Platform Fall 2012

FALL 2012 +

BEYOND LEED

BEYOND LEED

GUEST EDITORS STEVEN A. MOORE AND ELIZABETH WALSH DESIGN CONCEPT DAVID HEYMANN

16

FALL 2012

MANAGING EDITOR PAMELA PETERS

23

Beyond Sustainability Dean’s Introduction FREDERICK R. STEINER

24

RE:Generation, The question of beauty, and what we see(k) Exhibition

48

Why Go Beyond LEED? Editors’ Introduction

10

6

Defining Regenerative Design Has the Term “Sustainable Design” Outlived Its Usefulness?Ellis and Kim Cole

12

8

The Design of Coevolving Systems No Building or Site Is Static

16 10

Regenerative Design: How Do We Do It? Theory and Practice – Practice and Theory

ALLISON HSIAO GASKINS AND CHARLTON LEWIS, CURATORS Ellis and Kim Cole

STEVEN A. MOORE AND ELIZABETH WALSH

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE 310 INNER CAMPUS DRIVE B7500 AUSTIN, TX 78712-1009 512.471.1922 512.471.0716F P.PETERS@UTEXAS.EDU SOA.UTEXAS.EDU

20

What’s Next? A Call for New Tools and Leaders What is the Role of Professionals in a Democratic Society?

22

An Appendix of Tools for Regenerative Design

24

Beyond LEED Symposium Speakers THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, JANUARY 27 + 28, 2012

26

Lucia Athens [M.S.A.S. ‘93] Alumni Profile AMY MAVERICK CROSSETTE

28

Judy Pesek [B.S. Int.Des. ‘78] Alumni Profile AMY MAVERICK CROSSETTE

29

Elizabeth Chu Richter [B.Arch. ‘74] and David Richter [B.Arch. ‘74] Alumni Profile AMY MAVERICK CROSSETTE

30

Ray Landy [B.Arch. ‘70] Philanthropy Q&A WITH DEAN STEINER

32

Gifts to the School of Architecture AUGUST 1, 2010 – DECEMBER 31, 2011

35

Friends of Architecture SOA.UTEXAS.EDU/FOA

36

Goldsmith Society and Advisory Council Members

TO OUR READERS WE WELCOME ANY IDEAS, QUESTIONS, OR COMMENTS, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS WITH EDITOR PAMELA PETERS.

4 10

8

+ FALL 2012 + BEYOND LEED 2

DEAN’S INTRODUCTION

BEYOND SUSTAINABILITY

BY FREDERICK R. STEINER, DEAN

LEED accomplished something extraordinary. Researchers from the National Resources Defense Council and the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) pulled together late twentieth century, state-of-the-art knowledge from environmental science, architecture, and engineering to create a rating system that has transformed the building industry. Still, we must do more, which begs the questions—why and how?

The “why” relates to the future of the planet. It is getting hotter, and vital resources, like oil and water, are becoming scarcer and/or more expensive. The human population continues to grow—now more than 7 billion of us—and over half live in urban regions. We cannot continue to build as we have in the past, and LEED illustrates we can, indeed, do much better.

LEED is based largely on the concept of sustainability; that is, we should leave the planet a better place for future generations. We should most certainly do that. However, we should do more. The participants of the “Beyond LEED” symposium advocated that the concept of regeneration can move us forward.

Regenerative design suggests a path towards how we can do more to create healthy, safe, and productive buildings, landscapes, communities, and regions. The basic premise is that we should go further than merely avoiding harm and maintaining the status quo to actively enhancing life in neighborhoods and ecosystems. To regenerate is to form, construct, or create anew, especially in an improved state.

The regenerative concept presents a leadership opportunity for architects, landscape architects, interior designers, and planners. With opportunity, comes challenge. LEED illustrates the promise of idealistically changing the way things are conventionally done through the applications of good information. Regenerative design is trickier and even more idealistic because it relies on an understanding of complex, adaptive systems. Essentially, regenerative design moves us from applying good information to engaging complexity to conceive our futures.

The Sustainable Sites Initiative, or SITES, provides an example of moving beyond LEED through understanding complex, adaptive systems.

The ecosystem services concept provides the theoretic basis for SITES. Ecosystem services are the benefits humans derive from nature, which until recently have not been valued by traditional economics. Through the recognition of ecosystem values, higher standards for landscape performance can be established, as has been done with SITES. This concept should be extended to building design and community planning.

Through design, we envision preferred futures for the world that surrounds us. Might we then envision a future where the buildings, landscapes, and communities which we construct add ecosystem services rather than deplete them? In other words, might the built environment regenerate clean air and water, energy, productive soils, wildlife habitat, and social relationships? This is, indeed, a brilliant opportunity for design and planning.

We should embrace this opportunity. The welfare of future generations relies on how we act. As Buckminster Fuller observed, “The only way to predict the future is to design it.”

Images Above: Frederick R. Steiner, Dean, The University of Texas at Austin School of Architecture. Photo by Elisabeth Dillon, Daily Texan staff.

Opposite page, top: Hudson River looking south, circa 1609. Courtesy of Terrapin Bright Green, © 2009 Eric W. Sanderson.

Opposite page, bottom left: Exhibit detail, “RE:Generation, The question of beauty and what we see(k).” Photo by Selina Ortiz, UT Austin School of Architecture Visual Resources Collection.

Opposite page, middle right: Reflections.

Opposite page, bottom right: Dean Fritz Steiner.

Platform is now available online. View this edition, as well as past issues, at: soa.utexas.edu/publications/platform/.

You are also welcome to share your reflections on the themes discussed in this issue, or other thoughts about LEED and regenerative design, at the online dialogue site, soa.utexas.edu/beyondleed/dialogue.html.

+ FALL 2012 + BEYOND LEED 3

EXHIBITION

“RE:GENERATION, THE QUESTION OF BEAUTY, AND WHAT WE SEE(K)” MEBANE GALLERY, JANUARY 20 – FEBRUARY 7, 2012: CURATED BY ALLISON HSIAO GASKINS AND CHARLTON LEWIS Synopsis The “Beyond LEED” symposium discussion centered on four systems— technology-based constructed, economic, natural, and social/ cultural.

“RE:Generation, The question of beauty, and what we see(k)” was an interactive, multi-media exhibit, illustrating the inquiry of an emerging crisis in architectural judgment. Past and present methods of sustainable design were represented through the use of historical images and artifacts, inviting visitors to engage in the question of the future trajectory of coding the built environment.

The “RE:Generation” exhibition, on display in the Mebane Gallery, provided opportunites for participants and the public to join the discussion through various means.

Although the exhibit featured in the Mebane Gallery was intended to be the foundation for the “Beyond LEED” symposium, it centered its focus not on the built environment, but rather on similar tensions and contradictions that exist in other fields, see(k)ing input from visitors in the development of potential alternative methods of judgment.

The gallery was named in recognition of the generous support of Mike and Maxine K. Mebane. With every event held in this gallery, the Mebane family’s legacy continues to endure and inspire.

In order to engage in the conversation, visitors first confronted the real and present power of the LEED rating system in a physical wall exhibiting the contents of a single LEED manual. The 40-foot-long panel stretched the length of the entrance wall to the gallery and forced visitors to move further—beyond LEED. At the terminal point of the entrance path, the wall inverted to a deep and literal threshold; a black tunnel that required the user to choose one of the four doors, or trajectories, typically referenced in regard to the current discussion of sustainable design: technology-based constructed systems, economic systems, natural systems, and social/cultural systems.

1.

Once through the door, the paths merged into a single space, unifying the trajectories into a common conversation that encompassed all four areas, plus the topic of beauty.

The body of the exhibit established the basis of the discourse for the symposium—to ask questions and implore the visitor to offer his or her own opinion. Manual typewriters placed within the exhibition allowed for guests to ask and answer questions, post their comments, contribute to the exhibit, and provide the backdrop for the continued discussion of the symposium.

Exhibition Production Team Jen Wong Charles Horn Cameron Kraus Christine Kim Andrew Fulcher Laura Grenard Paul Ward Jeanie Fan Giuseppe Giordano

2.

3.

+ FALL 2012 + BEYOND LEED 4

“He took an article of life, placed it so that its useful significance disappeared under the new title and point of view - created a new thought for that object.”

6.

does complexity have to be a natural derivative of evolution?

1. Exhibit view. Photo by Allison Hsiao Gaskins.

2. Exhibit view. Photo by Allison Hsiao Gaskins.

3. Exhibit view. Photo by Selina Ortiz, UT Austin School of Architecture Visual Resources Collection.

4. Exhibit view. Photo by Allison Hsiao Gaskins.

“It remains the case that I have never yet tested a perfect font, no matter whether it came in the form of the foundry metal, a matrix case, a strip of film or digital information. I have tested very beautiful and powerful designs, and extraordinary feats of hardware and software engineering, but no font has crossed my path that could not be improved by sensitive editing. One reason is, the task is never done: no designer can foresee the inner logic of all possible texts and languages, nor all the other uses to which type is rightly put. Another reason is that setting type is a collaborative exercise, like acting from a script or playing from a score. The editing of type, like the editing of music, and the tuning of fonts, like the tuning of instruments, never ends.”

5. Lyrical Modernist ‘P’, analyzed.

Text excerpt from The Elements of Typographic Style, Version 3.0

by Robert Bringhurst.

6. Marcel Duchamp, “Fountain,” 1917, wth accompanying text to the Alfred Stieglitz photograph of the “Fountain,” as it appeared in The Blind Man, 1917.

7. Wartime recycling, Fort Meade, Maryland, 1917. Harris & Ewing glass negative image.

5.

how does one empirically judge beauty?

4.

Images

7.

+ FALL 2012 + BEYOND LEED 5

EXHIBITION

“RE:GENERATION, THE QUESTION OF BEAUTY, AND WHAT WE SEE(K)” cont’d MEBANE GALLERY, JANUARY 20 – FEBRUARY 7, 2012: CURATED BY ALLISONHSIAO GASKINS AND CHARLTON LEWIS

Could this have been done differently?

What we see(k) is beauty, all around us. Our environment is that which we create—a reformed state of nature. In doing so, an undeniable mark is left on the earth and its systems. Our existence belies a state of destruction of the natural and yet, for all that we try to change, there is an underlying quest for recreating what was originally unaffected—a nostalgia for conditions we imagine to be timeless, and therefore “beautiful.”

How can we build ethically (or otherwise affect our built environment) with this burden of nostalgia for timeless beauty? In many countries and regions, emerging green standards have received widespread acceptance by local 1. building cultures. In the United States, LEED has demonstrated its ability to evolve and adapt to changing environmental and social conditions and create a market for green building. We represent LEED here in its technocratic format—code laid out page by page to form a massive volume. The quantitative nature of LEED provides solid ground for all that is measurable. As Louis Kahn is oft quoted, “A great building must begin with the immeasurable, must go through measurable means when it is being designed, and in the end must be unmeasured.”

Is there a future for sustainability that is inclusive of the immeasurable?

Exhibition Special Thanks Steven A. Moore Barbara Brown Wilson Elizabeth Walsh Eric Hepburn Amenity Applewhite

2.

Our present generation—the RE:Generation—is presented here with similar tensions and contradictions that exist in other fields, see(k)ing input in the development of potential alternative methods of judgment. Poets are presented beside typographers to illustrate our commonalities across time and disciplines. Artists, public policy marketing strategies, infrastructure, scientists, and private companies are all presented as the measurers of value. What judgments have preceded these objects and documents? Is value intrinsic to the awe of man’s ability to create? Are the marks we leave on the natural landscape scars, irreparable and damaging? Or are they simply the basis of a new kind of beauty?

In reflection, at the terminal point of the wall of LEED, thresholds are made literal. We ask you to choose your own point of entry into the discussion at large.

What is the path to judging the future?

(Curator’s Statement, January 2012)

3.

+ FALL 2012 + BEYOND LEED 6

what measures the value of community?

Images 1. Exhibit view. Photo by Allison Hsiao Gaskins.

2. Exhibit view. Photo by Allison Hsiao Gaskins.

3. Exhibit view. Photo by Selina Ortiz, UT Austin School of Architecture Visual Resources Collection.

4.

5. Commentary from an anonymous visitor to the exhibition.

6. View of the Cousins Island Power Plant from Chebeague Island, Maine.

Photo by Allison Hsiao Gaskins. Text excerpt by Robert Persons from the film, “General Orders No. 9.”

5.

what is our relationship with the natural landscape?

4. Redlining map of Birmingham, Alabama, 1933. Courtesy of U.S. National Archives and Records Administration.

I. A forest season, A boundless palace, From a wilderness to a state, From unknown lands to chartered streets, Deer trail becomes Indian trail becomes county road.

In the beginning, it was vast and wild; It was the entire Middle South.

It was bound in the East by the Savannah River, And in the West by the Mississsippi.

In between, a new world, A world of river, tribe and beast.

There was a small colony at the mouth of a river.

The rest was Indian land, parts unknown and unmapped.

This land was the mother of Alabama and Mississippi.

This was the State of Georgia, A shrunken seed, a prayer, A keystone in the southern states.

From East to West, Indian land became English land, And English land became American.

The Creeks were pushed out; The Cherokee pressed into a corner.

Square mile by square mile, Square foot by square foot, And they were gone.

From East to West, the land was made into counties and towns, An alliance of equal kingdoms, None claiming precedence over another, Deer trail becomes Indian trail becomes county road.

II. The county is at the center of the state.

It was formed on a broad expanse of Indian land between two rivers.

The roads of county meet like the spokes of a wheel, And it appears as a world entire, As a wheel upon the earth.

The county is a pattern.

Medieval orbital. Ezekiel.

A pattern of land, roads and people.

Where the roads of the county intersect, there is a town.

The town is at the center of the county.

From the center, the town extends for one mile in every direction.

The courthouse is at the center of the town.

It’s a brick building on a granite foundation.

It has a clock town and a weathervane.

The clock tower has four faces, Addressing each of the principal directions, And the weathervane is high above, Brutal in its aspect and high in the air.

The building stands in the middle of the square, And the square is formed by four streets running North, South, East and West.

Here, there is a sense of order, From above and below, From within and without.

This shall be the center-post of the world, The pillar of heaven.

It’s a pattern.

A pattern of point and periphery.

Star and satellite. Being and witness.

6.

+ FALL 2012 + BEYOND LEED 7

INTRODUCTION

WHY GO BEYOND LEED? Guest Editors Steven A. Moore and Elizabeth Walsh synthesized the ideas shared in the “Beyond LEED” symposium for this edition of Platform. Dr. Moore is the Bartlett Cocke Regents Professor in Architecture and director of the Graduate Program in Sustainable Design at The University of Texas at Austin School of Architecture.

Elizabeth Walsh is a research associate in the Center for Sustainable Development.

She is a Ph.D. candidate in the school’s Community and Regional Planning Program.

Quotes The U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system has introduced green building into the mainstream. Widespread use of LEED has led to significant savings in energy, water, and other resources, while improving conditions for building occupants. That said, LEED is just a measurement that does not provide a set of goals telling us what to do, or a source of inspiration to achieve these goals. —Bill Browning [M]any elements of sustainability are not part of the LEED framework. —Leslie Moody I am reminded of a conversation I had with Buckminster Fuller in the 1960s. We were talking about change, and Bucky said, “Bob, the only way to make significant change is to make the thing you are trying to change obsolete.” All the impressive work that has been accomplished by the green building movement (USGBC’s LEED rating system, Living Building Challenge, One Planet Communities and more) has not made the dysfunction of existing buildings and communities obsolete. —Bob Berkebile

THE CATALYST In September of 2010, San Antonio architect and School of Architecture alumnus David Lake, FAIA [B.S.A.S. ‘77], casually suggested to Dean Fritz Steiner that The University of Texas at Austin School of Architecture should host a major symposium to assess the rapidly changing landscape of architectural judgment. What should, pondered Lake, a more robust architectural certification system look like? The assumption behind his question was that current rating systems—including the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design [LEED], developed by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC)—are insufficient to lead designers of the built environment in creating a sustainable future.

Steiner took the suggestion to colleagues at the university, who were eager to embrace the project. At the time, Assistant Professor Barbara Brown Wilson and I were working on a book investigating the history and theory of code-making, and Lecturers Allison Gaskins and Charlton Lewis were excited by the possibility of mounting a related exhibition. As in a friendly poker game, Lake then upped the ante by getting Bob Berkebile’s commitment to participate. From that moment, the symposium took on a life of its own. It became clear that USGBC (represented by Scot Horst and Gail Vittori) should be a key player at the table, along with Suzanna Wight Kelley, American Institute of Architects (AIA), and Holley Henderson, International Interior Design Association (IIDA). Everyone recognized the need for a fully interdisciplinary discussion represented by the interests of planning (Reid Ewing), public health (Claudia Miller), environmental science (Danielle Pieranunzi), building science (Werner Lang), life cycle analysis (Raymond Cole), environmental consulting (Bill Browning), social equity (Leslie Moody), and beauty (David Heymann). The roster was complete only when an expert on the global “certification movement” agreed to participate. Fortunately, Michael Conroy agreed to be a co-moderator along with me.

In the months prior to the symposium, each of the panelists completed a white paper in response to the question: “Beyond the building rating systems of today, how should we judge architecture in the future?” The papers were circulated among the presenters in advance of the symposium and served to jump-start the conversation.

+ FALL 2012 + BEYOND LEED 8

In reading the papers, two themes immediately emerged.

First, it is clear and commendable that USGBC has made a commitment to the flexibility and long-term evolution of the LEED rating tool. That flexibility challenges the need to go “Beyond LEED” in favor of accelerating its evolution.

Second, as the panelists struggled to define a clear goal lying just beyond the current horizon of possibilities, the term “regenerative design” appeared to broadly capture many of their ideas. As Cole notes, “With regenerative design, we are, perhaps, witnessing the convergence and assimilation of what were once considered idealistic and seemingly distant notions, now as necessary and potent directives for current best practice and future mainstream practice.”

The symposium became, then, an exercise in aligning paths between what has been achieved to date and where we want to go—toward an emergent concept being described by symposium participants as “regenerative design.”

BEYOND LEED SYMPOSIUM: FOUR THEMES EMERGED The purpose of this issue of Platform is to reconstruct the themes that dominated our conversation during the two days of the symposium.

In preparing this synthesis of ideas shared in the symposium, the editors carefully reviewed each of the white papers and identified four crosscutting themes that became the outline for this publication: 1. Defining Regenerative Design 2. Regenerative Design: The Design of Coevolving Systems 3. Regenerative Design: How Do We Do It? 4. What’s Next? A Call for Leaders and New Tools For each of the themes and sub-themes, the editors offer a summary of ideas captured and supported by quotes pulled directly from the white papers. Please note that this publication does not include the references cited by authors in their papers. We encourage readers interested in the quotes to review the white papers in their original form online at: soa.utexas.edu/beyondleed/speakers.html.

Beyond the building rating systems of today, how should we judge architecture in the future?

Question posed to “Beyond LEED” symposium panelists.

+ FALL 2012 + BEYOND LEED 9

REGENERATIVE DESIGN

DEFINING REGENERATIVE DESIGN HAS THE TERM “SUSTAINABLE DESIGN” OUTLIVED ITS USEFULNESS?

“As more and more people struggle with the oppressive process of measuring or mitigating the incremental destruction of life that is typical in sustainable design practice, regenerative design turns this perspective on its ear and focuses, instead, on measuring the vitality and quality of life that is emerging in a place as it evolves to support life. Regenerative design allows people to see their roles in creating or maintaining the conditions that are conducive to life.”

—Bob Berkebile

“While many of its core tenets—systems thinking, community engagement, respect for place—have long, individual histories in architectural discourse and practice, regenerative design begins to tie them together in a cogent manner.”

—Raymond Cole

Put more bluntly, accumulating points in the current LEED assessment systems does not teach designers very much.

Rather, the exercise tends to obscure how local ecosystems— and the institutions charged with managing them—actually work. Cole continues:

BUILDING SOCIAL AND NATURAL CAPITAL At its core, regenerative design is a call for design that goes beyond simply avoiding harm to actively supporting life in communities and ecosystems. As Cole puts it: The emphasis (and language) of green design is largely one of reducing resource use and adverse environmental impacts of buildings. Regeneration, in contrast, carries the positive message of considering the act of building as one that can give back more than it receives—thereby, over time, building social and natural capital.

Working Definition Based on symposium participants’ comments, [the editors] offer a working definition of regenerative design to be “a collaborative, inclusive, place-based human practice that enhances life in complex, coevolving social and ecological systems.”

By “social capital,” Cole refers to the system of supportive agreements made in society that remain outside of economic agreements, yet are central to getting almost anything done. It is the kind of capital that enables disaster recovery and neighborhood park maintenance, or it shows up as the respect and authority granted to public intellectuals who can speak well for the community. This orientation calls for a new way of thinking—a movement away from discrete, isolated thinking to systems thinking, ecological awareness, and collaboration that enables us to see ourselves as agents of change within dynamic social and ecological systems grounded in place.

These themes resonate throughout the essays, and are nicely summarized by Cole:

+ FALL 2012 + BEYOND LEED 10

The structure and emphasis of current green building assessment tools offer little instruction regarding understanding and engaging local ecosystems and their processes or, more generally, of the systems thinking emphasized in regenerative design. A shifting of the discussion to regenerative design must, it would seem, acknowledge the complex and continually evolving interrelationship between human and natural systems.

A key distinction exists between green design and regenerative design with respect to ‘place.’ Most green assessment tools have wrestled with accommodating regional distinctions and cultural differences as they are increasingly deployed outside their countries of origin. Being largely technocratic and conceived as a generic, top-down approach, they typically lack the specificity and social-ecological engagement central to a regenerative approach. The need for discrete performance criteria in green assessment methods also carries the potential consequence of fragmentation.

Regenerative design and development, by contrast, seeks understanding of whole systems.

In this passage, Cole implicitly argues against a “best practice” approach to design. Rather than adopt and modify water production and consumption practice for Texas (where precipitation might average 30" per year) or North Carolina (where precipitation might average 60" per year), Cole argues for place-based strategies derived from empirical evidence, not imported habits. But, he also recognizes that cultural habits are always embedded in technological systems. Thus, the development of regenerative systems is not dependent on science and technology alone.

Regenerative design is a powerful call to collective, rather than individual, action—a prophetic appeal to the design professions oriented around a set of aspirational principles dedicated to the care of people and the planet. It is not a checklist.

Rather, regenerative design calls for action from within the system, simultaneously engaging deeply in the local context, while connecting to regional and global processes. As Cole puts it simply, regenerative design calls for action rooted in “systems-thinking, shared vision, shared ownership, and shared responsibility.” He also notes that regenerative design and development promote: a co-evolutionary, partnered relationship between humans and natural systems, rather than a managerial one and, in doing so, build, rather than diminish, social and natural capitals. Such an approach requires design to acknowledge and respond to the unique attributes of ‘place’ and secure sustained stakeholder engagement to ensure a project’s future success.

The stakeholder engagement Cole calls for was echoed throughout the essays, each calling for a collaborative approach to design. The implicit message of the white papers is that collaboration might replace, or at least temper, the isolated need for self-expression. Stressing the importance of well-designed engagement spaces experienced through his career with BNIM, Berkebile observes: We have discovered that a regenerative design and development approach can work in any situation, if a collaborative dialogue of discovery can be established and maintained.

Design, as Berkebile understands it, is not only about the articulation of elegant objects; it is also about “a collaborative dialogue of discovery” that first defines what the elegant object might be. Gail Vittori also speaks to the shared sense of possibility expressed throughout the “Beyond Leed” Symposium essays:

We have the collective opportunity to shape the built and natural environments beyond architecture to foster a resilient built environment that stewards an inspired and inspiring definition of health, safety, and welfare; invigorates ecological balance; and enhances the quality of life for all.

The key word in Vittori’s optimistic passage is “resiliency”— the ability of a system to reorder itself and adapt to changed conditions introduced from the outside. Resiliency is a key characteristic of what complexity theorists refer to as “complex adaptive systems”—systems that are understood to be in a dynamic and perpetual state of change. For Cole, Berkebile, and Vittori, social and natural systems must together be adaptive if they are to be sustained.

On the basis of these comments by symposium participants, the editors will offer a working definition of regenerative design to be a collaborative, inclusive, place-based human practice that enhances life in complex, co-evolving social and ecological systems. Of course, any attempt to capture the intentions of symposium participants in a single sentence is bound to be reductive. Our purpose in risking a definition is, then, to provide just enough clarity to stimulate further conversation, but enough ambiguity to avoid closure.

“Beyond LEED” Symposium– Four Distinct Themes Emerged 1. Defining Regenerative Design 2. Regenerative Design: The Design of Coevolving Systemsi 3. Regenerative Design How Do We Do It? 4. What’s Next? A Call for Leaders and New Tools

+ FALL 2012 + BEYOND LEED 11

REGENERATIVE DESIGN

THE DESIGN OF COEVOLVING SYSTEMS NO BUILDING OR SITE IS STATIC

A second theme that dominated the discussion holds that built environments cannot be separated from the social and ecological systems of which they are part. As Pieranunzi writes, this reflects a “paradigm shift in the way society relates to the environment,” in that “human beings are a part of (rather than apart from) the rest of nature.” The authors emphasize the influence of the natural and built environments on human quality of life, as well as the influence of humans in these environments. Many of them go even further to claim that social and ecological systems are coevolving.

Accordingly, the tenets of regenerative design suggest that unless we can employ systems-thinking to grasp the interdependencies of these dynamic social and ecological systems, we cannot hope to create flourishing human communities and ecosystems that support them.

In discussing these aspects of coevolving social and ecological systems, the authors address several related questions:

Quote Regenerative design references the coevolution of human and natural systems in a partnered relationship. Parallel discussions are emerging in other aspects of environmental provisioning and with a shift to viewing building occupants as “inhabitants” who may play an active role in the maintenance and performance of their buildings, as opposed to “occupants” who are passive recipients of predetermined comfort conditions. —Raymond Cole

What does it mean for these systems to be coevolving?

In what ways are these systems interdependent—when do they support one another and when are they at odds? How does the design of our environments influence human health and well-being?

What does it mean to take a place-based and systems-thinking approach to understanding these coevolving systems?

As an active process, coevolution has become a goal—a positive, mutually beneficial process of adaptation between human and natural systems. In reality, however, the goal is infrequently realized, and many of the authors draw from a long history of system failures derived from poor design.

The unintended consequences of well-intended, but poorly coordinated, projects can alternately be the shadow of past innovation or the prompt for new and more successful ones.

In Berkebile’s experience: I had an epiphany in 1981 with the collapse of the skywalks at the Hyatt Regency in Kansas City. My first question, as I was joining the rescue team, was: ‘Did I kill all these people?’ As that question was answered by failure analysis experts, attorneys, and a federal judge, larger questions emerged: ‘What are the impacts of our designs on the people we intend to serve, on the quality and vitality of their neighborhoods, cities, watersheds, airsheds, jobsheds, regions; and do our designs increase or deplete our natural capital and the potential for the next generation?’

WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR SOCIAL AND ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS TO “COEVOLVE?” Several authors suggested that humans and the natural and built environments we inhabit are coevolving. What exactly does this mean? Is coevolution a passive process or an active one in which designers and communities have agency? Is coevolution necessarily a positive and mutually beneficial one, or might it also be degenerative?

While “coevolution” may suggest a gradual and passive process, the authors who use this term evoke a more active and immediate interpretation. Indeed, all of the authors emphasized that humans are not passive creatures, but actively engaged in the shaping of their environments. The regenerative design approach holds this is true not just for designers and planners, but also for human inhabitants of the built environment.

Several authors also emphasized the role of technological change in the coevolution of social and ecological systems, where “technology” includes not only “things,” but also the explicit codes and tacit practices that regulate the built environment. Humans create technologies, and then the technologies shape how we interact with one another and our environment, as well as the way we view ourselves and what we desire for the future.

+ FALL 2012 + BEYOND LEED 12

I and my colleagues at BNIM began to shift our focus to creating healthy buildings, environments, and developments for healthy people. This was the time when health care professionals, scientists, and agencies like the EPA were waking up to the negative impact of common design decisions. We were placing toxic building materials and finishes in hermetically sealed buildings with very unfortunate and sometimes tragic results.

The phrase ‘sick building syndrome’ was born, and design professionals and insurance companies were scrambling to identify and solve the problem.

Other authors documented cases where social systems seemed to work against ecological ones (and ultimately against themselves), as well as examples where they work synergistically (and ultimately for themselves). Bill Browning offers the sharpest contrast, drawing from one site in Manhattan at two very different points in history, 1609 and 2011:

It is important to note that the area we now call New York has a long history of habitation and was, by no means, an untouched wilderness. Native Americans actively managed the landscapes of the Western Hemisphere. Fire, planting, and harvesting were used to shape the composition of ecosystems. These ecosystems coevolved with human management and, in many cases when this management was curtailed, the biodiversity decreased with it.

Before Manhattan was covered by pavement and skyscrapers, it had abundant natural water sources with over twenty ponds, sixty miles of streams, and an estimated three hundred springs. These streams did not merely disappear when they were filled, piped, or paved over in what a 1907 New York Times article

referred to as a ‘mad haste to extend the city.’ Despite being buried, many of the springs and streams of Manhattan continued flowing, forming a unique water web beneath the island surface. By investigating the Mannahatta project maps, it was discovered that 111 Eighth Avenue’s foundation was laid in the path of one of Manhattan’s buried streams. It has been this stream, which enters the basement at a rate of roughly 80-100 gallons per minute, or 45 million gallons per year, against which the pumps have been waging a perpetual battle for the last 80 years.

Together, these observations by the participants make it clear that humans profoundly shape the natural and built environments that we inhabit, yet our environments are also beyond our control—uncertainty and surprise are endemic to complex social and ecological systems. Within this context of constant change, we have distilled a second working definition of regenerative design: a call to action for leaders to adaptively intervene in complex, social, and ecological systems to support life-enhancing conditions for the coevolution of all human and nonhuman life forms.

HUMAN DEPENDENCE ON OUR BUILT AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENTS Another piece of the coevolution hypothesis articulated by the authors was the combined effects of constructing indoor environments, health and community design, and ecosystem services for human well-being. All three effects deserve our attention.

Health and Indoor Environmental Design Vitorri, Miller, Berkebile, Henderson, and Pieranunzi all emphasize the health and quality of life experiences of building inhabitants. The indoor environment is of particular concern due to the level of toxins present, the duration of exposure, and the rise in vulnerability. Vittori states: Indoor air quality is identified as one of the top five human health stressors, with indoor air often being more impaired than outdoor air. Toxic chemicals, such as formaldehyde in composite wood products, phthalates in flexible polyvinyl chloride, halogenated organic compounds in flame retardants, lead in solder and roofing, bisphenol-A in polycarbonate, and many more, are commonly present in ubiquitous building materials.

Miller is, if anything, more alarmed. She documents: Ninety percent of Americans spend 90% of the day indoors (home, school, office, vehicles). Since World War II, there has been an exponential increase in the production and use of synthetic organic chemicals in the United States. These chemicals have found their

way into our interior spaces, e.g., architectural finishes, furnishings, fragrances, cleaning chemicals, and pesticides. Many of these chemicals are evolutionarily novel substances, some of which we are unable to metabolize or eliminate. Following the oil embargo of the 1970s, energy conservation efforts led to a decrease in fresh air entering homes and commercial buildings. The result of these two trends is that indoor air contains hundreds of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)—far more than in outdoor air.

While healthy adults may not notice any health effects from these chemical exposures, vulnerable individuals (including the very young and the elderly) can experience serious health problems. The health burdens are particularly significant for those suffering from chemical intolerance, which Miller notes now affects 5 to 15% of the population.

These observations suggest, perhaps ironically, that indoor environments have become threats to human well-being, rather than sanctuaries from severe natural conditions. The authors employed the same kind of reasoning with regard to larger scale community environments.

Health and Community Design Beyond the health effects of the built environment related to exposure, the spatial configuration and infrastructure of our communities define our behavioral choices and have a profound impact on community health and ecological sustainability. Reid Ewing documents the significance of these relationships: The literature shows that a combination of urban design, land use patterns, and transportation systems that promote walking and bicycling can help create active, healthier, and more livable communities. Sprawl, with its consequently higher rates of automobile travel, can lead to a lack of physical activity, increasing the risk of many chronic diseases and conditions, including obesity, hypertension, noninsulin-dependent diabetes, colon cancer, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease, and stroke. Efforts to increase the pedestrian orientation of the built environment by creating safe, appealing, and comfortable street environments can enhance both the feasibility and the attractiveness of walking and bicycling by reducing physical and psychological barriers. Even a small increase in walking would help to substantially improve the health and quality of life of most people.

Leslie Moody expands Ewing’s point to argue that the interplay of planning, architecture, and policy-making processes also significantly influences the economy and low-income residents’ access to quality jobs with family-supporting wages: Continued on page 14.

+ FALL 2012 + BEYOND LEED 13

Quotes How does the built environment become an integrated part of the ecosystem metabolism of place rather than apart from it and create conditions conducive to health for all? —Gail Vittori It is essential that architecture not be judged in isolation without regard to how the site and community are impacted and how ecosystem services are protected or improved. —Danielle Pieranunzi Buildings should not be judged in isolation, but rather contextually based on location. The area selected gives valuable information on surrounding infrastructure, including pedestrian access, alternative transportation modes, energy, and water resources. —Holley Henderson Architecture is a reflection of cultural values. Winston Churchill said: “We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us.” The values that designers consider when shaping buildings and communities are reflections of cultural mores, occasionally aspiring to represent, or seeking to inspire, societal change. —Suzanna Wight Kelley

Continued from page 13.

While LEED addresses the carbon footprint of the built environment, we need to take into account developments’ impact on jobs, commute times, transit, goods movement, access to goods and services, and other elements that define urban ecosystems.

Pieranunzi’s logic suggests that once we identify ecosystem services, we can then assess their economic value. These calculations can help city leaders budget, plan, and manage the green infrastructure that supplies these essential goods and services. She holds:

What is the sustainability impact of job quality and access to family-supporting wages for low-income urban residents? Healthier family budgets means more money to pay for home weatherization, better quality cars, and the property taxes that fund higher quality services, among other things.

Together, Ewing and Moody document the empirical evidence demonstrating that the physical design of our communities is linked to a host of unhealthful consequences. The point is not to condemn city-makers, but to bring the degenerative consequences of poor judgment to light.

Ecosystem Services for Human Well-Being Like Ewing and Moody, Pieranunzi and Browning look at the relationship of community design and health, but from the perspective of natural systems. They describe the interdependence of humans on the natural environment through discussion of “ecosystem services”—those services generated by healthy ecosystems upon which humans and other species depend. Pieranunzi explains:

The term “ecosystem services” describes the goods and services provided by healthy ecosystems—for instance, the flooding and storm surge protection provided by wetlands, the filtration of air and water by vegetation, and the carbon sequestration capacity of vegetation and soils. Ecosystem services provide benefits to humankind and other organisms, but are not generally reflected in our current economic accounting. Humans often underestimate or ignore their value when making land-use decisions, only to realize later how difficult, expensive, and sometimes impossible it is to replicate ecosystem services once they are lost.

While some urban dwellers might consider themselves separate from nature, Pieranunzi notes that a wide range of ecosystem services are critical to the more than 80 percent of Americans who live in cities and towns:

Research by social scientists and psychologists shows that, for adults and children, encounters with everyday green spaces—a green view from an office window, a lunchtime stroll through a nearby park, well-tended landscapes around schools—restore the ability to concentrate, calm feelings of anxiety, and reduce aggression. Access to well-designed outdoor spaces also encourages physical activity, which can result in weight loss and overall improvements in health. In addition, a Chicago study links tree and grass cover to fewer property crimes, fewer violent crimes, stronger ties among neighbors, more frequent use of common neighborhood spaces, and a greater sense of safety.

+ FALL 2012 + BEYOND LEED 14

Studies conducted by American Forests found that the tree canopy reduces residential home cooling costs, saving an average of $11 per household per year in Portland, Oregon, and $28 per household per year in Atlanta, Georgia. Multiplied across the region, this household benefit can add up—in the Atlanta region, savings in home cooling costs amount to $2.8 million per year.

Quantifying the value of ecosystem services to the community is not to reduce “nature” to the status of a market commodity, but to frame the benefits of the services so that we can understand them and incorporate them into dominant value- and decision-making systems. The dependence of human communities upon built and natural environments requires, then, adopting the processes—defined here by the authors—of valuing ecosystem services in the marketplace.

THE KNOWLEDGE REQUIRED TO DESIGN COEVOLVING SYSTEMS Regenerative design thinking views the coevolution of social and ecological systems as an active and intentional process; humans consciously shape our social and ecological environments and have responsibility to do so in a way that supports (human and nonhuman) life. How is this done without hubris?

One overwhelming consensus of the authors was that there is no cookie-cutter, standardized solution; incremental placespecific solutions are essential, as are short-term assessment and course changes. As such, the authors asserted that regenerative design decisions must emerge from a strong understanding of place. This includes ecological and social knowledge of the local context, as well as how the local context is influenced at different scales.

Ecological Knowledge Pieranunzi and Browning, in particular, urge us to study and understand the ecological processes that shape places. By studying how natural, biological, and ecological processes work, we may develop new insights helpful to augmenting provision of ecosystem services. Pieranunzi maintains:

Using a systems-thinking approach to understand and value the relationships in a functioning ecosystem helps to reestablish the integral and essential relationship between ecological processes and human activity.

A project can be designed to mimic the functions of healthy, local ecosystems and, thereby, increase the ecosystem services it provides after construction— whether it is a housing development or a park.

Browning emphasizes the value of knowing the deep ecological history of a spatially particular site in order to see new possibilities for ecologically sustainable design. For example, he proposes:

Today, Manhattan supports vastly different ecosystems than it once did. Knowledge of the habitat that once existed can teach us important lessons about the ecosystem services that are possible on our land. For example, understanding how the island’s water cycle works can help us redesign ineffective portions of our stormwater drainage systems, so that they can function more seamlessly as a part of the natural water cycle.

Ecological knowledge is, then, not isolated from human activity—it includes urban stormwater and wastewater in Manhattan, just as it includes trout streams in Montana.

Deep Contextual Knowledge—Stories of Place Each site, each place, has a rich web of social and ecological histories and stakeholders with a wealth of local knowledge about how systems operate. Cole explains that narrative forms and rich case studies are valuable in understanding and documenting the patterns and relationships in local coevolving systems:

Mang and Reed (2012) emphasize the potency of using the “story of place,” together with “pattern literacy,” as a means of providing “a coherent organization of information, and the relationships and connections between discrete pieces of information and different types of information,” so that an “underlying narrative structure enables relating this information and these relationships and connections in a way that reveals a holistic, understandable picture.”

In creating such a story of place, it is important, Pieranunzi contends, to include the voices and knowledge of all affected participants because they know that place from different perspectives:

The goals should evolve from the local place and harness the genius loci of a site and ecoregion. The goals must also be informed by the local community, [whose inhabitants] hold the history and knowledge of the site’s past ecological, cultural, and social function and who will be affected by the outcome of the design.

These authors collectively suggest that stories of places are constructed by locals and reconstructed by their children, grandchildren, and newcomers as conditions change. Stories can, then, be powerful tools in the construction of alternative futures of which functional ecosystems and social equity are parts. The assumption here is that history, including natural history, is not determined by some grand scheme or narrative written in the past. Rather, history resides in its making.

Understanding Site as Part of a Nested System, Influenced

by Patterns at Different Scales In this subtheme of the coevolution hypothesis, the authors emphasized that no building, site, or city is an island—each is deeply embedded in a web of relationships operating from the regional to the global scales. Werner Lang articulates the challenges of long-term sustainable design and planning for a dynamic city strongly influenced by global economic forces well beyond local control. He believes that:

+ FALL 2012 + BEYOND LEED 15

Working within existing cities requires working within existing systems, networks, and parameters. The complexity and interdependencies cannot truly be accommodated by most out-of-the-box rating systems.

Likewise, Leslie Moody describes the role of global economic forces affecting the form and function of cites, and the often unintended local consequences of these patterns for lowincome families: There are significant potential sustainability issues created by the displacement of low-income people through gentrification. When property values go up, real estate once considered uninteresting takes on greater value in the speculative market, and lowincome people, who may have lived in neighborhoods for years or even generations, find they can no longer afford to stay. Where do they move? Does the displacement move them to neighborhoods nearer to, or farther from, jobs and transit? Are they more likely to move farther away from where the dynamic economic development is happening? Are their transit options sufficient to connect them to jobs? Do they rely more heavily on older vehicles that are more polluting for transportation?

Kelley adds to this global view by arguing:

Forces […] shaping the scope of architecture and its impact are varied, and points of view are swiftly becoming global in scope, as opposed to local, regional, or even national.

Together Lang, Moody, and Kelley each contributed to a coherent view which holds that places are not autonomous.

Rather, they are influenced by global economies and other forces beyond the influence of local action. These observations do not, however, add up to a claim regarding the futility of local action. To the contrary, their collective observation is that local, regional, national, and international systems are nested. Change is possible at any scale and influences each layer up and down the scale.

In summing up what we are calling the coevolution hypothesis articulated by the authors—which is that human societies, technologies, and nature(s) coevolve over time—we distill three related points made at the symposium. First, human communities depend on the synergy of the built and natural worlds and how they re- or de-generate each other. Second, our dependence is not only an economic one—our social and physical health is also at risk, as is the ecosystem of which we are a part. And third, the emergence of such new and risky conditions requires new kinds of knowledge that may be found, not only in empirical science, but also in the rich stories of particular places that are nested at multiple scales around the world. Regenerative design will necessarily employ all three kinds of knowledge.

Coevolution Hypothesis Human societies, technologies, and nature(s) coevolve over time.

1. Human communities depend on the synergy of the built and natural worlds and how they re- or de-generate each other.

2. Our dependence is not only an economic one—our social and physical health is also at risk, as is the ecosystem of which we are a part.

3. The emergence of such new and risky conditions requires new kinds of knowledge that may be found, not only in empirical science, but also in the rich stories of particular places that are nested at multiple scales around the world.

Regenerative design will necessarily employ all three kinds of knowledge.

REGENERATIVE DESIGN

REGENERATIVE DESIGN: HOW DO WE DO IT? THEORY AND PRACTICE – PRACTICE AND THEORY

Contributors to the third theme that emerged in the symposium focused on this question: Given the complexity and uncertainty of the interdependent social, technological, and ecological systems we call home, how can we create and sustain flourishing life conditions for all?

Quotes Merging the notions of system and uncertainty would suggest that it is necessary to move from being experts to being co-learners and that the basis of a systems approach is the establishment of a network of mutual learning. In this way, the mindset from which decisions are made by the various stakeholders is changed from one of prescriptive and fixed control mechanisms to a reflective process that is anticipatory, responsive and flexible. —Raymond Cole Apart from applying “the art of the long view” (Peter Schwartz), for successful planning and design processes, it is crucial to engage the community in question and its leaders from different disciplines in a comprehensive consideration of needs, based on the systems and parameters particular to that place. Such an integrated process is necessary for the definition of the goals in preparation of a successful planning process and a meaningful assessment process. Only through this engagement (via the community and community leaders) is it possible to “rate” architecture with regard to its socio-cultural, economic and ecologic performance, value, and/or its sustainable success. —Werner Lang We share a concern that public funding and public approvals processes are not open to real community input. Negotiations with developers happen in private, with little opportunity for public comment on how priorities are set. At the point when public input is solicited, many of the most important decisions have already been made. Community members are asked to say “yes” to a development project that doesn’t reflect their needs and values, or to say “no” to an opportunity that may bring partial benefit. The chance to maximize value, to increase the benefit, and to have a role in defining the broader contours of negotiation is lost.” —Leslie Moody

Drawing from Donnella Meadows, Cole offered a first response: “while complex systems cannot be controlled, ‘they can be designed and redesigned,’ and ‘[w]e can’t surge forward with certainty into a world of no surprises, but we can expect surprises and learn from them, and even profit from them.’” Expressing a similar strategic approach, Berkebile quoted Buckminster Fuller as saying, “The only way to predict the future is to design it”; we cannot control our environment, but we certainly have the power to steer a course. The authors generally concur that though we lack certain control, we still have responsibility and partial agency.

the implications of Cole’s humble proposal above—that we designers should stop thinking of ourselves as “experts” and become “co-learners” in a constantly changing world.

LEARNING IN ACTION— FEEDBACK LOOPS AND EVIDENCE-BASED DESIGN One of the most frequently leveled criticisms of LEED has been the absence of post-occupancy performance evaluation. Not only is empirical evidence of success essential for making the political case for regenerative design, performance evaluation also helps those who design, manage, and inhabit the built environment to learn and adapt as conditions change. Pieranunzi puts it simply:

COLLABORATIVE PROCESSES Responsibility for regenerative design is distributed widely, and it cannot be practiced by individual experts alone. As such, well-designed collaborative processes and performance feedback are essential. Accordingly, Cole calls for “communication and dialogue occurring at all stages of design and occupancy,” so that inhabitants and managers can adapt in response to changing conditions. Many of the authors referred to this collaborative, responsive approach as “adaptive management.”

Inclusive participation is essential throughout the regenerative process, especially in establishing the intentions, goals, and benchmarks for the system in question. Regenerative design advocates for establishment of goals based on an understanding of the system’s current form and function and the collective knowledge and values of agents in the system.

Interdisciplinary collaboration is essential, as is participation by diverse social groups.

In these brief passages, Cole, Lang, and Moody are not only arguing that “participatory design” tends to be more successful, they are arguing that broad participation improves the quality of design. The concept of “quality,” however, is defined not by a few select experts, but by those most affected by the design itself. This challenge to the modern notion of authorship will certainly be contested by those who benefit most from that tradition.

A second challenge that hangs just below the surface of the discussion is the question of architectural or technological determinism. Symposium participants share the assumption that the design of the built world is an opportunity to exercise agency—the ability to make a difference in the world. Some readers will certainly find in this assumption what they take to be the hubris of modern science—the arrogance to imagine that we can control the technologies we invent. Those readers should examine the white papers for themselves and

+ FALL 2012 + BEYOND LEED 16

Regenerative systems are ensured for the long term by instilling a monitoring and reporting system.

Furthermore, by adopting an adaptive management program that regularly reevaluates the design, a project can better respond to future conditions and unforeseen changes, and revise the design as needed.

In the view of several authors, learning is a dynamic ongoing and comprehensive process, not a static moment of individual awakening.

Learning from History—Ecological Benchmarks Many of the authors underscored the importance of establishing context-dependent goals for quantitative ecosystem performance. For instance, Browning documents how the ecological performance of a site in the distant past could provide quantitative benchmarks for the future. Pieranunzi argues that such a benchmark could be the basis of an “adaptive management program”:

Rather than prescribing one-size-fits-all green design solutions, such as green roofs or constructed wetlands, SITES judges performance based on a project’s unique attributes. Performance-based benchmarks guide design decisions, but are also flexible to sitespecific conditions and innovative, creative solutions.

Browning and Pieranunzi both contend that managing the ecological performance of places should not be an arbitrary process, but one informed by both history and the capacities of contemporary social systems.

Continued on page 18.

THE CASE OF 111 EIGHTH AVENUE, NEW YORK CITY “Terrapin Bright Green chose 111 Eighth Avenue to begin its exploration of ecologically inspired building metrics. Baseline ecological performance standards were calculated for this site relative to the energy balance, water balance, carbon budget, and biodiversity of the site. The firm used the Mannahatta Project as a starting point, incorporating additional information about hydrology, solar energy, and carbon storage and sequestration from a variety of sources. The analysis involved an overview of the site’s resources and flows in 1609, and a similar analysis for 2011.”

—Bill Browning

111 EIGHTH AVENUE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE 1609 AND 2011 Metric

ENERGY

WATER

CARBON

1609 Level

2011 Level

Total solar radiation available

61,699 kWh/day

61,699 kWh/day

Solar radiation used in photosynthesis

1,3577 kWh/day

No photosynthesis currently takes place

Solar radiation reflected back to atmosphere

15%

23%

Solar radiation absorbed as heat onsite/re-radiation at ground level

82%

77%

Total precipitation onsite

50 inches/year (-5.2 million gallons)

49 inches/year (-5.1 million gallons)

Total streamflow entering site

45 million gallons/yr

45 million gal/year (stream still exists, but is pumped down the sewer)

Other water sources

N/A

Total evapotransportation

3,120,00 gal/yr

Total groundwater recharge

1,963,00 gal/yr

No groundwater recharge takes place

Total surface runoff

117,000 gal/yr

101.3 million gal/year run off into the sewer system

Net carbon sequestered annually

3.7 tons/year

0 metric tons

0 metric tons

85,000 metric tons (from building’s electricity and steam use)

Net carbon emitted annually

Species diversity BIODIVERSITY Habitat provided

+ FALL 2012 + BEYOND LEED 17

Additional 55.9 million gal/yr from city and purchased stream 4.7 million gal/yr (from cooling towers)

23 mammal species, over 60 bird species, 27 reptiles and N/A amphibians, and about 300 plant species Site provides minimal 164,800 square feet habitat

Images Left: 111 Eighth Avenue environmental performance metrics: 1609 and 2011.

Top right: Deep ecological mapping, circa 1609 and 2009. Investigating the Mannahatta project maps revealed that 111 Eighth Avenue’s foundation was laid in the path of one of Manhattan’s buried streams, explaining the origin of the 45 million gallons of groundwater entering the basement each year.

Middle right: Hudson River looking south, circa 1609.

Bottom right: Mannahatta, circa 1609 and 2009.

Images courtesy of Terrapin Bright Green, © 2009 Eric W. Sanderson.

Continued from page 16.

Learning-in-Action: Human Experience Benchmarks Evaluating qualitative aspects of humans’ experiences of the built environment is even more challenging than establishing the quantitative performance benchmarks for biophysical systems. How can we measure fairness? Who gets to set the standard for whether a project is beautiful, and how can beauty be assessed in the context of sustainable design? How can we draw conclusions about the health performance of buildings and communities when the science is so uncertain?

Leslie Moody offers community benefits agreements (CBA) negotiated between community groups and developers as a model for establishing performance measures for social justice and other hard-to-measure variables. In this case, there are no “absolute” notions of fairness, but people make site-based, binding agreements informed by their values and the experiences of others who employed CBAs. In such cases, “fairness” is what conflicting social groups say it is.

Beauty, like fairness, is difficult to measure, yet David Heymann argued that architects should advocate for aesthetic goals, “architects remain purveyors of value, that binding agent between the qualitative and quantitative.” In the context of regenerative design, Heymann wonders what transcendent aesthetic values could emerge to coevolve with our demands for high-performance buildings and landscapes. He finds, in a particularly entertaining way, two types of instructive precedents. In the first, beauty is “what works.” A design that functions well has a beauty of its own because it satisfies, elegantly, our wants and desires. In the second precedent, beauty is the “ugly pet.” When one cares for a building, site, or landscape—even an unattractive one—the caregiver grows to find it beautiful. In this sense, care and stewardship beget beauty, which begets further motivation for stewardship.

Together Moody, Henderson, and Heymann contend that the standards of judgment for regenerative design are not absolute, as traditional science teaches us, but context- and experience-dependent.

Measuring Performance and Establishing Feedback Loops Performance assessment is critical, yet difficult. Acquisition of reliable data on a usable timeline is challenging even for clearly defined, quantitative benchmarks. Henderson noted that even relatively simple indicators of human health and satisfaction, like absenteeism and productivity at work, are difficult to obtain across buildings since human resource departments are often unwilling to share data, either because of confidentiality or time. Because human health and experience are difficult to measure, these variables are frequently left out of performance assessment, despite the crucial importance of inhabitant behavior on system behavior, and vice versa.

+ FALL 2012 + BEYOND LEED 18

A key challenge in adaptive management is creating feedback loops that provide timely data. As Henderson states, academic research (e.g., post-occupancy research) is rarely a source of prompt feedback, since it takes a long time to conduct scientifically sound studies and disseminate the results through the peer-review process. Establishing systems for real-time performance data collection and analysis will be an important challenge for assessment of regenerative design. Henderson identified social media as one emergent data source. Access to real time performance evaluation can also foster competition and collaboration in a social learning network. Horst outlines this benefit with regard to LEED’s emerging recertification program: This program will create an ongoing relationship with all LEED building owners, designers, occupants, and the USGBC. It will enable owners and occupants to assess how their building performs vis-à-vis other buildings with respect to performance indicators including energy, water, waste, occupant satisfaction, and health. Rather than focusing on the inputs of a LEED process, performance-based assessment will connect people, in real time, to the outcomes of their intent and action.

In preferring the vagaries of learning-in-action to scientific certainty at the outset, these authors maintain that continuous feedback from operating systems may be messy, but offers a situated view into how human, biophysical, and technological systems influence each other in real time.

Where traditional science strives to be right before any action is taken, regenerative science strives to be successful over time.

Using Models to Understand Performance When working within complex systems—where there is often insufficient data and interpretation is challenged by the dense web of relationships—models can be helpful in simulating likely outcomes. For instance, Ewing proposed the use of empirically derived “elasticities,” or a range of values, in the calculation of behavior changes in transportation. Vittori also recommended that models could be used to establish a provisional rating, which could then be assessed through empirically measured performance over time. Werner Lang also emphasizes the utility of: long-term oriented modeling to enable a better understanding of the complex systemic interaction of individual components and influential factors of the existing city system and urban development with the help of simulations.

These three authors stressed that a highly practical kind of reasoning, which uses digital models to narrow the field of possible conflicts and synergies, is necessary. The goal is not to replace human experience or direct empirical testing, but to free us from chasing improbable solutions.

CREATING SPACES TO CHART NEW COURSES Getting performance feedback is one thing, but how can inhabitants of the built environment organize to respond adaptively and creatively once they receive it? Several authors addressed this question and described two conditions that can catalyze innovative, adaptive thinking. First is the development of experimental public spaces that enable communities to let go of their entrenched habits and collaboratively develop creative possibilities for a better future. Second is a disruptive event that can leave little choice but to consider alternative futures.

Collaborative Processes Not only do effective collaborative processes support idea exchange and buy-in for collective action, they can help a community create powerful new ideas. What conditions make such generative dialogue possible? In reviewing the innovations of several groups that have developed rating systems that go beyond LEED, Vittori identifies an important, common condition: Notable about each of these beyond efforts is that they occur in what writer and professor Clay Shirky describes as “free space”: “space where people can freely interact and communicate without having to refer back to a central management of some sort.” This free space is essential for stretching rule-based boundaries, to discover and explore what “beyond” could and should be. Free space should be encouraged and embraced.

Establishing spaces where people are free to explore outside of traditional institutional boundaries is also an important part of what Berkebile calls a “collaborative dialogue of discovery,” an essential part of his firm’s design process, “which is created though facilitated community conversations (face to face and through social networking).” To make this collaborative dialogue of discovery most effective, the BNIM team learned to first establish a sense of trust and community among all stakeholders and consultants, and to bolster the discovery process with the most inspiring strategies they can provide.

Disruption Moments of crisis, managed democratically and with great care, can create fertile ground for rethinking our habits and generating creative strategies. Two examples stand out from Berkebile’s paper—first, as he responded to the unintended health and safety crises generated by a building collapse in the 1980s and, second, as he and his firm helped communities respond to natural disasters from the 1990s on. For the latter, he shared the example of rebuilding efforts in Greensburg, Kansas, a town that lost 95 percent of its buildings to an EF5 [the highest rating on the scale] tornado in 2007:

+ FALL 2012 + BEYOND LEED 19

After a collaborative dialogue of discovery, the citizens of Greensburg made a unified commitment that would lead them to become the first city in America to adopt LEED Platinum as their standard, double their energy efficiency, build a municipal wind farm that generates four times the energy they consume, and build a K-12 school that received a 2011 AIA Top Ten Green Project Award. They have been credited by FEMA, the New York Times, and two presidents (Bush and Obama) as the best example of rebuilding to create new vitality.

One key to turning disruption of any kind into forward, rather than backward, thinking is to provide opportunties for vulnerable people themselves to weigh in or suggest solutions, rather than impose predetermined solutions on the community by outside experts. Berkebile’s approach to community disaster planning is recognizing that technologies are ever-present in human practices and habits. But, unless everyone in the system welcomes these practices and habits, the system cannot function. In brief, only communities can regenerate themselves.

Infrastructure for Reflection The primary intent of most building assessment systems is to establish methods for performance evaluation of building designs and/or completed projects. A second function, not always intended by system designers, is to establish structures for evaluation and reflection on the assessment system itself. Vittori points to the LEED Pilot Credit Library as a “good example of opening up the rating system to new concepts and allowing the global community of users to test drive them.” She also emphasizes that the beauty of LEED, in general, is “its defined development cycle, underpinned by a transparent, consensus-based process, which ensures that it continues to go ‘beyond’ itself.”

By engaging diverse parties in an adaptive process, LEED has secured its long-term relevance and a strong market position. At the time of the symposium, January 2012, almost two-billion square feet of commercial space had been LEED-certified, fifteen thousand companies were affiliated at the national level, and seventy-nine regional chapters in the United States (not including twenty-one chapters in other countries) had mobilized over twenty thousand volunteers. These are impressive numbers that suggest “green building” has become a bona fide social movement.

However, a major question for all social movements is how leaders keep moving forward toward an uncertain goal, as the membership achieves comfort in their newfound habits and identities. In considering “what’s next,” movement leaders must identify tools to help chart the course and critically consider their approach to leadership.

Quotes This transformative work has shown us that when the residents, stakeholders and consultants come together as a collaborative community, a creative force is generated that produces miracles.

We have discovered that a regenerative design and development approach can work in any situation if a collaborative dialogue of discovery can be established and maintained. —Bob Berkebile Most of my time in the early eighties was consumed by legal work resulting from the collapse. Beyond the lawsuits, approximately 15 percent of my time was available. I felt bad that it was not enough to serve our clients. But in hindsight, it was a gift. It was enough time to begin doing research to seek answers to my new questions about unintended design impacts. —Bob Berkebile

REGENERATIVE DESIGN

WHAT’S NEXT? A CALL FOR NEW TOOLS AND LEADERS WHAT IS THE ROLE OF PROFESSIONALS IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY?

For Berkebile:

Quotes

In weighing the fourth theme that emerged in the symposium— “What’s Next?”—it is clear that leaders will need to be equipped with a special set of tools. These tools will be designed to create conditions for healthy, ecologically sustainable, equitable communities in the context of complex, dynamic social and ecological systems. Certainly, the toolbox will include Building Assessment Systems (BAS) that have already been developed to support the practice of sustainable design. [A catalog of existing BAS is provided in the appendix to this issue of Platform.] These systems, or tools, have emerged in a variety of places under diverse conditions with sometimes opposing assumptions. They are all independent of LEED (with the exception of LEED-ND), and the authors assembled at the symposium recognized that each alternative provides advantages. Yet, symposium participants suggested that these tools—individually and as a set—are not adequate to the task before us. Beyond existing tools, the authors call for:

[T]he nature of transformation requires that we constantly stare into the abyss and ponder our next move. … We must never confuse the discomfort that comes with transformation with the discomfort that comes when we push ourselves to improve. The latter is not nearly as critical as the former. If we can reach the point of serious discomfort, we will know that we are getting somewhere. —Scot Horst

a process-based tool that guides how to plan in particular social and ecological contexts, not a prescription of what to plan; metrics and assessment tools to enable adaptive management and accountability before, during, and after construction; collaborative process tools that tap the knowledge of all players in a system, support creative thinking, and foster social learning; and a tool that would evolve over time and create opportunities for entry at all levels, from the early adopter to the neophyte and disruptive innovator.

Horst’s view is sympathetic:

Transformation requires sustained action and tangible results. LEED has succeeded so far because of the people who have taken action that makes a difference. Those actions are even certified! But until buildings improve rather than harm the world, we will not have succeeded. —Scot Horst

REGEN: A SUPPORT TOOL FOR REGENERATIVE DESIGN

I have often heard the phrase, “Bob, I’ll believe it when I see it.” But my experience over the last 30 years suggests that our client in Pine Ridge has it right; the Lakota belief is that, “You will see it when you believe it.” I agree, and I am optimistic!

[S]urely we can design buildings, landscapes, and communities that are compelling enough to make our current ideas of community obsolete! I believe these designs will improve the health and quality of life for all living things, while increasing the vitality of our environment and creating the first post-carbon economy. —Bob Berkebile

an open-source global network to locate the best thinking and most inspiring community strategies to engage in a global dialogue of discovery.

None of the tools described in the appendix explicitly advance “regenerative design,” and only a few foster an understanding of place and the ability to learn from others. LEED provides some support for social learning, yet no tools truly promote regenerative design dialogue and collaboration. A key component missing, explains Berkebile, is:

In a direct response to the gaps articulated above, the USGBC retained a core team at BNIM to develop “REGEN”—an online “forum, a repository for place-based and systems-based information and a framework capable of stimulating dialogue among diverse practitioners and decision makers.”

REGEN is intended to support designers of place, i.e., buildings and landscapes, by: providing a framework to facilitate the interdisciplinary, multi-scalar, systems thinking required for regenerative design; connecting design teams with the place-based information and resources they need through an easily searchable and accessible open-source repository; and, connecting design teams with case studies of similar projects elsewhere and the leaders who created them.

+ FALL 2012 + BEYOND LEED 20

REGEN is intentionally neither a rating system, nor a universal definition of regenerative design to be applied to all places. It is, instead, a “place” intelligence bank with open-source information in an interconnected a web that supports a more robust dialogue among those seeking patterns of wholeness.

The REGEN tool concept, a work in progress, will support practitioners and decision makers engaged in regenerative design and development processes, particularly in the early planning and design stages.

This systems-based model of making connections at and between systemic levels—issue level and strategic level—will allow the discovery of synergies and encourage a dialogue about place and quality of life for all life.

REGEN will help project teams think outside the boundaries of LEED credits. Rather than ask how to meet energy use targets, REGEN asks how to consider energy intentionally in a world where we might give more than we take.

The progenitors of REGEN, USGBC, and BNIM acknowledge that it is in early developmental stages. The graphic on the right provides a preliminary depiction of the way REGEN will operate. First, the REGEN framework is composed of four nested systems—social, natural, construction, and economic—reflected by the four quadrants. When a design team visits the tool, it will first enter the type of project (e.g., institutional), its scale (e.g., large building), and its location (e.g., Kansas City, Missouri). Based on this information, REGEN will retrieve all information available about the place and display it graphically. In the graphic, the size of the circle representing each component is proportionate to its state of health—the larger the circle, the more capacity available; the smaller the circle, the more vulnerable the component.

The small squares depict available design strategies with lines connecting them to other components affected by the strategies. When learning more about a design strategy, the team can find related case studies and relevant data. As the team gathers information and develops new strategies, it can enter this information into the REGEN framework, where it becomes available to others.

Fundamentally, REGEN is a collaborative effort to support systems thinking for place-based regenerative design. As Berkebile argues:

[t]he power of REGEN is not as a tool with recommendations or a checklist of best practices, but as a framework of information and a forum for the story of place.

The process envisioned in the tool requires broad and diverse collaboration.

At the moment, no one expects the REGEN tool to replace LEED. Rather, USGBC intends that, if funding becomes available and development is completed, REGEN will become a parallel system to the existing checklist tool.

Predicting technological change is a problematic game. Will practitioners fearful of lawsuits be willing to share building performance data in an open system setting? In the current climate, it is difficult to imagine that participation will be broad or that practitioners will give up what is historically considered proprietary information. Will clients be willing to support the time required to fully participate in the social learning envisioned by REGEN progenitors? Again, in the current climate it is doubtful, because few clients calculate the immediate economic benefits that would accrue to them. Will other dominant software, particularly Building Information Modeling (BIM) systems, become compatible? Once again, how competitors for market-share in the business of representing building performance benefit from REGEN will likely determine its future.

The REGEN tool is a practical, yet radical, idea that has the potential to transform how we judge and produce architecture. But without people to operate them, technologies in themselves have no agency. We mean by this term that without the experimental community of academics, activists, bankers, designers, developers, managers, regulators, and software engineers envisioned by its progenitors, the tool could remain another good, but unrealized, idea. Clearly, tools are useless without leaders and collaborators to put them to good use. What, then, does regenerative design demand of its leaders?

REGENERATIVE DESIGN: A CALL FOR LEADERS Regenerative design demands new approaches to leadership.

In traditional views of leadership, a “leader” is the one who knows what is to be done, creates a plan to accomplish it, and manages others to produce the results. In contrast, symposium participants recognized that the solutions to the social, ecological, and economic crises we face cannot be known or created by any one expert.

Leadership, then, requires crossing over a threshold into the unknown—a critical, yet risky and uncomfortable, enterprise. It requires collaboration among diverse parties to understand the current state of the world, identify new ideas and opportunities, and create possibilities powerful enough to call us over that threshold together. Rather than impose direction, symposium participants argued for a kind of leadership that fosters alignment among relevant social groups—each holding a valuable, and sometimes conflicting, perspective on the nature of reality.

In this sense, leadership can be seen as an emergent capacity of a social system—belonging to no individual, but a reflection of collective aspiration, will, and action. Or, considering the idea of “social capital” introduced above by Cole, leadership can be seen as directed social capital. It is the ability to catalyze action by a social group toward emergent goals. Leadership extends far outside the office or studio. As Horst emphasizes, leadership in this context is about the capacity for transformation, and LEED is an infrastructure that supports the emergence of such leadership in a social system:

+ FALL 2012 + BEYOND LEED 21

LEED is an expression of collective action in the physical world. It engages people from diverse professions and backgrounds, challenging them to gather, debate, and then implement major change. As an empirical reflection of daily accomplishments, LEED inspires leadership and deeper engagement by those who use shelter, i.e., all people. Simply because it constantly changes and adapts, LEED is an open invitation to transformation.

From a regenerative design perspective, leadership is not about one individual. Collectively, individuals must enhance their capacities for cooperation. Individually, each person in the system must be responsible for cultivating his or her capacity for leadership. As Horst notes, leadership in regenerative design is not a comfortable or predictable affair. Miscommunications, failure, and setbacks are inevitable. In the face of such breakdowns, leaders must develop practices to support their own resiliencies, as well as that of their communities. Berkebile’s account of his journey of creative leadership offers a helpful perspective. Drawing from his personal experiences of “design intuition” and his interactions with spiritual leaders and poets, Berkebile shared that creating space to listen to “the quiet,” or inner voice, has been helpful in sustaining his own creative practice. He encourages leaders to listen for that “inner truth” and continue to reach out, build networks, share their visions, and take action together.

Symposium participants echoed this emphasis on the value of diverse, supportive networks in generating ideas and moving them forward through prototypes and evaluation, adapting them along the way. Within such a supportive innovation ecosystem, every new project becomes an opportunity to push the boundary of possibility a little bit further, and new opportunities might present themselves. The participants called for networks of leaders to boldly and adaptively govern the complex social and ecological systems we call home. At issue is not to forge social groups with consistent and coherent foundational assumptions, but to forge thoughtful action directed toward common goals, as articulated by diverse groups in civil society.

In short, the “Beyond LEED: Regenerative Design Symposium” created a space for prominent leaders and collaborators to discuss what has been achieved, where we want to go, and how we might get from here to there. In the face of significant social, ecological, and economic crises related to the design of our environments, these leaders articulated a vision of regenerative design that supports flourishing communities and ecosystems, as well as ways of thinking, doing, being, and leading that will be necessary to achieve this ambitious vision.

It may also require a leap of faith that this vision of regenerative design is, indeed, possible. We hope that the symposium, and our review of the authors’ contributions to it, will catalyze critical thought and action toward the advancement of regenerative design by Platform readers.

REGEN: Toward a Tool for Regenerative Thinking To facilitate the practice of regenerative design and development, the U.S. Green Building Council and a core team envisioned a forum, a repository of information and a framework that are capable of stimulating dialogue among a diversity of practitioners and decision-makers with different disciplinary backgrounds and viewpoints. The REGEN tool is a work in progress and intended to support any regenerative design and development process, particularly in the early planning and design stages, with new questions and new types of information organized into a web of interconnection. Graphic courtesy of USGBC and BNIM.

TOOLS

AN APPENDIX OF TOOLS FOR REGENERATIVE DESIGN Background This appendix derives from references made by the authors in their white papers. It is not comprehensive, but includes only those tools found to be relevant and helpful at the scale of buildings, ecosystems, and neighborhoods; healthy and socially just communities; and a miscellaneous category relevant in several dimensions.

HEALTH AT THE BUILDING SCALE

HEALTHY ECOSYSTEMS AND NEIGHBORHOODS

How can we design buildings that actually enhance health instead of generate health risks? How can we identify and protect individuals who are vulnerable to chemical exposures? Four tools contribute answers.

Two sets of tools were highlighted that promote site and neighborhood design that supports healthy people and ecosystems.

1. Green Guide for Healthcare Developed under the leadership of Gail Vittori, the Green Guide for Health Care (gghc.org) is a best practices guide and rating system for healthy and sustainable building design, construction, and operations for the healthcare industry. It was developed as a partnership between the Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems and Health Care Without Harm. LEED for Healthcare includes many of its credits.

2. The QEESI Inventory Chemical intolerance is a growing public health concern, as Claudia Miller outlined in her paper. It affects people’s ability to use public buildings, attend church, school, or work, and can even drive people from their homes. Health practitioners and individuals can use the Quick Environmental Exposure and Sensitivity Inventory (QEESI) (chemicalexposures.org) to gauge how chemical exposure may affect health and daily life.

3. & 4. Guides for Healthy Building Materials As Vittori, Miller, and Henderson emphasized in their papers, the rapid expansion of largely unregulated synthetic chemicals contributes to toxic indoor environments.

Two resources help building designers take a precautionary approach: • The Pharos Project (pharosproject.net) • Perkins + Will Precautionary List (transparency.perkinswill.com) This database enables designers to identify chemicals of concern in building materials.

+ FALL 2012 + BEYOND LEED 22

1. Sustainable SITES Initiative Danielle Pieranunzi, director of the Sustainable SITES Initiative, provided an excellent overview of how the SITES rating system helps enhance design and manage provision of ecosystem services. She observes: “SITES has spent several years developing guidance and benchmarks for sustainable land practices that are grounded in rigorous science and can be applied on a site-by-site basis nationwide. These guidelines acknowledge that different regions of the country will have different requirements and, therefore, include performance levels appropriate to each region as needed.

By adopting a construction plan that emphasizes clearly defined vegetation and soil protection zones, as stated in SITES, developments can help regulate local and global climate, improve air quality, and provide habitat. In these ways, use of SITES supports design of regenerative systems.”

2. LEED for Neighborhood Development In 2007, recognizing the need for LEED to be extended beyond single buildings to clusters of buildings and to the neighborhood level itself, LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) was launched through a partnership of the USGBC, the Congress for New Urbanism, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. In its short lifespan, LEED-ND has already been hailed for its broad approach to neighborhood sustainability with foci on three credit categories—Smart Location and Linkage, Neighborhood Pattern and Design, and Green Infrastructure and Buildings.

Ewing, a member of the LEED-ND Location and Planning Technical Advisory Group, offered a rich description of the strengths, weaknesses, and future opportunities of LEED-ND in his paper. In particular, he called on LEED-ND to develop a more empirically grounded and simplified approach.

HEALTHY AND SOCIALLY JUST COMMUNITIES Contributing authors documented five assessment systems aimed primarily, or partially, at measuring social justice and equity embodied in projects.

1. Community Benefits Agreements Moody defined Community Benefits Agreements (CBAs) as “private contractual agreements between developers and community coalitions that outline the benefits of any given project to the broader community.” Since 2001, over a dozen CBAs have been negotiated in the Los Angeles area alone, as well as additional cities as diverse and disparate as Atlanta, Denver, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, and Seattle. Some of the common features of CBAs outlined by Moody include: • Job access programs that give residents of neighboring low-income areas preferred hiring status and a system that helps them access new jobs; • Environmental amenities, including parks and greenspace, as well as provisions that contain the potential environmental and public health impacts of new development (such as additional traffic and car/truck idling around new retail outlets); • Provisions to ensure affordable housing and to fight the displacement of lowincome residents that accommodates so-called urban revitalization.

2. SEED—Social, Environmental, Energy, and Design Network This grassroots network maintains the belief that design can play a vital role in the most critical issues that face communities and individuals—in crisis and in every day challenges. To accomplish this, SEED (seed-network.org) provides tools—the SEED Network and SEED Certification—that guide design professionals toward community-based engagement with design practice. These tools support a public-interest methodology that is increasingly recognized as an effective way to sustain the health and longevity of a place or a community as it develops over time.

+ FALL 2012 + BEYOND LEED 23

3. Enterprise Green Communities Initiative The Enterprise Green Communities Initiative (EGCI) promotes social equity as an explicit differentiator in its rating system. See: enterprisecommunity.com.

4. Initiative on Triple Bottom Line Development Moody refered to a community benefits calculator under development by Janet Hammer (Portland State University) to measure triple bottom line impacts of proposed projects. See: pdx.edu/cupa/ publications.

5. Celebrating Excellence: Design Competitions Since regenerative design is best done on a site-by-site basis, using general principles to guide context-appropriate solutions, design competitions are an excellent way to showcase successful case studies and provide an incentive for further innovation.

• AIA Committee on the Environment The American Insititue of Architects’ Committee on the Environment (COTE) introduced the Top Ten Green Projects program on Earth Day in 1997. As Kelley noted, its Sustainable Design Measures integrate performance, aesthetics, community connection, and stewardship of the natural environment.

• The Living Building Challenge An initiative of the International Living Future Institute, the Living Building Challenge (ilbi.org) celebrates projects that integrate the insititute’s key imperatives for buildings that give back to natural ecosystems and help communities thrive. It includes attention to social justice, beauty, health, and environmental benchmarks.

MISCELLANEOUS OR SPECIALIZED TOOLS Systems • BREAM (BRE Global, bream.org) • CASBEE (Japan Sustainable Building Consortium, ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english) • DGNB (German Sustainable Business Council, DGNB Certificate, dgnb.de/_ en/certification-system/index.php) • Green Star (Green Building Council of Australia, gbca.org.au/green-star) • SBAT (Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, SBAT Tool, csir. co.za/Built_environment/Architectural_ sciences/sbat.html) • SBTool (International Initiative for a Sustainable Built Environment, iisbe. org/sbmethod-2010) Frameworks • Biomimicry Laws of Nature (biomimicryguild.com) • One Planet Living Framework (oneplanetliving.org)

Image The Green at College Park is a sustainable landscape that sits adjacent to the LEED Gold certified College Park Center at the University of Texas at Arlington (UTA).

An arena was designed by HKS Architects, while the surrounding park was designed by Schrickel, Rollins and Associates, Inc., in collaboration with the architecture department at UTA. The 2.6-acre park is located on the south side of College Park Center and works to infiltrate stormwater from the surrounding campus and makes use of sustainable materials, efficient lighting, and water-efficient irrigation.

Quote In Milwaukee, the “Good Jobs, Livable Neighborhoods” coalition worked for two years to establish community benefits principles for a 22-acre planned redevelopment that was projected to site dozens of projects. Those principles included wage and benefits standards, as well as provisions to ensure affordable housing and a hiring process for low-income residents. This initial victory set the stage for the city to pass, two years later, an ordinance that focuses on the construction phase of subsidized redevelopment.

The MORE (Milwaukee Opportunities for Restoring Employment) Ordinance sets wage and benefits standards for construction work and applies the existing hiring program that was previously used only for city infrastructure construction to redevelopment. —Leslie Moody

SYMPOSIUM

BEYOND LEED SYMPOSIUM SPEAKERS THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN JANUARY 27 + 28, 2012 Background The concept for these pages was born over the summer as a curiosity.

Working with the authors on their primary articles for Platform, noting the individuals and ideas they highlighted, the editors thought it important to know more about what had influenced them in their own pursuits of sustainability. We received a wonderfully diverse collection of perspectives and references to books and movements, as well as interesting hopes and concerns about what will drive us in the future.

BOB BERKEBILE | Principal, BNIM Bob Berkebile is a founding principal of BNIM who has contributed over four decades to the architectural profession.

Highly regarded by fellow professionals and the recipient of numerous awards, Berkebile has focused his career on improving the quality of life in our society with integrity and in the spirit of his firm’s work.

BILL BROWNING | Terrapin Bright Green, LLC For over twenty years, Bill Browning has worked to develop sustainable design solutions at all levels of business, government, and civil society. He founded Green Development Services at Rocky Mountain Institute, was a founding member of the U.S. Green Building Council’s Board of Directors, and is a founding partner at Terrapin Bright Green LLC, which crafts high-performance environmental strategies for corporations, governments, and largescale real estate developments.

RAYMOND COLE | Professor, School of Architecture + Landscape Architecture, The University of British Columbia, Canada

Image “Beyond LEED” symposium, Mebane Gallery, Goldsmith Hall, The University of Texas at Austin, January 27 + 28, 2012.

Dr. Raymond Cole is a professor and former director at the School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada (UBC), where he has been teaching environmental issues in building design for more than thirty years. Dr. Cole was selected as a North American Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture Distinguished Professor for “sustained commitment to building environmental research and teaching” in 2001. In 2003, he received the U.S. Green Building Council’s Green Public Service Leadership Award. Dr. Cole was the recipient of the 2008 Sustainable Buildings Canada Lifetime Achievement Award and the 2009 Canada Green Building Council’s Lifetime Leadership Award. He is a past director of the Canadian Green Building Council and holds the UBC designation of Distinguished University Scholar.

+ FALL 2012 + BEYOND LEED 24

MICHAEL CONROY | Professor of Economics (retired), The University of Texas at Austin

DAVID HEYMANN | Professor of Architecture, The University of Texas at Austin

Dr. Michael Conroy is an academic economist who taught at The University of Texas at Austin for nearly 25 years and at Yale for three additional years. He is a LLILAS research fellow and an adjunct professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs and the Teresa Lozano Long Institute of Latin American Studies at The University of Texas at Austin. Dr. Conroy serves as chair of the board of the U.S. Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and a member of the board of FSC International. He is the co-founder of Colibrí Consulting, a firm dedicated to the intersection of certification systems, corporate accountability, and global sustainable development, and the author of Branded!: How the ‘Certification Revolution’ is Transforming Global Corporations.

David Heymann is an architect and the Harwell Hamilton Harris Regents Professor in The University of Texas at Austin School of Architecture. He is a member of the university’s Academy of Distinguished Teaching Professors and an ACSA Distinguished Teaching Professor. Heymann worked for Tod Williams and Billie Tsien, and I.M Pei and Partners, prior to founding his own firm.

The focus of Heymann’s design practice, writing, and research is the complex relationship of buildings and landscapes, particularly natural landscapes.

REID EWING | Professor, Department of City and Metropolitan Planning, The University of Utah Reid Ewing is a professor of City and Metropolitan Planning at the University of Utah, associate editor of the Journal of the American Planning Association, columnist for Planning magazine, and member of the LEED LP Technical Advisory Group of the U.S. Green Building Council.

HOLLEY HENDERSON | Founder, H2 Ecodesign Holley Henderson is the founder of H2 Ecodesign, a sustainable consulting firm that has facilitated over 3 million square feet of LEED-certified projects domestically and internationally.

She serves on the National USGBC Market Sector and Education Training Committees. Henderson speaks and trains for a wide range of audiences.

Her new book is titled Becoming a Green Building Professional.

SCOT HORST | Senior Vice President, LEED + Innovation, U.S. Green Building Council LEED Program Known for his technical knowledge and his ability to facilitate action, Scot Horst strives to create major shifts in our approach to the built environment. He accomplishes this as head of Global Strategic Innovation and the LEED Program at the U.S. Green Building Council. Horst co-founded and was president of 7group, a leading green building consultancy, and served as president of Athena Institute International, a nonprofit dedicated to the lifecycle assessment of buildings. Horst’s creative vision stems from his years of practice as an opera singer and his ongoing work designing sustainable furniture.

SUZANNA WIGHT KELLEY | Managing Director, Strategic Alliances + Initiatives, American Institute of Architects Suzanna Wight Kelley is the managing director of strategic alliances and initiatives at the American Institute of Architects (AIA) in Washington, D.C. In this role, she works with a team of professionals responsible for the direction and oversight of strategic alliances with allied and non-profit organizations and of key institute initiatives related to industry transformation and sustainable practice.

Kelley actively advises AIA’s senior leadership regarding partnership strategies and trends in the transformation of practice related to project delivery, sustainability, and other emerging topics.

WERNER LANG | Chair, Centre for Energy Efficient and Sustainable Design and Building, Technische Universität München Dr.-Ing. Werner Lang is a professor and director of the Centre for Energy Efficient and Sustainable Design and Building at the Technische Universität München (TUM). He is also director of the Oskar von Miller Forum in Munich, an independent educational initiative of the Bavarian construction industry, which supports the university education of civil engineers and architects at TUM. He is a partner in Lang Hugger Rampp GmbH Architects, Munich. From 2008 to 2010, he was an associate professor in sustainable design, and from 2009 to 2010, he was director of the Center for Sustainable Development at The University of Texas at Austin School of Architecture.

CLAUDIA S. MILLER | Professor, Occupational and Environmental Medicine; Assistant Dean, MD/MPH Program; Vice Chair, Family and Community Medicine, UT Health Science Center at San Antonio Dr. Claudia S. Miller is assistant dean and professor of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Texas School of Medicine in San Antonio, where she conducts research on the health effects of low level

chemical exposures, including asthma, autism, and ADHD. She co-authored, with Dr. Nicholas Ashford, a landmark report that won the American Association for World Health’s Macedo Award and led to the book, Chemical Exposures: Low Levels and High Stakes.

The book and a validated questionnaire for assessing chemical intolerance are available free of charge at: chemicalexposures.org.

LESLIE MOODY | Executive Director, Partnership for Working Families Leslie Moody is the executive director of the Partnership for Working Families.

She has 20 years of experience organizing broad-based campaigns toward economic and environmental sustainability and has advised groups in dozens of cities on best practices to achieve equitable and accountable development.

STEVEN A. MOORE | Professor of Architecture, The University of Texas at Austin Steven A. Moore is the Bartlett Cocke Regents Professor in Architecture and director of the graduate Sustainable Design Program in The University of Texas at Austin School of Architecture.

Dr. Moore teaches design and courses related to the philosophy, history, and application of sustainable technology.

DANIELLE PIERANUNZI | Director, Sustainable Sites Initiative, Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center, The University of Texas at Austin Danielle Pieranunzi is the director of the Sustainable Sites Initiative™ (SITES™)—an interdisciplinary effort by the American Society of Landscape Architects, the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center, and the United States Botanic Garden created to transform land development and management practices toward regenerative design.

For the past five years, Pieranunzi has worked closely with experts from across the country researching and developing comprehensive guidelines and criteria for high performance landscapes which are currently being field-tested in over 150 pilot projects.

GAIL VITTORI | Co-Director, Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems Gail Vittori, LEED Fellow, is co-director of Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems in Austin, where she has worked since 1979. She was 2009 chair of U.S. Green Building Council’s Board of Directors, convener and cocoordinator of the Green Guide for Health Care, founding chair of the LEED for Healthcare Committee, and is currently vice-chair of the Green Building Certification Institute.

Symposium Sponsors American Institute of Architects AREA Real Estate International Interior Design Association (IIDA) Texas Oklahoma Chapter L. M. Scofield Company Lake|Flato Architects Texas Environmental Defense Fund Texas Society of Architects The University of Texas at Austin Center for Sustainable Development The University of Texas at Austin School of Architecture Zachry Construction Corporation Symposium Partners American Society of Landscape Architects BNIM Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center U.S. Green Building Council

+ FALL 2012 + BEYOND LEED 25

ALUMNI PROFILE

LUCIA ATHENS [MSAS ‘93] KEEP AUSTIN GREEN PROFILE BY AMY MAVERICK CROSSETTE

Every year, inspired by the beautiful landscapes, hundreds of thousands of people trek to Big Bend National Park in Texas and other parks in New Mexico and Colorado. While hoards of nature lovers leave the confines of their cities in search of nature’s inspiration, Lucia Athens brings nature’s inspiration back to the city.

After spending ten years leading Seattle’s green-building initiative and several years as the senior sustainable futures strategist for CollinsWoerman, a Seattle-based sustainable architecture, design, and planning firm, Athens returned to Austin in 2010 to become the City of Austin’s first chief sustainability officer.

An alumna of the School of Architecture with a master’s degree in architectural studies and from Texas A&M University with a bachelor’s degree in landscape architecture, Athens began focusing on “green living,” or sustainability, during her early years camping with her family.

Image Lucia Athens.

Athens was born in San Antonio and went on family vacations to New Mexico, visiting cliff dwellings, pueblos, and kivas. Later in life, the ancient ruins of Greece became her inspiration.

“I have an amazing, magical memory of going up to the Acropolis at night,” said Athens. “Everything was transformed by the moonlight, and I noticed things that were not apparent in the daylight, such as huge ruts in the floor where the massive doors once opened. It was pure magic.”

Her return to Austin came almost two decades after Athens served on the city’s green builder program and as a water efficiency program manager for the Lower Colorado River Authority. During those early days, she co-founded the Sustainable Building Coalition of Austin and was one of the co-authors of the Austin Green Builder Guide.

Athens sees many similarities between Seattle and Austin.

Both have a strong creative class and well-informed citizens; both have maintained fairly strong job markets and real estate economies, while other cities have faltered; and both are recognized as being liberal strongholds.

“As such, both cities have to be careful not to go too far with local policies, or state-level politics can intervene to remove local authority and tone down progressive initiatives,” said Athens.

“The approach to advancing sustainability models is similar for Austin and Seattle. The most successful projects are built upon strong coalitions with common interests that can grow robust partnerships.”

According to Athens, the number of cities that can be considered leaders in sustainability has grown in the past decade, both because there are more models to emulate, and because various cities focus on diverse realms of sustainability.

+ FALL 2012 + BEYOND LEED 26

“Sustainability is a big topic that covers a lot of territory—from green building, renewable energy, and local food to green collar jobs and affordability. Austin is providing leadership because we are defining sustainability so broadly; for us, it includes our arts and cultural programs, hiring minority contractors, wildfire and flood safety, and even our no-kill animal shelter goals.”

Austin’s broad spectrum of sustainability has been a blessing and a curse for Athens. The city’s sustainable measures are implemented at all levels of the three Es—environment, economy, and equity—and are reflected in the numerous and varied programs. Getting her arms around the width and breadth of Austin’s initiatives is one of the biggest challenges Athens has faced since taking office.

“The city has so many areas involving sustainability, including planning, policies, incentives, and pilot projects,” said Athens.

“Confronting the challenges requires focusing on policy development and capacity-building, with methods such as procuring financial resources in the form of grants or public private partnerships. There is so much going on in this city when it comes to sustainability.”

In an attempt to better unite the programs, Athens launched a Sustainability Action Agenda on Earth Day 2012 organized around ten themes that provides a comprehensive framework for over 150 of the city’s sustainability initiatives. For the first time, the city is able to tie together the various sustainability initiatives under one umbrella. The tool will be used to monitor and track progress and will allow the city to report back to its citizens every year on Earth Day. The Seaholm District redevelopment project, one of Austin’s key sustainability projects, is utilizing one of the most promising long-term models for urban sustainability, according to Athens. The program, based on Portland’s EcoDistricts Initiative, focuses on how to scale up sustainable development from the individual building to multiple city blocks. Key issues being addressed include equity, health, education, and finding governance models to address district scale energy, water, mobility, and waste systems.

“This program engages residents and tenants as part of the solution,” said Athens. “If they aren’t actively participating, our ability to get where we want to go is going to be limited.”

At a much smaller scale, the city is collaborating with the UT Austin Center for Sustainable Development on the creation of a Green Alley Demonstration Project. This effort adapts an existing residential alley with the integration of alley flats (small secondary housing units that face the alley) and neighborhood amenities such as natural drainage, solar lighting, and food production. According to Athens, the alley flats will increase density that is in keeping with neighborhood character and help counteract gentrification.

Athens is optimistic about Imagine Austin, the city’s new comprehensive plan that defines how Austin should grow over the next three decades. The plan was shaped through involvement from thousands of Austinites and will guide development not only within the city limits, but within the city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction, which can extend as far as five miles beyond the city limits.

“I’ve read the plan cover to cover, and sustainability is the guiding principle for the entire document,” said Athens.

“It includes rewriting our land use code, which would have a huge and far-reaching impact. The location and proximity of our housing, commercial, and transit uses, as well as things such as how and what we choose to eat, actually have a much bigger impact on our climate footprint and energy use than how efficient our buildings and cars are.”

According to Athens, some of the most successful cities in sustainability are those that are able to identify their unique strengths to capitalize on, while also identifying their biggest challenges to tackle.

“Some of my dream goals for the City of Austin include a fully built-out alternative mobility system that combines interconnected urban rail, more bikeways and a bike share system, and bus rapid transit. Another dream is to create a city-wide program that challenges residents to take sustainable action and be able to measure results. The first needs a culture shift from everyone feeling they need to drive their own car everywhere. The second could be used to create competitions—for example, between neighborhoods, companies, or dorms.”

Images Top left: Student and community volunteers joined together to design and construct an alley flat prototype home, which has earned three stars from the Austin Energy Green Building Program in addition to being 100% accessible.

The Alley Flat Initiative is a collaborative project of: • Austin Community Design and Development Center • The University of Texas at Austin Center for Sustainable Development • Guadalupe Neighborhood Development Corporation Top right: Detail, Imagine Austin comprehensive plan, preferred growth scenario.

Bottom: Seaholm and Austin Skyline: Seaholm Devopment; design development, 05.17.2012.

Courtesy STG Design, Seaholm Power, LLC, and TBG.

+ FALL 2012 + BEYOND LEED 27

ALUMNI PROFILE

JUDY PESEK [B.S. Int.Des. ‘78] THE BUSINESS OF THE DESIGN BUSINESS PROFILE BY AMY MAVERICK CROSSETTE

Judy Pesek, a 1978 graduate in interior design, has devoted the last 23 years of her life to Gensler, a global architecture, design, planning, and consulting firm that is the largest architecture firm in the United States.

Pesek’s career began in Washington, D.C., where she had the privilege of working closely with Arthur Gensler, who was not only the founder of Gensler, but is a design veteran and a visionary businessman.

Pesek has seen numerous trends in the past few decades in the realm of interior design, but for her, there is one that resonates more soundly than the rest.

“I consider Art Gensler as one of my mentors and influencers,” said Pesek. “There was an ‘art’ to Art Gensler’s work. He believed in servicing every client—from understanding their business, to knowing how to listen, to creating a design that was reflective of their needs and culture.”

“By far, the most distinguishable trend I’ve noticed is in the use of technology,” Pesek said. “Wow, how rapidly it has, and continues to, change the way we work. Software programs, such as Sketch Up, Rhino, Grasshopper, and Revit, are integral to the design process. Our designers have multiple screens to accommodate the use of such programs.”

Another lasting trend, according to Pesek, is the incorporation of sustainability into all aspects of work. Every project reflects responsible design, regardless of whether or not the client wishes to pursue LEED certification. But, the challenge of responsible design has become easier over the years due to the availability of new and innovative materials.

Another of Pesek’s mentors was her father. An independent businessman, he taught her the importance of treating everyone the same, whether they were a custodian or a CEO. His work ethic and sense of humor made an impression on Pesek, and his belief that “failure will only make you stronger” has served her well in her lifetime and in her career.

After her stint in Washington, Pesek transferred to Gensler’s Houston office for a seven-year period, and she has served as the principal and managing director of Gensler Dallas for the last 12 years. She currently serves as regional managing principal for the south central region.

The three different locales had a common “one-firm firm” thread that provided continuity to the work environment.

However, the clients and projects were noticeably different.

“Washington was law firm and government office intensive,” recalled Pesek. “There are height limitations in building codes due to the Capitol Building, so I had to get used to low ceiling heights. Houston is very energy company related with many high-rise glass buildings and great ceiling heights. Dallas is more industry diverse and a corporate headquarters draw.”

Images Top left: Judy Pesek.

Top right: Radius floating granite stairs, Hunt Oil Company headquarters, Dallas.

According to Pesek, in the interiors business, work is generated in both slow- and fast-growing economies. In good times and tough times, there are acquisitions and mergers, creating a need for the reevaluation of workspaces and management changes.

“The worse the economy, the closer you need to stay to your clients,” said Pesek. “In both markets, the need for recruitment and retention of the best employees is always paramount.”

Pesek feels fortunate that most of her projects have involved what she calls “incredible clients.” In the beginning of her career, Pesek worked with Marathon Oil Company on a new 41-story high rise in Houston. That project, plus projects with Hunt Consolidated and Devon Energy, were very special to Pesek and created lifetime client relationships.

When asked if she had any advice that she’d like to share with students, Pesek said, “It is extremely important for young talent to be able to communicate and to be aware of how they carry and conduct themselves. Most importantly, in order to be competitive, they need to find a ‘differentiator’ that will set them apart.”

+ FALL 2012 + BEYOND LEED 28

ALUMNI PROFILE

ELIZABETH CHU RICHTER [B.ARCH. ‘74] and DAVID RICHTER [B.ARCH. ‘74] RESPONDING TO PLACE PROFILE BY AMY MAVERICK CROSSETTE

There is an old saying, “good things come in small packages.”

Richter Architects, a 16-employee firm located in Corpus Christi and winner of the Texas Society of Architects’ 2011 Firm Award, is a shining example of a small-packaged good thing.

The firm’s principals, David R. and Elizabeth Chu Richter, both received bachelor of architecture degrees from the School of Architecture in 1974, and both are fellows of the American Institute of Architects.

David served as president of the Texas Society of Architects in 1998, and Elizabeth was president in 2007. Elizabeth received a National Young Architect Award from the American Institute of Architects in 2001 and is currently a director on the national AIA Board of Directors.

Some of the firm’s more prominent projects include the National Museum of the Pacific War in Fredericksburg, the Mustang Island Episcopal Conference Center, and the University of Texas Marine Science Institute’s National Estuarine Research Reserve Laboratory.

According to the Richters, “no matter how humble a project appears to be at the beginning, we always look for the essence and the hidden gem within the available budget. It may be a challenge that is only visible to us, but the result is a tangible and welcome perk to the client.”

Like most firms across the United States, Richter Architects has faced both prosperous and perilous economies over the past several decades. They agree that surviving the hard times requires a bit of business sense and flexibility.

“Through the years we’ve learned that diversification is important. We love variety in projects and almost never do the same thing twice. Another way to ride the waves is crosstraining staff and taking pride in providing good service.”

When you add two projects—the Brooks County Safety Rest Area and the Travel Information Center in Amarillo—you should begin to see a common thread. Public architecture is a strong focus for the Richters and their firm.

Surviving tough economies is only part of their success, however. Elizabeth and David have seen trends come and go, and they’ve learned to maintain their core values, regardless of the trend du jour.

“I grew up in a dense urban environment in Hong Kong,” said Elizabeth. “I could hop on a tram anytime or take the Star Ferry to enjoy the view and sea breezes. Public spaces, places, and transportation were important extensions of people’s everyday lives. The projects in Brooks County and Amarillo are infused with a sense of context and culture, and they are pleasant places to be.”

“Seduced by image-making, designs have become unnecessarily complicated and predictable,” said Elizabeth.

“Construction has become paperwork laden where substantial construction costs go to overhead and not to the craftsmen. Hopefully, there will be a return to sense and sensibility.”

The Estuarine Research Center, a $21 million structure serving as headquarters to a 185,708-acre area of habitat study established by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is projected to receive LEED Silver certification.

“The Estuarine Research Center aspires to take a successful, practical, and hurricane-resistant campus with architectural language dating from the 1960s and expand it with the rigor and energy of contemporary sustainable design,” said David.

“The manner in which the building exists in consort with the elements of nature has always been important in what we do.

Having designed many buildings for coastal and other ecosensitive areas, how a building intervenes onto the landscape has become important to us.”

The Richters’ success lies not only in their commitment to sustainability, but in their perseverance and idea-based philosophy to design.

+ FALL 2012 + BEYOND LEED 29

“While change is everywhere, the core skills of creating design that responds to need and culture and integrates craft and technology is much the same as it has always been,” said David. “We embrace tools and technology; but at heart, we are traditionalists. We believe that the architect is the master builder in the best, collaborative sense of the word.”

Images Top: Elizabeth Chu Richter and David Richter.

Bottom: Texas Department of Transportation Travel Information Center in Amarillo, which received a Design Award from the Texas Society of Architects in 2004.

Of Note The Richters have three children.

Their daughters, Maya Richter Hernandez [B.Arch. ‘00] and Elissa Richter [B.Arch. ‘02] are architects in the firm. Their son, Dr. Michael Richter, is a radiologist. All three graduated from The University of Texas at Austin.

Two additional UTSOA alums, Charles Milligan [B.Arch. ‘92] and Kenneth Neff [B.Arch. ‘00], are employed at the firm.

PHILANTHROPY

RAY LANDY [B.Arch. ‘70] INVESTING IN THE FUTURE OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN

scared the hell out of me, but with those experiences, coupled with my attraction to the beauty of the school and the campus, it was an easy decision.

FS: What professors, classes, or experiences stand out in your memories of the school?

In June 2012, Dean Fritz Steiner visited Ray Landy at his home in Sante Fe, New Mexico. Landy recently retired as president of AECOM Architecture and devotes his time to farming and painting. The following interview is a result of their visit.

Image Top: Ray Landy and Charlie.

Photo by Fritz Steiner.

Opposite page: Interior, Louvre Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. © Ateliers Jean Nouvel.

Of Note Architects spend their working lives drawing up plans. For Ray Landy, who recently retired after a 35-year career in architecture, it was only natural to include UT in one of his most important plans—his estate plan. Landy has pledged $750,000 to the School of Architecture, a bequest that will ultimately be used for student scholarships and fellowships in all disciplines.

Fritz Steiner (FS): What attracted you to study architecture?

Ray Landy (RL): I knew that I was going to be an architect or in a design-related field since I was a small child. I was sketching and drawing floor plans of friends’ houses by the time I was ten or eleven, and I would collect city maps and spend hours studying street layouts and comparing them to the photos that I would find of the same cities. It was never a question. By the time I was a sophomore or junior in high school, my father, who was a physician, had given up any and all hope on his aspirations for another medical career in the family.

The fact that I was barely able to muster a “C” in high school chemistry also probably persuaded him to give it up.

FS: Why did you decide to attend The University of Texas at Austin School of Architecture?

RL: While I had looked at other architecture schools, I had the opportunity to meet Alan Taniguchi through a relative early in my senior year of high school, and he invited me to spend half a day at the school, where I sat in on a jury and had two or three hours to comb through the library stacks. Attending that jury

+ FALL 2012 + BEYOND LEED 30

RL: Richard Tseng-yu Lai was a visiting studio critic in my third year. He spent countless hours providing me with a background and understanding of the larger profession of architecture, as well as design as a science and an art.

And, while I found it often difficult to meet his expectations, as my design skills were certainly not equal to many in my class, it was through Richard that I first understood the commitment and passion to design and planning that would be required to be successful. And, of course, no classes and professors were as exciting and stimulating to me as those of Blake Alexander and Dan Leary—both smart, demanding, and really committed to education. They are all so very different, and I am thankful to each of them.

FS: As a student, which architects and works were inspiring to you?

RL: Undoubtedly, the architecture firm that inspired me the most during my student days was Caudill Rowlett Scott, or CRS, as it was known in those days. I first experienced their work when I was growing up in San Angelo, Texas, where they had designed the high school that I attended, as well as several elementary schools. The partners, notably Bill Caudill, were doing some of the most innovative and inspired educational buildings anywhere in the 1960s and 1970s—clean, lean, organized, and responsive to new and evolving methods of teaching. I was fortunate to win a Texas Society of Architects Scholarship in my third year and had the opportunity to spend several weeks one summer in their Houston office. And, even though it was tough in those days to be around so many architects who had either taught or were students at Texas A&M, I came away with a lot from that experience.

CRS was awarded the national AIA Firm of the Year award in 1972; and it

is unfortunate that the same firm no longer exists today. Understanding how firms such as CRS change, or in some cases, don’t change, benefited me later in my career.

FS: Whose work inspires you today?

RL: During the last three or four years before my full time retirement, I had the opportunity to work with Jean Nouvel and his atelier on the implementation of the Louvre Abu Dhabi, which is now under construction. It will be one of the most remarkable buildings of our generation. Additionally, there are a number of smaller firms in Texas that are doing inspired work, such as Andersson-Wise. I have come to know their work through the book, Natural Houses: The Residential Architecture of Andersson-Wise, and from colleagues in Texas. Bohlin Cysinski Jackson is a remarkable firm and, like Jean Nouvel, I continue to be impressed in the variation and excellence of their responses to clients and context—all different and completely unique.

FS: Tell us a bit about your career path after graduation.

RL: During my fifth year at the university, I happened to meet a Peace Corps recruiter just outside the front doors of Goldsmith Hall. In between the tear gas floating down the mall after an anti-war demonstration and this meeting, my life changed. I had a draft lottery number of “10,” so I had some hard decisions to make about my future. Within several days of graduation, I was in a training program with eleven other architects headed for North Africa, where I spent three years in a small oasis town in the middle of the Sahara with a small group of architects from France and the United States. I was designing buildings and overseeing construction projects by myself, preparing village and small town land-use and zoning plans, and most importantly, I was being exposed to an architectural history and aesthetic, as well as to a people and a culture that I would never have experienced if I had continued to reside in the United States.

I, then, worked for the Peace Corps in Morocco for almost a year, training

newly arrived architects in North Africa, followed by a short stint in France.

master plans and designs will morph, as they should, over time.

I wanted to ease my somewhat reluctant return to the U.S. via graduate school; and, my Peace Corps experiences in planning and urban design led me to a joint urban planning and urban design program at UCLA. This was an integrated program founded by Harvey Perloff and led by John Friedmann in planning and Charles Moore in architecture. It was perfect for my interests and career goals. Sadly, the program has now been separated at UCLA. But this interest in a larger platform than just an architecture career led me to Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall (DMJM), which was one of the first, and at that time probably the largest, multi-disciplinary design firms in the U.S. offering a wide range of services in architecture, planning, economics, transportation, civil engineering, landscape architecture, and construction management.

DMJM responded well to my desire to work as much overseas as in the United States. So, after 33 years with the firm, and work in over 20 countries during that tenure as president and CEO of the company, and subsequently as the president of AECOM Architecture, DMJM’s parent company, I decided to fulfill my goal of an early retirement at 62 and to lead a completely different life painting full time in northern New Mexico.

I also take great pride in the design and technical talent that I was able to incubate and nurture at the firm over many years and that resulted in buildings such as the new Los Angeles Police Department headquarters, General Electric’s new Asia headquarters in Shanghai, and the work that the firm has done with design architect Santiago Calatrava on the new PATH terminal at the World Trade Center.

FS: What projects are you particularly proud of?

RL: During the last three years with the firm, I managed the Saadiyat Island program in Abu Dhabi, while still functioning as the president of AECOM Architecture— which had become the consolidation of DMJM, EDAW, Ellerbe Becket, and three or four other regional architecture firms, such as Spillis Candela in Miami.

This program management assignment allowed me to interface with the urban design leadership of EDAW in preparing the master plan, coupled with the design brilliance of Foster and Partners on the Sheikh Zayed National Museum, Jean Nouvel on the Louvre Abu Dhabi, and Frank Gehry’s office on the Guggenheim Abu Dhabi. It will be many years before it is completed, and undoubtedly, the

+ FALL 2012 + BEYOND LEED 31

FS: What are the biggest changes to the profession that you have seen during your career?

RL: A thousand things have changed, but one of the most notable is the role that women have in the profession today. When I was a student at the School of Architecture in the late 1960s and early 1970s, there were probably no more than ten or fifteen women in the lower classes and probably less than five in the fourth- and fifth-year classes.

It was a very difficult road for most women, and many times, students and professors were implicitly and explicitly working to exclude women from any advancement. The fact that women are now equal to men in many architecture schools around the U.S. and are in leadership positions is making the profession more sustainable, relevant, and responsive. There are still hurdles throughout the profession regarding diversity, but the change has been remarkable.

FS: As an executive at a leading firm, how did the increasing emphasis on sustainability affect your decisionmaking and approach to design?

RL: As with most firms, the emphasis on sustainability has become enormous over the last ten years. Some of this is due to a response to the marketplace, where clients are demanding more environmentally sensitive and responsive planning and buildings; some is firm-led because of a strategic commitment to sustainability; and some is staff-led, as schools produce graduates with expertise and knowledge that demands it. This emphasis impacted

our firm in other substantive ways. First, we began to impose requirements that all professionals in the firm become LEED-accredited. In retrospect, I am not sure this was a wise decision, as LEED-accredited employees or LEEDcertified buildings in no way guarantee increased sustainability, and some very good employees with strong commitments to sustainability were justifiably questioning its relevance. As with many firms, we began to grapple with the issue of client expectations in regard to sustainability—do they share our values, and are they really committed?

These are difficult challenges for any architecture firm, especially in this economic environment and when so many firms are working outside the United States, where the market and regulations may not demand, or even accept, a focus on sustainability. It impacts leadership and firms with respect to one’s contractual commitments to clients. Can an architecture firm guarantee in an early contract that a building will meet a certain rating if the client does not fulfill its obligations, either financially or in its subsequent selection of contractors; and if it does, can it be held at fault legally? This issue is now impacting firms, as the legal precedents are set and contract language evolves, and is one that the profession and clients appear, hopefully, to be solving.

FS: What would you like to accomplish with your philanthropy at the School of Architecture?

RL: My objectives are three-fold. First, to be sure that certain qualified students have options for financial support in order to allow them to study and graduate from the school. Second, to be sure that the important research capabilities and research opportunities at the school continue and expand, given the budget and philosophical challenges that are being faced. And third, to hopefully encourage other graduates in my generation that have benefited from an unprecedented level of prosperity in our professional era of the last 40 years to take some of that success and commit it back to the school that allowed us to succeed.

PHILANTHROPY

GIFTS TO THE SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AUGUST 1, 2010 – DECEMBER 31, 2011 THANK YOU TO OUR GENEROUS SUPPORTERS

Image Hal [B.Arch. ‘50] and Eden Box. The Goldsmith Hall courtyard was named in their honor to reflect their generous support of the school and honor Hal’s legacy as a scholar, architect, and educator.

Note Degrees from The University of Texas at Austin are indicated.

Interested in supporting UTSOA? Please visit our website (soa.utexas. edu/support/) or contact Luke Dunlap at luked@ austin.utexas.edu or 512.471.6114.

ENDOWMENTS AND SPECIAL SCHOLARSHIPS Adam Conrad Grote Memorial Fund Anthony Baker Teresa and Paul Bartak Melissa Berry [BArch ‘12] Richard Berry [BBA ‘83] Teresa Burns Carolyn and Jeff Bushur Ernest Busse Melanie Busse Julia and Michael Carnahan Ray Christopher Margaret Ann Cloe Julie Collins Ann and Matt Curry The Curry Family Bob Dearth Florence Dewitt The Dierking Family Cathy and Bruce Donton Thomas Freund Willard Gates Sherilyn Glasgow Beth and Daniel Grote Gordon Grote Sherilyn Grote Zachary Grote Susan and Kurt Hagedorn Carolyn Hall Richard Henry Mark Holt Honeywell FM&T/Welding Departments Lee Hoover Laureen and Peter Jacobs Shelley and Steve Jansen Kathryn Jones Melissa Jones [BArch ‘12] Debra and Rick Juliff Eden and Brad Keefe Dolores Keenoy Jane King Helen and Edward Knop Gail Leaderbrand James Lee Betty Lindaeur Michelle Maxon Lynne and Fred McCall The Meservey Family The Mitchell Family Susan and David Mosier National Secure Manufacturing Center Kansas City Plant Sandra and Michael Reams Mr. and Mrs. Milton Reinert Roberta Robertson Billie and Roger Rupp Pat and Don Schaedel Susan Schulte Patricia Sents David Spieker Frederick Steiner Shelley and Mark Storey Mary Toczylowski Deborah Uthe Cindy & Alison Vernon Helen Wilson Andrea and Chris Wilt Stephen Zvacek Architecture Class of ‘78 Scholarship Honoring Michael Wayne Campbell Anonymous Architecture Class of ‘78 Scholarship Honoring Arthur Gene Chan Anonymous

Architecture Class of ‘78 Scholarship Honoring Jeffrey Field Strawmyer Anonymous

John Greene Taylor Family Graduate Fellowship in Architectural History John Taylor [BBA ‘48]

Architype Review Travel Prize in Honor of Lawrence W. Speck Architype Review

Kent S. Butler Memorial Excellence Fund in Community & Regional Planning AIA Austin Lexa Acker [BArch ‘63] Michael Alley Anchor QEA Ruth Andersen Thomas Anderson Surbhi Bakshi [MSCRP ‘05] and Rahul Kurane Karen Banks [BA ‘03, MPAff ‘11, MSCRP ‘11] Karen Beard [BA ’93, MSCRP ‘96] Barbara Becker [BS’69, MSCRP ’83, PhD ‘89] Myron Beigler Jennifer Bennett-Reumuth [BA ’06, MSCRP ‘08] Bissex & Watson PC Donald Blanton [MSCRP ‘85] William Boas David Bourland [BS ‘86] Michelle Bratager [MSCRP‘92] David Brigham [MSCRP ‘05] Sharon Brown [PhD ‘87] Emily Butler Lind Butler James Camp Capitol Market Research Randall Charbeneau Tai Chiappa Cheryl Cioffari [MSCRP ‘06] Joan and Steve Cohn [BSME ‘66] Community and Regional Planning Student Organization William Connolly Steven Craddock [MSCRP ‘86] Cheri Daigle Matt Dugan Dun & Bradstreet Luke Dunlap [BA ‘01] ECC Friends John Ekerdt Kathleen Elliot Envision Central Texas Carlton Erickson Adrienne Fan [BSBio ‘04] Betty Fishman Brigid Flynn Janis Frank [BS ‘75] Justin Fried [MSCRP ‘06] Elizabeth Goeller Greater Austin-San Antonio Corridor Council Greta Goldberg [MSCRP ‘05] Garron Guszak [MSCRP ‘86] Ann [BS ‘71] and Ross Hemphill [BA‘71] Lori Henry [BSW ’88, MSCRP ‘96] Hicks & Company Michael Holleran and Judith Sanders Julie Hooper Linda Crooker Hunsaker [BA ’75, MSCRP ‘78] Steven Johns [MSCRP ‘95] Ben Johnson [MSCRP ‘02] Terry Kahn [BBA ‘64] Joelle Kanter [BA ’98, MSCRP ‘04] Michael Kattermann [MSCRP ‘84] Kitty and Terry Kenyon Paula Knudson Alexander Kone Laurel Ladwig Nathan Laughlin [BSCE ’99, MSCRP ‘10] Nancy Ledbetter & Associates Martha Leipziger-Pearce [BFA ’42, MA ‘48] Christine and Michael Marcin [JD ‘94] Eric Marsh [PhD ‘10]

Barbara and Donald Pender Endowed Scholarship Barbara and Don Pender, Jr. [BFA ‘78, MArch ‘81] Blake Alexander Traveling Student Fellowship in Architecture Jim Buie Boone Powell Family Prize in Urban Design Boone Powell [BArch ‘56] Laura Powell [MSCRP ‘95] Brandon Shaw Memorial Endowed Scholarship The Boeing Company William Larson [BSChE ‘72] Deborah McConnell Brewster Shaw III Kathy and Colonel Brewster Shaw Edythe and Alan Tonnesen Charles M. Nettles Endowed Presidential Scholarship Betsy [BS ‘76] and Charles [BSME ‘76] Nettles, Jr. Cogburn Family Foundation Architecture and Urbanism Prize Betsy [BA ‘68] and Mike [BBA ‘66] Cogburn Emily Summers Excellence Fund for the History of Interior Design Emily Summers Ford, Powell & Carson Endowed Scholarship Ford, Powell & Carson Francisco “Paco” Arumí-Noé Memorial Fellowship In Sustainable Design Mary Bonham [BArch ‘89] Meredith Contello [BSALD ’03, BArch ‘06] Roseanne Kaysen [MArch ‘92] Mason Miller [BA ‘06, BArch ‘06] Michael Mokrzycki Jennifer Morgenstern [MArch ‘94] Frederick Steiner Endowed Excellence Fund in Landscape Architecture Frederick Steiner Hal Box Endowed Scholarship in Architecture Fred Day [BArch ‘50] Julie Hooper Duncan Osborne [MA ’68, JD ‘71] Connie Rivera [BArch ‘94] HDR Architecture Endowed Scholarship HDR Architecture, Inc. Hugo Leipziger-Pearce Endowed Graduate Fellowship in Planning *Estate of Martha Leipziger-Pearce Jean and Bill Booziotis Endowed Graduate Fellowship in Architectural History Jean and Bill [BArch ‘57] Booziotis

Yuhayna McCoy [MSCRP ‘04] George Mitchell Paula and Greig Moers Christy Moore [BA ’88, MA ‘90] Reba and Wayne Moore Saralee Morrissey [MSCRP ‘84] Kathryn Nichols [BA ’71, MSCRP ‘79] John Nyfeler [BArch ‘58] Toshiyuki Ogura Seth Stenhouse Otto [MSCRP ‘05] Linda Painter [BA ’92, MSCRP ‘94] Andrew Parker [MSCRP ‘04] Robert Paterson Eugene Peters [MSCRP ‘82] Kim Peterson [BA ’78, MSCRP ‘81] David Petrovich [MSCRP ‘95] Chad Maclay Phelan [MSCRP ’09, MSSD ‘09] Planning Accreditation Board Laura Powell [MSCRP ‘95] PRIM&R Raymond Quay [MSCRP ‘78] Esther Raizen [PhD ‘87] Steven Raney John Rosato [MSN ’76, MSCRP ‘92] James Rosborough Sandra Rosenbloom Stephanie Roth [MSCRP ‘94] Jess, Dana, and Jono Sanders Kirk Scanlon [MSCRP ‘05] Periwinkle and Stefan Schuster [BSGeoSci ’92, MSCRP ’96, MSGeoSci ‘97] Jo Anne Shea [MA ’90, PhD ‘98] Sharon and Richard Smalling [BSAsE ’70, MSE ‘72] Pragati Srivastava [MSCRP ‘07] Arlene Staller [BBA ‘73] Christina Stanland [BA ’98, MSCRP ’00, JD ‘03] Frederick Steiner Richard Swallow Andrew Tadross [BA ’00, MSCRP ‘02] Elaine Tankard [MA ‘75] Texas Chapter American Planning Association Scott Tinker Elliot Trester and Barbara Wilson Susan Tuemmler and Dowell Myers John Vitti [MSCRP ‘96] Heyden Walker [BA ’87, MSCRP ‘97] Edward Wallace [BArch ‘70] John Warden [MSCRP ‘79] Floyd Watson [MSCRP ‘79] Jenilee Webb [MSCRP ‘11] Amy Webber Lois Weinthal Williams Birnberg & Andersen LLP Curtis Williams Stephen Witt and Pat Adams [MSCRP ‘01] Jeffrey Wood [BA ’03, MSCRP ‘05] J.D. Woodruff [BA ’86, JD ‘89] Nancy Yahn [MSCRP ‘90] Martin Zimmerman Lawrence W. Speck/PageSoutherlandPage Graduate Fellowship in Architecture Guy Hagstette [BArch ‘79] McCall Endowed Excellence Fund Abbe and Mike [MArch ‘80] McCall Myron Geer Blalock Endowed Presidential Scholarship Rosanna [BS ‘77] & Myron [BArch ‘78] Blalock, III Overland Partners Endowed Scholarship Overland Partners Inc. * Denotes Planned Gift

+ FALL 2012 + BEYOND LEED 32

Paul C. Ragsdale Excellence Fund for Historic Preservation The Ragsdale Foundation Potter Rose Graduate Fellowship Deedie and Rusty Rose [BES ‘63] Potter Rose Professorship in Urban Planning Deedie and Rusty Rose [BES ‘63] School of Architecture Advisory Council Annual Fund Frank Aldridge, III Richard Archer, III [BArch ‘79] Bobbie Barker David Barrow [BBA ‘53, BArch ‘55] Marvin Beck [BArch ‘60] Ken Bentley Susan Benz [BArch ‘84] Myron Blalock, III [BArch ‘78] Diane Cheatham Dick Clark [BArch ‘69, BBA ‘69] Kent Collins [BArch ‘81] Hobson Crow, III [BA ‘76, MArch ‘80] Bill Curtis, Jr. [BArch ‘81] Biby Dykema [BArch ‘79] Larry Good [BArch ‘72] John Grable [BArch ‘76] Charles Gromatzky Jay Hailey, Jr. [LLB ‘68] Christopher Hill [BArch ‘78] Ford Hubbard, III [BA ‘82] Diana Keller David Lake [BS ‘77] Michael McCall [MArch ‘80] John Nyfeler [BArch ‘58] Donald Pender, Jr. [BFA ‘78, MArch ‘81] Judy Pesek [BSID ‘78] Charles Phillips [BA ‘70, BArch ‘74, MArch ‘75] Elizabeth Chu Richter [BArch ‘74] Rollie Roessner, Jr. [BArch ‘76] Lloyd Scott Cyndy Severson [BSID ‘70] Dan Shipley [BArch ‘79] Emily Summers Jerry Sutton Helen Thompson [BA ‘71, MA ‘73] Michael Wheeler [BBA ‘74] Gordon White Kathy Zarsky [BSArchStds ‘94] School of Architecture Advisory Council Endowed Excellence Fund Frank Aldridge, III Richard Archer, III [BArch ‘79] Bobbie Barker David Barrow [BBA ‘53, BArch ‘55] Ken Bentley Susan Benz [BArch ‘84] Myron Blalock, III [BArch ‘78] Diane Cheatham Dick Clark [BArch ‘69, BBA ‘69] Kent Collins [BArch ‘81] Hobson Crow, III [BA ‘76, MArch ‘80] Bill Curtis, Jr. [BArch ‘81] Biby Dykema [BArch ‘79] Larry Good [BArch ‘72] John Grable [BArch ‘76] Charles Gromatzky Jay Hailey, Jr. [LLB ‘68] Christopher Hill [BArch ‘78] Ford Hubbard, III [BA ‘82] Diana Keller David Lake [BS ‘77] Michael McCall [MArch ‘80]

John Nyfeler [BArch ‘58] Donald Pender, Jr. [BFA ‘78, MArch ‘81] Judy Pesek [BSID ‘78] Charles Phillips [BA ‘70, BArch ‘74, MArch ‘75] Elizabeth Chu Richter [BArch ‘74] Rollie Roessner, Jr. [BArch ‘76] Lloyd Scott Emily Summers Jerry Sutton Helen Thompson [BA ‘71, MA ‘73] Michael Wheeler [BBA ‘74] Gordon White Kathy Zarsky [BSArchStds ‘94] Sixth River Architects Endowed Scholarship Sixth River Architects Inc. Smilja Milovanovic-Bertram MArch Fellowship ExxonMobil Foundation Jennifer Wood [MArch ‘97] Suzie Friedkin Endowed Scholarship in Interior Design The Mutt Foundation Ted Freedman Endowed Scholarship Ron Axelrod [BA ’71, MA ‘74] Steven Cline Jay Farrell [MArch ‘80] Ann Felber Rachel Frank [BAMusic ‘00] and Scott Lanman Phyllis Freedman [BA ‘72] Madeline Fried Nicholas Garland Karen and Benjamin Glass R. Dale Glass James Greenwell and Emily Magal Richard Grossman Jeanne Harris Stephen Hayes John Hildreth [MPAff ‘79] The Kashdan Family George Kassouf Daniel Kush &Judy Stahl Lois Gale Lewis Michael Macleod Joseph Manes and Tommy Royston Brenda Merlin and The Merlin Family Sylvia Merlin Gary Mintz James Nathanson Robert Perri and John Mini Meredith Ragains Joseph Rodden and John Whall Fay Silverman Renee [BA ‘71, MA ‘80] and Lawrence Stern [BA ‘70] Karen Vamberi John Wind and Kirk Kirkpatrick Betsy and Wes Youngberg Terry Norman Forrester and Nancy Hoppess Forrester Dean’s Excellence Fund Terry Forrester [BArch ‘59] Texas Chapter American Society of Landscape Architects Endowed Graduate Fellowship Texas Chapter American Society of Landscape Architects

The University of Texas at Austin School of Architecture’s Women’s Endowed Scholarship Bobbie Barker Susan Benz [BArch ‘84] Diane Cheatham Biby Dykema [BArch ‘79] Diana Keller Jana McCann [BArch ‘80] Elizabeth Chu Richter [BArch ‘74] Scott + Cooner Lloyd Scott Cyndy Severson [BSID ‘70] Laura Toups [BS ‘78, BES ‘83] Wayne Bell Excellence Fund for Historic Preservation Michael Holleran Wilmont “Vic” Vickrey Endowed Scholarship Vic Vickrey [BArch ‘49] SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE FACULTY CAMPAIGN Dean Almy [MArch ‘89] Sinclair Black [BArch ‘62] Larry Doll Michael Garrison Francisco Gomes Christopher Long [MA ‘82, PhD ‘93] Steven Moore Jennifer Morgenstern [MArch ‘94] Michael Oden [BA ‘76] Jason Sowell Nichole Wiedemann PROGRAMS Architectural History Lesley Sommer [BAArt ‘95] Architecture Thomas Brown [BArch ‘04] Xavier Cantu [BArch ‘08] Rachel Carson [MArch ‘07] Neal Corbett [BArch ‘86] Charles Franck [BArch ‘10] Virginia Kelsey [BArch ‘83] Edward Kopelson [MArch ‘08] Lisa Robinson Charles Thompson [BArch ‘81] Edward Wallace [BArch ‘70] Center for American Architecture and Design American Psychoanalytic Association, Inc. Center for Sustainable Development Linmor Feiner [BSArchStds ‘64] Jennifer Morgenstern [MArch ‘94] Community and Regional Planning Martha Arosemena [BA ’93, MSCRP ‘01] Central Texas Section American Planning Association Rebecca Dobberfuhl [MSCRP ‘95] GE Foundation Barbara Haefeli [MSCRP ‘76] Joelle Kanter [BA ’98, MSCRP ‘04] Carl McClendon [BA ’79, MSCRP 82] Jasmin Moore [MSCRP ‘07] Anjali Naini [MSCRP ‘09] John Nyfeler [BArch ‘58] Lisa Robinson Texas Chapter American Planning Association Xichang Zhang [PhD ‘94]

Historic Preservation The American Institute of Architects The Austin Woman’s Club Michael Holleran Don Reimers (BArch ‘58] Interior Design Paul Labrant [BS ID’94] Sandra Laflin [BSID ‘85] The Read & Pate Foundation Inc. Laurie Tyler [BSID ‘82] Deborah Wilkowski Janet Zeitler [BArch ’85, BSArchE ’85] School of Architecture W. Randall Ackerman [BArch ‘73] Susan Appleyard [MSCRP ‘94] Richard Archer, III [BArch ‘79] Sinclair Black [BArch ‘62] Oza Bouchard [BArch ‘75] Richard Bundy [BArch ‘75] John Camp Richard Cleary Sean Coney [MArch ‘86] Pauline Conger David Cooperstein [MArch ‘98] Jack Crier [BArch ‘60] Leah Dean [BA ’89, MArch ‘95] Caleb Duncan [BS ‘97, BArch ‘98] James Flajnik [BArch ‘73] Phyllis Freedman [BA ‘72] *Estate of Elizabeth Holloway Felisa Hicks [BSID ‘88] Brantley Hightower [BA ’00, BArch ‘00] Robert Jackson [BArch ‘70] Richard Jennings Stephen Judge Susanna Kartye [BA ’96, MArch ‘02] Bruce Kerr Diana Klodginski Paula Lewis [BArch ‘99] Erin Lindley [BA ‘03] Regan Martin [BArch ‘01] Kim Menebroker Gary Meyer [BSID ’75, BArch ‘75] Mark Moore Timothy Notzon [MArch ‘08] Camilo Parra [MArch ‘94] Brent Redus [BArch ‘85] Joan Reed [BSAdv ‘77] The Scholarship Foundation of Lockheed Martin Tracy Stone [MArch ‘85] Jessica Sun [BSArchStds ‘08] Howard Templin [BArch ‘72] Martin Thompson Todd Walbourn [BArch ‘97] John Webber Norman Weiner [MArch ‘96] OTHER GIFTS CENTER 17: Space + Psyche Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in Fine Arts Honors Day Luncheon University Co-operative Society Master of Interior Design Program Reception Nancy Cain Marcus University Co-op Materials Resource Center ASID Foundation

Gifts continued on page 34. + FALL 2012 + BEYOND LEED 33

Images Left: Paul Ward, a master’s student in the school’s Community and Regional Planning Program was selected as the very first Kent S. Butler Intern in Environmental Planning.

Right: FY20122013 School of Architecture Advisory Council chair Bill Booziotis (right) and vice chair Frank Aldridge (left).

PHILANTHROPY

GIFTS TO THE SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE cont’d AUGUST 1, 2010 – DECEMBER 31, 2011 THANK YOU TO OUR GENEROUS SUPPORTERS

Image Friends of Architecture has provided support to the school’s outreach efforts, such as the Summer Academy in Architecture.

The students’ skills are tested in the annual bridgebuilding exercise in the Goldsmith Hall courtyard. The students were given the task of crossing the courtyard’s fountain using only corrugated cardboard, wood dowels, and string.

Note Degrees from The University of Texas at Austin are indicated.

FRIENDS OF ARCHITECTURE Dean’s Circle ($1,000 +) Lexa Acker [BArch ‘63] W. Randall Ackerman [BArch ‘73] Frank Aldridge, III Richard Archer, III [BArch ‘79] Phillip Arnold, L.M. Scofield Company Bobbie Barker David Barrow [BBA ‘53, BArch ‘55] Ken Bentley Susan Benz [BArch ‘84] Myron Blalock, III [BArch ‘78] Lisa [BBA ’79, BJ ‘80] and Tim Blonkvist [MArch ‘81] Suzanne Deal Booth and David G. Booth Jean and Bill Booziotis [BArch ‘57] Diane and Hal Brierley Laura Britt [MArch ‘00] Chuck and Diane Cheatham Dick Clark [BArch ‘69, BBA ‘69] Kent Collins [BArch ‘81] Hobson Crow, III [BA ‘76, MArch ‘80] Bill Curtis, Jr. [BArch ‘81] Herman Dyal [BArch ‘75] Biby Dykema [BArch ‘79] Larry Good [BArch ‘72] John Grable [BArch ‘76] Charles Gromatzky Jay Hailey, Jr. [LLB ‘68] Willard Hanzlik J. David Harrison [BArch ‘79] Christopher Hill [BArch ‘78] Ford Hubbard, III [BA ‘82] Journeyman Construction, Inc. Diana Keller Knoll David Lake [BS ‘77] Ray Landy [BArch ‘70] Lucas/Eilers Design Associates, LLP Lucifer Lighting Company Michael McCall [MArch ‘80] The Eugene McDermott Foundation Dana Edwards Nearburg [BA ’73, MArch ‘76] Doug Newby John Nyfeler [BArch ‘58] Donald Pender, Jr. [BFA ‘78, MArch ‘81] Judy Pesek [BSID ‘78] Charles Phillips [BA ‘70, BArch ‘74, MArch ‘75] Howard Rachofsky [JD ‘70] Gay [BS ‘63] and Shannon Ratliff [BA ’61, LLB ‘64] Elizabeth Chu Richter [BArch ‘74] Rollie Roessner, Jr. [BArch ‘76] Lloyd Scott Lawrence Speck Lennie Sullivan and Barry Henry [BA ‘72] Emily Summers Jerry Sutton John Greene Taylor [BBA ‘48] Helen Thompson [BA ‘71, MA ‘73] and Charles Lohrmann [BJ ‘75] Michael Wheeler [BBA ‘74] Gordon White Coke Anne and Jarvis Wilcox Kathy Zarsky [BSArchStds ‘94] Partner ($500 - 999) John Brown [BSArchStds ’71, BArch ‘72] Kelly Cavender Tamara Chambless [BArch ‘79] Leopold Danze [BArch ‘55] H.M. Favrot, Jr. Guy Hagstette [BArch’ 79] Marianne Jones [BSID ‘81] Camilo Parra [MArch ‘94] Charles Peterson, III [BBA ‘65] Carole Schlessinger [MSCRP ‘80] Cyndy Severson [BSID ‘70]

+ FALL 2012 + BEYOND LEED 34

Gary Skotnicki [BArch ‘74] Bjorn Sletto David Stanford [BArch ’79, BSArchE ’79] Wade Upton Patron ($200 - 499) Jerry Alexander [BArch ‘85] Brandon Thomas Banauch [BArch ‘96] Linda Bayer [MSCRP ‘77] Marvin Beck [BArch ‘60] Edward Bennett [BArch ‘61] Melissa Bogusch [MArch ‘95] Frederick Bosserman [MArch ‘79] Jay Brotman [BArch ‘79] Joni Calkins [BArch ‘82] Robert Coffee [BArch ‘74] Michael Connor [BArch ‘84] Jack Crier [BArch ‘60] Robert Dickson [MArch ‘96] Winston Evans [BArch ‘68] Virginia Faz Gary Furman [BArch ‘86] Daniel Grote Frederick Harrison [BA ’71, MArch ‘78] Paul Holden [BSArchStds ‘80] Morris Hoover [BSArchStds ‘74, BArch ‘77] Peter Hurley, III [BArch ’77, BSArchE ‘78] David King [BArch ‘75] Anne Kniffen [BArch ‘79] Emily Little [BA ’73, MArch ‘79] Kelly Mahan [MArch ‘00] Jennifer McPhail [BSID ‘98] Grace Meeks [BArch ‘87] Richard Meyer [BArch ’70, JD ‘74] Meeta Morrison [MArch ‘07] Charles Nixon [BArch ‘67] Novartis US Foundation Royce Nutter [BArch ‘78] Stephen Oliver [BArch ‘01] Katherine Owens [MArch ‘81] Susan Raymond [BArch ‘90] Janie Smith [MArch ‘89] Jeffrey Smith [BArch ’81, BSArchE ’81] Robert Smith [MArch ‘77] Philip Southwick [MArch ‘04] Shelley St. Clair [BSID ‘87] Thomas Stovall [BArch ‘62] Walter Vackar [BArch ‘65] James Wash, Jr. [BArch ‘52] Michael Webber [BA ’95, BSAsE ’95] James Weiershausen [BArch ‘53] John White Jerry Wright Ann Yoklavich [MSArchSt ‘87] Associate ($50 - 199) Dolores Ackley George Adams [MSCRP ‘94] Laura Aguilar [BArch ‘97] Lydia Akel [BSID ‘80] Kenneth Aldrich [BArch ‘55] Ryan Anderson [MArch ‘09] Robert Arburn [BArch ‘56] Mark Armstrong [BArch ‘85] AT&T Inc. Foundation Jack Backus [MArch ‘97] Sharon Bailey [BArch ‘62] Alan Barley [BArch ‘85] Andrew Barnard [MArch ‘89] Craig Beneke [BSArchStds ‘89] Edward Benson [PhD ‘71] Alexander Berghausen [MArch ‘01] Kathy Bergmann [BS ‘69] Quincy Berlin, Jr. [BArch ‘59] David Bodenman [BA ’72, MSCRP ‘76] Peter Boes [MArch ‘93] Teresa Bogatto [BSID ‘88]

Farzad Boroumand [BArch ‘87] Nestor Bottino [MArch ‘83] Joseph Boyette [MArch ‘02] Ernest Breig [BArch ‘66] Thomas Brown [BArch ‘04] Kent Broyhill [BArch ‘53] Kim Bulleit Richard Burnight [MArch ‘81] Matthew Burton [MArch ‘97] Margaret Campbell [MArch ‘02] Thomas Campbell [BArch ‘59] Salvador Cardenas [BArch ‘65] Henry Carranco [BArch ‘75] Corinne Cassidy [MArch ‘95] Centre Canadien d’Architecture Nicholas Cervenka [BArch ‘81] Ariel Chavela [BArch ’91, BSArchE ‘91] Kang-Yuan Chen [MArch ‘07] Tracie Ann Cheng [BArch ‘09] Robert Clark [BArch ‘70] Richard Cleary David Cooperstein [MArch ‘98] Neal Corbett [BArch ‘86] Jay Corder [BArch ‘95] James Cormier [MArch ‘90] Patricia Cornelison [MArch ‘84] Thomas Cornelius [MArch ‘83] Herman Coronado, Jr. [BArch ‘78] Jack Cox [BArch ‘59] Raymond Cox [BArch ‘78] Hilary Crady [BSID ‘83] Eric Dagradi [MArch ‘86] Thomas Daly [BArch ‘65] Gerald Daniels, Jr. [BArch ‘65] Mary Ann Denavit [BArch ‘87] Charles Di Piazza [BA ’91, MArch ‘96] Julia Diana [BBA ’86, MSCRP ‘09] James Dickson, Jr. [MArch ‘76] David Dowler [MBA ‘73] Frank Dunckel [BArch ‘78] Adam Dyer [BA ’10, BSArchStds ‘10] Rebekah Eaddy [BArch ‘78] Deborah Ebersole [BArch ‘96] Mark Eubank [BArch ‘78] John Everin [MArch ‘95] Franklin Newton Fallis [BArch ‘71] Allen Faries [BA ’77, MSCRP ‘80] Clarence Feagin, Jr. [BA ‘82, MSCRP ‘84] Linmor Feiner [BSArchStds ‘64] James Ferguson [BArch ‘58] Terese Ferguson [BArch ‘80] Ron Foster [BArch ‘70] Mary French [MSCRP ‘90] Norman Friedman [BSArchE ’85, MArch ‘92] Michael Fries [MArch ‘84] Jessica Fuller [BSID ‘07] Gensler Dennis Gerow [BA ’76, MArch ‘85] Egan Gleason [BArch ‘55] Susan Golding [BSID ‘78] Diana Gonzalez [BArch ‘81] Joseph Gorney [MSCRP‘00] Sharon Graff [BSID ‘75] Thomas Benton Gray [MSCRP ‘99] Sandra Gregor Louis Gutierrez [BSArchStds ’75, BArch ‘76] Vicki Hamilton [BArch ‘72] Lloyd Hawthorne [BArch ‘69] James Haynes, IV [MArch ‘08] William Henderson [BArch ‘73] Noel Hernandez [MArch ‘00] Pedro Herrera [BArch ‘60] Eileen Hicks Theodore L. Hinchman [BBA ‘94] Hector Hinojosa [BArch ‘74] Larce Holder, III [BArch ‘68] Smith Holt [BArch ‘94]

Carr Hornbuckle [BArch ‘00] Leland Horstmann [BArch’ 80] Montgomery Howard [BArch ‘83] Nathan Howe [MArch ‘02] HRI Resources Inc. Ellen M. Hunt [BArch ’81, MArch ‘85] Vicki Interrante [BSID ‘86] Ashby Johnson [BA ’91, MSCRP ‘93] Michael Karnowski [BArch ‘04] Kamran Kavoussi [BA ’85, BArch ‘91] Kenneth Keeney [BArch ‘77] Virginia Kelsey [BArch ‘83] Ann Kilby [BSID ‘75] Sue Kothmann [MArch ‘88] Paul Labrant [BSID ‘94] Lyman Labry [MArch ‘96] Hall Lamme [BArch ‘81] John LeBlanc [BFA ’92, MArch ‘96] Joseph Levering [BSArchStds ‘67] Kent Lew [BArch ‘81] Hugo Ley [MArch ‘93] Kevin Lorenz [MArch ‘84] Marina Love [BArch ‘89] Paul Lutey [MSCRP ‘98] Ronald Marabito [BArch ‘61] William Martin [BArch ‘58] Lisa Mayer [BSID ‘83] Kyle McAdams [BArch ‘86] Joe McCall [BArch ‘74] Roy McCarroll [BA ‘62] Scott McCrary, Jr. [BArch ‘71] Talia McCray William McDonald [BArch ‘65] Eleanor McKinney [BA ‘77] Kimberly McKittrick [MArch ‘89] Sarah Mehaffey [MArch ‘02] Kim Menebroker Julien Meyrat[MArch ‘02] Kevin Moore [MArch ‘09] Saralee Morrissey [MSCRP ‘84] Kendall Mower (BArch ‘56] Gregory Musquez, Jr. [BArch ‘69] Anjali Naini [MSCRP ‘09] Vicki Nelson [BArch ‘79] James O’Brien [BSArchStds ‘09] James Overton [BArch ‘75] Ann Patterson [MArch ‘82] Shane Pavonetti [BA 03, MArch ‘09] David Plummer [MArch ‘94] Carol Poticny Morgan Price [BArch ‘72] Julian Puga [MArch ‘10] Adam Pyrek [BArch ‘91] Munir Quddus Rene Quinlan [BArch ‘88] Ronald Ramsay [MArch ‘92] Paula Ramsey [BA ’70, MSCRP ‘77] Rhonda Rasberry Paul Rash, Jr. [BArch ‘55] Albert Raymond, III [BArch ‘83] Susan Raymond [BArch ‘90] Robert Reid [BArch ‘75] Marcela Rhoads [BArch ‘91] Connie Rivera [BArch ‘94] Ronald Roeder [BArch ‘76] Charles Roman [BArch ‘73] Jack Romigh, Jr. [BArch ‘71] Margaret Rosenlund [BArch ‘49] Rosanna Ross [BS ’73, MArch ‘81] Daniel Roush [MArch ‘01] Stuart Royalty [BArch ‘86] Marta Salinas-Hovar [BArch ‘87] Nancy Scanlan James Shackelford [BArch ‘80] Allan Shearer Dan Shipley [BArch ‘79] Robert Simpson [BArch ‘75]

PHILANTHROPY

FRIENDS OF ARCHITECTURE SOA.UTEXAS.EDU/FOA

Janet Sisolak [BSID ‘81] Jonathan Smith [BArch ‘03] Leslie Smith [BArch ‘80] Sandra Smith [BArch ‘84] Raymond Smith [BArch ‘61] Jerry Sparks [BArch ‘67] Sharon Steiner [BArch ‘05] James Stewart, Jr. [BArch ‘67] Jerry Stewart [BArch ‘64} Kristine Street [BArch ‘87] Ryan Sullivan [MSCRP ‘07] R. Pat Sweeney [BArch ‘57] Kristina Tajchman William Tamminga, Jr. [BArch ‘71] Arthur Tatum [BArch ‘84] Paul Terrell [BArch ’76, MArch ‘82] Toni Thomasson [BArch ‘74] Charles Thompson [BArch ‘81] Charles Thweatt [BArch ‘77] Marc Toppel [BArch ‘06] Andrew Torres [MArch ‘07] John Touchet [MSCRP ‘88] Diana Tracey [BArch ‘75] Katherine Tucker [BA ’89, MSCRP ‘95] Drexel Turner [MSCRP ‘73] Melissa Turner John Turpit [BArch ‘78] Anne Tyler [BSID ‘84] John Tyler [BArch ’88, BSArchE ‘88] Jordan Vann [BArch ‘09] Jane Verma [BArch ‘90] Leslie Walker [BSW ’81, MSCRP ‘08] Zhe Wang [MArch ‘01] John Watson [BArch ‘76] Joseph Watson Rick Weatherl [BArch ‘76] Daniel Weber Brooks Wehner [MArch ‘09] Richard Weiss [MSCRP ‘04] Mike Wells [BArch ‘71] John West [BArch ‘51] Leon Whitney [BArch ‘58] Ross Wienert [MArch ‘09] Frederick Williams [BArch ‘66] Jim Wilson, Jr. [BArch ‘87] Lawrence Wilson [BArch ‘52] Richard Wilson [BArch ‘03] Chiu-Yuen Woo [BArch ‘74] JoeAnn Wright Nancy Yahn [MSCRP ‘90] Dongwoo Yang [MSCRP ‘09] Alice Yong Vicki Yuan [BArch ‘05] Janet Zeitler [BArch ’85, BSArchE ‘85] OTHER UNRESTRICTED GIFTS Jenny Allen [BSID ‘84] Shawn Alshut [MArch ‘84] William Andalora [MArch ‘02] Martha Arosemena [BA ’93, MSCRP ‘01] Robert Astrich [BArch ‘11] Elizabeth Barnes [MArch ‘89] Julienne Bautista [MSCRP ‘10] Roel Bazan [BSArchStds ‘72, BArch ‘73] Gail Benefield [BAArt ‘79, MArch ‘89] Sourav Kumar Biswas [BArch ‘10] Gayle Borst [MArch ‘83] Melissa Brand-Vokey [BArch ‘88] Stephen Bright [MArch ‘88] Brian Burnett [BArch ‘08] Kristina Charbonneau [BArch ‘09] Cheryl Cioffari [MSCRP ‘06] Susan Coffman [BSID ‘86] Stephen Colley [BArch ‘76] Scott Conti [MSCRP ‘96] Craig Cregar [MSCRP ‘77] Susan Dahl

+ FALL 2012 + BEYOND LEED 35

Bang Dang [BArch ‘98] Mary Danowski [MArch ‘95] Consuelo Davidson Christine de Witte [BSArchE ‘05, MArch ‘08] Richard Dunavan [BArch ‘71] Andrew Duncan [BArch ‘06] Petra Eldh [MArch ‘94] Martha Erbe [BSID ‘75] Katherine Farkash [BSID ‘06] Fred Fernandez [BArch ‘79] Elaine Fitch [BArch ‘85] Mario Flores [MSCRP ‘01] Nancy Foster [MArch ‘88] Sarah Gamble [MArch ‘05] Mitchell Gilbert, Jr. [BArch ‘73] Gail Gladstone [MLA ‘07] Frank Gomillion [BArch ‘92] Xianyan Gong [MArch ‘09] Lee Govatos [BArch ‘06] Joannes Haakman [BSArchE ’83, BArch ‘84] Mei-Ling Haskins Darren Heine [BArch ‘87] Ingeborg Hendley [MArch ’04, MSHP ‘08] Erin Holdenried [MArch ‘09] Chester Hollis, Jr. [BArch ‘52] Julie Hooper Deborah Huff Shandrian Jarvis [BA ’99, MSCRP ‘01] Orion Knox, Jr. [BArch ‘68] James Langston, Jr. [BArch ‘72] Katherine Livingston [BArch ‘75] Eric Lowe [BArch ‘94] Warren Martin [BS ‘67] Amanda McNally [MArch ‘00] Caroline Meyer Jennifer Miller [BSArchStds ‘95] Christopher Minor [MArch ‘09] Cecilia Muela [BSID ‘74] John Nesby [BArch ‘77] Vigen O’Hanian (BArch ‘71] David Ouzts [BArch ‘60] Andrew Parker Vikash Patel [BArch ‘02] Anthony Perez [BArch ‘88] Melinda Poss [BSArchStds ‘75, MArch ‘76] James Regan-Vienop [MSCRP ‘98] Lisa Robinson Ricardo Rodriguez [BArch ‘77] Candid Rogers [BA ’93, MArch ‘98] Julie Ryan [BSID ‘85] Juana Salazar [BArch ‘83] Carroll Salls [MArch ‘86] Mark Charles Santa Maria [MArch ‘86] Gerald Schulz [BArch ‘79] Michael Shelton [BArch ‘66] Ashok Shetty Michelle Slattery [BSArchStds ’05, MLA ‘08] Louise Smart [MSCRP ‘70] Christy Smidt [MSCRP ‘96] Kenneth Smith [BBA ‘71, MSCRP ‘80] Charles Stahl [BArch ‘55] Richard Temple [BBA ’82, MArch ‘89] Kay Troutt [BSID ‘73] Tai-Ran Tseng [MArch ‘97] Robert Turknett, Jr. [MSArchSt ‘98] Michael Uyeda [BArch ‘84] Heyden Walker [BA ’87, MSCRP ‘97] Kristin Walsh George Wentsch [MSCRP ‘83] Julie Wilke [MSCRP ‘06] Hannah Wong [BArch ‘99]

Friends of Architecture (FOA) is an annual giving program in the School of Architecture with a mission to increase knowledge and awareness of superior architecture, planning, and design and to advance quality education for future generations. Our members are current students, faculty, alumni, patrons, practitioners, and aficionados who believe in the significance of the built environment and are looking to take part in shaping its future by supporting excellence in the School of Architecture.

BRAZIL TOUR: JUNE 1-11, 2013 Escape the Texas heat next summer and join Friends of Architecture for a nine-day, eight-night, five-city design excursion in the world’s fifth-largest nation, Brazil—known for its remarkable history, food, fascinating culture, sports, exotic landscape, and great architecture.

The tour has been carefully structured with an eye towards good value, while retaining premium quality.

From June 1 to June 11, 2013, tour participants will visit São Paulo, Belo Horizonte, Ouro Preto, Inhotim, and Rio de Janeiro, and have access to private homes designed by some of Brazil’s preeminent architects, including Angelo Bucci, José Carlos Teixeira, and Carla Juaçaba.

In addition, a two-day, two-night extension to Brasília will be offered.

Located on a plateau, Brasília has a dry, temperate climate. Oscar Niemeyer designed the new capital in a futuristic style, with gardens and wide avenues. After the extension, guests may return to São Paulo for the 2013 Latitudes Symposium.

This exclusive tour will be led by Associate Professor Fernando Lara, a Brazilian native and member of the Brazilian Institute of Architects, who holds degrees from the Federal University of Minas Gerais and the University of Michigan. Lara’s presentations and intimate knowledge of the region will allow the group to see and experience a side of Brazil not readily available to the general traveler.

For details or to reserve your spot on the tour, visit “upcoming tours” on the Friends of Architecture website: soa.utexas.edu/foa.

Questions? Contact Dhruv Singh at dhruv_singh@austin.utexas.edu.

Making Design Accessible FOA provides enriching educational and involvement opportunities that offer our members a better understanding and appreciation of architecture, planning, and design. We connect our members to the School of Architecture through publications, lectures, and exhibitions and open the doors to significant architecture and design throughout the world with our exclusively designed tours.

Images Top: Residence in Ribeirão Preto, Brazil; designed

by Angelo Bucci.

Bottom: View of the UNESCO World Heritage Site historic town of Ouro Preto, the old capital of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Founded at the end of the 17th century, Ouro Preto (Black Gold) was the focal point of the gold rush and Brazil’s golden age in the 18th century.

310 Inner Campus Drive B7500 Austin, Texas 78712-1009

The Goldsmith Society Members Lexa M. Acker Philip Arnold, L.M. Scofield Company Tim and Lisa Blonkvist Suzanne Deal Booth and David G. Booth Jean and Bill Booziotis Diane and Hal Brierley Chuck and Diane Cheatham Reenie and Kent Collins Willard Hanzlik J. David Harrison Journeyman Construction, Inc. Ray Landy Kevin J. Lorenz Lucas/Eilers Design Associates, LLP Lucifer Lightning Company The Eugene McDermott Foundation Dana Edwards Nearburg Howard Rachofsky Shannon and Gay Ratliff Deedie and Rusty Rose Lloyd Scott Lawrence W. Speck Lenore M. Sullivan and Barry W. Henry John Greene Taylor Helen Thompson and Charles Lohrmann Coke Anne and Jarvis Wilcox

Non-Profit Org. U.S. Postage Paid Austin, Texas Permit No. 391

UTSOA Advisory Council FY 2012-2013 Chair Bill Booziotis, FAIA, LEED AP Vice-Chair Frank Aldridge III Past Chair Bobbie Barker Executive Committee Susan Benz, AIA Diane Cheatham Kent Collins Diana Keller Michael McCall, AIA John Nyfeler, FAIA, LEED AP Dan Shipley, FAIA Michael Wheeler

Leadership through the Goldsmith Society The Goldsmith Society is a special group of donors who provide flexible, annual funding for important initiatives identified by the dean. Unrestricted donations are vital to our ability to respond to opportunities that enhance the quality of the school.

UTSOA Advisory Council The Advisory Council is an external support group for The University of Texas at Austin School of Architecture. Its purpose is to promote the value and importance of architecture, planning, and design by supporting the mission, values, and interests of the school.

+ FALL 2010 + SUSTAINABILITY 36

Members Lexa M. Acker, AIA Emeritus Richard Archer III, FAIA, LEED AP Phillip Arnold, Hon. ASLA, LEED AP John Avila, Jr. David Barrow, Jr., AIA Marvin Beck, AIA Emeritus Ken Bentley Myron Blalock III Timothy Blonkvist, FAIA, LEED AP William Lyle Burgin Dick Clark III, AIA Tommy Cowan, FAIA H. Hobson Crow III, AIA Gary Cunningham, FAIA William Curtis Bibiana Bright Dykema, AIA Darrell Fitzgerald, FAIA, LEED AP

Robert Lawrence Good, FAIA, AICP, LEED AP John Grable, FAIA Charles Gromatzky, AIA R. Jay Hailey, Jr. Christopher Hill, LEED AP Ford Hubbard III Ellen King Reed Kroloff, AIA Sam Kumar J. David Harrison David Lake, FAIA Sandra Drews Lucas Graham Luhn, FAIA Patricia Mast Gilbert Mathews Dana Edwards Nearburg Donald Pender, AIA Judith Pesek, IIDA, LEED AP

Charles A. Phillips, AIA Boone Powell, FAIA Leilah Powell Howard Rachofsky Gay Ratliff Elizabeth Chu Richter, FAIA Roland Roessner, Jr. Deedie Rose Lloyd Scott William Shepherd, AIA Lenore M. Sullivan Emily Summers Jerry Sutton, AIA Helen Thompson David Watkins, FAIA Gordon White, MD Coke Anne Wilcox Kathy Zarsky, Assoc. AIA, LEED AP BD+C