The picture above shows the mostly complete building site (there has been some planting of native plant species in the areas between the building and the lake behind it). Perhaps the building is sustainable from a point of view of construction materials and on-site energy and water conservation, but from a land-use point of view, this is nothing more than typical suburban sprawl. The gigantic parking lot takes up more space than the building itself. The site is accessible only by a major arterial highway, which contributes to vehicle travel and congestion. The building is set back far from surrounding buildings, which reduces the practicality and attractiveness of making short trips to or from the building by walking.
This type of development should not be eligible to receive the highest ranking in sustainable building practices. It deserves appraisal for its efforts at on-site energy and conservation, but to give such a development LEED-Platinum status gives support to the idea that sprawling, auto-dependent development can be sustainable.
I should point out that the Great River energy employees from the company's Elk River location frequently need to visit the Maple Grove location (see map below; Elk River building location = red, Maple Grove building location = yellow). Because of this, Great River wanted to locate their new facility close to Elk River, and thus Maple Grove was considered a good location. The company provides bus service between the facilities every weekday, so employees at the Elk River site can park there and take a bus to Maple Grove in the morning, and back in the evening.
I would suggest that a truly sustainable location for the new Great River building would have been downtown Minneapolis, not Maple Grove. The building would have been accessible to its Elk River employees via the new Northstar commuter rail line (blue in map above, Minneapolis and Elk River stations identified with train icon). Instead of requiring the chartering of four daily buses between the two buildings, the company could have subsidized train tickets for employees needing to travel to the downtown building for the day, who would then have had the option of 5 train times in each peak period, instead of two bus times. This would have been cheaper for the company, more flexible for employees, and would have prevented additional vehicle pollution and congestion (unlike the chartered bus). Furthermore, a downtown building would have been:
-accesible by express commute buses for regular employees living across the metro area,
-within walking distances of a multitude of dining and shopping destinations for breaks and post-work trips,
-have access to the airport for business travelers via Hiawatha LRT line.
Thankfully, in the latest round of adjustments to the LEED ratings system, much more weight is being given to sustainable site location. A full 11 points out of 100 possible will be determined based on development density, community connectivity, and proximity to high frequency transit service (as opposed to 2 points out of 69 possible which are allocated to those sime criteria in the old ratigs system). This will make it more difficult (although still possible) for suburban sprawl type developments to achieve LEED-Platinum status.
To check out the old ("Version 2.2") and new ("v3") LEED rating systems, go here.
More pics of the Great Energy Maple Grove site below:
View looking out from a window inside the building. Solar panels on the right, downtown Minneapolis visible on the horizon, a sea of sprawl in between.
The wind turbine, which generates 10% of the building's annual energy needs. At least it makes decent use of some of the wasted air space over the giant parking lot..
Posts
17 comments:
I agree that there's something very unsettling about a building with this location being certified at the LEED-Platinum level. It sounds like a great building in many ways, but many of its environmental benefits are directly counteracted by the choice of location and the resulting forced auto-dependence.
Perhaps LEED-Platinum buildings (and all LEED buildings) should be required to meet the new LEED - Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) requirements for short. This takes into better account the issues mentioned in the article... http://www.cnu.org/leednd
No -- this building should have its certification pulled. It is insane to look at energy use in isolation to how the users of the building get to it.
You may be interested to hear a bit about the recent real estate expansion of St Jude Medical in Little Canada. The building is fairly eco-friendly, although I don't know if it's LEED certified. At any rate, at least it was built closer to the urban center, though technically it's still in a suburb:
http://www.sjm.com/mediaroom/mediakit.aspx?cat=categorycorporate&kit=corporateexpansion
The development of the LEED-ND ratings system is promising. While it is still in the pilot stage, it is a step in the right direction. It is also a good sign that Congress for the New Urbanism and the National Resources Defense Council are getting involved in shaping the LEED ratings. That will help in moving towards a ratings system that does not reward sprawl.
Stephen- Thanks for the link. While it was tough to tell from the one rendering on the website, judging by a google maps aerial view the site seems to be similar to the Great River suburban-style office park--big parking lot, set far back from other nearby uses. However, it is reachable by transit (bus route 62), which is certainly a plus! However, I am mostly unfamiliar with this area, and am not entirely certain that I have the right location on google maps, so I will withhold from making a final decisions about the sustainability of this building for now. :-)
Thanks for the comments.
Is the glass half full or half empty? The Bottineau Boulevard transit line is proposed to come within a 1/2 mile of the Great River Energy building, which could provide the high quality transit needed in the area.
However, as it stands, the building would be disqualified from LEED-ND for the placement of the parking lot in front of the building (a new prerequist in the latest version of LEED-ND) and also for the amount of developed land dedicated to surface parking.
The area, while quite new, is already a good candidate for infill development. If Great River Energy were to expand their building toward the street, they might have a chance at LEED-ND in the future.
Given the local winter climate, I'd be very interested in the de-icing system on the wind turbine. Flinging chunks of ice at parked cars doesn't strike me as a good idea.
Wait just a second!
Look at the huge land this building has occupied and destroyed. The large parking lot destroyed potential agricultural land for food production. And the cars consumed more resources and pollute the environment than what may be saved by this little building.
Zoning ordinances that require one parking space (350-400 sf) per 150 to 250 square feet of building drive design toward lots larger than buildings. "Proof of parking" provisions help some, but the regulatory trend I observe is toward 150 and larger lots. Parking regs drive site design.
Hello All –
My name is Doug Pierce and I’m the LEED Architect and Sustainability Strategist for this project. I Chair the AIA Minnesota Committee on the Environment and I’m also a Professor of Practice teaching a graduate level Sustainable Design and Practice course at the University of Minnesota. I would like to share a few things in response to the comments offered on this blog about the Great River Energy Headquarters, its LEED Platinum Certification and LEED in general.
Before I go further I would like to address a few key comments and assertions found on the blog:
Land: The project did NOT displace any agricultural or bio-productive land. The site is a part of a reclaimed Gravel Pit that was covered with a thin layer of non-native grass. The project was restored with Native / Adapted Plants and Orchards. It produces more nutrients now than has in decades.
Parking Lot Size: We reduced the parking lot to a little over 1/ 2 or 5/ 8’s the size required by Zoning in the area. And we actually reduced the overall building size as well by designing for quality of space in lieu of quantity of space(Small is Beautiful). The approach saved several thousand square feet of space.
Multi-model Transportation: The Project is within walking distance of a Transit Terminal with bus access. It is connected to essential services that are within walking distance via sidewalks and bicycles are fully accommodated.
Wind Turbine and Icing: The Wind Turbine includes (2) ice sensors; a primary and a back-up that automatically shut it down if ice starts to accumulate.
Transportation and Energy Use Intensity: Architecture 2030 has used information from the US Energy Research and Development Administration to calculate the overall percentage of energy used by U.S. Residential and Commercial buildings. They are responsible for about 48% of all U.S. Energy Use. Approximately 39% of that is from Operations, with the remainder attributable to the embodied energy for Construction and Maintenance.
http://www.architecture2030.org/current_situation/building_sector.html
Architecture 2030 U.S. Energy Use Calculations:
Transportation:27% Buildings: 48% (Residential 21% / Commercial 17%) Industry: 35%
BOTH Transportation and Building Use Intensity are critical to address. At the moment addressing the energy efficiency of buildings and individual vehicles is probably the easiest thing we can do to reduce our energy demand. Changing the cultural patterns of how we organize cities will take time.
---------------------------------------------
I’ve been involved with Green Design for over 25 years and thanks to LEED I’ve seen more positive change in Architecture over the past 5 years than in the previous 20 combined. It’s great to see LEED for Neighborhoods advance and it’s important to continue expanding the green design dialogue as a ‘Whole Systems’ approach instead of focusing only on buildings or on single issues.
However, going from where we are as a society now, to where must be in the near future to have a sustainable civilization must happen in incremental steps. It’s not physically or culturally possible for it to happen overnight, as much as many of us wish that it could (including me). I can get as impatient as anyone.
As an Architect, I work with every LEED Credit available and I’ve found that there are people and institutions passionately immersed in each credit. It’s not uncommon for entire institutions to be focused on a handful of credits and those credits are the center of their world. And based on conversations with those people, I can guarantee you they are adamant that each LEED Credit within their area of expertise is simply inadequate and should be much more stringent - whether it has to do with site selection issues, energy efficiency, indoor environmental quality, daylighting or material selection. Of course, depending on whom you are speaking with, their credit topic is also the key issue and it should take precedence over most everything else.
And then again, there are a wide range of people that work with an array of credit (like architects, interior designers, contractors and facilities managers) and for many of those people, LEED is just too restrictive and to darn complicated. Fortunately, we live in a Democracy (or something similar) so hopefully we can all get our thoughts on the table and generate a better solution in the process…two heads (or thousands) are better than one. In reality, we talking about making changes to interconnected system and all of the credits are important.
I personally view LEED and Sustainability as a Journey – not necessarily a revolution with battles to be fought and won. LEED Certifications (or any Green Certification) for that matter should incrementally increase in difficulty over time as the transformation occurs and as we create the new order of things. Granted, that needs to happen with a since of urgency that is lacking at the moment, but regardless of how fast it needs to happen, certifications and sustainability must be inclusive enough in the beginning to mobilize a range of projects and people or they and it, will simply not be adopted at a relevant level to have a meaningful impact.
To me, LEED feels about right at this moment…but it will need to improve – quickly. Having said that, the credits related to site selection and site design probably need to be up-graded.
Getting back to the project at hand - The Great River Energy Headquarters may not be perfect, few things in life are, but it is significantly greener than a typical Midwestern office building and so is its location.
Great River Energy is a Rural Electric Cooperative serving rural customers – they selected a site that served their customers along with their employees. Their rural customers commonly drive in from greater Minnesota. Being in downtown Minneapolis or St. Paul simply was not going to work for their members. They built a high-performance green building because they needed a new HQ and at the same time, they wanted to encourage their members to conserve more energy in their homes, farms and businesses. Their goal is to encourage sustainable buildings everywhere – including the rural landscape and greater Minnesota – where most of their customers live.
The site is actually a Reclaimed gravel pit that was growing thin scrub grass before we restored it with mostly native and adapted, drought tolerant plantings. There’s a little turf grass to help give the site a sense of order.No agricultural land, or for that matter, productive land was sacrificed. We basically performed ‘Site Repair’ (some of you may recall that one from Christopher Alexander’s Pattern Language) and we’ve actually increased the nutrient output of the site. In the spirit of perma-culture, we planted some small orchards made up of University of Minnesota breed fruit trees…pears and apples mostly. This sight has not produced any food to speak of in decades. Now it will.
The project is within walking distance (1 /4 Mile) of the Maple Grove Transit Center which is served by more than one bus line. It’s connected with sidewalks directly to the transit center…just walk out of the front door and head due north – you can’t miss it. It is also within walking distance of many essential services, meaning the employees don’t need a car during the day to take care of a range of needs. It’s one of the reasons the site was selected.
Cars, at the moment are a fact of life in the Midwest. It’s very difficult to do without one. Over time we can reconfigure our infrastructure and our thinking about how we live and spatially organize the world around us. However, it’s taken us over 100 years to get ourselves into this non-sustainable state of sprawl and we’ll have to take incremental steps to get ourselves out of it. As Architects we struggle with parking counts on almost every project. We are always asking our clients if we can reduce the count…usually at own peril. Our clients get tired of us asking and prodding and searching for alternatives. Reducing the parking on projects (including this one) is not easy and it takes cooperation and months of negotiating between various parties. I am personally proud of what this team accomplished in significantly reducing hard surface area and in providing for alternate forms of transportation (including adding bus service).
The parking lot is a little over 1/2, maybe 5/ 8’s the size required by the local zoning ordinance. The reduced lot size allowed us to increase the green space (and plant the orchards). Anecdotally, I would say the lot utilization is pretty good. When I visit the facility, the lot is reasonably full and when they have a large event they need to use the overflow from the surrounding lots.
The Northeast quadrant of the site is made up of undulating earthen mounds covered with prairie grass which ‘green up’ the entire area. This quad would have been all parking if we had we not negotiated a reduction with the client and the city. The mounds are formed from soil left over after excavating the building (poor soil by the way). Keeping it on-site means we didn’t waste energy to haul it someplace else.
The building setback is consistent with the surrounding area and it was a city requirement. Placing the parking at the back of the building and pulling the building forward would have put parking almost directly on Arbor Lake, which we did not consider appropriate. It is a public lake with a walking / biking path. Plus it would have required more drive lanes and surfacing to get to it. A tall parking ramp would have been out of place as well.
There are designated preferred parking spots near the door for car pools, van pools and fuel efficient automobiles (I personally went through all of the ACEEE fuel efficiency guides and picked out the cars that meet the criteria). There are bike racks, showers and ‘pool’ bicycles available for staff to run errands during the day.
The wind turbine took advantage of the open site area provided by the parking and it’s been a great tool for educating the public about renewables. We actually had a wind tunnel test done to prove out the performance and to test optional locations. The turbine has multiple safety features including dual ice sensors (a primary and a back-up) that automatically shut it down long before any hazardous conditions develop.
And by the way, based on the computerized energy simulations, the project design meets the 2015 goals of the 2030 Challenge reducing its non-renewable energy demand by more than 70%.
To close this out – If you are deeply dissatisfied with the current status of LEED and you’ve not personally attempted creating a LEED Platinum project, I would recommend giving it a try. It may give you some perspective on how challenging it is to physically implement change on the ground. Also, LEED Platinum is not the ultimate level of sustainability; there are levels beyond LEED Platinum that we should be striving to achieve. For those seeking even higher performance challenges, you may want to check out the Living Building Challenge http://www.cascadiagbc.org/lbc or Regenerative Design http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_Design
Sincerely,
Doug Pierce AIA, LEED AP , Minneapolis
Jim and (especially) Doug- Thank you for contributing your first-hand knowledge to the discussion.
Doug- I regret that I had to use the Great River building as the sole example in this discussion of suburban development and LEED ratings. I agree with your statements that the building is certainly better than a typical suburban development, and probably represents the best that can be achieved in green design of a new building in a location such as Maple Grove, given the local zoning, character of surrounding land use, realities of transportation in the area, and so forth. It would not have been logical (and likely not possible) for Great River to have built a "new urbanist" building in this location- zoning wouldn't have allowed it, and it wouldn't have made sense absent significant infill development in the nearby retail strips. You are pointing out that, given these circumstances, the Great River building represents a commendable accomplishment in a suburban office development at this time. I do not dispute this. Rather, I am arguing that such development is not truly sustainable if it contributes to auto-dependency and low-density, segregated land use.
As such, my criticism is not of Great River or the designers of this building for not going far enough, but of the LEED ratings system for not going far enough. Admirable as it is for its energy and water conservation, the Great River building is nevertheless auto-dependent, low-density, and segregated from other land uses. Such developments should not be eligible for the highest LEED rating, because they do not represent a sustainable model for growth.
Am I correct in assuming that you define sustainability as development to urban standards? What about the rest of the State? Would you prefer that developments in rural America not bother building to LEED standards, cutting water and energy consumption, unless they can replicate your idea of a dense urban site? What about a farm? A manufacturing plant? Wouldn't you rather promote building to LEED standards anywhere in order to cut the environmental impacts of general development? There is more to sustainability than urban density and eliminating parking.
Anonymous- It is important to consider context, both in thinking about LEED standards and in participating in discussions on the topic. The context for this discussion has been the development of a medium sized office building in a major metropolitan area. It is not appropriate for you to assume that arguments made in this context are intended to automatically apply to any building, located anywhere in country. Such assumptions are not thoughtful, and are not productive to an intelligent debate on the matter.
Of course "there is more to sustainability than urban density and eliminating parking." That is so painfully obvious that it doesn't need to be said. What myself and others are arguing is that growth and development in urban areas is not truly sustainable if it is auto-dependent. Reduced auto-dependency is not the only defining feature of sustainable growth, but it is a very important part. As such, new buildings constructed in a major metropolitan area should not be eligible for LEED-Platinum classification if they conform to the old suburban model of low-densities, segregated uses, and auto-dependency. This model is not a sustainable path for for the further growth and development of urban areas.
Hi Jacobean - It's hard to argue that every aspect of a LEED Platinum Project should not be at the highest level, however a zero tolerence policy may not go far in terms of driving transformation. And who gets to set the absolute requirements for Platinum?
I happen to think there's lots of potential in Perma-Culture and Urban Farming...But there's a point where density would eclipse the potential for Urban Farming to have much of an effect.
Also - renewables like solar (PV, Thermal and Wind) need horizontal surface area and sun access...Bringing a building to Carbon Neutral status or improving grid stability with distributed generation gets harder with more density and impossible at some point.
If I argue that only Carbon Neutral / Zero Energy buildings should qaulify for Platinum we probably won't meet your density criteria. Well, now we've cancelled each other out and Platinum is not possible. Now what?
If I am a Preservationst - Only Renovated Buildings should qualify.
If I am a Waste Expert - Only Buildings made from 100% Recycled or Salvage Materials should qualify.
The Toxicologist - Only buildings made of 100% toxic-neutral products should be platinum.
I'm guessing Jane Jacobs would argue that about 80% of the materials should be locally produced (She doesn't say that, but that's the benchmark I settled on after reading her book Cities and The Wealth of Nations).
I would be interested in seeing your 'must have' list for Platinum.
Respectfully,
Doug Pierce
Jacobean,
LEED for new construction (NC) was born as a rating system for sustainable buildings, and continues to be so. The LEED rating systems have been developed by some very smart people as far as I can tell, and understanding the limitations of only looking at the building site, they have expanded the credits looking at site selection, as well as developed LEED ND. Having worked on a LEED ND pilot project, I can tell you that this rating system still addresses sustainability on a project-by-project basis. A huge master planned community could achieve LEED ND certification, but the system does not address growth planning and management on a citywide or regional scale. These are the limitations of the LEED system.
However, given the challenges we face on an issue like climate change, a platinum LEED rating is commendable. When something like one third of greenhouse gas emissions are the result of energy use in buildings, a fifty percent reduction in energy use over code is significant. A ninety percent reduction in water consumption is also significant. Transportation accounts for another third of greenhouse gas emissions, something you rightly focus on as a limitation of the LEED rating system.
I would argue that addressing issues of "auto-dependency" and the density of development is better done on a city-wide or regional scale. Planners have had the tools to address these issues for decades with regional plans and city comprehensive plans and zoning codes, and they have had limited success. I don't think this should stop us from applauding the USGBC and project developers such as Doug Pierce and Great River Energy for the real, measurable results they have achieved in energy and water use reduction, cleaner indoor air, and renewable energy to name a few. I wish that the planning profession was able to develop a popular, well-marketed, and industry standard system that promoted the principles we know will help us achieve sustainability (although I doubt given the scale of projects we typically work on that this will ever be possible).
Finally, and on a totally unrelated note, if I were a large electric utility, I would have reservations about locating my headquarters in the service area of another utility. If Great River Energy located in downtown Minneapolis, they'd be paying utility bills to Xcel.
Doug- Thanks again for the comments. I appreciate your point regarding the fact that representatives of each field (planning, waste, toxicology, etc.) tend to view their category as of upmost importance. Of course I think the LEED criteria should value land use and transportation more, I'm a planner and that's what Ive been trained to think about; but what justifies me in claiming my criteria to be more important than the others? You make a good point, and I recognize that there is an element of this to my criticisms of LEED.
Nevertheless, I stand firm in the belief that any new construction in an urban area that conforms to the typical suburban model of low-density, segregated uses, and auto-dependency should not be able to claim the title of "LEED-PLatinum" (and as a result, "Sustainable"). I would like to offer a full defense of this argument for those who do not accept it at face value, but this will take some time, which is something I am lacking at the moment. I would like to make a new blog post out of it in the near future, so perhaps I can convince you to check back at that time to see if I am able to address some the points you have made.
This discussion may be moot to some degree, as the changes to the LEED ratings made for LEED v3 do give greater weight to efficient site selection and non-automobile transportation accessibility. While this does not completely disallow suburban-style developments from achieving LEED-Platinum, it does make it much tougher. In fact, Id be curious to hear your opinion on where the Great River building would be ranked using the new LEED criteria scoring system. I am not 100% satisfied with LEED v3, but am content when I look at it in terms of your conception of LEED as a "journey." Our growth is not going to become completely sustainable overnight, but with continual updates, LEED may help to push us farther and farther in that direction.
Brendon- Thanks for the comments. I would argue that it never makes sense to consider buildings without the context of how they relate to their surroundings and the urban form. Certainly the designers of buildings do not always have the ability to make their buildings less auto-dependent, more dense, etc., due to local zoning or other reasons. But that does not justify giving LEED-Platinum to buildings that are ultimately not sustainable, even if their efforts are commendable and represent the best that could done given the circumstances. In fact, doing so might even SLOW progress towards what you might call "green zoning codes" that allow mixed uses, greater density, and encourage transit and walking. If Maple Grove can already claim to be developing in a sustainable way-- given that they are the location of the first LEED-Platinum building in Minnesota-- what reason do they have to change their zoning?
Some others have pointed out some additional reasons why it would not make sense for Great River to have built in downtown Minneapolis. I agree, and do not fault them for locating in Maple Grove. My main intention was to offer a model for how sustainable growth (in this case, of a medium sized office building) in the metro area would look.
Post a Comment