Posts Tagged ‘ecodistricts’

The EcoDistricts Summit 2012

November 14, 2012

The second annual EcoDistricts Summit came to a close just under a month ago on October 26, 2012 at Portland State University’s Smith Center. Produced by the Portland Sustainability Institute (PoSI) the Summit is one of the world’s leading conferences dedicated to urban and district-scale sustainability exploring topics such as district energy, water utilities, net-zero buildings, smart grid, networked transportation, urban ecosystem services and zero waste. We had a fantastic time working behind the scenes and assisting in the execution of this year’s summit. Check out the action from the Summit and keep your eye out for EcoDistricts 2013!

EcoDistricts ’11 Scaling Innovation: Sarah Heinicke

October 26, 2011

The Lloyd District is one of Portland’s five Pilot EcoDistricts and is moving forward to build a green-minded, diverse and unique neighborhood with a strong identity and strong ties to sustainability with a business case baked in. District Sustainability Director, Sarah Heinicke, shares her vision and an update on how this neighborhood is tackling environmental and social issues, while seizing opportunities, all at the district scale.

EcoDistricts: Each of the Portland EcoDistrict Pilots are quite distinct in terms of neighborhood culture and circumstance. How does the Lloyd District differ from its counterparts in the program and what priorities have come out of that unique perspective?

Sarah Heinicke: The Lloyd Eco district is comprised of large superblocks, suburban-style office development and governmental uses. The board itself is comprised of leaders from those key stakeholder firms and institutions. Currently there is no representation from the relatively small residential population, or small businesses interests, though we intend to reach out to those communities.

These are the obvious differences when you think of Lloyd District compared to Foster Green, or South Waterfront. Those are material differences, but I think we have a lot more in common than not. The process of implementing these kind of transformative changes on this scale, the issue of board involvement, community advocacy, and the prospect of implementation in a bearish market are challenges all the districts face no matter what their mix.

We are just now initiating our project priorities discussion and although I don’t have a final list to share with you, I can tell you there is a lot of excitement to just get started on something. It’s my job to make sure the project mix is right—from big multi-year, multi-stakeholder efforts to smaller, simpler projects. Projects that are feasible, impactful, executable and have a funding mechanisms built in are the strong favorites. Another priority that has emerged is getting our governance structure in order sooner rather than later so that we know exactly where we stand and to approach the community for support, either in terms of mission or funding.

EcoD: You’ve been in your role for several months now. What kind of vision has your working group developed for the Lloyd EcoDistrict in that time? How is success defined now that you’ve become acquainted with the project, the stakeholders and their priorities?


EcoDistricts ’11: USGBC’s Scot Horst on LEED + Neighborhood Scale Sustainable Development

September 23, 2011

When U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED system was founded in 1994, the focus was on individual projects. But sustainable development has evolved since then, and today LEED encompasses singular projects and neighborhood development as well. Learn about how LEED is providing the common language and foundation for district scale development from U.S. Green Building Council Vice-President and EcoDistricts Summit featured speaker, Scot Horst.

EcoD: Can you put some context around LEED’s role in advancing the concept of an EcoDistrict? What kind of positive contributions can LEED buildings, or rather a group of LEED buildings, make towards the development of a district with sustainability at its core?
Scot Horst: The tendency within the environmental movement is to think there is competition between different programs or that various programs are stealing an amount of thinking from a very confined market and that they’re taking it from each other. But, in fact what we know is that if we are going to be successful, we need to leverage all of our different abilities and thinking between many varied programs and approaches. LEED does something very specific—that other programs have not been able to do—which is bringing to scale a level of understanding and a series of different environmental ideas that are very approachable. It helps people who haven’t done this work before figure out how to get into it and what they can do.

What we find is that people who have done LEED projects like to go further on the next one. They like to see if they can do more sustainable projects on their next building, which ultimately leads to a more integrated approach. That’s the point when we start seeing LEED Platinum buildings being pursued and really incredible things put into place. So it only makes sense that if you have an environment where a number of people that have consistently been thinking within this platform and have become well acquainted with all of the different concepts—which we call credits or Environmental Approaches & Ideas—that they start realizing how these concepts work together. You hit that point and it becomes very apparent how all the concepts work towards creating a community or a neighborhood that can be distinguished by the fact that it goes much further even than what our own credits system broaches.

LEED can help reach this result by plowing the ground—getting people interested, getting them involved, helping them understand that a shared language of ideas exists for them and that there are others who are trying to do similar things. Because, once you become a leader, you want to do much more and to expand the impact. That’s where EcoDistricts and sustainable neighborhoods really come to the foreground.

EcoD: How do we use this common language—the LEED system—to bring all of the different stakeholders to the table? Completing a single building has its own set of challenges, but to develop at a district scale makes things considerably more difficult. Does LEED have a role to play?
SH: Yes. What planners sometimes say is that LEED misses the mark because it’s just about a single building, but we know that if we don’t look at neighborhoods, we’ll never get where we need to be. What that perspective ignores is the fact that LEED is successful precisely because it touches the place where people make so many decisions. It gives a lot of people solid direction on all the small decisions that add up to a large thing called a building.

You’re right in that this is much more challenging working at the neighborhood scale, so I’ve been extremely impressed with what we’ve seen come out of the LEED Neighborhood Development (ND) program and the development of EcoDistricts, because you need a much broader set of stakeholder interest to be successful—many times in areas where people don’t have decision making power. That means you have to find ways to influence people who are the decision makers.


2011 EcoDistricts Summit: Skanska’s Beth Heider on Building For 100 Years

August 26, 2011

Skanska VP Beth Heider believes in building for the next 100 years—not just the next 10. It’s a strategic shift in thinking that challenges developers and builders to look at costs over time and consider the future—as much as the present—bottom line when making decisions that will affect occupants and owners, as well as city and neighborhood vitality. With energy prices currently soaring and expected to rise even higher, performance becomes a key component of both building valuation and operational costs over time. In our interview, Beth outlines how the LEED system, developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), continues to help us make more informed decisions going forward.

EcoDistricts Summit: How do you see EcoDistricts playing a role in the planning of sustainable cities going forward?
Beth Heider: From where I sit—using insights gained working for Skanska and with the USGBC—I would say we need to look beyond the drip lines of our high performance buildings and—in the lexicon of the Living Building Challenge—scale jump. We need to look at how buildings act in a synergistic way with other buildings around them and how they work within the infrastructure that lays the basis for a community.

If you look at the statistics, people are moving toward cities and more densely populated communities. I think we have a unique opportunity to take a look at what we’re doing in our communities from a sustainability perspective in a broader way. If we take advantage of that opportunity, it should have wide-ranging effects. It’s going to demand that we look at things in a new light and create political, legal, financial and design infrastructures that are different than those we have now.

As you know, LEED has a number of rating systems. LEED for Neighborhood Development (ND) addresses a collection of buildings and the infrastructure that ties them together at the district scale. Perhaps the greatest impact the LEED ND program will have is how it informs the other rating systems. For instance, the number of credits available for choosing a site wisely has increased in LEED 2009.

EcoD: The LEED platform has been a significant driver of both the construction and mainstreaming of more sustainable buildings. But so much of the day-to-day benefit after a building is “finished” comes from behavior change and interactions with a structure. How do we take the energy that LEED brings to a project and carry it out over the long term—so that we’re not just creating technically sustainable structures, but also using them efficiently? 
BH: One of the things we’ve learned in the green building movement is the importance of using a consistent lexicon—a consistent way to benchmark the energy and environmental performance of buildings. The LEED platform gives structure to the dialogue.

When we started to look at the performance of buildings—it differed from the modeled performance. The notable New Buildings Institute (NBI) study that was done a few years ago on LEED buildings revealed anomalies – something that you can only do when you have a basis of comparison.

EcoD: What did the results show or prove? 
BH: What we found is that there are three key things that influence the performance of buildings—and now I’m not talking about ecodistricts, but rather the individual buildings.

One is how the building was designed. Was it designed thoughtfully in the LEED lexicon? Were the points pursued part of an integrated strategy and appropriate to what the building was intended to do? How was the building designed toward environmental and energy performance?

The second thing is how a building is used by its occupants. That speaks directly to your question. It’s the same with cars. If you drive your Prius like it’s a Maserati—you’re not going to get great gas mileage. It works the same for buildings. Fortunately with your Prius, you have a video game built into the dashboard that provides constant feedback on how your actions affect the car’s performance. Toyota puts you in a position to understand the direct relationship between what you do and how that changes energy consumption—which means you’re in an informed position to make decisions. If you want to drive your Prius like a Maserati—fine, but there are consequences that have to do with energy performance and the connected cost of fuel.

The third component is how a building is maintained and operated. Again, using a car analogy, it’s no different than making sure your tires are inflated properly and your oil has been changed recently. If you have all of those things in play, your building—like your car—will function as optimally as possible.

All three elements play into the performance of a project, but the great contribution that LEED makes is a lexicon that allows us to have this dialogue. And that conversation has, in turn, informed how LEED has evolved. As we move forward, the Building Performance Partnership Program is in place to capture electric and utility costs (as of LEED 2009). This new data management platform allows us (USGBC) to link performance of buildings to the decisions that were made or attributes of a project. We can provide owners feedback about the relationship between the points they have elected to pursue versus how their building is performaning on an actual basis (rather than a modeled basis). And this is a huge step between connecting building performance with the design intent reflected in the LEED points system.

EcoD: Do you think there is potential for a tool that—similar to LEED—allows cities to measure their building performance on a municipal scale that would be publically available and encourage friendly competition?
BH: Having reasonable data that is consistent and well-gathered, and feeding into a common metric for municipalities is a good idea—though there are all kinds of challenges around how you verify that the information reported is correct and making sure there is adequate education so people are able to understand how to participate.

There is also the issue of voluntary participation—which is what the LEED program is—versus legislated participation—which you see in places like Europe—that mandates a building’s grade be posted on the building. I think there is a balance there that we have to get right in terms of ensuring broad participation but not creating a mandate that is invasive. We want people to participate in a way that is righteous and consistent.

One of the great things we’re seeing come together at USGBC is that ability to aggregate information. If you get a chance, go check out the GBIG (Green Building Information Gateway) tool, which is available as an app on your iPad or iPhone. It takes the information loaded into the USGBC platform for buildings in a growing number of cities, and lets you click on a building (as long as it’s under the LEED certification umbrella) and view what LEED points were pursued and its carbon index. That tells you where the building stands on its own accord, but also how it stacks up against other buildings around it.

The GBIG analysis lets you see the landscape and when you’re planning subsequent buildings you can then decide whether you’re comfortable with where your building measures up in the marketplace or whether you want to take a stronger market leadership position. You can see what that might entail by comparing your ideas to what has been done within the country or your region. This tool very quickly calculates that information so you know how to plan your next project. It helps propel the market forward and accelerates the ability of developers or owners to make informed decisions. This is the mission of the USGBC: Market transformation.

Emboldened by our own research and feedback from tools like GBIG, at Skanska, our Commercial Development group has decided that LEED Gold will be the floor for all our development projects worldwide. In some markets, we are exploring LEED Platinum and recently, a Living Building, because we’re able to clearly see where our buildings need to be now, but also ask where they need to be in the future, so that people will be interested in leasing them and buyers will be interested in acquiring the buildings.

EcoD: What’s the vision in how stakeholders will use the GBIG tool? Can it help drive district scale sustainable development? 
BH: Owners, tenants and developers need to see where they’re going next and what their portfolio will need to look like in the future. That goes for new and existing buildings. Informed owners, lessees, brokerage houses, banks and insurance providers now have the ability to make a decision about where they want to be 20 years down the road. They can see which buildings match up, not only with their commitment to the environment, but also from a risk profile perspective. Assuming foreign oil and energy prices continue to go up or should some kind of carbon metric be established, GBIG provides the market with crucial information.

When you’re in a retracting market, sometimes you don’t want to think about the future, because the now is difficult enough to handle. But buildings last a long time, especially buildings constructed for institutional clients and in cities, which are designed to last 50 to 100 years or more.

We need to be thoughtful about where each buildings is going to be positioned in the future. Its value could easily erode if other buildings around it are performing at a much higher level. The cost of ownership or occupancy could be so high that people won’t want that energy hog over there when they can have this higher performing building over here. If you’re planning for 100 years you tend to make different decisions.

The ability to provide “buyer beware” information on our buildings will make it easier for people to make informed decisions. I think there is far more acuity in the market than we like to admit. The market is much savvier in regard to the connection between energy performance and long-term value now and growing more so every day. One of the reasons is that the LEED rating system has been around long enough that we are beginning to see performance over time. Banks can base building valuations on precedence rather than projections—which is huge. There is enough LEED stock on the market that we are beginning to see building valuations rewarding those who are doing the right thing from an energy and environmental standpoint. And that makes sustainable engineering/design a more scaleable and viable option for any development—including district scale development—then if you’re doing it just because it feels good or is consistent with a brand.

Beth Heider is Senior Vice President for Green Markets at Skanska and the Chair Elect of the US Green Building Council. She will be a featured speaker on the Leadership Panel at the 2011 EcoDistricts Summit, October 26-28 in Portland, Oregon. To learn more about the 2011 Summit or to register, visit: For 2011 Summit and Portland Sustainability Institute news and updates, follow @PDXInstitute on Twitter and Like on Facebook. 

EcoDistricts Summit 2011: Mark Holland on the Advantages of Neighborhood Scale Development

June 8, 2011

Social Enterprises: What can we do to take sustainable building practices from dots on a landscape (LEED building here, LEED building there) and create cohesive sustainable communities?
Mark Holland: The first step is to expand the focus on sustainability from a “building” to a community – which means adding several additional elements.  I have structured my approach to this around what we have been calling “The 8 Pillars of a Sustainable Community”.  Buildings are one of the pillars – but the other seven outline the scope of planning, design and development of a community:

  1. Land Use – complete community land use patterns
  2. Transportation – low impact transportation systems
  3. Buildings – green buildings
  4. Landscapes – multi-purposed landscapes (ecology, arts and culture, recreation, food production)
  5. Infrastructure – innovative green infrastructure – energy systems, water supply, wastewater management, stormwater management, solid waste systems.
  6. Food – local food systems
  7. Social issues – individual and social health (with facilities and programs to support these)
  8. Economy – local sustainable economies

The key in helping develop sustainable communities is first to consider all of these core issues of a community through a sustainability lens – and then if the focus is on buildings, then identifying how a building needs to be designed to support the full range of goals across all the community elements.

SE: Can you give us a working definition of a sustainable community?
MH: I don’t usually spend a lot of time trying to create succinct definitions of sustainability or sustainable communities – and the thousands of definitions in play today across the world show similarities and differences in how it is expressed.

I look at it as a sustainable community is a one whose prosperity, social system and physical ecosystems are being consciously addressed, designed, developed and maintained to remain healthy and prosperous for the next century.

SE: What does the public gain from planning done at the neighborhood/district scale rather than a building-by-building scale?
MH: Many efficiencies can be achieved by thinking at the district-scale.  The building is one of the most important building blocks in a community, but other efficiencies and benefits can be achieved by thinking about larger systems.  For instance, a building-scale energy system may cost everyone money, but a district energy system can be an important asset, keep energy costs to a minimum, and provide better overall performance, because it can utilize many different sources of energy and balance loads across different buildings that have different uses.  Likewise, a building-scale stormwater management system may be onerous, but one managed at a neighbourhood scale may actually save money and provide significant habitat and community amenity. The same district-scale advantages can be applied to open space, recreation facilities, food production, etc.

SE: What are major hurdles to implementing a district approach to sustainable community development? How do you propose we clear those hurdles?
MH: In a new “master-planned community” context, the district-scale approach can simply be put on the table at the beginning, the necessary utilities involved from the beginning – and it will naturally unfold.  In an infill/redevelopment context, typically the local government has to play a role, or various roles, including:

  • Ensuring there is a good neighbourhood plan that ensures an overall sustainability performance on all the issues I identified in the first question;
  • A multi-stakeholder consultation and choreography role;
  • A financial role using “late-comer” agreements for infrastructure and facilities where needed over time;
  • A utility role as either “the” district utility provider or as a partner with the utilities, often owning the district energy/water pipes that are in the roads between buildings or parcels with different owners.

SE: Why should developers and property owners be on board with the district approach to sustainability? How can it benefit them?
MH: Everyone can optimize their performance and profit when we work at a district scale – as not every building has to take on the responsibility to be self-sufficient or overly complex – and as such, everyone wins.

SE: Can you speak to the idea of making sustainability more approachable and less dogmatic? Why do we need to do it and how do you suggest it be done?
MH: I always take my development clients back to first principles of the core performance accounts which are why we are not sustainable, including:

  • Climate change / air emissions
  • Water
  • Ecosystem health and biodiversity
  • Materials – resources, toxins, waste
  • Sustainable food systems
  • Social needs and health
  • Economic stability and prosperity

I always recommend that a sustainability strategy be created for each project that directly addresses these issues and that directions selected in each of the issues I noted at the beginning (the 8 pillars) be addressed with the unique costs/benefits/opportunities each project presents.  As such, in my experience, no two sustainability strategies are alike.

This approach ensures we address the core sustainability issues in a manner that passes the “straight face test” for each developer, community, neighbourhood, regulatory context, financial reality, etc. Sometimes LEED or another rating system seems to make sense – often we don’t use them (or just reference them) as it’s better to spend money and effort addressing sustainability issues in ways that may not deliver points. It also does away with the concept of pre-requisites as we can make any project perform quite well on most sustainability accounts with a little work.

SE: Some might argue that creating EcoDistricts is gentrification veiled as sustainability. How do we ensure that sustainable districts are developed across the spectrum and remain available, affordable and accessible to all people?
MH: The arguments against gentrification are nonsense.  Gentrification is just a fancy term applied to any kind of redevelopment in an infill context that is occurring because land value is cheaper in older areas (which is also the reason why rents are cheaper and these neighbourhoods are often the home of those of low income).

The only way to stop gentrification is through government intervention and requirements to provide subsidized/non-market housing – which can be achieved in many different ways – and should be pursued in each neighbourhood in order to provide a balanced social environment. Examples of very proactive developers (such as John Knott and the Noisette Project) are increasing where developers are finding ways to support a decent percent of less-than-market prices through other means.

SE: Are there any projects that you feel particularly inspired by lately? Ones that have solved issues and are very likely replicable by other cities/communities?
MH: I like the Dockside project in Victoria.  I worked extensively on the Southeast False Creek project in Vancouver (LEED ND Platinum) and think it turned out pretty good.  I am always inspired by the Noisette Project I mentioned earlier in South Carolina.  I like the projects that are now integrating food systems centrally into their design (we wrote the book Agricultural Urbanism last year on this topic).  We have been involved in a few of these – most notably Southlands in Delta BC, that DPZ did the site plan for.  I also really like the Pearl District in your fair city.

The issue of replicability is difficult – as each factor in a development is always unique to that place and moment in time.  I think it’s more important to look for inspiration in other projects, but to build each project uniquely with the people, champions and resources that are available to that project and place.  I believe strongly in “project terriore” – the unique interesting eccentricities of a place and the people – that get imbued into a project.

SE: What do you hope comes out of the 2011 EcoDistricts Summit? What do our cities and the industry (for lack of a better word) need from it at this moment in time? 
MH: I think the most important thing is to start thinking at the district scale for all things – and to better understand what should be required of developers at a parcel/building scale – and what is really best addressed by the local government at the district scale.

We can achieve much higher sustainability performance and make money doing it if we address core sustainability issues at the district scale first – and then define the responsibility / role of each building/site within that district as we go.

SE: Why is the kind of dialogue available at the EcoDistricts Summit valuable for those developing our cities to engage in? 
MH: Most of the work done on sustainable communities is focused either on the building scale or at the city scale – and yet the district scale is probably the most important.  An event focused on this critical scale to 21st century planning and development is a great opportunity – and on the leading edge.

Robert Costanza Talks EcoDistricts + Neighborhood Scale Sustainability

October 25, 2010

Robert Costanza is the new head of Portland State’s Institute for Sustainable Solutions, founder of the Solutions Journal, and he’ll also be speaking at the EcoDistricts Summit, put on by Portland Sustainability Institute (PoSI). Robert has spent his career exploring sustainable systems and reaching for solutions that will allow us to live a high quality of life, while at the same time sustaining our planet’s resources. One of the most compelling concepts he has discovered is district-level sustainability.

SE: Since you’re new to this position and the area, can you give us a brief snapshot of where you’ve come from and what your new job at Portland State University (PSU) entails?
RC: I started out in engineering and then got a masters degree in architecture. Then I shifted and got a PhD in systems ecology with a minor in economics—I took economics as a foreign language actually. That systems training education has allowed me to look at the world in a much more integrated way. Ever since I adopted this philosophy, I’ve been trying to put pieces together rather than take things apart, or at least balance the two. I think that’s what we need more of in the education and management aspects of our system. Things are much more interconnected these days, or at least the interconnections make more difference, because the world is filled up with people and their artifacts. There’s no frontier out there anymore, so the goals have shifted significantly from capturing resources as fast as you can, to working together and trying to sustain things in a desirable way.

To do that well, we have to start working across disciplines. We have to transcend these disciplinary boundaries and also the boundaries between academia and the community. Those are some of the things I’ve been trying to do throughout my career.

SE: Is that part of the reason you created the Solutions Journal—to broaden the conversation?
RC: Yes. I also started the journal, Ecological Economics, back in 1989. We were trying to make economics into a life science and build bridges. The Solutions Journal is a further step to reach out of academia into the general public, and across a broader range of disciplines. It’s about starting a dialogue on how we solve these problems.

We’ve spent plenty of ink describing the problems and analyzing them—I think we have a pretty good idea of what our big issues are. Now we need to spend an equal amount of time and effort trying to figure out what the solutions are. That goes beyond the technical fixes and partial solutions. We also need to figure out how we redesign the system to make it really sustainable and desirable.

Sustainability is one thing—how long things last, and we certainly want the system to last—but we also want to create something good. I think we can improve our quality of life and reduce our resource consumption at the same time. In fact, in many instances we’re finding that it’s the maldistribution of resources that’s more of a problem than the actual rates of consumption. We can lower rates of consumption all together and everyone can actually be happier while consuming less.

I think we need to get past the “growth at all costs” paradigm of economics and more towards asking how we can improve quality of life and sustainability—so that’s what I’ve been trying to do with my work. Portland State University has offered me a real opportunity, because they have a deep commitment to sustainability and see themselves as a leader, as does Portland. That means the community/university partnership can  happen here much better than anywhere else I know of. It can also be a model for others to see how to do this kind of thing—and I think the world needs these kinds of models. It’s important for us to lead the way.

SE: Speaking of models and problem-solving, we’re talking because of the EcoDistricts Summit that’s coming up. This idea of district-scale sustainability that Portland is gearing up to study in five key areas around the city (Lloyd District, Portland State University, Gateway, Lents and South Waterfront), what bigger problems will this concept solve if successful?
RC: The primary issue EcoDistricts let us address is how to build a sustainable, desirable city environment. Often when people think of sustainability, they think of getting back to the land, self-sufficiency and a smaller-scale way of life. I don’t think that’s necessarily the right approach. I think cities can be even more sustainable than a dispersed rural environment. We have so many people on Earth now that if we spread them out like that, it would use up all the available land. I think we’re better off concentrating people in certain areas. The question is, how do we do that in a more sustainable way? We’re getting into lots of things with this—including transportation and energy. Where do we find new solutions for those problems?

Portland is a good distance down the road to finding solutions, with our emphasis on bikes and mass transit, energy efficiency, green buildings, but not quite there yet. I just moved into the Cyan building next to PSU and it’s great to have a green building so conveniently located for me. My commute is by elevator. I don’t even have to use a bike that often and I was able to sell my car because of mass transit and Zipcars and biking.

Showing models like the EcoDistricts as individual buildings and eventually on a city scale in Portland, is really important. The city, as a whole, is not there, but by tackling things district by district, we can make progress in manageable chunks. That’s good for us, plus we can show it as a replicable model for others to enact in the rest of the country and the world, really. And we can use things like the Summit and the Solutions Journal to communicate these successes and processes to others, so they can learn from our experience—not to mention learn from other cities as well.

SE: Is there a danger of these repeatable, neighborhood-scale sustainability projects stoking gentrification issues in areas that are currently underdeveloped? And if so, is there a way they can be used to instead create more equitable access to sustainable living with the right attention?
RC: In that ecological/economics paradigm I was speaking about earlier, we talk about four basic types of capital that are necessary for maintaining a high quality of life. There is conventional built capital—infrastructure and those types of things—there’s also human/talent capital—health, knowledge, ideas, that’s what universities are about, building human capital—then there’s also natural capital—the resources and services provided by the natural environment—and then there’s social capital which is all the interactions between people.

There’s psychological research showing that social capital is very important to people’s sense of well-being and quality of life. That’s something that living in smaller neighborhoods can contribute to positively, this sense of social capital, people working together. It provides a significant component of their quality of life, and yet we haven’t emphasized it yet. We’re focused on the built capital and monetary income. Which is funny, because the evidence shows that beyond a certain point, more income doesn’t lead to more happiness, in fact it can lead to less happiness, because you’re so stressed out trying to maintain your income and keep up with the Joneses.

And also the distribution of income is a problem, because that tends to destroy social capital—if there’s too big a gap in the money population issues start cropping up. There is some new research that shows, across many countries, that the higher the gap in income, the worse the whole range of social problems are—crime, incarceration, obesity, everything really, gets much worse if there is a large gap in incomes. I think these kind of small scale examples can show how we can build social capital and how that contributes to quality of life.

We did a research paper at the University of Vermont (where I just came from) not long ago on quality of life differences between intentional communities and regular neighborhoods. That study showed that quality of life is much higher in intentional communities. I actually lived in a co-housing community in Vermont with 17 households and very intentional construct. We were trying to build a community and share a lot of resources, and find the right balance between individual and the social whole. Humans have evolved to be social animals. We’re not happy as isolated individuals, even though the conventional economic paradigm thinks of people as completely isolated, autonomous units—which we obviously are not. So we’re getting past that. We’re trying to find a better model of what really contributes to well-being. And a lot of that is outside the markets and it doesn’t really get picked up in conventional economic analysis, but it’s exactly what we need to focus on now.

SE: Do you think that universities have a unique opportunity to exploit EcoDistricts in a positive way, being that they pretty much exist in their own little ecosystem anyway? My alma mater, for instance, used to have this farm—which is now the athletic complex—where they grew all of the food for the school.
RC: I think university campuses can definitely be models to try out some of these ideas. They also have an opportunity to be thought leaders and connect with the community. A lot of the courses that we’re going to offer are problem-based/solutions-focused courses. Instead of doing lectures, we go find a problem out in the community and get the stakeholders together with faculty and students, and try to solve the problem, with published results. You know, it’s an entirely different way to go about education. We want to help people learn how to solve problems, rather than memorize information and leave problem solving way off in the distant future. It’s a whole skill, which we unfortunately don’t teach people as much as we should—the complexity of real world problems and how you need to communicate across a whole range of ideas and perspectives, stakeholders, etc.

Robert Costanza is Director of the Institute for Sustainable Solutions at Portland State University, and a featured speaker at the EcoDistricts Summit in Portland, Oregon, October 25-27, 2010. You can learn more about his work at: Get more information about the EcoDistricts Summit and Initiative in Portland at: You can also follow PoSI on Twitter at: @PDXInstitute. Tune in for live tweets from the EcoDistricts Summit, October 25-27.

NEWS: US Congressman Earl Blumenauer To Speak At EcoDistricts Summit

October 7, 2010

We’ve received word that US Congressman Earl Blumenauer will give opening remarks on Tuesday, October 26, 2010 at the EcoDistricts Summit. We’re very honored and excited to have him on board! Congressman Blumenauer is the perfect candidate to give opening remarks—being a career advocate for sustainability and instrumental in cultivating Portland’s development as a respected international player in the green building and sustainable planning sectors.

Portland Sustainability Institute‘s second annual EcoDistricts Summit, which takes place October 25-27 in Portland, Oregon, will bring together policy makers, educators and design, planning and development professionals for dialogue around the ground-breaking concept of integrated district-scale sustainability projects. Topics covered through a district-scale lens include: district utilities, green buildings, smart grid, transportation, urban habitat, water management, waste management and community development.

If you would like to learn more about the EcoDistricts Summit and/or register to attend, please visit:

You can also join the conversation on Facebook and Twitter!



Bill Reed: Why LEED Certified Buildings Won’t Save The World

September 13, 2010

Sustainability is not just about green buildings and carbon-neutral business practices. Bill Reed, co-founder of Integrative Design Collaborative, will tell you that. He’ll also clue you in to what it is about: Re-addressing the system through nature’s patterns, admitting there’s an awful lot we still don’t know (and even more things that we don’t know we don’t know) and designing our living systems to be both energy-efficient AND good for our well-being. We were lucky enough to sit down with Bill, who will Emcee the inaugural EcoDistricts Summit in October, about his vision for a better designed future and what it will take to get us there.

Social Enterprises: Can you give us some background on your work and why the EcoDistricts concept is exciting to you?
Bill Reed:
I’ve been doing environmental work since the 1970s in passive solar energy, planning and architecture. From a building perspective, we were one of the early members of USGBC and founders of the LEED program—which was meant to transform the marketplace. It was never meant to define what green buildings are. My life’s work has been a search for how we do green buildings and create a sustainable society—but as two separate initiatives. Green buildings do not make a sustainable planet. What I’ve been doing is figuring out how we can integrate design and create integrated systems.

SE: Is that similar to creating structures using bio-mimicry?
Bio-mimicry is about mimicking nature, but it’s not necessarily about integrating ourselves with nature. Integrated design takes into account multiple benefits from how all systems work together as whole—as an entire living organism. With building, you can either add parts to a structure—for instance you can add green attributes like sustainable paneling or efficient light bulbs—but that isn’t how to make a building effectively green because it’s lacking a sophistication of integration. The most simple example is making insulated windows a part of a structure, which does allow you to reduce the size of the mechanical system needed to heat and cool a building. Now if you integrate those systems (the efficient windows and the mechanical heating/cooling system) together you can actually save money on a building. So instead of just adding green components, you actually have to look into how they work together.

That’s the beginning step of integration. The next level is how humans are integrated with all life on Earth—and the green building movement doesn’t really talk too much about that. That’s why we have to get into community planning—and that’s why I’m excited about EcoDistricts. Communities and/or watersheds of students of design can achieve a sustainable condition. You’re not going to make a green or sustainable planet with 100 million certified LEED Platinum buildings or 100 million living buildings. They don’t make a green planet. They make buildings that are less damaging to the planet. But it doesn’t heal the damage that’s already been done or make things work together in a synchronistic way with the living systems that are exist all around us. You’ve got to go a step further to get the results we need.

SE: How do you see concepts like EcoDistricts, which are more focused on integrating systems into neighborhood scale projects, helping our cities be better at what they do—not only retroactively, but in future city planning as well?
When we talk about EcoDistricts, what we’re really talking about is a community. What we need to figure out is what the smallest system is that we can activate all the attributes of sustainability within—food, soil health, habitat health, watershed health, groundwater health—and still be self-sufficient. We have to define our terms. There’s no hard definition for an EcoDistrict or a place or a community, because all these systems are nested within one another. The work becomes about finding out how we work with complex, living, technical systems. How do we work with complex socio-ecological technical systems? This conference is an opportunity to explore that on a deeper level.

One thing that is very important is the shift from working with pieces to working with patterns. You can glue all the pieces of sustainability in the world together—energy, water, infrastructure, transportation, social—and they’re still just pieces. It’s like gluing Humpty Dumpty back together again. You can’t really glue Humpty Dumpty back together again once he’s shattered. The only thing you can do is to start over—from a living systems perspective—and begin a whole new chapter with a new egg. It’s the living system that puts Humpty Dumpty back together.

The thing is—living systems are incredibly complex. One reason we don’t work with living systems very effectively is because we try to treat them as if they’re a technical system. If you’ll let me get a bit geeky here, I’ll try to explain. There’s a difference between a closed system and an open system. A closed system is found in a watch or an automobile engine. You can map the way the pistons or gears work, and understand that system pretty easily. An open system, on the other hand, has multiple exchanges—which makes it very complex to map. The issue comes when we try to impose closed system thinking to open, living analytic systems.

You remember that  PowerPoint slide on the War in Afghanistan that made the cover of the New York Times a couple of months ago? It became a joke, because it showed incredibly complex diagram of the war, and somebody made this PowerPoint slide with a bunch of arrows connecting all the issues. And it was so complex that you couldn’t understand it. It was totally ineffective. That’s what we try to do with living systems. We try to draw all these arrows between pieces of them and it doesn’t work. The only way to really understand complex, living systems is through the patterns of life. The opportunity for a community or an EcoDistrict is to begin to work from patterns, not just from pieces and technology.

One analogy to help explain nature’s patterns versus human technology—in other words, who we are versus what we are—is in the way that we approach both types of places—communities and EcoDistricts—by assembling a bunch of data together. Typically, we look at groundwater work, human systems, plant systems, animal systems, archeology, anthropology, infrastructure, carbon footprint, etc. We gather all that data and present it to you in a 3-5 foot tall stack and say: ‘Here’s the EcoDistrict you’re working.’ But we can’t understand it from that kind of data. That would be like me trying to understand you by describing what you look like. Let’s assume that you’ve got dark hair, brown eyes; you’re about yay tall and you weigh this many pounds. That’s you. Well we know that this information doesn’t really describe “you” very well. What we really want to know is who you are, not what you are. We want to know what you are too, but who you are is more important. And the only way to tell who you are is to look at how you interacts in relationship to the multitude of  people you come in contact with—your partner, colleague, kids, parents, work colleagues, me, the dog on the street, strangers. Those relationships are invisible. But we can characterize the multiplicity of invisible relationships by learning how you behave within those relationships. There is a certain core essence or pattern to how you live your life.

So what’s required for the community, city or EcoDistrict that we’re working with is to begin to work with “who” those places are, and how those complex relationships work. And when people begin to shift their understanding from sustainability just being about “stuff” and physical things, into an understanding that they’re a part of a living, complex system—that’s the beginning of a truly sustainable condition for humanity.

Remember Easter Island? That island in the Pacific where the human population went extinct? Well Easter Island was carbon neutral. Carbon neutrality had nothing to do with whether they thrived or not. The reason they went extinct is that they failed to understand the systems that were supporting their lives. The other half of sustainability—beyond the technology—is the ability to understand how life works. There’s a technical system half which includes LEED and Living Building Challenge. Then there’s the living system half. This is the patterning half. The only way we can take advantage of the opportunity to weave those two halves together is to work at the scale of the community unit or “EcoDistricts.”

SE: How do you think shifting our focus to working in micro-systems and in patterns translates into better, richer, fuller lives for people? Especially people around the world who might be living in a ghetto or a disadvantaged neighborhood—who don’t have access to the typical areas of development and gentrification?
What’s critical to understand here is that it’s very difficult to understand something until you live it. When we speak of a living system, we are speaking of it as a whole. That includes human beings and should address the quality of life for them as well as for the bacteria in the soil, plant habitat and animal habitat. Once people are engaged with how life works in a community, they begin to change themselves as a community. That’s been proven many times. Research done in the early 1980s on community gardens that sprung up all over Harlem on vacant lots shifted people’s sense of responsibility, care and love, if you will, for the place they lived. And it shifted how they valued themselves within that system.

So this union of all life with humans is essential to understand. We aren’t separate from life. The question is: How do we start integrating ourselves again? When we treat life as abstract—as something there to serve us—then we lose touch with what the meaning of life is. You know, the two fundamental criteria for life—besides water, sun and soil—are nutrition and shelter. It’s sad, because the primary ways we’re destroying the Earth are through our shelter and agricultural systems.

SE: What’s the value in gathering a “small group of committed citizens,” as Margaret Mead famously said, to tackle these issues? What do you hope to accomplish?
Hopefully we give people more than just talking points and provide them with an experience in a different way of thinking. We learned from an old Harvard study that if we talk to people we retain 10 percent of what we’ve heard. If we share ideas with people, we may retain 20-25 percent. If we exchange understanding, through dialogue, process and co-teaching, we might retain 40-50 percent. But if we create a developmental process, we retain 70 percent. That’s because a developmental process requires on us to acknowledge that we don’t know all of what we’re doing and that we have to think deeply about our role in a given system. How we’re behaving. How we actually improve ourselves. Practicing development means we’re actually creating new potential. We’re discovering and working at discovering new ideas.

Hopefully at the EcoDistricts Summit we can share and exchange ideas and maybe do a bit of developmental work. But the best way is to actually practice something. To be on the ground and experience how things are working so that you internalize what happens. So what’s the role of conferences? It’s to expose people to new ideas and share experiences with them, so they can take them back and have the confidence to try things out on their own.

SE: How is the future that you envision difference than the one we see today? What are some of the key elements we need to manifest to thrive?
The key element, to me, is that we’re humble enough to know that we don’t know everything. And that we have the will to learn. If we could always be in that state of humility, we’d have world peace in an instant. We know what we know—that’s 5 percent. Maybe another 5 percent is that which we know we don’t know. The remaining 90 percent is that which we don’t know we don’t know. If we could actually engage in and have time to exchange in a way that we’re able to discover ideas and systems we’re entirely unaware of right now—we’ll be in a great position to create positive change.

SE: Anything else to add before we wrap up?
I think I’ve ended up launching into some pretty deep territory, but this is the situation we’re in today. Dealing with these issues of integration and patterning is where the sustainability movement needs to go. I’m hoping that all the technologies and infrastructure we’re playing with will lead us to address those very pressing questions.

In the context of this event, I’m delighted that Portland is leading the way in looking at community in a much richer context. And everything that I’ve spoken about today is not to say that all the technological work we’re doing is bad. It isn’t and we absolutely need to do it. But it’s not the end game. It’s an insufficient means to cover the whole story.

Bill Reed is the Principle of Integrative Design Collaborative, Regenesis, Inc., and Delving Deeper. He’ll also be Emcee at the inaugural EcoDistricts Summit put on by Portland Sustainability Institute, October 25-27, 2010, in Portland, Oregon. To learn more about the EcoDistricts Summit and to register, visit:

To learn more Bill Reed and his firms, visit our speakers page: