Los Angeles' Green Building Program: A Grand Statement or Grand Gesture?

As the second most populous city in the United States, Los Angeles is determined to become a sustainable model for all metropolises by reducing carbon emissions via the 2008 Private Sector Green Building Plan. It is not hard to see why this task has been particularly challenging for Los Angeles, considering that the city has grown outward as opposed to upward, but LA still plans on removing 80,000 tons of greenhouse emissions from the atmosphere before 2012 by mandating that all projects of a certain size reach the LEED Certified level.

Here is the biggest question – how exactly is the Green Building Program (GBP) going to reduce vehicle miles travelled (VMT) so significantly in a city that is so dependent on the personal automobile? Though it has been well over a year since the ordinance was signed by Major Villariagosa, there has not been a substantial increase in the number of LEED projects completed in Los Angeles, as suggested by the U.S. Green Building Council directory. While some might suggest that this is because design and construction take longer than a year and a half to finish, it can also be attributed to the fact that zoning regulations limit the scope of the GBP to certain regions such as Downtown and Westwood. By limiting the physical regions that are affected by the program, the city will not be able to connect the already dense areas to more suburban neighborhoods such as South Los Angeles.

Another issue that must be brought to light is that the LEED system is not at all the best way to reduce VMT. As a LEED Accredited Professional, I know firsthand that certification does not imply transit-oriented development. While the new LEED V3 places more emphasis on transit location than previous guidelines have, the system of credentials is more highly dependent on energy efficiency within the building itself, so much so, that it is possible to obtain Certified status without incorporating any significant access to public transportation. Furthermore, any project which was submitted for review before June 30th of this year does not need to meet the new regulations. This is not to say that implementing minimum LEED requirements in new buildings is not a good idea in general, but rather irrelevant to the topic that Villariagosa is combating. Studies from the California Integrated Waste Management Board calculate a total savings of $48 per square foot over the life of a Certified or Silver building. But are energy savings enough? Clearly, any positive fiscal production will be regarded fondly, especially given the national economic slump. While it is possible to treat multiple problems with one program, this plan must attack VMT before we praise it for financial reasons.

Now back to the topic at hand--carbon emissions. The mentality of planning officials in Los Angeles is in need of a dire change. Instead of using the GBP as a method of publicizing how sustainable our city is, policy makers should be formulating a plan that will actually work, even if this means accepting a foreign model as superior. In this situation, we could best follow some of the most successful transit models and incentivize the public to actually use ours. Because it is completely impractical to reverse what sprawl has done within Los Angeles, the most realistic move is to target public transportation instead of density. Take Curitiba for example—the city reports that over 70% of commuters use BRT as their primary means of transit. What makes this system so successful is not difficult to replicate in Los Angeles. Passengers in Curitiba pay prior to boarding the bus, which decreases transit time. Additionally, buses have their own lanes and run in 2-minute increments. However, LA drivers do not honor the “Bus Only” lanes that we have running through Downtown. As someone who takes the Dash to and from work, it becomes clear that enforcing the use of exclusive lanes will make the ride shorter and more attractive to drivers.

Additionally, the retrofitting of the Los Angeles bus system will create jobs and revenue. By increasing the quality and frequency of buses, the Metro will attract more users. Studies from independent interest groups such as GRITS assert that for every $10,000,000 invested in public transportation, a savings of $15,000,000 in transportation costs occurs. Another pro is that both white and blue collar jobs will be created. Nationally, over 350,000 individuals are employed in the operation of public transportation, while related fields such as mechanics/engineering also grow.

Returning to the Green Building Program, its most notable distinction from a transit-based plan is quite simple. Because the city is not directly funding the GBP, we cannot count on action; however, private developers, who must pay larger upfront costs for their projects, are the funders of this initiative. Most of us realize that there have been budget difficulties for the state and local governments, but a plan that completely removes government aid from the picture is bound to fail. Though the city will expedite inspections during the construction process, the USGBC’s directory of LEED projects proves that this is not enough to encourage private entities to invest in large projects.

This is not meant to suggest that an increase in taxes through revisiting the decisions made by bad policy, for example Prop 13, is necessary to fund transit changes, though it is does become a relevant point in any community planning debate. What I mean to expose is that funding meaningful initiatives is not easy to accomplish.

Building usable public transit takes time, money, and effort, and Los Angeles city planners know this. In tough economic times, it may seem like the best option to create a financially feasible program, such as the Green Building Plan, even though it may not reduce VMT. Since we hope to become a leader in sustainable development, let’s focus on making evocative changes instead of grand statements.

New Infrastructure: Designing for Green Transportation

Last week, I discussed how retrofitting the nation's infrastructure with sustainable resources is one option for stimulating the economy. Similarly, carrying this concept through individual real estate projects is being tested. Like cities, developments are planned with transportation in mind. The difference being that they revolve around parking while cities are influenced by streets and highways. Forming green transit systems is the most difficult task considering new urban ideals look down on oil-based transportation. This idea tends to fail because it does not coincide with the general population's dependence on automobiles. Since the necessity of movement is arguably the most important aspect of design, it is vital that we begin promoting change on both the macro and micro levels. As a result of change in transportation, a foundation for maintaining sustainable communities will be created. Using the blogosphere, I found two relevant posts that discuss green infrastructure and further investigate the issue. The first entry is titled "LEED and Parking - Lessons Learned", and it discusses the blogger's process of incorporating privileged parking for environmentally efficient cars into his building scheme. This specific piece is almost a forum where the author asks for advice from developers facing similar issues. Although the writer's identity is well-hidden, there is an obvious amount of knowledge that he shares through his personal experiences. To compliment the microcosmic piece, I reviewed a post that explores a general outlook on transportation. "At Least Some American Infrastructure Investment Doesn't Involve Cars" gives Lloyd Alter's view on the nation's current rail transit. In addition to writing for Treehugger's blog, Alter is a successful architect, developer, and inventor. Although he uses a single case study, his conclusions are generalized for a nation-wide perspective. I have added personal feedback via comments at each blog, but they are also displayed below.

"LEED and Parking - Lessons Learned"
Comment:
Your project exposes some interesting difficulties that surface when providing restricted parking. I appreciate that you share the information that was found while researching in addition to your opinions. As a student studying real estate development, I have found that these guidelines are becoming more important as sustainability becomes a larger issue. You mention that "less parking than is typically required [and preferred] parking for both carpoolers and Low-Emitting Vehicles" will be offered. Is this to encourage the purchase of fuel efficient cars or do building codes allow less parking if more privileged spaces are available? I believe that your audience can better infer the motive if you mention the building typology. The scheme is described as "an enormous building", but stating what the structure will be used for might be helpful for readers. Whether or not the intention was to promote using efficient methods of transportation, this parking tactic suggests its importance. Additionally, the photograph that you have selected to compliment the text is a great resource (see photo left). It gives a visual reference and shows exactly what you have in mind in terms of painting as opposed to purchasing 200 costly signs. It is commendable that you are thinking about conserving materials. Despite the research that you have provided, defining low-emitting vehicles is still rather unclear. The average driver probably does not know what SmartWay Elite Certification or the American Council's rating system entail. Consequently, do you think that an honor system will take effect? It is obvious that a Prius is more likely to meet these standards than a Ford F250, but I think that a lack of general knowledge may lead to misuse of this privilege. Initially, I too thought of using MPG as a regulation, but the counter-argument that you present is strong. What do you think about using stickers similar to those which allow vehicles to use carpool lanes or handicapped parking spots? On a similar note, I am curious to know how carpool parking spots will be enforced. Is this too an honor system? I look forward to hearing your responses and kudos for the informative summary of a lesser known topic.

"At Least Some American Infrastructure Investment Doesn't Involve Cars"
Comment:
I am thrilled to see more and more attention being given to non-vehicular transportation. It is great that your post has attracted meaningful responses from its readers. Although you offer a limited amount of text, I believe that your background and unique insight allows for this style of round-table discussion with the audience. In addition, I find that the images support the content nicely. Specifically, the rendering of the Poughkeepsie railroad bridge as a pedestrian overpass is vital in understanding the project's goal (see rendering right). While the thoughts behind the change are respectable, I hesitate to think that it will draw a crowd "equivalent to the Eiffel Tower, or the Golden Gate Bridge". Giving some input on this assumption might alter the way the project is perceived. It is credible that local residents will take advantage of the walkway, but difficult for me to believe it would draw worldwide attention. I would like to hear more personal opinions considering you have an extensive knowledge of the industry. I enjoyed hearing your thoughts on the rebirth of the rail system. You mention that we need to start "thinking of every railway bridge and right-of-way as a national asset to be maintained and restored, and not left to rot." It seems to me that the railway system is not fixable based on public perception. Do you think that it is possible to encourage people to take advantage of a restored rail system, let alone invest millions for its rejuvenation? On the other hand, it is commonly accepted that trains can be helpful in displacing "fuel-inefficient [service] trucks." Here in California, Proposition 1b demands the construction of a high-speed railway that will run from San Francisco to Los Angeles. Being a student in Southern California, I have heard few, if any, who oppose the idea. Will creating a new system be as effective? It is necessary to turn to alternative modes of transportation, but preserving railroads on a national level seems costly and may yield less-than-desirable results. Perhaps I am simply unaware of its demand. Thank you again for presenting an informative post and I will be anticipating your future entries.

Green Policy: Public Reform's Affect on Sustainable Development

With the United States' economy in shambles, it is natural to believe that green design will be left on the back burner in favor of financing affordable housing. The recent 700 billion dollar bailout seems like a great resource for enticing investors back to the real estate market, simply because banks are going to have more money to put into projects. Despite an increase of funds, this answer is not beneficial for developers. Instead, existing loans are being purchased by the federal administration, leaving institutions to be more cautious when approving future loans. This lack of monetary supply will be coupled with a low demand for new houses. In order to fund the bailout, an increase in taxes may be implemented and if so, these middle-class taxpayers, who account for the majority of real estate's demand, would be left with less money to invest. Still, the bailout is only one example among many that affect the viability of the real estate business as failed sub-prime mortgages have forced many homeowners into foreclosure, which adds to the economy's instability. The dwindling market notwithstanding, sustainability in design is being strongly encouraged via recent public policy changes.

Recent government procedures promote using alternative energy sources for fiscal compensation. One of the less publicized reforms of the bailout states that tax credits will be given to developers, companies, and home owners who produce wind or solar energy on site. For instance, the installation of a solar panel system can yield a credit of up to 75,000 dollars. Policies like this are intended to increase demand for environmentally sound services while helping to stabilize parts of the economy. For example, JA Solar and SunPower stocks have remained relatively consistent during recent fluctuation in the market, which can be attributed to the government's backing of solar energy. Federal reforms have created "440,000 permanent jobs and [added] $325 billion in private investment in the U.S. solar energy sector," according to Solar Energy Industry Association President, Rhone Resch. In a similar manner, the credits will financially secure wind energy companies. Many businesses have already started to make changes in order to take advantage of the codes. Chipotle Mexican Grill is opening a new franchise in Gurnee, Illinois with an on-site wind turbine (see rendering above left). In addition to the tax break, 10% of the structure's energy needs will be generated by wind power at no cost after deployment. Supplementing wind power, only Energy-Star appliances and efficient bathroom fixtures are being installed. The company is seeking LEED approval (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), which is the United States Green Building Council's highest recognition for sustainable structures. Chipotle believes the concept will not only attract customers, but also support a lifestyle change in general. Even though the economic situation has prompted action, the controversial bailout reveals mixed results for development. Chipotle is able to act on the new regulations because of its size, but for the average family, these actions have made it more difficult to finance a loan, let alone spend on green design.

Economic hardships have also stimulated creative thinking for using bionomic strategies to avoid crisis. Blogger Van Jones of The Huffington Post argues for what he calls a "green bailout." According to Jones, following the recent Wall Street rescue with an environmentally friendly version will be an effective tool in moving out of recession. "[With a] $350 billion investment, we absolutely and positively could retrofit and repower America using clean, green energy--and create millions of new jobs, in the process," he asserts. Unlike the arbitrary amount of 700 billion, Jones claims that his plan is calculated and results are certain. A series of reports from the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Political Economy Research Institute explain that investing in sustainable business can create over three million imperishable jobs during these sensitive years. Jones uses these studies to advance the argument in his recently published book, The Green-Collar Economy, which analyzes this denouement. With only half as much money as was allotted to the bailout, an undeniable economic resolution is plausible. Other ideas incorporate different fields of sustainability. Specific to real estate, Green for All is proposing a Clean Energy Corps, whose mission is to dress the nation's infrastructure and buildings with sources of clean energy (see diagram right). Through creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, Clean Energy Corps would be able to promote sustainable design while deterring the economy from collapsing. Policies such as these will aid in resolving market crises rather than providing a quick fix. Additional billion-dollar investments are required to implement such programs; however, the ends justify the means. The nation is currently in need of new industries to preserve its financial system and the realm of real estate offers an obvious solution. By investing in environmental development programs, multiple problems will be reduced cohesively. In contempt of the media's generally negative depiction of the economy, its state is presenting new incentives for citizens to go green.