Tag Archives: environment

Understanding the Living Building Challenge and Its “Petals”

The Living Building Challenge (LBC) is a certification program that defines the most advanced measure of sustainability—providing a framework for design, construction and the symbiotic relationship between people and all aspects of the built environment. It is one of most rigorous performance standards in the industry, as it requires net-zero energy, waste and water by every project. Continue reading

Insulation Materials

Insulation materials run the gamut from bulky fiber materials such as fiberglass, rock and slag wool, cellulose, and natural fibers to rigid foam boards. Bulky materials resist conductive heat flow in a building cavity. Rigid foam boards trap air or another gas to resist conductive heat flow. Other less common materials included cementitious and phenolic foams, vermiculite, and perlite. Continue reading

Selecting Low-Emitting Materials

What are Low-emitting Materials?
Low-emitting materials are products that do not release significant pollutants into the indoor environment. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are chemicals found in many common products and building materials that can escape into the air and cause illness and allergic reactions. These emissions are one of the contributors to the situation known as “sick building syndrome” (SBS) in which building occupants experience health and comfort effects. Continue reading

Building Ecology and Indoor Air Quality (IAQ)

Home+Ecology+Stock+ImageIt’s commonly assumed that buildings are simple, inanimate entities, relatively stable over time. This implies that there is little interaction between a building, what’s in it (occupants and contents), and what’s around it (the larger environment). We commonly see the overwhelming majority of the mass of material in a building as relatively unchanged physical material over time. In fact, the true nature of buildings can be viewed as the result of a complex set of dynamic interactions among their physical, chemical, and biological dimensions. Buildings are best described and understood as complex systems.

Research applying the approaches ecologists use to the understanding of ecosystems can help increase our understanding. “Building ecology “ has been proposed as the application of those approaches to the built environment considering the dynamic system of buildings, their occupants, and the larger environment.

Buildings constantly evolve as a result of the changes in the environment around them as well as the occupants, materials, and activities within them. The various surfaces and the air inside a building are constantly interacting, and this interaction results in changes in each. For example, we may see a window as changing slightly over time as it becomes dirty, then is cleaned, accumulates dirt again, is cleaned again, and so on through its life. In fact, the “dirt” we see may be evolving as a result of the interactions among the moisture, chemicals, and biological materials found there.

Humans are covered with bacteria on all surfaces exposed to the environment around us – our skin, respiratory, and digestive tracks. Roughly 2,000 organisms occupy each square centimeter of these surfaces (roughly 15,000 organisms per square inch). We shed our outer skin layer each two weeks. The skin cells and the oils and other chemical in and on them as well the bacteria hitch-hiking a ride on them end up on the floor, furniture, and even the walls and windows.

When bacteria undergo the transformation from a nomadic life (in air) and become sedentary (settle on surfaces), “they undergo a reversible lifestyle switch.” They “…lose motility and become enclosed in a gooey extracellular matrix,” a kind of film on the surface.  There they “sense” their neighbors in the “society” where they find themselves and develop specialized strains to take on different tasks in the community where they find themselves. These evolved bacteria secrete chemicals as part of the “community”.

Of course these chemicals are not occurring independent of the conditions surrounding them, the moisture, chemicals, and particles that are also on the surface or in the air immediately adjacent to it.

This type of diverse coating is present on virtually all indoor surfaces, and the particles, chemicals, and microbes that comprise it are in a sense, each a dynamic ecosystem. While the window glass itself may remain largely unchanged by the processes on its surface, many other surfaces are not as stable. Flooring materials or floor coverings become worn over time, and this wear depends on their material composition, the use that is made of them as well as the maintenance they are given. The wear may result in release of chemicals and particles into the air, and some of these may end up on other surfaces such as the window.

While most of these processes may occur rather slowly, there are some processes that occur much more rapidly, especially those associated with human activities or ventilation with air from outdoors. Chemical interactions produce new chemicals, and moisture on many surfaces support the life, reproduction and evolution of microorganisms. The microorganisms themselves produce chemicals, some of which can alter the pH of the surface and subsequent surface chemistry.

Buildings are designed or intended to respond actively to some of these changes in and around them with heating, cooling, ventilating, air cleaning or illuminating systems. We clean, sanitize, and maintain surfaces to enhance their appearance, performance, or longevity.  In other cases, such changes subtly or even dramatically alter buildings in ways that may be important to their own integrity or their impact on building occupants through the evolution of the physical, chemical, and biological processes that define them at any time. We may find it useful to combine the tools of the physical sciences with those of the biological sciences and, especially, some of the approaches used by scientists studying ecosystems, in order to gain an enhanced understanding of the environments in which we spend the majority of our time, our buildings.

Building ecology was first described by research architect Hal Levin in an article in the April 1981 issue of Progressive Architecture magazine. A full discussion of building ecology and extensive resources can be found at the Building Ecology website, buildingecology.com.

The Annals of Urban Design: Kresge College

by Matthew Pinsker
University of California, Santa Cruz
Daniel Matthew Silvernail Architect Intern

The assemblage of buildings known as Kresge College at UCSC supports social interaction through its Italian hilltop village design, where dormitories overlook the narrow streets and flow of the community. Architects Charles Moore and William Turnbull appear to have considered solar orientation in the college’s design, allowing students to temporally occupy warm and cool zones appropriately with their social interacting needs.

Map of Kresge College  Provided by the UCSC website

Map of Kresge College
Provided by the UCSC website

The L-shaped armature comprising Kresge College located on the west side of campus consists of narrow streets lined with dormitories, classrooms, and community murals acting as a nexus guiding students toward areas of assemblage located at each end. According to the Kresge Housing Guide 2011-2012 (as cited in Kaitlin Ryan’s Master’s thesis 2012), “The college prides itself in being ‘a scheme based on a model of a traditional Mediterranean village, with doorways and walkways that open into winding pedestrian streets allowing for easy conversation from balcony to balcony and along the streets of the college itself’” 56.

Modeling the assemblage of buildings after an Italian hilltop village suggests students were intended to live within close proximity to one another to increase a sense of unity. The dormitory positioning allows residents to face and observe the streets, permitting association with and responsibility for the community. As residents proceed through the streets and recline in permitted zones of Kresge College onlookers can extrapolate how the architects understood the use of sunlight or lack thereof to manage social interaction.

Upper Street leading to Owl's Next Cafe Taken at 12 PM

Taken at 12 PM

Upper Street leading to Owl's Next Cafe Taken at 9 AM

Taken at 9 AM
Upper Street leading to Owl’s Next Cafe

Upper Street leading to Owl's Next Cafe Taken at 3 PM

Taken at 3 PM

Personally conducted observations of social interaction within Kresge College were conducted on April 22nd and 24th of 2014 at intervals of 9 AM, 12 PM, and 3 PM.

The least amount of social interaction appears to occur around 9 AM as students travel by one through dimly lit zones to their morning classes. At this time the sun is positioned at about a 60 degree angle towards the east directly behind a set of redwood trees, hindering sunlight exposure and student desire to interact in designated areas. Around 12 PM the amount of social interaction increases as it is lunchtime and students begin to travel in groups ranging from one to four people. The densest and most reliably sunny area is the Owl’s Nest Café located at the north end of the L-shaped College as the sun is at its culmination. At this time social interaction is transient, as students must navigate towards their afternoon classes. Due to the commonality of morning classes the time of day when student free time begins to peak is 3 PM where students divide into groups of about one to three. Less warm zones exist for students to congregate, but are occupied sensibly to unwind from the day.

Moore and Turnbull appear to have realized that warm zones increase the flow of students and delineate areas to inhabit, conversely potential gathering areas are disregarded at the times of day when students are likely to be busy and cannot afford social interaction.

Kresge College was prudently modeled after an Italian hilltop village, incorporating a design offering a pervasive sense of student involvement within the community wherever one resided. Design architects Charles Moore and William Turnbull seem to have understood the need for a layout that would delineate areas for social interaction, signaling how solar orientation affects public space. Students are busy and cannot afford major distractions; therefore the orientation of the college encourages social interaction at appropriate times of day in accordance with the commonplace student’s assumed productivity levels.

To learn more about Kresge College, a helpful resource is About Kresge College and History and Architecture of Kresge College.

For further reading:

Ryan, Kaitlin E. (2012). Preserving Postmodern Architecture and the Legacy of Charles W. Moore (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from Columbia University Academic Commons. (http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:13356)

LEED-ND: Developing Viable Communities

by Matthew Pinsker
University of California, Santa Cruz
Daniel Matthew Silvernail Architect Intern

The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) system certifies green projects and provides a checklist of environmental standards for land development that evaluates a neighborhood on a point based system.

The protocol was fully launched in 2010 and co-developed by three organizations, the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), the Congress for New Urbanism, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. It is administered by the USGBC.

LEED-ND Graphic  Provided by CNU Tampa Bay

LEED-ND Graphic
Provided by CNU Tampa Bay

According to “A Citizen’s Guide to LEED for Neighborhood Development”, LEED-ND defines a neighborhood as “…a place with its own unique character and function, where people can live, work, shop, and interact with their neighbors” 4. In the aforementioned guide LEED-ND certified architects Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk illustrate a good traditional neighborhood as including but not limited to a discernible center, housing within proximity to this center, a variety of dwelling types, a variety of stores and commercial activity, connected streets, and a community decision process 4. When considering the listed criteria planners may want to evaluate their decision to use LEED-ND after reviewing local conditions and potential incentives of implementing this plan.

LEED-ND provides cities the option to use specific criteria ensuring neighborhoods are developed within a green framework. The criteria is represented by a point system primarily evaluated on three dimensions, 27 points can potentially be awarded to smart location and linkage- where to build, 44 to neighborhood pattern and design- what to build, and 29 to green infrastructure and buildings- how to manage environmental impacts. Some areas of the point system are stressed greater than others, for example a maximum of 12 points can be awarded toward walkability and two points are achievable for wastewater management. It is valuable for planners to remain cognizant that neighborhoods vary in resources and needs; accordingly the given community may not view an area deemed of high value similarly.

Potential incentives for an abiding community as stated in “A Citizen’s Guide to LEED for Neighborhood Development” include but are not limited to fee reductions, tax credits, and grants 20-21. Offering incentives to local governments, developers, or other decision-makers to adopt the LEED-ND protocol would theoretically ensure neighborhoods could afford to incorporate green development if they so choose. To develop a neighborhood under LEED-ND criteria seems to indicate an aim to establish a widely acknowledged base level of performance that controls ecological impact, potentially offering any interested party the opportunity of attainment.

Delaware Addition located in Santa Cruz, CA is an example of LEED for Neighborhoods

Delaware Addition located in Santa Cruz, CA is an example of LEED for Neighborhoods

LEED-ND is a voluntary program that offers neighborhoods base level criteria for controlling environmental decay while incorporating green building practices. Since neighborhoods are not homogenous it may be worthwhile for planners to scrutinize their jurisdiction and work with the community to determine a beneficial plan of action.

A gamut of decision-makers can encourage criteria under LEED-ND by offering aid towards development, allowing the decision for green development to be made by any community irrespective of available resources. LEED-ND provides neighborhoods pursuing sustainable development a revered systematic guide that if opted can lead to eco-friendly growth and accreditation, potentially extending forward thinking into a community’s posterity.

Good Traditional Neighborhood Criteria:
• A discernible center.
• Housing within a five minute walk of the center.
• A variety of dwelling types.
• A variety of stores and commercial activity.
• Flexible backyard “ancillary” buildings for working or living.
• A school within walking distance.
• Playgrounds near all dwellings.
• Connected streets.
• Narrow, shaded streets conducive to pedestrians and cyclists.
• Buildings close to the street at a pedestrian scale.
• Parking or garages placed behind buildings and away from street frontages.
• Prominent civic and public buildings.
• A community decision process for maintenance, security, and neighborhood development.

Potential Benefits of Incorporating LEED-ND:
• Fee reductions.
• Tax credits.
• Grants.
• Allowing additional density or building height.
• Sharing the cost of new infrastructure required by projects.
• Marketing enhancement.

To learn more about the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) protocol, a helpful resource is the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) Website.

For further reading:
“A Citizen’s Guide to LEED for Neighborhood Development: How to Tell if Development is Smart and Green”.

The U.S. Green Building Council, the Congress for New Urbanism, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. “A Citizen’s Guide to LEED for Neighborhood Development: How to Tell if Development is Smart and Green.” n.p. n.d.: 1-39. Web. 2 April 2014.

Santa Cruz Greenbelts

by Matthew Pinsker
University of California, Santa Cruz
Daniel Matthew Silvernail Architect Intern

Greenbelts within Santa Cruz, California are endangered and this may be due to a lack of support from state legislation. Greenbelts alias urban growth boundaries are local government sanctioned demarcations that control urban sprawl by respectively maintaining a fixed juxtaposition between rural and urban areas.

Pogonip Greenbelt located in NW Santa Cruz, CA

Pogonip Greenbelt located in NW Santa Cruz, CA

California legislation requires what are known as spheres of influence, defined as planning boundaries or city limit lines that regulate the jurisdiction of governmental agency services, but do not manage urban growth.

Potential positive outcomes of growth regulation include efficient use of public facilities, promotion of long-term strategic thinking, and protection of open space. Santa Cruz greenbelts may be endangered as a result of current California requirements, allowing cities to manage urban sprawl upon evaluation of their needs through long-term urban planning strategies.

Local California governments appear to manage greenbelts in accordance with rules governing spheres of influence, as required by legislation. In the article “Growth Management Policy in California Communities” by Elisabeth R. Gerber and Justin H. Phillips they explain varying processes and contexts for altering California greenbelts. “…boundaries adopted by city councils tend to only require the approval of the council, country board, a Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), or another outside governmental agency to be altered…none of the UGBs [urban growth boundaries] that originated from a successful citizen initiative have been significantly changed” (6).

Gerber and Phillips discuss the positive outcomes of increasing citizen interest in local greenbelts, producing a decrease in the likelihood of greenbelt endangerment, allowing internal efficiency and forethought to flourish. The potential for greenbelt enforcement seems to rely on public activism and awareness of California legislative processes, which would likely reinforce stringent urban growth boundaries. Materialization of this state ordinance is apparent within Santa Cruz, California where local greenbelt management is municipally planned through long-term development.

Wilder Ranch State Park located in SW Santa Cruz, CA

Wilder Ranch State Park located in SW Santa Cruz, CA
Photo by ATMTX Photography

Santa Cruz has delineated its boundaries through acquiring greenbelt properties over time and managing them within the legal framework of California. The “City of Santa Cruz 2030 General Plan” discusses the city’s greenbelt acquisition and implementation process, “At the time [1994], the City already owned several key properties in the greenbelt, and by the end of 1998, had purchased all of the Greenbelt properties with the exception of one…The preservation and use of each Greenbelt property and open area is guided by a City-prepared long term Park Master Plan…” (121).

The city of Santa Cruz Planning and Community Development Department explicates the history of local greenbelt acquisition with long-term plans set aside for preservation and future development where appropriate.

This process of long-term planning does not require growth management but upholds expansion with the city’s best interests in mind. The delineating function of greenbelts within Santa Cruz appears to recognize that cities are prone to sudden change and it is the task of the local government to strategically plan for fluctuations in community needs.

Greenbelts within the city of Santa Cruz are currently threatened under California legislation, which does not require direct management of urban growth. A proposed incipient stage to maintaining current greenbelts is to encourage citizen activism and awareness in the form of resolute initiatives to ultimately encourage definitive boundaries and internal development.

Through valid property accumulation the city’s management of greenbelts limits such initiatives, rather California legislation appears to advocate long-term development from an autonomous perspective. Santa Cruz greenbelts are indeed endangered but urban growth management can be employed in various fashions, universal sanctions for the sake of immutable city limits or appropriate adjustments according to population and resource projections.

The implementation of greenbelts is presented as contingent upon guiding state ordinances that lay the framework for how and under what circumstances cities should respond to preservation and development.

List of Santa Cruz Greenbelts:

Antonelli Pond
Arana Gulch
Arroyo Seco Canyon
DeLaveaga Park
Henry Cowell State Park
Jessie Street Marsh
Lighthouse Field
Moore Creek Preserve
Neary Lagoon
Pogonip
Wilder Ranch State Park
Younger Lagoon

To learn more about the city of Santa Cruz, a helpful resource is the City of Santa Cruz Official Government Website.  Santa Cruz Park Locations, the Zoning District Map, the General Plan Land Use Map, and much more are located at City of Santa Cruz: Area Maps.

Works Cited:

City of Santa Cruz Planning and Community Development Department. “City of Santa Cruz 2030 General Plan.” n.p. (2012): 1-210. Web. 5 March 2014.

Gerber, Elisabeth R. and Justin H. Phillips. “Growth Management Policy in California Communities.” Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy: University of Michigan 1.2 (2004): 1-7. Web. 3 March 2014.