Tonight the Greenwood Initiative accepted an award from the USGBC for Special Accomplishment! Thanks to David Borinsky, Lloyd Williams, our builders, and the residents and leaders of the Oliver Community for their hard work and dedication.
Visit the USGBC Maryland Chapter website for more info, and this article from the Baltimore Sun listing the winners by category.
Check out this blog post on WorldChanging.com—Patrick Mazza writes about a New Energy Hub model which combines the concept of transit-oriented development with energy efficient technologies. The end goal of the model is to reduce sprawl and transportation energy expenditure. Mazza envisions a walkable community that offers “an abundance of local shopping, services and entertainment… Power is delivered by a smart grid that manages local power generation and sends any surplus around the city. The smart grid also communicates with buildings and electric vehicles to optimize grid operations, saving ratepayers on power costs.” He doesn’t ignore retrofits either, calling for the inclusion of older buildings surrounding any concentrated new development and citing the benefits to both homeowners and contractors.
Once you’re done reading the post, be sure to read through the comments as well—I’m rarely disappointed with the discussion on this site, and there are some particularly interesting links provided by commentators on this article.
Mid-January, the state Department of Labor announced that $5.8 million in stimulus grant money had been awarded to Maryland for green job training. Of the several state grants parceled out from the total $190 million available, each ranging from $2 million to $6 million, I think we did pretty well.
According to an article posted in “The Daily Record”, 1,585 people will train for jobs in green industries such as manufacturing sustainability, construction and building trades, environmental technology and solar energy. To facilitate the process, the Department of Labor will be utilizing the resources of “Smart, Green, and Growing”, a partnership of DOL officials, the Workforce Investment Board and other local job-creation boards, businesses, community colleges, labor apprenticeship programs and the One-Stop Workforce System.
Most see this as a huge plus—geared toward low-income urban residents of Baltimore City, many of whom have remained unemployed due to criminal records, this money will offer a way to pursue a vocation in an increasingly relevant field. Furthermore, bigger businesses looking to expand into the green market (and take advantage of the many government tax incentives available) will have access to a range of viable workers.
There will be slip-ups, of course—red tape and pink slips are already being predicted by some nay-sayers. And yet given the initiative we at One Green Home have seen from our own workers (those who have taught themselves, and those who have subsequently learned from them), it seems doubtful that a significant percentage of Baltimore’s workforce will be unwilling to pursue training if it’s available. Ideally, bigger businesses will be able to access this pool of potential workers AND retrain their current employees, assuming One-Stop programs are run efficiently. So adapt, and do your part to make sure all that cash is spent wisely.
Reading through Kaid Benfield’s blog on the NRDC website, my eye was pulled toward the title “Inclusive Revitalization at its Best”. The post itself focuses on Nos Quedamos (in Spanish, “We Stay”), a group of local Bronx residents committed to taking charge of their own neighborhood redevelopment—when city officials attempted to gentrify the area, this group took charge, generating their own architectural plans and pushing until they were accepted. The phrasing used in the post, both by Benfield and quoted from the Nos Quedamos site, is uncannily similar to the kind of wording we use time and again in our own proposals here at One Green Home:
“It is our intention to guide the process of change, progress, and implementation of the housing and urban development goals we defined in the Melrose Commons Urban Renewal Plan. Nos Quedamos views the urban renewal process as not only encompassing physical regeneration, but also addressing socio-economic and environmental conditions in the area. Our goal is to develop an economically productive, sustainable, and healthy community. This vision is one that respects, supports and involves the existing community in the formulation of plans and policies that address the issues of housing, open space, community renewal and its sustainability.” (Nos Quedamos, quoted by Benfield)
Our goals here, working in the Oliver Community and elsewhere, are one and the same: to allow the community to “take charge of its own regeneration [as] an equal partner with the city” (Benfield). And the process is as successful in the Bronx as it has been for us—with the help of experts in sustainability, architecture, and city planning, Nos Quedamos has constructed affordable housing with energy efficient features and appliances, public green spaces, some LEED gold stars, and even rooftop windmills.
PLEASE check out Benfield’s summary of their efforts, and then visit the Nos Quedamos website—it’s an inspiring story, and proves that our and their successes are replicable across the urban US.
Terreform 1, a non-profit promoting urban green design, has organized “One Prize: From Mowing to Growing”—a competition that seeks to catalyze legitimate research into “larger issues concerning the environment, global food production and the imperative to generate a sense of community in our urban and suburban neighborhoods”. Competitors are asked to submit proposals (speculative or real, exclusive to the competition or recycled) answering one or more of the following questions:
How can we break the American love affair with the suburban lawn?
Can green houses be incorporated in skyscrapers?
What are the urban design strategies for food production in cities?
Can food grow on rooftops, parking lots, building facades?
What is required to remove foreclosure signs on lawns and convert them to gardens?
Above the criteria for submission, the ”About” page flashes stats:
“40,000 sq miles of Lawns. More than what we use for wheat, corn or tobacco.”
“7 Billion gallons of water per day for Lawn Irrigation”
“40 Billion dollars on Lawns. 10 Billion More on Pesticides”
“Today, Only 2% of American Food is Grown Locally”
“12% of every American Dollar is spent on transportation”
The call is to “reinvent the American garden”, to create productive green spaces in urban environments and express a commitment to self-sustainability. I echo the sentiments expressed in the blog Landscape+Urbanism—“I hope the competition entries will look beyond what we’re already talking about” and come up with some real, and more importantly, applicable answers to the above questions. The jury (which consists of the CEO of CEO’s for Cities, the founder of Architecture for Humanity, and several deans and professors from prestigious institutions like Berkeley and Columbia) looks promising, and the $10,000 cash prize (along with the subsequent media exposure) will undoubtedly encourage applicants to be on their game– so I’m optimistic.
To take a look at registration dates, etc, visit the One Prize page here, or read what others have to say about the competition at BldgBlog or Landscape+Urbanism.
We’ve got LEED and HERS for buildings and Energy Star for appliances—now it looks as though standards are being established for sustainable roads. The University of Washington in Seattle has developed a system called “Greenroads” which bases its certification process on everything from materials (using recycled asphalt) to placement (whether there’s access for alternative modes of transportation) to efficiency along the way (minimizing light pollution from streetlamps). The system can be used either for new road projects or for upgrades on existing roads.
The University is working with CH2M Hill (an engineering firm specializing in environmental and engineering consulting services, locally and abroad), as well as the Oregon department of transportation—six case studies have been used to test the system so far. It seems that due to the size of their staff, the team has had to reject some of the many offers coming in from companies and government entities asking to be rated, and it will be interesting to see how the program evolves as the team expands its base and eventually transfers the bulk of the work to third-party raters (the usual process).
Take a look at the Greenroads rating system on the UW website here, the latest version of which allows for 139 possible credits. Or go to the official Greenroads page to peruse the 100+ paged manual in all its glory. And if you have the time, the team has done an impressive job of archiving the many presentations they’ve given—links to all of them can be found here.
Continuing the process of LEED certification for our houses in the Oliver Community, we’ve come across some nice little perks. Though the paperwork can be daunting, LEED allows you to get a little creative with the point system, primarily through Credit Interpretations and Rulings Requests (CIR’s) and Innovation and Design Process Requests (ID’s). Submitting CIR’s and ID’s allow builders to either circumvent some of the existing LEED regulations, get bonus points for certain exemplary practices not currently on the list, and potentially have an impact on what’s included on the list in future years.
To better explain—CIR’s involve questioning about whether designs, technologies, or practices meet the “intent” of a given LEED for Homes credit. If approved by the USGBC, the builder can pursue an alternative route to secure that credit. ID’s are requests for leeway on designs, technologies, and practices that are not currently included in the rating system. If a candidate has performed outside or above the scope of the current system and the USGBC approves their methods, they can tack on extra points—just think of them as little gold stars for innovation.
Many of the USGBC approved ID’s eventually become LEED for Homes credits in the next version of the rating system—a few obvious ones, like energy/water efficient washing machines (which are not included in the HERS energy model for some reason) have been listed as suggested ID’s. Given our own “outside the box” approach in East Baltimore, we will definitely be pursuing some of those little gold stars (we envision fruit tree planters, community gardens that homeowners potentially buy into, and school programs involving students in green construction, to name a few), and will keep you updated.
If you are pursuing LEED certification of any level, take a look at CIR’s and ID’s on the USGBC’s website here and here.
A recent piece in the NY Times has catalyzed a barrage of blog posts about the significance of a city’s “walkability”. Citing a study published in August by CEO’s for Cities, which examines the sales of 90,000 homes in 15 markets, the article claims that neighborhoods with a higher “Walking Score” (a rating established by the website WalkingScore.com) boast healthier real estate markets. Data from sites like Zillow.com corroborate that houses in areas designed to be pedestrian-friendly are selling—and it’s not simply because people like the exercise.
WalkingScore.com judges the walkability of certain areas based on the location of the city center, its density, the positioning of houses, businesses, public spaces, and schools, the design of the transportation system, and the layout of streets. The program uses an algorithm to pinpoint the proximity of amenities in each category for the selected area, and then assigns a score of 0-100, with 0-24 rated lowest as “Car-dependent” and 90-100 rated highest as a “Walkers’ Paradise”. According to the CEO’s for Cities report, every 1 point increase in Walk Score has been associated with a $700 to $3000 increase in home value in a typical metropolitan aread, holding all other factors constant.
With mapped data that includes property details as well as the above amenities, the site is being used by real estate agents all over the country—the following is an indicative excerpt from a Texas agent’s blog:
“As a listing agent, I use www.walkscore.com as a quick reference… It tells me very quickly some pieces of information that aren’t located in our Multiple Listing Service: how close the nearest basic city amenities are located… how many miles it is to the nearest post office, school, restaurant… this is good information that helps me sell the home. As a buyer’s agent… I usually take my client’s favorite three homes and run the walkscore on them… Walkscore.com can help break a tie between the two favorites. It also helps remind buyers that they are buying a community—and not just a home.”
In the most basic way, walkability ensures residential safety—it means more eyes on the street, which means less crime and more communal activity. Not to mention a large reduction in vehicular exhaust (always a plus). There are some skeptics, however, that make valid points. While some self proclaimed “new urbanists” believe so strongly in the Walking Score that they would incorporate it into the LEED rating system, blogger Alex Steffen of WorldChanging.com points to the score as a measurement not of walkability but of proximity. Calling instead for a site based more on public input (which would focus on paths people enjoy taking, and the variety of accessible destinations worth walking to), Steffen advocates for an alternative measurement of what he calls “deep walkability”—a cringe-worthy phrase that nonetheless expresses a somewhat more realistic idea of the concept.
WalkingScore.com itself admits its own flaws, including a list on its site of all the features its algorithm does not take into account (weather patterns, topography, etc). Still it’s a place to start, and it’s gratifying to know that agents are taking this kind of data seriously. Oliver Communty’s own Walking Score is 77 (“Very Walkable”)—and given our commitment to facilitate not only the kind of “walkability” calculated by WalkingScore.com, but also the kind of “deep walkability” specified by others, it looks like we’re in good shape.
Last week the NY Times published an interesting piece about universities offering degrees in sustainability. Most programs are interdisciplinary, bringing students with different backgrounds (engineering, politics, architecture) together to work on the problems facing urban centers. As part of many masters’ curricula, students work in tandem with a specific city, generating baseline greenhouse-gas inventories and studying the climate-related costs specific to metropolitan life, including transportation, high population densities, mass food consumption, etc.
Though the article focuses specifically on the University of Colorado (whose program has survived with financing from a five-year National Science Foundation grant), and New York City College, the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE, also referenced in the article) lists several institutions offering B.A.’s/B.S.’s, Masters and Doctoral degrees, Minors, and Certificates in Sustainability. The Website also offers career development resources and a forum for students from all over the US to share ideas.
Click on the anywhere on the below to get access to the AASHE’s list of institutional programs:
Degree Programs in Sustainability
Non-Degree Programs in Sustainability
Discipline Specific Resources
Biology
Chemistry
Interior Design
Landscape Architecture
Note that the list includes Hopkins (B.A. in Global Environmental Change and Sustainability, with an accompanying Minor), Goucher College (MA in Cultural Sustainability), and several more from our surrounding states. Tapping into the young minds serviced by these institutions is a goal of One Green Home, especially given Oliver Community’s closeness to the Hopkins campus and its viability as a convenient, desirable, and (now as a case-study in urban sustainability) educational living space for employees and students.
To read the original NY Times article, click here. Additionally, WorldChanging.com has published a series of articles showcasing universities leading the way to sustainable curricula—click here to take a look.
“On Christmas Eve, when most Americans’ minds were on other things, the Treasury Department announced that it was removing the $400 billion cap from what the administration believes will be necessary to keep Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac solvent… Fannie and Freddie’s congressional sponsors–some of whom are now leading the administration’s effort to “reform” the financial system–have a lot to answer for.” (Peter J. Wallison)
Sneaky, sneaky. For once, I have to agree with a statement made by a writer from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative think tank many of whose scholars were responsible for Bush-era policies. The bill referred to here (H.R.4173 – Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009) actually does more than remove the $400 billion cap for the next three years—it sets a new limit at $4 trillion, promises bonuses of $6 million to company execs, and prohibits any congressional debate on the matter from exceeding 10 hrs. Ouch.
As the thinker behind the bill, Barney Frank (D- Massachusetts) is drawing a lot of flak—Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) said Wednesday that his subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee will launch a probe. Separately, Reps. Scott Garrett (R-New Jersey) and Spencer Bachus (R-Alabama) requested that the Financial Services Committee hold a hearing. So far, this is the response opponents are getting from those behind the bill:
1. H.R.4173 establishes a number of new regulatory agencies, including the Consumer Protection Financial Agency (CFPA), the Financial Stability Council (FSC), and the Federal Insurance Office, to moniter all areas of the industry.
2. Its specified aid is characterized by a necessary “flexibility” that ensures Fannie and Freddie can stand behind the billions of dollars in mortgage-backed securities they sell to investors (they both provide vital liquidity to the mortgage industry by purchasing home loans from lenders and selling them to investors—without the promise of more government aid, the firms could still go broke, leaving millions of people unable to get a mortgage).
3. Federal aid will only be granted if the likelihhood of reimbursal is 99%.
4. In reference to the pay increase—it would be impossible to keep any good talent at that level with that much responsibility without that much of an increase. Currently, the amount is still significantly less than what had been earned by their predecessors (prior to their ousting, Fannie CEO Daniel Mudd received $10.2 million in 2008, and Freddie CEO Richard Syron secured $13.1 million). In addition, the pay increases are contingent upon the goals each recipient is able to achieve.
5. The lifeline will quite effectively “tether” the two agencies to the government, allowing for more stringent regulation of its function and responsibilities.
Unfortunately, this isn’t enough justification for most:
1. This will only further inflame those who balk at increased government bureaucracy.
2. We’ve heard it before.
3. How exactly does one accurately assess 99% likelihood of reimbursal?
4. Fine, but it chafes when coming from an administration who recently declared the equally culpable banking CEO’s greedy “fat-cats”.
5. Inevitably, the “tether” will also mean the two agencies become vehicles by which the government will carry out its mortgage modification programs. I can already hear bloggers across the nation decrying the “nationalization” of the American economy.
All issues that will hopefully be addressed in the coming weeks and months— the Obama administration has said it will announce its plans for Fannie and Freddie in February.
To read more about the bill, visit OpenCongress.org here—the page includes summaries, a list of who voted and which side they chose, and recent blog posts and news articles posted on the matter. Noteworthy articles can be found at the Associated Press, the New York Times, and the Chicago Tribune. The original AEI article can be found here, and is reprinted in the Wall Street Journal.
© 2010 Bridge Private Lending, LP. All rights reserved.
