A Complex Competition Trying to Alter the Built Environment for the Betterment of the Earth

Not everyone in our world knows about the idea of sustainability. That is, there are still people in our world, and even in our country, who are uneducated about the foundations of sustainable living. Even though this is the case, it does seem as if there are more and more events, competitions, and societal happenings that are based on the idea of sustainability. From the emergence of LEED certification for buildings to contests like the Solar Decathlon, these incidents have been helping to educate individuals about the ideals of sustainable living and environmentally friendly design. One of the newest competitions in sustainable construction has been the Living Building Challenge, another example of a program that is trying to change our world for the better.

As stated on their website the Living Building Challenge is “a green building certification program that defines the most advanced measure of sustainability in the built environment possible today, and acts to diminish the gap between current limits and ideal solutions” (Living Building Challenge 2012). This program is one of the newest competitions that has been trying to influence architects, developers, urban planners and many others to implement the most sustainable elements into the built environment. Similar to the process of LEED certification, the Living Building Challenge has its own set of rules, regulations, and qualifications. The challenge is comprised of seven performance areas, which include beauty, equity, site, water, energy, health, and materials. Each of these performance areas is subdivided into twenty imperatives which dictate how and why a building under this program should be built.

The Living Building Challenge is known to be one of the most difficult competitions in sustainable design. For one thing, for a building to achieve this certification it must fulfill all twenty of the imperatives. Also, to make sure a project successfully fulfills those imperatives as well as work well within its location, a project cannot be evaluated until after a year it has been built (International Living Future Institute 2012). The twenty imperatives behind the design of the project are extremely rigorous, thus promoting a design that is truly compatible with the Earth’s environments and its processes. For example, the prerequisite of net-zero water is one of the most complicated imperatives within the challenge. “Buildings attempting to be certified by the Living Building Challenge must comply through careful collection and reuse of rain and gray water. Further, storm water must never leave the site, and black wastewater has to be eliminated by the installation of evaporating composting toilets” (Kenton Living Building 2012). As shown by this one imperative, the Living Building Challenge is no “walk in the park.” This competition brings environmentally friendly design to a new level, thus trying to promote the construction of buildings and infrastructures that are truly sustainable. 

Examining Older Houses to Improve the Characteristics of Buildings of the Present and Future

Last week, we visited the university's Gable House, a model for sustainable design. The Gable House is an example of a housing unit that follows the standards and principles of the Passive House Institute. With these standards, the Gable House is an innovative building that efficiently makes use of natural elements as well as compliments the processes of sustainability. Sadly, not all buildings are like the Gable House. That is, there are very few buildings that are as innovative as the Gable House. Despite this being the case, people can try to study existing buildings to better understand the dynamics within their framework. Maybe by studying the dynamics of these familiar buildings, we can improve their components (like how they manage natural lighting) to make them more environmentally friendly.

Over break, I decided to study the home of my grandparents. I chose to study this building because I thought most of my classmates would examine their own homes, so I decided to do something slightly different. My grandparents’ house is located a mile away from mine in the same neighborhood of Jefferson Park. Their house was built in the mid-1950’s, so it is not a new house and as a result it does not have innovative features that might be found in a home built today. The house is found on a North-South street and the building’s façade faces east. As a result of its site, the house is not able to take advantage of sunlight like a house on an East-West street. The façade of my grandparents’ house also has windows that are not very large. These windows also have awnings, so not a lot of natural light gets into the house. This issue with natural lighting could possibly be improved with the installment of larger windows or modifying the awnings so they don’t deter too much sunlight away from the home. Even though the front of house doesn't get a lot of light, the back of the house does. There is an enclosed porch on the other side of the house that faces west. This porch area has extremely large windows. The porch area also has white walls, so this place in the house is always extremely bright as well as warm. Whenever my family and I got to visit my grandparents, we usually sit around within this enclosed porch because it is a great place to relax, talk, and bask in the sunlight.

Like many houses in the city of Chicago, my grandparents’ house is heated by a natural gas furnace. In the winter, this furnace is used to make sure the house is heated comfortably for my grandparents. Even though most of the house is quite warm in the winter, there are some places where one can feel a draft. Small drafts can be felt near the windows of the house. A bigger draft can be felt near the door that connects the house to the enclosed porch. At times this is problematic because I know whenever I am in the kitchen of my grandparents’ home (the room that the enclosed porch is next to), I feel cold. This could probably be fixed by installing better windows within the porch, or maybe even fixing the door that connects the two sections together. 
           In the summer, there are some components within or near the house that help manage the temperature of the dwelling place. As I mentioned earlier, most of the windows have awnings. These awnings do limit the amount of sunlight that comes into the house, but they also provide shade. There is also a medium-sized tree in front of house. During the summer, the tree casts a shadow on the house, thus providing a natural form of shade. From the awnings to the tree to the house's porch, these components affect the building envelope of my grandparents' home in one way or another. 

            Through the descriptions I have provided, one is able to realize that the house of my grandparents is no Gable House. That is, this house does not possess state-of-the-art innovations, or take advantage of natural resources as efficiently as possible. My grandparents’ house is not perfect, but through studying such older houses one can better understand the foundational ills that such buildings posses. By examining these problems in depth, we can in turn learn how to better construct and/or fix up existing houses in our neighborhoods. With such knowledge and some effort, people can make sure their houses have better building envelopes as well as be able to make use of natural features as efficiently as possible. 

Combating a City's Interlinked Issues with a Web of Solutions

There is no such thing as a perfect city. All cities in our world have their fair share of issues and problems. Whether it is a lack of funding for public schools or an aging infrastructure for transportation, every city has a multitude of dilemmas affecting the well-being of its citizens. Sadly, more often than not these cities combat their issues one by one. That is, many individuals within an urban area believe it is best to fix problems by going to the direct and obvious cause of that problem. But in all honesty, this sort of approach does not work. The issues and problems within a metropolis are interlinked, thus the best way for people to improve their city is by solving multiple issues at once.

Curitiba in Brazil is not the "perfect city," but it definitely is a prime example of an urban area that was able to figure out ways to fix multiple issues at once. By recognizing the interconnectedness of a city’s problems, the famous mayor, Jamie Lerner, and other city officials were able to fix up the city’s landscape as well as improve the well-being of its people. That is, Lerner and his colleagues recognized that to truly improve the city, they needed to implement solutions that fix a whole range of problems all at once. Their approach in a way was like the web of solutions that I have created. For example, Curitiba had a problem with slums (poor individuals living in the periphery of the city) as well as an issue with an exponential rise in population. The city’s officials realized that most of the people that were migrating to the city were these slum dwellers. Instead of banishing the poor and limiting the growth of the city, Lerner and his colleagues devised several solutions to help the poor as well as manage growth in a sustainable fashion. To improve the lives of the slum dwellers they implemented the food for garbage exchange and provided health/education services for free. To manage the migration of these slum dwellers, the city designated a section of land outside of the city where these people could take part in a build-it-yourself program (the poor were given some resources and with these items they were able to build their own homes). These solutions did not fix all of the city’s problems, but they lessened the effects thus fixing the situation for the city and improving the conditions for the new migrants. All in all, people should take notice of Curitiba and their web of solutions. If more cities took this initiative to combat multiple problems at once, their people would definitely be healthier, safer, and happier. 

Reshaping America's Cities to Respect the Foundations of Urban Sustainability

In the United States, zoning laws are important components that shape the built environment within cities. How a building is built and whether or not that building can be altered is dictated by these rules. Sadly, there are instances where these laws do not allow for sustainable design.  In her paper, Edna Sussman proposes that more and more cities in our country should alter their zoning laws to respect the environment as well as try to make the world a cleaner, better place.

There are many methods that a city can follow to help make it a more “environmentally friendly” urban area. Sussman mentions some of them in her article. These methods range from changing municipal zoning laws to altering building codes. As a result of such papers as Sussman’s as well the growing popularity of the phenomenon of sustainability, some cities are actually taking action to make their city a better place. San Francisco is one city in the United States that has been applying strategic methods in its zoning laws and building codes to compliment sustainable processes.  

In 2008, mayor Gavin Newsom signed a law to alter the building codes in San Francisco for newly constructed buildings. The codes were to enact regulations on the buildings so that they could better conserve water and energy as well as reduce carbon emissions (San Francisco Chronicle 2008). This law in a way was a huge step for San Francisco to progress the country forward to recognize sustainable policies. Recently, the city of San Francisco extended this law requiring all new office buildings that are at least 50,000 square feet in size to have LEED Gold certification (Florance, Miller, and Spivey 2010). This in effect has allowed Americans to understand that it is possible for cities to become more respectful of the environment.

Upon hearing about all these intentions to make cities better places, one might wonder whether or not it actually works? Looking at San Francisco one can discern whether or not such attempts are worth the hassle. Over the years, it has been clear that better codes and zoning laws have become more popular. Since 2008, more public and private companies in the city have supported resource and energy conservation policies. More often than not, these policies have been set up to construct a lot more “environmentally friendly” buildings (Florance, Miller, and Spivey 2010). The increasing popularity of green building methods has proven that people are actually interested in trying to improve their cities.

At the very same time, many people have come to realize that it takes a lot of work and effort to maintain buildings to follow the necessary measures of sustainability. For example, small enhancements had to made for the San Francisco Federal Building, which has the silver LEED rating. “Planners overestimated the amount of light that came into the building and the heat that it generated. The ambitious plan to control the temperature using a mesh skin over the structure, didn’t always function the way it was supposed to. As a result, little tweaks had to be made to fix the problem” (Ashley 2010). Despite such problems, one has to realize that the whole project of enhancing the buildings in San Francisco is a learning process. Nothing will ever be perfect, but the actions taken by the government of the city as well as private developers are revolutionary in the sense that they are changing the way buildings are built.

It is not feasible or practical for codes and laws in today's cities to ignore the foundations of urban sustainability. As Dan Geiger, the head of the Green Building Council of San Francisco, said, “We've been wasting our resources for a good hundred years now. We cannot afford to do that, it's economically stupid -it's not profitable and it is harming our planet” (Ashley 2010). Something must be done in our cities to make them more livable and “environmentally friendly."  San Francisco is one American city that has led the way in enacting green, sustainable building and zoning policies. More cities across the country and around the world should take San Francisco as an example, and do their part in respecting the Earth and its environments.