If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed.

O.K. so now it is my turn to shed some light on how I spend my time here at LJUrban. I am responsible for ensuring that we build the highest quality sustainable construction we can afford to produce. There are other things too but I thought I would concentrate on the “Green Building” aspect for this post and hopefully follow up with other new innovative ways that people are building sustainably as I come across them. We have not yet been able to define precisely what feature will be included in our homes. Each project will have its own eco-friendly features and hopefully each will progress with a greater shade of green until we are able to create truly ecologically balanced communities.

So, as I had mentioned in a previous post, I recently finished a course at UC Davis on Sustainability and the Built Environment. I was tasked with researching and writing a paper and giving a presentation on something in that field of study. I chose to research “Sustainable Structures” that are primarily dependant upon concrete for strength and durability, and compared four systems for various factors related to energy-efficiency, sustainability (recyled or reused content) and durability.

Green Sandwich Technologies 2006

The results you ask. . . well, in my opinion, one of the coolest products out there right now is called the “Green Sandwich Panel.” It consists of a core (made of either foam or biomass) surrounded with a steel wire cage encased with concrete plaster. The panels are erected by hand, tied together and then a spray-applied concrete plaster system or shotcrete is applied.

SCIP’s maximize the thermal mass effect, which translates to greater energy-efficiency. The presence of concrete surfaces on the interior and exterior of the structure separated by an insulating core allows a thermal flywheel behavior to take place. When the interior of the house is heated or cooled the wall system absorbs that heat or cool. When the temperature in the house changes, the walls will begin emitting the retained heat or absorbing it as the case may be. The exterior skin behaves in the same manner by preventing the heat or cool to radiate inward. Their energy efficiency is maximized in warmer climates, especially those with large temperature differences between day and night, like the deserts of the southwest, where homes built with thermal mass walls (including traditional adobe structures) have been most popular. Structures built using these technologies can be designed to require a significantly smaller heating and cooling system or possibly no cooling system at all.

The Green Sandwich SCIP panel utilizes very sustainable materials. Green Sandwich panels are made from 40% recycled material content by weight, and 60% by volume. All waste is 100% recyclable. They use BASF’s environmentally-friendly Styropor EPS foam in the panels. “The wire mesh is 40% recycled steel (Mostly from the auto industry), and the shotcrete skins are a minimum of 40% fly ash (A byproduct of coal burning). Green Sandwich Panels can be fabricated with a core of 100% locally harvested biomass. The source of this bio-mass can include “rapidly renewable” content, such as orchard trimmings, road-side weed growth, straw and stalk mowings.”

From the standpoint of durability these systems rival that of a precast concrete system. The insulation materials are isolated within the concrete envelope and therefore are not as susceptible to moisture, termites, or physical damage.

The SCIP structural system appears to be the most holistically sustainable option for construction of residential housing. The Green Sandwich panel exceeds the renewable and recycled material content of all of the systems analyzed. Either system if used broadly would reduce lumber consumption, energy consumption, carbon production, and building waste.

Micah

Stephen’s questions from a previous post deserved more than a comment would allow, so my response is below. I’d love to hear others perspectives as well.

He writes,

“How can we better market “walkability” to people who are used to, and like, driving everywhere? The message “walk more, it’s healthy!” works for some, but alienates many. So much of the pro-walking argument is based on long-term benefits, such as reduced incidence of heart disease. But people don’t usually change their habits based on long-term rewards. What short-term benefits can we tout? Does walkability need to be a central aspect of the public campaign, or can it be an ancillary benefit of a broader policy effort?”

I do think helping people make the “switch” will come down to educating them about both short and long-term benefits. The first short-term benefit I usually point to is a greater sense of community, of neighborhood. I think a lot of people are looking for greater connectivity: its one of the first things friends point out when they sing the praises of urban living.

Walkability also means closer proximity and convenience, so the immediate short-term benefit is in time. My wife walks five blocks to her chiropractor which saves her time: getting in the car (with kids), driving to the office, parking, getting kids unloaded, etc. However, the practicality of this all depends on how much mixed use is in a given neighborhood. We walk the same distance to the public library and a park, which we visit several times a week. We walk to our favorite breakfast bistro. We walk to friends houses. We walk our 18-month old to sleep. We walk just to do something. Walking together makes us feel more connected as a family–our kids are young, so we’re holding hands. My youngest makes us laugh when she shrieks with glee at the dogs and birds and any other living thing that crosses her vision; something that can’t happen in the fast-moving car.

The benefit of time, then, is also in slowing down. The slower pace of walking forces us to “slow down” some; pay attention to our surroundings, be more “in tune” with ourselves (I’m beginning to sound like a holistic guru): which feels more “restful” than the frantic pace of disjointed suburban communities. Granted, this message may not appeal to some.

However, I do think there’s a generic feeling of greater “quality of life” in walkable communities: some can be attribed to our biology (higher endorphins and all that jazz), some can be attributed to the greater connection with the people and businesses around you; some is just the general feeling of well-being from being outdoors; but none of those factors alone can fully account for this “quality of life” feeling.

How about the pocketbook? Fuel is the most obvious example. Our gas bill dropped by 1/2 when we moved to Midtown, Sacramento. And while I can’t say that’s because we walk everywhere, when we do drive, everything’s closer.

As to whether “walkability” should be central or part of a broader policy campaign, I’m not sure I have a complete, universal answer. It would depend on the lense from which one is looking at the issue.

For LJUrban, “walkability” is part of our broader “eco-urban” message; its one aspect of the “urban-core” we promote and one that dovetails naturally with additional “health,” “pocketbook,” and “community” benefits that correlate with sustainability.

Finally, Stephen’s point that many people like their cars is well-taken. I think a hard-core statement that “nobody should drive cars” goes too far, is unrealistic, and is alienating. I’m extremely grateful for my car. The message is more one of weaning, of limiting use of finding alternative modes of getting around, when available. From my own experience, weaning from the car is a gradual process, in the same way that “shopping organic” was gradual for me. Its often small decisions that begin to add up. For this reason, I think that the New Urbanist suburbs and master-planned communities could be important for transitioning the general market toward better communities over time: people who wouldn’t buy into walkable “urban-core” areas might buy into “walkable” suburbs which is a step in the right direction and better than ill-thought “so-called” communities. Its not the work I’m most passionate about, but I don’t discount it.

The “marketing” question is a good one. We’re wrestling with this issue and haven’t found the sure-fire answer. I tend to think people respond best when the benefits are concrete and real and easily understood, framed within the context of basic human needs and stories: as such, I think the best ones to advocate for “walkability” are the ones benefiting from it already.

Jason

It must be tree-week here at LJUrban. Yesterday, I posted on big trees. Now, I’m looking at SACOG’s regional report. It has a short piece on the Sacramento Tree Foundation, who’s Greenprint document was just adopted by SACOG.

Here’s a quick summary:
Sacramento has really bad air quality (one of 10 most ozone-polluting areas in the country). Cultivating an urban forest is one way to curtail pollution; however, at present our urban forest is only addressing “2% of the air pollutants emitted every year.”

The Eco-Urban Dilemma
Yes, we need more trees. Undoubtedly. For many reasons–not just air-quality. But we also need to provide higher density, urban-core housing that encourages less dependence on the car, a notorious polluter. In our case, this eco-solution sometimes means tree removal: the loss of a few trees for the greater long-term good of our communities and the earth. Being the eco-ists we are, the tree issue—deciding which will stay and which won’t–is one we take very seriously.

Case in Point
Vanessa just got the arborist report back on a ½ acre lot we just purchased in West Sacramento. The lot has 22 trees on it. Yeah, that’s right, twenty-two. It’s almost a jungle (for awhile we were calling it the “tree lot” to distinguish it from others we’ve purchased in the same area). In the planning world of West Sacramento, there are tree designations: “Landmark” trees are “especially prominent, stately or of historical significance”, “Heritage” trees have a trunk size of 24 inches or more at 4.5 feet high. There are also trees with a special designation because of their regional significance (oak trees, for example). Because of their value, these trees cost money to remove (ie. mitigation fees). The only exception is if a Landmark or Heritage tree is considered hazardous because of ill-health.

Of our 22 trees, none are Landmark, valued for their prominence or history. 8 are considered “Heritage”, valued for their maturity. Our pattern thus far has been to try and use as many existing Landmark and Heritage trees as possible to enhance the development and community, even if it translates to fewer units. We did this with the land around the 4 oak trees on B Street West which we will develop into a natural, community open space. We’re applying a similar concept on the 1.3 acre project we just purchased on F and 4th. However, in the case of this lot, none of these 8 Heritage trees are in a location that would benefit the community. Its only a .5 acre lot, after all. Some of them are not very desirable by anyone’s standards, as in the case of the “Stinking Shumac” of which the arborist writes, “It’s a prolific seed producer and can take over a habitat quickly. It produces a substance toxic to other plants and its root system is aggressive enough to damage sewers and foundations.” Not exactly the kind of tree that will be a beloved asset to the neighborhood.

So, we’re in the rather undesirable position of cutting trees down and paying approximately $110,000 to do so. Ouch.

I wonder where those mitigation fees go? It would sure make us feel a lot more at ease if we knew they went to planting more trees or preserving open spaces. Sounds like its time for a call to the Tree Foundation…

On a side note
One of the trees has a hive in it. Good thing we know some midtowners in need of bee colonies….

Jason

While not usually a topic I spend much time on, Ursula’s post on a Fat School brought the issue of childhood obesity to the forefront of my mind.

Let’s take the kids out of it because, as Ursula’ rightly points out, “they learn by example”. Why don’t we see the same trend among the Swiss (known for consuming more pounds of chocolate than any other culture in the world); or among Irish (sorry, ale doesn’t count as a low calorie beverage), or Chinese (rice isn’t exactly a stellar feature of the South Beach diet)? A friend of mine moved here from Denmark about 6 months ago; the parting request of one of his friends was, “Send me picture of a really fat American.” Hardly makes one feel patriotic, does it?

Ursula’s statement that “$5500 a month to teach your fat child not to sit in front of the TV or the PC (oops!) seems a little steep” points toward at least one of the variables contributing to this national problem: inactivity. And here’s where the eco-urban connection hits home: if you build a city that caters so completely to the automobile, you make “exercise” an activity you have to set aside time for (thus, the advent of the “workout”). Not everyone has that time or the money (most don’t, in fact). In other countries, this isn’t a problem because people’s normal daily lives require walking, but our cities and suburbs, by and large, are no longer walkable. In many ways, this circles back around to Calthorpe’s vision of “kids on bikes.”

The steep price of a special Fat School could also be extrapolated to national implications, only everyone pays that price. Here’s one of many examples: health problems increase the trend toward employee “absenteeism” which translates to less productivity and higher insurance requirements, the cost of which then gets tagged onto the public in rising prices and costs of living (ie. taxes). Imagine what all those dollars saved could be better spent on! Perhaps, some would trickle down to fund the great city “endowments” spun out by CentralCityOpinion and LivingInUrbanSac.

Granted, the issue of nationwide obesity has many other contributing variables. Commercial food production and agro-business has much to blame (which is why supporting organic food and farmers markets, as much as possible, is so important). Likewise, the ad/media people need to step up some. Parents need to be empowered to make healthier choices for their families–a variable that travels deep into the depths of social reform. Give me enough time and I could (and probably will) find the eco-urban connection for each of these. However, the words of Donna Shelala, former U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary are enough to illustrate how important holistic, long-term, city planning is to everyone’s wellbeing.

“Years ago, the flight to the suburbs was triggered by a desire to get away from the dirty downtowns, and into a cleaner living environment. But, in the process, we have created more health problems. By putting people into cars, and not making areas more walkable and attractive, we have created health problems for adults and children.”

Jason

We had an office pet for awhile. A praying mantis. No joke. I drove to work one morning (yes, I actually drove 7 blocks) and had just turned off the engine, when I got that weird feeling that someone was staring at me. I turned to look outside and HELLO, there was a 3-inch long praying mantis on the window 8 INCHES FROM MY FACE. You can bet my heart skipped a beat or two.

Anyways, we took him inside and gave him a few leaves. Showed him around the place. Vanessa said that Mantises take on the color of their environment, so we tried putting him in different places (like a Mac keyboard), but it didn’t work. We looked up mantises online and found a really disgusting account (with pictures) of a mantis that caught and ate a hummingbird. After that, we didn’t carry him around as much.

But we gave him some leaves and welcomed him to our workshop. It was nice having him around. He’d show up on the conference room wall or walking on the cabinet or one of our two office plants. The kids loved him. It was like having a real, live eco-icon right there with us.

But, then, one day he was gone. We don’t know if he went to Mantis heaven (where hummingbirds abound) or found his way out and onward and upward. It’s kinda a cricket thing… we’re a bit sad.

So, if you see a taupe-ish 3-inch mantis with daring Kung Fu moves and a gaze that will stop you dead in your tracks, tell him or her Hi for us.

Jason