Sustainable Boise: Controlling Growth and Building Green

Sally Hunter

General Overview Since the early 1980s, environmentally-minded Americans have been battling urban sprawl. Urban sprawl is as a progressive movement of housing and retail developments past everexpanding city limits. This phenomenon began in early 1950s post-World War II America (Resnik, 2010). It embodied a shift from wartime survival to personal achievement of the American dream: a house in the suburbs for every family; a way to escape bustling cities and the peril that came with life within city limits. Young couples were looking to find a safe haven for their growing families, a place to call their own with a green lawn and car in the driveway.

As this dream became a reality for more and more homeowners, developers and city planners were forced to move housing developments farther and farther from city centers. These suburban developments caused a greater dependence on automobiles, which then validated homeowners desire to live farther from the city. Thus began the downward spiral that is now called urban sprawl.

Between 1950 and 1990, the U.S. population more than doubled, but the area occupied by Americans grew four times as fast (Mitchell, Urban Sprawl). In addition to new homes being built on larger lots around the country, retail developments began to pop up close to these suburban housing developments, taking up more land and pushing urban sprawl even farther from city centers. This then, in turn, increased automobile usage.

As a result of increased automobile dependence and increasing urban sprawl, Americans today face several problems including increased use of nonrenewable natural resources (home building materials, land used for building developments, and oil for automobiles) and an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide emissions being released due to increased vehicle use and inadequate building methods. These conditions combine (increased emissions from oil use and decreased emission absorption from the cutting of natural resources) to greatly impact climate change.

While the U.S. population continues to grow it would be impossible to completely end new construction and urban sprawl, but it is possible to shift the current dream away from new builds on green spaces to green renovations of older homes or green new builds on

brownfields (previously occupied land). Developers, city planners, and builders need to focus on using renewable building resources, building sustainable buildings, and choosing brownfields over green spaces for building sites. Homeowners and businesses need to be informed consumers and demand that products be produced in an environmentally friendly, sustainable manner.

To shift the focus of both consumers and producers, a comprehensive education plan must be deployed to all stakeholders. Developers, planners, and builders need to be taught how to build green and sustainable buildings. The public, in turn, needs to know that there are options beyond a traditional build. They need to know what their choices mean for the environment. They need to be educated about the true costs of big homes on large lots far away from the city center and their place of work. When these groups of individuals are fully informed and can collectively shift their focus to growing sustainably, they will finally be able to make an impact on greenhouse gas emission levels and the ensuing climate change.

Background The Problem In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development released the Brundtland Report, which defined sustainable development as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Thomas, 2012). With the publication of this report, a movement began to gain momentum and soon several industries were beginning to go green or claiming to be sustainable. With this report, work began to erase nearly 40 years of aggressive actions in direct contradiction to this statement.

Even before the 1950s, the Industrial Revolution changed the way U.S. Americans lived their lives. During this time, nearly everyone moved indoors to more comfortable housing, which increased the standard of living, which in turn increased the average lifespan. At the same time, steam engines (and eventually cars) made the distance between a raw material source and the finished building a non-issue when choosing building materials (Zande, 2010). Builders were no longer forced to use the materials found in the immediate area and when cars became the norm, citizens no longer needed to live within walking distance (or horseback ride) from their place of

work or the markets. With this increased mobility came the freedom to live virtually anywhere. Citizens no longer had to choose between rolling countryside far from neighbors (and inconvenient distances from shopping, doctors, schools, etc.) or busy city centers (which were conveniently located near markets, medical facilities, schools, and friendly neighbors). By the 1950s, they could have it all.

After World War II, building began in earnest and programs were developed to help the average American buy their own home and their own car. The majority of these homes were detached, single family homes (Mitchell, Urban Sprawl). As more and more Americans qualified for loans, builders and developers continued their expansion outward from city centers, further increasing homeowners dependence on automobiles. At the time, there was no emphasis on using renewable resources for building materials or making an effort to conserve green spaces. To make housing affordable for the masses, developers were forced to move to the countryside to find affordable land upon which to build affordable houses (Abelairas-Etxebarria & Astorkiza, 2012). This reduction in green space contributed to climate change by reducing the amount of vegetation available to offset consumer carbon dioxide emissions; it also replaced green spaces with homes and buildings that required increasing amounts of electrical power which is typically produced by non-renewable resources and which in turn releases more greenhouse gasses (GHG) during its production. Larger lots and sparsely spaced retail developments meant greater distances between individual homes, which in turn increased the distance that residents were required to travel to work and school. This increase in vehicle mileage further contributed to GHG production, which directly contributes to climate change.

Efforts to Rectify the Problem and their Successes Since the release of the Brundtland Report, several organizations within the residential and business construction industries have begun to make efforts to rectify the problems associated with urban sprawl and non-green building approaches. Developers and builders have been guided by the efforts of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program. At the same time, city planners and local governments have been aided by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as well by as national coalitions

such as Smart Growth America in their efforts to develop sustainable city plans that will ease urban sprawl.

Smart growth, new urbanism and eco-city are three similar planning ideologies that have gained traction with city planners in recent years. Each is built on sustainable principles and each aims to develop a city that contains sprawl, encourages sociability, and maintains the environment. While each ideology is slightly different (focusing on different ways to accomplish the sustainable goal), there are several principles that they hold in concert: mixed land use, social spaces, housing diversity, use of local, clean, renewable energy sources, pedestrian access, energy efficient building, affordable housing, and a jobs/housing balance (Jepson Jr & Edwards, 2010). Each ideology is has weak spots (smart growth doesnt put enough emphasis on clean energy, while new urbanism and eco-city are less well known and therefore used less) but if used together, they could contribute to the development of highly sustainable communities. An important aspect of these sustainable communities is the use of green building standards that are generally regulated by the U.S. Green Building Council through the LEED program. LEED is a voluntary program that uses a ratings system to score buildings. LEED buildings are separated by use categories and only compared to other buildings within the same category. The LEED program includes categories for homes, healthcare facilities, office buildings, and schools. They even recently added a category for neighborhood design. Buildings are rated on features such as use of a sustainable site (brownfields or previously occupied spaces score the highest), water and energy efficiency, atmosphere (smoking prohibition, fresh air integration), materials and resources (renewable or recycled building material sources, waste reduction) and indoor environmental quality (daylighting and views for better worker morale). LEED Neighborhood categories included smart location and efficient transportation options. Overall, LEED buildings and neighborhoods are healthier for occupants and for the environment. LEED buildings have lower operating costs (energy and water), as well as an increased value upon completion. They reduced waste sent to landfills and conserve energy and water. Building a LEED certified building includes incentives such as tax breaks and zoning allowances (LEED, 2013).

These efforts have proved fairly successful, resulting in LEED building programs in 135 countries and over 7,000 projects in the United States alone (LEED, 2013). Unfortunately, this number is a pittance compared to the number of new buildings being built daily, homes included. While the LEED program doesnt address the issue of urban sprawl as much as it addresses building materials and energy efficiency, the program and the green building industry have become a half trillion-dollar industry since their inception (LEED, 2013). The green building industry also includes programs like EnergyStar (energy efficient appliances), GreenScapes (water efficient landscaping), and the Lifecycle Building Challenge, a competition that calls for projects and designs to facilitate disassembly and reuse of materials rather than landfilling (Green Building, 2013).

Smart Growth America, on the other hand, uses land use policies to restrict sprawl, encouraging compact housing and retail developments (Jepson Jr & Edwards, 2010). This program attempts to directly influence the issue of sprawl and reduce the consumption of farmland and other undeveloped spaces. Smart growth, new urbanism and eco-city have been less successful and are less widely known than LEED and EnergyStar.

Scope and Urgency Urban sprawl and traditional building practices have been the standard in the United States for well over fifty years. Given the rate of urban sprawl and dwindling natural resources, U.S. Americans are contributing to resource depletion and climate change at a dangerous level: Farmland and undeveloped areas are being lost at a rate of over 2 million acres/year. (Mitchell, Urban Sprawl.) Over half the American population lives in suburban areas. (Grant, 2009) If our current building rates continue, within 15 years America will need over 30 million new homes. (Mitchell, Urban Sprawl.) U.S. buildings account for approximately 38% of carbon dioxide emissions. (Green Building. EPA) Nationwide average loss of $130 billion /year from inefficient buildings. (LEED, 2013) 17% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions come from passenger vehicles; a one-hour commute for a suburban dweller will result in 500 car hours/year. Thats 12 average

workweeks. Thats a huge loss of productivity. (Green Building. EPA) (Mitchell, Urban Sprawl.) As urban sprawl and traditional buildings practices continue, dependence on cars and carbon dioxide emissions continue to grow. Over half of the emissions being produced each year come from buildings and passenger vehicles which transport the average U.S. citizen on ten automobile trips per day (Mitchell, Urban Sprawl.). Emissions directly contribute to climate change, a dangerous phenomenon that affects people worldwide. The failure of U.S. citizens to adequately address urban sprawl is contributing to climate change across the globe. Impacts from climate change include changes in annual precipitation and temperature, which directly affects agricultural yields (Climate Change. 2012). Climate change can also affect forests, ecosystems, energy supply; even human health. In short, everyone is affected by climate change. Everyone is affected by the housing and city planning choices being made at the national, local, and personal level by U.S. citizens. The sooner changes are made to the way communities are planned and executed, the sooner U.S. citizens can begin to make a positive impact on GHG emissions and climate change.

Climate change and its effects are finally being widely accepted. As recently as 2010, 28% of Americans considered climate change to be a top priority and 58% considered it a somewhat serious problem (Lee & Koski, 2012). Despite this level of concern, few ideas are put forth to influence mitigation. Electric or hybrid vehicles and sustainable energy are two of the most widely advertised ways individuals can make an impact. But these two ideas are really just parts of a larger whole. Better vehicles will make the biggest impact only if they are both energy efficient and driven less. Sustainable energy sources will make a bigger impact only if they are being used in green buildings that use less energy than traditional buildings. Both of these factors combined with smart growth, informed by new urbanism ideologies will help communities become as environmentally sustainable as possible. The EPA has several programs to help accomplish this goal: Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) competitive grant program for communities taking action to reduce toxic pollution

Green Infrastructure promotes storm water management that is sustainable and environmentally friendly GreenScapes cost-efficient, sustainable landscaping ideas for large scale projects to help preserve natural resources and prevent waste Urban Non Point Source Pollution Program provides ideas for how to reduce pollutant run-off from the urban environment into the water supply Brownfields Initiative promotes sustainable reuse of sites that are potentially contaminated Heat Island Reduction Initiative provides information on cool roofs and green roofs that save energy (Green Building, 2012)

In addition to the EPA and LEED programs, local politicians have begun to get involved in attempts to make their communities into better places for their residents to live. Several cities in the United States have joined the International Council for Local Environmental Initiative (ICLEI), Cities for Climate Protection (CCP), and the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement (USCMCPA). These committees and initiatives reflect a commitment to sustainable land use, energy saving, and green building (Lee & Koski, 2012). The mayor of Seattle, Washington, for instance, was so committed to making a change that he developed a task force to address green building. Consequently, Seattle has the third largest number of LEEDcertified buildings in the nation. If more local government representatives could become committed to making a change both for their immediate community and for their nation, they could make significant contributions toward climate change mitigation.

Target Population Two major categories of people that need to be convinced of the benefits of sustainable community design: planners and consumers. Planners consist of local government officials, investors, developers, and builders. Planners are the first line of defense against urban sprawl. They can develop land use policies to prevent sprawl, like, for example, urban growth boundary laws in Oregon. When faced with impending sprawl, the Oregan state legislature agreed to enact a law that development must be contained with certain boundaries. Outside of these boundaries, farmland and forests are protected by a zoning ordinance that stipulates that all lots must have

a minimum size of 80 acres (Mitchell, Urban Sprawl.). The result was the protection of 25 million acres of privately owned farm and forestland. With the average size of a suburban lot measuring only 1/3 of an acre, developers arent able to sell lots that are 240 times larger than market demand (U.S. Census, Characteristics.)

Often these types of action can be met with severe objections. Developers and investors are interested in the bottom-line and countryside land is cheaper than urban land (Grant, 2009). Cheaper land means bigger profits and it has been difficult to convince the majority of developers to sacrifice profits for sustainability. Additionally, it may be difficult to convince builders to use renewable resources, green building practices and recycled materials since these materials are often more expensive than traditional materials and methods, especially when there is a design change mid-project.

Buyers are a second important demographic to target. They control the demand for the housing and if they arent convinced that sustainable, urban areas are the best place to live, they will continue demand suburban countryside homes. If their demand is for non-sustainable, suburban homes, it will justify the actions of the developers and investors. The fastest growing American demographics older, single-person households and non-white households already prefer homes with high pedestrian access to shopping, restaurants, parks and transportation (Why Transit, 2007). This is good news for the sustainable community movement. With such a large, growing population of housing consumers, a large impact can be made by convincing this group to buy sustainably built housing in an urban area. In order to convince the planners to create a supply, there must first be demand for the product. In this case, there must be a clear demand for green homes within urban areas before the planners will make changes.

Available Resources The U.S. Green Building Council and the EPA are two of the most widely consulted programs for green building and sustainable community design ideas. These organizations are a great place for planners, developers, and builders to begin their research when deciding how to plan a community. Programs such as Smart Growth America are helpful for city planners to learn how to integrate sustainable, environmentally friendly community design into both new developments

and redesigned communities. All of these organizations have websites, literature and conferences to disseminate their information.

There are several grants available to implement sustainable community projects. Grant parameters range from developing community agriculture programs to conserving wildlands to actual new community design projects and promotion of programs that increase the appeal of individual communities, as well as creation of education programs to influence community members to live sustainably.

Summary Sustainable community design is a very real, very important field of city planning and building. Ever since the Industrial Revolution and the invention of steam engines and later automobiles, U.S. Americans have been moving indoors and then farther away from city centers in order to achieve an idyllic home setting far away from what they perceived to be dirty, dangerous cities plagued with crime, pollution, and noise. Ironically, the farther they moved from the city, the more they increased the pollution, which also contributes to climate change. As residents began to be able to afford personal vehicles and single-family homes, they moved their homes away from their workplaces and into the countryside.

Availability of cars freed workers from having to live within walking or horseback ride of their workplace. With this freedom came the perceived desirability of a single-family home on a picturesque country lot with plenty of green space in the form of lawn. What homeowners, developers, and builders didnt realize was that this move to the country would eventually lower their standard of living. U.S. Americans would begin to spend increasing time in their vehicle to accomplish tasks that once were all within a reasonable distance from home. With this geographic distancing came increased time spent in vehicles. Consumers chose to live a more secluded life, far from amenities and neighbors, rather than dwelling close to markets, workplaces, and loved ones. Moving away from urban areas increased fuel consumption and building vast quantities of homes depleted natural resources. Together, these factors helped kickstart a very serious climate change problem.

10

Sustainable community design is a field with increasing interest and programs aimed at achieving environmental progress. Programs such as LEED, EnergyStar, and a variety of EPA initiatives, grants, and competitions push developers and builders toward a higher standard but its not enough. Policy makers, planners, and developers need to move towards integrating sustainable design and green building practices in all new developments and renovations. When integrated early in the design process, there is a very small premium for going green. Consumers need to demand green buildings and sustainable communities in order to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by large quantities. Sustainable urban growth can be achieved through these changes and should be the standard in the development industry, rather than the exception.

11

References Abelairas-Etxebarria, Patricia, & Astorkiza, Inma. (2012). Are Land Use Policies Preserving Farmland from Urban Sprawl? Review of European Studies, 4(5), 24-29. Print. Climate Change. 2012. EPA. Retrieved February 20, 2013 from http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/ Characteristics of New Housing. 2011. U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved April 2, 2013 from http://www.census.gov/construction/chars/highlights.html Grant, Jill L. (2009). Theory and Practice in Planning the Suburbs: Challenges to Implementing New Urbanism, Smart Growth, and Sustainability Principles. Planning Theory & Practice, 10(1), 11-33. Print. Green Building. 2012. EPA. Retrieved February 16, 2013 from http://www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/pubs/components.htm#energy Jepson Jr, Edward J., & Edwards, Mary M. (2010). How Possible is Sustainable Urban Development? An Analysis of Planners' Perceptions about New Urbanism, Smart Growth and the Ecological City. Planning Practice & Research, 25(4), 417-437. Print. Lee, Taedong, & Koski, Chris. (2012). Building Green: Local Political Leadership Addressing Climate Change. Review of Policy Research, 29(5), 605-624. Print. LEED. U.S. Green Building Council. Retrieved February 15, 2013 from http://new.usgbc.org/leed Mitchell, John G. Urban Sprawl. National Geographic. Retrieved on February 17, 2013 from http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/habitats/urban-sprawl/ "Why Transit-Oriented Transit and Why Now?" (2007). Reconnecting America. Retrieved April 13, 2013 from http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/tod101full.pdf

12

Resnik, David B. (2010). Urban Sprawl, Smart Growth, and Deliberative Democracy. American Journal of Public Health, 100(10), 1852-1856. Print. Thomas, Jason. (2012). Engineering Education: THE KEY TO A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE. Technology & Engineering Teacher, 72(3), 18-23. Print. Zande, Robin Vande. (2010). Creating the Urban Village: Teaching Pre-Service Teachers about Sustainable Design in Architecture and Community Planning. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 29(3), 321-329. Print.

13