2.2.- DISTRIBOCION GEOGRAFICA DE LA POBLACION

Linking the major findings of this study, is a common thread related to the fact that the LEED-ND rating system certifies projects with a broad set of national standards, meant to be applied across various regions, site contexts, and environmental circumstances. The following findings all stem from the fact that

LEED-ND rates projects not based on the merits of the project’s own unique site circumstances and regional context, but based on broad ideas of what “green development” is. From a planning perspective, and from an ecological

perspective, according to renowned author and architect Sim Van Der Ryn,

“ecological design begins with the particularities of place – the climate,

topography, soils, water, plants and animals, flows of energy and materials and other factors” (Van Der Ryn, 1996, p.72).

There are many examples of very simple design choices that are made

depending on a sites' context. For example, when designing a building in a city with a hot climate, versus a cool, mountainous climate in a rural context, roofing material can have major implications. In the hot climate in an urban context, a reflective roofing material should be used to reduce the “heat island effect” and to keep the inside of the building cooler. For a building located in a rural

mountainous region where the temperature is cooler year round, roofing material that absorbs heat would be more appropriate. In LEED for New Construction, a project can earn a point for installing a reflective roof, no matter where it is located; LEED does not recognize the unique “particularities of place” in this instance.

While LEED-ND isn’t perfect, there are aspects of the rating system that are very good. To give the USGBC praise where it is due, there are many credits in the rating system that do encourage “place responsive design” .The following

findings focus on those credits that were found to be problematic for reasons related to connectivity and density.

5.2.1 Location of LEED-ND Pilot Projects

Overall, LEED-ND pilot projects were primarily located in dense, urban areas on the East and West coasts of the contiguous United States (Figure 5.2.1).

Figure 5.2: Number of LEED-ND pilot projects in U.S. region and internationally

LEED-ND Projects by Region

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

west east south midwest int'l canada

Source: USGBC (2008)

Of the projects that were located in the Western U.S., most of them were in densely populated urban areas on the coast. Semi-rural and rural regions of the Western U.S. were not in the majority of locations for LEED-ND pilot projects.

The main subject of this case study, River Oaks TNC, was located in the semi- rural region of Central California, inland from the coast.

5.2.2 Location, Location, Location

The first LEED-ND pre-requisite, “Smart Location”, requires projects to be either located on an infill site, located near community amenities, located near existing or planned public transit, or located within a region served by a Metropolitan Planning Organization that reports that average annual VMT per capita is lower than the region as a whole. The intent of the prerequisite is to encourage

walkability and to reduce vehicle trips.

River Oaks TNC would meet Smart Location pre-requisite one through options two and three which require the project to be located near planned adequate transit and near existing community amenities, respectively. Other ‘green’

projects, such as Mountain View in rural Victor, Idaho (see Appendix A), would not meet the SLL pre-requisite. Mountain View is an exemplary project in

Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND), leading the way for green development in the rural Idaho region. But, at the time of the LEED-ND pilot program, it was not connected to existing community amenities and did not have a population density to support significant public transit. Mountain View’s program includes the building of a village center which would include such community amenities as retail, food services, grocer, entertainment, health and beauty, dry cleaning, shipping services, medical office, health and wellness services, community meeting places, and professional office space. Even with all of these amenities being offered as part of the project, Mountain View would not meet the Smart

Location pre-requisite because the community amenities are required to be existing at the time of construction.

Mountain View is within Victor City boundaries and is not considered a leap-frog development by the standards of the City in which it exists. The project is paving the way for compact design in an area that traditionally sees only large lot, mansion style development. The location of the development is such that it serves as an affordable option for Jackson (WY) area workers.

Another Smart Location and Linkage standard poses similar problems. SLL Credit 3: Preferred Locations’ intent is to “encourage development within existing communities and developed places to reduce multiple environmental harms associated with sprawl” (USGBC, 2007). In order to fulfill this credit the project may either be on an infill site, an adjacent site or a previously developed site, or combination thereof, and the street grid density must be at least ten centerline miles per square mile. This number is calculated by measuring the centerline miles within a one mile radius of the perimeter of the project site boundary, summing the centerline miles, and dividing it by the total square miles within that radius (calculation was performed in GIS).

River Oaks TNC is an adjacent site but the one mile radius from the perimeter of the site boundary does not contain the minimum of ten centerline miles per square mile; in other words, the street network surrounding the project site is not

dense enough (street grid density is a metric that uses street network density to measure how urban the project site is). Although River Oaks TNC is not

contributing to sprawl, and therefore is fulfilling the intention of this credit, it would not earn points in this regard. River Oaks TNC completes the City’s northern buildout to the City limits and provides the community with additional housing capacity and community amenities without requiring the City to extend utilities and infrastructure beyond what its capital facilities plan has already accounted for. In this instance LEED-ND criteria disregards a municipalities own plans for future accommodation of development. Sprawl may be defined in many ways, but according to the LEED-ND intention for this credit, “expending financial resources for construction and maintenance of infrastructure” is the negative effect of sprawl, which should be avoided. If River Oaks TNC is not requiring the City to expend any additional resources for infrastructure than it has already budgeted for, then by this definition the project is not contributing to sprawl and therefore should be able to pursue points in this credit.

5.2.3 The Density Question

Other LEED-ND standards that are problematic for semi-rural contexts include NPD prerequisite 1 and Credit 1 for Compact Development. River Oaks TNC would meet the criteria for residential densities depending on how the USGBC defines “buildable land” in the density calculation (which is unclear). Without counting open space as buildable land, River Oaks TNC average residential

density was calculated to be ten dwelling units per acre; the minimum density for the prerequisite is seven dwelling units per acre. To achieve this prerequisite the project must also have a non-residential average density of 0.5 FAR or greater, which would be difficult for River Oaks TNC. Though River Oaks TNC would fare well with the residential density component of this credit its, commercial or non-residential density would be prohibitive in terms of earning points. One of the obstacles to achieving a higher non-residential FAR is the project’s adjacency to agricultural land and the relative inappropriateness of dense commercial

development along this edge. LEED-ND does not consider the relative location of projects in semi-rural towns that may be defining the urban edge, where it would be less appropriate and environmentally sound to develop high density

residential and non-residential uses.

Additionally, the prerequisite is insensitive to projects that are located in very rural towns that are rapidly growing. In the case of Mountain View (Appendix A), the project is achieving an average density of 5.32 dwelling units per acre, which is over 13 times the average density of the town in which it is located, Victor (ID);

yet the project would not qualify for the NPD Compact Development Prerequisite.

The Mountain View project is leading the way in its region in terms of setting an example of denser development, where the status quo is one to five acre, large lot developments.