green: environmentally sound or beneficial
urbanism: the practice of creating human communities

Green Urbanism: the practice of creating communities beneficial to humans and the environment

After 7 weeks of talking about the building. I’d like to take this final blog opportunity to zoom out and talk about the city. Urban areas, because they are centers of intense resource consumption and waste generation, offer some of the greatest opportunities for environmental innovation.

We’ve been spending a lot of time lately at Global Green talking about something called, ‘green urbanism’. Our working definition “the practice of creating communities beneficial to humans and the environment” is essentially the spirit and approach of green building writ at a larger, more holistic, scale. In a nutshell, green urbanism approach is to:

• Apply green building principles, process, and technologies at the neighborhood scale
• Link buildings, infrastructure, and natural systems.
• Emphasize retrofit of existing urban areas
• Focus on catalytic projects

The burgeoning green building movement is testament to the broad interest in sustainable methods and materials within the design community. But there are limits to the green building movement. The focus on discrete buildings misses the rich opportunities for integration created by broadening the scope of effort to the neighborhood, district, city, and region.

Natural systems are organic, integrated, and tenacious — ignoring manmade boundaries and weaving themselves through, over, and below our built environments. Shifting to a larger scale allows individual projects to function as building blocks in a larger system that functions at the neighborhood or district level.

Green urbanism isn’t a new topic; the theory builds upon precedents established by Patrick Geddes, Ian Mcharg, Anne Spirn, Michael Sorkin, William McDonough and Michael Braungart, and Timothy Beatley, but has yet to reach the mainstream in the planning profession in the way that green building has been embraced by the affordable housing industry. In fact, green urbanism is at the stage that green affordable housing was five to seven years ago. It’s a concept that resonates intuitively and seems to hold great potential – but still lacks a clear set of principles and corresponding roadmap for how to operationalize the concept within the current planning and urban design paradigm. Therein lies the challenge.

This is a challenge we look forward to working on in the year ahead. Our approach has its origins in one if the core tenants of urban planning, faith that a good process will lead to a good outcome. To that end we are focusing on defining not just principles but also a corresponding process. At the beginning of 2009 we plan to bring together leading thinkers in topics related to green urbanism to hopefully making a big leap forward in this intriguing and daunting undertaking. Later in the year, we’ll be at speaking at the National Building Museum in Washington DC share our progress. If you’ve got thoughts, opinions, or ideas about green urbanism, send them our way.

What do you think? Leave us a comment.

———-

Walker Wells, AICP LEED AP, is Director of the Green Urbanism Program at Global Green USA and the editor and co-author of Blueprint for Greening Affordable Housing.

In the green world, the “benefits of solar” is bandied about as dogma. But exactly what kind of benefits are we talking about? Economic? Environmental? Social? All of the above?

As part of preparing to moderate the Affordable Housing panel at the recent Solar Power International conference, we tried to answer this question by running a few simple analyses.  If the sun powered every affordable housing development in the country, how many kilowatts of energy could we create, what would that energy be worth, what kind of green economy stimulus would result, and what would this do for climate change?

Our calculations show that if all of the 75,000 units of affordable housing built annually were designed to be fully powered by the sun, it would result in a 2 billion dollar annual investment in alternative energy and avoid 66,578 tonnes of carbon emissions each year.  These are big numbers with correspondingly large benefits to the housing developers, regional economies, and the global climate.  So why don’t we see solar on every development?

In a nutshell, it’s because solar is still relatively expensive and it takes a long time for the economic benefits to flow back to the developers – at least if you are paying full price. The recently extended federal business investment tax credit results in about a 30% reduction in cost, but in most places, and for most affordable housing developers, the need to raise the remaining funds is still a major hurdle.

Both numeric and anecdotal data shows that in places where incentives like rebates and tax credits exist, developers are well on our way to realizing the potential of solar. In California for example, the strong, long-term incentives have made powering a development’s common areas with solar nearly standard practice. Going a step further, some developers are pursuing the aggressive goal of net zero. In other states like Massachusetts, support for solar has come through a one-time catalyst fund distributed to developers willing to pilot solar. Through the affordable housing program of the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, 8 development partners were awarded 25 million several years ago to bring a solar component to 60 affordable housing projects.  These efforts have been effective in demonstrating to the solar industry that affordable is a viable, and potentially lucrative market.

But there are still more hurdles to cross. Two of the biggest are in the decidedly unglamorous terrain of the large government bureaucracy.  First is the utility allowance.  Traditionally housing authorities are responsible for determining what portion of the housing burden is the result of utility expenses.  These “utility allowances” are deducted from the allowable housing burden to determine what owners can charge tenants for rent. So it follows that if utilities are lower due to use of alternate energy sources, the utility allowance should be reduced and the owner would thus be able to increase the rent by a comparable amount. With more revenue the developer could then pay back the loans used to purchase the photovoltaic (or solar thermal) system.  This is a win for everyone: the tenants get more stable energy costs, the developer gets a more stable asset, green jobs are created, and less carbon ends up in the atmosphere.  Until recently this approach was been simple in theory but very difficult to apply in practice.

The good news is that the IRS recently expanded the group of organizations that can develop a utility allowance to include the utility companies, thus giving developers options. Setting what may become a national example, the state of California is about to approve a new methodology that includes the ability to account for onsite generation in the utility allowance. It is expected that the state’s utility companies will take the lead in preparing, or at least verifying, this type of analysis.  The improved accuracy of this schedule will allow developers with energy strategies to get full credit for their innovative efforts in their pro-forma.

The other issue is metering. Due to either state or local regulation, each individual dwelling unit is usually required to have a separate meter and inverter to account for the electricity generated for, and used by, the unit. Doing this adds cost and complexity in design and construction and precludes aggregating energy use and production across multiple dwelling units during operation.  For example if one apartment has a net gain of energy one month it can’t be shared with an apartment that has a net loss.  Several years ago, Massachusetts figured out a smart way around this through “neighborhood” or “virtual” net metering.  In this situation all the energy generated is accounted for at a single meter and the credits produced are then spread “virtually” to the individual units on their monthly bills. This approach simplifies the PV system design and dramatically reduces the number of inverters. Just last week the California Public Utilities Commission adopted a similar approach, which greatly increased the odds of there being more net zero affordable housing projects in the near future.

By removing these barriers we can expect an accelerated rate of solar adoption in California and other states that put in place similar regulations. However, there still needs to be the base level of support provided by the federal tax credit and state incentives.  Only by combining a progressive regulatory environment with predictable and sufficient rebate programs will solar cease to be a novelty and instead become as conventional as windows, lighting, or appliances.  When this occurs we can talk about the benefits that solar is providing, instead of thinking wistfully about missed opportunities.

What do you think? Leave us a comment.

———-

Walker Wells, AICP LEED AP, is Director of the Green Urbanism Program at Global Green USA and the editor and co-author of Blueprint for Greening Affordable Housing.

Fall is housing conference season, at least on the west coast. Having presented at the three main regional conferences – Non-Profit Housing of Northern California (NPH), Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing (SCANPH), and San Diego Housing Federation (SDHF) – off and on for the past five years, it is interesting to see how the tenor of green has changed.

The first big change is that green is now seen as an essential part of the conferences. Five years ago this was not case. Back then, I felt grateful to be offered, after some persistence, one slot for a panel on green. Today it is de rigueur to have a green track. The second change is that there are many more people interested in and qualified to speak about green building. There is now a fairly deep pool of project managers, energy consultants, solar energy experts, and public agency staffers that are knowledgeable, and more importantly, experienced, in creating green projects.

But perhaps the most interesting shift is in the degree of sophistication of the conference attendees. Learning about the merits of green is no longer enough; in the last few years, the people at the green sessions want to know how to do green.

This emphasis on the nuts and bolts of implementation seemed strongest in the 2008 conference season. One clear focus was on green building rating systems and how to choose which one to use. In California most developers of tax credit projects have learned about the basics of green building, largely because the tax credit regulations have both requirements and point-yielding options for the inclusion of green features. But new in the 2008 regulations was the option to skip over the list and just commit to meeting one of three green rating systems: the US Green Building Council’s LEED for Homes, Enterprise Community Partner’s Green Communities Initiative, or Build it Green’s Green Point Rated program. So it is no wonder that both the NPH and SDHF organizers asked for a session specifically about rating systems.

Although it is not possible to reach a simple conclusion about which system is “best,” describing the pros and cons of each rating system and relative benefits is not as difficult as it sounds. Like green building in general, the best approach to the rating systems varies depending on the specific project and its unique circumstances. LEED is excellent if a national brand is valuable, but the costs associated with field verification and certification are substantial. A regional program like Green Point Rated may be preferred by the local officials and is often somewhat easier to access technically and financially. Green Communities also offers a national brand, and for successful projects, can bring additional grant funding.

But, whichever rating system one settles on, the fact that there is now choice, not just of rating systems but of building materials, service providers, financing tools, and more, is the biggest signal of progress in the world of green building. It is proof that there is finally a legitimate marketplace. And as that marketplace continues to grow, a wider variety of projects will pencil and get built all of which pushes the green building further into the mainstream. With any luck, in five more years, there will only be one type of housing conference – green.

What do you think? Leave us a comment.

———-

Walker Wells, AICP LEED AP, is Director of the Green Urbanism Program at Global Green USA and the editor and co-author of Blueprint for Greening Affordable Housing.

Financing isn’t the first thing that comes to mind when you here the term green building. Instead it’s usually solar panels, bamboo flooring, or a piece of plumbing equipment you’re not sure you really want to understand. But just like other building materials, green products cost money. What makes them different is that green products typically provide a greater return on investment than conventional products.

One example is – yes you guessed it – a plumbing product; the dual-flush toilet. This fairly straightforward innovation recognizes that you need less water to move liquid waste than solid waste, and thus dispenses water allocation accordingly. Less water means a lower water bill so that, over time, the approximate $150 increased investment in the toilet gets returned threefold, with net savings over the 15-year lifespan of $300 and an annual return on investment of about 13%. This makes the dual-flush toilet an excellent long-term, low-risk, high-return investment.

Green buildings exhibit these same characteristics. The initial upfront investment of about 3% delivers predictable energy and water savings and reduced maintenance costs year after year. The challenge lies in figuring out how to fold this added value into the project’s financing structure. Most of the time there is a chasm between construction and operation budgets. Funds saved through integrated design can’t be stored away to pay future bills. While property managers certainly appreciate lower operating costs, providing construction funding that will be paid by the difference between the hypothetical bills and the lower actual bills is often seen as an esoteric, and impractical, accounting exercise.

The aversion to using creative accounting to bridge the gap between construction and operation budgets is only growing stronger with the current fluctuations in the market. Increased scrutiny is already being applied to the underwriting process for many deals. This reaction may be good at the level of individual project, but will be severely counterproductive if applied to the affordable housing industry at large.

To date, the path to crediting borrowers with the benefits of green building has been rocky and not well followed. Much effort was put into establishing the energy-efficient mortgage and later, a location-efficient mortgage. Both products credited single-family purchasers with additional income, based on assumptions regarding lower utilities in Energy Star homes or lower transportation costs when homes are close to transit. With more income the borrower could afford a slightly more expensive home, which was one way to cover the increased costs associated with the green features. These are good ideas, but by focusing on the income side of the equation in a period when mortgage lenders were rolling out much more aggressive income-enhancing products, both the EEM and LEM were largely unused by mortgage underwriters.

To be truly attractive, the green loans needed to address the loan-cost side of the equation, or the interest rate. This is how people shop for loans and is the context in which interest in the green-based products would be attractive. It also makes sense because if green buildings are more stable in terms of utilities and maintenance there should a reduction in risk and in turn an ability calculate a more accurate risk-adjusted return (or lower interest rate) While no major commercial mortgage lender had put a reduced-rate green product on the market before the housing lending market started to unravel, some interesting ideas were being put forward.

Perhaps the best developed proposal to date came from the State of New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority. Their proposal was to offer a home loan at 50 basis points below current interest rate to buyers of certified green homes. They’re reasoning behind the reduction was this “In recent year, the affordable housing community has come to recognize that energy-efficient environmentally-friendly design and building methodologies can make significant contributions to both environmental protection and community sustainability and can create housing that is both healthy and less costly for residents to own and operate. ” Unfortunately the program was launched just months before “creative” mortgage lending ceased to be seen as a good thing. At this point the program still exists on paper but it is unclear if the product will weather the current financial lending storm.

The lending world would do well to take this market turmoil as an opportunity to reexamine underwriting criteria to determine if the information requested is actually productive at reducing risk, or if other information would be more useful. And if important data is being overlooked or ignored, now is the chance to introduce it into the process. The design and construction of green buildings has seen incredible growth and sustained innovation over the past decade. It is time for the financial community to catch up. Instead of focusing on how to leverage short-term profits, efforts should be redirected to determine how to best value the long-term benefits of going green.

What do you think? Leave us a comment.

———-

Walker Wells, AICP LEED AP, is Director of the Green Urbanism Program at Global Green USA and the editor and co-author of Blueprint for Greening Affordable Housing.

m

So, you’re approaching green as part of your mission, you’re using the integrated design process, and you’ve tweaked the financing structure to cover the added costs. Voila! A solid green project, right? No quite. There’s one more, often ignored, element needed to guarantee the long-term success of a green affordable housing project.

Resident and operator behavior has great influence on the ultimate environmental performance of a project. Ignoring or working against the green features knowingly or inadvertently, can quickly erode the green value brought in through good design and construction. Let’s look for example, at a project I know well through Global Green’s involvement over the past three years. The SOLARA apartments in Poway (north San Diego County), is an award-winning development of Community Housing Works. Often described as a milestone in green affordable housing, this 56 unit affordable housing development was designed to be completely powered by the sun!

SOLARA illustrates how the topics we’ve covered in the last few weeks can take a project from innovative concept to inspirational reality. Specifically:

• The design process was highly integrated. Starting with the green building charrette in early schematic design, Community Housing Works required all team members on board to “go green” from the beginning and work closely with one another throughout the process.

• There are a variety of green elements of varying scales. Though solar is the biggest green feature, the design team didn’t start or stop there. The initial approach to sustainable development focused on large-scale issues like community access, walkability, and proper building orientation. Energy efficiency was another core value, with the photovoltaic system (PV) taking the energy strategy to the next level. Looking beyond the energy systems the project incorporated simple, cost-effective approaches to improve indoor environmental quality, water efficiency and conserve resources.

• On the financial side, the developers worked closely with the tax credit investors and the permanent lenders to demonstrate that the extra cost of green could be largely offset if not eliminated. Specifically the additional cost of the PV system ($1.1 million) was almost entirely covered (92%) by tax credit and rebate funding sources that are available to most new affordable projects in California.

While this is impressive, perhaps what SOLARA truly does best is highlight the importance of occupant behavioral in meeting or missing sustainability targets. Returning to the first paragraph, notice the “designed to be” language in the last sentence. It seems that design and reality remain somewhat out of sync. Though the PV system has the capacity to generate all of the energy the property needs on an annual basis, 11 months later, technically it doesn’t. This is not caused by design error, malfunction of the panels, or even to an unknowledgeable maintenance staff (staff was trained on upkeep and to date have done an excellent job — describing the process as an “easy additional task”). Rather it is the behavior patterns of the residents that is throwing things out of whack. Most tenants are using energy within the parameters used in the design. But a few are grossly over-consuming. Data from June of this year for two identical units shows them producing roughly same amount of energy from the PV panels. After deducting the electricity pulled from the grid, Unit A not only met all of its energy needs but generated a 30% surplus. Unit B on the other hand, had to pull an additional 48% from the utility grid. The reason for this simple, the tenants aren’t on the hook for their electricity bill so there is no financial penalty for wasting energy. But to be fair the entire blame can’t be put on them.

In an attempt to promote energy efficient practices, California energy code requires that each apartment unit be individually metered for electricity – central or master metering is not permitted. For SOLARA this meant that each unit then needed its own solar PV panels and inverter, this added cost and precluded the aggregation of energy use and generation among the various units. Furthermore, utility allowance regulations in place at the time project was designed, required the developer – if they wanted to recoup their investment in the PV system – to agree to pay the electricity bills for all of the units, even thought the individual meters were required. The result is counterproductive all around. There is no incentive for the over-consuming family to change their behavior as they never see the costs, but there is also no incentive for the other tenants to consider conserving either, because they never see the savings.

Fortunately, the energy abusers at SOLARA are few. For the most part, the residents show a deep pride of ‘ownership’ in their new green homes. Such ownership is often hard to foster in a rental situation but thanks to an extensive green curriculum for the residents and property staff, there is an understanding that they are living and working somewhere “special” and thus treat it that way. Creating this spirit and sense of community through education about the unique aspects of the project is a critical first step. But it must be combined with frequent information so the tenants can understand how they use energy and what they can do to conserve. Still, without the financial incentive, the ability to maintain the anticipated levels of energy use over the long-term remains an elusive challenge.

The good news is that the SOLARA’s struggle with the intricacies of metering regulations and utility allowances has not been in vain. Prompted by the experiences in Poway, regulatory changes are in the works to provide more flexibility on metering and a more rational approach to utility allowances for projects. With these changes in place it will not just be easier to build leading edge developments but also much easier for the tenants to be part of the green equation.

What do you think? Leave us a comment.

———-

Walker Wells, AICP LEED AP, is Director of the Green Urbanism Program at Global Green USA and the editor and co-author of Blueprint for Greening Affordable Housing.

By now it’s clear that building green is much more than adding a green roof, using solar panels, or identifying which materials will replace the standard ones. Creating a successful green project starts much earlier with the right mindset. Building green requires optimism and a willingness to innovate and create synergy. With this mindset, a project team can identify key ‘green integration points’ that generate solutions to solve multiple problems and create a cascade of benefits. This way of thinking is second nature for many people in the green building community, and increasingly in the housing community. But having the right perspective on green is just the beginning. What follows – the design process – is how concepts get transformed into the drawings and specifications that lead to actual buildings. Not surprisingly, a conventional design process produces a conventional building. If you want an integrated building you need an integrated design process.

“Integrated design process” – that sounds good, almost obvious, but what is it about business as usual that leaves green by the side of the road? For most projects, once a site has been identified, the next thing a developer does is bring in an architect to work up a site plan. This site plan then drives thousands of future decisions related to floor plans, stormwater management, mechanical and ventilation systems, foundation and framing materials, landscape design, renewable energy generation, etc. Architects, believe it or not, are not experts in most of the above issues. Nonetheless, they set the parameters for nearly all the other designers, engineers, and builders involved in the project.

Now, if the architect is knowledgeable and sensitive to the breadth of green issues, there is a good chance that they will get most of the basics right. However, it is a big gamble to assume they will. There is also the very real risk that green ideas considered in early phases by the architect won’t get passed along to the other team members, getting lost in the shuffle.

The integrated design process ensures that these risks don’t become realities. A critical element of this process is getting all the project players together as soon as possible to identify and agree on the best approach to the project, including the green building features. In this way, green is not any one person’s pet issue, but instead is a concern shared by the team as a whole.

It is most effective to hold a green charrette in the transition between schematic design and design development. While many of the major site planning decisions may be determined at this point, it is not too late to fix the most egregious mistakes. Decisions about heating, cooling, and ventilation systems are typically still open for discussion, as are other items that have a major impact on design and structural engineering like solar electric or hot water, green roofs, and on-site water management. The open discussion that a charrette can generate is ideal for determining how to best resolve these fundamental issues in a comprehensive way. For example, coordination between the landscape architect and civil engineer can lead to a design that is both beautiful and functional in managing rain water. Shifting mechanical systems from a unit-by-unit approach to a centralize design increases the size of the living area, reduces the number of hook ups, vents, and pieces of equipment, and facilitates simplified future maintenance. Often, there is also a significant cost savings. But this type of approach rarely emerges when drawings are sent back and forth over the internet, with each party adding their small contribution, often based on what was done in a past project.A physically dispersed design team may function economically, but synergy requires proximity.

When the charrette process is working, innovative ideas emerge from unexpected places, people are excited by the spirit of creativity, and no option is considered out of the question. When the charrette is followed by targeted research, cost estimating, and informed decision making, the spirit of integration and innovation carries into the final plans and ultimately the built project – a successful green development.

———-

Walker Wells, AICP LEED AP, is Director of the Green Urbanism Program at Global Green USA and the editor and co-author of Blueprint for Greening Affordable Housing.

This version is my creation but it sounds a lot like the mission statement of most affordable housing developers in the United States.  The absence of environmental issues in such statements demonstrates that green, at least until recently, was not part of the lingua franca of the housing community.

Historically, creating “safe, decent, and affordable” housing and adopting “green” design, were seen as opposing agendas.   Allocating funds to environmental concerns would reduce funds for housing, as reflected in sentiments like “if I have to choose between meeting a green standard or building another unit, the choice is clear, the housing comes first.”  I certainly don’t want to argue against the core need for shelter – we discussed the severe shortage of affordable housing last week – but this type of statement is perhaps more a reflection of the bifurcation of social and environmental issues that has arisen over the past 40 years, than the reality on the street.

In the mid 1960s, national housing policy was moving away from supply-based models, prompting the Department of Housing and Urban Development,to explore demand-side subsidies. Using tools such as Section 8 vouchers, tax-breaks to developers, and Community Development Block Grants, the federal government shifted its primary role from that of developer to one of enabler. The burden to actually build housing was transferred to local governments and neighborhood organizations. In response, a community of housing professionals – people with a deep humanitarian streak – emerged to navigate the increasingly complex system of permitting and financing in order to get projects built.  Many members of this community perceived housing as purely a social issue, built on the premise that housing is a basic human right and that equitable access to housing is a core part of a fair, just, and yes, sustainable society.

Concurrently, the environmental community was going through a transformation.  Burning rivers in Ohio and oil on California beaches pushed environmental issues into the national consciousness and recast environmental pioneers like Rachael Carson from cranks to visionaries.  Arguing against the need for environmental protection seemed outdated and the cornerstones of the environmental protections and procedures we now take for granted – the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, National Environmental Protection Act, and Endangered Species Act – made their way through Congress at the pen of Richard Nixon.  Professionalization of the environmental movement followed in short order, with the establishment of the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the retooling of the Sierra Club.   What were the missions of these organizations? To protect people from environmental toxins and protect the environment from mistreatment by business and industry.

Over the next thirty years the housers and the environmentalists rarely found common ground, with the most notable exception related to creating safeguards for exposure to lead paint in federally operated housing development.  Not infrequently did conflicts arise.  Preserving land from development increased land costs and made affordable housing more difficult to create.  The higher density of many affordable housing developments raised concerns about increased traffic and pollution.

About a decade ago the environmental community began to recognize the regional land use benefits of higher density development and the air quality and traffic congestion benefits of providing affordable housing throughout a region.  It was a seminal moment for groups like the Sierra Club to come out in support of development.

At about the same time, progressive affordable housing developers began to see green as part and parcel of their mission.  Digging deeper into the language of safe, decent, and affordable, it became clear that green was not a separate issue but instead a way to expand, and thus augment, the core values expressed in their existing mission statements.  From this new perspective, “decent ” came to include thermal comfort, access to daylight and views, and good ventilation; “safe” now folds in avoiding exposure to formaldehyde, volatile organic compounds, mold, dust mites, and phthalates; and “affordable” addresses not just rent but also utility costs, fluctuations in utility expenses, health costs, and the cost of missed work due to illness.

Aligning these two groups so that green is seen as integral, rather than external to the core mission of affordable housing, expands the scope of the housing and the breadth of benefits to individuals, communities, and the planet that affordable housing can generate.

What do you think? Leave us a comment.

———-

Walker Wells, AICP LEED AP, is Director of the Green Urbanism Program at Global Green USA and the editor and co-author of Blueprint for Greening Affordable Housing.

Esoteric, expensive, unrealistic, inspired, essential.  A decade ago, these were common reactions to combining green building and affordable housing.  Today the reaction is quite different – expressed by the now frequently repeated aphorism: we can’t afford to not build green. Green affordable housing has moved from a curiosity to a trend and is now rapidly becoming standard practice.

Rapid growth in the adoption of green practices in affordable housing design and development over the past five years has brought us to a point where non-profit and for-profit developers across the country are embracing green building as an economically sound design approach. As the number of completed green projects grows each year, the discussion surrounding green building is shifting quickly from “doing the right thing” to a more substantial dialogue founded in project-related experiences and, increasingly, performance data colleted from those projects.

But green building is just a part, albeit a critical one, of creating sustainable communities. To understand how green affordable housing can most effectively serve as a catalyst for a more encompassing transformation of urban neighborhoods, it is valuable to take a step back and revisit the aspects of affordable housing that are inherently sustainable.  In other words, how does affordable housing, before the integration of green practices, contribute to economic and social equity, and bring environmental benefits to tenants, neighborhoods, cities, regions, and the planet?

The arguments for affordable housing center largely on issues of social and economic justice with environmental benefit often occurring as a fortunate side-effect if a project happens to be urban in-fill, adaptive reuse, or close to transit and services.  Economically, affordable housing ensures that low-income families do not have to go without essentials such as food and health insurance just to keep a roof over their head.  Providing affordable housing throughout a city or region ensures there is equity in where people can live, promotes the diverse, local work force needed to support the varied needs of a community, and adds a security of tenure that helps create neighborhood stability. Environmental benefits from reduced air pollution and carbon emissions accrue when housing built proximate to jobs and schools, cuts overall travel distances and allows transit to replace car trips. At a larger scale, reusing urbanized areas alleviates the pressure to sprawl.

This is a good start, but unfortunately, all affordable housing is not created equal. According to Harvard University’s 2008 State of the Nation’s Housing Report, at least a quarter of the nation’s affordable housing stock is in a state of disrepair¹ – bad news for both the residents and the environment. People living in sub-standard living conditions experience greater rates of asthma, elevated lead levels, and spend a much higher portion of income on utilities (up to 25% of income after rent) due to leaky buildings, inefficient heating and cooling equipment, and outdated appliances.  The environment suffers from wasteful energy use and the associated carbon emissions, unnecessary water use, and landfill impacts when buildings become so dilapidated that they must be demolished.

Green affordable housing augments the core sustainability aspects of affordable housing while rounding out and expanding the environmental component.  Green building practices create healthier living spaces by improving ventilation and avoiding toxic materials, lowering utility costs, and improving durability. Funds not spent on health care or utilities can be redirected toward higher priority items such as education, or used to support local businesses.  Green affordable housing also mitigates the negative local, regional and global impacts of standard building construction and operation.

The synergy created through the combination of green + affordable offers a microcosm of a sustainable community.  By simultaneously focusing on the details of a given project’s design, systems, materials and orientation and considering how that project plays into a larger effort to create sustainable neighborhoods, we are forging the way for a new model of development that is truly green and sustainable.

Sound too good to be true? Of course, achieving this ideal is not without its challenges.   Issues of financing additional upfront costs, capturing long-term benefits, and establishing an integrated design process remain complicated and time-consuming. But speaking from over 10 years of experience, it’s only getting easier, as we have more built projects and more experienced practitioners to learn from.  Over the next 8 weeks I’ll try do debunk some of the common misconceptions about green affordable housing development, tackle the thorny issues, share recent performance data, introduce emerging innovations, and attempt to situate the topic within a larger emerging theory around green urbanism.

———-

Walker Wells, AICP LEED AP, is Director of the Green Urbanism Program at Global Green USA and the editor and co-author of Blueprint for Greening Affordable Housing.