The BuildingGreen Report

TM

The Leading Source for Environmentally Responsible Design & Construction

Formerly Environmental Building News www.BuildingGreen.com Volume 26, Number 12 · December 2017

Community-Scale Sustainability: private-sector entities into an

Accelerating Change
for People and Planet
By working at the neighborhood scale, designers and developers can
more dramatically improve environmental performance and social
equity.
by James Wilson
The building industry has set
ambitious goals for sustainability and
resilience, and is recognizing that a
building-by-building approach is not
enough. At the same time there is an
increasing focus on making healthy,
vibrant, and resilient communities
accessible to all.
“There’s certainly an urgency. I think
people really understand that we’re
the last generation that can make
a difference if we act—and we can
act and we need to act,” said Alicia
Daniels Uhlig, director of Living
Community Challenge + Policy at
International Living Future Institute
(ILFI).
One effect of this is a trend towards a
district-scale approach to sustainable
development based on the idea that by
combining resources and coordinating
efforts, communities can meet
performance goals much more quickly.
And because this approach involves
more stakeholders in community
development, it could make the
process more equitable.
Essentially, the way it works is a
community forms a “sustainability
district” to unite public- and
organization supported by
a governance structure. This
organization takes responsibility
for central management tasks like
the analysis of programs and goals,
and the funding and monitoring of
ongoing projects. It also facilitates
communication between the
community’s various stakehold-
er groups, breaking down silos so
that knowledge, information, and
resources are shared easily. (For more
details about how a “sustainability
district” operates, see the “What Is
a Sustainability District?” sidebar.)
What does this mean for the
building industry? As focus shifts
to district-scale efforts, building
professionals may evolve the ways
in which they work and adapt the
services they provide. Designers
especially may find that by engaging
problems at a larger scale they’re able
to generate better solutions.

Uhlig has worked as an architect

for more than 25 years and took
lead of the Living Community
Challenge program last year. She told
BuildingGreen that when she first
learned of the position she couldn’t
help thinking about how 2015 had
been the hottest year on record (before
being surpassed by 2016). “Personally
I needed to effect more change at a
faster rate,” she said. This motivat-
ed her to shift to a position outside
traditional architecture practice.
And she says she doesn’t believe she
is unique in this regard—many in
the profession are feeling the same Photo: Dllu. License: CC BY-SA 4.0.

pressure to have a greater impact. Working at the neighborhood scale allows for accelerated implementation of sustainability solutions. And
community level projects like the Capitol Hill EcoDistrict in Seattle are working to make sustainable
development more equitable.

The BuildingGreen Report December 2017

•
Copyright ©2017 BuildingGreen, Inc. All rights reserved.

The BuildingGreen Report
Founding Editor · Alex Wilson
President, Editorial Director · Nadav Malin
Managing Editor · Nancy Eve Cohen
Products & Materials Specialist · Brent Ehrlich
Research Analyst · Paula Melton
Designer & Proofreader · Bets Greer
Production Assistant · Fran Bellin
Vice President, Technical Services · Peter Yost
Chief Strategy Officer · Tristan Roberts
Design Director · Andrea Lemon
Outreach Director · Jerelyn Wilson
Operations Director · Angela Battisto
Accounting & HR Director · Sarah Rice
Customer Support Manager · Charlotte Snyder
Web Developer · Ben Hewitt
Project Coordinator · Kelly Pope
The Right Scale:
Neighborhoods as
Innovation Labs
Rapid urbanization has affected cities
especially at the neighborhood scale.
“Since the bulk of urban growth is
forecast to occur in communities of
100,000 to 250,000 people,” according
to the U.S. Green Building Council
(USGBC), “neighborhoods will be the
fundamental units of urban change and
innovation.”
The intermediate scale between that
of the individual building and that of
the city, the neighborhood scale of a
sustainability district is ideal because
it is small enough to allow for rapid
innovation yet large enough to have
significant effects. Sustainability
districts can act as living labs where
strategies and tools are demonstrated
and tested before being replicated
and scaled for use in other districts,
accelerating sustainable development
across entire regions.
Frameworks + Certifications:
Tools for Sustainable
Neighborhoods
Communities looking to take a
neighborhood­-scale approach to
sustainable development can engage
with a range of programs. These

Advisory Board
Steve Baczek, R.A., Reading, MA
Bob Berkebile, FAIA, Kansas City, MO
Arlene Blum, Ph.D., Berkeley, CA
John Boecker, AIA, Harrisburg, PA
Terry Brennan, Rome, NY
Bill Browning, Hon. AIA, Washington, DC
Nancy Clanton, P.E., Boulder, CO
Raymond Cole, Ph.D., Vancouver, BC
David Eisenberg, Tucson, AZ
Drew George, P.E., San Diego, CA
Harry Gordon, FAIA, Washington, DC
Bruce King, P.E., San Rafael, CA
John L. Knott, Jr., Charleston, SC
Sandra Mendler, AIA, San Francisco, CA
Greg Norris, Ph.D., N. Berwick, ME
Russell Perry, FAIA, Washington, DC
Peter Pfeiffer, FAIA, Austin, TX
Bill Reed, AIA, Arlington, MA
Jonathan Rose, Katonah, NY
Marc Rosenbaum, P.E., W. Tisbury, MA
John Straube, Ph.D., P.Eng., Waterloo, ON
Michael Totten, Denver, CO
Gail Vittori, Austin, TX
The BuildingGreen Report (ISSN 1062-3957), formerly
Environmental Building News, is published monthly by
BuildingGreen, Inc. TBGR does not accept advertising.
Copyright ©2017, BuildingGreen, Inc. All rights reserved.
No material in this publication may be photocopied,
electronically transmitted, or otherwise reproduced
by any means without written permission from the
Publisher. However, license to photocopy items for
internal use or by institutions of higher education as part
of collective works is granted.
Disclaimer
Every effort has been made to ensure that the information
presented in TBGR is accurate and that design and construction
details meet generally accepted standards. However, the
information presented in TBGR, by itself, should not be relied on
for final design, engineering, or building decisions.
Editorial & Subscription Office
122 Birge St., Suite 30, Brattleboro, VT 05301
802-257-7300 · 802-257-7304 (fax)
news@BuildingGreen.com · www.BuildingGreen.com
What Is a Sustainability District?
A sustainability district unites public- and private-sector entities into an organization supported by
a governance structure. This organization then takes responsibility for central management tasks
like the analysis of programs and goals, and the funding and monitoring of ongoing projects. It
also facilitates communication between the community’s various stakeholder groups, breaking
down silos so that knowledge, information, and resources are shared easily.
In their report titled “Sustainability Districts For New York City: How Eco Districts and 2030 Districts
Will Benefit NYC,” members of the NYC Emerging 2030 District and the NYC EcoDistricts Working
Group define a sustainability district as “a neighborhood-scale approach to encouraging and
enabling sustainability and resilience, encompassing environmental, economic, and social issues
with both the present and future in mind.” It describes a district approach as one that involves
various stakeholders, including residents, business owners, environmental and civic organizations,
utilities, and municipal offices.
The NYC report identifies four overall strategies that sustainability districts, in general, employ:
• Aggregation: Sustainability districts gather together individual properties for economies
of scale, They coordinate and streamline project management and funding, allowing smaller
properties access to programs like combined contracting and bulk purchasing that are generally
only available for large properties. As a district, individual property owners can more efficiently
apply for things like grants and incentives.
• Integration: Sustainability districts bring together different programs within a community
that have similar or overlapping goals. As part of a single district project, these programs can
coordinate to find comprehensive solutions.
• Activation: Sustainability districts facilitate engagement of a broader set of stakeholders in a
community, involving those who may be unaware of available resources.
• Amplification: A sustainability district is the ideal size for testing and developing strategies that
can then be scaled and replicated, like experimental energy or zoning regulations, and district
energy, water, and waste infrastructure.
Sustainability districts are not intended to be standalone initiatives. They can bring together
separate programs and resources into a coordinated effort to achieve greater efficiency and
effectiveness.
The report offers the example of a proposed deep energy retrofit project in New York in which
a sustainability district could aggregate several existing buildings to meet the goals of the city’s
“80x50” climate plan and the NYC Carbon Challenge. As a district, the effort could access all
kinds of resources, including:
• Financing from the NYC Energy Efficiency Corporation and the NYC Retrofit Accelerator
• Supplemental funds from the NY State Energy Research and Development Authority
• Incentives from the local utility companies
• Technical support from organizations like the Building Performance Lab and the Building
Energy Exchange

The BuildingGreen Report December 2017• p. 2

 How Are Sustainability Districts
Funded?
Financing is a challenge for any
sustainability district. Though each district
may develop unique methods of funding
its projects, depending on its particular
governance  structure  and location, there
are some common fundraising strategies
available to all, including:
• Cost-sharing: For example, multiple
properties, programs, or organizations
within a district might split the cost of
resources or projects that address common
goals.
• Donations: Districts might choose
to set up a way for community stake-
holders to donate money in support of
different projects. For example, through a
crowd-funding platform or with a targeted
fundraising drive.
• Grants: Districts may apply for
grant funding from public and private
organizations that support sustainable
development or neighborhood revitalization
projects.
• Sponsorships: Districts may receive on-
going financial support from organizations
like a charitable foundation that has a
mission to promote sustainable development
or environmental protection.
Subsidies and Incentives: District projects,
especially those related to efficiency
and  renewable energy, may be eligible
for various local and state government
subsidy funds and incentive programs.
[See the Database of State Incentives for
Renewable Energy (DSIRE).]
programs share many things in
common, but there are also distinctive
aspects to each. Though most involve
a certification standard, they can
also serve as useful frameworks for
communities not intending to pursue
certification.
Here we offer a brief introduction
to four programs: EcoDistricts,
2030 Districts, Living Community
Challenge, and LEED for
Communities. If you’re looking for
a quick rundown and comparison of
existing neighborhood-scale programs,
including information regarding the
scope, process, and requirements
of each, see Certified Communities:
When Greening Neighborhoods One
Building at a Time Isn’t Enough.
The BuildingGreen Report December 2017
• p. 3
EcoDistricts
The foundation of the EcoDistricts
program is the EcoDistricts Protocol,
a tool to guide communities as
they create a detailed roadmap for
planning, designing, financing,
delivering, and monitoring an
EcoDistrict.
Communities establish EcoDistricts to
support a range of neighborhood-scale
projects that increase performance
across the full spectrum of
sustainability. Some examples of
potential projects include:
• District energy and water
management
• Urban agriculture or community
gardens
• Public art installations
The Protocol supports a highly flexible
process so that it can be applied to a
wide range of different communities
and project types, whether it’s a major
brownfield redevelopment, a campus,
or neighborhood revitalization.
Naomi Cole, director of certification +
innovation at EcoDistricts, explained
that in developing the Protocol, the
organization strove for a balance
between flexibility and comprehensive
rigor. “We’ve tried to find that
sweet spot where this is a useful
and beneficial framework that helps
inform a community and ensure that
there aren’t any gaps, while at the
same time allowing it to really be
owned by the community,” she said,
emphasizing the program’s focus on
a grassroots process of sustainable
development that is also “placed-
based”—responsive to the cultural
and environmental surroundings.
To give an example, Cole references
the Equity Imperative. The program
does not prescribe any specific
strategy for achieving equity but
projects must address equity from an
operational standpoint. This includes
the “procedural equity” of how people
are engaged, the “structural equity”
of how decisions are made, and the
“distributional equity” of how benefits
and burdens are shared.
The Equity Imperative is just one
example of how equity is “built
into every step” of the EcoDistricts
program. “It’s not just about the kind
of environmental performance of the
climate or carbon impact that you get
with like a 2030 District,” said Cole,
“but it’s really about how this work
is done in a just and equitable way
and an inclusive way that reflects the
community.”
Each EcoDistrict develops its own
set of goals during organization and
assessment phases. The district then
develops projects to address these
goals along with associated metrics for
measuring the performance of each,
which will be tracked on an ongoing
basis during a monitoring phase.
Communities seeking certification
(through EcoDistricts Certified)
follow this same basic process but
are required to submit specific
documentation related to each step for
third-party verification.
Capitol Hill EcoDistrict: a leading
model for equitable development
One of the earliest EcoDistricts is the
Capitol Hill EcoDistrict in Seattle. Led
by Capitol Hill Housing, a community
development corporation (CDC) and
public development authority, the
EcoDistrict got started with initial
funding support from the Bullitt
Foundation, which saw Capitol
Hill as an ideal place to establish
an EcoDistrict because of its dense
population, active commercial sector,
and high level of transit investment,
including a new light rail station.
Photo courtesy of Capitol Hill EcoDistrict
By implementing projects like community solar
installations, the Capitol Hill EcoDistrict is
working to provide the benefits of solar to more
people in the neighborhood, including affordable
housing residents.

Photo courtesy of Alex Garland Photography
The Capitol Hill EcoDistrict, serving a neighborhood comprised of
80% renters, launched the Capitol Hill Renter Initiative to engage
and involve renters across the community. A Renter Summit brought
together hundreds of renters and local officials to discuss priorities
and goals for the community.
The district developed out of an
initial study of the neighborhood,
conducted by GGLO, a local design
firm. Joel Sisolak, senior director of
sustainability + planning at Capitol
Hill Housing told BuildingGreen, “We
contracted GGLO to do essentially
an asset assessment of the neighbor­
hood, to look at what might be some
of the sustainability challenges
and what might be some strategies
for addressing those challenges.”
Sisolak said there was a focus on
identifying opportunities offered by
the redevelopment happening around
the light rail station.
GGLO produced a report that
sparked the formation of a steering
committee—which includes
institutions, developers, businesses,
residents, community activists, and
the city—to define a vision and
specific goals for the district. Once
the neighborhood’s priorities had been
established, they began to develop
projects to address these priorities.
One key project was the development
of a set of performance metrics
called the Capitol Hill EcoDistrict
Index.  According to Sisolak, the Index
originally focused on environmental
sustainability but evolved to be much
more holistic and centered around
equity, in part as a reflection of what
Capitol Hill Housing is. “Capitol
Hill Housing, like CDCs around the
country, evolved out of the civil rights
movement,” said Sisolak, “and our
The BuildingGreen Report December 2017
• p. 4
focus is really standing
and working alongside
low-income people.”
Sisolak describes an
“equity screening tool”
that makes equity a
priority in all of the
district’s projects. For
example, Sisolak points
to the work the district
has done to improve
transit access. “If we can
improve transit access
for low-income people,
we’re improving mobil-
ity and transit access for
everybody,” he says.
The Capitol Hill Renter
Initiative is another
example. Sisolak explained that more
than 80% of the residents of Capitol
Hill are renters and that historically
power in the neighborhood has rested
more with property owners. “We real-
ly wanted to find a way to get renters
more engaged in influencing both
public and private processes and de-
velopment in the neighborhood. “The
goal is to really bring a grassroots
balance to the ‘grasstops’ approach of
the EcoDistricts steering committee,”
Sisolak said. [“Grasstops” advocacy is
led by community stakeholders with
a high level of influence, like property
owners and those in decision-making
roles at institutions or government
agencies.]
In addition to helping form a citywide
renters’ commission—the first of
its kind in the country—the Renter
Initiative is also working on things
like passing “mandatory housing
affordability” zoning changes, and
improving pedestrian and bicycle
safety through outreach around
protected bike lanes.
2030 Districts
While EcoDistricts address the full
spectrum of sustainability goals, 2030
Districts focus on a narrower set of
priorities, namely those outlined
by the 2030 Challenge for Planning,
which include goals for reducing
fossil-fuel energy consumption, water
consumption, and CO2 emissions from
transportation.
The 2030 Districts program does not
involve a rating system but is based
on the premise that buildings in a
neighbor­hood can form a district to
meet, collectively, the goals of the
Architecture 2030 Challenge.
Dave Low, a liaison for the 2030
Districts Network, explained that
the impetus for the program was
the passing of the benchmarking
ordinance in Seattle. “When that
happened we came together in the
building industry community. Rather
than all of us trying to figure out what
the heck to do and how to address
this individually, why don’t we sit
down as a group and figure it out,”
he said. The group, led by building
owners and managers, worked for
a year and eventually came up with
the 2030 District concept as a way
to cooperatively address both the
local benchmarking law and the 2030
Challenge.
Low told BuildingGreen, “For this
to really make a difference, we really
felt like we needed to have these
measurable goals, so that’s why we
went to Architecture 2030.” And
soon after the first 2030 District was
established in Seattle, several other
cities came to them wanting to start
their own—which led to the creation
of the official nationwide program.
The 2030 Districts program is
generally intended for denser urban
areas—like central business districts—
that have a mix of commercial and
residential buildings, a concentration
Image: 2015 2030, Inc. / Architecture 2030
Property owners and managers in a neighborhood
may form a 2030 District to collaborate, share
resources, and collectively meet 2030 Challenge
goals.

Image: NYC Emerging 2030 District /
NYC EcoDistricts Working Group
A report by the NYC Emerging 2030 District
and the NYC EcoDistricts Working Group
evaluates how district-scale sustainability
programs could be implemented in New York
City.
of resources, and multiple properties
that are owned or managed by the
same entity. This allows for rapid
implementation of efficiency practices.
Launching a 2030 District requires
committed participation of at least
ten owners or managers, or 10% of
the commercial building space, or a
total 10 million square feet within a
designated boundary (each district
draws its own boundary).
Low explains that each of the existing
2030 Districts was established and
operates a bit differently. For example,
the Pittsburgh district is run as a
program of the local USGBC chapter
there, while the Albuquerque, New
Mexico district is run through the
downtown Business Improvement
District, and the Cleveland and Seattle
districts each formed their own
nonprofit organizations.
2030 Districts across the country
together make up the 2030 Districts
Network, which “coordinates
resources, best practices, and
collaboration among all the districts,”
according to Low. This includes the
development of resources that each
district can tap into, including, for
example, a cooperative purchasing
program for energy-efficient products.
District membership also gives
The BuildingGreen Report December 2017
• p. 5
building owners, property managers,
and developers access to services like:
• Assessment of current building
performance relative to 2030
District goals
• Anonymous benchmarking against
local peer buildings
• Training on tools and best practices
In addition to resources available
through the national network, each
district develops its own programs.
According to Low, a lot of districts
focus first on education. The
Pittsburgh district, for example, runs a
monthly program to educate building
owners about current technologies
and strategies for reducing energy and
water use.
There are three types of members
in a 2030 District: property owners
& managers, services stakeholders
(architects, engineers, builders,
etc.), and community stakeholders
(civic institutions, neighborhood
organizations, etc.). However,
the private-sector partners, not
government entities, take the lead.
“That’s been one of the keys to the
successes is that it’s private-sector
led,” said Low, “so developers,
managers, and owners don’t feel like
this is something the city is telling
them they have to do. This is about
them coming up with solutions that
are helpful to them. It’s all about
trying to help them develop tools to
address market realities.”
The focus of 2030 Districts is really on
making the business case for urban
sustainability, with an emphasis on
economic development. Low points
to one of the program’s biggest
successes, in Seattle. “The city has
now put incentives into their building
codes based on recommendations
from the Seattle 2030 District,” he
said. For example, developers are
eligible for priority permitting if
they join the District and commit to
meeting the goals. “That’s a really
important financial, tangible benefit to
a developer,” said Low. 
Meeting the 2030 Challenge in
NYC
The New York City 2030 District
is an “emerging” district, which
means it is seeking a critical mass of
commitments from property owners
and managers before finalizing a
formal organizational structure.
The district includes areas of both
downtown Brooklyn and downtown
Manhattan, and the initial area
of focus is centered on Brooklyn
Community District 2. Architect Haym
Gross, founding member of the NYC
2030 District Committee, explained
that the process of establishing a
district in New York has been different
compared to other cities in terms of
carving out turf. He explains that the
city is a very diverse and crowded
field. There are many different public
and private programs—including
arts, environmental, and real estate
groups—each trying to stake out
territory.
Despite this great number of
organizations working on some aspect
of sustainability or resilience, the
exploratory committee, according
to Gross, found there was no group
“independent of either government or
a corporate interest that is specifically
geared toward facilitation of projects.”
This is the role the 2030 District plans
to fill. Gross said, “We’re looking
to do economies of scale, we’re
looking to do a very open form of
collaboration, we’re looking to get
finance and technology and design
professions and the academic world
and the policy people together to push
this forward at a much faster rate,
both in terms of innovation, but also in
terms of generating projects that have
some form of aggregated value.”
One of the district’s initial projects is
to collaborate with Solar One to run a
Solarize NYC campaign with a grant
from the NYC Solar Partnership. The
project will aggregate building owners
interested in installing solar panels
to collectively negotiate competitive
pricing, lowering the cost for each.
 Living Community Challenge Living Materials Plan,
and Universal Access to
The Living Community Challenge Community Services.
(LCC) is essentially the Living
Building Challenge (LBC) scaled The LCC certification
up and applied to entire neighbor- process is similar to that
hoods. The same basic goals and of the LBC, with the
requirements apply. To earn LCC addition of intermediate
certification, a community must phases focused on the
achieve net-positive energy and development of a Vision
water performance, but this can be Plan and Masterplan.
distributed, concentrated, and/or These involve estab-
averaged throughout the community. lishing a shared idea
And, as with the LBC, full LCC of what’s good for the Photo courtesy of Williams College

certification is based on 12 months of
actual performance, and projects can
alternatively choose to pursue a Petal
certification.
These progressive goals and emphasis
on performance are about closing
the gap between what’s currently
considered standard practice and
what the ideal would be. Uhlig told
BuildingGreen, “It’s not just that
you’re measuring, and that you’re
x percent better, but that [you’re
achieving] net positive performance
on every level. It’s that combination of
not just measuring the data but having
the right goals.”
Like the LBC, the LCC is
organized around 7 “Petals” and
20 “Imperatives.” Uhlig explained
that 16 of the 20 Imperatives for the
LCC have the same name as those
in LBC and are based on the same
principles but tailored for the com-
munity scale. The four Imperatives
unique to the community scale are:
Healthy Neighborhood Design,
Resilient Community Connection,
Living Community Challenge projects proceed through planning and
implementation phases and have the option of pursuing Zero Energy,
Petal, or full Living certification.
community and creating Williams College, a registered Living Community Challenge project,
a detailed roadmap for is using the program as a framework to plan future development of its
campus in Williamstown, Massachusetts.
success. (More informa-
tion about each step of
the certification process is available in
a recently published handbook. See
also: New Handbook Demystifies the
Living Community Challenge.)
These planning phases of the program
can be really powerful in themselves
by helping a community find ways
to take action. Uhlig notes that most
communities—whether it’s a college
campus, neighborhood, or master
planned development—have a
number of goals and plans for meeting
them. A city may have a different
initiative each for things like carbon
reduction, livability, and resilience.
“What we’re hearing from the teams
engaging with the Living Community
Challenge is that they see it as an
overarching implementation tool that
can help unite all of these plans,” said
Uhlig.
But regardless of the specific place
and its particular plans, the goal is to
have the community as
involved as possible.
Though the LCC sets
specific performance
goals, it is not meant
to prescribe how each
community reaches
those goals. The strat-
egies used should be
fully informed by the
community. “We talk a
lot about the genius of
the community—how
Image: ILFI
they think it’s best to get
to that goal of perfor-
mance,” said Uhlig.
In addition to the framework that the
LCC certification process provides, the
program has also developed a number
of tools that can be used by any
community working on sustainable
development. One example is
the Living Community Patterns,
which, explained Uhlig, “build off
Christopher Alexander’s A Pattern
Language, distilling the Imperatives
into themes of patterns.” These were
developed through the program’s
work with the San Francisco planning
department, which was interested
in creating a variety of patterns that
could be incorporated in various
neighborhoods.
Algiers Village: a rural Living
Community?
Algiers Village is a rural community
in Guilford, Vermont. Once a very
vibrant place, the village, like many
others throughout the region, had
fallen into decline over a period
of decades. Then, in 2004, a group
of residents gathered to form an
organization, Friends of Algiers
Village, Inc. (FAV), with the mission
“to stabilize and increase the economic
and environmental vitality of the
village.” (Disclosure: BuildingGreen is
technical consultant for this project.)
Now, together with three other
local nonprofit organizations, FAV is
working with the regional planning
commission to explore the possibility
of pursuing Living Community
Challenge certification. In fact, it was
the commission’s proposal that the

The BuildingGreen Report December 2017

• p. 6

Photo: Windham & Windsor Housing Trust
Part of the development efforts in Algiers Village include providing
additional affordable housing units.
Village engage with the LCC program
that caused the four groups to come
together for the first time behind a
single effort. Gary Swindler, president
of FAV, told BuildingGreen, “Algiers is
a very small community, but it got us
actually in the same room at the same
time talking about our wishes and
desires, and barriers and frustrations.”
Very quickly, the different groups
realized they all wanted a lot of the
same things for the community.
Susan McMahon, associate director
of Windham Regional Commission,
explained that one of the first steps
was to go through each of the LCC
Petals to determine the feasibility of
meeting the requirements. “Right
now, we’re very much in a phase
one—looking if this is possible,” said
McMahon, “but regardless, it still
works very well for the community
because they at least get to look at
what is possible in the community
even if they don’t go any further than
this.”
Soon after the four development
groups first met to discuss a “wish
list” of shared goals, they brought the
wider community into the process
with a public meeting to review these
goals. “And actually it was also a way
to voice concerns about the whole
process,” Swindler said, adding that
Guilford, like any town, has a lot of
naysayers.
The group recognizes how crucial it
is to clearly explain what the LCC
is and what it will mean for future
development to a community that’s
The BuildingGreen Report December 2017
• p. 7
largely unfamiliar with
such programs. “That’s
been one of our chal-
lenges is communicat-
ing this kind of more
urban concept on a rural
level,” said McMahon.
“We’re trying to do the
work and at the same
time trying to explain
it,” she said, adding that
it would be helpful if
the program used terms
that are less jargony
and more accessible to
laypeople.
Though the village is
still very early in the process, Swindler
said that it’s been a very healthy
process of community develop­
ment. “LCC is pie in the sky, it’s the
umbrella, it’s kind of what’s driving
this,” he says, “but really the reality,
the feet-on-the-ground effort, is a very
tangible community conversation
leading to hopefully a well conceived
vision for how Algiers could
respond to all the current and future
challenges.”
Thus far the effort is being financed
with funds from the Environmental
Protection Agency’s Brownfields
program—which allows for a certain
percentage of granted money to be
used for area-wide planning projects—
and from the state’s Clean Energy
Development Fund.
LEED for Communities
Currently in pilot phase, LEED
for Communities is a new USGBC
program to support district-scale
sustainable development. (LEED
for Communities is paired with the
LEED for Cities program. The two
programs have the same requirements
for certification. See LEED to Certify
Entire Communities, Cities.)
Casey Studhalter, project manager
at USGBC explained how this new
rating system differs from the LEED
for Neighborhood Development
(LEED-ND) system. “The way that
LEED has a BD+C rating system for
new construction, providing the sort
of prescriptive strategies needed
during that design and construction
phase, but then there’s also an O+M
rating system for the ongoing life of
the building—I think that LEED-ND
and LEED for Cities or Communities
serves that similar need,” he said.
And what sets LEED for Communities
apart from other district-scale
programs is its singular emphasis on
measurable outcomes over process.
“Our program is the only program
that is exclusively focused on
performance,” said Roger Platt, senior
vice president of strategic planning,
USGBC.
Communities seeking LEED for
Communities certification use
USGBC’s online Arc platform to
collect and submit specific metrics
related to a holistic set of sustain-
ability categories. Communities then
implement strategies to improve
performance across categories. Using
the analytic capabilities of the Arc
tool, communities can evaluate the
effectiveness of different strategies
as well as identify synergies between
strategies.
This commitment to performance
is to build credibility, according to
Platt. One of the goals of the program,
he explains, is to develop “enough
Image: Windham Regional Commission
Algiers Village, Vermont, is developing a Living
Community Challenge Vision Plan, which
includes a study of how the community might
use solar power to help meet the requirements of
the Energy Petal.

Images: Arc Skoru Inc. / USGBC
Communities seeking LEED for Communities or LEED for Cities
certification use the Arc online reporting tool to collect and analyze
metrics for a holistic range of sustainability categories.
performance data through Arc that
when we say that a city designed
in this fashion is more likely to
accomplish high performance, we
know what we’re talking about—
that we actually have some data
to support the correlation between
certain designs and certain levels of
performance.”
The foundational belief of the program
is that there is a real connection
between measurement and higher
levels of performance. “That was our
experience very dramatically with the
GRESB product we have,” said Platt,
referring to the Global Real Estate
Sustainability Benchmark, a program
for assessing the sustainability
performance of real estate portfolios.
“All kinds of companies, all else being
equal, seemed to improve simply by
the act of measuring,” he says.
efficiency in the future.
He explains that smart
cities essentially use a
lot of collected data that
is specific to that par-
ticular city to help the
people who run it make
good, informed deci-
sions about operations.
Songdo is unique in
that most of it (60%)
is owned by a single
developer, Gale In-
ternational. Gale, in a
public-private partnership with the
Incheon city government, has led
the development of the district. And
this model has allowed for a highly
effective, integrated implementation of
sustainable strategies like a pneumatic
waste removal system, a district
co-generation plant, and “ubiquitous”
sensing and control technology.
Raiji explains that in Songdo, all the
operational systems were brought
together into “one smart system
that’s looking at everything, that
is exchanging very relevant and
real-time information from one system
to the other.” For example, the city
is able to look at things like traffic
and, using predictive analytics, can
predict when congestion will happen
and respond intelligently to manage a
traffic jam that hasn’t even happened
yet.
In its extensive use of data to drive
operational decisions, Songdo seems
to be tailor-made for the LEED for
Communities program with its
primary emphasis on measurement.
Though the district had originally
intended to achieve LEED-ND
certification for the entire district, due
to certain requirements of that system,
particularly those pertaining to public
access, it was not possible. Instead,
several smaller individual sections
within the district are pursuing
LEED-ND certification while the
district as a whole pursues LEED for
Communities certification.
Tom Murcott, executive vice
president at Gale International, told
BuildingGreen, “All along we’d been
pushing the USGBC to do what we
sort of termed for a while ‘LEED for
urban development’—and the concept
of having a new standard that looked
at things more holistically and wasn’t
so prescriptive.”

LEED for Communities in South

Korea: Songdo International
Business District

This focus on data is evident in places

like Songdo International Business
District (IBD) in Incheon, South Korea,
a master planned private development
that was designed from the ground up
to be a “smart” and sustainable city.

The district recently earned a LEED for

Communities Precertification, which
means it has created an approved
planning “roadmap” describing
the district’s goals, stakeholders,
governance structure, and methods for
tracking key performance metrics.

Ashok Raiji, principal at Arup, says The Songdo International Business District in Incheon, South Korea, is being developed from the ground
up as a sustainable city and recently earned a LEED for Communities Precertification. It contains 22
that the data technology of “smart million square feet of LEED-certified space, a pneumatic waste disposal system, and a district co-
cities” like Songdo will be what drives generation plant.

The BuildingGreen Report December 2017

• p. 8
 Sustainability Districts: Strategies for Success
Whichever program a community chooses to guide neighborhood-scale sustainable development, there are some essential strategies that can
help any project succeed.

Core Values Stakeholders

Place-based Process: Sensitivity to a community’s unique cultural
and environmental context is important in developing projects that
respond to the actual needs and priorities of a place. A development
process guided by the identity of the community will generate the most
appropriate and effective strategies. Engaging local expertise can help
projects discover the best strategies for a particular community.
Social Equity: By grounding all of its operations and activities in equity,
a district can maximize its impact. By attending to the most vulnerable
populations within the community, the district can ensure that it is improv-
ing conditions for all. An equitable process also promotes community
buy-in and participation.
Process + Outcomes: It is important for each district to find the right
balance between a focus on process and a focus on goals. Depending
on its particular qualities, a district may choose to establish specific
performance goals or emphasize continuous, incremental improvement
instead. Either way, it is critical that performance be measured on an
ongoing basis. Depending on its particular goals and priorities, a
district may choose to prescribe specific strategies or focus instead on
establishing a flexible framework to support development of custom
solutions. In either case, maintaining rigor in the process will be
important to achieving meaningful impact.
Organization
Community of Practice: Successful districts foster a “community of
practice” by facilitating collaborative relationships with and among
local service providers, public agencies, and advocacy groups.
Governance: A strong governance structure is critical to the success
of any district. A well-organized decision-making body that operates
transparently can be highly effective at facilitating coordination
between a district’s different programs and projects. A central steering
committee can also more efficiently handle administrative tasks—like
performance tracking, communications, and fundraising—for all district
stakeholders.
Committed Sponsor: Districts supported by devoted “backbone”
organizations are often highly successful. For example, community
development corporations, which focus on social equity, community
organizing, and affordable housing development, are a natural fit for
sustainability districts.
Community Engagement: The more involved the community is, the
better. Districts that have gained the support and participation of a
diverse range of community stakeholders are likely to develop solutions
that have wide appeal. And the more aware and informed a community
is, the easier it will be to craft a collective vision and achieve consensus.
Communication: In communicating with community stakeholders it is
important to avoid jargon or language that feels top-down. A highly
effective way of informing community members is to tell them how
development projects will directly affect them. A relatable, bottom-up
approach is the best way to share ideas about what’s possible in a
neighborhood.
Trust: Gaining community buy-in is easier the more accountable and
credible the district’s governing body is. Maintaining transparency and
openness are essential for gaining the public’s trust. One strategy for
establishing legitimacy is to register with an established program or
rating system administered by a recognized third-party organization.
Diverse Participation: The involvement of both grassroots organizers
and high-level community influencers in a district not only maintains an
equitable and diverse balance, it also increases the range and variety
of projects a district can implement. Successful districts also involve a
good mix of both public and private partners. This supports a district’s
ability to develop projects informed by both policy and economics.
Financing
Economic Feasibility: Successful districts are able to gain the full
investment and support of private sector partners by developing
strategies and projects that are aligned with market realities. An
important task of any district is to make the business case for green and
socially responsible development.
Diverse Funding: Districts that are able to secure financial support from
a variety of sources will be more adaptable and resilient. A robust
funding strategy is critical to success. A district may prioritize devoting
a portion of its full-time capacity to fundraising efforts. 

Challenges But this can be a challenge in existing Another challenge relates to

Whichever program a community uses
to guide sustainable development,
there are challenges that are common
to them all.
For any of these programs to really
be effective in supporting a vibrant,
sustainable community, the unique
qualities and particular priorities of
that community must be identified.
And in order for a community to
move forward with any of these
programs, consensus about goals must
be reached.
communities with multiple, diverse
groups of property owners and
stakeholders, each of which may have
varying levels of interest and different
ideas about how the neighborhood
should be developed.
Several people told BuildingGreen
that when communicating with
community members it is important
to avoid jargon that might alienate
people or feel too hierarchical. Instead,
many suggest speaking directly to
people about how development
projects will affect them personally.
governance. Platt, in speaking about
LEED for Communities, explained
that it is “important to make sure that
you have a solid governance structure
that you can rely on—an entity that
represents the various stakeholders in
such a way that they can commit to
these goals and they can coordinate
their communications back.” Platt
noted that it’s a little more straight­
forward at the city scale when the
city is the coordinating authority. But
at the district level, when you have
multiple owners and organizations,
you need a strong governing body to
bring these all into concerted action.

The BuildingGreen Report December 2017

• p. 9
 Financing projects is another challenge
regardless of the particular program
a community uses. A sustainability
district’s fundraising strategies
will depend on its governance
structure, and on the resources and
opportunities available in its location.
For example, a district might elicit
donations through a crowd-funding
platform, or receive financial
support through sponsorships and
grants offered by public and private
organizations that focus on advancing
sustainable development. (See the
“How Are Sustainability Districts
Funded?” sidebar above for more
information.)
The Future of Sustainable
Development and Design
Cole’s hope for the EcoDistricts
certification standard is that it really
drives market transformation.
“Much like LEED, in 10 or 15 years,
this type of equitable, sustainable
development will be almost standard
practice or status quo and built into
RFPs [requests for proposals] that are
released by redevelopment agencies
and public authorities,” she said.
“I would hope that, 20 years from
now, there’s a whole host of businesses
that have sustainable neighborhood
development built into their service
offerings,” Cole said. She added that
these businesses would need to “really
understand what that means from an
engagement standpoint and an equity
standpoint and a districts-systems
perspective and a community
development perspective that’s
beyond the technical green building
strategy solutions.”
Evolving practice: collaborative
leadership
As the market changes and focus
shifts to the community level, it will
require building professionals to
embrace more cooperative ways of
working. Competitors may become
collaborators.
“We very much look at our work as
building a community of practice,”
said Cole. Established EcoDistricts
The BuildingGreen Report December 2017
• p. 10
The Capitol Hill Garage Sale Day is an example of the projects that the Capitol Hill EcoDistrict helps
to organize. The community event promotes recycling and social interaction.
are gathered into cohorts so that
knowledge and information is shared
among them. Cole told BuildingGreen,
“Even the EcoDistricts that have been
at this the longest have said there’s
really value in having this sense of
community and there are things to
learn from the newer EcoDistricts.”
Like any community-based planning
efforts involving a wide array of
different participants, establishing and
maintaining a sustainability district
needs good facilitators—people who
have strong skills in communication,
outreach, and project management.
Building professionals who have
experience leading or facilitating
integrative design processes at the
building scale may naturally evolve to
fill a similar role at the neighborhood
scale. In many ways, that’s what
sustainability districts are about—
taking the concept of integrative
process to the next level, where the
collaborating stakeholders include
entire project teams, developers,
building managers and property
owners, city agencies, community
groups, etc.
Place-based work
In order to better serve the localized
projects of a sustainability district,
building professionals may develop
Photo courtesy of Alex Garland Photography
practices that are much more place-
based. Fundamentally this means
becoming more involved in and
informed about the local community.
Another aspect of a place-based
practice may be a greater
understanding of how each single
project interacts with a larger
network of built infrastructure and
natural systems. According to Uhlig,
there is an increased awareness
among architects of how individual
sites are part of a larger ecosystem
and a greater emphasis on the
responsibilities that a site has to the
larger ecosystem. The LCC uses the
metaphor of the forest. “It’s less about
the individual organism; it’s more
about the ecosystem and how the
ecosystem is working and thriving
together,” said Uhlig.
Developer-driven sustainability
Developers play a major role in
district-­scale sustainability efforts
and some seem to be increasingly
willing to commit to such projects.
“I think one of the things that’s been
really exciting and inspiring to me
is working with developers who see
value in this,” said Cole. She says
more developers are realizing that
making a larger upfront investment to
take a non-traditional approach that

Capitol Hill Housing's 12th Avenue Arts building is a mixed-use development that includes 88
affordable apartments as well as theaters, local retail, a community meeting room, and nonprofit office
space. It is also part of the Capitol Hill Arts District project to both preserve the neighborhood's cultural
identity and leverage the arts as a means to achieve community goals.
involves the community is the right
way to gain support.
And in a growing number of cases,
according to Platt, it is the developers
who are the ones behind the scenes
in communities encouraging
different groups to organize around
a district-scale approach. Developers
planning to be long-term investors in a
community understand the economic
benefits of sustainable development.
“Sometimes there is a developer who’s
eager to develop in a district or region
and views engagement with LEED for
Communities as one way to get on the
record the community’s commitment
to long-term environmental
performance,” said Platt.
Scaling up impact
Uhlig shares that, in her previous
position at GGLO, when she first
started with the firm it was pursuing
its first LEED project. But over time
the firm broadened its thinking in
an effort to get to scale, and has been
involved in a number of different
projects that are not typical within
The BuildingGreen Report December 2017
• p. 11
Photo courtesy of Bill Wright Photography
traditional architecture practice. For
example, the firm has worked with
Seattle on its sea level rise adaptation
planning and its climate action plan.
“I think there are a lot of different
ways within a traditional practice that
you can scale up for that maximum
impact,” said Uhlig.
Overall, community-based sustainable
development could provide building
professionals with a refreshed sense
of purpose and energy. Swindler, who
works as an energy consultant, said
about exploring the LCC in Algiers
Village, “From a personal level it’s
kind of a vocational dream to be able
to be involved in a really active and
functioning Living Community. I’m
not trying to get too wide-eyed about
the potential, but it’s definitely helping
keep me motivated for the process.”
For more information
EcoDistricts
ecodistricts.org
2030 Districts Network
2030districts.org
International Living Future Institute
living-future.org/lcc
US Green Building Council
new.usgbc.org/cert-guide/
cities-communities
NEWS ANALYSIS
Denver Votes Green Thumbs
Up for Green Roofs
A city suffering from ozone
pollution and the heat-island
effect approves a ballot
measure requiring green roofs.
by Nancy Eve Cohen
More than half of the voters in
Denver approved a ballot initiative in
November requiring new buildings
25,000 square feet or larger to build
green roofs or roofs that combine
vegetation and solar arrays. The
rules also apply when additions are
built that expand a building to 25,000
square feet or more, and to existing
buildings of that size when they are
replacing a roof.
The unlikely leader of the initiative
is a 31-year-old manager of a Red
Robin Gourmet Burgers restaurant
named Brandon Rietheimer, who has
never done environmental organizing
before.
Rietheimer was inspired to make
a difference after the presidential
election. “Bernie’s message really
resonated,” he recalled, explaining
Bernie Sanders’ call to action: “’Get
active locally.’ I took that to heart.”
Rietheimer thought about what he
could do to improve the environment
Photo: Andy Creath
A green roof on top of the Community College of
Denver.

Photo: courtesy Steven W. Peck, GRP, Founder and President, GRHC
Green roof atop the Denver Botanic Gardens, with more than 100 species of native plants.
in Denver. He points out the city
suffers from ozone pollution, polluted
waterways, and the heat-island effect.
“I found the best way to address all
those issues,” he said, “is green roofs.”
He and about 80 other volunteers
gathered 8,000 signatures for a petition
to get the initiative on the ballot. “It
was really close,” he said. “We were
out there up until the very last minute
of the very last day.”
Once the green roof initiative got
on the ballot, the volunteers faced
another challenge. A group of Denver
businesses and real estate developers
called Citizens for a Responsible
Denver raised nearly $260,000 to pay
for television and radio ads to try to
convince people to vote against it.
That compared to $21,000 raised by
backers of the initiative.
Developers oppose the
mandate, proponents say
it’s essential
Kathie Barstnar co-chairs Citizens
for a Responsible Denver and
is executive director of NAIOP
Colorado, the state’s commercial
real estate development association.
She said the problem with the green
roof requirement is “mandating
that it be on every building, rather
than allowing owners to determine
whether or not it really works for their
particular project.” She adds a second
The BuildingGreen Report December 2017
• p. 12
problem is that “it applies to existing
buildings with very little ability to
exempt out.”
But Rietheimer said the mandate is
key. “Having one green roof here and
there is great for a building,” he said,
“but it doesn’t really do a lot for the
city.”
Denver has the third worst urban
heat-island effect in the United
States, averaging 4.9ºF hotter over
the summer in the city compared to
the surrounding areas—driving up
cooling costs.
The heat-island effect is when a city
is hotter than nearby rural areas. It’s
caused by impermeable surfaces like
roads, parking lots, and dark rooftops
that absorb and retain heat.
“When we replace a dark tar roof with
a green roof, we remove a source of
heat from the outside,” said Steven
Peck, founder and president of Green
Roofs for Healthy Cities. “Put a green
roof on, and not only does it take the
heat source away, it actually has a net
cooling effect.”
The idea behind the initiative is
that green roofs would cool the city
as a whole and reduce greenhouse
gas emissions by swapping out the
heat-absorbing black roofs for lush
gardens or solar energy arrays.
On green roofs, the plants and the
growing medium (soil isn’t used,
but instead an engineered mix
of materials) retain moisture and
take the heat out of the air through
evapotranspiration, a process similar
to how our bodies cool down when
we sweat. (For more on green roof
soil, see For a Low-Maintenance Green
Roof, Give Plants Better Soil.)
Green roofs also slow down the flow
of storm water and filter pollutants
out of the air.
Peck’s group, Green Roofs for
Healthy Cities, along with the Green
Infrastructure Foundation, studied the
costs and benefits of Denver’s green
roof ballot initiative. The analysis
assumes all the work done would be
green roofs, not solar.
The study found that capital
and maintenance costs would be
significant; but over a 40-year period,
energy savings and other benefits
would more than defray these
expenses. 
Barstnar said the added construction
and maintenance costs, plus possible
higher insurance costs, mean some
development projects “may not
go forward.” And some existing
buildings may choose to patch roofs,
rather than replace them with green
roofs.
Barstnar adds, the initiative didn’t
“address the ability to do white roofs,”
which she says would be a better fit
for some existing buildings and is less
costly. (For more on white roofs, see
Are Cool Roofs Green? The Answer’s
Not Black and White.)
When the ordinance goes into effect
on January 1, Denver will join San
Francisco and Toronto, which have
green roof requirements for some new
buildings.
The Denver City Council could still
amend or appeal the ordinance,
but it would need a two-thirds
vote. Rietheimer says he’s open to
amending the ordinance to clarify the
rules for existing buildings.
 More on green roofs The guidelines
recommend a set of best
Green Roofs: Using Roofs for More practices for designing
Than Keeping Dry buildings, streets, and
neighborhoods to reduce
Are Cool Roofs Green? The Answer’s the amount of material
Not Black and White that ends up in landfills.
Designers, developers,
For a Low-Maintenance Green Roof,
and sustainability and
Give Plants Better Soil
waste experts worked
New Standard for Green Roof together to create them.
Membranes
The focus is on the Photo: Zero Waste Design Guidelines Team

ASTM Approves Green Roof nation’s biggest city, Recycling bags on West 34th Street in Chelsea, New York City.
Standards New York, where
the Department of “It’s not the same as plastic bottles
For more information Sanitation collected, on average, that can stay in a trash room for a few
12,550 tons of waste every day last days until the super can come collect
Denver Green Roof Initiative year. Only 18.9% was recycled, reused, them,” explained Miflin. “Organic
or composted, as illustrated by this waste needs to be collected every day.
Citizens for a Responsible Denver graphic from the Zero Waste Design So, we have to change our buildings if
Guidelines, courtesy of Center for we want to collect that.”
Study on Denver’s Green Roof
Architecture.
Initiative Miflin says it should be equally

Green Infrastructure Foundation

Green Roofs for Healthy Cities
Waste Not Want Not:
NYC Zero Waste Design
Guidelines
If we can reduce waste here,
we can do it anywhere.
by Nancy Eve Cohen
Waste is a design flaw.
That’s the thinking behind the Zero
Waste Design Guidelines, recently
issued by the NYC chapter of the
American Institute of Architects.
Photo: Zero Waste Design Guidelines Team
Recycling on Cedar Street in the Financial
District of New York City.
Designing for waste is a new field convenient to dispose in one location
“It was kind of a revelation to work
with waste,” said Clare Miflin, an
associate principle with Kiss+Cathcart, buildings, it’s far easier to throw trash
Architects, who spearheaded the
guideline effort. “Not much has been
done. So, there is so much opportunity
to improve things.”
The guidelines are being released
as the city tackles its ambitious goal
of sending zero waste to landfills
by 2030. Although the focus of the
guidelines is New York City, the
authors say they can be applied to
other places as well.
A lot of the thinking behind the
guidelines is focused on design
that makes it easy for people to do
the right thing as efficiently and
effortlessly as possible. They tackle
the challenges of storing, separating,
and collecting waste—including
trash, recyclables, textiles and organic
waste—on construction sites and in
residential and commercial buildings.
A waste like no other
Organic waste makes up about one-
third of the trash in New York City
and presents specific challenges.
all of the waste we generate every day,
rather than having to haul organics to
the basement, for example. In many
out than to recycle or compost.
“If you have all the bins together,
people are more likely to separate stuff
if they don’t have to take one thing to
a more inconvenient location.”
By code, new, larger residential
buildings in NYC must have recycling
and trash disposal on every floor.
The guidelines recommend that in
low-service buildings, where the bins
aren’t emptied each day, designers
plan to have bins for each waste
stream in one central location for the
entire building. That way, it would
be equally convenient to dispose of
everything.
“It makes it difficult if you have to
put it in a lot of different places,” said
Miflin.
One of the first steps during the design
process is to figure out the amount of
waste a building might produce. The
guidelines include an online calculator
that estimates the amount of trash,
recycling, organics, and textiles a
building might generate.

The BuildingGreen Report December 2017

• p. 13

Photo: Chris Rosen
Recycling and trash cans on Greenpoint
Avenue in Brooklyn, New York.
The guidelines also include ideas for
reducing the generation of waste. For
example, multifamily buildings could
have ‘libraries’ that loan vacuums
or drills. Households could share a
barbeque grill, or toys in a playroom
for kids. That would mean less
packaging waste is generated after
purchase, and fewer things are thrown
out.
One recommendation for office
buildings is to design fewer locations
for throwing things out and recycling,
making it more efficient for office
workers to separate waste. In addition,
designing for waste means planning
a clear route for moving materials
through a commercial building to a
storage space.
But one problem is that many
commercial buildings don’t have
storage for trash. The result is that
everything is bagged and left on
the curb. The guidelines encourage
owners to provide shared storage
space for waste for commercial
tenants.
“If there isn’t enough space, then it
gets mixed all together,” Miflin told
BuildingGreen. “Design can help the
system work.”
The BuildingGreen Report December 2017
• p. 14
Designing for take-out that comes
back
About two-thirds of all packaging
waste is from food. The guidelines
recommend restaurants use reusable
to-go containers, which customers
could return. Designers could plan for
that. They could design bins where
customers would drop off containers
or a space for a dishwasher to clean
them.
The guidelines include letters of
support from the NYC Mayor’s Office
of Sustainability and the Department
of Sanitation. Miflin and others are
talking with city agencies as well as
private developers about adopting the
guidelines.
“It’s been an amazing process,” Miflin
told BuildingGreen. “Everybody was
just so motivated to deal with the issue
that it made me feel really hopeful that
we could change the system.”
More on Waste Design
Zero Waste? is It TRUE?
Designing the Culture of a Zero Waste
City
For more information
Zero Waste Design Guidelines
USGBC Moves to Improve
LEED v4
LEED v4.1, a new iteration
of the green building rating
system will be piloted in 2018
with the goal of smoothing
over rough spots.
by Tristan Roberts
The latest version of LEED, LEED
v4, became mandatory a little over
a year ago. That was just after the
U.S. Green Building Council’s 2016
Greenbuild conference. This year at
Greenbuild, USGBC announced that it
is fast-tracking development of a new
iteration, LEED v4.1.
“LEED v4 has been out a long time,”
says Corey Enck, director of LEED
technical development at USGBC,
told BuildingGreen. LEED v4’s
development path started in 2009
and eventually stretched through six
public comment periods and a beta
program that began in 2013, before
the system became mandatory in 2016
(see LEED 2012 Postponed to 2013,
Renamed LEED v4). “A lot of the
things we wrote into that need a bit
of a refresh,” says Enck. “We need to
make sure that LEED is still relevant
and is still the leadership standard.”
According to Enck, the refresh
will start with the operations and
maintenance (O+M) standard before
addressing building design and
construction (BD+C). USGBC hopes
to release v4.1 drafts of both systems
in the first quarter of 2018 and
immediately open them for piloting by
LEED projects.
“That real-world experience will give
us the feedback we need,” says Enck,
adding that he anticipates a public
comment period after six to twelve
months of piloting.
Continued focus on performance,
with Arc
The focus of LEED v4 has been
building performance, and Enck said
that would continue with LEED v4.1.
“We want to make sure that LEED
certified buildings are performing
as expected,” he said. “Also, that if
you earn a LEED credit that you’re
receiving the environmental benefit
and outcomes that were desired.”
USGBC and its certification partner
Green Business Certification Inc.
have been heavily promoting their
technology platform, Arc, as a tool
for LEED certification (see New
Tech Startup, Arc Skoru, to Support
USGBC, GBCI with Data), so it’s no
surprise that Arc will feature more
heavily in LEED v4.1.
“Arc provides that platform to start
to measure those key metrics that we
need,” explained Enck. “For BD+C
we would like to reference Arc as the
platform where you can track your
 ongoing performance, and where
you can start to pursue ongoing
certification.” Enck also noted that
Arc, LEED BD+C, and LEED O+M
in some cases use different metrics,
and LEED v4.1 is an opportunity to
align those. “O+M v4.1 will see the
most amount of change,” he said.
“With 4.1 we will embed Arc and the
performance scores into O+M more
directly to try to streamline the O+M
rating system.”
Arc scores projects from interior
spaces to cities using proprietary
algorithms. It has been criticized for
lack of transparency, even as more
projects become certified by using
Arc as a “performance path.”  Enck
noted that the v4.1 effort “also gives
an opportunity to public comment and
ballot the performance scores within
Arc.”
Changes to credits
Expect changes throughout LEED v4,
especially to credits that have proven
difficult or outright unachievable to
project teams based on data collected
by USGBC. Enck previewed the
following ideas, however:
• The ASHRAE 90.1 energy standard
referenced in LEED’s energy
prerequisite and credit is likely to
be updated from the 2010 to the
2013 version. In addition, USGBC
is considering raising the bar across
the board in a more rigorous way
on carbon emissions, sparked in
part by a blog post on LEEDuser
by Greg Kats. (Enck noted that
in this, as in other areas, USGBC
would carefully balance leadership
on environmental imperatives with
likelihood of market adoption.)
• The low-emitting materials credit
is likely to be streamlined. “There
has been market transformation” to
support achievement of this credit,
“but the calculations are quite
hard,” acknowledges Enck.
• The building product disclosure
and optimization (BPDO) credits
are likely to see some changes to
put them more in reach. As recently
chronicled by BuildingGreen,
The BuildingGreen Report December 2017
• p. 15
several options within these three
key materials credits are virtually
unachievable.
I​ n other changes, USGBC is looking
at combining the various LEED for
Homes rating systems (including
regular LEED for Homes as well as
Mid-Rise) into LEED Residential. It is
also considering streamlining LEED
for Neighborhood Development
and linking it with LEED for Cities/
Communities (see D.C. Goes Platinum
In First LEED for Cities Certification).
Higher-scoring projects?
There’s a rule of thumb that a project
on track to achieve one level in the
older LEED 2009 rating system, can
expect its certification to step down
one level in LEED v4. (This is the
case both in credit achievability and
cost, as reviewed in BuildingGreen’s
Cost of LEED v4 report.) Asked if this
might change, Enck said, “Projects
that pursue v4.1 will likely be better
projects than those that pursue v4.
They will be higher performing
because they will now have more
credits they can pursue that will be on
the table.” How will that shake out in
points achieved? “For v4.1 you might
have to stretch more on energy, but
you’ll have other credits in reach as
well,” says Enck.
Building Industry Helps
Disaster Victims Recover
How an architectural firm,
timber company, and
carpenters’ union are helping
communities rebuild after
Maria, Harvey, and the
California wildfires.
by Nancy Eve Cohen
One disaster after another, like a game
of dominoes, toppled communities
across North America this summer
and fall.  
Harvey, Irma, Jose, Maria, the
earthquake in Mexico, the wildfires
in northern California. More than
enough to numb the most empathetic
into listless apathy.
Photo: Marvel Marchand Architects
A representative from Angel Zayas Engineers
inspecting the photovoltaic (PV) installation on
the rooftop of Buena Vista Hato Rey community
center in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
But those in the building industry are
not sitting still. Many are raising funds
and using their skills and machinery
to help people recover.
On the night of September 20, as Maria
hammered Puerto Rico, destroying
the power grid, New York architect
Jonathan Marvel brainstormed with
two friends who, like him, had grown
up on the island. “There were no
flights, no communications, but we
said, ‘How can we help the most
people as fast as possible with our
own expertise?’”
He and his compadres Cristina Roig,
a lawyer, and Walter Meyer, an urban
designer (who had installed solar
panels in Rockaway, New York after
Superstorm Sandy), came up with the
idea to use solar energy to light up the
plazas of every municipality in Puerto
Rico.
Within a week, Marvel, whose firm
has offices in both New York and
San Juan, flew to Puerto Rico to buy
solar panels and racking systems
from solar developers. As his plane
banked over the island known for its
lush vegetation, he saw his childhood
home transformed: “Instead of green
jungles and palm trees, you see brown.
Just everything brown.” And blue
tarps covering roofs.
 Working with Angel Zayas, an
electrical engineer who donated his
time, Marvel launched the nonprofit
Resilient Power Puerto Rico to install
battery-backed solar energy projects.
They built “solar hubs” in community
centers, chosen because they have
kitchens, bathrooms, and classrooms
for people to gather—along with flat,
concrete roofs to site the photovoltaic
(PV) panels.
The first three hubs went up in Caño
Martín Peña, a densely populated,
flood-prone neighborhood of 20,000
people in San Juan, where Marvel’s
mother had once worked as a
community organizer.
Each solar hub has twenty 300-watt
panels, backed by lithium batteries
and anchored on roofs to withstand
157 mile-per-hour winds—the force of
a Category 5 hurricane. The flat roofs,
on an island close to the equator, are
perfect for generating solar energy.
The systems in Caño power 12 ceiling
fans, a large refrigerator that stores
medicine, 12 computers, charging
stations, a water filtration plant, as
well as 30 LED lights.
A poetic moment of solar-
powered disaster assistance
“Providing these communities with
electricity, even in a very limited
amount,” said Marvel, “is a symbolic
way to give hope.” Light, he says,
allows people to help each other, such
as assisting in submitting Federal
Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) applications.
Resilient Power Puerto Rico had raised
$175,000, with a goal of $2.5 million.
The next step is to build solar
installations in each of the 78
municipalities in Puerto Rico
(including its islands Vieques and
Culebra). “One hundred sites in 100
days” is Marvel’s mantra.
Part of the mission is to train local
installers, to bring more jobs to the
solar industry, and to reduce the use of
fossil fuels on the island.
“The ultimate goal, by the end of 2018,
by next hurricane season, is that there
is a robust, grassroots micro-grid in
place in Puerto Rico,” said Marvel.
FSC-certified wood company
fundraises for fire-damaged
communities   and growing by thousands of acres
More than 3,600 miles from Puerto
Rico, Californians, also, are recovering.
Fast-moving, high-intensity wildfires
in the northern part of the state killed
dozens of people and destroyed 8,400
buildings this fall, according to state
authorities.
Forty-two people lost their lives,
including teenagers and elders in
their 80s and 90s—and even one
100-year-old man. In more than one
case, elderly husbands and wives died
together.
The Mendocino Family of Companies,
which grows and sells Forest
Stewardship Council (FSC) certified
wood, has launched a campaign
to raise funds to help communities
recover. Through its Redwood Valley
and Santa Rosa Community Recovery
Fund, the company is matching
every dollar that is contributed up
to $400,000, and is distributing it in
Mendocino and Sonoma Counties.
John Andersen, director of forest
policy for the Mendocino and
Humboldt Redwood Companies,
part of the Mendocino Family of
Companies, said as the fires spread
across the landscape on October 22,
“the numbers were just staggering
throughout the day.”
One fire came close to the eastern
edge of the company’s forest, but
firefighters stopped it, and the forest
was spared. 
Andersen said the fires left very few
houses untouched, leaving behind a
charred landscape, black and grey.
Grasslands and oak woodlands, which
are not commercially harvested,
burned.

Before the hubs, gas and diesel

generators powered the community
centers. “The most poetic moment
was when those generators were
turned off.” said Marvel. “The same
light, fans, and refrigerators were still
operating without the noise and the
toxic fumes.”   

Marvel fronted $25,000 for each of

the three hubs, and paid licensed
electricians and carpenters until the
project’s crowdsourcing campaign
kicked in. By early November, Photo: California National Guard by Sgt. 1st Class Benjamin Cosse.
License: CC BY 2.0.

The Coffey Park neighborhood in Santa Rosa, California, was devastated by wildfire in October 2017.

The BuildingGreen Report December 2017

• p. 16
 “It really looked like pictures of World
War I, where you just see buildings
brought straight to the ground,” said
Andersen. “About the only thing
standing are things like brick or stone
chimneys.” And metallic swing sets
and burnt-out cars.
About seventeen employees of the
Mendocino Family of Companies were
evacuated from their homes. Half
of them lost their entire homes and
everything in them, short of the few
things they were able to grab when
they were evacuated. The company is
offering “relocation bonuses and has
also licensed its heavy equipment and
operators to participate in the clean-
up efforts,” according to a written
statement.
The company is focusing its
fundraising efforts on community
assets that may not be covered by
FEMA. “We’ve lost parks that our
kids play in, community centers, ball
fields,” said Andersen. The fund also
focuses on elder and youth centers,
public safety buildings, and schools.
“We are also considering any needs
for animals,” he added, because many
in the area owned livestock and barns
that may have not been insured. The
fund may also pay to plant trees for
watershed restoration.
Photo: SC National Guard, U.S. Air National Guard by Staff Sgt. Daniel J. Martinez.
The floods of Hurricane Harvey in Port Arthur, Texas, on August 31, 2017.
The BuildingGreen Report December 2017
• p. 17
Andersen says his company and
many others are talking with state
lawmakers about how to make the
state’s forests healthier and fire
resistant.
“The fires that happened around us
certainly were exacerbated because we
have had decades of fire suppression
and very little management, thinning,
or removal of brush,” said Andersen.
“That’s a bad mix when you have the
right fire conditions: low humidity
and high winds.”
Andersen says in his opinion one
thing that’s needed is prescribed fires,
but not near houses.
Union raises funds for carpenters
and millwrights devastated by
Harvey
About 2,000 miles southeast of the
fires, Harvey, a Category 4 hurricane,
clobbered Texas on August 25.
Pounding waves, storm surge as high
as seven feet, and wind gusts as fast as
150 mph tore apart flooded homes and
other buildings.
But that wasn’t the end of it. The
storm stalled for days, moving slowly
east, dropping nearly 52 inches of rain
east of Houston, until it made landfall
in Louisiana.
License: Public domain.
Dozens of people lost their lives.
The day after Harvey hit, staff
at the Central South Carpenters
Regional Council, part of the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America (UBC), began phoning
each of their 2,300 union members
from Texas and Louisiana, in areas
affected by the storm, to see if they
were okay. They offered assistance
evacuating people along with food,
and later, monetary assistance.
“It was just mass devastation because
of the sheer number of people living
in Houston, Beaumont, and Lake
Charles,“ said Jason Engels, the
executive secretary-treasurer of the
Central South Carpenters Regional
Council.
Some of the members’ homes were so
badly damaged they can’t be salvaged.
Some lost everything, including their
tools.
“Our union was there for them and
not just our council,” said Engels. The
UBC and union councils from across
the country and Canada, along with
members of the public and industry
donated thousands of dollars and
“literally tons” of supplies. One
council from Chicago sent “two or
three eighteen-wheeler-loads of water
right after the storm,” said Engels.
One company, Ariat International, sent
200 pairs of waterproof boots, critical
for rebuilding.
Since Harvey came through, the
Central South Carpenters’ Disaster
Relief Fund has disbursed $248,000 to
156 members.
The union also donated cleaning
supplies and drywall to the carpenters
and millwrights whose homes
had been devastated. Many union
members, with their carpentry skills,
went right to work. “Within three or
four weeks of the storm, they had
gutted their Sheetrock and were
rebuilding; replacing floors and
Sheetrock and baseboards,” Engels
said.
This union council is no stranger to
natural disasters and expects more.
“Unfortunately, we have been through
 many floods,” said Engels. Tornadoes
and hurricanes are common in the
region.
The union started the Disaster Relief
Fund after Katrina in 2005 and has
kept it going ever since.  “We will
always keep this,” said Engels.
Engels said most of the union
members whose homes were damaged
by the floodwaters are resilient. “Their
spirits are up. The rebuilding process
has begun.” But as someone who lived
through Katrina, Engels also cautions
that the recovery may take years.
NEWSBRIEFS
Healthier Affordable
Housing Thanks to Fitwel
and Fannie Mae
A new program offers reduced
interest rates plus a refund on
Fitwel certification fees.
by Paula Melton
Affordable housing developers have
a new reason to prioritize health
and safety: it can save them money.
The new program Healthy Hous-
ing Rewards, from lender Fannie
Mae, provides loan recipients with
a reduced interest rate when proj-
ects achieve certification through the
health-promoting program Fitwel (see
Fitwel: Science That Works). Fannie
Mae is a private–public partnership
backed by Congress.
Most residents in affordable rental
housing tend to stay longer than
those in market rate. Bob Simpson,
vice president of affordable and
green financing at Fannie Mae,
said the program with Fitwel is a
chance to make a difference for these
households. “It’s very much their
home,” said Simpson. “If you have
an opportunity to define that place
in a way that kids are going to grow
up in a healthy environment, you
really have to take advantage of that
opportunity.”
The Center for Active Design, which
manages Fitwel, announced its
The BuildingGreen Report December 2017
• p. 18
expansion into the multifamily market
at the same time that it announced the
Fannie Mae partnership. Previously,
the program applied only to
commercial offices.
President and CEO Joanna Frank said
the programs have a lot in common,
but the residential version emphasizes
a few different priorities because
the science behind it is different.
The residential program is based on
evidence-­backed research on lead
safety, control of moisture and mold,
and access to healthy food options in
nearby grocery stores.
The residential standard applies
to both affordable and market-rate
housing, but there are upfront costs.
“You have to be able to demonstrate
return on investment to encourage
the use of health-promoting design
strategies,” Frank told BuildingGreen.
But that’s difficult to do with
affordable housing since you can’t
charge higher rent for certified
properties.
Frank hopes Healthy Housing
Rewards will help Fitwel achieve a
new scale of impact—“that this is
something that reaches every project
and just becomes the standard by
which everyone is renovating existing
projects as well as building new
projects.”
More on green affordable housing
Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Design: The Goals Are Aligned
Financing Affordable Housing; Not for
the Faint of Heart
How Six Affordable Housing Projects
Got to Green
For more information
Center for Active Design
centerforactivedesign.org
USGBC Announces RELi As
Its Resilient Design Rating
System
RELi is USGBC’s new standard
for projects designed to endure
and recover from extreme
weather.
by Nancy Eve Cohen
The U.S. Green Building Council
(USGBC) launched a new certification
Tuesday that sets the first standard for
designing buildings and communities
that withstand and recover from
natural disasters including floods,
tornadoes, droughts, and wildfires.
Mahesh Ramanujam, president and
CEO of USGBC and Green Business
Certification Inc. (GBCI) announced
the new resilient design rating system,
called RELi (pronounced ‘rely’),
during an opening summit at the
Greenbuild Convention in Boston.
“Designing with resiliency in mind
is crucial to developing sustainable
buildings, communities, and cities,”
said Ramanujam. “We need to raise
awareness, increase capacity and
adoption of resiliency in our built
environment if we truly want to
realize a sustainable future for all.”
Ramanujam said GBCI will verify
certification of projects under the
RELi standard, develop an associated
professional credential program,
and scale “this mission to the global
market place.”
U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Bill
Huntington. License: Public domain.
Technical sargeant Keith Berry looks down into
flooded streets searching for survivors. He is
part of an Air Force Reserve team credited with
saving more than 1,040 people in the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina.
 RELi was developed by The
Institute for Market Transformation
to Sustainability (MTS) to help
design teams plan for hazards and
emergencies that could cut power
and heat, or compromise a building’s
functionality.  (For more on RELi,
see The C3 Living Design Project.)
USGBC, GBCI, and MTS will establish
a RELi Steering Committee “to
enhance the current resilient standard
that will also include the LEED pilot
credit,” according to Ramanujam. The
Steering Committee will be chaired
by Doug Pierce of Perkins+Will, lead
author of RELi.

RELi has been developed for more
than two years (see The Four Core
Issues to Tackle for Resilient Design).
GBCI’s announcement comes after
a historic season of hurricanes
and wildfires that devastated
communities across North America
and the Caribbean, which are just now
beginning to recover and rebuild.
At the beginning of the design
process, the RELi system lays out a
“panoramic” approach that requires
studying the adaptation needs of a
project and facilitating an integrative
design process that includes
community stakeholders.
RELi specifies steps for preparing for
hazards and emergencies by making
sure people have food, water, back-
up power, and the technology to
communicate in the days or weeks
following a disaster.
“I’m thrilled that the U.S. Green
Building Council will be taking a
leadership role with resilience,” noted
Alex Wilson, founder of the Resilient
Design Institute and BuildingGreen.
Wilson was co-chair of the USGBC
Photo: AirFlow
Resilience Working Group, which is AirFlow Panels
being sunset, and will be vice-chair
of the new RELi Steering Committee. • AirFlow Panels
“Events this year in Houston, Florida,
Puerto Rico, and Northern California • Grayworks Modular Graywater
System
have amplified just how important
resilience is for our nation’s well-­
• Humanscale Float Table
being.” Wilson was instrumental in the
development of the Resilient Design • ROMABIO Domus Interior Paint
pilot credits in LEED, which are being
folded into RELi. • Roxul AFB evo and Thermafiber
Formaldehyde-Free SAFB Batt
“With the stakes so high,” Ramanujam Insulations
said, “we have no time to waste, and
now is the time to combine all of our • SEMCO 3fficiency
efforts to make sure we are looking in
• SunPower Carport Solutions
the same direction and have a stronger
planet.”
• Thyssenkrupp Elevators

It includes specific requirements such • VersaDry Track System

as providing first aid training for
a percentage of staff or occupants,
96 hours of emergency supplies
such as “compressed food bars”
and low-glycemic foods, as well as
basic communication technologies,
including land-lines, text-messaging,
and walkie-talkies.
Projects can also earn points towards
certification by including provisions
for people in the community who
don’t live in the building. For
example, there are credits that set
standards for providing food, water,
sanitation, and shelter for twice the
project occupancy.
RELi also requires avoiding
developing in vulnerable areas and
providing backup power as well
as infrastructure for temporary
generators and boilers.
PRODUCT REVIEW
BuildingGreen Announces
Top 10 Products for 2018
Our innovative Top 10 product
selections improve IAQ, save
energy and water, contain
fewer hazardous materials, and
promote material transparency.
by Brent Ehrlich
For the past 16 years, BuildingGreen
has selected ten green building
products that significantly improve
upon standard “business-as-usual”
practices. These products improve
indoor air quality, consume less
energy and water, reduce waste, and
can even have a net-positive impact on
the environment.
This year’s BuildingGreen
Approved winners:
• VIG Technologies Tempered
Vacuum Insulated Glass
AirFlow Panels
Saving energy while providing
fresh air is not easy. Air from an
open window is rarely the ideal
combination of temperature and
humidity. Centralized fresh-air
supplies require large, inefficient
fans and complicated ductwork.
And standard energy-recovery
ventilators take up valuable building
space. AirFlow Panels are façade
panels that incorporate a thin, ultra-­
efficient energy-recovery ventilator
(ERV) system. They can provide 200
cubic feet per minute (cfm) of pre-­
conditioned air directly to the building
perimeter, significantly reducing
the size of cooling coils, ducts, or
other equipment used in centralized
systems. This results in 30%–40%

The BuildingGreen Report December 2017

• p. 19
 energy savings, according to the
company. Insulated to approximately
R-14, the panels incorporate a
proprietary ERV core, MERV 13 and
MERV 8 filters, energy-efficient fans,
and a backflow damper to maintain
pressure. They are available with skins
to match a variety of façade colors
and materials. (See BuildingGreen’s
product review, Façade as Ventilation:
Moving beyond Open Windows.)
Grayworks Modular Graywater
System
Reusing graywater from showers
and sinks saves water, energy, and
other resources but typically requires
complicated systems cobbled together
from individual components. This
makes commissioning difficult and
compromises these systems’ long-
term effectiveness. The Grayworks
modular graywater system simplifies
water reuse in commercial buildings
using a small, modular plug-and-
play design. It can treat from 1,000 to
10,000 gallons of graywater per day,
depending on system. The package
includes a self-cleaning vortex pre-­
filter, a proprietary bioreactor that
breaks down pollutants, another
filter to remove remaining solids, and
ultraviolet light to disinfect the water.
Grayworks also offers an optional
chlorine treatment (required by most
codes for water reuse indoors) and
dye system (to mark treated water as
graywater). A polypropylene storage
tank with ¾″ thick walls holds the
water. The system controls can be
integrated into building management
systems, with access via a dashboard
and the Internet. (See BuildingGreen’s
product review, Modular, Onsite
Graywater System.)
Humanscale Float Table
Standing desks have become a
popular way to stay active at work
and reduce the negative health
impacts of sitting. Not all standing
desks are created equal, though.
Humanscale’s Float table uses an
innovative counterbalance mechanism
that allows users to adjust the height
of the desk with one hand, without the
Photo: Humanscale
Humanscale Float Table
need for cranks or motors. The Float
table is Living Building Challenge
Red List Compliant and was the first
product to be certified as a Living
Product by the International Living
Future Institute: this signifies it has a
net-positive impact on water, energy,
climate, and other metrics. Float’s
manufacturing process produces more
energy than it consumes, yet the desk
is made without formaldehyde or
other Red List chemicals (depending
on the desktop specified). The
Float table can be adjusted while
carrying up to 130 pounds and
comes with a five-year warranty. (See
BuildingGreen’s product review, An
Adjustable Desk That Stands Up for
the Environment.)
Photo: ROMABIO
ROMABIO Domus Interior Paint
Most natural paints lack the durability
necessary for commercial interiors, but
ROMABIO’s potassium silicate paints
react with minerals in the substrate
to create a strong, crystalline matrix.
The paints also include added solids
for better cover. They provide better
permeability for wall assemblies and
better mold resistance, and are not
made from fossil fuels. ROMABIO’s
Domus paints are zero VOC and meet
CDPH Standard Method v1.1. They
have a Health Product Declaration
and Cradle to Cradle (C2C) Silver v3.1
certification (with Gold for Renewable
Energy and Carbon Management).
The paints have a Declare label
and contain no Living Building
Challenge Red List chemicals.
(See BuildingGreen’s product
review, Mineral-Based Interior Paints
Go Mainstream.)
Roxul AFB evo and Thermafiber
Formaldehyde-Free SAFB Batt
Insulations
In 2017, Thermafiber and Roxul
both introduced the industry’s first
light-density, formaldehyde-free

ROMABIO Domus Interior Paint

The ROMABIO Domus line of

modified potassium silicate-based
paints is formulated as a drop-in
Photo: Grayworks
replacement for standard acrylic latex. Photo: Roxul
Grayworks Modular Graywater System Roxul AFB evo

The BuildingGreen Report December 2017

• p. 20

Photo: Thermafiber
Thermafiber Formaldehyde-Free SAFB
mineral wool batt insulation
products. While most mineral wool
batt insulation is held together with
resins made from formaldehyde, a
carcinogen and respiratory irritant,
Thermafiber Formaldehyde-Free SAFB
and Roxul AFB evo are certified UL
Formaldehyde Free and use biobased
resins. The performance of these batts
has not changed. They offer excellent
fire resistance and sound attenuation,
and R-values around 4, depending
on density. Both batts are also
Greenguard Gold certified for indoor
air quality and have Declare labels,
and Thermafiber also has a C2C Gold
Material Health Certificate. They have
40% or 70% pre-consumer recycled
content, for Roxul and Thermafiber,
respectively. (See BuildingGreen’s
product review, Mineral Wool Batts
Now Formaldehyde-Free.)
SEMCO 3fficiency
Chilled beams are energy-efficient
HVAC systems, but they have a
reputation for having condensation
problems, being complicated to
install, and not having good zone
controls.  SEMCO’s 3fficiency system
combines the company’s Pinnacle
dedicated outdoor air supply, Neuton
Photo: SEMCO
SEMCO 3fficiency
The BuildingGreen Report December 2017
• p. 21
pump control module, and active
chilled beams into one easy-to-­specify
system. The key to 3fficiency is the
Neuton pump module, an all-in-one
“plug-and-play” controller that
simplifies chilled beam installation
and communicates with the Pinnacle
air supply to adjust temperature
and humidity. This in turn reduces
the chance of condensation. The
Neuton allows for control of up to
five individual rooms or zones and
comes prepackaged with cold and hot
water connections, sensors, valves,
control software, and a Grundfos
variable-speed ECM pump (a 2010
BuildingGreen Top 10 award winner).
SunPower Carport Solutions
Photovoltaics (PV) are a critical part
of our energy infrastructure and
future, but placing them on commer-
cial roofs can pose problems due to
obstructions and access, steep pitches,
and aging roofs. On land, companies
Photo: SunPower
SunPower Carport Solutions
may not have enough real estate for
ground-mounted solar installations.
SunPower Carport Solutions opti-
mize underutilized spaces, such as
parking lots and garages. Available in
single- and dual-tilt, long-span, and
garage-top applications, these sys-
tems can also incorporate stormwater
management, LED lighting, energy
storage, and electric vehicle charging.
They also provide shade, adding
comfort and reducing building cooling
energy. These systems are available
with Sunpower panels that are C2C
v3.1 Silver, and they have a Declare
label.
Photo: thyssenkrupp
thyssenkrupp Elevators
Thyssenkrupp Elevators
Companies that manufacture
mechanical, plumbing, and electrical
equipment (MEP), and related systems
such as elevators, rarely pursue
material transparency initiatives.
The systems are complicated,
and their main focus is energy
efficiency—which is understandable.
Thyssenkrupp is the first elevator
manufacturer to have C2C Material
Health certificates—C2C Bronze for
its cabs and Platinum for enviromax
biodegradable fluid. It’s also the first
to publish an Environmental Product
Declaration (EPD) and a Declare
label (Living Building Challenge
Compliant) for its endura MRL cab.
In addition, the cab meets California
Department of Public Health (CDPH)
Standard Method v1.1 for low indoor
emissions. The company is also
aggressively pursuing energy savings.
It created the first net-zero elevator
for an existing building, retrofitting
the elevator system at the Fraunhofer
Center for Sustainable Energy Systems
in Boston. The company used the
Synergy elevator with regenerative
drive and LED cab lighting, and the
net-zero process led to discoveries
that reduced standby power draw
by about 75%. (See BuildingGreen’s
product review, The Great Transparent
Elevator: Disclosure on the Rise for
Conveying Systems.

Photo: VersaDry
VersaDry Track System
VersaDry Track System
Drywall installed directly on the
floor is easily damaged by moisture
that gets into buildings during
construction or due to nuisance leaks.
Because moisture wicks through
the drywall, a small leak can cause
expensive damage that wastes
materials and labor, requires expensive
remediation, and creates landfill
waste. It also creates ideal conditions
for mold growth. VersaDry Track
System solves this problem using
a 26-gauge galvanized steel track
system that raises drywall two inches
off the floor. This system protects the
drywall during construction or if a
spill or leak wets the concrete floor. It
also eliminates the need for a bottom
track in light-gauge steel-framed
partition walls. Gaining two inches at
the base means you don’t need to use
9- or 10-foot long drywall sheets for
8-foot high drop ceilings, eliminating
cut-off waste. VersaDry also simplifies
baseboard installation and protects
baseboards from damage from
cleaning equipment. (See our blog
post, Pete’s Product Puzzle: VersaDry.)
VIG Technologies Tempered
Vacuum Insulated Glass
VIG Technologies with LandVac/
Landglass is offering the first metal-­
seal tempered vacuum-insulated glass
(VIG). Removing the air from between
glazing provides amazing thermal
and acoustical performance, but the
technology is difficult to manufacture.
At only 1⁄₃″ thick, the VIG Technologies
VIG has a minimum U-value of 0.10
(R-10), with U-0.08 (R-13) possible.
The company uses a proprietary
edge-sealing technology that works
The BuildingGreen Report December 2017
• p. 22
with the tempered glass. Micro-­
support pillars keep glass surfaces
from touching. This VIG comes
standard with low-e coatings and can
be customized depending on end use
and window orientation. The thermal
performance of this glazing is equal to
standard triple- and quadruple-glazed
windows that are almost four inches
thick, making it a good choice for
retrofits or where space is limited.
Manufactured in sizes up to 60″ x 98″,
Tempered VIG will be available from
several manufacturers in 2018.
Photo: VIG Technologies
VIG Technologies Tempered Vacuum
Insulated Glass
PRIMER
Certified Communities:
When Greening
Neighborhoods One
Building at a Time Isn’t
Enough
A comparison of community-­
scale certification programs.
by James Wilson
Within the design and construction
industry there is a growing sense of
urgency to find sustainability and
resilience solutions that can be applied
at scale. One way to do this is to focus
on neighborhoods, and over the past
few years several organizations have
responded by launching programs
designed to support this strategy. (For
an in-depth discussion of district-scale
approaches to sustainability, see our
feature article Community-Scale
Sustainability: Accelerating Change
for People and Planet.)
While some of these programs have
been around for a while, such as LEED
for Neighborhood Development,
others, like the WELL Community
Standard, are only in pilot phases.
And though programs like LEED
have trained us to think in terms of
projects earning certification, that’s
not necessarily the goal here. 2030
Districts, for example, does not offer a
certification at all.
Many programs offer useful tools and
guidance that any community project
can use whether or not it’s pursuing
certification. For example, the STAR
Rating System can be used as a stand-
alone framework and the organization
also provides supplementary
resources, including case studies and a
project management tool.
And although most of the programs
can be applied to many different
project types, some are designed
for more specific uses. Enterprise
Green Communities Certification, for
example, is for affordable housing
developments only, and STAR
was developed for use by local
governments.
For a community project wondering
which program might be ideal for its
particular characteristics and needs,
we’ve created a table to help project
teams better understand how they
Photo: dumbonyc. License: CC BY-SA 2.0.
A number of programs are available to guide
sustainable development at the district scale.
In New York City, a 2030 District is being
established to address the goals of the 2030
Challenge, as well as the city's various climate,
energy, and resiliency plans.
Community Programs
Program EcoDistricts Certified
Affiliated
EcoDistricts
Organization
• Existing Neighborhoods
• Brownfield Sites
• Business Districts
Applicable Project
Types • Institutional Campuses
• Industrial Lands
• Mixed-Use Districts
Holistic, emphasizes equity,
Focus / Scope resilience, and climate pro-
tection
Implement framework for
flexible but rigorous process
Key Strategies
to drive equitable sustainable
development projects
Submit documents for
approval:
Requirements • Imperatives Commitment
• Roadmap
• Biennial progress reports
• Neighborhood groups
• Property owners
Key Stakeholders • Developers
• Utilities
• Municipalities
“Backbone Organization”
Governance (community development
corporation)
Example Project
Capitol Hill, Seattle, WA
(PDF)
Key Resource
EcoDistricts Protocol
(PDF)
Website ecodistricts.org
The BuildingGreen Report December 2017
• p. 23
2030 Districts
(no certification)
2030 District Network
Generally intended for urban
or urbanizing areas like
central business districts
Focused on building
performance & transportation
emissions, emphasizes
private-sector led strategies
that align with market realities
• Coordinate efforts
• Aggregate tools and
resources
• Provide education &
outreach
To establish a district, 10
owners, 10% of commercial
space, or owners of a total
of 10 million square feet must
participate
2030 District Partner Types:
• Property Owners /
Managers & Developers
• Services Stakeholders
• Community Stakeholders
“Sponsor Organization”
(non-profit group, USGBC
chapter, BID)
Pittsburgh, PA
Introduction to 2030 Districts
2030districts.org
Living LEED for Communities/
Community Challenge Cities (pilot)
International Living Future
US Green Building Council
Institute
New or existing communities,
Existing communities, from
from individual neighborhoods
individual neighborhoods up
up to entire cities (single or
to entire cities
multiple ownership)
Holistic, emphasizes
Holistic, emphasizes ongoing
regeneration through net-pos-
measurement of quantitative
itive performance and using
performance metrics
nature as design guide
• Set Net-Positive
performance targets
• Measure & analyze
• Conduct visioning & ongoing performance
planning process to
• Identify synergies &
achieve community
composite solutions
consensus behind effective
strategies
Submit Vision & Master Plan
for approval and achieve all 7
“Petals”
(certification thru proven Achieve minimum 40 points
performance) out of 110 possible
*Specific requirements apply (points based on 14 metrics)
for community-owned build-
ings
*Recertification is required
• Community stakeholders
• “Project Team”
• Property Owners
• “Community Stakeholder
• Developers
Groups”
• Municipalities
Multiple sources of authority
(ex. owners, government, Local government authority
community groups)
First Hill, Seattle
Washington, D.C.
(Exploratory Project)
Living Community Challenge Guide to LEED Certification:
Standard Cities and Communities Pilot
living-future.org/lcc usgbc.org
continued on next page
Community Programs (continued)
LEED for Neighborhood
Program
Development
Affiliated
US Green Building Council
Organization
New land development
projects or redevelopment
Applicable Project
projects containing residential
Types
uses, nonresidential uses, or
a mix.
Holistic, emphasizes smart
site selection & growth,
Focus / Scope human scale development,
and efficient buildings &
infrastructure
Implement prescriptive design
Key Strategies
strategies
Achieve minimum 40 points
Requirements out of 110 possible
(43 Credits)
“Project Team”:
• Applicant acting as team
leader
Key Stakeholders
• Multidisciplinary group of
design professionals
• Local supporting partners
LEED applicant/ project team
Governance leader, generally owner/
developer
Example Project Paseo Verde / 9th and Berks
(PDF) Street TOD
Key Resource LEED Reference Guide for
(PDF) Neighborhood Development
Website usgbc.org
The BuildingGreen Report December 2017
• p. 24
STAR-Certified
STAR Communities
Cities and counties of all sizes
*No size limits but govern-
ment entity must be primary
applicant
Holistic, emphasizes local
government-led strategies and
interventions with measurable
outcomes
• Implement prescriptive
design strategies
• Measure & analyze
ongoing performance
Achieve minimum 250 points
out of 750 possible
(526 Measures)
*Recertification is required
• Local governmental
agencies
• Community stakeholders
• Civic partners
Local government authority
Northampton, MA
STAR Community Rating
System (v2.0)
starcommunities.org
WELL Community Standard
(pilot)
International WELL Building
Institute
New and existing public or
private developments
*Specific size & program
requirements apply
Focused on health and
wellness, emphasizing
inclusiveness, integration, and
resiliency
• Implement prescriptive
design strategies
• Measure & analyze
ongoing performance
Achieve minimum 50 points
out of 140 possible
(110 Features)
*Specific requirements apply
for developer-owned buildings
*Recertification is required
• Community stakeholders
• Property owners
• Tenants
Owner and/or local
government authority
Water Street Tampa
Guide to the WELL Community
Standard Pilot
wellcertified.com
Green Communities
Enterprise Community Partners
All new and renovated stand-
alone single-family & multi-
family buildings that contain
affordable housing units
Holistic, emphasizes
incorporating public health,
environmental and economic
benefits into housing
Implement prescriptive design
strategies
Achieve minimum 35 points
for new construction, 30
points for rehab projects
*Projects subject to on-site
audit
• Owners
• Project design teams
• O+M staff
• Residents
Owner/
Developer
Serviam Gardens, Bronx, NY
2015 Enterprise Green
Communities Criteria
enterprisecommunity.org
Source: BuildingGreen, Inc.
 compare. (You can also download a
one-page PDF version of the table.)
What’s the target and how do we
get there?
Most of the programs take a
holistic approach, addressing the
full spectrum of sustainability
categories, from energy efficiency
and resilience to human experience
and economic prosperity. But some
are more narrowly focused. The
2030 Districts program, for example,
focuses on improving operational
building performance while the
WELL Community Standard looks
at increasing the health and wellness
of a community’s occupants. Other
programs are holistic but have certain
emphases. For example, EcoDistricts’
primary mission is promoting
equity and the Living Community
Challenge’s central aim is regenerative
design.
Although each of the programs
establishes particular goals for a
community, some put focus on the
outcome, while others are much more
concerned with the process of meeting
those goals.
For example, LEED-ND and Green
Communities are similar to traditional
strategy-based green building
rating systems in that they prescribe
particular techniques for achieving
specific outcomes.
And LEED for Communities/Cities
defines a set of specific metrics
for evaluating a community’s
performance but does not dictate what
a community should do to improve
performance. The core resource
offered by the program is a robust data
collection and analysis tool—the Arc
platform—that allows a community
to try different strategies and measure
the effectiveness of each.
In contrast, EcoDistricts does not
define specific, quantifiable metrics
for success. Instead, it offers a flexible
framework and a range of resources
that a community can adapt to guide
a rigorous process without being
prescriptive. The Living Community
Challenge is similar. Though it does
The BuildingGreen Report December 2017
• p. 25
define specific goals like net-positive quality of life—but at a much faster
energy and water, it also does not rate and for many more people.
prescribe specific design strategies for
achieving these goals. The program For more information
is designed to support a community-­
based planning process to develop EcoDistricts
solutions informed by the local ecodistricts.org
culture.
2030 Districts Network
Comparatively, 2030 Districts does not 2030districts.org
emphasize community involvement.
International Living Future Institute
Rather, it is based on the idea that the
living-future.org/lcc
private sector—including property
owners and developers—should be US Green Building Council
leading the effort to find solutions that new.usgbc.org/cert-guide/
align with market realities. cities-communities
usgbc.org/guide/nd
Communities may want to combine
frameworks. For example, a neighbor­ STAR Communities
hood may establish an EcoDistrict starcommunities.org
to focus on developing projects to
increase community health and International WELL Building Institute
livability, and a 2030 District to focus wellcertified.com/en/resources/
on coordinating and mobilizing well-community-standard-pilot
property owners to improve building
performance. As part of a coordinated Enterprise Community Partners
effort, the two programs could share enterprisecommunity.org/
knowledge and resources to achieve solutions-and-innovation/
their individual goals more efficiently green-communities
while collectively maximizing impact.
Credibility, accountability,
competitiveness
As with individual buildings,
earning certification demonstrates
commitment. It’s a way for a
community to be a leader and set an
example. It also gives communities
that want to attract businesses,
investment, and residents a
competitive edge.
But in addition, when it comes
to community-scale sustainable
development, using a third-party
certification can prove to be critical to
success. The boost in credibility gained
by certification can attract community
buy-in and involvement. It could
also lead to more financial support as
sponsors are often more comfortable
providing funds to projects that
demonstrate accountability.
As was the case with building-scale
rating systems, the hope is that these
community-scale programs will
transform the market while improving