Arbutus Report - Meghan Murray

PLANNED COMMUNITIES

theories and practices in sustainable and e c o l o g i c a l s i t e d e s i g n Report by Meghan Murray

fundamentals.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS RESEARCH ABSTRACT PROBLEM STATEMENT GOAL CONTEXT OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGIES LIMITATIONS

01

09 part two.

37

part one.

OVERVIEW FOUNDATIONAL THEORIES PILLARS OF SUSTAINABILITY

MEASURING SUSTAINABILITY LOCATION + LINKAGE NEIGHBORHOOD PATTERN + DESIGN HUMAN HEALTH + WELL BEING WATER SOIL + VEGETATION GREEN BUILDING

59 appendices.

79 part three.

PRAIRIE CROSSING CASE STUDY CONCLUSIONS

APPENDIX A APPENDIX B

01

planned communities

fundamentals.

fundamentals.

01

planned communities

fundamentals.

M. Murray (2016). Theories and Practices in Sustainable and Ecological Site Design. School of Community and Regional Planning: UBC.

03

planned communities

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank the following people for the opportunity I was granted and the support I have received in making this report – From Arbutus Properties Limited I would like to thank Paul Buitenhuis and Jeff Drexel for hiring me to conduct this research for them, and for their support, inclusion, flexibility and encouragement throughout this entire process; Also, thank-you to the rest of the Arbutus team for welcoming me into your workspace for these past few months; Thank-you to Professor Jordi Honey-Roses for thinking of me when this opportunity came up and for all his help in the beginning phases of grant writing; Thank-you to Professor Maged Senbel for taking over as my research supervisor and for being so generous with his time and input as this project has evolved; Thank-you to all the people at Mitacs Accelerate who were involved with my application process and who were there to answer emails and phone calls as the process moved along; Thankyou to the financial specialist at SCARP, Penny Mullen, for her help with the administrative side of the Mitacs grant acceptance; Thank-you to Michael Sands, executive director of Liberty Prairie Foundation, for setting time aside to speak with me and share his knowledge about Prairie Crossing, the conservation community in Greyslake, Illinois. Lastly, thanks to Anna Zhou for being such a good bud as we have both worked to complete our separate but related research projects – your company and insights have been crucial.

fundamentals.

accelerating the agenda of sustainable urban development

design places for people not cars and remember we are part of nature

04

planned communities

RESEARCH ABSTRACT

A plethora of information about sustainable, ecological, and green urban development is currently competing for the attention of planners, developers and architects. Potentially conflicting and confusing terms pose a challenge for city building professionals who struggle to implement sustainable development practices in the face considerable institutional inertia and a skeptical public (Filion et al., 2016). With environmental goals and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions targets increasingly dominating municipal agendas the need for clear messages and feasible implementation strategies is acute. This research seeks to address the dual goals of clarity and feasibility in sustainable urban development.

The first objective is to conduct a comparative analysis of the core principals of competing approaches of sustainable urbanism in order to identify recurring themes – or pillars. The second objective is to design a sustainability benchmark tool that can situate individual projects along a spectrum of attainment using indicators representing each of the pillars of sustainability identified under objective one. The third objective is to test the tool by applying it to a case study location of a completed project that has comparable conditions to a greenfield site in Saskatoon, which is typical of prairie suburban neighborhoods. This proposed research will create a simple sustainability benchmark tool that can help project proponents identify the potential for feasible implementation along each of the pillars of sustainability. The tool is anticipated to be accessible to diverse audiences seeking to increase the sustainability performances of new developments in their respective fields of influence.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

Changing urban development patterns is a key part of the mitigating climate change (Calthorpe 2010). With few exceptions, sprawling greenfield developments have been the prevailing pattern of urban growth since the mid 20th century. Automobile suburbs dominate the landscape surrounding North American cities (Kenworthy & Laube 1996; Seto & Shepherd, 2009). While this pattern brought the dream of a single-family home with a yard within reach for millions of North Americans, it also created vast stretches of urban landscape that was built around the demands of automobile transportation (Calthorpe 2010; Duany et al 2000; Jacobs 1961; Gehl 2010; Langdon

fundamentals.

1994; Hayden 2004; McHarg 1969; Talen ed. 2013). The result of these is an urban landscape that was designed for peak traffic and high-speed access to employment centers at the expense of both community health and well-being and the environment (Calthrope 2010; Jacobs 1961).

Resistance to these car-oriented subdivisions has led to a rich body of work that offers alternatives. Recent discourse reveals two major schools of thought – sustainable urbanism and ecological urbanism. While the two terms get used interchangeably, there are important differences in how they evolved and the ideology they reflect. Sustainable urbanism is rooted in the triple bottom line approach where emphasis is placed on the equal importance and interrelationships between social, economic and environmental factors (Farr 2008). Ecological urbanism is more focused on the ways that human activities and urban form interact with natural processes of air, earth, water, life, and ecosystems (Mostafavi & Doherty 2010).

While alternatives to the traditional automobile subdivision exist, there continues to be disagreement across disciplines as well as confusion, contradiction and conflict between the ecological and sustainable urbanism movements. Because of this there has been no synthesis between the approaches based on substantive complementary principles, nor an integration of other complementary principles from related research in urban planning and urban design. This effectively slows the transition towards sustainable alternatives (Spirn, 2014).

GOAL

The general objective of this work is to help facilitate and accelerate the application of sustainability principles in urban development projects that would otherwise be subject to the inertia of autodependent highly consumptive patterns of development.

the periphery of Saskatoon

05

planned communities

CONTEXT

I will be working with senior management at Arbutus Properties to help inform the development of a planned community in Saskatoon. Arbutus Properties aims to design an ecological plan for their project. They would like to become familiar with the latest thinking on the subject and apply it to their own work. The purpose of my research will be to make this information accessible and usable for any city building professional seeking to practice sustainable development.

fundamentals.

Saskatoon is one of Canada’s most rapidly growing cities. Currently the demand for housing is being met with the same type of sprawling suburbs that surround more developed cities such as Toronto and Vancouver. These big cities are currently in a struggle to mitigate the negative effects of suburbanization through strategies such as mixed-use densification and provision of public transit. There is an opportunity to change the development pattern at Saskatoon’s periphery and prevent the need for future retrofits of suburbia (Dunham Jones & Williamson 2009). This project has the potential to influence decisions by the landowners and developers, and in particular, the type of proposal they put forward for council approval. An innovative development that incorporates the latest thinking in ecological site design could, in turn, influence development patterns in Saskatoon, and beyond.

OBJECTIVES distill the core principals of sustainability

part one.

Categorize and define terminology surrounding ecological, green, and sustainable urbanism as it relates to real estate and land development in planned communities. a. Global, regional and local search with emphasis on both cutting edge and incremental progress towards greater sustainability performance b. Synthesis of theories and approaches that distill principles to core pillars of sustainability that drive all performance measures.

develop a benchmark tool

part two.

Develop a sustainability benchmark tool to help city building professionals to identify the relative position of their projects along sustainability indicator spectrums.

complete a case study

part three.

Apply the sustainability benchmark tool to a case study of a completed project that has comparable conditions to the greenfield site in Saskatoon.

06

planned communities

fundamentals.

METHODOLOGIES

part one.

I will use content analysis to conduct a systematic review of dozens of academic and grey literature publications. These will include both highly cited publications commonly referenced in municipal documents in a range of large to medium sized cities, and publications that represent less mainstream but relevant movements. The review will include a keyword scan as well as a synopsis of key theories and principles. This information will be coded, analyzed and categorized according to recurring principles, which will in turn, be organized and distilled to craft a core set of principles that we provisionally term pillars of sustainability. part two.

For each of the pillars I will identify the most commonly used indicator or proxy indicator from the literature and identify a performance measure that will form the basis of the sustainability benchmark tool. Unlike other measures of sustainability like LEED and SITES, this tool situates projects on a spectrum of achievement delineated by the performance of examples of projects in three categories; those that are exemplary, those that are exemplary within specified physical, political or institutional contexts, and those that are conventional. In other words, high achievers, moderate achievers and conventional achievers in each of the pillars are identified in this approach.

In cases where no metrics exist a rationale for its assessed performance will be detailed for future replicability. The tool will not be exhaustive but is anticipated to better identify the trade-offs that individual developers, designers, contractors and builders have to contend with as they realize their development projects. part three.

The final stage of the project will be to apply the sustainability benchmark tool to a real case in Greyslake, IL - a sustainable master planned community that is now over twenty years old and has received much acclaim as a precedent for best practices in sustainable development. An evaluation of Prairie Crossing will serve as a useful case study due to its similarities to Arbutus Properties site in Saskatoon, and more generally to the typical greenfield sites that are being rapidly developed.

07

planned communities

fundamentals.

at the city’s periphery. For each pillar I will conduct sufficient analysis to enable situating Prairie Crossing along the indicators spectrum. The intent here is to enable identification of the feasibility of the different approaches to sustainability so that project proponents can see the relative merits of their potential efforts for each pillar and can appropriately allocate their resources where they will likely achieve the best results

LIMITATIONS

It is important to acknowledge the limitations of this research project. With only a few months to conduct research, analyze and synthesize data, and develop an evaluative tool for sustainable and ecological planning, it is inevitable that certain aspects were overlooked or could be strengthened.

Furthermore, while individual work grants certain freedoms, collaborative work (especially multidisciplinary work), helps provide more well rounded perspectives. I imagine as I share this project with colleagues and peers, their input will help aspects of this work to further develop.

One limitation I can recognize is my own biases that shaped this work. In conducting the research necessary for part one, I had an easier time with the theories of sustainable urbanism, as my background is in architecture and urban design. I have a growing interest and passion for ecological design (and the landscape architecture profession more generally), however it is possible that my portrayal of ecological urbanism and the action items and indicators that accompany their pillars could be strengthened or adjusted. Following this point I should mention that many action items and their indicators, while grounded in precedents of best practice, are subjective and not intended to be singularly binding. I also recognize that having varying quantities of action items under each pillar results in some sets of action items being weighted more heavily than others. I chose to allow for this limitation, as the difference is marginal.

While the purpose of this research is to make sustainable and ecological design comprehensive to a broader audience, no measurement tool can replace the creative abilities and critical thinking skills that go into individual projects and their unique accompanying set of opportunities and constraints. I hope this work helps to demystify certain theories and practices that lay behind the planning and designing of more just communities, as well to help inspire others in their quest to advance the agenda of sustainability.

08

planned communities

fundamentals.

01

planned communities

fundamentals.

part one.

anthropocentric verses biocentric - where ideolgies regarding sustainability diverge

the roots of current ideologies

11

planned communities

OVERVIEW

There are two broad movements that shape current practices in sustainable community design – sustainable urbanism and ecological urbanism. While the terms often get used interchangeably, there are important distinctions between the two. Sustainable urbanism is rooted in urban design and planning theory and emphasizes the triple bottom line approach, where equal importance is placed on the interrelationship between social, economic, and environmental factors (Farr, 2008).

Ecological urbanism is rooted in landscape and environmental theory and is more focused on the ways that human activities and urban form interact with natural processes of air, earth, life, and ecosystems (Mostafavi & Doherty, 2010). While ecological urbanism places the same importance on the human experience in the built environment as sustainable urbanism, the approach has focused on the embeddedness of humans in nature and natural systems (McHarg, 1969).

Both approaches, as well as the theoretical underpinnings that guide them, are invaluable in guiding the cultural shift towards sustainability. The issue is that while practitioners often agree in general terms about the definitions of sustainable development (Filion et al., 2016) there continues to be disagreement across disciplines in key areas like wastewater management (Kaminsky & Javernick-Will, 2013). There is also some confusion, contradiction and conflict between the two different movements (Spirn 2014; Elin 2013). While there have been some attempts to subsume landscape urbanism into sustainable urbanism (Duany 2013; Ellin 2013) there has been no synthesis between the approaches based on substantive complementary principles, nor an integration of other complementary principles from related research in urban planning and urban design. This proposed research will address this gap by distilling key themes into pillars of sustainability.

THE FOUNDATIONAL THEORIES

Before delving into the pillars of sustainability, their theoretical backings should first be introduced.

The theories have been subdivided under the two broad groups of sustainable and ecological urbanism. This subdivision lays out more clearly how the two ideological camps differ and how they come from a separate lineage. It is also important to note that these lists are not exhaustive. There are numerous other works that relate to and have influenced those that will be described. Choices of what to include were made based on the theories that most closely relate to community planning

fundamentals.

and design. They were also selected based on their relative influence and innovation within the community and landscape planning professions.

While not included in the list, there are a couple of people who deserve to be mentioned here. There is Jane Jacobs, the astute social commentator, observer and activist, author of The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961), whose urban theories became the backbone for all progressive planning. Then there is Georges Perkins Marsh, author of Man & Nature: Or, Physical Geography as Modified by Human Action (1864) - a book that was published just five years after Darwin’s, On the Origin of Species, and shared its status in popularity and influence for a time.

Fluent in several languages, Marsh was the first person to scour over thousands of ancient texts and documents, collecting data on civilizations rise and fall. What he discovered was that falls in civilization were caused by environmental degradation, that in fact several of the Earth’s deserts were man made - an outcome of not living lightly on the land. The idea that Earth was not endlessly abundant was a novel concept at the time.

12

planned communities

part one.

PRINCIPLES

the garden city.

01.

Land value capture for benefit of community

02.

Strong vision, leadership, and community engagement

03.

Long-term stewardship of assets

04.

Mixed and affordable housing

05.

Robust employment opportunities in Garden City and nearby

06.

Beautifully and imaginatively designed homes with gardens, combining the very best of town and country living to create healthy homes in vibrant communities

07.

Development that enhances the natural environment

08.

Strong local cultural, recreational, and shopping amenities in a walkable neighborhood

09.

Integrated and accessible transport systems

10.

Strategic approach that considers the wider region

The Garden City concept is one of the most influential in modern planning history. The inventor of this concept, Ebenezer Howard, was an anarchist social reformer who believed in community engagement, empowerment, and self-reliance. Living in the midst of booming industrial London, his vision was to re-direct urban growth into self-contained new towns called Garden Cities. These Garden Cities would become magnets by combining the best of town and country.

At an ideal population of 32,000, residents of the Garden City would have enough space to have a garden and breath fresh air, while still living in a place populous enough to bring the joys and diversity of city living. Within the Garden City there would be enough industry and employment to provide all residents with robust work opportunities. 1,000 acres (405 hectares) of urban land would be surrounded by a 5,000-acre (2,024 hectare) agricultural greenbelt – enough to feed the entire population. Once the population of the Garden City grew to its maximum capacity, a new Garden City would be started – eventually creating a constellation of interconnected urban nuclei all buffered by natural and agricultural land. Part of Howard’s long-term vision for Garden Cities was that they would be owned and operated by and for the local community. Set up as co-operatives, all profits generated by rising real-estate values of the Garden City would be captured and redistributed for the benefit of the Garden City and its inhabitants.

Howard’s Garden City concept has manifested itself in various ways throughout modern history and across the globe. From Garden Suburbs in New York State to New Towns of Seoul, aspects of the Garden City have long held traction. Unfortunately for Howard (and perhaps for us as well) it has always been the socially radical ideas, those that could lead a peaceful path to real reform, which get left behind (Hall, 1988).

13

planned communities

part one.

sustainable urbanism

FIGURE 1. (left) The Three Magnets. Howard’s vision to blend the best of town and country. 1899.

FIGURE 2. (right) Group of Slumless Smokeless Cities. Howard’s vision of a network of interconnected garden cities. 1899.

FIGURE 3. Garden City. The diagramatic plan for a utopian city. 1899.

14

planned communities

part one.

PRINCIPLES

the neighborhood unit.

01.

School in the centre so children can walk

02.

Place arterial streets along the perimeter

03.

Design internal streets that establish hierarchy and slow traffic

04.

Restrict local shopping areas to the perimeter

05.

Dedicate at least 10% of the land area to parks and open space

Clarence Perry was developing his planning ideologies at a time when private car ownership was on the rise in America. The Neighborhood Unit began as a strategy to reconcile pedestrian safety in a motor age, but grew into a more comprehensive toolkit for progressive urban planning. Similarly to Howard, Perry had come up with various measurements on which the ideal community should be based.

According to principles of walkability, the Neighborhood Unit would be based on a ¼ mile (400 meter) radius with the school and other community institutions at the center. At an average of 10 units per acre (4 units per hectare), the population could range from 5,000 to 9,000. Great attention was paid to the design and hierarchy of streets; arterial streets were to be placed along the periphery to keep out through traffic, and a pedestrian only network connected the entire neighborhood.

While Perry was a strong advocate of social ideas such as mixed diversity and community empowerment, the Neighborhood Unit has been used to create what critics’ call, “un-gated” communities. This is achieved by creating public spaces that are actually semi-private and by using street design to keep “outsiders” out. This view is now largely set aside however, as cities and regions increasingly view suburban sprawl as a top issue to resolve. As a model for sustainable community design, the Neighborhood Unit has become a gold standard. The guiding principals strongly influence current urban design theory, particularly New Urbanism.

15

planned communities

part one.

sustainable urbanism

FIGURE 4. The Neighborhood Unit. Clarence Perry’s Design for a complete community in a motor age. 1929.

16

planned communities

part one.

PRINCIPLES 01.

Walkability

02.

Connectivity

03.

Mixed-Use and Mixed Diversity

04.

Mixed Housing

05.

Quality Architecture and Urban Design

06.

Traditional Neighborhood Structure

07.

Increased Density

08.

Smart Transportation

09.

Sustainability

10.

Quality of Life

17

planned communities

new urbanism.

New Urbanism, also know as Traditional Urbanism, emerged in the last decade of the 20th century and now has thousands of supporting members. The straightforward principles (based on the Neighborhood Unit) have been picked up by municipalities and developers alike. This influential movement was started by a group of urban planners and architects. Peter Calthorpe, Andres Duany, Elizabeth Moule, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, Stefanos Polyzoides, and Daniel Solomon were the original signatories of the Charter of New Urbanism and founded the Chicago based Congress of New Urbanism (CNU) in 1993. As an aside, it was this same group (with the addition of Michael Corbett) who were invited by Sacramento’s Local Government Commission (LCC) to draft a set of principles for community based land-use planning in 1991. They came up with the Ahwahnee Principles. It was this document that was to become the springboard for New Urbanism (as well as for Smart Growth, and Transit Oriented Design).

By this point in history, a new generation of architects and planners had emerged. They rejected modernist planning ideologies to which they attributed shapeless, sprawling, consumptive landscapes, dedicated to speeding cars rather than pedestrians - places without identity or the mix of uses and people that lead to rich civic life. Heavily influenced by critical urban theorists such as Jane Jacobs, Christopher Alexander and Jan Gehl, these professionals were calling for the kinds of human-scale, community based neighborhoods that developed organically before the days of mass car ownership. New Urbanism hails traditional neighborhood form - places where children can walk to school, where people sit on their front porch and gather in public parks and plazas, where amenities are close by, and where the overall density, scale and layout supports a vibrant public life that fosters community cohesion.

There are now dozens of New Urbanist planned communities throughout the world, the most well-know still being those design by CNU founders Andres Duany and Elizabeth PlaterZyberk - Seaside, FL and Kentlands, MD. While these are immaculately designed, arguably beautiful places, they have been criticized for being socially exclusionary (Lehrer & Milgrom, 1996). Although part of the design intention was to foster mixed diversity, the desire to live in these master planned communities is so high that real estate values have soared and pushed out all but the very wealthy from the housing market. This serves as an important reminder that there are forces greater than design that impact human well-being. Without proper policies that support social equality, well designed and livable neighborhoods become exclusive to those who can pay top price.

part one.

sustainable urbanism

FIGURE 5. The Urban Transect. New Urbanism argues for more distinct urban form - rather than shapeless sprawl, the transect shows how places should have distinct centres, and a decline in density that eventually delinates the urban rural boundary.

FIGURE 6. Seaside, Florida.

FIGURE 7. Kentlands, Maryland.

18

planned communities

part one.

PRINCIPLES

smart growth.

01.

Mix land uses

02.

Take advantage of compact building design

03.

Create a range of housing choices

04.

Create walkable neighborhoods

05.

Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place

06.

Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty and critical environmental areas

07.

Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities

08.

Provide a variety of transportation choices

09.

Make development decisions predictable, fair and cost effective

10.

Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions

Smart Growth is very much an ally and complementary partner to New Urbanism. Also stemming from the Ahwahnee Principles, Smart Growth has evolved to play a key role in shaping government policy in progressive planning departments throughout North America. Similarly to New Urbanism, Smart Growth has thousands of members and has held an annual conference, New Partners for Smart Growth, since 2002. The movement has been successful in creating both public and private partnerships that have helped to spread the guiding ideology. While the principles are similar between New Urbanism and Smart Growth, the application tends to differ. Although New Urbanism is a leader on human-scale urban design, it is known to fall flat on higher order social and environmental goals. This is where Smart Growth comes in to bolster up good design with good policy.

As a reaction to urban sprawl, Smart Growth counters the 1960s and 70s mentality of “no growth�. Today, the common belief is that urban growth is inevitable and that people should have the right to move where they want and be accommodated. Gone are the days of believing cities should have an ideal size and population. Critical urban theory now suggests that cities are dynamic forces and that we must be strategic in accommodating and responding to their constant flux in sustainable ways. Smart Growth is a response to this.

Compact neighborhoods are a major strategy for achieving sustainable urbanism. Because of this, Smart Growth places importance on retrofitting or infill projects that better existing communities and curb greenfield development. When greenfield development does occur, Smart Growth principles state that it must not impede on environmentally sensitive areas and that it should be directed towards existing urban areas for purposes of connectivity and infrastructure efficiency.

Regionally connected, multi-modal transportation networks are also a key part of Smart Growth theory. Generally, Smart Growth does a good job of tackling multi-scalar urban issues.

19

planned communities

part one.

sustainable urbanism

FIGURE 8. Metro 2040 Growth Concept Map. Since the 1970s Portland, Oregon has been using Smart Growth principles to guide its development.

This growth concept map shows how the metro region is concentrating growth into distinct centers that are connected by multi-modal transit corridors.

It also shows the areas urban growth boundary, a planning tool that is used to curb sprawl by more selective and concentrated peripheral development.

FIGURE 9 & 10. (left) The Streetcar. The streetcar is part of Portland’s sustainable transportation plan. (right) Bioswells. Green infrastructure is part of the city’s retrofitting project in a move towards ecological sustainability.

20

planned communities

part one.

PRINCIPLES

transit oriented development.

01.

Organize growth on a regional level to be com pact and transit-supportive

02.

Place commercial, housing, jobs parks, and civic uses within walking distance of transit stops

03.

Create pedestrian-friendly street networks that directly connect local destinations

04.

Provide a mix of housing types, densities, and costs

05.

Preserve sensitive habitat, riparian zones, and high-quality open space

06.

Make public spaces the focus of building orientation and neighbourhood activity

Transit Oriented Development (T.O.D.) has become one of the most widely adopted urban planning strategies. All over the world, cities (especially the more populous ones) are integrating T.O.D. as part of their official plan. T.O.D. is the concept of concentrating urban growth around a transit hub - usually some form of rapid public transport such as a skytrain or subway. At the neighborhood scale, compact communities are organized so that everything is within a walking radius of the transit hub (generally 1,600 meters - a 20 minute walk). While neighborhood design should support all forms of transportation, the idea behind the T.O.D. is to dramatically reduce the need to own or drive a car. This concept is further supported at the regional scale, as robust and reliable public transportation becomes the dominant mode of mobility. If executed correctly at the regional scale, T.O.D. should look like beads strung along a chain.

Before the advent of mass car ownership, all development was T.O.D. Streetcars and passenger trains used to define urban form. In North America, many beloved neighborhoods are old streetcar suburbs. The commercial or downtown core would run along the rail line, and out from that would be a grid of single family homes on small lots. Residential development would end at a reasonable walking distance from the main street. These “traditional” neighborhoods are in fact exactly what the New Urbanists champion and seek to revive.

Peter Calthorpe (founding member of the CNU) coined the term “Transit Oriented Development” in his celebrated book, The Next American Metropolis. While modern day proponents of T.O.D. strive to implement what was described above, Calthorpe’s conception of T.O.D. is actually more comprehensive and complex in the issues it tackles. In fact, many of his key concepts have become adopted into Smart Growth principles. Again, the relationship between these influential movements are incredibly interwoven.

21

planned communities

part one.

sustainable urbanism

FIGURE

11.

Calthorpe’s

T.O.D. concept

Neighborhood diagram

Diagram.

shows

how

communities should be planned around a transit node.

FIGURE 12. Bidadi Knowledge City, Karnataka.

India. T.O.D. concept plan by Calthrope and Associates, 2007.

22

planned communities

part one.

PRINCIPLES

design with nature.

01.

Conform to ecology, don’t compete with it

02.

Assess all aspects of a plot of land by using layers

03.

Restrict plantings to native species

04.

Familiarize with the area through analysis of soil, climate, hydrology, etc.

05.

Optimize spatial arrangement of ecosystems and land uses that maximize ecological integrity

06.

Ensure scalar coherence and consistency

There has been the persistent tendency amongst landscape architects to separate their thinking from regional and urban planning. This was not the case for Ian McHarg, who looked well beyond garden design for inspiration and challenge. He was in fact trained as both landscape architect and city planner at Harvard University. He went on to form the Landscape and Regional Planning department at the University of Pennsylvania, where amongst talented students and faculty he solidified his theories on ecological design.

Many of the theories that he developed as an academic and as a practitioner are expressed in his seminal work, Design With Nature - a book that has gained recognition far outside the landscape architecture profession, and one that left the profession forever changed. Due to his work, environmentalism has become a core part of landscape architecture’s training and pedagogy.

Some of his most important and influential ideas include the notions of nature as process, of places as products of physical and biological evolution, of adaptation and fit, and of man as a planetary disease (Spirn, 2000).

McHarg developed a scientific approach for site analysis - his methodological contributions include the overlay and matrix. The overlays were a series of maps that contained different information of the same geographical area on separate layer. The matrix, a list of attributes always organized in the following order: topography, geology, soils, hydrology, vegetation, current land use, and potential uses, dictated the information shown on the maps. Together these tools reveal spatial patterns of “intrinsic suitability” for diverse land uses. While sometimes criticized for being overly complex, this comprehensive approach reveals important ecological design opportunities and constraints that would otherwise be missed. It is this approach in fact, that was the forbearer to modern day Geographic Information Systems (GIS).

23

planned communities

part one.

ecological urbanism

FIGURE 13. Staten Island Site Study. McHarg’s layering approach to land use analysis revolutionized site planning. It allows for ecological relationships to be visulaized, uncovering opportunities and constraints that would otherwise go undetected.

FIGURE 14. Woodlands, Texas. McHarg’s effort to create an ecologically driven master planned community. Important parts of his proposal were ignored by the developers.

24

planned communities

part one.

LAND USE PLAN SEQUENCE

landscape ecology.

01.

Protect biodiversity and water

02.

Protect lands for food, grazing and timber (ecosystem services)

03.

Reserve areas for sewage and solid waste

04.

Identify areas for human settlement and industry

Richard Forman is considered the godfather of landscape ecology. This is a scientific approach to analysing the ecology of landscapes and regions. Originally conceived of by studying aerial photos, landscape ecology takes a bird’s eye perspective to analyze the relationships between spatial patterns, processes and scales. Beginning with a study area of a least a few square kilometers and moving outwards hundreds or even thousands of kilometers, heterogeneous patterns are revealed; Forman named this landscape the mosaic. Making up the mosaic are other spatial patterns which Forman categorized as the patch, corridor and matrix. The matrix refers to the background, or dominant ecological system (such as a wetland, forest or urban region) within which patches and corridors exist. Patches are relatively homogeneous areas within the matrix that differ from their surroundings. Passageways and connectors such as roads, rivers, hedgeways and power lines show up and distinctive corridors.

The value in this mosaic analysis is that “indispensable landscape patterns� can be detected that, if protected, will preserve crucial ecosystem functions. Forman suggests that (1) large patches of natural vegetation should be protected because they provide the benefits of species richness, habitat for interior species, and natural hydrological processes that maintain water quantity, timing, and quality downstream; (2) connectivity between large patches in the form of wide corridors or clusters of smaller patches should exist to facilitate the species movement; (3) vegetated corridors along streams and rivers must be protected to provide species movement, erosion control, water quality maintenance, and protection of fish habitat; and that (4) stepping stones of small natural vegetation patches through altered landscapes must be provided to allow for such benefits as rare species habitats and species movement.

25

planned communities

part one.

ecological urbanism

FIGURE 15 & 16. (left) Types of Landscape and Region. (right) Modeling Mosaic Sequences.

Forman’s water color diagrams come from his book Landscape Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions (1995). They take a bird’s eye view to landscape analysis. The patterns that Forman records show what sort of ecological dynamics are at play and become a useful tool for ecological planning and design.

FIGURE 17 & 18. (left) Wildlife Connectivity. (right) Planning.

26

planned communities

part one.

PRINCIPLES

ecological design.

01.

Solutions grow from place

02.

Ecological accounting informs design

03.

Design with nature

04.

Everyone is a designer

05.

Make nature visible

06.

Ecological reference

07.

Balanced Capacity

08.

Adaptation and performance

09.

Sustainable Yield

10.

Hydrologic Cycle

Where the methodologies proposed in Design with Nature and Landscape Mosaics form the basis for land-use analysis, Ecological Design proposes the interventions. The analysis reveals what a landscape wants to be, and the design intervention responds. Van der Ryn and Cowan define ecological design as “any form of design that minimizes environmentally destructive impacts by integrating itself with living processes.” The authors make the argument that to live sustainability on the planet, to stop and begin to undo the depletion of the natural capital that sustains us, we must look to nature for design inspiration.

Trees clean the air, marshes remove nutrients and pathogens from water, roots hold soils in place to stop erosion. There are examples throughout the world of humans mimicking or harnessing nature to enhance their habitats while living in harmony with the flows of surrounding ecosystems. By studying the ecology of a particular location, one can unveil a design process that has adapted over centuries, often millennia, to function as efficiently and intelligently as possible. As the book states, “nature’s own exquisite design catalogue is nothing less than a blueprint for our own survival.”

As a movement, ecological design gained traction during the energy crisis of the 1970s.

The OPEC oil embargo fueled the quest for alternative energy sources, including renewables.

This first generation of ecological design focused on the house - “the habitat with which we are most familiar.” All over the world experiments and prototypes were developed. Homes were reimagined as self sufficient living organisms - places that produced their own food and energy, and re-used their own waste. Some famous examples include the Ouroboros House in Minneapolis, the Autonomous House at Cambridge University, and the Farallones Institute’s Integral Urban House in Berkeley, California. Today, ecological design has entered the realm of urbanism with a greater focus on whole communities or regional areas as living systems. Well known urban design projects include such places as BedZED eco-community in London and Freshkills Park, a landfill reclamation project in New York.

27

planned communities

part one.

ecological urbanism

FIGURE 19. BedZED, London. Beddington Zero Energy Development (BedZED) is the UK’s first large-scale, mixed use sustainable community.

Completed in 2002.

FIGURE 20. Freshkills Park, New York City.

At almost three times the size of Central Park, Freshkills is being built on top of a landfil reclaimation project on Staten Island.

28

planned communities

part one.

29

planned communities

part one.

PILLARS OF SUSTAINABILTY discussion of process. the result of this process led to the creation of six pillars of sustainability:

location + linkage neighborhood pattern + design human health + well being water soil + vegetation green building

30

planned communities

The purpose of creating the pillars of sustainability is to integrate the core principals of the many existing theories. While studying the movements discussed previously, ideological crossovers became evident. For example, when compared side by side, the principals of the Garden City, New Urbanism, and Smart Growth movements have striking similarities. Across the movements, many principals are actually the same. Could all of these dominant theories be combined into a more comprehensive whole? Yes, and the pillars of sustainability are the result.

The first step in this process of comparative analysis was to eliminate all repeated principals.

For example, mixed land use was a common theme for all the movements under the umbrella of sustainable urbanism. Crucial to this elimination was further reading into the principles. Many principles are accompanied with a paragraph of explanation (these can be found in Appendix X) which provided a more holistic understanding of the principal. The next step was to group the simplified list of principals into themes, such as transportation, urban design, and ecology.

At this point in the process, it became evident that the principles developed by the sustainable urbanists are clearer and more directional than what has been developed by the ecological urbanists. To balance this divide, a deeper reading of the foundational texts on ecological urbanism was required. While incredibly comprehensive, these texts lack the strength in clarity that sustainable urbanism has managed. With some interpretation, it was possible to discern categories for ecological design intervention, such as water, soil and vegetation.

During this whole process of analysis and synthesis, decisions were made about wording and representation. While many movements have the same underlying ideologies, one might express that ideology in a clearer manner. In this way, there was a certain picking and choosing involved in combining these core pillars. It should also be stated that Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) and the Sustainable Sites Initiative (SITES) rating systems provided invaluable cross-referencing. Both LEED-ND and SITES are promoted by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) and are leading industry standards for sustainable development in North America.

part one.

pillar one

location + linkage.

This pillar is about site choice, development, and connectivity. The belief that all growth is bad has dissipated and has been replaced by the view that growth is inevitable and can be positive if planned wisely. In terms of choosing a site to build, infill and brownfield development are preferred to greenfield development. If greenfield development should occur, it should not be on farmland or ecologically sensitive land. The development should take into consideration existing development, and try and integrate with and strengthen existing communities rather than create fragmented enclaves. Another key aspect of achieving sustainability under this pillar is ensuring that the new development is well connected to its surrounding and the region at large by a multi-modal transit network - this is crucial in ensuring people have choice in how they travel and also in reducing dependency on the automobile. action items.

01. Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities 02. Preserve sensitive habitat, riparian zones, and high quality open space 03. Protect floodplain functions 04. Connect to multi-modal transit networks 05. Limit development on farmland

31

planned communities

part one.

pillar two

neighborhood pattern + design.

This pillar is about the physical form the of development. This pillar looks at how urban design can encourage more sustainable lifestyles and bring vibrancy to the public life of a community. A major goal and motivation behind the sustainability movement within community planning is to design for people rather than cars. The idea is that by putting people first, places get created that are safe and enjoyable to walk around, where all of life’s daily needs can be met on foot or bike. By default these places are more compact, meaning less natural land gets consumed by urban growth. It also means that there needs to be a mix of land uses and housing types within close proximity to allow for the creation of a complete community. A “complete� community is one in which people of all classes and ages can work and live. action items.

01. Design streets that establish a hierarchy and calm traffic streets 02. Minimize car dominant urban design 03. Create pedestrian and bike friendly street networks that directly connect to local destinations 04. Create a mixed use and walkable neighborhood 05. Provide a mix of housing types, densities, and costs for residents 06. Orient buildings and blocks to maximize passive and active solar access 07. Make public spaces the focus of building orientation and neighborhood activity 08. Take advantage of compact building design

32

planned communities

part one.

pillar three

human health + well being This pillar includes a range of action items, but is essentially about promoting security and equity within a community. From conception to maturity, there are steps that can be taken to promote high quality of life within a planned development. Whether it is a participatory planning process, or accessible building design, this pillar is about making sure people are included in shaping their own neighborhood while also being able to be self-reliant. It also takes into consideration human biology, and the kinds of environmental conditions that foster healthy lives. action items.

01. Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions 02. Protect and maintain cultural and historical places 03. Provide optimum site accessibility, safety and way-finding 04. Support local food production 05. Reduce light pollution 06. Encourage fuel efficient and multi-modal transportation 07. Capture profits from development and reinvest into the community 08. Support the local economy

33

planned communities

part one.

pillar four

water.

This pillar is about taking a systems thinking approach to management - it is about understanding how the water cycle works and designing communities that function with rather than against that natural cycle. Most of the ways urban areas currently manage water is wasteful and harmful to the environment. Using large amounts of potable water to flush toilets, clean cars and water landscapes is unnecessary and must stop in a day and age when fresh water scarcity is a global concern. Instead there are conservation strategies such as harvesting rainwater and installing low flush toilets. Of similar concern is the fact that the hard surfaces of the built environment do not allow groundwater recharge thus exacerbating peak flows during rainfall and leaving aquifers unfilled. This can be solved with better site planning that includes more impervious surfaces and stormwater amenities. action items.

01. Manage stormwater (precipitation) on site 02. Reduce wastewater discharge 03. Design buildings for water efficiency and conservation 04. Reduce water use for landscape irrigation 05. Design functional stormwater features as amenities

34

planned communities

part one.

pillar five

soil + vegetation.

This pillar is about designing and thinking of communities as living systems. The functions both soil and vegetation provide are critical for maintaining healthy habitats. Vegetation provides oxygen, regulates climate and provides species habitat while soil is full of nutrients that plants need to grow and it acts as a purifying for water re entering the ground. Together soil and vegetation hold the earth in place and stop harmful process such as erosion. Invasive plants can choke out important local species. Monocrop plantings can harm the pH balance of the soil, leaving it acidic and eventually resulting in desertification of once healthy lands. Understanding these processes and including them in the design of the built environment are an essential part of changing the way we relate to nature and ensuring we live sustainably on Earth. action items.

01. Create a soil management plan 02. Control and manage invasive species on public land 03. Use appropriate plants that are well adapted to local environmental conditions 04. Use vegetation and reflective materials to reduce urban heat island effects 05. Use vegetation to minimize building energy use

35

planned communities

part one.

pillar six

green building.

As a movement, green building was the forbearer to both sustainable and ecological urbanism. It began in the 1970s with home design and since then has grown into a massive industry whose goal is rethinking the architecture of the modern age. It is about building design that is place based, sensitive to its surrounding climatic conditions, and efficient in its use of energy. It is also about recognizing the incredible wastefulness of the building industry during construction and demolition processes and figuring out how through adaptive re-use, recycling, and other design innovations, we can stop sending building materials to landfills. Many of the design goals of ecological urbanism (which integrates natural systems into site design) are achieved though green building techniques.

This is being seen more and more as the movement extends to include sustainable infrastructure, sometimes referred to as “green” or “blue” infrastructure. action items.

01. Eliminate the use of wood from threatened tree species 02. Design for efficiency 03. Design for adaptability and disassembly 04. Reuse salvaged construction materials and plants 05. Support responsible extraction of raw materials 06. Support sustainability in materials manufacturing 07. Use recycled content material 08. Generate renewable energy on-site 09. Provide heating and cooling through a neighborhood wide system 10. Provide energy efficient neighborhood infrastructure

36

planned communities

part one.

01

planned communities

fundamentals.

part two.

39

planned communities

part two.

MEASURING SUSTAINABILTY discussion of process.

The indicators used in this section are based on widely accepted best practices, both in North America and globally. The source for percentage requirements and other hard numbers come from LEED-ND and SITES. These were crossed references against CASBEE and BREAM (two other internationally acclaimed rating systems that come from Japan and the UK). These standards are based on well-known and tested practices, methodologies and theories. For example, walking radii, which are broken down into increments of 400 meters (5 minutes walk), inform many aspects of sustainable site design. Human behavioral patterns show that critical amenities should be located within a 5 minute walking radius, and that a 20 minute walking radius (1600 meters) defines the typical boundary at which point people find walking distance inconvenient (Gehl, 2010). The same guidelines are used for cycling radii, where the average speed is determined to be 15 kilometers per hour. These are the same standards that Google Maps uses for calculating travel times for both pedestrians and cyclists.

While most indicators used here are similar to those found in the leading LEED-ND and SITES rating systems, a major difference is that every action item is placed along a spectrum of achievement. This allows for less information to be discounted because of fixed targets, thus creating a more nuanced understanding of projects performances. Another difference between this benchmark tool and other rating systems is how information is organized. While each action item is complex, efforts were made to simplify indicators and their accompanying clarifying information.

The purpose of this study is to make the information clear and accessible. Should further clarification be required, the reader can refer to the more detailed rating systems that are tailored for an expert audience.

40

planned communities

part two.

LOCATION + LINKAGE action one.

notes.

adjacency - a minimum of 25% of the project’s boundary must be adjacent to the previous development and connected by a multi modal

strengthen and direct development towards existing communities. conventional moderate

road network with intersections at intervals of at least 200m transit - 50% of dwelling units and 50% of non-

exemplary

residential units are within 400m of a transit stop infill site - 75% surrounded by previously developed land

action two.

notes.

conservation plan - e.g. development is channeled to sites that do not include endangered plant and animal habitat, design the site the

new development is fragmented and disconnected from surrounding builtup areas locate development on adjacent site to previously developed land OR locate development on a site with existing or planned transit service locate development on adjacent site to previously developed land AND locate development on a site with existing or planned transit service AND/OR locate development on an infill site or previously developed site

preserve sensitive habitat, riparian zones, and high quality open space. conventional moderate exemplary

conforms to building industry standards have experts create a conservation plan and partially implement have experts create a conservation plan and fully implement

minimize habitat disruption, design to allow species connectivity through the site and to adjacent sites via habitat “corridors” and “stepping stones”

action three.

notes.

flood hazard area - any floodplain subject to a 1% or greater chance of flooding in any given year

protect floodplain functions. conventional moderate

exemplary 41

planned communities

conforms to building industry standards if on a floodplain, development must be designed and built to be protected and operable during a 100-year moderate or high risk flood event (500-year for critical facilities) locate development entirely outside any flood hazard area

part two.

location + linkage

action four.

notes.

transit service - at least one project entrance is

connect to multi-modal transit networks. conventional

400m from a bus or streetcar stop or 800m from rapid transit, passenger rail, or a ferry terminal pedestrian extention - must be at least 1.6

moderate exemplary

kilometers in radial distance cyclist extention - must be at least 8 kilometers in length

action five.

notes.

comprehensive planning - e.g., assessing future agricultural needs, affordable housing

limit development on farmland. conventional moderate

opportunities, transportation corridors, desires for density

42

exemplary

planned communities

motorized roadways form the dominant transit network and residents rely on the private automobile locate development on a site with existing or planned transit service locate development on a site with existing or planned transit service AND connect to or design a continuous sidewalk and crosswalk network that extends beyond the project’s entrance as well as a continuous bicycle network extends beyond the project’s entrance

development occurs on prime farmland development occurs on prime farmland but is located on an infill site or desired development zone using comprehensive planning no development occurs on prime farmland

part two.

NEIGHBORHOOD PATTERN + DESIGN action one.

notes.

hierarchy - e.g., arterial streets are placed along perimeter to keep out through traffic, cycling

design streets that establish a hierarchy and calm traffic. conventional moderate

routes are planned along secondary streets calming - e.g., calming designs such as changes

exemplary

in paving material and/or grade, and roundabouts

conforms to building industry standards between 30 and 60% of the development uses design to establish hierarchy and calm traffic over 60% of the development uses design to establish hierarchy and calm traffic

are used at crossings

action two.

minimize car dominant urban design. conventional moderate

exemplary

43

planned communities

development accomodates the movement and storage of cars over other design critera surface parking is no greater than 20% of development area AND between 50 and 70% of surface parking is on-street parking AND between 50 and 70% of lots and garages are placed either underground or to the side or rear of buildings surface parking is less than 20% of development area AND over 70% of surface parking is on-street parking AND over 70% of lots and garages are placed either underground or to the side or rear of buildings

part two.

neighborhood pattern + design

action three.

create pedestrian and bike friendly street networks that directly connect to local destinations. conventional moderate

exemplary

action four.

notes. mixed use - diversify landuse at the

neighborhood, block and building scales

create a mixed use and walkable neighborhood. conventional moderate

amenities - e.g. shops, schools, employment, services, facilities

44

planned communities

conforms to building industry standards between 50 and 80% of the total linear meters of street-facing facades is no more than 5.5 meters away from the property line AND all streets have sidewalks at least 3 meters wide on both sides of the street AND secondary and/or traffic calmed streets are designated with bike lanes that as a whole create a continuous network throughout the neighborhood over 80% of the total linear meters of street-facing facades is no more than 5.5 meters away from the property line AND all streets have sidewalks at least 3 meters wide on both sides of the street AND secondary and/or traffic calmed streets are designated with bike lanes that as a whole create a continuous network throughout the neighborhood AND if facades face sidewalks, entries in occur at intervals no greater than 9 meters apart and no more than 40% of it’s length is left blank

exemplary

no consideration given between 60 and 80% of housing is within an 800 meter radius of at least 5 diverse neighborhood amenities over 80% of housing is within an 800 meter radius of at least 5 diverse neighborhood amenities

part two.

action five.

notes.

Simpson Diversity Index - calculates the probability that any two randomly selected

provide a mix of housing types, densities, and costs for residents conventional moderate

dwelling units in a project will be of a different

between 30% and 50% of new rental and/or dwelling units are affordable

Score = 1 - ÎŁ (n/N)2 (where n = the total number

AND

of dwelling units in a single category, and N = the

between 30% and 50% of affordable housing must be for low income

total nubeer of dwelling units in all categories) earning below the area median income

households exemplary

over 50% of new rental and/or dwelling units are affordable

annual earnings for households in the lowest

AND

quintile of earners

over 50% of affordable housing must be for low income households action six.

orient buildings and blocks to maximize passive and active solar access. conventional moderate

exemplary

planned communities

the Simpson Diversity Index is greater than 0.7 AND

low income - priced at no more than 30% of

45

the Simpson Diversity Index score is between 0.6 and 0.7 AND

type. This can be determined with the equation:

affordable housing - priced for households

no consideration given

no consideration given design and orient development so that between 60% and 75% of the buildings have east-west sun exposure OR between 60% and 75% blocks have the longer axis within plus or minus 15 degrees of geographical east-west design and orient the new development so that over 75% of the buildings have east-west sun exposure OR over 75% of the blocks have the longer axis within plus or minus 15 degrees of geographical east-west

part two.

neighborhood pattern + design

action seven.

notes.

civic / passive-use space - for smaller sites (under 10 hectares), 10% of the site must be dedicated to civic/passive use space, and for

make public spaces the focus of building orientation and neighborhood activity. conventional moderate

larger sites (over 10 hectares) the dedicated civic/ passive use space must be at least 650 square meters in area, e.g., square, park, promenade or

exemplary

plaza

no consideration given design the development so that a civic or passive-use space lies within 400 meters of between 70% and 90% of dwelling units and nonresidential buildings design the development so that a civic or passive-use space lies within 400 meters over 90% of dwelling units and nonresidential buildings

take advantage of compact building design. conventional moderate action eight. exemplary

46

planned communities

no consideration given residential density is no lower than 17 dwelling units per hectare AND nonresidential building density is between 0.5 and 0.9 FAR residential density is greater than 17 dwelling units per hectare AND nonresidential building density is 1 FAR or greater

part two.

HUMAN HEALTH + WELL BEING action one.

notes.

public presentation - e.g. website, community meeting, newspaper article, civic display

encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions. conventional moderate

exemplary

action two.

notes.

protected items - must be included or eligible for inclusion in a local or regional register

protect and maintain cultural and historical places. conventional moderate

exemplary

47

planned communities

conforms to building industry standards engage site users and/or stakeholders in identifying specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and timely project goals OR invite site users and/or stakeholders to the design development presentation and review AND present the design to the public in at least two forms engage site users and/or stakeholders in identifying specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and timely project goals AND invite site users and/or stakeholders to the design development presentation and review AND present the design to the public in at least two forms

conforms to building industry standards identify and protect buildings, structures, and objects OR identify and protect existing historically significant cultural landscapes identify and protect buildings, structures, and objects AND identify and protect existing historically significant cultural landscapes

part two.

human health + well being

action three.

notes.

safety - e.g. adequate lighting levels, natural surveillance at entrances and walkways, clear

provide optimum site accessibility, safety and wayfinding. conventional moderate

visibility and good sight lines, a variety of options for access orientation - e.g. clear entrances and gateways, viewpoints and sightlines, landmarks, decision points or nodes, hierarchy of pedestrian and vehicular circulation, distinct areas or regions, maps

exemplary

action four.

notes.

on-site food production - includes vegetable gardens or edible nut and fruit bearing plants that

support local food production. conventional moderate

are appropriate to the site farmers’ market - must be open

/ will operate at least once weekly for five months annually exemplary

48

planned communities

conforms to building industry standards provide site access and usability as required by local and national accessibility standards AND partially improve actual and perceived safety of site users AND partially create an environment that makes it easy and intuitive for users to orient themselves from place to place provide site access and usability as required by local and national accessibility standards AND improve actual and perceived safety of site users AND create an environment that makes it easy and intuitive for users to orient themselves from place to place

no consideration given dedicate between 5 and 10% of the site’s final vegetated area to on-site food production OR locate the project’s geographic centre within 800 meters of an existing or planned farmers market dedicate over 10% of the site’s final vegetated area to on-site food production AND locate the project’s geographic centre within 800 meters of an existing or planned farmers market

part two.

action five.

notes.

light requrements - use either the Backlight, Uplight, and Glare (BUG) rating system or the

reduce light pollution. conventional moderate

Calculation Method

exemplary

action six.

notes.

site amenities - e.g. weather appropriate shelters, seating, waste/recycling/organics bins

encourage fuel efficient and multi-modal transportation. conventional moderate

exemplary

49

planned communities

conforms to building industry standards meet uplight and light trespass requirements for all exterior luminaires located inside the development’s boundary meet uplight and light trespass requirements for all exterior luminaires located inside the development’s boundary AND adopt site lighting criteria to maintain safe light levels while avoiding off-site lighting and night sky pollution

no consideration given between 5 and 10% of parking capacity dedicated to preferred parking for carpools and for vehicles that have reduced emissions and/or high fuelefficiency AND provide site amenities at structured bus shelters AND provide short-term bicycle parking within 15 meters of primary entrances and either enclosed or secured long-term bicycle storage for between 40 and 70% of multi-unit dwellings over 10% of parking capacity dedicated to preferred parking for carpools and for vehicles that have reduced emissions and/or high fuel-efficiency AND provide site amenities at structured bus shelters AND provide short-term bicycle parking within 15 meters of primary entrances and either enclosed or secured long-term bicycle storage for over 70% of multi-unit dwellings

part two.

human health + well being

action seven.

notes.

* There is little to no precedent for this principle of sustainability, however, it is being included to signal its relevance to the sustainability agenda.

capture profits from development and reinvest into the community. conventional moderate exemplary

Hopefully this historic vision can be revived for further examination. Starting points for research

no consideration given not applicable rising land values created by the development are captured and used to repay infrastructure costs and provide a portfolio of assets which are managed in perpetuity for the benefit of the community

could include co-operatives and land trusts.

action eight.

notes.

on-the-job training - hire individuals from government sponsored, union, or accredited

support the local economy through the development process. conventional moderate

educational programs

exemplary

50

planned communities

no consideration given contractor employs local individuals for between 50 and 75% of new hires during the construction phase AND support on-the-job training AND pay living wage requirements or above to between 50 and 75% of workers purchase materials and construction services that equal between 5 and 10% of the construction budget from locally owned and operated businesses have contractor employ local individuals for over 75% of new hires during the construction phase AND support on-the-job training AND pay living wage requirements or above to over 75% of workers AND purchase materials and construction services that equal over 10% or more of the construction budget from locally owned and operated businesses

part two.

WATER action one.

notes.

strategies that improve water quality - e.g. biofiltration

manage stormwater (precipitation) on site. conventional moderate

exemplary

action two.

reduce wastewater discharge. conventional moderate

exemplary

action three.

exemplary planned communities

conforms to building industry standards retain and treat over between 25 and 50% of the average annual wastewater generated by the project on-site AND reuse the treated wastewater to replace potable water where appropriate retain and treat over 50% of the average annual wastewater generated by the project on-site AND reuse the treated wastewater to replace potable water where appropriate

design buildings for water efficiency and conservation. conventional moderate

51

conforms to building industry standards retain the precipitation from between the 60th and 90th percentile precipitation event through on-site infiltration, evapotranspiration, and reuse AND implement runoff-reduction strategies that also improve water quality retain the precipitation from above the 90th percentile precipitation event through on-site infiltration, evapotranspiration, and reuse AND implement runoff-reduction strategies that also improve water quality

conforms to building industry standards indoor water usage must average between 30 and 50% less than in baseline buildings indoor water usage must average over 50% less than in baseline buildings

part two.

water

action four.

notes.

baseline case - install water meters to record and measure water usage to compare to the estab-

reduce water use for landscape irrigation. conventional moderate

lished baseline non-potable water for irrigation - e.g. captured rainwater, reclaimed water, recycled wastewater, recycled graywater, air-conditioner condensation, blowdown water from boilers and cooling towers

exemplary

action five.

notes.

stormwater amenities - e.g. bioswales, raingardens, vegetated roofs

design functional stormwater features as amenities. conventional moderate

exemplary

52

planned communities

no consideration given reduce potable, surface and groundwater use by at least 75% from a baseline case beyond the establishment period AND between 70 and 90% of annual make-up water for water features must come from non-potable water (or water features must total between 40,000 to 20,000 liters of potable water annually ) reduce potable, surface and groundwater use by over 90% from a baseline case after the establishment period AND over 90% of annual make-up water for water features must come from non-potable water (or water features must total less than 20,000 liters of potable water annually)

no consideration given ensure site precipitation is treated as an amenity in the way it is received, conveyed, and managed on site for between 50 and 80% of stormwater features ensure site precipitation is treated as an amenity in the way it is received, conveyed, and managed on site for over 80% of stormwater features

part two.

SOIL + VEGETATION action one.

notes.

soil management plan - prior to construction, provide the following information: indicate locations of existing healthy soils and any

create a soil management plan. conventional moderate exemplary

conforms to building industry standards partial implementation of the soil management plan (over 60%) full implementation of the soil management plan (over 90%)

vegetation and soil protection zones (VSPZs) AND specify how construction activities are designed to minimize soil disturbance and what steps will be taken to protect VSPZs AND identify disturbed soils that will be revegetated and what the planned treatment for restoration will be AND communicate the soil management plan to site contractors through site drawings and written specifications

action two.

notes.

invasive species management plan - evaluate and document whether invasive species (as per federal or regional lists) are present on the project

control and manage invasive species on public land. conventional moderate exemplary

conforms to building industry standards partial implementation of the invasive species management plan (over 60%) full implementation of the invasive species management plan (over 90%)

site AND begin by removal of invasive species before or during the construction phase AND only plant non-invasive species on the project site

53

planned communities

part two.

soil + vegetation

action three.

notes.

ability to thrive - need minimal irrigation, pesticide, fertilizer, and maintenance postestablishment

use appropriate plants that are well adapted to local environmental conditions. conventional moderate

diversity - for larger sites, total plantings must equal no more than 10% of any species, no more than 20% of any genus, and no more than 30% of

exemplary

any family and for smaller sites select species that add to the diversity of the wider community/region

conforms to building industry standards between 70 and 90% of the development’s plants are selected based on their ability to thrive in the climate and conditions of the site AND ensure plant diversity to protect against insects and disease pests over 90% of the development’s plants are selected based on their ability to thrive in the climate and conditions of the site AND ensure plant diversity to protect against insects and disease pests

action four.

notes.

hardscapes - use paving materials with a solar reflectance index (SRI) of at least 29, use paving

use vegetation / reflective materials to reduce urban heat island effects. conventional moderate

that is at least 50% pervious, provide shade using tree canopy vegetagted roof alternative - use roofing

exemplary

materials that have an SRI equal to or greater than 78 for low pitched roofs and 29 for steep pitched

no consideration is given reduce heat island effect for between 30 and 50% of non-roof site hardscapes AND install vegetated (“green”) roofs for between 30 and 50% of buildings reduce heat island effect for over 50% of non-roof site hardscapes AND install vegetated (“green”) roofs for over 50% of buildings

roofs for over 75% of buildings

action five.

notes.

vegetation or vegetated structures - e.g. shade the surface area of west, southwest, southeast, and east

use vegetation to minimize building energy use. conventional moderate

building facades, use rows of trees and dense shrubs as a windbreak for the buildings

exemplary

54

planned communities

no consideration given for between 70 and 90% of regularly occupied buildings, use vegetation or vegetated structures to reduce total annual building energy use for heating and cooling by at least 7% for over 90% of regularly occupied buildings, use vegetation or vegetated structures to reduce total annual building energy use for heating and cooling by at least 7%

part two.

GREEN BUILDING action one.

notes.

wood products - included wood installed for the project as well as temporary wood used during construction

conventional moderate exemplary

action two.

notes.

eliminate the use of wood from threatened tree species.

design for efficiency. conventional moderate exemplary

action three.

notes.

materials cost - excluding plants, rocks, and soils

action four.

materials cost - including plants, excluding soils

55

planned communities

conforms to building industry standards buildings are between 50 and 75% more efficient than the baseline buildings are over 75% more efficient than the baseline

design for adaptability and disassembly. conventional moderate

exemplary

notes.

conforms to building industry standards between 85 and 95% of purchased wood products come from nonthreatened tree species over 95% of purchased wood products come from non-threatened tree species

conforms to building industry standards use material assemblies, products, or product components that are designed for disassembly and facilitate reuse for between 30 and 60% of total materials cost use material assemblies, products, or product components that are designed for disassembly and facilitate reuse for over 60% of total materials cost

reuse salvaged construction materials and plants. conventional moderate exemplary

conforms to building industry standards reuse salvaged materials for between 10 and 20% of total materials cost reuse salvaged materials over 20% of total materials cost

part two.

green building

action five.

notes.

materials costs - excluding recycled content, salvaged, reused, or refurbished materials

support responsible extraction of raw materials. conventional moderate

exemplary

action six.

notes.

sustainable practices - e.g. reduce emissions, reduce or offset greenhouse gas emissions,

support sustainability in materials manufacturing. conventional moderate

reduce energy consumption, use renewable energy sources, reduce use of potable water

exemplary

56

planned communities

conforms to building industry standards obtain 5% of the total materials costs from raw material suppliers and/or manufacturers that disclose data on environmental practices OR obtain 5% of the total materials costs from raw material suppliers and/or manufacturers that meet or exceed standards for responsible raw material extraction obtain 5% of the total materials costs from raw material suppliers and/or manufacturers that disclose data on environmental practices AND obtain 5% of the total materials costs from raw material suppliers and/or manufacturers that meet or exceed standards for responsible raw material extraction

conforms to building industry standards obtain 25% of the total applicable materials cost from manufacturers that disclose data on sustainable practices OR obtain 25% of the total applicable materials cost from manufacturers that achieve significant improvements in sustainable practices obtain 25% of the total applicable materials cost from manufacturers that disclose data on sustainable practices AND obtain 25% of the total applicable materials cost from manufacturers that achieve significant improvements in sustainable practices

part two.

action seven.

notes.

materials cost - excluding plants and soils

use recycled content material. conventional moderate exemplary

action eight.

notes.

renewable energy generation - e.g. solar, wind, geothermal, small-scale or micro-hydroelectric,

generate renewable energy on-site. conventional moderate

and biomass annual electrical and thermal energy cost exclusive of existing buildings

exemplary

action nine.

exemplary

planned communities

conforms to building industry standards incorporate on-site non polluting renewable energy generation with production capacity of between 12 and 20% of the project’s annual electrical and thermal energy cost incorporate on-site non polluting renewable energy generation with production capacity of over 20% of the project’s annual electrical and thermal energy cost

provide heating and cooling through a neighborhood wide system. conventional moderate

57

conforms to building industry standards use materials with recycled content such that the sum of post-consumer recycled content constitutes between 10 and 20% of total materials cost use materials with recycled content such that the sum of post-consumer recycled content constitutes over 20% of total materials cost

conforms to building industry standards incorporate a district heating and/or cooling system for space conditioning and/or water heating such that between 60 and 80% of the project’s annual heating and/or cooling consumption is provided by the district plant incorporate a district heating and/or cooling system for space conditioning and/or water heating such that over 80% of the project’s annual heating and/or cooling consumption is provided by the district plant

part two.

green building

action ten.

provide energy efficient neighborhood infrastructure. conventional moderate

exemplary

58

planned communities

conforms to building industry standards design, purchase, or work with the local government to install all new infrastructure, including but not limited to traffic lights, street lights, and water and wastewater pumps to achieve between 15 and 20% annual energy reduction below an estimated baseline energy use for this infrastructure design, purchase, or work with the local government to install all new infrastructure, including but not limited to traffic lights, street lights, and water and wastewater pumps to achieve over 20% annual energy reduction below an estimated baseline energy use for this infrastructure

part two.

01

planned communities

fundamentals.

part three.

quick facts.

678 acres (274.4 hectares) 40 miles (64 kilometers) north of Chicago 60% open land 360 single family homes 36 condos Mixed-use commercial core Community center & fitness center 2 train stations 100-acre organic farm Horse pastures and stable Farm business incubator Learning farm 3 on-site schools

guiding principles.

01. environmental protection and enhancement 02. a healthy lifestyle 03. a sense of place 04. a sense of community 05. economic and racial diversity 06. convenient and efficient transportation 07. energy conservation 08. lifelong learning and education 09. aesthetic design and high-quality construction 10. ecomonic viability

61

planned communities

PRAIRIE CROSSING CASE STUDY

Many of the most reputable, well-documented, and successful sustainable masterplanned communities are located in places very different than Saskatoon. Knowing that sustainability is tied to local ecology, climate, and regional context, it would not be as useful to study one of the many projects that have been built in hot climates or on urban infill sites. Unique to Saskatoon is its prairie setting, and its distinct seasons (with viciously cold winters); a critical condition of our site is its location on farmland at the city’s periphery. These facts will guide how decisions are made in the pursuit of planning and designing an ecologically sound, sustainable community. Because of these conditions, Prairie Crossing – a renowned conservation community located in Greyslake, Illinois – makes an ideal candidate to investigate using the pillars of sustainability measurement tool.

Prairie Crossing was initiated by a group of local residents concerned with the rate of development and loss of natural habitat that was taking place in their region. They were opposed to the development proposal set forth to construct a typical car-oriented, cookie-cutter suburban subdivision on 678 acres (274.4 hectares) of farmland. After legal battles, the proposal was knocked down and a group of locals purchased the land. They established Prairie Holdings Corporation, the development agency that put forth an alternative plan for a sustainable masterplanned community.

Key aspects of this plan were the preservation and restoration of open space, the addition of commuter rail, and the inclusion of an organic farm. It has now been twenty-four years since development of Prairie Crossing first began. Not only has it been held up as precedent setting for sustainable and ecological design, it has also been an economically successful project. Because of this it has inspired others in the building industry to change their own development practices.

Thanks to a phone interview with Michael Sands, executive director of Liberty Holdings Foundation and to the availability of several online articles, it was possible to gather the information required to evaluate Prairie Crossing using the indicators developed for measuring the pillars of sustainability. Many of the indicators include notes specific to the project. The hope is that this will provide a deeper analysis into how sustainable and ecological development can be achieved.

part three.

62

planned communities

part three.

FIGURE 21. Byron Colby Farm. Built in 1885, these buildings were donated to Prairie Crossing and had to be moved to the site. A herigate resoration project was undertaken and now Byron Colby Barn is Prairie Crossing’s community center and location for special events.

FIGURE 22. Station Square. Prairie Crossing’s compact urban core is located just minutes walking away from the commuter rail station. Cafes, shops and resturants are beginning to open up in this town centre.

63

planned communities

part three.

PROJECT CREDITS Landscape architects/land planning (in reverse chronological order): Philip Enquist, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP, Chicago; Peter Calthorpe and Matt Taecker, Calthorpe Associates, Berkeley, CA; Peter L. Schaudt, ASLA, Peter Lindsay Schaudt Landscape Architecture, Inc., Chicago; Jim Brown, LANDECON, Libertyville, IL; William Johnson, FASLA, principal, Peter Walker, William Johnson and Partners, Berkeley, CA; J. Christopher Lannert, ASLA, the Lannert Group, St. Charles, IL. Environmental consulting/resource management: Steven L. Apfelbaum, Applied Ecological Services, Brodhead, WI. Wetlands consultants: Steven L. Apfelbaum, Applied Ecological Services, Brodhead, WI; Don Hey, Hey & Associates, Chicago.

Engineers: John Ezzi, P & D Technologies, Oak Brook, IL. Farm general manager: Dave Konrad.

Farm consultants: Richard de Wilde, Viroqua, WI; John Callawaert, Chicago.

Environmental team leader: Michael Sands.

Development manager: Prairie Holdings Corporation, Chicago.

Client: Prairie Holdings Corporation, Chicago

64

planned communities

part three.

measuring sustainability

location + linkage | score: exemplary (0.83) conventional 0

moderate 0.33

0.5

exemplary 0.67

1

01. Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities | Score: Moderate (0.5) Qualifier: locate development on a site with existing or planned transit service

02. Preserve sensitive habitat, riparian zones, and high quality open space | Score: Exemplary (1) Qualifier: have experts create a conservation plan and fully implement

03. Protect floodplain functions | Score: Exemplary (1) Qualifier: locate development entirely outside any flood hazard area

04. Connect to multi-modal transit networks | Score: Exemplary (1) Qualifier: locate development on a site with existing or planned transit service AND connect to or design a continuous sidewalk and crosswalk network that extends beyond the project’s entrance as well as a continuous bicycle network extends beyond the project’s entrance

Figure 23. Metra’s Milwaukee North Line arriving into Prairie Crossing Station.

65

planned communities

05. Limit development on farmland | Score: Moderate/Exemplary (0.67) Qualifier: development occurs on prime farmland but is located on an infill site or desired development zone using comprehensive planning/no development occurs on prime farmland

part three.

prairie crossing case study

details. action one

Station Square commercial area has two Metra train stations that connect the community to Chicago, located 40 miles (64.4 km) to the south. Ridership within the community is high.

action two

Of the 678 acres (274.4 hectares) of land, 60% is preserved as protected open space. One hundred acres (40.4 hectares) is dedicated as organic farmland, 175 acres (70.8 hectares) was restored to native prairie, 20 acres (8 ha) to wetlands, and 16 acres (x ha) to historic hedgerows. Wildlife corridors between groupings of homes connect green spaces and animal habitat has been restored for countless species including keystone species. Sanctuary Pond, was introduced as a breeding grounds for endangered species of fish.

action three

66

planned communities

Ecological designers took care to designate a land use plan that protects ecological functions, including floodplain functions.

action four

Mixed-use trails connect to Liberty Prairie Reserve to the east and the village of Grayslake to the north.

action five

The planning team built less than a quarter of the 1,600 units permitted by local zoning, while preserving 60% of the site as open land.

part three.

measuring sustainability

neighborhood pattern + design| score: exemplary (0.79) conventional 0

moderate 0.33

0.5

exemplary 0.67

1

01. Design streets that establish a hierarchy and calm traffic | Score: Exemplary (1) Qualifier: over 60% of the development uses design to establish hierarchy and slow traffic

02. Minimize car dominant urban design | Score: Exemplary (1) Qualifier: surface parking is less than 20% of development area AND over 70% of surface parking is on-street parking AND over 70% of lots and garages are placed either underground or to the side or rear of buildings

03. Create pedestrian and bike friendly street networks that connect to destinations| Score: Exemplary (1) Qualifier: over 80% of the total linear meters of street-facing facades is no more than 5.5 meters away from the property line AND all streets have sidewalks at least 3 meters wide AND secondary and/or traffic calmed streets are designated with bike lanes that as a whole create a continuous network throughout the neighborhood AND if facades face sidewalks, entries in occur at intervals no greater than 9 meters apart and no more than 40% of it’s length is left blank

Figure 24. Aerial View of Colby Byron Farm.

04. Create a mixed-use and walkable neighborhood | Score: Exemplary (1) Qualifier: over 80% of housing is within an 800 meter radius of at least 5 diverse neighborhood amenities

05. Provide a mix of housing types, densities, and costs for residents | Score: Conventional (0) Qualifier: no consideration given

06. Orient buildings and blocks to maximize passive and active solar access | Score: Exemplary (1) Qualifier: design and orient the new development so that over 75% of the buildings have east-west sun exposure

07. Make public space the focus of building orientation and neighborhood activity | Score: Exemplary (1) Qualifier: design the development so that a civic or passive-use space lies within 400 meters over 90% of dwelling units and nonresidential buildings

08. Take advantage of compact building design | Score: Conventional/Moderate (0.33) Qualifier: no consideration given/residential density is no lower than 17 dwelling units per hectare

67

planned communities

part three.

prairie crossing case study

details. action one

The arterial streets are designed to bound the perimeter of the site to keep out through traffic.

An extensive network of pedestrian and cycling networks and secondary narrow lanes establish a hierarchy. Pedestrian-cyclist underpasses and traffic-light crosswalks ensure safety along high-traffic perimeter roads.

action four

Amenities that exist within the community include a community center and fitness center, a learning farm, an organic farm, horse pastures and stables, three schools (a nursery, charter elementary, and Montessori adolescent program), shop and restaurants in the mixed-use core, and an extensive network of parks and trails.

action five

The majority of homes are single-family dwellings, there is no rental housing stock, and there is no housing set aside for moderate or low-income earners.

action seven action eight

68

planned communities

Central to the design of this community is the near-access to public open spaces.

Over the course of development, the residential density has increased as the community reaches maturity and smaller homes and condominiums become economically viable. The masterplanned community has five types of lots, ranging from the largest at 0.3 acre (0.12 hectare) to the smallest at 0.11 acre (0.05 hectare). The median lot size is 0.16 acre (0.06 hectare) and the overall density of is 6 dwelling units per acre (15 dwelling units per hectare) – just shy of the 7 dwelling units per acre (18 dwelling units per hectare) needed to receive a moderate score.

part three.

measuring sustainability

human health + well being | score: exemplary (0.83) conventional 0

moderate 0.33

0.5

exemplary 0.67

1

01. Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions Score: | Exemplary (1) Qualifier: engage site users and/or stakeholders in identifying specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and timely project goals AND invite site users and/or stakeholders to the design development presentation and review AND present the design to the public in at least two forms

02. Protect and maintain cultural and historical places Score:

| Exemplary (1) Qualifier: identify and protect buildings, structures, and objects AND identify and protect existing historically significant cultural landscapes

03. Provide optimum site accessibility, safety and wayfinding | Score: Exemplary (1) Qualifier: provide site access and usability as required by local and national accessibility standards AND improve actual and perceived safety of site users AND create an environment that makes it easy and intuitive for users to orient themselves from place to place

Figure 25. Summer Program at the Learning Farm.

04. Support local food production | Score: Exemplary (1) Qualifier: dedicate over 10% of the site’s final vegetated area to on-on site food production including vegetable gardens or edible nut and fruit bearing plants appropriate to the site AND locate the project’s geographic centre within 800 meters of an existing or planned farmers market that is open or will operate at least once weekly for five months annually

05. Reduce light pollution | Score: Moderate (0.5) Qualifier: meet uplight and light trespass requirements for all exterior luminaires located inside the development’s boundary

06. Encourage fuel efficient and multi-modal transportation | Score: Moderate (0.5) Qualifier: between 5 and 10% of parking capacity dedicated to preferred parking for carpools and for vehicles that have reduced emissions and/or high fuel efficiency AND provide site amenities at structured bus shelters AND provide short-term bicycle parking within 15 meters of primary entrances and either enclosed or secured long-term bicycle storage for between 40 and 70% of multiunit dwellings

07. Capture profits from development and reinvest into the community | Score: Exemplary (1) Qualifier: rising land values created by the development are captured and used to repay infrastructure costs and provide a portfolio of assets which are managed in perpetuity for the benefit of the community

08. Support the local economy through the development process | Score: Moderate/Exemplary (0.67) Qualifier: purchase materials and construction services that equal between 5 and 10% of the construction budget from locally owned and operated businesses employ local individuals for over 75% of new hires during the construction phase AND support on-the-job training AND pay living wage requirements or above to over 75% of workers AND purchase materials and construction services that equal over 10% or more of the construction budget from locally owned and operated businesses

69

planned communities

part three.

prairie crossing case study

details. action one

The planning, design, and development process was very collaborative. Prairie Holdings Corporation have done such things as foster the creation a set of 10 guiding principals as well as establish educational programs for locals, children, and visitors.

action two

Protecting and maintaining cultural and historical places was central to the planning and design of Prairie Crossing. Byron Colby Farm, a historical building that was located off-site, was donated to the developers. It was moved on site and restored to by conservation architects to become a community amenity where events are now held. Major efforts were also undertaken in the landscape design at Prairie Crossing, where farm fields were restored to their original native prairie vegetation.

action four

The 100 acres (40.5 hectares) Prairie Crossing Farm is home to three separate organic farming operations: Sandhill Organics, a for-profit commercial family farm; the Prairie Crossing Farm Business Development Center, an incubator program for new farmers; and the Prairie Crossing Learning Farm, which serves three local schools, the residents, and the general public.

action six

70

planned communities

Prairie Crossing now has dedicated parking for Zipcar, although the program is still underutilized by residents. The train stations have shelters and amenities for commuters.

action seven

Land ownership and control over community amenities are protected against inappropriate future development through conservation easements, where land is leased long-term with an accompanying set of conditions for management. The body that manages this portfolio of amenities, or assets, is Liberty Prairie Foundation. The foundation is an independent non-profit based in Prairie Crossing that supports itself with a 0.5% transfer free from Prairie Crossing home sales, grants, and fee-for-service contracts.

action eight

All employment for Prairie Crossing with done through a union, so workers were paid above living wage and were local. The union does so on-the-job training, however it is unknown to what extent this took place at Prairie Crossing.

part three.

measuring sustainability

water| score: moderate/exemplary (0.67) conventional 0

moderate 0.33

0.5

exemplary 0.67

1

01. Manage stormwater (precipitation) on site | Score – Exemplary (1) Qualifier - retain the precipitation over the 90th percentile precipitation event through on-site infiltration, evapotranspiration, and reuse AND implement runoff-reduction strategies that also improve water quality

02. Reduce wastewater discharge | Score: Conventional (0) Qualifier: Conforms to building industry standards

03. Design buildings for water efficiency and conservation | Score: Conventional/Moderate (0.33) Qualifier: Conforms to building industry standards/ indoor water usage must average between 30 and 50% less than in baseline buildings

04. Reduce water use for landscape irrigation | Score: Exemplary (1) Figure 26. Lake Aldo Leopold.

Qualifier: reduce potable, surface and groundwater use by over 90% from a baseline case after the establishment period AND over 90% of annual make-up water for water features must come from non-potable water

05. Design functional stormwater features as amenities | Score: Exemplary (1) Qualifier: ensure site precipitation is treated as an amenity in the way it is received, conveyed, and managed on site for over 80% of stormwater features

71

planned communities

part three.

prairie crossing case study

details. action one

action three

72

planned communities

Stormwater disposition is managed through a landscape stormwater management system that is composed of upland prairie biofiltration, natural swale conveyance systems, wetlands, and a lake.

The system uses long-rooted native prairie plants to slow and purify rainwater and snowmelt on their way to the large centrally located Lake Aldo Leopold (a manmade water feature).

The newer development in Prairie Crossing conforms to LEED standards, which requires that buildings be designed for water efficiency and conservation as a prerequisite

action four

Irrigation was not required to establish the native plant communities and is not required to maintain them. Many homeowners have and are planting their own yards with the same native species as a conservation effort.

action five

A series of retention ponds act as community amenities, with the largest being Lake Aldo Leopold.

This lake not only serves as a detention basin, it is also used for swimming, boating, fishing and skating by residents.

part three.

measuring sustainability

soil + vegetation | score: exemplary (0.8) conventional 0

moderate 0.33

0.5

exemplary 0.67

1

01. Create a soil management plan | Score: Exemplary (1) Qualifier: full implementation of the soil management plan (over 90%)

02. Control and manage invasive species on public land| Score: Exemplary (1) Qualifier: full implementation of the invasive species management plan (over 90%)

03. Use appropriate plants that are well adapted to local environmental conditions | Score: Exemplary (1) Qualifier: over 90% of the projects plants are selected based on their ability to thrive in the climate and conditions of the site AND all plants are nursery grown, legally harvested, or salvaged for reuse from on or off-site AND ensure plant diversity to protect against insects and disease pests

04. Use vegetation and reflective materials to reduce urban heat island effects | Score: Conventional (0) Qualifier: no consideration is given

Figure 27. Prescribed Prairie Burn.

73

planned communities

05. Use vegetation to minimize building energy use | Score: Exemplary (1) Qualifier: for over 90% of regularly occupied buildings, use vegetation or vegetated structures to reduce total annual building energy use for heating and cooling by at least 7%

part three.

prairie crossing case study

details.

74

planned communities

action one

Land and soil sustainability is a central part of how Prairie Crossing is designed and managed.

Experts identified which portions of the site were more appropriate for uses such as development, farming, and preserved open space. Analysis of soil types, topography, pH and drainage guided development decisions and choice in plantings and crops types.

action two

Volunteer work crews remove invasive plants from the site.

action three

Details: Over 50% of the site is native restored prairie and wetland landscape. This landscape requires minimum maintenance. Now that the plants are established, mowing is not required; volunteer crews are trained to conduct prescribed burns in the spring and fall. Fertilizers are not used in the prairies or wetlands.

action four

Reflective roofs are used on commercial buildings but that does not have enough impact to score above conventional.

part three.

measuring sustainability

green building | score: conventional/moderate (0.33) conventional 0

moderate 0.33

0.5

exemplary 0.67

1

01. Eliminate the use of wood from threatened tree species | Score: Exemplary (1) Qualifier: over 95% of purchased wood products come from non-threatened tree species

02. Design for energy efficiency | Score: Moderate (0.5) Qualifier: buildings are between 50 and 75% more efficient than the baseline

03. Design for adaptability and disassembly | Score: Conventional (0) Qualifier: conforms to building industry standards

04. Reuse salvaged construction materials and plants | Score: Exemplary (1) Qualifier: reuse salvaged materials over 20% of total materials cost

05. Use recycled content material | Score: Moderate (0.5) Figure 28. Pathway made from recycled aggregate.

Qualifier: use materials with recycled content such that the sum of post-consumer recycled content constitutes between 10 and 20% of total materials cost

06. Support responsible extraction of raw material | Score: Conventional (0) Qualifier: Conforms to building industry standards

07. Support sustainability in materials manufacturing | Score: Conventional (0) Qualifier: Conforms to building industry standards

08. Generate renewable energy on-site | Score: Conventional (0) Qualifier: Conforms to building industry standards

09. Provide heating and cooling through a neighborhood wide system | Score: Conventional (0) Qualifier: Conforms to building industry standards

10. Provide energy efficient neighborhood infrastructure | Score: Conventional/Moderate (0.33) Qualifier: design, purchase, or work with the local government to install all new infrastructure, including but not limited to traffic lights, street lights, and water and wastewater pumps to achieve between 15 and 20% annual energy reduction below an estimated baseline energy use for this infrastructure

75

planned communities

part three.

prairie crossing case study

details.

76

planned communities

action two

The homes in Prairie Crossing were designed to be 50% more energy efficient than those of the surrounding area.

action five

Certain products, such as all the residential countertops, were specifically purchased because of their recycled material content.

part three.

CONCLUSIONS

Prairie Crossing is an excellent case study for showcasing how development practices can be geared towards ecological and quality of life goals while remaining economically viable. The developers at Prairie Holdings Corporation state clearly that their enterprise is not philanthropic and that creating a profitable project has been central to the sustainability of the community development plan.

Marketing the organic farm early on drew media attention and interested buyers to the site. Events were held at the restored Colby Byron farm led to attendees purchasing homes. The investments in amenities and quality design have caused housing sales to be higher than those of similar size in the surrounding area, and housing sales have then benefited the community through reinvestment.

On the note of sales, it must be mentioned that this project scored low on providing a mix of housing options and costs for potential buyers. Affordability is a common issue to be ignored in these projects, and that has to change. Unfortunately, without better housing policies and stronger public-private partnerships, it is difficult for a developer to achieve targets alone.

It is also worth mentioning the forward strides the building industry has taken since construction of Prairie Crossing began back in 1992. In the category of green building, for example, this project scored fairly low. At the time, construction methods at Prairie Crossing gained attention for their energy efficiency, and in fact helped set new standards in green construction technology.

Since then, green building has gained enough traction and advanced enough thanks to efforts of organizations such as USGBC and LEED that the new standard for green building is much higher than what we see at Prairie Crossing – and that is a good thing.

77

planned communities

part three.

pillar one

location + linkage | score: exemplary (0.83) conventional 0

pillar two

moderate 0.33

conventional

moderate 0.33

0

0.33

0.33

1

0.67

0.5

exemplary 1

0.67

soil + vegetation | score: exemplary (0.8) 0

moderate 0.33

0.5

exemplary 1

0.67

green building | score: conventional/moderate (0.33) conventional 0

planned communities

0.5

exemplary

moderate

conventional

78

1

water| score: moderate/exemplary (0.67) 0

pillar six

exemplary 0.67

moderate

conventional

pillar five

0.5

human health + well being | score: exemplary (0.83) conventional

pillar four

1

0.67

neighborhood pattern + design| score: exemplary (0.79) 0

pillar three

0.5

exemplary

moderate 0.33

0.5

exemplary 0.67

1

part three.

01

planned communities

fundamentals.

appendices.

APPENDIX A (2014). SITES V2 Rating System for Sustainable Land Design and Development. Green Business Inc. (1999). Case Study: Prairie Crossing Homes: Building America Houses that use half as much energy. U.S. Department of Energy.

Apfelbaum, S.I., et. al. (1995). The Prairie Crossing Project: Attaining Water Quality and Stormwater Management Goals in a Conservation Development.

Barnett, J. (2011). 60_Newest_Urbanisms.pdf. Planning, 77(4), 19–21.

Calthrope, P. (1993). The Next American Metropolis. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Calthrope, P. (2010). Urbanism in the Age of Climate Change. Connecticut: Island Press CNU, NRDC, USGBC, CGBC (2011). LEED 2009 for Neighbourhood Development Rating System with Canadian Alternative Compliance Paths. U.S. Green Building Council, Inc. Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, E., Speck, J. (2000) Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream.

New York: North Press Point.

Duany, A. & Speck, J. (2010). The Smart Growth Manual. McGraw Hill Publishers.

Duany, A. (2013). A General Theory of Sustainable Urbanism. In Landscape Urbanism and its Discontents: Dissimulating the Sustainable City, (ed.) Andres D. and Emily T. New Society Publishers.

Dunham-Jones, E. & Williamson, J. (2009). Retrofitting Suburbia: Urban Design Solutions for Redesigning Suburbs. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Ellin, N. (2013). Urbanism – New Landscape or Otherwise: The Case for Complementarity. In Landscape Urbanism and its Discontents: Dissimulating the Sustainable City, (ed.) Andres Duany and Emily Talen. New Society Publishers.

Farr, Douglas (ed). 2008. Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design with Nature. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Filion, P., Lee, M., Leanage, N. & Hakull, K., (2016). Planners ’ Perspectives on Obstacles To Sustainable Urban Development : Implications for Transformative Planning Strategies, 7459(March). http://doi.org/ 10.1080/02697459.2015.1023079 Forman, Richard T.T. 1995. Land Mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gehl, Jan. (2010). Cities for People. Connecticut: Island Press.

Hall, Peter. (1988). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design in the Twentieth Century. Wiley-Blackwell.

81

planned communities

appendices.

text sources Hayden, Dolores. (2004). A Field Guide to Sprawl. W.W. Norton.

Hagan, Susanna. (2015). Ecological Urbanism: The Nature of the City. New York: Routledge.

Howard, E. (1899). Garden Cities of Tomorrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform. Library of Alexandria: USA. Jacobs, Jane. 1961. Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.

Kane, R.C. (2003). Prairie Flower: An ecologically conscious housing development begins to mature west of Chicago. ASLA Landscape Architecture Magazine.

Kaminsky, J. & Javernick, W. (2013). “Contested Factors for Sustainability: Construction and Management of Household On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. Vol. 139, issue 10.

Kenworthy, J. R.R. & Laube, F.B. (1996) Automobile dependence in cities: An international comparison of urban transport and land use patterns with implications for sustainability. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Special Issue: Managing Urban Sustainability 16 (4-6), 279-308.

Langdon, Philip. 1994. A Better Place to Live: Reshaping the American Suburb. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Lewin, Susan Spencer. (2013). “Regenerative Urban Community Design.” Journal of Green Building. 8.2: 27-43.

McDonough, William & Braungart, Michael. (2002). Cradle-to-Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. New York: North Point Press.

McHarg, Ian. 1969. Design With Nature. New York: Natural History Press.

Mostafavi, Moshen & Doherty, Gareth (ed.). (2010). Ecological Urbanism. Lars Muller Publishers.

Perry, Clarence. (1929) “The Neighborhood Unit,” Monograph One. Vol. 7, Regional Survey of New York and Its Environs, Neighborhood and Community Planning. New York: New York Regional Plan.

Ranney, V. et. al. (2010). Building Communities with Farms: Insights from developers, architects and farmers on integrating agriculture and development. The Liberty Prairie Foundation.

Seto, K. C., & Shepherd, J. M. (2009). Global urban land-use trends and climate impacts. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1(1), 89–95.

Spirn, A W. (2014). Ecological Urbanism: A Framework for the Design of Resilient Cities. Chp. 43 in Ndubiisi, F.O. (ed), The Ecological Design and Planner Reader (pp. 557-571). Island Press.

Talen, Emily (ed). 2013. Charter of New Urbanism, Second Edition. McGraw Hill Education.

82

planned communities

appendices.

APPENDIX B Figure ground of London (n.d.). photograph viewed August 23, 2016. < http://plans-design-draughting.co.uk/ankhmorpork-analysis/> F1, F2, F3. Howard, E. (1899). The Three Magnets, Group of Slumless Smokeless Cities, Garden City. images viewed August 23, 2016. < http://www.victorianweb.org/art/architecture/suburbs/1.html> F4. Clarence, P. (1929). The Neighborhood Unit. image viewed August 23, 2016. < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Neighbourhood_unit> F5. The Urban Transect (n.d.). image viewed August 23, 2016. < http://www.h-gac.com/community/water/watershed_ protection/best-management-practices-rural-to-urban-transect.aspx> F6. Seaside, Florida (n.d.). image viewed August 23, 2016. < http://sowal.com/forum/threads/pbs-series-10-towns-thatchanged-america-features-seaside-fl-apr-19.85315/> F7. Kentlands, Maryland (n.d.). image viewed August 23, 2016. < http://www.bethesdawindowsales.com/blog/attentionkentlands-condominium-owners> F8. Metro 2040 Growth Concept Map (n.d.). image viewed August 23, 2016. < http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/ cfm/image.cfm?id=288081> F9. The Streetcar (n.d.). image viewed August 23, 2016. < http://beltlineorg.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/ uploads/2012/07/Portland-Streetcar.jpg F10. Bioswells (n.d.). image viewed August 23, 2016. < https://landperspectives.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/portlandoregon-green-street-1c1.jpg> F11. T.O.D. Neighborhood Diagram (n.d.). image viewed August 23, 2016. < http://www.placemakers.com/wp-content/ uploads/2013/07/TOD-Graphic-525x378.jpg> F12. Calthrope and Associates (2007). Bidadi Knowledge City, Karnataka. India. image viewed August 23, 2016. < http:// www.calthorpe.com/bidadi> F13. McHarg (n.d.). Staten Island Site Study. image viewed August 23, 2016. < https://suzanneodonovan.files.wordpress. com/2013/06/7_mcharg-staten-island.jpg> F14. Woodlands, Texas (n.d.). image viewed August 23, 2016. < http://www.thewoodlands.com/resources/internal/ file_views/144/1_woodlands-tx-entrance.jpg> F15, F16, F17, F18. Formann, RTT (1995). Types of Landscape and Region, Modeling Mosaic Sequences, Wildlife Connectivity, Planning. images viewed August 23, 2016. < http://davidbuckleyborden.com/the-forman-watercolor-diagrams/> 83

planned communities

appendices.

image sources F19. BedZED, London (n.d.). image viewed August 23, 2016. < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BedZED> F20. Freshkills Park, New York City (n.d.). image viewed August 23, 2016. < http://www.huffingtonpost. com/2013/11/26/freshkills-park-solar-energy-new-york-city-images-_n_4343185.html> Panorama (n.d.). image viewed August 23, 2016. < http://prairiecrossing.com> F21. Byron Colby Farm (n.d.). image viewed August 23, 2016. <http://prairiecrossing.com> F22. Station Square (n.d.). image viewed August 23, 2016. < http://www.williambennettflute.com/ssw_chicago.html> Masterplan (n.d.). image viewed August 23, 2016. < https://hereinvannuys.me/2010/07/26/prairie-crossing-in-illinoisthe-‘urban’-farm-of-the-future-breaking-through-concrete-stories-from-the-american-urban-farm-grist/> F23. Metra’s Milwaukee North Line arriving into Prairie Crossing Station (n.d.). image viewed August 23, 2016. < http://potomacexpress.blogspot.ca/2010/09/prairie-crossing-ill.html> F24. Aerial View of Colby Byron Farm (n.d.). image viewed August 23, 2016. <http://modernfarmer.com/2015/08/ planned-agricultural-communities/> F25. Summer Program at the Learning Farm (n.d.). image viewed August 23, 2016. < http://prairiecrossing.com> F26. Lake Aldo Leopold (n.d.). image viewed August 23, 2016. <http://prairiecrossing.com> F27. Prescribed Prairie Burn (n.d.). image viewed August 23, 2016. < http://prairiecrossing.com/conservation/native-landscaping/> F28. Pathway made from recycled aggregate (n.d.). image viewed August 23, 2016. < http://prairiecrossing.com>

84

planned communities

appendices.