement a policy to reduce the percentage of commute trips by single occupancy
vehicles by ten per cent in seven years.
Environmental
Health
Action
16 - Every year, identify one product, chemicals, or compounds that is used
within the city that represents the greatest risk to human health and adopt a
law to provide incentives to reduce or eliminate its use by the municipal
government.
Action
17 - Promote the public health and environmental benefits of supporting organic
foods . Ensure that twenty per cent
of all city facilities (including schools) serve locally grown and organic food
within seven years.
Action
18 - Establish an Air Quality Index (AQI) to measure the level of air pollution
and set the goal of reducing by ten per cent
in seven years the number of days categorized in the AQI range as
"unhealthy" to "hazardous."
Action
19 - Develop policies to increase adequate access to safe drinking water, aiming
at access for all by 2015. For
cities with potable water consumption greater than 100 liters per capita per
day, adopt and implement policies to reduce consumption by ten per cent by 2015.
Action
20 - Protect the ecological integrity of the city’s primary drinking water
sources (i.e. aquifers, rivers, lakes, wetlands and associated eco-systems).
Action 21 - Adopt municipal wastewater management guidelines and reduce the volume of untreated wastewater discharge by ten per cent in seven years through the expanded use of recycled water and the implementation of sustainable urban watershed planning process that includes participants of all affected communities and is based on sound economic, social, and environmental principles.
Sustainable
Urbanization
What is Sustainable Urbanization?
According to Gary Pivo (chair of the Department of Urban Design and Planning at the University of Washington), Sustainable development also referred to as "Sustainable Urbanization" has been defined as development that "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987).
Only in recent years has the concept of sustainable development begun to be applied to the field of urban planning. Government agencies at all levels are adopting plans to make urban growth more sustainable. A close examination of such plans shows six basic principles derived from research -we might call them the six C's — being applied.
1. Compactness. The first principle is that more compact, densely developed cities are less auto dependent, less expensive to serve with infrastructure, and put less pressure on nearby farm, forest, and environmentally sensitive areas. One of my own studies has shown that the percentage of people who bus to work increases as the population density rises in the city where they live. A1994 report on growth options for King County concluded that an urban containment strategy would save taxpayers money over the long run. In Oregon, research has shown that farms and forests are more effectively sustained when urban growth is more compact.
2. Completeness. A second principle of sustainable urbanization is that communities should be made more complete. A complete community is one in which the segregation of urban activities has been reduced. The residents of a complete community have the opportunity to work and shop in close proximity to their homes. The elimination of long commutes reduces traffic congestion, air pollution, energy use, and water pollution — to say nothing of psychic stress.
3. Conservation. A third principle of sustainable urbanization — conservation — involves the use of a number of tools (in addition to development regulations) to protect environmentally sensitive areas. Such tools may include tax incentives, fee-simple and less-than-fee-simple land acquisition, cluster development, and the use of transferable development rights, to name just a few. In the category of development regulations, we know that the elimination of free or abundant parking promotes alternatives to single-occupancy driving, thereby saving energy, reducing air pollution, and helping to control the buildup of greenhouse gases.
4-6. Comfort, coordination and collaboration. Comfort takes note of the fact that it is important to create public spaces and routes that are pleasant for pedestrians and for non-auto users, such as bicyclists. A study in Portland found that more people walk when there are continuous sidewalks, streets are easy to cross and not confusing, and the topography is conducive to walking.
Coordination involves joint planning by numerous jurisdictions. One example is creating a land use and transportation plan for Oregon's Willamette Valley from Portland to Eugene. The same project — Partnership for the Willamette Valley's Future - illustrates the principle of collaboration. Funded by the state of Oregon, federal agencies and private foundations, this effort is bringing together Oregon community leaders from many interest sectors in order to establish ongoing dialogue about issues of common concern in the Willamette Valley.
If we view the principles above in the light of trends, we see that, over the past few decades, Mainstreet Cascadia's "average citizen" has experienced less compactness (and slightly more completeness). The development of many new low-density settlements on the urban fringe has offset increasing density in some older communities and has consumed amounts of land at rates two to three times the rate of population growth.
Not only are many people living in non-compact communities, but the density at which they are living is generally too low to be effectively served by public transportation.
My own studies have shown that, in 1970, about one in three people in Washington was living at densities high enough to support public transit. By 1990, only one person in five was living in such places. In addition, job growth in suburbs and along freeway corridors has reduced the relevance of commuting into the central city. In Greater Vancouver, for example, downtown Vancouver's share of its region's jobs fell from 51 percent in 1971 to only 39 percent in 1991.
Despite these trends, some towns and cities can be studied as models for other communities to follow in seeking to achieve greater sustainability.
Seattle, already Washington's most compact and complete community along Mainstreet Cascadia, has adopted a policy of putting people in compact villages served by public transit. Across Lake Washington, the city of Kirkland is unusual for the number of residents who also work in Kirkland (about 23 percent) and use bus transit to get to work (about 12 percent). It's the most compact and complete suburb in Washington.
In order to assist political and other leaders in developing policy directions, work has been done to locate other "low-impact cities" in the region under discussion. Communities were rated for housing density, job density, jobs and housing in proximity, and housing and shopping/service opportunities in proximity.
The "winners" turned out to represent a variety of community types, from a large city like Seattle or Vancouver, B.C., to a small town like Bothell or a rural center like St. Helens, Ore., (population 7,500). Research showed that for the most compact and complete communities, a median of nearly 30 percent of workers work near where they live, compared to under 10 percent in other communities. Other studies have shown that there is an unmet demand for housing close to where people work. Public policies are needed that enable potential housing sites that are close to jobs to compete for development with sites in more remote locations.
While increasing housing density has been controversial policy, various demographic trends and new research suggest that there is room for progress toward more compact communities. We know that shifts are occurring in the average age of populations and in household structures. People are getting older and households are getting smaller. This is causing an increase in demand for smaller housing units and for attached types of housing.
In addition, design studies have reached two conclusions:
• One is that traditional, single-family housing can be built at densities much higher than those currently being achieved that still provide the privacy, open space, and other features associated with single-family living. For instance, Kirkland has used half as much land as other King County cities for each new single-family lot it created between the mid-'80s and '90s.
• The other design conclusion is that the perception of density and actual density are two very different things. People perceive a place to be lower in density if there is greater building articulation, less "facade" area, and smaller, "house-like" dwellings.
Of this we can be certain: Unless we work to incorporate principles of sustainability into our planning, we face a future of more traffic, more environmental loss and pollution, and increasingly deficient infrastructures. Past and current patterns of urban growth cannot sustain the high quality of life that we associate with Mainstreet
Cascadia.
Community
Redevelopment
www.CommunityRedevelopment.net
What is Community Redevelopment?
Community redevelopment is an economic development strategy which many local governments are currently using
to successfully eliminate and prevent conditions of blight within their communities.
Our company serves communities across the U.S. by guiding redevelopment activities that create a vibrant downtown core and
revitalize neighborhoods through our "Sustainable Urban Living"
planning and design services.
We
adhere to our guiding principles that incorporate our 21st century
"Sustainable Building Technologies" which create safer, healthier,
environmentally-friendly and energy efficient houses and commercial buildings
that are resistant to:
earthquakes
fire
hurricanes
mold
termites
tornados (to 155 mph winds)
and simultaneously use about 75% less power and energy than
Some
of the problems we help communities overcome include:
deteriorating neighborhoods
dwindling commercial activity and job opportunities
concentration and persistence of criminal activity
inappropriate or obsolete land uses
poor transportation routes
expensive, unreliable and "dirty" brown power and energy from
carbon-based utility companies
extraordinary consumption of public services
The above problems are characteristics of a community's blighted areas.
When these problems go unresolved, these conditions often lead to reduced property values, impairment of sound growth, retardation of the provision of housing and loss of private investor
confidence and often are contagious and spread to other areas within the
community.
Sustainable
Building Technologies integrates multiple sustainable building technologies
in our Net Zero Energy Buildings' homes and commercial buildings. Some of these sustainable
building technologies include:
Building materials, Solar Energy Systems, Solar Cogeneration, Solar Trigeneration, Solar Thermal Collectors, Photovoltaic Systems, Pollution Free Power
Cement Sprayed Structural Insulated Panels Concentrating Solar Power
Energy
Savings Guarantee Energy
Performance Contracting FEMA
Trailers
Ground Source Heat Pumps Insulated
Concrete Forms Insulating
Concrete Forms LEED
Net Zero Energy Buildings Net
Zero Energy Houses Photovoltaic
Systems
Solar Thermal Collectors Solar
Trigeneration Structural
Insulated Panels
Structural Insulating Panels Sustainable
Building Solutions
Sustainable Building Technologies Sustainable
Architects Texas EcoHomes
Zero Energy Capable Homes Zero Energy Option
Are
you doing your part to stop Global
Warming and Climate
Change?
Learn more about the leading causes of Global
Warming and Climate
Change, which are Carbon
Dioxide Emissions and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions at
the following websites:
Carbon
Dioxide Emissions
www.CarbonDioxideEmissions.com
Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
www.GreenhouseGasEmissions.com
Information on this website is not to be
copied without the written consent of Sustainable Building Solutions
The
Future Belongs to the Sustainable
Copyright
© 2005 - 2006
Sustainable Building Solutions, Inc.
All Rights Reserved