District-Scale Sustainability ScanPrepared for the Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities and the Urban Sustainability Directors Network

Prepared by THE RESiliEnT CiTiES lab

Joan Fitzgerald, Lead Investigator

Catherine Tumber

Tracy Corley

July 25, 2014

acknowledgements

This report was commissioned by the Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities and the Urban Sustainability Directors Network, and made possible by the generous support of the Barr Foundation, Bullitt Foundation, Garfield Foundation, Summit Foundation, and Surdna Foundation.

The authors wish to thank Jillian Bass and Sophie Greenspan for designing the report, Mettie Ostrowski for layout-and-design assistance, Erica Melito for research assistance, and James Huessy for research and layout assistance.

The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities, the Urban Sustainability Directors Network, or the sup-porting foundations.

Comments and feedback on this report can be sent to Ann Wallace at the Funders’ Network: ann@fundersnetwork.org.

ExECuTivE SummaRy 1

inTRoDuCTion: 2 WHy DiSTRiCT-SCalE SuSTainabiliTy?

aPPRoaCHES To DiSTRiCT-SCalE 4 SuSTainabiliTy

Key to Roadmaps 5

Of Special Note: 6 District Energy/Cogeneration

CERTifiCaTion fRamEWoRk

LEED-ND 7

Enterprise Green Communities 10

Living Building Challenge 12

One Planet Communities 15

DEfinED-moDEl fRamEWoRk

2030 Districts 18

flExiblE-moDEl fRamEWoRk

Eco-districts 21

Green Zones 24

EmERging fRamEWoRk

Regenerative Neighborhoods 26

ConTEnTS

CREaTing SynERgiES WiTHin anD 27 among DiffEREnT aPPRoaCHES

Synergies Within: The Three E’s in 27 District-Scale Sustainability

Synergies Among Districts in One City 27

Value of District-Scale Sustainability 28 for Different Stakeholders

Comparative Approaches to the Three E’s 29

ConCluSion: PRomiSE anD 30 CHallEngES of DiSTRiCT-SCalE SuSTainabiliTy

EnDnoTES 32

aPPEnDiCES

A. Partial List of Interviewees

B. Bibliography

C. Green Zone Case Studies

D. District-Scale Synergies in Two Cities

ExECuTivE SummaRy 1

District-scale sustainability projects are emerging as a key element in achieving citywide sustainability and climate action goals. We were commissioned by the Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities and the Urban Sustainability Directors Network to examine the range of neighborhood- and district-scale sustainability projects being created in cities across the United States and Canada, for the purpose of understanding how they compare with one another and assessing the potential and limita-tions of the various approaches taken within this emerging sector. In this report we present a frame-work for analyzing the most promising approaches to date in terms of their efficacy, impact, and capac-ity for replication and involvement of various stake-holders. It is intended to help elected officials at all levels of government, other city decision-makers, private actors, and community-based organizations to better understand the landscape. The analysis is designed, as well, to help foundation officers assess which approaches might best achieve their intended goals. It should also serve as a resource for poli-cymakers seeking more and better information as they shape their sustainability goals.

The report is organized into three parts. The intro-ductory section explores district-scale sustainability in its broad outlines—how it is defined and varies from pre-existing models, its origins in Europe and viability in the North American context, and its potential capacity to bring together each of the “three E’s” (environment, equity, economy). We explore how district-scale sustainability can build on existing community development initiatives,

particularly in the affordable housing community, which has been expanding simultaneously into “green” and broader-scale solutions in its own right. We then turn to our “findings,” which take the form of profiles of eight district-scale sustainability approaches. They are grouped under four catego-ries: certification, defined-model, flexible-model, and emerging frameworks. Finally, we subject our findings to critical comparative analysis, explor-ing the synergies within the eight—that is, how the three E’s balance out within each approach and how one given municipality might coordinate different district-scale approaches to achieve broad sustain-ability goals. Crucial to finding this balance are the varying ways stakeholders define “success” in these projects and identify common ground. Broad civic engagement and local, project-level education are also critical to the success of district-scale develop-ment projects.

As discussed throughout, we conclude that envi-ronmental concerns generally drive district-scale projects. Equity goals, when they do exist, are often marginal, and economic development goals are hard to achieve on the district scale alone. We have selected examples that illustrate how equity can be incorporated in models that don’t demand it. Enhancing the goals of equity and economic devel-opment will require collaboration among govern-ment, funders, and intermediaries whose purviews lie beyond the district scale. This would help assure that efficiencies created by environmental district-scale upgrades translate into family savings, region-wide transit access, healthy food and housing,

clean air and water, living wage jobs, and innovative financing mechanisms responsive to our fiscally and politically straitened times. We take special care to caution against supporting yet more certification approaches—which are appealing to nonprofits who offer them in part because certification fees guaran-tee revenue streams—unless they can be shown to introduce new elements to current and rising gov-ernment environmental standards. Scarce funding dollars might better be devoted to other approaches and to public and private programs that bring the other two E’s into closer alignment with environ-mental planning on the district scale.

After eight years of experimentation, led mostly by the private and nonprofit sectors, district-scale sustainability is at a juncture. As public-sector regulations catch up with voluntary standards, and even exceed them, the question has become which district-scale strategies help push states and locali-ties to embrace stronger mandatory environmen-tal standards, and how might stronger economic development and equity concerns be better inte-grated with them? We argue that the former ques-tion should lead to a number of environmental and public health outcomes, such as net-zero-energy public policy and requirements to provide multiple alternatives to private automobile travel, while the latter opens up new, untested avenues for funding public-private approaches to integrating equity and economic development with new low-carbon and regenerative frontiers in the built environment.

District-scale sustainability refers to a wide spectrum of activities, ranging from developer-and-municipality-led projects, to community-based, affordable housing initiatives, to narrowly focused strategies for a given building or complex, to coordinated plans for infra-structure development. The cast of players is similarly diverse, ranging from enlightened entrepreneurs motivated by values or incentives to broadly democratic stakeholder organizations. Also varied are the concep-tual frameworks, policy levers, and funding streams available for district-scale projects. The challenge is to sort out common elements, categories, and policy questions for public officials, grant makers, social entrepreneurs, and citizens interested in considering district-scale approaches to sustainable development.

For all the differences among these projects, they share one characteristic: the level of implementation is the district, rather than the entire municipality, at one extreme, or the individual building or cluster of build-ings at the other. Yet here we encounter much variation too. Multiple sub-areas of a city could form the basis of a district in a “patchwork” pattern, while others, planned for large brownfield or greenfield sites, work with a more easily integrated “clean slate.” Some are delineated on a discrete geographical basis (a block), some are political or community units (a neighborhood), some are systemi-cally integrated (a transit station), some are ecological units (a watershed) and some are based on infrastructure (a district heating system).

In other words, district-scale sustainability lies at the intersection of comprehensive and purely localized approaches; many practitioners view it as the “sweet spot” between the building and the city in achieving sustainable development goals. It is often not politi-cally or economically feasible to implement technolo-gies and policies at the city level. For example, cities

have shown willingness to apply LEED requirements on some new construction but are less likely to impose stringent energy codes on all construction in the city because of opposition from developers. In some cases, infrastructure systems such as storm water manage-ment that are untested could be piloted in a district before being applied citywide. Other infrastructural systems, such as district heating, are only feasible in certain areas of a city and may not be considered viable citywide by utility companies.

Another shared characteristic of district-scale sus-tainability projects, at this point in time, is the relative weight given to each of the “three E’s” of sustainabil-ity: environment, equity, and economy. Most—though not all—of these projects place the lion’s share of the weight on environmental concerns. To understand why—and how this imbalance shows signs of chang-ing in the North American context—we must briefly explore the broad history of the district-scale sustain-ability idea.

HiSToRiCal baCkgRounD anD fuTuRE PaTHWaySWhile many North American cities are making prog-ress in promoting sustainability and implementing climate action plans, there is widespread recogni-tion that progress is slow. Even the U.S. cities lead-ing on climate change have fallen short of achieving their goals.1 Portland, Oregon, considered by many to be the nation’s leader, did not achieve its target 20 percent reduction in CO2 emissions from 1988 levels by 2010, though the city did achieve a 12.5 percent per capita reduction in spite of a 27 percent growth in population.*2

Part of the problem is that there is insufficient policy and funding at the national and state levels to support

local action. This “vertical” support is essential to the ability of cities to address climate change and is widely recognized as a key part of the reason that European cities are further ahead of their U.S. counterparts.3 Such support includes legislative standards or man-dates that motivate local action (e.g. renewable energy portfolio standards, mandates on waste diversion from landfills), as well as funding to support specific mitiga-tion and adaptation initiatives.4 Additionally, there is wide variation in whether state standards are treated as floors or ceilings. In some states cities cannot require energy codes stricter than those of the state.5 As a result there is considerable variation in how cit-ies rank on the various “sustainability” and related indexes, suggesting that much more can be done at the municipal level.

Much effort has been devoted to identifying the prac-tices and policies of leading cities and to figuring out how they can be adapted and replicated elsewhere. A key similarity among Europe’s leading sustainable cit-ies—Stockholm, Malmö, Freiburg, and Copenhagen, to name a few—is that they have developed eco-districts to experiment with new technologies and practices that can be applied throughout the city to accelerate the achievement of sustainability and climate action goals. Many practitioners from the United States and elsewhere have visited these eco-districts to consider which elements could be applied in their cities. It is in this context that the interest in district-scale sustain-ability has emerged.

Independent of district-scale sustainability initiatives, community development corporations (CDCs), afford-able housing communities, and state governments have been moving in the direction of developing green, sustainable communities since the mid 2000s.

inTRoDuCTion: WHy DiSTRiCT-SCalE SuSTainabiliTy? 2

* Emissionshavebeguntodipbelow1990levelsandtostayonthispath.Thecity’s2009ClimateActionPlanoutlinesastrategyforachievinga40percentreductionincarbonby2030andan80percentreductionby2050.

Initially, it was often just a single staff member interested in building green affordable housing who assumed leadership. One affordable housing developer told us that when she did her first Energy Star–rated project in 2000, nobody cared—renters, the city, or other developers. In other cases, housing agencies began building green when opportunities were pre-sented to them. In the 2003—2006 redevelopment of the Boston Housing Authority’s HOPE VI Maverick Landing housing community, the developer was able to add energy-efficiency features and solar panels without increasing the cost. This move led the Boston Housing Authority to focus on green construction in future projects.

A big step in green affordable housing becoming the norm took place when Enterprise Community Partners launched the Green Communities Initiative in 2004. Over the program’s first five years, it engaged with numerous partners to develop the Enterprise Green Criteria—the first nationwide green building stan-dard for affordable housing. Green Communities also provided $555 million in grants, financing, and equity investments to support 8,500 units of green afford-able housing. As the benefits of these projects became evident, more than 20 cities and states revised their housing programs to support more environmentally sustainable affordable housing.

What we see emerging in the 2000s is interplay among multiple local actors: organizations with internal “green champions,” city governments initiating LEED requirements, and intermediaries pushing to incor-porate green building and other sustainable elements into affordable housing communities. In particular, the three leading national intermediaries—Enterprise Community Partners, the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), and NeighborWorks® America—began pushing the market further, in part because they did not think LEED, the only national standard at the time, worked well in the affordable housing arena.

These groups wanted to add energy and water con-servation, healthy housing elements, and operational efficiencies to affordable housing and thought that nonprofit developers needed more direction on what to include than LEED provided. The Enterprise initiative in particular worked with state and local governments on developing environmentally friendly housing policies.

An early mover was Massachusetts. In 2006, the Commonwealth issued ten sustainable development principles to be considered for all state development and program investments, and required all organiza-tions seeking funding through the Commonwealth’s Department of Housing and Community Development to be consistent with them.6 Since this agency serves as the gateway to state funding, tax credits, and state-managed federal funding, all community and housing development projects must meet broad sustainabil-ity guidelines. Similar requirements are in place in Washington and other progressive states.7

Creative use is also being made of mandatory public reporting. For example, every state must produce a Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) that details how they will distribute low-income housing tax credits, one of the main federal funding mechanisms for affordable housing. The Green Urbanism Program of Global Green USA has been conducting annual reviews that rate the green building criteria in state QAPs for the past six years.8 These public reports are another factor moving states to green their affordable housing.

So, independent of district-scale sustainability initia-tives, the CDC and affordable housing communities and state governments have been moving toward green, sustainable communities. A distinction worth noting is that sustainability concerns have long been associated with “bottom-up,” community-based projects while the most prominent district-scale models are typically ini-tiated by developers, municipalities, or policy entrepre-neurs. Many do make room for community involvement

both in planning and in implementation, and some use CDCs as partners, but the approach is not inherently participatory. The geographic boundaries of district-scale sustainability projects may not correspond to a community. This distinction explains why community-based projects emphasize equitable development and often have an economic development component, and why district-scale initiatives mostly focus on the envi-ronmental aspects of development.

However, the landscape is changing rapidly. Connections are being made among what were inde-pendent movements. And a new generation of district-scale sustainability approaches is emerging—most of which attempt to integrate the three legs of sustain-ability. We turn to them next.

3WHY DISTRICT-SCALE SUSTAINABILITY?

There are at least a dozen approaches to district-scale sustainability in various stages of development and implementation in hundreds of cities across North America. We profile eight that are, or are close to, being implemented. We have further divided our profiles into four frameworks that spell out the terms of inclusion, moving from the most to the least prescrip-tion-heavy (Table 1).

Each of the eight profiles includes a roadmap—a visual diagram illustrating an approach’s implementation. These roadmaps characterize typical situations only; as every planner knows, exceptions and tangents do exist. Each roadmap includes three elements—prompts, pathways, and actors—which are described on page 5.

We also describe district heating and cogeneration sys-tems—infrastructure commonly used in district-scale projects—in a separate text box on page 6. The funders who commissioned this report asked us to review these systems along with the other approaches under consid-eration here. We concluded that while such infrastruc-ture often underpins district-scale approaches, it is not an approach in and of itself. In fact, one of the debates that emerged in our interviews with practitioners was whether being “district scale” requires district-scale systems or infrastructure. Although district-scale sys-tems and infrastructure are being pursued in several of the approaches we cover, most agreed that they did not define the approach or should necessarily be considered a longer-term goal.

aPPRoaCHES To DiSTRiCT-SCalE SuSTainabiliTy 4

CERTIFICATION FRAMEWORK

Prescribes elements that must be present to be certified

• LEED-ND

• Living Building Challenge

• Enterprise Green Communities

• One Planet Communities

DEFINED-MODEL FRAMEWORK

Identifies specific goals that are to be achieved within particular time frames

• 2030 Districts

FLEXIBLE-MODEL FRAMEWORK

Articulates principles with considerable flexibility as to requirements and what constitutes achieving them

• Eco-districts

• Green Zone Projects

EMERGING-MODEL FRAMEWORK

Identifies broad parameters in specific categories as guidelines for what should be achieved in various stages of development

• Regenerative Neighborhoods

Table 1: District-Scale Sustainability frameworks

kEy To RoaDmaPS 5

Our profile roadmaps illustrate typical implementation. Each roadmap includes three elements:

PRomPTSThe blue box at the top of each roadmap asks, “What prompts this approach to district-scale sustainability?” It is usually one or more of the following factors:

• Policy opportunity such as federal ARRA funding for weatherization, municipal climate plans, neighborhood plans, or ordinance requiring energy performance reporting

• Crisis or focusing event such as large percent-age of home foreclosures, water shortages, escalating crime, natural disasters, or rapid population growth

• Economic revitalization such as launch of innovation districts, business improvement districts, special improvement districts, or commercial corridor redevelopment, work-force development, job creation, and invest-ment in a local economy

• Reuse such as historic preservation, adaptive reuse, brownfield remediation, and streetscape improvements

• market demands such as affordable housing, mixed-income housing, walkable community development, mixed-use development, and zoning reconsiderations

• Critical mass of development such as high concentration of LEED-certified buildings or affordable housing developments

• Social equity such as income equality, envi-ronmental justice, healthy food access, health equity, education access and improvements, or culture and heritage preservation

• Environment mitigation and adaptation such as clean ups, reducing GHGs or VMTs, preserv-ing open space or natural areas, conserving resources, or managing waste

If a factor does not typically apply to that approach, it has been dimmed.

PaTHWaySThe interconnected green circles (with arrows) illus-trate the pathway that each district-scale sustainability approach takes. The pathways include:

• Problem identification: Who identifies the problem in the district?

• needs assessment: Who leads the needs assessment? Who participates?

• Planning: Who leads planning of the district and its projects? Who participates?

• Design: Who leads the design of the district and its projects? Who participates?

• implementation: Who implements the proj-ect? This could be construction, social service delivery, job training, etc. Who participates?

• governance: Who manages ongoing project performance?

If a step does not typically apply to that approach, it has been dimmed.

aCToRSEach step along the pathway also includes indicator icons for the following actors:

• C = community members, community-based organizations, and/or nonprofits

• m = municipal staff and/or leadership• P = private-sector actors such as developers

and investors• f = funders such as foundations, government

agencies, and grantmakers (though funding can come from any of the four market actors)

If an actor typically participates but does not lead, its indicator has been dimmed. If an actor typically does not participate, its indicator has been whited out.

community organizations and nonprofits municipal staff and/or leadership private-sector actors fundersF

P

M

C

ROADMAP

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

NEEDS ASSESSMENT

PLANNING

DESIGN

IMPLEMENTATION

MONITORING/AND OR MANAGEMENT

P

F

P

P

P

P

M

M

M

M

M

LEED-ND

KEY

REUSECRITICAL MASSPOLICYCRISIS

MARKETEQUITYECONOMYENVIRONMENT

PROMPTS

STEPS

C

Installing infrastructure district heating is argu-ably the single most impactful action a city can take to reduce fossil-fuel consumption. It is a local, centralized system that provides heat to residen-tial and commercial users in a district, usually for space heating, air conditioning, and water heating. Combined heat and power (CHP) or cogeneration systems are most commonly the energy source for district heating.

CHP plants reach efficiencies of 60 to 85 percent—a significant improvement over the approximately 45 percent efficiency of conventional electricity genera-tion. CHP works by burning fuel to heat water, which produces steam that runs a turbine to generate electricity. The excess steam is then recycled and can be transported through the district heating pipes, while the electricity can be used to power the district or can be sold back to the grid. CHP can burn oil, natural gas, coal, biomass, biofuels, and municipal waste. The infrastructure includes a centralized energy source that produces steam or superheated water, which is distributed to users in the district by underground, large-diameter insulated pipes.

Although the first commercially successful district heating system was launched in Lockport, New York, in 1877, and the longest operating one is in Denver, it has not caught on in the United States and Canada as much as in Europe, where 11.4 percent of electricity production and 15.2 percent of the heat supplied in 2009 came from CHP. Denmark leads the way with 61 percent of its citizens served by district heating, whereas Finland, Sweden, and Poland serve 50, 48, and 42 percent of their respec-tive citizens. In contrast, 3 percent of U.S. citizens are served by district heating. Why the difference? Land-use patterns, response to the oil crisis of the 1970s, and policy. Many European

cities adopted district-heating systems toward the end of the 19th century, but population density throughout most of the United States could not sup-port them. These first systems were greatly improved during the 1970s during the oil crisis, when European countries looked to gain energy independence, a course not taken in the United States. A 2004 EU CHP Directive requires further such development to promote energy efficiency and security. And all of the countries in the EU have had established incen-tives for CHP, the most common of which is a feed-in tariff. (A feed-in tariff policy requires utilities serving a defined area to purchase all of the renewable energy generated in that area at a defined price that is reduced over time, typically over a 20-year period. The idea is to create a stable investment environment so the technologies can become cost competitive. )

CHP seems to be gaining some speed in the United States and Canada. CHP has been popular in both countries for industrial applications, but recently the market has been expanding to include more facil-ity, campus, and district-scale systems due to new government incentives and available, cheap natural gas. An array of federal incentives is available in the United States, as is some form of incentivization in all 50 states. The most notable include federal investment tax credits and loan guarantees, and state renewable portfolio standards. Canada does not create market mechanisms to promote CHP installation but instead has funds for clean-energy investments. These include the $1.5 billion Clean Air and Climate Change Trust Fund and the $795 million Clean Energy Fund. There are currently eight CHP projects that are supported by these funds. Feed-in tariffs have not been popular in North America (only California and Rhode Island offer them).

Most of the district energy infrastructure in the United States is privately owned and controlled. Of

the 837 district heating systems, only 119 are com-munity utilities. Colleges and healthcare facilities together contribute 78 percent of the total number of systems, mainly because the payback period is so short. A report by Health Care Without Harm and the Boston Green Ribbon Commission esti-mates that hospitals in Massachusetts could reach payback periods of as little as four years along with an 18 percent greenhouse gas savings. Colleges and universities also often have the electric and heating demand necessary to justify the invest-ment, as well as privately controlled capital to make the decision easy.

District heating has great potential for defining the borders of district-scale sustainability projects, as in the Seattle 2030 District. Eco-districts in Vancouver and Washington, D.C., are also served by district heating systems, and several LEED-ND neighbor-hoods have them. Thomas Puttman, whose com-pany builds district energy systems, is working with Seattle, San Francisco, Portland, and other cities to explore possibilities for using district heating to meet climate mitigation goals.

Starting or expanding a system requires buy-in from end users in order to create a power-purchase agreement. Thus, it is much easier to do with one end user such as a hospital or university campus than in a downtown with many end users. Governance and ownership questions have to be resolved before expansion of district energy systems becomes viable. Several strategies are being explored, including the creation of an Energy Improvement District in Stamford, Connecticut. City-backed bonds are a financing mechanism being employed in some places. It is likely that there will be more action on district heating/cogeneration in North American cit-ies, creating strong infrastructure for district-scale sustainability initiatives.

District Heating and Cogeneration6

LEED-ND certification is organized into three sec-tions: Smart Location and Linkage (where to build); Neighborhood Pattern and Design (what to build); and Green Infrastructure and Buildings (how to manage environmental impacts). Within each section, points are given for features such as preservation of wetlands and agricultural land, transit access, walkable streets, location near developed areas, brownfield reuse and the presence of at least one LEED-certified building. Like the original LEED, LEED-ND projects can be certified at the basic, silver, gold, and platinum levels.

LEED-ND’s four core principles incorporate those of smart growth and new urbanism into neighborhood-scale development:9

• Promote green building and green infrastruc-ture practices, particularly in energy and water efficiency

• Offer walking, bicycling, and public-transit alternatives to automobile dependency

• Preserve existing community fabric and enhance quality of life

• Preserve open space and provide access to parks

These four principles guide certification prerequisites—three of which are at the district level:

• location: site must be infill, transit-served, walkable to diverse places, or connected to a multi-modal street network

• Density: A minimum of seven residential units per acre*

• Connectivity: 140 intersections per square mile Thus, choosing the right location is key to LEED-ND certification.

Projects that qualify for LEED-ND certification are not limited to a specified size or scale. This flexibility makes the rating system applicable to a variety of project types and allows projects to be certified in phases.**

A brief comparison of three projects—Mueller in Austin, Paseo Verde in North Philadelphia, and City Center DC on the old Convention Center site in Washington, D.C.—illustrates the range of scale and practice covered by LEED-ND. At 700 acres, Mueller is one of the larg-est; since most prior LEED-ND sites were in the 10- to 50-acre range, it was a stretch to include its sustainable

qualities in the complex of LEED-ND ratings.*** Paseo Verde, at 1.9 acres, is simply a building and its grounds. A more typical LEED-ND scale is the 12-acre City Center DC project.

These projects illustrate different contexts in which LEED-ND can be implemented. City Center DC was designed by architects Norman Foster + Partners, a firm well known for its innovative and sustainable designs. Without LEED-ND guidelines, the project might have included some, if not all, of the same sustainable fea-tures, but the developers also recognized that the LEED brand brings higher prices or rents.

Paseo Verde is the country’s first LEED-ND Platinum-certified project and the first in a low-to-moderate-income community.10 The 1.9-acre former brownfield site has been revitalized into a mixed-use, transit-oriented development, including 120 rental units, community spaces, and ground-floor retail. Almost half of the apartments are reserved for households earning below 60 percent of the area’s median income, with the remainder being market rate.11 This $47.2 million project was the collaborative effort of some 60 organizations, including federal, state, and local

LEED-ND (CertifiCation framework)lEED-nD, a points-based certification system launched in 2007, evolved out of the leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (lEED) building-rating system. a collaboration of the u.S. green building Council (originator of lEED), the natural Resources Defense Council, and Congress for the new urbanism, it is a neighborhood-level rating system that emphasizes land use as well as building design.

7

* Thefollowingwebsiteprovidesexamplesofvariousdensitylevels:http://www.menlopark.org/departments/pln/he/workshops/5.percent20Examplespercent20ofpercent-2030percent20Dwellingpercent20Unitspercent20perpercent20Acre.pdf

** Duringthepilotphasestartedin2007,LEED-NDprojectsweretypicallyonebuildingorblock.The334certifiedprojectstodaterangeinsizefrom.36to1150acres.Ofthese,238werelaunchedduringthepilotphase,withtheremaininglaunchedunderthenewsystem,whichbeganinApril2010.Ofthese,205wereintheU.S.and33werein fiveothercountries.Almostall(91percent)areinurbanareas.

***Sincethen,WardVillageinHonoluluhasbecomethelargestLEED-NDPlatinumprojectinthecountry.

government; community organizations; and private developers. Paseo Verde is not alone in its focus on equity. Other notable LEED-ND certified redevelop-ments of distressed communities include the SALT District in Syracuse, New York, and Helensview Heights in Portland, Oregon.

The Mueller development, a public-private partnership between the city and Catellus Development Group, is built on a large abandoned airport site.12 This LEED-ND silver project is being developed over a 15-year period and will include almost 5,000 single-family and multi-family homes, a mixed-use town center district, several film studios, the Dell Children’s Medical Center, and 140 acres of parks and open space. It has six LEED-certified commercial buildings. The jewels in the crown are the Dell Children’s Medical Center, the first hos-pital in the world to earn LEED Platinum certification,

and the Ronald McDonald House, the first building in central Texas to earn LEED Platinum certification for new construction.

Mueller probably has the most district-scale sustain-able infrastructure among existing LEED-ND projects. It is one of the first neighborhoods to use the Austin Water Utility’s “purple pipe” reclaimed water system. Landscaping uses native and adaptive plants that require less water, and parks serve to reduce off-site flooding while naturally filtering pollutants before they are released into surrounding waterways. Water is collected in cisterns, underground storage tanks, or detention ponds to be used for irrigation, clothes washing, and toilet flushing. A district cooling system converts waste heat into chilled water to serve the Dell Children’s Medical Center and other nearby buildings. Mueller also contains the highest density of residen-tial solar deployment in the United States. Smart grid technology ensures the most efficient use of energy in residential and commercial buildings.13

These brief examples also illustrate the ways equity and economy goals can be integrated under the LEED-ND brand. The most obvious equity factor is the inclusion of affordable housing, even in projects that have a considerable amount of high-priced housing. Mueller and Paseo Verde obtained the maximum award of three optional points for the diversity of housing types criteria, defined as “enabl(ing) citizens from a wide range of economic levels and age groups to live within a community.”14 Mueller connects LEED-ND to the Pecan Street Project, an economic develop-ment initiative established to “make Austin America’s clean energy laboratory and to develop a model for urban power systems of the future.” It is a partnership of Austin Energy, the Environmental Defense Fund, Austin Chamber of Commerce, Austin Technology Incubator, and other local partners. Both the nonprofit Pecan Street Research Institute and for-profit tech-commercialization facility Pike Powers Lab are located in Mueller.

alignmEnT PoTEnTial anD fuTuRE PRoSPECTS LEED-ND is seen by elected officials, developers, and foundations as a known brand that indicates com-mitment to sustainable development. For develop-ers, LEED-ND offers guidance on how to build green and makes it easier for them to continue doing so. Since the Mueller development, ProLogis, the par-ent company of Catellus, has made it policy that every new building it owns or controls worldwide will seek LEED certification or an equivalent, and Catellus has developed several LEED-ND projects since then.15 Foundations, too, are using LEED-ND as a base-line standard. For example, the Gund Foundation in Cleveland requires all of its applicants to meet LEED standards in order to qualify for funding of sustainable development projects.16

However, earning LEED-ND certification involves substantial cost, starting at $29,500 for basic certifica-tion of projects on less than 20 acres. This cost can be prohibitive for projects with limited financial resources, which is often the case in community-led initiatives. More problematic, LEED-ND may not always be more stringent than existing standards maintained by green builders, affordable housing developers, or cities.

For example, the Paseo Verde project received a $25,000 USGBC Affordable Green Neighborhood Grant in 2010, partially financed by the Bank of America Foundation, which paid for a series of design char-rettes revealing that the standard specs being used were very close to achieving LEED certification. Similarly, the developers of Helensview Heights, in Portland, Oregon, decided to follow LEED-ND guide-lines only after they obtained grants from the Home Depot Foundation and Enterprise Community Partners Green Communities program to do so.17 Meeting the standards only required making a few tweaks: add-ing heat recovery ventilators and heating fireplaces. Nevertheless, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requires all of its Choice Neighborhood Planning grant recipients to apply for LEED-ND stage 1 conditional approval.

LEED-ND

kEy PoinTS

D goals To expand beyond green buildings to incorporate principles of smart growth and new urbanism into neigh-borhood development

D Scale From 0.34 to 1150 acres (median = 30 acres) D implementation 334 certified projects since 2007 D Environment Points awarded for Smart Location and

Linkage; Neighborhood Pattern and Design; and Green Infrastructure and Buildings

D Equity Low emphasis: has optional points for affordable housing development, mixed-income diverse communi-ties, local food production, and community outreach and involvement; can be integrated with approaches that emphasize equity

D Economy Strong real-estate-value effect, tax credits for energy-efficient systems and designs

D Cost Commitment Minimum $29,500 registration fee varies based on consulting needs and project size

D Time Commitment Ongoing project monitoring not required; registration process requires specialized

knowledge and extensive documentation

8

9LEED-ND

LEED-ND (as with LEED) will have to be revised over time to improve weak areas. Most notably, it gives insufficient consideration to local and regional climate differences or among rural, suburban, and urban locations.18 With LEED-ND often being adopted as municipal or state policy, the question arises whether it makes sense for one nonprofit organiza-tion’s certification system—the U.S. Green Building Council—to establish, in essence, a continent-wide de facto regulatory standard, at extra charge to develop-ers and municipalities.19 Whether specific projects should pursue LEED-ND certification will be taken up in later sections.

community organizations and nonprofits municipal staff and/or leadership private-sector actors fundersF

P

M

C

ROADMAP

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

NEEDS ASSESSMENT

PLANNING

DESIGN

IMPLEMENTATION

MONITORING/AND OR MANAGEMENT

P

F

P

P

P

P

M

M

M

M

M

LEED-ND

KEY

REUSECRITICAL MASSPOLICYCRISIS

MARKETEQUITYECONOMYENVIRONMENT

PROMPTS

STEPS

C

Enabling faCToRS

D Political leadership and support not essential, though desirable

D Business support needed to the extent that developers familiar with LEED’s brand and performance expecta-tions will be comfortable with approach

D Pre-existing city LEED requirements make extension to LEED-ND a natural progression

D Presence of other district-scale projects that need a building standard makes LEED-ND an easy choice

D Developable sites that already meet LEED-ND transit and walkability standards mean that district is well on its way to achieving certification before construction begins

Enterprise Green Communities (EGC) works closely with community development corporations (CDCs), community housing development organizations (CHDOs), and municipalities to bring social equity and environmental justice to communities. The ultimate goal is to provide a better quality of life for residents through fiscally, socially, and environmentally respon-sible development. In addition, EGC’s parent organiza-tion, Enterprise, offers programs and certification for design leadership in community revitalization, transit-oriented development, senior housing, supportive housing (for homeless and ex-offender populations), rural and Native American housing, and sustainable organizational development.

Project-level certification groups criteria into eight categories:20

• Integrative Design• Location and Neighborhood Fabric • Site Improvements • Water Conservation • Energy Efficiency • Materials Beneficial to the Environment• Healthy Living Environment • Operations and Maintenance

Certification is achieved in two phases: during the design phase and after completion of construc-tion. Unlike similar frameworks, EGC certification is

available free of charge to affordable housing develop-ers or communities that include at least 80 percent affordable housing. EGC provides a toolkit, checklists, and research to organizations seeking to develop a project and, later, to monitor performance. Enterprise works with CDCs and developers to assess neighbor-hood assets and limitations, minimize project costs, and determine the right mix of revenue sources and investors for each project. State and local governments then work with Enterprise to identify funding and tax standards for affordable housing.

Enterprise has moved to a district-scale approach because it includes environmental and equity solutions, such as community energy, that cannot be addressed on the building level. To achieve financial viability, EGC’s housing-centric model has relied principally on federal dollars—primarily through HUD, with its 80 percent affordable housing requirement. Success has bred new challenges: many emerging communities have reached an affordable housing saturation point and are calling for more mixed-income and market-rate housing to off-set the potential for concentrated poverty and economic segregation. Achieving that goal will require expanding both geographic scale and the range of funding sources.

EGC’s emerging district-scale solution is built on Enterprise’s strength as a convener and green devel-oper. Projects like Philadelphia’s Carpenter Square at Graduate Hospital applied the EGC’s principles

ENTERPRISE GREEN COMMUNITIES (CertifiCation framework)Enterprise green Communities (EgC) is a green affordable housing certification resource program, launched in 2004, which is currently adapting EgC standards to create a district-scale approach. The parent nonprofit is also pressing to make all affordable housing in the united States green, through both retrofits and new construction, with its green2020 campaign.

10

kEy PoinTS

D goals To ensure that all U.S. affordable housing is green

by 2020 and to translate strengths in financing and project

management into a clearly defined district-scale approach

D Scale Currently ranges from mixed-use building level to

five square blocks

D implementation One district-scale development pilot

with five planned

D Environment Strong emphasis, particularly with district-

scale infrastructure systems

D Equity High emphasis through on-site social services

and active community participation throughout develop-

ment and operations

D Economy High emphasis on energy and operational effi-

ciency, community asset building, and economic return

on investment for the community and funders

D Cost Commitment No costs for certification, but time

costs associated with extensive reporting

D Time Commitment Requires five years of reporting post-

occupancy; extensive commitment for technical registra-

tion, documentation, management, and coordination of

stakeholders

to a mixed-use affordable housing community. This redevelopment of an abandoned lot created 11 town-houses, six condos, and a retail space on the ground floor. Carpenter Square was also an EPA Sustainable Building Blocks program and was informed by LEED-ND principles and those of a nonprofit called EcoDistricts (see page 21). The financial success of the project spurred subsequent redevelopment of neighboring buildings. The neighborhood is revital-izing to a point that city officials hope it will create jobs and more opportunities for local residents. The redevelopment authority has already sited new affordable and mixed-income housing projects in this area, and private mixed-use developments are under way.21 Although lower-priced properties are available, there is some concern about displacement through gentrification, with apartments selling for as much as $700,000.

Enterprise is piloting a district-scale project in the downtown Los Angeles neighborhood of Little Tokyo that expands EGC’s commitment to social equity and creates new capital-generating models that address the interdependent relationship between housing avail-ability/affordability and the surrounding community. Enterprise facilitates social equity by returning profits back into the community. Its neighborhood annuity uses green infrastructure development to build long-term revenue streams for communities. In Little Tokyo, program developers are designing and assessing the returns on a number of district-scale systems, includ-ing storm water management, distributed energy stor-age, a solar network, and district heating and cooling. Each system requires a different financing model and brings varying financial returns to the city, investors, and the community. The financial returns are also dif-ferent, with district heating typically generating returns in the 6–8 percent range, distributed storage in the 4–5 percent range, and storm water management systems sometimes exceeding 9 percent. These returns come in the form of interest payments and tax revenues that are divided among investors, the city, and community

development organizations.

Ultimately, projects like Little Tokyo aim to motivate the city beyond the green building opportunity to tackle policy and regulations that prevent such district-scale projects. Enterprise is targeting the Jordan Downs project in Los Angeles, plus other projects in San Francisco, Seattle, Denver, Chicago, Boston, and Cleveland to implement district-scale infrastructure and financial models for neighborhood revitalization.

alignmEnT PoTEnTial anD fuTuRE PRoSPECTSMunicipal leaders often look to EGC as a framework for district-scale development. The low cost of certifica-tion and the streamlined registration process make the approach manageable for fiscally strapped munici-pal budgets. EGC is often used in conjunction with LEED-ND, eco-districts, and other programs to ensure that broader sustainability goals are achieved.

ENTERPRISE GREEN COMMUNITIES 11

Enabling faCToRS

D Good for local government seeking to expand affordable

housing and to revitalize distressed neighborhoods

D Needs an established community organization or

affordable housing developer engaged in planning and

implementation process

D High levels of municipal and community engagement

needed to earn economy and equity points

D Viable option for local government and community

groups seeking to customize standards to meet local and

regional needs

community organizations and nonprofits municipal staff and/or leadership private-sector actors fundersF

P

M

C

KEY

ROADMAP

REUSE

CRITICAL MASS

POLICY

CRISIS

MARKET

EQUITY

ECONOMY

ENVIRONMENT

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

NEEDS ASSESSMENT

PLANNING

DESIGN

IMPLEMENTATION

MONITORING/AND OR MANAGEMENT

F

F

F

M

M

P

C

C

CM

ENTERPRISE GREEN COMMUNITIES (DISTRICT SCALE)

F

F

F

P

P

P

C

C

C

M

M

M

PROMPTS

STEPS

Living Building Challenge (LBC), launched in 2006 and currently the world’s most stringent green-building certification program, is based on seven core performance areas (called petals): site, water, energy, health, materials, equity, and beauty. A key difference with LEED is that LBC certification is earned by demonstrating performance over 12 months of occupancy rather than immediately after construction.

Achieving net-zero water and energy management are among the most exacting petals, and requiring the use of sustainable building materials is perhaps the most ambitious. For water, all of the project’s demand must be supplied by captured precipitation or a natural closed-loop system that recycles water. (This requirement is exempted if local health regulations do not permit such pracatices.) Furthermore, all storm water must be handled on site. Energy certification requires that all of the project’s energy needs be sup-plied on site by renewable, noncombustible sources.

Other environmental petals vary in their precision and stringency. One aspect of the site petal is that the project has to be on a brownfield site—a clearly defined

criterion. Less precise is the “car-free living” site element that is defined as contributing to the creation of walkable, pedestrian-oriented communities. One project earned “car-free living” status by being near a park-and-ride and by including parking stalls sized for micro cars. While LBC defines pedestrian orienta-tion as having a mix of residential, commercial, and light-industry uses in a one-kilometer area, it does not require public-transit access.

Founder Jason McLennan admits that, while LBC pro-motes social justice, equity goals are “mushy.” Equity is defined in a number of ways, such as ensuring accessibility to people with disabilities and maintain-ing neighboring rights to light or fresh air. The equity guidelines are being rewritten.

As of April 2014, five building projects had achieved full seven-petal certification; four had been petal certi-fied (meeting three petal requirements, with at least one being water, energy, or materials); and five had garnered net-zero energy certification. More than 160 other projects are registered and moving forward with certification.22

In 20009, LBC’s parent organization, now called the International Living Future Institute, launched LBC 2.0, which moved beyond the building scale to include broader land-use and infrastructure “typologies” that reflect the New Urbanist transect model.23 To that end, it held a design competition for the city scale, in 2010, and soon after initiated a district-scale pilot program. With funding from the Summit Foundation, three win-ning Living Community pilots were launched in 2012, in San Francisco, suburban Vancouver, and Bend, Oregon.

LIVING BUILDING CHALLENGE (CertifiCation framework)

The living building Challenge (lbC) is a performance-based approach to certifying green buildings. formally launched in 2006, lbC is a project of the international living future institute (ilfi), itself founded by the Cascadia green building Council. lbC seeks to move beyond incremental approaches to green build-ing and living by setting ambitious performance standards. although lbC has certified only buildings to date, district-scale work is an evolving program area.

12

LIVING BUILDING CHALLENGE

Each pilot plans to retrofit an existing land use with LBC 2.0 (and now 2.1) landscape, infrastructure, and urban planning criteria that are “socially just, cultur-ally rich, and ecologically restorative.”24

The San Francisco project will apply LBC 2.0 stan-dards to retrofit a pre-existing dense urban neigh-borhood, in hopes of serving as an overlay on an eco-district project. In Burnaby, B.C., just outside Vancouver, Simon Fraser University is piloting LBC for new development in a mountain-top campus neigho-brhood called UniverCity. Building on long-range planning under way since 2003, including a LEED Gold elementary school and a LBC-certified child care cen-ter, this pilot will build out UniverCity on what is now a large parking lot, creating a walkable, ecologically restorative community with a full-range of services—including district energy. Bend, Oregon, a small city whose population grew by a third between 2000 and 2010, is piloting a redevelopment project that con-nects a sprawling suburban neighborhood with the city in a net-zero energy and water framework.25

alignmEnT PoTEnTial anD fuTuRE PRoSPECTS ILFI executive director Richard Graves hopes to use other district-scale approaches as platforms on which to build living communities in the future. LBC could complement eco-districts and 2030 districts, for example, by defining net-zero as their standard for energy and water.

LBC is laudable in using its standards to push for policy change. The materials petal mandates that a building not contain fourteen Red List chemicals deemed harmful by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the State of California, and the European Commission on the Environment.26 The hope is that states and cities will ban the chemicals in construc-tion projects. Because it is often difficult for manu-facturers to precisely identify all component parts of a product, LBC staff spend a considerable amount of time vetting hundreds of products. By working with manufacturers, LBC hopes to create change in the

marketplace. A policy change LBC hopes to catalyze is changing building codes, as some criteria conflict with existing building codes in many cities. So far, the solution has been to grant temporary exemptions, but LBC lobbies to revise zoning and building codes to allow more sustainable construction methods.

LBC is an ambitious and evolving program—in both its environmental standards and its plan to have district-scale impact. Getting the standards right, including those for equity, is an iterative process of learning and adapting as projects are implemented. The long-term vision is to advance practice beyond an incremental approach that locks cities into less unsustainable, but not truly sustainable infrastructure and systems. There is vigorous debate within the organization about whether this strategy promotes incrementalism when government-level policy change is unlikely or builds a constituency for change.27 To date, the three district-scale pilot projects suggest that, to have maximum impact, LBC should be closely allied with one of the other district-scale sustainability approaches.

13

kEy PoinTS

D goals To promote socially just, culturally rich, and eco-

logically restorative development that educates, removes

barriers to systemic change, and realigns market

standards

D Scale Building scale only with three affiliated neighbor-

hood-scale retrofit pilot projects

D implementation Since 2009, 4 fully certified, 3 partially

certified, 5 net-zero certified, and 170 in 10 countries

pursuing certification

D Environment Uses “petals” of site, water, energy,

health, materials, equity, beauty

D Equity Health, urban agriculture, social justice, environ-

mental justice, and human-scale development standards

with metrics focused on built environment performance

D Economy Low emphasis; offers incentives for energy

and operational efficiency

D Cost Commitment High registration and consulting

costs ranging from $1,750 to $25,000

D Time Commitment Five-year follow-up commitment

required; registration process requires significant techni-

cal skills and documentation

LIVING BUILDING CHALLENGE 14

Enabling faCToRS

D Political leadership needed if beyond building scale, as

standards are exacting

D Business support from building owners or developers

wanting to meet highest green standards available

D Local government wanting to move beyond existing certi-

fications (e.g. LEED)

D Project team must be willing to undergo training on

product sourcing and other elements

ZHOMES,Issaquah,Washington. Source:http://www.z-home.org

community organizations and nonprofits municipal staff and/or leadership private-sector actors fundersF

P

M

C

KEY

ROADMAP

REUSE

CRITICAL MASS

POLICY

CRISIS

MARKET

EQUITY

ECONOMY

ENVIRONMENT

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

NEEDS ASSESSMENT

PLANNING

DESIGN

IMPLEMENTATION

MONITORING/AND OR MANAGEMENT

P

P

P

P

P

P

LIVING BUILDING CHALLENGE

PROMPTS

STEPS

One Planet Communities (OPC) aims to regener-ate compromised environments, communities, and economies using its One Planet Living concept. It intends to create communities in which residents are committed to reducing their ecological foot-prints by 2020 (see Figure 1).

OPC attempts to transcend vague definitions of sustainable development through qualitative and quantitative performance metrics called Common International Targets (CITs). CITs apply to ten princi-ples for achieving aggressive environmental, equity, and economic goals.

• Health and Happiness • Culture and Heritage • Equity and Local Economy • Local and Sustainable Food • Land Use and Wildlife • Sustainable Transport • Zero Carbon • Zero Waste• Sustainable Materials• Sustainable Water

OPC came about through lessons learned from the flawed BedZED (Beddington Zero Energy Development) eco-village, completed in South London in 2002, which was the first large-scale attempt to create a carbon-neutral district-scale

development.28 BioRegional wanted to take these lessons further by focusing on changing lifestyles to minimize environmental impacts.

Since the inception of OPC, seven communities have been “endorsed” around the world; eight more communities have applied its principles. OPC’s two North American projects are fully endorsed: 200-acre Sonoma Mountain Village in Rohnert Park, California, and the eight-acre Grow Community in Winslow (Bainbridge Island), Washington. OPC is planning projects in Stockton, California (The Preserve), and Washington, D.C. (Hill East, Poplar Point, and Southwest Waterfront).

The OPC endorsement process includes 1) One Planet Action Plan development; 2) initial endorse-ment; 3) implementation of the One Planet Action Plan; 4) Expert Panel engagement; and 5) annual review. For endorsement, communities submit a master plan with goals that address the minimum standards of each of the ten principles. Endorsed communities must also make a lifetime commit-ment to upholding the principles. OPC staff help with the planning, design, and construction process and conduct annual reviews.

BioRegional designed OPC to be “entrepreneurial and look for business solutions to environmental problems,” and encourages residents to participate

in creating self-sufficient, sustainable commu-nities. It emphasizes living within the means of existing natural resources and establishes goals for job creation, locally sourced food, and keeping resources within the community. OPC requires that less than two percent of waste goes to landfills; mandates that a majority of energy be locally gener-ated from zero-carbon energy sources; encourages severely limiting or eliminating the need for cars; and encourages innovative district-scale systems for waste management, water supply, waste-water treatment, heating, and cooling.

The push for self-sufficiency requires behavioral change and lifestyle awareness to maintain district-wide performance. One Planet lifestyle concierges (also known as eco-concierges) conduct outreach, coordinate educational events, and encourage One

ONE PLANET COMMUNITIES (CertifiCation framework)one Planet Communities (oPC), a program conceived in 2001 by the nonprofit bioRegional, aims to turn ecologically distressed communities into green neighborhoods that meet all human needs and consume only their fair share of the earth’s resources.

15

16ONE PLANET COMMUNITIES

Planet Living in communities. Like all ambitious behavior-change programs, it has yet to be proven in existing communities with high concentrations of disadvantaged individuals and families. Additionally, all of the OPC communities in North America are still under development, so it is too early to exam-ine the success of the approach’s behavior-change aspects.

OPC seems to function best when applied to areas with large tracts of available land, including remedi-ated brownfield sites, since OPC standards neces-sitate tightly integrated systems in order to meet performance standards. The need for such tight systems makes these projects difficult to implement in districts with existing infrastructure. However, its open-source framework allows for project initiators to apply the principles and receive recognition, even if they fall short of meeting the minimum require-ments for full endorsement. This flexibility to serve as either a guiding framework or a strictly defined model makes OPC unique in its applicability to district-scale development.

alignmEnT PoTEnTial anD fuTuRE PRoSPECTSOPC is already used in conjunction with LEED-ND, eco-districts, and other approaches. Implementers can take an à la carte approach to using OPC, thanks to its open-source design. An example is Sonoma Mountain Village, a $1 billion regeneration of a 200-acre brownfield by a single developer. When completed, SOMO will boast the second largest privately owned solar array in Northern California, and it has encouraged local employers to improve building performance and to support employee behavior changes. LEED-ND Platinum certified, SOMO will house 5,000 people and provide 4,400 jobs. Seventy-two percent of commercial space has been completed, but housing construction has been delayed until after 2015, which has put meeting 2020 CITs at risk.

OPC is expanding its presence in North America through its Toronto office. BioRegional is also iden-tifying ways to engage more communities that might not be ready to pursue full endorsement. OPC has yet to demonstrate that full endorsement is viable for high-density urban redevelopment in North America. However, the program includes principles

that can be incrementally introduced, thereby creating genuinely mixed-use and mixed-income communities. Though the OPC team has shown that this approach works at different scales around the world (including in Australia, Luxembourg, and the United Kingdom), more time is needed to see how effectively it will play out in North America.

kEy PoinTS

D goals To create communities in which residents are committed to regenerative principles

D Scale Multiple acres in urban, suburban, and rural communities

D implementation 7 endorsed communities (2 in North America); 8 have applied the principles; 4 North American projects are under negotiation

D Environment Aggressive standards for zero carbon, zero waste, sustainable transport, sustainable materials, local and sustainable food, water, land use, and wildlife management

D Equity Aggressive standards on local and sustainable food, culture and heritage, and health and happiness; on-site eco-concierge for education and justice counsel

D Economy Aggressively pursues positive ROI in energy and operational efficiency of district-scale systems; high emphasis on community asset building and local job creation

D Cost Commitment Annual core program fee: £25,000 ($41,000); Annual review fee: £10,000 to £15,000 ($16,000 to $25,000) after first year; can increase for large-scale projects

D Time Commitment Must commit time and staff to working with BioRegional consultants and its Network of Experts until 2040 to track progress on Common International Targets

Enabling faCToRS

D Success depends on tightly integrated systems, almost necessitating development in large tracts with one property owner

D Requires holistic thinking and strong long-term commitment

D Residents must buy into lifestyle changes for the devel-opment to achieve its goals

D Ecological lifestyle commitment almost necessitates a new, self-selected community

D Open-source format allows application of the principles to other approaches

17ONE PLANET COMMUNITIES

ROADMAP

community organizations and nonprofits municipal staff and/or leadership private-sector actors fundersF

P

M

C

KEY

REUSE

CRITICAL MASS

POLICY

CRISIS

MARKET

EQUITY

ECONOMY

ENVIRONMENT

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

NEEDS ASSESSMENT

PLANNING

DESIGN

IMPLEMENTATION

MONITORING/AND OR MANAGEMENT

F

F

F

F

F

F

P

P

P

P

P

P

C

C

C

C

C

C

M

M

M

M

M

M

ONE PLANET COMMUNITIES

PROMPTS

STEPS

figuRE 1: onE PlanET CommuniTiES ECologiCal fooTPRinT moDEl

The 2030 District approach emerged from Architecture 2030, a national nonprofit dedicated to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions from the built environment, which issued the “2030 Challenge for Planning” in 2006.29 Ed Mazria, the visionary architect who started Architecture 2030, issued the challenge because none of the then-current approaches to building efficiency would reduce carbon emissions enough to prevent irreversible climate change by 2030. The Challenge has been formally adopted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, businesses, and numerous professional orga-nizations that promote sustainability. Some cities, such as Seattle, Austin, and Vancouver, have adopted the 2030 Challenge as their building standard for both resi-dential and commercial properties, product procure-ment, and other investments. Adopting the standards does not obligate a city to meet them in a specified time period or at all. In contrast, when private-sector actors create a 2030 District, they commit themselves to achieving strict standards.

Each 2030 District attempts to reach or exceed Architecture 2030 goals:

• Energy: A minimum 10 percent reduction below the national average by 2015 with incre-mental targets, reaching a 50 percent reduc-tion by 2030

• Water: A minimum 10 percent reduction below the district average by 2015, with incremental

targets, reaching a 50 percent reduction by 2030

• auto and freight: A minimum 10 percent reduction below the current District average GHG emissions by 2015 with incremental tar-gets, reaching a 50 percent reduction by 2030

Within each district, specific goals for buildings are established by comparing a building’s energy, water, and transportation use to the national median for similar buildings. Based on a building’s performance, percentage reduction goals are established to meet the guidelines. Adding transportation goals provides an interesting twist in that building owners agree to reduce the VMT of people working or living in their buildings even though they have few mechanisms to influence travel behavior.

Currently, five cities have established 2030 Districts—Seattle, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, and Denver. The approach is taking off rapidly, with San Antonio and at least five other cities planning to des-ignate districts. Architecture 2030 is creating a net-working forum so cities can learn from one another’s experiences.

Seattle’s 2030 District was established first, in September 2011, and thus is the most developed of the five. Planning started in 2009 when architect Brian

2030 DISTRICTS (defined-model framework)a 2030 District is a large, central-city area in which property owners commit to achieving aggressive carbon-reduction and water-efficiency goals. 2030 Districts seek to demonstrate that the private sector can take a leadership role in meeting high efficiency standards because doing so provides a positive return on investment (Roi)—thus making a business case for sustainability.

18

Geller (now executive director of the district) and a handful of architects, engineers, and city planners decided that the approach was ideal for organizing a business-led initiative to reduce emissions in down-town Seattle. From December 2009 through 2011, the group reached out to property owners to promote the idea of creating a district. Seattle 2030 was formal-ized as a nonprofit organization in 2011 when the city received an EPA Climate Showcase Communities grant to support it. (The EPA grant required a defined district, so it was a perfect fit for creating the Seattle’s 2030 District.)

The district’s boundaries were defined by an exist-ing district-heating system that serves 1,300 build-ings and 95 million square feet of space, or much of downtown—including its core. By September 2013, 133 buildings (covering 38 million square feet, or 37 per-cent of the district) were participating, represented by some 47 property owners and managers.30 The target for this year is to add 13 million square feet.

Seattle 2030 established aggressive performance goals:

• Energy: 60 percent reduction in energy use in new buildings by 2015 and carbon neutrality by 2030; a 50 percent reduction in energy use in existing buildings by 2030; and a 10 percent reduction in energy use in all buildings by 2015

• Water: Immediate 50 percent reduction below the current District average

• vehicle miles Traveled (vmT): 10 percent reduction in the District by 2015 and 50 percent by 2030

Baselines for measuring progress and collecting build-ing performance data on energy and water use are being established using real-time energy monitoring and display systems (referred to as “dashboarding”). The District is experimenting with various approaches in different buildings to determine which technologies save building owners the most money on energy.

Water usage and storm-water management goals were added after a year-long strategy discussion. Building owners are installing low-flow fixtures and other water-saving technologies. Further, water usage is monitored through the High Performance Building Project mentioned above.

The team is exploring ways that buildings can share waste heat and water as part of a district system and to manage storm water collectively. Individual building solutions for storm-water management include adding green roofs, cisterns, swales, and storm-water cleanup

systems. The goal is for buildings to meet EPA man-dates requiring cities to maintain 99 percent of storm water during a peak storm event. The City of Seattle is encouraging experimentation on meeting these require-ments as many parts of the city are on hilly terrain that channels storm water.

Commute Seattle, the city’s downtown Transportation Management Association, offers businesses a suite of tools, including building transportation evalua-tions, parking price analysis, seminars for tenants, and other services to help them reduce car commut-ing.31 Further, the organization advises businesses on how to meet Seattle’s Commute Trip Reduction, Transportation Management Plan, and Commute Trip Reduction regulations.32

Because 2030 Districts are typically downtown com-mercial areas, equity goals are not easily incorporated. Although the model doesn’t have explicit economic development goals, the private-sector innovation and use of new technologies to achieve climate goals can help a city in attracting new business investment.

alignmEnT PoTEnTial anD fuTuRE PRoSPECTSIn cities that have not adopted ambitious energy codes or building efficiency requirements, a 2030 District can be a smaller-scale way of demonstrating their poten-tial and prompting the city to adopt more ambitious building efficiency requirements or energy codes.33 The 2030 District set goals that exceed any mandates from the City of Seattle. In Pittsburgh and Cleveland the 2030 District goals go far beyond city standards, which are minimal. Letting the private sector lead 2030 Districts is an attractive option for many cities that don’t have climate action leadership or programs in place.

An organization trusted by the private sector gets a 2030 District off the ground more quickly. The Seattle 2030 District was started by individuals who were trusted in architecture, development, and planning

192030 DISTRICTS

kEy PoinTS

D goals To achieve aggressive greenhouse gas reduc-

tion goals by 2030 through municipal and private sector

commitments

D Scale Usually a large portion of the downtown, mea-

sured in terms of total square footage of buildings signed

on in the district.

D implementation Established in five cities; five more

under consideration

D Environment Aggressive standards for energy and

water use and reduction in vehicle miles traveled;

promotes district-scale systems (energy, storm-water

management)

D Equity No emphasis

D Economy No emphasis except through energy and

operational efficiency for building owners

D Cost Commitment Property owners make investments

in their buildings. Costs associated with management

of district

D Time Commitment Five years of reporting required

through established technology systems

20

circles. The Pittsburgh District has also had success with business engagement, attributable to the fact that it was formed by the Green Building Alliance, a long-standing nonprofit organization that promotes green building among architects, developers, and construction companies. In both cities, major property management companies were approached first. The idea is to convince one or two big property owners to become early adopters, and to rely on their peer-to-peer connections to add more participants. Without such an organization in place, it is much slower going in Cleveland.

The Seattle 2030 District is demonstrating that there is a business ROI rationale for reducing automobile use in the city. In addition, businesses are seeing that the indirect benefits of reduced traffic can create competi-tive advantage. If other 2030 Districts find the same level of support, the private sector could become an effective advocate for public investment in transit.

2030 DISTRICTS

Enabling faCToRS

D Local government leadership on energy and water effi-

ciency and public transportation

D Business champions who understand the ROI potential

D Need property owners and managers in a defined area

willing to participate

D Existing district-level systems can provide immediate

operational and participation advantages

D Best with a trusted organization with a related mission

willing to take leadership role

D Success requires businesses, community stakeholders,

and local government to work cooperatively to achieve

goals

community organizations and nonprofits municipal staff and/or leadership private-sector actors fundersF

P

M

C

KEY

ROADMAP

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

NEEDS ASSESSMENT

PLANNING

DESIGN

IMPLEMENTATION

MONITORING/AND OR MANAGEMENT

P

P

P

P

P

P

M

M

M

M

M

2030 DISTRICTS

REUSE

CRITICAL MASS

POLICY

CRISIS

MARKET

EQUITY

ECONOMY

ENVIRONMENT

PROMPTS

STEPS

Since no single organization developed, defined, and advanced the eco-district concept from its inception, there are no established standards for what constitutes an eco-district. This means that those creating eco-districts have a great deal of latitude in establishing goals and performance metrics. Common principles and goals include reducing energy demand and water consumption; managing storm water and building-water discharge; facilitating waste reduction, recycling, and reuse; protecting natural ecosystems; reducing vehicle miles traveled through transit-oriented, mixed-use development; and incorporating district-level systems for heating, cooling, water management, and transportation.

Eco-districts range from as small as a four to eight block area, to as large as 500 acres in the United States and 840 acres in Europe. Different types of areas can be eco-districts—from predominantly commercial and institutional (Portland’s Lloyd Eco-district, Southwest Eco-district in Washington D.C.) to predominantly residential (Codman Square Eco-Innovation District in Boston). Several cities, including Boston, Portland, and San Francisco, have several eco-districts.

A key distinction among eco-districts is whether they are developed on remediated brownfield sites or integrated into existing developed areas. The San Francisco planning department refers to the former as

“blank slates” and the latter as “patchwork quilts.”36 Three of the most celebrated European eco-districts, Stockholm’s Hammarby Sjöstad, Malmö’s Western Harbour, and Freiburg’s Vauban are blank slates, built on formerly industrial land. This type has considerably more capacity for experimentation and district-scale infrastructure development.

Few cities have such large swaths of land available for redevelopment, so the patchwork quilt is the most common site adaptation. This type has a mix of land uses and contains undeveloped, underdeveloped, and developed land owned by different parties. At least a dozen U.S. cities are developing eco-districts of this type, which makes it more challenging to include district-scale infrastructure.

Transit infrastructure can be integrated into eco-district planning in developed “patchwork quilt” neighborhoods. Seattle’s Capitol Hill eco-district was initially planned around a light-rail stop scheduled to open in 2016; an expansion of the streetcar network, pending funding, could be in place even sooner. The plan is to start near the light-rail stop, targeting four sites for development, totaling 1.6 acres, and then to develop the rest of the 528-acre area.

A common strategy for integrating district-level systems is to start small and expand later. Portland’s

Lloyd eco-district has plans for a green street that will become the first step in a district-wide storm water strategy. Seattle’s Capitol Hill team is exploring expansion of Seattle Steam’s district energy system and using thermal heat from grocery stores, a crema-torium, a hospital, and college campuses for a district thermal heating system.

An eco-district can be initiated by a city govern-ment (Austin, Portland, San Francisco) or federal agency (Washington, D.C.’s Southwest Eco-district), or it can be catalyzed by a nonprofit organization or local institution. Most involve partnerships. Seattle’s Capitol Hill eco-district took shape when the Bullitt Foundation approached Capitol Hill Housing (CHH), a community development corporation active in the neighborhood for 35 years, to develop an eco-district. The foundation had just moved into a new building on its way to achieving Living Building Challenge certi-fication, and its staff wanted to apply the principles used in the building’s construction to a broader level. Meanwhile, staff at CHH had been discussing how to expand what they had been learning about green building to a broader scale—creating a perfect syn-ergy of interest.

A nonprofit organization has emerged in the United States to offer guidance and technical assistance to cit-ies implementing eco-districts. Started as the Portland

ECO-DISTRICTS (flexible-model framework)Eco-districts may be defined broadly as “a new model of public-private partnership that emphasizes innovation and deployment of district-scale best practices to create the neighborhoods of the future - resilient, vibrant, resource efficient and just.” 34 Some emphasize their importance as test beds for sustainable technologies, policies, and land-use planning for later citywide adoption,35 while others stress the inclusion of district-level infrastructure. Europe began developing eco-districts in the mid 1990s. These projects are newer in north america, and so most are still in early stages of development.

21

22ECO-DISTRICTS

Sustainability Institute in 2009, it changed its name to EcoDistricts in 2012 to more accurately reflect its focus and scope. EcoDistricts developed a participa-tory framework for designing an eco-district, covering strategies and metrics for eight principal areas: equi-table development, health and well-being, community identity, access and mobility, energy, water, habitat and ecosystem function, and materials management. Using EcoDistricts’ planning toolbox, cities choose which areas to emphasize and what strategies, poli-cies, or technologies best fit their needs. EcoDistricts assists in planning, designing, financing, developing, and managing district-scale projects. It also supports a “neighborhood first”public-policy approach to plan-ning. In addition to the toolbox, EcoDistricts offers an incubator—an intensive three-day training workshop. EcoDistricts assisted Portland in establishing five eco-districts and has been working with ten other cities. These ten cities completed the incubator in 2012, and a group of eight went through the program in 2013.

Emphasis on all three aspects of sustainability var-ies. While environmental factors are essential to all eco-districts, equity factors are unevenly developed in many. Unsurprisingly, those led by organizations with equity at their core excel in this realm. For example, Seattle’s Capitol Hill Eco-district, led by an afford-able housing CDC, requires that at least 50 percent of housing on the four sites it is developing be affordable (defined as 80 percent or below area median income), and at least half of these units are earmarked for families at 50 percent of area median income for at least 50 years. EcoDistricts partners with Enterprise Green Communities and several other organizations to put equity at the forefront. Enterprise focuses on green affordable housing, while EcoDistricts works with the community on providing a broader set of economic development, equity, and place-making strategies. EcoDistricts’ vice president for programs, Adam Beck, notes that “First and foremost, equity is a key local issue and working through local stakeholders at the project level is critical to our approach.”

Fundamentally, EcoDistricts works as an economic development strategy. At its core is the focus on building capacity and financing to deliver projects in three areas: green building, smart infrastructure, and community action and inclusion. Portland, Oregon’s municipal economic development strategy targets three sectors: green development and infrastructure; clean energy; and energy management. Part of the strategy for attracting firms in these areas is to inte-grate these green technologies into the city’s fabric—with eco-districts being a key mechanism for doing so. An eco-district in Cleveland’s Kinsman neighborhood includes an agricultural innovation zone that seeks to create jobs with a large-scale employee-cooperative produce greenhouse and an industrial-scale compost-ing facility. Boston’s Innovation District is one of the

kEy PoinTS

D goals To create a unifying typology and identity through

which to capture sustainable development activities

within a city

D Scale All projects include multiple city blocks, usually

at least four, and as large as 500 acres in North America

and 840 acres in Europe

D implementation At least 20 cities developing in North

America, but standards vary

D Environment Loosely defined standards in green build-

ing practices, energy efficiency, transportation, water

conservation, renewable energy, waste management and

recycling, and land and wildlife conservation

D Equity Social factors among principles and community

definition of goals encouraged

D Economy Strong emphasis on positive ROI in energy

efficiency and district-scale systems. Operational effi-

ciency, job creation, reinvestment, etc. varies greatly

D Cost Commitment Requires investment in staff train-

ings and infrastructure

D Time Commitment Ongoing

HammaRby SJÖSTaD Stockholm’s Hammarby Sjöstad eco-district illustrates how developing on a large brown-field site maximizes the potential for district-scale infrastructure—in this case, heating, storm-water, and waste management. The city’s district heating system was extended into the 340-hectare area, and a sustainable urban drainage system (SuDS) filters rainwater naturally rather through green spaces, canals, and swales. District waste management is inte-grated with energy creation. Trash is dropped into one of three cylinders—for recyclables, organic waste, or burnable waste—and moves underground through a vacuum system of pipes to a central processing facility. burnable waste is converted to electricity and heat for the dis-trict, organic waste is turned to compost, and the rest is recycled.

23ECO-DISTRICTS

few eco-districts that began primarily as an economic development strategy. In this case, an eco-district strategy is being overlaid on this 1000-acre site. The idea is to attract high-tech entrepreneurs who will establish businesses and live in the area. Created in 2010, it has added 200 new companies that have cre-ated more than 4,000 jobs. Commitments from other companies will add another 2,500 jobs in the next few years.

alignmEnT PoTEnTial anD fuTuRE PRoSPECTSIn contrast to LEED-ND, the generic eco-districts approach has a branding challenge—there is no single organization that grants certification or identifies uni-form goals. To some extent, EcoDistricts is filling this gap, but not to the degree that it certifies what is or is not an eco-district. The branding challenge goes both ways. Portland has embraced eco-districts and identi-fied five of them in different parts of the city, but resi-dents in at least one of them have rejected the label. The strength of a loose definition is that the concept can be organic and locally defined.

The flexibility of the eco-district approach also makes it possible to form partnerships that enhance eco-nomic and equity factors in sustainable development, as discussed in the Portland and Boston cases above. That flexibility is crucial, given that eco-districts work extremely well as a way to implement a city’s cli-mate action plans. For example, the Austin Seaholm District planning document notes that the city’s goals provide it with a strategic backdrop, and Seattle’s Capitol Hill Eco-district’s performance goals reflect the city’s 2030 Challenge goals to make the city car-bon neutral by 2050.37

For all the flexibility of the eco-district approach, municipal leadership is crucial to its future. Eco-districts are best implemented in cities with high levels of cooperation among city departments and metropolitan agencies. Different types of systems (e.g. storm water, transit, neighborhood planning) have dif-ferent boundaries, and they can’t all align in any given

eco-district. And not all systems within an eco-district are under the control of the city. In most cities, for example, transportation systems are operated on a metropolitan or county level, and any plan to incorpo-rate transit-oriented development into an eco-district requires cooperation with this agency. Moreover, cities play a crucial leadership role in identifying funding sources for training, planning, and administering implementation. Funding streams vary from city to city, but foundation support is critical to many eco-dis-tricts.38 The proliferation of the eco-district approach therefore depends, in large part, on local metropolitan electoral will and philanthropic capacity.

Enabling faCToRS

D Local leadership important to identifying and supporting districts

D Ideal for cities wanting to break down departmental silos and work with private sector in meeting ambitious goals

D If not city-led, a strong anchor institution (CDC or CBO) needed to facilitate and manage

D Cities can guide emphasis on three E’s D Needs broad stakeholder participation D Consider focusing on a small core within a larger district

to jumpstart projects D Great potential for district-scale systems for infill devel-

opment due to collaborative process

community organizations and nonprofits municipal staff and/or leadership private-sector actors fundersF

P

M

C

KEY

ROADMAP

REUSE

CRITICAL MASS

POLICY

CRISIS

MARKET

EQUITY

ECONOMY

ENVIRONMENT

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

NEEDS ASSESSMENT

PLANNING

DESIGN

IMPLEMENTATION

MONITORING/AND OR MANAGEMENT

F

F

F

F

F

F

P

P

P

P

P

P

C

C

C

C

C

C

M

M

M

M

M

M

ECO-DISTRICTS

PROMPTS

STEPS

GREEN ZONES (flexible-model framework)green Zones do not follow an established framework. instead, projects emerged organically in three cities between 2007 and 2009, each with its own emphasis: community revitalization for the kansas City green impact Zone, arts and culture for the oberlin green arts Zone, and property development for PuSH buffalo’s green Development Zone.

24

All three Green Zone projects emerged to protect or improve local assets of communities in decline. Buffalo started its 25-block Green Development Zone after the community organization People United for Sustainable Housing (PUSH) formed in 2005 to create affordable housing and arrest speculative practices on Buffalo’s West Side. Kansas City designated its 150-block Green Impact Zone after U.S. Representative and former mayor Emanuel Cleaver proposed using ARRA funding to spark development in the historically black district; the area featured a nearly 50 percent unemployment rate, 25 percent vacancy rate, and high crime. Oberlin’s Green Project and its 13-acre Green Arts District was the brainchild of David Orr, an activist environmental studies professor, to improve Oberlin College’s rela-tionship with the surrounding community and reverse the Ohio Rust Belt town’s economic decline. (See Appendix C for case studies of each project.)

Each city has used a different approach to district-scale sustainability. Buffalo used the Changemaker’s International Sustainable Housing Competition39 and LISC40 as guides. Kansas City organizers did not follow an established approach, but they suggest that FSG Consulting’s Collective Impact model closely aligns with their social equity focus.41 The Oberlin Project relied on LEED-ND and The Clinton Foundation’s Climate Positive Development Program.

Today, all three projects are managed by nonprofits: PUSH Buffalo runs the Green Development Zone, the

Oberlin Project was formed to manage the city’s Green Arts Zone, and metro-Kansas City’s Mid-America Regional Council administers the Green Impact Zone initiative. All three rely on a mix of funding from federal grants for social and neighborhood develop-ment, city funding for operations and infrastructure improvements, university funding for research and neighborhood improvements, and a mix of private and community development corporation funding for afford-able housing and mixed-use project development.

Each approaches the three E’s very differently. District-scale infrastructure, however, lies at the heart of all three. This infrastructure includes district energy, storm-water management, and/or street improve-ments. The use of district-scale infrastructure not only improves the environmental performance of the district, it also creates local jobs and boosts local economies. The addition of jobs through infrastructure improvements has helped reduce crime rates, build social capital, and bring other equity improvements to the community. Other systems and programming have had similar salutary effects: urban agriculture, community events, affordable housing development, cultural preservation, and community engagement have all resulted in triple-bottom line outcomes for district residents. That said, Oberlin’s town-gown divide, combined with the project’s initial college-led top-town approach—which at first did not include city or community involvement—has had the most difficulty in meeting equity goals.

alignmEnT PoTEnTial anD fuTuRE PRoSPECTSEach Green Zone seeks to create self-sufficient economic streams. The long-term success of these efforts, however, will require stronger metro-regional economic development initiatives that address chronic

kEy PoinTS

D goals To create communities with sustainable develop-ment that benefits the local community

D Scale Multiple city blocks and applicable in smaller distressed cities

D implementation No formal Green Zone definition, though each one has a working definition

D Environment Low emphasis in some cases; defined by the district; emphasis on district-level systems and infrastructure improvements

D Equity High emphasis on strong community partici-pation throughout project lifecycle; varies based on district goals

D Economy High emphasis on creating economic oppor-tunities through job creation, community asset building; low emphasis on ROI in systems and efficiency

D Cost Commitment No minimum cost commitment; D reliant on institutional funding D Time Commitment Strong anchor institutional support

to commit staff and resources to project coordination and ongoing management

problems. The Kansas City project needs more aggres-sive investment to address education, job skills, food access, and poverty issues. The Oberlin project hopes to attract tourism dollars to boost the local economy but has not developed a more comprehensive eco-nomic development strategy. Of the three projects, Buffalo best balances the three E’s by keeping develop-ment local and by using social enterprises or benefits corporations to invest economic gains back into the community.

Neighborhood effort alone is not going to make a sig-nificant difference without institutional and policy sup-port. PUSH plans to retain ownership of its affordable properties to keep rents low, but the organization will require long-term funding to keep that promise to the community. Kansas City relied heavily on 2009 federal stimulus dollars, and now the group that organizes and manages its various projects finds itself without funding. The Oberlin Project will continue as long as Oberlin College’s interest in being connected with the community remains and funding is secure: a change in leadership tenure and endowment could throw the initiative into jeopardy. In addition, the inherent transience of students heavily involved with the project could render its lifecycle halting or short in compari-son with areas, like Buffalo, where long-term residents have led development efforts.

25GREEN ZONE PROJECTS

Enabling faCToRS

D Local government prioritization of revitalizing distressed

neighborhoods is needed

D Strong community action and/or political dedication to

addressing social, economic, and environmental inequi-

ties and shortfalls are essential

D Success requires social trust building and strong feed-

back loops with residents/tenants

D Need long-term operational funding

D Investors must commit to building mixed-income com-

munities and providing a large proportion of housing and

resources for underserved populations

D Must build relationships with organizations that can

bring long-term, living- wage jobs

ROADMAP

community organizations and nonprofits municipal staff and/or leadership private-sector actors fundersF

P

M

C

KEY

REUSE

CRITICAL MASS

POLICY

CRISIS

MARKET

EQUITY

ECONOMY

ENVIRONMENT

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

NEEDS ASSESSMENT

PLANNING

DESIGN

IMPLEMENTATION

MONITORING/AND OR MANAGEMENT

F

F

F

F

C

C

M

M

P

P

M

C

C

C

C

P

M

M

M

GREEN ZONES

PROMPTS

STEPS

Regenerative Neighborhoods aim to move district-scale development beyond net-neutral or net-zero goals to net-positive outcomes. The transition can be thought of as a continuum that moves from degen-erative to sustainable to regenerative development. Two other approaches discussed herein, One Planet Communities and the Living Building Challenge, draw from principles of regenerative design.

The Regenerative approach emerged out of an attempt by several organizations and individuals to look beyond LEED as a measure of sustainable development. They include the University of British Columbia (UBC), the Rocky Mountain Institute, the University of Colorado, BNIM Architects, the University of Texas (UT Austin), Regenesis Group, and even the U.S. Green Building Council (creator of LEED). These organizations are convening thought leaders to frame the theory into an applicable set of principles for future sustain-able development. Bill Reed—with the Integrative Design Collaborative and UBC—wrote a paper in 2006, “Shifting our Mental Model—‘Sustainability’ to Regeneration,” that advanced the regenerative devel-opment conversation for many players (see figure 2). Like many of the other proponents of a regenerative approach, Reed was one of the founding contributors to the LEED rating system. According to Reed, “LEED is

a great starting point ... . But it was never meant to be used as a measuring stick.”42

One Planet Communities, Living Building Challenge, Regenesis, REGEN, and LENSES are approaches rooted in regenerative development. Although the approach is often used in master planning, not many district-scale developments incorporate regenerative principles through all stages of implementation.

The Regenesis and other approaches have informed the Regenerative Neighborhoods concept being explored and applied at UBC and elsewhere by John Robinson, Dave Waldron, and others. REGEN, designed by the USGBC in partnership with BNIM Architects, has been used in Kansas City’s FOCUS master plan (BNIM was the architect of the Bancroft School Project in the Kansas City Green Impact Zone). BNIM also worked with the Clinton Foundation’s Climate Positive Development Initiative and col-laborated with David Orr during the planning of the Oberlin Project. LENSES (Living Environments in Natural, Social, and Economic Systems) was devel-oped by the Rocky Mountain Institute and Colorado State University to define the degenerative-regener-ative continuum as applied to the build environment. Its framework has been used by cities, schools, and universities to guide construction and rehab projects.

alignmEnT PoTEnTial anD fuTuRE PRoSPECTSRegenerative theory has been applied to a few projects, but no formal framework or process has been defined by a single organization. We anticipate that the work at UT Austin and UBC will result in more clarity of vision and practice as the approach evolves.

REGENERATIVE NEIGHBORHOODS(emerging framework)

Regenerative neighborhoods (also known as Regenerative Development or Positive Development) is an emerging approach to district-scale development. it is defined by extending development from a net-neutral or net-zero approach to one that creates net-positive outcomes from ecological, social, and economic development efforts. The theory behind the approach is based on the evolutionary processes of living systems.

26

figuRE 2: TRaJECToRy of EnviRonmEnTally RESPonSiblE DESign

We begin by examining synergies among the three E’s within the approaches and then among different approaches in the same city. Synergies among district-scale sustainability projects can be created in two ways—by developers of different approaches working together in the same district and by cities linking dif-ferent approaches ongoing in their cities and applying lessons from one to the other.

SynERgiES WiTHin: THE THREE E’S in DiSTRiCT-SCalE SuSTainabiliTySeveral of the approaches highlighted in this report place emphasis on economic development. Economic development means one thing to city officials, but com-munity economic development—with explicit equity goals—means something different. Thus, we need to be clear about which approaches combine environmental goals with large-scale economic goals and which ones are more community and equity oriented. For example, economic development is a key aspect of the LEED-ND Mueller project in Austin through the Pecan Street Project (see page 8). Although this economic focus was not motivated by LEED requirements, incorporating economic development is clearly compatible with LEED-ND and, for that matter, with any other approach.

Boston has linked an economic development strategy—the creation of an Innovation District—with an environ-mental one by overlaying an eco-district in the same area. The economic development strategy, which came first, is successfully attracting entrepreneurs, particu-larly in science and technology. The waterfront eco- district plans, now under development, will focus on green buildings, resilience, and storm-water man-agement, and district-energy infrastructure is being explored.

Although not profiled here, Portland, Oregon, also has identified four Innovation Quadrants, one of which is roughly coterminous with an eco-district. Here too, there is great potential for linking economic and eco-district development. These three cities’ attempts to incorporate economic development with environmental planning

could be approaches for other cities to follow.

There is considerable potential for better integration of district-scale sustainability approaches with the work of the thousands of neighborhood-based CDCs and other community organizations that focus on social justice and community development. The CDC world attempts to create local development that provides decent jobs for those who are relatively low income and often minority and increasingly is doing so in a more comprehensive way. If this link is important to cities and foundations, they probably shouldn’t try to remake approaches such as LEED-ND or Living Building Challenge into ones that give greater emphasis to job creation or community eco-nomic development. Forcing such goals on these mod-els through funding streams could dilute their missions. Rather, cities and foundations wishing to accomplish the “three E’s” in tandem should support the approaches that are already so defined.

Three of the approaches discussed in this report work closely with community-based organizations on achiev-ing environmental goals. Enterprise Green Communities works with neighborhood-based CDCs and attempts to build social capital and connect environmental, eco-nomic development, and equity/affordability strategies. Two of the three Green Zones started with community economic development and later incorporated environ-mental goals, and eco-districts, particularly those devel-oped with the community-organizing model promoted by the organization EcoDistricts, have great potential for linking environmental and community development goals. City governments and funders should encourage collaboration among approaches to ensure that all three E’s are addressed in district-scale sustainability.

SynERgiES among DiSTRiCTS in onE CiTyMany cities are implementing more than one, or even several, district-scale sustainability projects—and integrating district heating or cooling with them as well. Overall, the cities that are established lead-ers in sustainability and climate change are creating synergies across initiatives. Seattle’s 2030 District

and Capitol Hill Eco-District have set up a deliberate learning process by serving on each other’s boards. Boston’s Department of Energy and Environment and Department of Environmental Services work closely with the Boston Redevelopment Authority and state agencies to align goals. Austin has numerous initia-tives and links its sustainability agenda to economic development goals. But we didn’t find that that was always the case. Staff in one department were not always aware of projects implemented by other depart-ments or by nonprofit organizations, community-led initiatives, or the private sector.

We offer perspectives from two cities—Philadelphia and Cleveland—to illustrate how cities are coordinat-ing sustainability and climate change with various district-scale sustainability projects (see Appendix D). We chose cities that have “brands” under which they are trying to capture all of their sustainability initia-tives. We briefly examine how they are coordinating generally and then discuss how this relates to creating synergies among the different district-scale sustain-ability projects that can, in turn, improve sustainability planning generally.

To achieve greater synergies within and among district-level projects, city leaders need to engage in serious high-level discussions of what is learned and how to use that knowledge to improve implementation of sustain-ability and climate action goals. It also requires data analysis to establish the extent to which district-scale approaches meet or advance city goals. Further, because district-scale sustainability requires city departments to work together in ways they haven’t before, it requires deliberate communication among departments to identify ways in which their goals can be achieved through col-laboration (e.g. departments of community development, environment and sustainability, and transportation). The need for this type of collaboration is often cited but sel-dom realized. Making it a precondition for district-scale sustainability funding might motivate change.

27CREaTing SynERgiES WiTHin anD among DiffEREnT aPPRoaCHES

28CONCLUSION

TablE 2: valuE of DiSTRiCT-lEvEl SuSTainabiliTy foR DiffEREnT STakEHolDERS

Approach Stakeholder Value*

LEED-ND City: Provides showcase areas that can build a case for developing higher standards over time. Demonstrates commitment to sustainable developmentDeveloper/business: Provides a known brand that can be marketed to achieve higher rents or salesCommunity:** Attracts external funding to support green features in housing developments

Enterprise Green Communities City: Demonstrates that green affordable housing can be the standard and that the three E’s can be achieved simultaneously. Demonstrates that neighborhood development can be integrated with sustainability and climate action goalsDeveloper: Learns how to develop green housing more efficientlyCommunity: Develops truly green housing and connects with equity and economy goalsfoundations: Demonstrates, through support projects, that all three E’s of sustainability are achievable

Living Building Challenge City: Demonstrates that the highest green standards are achievableDeveloper/business: Demonstrates a commitment to achieving the highest standardsfoundations: Advances higher standards and creates a new norm that can be used to support broader policy change

One Planet Communities City: Demonstrates that the highest green standards are achievableDeveloper/business: Demonstrates a commitment to achieving the highest standardsCommunity: Social equity can be achieved for those committed to behavior and lifestyle changefoundations: Advances higher standards and creates a new norm that can be used to support broader policy change

Eco-districts City: Integrates well with existing sustainability/climate action plans; creates opportunities for integrating sustainability with district plan-ning in a wide variety of neighborhoods; can incorporate district-level infrastructureDeveloper/business: Uses known building standards (city requirements, LEED, Living Building Challenge) for new constructionCommunity: Plays a key role in establishing district prioritiesfoundations: Creates a test bed for different approaches within a broad framework

2030 Districts City: Engages business community in achieving sustainability/climate action goalsDevelopers/business: Demonstrates ROI of building efficiency; establishes reputation for sustainability

Green Zones City: Integrates neighborhood revitalization with sustainabilityCommunity: Establishes a meaningful role in its own revitalization and ability to influence how sustainability is integratedfoundations: Integrates community development and sustainability missions

Neighborhood Scale Regeneration Yet to be implemented

* Not all stakeholders have a vested interest in all of the models, as indicated. ** Includes community development corporations and other community organizations.

Comparing the relative emphasis each model places on each of the three E’s: Environment Equity Economy

TablE 3: ComPaRaTivE aPPRoaCHES To THE THREE E’S

Zero Carbon

Zero Waste

Sustainable Transport

Sustainable Materials

Local and Sustainable Food

Sustainable Water

Land Use and Wildlife

Culture and Heritage

Equity and Local Economy

Health and Happiness

Energy Efficiency

Water

Auto and Freight

Integrative Design

Location & Neighborhood Fabric

Site Improvements

Water Conservation

Energy Efficiency

Materials Beneficial to the Environment

Healthy Living Environment

Operations and Maintenance

Site

Water

Energy

Health

Materials

Equity

Beauty

ECo-DiSTRiCTS

Access and Mobility

Energy

Equitable Development

Health and Well-being

Community Identity

Water

Habitat & Ecosystem Function

Materials Management

Smart Location and Linkage

Neighborhood Pattern & Design

Green Infrastructure & Buildings

Innovation & Design Process

Regional Priority Credit

29

Community Development

Healthy Living Environment

Equitable Development

Local and Sustainable Food

Green Infrastructure in Buildings

Local Job Creation and Workforce Development

gREEn ZonES

Shifting the focus of sustainability from the build-ing or city to the district scale has the potential to help cities achieve more aggressive climate-action goals. In this concluding section we discuss the value of each approach from the perspectives of multiple stakeholders and, in so doing, suggest how cities and foundations can best support them. As for challenges, we discuss the interplay between public policy and district-scale planning in advancing the sustainability agenda.

SuPPoRTing mulTiPlE DEfiniTionS of SuCCESSSuccess must be examined from the perspectives of different stakeholders—a city, a developer or building owner, a community organization, a foundation or busi-ness—as each has different motivations for supporting district-scale projects and varying expectations of what they should achieve.

Cities might define success in at least three ways: by supporting the goals of a climate-action or sustainabil-ity plan, by engaging the private sector in supporting climate/sustainability goals, and by linking climate/sustainability goals to ongoing neighborhood and com-munity development planning.

If a city does not have aggressive goals in place, LEED-ND could be a good starting point for showcas-ing green development and building support for higher standards over time. Enterprise Green Communities and eco-districts can be used in different types of neighborhoods and can support neighborhood and community development planning. For cities with neighborhoods in need of serious revitalization, Green Zones can make that link. And as the Neighborhood Scale Regeneration model develops, it could serve the same purpose. Cities can support the private sector through 2030 Districts.

Developers and property owners generally decide to go green when it makes sense from a

return-on-investment or reputational perspective. LEED has been important in that movement because it demonstrates the ROI of building green (e.g. higher rents, greater productivity, reduced employee absences, etc.).43 The value of the 2030 District approach allows businesses to learn collectively how to achieve “green” cost savings. Even in an area that seemingly has little to do with a business bottom line—reducing their transportation footprint—busi-nesses are finding that there are cost savings and even profit in going green. Reduced use of employee parking spaces, for example, means that more park-ing spaces can be rented out, which could mean less need to build additional parking garages for a city in the future (with potential municipal tax savings) and a side benefit—reduced traffic congestion. Bringing a district-level scale to these efforts allows property owners to address site-specific problems, such as storm-water management, and creates a local learn-ing feedback loop.

CDCs and other community organizations can engage more stakeholders in the long-term health of their neighborhoods by linking their social equity and economic goals to sustainability goals—allowing them to incorporate other aspects of a healthy community (e.g. more green space, healthier home interiors, public transit access, and walkability, because more local services are available through mixed develop-ment, which in turn can increase access to jobs).

THE aDDED valuE of DiSTRiCT-SCalE PRoJECTSWe suggest two broader standards against which the value of each of the approaches should be judged: moving cities in the direction of increasingly higher standards of sustainable development and climate action, and promoting broader policy change that supports or motivates cities and the private sector in establishing more ambitious sustainability goals.

The fact that the Living Building Challenge, One Planet Communities, 2030 Districts, and Neighborhood Scale Regeneration were developed in part to move beyond the standards established by LEED suggests that LEED is no longer leading. The two LEED-ND projects discussed in this report (Paseo Verde and Helensview Heights) were already incorporating standards that would have earned LEED-ND status and went for certification only when external funding was provided. In one interview, a city planner in Seattle noted that in creating the South Lake Union LEED-ND district, no city policy had to be changed. This suggests that in cities with high standards, approaches that build upon existing city standards, such as eco-districts, or that exceed city standards, such as 2030 Districts, add more value.

Our analysis raises the question of whether certifi-cation approaches offer the best strategy from the perspective of a city. Like the original LEED, critics of LEED-ND focus on having one organization become, in essence, a regulatory standard. The U.S. Green Building Council, as noted, is a private nonprofit orga-nization that defines standards for certification and charges developers or municipalities seeking certifica-tion. But even a nonprofit needs revenue, and that is what certification provides.

Enterprise Green Communities is different both in its emphasis on affordable housing communities and in not charging for certification. Its value is that it works with existing community, environmental, and environmental-justice organizations, adding the green dimension to community development and social equity goals. Foundations that are already supporting CDCs in the affordable housing sphere could increase their impact by funding them to add a stronger environmen-tal component to their work.

One Planet Communities moves the needle with its aggressive goals but so far is limited to new

30ConCluSion: PRomiSE anD CHallEngES of DiSTRiCT-SCalE SuSTainabiliTy

developments, usually in suburban locations. What could be of value for foundations is further develop-ment of its qualitative and quantitative performance metrics, which could be adopted by organizations implementing other approaches.

While each of the certification approaches adds some value, subsidizing and promoting certification pro-grams keeps the emphasis on voluntary standards rather than stricter state and city energy codes or disclosure ordinances. Certification offers foundation-dependent nonprofits an ongoing source of financial support. At this point, we face the possibility of pro-liferating district-scale approaches moving toward offering certification. At least three of the models are engaged in certification discussions. In each case, we need to assess the value-added: to ask what explicit role a costly, external certification process would play in helping cities advance sustainability and in helping CDCs and community organizations integrate sustain-ability elements into their agendas.

THE PubliC PoliCy CHallEngE One key question concerns the relationship of public regulation to private, largely voluntary initiatives. For example, the idea of zero net energy (ZNE),44 which seemed nearly impossible a few years ago, has almost become mainstream. This movement is partly being driven by standards in California, whose market is so big that it drives the rest of the country. California’s 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards update, which goes into effect in July 2014, will require all new resi-dential construction to be ZNE by 2020 and commercial buildings by 2030. Similar standards will be applied to existing buildings undergoing significant remodeling or repurposing. In addition, Governor Jerry Brown signed an executive order requiring that half of all state-owned buildings achieve ZNE by 2025. This order clearly advances an environmental goal, but as noted by Bill Roth, economist and founder of Earth 2017, it includes an economic one as well: “California’s economic devel-opment strategy uses the State’s massive buying power as the ninth-largest economy in the world to create a

market demand for technology innovations ... The ben-efits to California will be lower electric bills for consum-ers and sales growth for the California companies that were on the cutting edge of [the] mass market adoption of ZNE-enabling technologies.”45

Other states, such as Massachusetts, aren’t far behind.46 The consensus view of state officials at a recent national conference of the National Association of State Energy Officials was that states need to and can move toward ZNE quickly. Cities are also starting to discuss creating ZNE standards.47

The point is not that approaches which promote ZNE are not needed—these movements are still very help-ful for places in cities and states with weak building-energy codes. But how much should foundations invest in such strategies when the horse is out of the gate and galloping full speed toward ZNE with state and local regulation? Which district-scale strategies help push states and localities to embrace stronger mandatory standards for energy, water, building materials, and so on?48 And, of course, which also promote the other two E’s of sustainable development?

Game-changers such as ZNE regulation do not spring full-grown from governors or legislatures. They are the product of a great deal of prior work, ranging from technical research, community organizing, green development projects, and prior public initiatives and standards. A question we addressed but one worth fur-ther investigation is the degree to which district-scale strategies enrich policy conversations, demonstrate technical possibilities, and feed into the regulatory process.

There is a progression here. What starts out as vision-ary then becomes almost ordinary and finally becomes mandatory. The private sector often begins skeptically, then expresses pride in defining, advancing, and meet-ing environmental and equity goals, and that sequence reduces the usual business resistance to compulsory state or local regulations. It even makes at least part of the business community into an ally. The 2030 process

and LEED are both good examples. LEED may seem rather tame and conventional only after the fact. The challenge now is for district-scale sustainability initia-tives to once again leapfrog government standards and push them to higher levels, but not necessarily to further proliferate private certification schemes.

* See InvestinginWhatWorksforAmerica’sCommunities:EssaysonPeople,Place&Purpose (Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and Low Income Investment Fund, 2012).

31CONCLUSION

EnDnoTES 32

1 Dolan, Soule, Greaney and Morris, 2010.2 Oregon Metro Government, 2011.3 Corfee-Morlot, et.al, 2009; Kern and Alber, 2008; Baker and Eckerberg, 2007.4 Ayers, 2009; Wheeler, 2008; Bailey, 2007; Kern, Koll and Schophaus, 2007; Betsill, 2001.5 For example, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg’s attempt to move to hybrid taxis was struck down by the courts as usurping federal role of creating fuel efficiency stan-dards. See Bulkeley, 2010; Bulkeley and Betsill, 2003.6 See https://www.masshousing.com/.../RD_Sustain_Dev_Principles.doc (accessed January 26, 2014)(accessed January 15, 2014). 7 Since this agency serves as the gateway to state funding, tax credits, and state-managed federal funding, all community and housing development projects must meet broad sustainability guidelines. Similar requirements are in place in Washington and other progressive states. Since 2008 the Washington Evergreen Sustainability Development Standard requires that all affordable housing projects receiving capital funds from the Housing Trust Fund comply with a strict set of environmentally respon-sible building and smart growth standards. See http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/HTF-Published-ESDS2-0KS.pdf (accessed January 15, 2014).8 See http://globalgreen.org/pdfs/2013QAP_FINAL.pdf for the 2013 report (accessed January 15, 2014).9 http://www.nrdc.org/cities/smartgrowth/leed.asp10 Wigglesworth, 2012.11 Goncher, 2013. 12 See http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2009-11-20/91921 (accessed January 26, 2014)13 See http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/03/21/a-renewable-experiment-takes-root-in-austin/ (accessed January 26, 2014)14 See http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Archive/General/Docs6146.pdf (accessed January 26, 2014)15 See http://catellus.com/sustainability. Southeast False Creek, the Olympic Village development in Vancouver, also was developed as part of the LEED-ND Pilot program as a way to showcase Vancouver and Canada’s commitment to sustainability.16 Interview with John Mitterholzer, 2013.17 “If you have the right location, which we did, there’s not much effort to gain certification,” says Terry Miller, senior consultant for Green Building Resources in Portland, which served as the LEED AP for the neighborhood development effort. “We made no significant changes to comply and the synergy with building to LEED for Homes stan-dards also helped. See ”http://www.ecobuildingpulse.com/low-income-housing/reaching-new-heights_3.aspx18 Weber 2011; Garde, 2009.19 Soloman, 2005. See also: http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1116&context=focus (accessed January 26, 2014).20 See https://s3.amazonaws.com/KSPProd/cache/documents/674/67454.pdf 21 Interview with Alex Dews, 2013.22 See http://living-future.org/living-building-challenge/certification/details; http://living-future.org/living-building-challenge-faq (accessed April 19, 2014).23 See https://ilbi.org/lbc/LBC%20Documents/LBC2-0.pdf (accessed April 19, 2014).24 See http://living-future.org/sites/default/files/LBC/LBC_Documents/LBC%202_1%2012-0501.pdf (accessed April 19, 2014).25 See http://issuu.com/ilfi-creative/docs/bend_living_redevelopment_summit_20; http://univercity.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/20131202_UniverCityBio_OnlineFinal_sprdz_reduced.pdf; http://living-future.org/sites/default/files/reports/UNIVERCITY%2C%20LIVING%20BUILDING%2C%20LIVING%20COMMUNITY_WEB.pdf (accessed April 19, 2014).26 The list of Antimicrobial Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) chemicals is available at http://www.epa.gov/oppad001/reds_list_ad.htm (accessed February 3, 2014). 27 Personal interview with Richard Graves, December 3, 2013. 28 Carbon neutrality was not achieved. 29 http://architecture2030.org. 30 http://www.2030districts.org/seattle/sites/seattle/files/2030.Report.Design.12.4.13.pdf.31 Commute Seattle is a 501c(4) not-for-profit, public-private partnership of the Downtown Seattle Association, King County Metro, and the City of Seattle. See commutese-attle.com (accessed November 27, 2013).32 Washington’s 1991 Commute Trip Reduction requires large companies to have commute trip reduction programs and charges local governments with assisting

companies in developing and monitoring programs. Seattle followed with a Commute Trip Reduction Plan in 1992. 33 Note that some states do not permit cities to establish energy codes more ambitious than existing state codes. 34 See ecodistricts.org/tools/framework35 Fitzgerald, 2010; Fitzgerald and Lenhart, 2013. 36 The San Francisco Department of Planning identifies two additional types: the “strengthened neighborhood” focuses on promoting eco-friendly behavior in existing resi-dential neighborhoods and their commercial corridors, while the “industrial network” seeks to make connections among the city’s production, distribution, and repair uses. 37 http://capitolhillhousing.org/downloads/Capitol-Hill_EcoDistrict_Flyer.pdf 38 Boston’s Codman Square EcoInnovation District received funding for an eco-district fellow. Sustainable Atlanta received some grant funding to support neighborhoods that want to create ecodistricts. The Bullitt Foundation provided seed funding for the Capitol Hill Eco-district in 2011 to support the planning process and continues to fund it. The grant allowed CHH to analyze the area to determine assets and establish goals in collaboration with community residents and GGLO, an architecture and landscape archi-tecture firm.39 The Changemakers International Sustainable Housing Competition is a joint effort of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of State, the American Planning Association, and Brazilian Ministry of Cities in support of President Obama’s Energy and Climate Partnership for the Americas. It is funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. http://www.changemakers.com/sustainableurbanhousing40 LISC (Local Initiatives Support Corporation) is a U.S. nonprofit agency that collaborates with community development groups to fund and support local development initia-tives. See http://www.lisc.org/section/ourwork/sc41 The Collective Impact model was conceived by John Kania and Mark Kramer in a 2011 article for the Stanford Social Innovation Review. The provides a framework for coor-dinating efforts around common goals to achieve larger scale, long-term solutions. See http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/collective_impact 42 See http://www.dwell.com/event-spotlight/article/thinking-beyond-leed-sxsw-eco (accessed January 26, 2014)43 See Enterprise at Home for Progress at Large: The Economics of Sustainability (Chambers of Commerce as the New Civic Players in Environmental Sustainability), Partners for Livable Communities, 2009., www.livable.org/documents/reports/sustainability/enterprize_at_home_sm.pdf (accessed January 26, 2014)44 Zero-net energy requires that a building produce renewable energy in amounts at least equal to that which they consume or purchase from traditional utilities.45 Roth, 2013. 46 Although not at ZNE, Massachusetts has been recognized as the number one state in the country for promoting energy efficiency by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Municipalities can receive state financial support for adopting a stretch code that is a more energy efficient alternative to the standard code. 47 The city manager of Cambridge, Massachusetts has formed a “Getting to Net Zero” task force following a petition instigated by community activist and attorney Mike Connolly to amend the city’s zoning ordinance to meet ZNE goals. 48 While we use building efficiency standards as our example, a similar case can be made with waste management. Similar state and local diversion requirements and advances in waste management and treatment technologies are quickly changing the landscape. California again leads, with aggressive goals that require cities to divert an increasing amount of waste from landfills. Cities there and in other states have instituted organic waste recycling initiatives. Five cities are testing how organic waste can be brought more directly to anaerobic digestion facilities at waste treatment plants through garbage disposals. Waste treatment plants that don’t require residents to separate recyclables and other waste have already been built. Again, technology and policy is moving quickly toward comprehensive solutions. Here too, district-scale approaches need to be promoting regulation and legislation that advances state-of-the art practices.

33END NOTES

a. PaRTial liST of inTERviEWEES

b. bibliogRaPHy

C. gREEn ZonE CaSE STuDiES

D. DiSTRiCT-SCalE SynERgiES in TWo CiTiES

aPPEnDiCES

Michael Armstrong, Deputy Director, City of Portland

Lucia Athens, Chief Sustainability Officer, City of Austin

Lynn Barker, Partnerships & Development Director, EcoDistricts

Elle Beard, Project Manager, Refocus Partners

Adam Beck, Program Director, EcoDistricts.org

Bryan Bell, Founder, SEED: Social Economic Environmental Design

Rob Bennett, CEO, PoSI/EcoDistricts.org

Kathy Bigner, Coordinator, Fort Collins Zero Energy District

Jonathan Brandt, Sustainability Chair, Mt. Scott-Arleta Neighborhood Association

Cal Broomhead, Energy Program Manager, City of San Francisco

L. Preston Bryant Jr., National Capital Planning Commission Chair, SW Ecodistrict Initiative

Katie Carone, Resident, Foster Green Ecodistrict

Alex Dews, Programs & Policy Manager, Philadelphia Mayor’s Office

Fred Evins, Redevelopment Project Manager, Economic Development Department, City of Austin

Brian Geller, Executive Director, Seattle2030

Benjamin Gill, OPC Technical Manager, One Planet Communities

Twana Hall-Scott, Assistant Director, Kansas City Green Impact Zone

Denis Hayes, President, Bullitt Foundation

Julia Koster, Director of Public Engagement, SW Ecodistrict Initiative

Brad Liljequist, Technology Director, Living Building Challenge

Anita Maltiba, Director, Kansas City Green Impact Zone

Ed Mazria, Architecture 2030

Jenita McGowan, Chief of Sustainability, City of Cleveland

Meg McHutchison, Foster Powell Neighborhood Association

John Mitterholzer, Senior Program Officer for the Environment, Gund Foundation

Donald (Donnie) Oliveira, Outreach Program Manager, SGEnvironment

Thomas Osdoba, Vice President, Enterprise Green Initiatives

Calla Rose Ostrander, Climate Change Projects Manager, City of San Francisco

Jon Reidy, Executive Director, Cleveland2030

Elizabeth Richards, Program Director, Enterprise Community Partners

Paul Schmiechen, Sustainability Manager, City of Denver

Neelima Shah, Program Officer, Bullitt Foundation

Travis Sheehan, Ecodistricts Energy Fellow, Boston Redevelopment Authority

Kairos Shen, Chief Planner, Boston Redevelopment Authority

Joel Sisolak, EcoDistrict Project Director, Capitol Hill Housing

Amanda Sturgeon, Vice President, Living Building Challenge

Diane Sullivan, Sustainability Planner, SW Ecodistrict Initiative

Brian Swett, Chief of Environment and Energy, City of Boston

Brad Swing, Director of Energy Policy and Programs, City of Boston

Paula S. Thomas, Manager, Office of Sustainability, Sustainable Raleigh

Dave Waldron, Project Manager, Regenerative Neighbourhoods

aPPEnDix a: PaRTial liST of inTERviEWEESa.1

auTHoRED WoRkAyers, Jessica 2009. International Funding to Support Urban Adapation to Climate Change. Environment and Urbanization 21(1), 225-240.

Bailey, John. 2007. Lessons from the Pioneers: Tackling Global Warming at the Local Level. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Local Self-Reliance.

Baker, S. and Eckerberg, K. 2007. Governance for Sustainable Development in Sweden: The Experience of the Local Investment Programme. Local Environment 12(4), 325-342.

Barer, David. 2012. Green Experience Takes Root in Austin. NPR State Impact series, March 21. Available at http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/03/21/a-renewable-experiment-takes-root-in-austin/ (accessed February 18, 2014).

Bender, Jonathan. 2013. “Just How Much Impact Has the Green Impact Zone Had?” The Pitch, January 19. Available at http://www.pitch.com/kansascity/green-impact-zone/Content?oid=3133419 (accessed February 21, 2014).

Bendix, Anderson. 2006. Boston Redevelopment Beats the Odds. Housing Finance, November 1. Available at http://www.housingfinance.com/infill/boston-redevel-opment-beats-the-odds.aspx (accessed December 13, 2013).

Benfield, Kaid. 2012. Can the Good Work of Kansas City’s Green Impact Zone Be Sustained? NRDC Switchboard blog, December 27. Available at http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kbenfield/can_the_good_work_of_kansas_ci.html (accessed February 21, 2014).

Betstill, Michele. 2001. Mitigating Climate Change in U.U. Cities: Opportunities and Obstacles. Local Environment, 6 (4), 393-406.

Binsacca, Rich. 2009. Reaching New Heights.

EcoBuilding Pulse (1 and 3). Available at http://www.ecobuildingpulse.com/low-income-housing/reaching-new-heights.aspx (accessed December 12, 2013).

Birkeland, Janis. 2008. Positive Development: From Vicious Circles to Virtuous Cycles through Built Environment Design. Sterling, VA: Earthscan.

Black, Elissa. 2008. Green Neighborhood Standards from a Planning Perspective: The LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND). Focus: Journal of the City and Regional Planning Department 5 (1), 41-47. Available at http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1116&context=focus (accessed November 12, 2013).

BNIM Architects et. al. n.d. “The Oberlin Project - The Green Arts District Campus Plan.” Available at http://bnim.com/work/oberlin-green-arts-district-campus-plan (accessed October 16,2013).

Bradley, Jennifer and Bruce Katz. 2013. A Call for Innovation in Philadelphia. Philadelphia Inquirer, October 8. Available at http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/10/07-innovation-philadel-phia-katz-bradley (accessed December 18, 2013).

Broyles, Addie. 2012. Thinking Beyond LEED at SXSW Eco. Dwell, October 4. Available at http://www.dwell.com/event-spotlight/article/thinking-beyond-leed-sxsw-eco (Accessed December 5, 2013).

Buffalorising. 2013. “West Side Renaissance & PUSH Buffalo.” BuffaloRising. http://buffalorising.com/2013/01/west-side-renaissance_-_push-buffalo/.

Bulkeley, Harriet. 2010. “Cities and the Governing of Climate Change.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 35, 229-253.

Button, Roxanne. 2010. Buffalo’s Green Development Zone: A Walking Tour with PUSH Buffalo. Examiner.com, September 23. Available at

http://www.examiner.com/article/buffalo-s-green-development-zone-a-walking-tour-with-push-buffalo (accessed March 9, 2014).

Carlson, Scott. 2011. Oberlin, Ohio: Laboratory for a New Way of Life. Chronicle of Higher Education, November 6. Available at http://chronicle.com/article/A-College-Town-Imagines-a-New/129650/ (accessed January 6, 2014).

Chilcote, Lee. 2012. The Intergenerational School Will Move to Renovated Space on Saint Luke’s Campus. Cleveland - Freshwater Media, October 4. Available at http://www.freshwatercleveland.com/devnews/saint-lukescampus100412.aspx (accessed December 12, 2014).

City of Oberlin Planning Commission. Meeting minutes, February 16, 2011. Available at http://www.cityofober-lin.com/files/planning/pc021611m.pdf accessed March 12, 2014).

Cohn, Jonathan. 2005. Losing Hope. New Republic, May 23. Available at http://www.newrepublic.com/article/losing-hope (accessed December 15, 2013).

Corfee-Morlot. J. et al. 2009. Cities, Climate Change, and Multilevel Governance. OECD Environment Working Papers. No. 14. Paris: OECD.

Dobbins, Elizabeth. 2012. Oberlin Project Plans Green Downtown. Oberlin Review, September 27. Available at http://www.oberlinreview.org/article/oberlin-project-plans-green-downtown/ (accessed November 12, 2013).

Dolan, D. A., Borg, G., Soule, Greaney, J., and Morris, J. 2010. Warming Up to Climate Actions.” Carbon and Climate Law Review. 2, 161-172.

Dutta, Suparna. 2013. From Sustainability to Regeneration. Eco-coach.com, March 7. Available at http://www.eco-coach.com/blog/2013/03/07/

aPPEnDix b: bibliogRaPHyb.1

from-sustainability-to-regeneration-2/ (accessed January 7, 2014).

EcoDistricts staff. 2013. The EcoDistricts Framework: Building Blocks of Sustainable Cities, May. Avalaiable at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/6F915B3C-4206-437A-8798-C595D5729901/0/EcoDistrictsFrameworkMay2013.pdf (accessed March 12, 2014).

Fitzgerald, Joan. 2010. Emerald Cities: Sustainability and Economic Development. New York: Oxford University Press.

Fitzgerald, Joan and Jennifer Lenhart. 2014. Eco-districts: Can They accelerate Urban Climate Planning? Manuscript submitted for journal publication.

Fox, Jesse. 2009. Clinton Foundation and USGBC Unveil ‘Climate Positive’ Cities Initiative. Treehugger, May 31. Available at http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/clinton-foundation-usgbc-unveil-climate-positive-cities-initiative.html (accessed December 5, 2013).

Garrison, Jessica. 2013. L.A. Gives Final OK to ‘Urban Village’ as Jordan Downs Replacement. Los Angeles Times, August 14. Available at http://articles.latimes.com/2013/aug/14/local/la-me-jordan-downs-20130815 (accessed November 13, 2013).

Goldstein, Steve. 2013. Ecodistricts Shaping Sustainable Cities. ASCE: Civil Engineering Magazine, July 16. Available at http://www.asce.org/cemaga-zine/Article.aspx?id=23622326786#.UuAemhAo6M8 (accessed November 13, 2014).

Gonchar, Joann. 2013. Paseo Verde. GreenSource, October. Available at http://greensource.construction.com/green_building_projects/2013/1311-paseo-verde.asp (accessed December 5, 2013).

Gottlieb, Gabriel C. 2013. Carpenter Square Is

a Wonderful Redevelopment of a Blighted Area. Philadelphiaheights, March 14. Available at http://philadelphiaheights.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/carpenter-square-is-a-wonderful-redevelopment-of-a-blighted-area/ (accessed February 24, 2014).

“Grazian1.” 2011. Green Development Zone Wins International Sustainability Competition. (April) BuffaloRising.com. Available at http://buffalorising.com/2011/04/green-development-zone-wins-interna-tional-sustainability-competition/ (accessed January 14, 2014).

Green Impact Zone of Missouri. 2013. Kansas City Green Impact Zone Progress Report, September 30. Kansas City, MO: Mid-America Regional Council. Available at http://www.greenimpactzone.org/assets/09-30-13_performancereport.pdf (accessed October 3, 2013).

Gregor, Katherine. 2009. Developing Stories: Greening the Neighborhood. Austin Chronicle, November 20. Available at http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2009-11-20/919211/ (accessed November 6, 2014).

Grimm, Carly. 2009. Enterprise at Home for Progress at Large: The Economics of Sustainability. Washington, DC: Partners for Livable Communities. Available at http://www.livable.org/storage/documents/reports/Sustainability/enterprise_at_home_sm.pdf (accessed October 29, 2013).

Hendricks, Mike. 2014. New Bancroft School Apartments Are Seen as a Spark for Urban Core Redevelopment. Kansas City Star, January 5. Available at http://www.kansascity.com/2014/01/05/4731758/new-bancroft-school-apartments.html (accessed January 24, 2014).

Hydes, Kevin and Geof Sypher. 2011. From Green to Sustainable: Keeping It Honest. One Planet Communities website, May 23. Available at http://www.oneplanetcommunities.org/news/

from-green-to-sustainable-keeping-it-honest/ (accessed January 12, 2014).

Kern, Kristine and G. Alber. 2009. Governing Climate Change in Cities: Modes of Urban Climate Governance in Multilevel Systems. Proceedings of the International Conference on Competitive Cities and Climate Change, Milan, Italy. Paris: OECD, 171-96.

Kern, Kristine, C. Koll, and M. Schophaus. 2007. The Diffusion of Local Agenda 21 in Germany: Comparing the German Federal States. Environmental Politics. 16(4), 604-24.

King, Anthony. 2013. A North Park EcoDistrict. San Diego Uptown News, March 1. Available at http://sdup-townnews.com/a-north-park-ecodistrict/ (accessed December 5, 2013).

Kudler, Adrian Glick. 2013. LA Is Going to Turn Watts’s Jordan Downs Into an ‘Urban Village.’ Curbed Los Angeles, August 14). Available at http://la.curbed.com/archives/2013/08/la_is_going_to_turn_wattss_jordan_downs_into_an_urban_village.php (accessed October 29, 2013).

Litt, Steven. 2012. St. Luke’s Renovation Merges Glories of Past with Vision for Future. Cleveland.com, July 8. Available at http://blog.cleveland.com/architec-ture/2012/07/st_lukes_renovation_merges_glo.html (accessed October 29, 2013).

Madsen, Deane. 2012. “2012 COTE Top Ten Green Project Firm: BNIM.” Architect, August 20. Available at http://www.architectmagazine.com/award-winners/2012-cote-top-ten-green-project-firm-bnim.aspx (accessed January 20, 2014).

Mang, Pamela. 2001. Regenerative Design: Sustainable Design’s Coming Revolution. DesignIntelligence, July 1. Available at http://www.di.net/articles/regenera-tive-design-sustainable-designs-coming-revolution/ (accessed October 29, 2013).

aPPEnDix b: bibliogRaPHyb.2

McFee, Michelle Jarboe. 2011. Old St. Luke’s Hospital in Cleveland Set for Rebirth; Developers to Start Construction on 72 Apartments.Cleveland.com, February 7. Available at http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2011/02/former_st_lukes_hospi-tal_in_cl.html (accessed October 29, 2013).

Meyer, Jeremy P. 2013. City Plan Looks to Revitalize Denver’s Poorest Neighborhood. Denver Post, April 20. Available at http://www.denverpost.com/ci_23066719/city-plan-looks-revitalize-denvers-poorest-neighbor-hood (accessed November 3, 2013).

Muro, Mark and Sarah Rahman. 2009. Kansas City’s Green Impact Zone: Targeting ARRA for Neighborhood Uplift. Brookings Instituttion, Implementing ARRA: Design Snapshot series, July. Available at http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2009/07/23-arra-kan-sas-city (accessed January 23, 2014).

National Capital Planning Commission. 2012.The SW Ecodistrict: Creating a More Sustainable Future Public Review Draft, July. Available at http://www.ncpc.gov/plans/swecodistrict/swecodistrict-draft-plan.pdf (accessed October 29, 2013).

Nogaki, Sylvia. 2011. Green Dream Homes Are Ready. Seattle Times, September 30. Available at http://seattletimes.com/html/realestate/2016360801_real-zhomes02.html (accessed October 29, 2014)

Reed, William. 2013. Considerations: Sustaining Sustainability. Integrative Design Collaborative, October 25. Available at http://www.integrativede-sign.net/regenerative_sustaining.htm#sus (accessed December 5, 2013).

———. 2007. Shifting from ‘Sustainability’ to Regeneration. Building Research & Information 35 (6), 674–80.

Roth, Bill. 2013. California Adapts Zero Net Energy Building Design Trhough Title 24. Earth2017.com,

November 16. Available at www.earth2017.com/cali-fornia-launches-toward-zero-net-energy-buildings-title-24/ (accessed November 5, 2013).

Scott, Michael. 2009. Oberlin Professor David Orr Plans $300 Million ‘Green Arts District.’ Cleveland.com, October 24. Available at http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/10/oberlin_professor_300_million.html (accessed October 16, 2013).

Simpson, Kelly. 2012. Three Waves of Little Tokyo Redevelopment. KCET Communities, August 1. Available at http://www.kcet.org/socal/departures/little-tokyo/three-waves-of-little-tokyo-redevelopment.html (accessed October 15, 2013).

Stafford, Diane. 2013. Racial Inequality Threatens Kansas City Economy. Kansas City Star, October 28. Available at http://www.kansascity.com/2013/10/28/4582799/racial-inequality-threatens-kansas.html (accessed November 5, 2013).

Stout, Kurt. 2013. Southwest Ecodistrict Update. Capitol Markets, January 25. Available at http://www.capitol-markets.com/uncategorized/sw-ecodistrict-update/ (accessed December 13).

Terreri, Jill. 2012. PUSH’s Most Ambitious Project Yet Is Transforming the West Side. Buffalo News. Available at http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121223/CITYANDREGION/121229662/1010 (accessed December 15, 2013)

U.S. Green Building Council. 2012. A Local Government Guide to LEED for Neighborhood Development. U.S. Green Building Council, April. Available at http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Archive/General/Docs6131.pdf (accessed October 5, 2013).

Van de Westerlo, Bas. 2011. Sustainable Development and the Cradle to Cradle® Approach. C2C ExpoLAB Foundation. Available at http://www.c2c-centre.com/

library-item/sustainable-development-and-cradle-cradle%C2%AE-approach (accessed November 6, 2013).

Waldron, Dave, Alberto Cayuela, and Devon Miller. 2013. Regenerative Neighbourhoods: Scaling Up from Net Positive Buildings. Paper presented at CaGBC National Conference and Expo, Vancouver, B.C., June 4-6, 2013. Available at http://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB_DC26167.pdf (accessed July 23, 2014).

“WCPerspective.” 2012. PUSHing Forward. BuffaloRising.com, September 12. Available at http://buffalorising.com/2012/09/pushing-forward/ (accessed January 16, 2013).

Wigglesworth, Alex. 2012. North Philly’s Paseo Verde Aims to Bridge Temple, Community. Metro, April 2012. Available at http://www.metro.us/philadelphia/news/local/2012/04/10/north-phillys-paseo-verde-aims-to-bridge-temple-community/ (accessed October 15, 2013).

Williams, Jamila T. 2010. VIDEO: ‘Green Arts District’ to Draw Students, Residents, Neighboring Businesses in Oberlin.”Morning Journal, April 18. Available at http://www.morningjournal.com/general-news/20100418/video-green-arts-district-to-draw-students-residents-neighboring-businesses-in-oberlin (accessed October 16, 2013).

Zari, Mailbritt Pedersen. 2007. Identifying the Value of Regenerative Development. Ministry for the Environment, New Zealand, October. Available at http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/sus-dev/towards-a-sustainable-future/ (accessed February 21, 2014).

Zhang, Wei. 2013. Is Regenerative Urban Planning the Solution to Sustainable Cities? Urban Gateway, August 16. Available at http://www.urbangateway.org/content/discussions/regenerative-urban-planning-solution-sustainable-cities (accessed February 21, 2014).

aPPEnDix b: bibliogRaPHyb.3

Zingaro, Alison. 2013. Make It Right Turns an Abandoned School Into Affordable LEED Platinum Housing. Architectural Record and GreenSource, December 20. Available at http://archrecord.construction.com/news/2013/12/131220-Make-It-Right-Turns-an-Aban-doned-School-Into-Affordable-LEED-Platinum-Housing.asp (accessed December 3, 2013).

WEbSiTES ConSulTED2030 Districts. Available at www.2030districts.org (accessed February 13).

BlueGreen Alliance, Kansas City’s Green Impact Zone – A Vision for 21st Century Urban Renewal. Available at http://www.bluegreenalliance.org/apollo/signature-stories/kansas-citys-green-impact-zone-a-vision-for-21st-century-urban-renewal (accessed November 1, 2013).

City of Denver, Decatur-Federal Station Area Planning. Available http://www.denvergov.org//tod/TransitOrientedDevelopment/TransitCorridors/WestCorridor/DecaturStation/tabid/395243/Default.aspx (accessed November 1, 2013).

City of Edmonton, Department of Urban Planning and Design. Available at http://www.edmonton.ca/city_gov-ernment/urban_planning_and_design/mckernan-belgravia-station-area-plan.aspx (accessed November 1, 2013).

Compass Blueprint, Jordan Downs Project. Available at http://www.compassblueprint.org/pages/projectde-tails.aspx?project=lajordandowns (accessed October 13, 2013).

Flats East Bank. Available at http://www.flatseast.com/phases-of-the-flats (accessed October 16, 2013).

GreenCityBlueLake, LEED for Neighborhood Development: Pilot Projects in Northeast Ohio. Available at http://dev.gcbl.org/planning/leed-ndincle.pdf (accessed November 5, 2013).

Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, Jordan Downs Redevelopment Update. Available at http://www.jordandowns.org/Redevelopment/default.aspx (accessed October 29, 2012).

John T. Lyle Center for Regenerative Studies, Cal Poly Pomona. Available at http://www.csupomona.edu/~crs/regeneration.html (accessed October 15, 2013).

LAND Studio, St. Luke’s Pointe. Available at http://www.land-studio.org/our-work/saint-lukes-pointe (accessed October 16, 2013).

LEED-ND. Available at http://www.usgbc.org/neighbor-hoods (accessed November 11, 2012).

LENSES, Institute for the Built Environment, Colorado State University.” Available at http://www.ibe.colostate.edu/lenses.aspx (accessed November 1, 2013).

LiveCleveland, Buckeye-Shaker/Woodland Hills. Available at http://livecleveland.org/buckeyeShaker (accessed October 26, 2010).

Living Building Challenge. Available at http://living-future.org/lbc (accessed April 19, 2014).

Los Angeles Wave, City Council Approves ‘Urban Village’ Plan for Jordan Downs. Available at http://wavenewspapers.com/news/local/west_edition/article_6c143072-0b5b-11e3-b9b0-0019bb30f31a.html (accessed August 13, 2013).

Mid-America Regional Council (MARC), “Kansas City Regional TIGER Award: Green Impact Zone.” Available at http://www.marc.org/TIGER/greenimpactzone.asp (accessed November 1, 2013).

Montreal Urban Ecology Centre. Available at http://www.urbanecology.net/node/1288/about (accessed November 4, 2013).

Nashville Gulch. Available at http://www.nashvilleg-ulch.com/index.php/about (accessed October 16, 2013).

Neighborhood Progress Inc. Available at Neighborhood http://www.npi-cle.org/about/mission-vision/ (accessed October 5, 2013).

The Oberlin Project. Available at http://www.oberlin-project.org/about (accessed October 16, 2013).

OFC Realty. Wasteland Across From Carpenter Square to Be Redeveloped? Available at http://www.ocfrealty.com/naked-philly/graduate-hospital/wasteland-across-from-carpenter-square-to-be-redeveloped (accessed January 10, 2013).

One Planet Communities. Available at http://www.one-planetcommunities.org/about-2/process/ (accessed October 16, 2013).

oneC1TYnashville. 28th / 31st Avenue Connector. Available at http://www.onec1tynashville.com/about-one-city/28th-31st-avenue-connector (accessed October 16, 2013).

The Regeneration Roadmap. Available at http://theregenerationroadmap.com/ (accessed November 3, 2013).

Resilient Communities for America. Available at http://www.resilientamerica.org/ (accessed November 4, 2013).

U.S. Green Building Council LEED Directory, The Shipyard/Candlestick Point. Available at http://www.usgbc.org/projects/shipyardcandlestick-point (accessed October 5, 2013).

Urban Re:Vision. Available at http://www.urbanrevi-sion.com (accessed November 4, 2013).

Wallace Roberts & Todd. Saint Luke’s Wins Excellence Award from National Trust for Historic Preservation, October 31, 2012. Available at http://www.wrtdesign.com/news/saint-lukes-wins-excellence-award-from-national-trust-for-historic-preservation/215 (accessed October 31, 2013).

aPPEnDix b: bibliogRaPHyb.4

kanSaS CiTy gREEn imPaCT ZonEThe idea for Kansas City’s Green Impact Zone started with U.S. Representative (and former KC mayor) Emanuel Cleaver, who proposed using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds to spur redevelopment in poor areas of the city. The federal funds would be used to train residents in a 150-block Green Impact Zone (GIZ) to weatherize houses. The idea was supported by then mayor Mark Funkhouser, who was committed to investing in the city’s declin-ing central district neighborhoods. In April 2009, the City Council quickly voted to target $1.5 million in ARRA funds to the zone for the purpose of weather-izing homes. The region’s local metropolitan planning organization, Mid-America Regional Council (MARC), agreed to oversee administration of the project and helped the GIZ Director, Anita Maltbia, build coali-tions and secure additional funding for other projects to improve district sustainability. By the end of 2012, the GIZ managed to attract $178 million dollars from private, public, and institutional sources to support various initiatives throughout the zone. By concentrat-ing the funds in a primarily residential 150-block area, the city aimed to improve outcomes in the neighbor-hoods that needed revitalization the most.

The area selected for the GIZ formed the historical boundary between blacks and whites in racially segre-gated Kansas City, which some argue was an inten-tional division to marginalize the African-American population. The GIZ features a depressed commercial zone along Troost Avenue, which was designated a Community Investment District (aka Business Improvement District). This corridor, which includes a bus line, received federal transportation funding to upgrade sidewalks, traffic signals, and transit-stops, based on the principles of transit-oriented development.

Led by several enthusiastic neighborhood activists and groups, the zone soon became a much more

comprehensive initiative that would target resources in a concentrated geographic area to achieve economic and community development, equity, and sustainability goals. Among the groups involved are neighborhood associations, utility companies, employment train-ing centers, educational institutions, and government agencies. At the time, the groups were unaware of other district-level approaches that linked the three E’s and created their approach based on community-identified needs.1

The GIZ soon had goals to create job-training programs and improve transit options, neighborhood safety, busi-ness development, and water and waste infrastructure to create healthy and sustainable neighborhoods. Achieving such a turnaround would be a challenge in the largely African-American neighborhoods compris-ing the zone where crime is high, unemployment by neighborhood ranges from 13 to 53 percent, and 25 percent of properties are vacant lots.2

But the funds began to run out in 2012, placing

aPPEnDix C: gREEn ZonE CaSE STuDiESC.1

operations and administration of the complex and comprehensive program in jeopardy. The city of Kansas City recently decided to discontinue financial support for operations and administration of the zone, although city funding can still be requested for specific projects. The zone is seeking operational support from other sources, such as foundation grants and partnerships with other organizations.

Employment and job training are the key com-ponents of sustainability for most residents. To the extent that the training can be linked to environmental goals on energy conserva-tion and efficiency, all the better.3 The zone established a job development program in partnership with an organization that focuses on soft skills development and digital literacy. This program served 435 individuals, 100 of whom have successfully completed the train-ing. An energy auditor training program was developed as well. Since its inception, only 138 residents have been placed in jobs, represent-ing approximately 11 percent of residents in the job development pipeline (1,258 residents). The GIZ hopes to introduce more job oppor-tunities by building employer relationships. They currently promote green jobs in energy, weatherization, and railway operations thanks to partnerships with Job Corps and the Metro Energy Center.

Much of the action in the GIZ is focused on public safety. Citizen input helped to create a community policing program, supported by community service centers, and resulted in a 26 percent drop in crime in the Manheim area in just one year.

The GIZ formed an initiative with five other organiza-tions to incorporate initiatives on social equity and sustainability, using a $4.2 million grant from HUD. The regional initiative, Creating Sustainable Places, has developed strategies for education, engagement,

environmental justice, economic development, housing, transportation, health, and reinvestment, and is currently developing a regional network and agenda. The other organizations involved include the Metropolitan Organization for Racial and Economic Equity, The Urban League of Greater Kansas City, Latino Civic Engagement Collaborative, Communities Creating Opportunities, and PolicyLink.4

The weatherization component of the Green Impact Zone program attracted considerable media atten-tion, but implementation did not go as planned. Weatherization programs have difficulty attracting interest under the best of conditions and would prove to be even harder in the GIZ, with less than half of homes owner occupied and 20 percent of mortgages delinquent.5

Another sustainability focus is food security. The zone is a food desert with only one recently opened

grocery store to serve the 150-block zone; even small “bodega”-style stores are rare. MARC starts to address this issue by promoting awareness of fresh food, host-ing gardening classes, supporting community gardens, and building rain gardens.6

Environmental initiatives are gradually taking off. The renovated Bancroft School (now affordable housing

units) is LEED Platinum-certified. In 2012, work was under way to turn a 14,000 sq. ft. brown-field site into LEED-certified office and commu-nity space.7 GIZ works with Kansas City Power and Light’s smart grid program to install smart meters and solar panels in district homes. Storm-water management is also being addressed. The federal TIGER grant allowed drainage improvements as the city replaced curbs and sidewalks, and MARC subsidized home drainage retrofits. Other efforts include installing rain gardens and barrels to decrease run off. The district has invested heavily in infrastructure improvements, particularly in street resurfacing and sidewalk improvements.

obERlin PRoJECT anD gREEn aRTS ZonEThe Oberlin Project demonstrates how colleges and universities can take ownership of their sustainability footprint within communities. Started in 2007, the Oberlin Project includes the Green Arts Zone (GAZ) in downtown Oberlin

and conservation of 20,000 acres of green space in the surrounding area. The project also includes economic development, energy, and climate change goals. Under the leadership of Oberlin College professor David Orr, the project is funded by Oberlin College, the City of Oberlin, philanthropic supporters, and private develop-ers. Approximately $300 million will be invested in the GAZ, half of which will be provided by Oberlin College.8 College alumni are planning other projects adjacent to the GAZ to expand its impact.

aPPEnDix C: gREEn ZonE CaSE STuDiESC.2

Figure 1: Rendering of Green Arts Zone9

Orr started the project in response to the environmen-tal and economic decline he observed throughout the midwestern Rust Belt. Orr notes, “It’s going to take extraordinary efforts to create a town that is sustain-able [and] prosperous . . . and I think that it is within our grasp to do that.”9 An advantage is that Oberlin College owns nearly all of the land in the GAZ. The project will leverage the college’s educational and research resources to make the district a living labora-tory for Oberlin students.

The GAZ soon became the focus of revitalization for Oberlin’s 8,300 residents and the college’s 2,900 stu-dents. The 13-acre GAZ features restored buildings, new construction, streetscaping, and energy efficiency improvements. It also includes student residences, art venues, open spaces, and private businesses. The GAZ plans to work with the city and local businesses to create new employment opportunities in green jobs and tourism (through the arts). The goal is to create economic resiliency for the slow-growth city. However, no specific economic development plan has been developed.

The GAZ meets LEED-ND Platinum standards, com-mits to carbon neutrality under the Clinton Climate Initiative, and aims to source 70 percent of its food from local sources. The zone incorporates district-scale systems through on-site solar power genera-tion and waste-water processing (powered from methane gas from the nearby landfill). Renovated buildings, such as the Oberlin Inn and the Lewis Center, boast LEED certification and support the college’s aims to reach carbon neutrality by 2025. Oberlin seeks to promote the model in other commu-nities across North America, leveraging its participa-tion in the Climate Positive Development Program and Orr’s participation in the Presidential Climate Action Project.

Oberlin’s weakest sustainability link has been in equity. The project’s top-down approach started solely with

Orr and his team. In response to criticism from the city commission for ignoring the city and the community, Oberlin engaged the city in its planning efforts and reached out to the community.10

PuSH buffalo gREEn DEvEloPmEnT ZonE The PUSH Buffalo Green Development Zone (GDZ) started in 2008 when residents of the low-income West Side community reached out to People United for Sustainable Housing (PUSH) to mobilize against speculative vacant-property owners whose negligence was creating blight and to preserve affordable hous-ing and community fabric. Under PUSH’s leadership, the community generated a plan to reduce the number of vacant lots and spearhead its own development using a land bank within a 25-block area.11 The area quickly grew beyond the initial three blocks. PUSH used its nonprofit development company, the Buffalo Neighborhood Stabilization Company, to develop affordable housing units. The GDZ is funded through federal, state, and philanthropic sources, particularly PUSH’s 650 annual donors. Partners include Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), Green for All, Homefront, Habitat for Humanity, the Massachusetts Avenue Project, the Outsource Center, and the Boys & Girls Clubs of Buffalo. The GDZ won the 2011 Changemakers International Sustainable Housing Competition.12

PUSH and the GDZ community have transformed vacant lots into community gardens, created green jobs in weatherization and water-systems management, addressed social and environmental equity through job training and educational programs, and improved financing opportunities for development through home ownership programs. The GDZ incorporated broad community involvement early in the planning stages and continues to increase its impact on improving overall community vitality and sustainability. The GDZ hosts monthly Community Planning Congresses to maintain community participation.

On the ecology front, GDZ focuses on energy con-servation and storm-water management. PUSH implemented more than 25 storm-water manage-ment projects over two years, including installation of permeable pavement, green roofs, and rain gardens, and de-paving abandoned parking lots. The GDZ also incorporates green building practices, including a net-zero energy house. The zone leveraged funding from the Neighborhood Stabilization Program to identify other buildings for conversion to net-zero housing.

The PUSH Green and PUSH Blue programs hope to create green jobs in weatherization, building

aPPEnDix C: gREEn ZonE CaSE STuDiESC.3

rehabilitation, green infrastructure, and storm-water management with financial support from the Green Jobs - Green New York program. Another initiative sup-ports adult and youth job training in agriculture, using abandoned lots as gardens. The Massachusetts Avenue Project (MAP) leads a significant urban agriculture initiative, which addresses the district’s food desert and connects with a workforce development program. PUSH also trains local residents in green technologies and seeks to create more community-owned busi-nesses to bring revenue and job opportunities into the community.

Green Zones located in distressed communities have had difficulty achieving their economic goals, due to the state and structure of the economy and the job-readiness level of residents. In Kansas City, the disproportionate percentage of African-Americans who have conviction histories makes GIZ’s job development outcomes hard to achieve. Many green jobs (particu-larly in the energy industry, which is constrained by Homeland Security policies) will not hire individu-als with conviction histories. These residents are often disqualified from job training and development programs too. Moreover, inconsistent training and mismanagement of the Department of Energy’s 2009 Weatherization Assistance Program has led to reduced jobs funding: the DOE found that, in some states, as many as 80 percent of homes weatherized through the federal program failed inspection.13 Buffalo’s PUSH Green program (and others like it), which relied heav-ily on weatherization jobs, thus found their funding compromised. Green Zones—and any effort that seeks to maintain diversity in revitalized neighborhoods—require development of new local enterprises, invest-ment by large employers, and better life skill and job training programs to address employment barriers faced by low-income and marginalized populations.In view of federal budget gridlock and fiscally strained city budgets, addressing these needs will be difficult.

ENDNOTES1 Interview with Maltbia and Scott, 2013.2 See http://www.bluegreenalliance.org/apollo/signature-

stories/kansas-citys-green-impact-zone-a-vision-for-21st-century-urban-renewal

3 Another area in which the Three E’s may correspond is in community organizing that links environmental and economic justice organizations. See Fitzgerald (2010) for a discussion of how Los Angeles linked modernizing the Port of LA with reducing asthma in surrounding neighborhoods.

4 See http://www.marc.org/Regional-Planning/Creating-Sustainable-Places

5 Benfield, 2012. 6 Stafford, 20137 See 5008kc.org8 Scott, 2009. 9 See http://www.architectmagazine.com/award-

winners/2012-See cote-top-ten-green-project-firm-bnim.aspx

10 City of Oberlin Planning Commission, 2011.11 See http://greendevelopmentzone.org/wp-content/

uploads/2012/06/PUSH-Impact-Area-for-dev-team-1Mar121.jpg

12 See www.changemakers.com/sustainableurbanhousing13 http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/

FINAL-FINAL-Weatherization-Report-compressed.pdf

aPPEnDix C: gREEn ZonE CaSE STuDiESC.4

PHilaDElPHia is effectively coordinating multiple initiatives through Greenworks Philadelphia, the city’s plan for becoming the “greenest city in America.” Implemented by the Office of Sustainability, it out-lines 15 targets in energy, environment, equity, economy, and engagement. The city has passed several ordinances to help meet Greenworks targets. These include requirements that all new construc-tion meet LEED silver standards and that all projects meet Energy Star’s cool roof guidelines. The city also provides tax incentives for green construction and changed its zoning laws in 2012 to better align with sustainability goals.

The city leverages its 49-year-old block captain pro-gram1 to keep in regular contact with communities as they plan and implement sustainability projects. Alex Dews, Policy and Program Manager in the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, explains that the city imple-mented the Citizens Planning Institute to educate com-munities about the planning and development process. The Office of Housing and the Redevelopment Authority are working with the Office of Sustainability to establish citywide standards for housing development with guid-ance from Enterprise Green Communities. The Office of Sustainability stays informed of these efforts and helps staff to learn from successful practices employed across the city’s various sustainable development projects.

Philadelphia’s district-scale sustainability projects include Paseo Verde, Carpenter Square, Veolia District Energy, and two LISC Sustainable Communities Initiative projects. The Office of Sustainability has been involved in planning and implementation, but each project has its own leadership structure. To establish goals for its district-scale projects, the city looked to Enterprise Green Communities, LISC, and various eco-district projects.

Paseo Verde was a former city-owned parking lot that was developed by the city and Jonathan Rose Companies in conjunction with Asociacíon

Puertorriqueños en Marcha (a local CDC), the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority, Enterprise Green Communities, the AFL-CIO, LISC, and other partners. Carpenter Square in the Graduate Hospital neighborhood was developed by MR Scott Development in conjunction with the South of South Neighborhood Association, the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority, the city, and other partners. The 41 miles of steam and chilled water piping in the Veolia District Energy project serves more than 500 buildings and was led by Veolia Energy in collaboration with the Office of Sustainability, the University of Pennsylvania, and local property owners. The two Sustainable Communities Initiative projects were led by Philadelphia LISC in collaboration with local CDCs, community leadership, nonprofit organizations, and the city. All of these proj-ects are part of Greenworks, and the city uses them as examples demonstrating how district-scale sustain-able development projects could be implemented in other parts of the city.2

City officials are using what they are learning from the projects to identify other parts of the city in which to build sustainable developments, including a large number of vacant lots. They have also used the proj-ects to increase awareness of sustainable building practices, to assess the fiscal feasibility of developing similar projects, and to demonstrate social and fiscal benefits associated with them.

ClEvElanD’s Office of Sustainability manages Sustainable Cleveland 2019,3 which seeks to build thriving and healthy neighborhoods. The office has created toolkits to support community-led projects that incorporate sustainability into their work. Sustainable Cleveland 2019—also called the Sustainable Cleveland Initiative—uses a community assets approach, mean-ing that the city and its partners in the SCI work with communities to identify their strengths and challenges before deciding what types of sustainability interven-tions to pursue.

Multiple approaches are being undertaken, including eco-districts, Enterprise Green Communities, 2030 Districts, and LISC initiatives. Though SCI has cre-ated two eco-districts (Kinsman and Detroit Shoreway) in neighborhoods in great need of revitalization, there’s no apparent connection with other high-profile LEED-ND developments, such as downtown’s Flats East Bank and St. Luke’s Manor in the Buckeye-Shaker neighborhood, both of which were started by private developers in blighted areas.

Working groups—critical to Sustainable Cleveland 2019’s strategy—evolve out the initiative’s annual sum-mits and address issues related to energy efficiency, local foods, renewable energy, waste, water, transpor-tation, vital neighborhoods, and community participa-tion. The city also supports development efforts by organizations such as Enterprise Green Communities by convening key stakeholders and helping communi-ties and developers navigate bureaucratic processes. They have learned that, as a slow-growth city, the bal-ance between incentivizing development and promot-ing sustainable practices requires buy-in from many stakeholders. They have also learned that sustainable development starts with identifying the assets that already exist in a community and that the city’s role lies in creating a platform and the tools community mem-bers need to make the best use of those assets. For example, the Detroit Shoreway eco-district (also known as the Cleveland EcoVillage) leveraged its community organizing ability to drive many clean-up and infill projects, including community gardens. In response, the Cleveland City Council passed an Urban Garden District ordinance to allow for community gardens and on-site produce sales within the city. The ordinance spurred more than 200 community gardens throughout the city.4 Today, Cleveland claims to rank #1 among the 50 largest U.S. cities for urban agriculture. Cleveland’s 2030 District is an active participant in the Sustainable Cleveland Initiative as its director, Jon Reidy, serves on SCI’s advisory committee.

aPPEnDix D: DiSTRiCT-SCalE SynERgiES in TWo CiTiES D.1

Although the city of Cleveland has actively engaged nonprofits, foundations, and community members in its sustainability efforts, engaging private developers has been a tougher challenge. Cleveland’s 2030 District encompasses the Flats East Bank development, but its private developers have not yet agreed to participate with the 2030 team.5

Cleveland initially shied away from new zoning codes and environmental ordinances that many cities use, because the political climate is not supportive. Since the Sustainable Cleveland Initiative was created, several ordinances have been passed. These include: new zoning codes for wind energy; use guidelines for agriculture and farm stands in residential districts; a watercourse protection zone; regulations that permit urban farming, farm animals, and bees; land-use policies for green building construction; a “complete streets” program6; transportation policies on bikes and automobile idling; affordable water access for com-munity gardens; fiscal policies using green building tax abatement, local sustainable purchasing preferences, and a land bank program.

Cleveland’s district-scale projects incorporate com-munity inclusion through planning efforts that bring together residents and city planners. Much of what has been developed by the city is affordable housing, but a funder states that many neighborhoods like Kinsman have reached a saturation point.7 Mixed-income development will require building more partnership and buy-in with developers. The city is taking small, incremental steps to test the political will for making broader changes to support sustainable development. Multiple stakeholders agree that more formalization is needed to get stronger commitment—hence coordina-tion—from all stakeholder groups.8

EnDnoTES1 The block captain program was started in 1965 as part

of the Philadelphia More Beautiful Committee in the Department of Sanitation. Now one of the largest volunteer

organizations in the country, the program monitors neigh-borhood cleanliness and security and provides a way for cities and developers to connect with community leaders regarding development needs and concerns. http://www.philadelphiastreets.com/pmbc.aspx

2 See www.phila.gov/green/index/html; www.sciphilly.org.3 See www.sustainablecleveland.org 4 See http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-insti-

tutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-a-livable-future/_pdf/projects/FPN/Urban_Community_Planning/URBAN_AGRICULTURE_A_SIXTEENCITY_SURVEY_OF_URBAN_AGRICULTURE_PRACTICES_ACROSS_THE_COUNTRY.pdf

5 Interview with Jon Reidy, 20136 See http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/09/cleveland_

council_oks_complete.html7 Interview with John Mitterholzer, 2013; Interview with

Elizabeth Richards, 20138 Based on multiple interviews.

aPPEnDix D: DiSTRiCT-SCalE SynERgiES in TWo CiTiESD.2