Over the past 11 years, thanks to the transformative work of committed groups of owners, developers, and design and construction professionals, the Living Building Challenge has catalyzed regional change with each and every new project. As more and more visitors to certified projects are exposed to the concept and reality of regenerative design, the volume of inquiries ILFI staff receives has increased to a steady hum. The questions are harder to answer these days, too, as the industry has familiarized itself with program requirements and project case studies. Major design firms and contractors, and a lot of smaller firms besides, are building their internal capacity to deliver LBC projects to clients. Design schools teach the framework; ILFI staff members routinely field requests for education and resources from university professors. The next generation of designers to enter the workforce is ready, willing, and hungry for the opportunity to work on an LBC project. As a whole, the industry is poised to deliver a proliferation of Living Buildings.

Meanwhile, in a warming, crowded world, a growing number of large businesses are strengthening their commitment to sustainability. One meaningful, highly visible way that businesses are choosing to demonstrate their sustainability chops is by greening their real estate portfolio. This isn’t purely altruism, of course. Millennials, as a generation, make up the largest proportion of the labor force: More than one in three workers in the United States today are millennials. As a group, these workers are defined in part by their desire to work for mission-driven organizations that are making positive change in the world. An investment in sustainability is therefore an investment in employee attraction and retention, and smart companies are taking note. Some of the most influential and profitable companies in the history of the world are choosing to pursue the Living Building Challenge because they know that it is the most rigorous standard of sustainability for the built environment, and because they are attracted to the credibility conferred upon the certification by its requirement for proven performance and by its third-party audit process.

Companies such as Google, Microsoft, and Etsy, as well as other globally recognized brands that have requested confidentiality, pursue the Living Building Challenge to differentiate themselves from their competitors. Beyond that, these companies pursue the Living Building Challenge to demonstrate that they prioritize the health and well-being of their employees. Etsy’s Petal Certified new headquarters in Brooklyn is a shining example of setting a new standard that creates a space healthy and creative space that is rooted in craft. Google’s new Petal Certified office in Chicago challenges the boundaries of conventional sustainable design and provides a healthy environment for employees.

These companies are not alone, of course. They join a growing cohort of nearly 400 registered projects, 74 of which are certified. These projects run the gamut from small, single-family homes to environmental centers to large industrial, commercial, or institutional buildings. The diversity of owner-types is impressive as well. Some Living Buildings are owned by individuals, while others are owned by nonprofits, foundations, government agencies, or corporations. Even speculative developers are jumping on board.

The recent attraction of the Living Building Challenge to spec developers can, in part, be attributed to incentive programs like Seattle’s Living Building Pilot Program. Pursue the LBC, and you get an extra 10 to 20 feet of building height above zone restrictions, and a density bonus besides. That translates into more leasable square footage, which is often enough to make the pro forma pencil. ILFI’s policy team is hard at work exporting this concept to other cities, and we would benefit from local advocacy. Reach out if you’d like to help!

As Living Buildings take root around the world, ILFI staff are having conversations with a wide diversity of project types in a variety of different contexts and climate zones. Over the years, some themes have emerged. Notably, one recurring topic is that the LBC is impossible to achieve for some building types. Hospitals, for instance, are very energy intensive, and efficiency only goes so far for critical care facilities that require around-the-clock lighting and climate control as well as all manner of medical equipment. It’s not unheard of for hospitals to have energy use intensities of more than 1,000 kBTU/sf/yr. For purposes of comparison, that’s more than 10 times as energy intensive as an average commercial building in the United States, and more than 60 times as energy intensive as the Bullitt Center, a certified Living Building in Seattle, Washington. Other buildings, such as high-rise offices—and especially those in arid regions—simply don’t have sufficient roof area, relative to their leasable square footage, to harvest all of their water needs on site. In many cases, such buildings are sited on contaminated or inaccessible aquifers, precluding their ability to use groundwater to account for their demand.

It serves no broader sustainability purpose to exclude such projects from pursuing the Living Building Challenge. In order for the Living Building Challenge to remain accessible to all buildings, at all scales, in all places, ILFI has recently released two new exceptions. The first, pertaining to energy, is the Off-Site Renewables Exception. This exception allows certain project types, under certain conditions, to locate renewable generation infrastructure off site. Buildings pursuing this path must still incorporate industry-leading efficiency measures, but there is now a path forward for even projects such as data centers. The second exception, pertaining to water, is the Municipal Source Offset Exception. This exception is available to projects that, after maximizing both on-site water capture and implementing best-in-class efficiency, are simply unable to meet the Water Petal. Such projects may connect to the municipal water supply, but they must also offset any water they draw from that supply by introducing efficiency measures in neighboring buildings. In this manner, the project still results in a net reduction in demand from the municipal supply.

It’s safe to say that the Living Building Challenge has reached a new stage in its evolution. An ever-growing number of design and construction firms stand ready to deliver world-class Living Buildings. Clients of all stripes are demonstrating their appetite to build the world’s most sustainable buildings, enhancing their communities, their cities, and—not for nothing—their reputations in the process. And for its part, ILFI is working to accommodate new project types without sacrificing the rigor of its sustainability requirements or deviating from the essential philosophy of the program. The built environment is ripe for change. We invite you to join the Living Future community, and to help create a future that is socially just, culturally rich, and ecologically restorative. There’s strength in numbers, and we can’t do it alone.

This is an excerpt from Juliet Grable’s Brock Environmental Center for a Living Chesapeake.

DESIGNING WITH NATURE

The Living Building Challenge Standard mandates the incorporation of biophilic elements into the design of buildings in order to nurture the innate human attraction to natural systems and processes. The ILFI considers this natural connection essential to physical health and mental well-being. Much like the human tropism toward beauty, this intuitively felt truth has been ignored too often in modern architecture. Recognition of biophilia, or the inherent human affinity for our natural world, was a part of the Brock Center design from the earliest sketches right up to the time when the final coats of paint were applied. For guidance, the design team paid heed to Dr. Stephen R. Kellert’s Six Principles of Biophilic Design. Although it is easy to experience the elegant natural design elements of the Brock Center and intuit that it is informed by the philosophy of biophilia, it is also possible to identify specific features by Kellert’s biophilic design categories:

ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES:

Elements include the use of color and natural materials, and the incorporation and enhancement of views and vistas. Before choosing colors for the building, the design team studied photographs of the site during different seasons. The Brock Center’s palette complements and mimics these natural color schemes, which include the blues of The Chesapeake Bay, the green of Loblolly Pine needles, the straw blond of salt meadow plants, and the rusty orange of resident marsh grasses. Many of the building’s features work together to enhance views and encourage visitors to connect with the landscape. These features include the building’s long form, abundant windows, elevated grade and its orientation on the site.

Educating visitors about the Bay and sustainable building go hand in hand. Photo: Dave Chance

NATURAL SHAPES AND FORMS:

The Brock Center incorporates natural shapes and forms inside and outside the building, and on the macro and micro scales. The entire building was designed to resemble an animal; in particular, the conference room, with its curved roof, hints at the terrapin’s shell, a gull’s wings, and an oyster’s shell; the overlapping zinc shingles resemble fish scales. The interior vaulted space curves, and the beams recall the curving limbs of live oaks that grow on the site.

NATURAL PATTERNS AND PROCESSES:

This category includes natural patterns on different scales, called fractals, and elements that suggest the passage of time, among others. In the Brock Center, the inward-spiraling pattern in the conference room flooring creates a central focal point and makes a complicated room cohesive. Similarly, the diagonal flooring pattern in the lobby and open office areas help integrate the different parts of the building into a unified whole.

LIGHT AND SPACE:

The many windows, abundant natural light and high ceilings in the office area and conference room create feelings of spaciousness and evoke a natural environment. In contrast, the lower ceilings of the corridor, combined with the continuous curve, direct attention out the windows. The dog trot—essentially an outdoor room within the building mass— serves as a transition space between indoors and outdoors. “The biggest compliment that we get about the building is that it feels so comfortable. Whether that’s because of the choice of paints or the curves, nothing feels sterile or like a ‘normal’ office building. Every aspect of the building has a bit of fun in it.”

The Brock Center incorporates simple, naturally beautiful materials such as zinc and wood. Photo: Prakash Patel

HOW IS THE BROCK CENTER LIKE AN OYSTER?

The design team admired the native oyster not just for its pleasing physical form, but for its functions, which are so vital for the health and water quality of The Chesapeake Bay, and which matched many of the goals for how the Brock Center would function. This approach marries biophilia with biomimicry—the practice of taking cues from natural forms and processes to create better buildings, materials, and products that are nontoxic, low energy and do not produce waste. Here are some of the characteristics of oysters that the design team looked to for inspiration:

• Oysters are tolerant organisms, able to withstand wide variations in temperature.
• Oysters provide valuable shelter and habitat for many other estuarine organisms.
• Oysters filter the water and remove sediment, improving water quality.
• Oysters stabilize the bottom and buffer the shoreline from erosion.
• Oysters transform trash into treasure by encapsulating irritants and turning them into pearls. •
• Oysters open and close for protection, responding to environmental conditions.

PLACE-BASED RELATIONSHIPS:

The siting and form of the Brock Center pays close attention to the site. The building’s horizontality reflects the topography, with its low-growing marsh grasses and uninterrupted views of the water and sky, and its gentle curve mimics the shoreline. The Brock Center also pays homage to historic and indigenous structures, including longhouses, which are characterized by their long form, vaulted space, and overall simplicity. The Brock Center also draws from the plantation houses of European settlers, notable for their elevated structure and wrapping porches, and from Southern dog-trot houses, which utilize a central breezeway to unite public and private spaces.

EVOLVED HUMAN-NATURE RELATIONSHIPS:

This final category includes concepts such as prospect and refuge; exploration and discovery; and affection and attachment. The Brock Center addresses many of these functions simultaneously. The physical approach to the Center decouples humans from their cars; the peaceful, forested environment creates a literal physical transition from the fast-paced, car-centric built environment to a slower-paced, more sensual place. The education pavilion serves as a place of prospect and refuge—its roof protects people from the elements but does not cut them off from the smells of the marsh and sounds of the rain. The pavilion also serves as a classroom for CBF’s educational programs—a place that nurtures exploration and discovery.

Purchase your copy of  Brock Environmental Center for a Living Chesapeake here.

Every so often, a project comes along that perfectly aligns craftsmanship, unique customization, and LightArt’s passion for sustainable products. The Seattle-based lighting company had an opportunity to tackle that project early in 2017.

James Coury crafts the petals of the chandelier. Photo courtesy of LightArt

Photo courtesy of LightArt

The ILFI approached LightArt with a challenge to build a light fixture that mimicked the Institute’s orange flower logo. They also requested that the chandelier comply with all ILFI Declare program parameters, which require complete material transparency among all building products and finishes. LightArt, as the first lighting manufacturer to achieve Declare status, was able to meet this challenge with a large-scale lighting feature.

The ILFI worked directly with LightArt’s president, Ryan Smith, to collaborate on a concept for the piece. LightArt’s organically blooming artisan pieces were a perfect fit for the project. After determining the fixture type, LightArt was tasked with finding an interlayer for their product that would comply with Declare requirements. “Working on this project pushed us to find a gorgeous new interlayer, and to further consider each and every piece of material and technology that go into our fixtures,” said Smith.

Photo courtesy of LightArt

To develop a sustainable fabric interlayer for the material that would make up the fixture, LightArt turned to Washington-based Botanical Colors. Botanical Colors supplies artisans and industry with the materials and know-how to dye textiles in a way that uses less water, is non-toxic and biodegradable, and draws its incomparable color palette from humble plants and natural sources. Kathy Hattori, owner of Botanical Colors, helped the LightArt team to achieve a palette of rich oranges and reds through various dried wildflowers.

Photo courtesy of LightArt

After completing the organic interlayers with Botanical Colors, the hand-dyed fabrics were pressed in 3form’s Varia Ecoresin, a 40% post-industrial recycled PETG. Once the interlayer was pressed in 3form and laser cut into petals, LightArt’s artisan James Coury then heat-formed the delicate shapes to create blooming botanical fixtures. Once complete, the flowers were grouped and attached to a center canopy for easy installation in the Bullitt Center’s lobby.

The resulting fixture is a cluster of handmade flowers mirroring the signature ILFI branding. The cluster of flowers incorporates color in a unique way by using organic dyed fabric to highlight ILFI’s orange brand colors without overwhelming the minimalist palette of natural materials seen in the Bullitt Center. The fixture hangs in the center atrium at the Bullitt Center and greets visitors upon arrival, while passersby can see the glow of the fixture from the street. Best of all, the entire fixture is lit by just sixty watts.

Photo courtesy of LightArt

As the tenth building in the world to achieve full Living Building Challenge certification, the Brock Environmental Center continues to draw attention for its sustainable, resilient design. The center has been named among the Top 10 recipients of the American Institute of Architects COTE (Committee on the Environment) Award in 2017.

The Center is also the subject of the Living Building Challenge Series (LBCS) sixth book, “Brock Environmental Center for a Living Chesapeake.”

In a deep dive narrative about this extraordinary building — located on a peninsula near the southern shores of The Chesapeake Bay — the book’s author Juliet Grable weaves together the many strands of the building’s journey, from initial concept and design decisions through completion and award-winning recognition. The story of the building’s many sustainable and restorative features includes a behind- the-scenes look at the why and how of the project’s precedent-setting rainwater treatment system, an onsite waterworks that catapulted the project to full Living Building Certification status.

“This book documents the journey from napkin sketch to full building occupancy, starting with the preservation of a rare parcel of undeveloped shoreline in a densely developed region,” said Amanda Sturgeon, CEO of the International Living Future Institute (ILFI). “It’s part engaging narrative and part practical guide, informed with compelling stories from many points of view – from the designers to the engineers, to the builders, consultants and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation staff.”

Illustrated with beautiful photographs and instructive diagrams, Brock Environmental Center for a Living Chesapeake serves as an inspiration for those who appreciate the vision of Living Buildings as the model for our future built environment.

Praise for the project includes this remark by Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe: “The Brock Center is at the forefront of sustainability and it sets a high bar that should inspire many people for generations to come. I am particularly proud that the center mirrors the Commonwealth’s commitment to natural resource conservation, environmental education, and our shared future.”

More information about the book, its author, and how to make a purchase, can be found here: https://living-future.org/product/brock-environmental-center-living-chesapeake/

The Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) and the International Living Future Institute (IFLI) released a new guidance document to streamline certification efforts for projects pursuing both Green Star and Living Building Challenge ratings.

This follows a commitment by the two organisations in 2016 to work collaboratively to promote the design, construction and operations of positive and restorative buildings in Australia.

“Increasingly, leaders in Australia’s property and construction industry are looking to pursue more than one rating to demonstrate transparency, accountability and sustainability,” says the GBCA’s Head of Market Transformation, Jorge Chapa.

“By working together, we’ve identified the overlaps between the two rating systems so that project teams can avoid duplication of effort. As a result, achieving both Green Star and Living Building Challenge ratings will be faster and cheaper.”

“This partnership comes at a critical time where our collective work is more important than ever,” says Amanda Sturgeon, CEO of ILFI.

“This will allow project teams pursuing ratings with both systems easier access to essential information and ultimately, accelerate the move to regenerative design.”

ILFI is represented in Australia by the Living Future Institute Australia (LFIA).

“We are seeing some amazing projects and world-leading developments being progressed here in Australia, and naturally these are the ones that have multiple facets. What this usually which means is that these projects are able to reach new heights across a range of standards. We are delighted to have completed this piece of work together, as it should only encourage better and better projects into the future,” says LFIA’s Executive Director, Stephen Choi.

The document provides guidance specific to new buildings rated under Green Star – Design & As Built v1.1 and Living Building Challenge 3.1.

In February, the GBCA and the International WELL Building Institute released similar guidance for dual ratings under Green Star and the WELL Building Standard.

Download Green Star – Design & As Built/ Living Building Challenge: Approaches to buildings or fitouts seeking a dual rating: https://living-future.org/product/lbc-green-star-crosswalk/

About the Green Building Council of Australia
Australia’s authority on sustainable buildings and communities, the GBCA is leading the transformation of the nation’s built environment. The GBCA’s vision is for healthy, resilient and positive places for people and the natural environment, and it works with more than 700 members, industry and government to encourage policies and programs that support this vision. The GBCA educates thousands of people each year on the design and delivery of sustainable outcomes, and operates Australia’s only national, voluntary, holistic rating system for sustainable buildings and communities – Green Star. A trusted mark of quality, Green Star has transformed Australia’s built environment, with more than 1,450 certified projects – the equivalent to 21 million sqm of space – delivering environmental efficiencies while boosting the productivity, health and wellbeing of occupants. www.gbca.org.au

About the Living Future Institute Australia
The LFIA was established in 2012 by a passionate founding committee as a Chapter of the International Living Future Institute. Dedicated to establishing a powerful network of informed, influential, and active global citizens who are committed to redefining humanity’s relationships with the ecosystems we inhabit, the LFIA seeks to redirect our future towards a society that is socially just, culturally rich and ecologically restorative. A chapter of the International Living Future Institute, the Australian Institute provides training, support, and design initiatives across four innovative international programs, including the Living Building Challenge and the Living Community Challenge which call for the creation of building projects and communities at all scales that operate as cleanly, beautifully and efficiently as nature’s architecture. https://living-future.org.au/

Your confusion might be excused if you stumbled one morning last August into a conference room on the Georgia Tech campus.

More than 50 people sat at eight tables. Most wore casual business attire. Almost all were design or construction professionals, planning the landmark Living Building at Georgia Tech.

The unusual thing was that some participants were scrutinizing sticks, bones, shells, and even coral. Volunteers were walking around the room to dole out tiny spoonfuls of honey. And, at one point, the soothing voice of the moderator urged participants to close their eyes for a few minutes, so they could pay attention to the sounds around them.

It wasn’t your typical integrated project team meeting. With the adoption two years ago of Living Building Challenge 3.0, biophilic design workshops have become part of the LBC certification process. The standard now requires each building’s team to “engage in a minimum of one all-day exploration of the biophilic design potential for the project.” It also calls for that “exploration” to “result in a biophilic framework and plan for the project.”

The LBC’s Biophilic Environment Imperative may be the building industry’s most formal adoption yet of a concept that has had a hard time breaking past the theoretical stage.

Like any big subject, the word “biophilia” draws deceptively simple definitions. The celebrated psychoanalyst Erich Fromm coined it in 1964 to mean “love of life or of living systems.” Twenty years later, in a book called The Biophilia Hypothesis, evolutionary biologist Edward O. Wilson put a more active spin on the definition: “the urge to affiliate with other forms of life.”

Biophilia is one of those concepts that seems to brush up against everything. Sight. Touch. Smell. Taste. Sound. All senses connect us to plants, animals, and nature. The same is true for experiences: How we move. How we work. How we relax. We almost always play those roles in ways that relate to other living things.

The concept has multiple, layered applications in the building sector. “Biophilic design” can refer to a reliance on natural materials, to products or designs that evoke plants or animals, or to designs that connect us to nature.

Such ideas have always been with us. Architects have long thought about designing structures that befit our core human nature. Engineers and builders have long mimicked the tricks of living organisms.

Biophilic design consultant Sonja Bochart notes a key distinction, however. She sees the practice as grafting an intentional, scientific approach onto the art of incorporating living themes into buildings.

“Happiness, satisfaction, overall well-being—there are proven links between those goals and specific patterns of living systems,” she says in an interview.

While leading the Georgia Tech workshop in August, Bochart pointed to a landmark 1984 study by Roger S. Ulrich, which determined that surgery patients in rooms with views of nature recovered more quickly than those with views of brick walls. Ulrich’s study often is the first cited in a rich vein of findings about our evolutionary connection to nature, and the impact it can have on our happiness and well-being: Our blood pressure drops when we look at animals. Plants lower stress levels. Natural light improves productivity and morale.

Until about a decade ago, Bochart was a Phoenix-based interior designer and fitness enthusiast, who struggled to enhance the well-being of occupants in her buildings. The late professor of social ecology at Yale University Stephen R. Kellert provided a framework for the issues she was struggling to address. He made the practice of biophilic design manageable by breaking it into six elements: environmental features, natural shapes and forms, natural patterns and processes, light and space, place-based relationships, evolved human-nature relationships. (Read more here.)

Even before the Living Building Challenge adopted the Biophilic Environment Imperative, Bochart helped Richard Piacentini of the Phipps Conservatory in Pittsburgh to devise a biophilic strategy for Phipps’ Center for Sustainable Landscapes, which achieved LBC certification in 2015. That relationship yielded a slew of creative applications of biophilic design, including a sound installation called “Of Earth and Sun.” Artist Abby Aresty spent months recording birds, wind, rain, insects, and other natural sounds in Pittsburgh. The recordings were arranged into an “algorithmically generated audio collage,” which is amplified through the atrium’s windows via vibrations generated by tiny transducers. The result is a sort of subtle play on “surround sound.” It is very calming.

LBC’s new Biophilic Imperative allowed Bochart to engage early on in the Living Building at Georgia Tech. Even with that start, some aspects of the building’s design were coming together before she got involved. The most obvious example is the building’s basic scheme, which calls for a huge porch and lots of windows that invite views of the university’s nearby regenerative landscape project, called the Eco-Commons.

In biophilic terms familiar to many architects, the porch offers both “prospect”—because it provides an open view of the landscape to the west—and “refuge”—because it’s a protected zone. Those two features have been found in numerous studies to reduce stress, boredom, and fatigue, and to enhance comfort, concentration, and sense of safety.

“It’s difficult to separate this stuff,” says Dennis Creech, the Atlanta green-building guru and Southface Energy Institute founder, who’s consulting for Kendeda on the project at Tech. “When is something biophilic design versus just plain old good design?”

Bochart says that’s part of the point. She wants architects, engineers, owners, and builders to think about the intersection between overall design and specific biophilic features that can enhance the health and experience of occupants.

“What we’ve found is that it really requires a site-specific approach,” she says. “There’s an intuitive way of designing that’s very much in tune with time-honored aspects that put us in touch with nature. But it helps to remember the patterns that research tells us are tied to satisfaction and well-being.”

The workshop she led at Georgia Tech was only her second since the Imperative was adopted. The building’s location on the campus of a major research university allowed Bochart to tap into some formidable brainpower. Jeanette Yen, a biology professor who directs the university’s Center for Biologically Inspired Design, helped Bochart gather the show-and-tell artifacts for the meeting. She started a brief presentation by throwing a maple seed pod into the air, so that everyone could watch it whirl slowly down to the floor like a helicopter.

“We want to investigate the mechanisms and the principles by which nature solves problems,” she told the group. “Instead of using nature, why don’t we function like nature?”

Another biologist, Jennifer Leavey runs the Georgia Tech Urban Honey Bee Project. By the time Leavey finished speaking and handing out spoonfuls of honey, the room seemed sold on planning an apiary on the Living Building’s roof, along with pollinator plants that would help to meet the building’s urban agriculture requirement.

Another biophilic feature explored at the workshop involves the experience of entering the building. In a small-group exercise, several breakout tables came up with different versions of a similar idea: Install small, runoff-fed raingardens near the building’s southern entrance that would be tied to the building’s natural greywater treatment system.

The architects also are planning what they consider to be biophilic feature inside the entrance. As visitors come into the building, their eyes will be drawn across the building by diffuse exterior light, toward extended views of trees and sky. Again: Prospect and refuge.

As lead architect of the Living Building at Georgia Tech, Lord Aeck Sargent’s Joshua Gassman acknowledges that he’d be seeking site lines to the outside as a basic principle of overall design: “There’s a lot of overlap. There is very little—except for, maybe a fire extinguisher—that will only do one thing.”

That’s certainly true for the urban agriculture strategy, which according to the building’s schematic design, emphasizes foraging areas and perennial pollinators rather than annual crops. And it’s true for the selection of glue-laminated timbers and other exposed wood posts, floors and ceilings.

“Is the wood a biophilic choice? Absolutely. Is the wood chosen because it’s a wise carbon choice? Absolutely. Is it an aesthetic choice? Absolutely,” Gassman says. “All these choices intersect to do more than one thing.”

From Gassman’s perspective, understanding the benefits of biophilic design is part of a dynamic that both enriches and challenges his practice of architecture.

“There’s always a danger of sacrificing the intuitive side of it by getting overly intellectual,” he says. “But [biophilia] gives us tools to talk about these things. It makes you more aware of what you’re doing, which makes you more conscientious and conscious of what you’re doing.”

Bochart echoes Gassman’s thoughts on the tricky interplay between art and intuition on one hand, and science and metrics on the other. In a fledgling field, that’s particularly challenging because the expectations aren’t set and the standards aren’t fully understood by everyone.

“I think it’s going be different for different projects and different teams. There are teams that have a lot of background in approaching these issues in a mindful way, so they have confidence in exploring biophilic ideas creatively,” she says. “But a lot of time the research and the metrics will make a more compelling case. It depends on the lens that you’re looking through.”

She’s working with Gassman and the rest of the design team to document the biophilic process for the Georgia Tech building. The cumulative impact of such documentation might begin to draw a roadmap for biophilic design on future projects.

Ultimately, Bochart would like to see future LBC projects go a step farther. Touting existing studies that connect biophilic elements to health and wellbeing is a good start. So is documenting the design work on current projects. But more data is needed both to broaden the acceptance of biophilic design and to provide more guidance for its practice.

Bochart hopes Living Building projects can start to build a set of case studies — based on surveys, interviews and even physiological criteria — that gauge real-life outcomes. Well-conceived metrics, she suggests, might provide evidence of the impact of specific design features on illness, mood, blood pressure and other variables.

The Living Building community can expect to see the field refined. Last year, International Living Future Institute CEO Amanda Sturgeon launched the Biophilic Design Initiative, which “aims to achieve the goal of broad adoption of Biophilic Design among the design community, building owners and cities,” according to the ILFI website. Among its specific goals: connect projects to the scientists and resources that relate to biophilic design, and detail the processes required for the Biophilic Environment Imperative. Bochart sits on the initiative’s Advisory Council, alongside other leading biophilic design advocates, such as the Phipps’ Conservatory’s Piacentini, University of Washington environmental psychologist Judith Heerwagen, and Catie Ryan and Bill Browning of Terrapin Bright Green.

“The next five years will be a very informative and rich time. I believe that the specific requirements for biophilic design will eventually grow more rigorous in order to better define them,” she says. “But the more comfortable owners and designers are with the scientific basis, the more they’re going to come back full circle back to an intuitive way of designing that embraces biophilia.”

For those who have visited Miami Beach you most likely arrived by driving over one of the several causeways that that rise up from the mainland of Miami and as you descended on this beautiful barrier island you noticed the rise of tall condo buildings crowding out to the beaches. The City of Miami Beach is a 12-mile-long island at the southeastern tip of Florida along the Atlantic Ocean, that has gone through large booms of development in the 50’s, the 80’s and exponentially over the last decade. Climate change and sea level rise has put all this development in danger and is estimated that it could put over $400 billion of real estate and business at risk. The city decided that something had to be done to be more resilient and to mitigate the effects of climate change for its residents and businesses.

The question was, “How?” How could they make sure that the great investments and building developments that are helping their economy, growing their city, and making Miami Beach once again one of the most popular destinations in the world, how could they be less impactful on the local environment and not contribute to climate change and the sea level rise that threatens them? For this answer, they reached out to several experts including the local Living Building Challenge’s Florida Collaborative and its Lead Facilitator, Jonathan Burgess. The answer to their question was a difficult one for Jonathan to answer and has been long discussed and debated by the professional building community for years.

The discussion of the relationship between the buildings and the environment is one that Jonathan Burgess knew well. It is one that has led to the emergence of several sustainable building certifications programs such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and paved the way for the International Living Future Institute’s (ILFI) Living Building Challenge, which is one of the most forward looking sustainable building certification programs around. Jonathan studied the interaction between the environment and design as a Landscape Architect at the University of Rhode Island before he moved to Miami Beach and became a LEED Accredited Professional in Building Design + Construction and in Neighborhood Design, while working for The Spinnaker Group, a LEED Consulting Firm and volunteering on the leadership board of the U.S. Green Building Council. The work and his professional interests led to him becoming involved in and studying with the Living Building Challenge and how to take the built environment even further by having a Net Zero effect on the environment. As the situation in Miami Beach is urgent and the City officials wanted the best possible way to mitigate harm to their beautiful island, Jonathan knew that International Living Future Institute’s Living Building Challenge or Petal Certification would be the most forward-thinking sustainable building program to help the City to be more resilient.

The City of Miami Beach had already been developing the Sustainability and Resiliency Building Code and considered encouraging sustainable buildings with incentives for LEED Gold & Platinum Certification. However, they wanted Jonathan’s input on what would be a competitively comparable and positive alternative, which was agreed to be the International Living Future Institute’s Petal Certification or Living Building Challenge. Chapter 133 of the City of Miami Beach’s Sustainability and Resiliency Code mandates that all new construction over 7,000 square feet or additions over 10,000 square feet must pay a Sustainability Fee payment bond or full payment, which can only be reimbursed partially for LEED Certified or LEED Silver Certification buildings, and 100% reimbursed for LEED Gold Certification or ILFI Petal Certification, or for LEED Platinum Certification or ILFI Living Building Challenge Certification. This forward-thinking building code is the first of its kind in the world. Nowhere else has ILFI’s Petal Certification or Living Building Challenge been mandated as part of the building code.

The fact that the City of Miami Beach asked the question on how it could mitigate environmental impact in this time of climate change and answered with the ILFI’s Net Zero approach is a huge step in the right direction for resiliency at this dire time in the world. When asked about what he thinks this code will mean to other municipalities and governments around the world, Jonathan said “I hope it encourages other sustainability leaders around the world and in the ILFI’s Living Building Challenge Collaboratives to reach out to their municipalities, government, and building leaders to discuss forward-thinking approaches to building that will reduce their impact and help us all to mitigate or be more resilient to climate change” This a hope that the City of Miami Beach has taken to heart and will hopefully help keep it as one of the top world destinations to live and vacation for years to come.

The Desert Rain House located in Bend, Oregon, has become the first residential compound to earn Living Building certification, the most ambitious and optimistic international standard of sustainability in the world. Developed by the International Living Future Institute, the Living Building Challenge certification requires actual, rather than modeled or anticipated, performance across environmental, social and community impact. Therefore, projects must be operational for at least twelve consecutive months prior to evaluation.

“Barbara, Tom and the entire project team made a serious commitment to becoming what is now a powerful demonstration for regenerative design,” said Amanda Sturgeon, CEO of the International Living Future Institute. “They have also provided a beautiful and compelling blueprint for others to be inspired by and to follow. Certification of the Desert Rain marks a defining moment in the Living Building Challenge – a fully certified, multi-family residential project that is beautiful, just, and has a net zero impact on the environment.”

Six years in the making, Desert Rain earned certification by demonstrating that its five buildings produce more electricity than residents use each year and that 100% of water requirements are met by captured rainwater. In addition, toxic chemicals were screened from all building materials and all wood was reclaimed or Forest Stewardship Council certified. Human waste from the three residences is composted on site and all greywater is processed and reused for irrigation.

“Barbara and I built Desert Rain as a demonstration project and personal residence. If a residence and two apartments like this can be built in downtown Bend, Oregon, they can be built in any municipality,” said Tom Elliott, co-owner with Barbara Scott. “We hope the project will inspire others to reflect on the possibilities in their own built environment.”

Desert Rain has produced more energy than it used in each of the past three years due to its highly efficient design incorporating passive solar and a very tight building envelope.

“We can’t continue thinking we are building a better world by making a “less bad” version of the world we have created,” said Elliott. “The Living Building Challenge forces us to think in terms of a new paradigm.”

Barbara Scott, co-owner of Desert Rain, said, “It’s important to remember, Desert Rain is the loving and hard-earned result of a multi-year collaborative project between owners, designer, contractors, sub-contractors and the community at large. Bend is now home to one of the greenest buildings in the world.”

James Fagan, one of the owners of the general contractor Timberline Construction said, “Desert Rain was at least as much process as project. The technical challenges were many and some quite daunting. Together we managed to find our way to a fulfilling and beautiful outcome. As a general contractor on our first Living Building project, it was inspiring to be able work through this challenge with such an amazing team.”

“Dozens of design, engineering, and construction team members embraced the highly integrated design/build format vital to making the Desert Rain dream a reality,” said Al Tozer of Tozer Design, LLC. “A pioneering residential effort, Desert Rain showcases what the world needs now more than ever – commitment to a clearly stated goal, collaboration of all stakeholders, open minds and creative thinking – to solve our planet’s most pressing environmental challenges.”

“Plants take longer to grow in the desert, but when there is a bloom it is stunning. The Desert Rain House is the product of years of thoughtful planning, design and perseverance led by two courageous owners,” said Jason F. McLennan, Board Chair of the International Living Future Institute and Founder of the Living Building Challenge. “What they have achieved is an example for us all: a better way of living and perhaps more importantly for all people touched by the project, a new way of thinking that will seed further blooms of change.”

About the Desert Rain House

Desert Rain is a residential compound consisting of three residential units and related out-buildings encompassing a total of 4810 square feet. The first residential compound in the world to be fully certified under the stringent Living Building Challenge, Desert Rain is also LEED Platinum certified and Earth Advantage Platinum certified.

Built as a demonstration project, Desert Rain is one couple’s exploration of the question, “How do we remake our human-made systems to align positively with what we know creates sustainable and resilient communities?”

The process of designing and building Desert Rain House is captured at www.desertrainhouse.com, and in a book published by Ecotone, the imprint of the International Living Future Institute, and can be found here.

The International Living Future Institute (ILFI) announced today that Jonathan Lash, president of Hampshire College and an internationally recognized sustainability leader, will join the ILFI’s Board of Directors.  Under Lash’s leadership, Hampshire’s newly constructed 17,000 square foot R.W. Kern Center is pursuing certification as a Living Building, a major part of the college’s broad initiative to transform its campus into a living laboratory for sustainability systems and performance.

“Jonathan is re-imagining higher education as a place where students learn through creating environments that aim for the highest and most innovative standards of sustainability,” said Amanda Sturgeon, CEO of the International Living Future Institute. “He will bring to ILFI’s leadership team a remarkable record of turning his unique vision into practical approaches for addressing our planet’s most ambitious environmental challenges.”

“The International Living Future Institute is having an inspiring impact on architects, builders, and designers globally,” said Jonathan Lash. “Buildings represent who we are, what we do, and what we believe. We’d grown used to thinking about minimizing the damage we do to the world, but ILFI’s programs are proving that physical construction can improve our world, and leading people to rethink what is possible. I’m proud to have the opportunity to offer whatever assistance I can to advance the organization’s transformational vision and programs.”

Lash was named president of Hampshire College in 2011, arriving from World Resources Institute, a Washington-based environmental think tank focusing on issues ranging from low carbon development to sustainable transportation. Under his leadership, WRI quadrupled its budget and globalized its work, with offices in eight countries and partners in more than 50 countries.

Prior, Lash co-chaired the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, a group of government, business, labor, civil rights, and environmental leaders appointed by President Bill Clinton that developed visionary recommendations for strategies to promote sustainable development. Lash was named Vermont Commissioner of Environmental Conservation in 1985, and in 1987 was appointed Vermont Secretary of Natural Resources. He became director of the Environmental Law Center at Vermont Law School, rated the best program of its kind in the United States, in 1990.

Lash has written frequently about issues of sustainability and has served on a variety of international commissions and boards. Rolling Stone magazine has profiled Lash as one of 25 “Warriors and Heroes” who are “fighting to stave off the planet-wide catastrophe.”

A triumvirate team of Developer/Sustainability-Consultant, Architect, and General Contractor engaged in creating a standard plan prototype house for infill lots in downtown Phoenix. The three main goals were to:

1. Create a prototype house inspired by the “case-study” homes of the 1960’s, designed with time and place in mind, and to the highest standard of sustainability possible.
2. Create a low- to mid-cost home with high design, quality, and sustainability.
3. Create a design that may be replicated for any typical lot within Phoenix.

The team processed six versions of the design. They tested, energy-modeled, and priced each to find an optimal balance between design, performance, and cost.

The two-bedroom home is designed to fit on any typical downtown lot. The ultimate goal is to improve existing neighborhoods by building homes where derelict sites currently exist.

The home surpassed LEED Platinum certification and provided a blower test rating of .68 ACH50. The 1500 square foot house uses about 6000 kWh (about $700 worth) of electricity per year offset by a 3.6 kW photovoltaic system to create a net-positive energy house.

Photo: Courtesy of Mark Boisclair Photography, Inc.

Vali Homes Prototype I

Net Zero Energy Building Certified

Living Building Challenge 3.0

Performance Areas
Place • Energy • Beauty

Place 

Recognizing the huge issues sprawl brings to cities such as Phoenix, the team also realized single family homes are the dominant housing form being constructed. This inspired the team to create a demonstration project to showcase better design and construction practices.

The project site was empty prior to construction, considered a “missing tooth” of the surrounding 1970’s suburban neighborhood. Because it was empty, the land was often used as an informal landfill and had trash on site. Because the landowner did not live in the neighborhood, there was no regular maintenance of the trash or landscape. Many of the neighbors felt the site was neglected and a blight for their community.

All landscaping is native desert species requiring little to no water use (after a one year establishment period) and little maintenance. All plant choices are located within 100 miles of the site. Native desert landscaping requires regular watering for 300-400 days before it can survive on rainfall alone. All watering occurred though an automated drip irrigation system.

Photo: Courtesy of Mark Boisclair Photography, Inc.

Energy

The estimated annual energy consumption for the home during the design phase was 6500 kWh. After the PV panels were installed, the measured energy use was 5334 kWh, while the measured onsite generation was 5720 kWh. By the end of the performance period, the home had generated 107% of its energy use onsite.

Net Zero Energy Design Strategies

Reduce Energy Through Building Envelope

One major design strategy was to reduce energy use by means of thorough insulation. Additionally, measures were taken to limit infiltration in order to further reduce unwanted heat transfer. Materials were selected based on thermal properties, cost, and ease of installation, maintenance, and proper disposal.

• Utilized Passive House energy modeling software to test various building envelope solutions and cross-checked each solution for cost-benefit analysis.
• 2×6 wall and 18” deep wood truss roof construction completely filled with blow-in cellulose insulation.
• Use of advanced framing techniques to reduce amount of lumber used by approximately 20% when compared to conventional framing.
• The cellulose insulation was chosen for its:
  • 100% recycled content and near zero carbon footprint.
  • Increased R-value over typical fiberglass insulation with less air flow.
  • Ability to be blown into place to fit around ducts and pipes effectively.
  • Ability to be recycled and efficiency of material use (far less waste created when compared to conventional insulation)
• 1” rigid insulation installed between the exterior sheathing and wall cladding system to reduce thermal heat gain and further insulate the building envelope.
• Tightly sealed building envelope including vapor barrier beneath the slab, sealing all floor penetrations, house-wrap tape sealant, and gaskets at all openings.
• Blower door test provided rating of .68 ACH50.
• Utilized wood doors with aluminum cladding to help reduce thermal heat gain.
• Developed a vented bent-metal pan cladding system that sheds its own heat.
  • Creates zero construction waste as each piece is cut-to-length.
  • Extremely durable (rust protects steel in Phoenix region), zero maintenance.
  • 1” profile creates vented skin system to separate exterior temperature from interior.
  • Low cost & 100% recyclable.

Reduce Energy Use Through Appliances

Another concurrent design strategy used to help the home achieve Net Zero Energy was the reduction of energy use via efficient appliances and mechanical systems.

• A heat recovery ventilator produces 24-hour air exchange while maintaining 90% HVAC energy.
• Heat-pump water heater uses 1/3 as much energy as the conventional type, and acts as a half-ton A/C unit when operating (about 2-3 hours per day)
• HVAC system is a ductless mini-split system to deliver air directly to living areas within the house. The entire system utilizes less than 12 amps when fully operational.
• Ductless HVAC eliminates ducts in ceiling to ensure maximum insulation.
• All kitchen appliances are low-energy use (ENERGY STAR at minimum).

Design Process and Building Orientation

The team identified the importance of an integrated design process from the outset and made use of building orientation to help meet the goal of Net Zero Energy.

• Inclusionary Team Design Process including Owner, Sustainability Consultant, Architect, Mechanical Engineer, Structural Engineer, General Contractor, and all sub-contractors.
• Several forms of energy calculation processes were used including using Passive House software to study cost versus benefit for each design decision.
• House was intentionally oriented on a north-south axis. There is zero east-west fenestration in order to reduce heat load.
• 100% shading on all glass during the four hottest summer months.
• Open plan to minimize HVAC components.
• Trees sited on east and west sides of house to shade the building.
• Flat roof for easy PV system installation.

On-Site Energy Systems

The on-site energy is provided by roof-mounted photovoltaic panels and is supplemented via a grid connection.

• 3.6 kW PV system, roof-mounted.
• System is grid-connected.
• No energy storage system.
• 100%+ annual energy is offset by the PV system, transferred to utility grid.

Photo: Courtesy of Mark Boisclair Photography, Inc.

Beauty

The idea for this project, and for future homes to be built on other sites, was to create a design in the mindset of the case-study homes of the 1960’s – something visionary, stark, and simple. Though rather than copy the case-study home types, the team aimed to create something more specific for the current time and place, with much greater sustainability in mind.

The prototype project is meant to be as affordable as possible. To achieve that aim, the design needed to be as simple as possible. Within that simplicity, the team honed the design to produce human delight with pattern, color, sacred geometry, and biophilic elements and principals.

Pattern

The steel cladding on the exterior of the building is a slightly customized bent metal pan system of various widths to create visual variety. The majority of the cladding was intentionally designed to be rusted metal set in a “random” pattern for a variety of reasons.

The texture is rich and mimics patterns on local rock and ground cover. The material, left to naturally patina in this way, helps to blend it with the site, which was covered with local granite gravel paving.

The material itself is a reminder of the area’s mining and agricultural past. Rust is often seen on the oldest remaining buildings in the city.

Of course, durability is a key feature. But over time, the material changes, allowing the home to take on different appearances. In this region, mill finish steel left to rust lasts a minimum of 50 years even with a 20 gauge bent pan.

The varied widths and “random” pattern provide a biophilic interpretation into natural patterns.

The screen wall around the courtyard is created with a carefully placed set of horizontals, also with a variety of sized elements set in a seemingly “random” pattern to create a biophilic interpretation of natural patterns.

The colored glass wall at the back of the house is painted with a random pattern of bubbles.

Color

The exterior cladding includes a few colored panels to break up the biophilic pattern further.

The green color is derived from the native Palo Verde tree. Its bark is green and allows the tree’s skin to photosynthesize – something very unique to the plants in this region.

The “random” pattern of the green panels mimics the way a multi-trunked Palo Verde tree can look against a backdrop.

Two glass panels were added behind the house to provide a view to a colored wall plane.

Sacred Geometry

There are several areas that utilize geometries that are immediately recognizable and appreciated by the human eye.

The entire house in elevation from the street is made up of two rectangles of 10’x20’ that make up the 40’ long elevation.

The constant 8’ height of the interior of the space is meant to be comfortably proportioned and sized.

The three white walls, not connected to the side walls, at the exterior elevation (one at the living room and one at each of the two bedrooms) are each exactly 8’x8’.

There is another white wall at the interior that is disconnected from the side wall and also exactly 8’x8’.

Photo: Courtesy of Mark Boisclair Photography, Inc.

Biophilia

Every living space has multiple openings to collect changing light patterns throughout the day.

Every living space has views to native landscaping.

The front courtyard provides a “refuge” and “prospect” for the living space to put occupants at ease by providing protection with a view of the surrounding area.

The green painted glass with bubble pattern mimics the way mud dries in the desert.

Photo: Courtesy of Mark Boisclair Photography, Inc.

Inspiration + Education

Prior to construction, the team attended a neighborhood meeting to present the design and sustainability strategies of the house to the community. There were approximately 30 people in attendance. People seemed excited about two aspects of the project.

1. They were very happy to see that the previously empty lot in their neighborhood would now be filled with a house for ownership. The lot had always contained a fair bit of trash that people would leave there or that the wind would blow onto the property. Sometimes people would also park their cars on the lot, creating an eyesore for the neighborhood.
2. Several community members were very interested in the sustainability features we were employing, particularly the goal of net-zero energy usage. There was a bit of discussion and brainstorming about how the team could achieve this goal.

The team provided a “reader’s digest” version of the design and building technologies that it planned to employ to accomplish the challenging goals. The neighborhood seemed pleased with the proposed solutions.

While aesthetics were discussed, the neighbors were less interested in discussing this aspect. However, they were also very happy the house would be limited to one story in height. The entire neighborhood is one story, and they saw the design as fitting in well with the scale and housing types of the community.

The team conducted several open house events before the house sold. All of them were tours given by both the developer/sustainability consultant and the architect. The tour guides verbally conveyed information on the building technologies, energy savings, and net-positive energy aspects of the house while showing the visitors the building technologies, including the solar PV array on the roof (seen from across the street). In particular, there was discussion around the use of advanced framing techniques, increased insulation, and the tightly sealed house-wrap system. There was also discussion around the need for and positive aspects of the heat recovery ventilator (HRV) equipment within the house. The vented steel skin system was a highlight; it is completely recyclable, requires no maintenance, and will last for a minimum of 50 years.

Announcements for the house were published through the team’s websites, Facebook page, and local websites/Facebook pages for people interested in sustainability and architecture. All three Open Houses were open to the general public and free of charge.

The Living Community Challenge (LCC) calls upon planners, developers, policy-makers and community members to rethink how they design, build and plan for community-scale projects, including streets, blocks, neighborhoods, campuses and more. The LCC provides a vision and framework that can lead a community towards the most advanced measure of sustainability in the built environment.

Early October marked the launch of the Living Community Challenge Standard, Version 1.1, and the companion LCC Handbook, Version 1.1. This 1.1 version is a tweak to the 1.0 Standard that was launched in May 2014.

Alicia Daniels-Uhlig, LCC + Policy Director, shares that “communities pursuing the Living Community Challenge will be pleased to see alignments with the Living Building Challenge version 3.1 such as Petal and Net Zero Energy Certification pathways, registration guidance between the LBC and the LCC programs, and further clarification of the LCC process.”

The evolving Standard and Handbook will continue to support the five communities registered to pursue the LCC, and the over two-dozen communities around the world exploring the feasibility of LCC. Some of the update highlights include:

• Expanded certification options,
• An elaboration on the Vision Plan and Master Plan process

The new Living Community Challenge Handbook explores what types of communities can use the LCC and Imperative-by-Imperative clarifications.

The LCC has seven performance categories (also known as Petals): Place, Water, Energy, Health & Happiness, Materials, Equity, and Beauty. Noted below are some key changes for each Petal:

• Place: The minimum percent required for food production based on Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in I-02 Urban Agriculture, has been aligned with Living Building Challenge (LBC) version 3.1, which reduced requirements from 80% for communities with a FAR of 0.05% or less, to 50% for communities with a FAR of 0.09% or less. I-04 Human-Powered Living clarifications include mobility plan requirements aligned with LBC version 3.1.
• Health and Happiness: I-10 Resilient Community Connections requirements previously for Transects 5 & 6 now apply to all Transects to ensure that all sensitive infrastructures, such as lift stations, sub-stations, sewage treatment, community centers, schools and the like, are out of the flood plain.
• Materials: Communities can no longer use the Living Future Carbon Exchange to satisfy I-12 as it is no longer in operation due to the complexities of navigating a shifting global market, and there is an Exception that allows surplus renewable energy to satisfy some of the community’s required carbon offsets
• Equity: Existing communities may be exempt from some prescriptive requirements of the I-14 table if they can demonstrate the community is human-scaled, and document that advocacy measures have been conducted in alignment with the intent to create human-scaled rather than automobile-scaled places. Within requirements for I-18 JUST Organizations, the list of firm types that are eligible have been expanded.

Download these resources here. 

Pg. 15 of the 1.1 Standard

In May 2009, San Juan County Building Department issued Final Occupancy Permits for Common Ground, Lopez Community Land Trust’s fourth affordable housing neighborhood and their first net-zero energy neighborhood in the state of Washington. Common Ground consists of 11 single-family affordable homes. Additionally, LCLT built an office and two affordable rental units. The 11 homes are under a cooperative ownership model and governed by a 198-year ground lease, which includes an equity limitation formula; this assures the homes remain permanently affordable.

LCLT initiated the project because affordable housing is key to sustaining a strong, viable community. The team was inspired to build a net-zero neighborhood after reading a speech by William McDonough, a world-renowned architect, designer and author of the book Cradle to Cradle, a manifesto that called for the transformation of human industry through ecologically intelligent design.

Lopez Island faces unique economic challenges. Salaries and wages contribute only 33% to household incomes in San Juan County compared with 61% statewide. 45% of household income within the county comes from investment income. This pattern of income gives Lopez Island a high cost of living (especially housing costs) coupled with low wages.

In 2006, LCLT convened a three-day design charrette. Over thirty practitioners from northwestern Washington offered their in-kind services. The charrette team consisted of future residents, architects, planners, builders, county officials, water and energy consultants, attorneys, and permaculture designers. For the final design, LCLT hired Mithun, a leading architectural firm in sustainable design. LCLT served as manager, developer and owner through the design and construction phases. Common Ground members, LCLT and designers worked collaboratively throughout the design and building phases.

Photo: Courtesy of Andrew Lee

Common Ground

Net Zero Energy Building Certified

Living Building Challenge 3.0

Performance Areas
Place • Energy • Beauty

Place 

The site was chosen for its horizon-to-horizon sun access for maximizing solar energy, close proximity (walking and biking distance) to Lopez Village where there is access to the medical clinic, post office, grocery stores, community center, farmers market and other essential services. With a gentle slope to the southeast, the site lends itself well to solar access. The soils were poor, containing only a few inches of top soil and mostly a clay silt content, but soils were enhanced where the gardens are located and utmost care was taken to preserve what little top soil was disturbed. A pond was constructed in the lowest section of the land for storm water and irrigation collection.

Innovations

Rainwater is used in the homes for washing clothes and flushing toilets. The units contain earthen plasters and straw bales for insulation, evacuated tube solar water heaters, and a 3-kilowatt photovoltaic system for each house.

Lessons Learned

Earthen plasters and straw bale construction were very time and labor intensive.

Introducing rainwater in the houses is an ongoing expense because of the back flow preventers.

Earthen plasters were not properly prepared and caused moisture issues, which showed up a few years later. These had to be remedied, which added to the already high cost.

Photo: Courtesy of Andrew Lee

Energy 

Net zero energy was established as a core design principle for Common Ground in March 2006 during the initial design charrette, making the community an early pioneer in this groundbreaking concept and reality. Extensive consideration was given to achieving the net zero goal through the design and construction process. Given the early date in the overall narrative of net zero energy, the team had to arrive at a number of guiding principles and expectations on their own, including assumptions about occupant loads – there were few examples, definitions, or frameworks to look to at the time.

Later in 2006, LCLT contracted with Dana Brandt of Ecotech Energy Systems to further evaluate the net zero energy concept. Using recorded data from three existing LCLT communities and information from existing “net-zero energy home” projects, an energy requirement estimate for Common Ground was made. LCLT reviewed the information and determined there was a good chance of meeting the net-zero energy goal. The team researched further, finessed the information, and then adjusted as needed given the budget, skills and timeline. Design development continued as building plans were created by Mithun, the project design architect.

A key element of the project was to work in harmony with the natural gifts of the site: sun, wind, water, and materials. The site has excellent solar exposure, and the home designs orient towards a partially passive approach in heating, ventilation, and hot water. This aspect is a standout feature of Common Ground compared to other net zero energy projects, which tend to rely on more mechanical approaches.

Common Ground was designed to gain a significant portion of its heating needs directly from the sun, and retain the gained heat in a highly insulated, well sealed envelope. The homes are oriented with their lengths on the east-west axis, substantial glazing is placed on the south façade to maximize solar gain, and a high south facing clerestory with operable windows high and low assist with wind and stack driven ventilation. Thermal retention inside the homes was provided by an insulated concrete slab and by the heavy stucco finish, which was placed over the straw bales.

The building walls and ceiling are highly insulated. The north, east, and west walls are built with straw bales, which resulted in R-34 to R-42 – double the level required by code. The south walls were R-21 2×6 stud construction, insulated with blown in cellulose. The ceiling was a combination of cathedral (insulated with spray foam) and dropped sections (insulated with blown in cellulose), both insulated to R-50.

Windows are fiberglass, argon filled, low-e coated, and double paned. Glazing was specified to maximize solar gain for south, west, and east facing windows and maximize retention on the north facade. On the north walls, the team selected windows with a 0.27 U factor, a SHGC of 0.28 and a VT rating of 0.49 with double glazing with insulated spacers (“super spacers”). Windows on the south, west and east walls have a 0.31 U factor, a SHGC of 0.61 and a VT rating of 0.63 with double glazing with insulated spacers.

The homes were performance tested using a blower door and infrared camera.

Initial calculations suggested that about 40-50% of the unit heating could be provided through passive solar gain, based on the home design. At the time of design and construction, mini split systems were untested regionally and not well known, and ground source heat pumps were cost prohibitive. Given the expected passive solar performance of the home, the team determined electric resistance heating, though inefficient, to be an acceptable mechanical heating system for the homes. Since initial occupancy, two of the certified homes (units F and I) have been retrofitted with mini split ductless heat pumps. Whole house fans provide supplemental ventilation.

The project’s approach of maximizing direct sun energy continues with the hot water system, which includes evacuated solar thermal tubes to provide 65-75% of the needed hot water for each home. Each home has its own hot water system, including a Thermomax evacuated tube array and a hot water storage tank, which includes an electric resistance element to provide any hot water needed that the array isn’t able to supply. The tube arrays are mounted on the individual home rooftops.

Energy Star appliances were chosen throughout. As LED lighting has become commonplace, it has made its way into most fixtures. In practice, the community is very environmentally oriented, which helps raise consciousness and expectation for keeping loads low.

The homes’ energy demands are offset by individual ground mounted 3-kilowatt arrays. These arrays are collocated on the south edge of the site – while they appear to be one large array, they are in fact eleven separate arrays mounted side by side. Each 3 kW array is comprised of 15 Evergreen 205 Watt Modules, making 165 solar panels in total for the supply to 11 homes. A grid-intertie SMA 3000 string inverter converts the direct current (DC) electricity from that array’s solar panels to 240 volt alternating current (AC) electricity. The AC electricity from each inverter is passed through a production meter, and then connects to each home’s electrical panel.

Photo: Courtesy of Andrew Lee

Beauty

Beauty and inspiration were guiding principles for this project. The Common Ground homes are located in the San Juan Islands, considered the crown jewels of the Pacific Northwest. The site is just east of the Salish Sea, where the Olympic range can be seen in the distance. The team wanted to celebrate place and have the buildings reflect that beauty.

Common Ground utilized the unique sculptability of straw bale and plasters for beauty and inspiration. Homeowners, interns and volunteers were excited about sculpting in the straw bales and plaster. “Truth Windows” were one of the primary sources of inspiration.

An entire visiting delegation from Thailand made a comparable “Tree of Life,” and a Maori delegation contributed its indigenous design for Life.

Photo: Courtesy of Sandy Bishop

Photo: Courtesy of Juan Hernandez

Inspiration + Education

The homes will, in measurable ways, promote energy and water independence while preserving the rural character of the site and improve the natural diversity and habitat of site, situation, and surroundings through permaculture practices. These beautiful homes reduce the use of resources by utilizing small, efficient footprints. Six of the homes are 740 square feet, four are 876 square feet, and there are even two studio rentals available at 412 square feet each. Local lumber was milled for key features, including door trim, adding to the site-specific identity of the homes. Numerous parties volunteered their time, labor, and services to help make this project a reality.

During a 3-day design charrette in the spring of 2006, LCLT gained essential development expertise from over thirty practitioners who offered their in-kind services. The team consisted of eight architects, along with several planners, builders, county officials, water and energy consultants, attorneys, and permaculture designers. Their participation set a framework for Sustainable Community Homes.

Some of LCLT’s Guiding Principles:

• Demonstrate good design and appropriate building in an age of climate change
• Make development decisions based on sustainability while assuring decisions are fair, cost effective and subjected to a predictable process
• Model buildings and infrastructure on natural systems in which there is little to no waste
• Utilize energy efficiency and renewable energy to produce net zero energy homes
• Foster distinctive, aesthetically pleasing homes with a strong sense of place
• Recognize the importance of natural beauty, and critical environmental areas in all final design schematics
• Encourage community collaboration in building through sweat equity and intern opportunities
• Plan to share knowledge by updating the manual
• Create a walkable neighborhood that fits with the existing mixed-use neighborhood, and address alternative transportation choices

“Common Ground is about reinventing the American Dream. In the years ahead, Americans will be compelled to shed some deeply ingrained habits of material consumption. These adjustments can be endured, nay, embraced, if people are confident that the country is headed to a more fulfilling transformation. I believe this transformation is fundamentally about discovering what it means to be truly human, not as ‘consumers’ but citizens, neighbors, friends, co-creators of a compelling new story that embraces social justice and a healthy planet. It’s about smaller footprints and larger lives.”

-Chris Greacen, resident of Common Ground