This piece originally appeared on Green Futures Green Futures is published by Forum for the Future, one of the leading magazines on environmental solutions and sustainable futures. Its aim is to demonstrate that a sustainable future is both practical and desirable – and can be profitable, too.

Can Green Designs Solve A Housing Crisis?

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Green Futures in Green Building at 4:25 PM) ]]> http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/dS4M8FTUyy0/010198.html/feed/ 0 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/Wgt_bQZpJSo/010032.html http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/Wgt_bQZpJSo/010032.html#comments Wed, 24 Jun 2009 01:40:40 +0000 WorldChanging Team http://www.greendesign.com/2009/06/23/does-green-building-have-to-break-the-bank/

by Roger Valdez

Myth buster: Green building doesn't mean expensive and complex.

The intuitive view of most people might be that building green is going to be vastly more expensive and complex than building to the most basic standards required by local code. It follows that we assume affordable housing probably isn’t going to be green. But a recent article in the Communities and Banking magazine published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (FSB) this spring busts the myth that affordable housing and green housing are opposite and mutually exclusive concepts.

The myth doesn’t hold up locally either. We’ve looked at a study of green housing and the energy savings it creates for residents of the Seattle Housing Authority. And in Portland the Housing Authority built its first HOPE VI project green as well. We’ve also looked at the study of housing and health  where there is growing evidence that along with materials the location of housing can have an effect on resident’s health – and health care costs. And we’ve considered the savings that building green can create for schools and their communities.

What the FSB article does is to put some of these points together in a useful definition of an affordable green housing project. Their definition fits well with what we’ve already learned. A green affordable housing project would:

• Reduce energy use and carbon emissions,
• Reduce water consumption,
• Improve the health of residents; and
• Save money for both tenants and owners through efficiencies 
  

The authors of the FSB article, principles at New Ecology Inc, cite another concise article by  Davis Langdon on “What Does Green Really Cost?”  This isn’t a blow by blow accounting of material and construction costs but rather a guide on how to create housing that is both green and affordable.

Langdon suggests that projects begin with defining a sustainability goal and a quantitative measure of whether those goals are reached. The measure might be LEED certification, or Energy Star certification using the HERS Index or the new EPS rating developed by Oregon’s Energy Trust. A clear sense of sustainability outcomes is essential to defining what green affordability really means and whether the building can achieve it in a reasonable time frame.

Next step is integration. The project ought to consider materials, energy consumption and how the building will be used. As I wrote in a post about energy efficiencies in schools  users and operators of green buildings need to be consulted and trained on how to use the building. Langdon’s point is that the design should focus on making that easy so users don’t override the very systems set up to create savings.

Finally, when asked the perennial question “how much will it cost”  Langdon suggests the response should be “compared to what?”  He suggests three useful ways of looking at cost comparisons for green elements in a building:

• How do the green elements compare overall in terms of the existing plans or code requirements?
• Are there components of the design that are expensive but can be offset by using cheaper—but just as sustainable—options in other parts of the building, and
• How does the building compare to similar projects in terms of costs and long term operations?
  

These are really sensible questions and if asked throughout the design and development of a project would yield valuable information about how to make building green and affordable the same thing. Breaking down the dichotomy between what is commonly considered green versus affordable is a key element of arriving at a definition of affordability that includes sustainability along with factors like monthly income and transportation – and perhaps most importantly, how much it costs to actually live in the building once it’s finished. 

This piece originally appeared in Sightline Institute's blog, The Daily Score.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Green Building at 5:40 PM) ]]> http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/Wgt_bQZpJSo/010032.html/feed/ 0 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/Wgt_bQZpJSo/010032.html http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/Wgt_bQZpJSo/010032.html#comments Wed, 24 Jun 2009 01:40:40 +0000 WorldChanging Team 10032@http://www.worldchanging.com/

by Roger Valdez

Myth buster: Green building doesn't mean expensive and complex.

The intuitive view of most people might be that building green is going to be vastly more expensive and complex than building to the most basic standards required by local code. It follows that we assume affordable housing probably isn’t going to be green. But a recent article in the Communities and Banking magazine published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (FSB) this spring busts the myth that affordable housing and green housing are opposite and mutually exclusive concepts.

The myth doesn’t hold up locally either. We’ve looked at a study of green housing and the energy savings it creates for residents of the Seattle Housing Authority. And in Portland the Housing Authority built its first HOPE VI project green as well. We’ve also looked at the study of housing and health  where there is growing evidence that along with materials the location of housing can have an effect on resident’s health – and health care costs. And we’ve considered the savings that building green can create for schools and their communities.

What the FSB article does is to put some of these points together in a useful definition of an affordable green housing project. Their definition fits well with what we’ve already learned. A green affordable housing project would:

• Reduce energy use and carbon emissions,
• Reduce water consumption,
• Improve the health of residents; and
• Save money for both tenants and owners through efficiencies 
  

The authors of the FSB article, principles at New Ecology Inc, cite another concise article by  Davis Langdon on “What Does Green Really Cost?”  This isn’t a blow by blow accounting of material and construction costs but rather a guide on how to create housing that is both green and affordable.

Langdon suggests that projects begin with defining a sustainability goal and a quantitative measure of whether those goals are reached. The measure might be LEED certification, or Energy Star certification using the HERS Index or the new EPS rating developed by Oregon’s Energy Trust. A clear sense of sustainability outcomes is essential to defining what green affordability really means and whether the building can achieve it in a reasonable time frame.

Next step is integration. The project ought to consider materials, energy consumption and how the building will be used. As I wrote in a post about energy efficiencies in schools  users and operators of green buildings need to be consulted and trained on how to use the building. Langdon’s point is that the design should focus on making that easy so users don’t override the very systems set up to create savings.

Finally, when asked the perennial question “how much will it cost”  Langdon suggests the response should be “compared to what?”  He suggests three useful ways of looking at cost comparisons for green elements in a building:

• How do the green elements compare overall in terms of the existing plans or code requirements?
• Are there components of the design that are expensive but can be offset by using cheaper—but just as sustainable—options in other parts of the building, and
• How does the building compare to similar projects in terms of costs and long term operations?
  

These are really sensible questions and if asked throughout the design and development of a project would yield valuable information about how to make building green and affordable the same thing. Breaking down the dichotomy between what is commonly considered green versus affordable is a key element of arriving at a definition of affordability that includes sustainability along with factors like monthly income and transportation – and perhaps most importantly, how much it costs to actually live in the building once it’s finished. 

This piece originally appeared in Sightline Institute's blog, The Daily Score.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Green Building at 5:40 PM) ]]> http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/Wgt_bQZpJSo/010032.html/feed/ 0 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/tuCV0qxgmrs/009916.html http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/tuCV0qxgmrs/009916.html#comments Tue, 26 May 2009 22:13:47 +0000 Green Futures 9916@http://www.worldchanging.com/

by Rebecca Schischa

Iconic skyscraper to slash energy use by 40%

New York’s most iconic landmark, the Empire State Building, is set to become one of the city’s greenest buildings, thanks to a $20-million retrofit that will slash energy use by nearly 40% over the next 15 years.

Forming part of a wider $500-million rebuilding programme for the 381-metre high skyscraper, the refurb will save an estimated $4.4 million each year in energy costs and has a payback of under five years.

“We’re putting our money where our mouth is and showing how this is not just good for the environment, but also good for people’s pockets,” says Dana Schneider of Jones Lang LaSalle, one of the key project partners working with the building’s owner, Tony Malkin.

Measures include:

• Insulation: trapping radiator heat; triple-glazing the tower’s 6,500 windows (manufactured on-site to reduce transportation)
• Low-energy air con: refurbishing the existing system, and sending waste metals for recycling
• Educating tenants: a model ‘green’ office suite on display
• Incentivising tenants: an energy metering system displaying their real-time usage; sub-metered billing to replace flat-rate charges

Aiming for LEED Gold accreditation (the highest category in the The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design green building rating system developed by the US Green Building Council), Schneider wants the project to be an exemplar for building retrofits worldwide. “Existing buildings currently create 40% of the world’s carbon emissions, rising to 70% in cities like New York and London, so we have to act.”

They’re also hoping to get the message out to the four million or so tourists who visit the Art Deco skyscraper every year: “It’s part of our mission that every single visitor will know about our retrofit.” The team plans to install an interactive energy display wall in the lobby to keep visitors amused as they queue to board the lifts for the nail-biting ride up to the viewing platform on the 102nd floor.

Image credits: Will Anderson

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Green Building at 12:10 PM) ]]> http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/461311710/009076.html/feed/ 0 http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/376605558/008425.html http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/376605558/008425.html#comments Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:52:24 +0000 Sarah Kuck 8425@http://www.worldchanging.com/

The world's leading certification system for sustainable architecture is set to undergo its most sweeping changes in 2009. The proposed revisions encourage designs that would reduce a building's impact on global climate change.

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, commonly known as LEED, has become the standard for green building design since the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), a nongovernmental organization, crafted the rating system eight years ago. Architecture that voluntarily improves energy efficiency, water conservation, and indoor air quality has surged in popularity in the past two years, especially in Europe and major U.S. cities.

According to USGBC's August statistics, more than 2,400 commercial and residential buildings worldwide are LEED certified, and nearly 14,000 are under way. The green building movement has the potential to significantly reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. In the United States, about 40 percent of all energy is used to heat, light, and cool residential and commercial buildings, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration.

Minimum LEED certification, however, does not necessarily guarantee environmental improvements. Developers who purchase environmentally related products off a LEED-supplied checklist may produce a LEED-certified building, but the building's future impact on energy and resource use is unknown. The proposed revisions are the beginning of a transition toward buildings that earn their green marks based on performance rather than eco-marketing.

The current LEED system allocates a maximum of 69 points for various environmental quality improvements. A building that receives 26 points is certified, and more points are necessary to receive the higher rankings of silver, gold, and platinum. While costly improvements such as solar panels are likely to boost a building's rankings, all categories are given equal weight, making some improvements less effective than others.

"LEED has been frequently criticized for not having a solid rationale for allocating credits," said Jerry Yudelson, a Tucson-based architect who teaches LEED-certification workshops. "The classic example is you get one point for putting in bicycle lockers and showers and one point for saving 7 percent of energy. Are those equivalent benefits?"

The new model emphasizes designs that the USGBC considers most beneficial for today's global environment. Improvements that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and burn fewer fossil fuels account for 34 of the 100 points. While a building requires only 40 points to receive certification, factors including access to transportation and energy efficiency can no longer be avoided, said Scot Horst, chair of the LEED steering committee. "We are saying climate change is the most important thing, so we put the most points to credits that deal with climate change," said Horst, president of the architecture consultancy 7Group. "If you want to get certified, you have to focus on those areas."

The new criteria place greater focus on the environmental impact of a building's entire life cycle. Contributions to eutrophication - the creation of oxygen-free dead zones in polluted water bodies - and "ecotoxicity" are now emphasized. Eventually, the USGBC envisions a system that assesses lifecycle impacts by measuring a building's pollutants, rather than being based solely on the attributes of building materials.

The 2009 LEED standards also plan to include more mandatory designs - most notably water efficiency. Building requirements, however, are not the same in all climates, and the stricter rules may further complicate efforts to streamline the process. Green developers in arid regions, for instance, struggle to balance air ventilation with energy conservation: if more hot air enters a building, more air conditioning is demanded.

To compensate for regional differences, the proposed standards grant local chapters "bonus points" that can be allocated toward design issues that would aid certification in that area. "This is the best way possible to give responsibility to chapters - they're the ones who know the local issues - without jeopardizing the consistency of LEED overall," Horst said.

But several architects still consider the system lacking. "There is a tension between having a national system... and yet still allowing a lot of regional differences," said Yudelson, who chairs the USGBC's annual conference committee. "[A solution] is for LEED 2012... We're not ready to make that big of a leap."

Regardless of the policy changes, some critics say a system like LEED does not do enough to improve the world's environmental woes. Architect Jonathan Ochshorn, an associate professor at Cornell University, said LEED-certified buildings are anecdotal examples of improvements that ultimately serve a corporation's profit, not the environment. "LEED in general is a way for institutions and corporations to collect points from a public relations standpoint," Ochshorn said. "The world isn't getting any better because of LEED."

The number of green buildings constructed remains relatively small - about 2 percent, according to a 2006 Green Building SmartMarket Report - due to higher building costs and the often stressful complexity of the certification system. To simplify the process, independent certifiers [PDF] have been hired to handle the growing number of certification requests. The costs are also beginning to fall as energy prices climb and green designs become mainstream.

"The changes in LEED are definite improvements, I think everyone is behind them, but we also need to improve the system," Yudelson said. "We need results, not just a certification on a building."

Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be reached at bblock@worldwatch.org.

Photo courtesy Bank of America: Bank of America is seeking platinum LEED certification for a skyscraper under construction in midtown New York City.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Sarah Kuck in Green Building at 2:52 PM) ]]> http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/376605558/008425.html/feed/ 0 http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/340266756/008244.html http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/340266756/008244.html#comments Sun, 20 Jul 2008 00:29:18 +0000 Alex Steffen 8244@http://www.worldchanging.com/

One of the house projects we've been working on at home is replacing as much of our lawn with garden beds as makes sense. We do want a little bit of (unwatered, organic) lawn, for sitting, but we're planting most of our mid-sized urban lot in vegetables, herbs and bird-/butterfly-friendly flowers. We aren't talking the 100-yard diet, and we definitely have a ways to go before you could call our backyard a wildlife sanctuary, but just removing some the grass has already made us feel more comfortable in our home.

We're not alone. One of the biggest underground cultural shifts in North America is focused in some vague yet powerful ways on the question of sod. Big, perfectly smooth, green lawns have become for many of us, a symbol of unsustainability that rivals the SUV.

We've written a lot about the problems with lawns and about innovative ideas for replacing them. Covering the same turf is Elizabeth Kolbert, who's latest New Yorker article is a must-read:

To advocate a single replacement for the lawn is to risk reproducing the problem. The essential trouble with the American lawn is its estrangement from place: it is not a response to the landscape so much as an idea imposed upon it—all green, all the time, everywhere. Recently, a NASA-funded study, which used satellite data collected by the Department of Defense, determined that, including golf courses, lawns in the United States cover nearly fifty thousand square miles—an area roughly the size of New York State. The same study concluded that most of this New York State-size lawn was growing in places where turfgrass should never have been planted. In order to keep all the lawns in the country well irrigated, the author of the study calculated, it would take an astonishing two hundred gallons of water per person, per day. According to a separate estimate, by the Environmental Protection Agency, nearly a third of all residential water use in the United States currently goes toward landscaping.

What's your favorite idea for replacing lawns?

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Alex Steffen in Green Building at 4:29 PM) ]]> http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/340266756/008244.html/feed/ 0 http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/329143081/008185.html http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/329143081/008185.html#comments Mon, 07 Jul 2008 19:15:33 +0000 Ben Block 8185@http://www.worldchanging.com/

The walls of Elmer Bear Eagle's house are covered in mold. The black intrusion began in the basement. It crept up the sides. Now it blocks sunlight through the windows.

The problem is fairly common throughout the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in southwestern South Dakota. Overcrowded conditions - homes built for four people have held more than 20 - contribute to high levels of indoor humidity, creating a mold haven.

The homes are also fraught with poor insulation, which Bear Eagle says leaves his mobile home uncomfortably exposed to the region's harsh summers and winters. "Here the climate is really extreme," he said. "These houses are fire traps."

Still, Bear Eagle is fortunate just to have a home. The tribal housing authority says 4,500 people - most of them Lakota Sioux - are waiting for subsidized housing on a reservation of approximately 40,000 people. Tribal leaders attribute the housing situation to high rates of alcoholism, domestic violence, and youth suicide, though widespread unemployment is a factor as well.

To provide housing, improve living conditions, and stimulate economic growth, many within the reservation are turning to green building. More home designers are encouraging plans that would ideally reduce heating and maintenance costs. But with a growing housing demand that threatens the survival of many Lakota people, some say alternative construction materials are still unproven.

‘A Perfect Fit'

The wave of green building innovation is not unique to Pine Ridge. As individual green homes are built in towns across Indian country, mostly by volunteers, interest within the wider Native American community is growing. "Because of our community and our high needs - economic development and sustainability - [green housing] is a perfect fit for us," said Karen Diver, chairperson of the Fond du Lac Band of the Lake Superior Chippewa Indians.

Several government-led efforts have been launched this year to educate tribal leaders about green building design. Last month, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Office of Native Americans Programs (ONAP) organized a "Greener Homes National Summit," and the department has hosted smaller workshops around the country. "There's been strong participation by tribes in the regional training," said Randy Akers, an administrator for ONAP's Northern Plains office. "It's indicative of the interest tribes have in green buildings to improve their housing conditions."

On some of the poorer reservations, many say the government is not doing enough to provide for housing. Despite HUD's efforts to encourage green construction, some activists are convinced the federal government opposes alternative construction material because it would divert money from preferred federal contractors. "The people operating the housing system, HUD, they are opposing this because they have no profit in this," said Richard Boyden, founder of the Sioux advocacy organization Operation Morning Star.

The federal government says it offers energy-efficiency grants for Native American housing projects, but few tribal members are aware of the program. Green building design is also restricted across Indian country by the fact that many tribes are reluctant to pay extra for efficiency. "A green building strategy costs a little more upfront, yet we don't see our resources increase on a federal level," Diver said.

A Green Housing Rush

On reservations such as Pine Ridge, the Sioux authority says they want to build green, but not if that means fewer homes would be provided. So instead of focusing their efforts on mainstream green building technologies, such as solar water heaters or more efficient windows, several organizations have introduced home designs that could cost less than traditional housing. A four-bedroom home costs a reservation as much as $261,000, Akers said, due to the high cost of importing building materials and creating new infrastructure.

One team of green building design experts has been training Sioux housing authorities and vocational schools to utilize strawbale construction. Straw is a cheap, local resource that could replace all the insulation and some of the lumber supplies now being imported from cities far from the reservation. The Intertribal Council on Utility Policy, a nonprofit development organization, received a $60,000 grant from the Sioux Rosebud Reservation to build a model strawbale home, said Bob Gough, the group's secretary.

The strawbale homes require more labor resources and training, but that adds to the attraction. "All these young people are going to need housing and they are going to need jobs. If we get them jobs building housing, it makes a lot of sense," Gough said.

The team also hopes to retrofit as many of the inefficient mobile homes that Pine Ridge residents have used since a devastating 1999 tornado. Strawbale insulation and mud siding would surround the trailer homes. The homes would also be rotated so the sun's heat could penetrate windows, providing heat through the winter, while an added roof would block the sun during the summer. "This is free heating," says Laura Bartels, president of Colorado-based consulting firm GreenWeaver Inc. "It's so simple, but it's not being done."

Tom McCann, executive director of Re-member, one of the oldest community development groups in Pine Ridge, says straw is not baled near the reservation, so acquiring large amounts of the material may be more costly than expected. "It defeats the purpose. The concept is to use material readily available here," he said.

Boyden, a former Kansas City radio talk show host, has been raising money for a plan to build geodesic dome houses on Pine Ridge. Standing between 22 and 36 feet (6.7 and 11 meters) tall, the rounded houses would be more efficient than traditional homes, especially if they were to incorporate radiant heating - hot water pipes that generate warmth from the ground up, Boyden said.

As for Elmer Bear Eagle, he says he may have found a solution through a more simplistic design. Working alongside Johanna Parry Cougar, founder of the housing organization Natural Villages, Bear Eagle and other volunteers are putting the finishing touches on a new cob house - a combination of soil, sand, and straw that are packed down and harden in the sun. For the house's foundation, they used discarded concrete slabs.

"The straw holds it together, sand gives it strength... It was snowed on, but the walls are still pretty solid," Bear Eagle said. The house is estimated to cost less than $8,000, but it has been a four year process. "A lot of people come by, check it out, they thought it was a cool idea. Already one family member wants it as soon as we can have it done."

McCann says that although the alternative designs are well intended, he is skeptical they can quickly meet the growing housing demand. He instead supports the addition of solar air heaters onto traditionally built houses. He is now searching for grants that would pay for the device. "We have got to break the propane cycle out here, we've got to use renewable energy sources, and we've got to do it now," he said. "Folks on the reservation are scared for this upcoming winter. They are scared they will die in their homes."

None of these plans have been built on the scale necessary to prove that they can be affordable and practical. Tribal leaders say they are interested in any construction designs that reduce energy costs, but an immediate answer has become urgently needed.

"We want to make it so the heat cost won't be as high...just try to make it a very self-sufficient home," said Paul Iron Cloud, chief executive officer of the Oglala Sioux housing authority. "It's a challenge; it's a big challenge."

Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be reached at bblock@worldwatch.org.

Photo courtesy Cameron via Flickr

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Ben Block in Green Building at 11:15 AM) ]]> http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/329143081/008185.html/feed/ 0 http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/307672595/008097.html http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/307672595/008097.html#comments Mon, 09 Jun 2008 02:31:14 +0000 Alex Steffen http://www.greendesign.com/2008/06/08/a-whole-different-kind-of-green-roof/

I like these images, from the FreakAngels series.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Alex Steffen in Green Building at 6:31 PM) ]]> http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/307672595/008097.html/feed/ 0 http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/307672595/008097.html http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/307672595/008097.html#comments Mon, 09 Jun 2008 02:31:14 +0000 Alex Steffen 8097@http://www.worldchanging.com/

I like these images, from the FreakAngels series.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Alex Steffen in Green Building at 6:31 PM) ]]> http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/307672595/008097.html/feed/ 0 http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/254455819/007898.html http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/254455819/007898.html#comments Wed, 19 Mar 2008 19:29:51 +0000 Alex Steffen 7898@http://www.worldchanging.com/

Here's a debate where none is needed: the argument about whether green building, compact communities, or transit-supportive design is a better approach to improving the world.

The latest piece to kick up some dust is a report from the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, which, as reported by Reuters, says

"Green" construction could cut North America's climate-warming emissions faster and more cheaply than any other measure...

Elsewhere, people reaffirm that North Americans' best bet for carbon reduction is walking and taking transit, while others (often including myself) think density is the best lever, if we have to pick one with which to start.

Now, it's rarely much of an argument. There are green builders who are against growth management, and urban planners who hate transit and love cars, and transpogeeks who think architects are a useless form of decorator, but by and large, most advocates for each of these positions support the others, but just want to see their approach be taken on first.

But, of course, the whole argument is silly, and can be answered "all three, at once." All three strategies are mutually reinforcing (and equally difficult to implement without one another).

What we ought to be shooting for are compact communities, at sufficient densities to support lots of good transit options, composed entirely of high-quality, reasonably-sized green buildings, arranged around streets and public spaces that encourage walking and enjoying one's community, served by green infrastructure.

What I'd love to see is someone crunch the numbers not of a single approach -- increasing density for 7 units per acre to 9, or reducing energy use by 25%, or doubling trips taking by transit, or any of the other single-answer ideas that keep getting quantified -- but of a synergistic combined approach.

Because I'll bet money that when all these approaches are combined, the resulting economic and environmental benefits add up to far more than the sums of the parts seen through the studies done so far. It might well be that building bright green communities pays for itself while improving the quality of life of the people who live there... and saving the planet.

And if that's true, we're burning money as well as planet when we delay, go slow, and engage in false arguments about priorities.

(Creative Commons photo credit