You all know about LEED, the acronym for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, the checklist process where so-called "green architects" and their allies in the building materials, construction and real estate fields can go about getting certified. It's the equivalent of getting those gold and silver stars in the 4th grade for perfect attendance or sitting quietly at your desk during rest time, or maybe for a perfect spelling text.

Well, LEED certification does have its merits, and when it seems we all need some plaque to hang on the wall, maybe this makes some sense.

But too often I'm reaching the conclusion that the acronym for LEED really means, "Lunatic Environmentalists Enthusiastically Demolishing." I had written earlier (May 2, 2008) about the outrageous mendacity of the Nature Conservancy saying it wasn't feasible to renovate a hundred year old warehouse in Indianapolis as an excuse to raze it and build a suburbanesque green-gizmo building instead.

This pattern of using LEED certification as the club to demolish historic buildings is becoming more and more common.

At this writing, in Lexington, Kentucky, a proposal is rapidly moving forward to build a 40-story hotel in the middle of downtown.

And to do this the developers say it will be necessary to tear down 14 historic structures built between 1826 and 1930.

Preservationists have responded that they certainly don't object to a new hotel downtown, but that there is no reason the historic structures couldn't be incorporated into the development. "Not possible," says the developer. But look at the site!

The idea that this development couldn't be a mix of old and new suffers from a paucity of the imagination.

And their stick to justify the demolition? "Yeah, but we're going to be LEED certified."

Oh, and by the way, as a reward for destroying the history of Lexington, the developers are to be rewarded with $80 million of Tax Increment Financing.

The Blue Grass Trust and Preservation Lexington are leading the effort against this idiocy. The National Trust has also noted this project in the online edition of Preservation Magazine.

But it's a tough battle. Why? Because of an increasingly common formula:

LEED + GREED = Loss of our built cultural heritage.

Tip of the Day - Look at the drawing of the proposed hotel above. Here's a sure sign that the architect and the developer are either egocentrically oblivious of the context of their proposed development or (more likely) indifferent to it. The elevations show only the building itself, none of its surroundings. ALWAYS be worried when there is no context shown - 99 times out of a hundred it means the building is vastly out of scale and alien to its context.

Labels: historic preservation, LEED, out of scale buildings

I've written before that I have the best job in America (April 30, 2008). But the best 14 days of the best job in America are the Tuesdays in the spring when I catch a 6:30 train from Washington to Philadelpia to teach my class in the Economics of Historic Preservation to graduate students in the Preservation Program at the University of Pennsylvania.

I absolutely learn more from my students every semester than they learn from me. They keep me on top of the issues that concern young preservationists, the trends that I ought to be keeping track of, and they make me rethink things I already thought I knew.

So it was a big deal to me, a very big deal, to yesterday receive the G. Holmes Perkins Award from the School of Design at Penn. The award is named in honor of G. Holmes Perkins, Dean of the Graduate School of Fine Arts from 1951 to 1971. It is given "in recognition of distinguished teaching and innovation in the methods of instruction in the classroom, seminar, or studio by a member of the practitioner faculty."

Now had the recipient of this award been selected by the faculty I would have been pleased, of course. I have the highest personal and professional regard for my colleagues at Penn. But this is a big deal for me because it is the students who first nominate and then select the recipient. So it really is a big deal for me. And in the end (it's sometimes easy to forget) the central purpose of a university is (or at least should be) students.

I have to say I'm a bit uncomfortable in the self-promotion business, and don't do it much. But I'm posting this here because I am so simultaneously humbled and proud to have received this.

So thank you students, past and present (and future) and thanks to Penn, the Historic Presrvation program, and its chair Frank Matero for giving me a classroom and students to learn from.

Labels: historic preservation, University of Pennsylvania

I'm not cheap.

And I only have a daily rate (you can't buy an hour or a half day or a speech...you can only buy a day). But none of my clients -- nearly all public sector or non-profit sector entities -- have an excess of money to toss around. So I try to resolve that conflict in two ways: 1) Unlike most consultants I don't charge for preparation time or travel time. I figure the client is paying for having me on-site, prepared for the assignment, not for me sitting on an airplane or in an airport or writing the presentation I'm going to be giving. 2) Since they've been stuck paying for the whole day, I always tell potential clients they are welcome to use as much of my time during that day (or days) as they think is productive.

Some of them do; some don't.

But Norm Tyler in Ann Arbor is doing it right. Norm is the Director of the Eastern Michigan University Urban and Regional Planning Program. But for us in preservation he's probably even better known as the author of Historic Preservation: An Introduction to Its Historic, Principles, and Practice probably the best, practioner oriented introduction to American preservation in print.

Norm is using this one day visit to Ann Arbor, Michigan on June 11th to hold a number of sessions at a number of venues to a number of different audiences. He has arranged newspaper and radio interviews. He has contacted regional preservation groups, university departments, local governments and individuals. He has raised money. And, in a first as far as I know, he's created a web site specifically for this event. AND he's using my day in Ann Arbor as a fund raising opportunity for historic preservation.

So potential clients, take note. You can't get me cheap, but you can fully use the time you're paying for. And I love every minute of it.

Labels: Ann Arbor, clients, Norm Tyler

This week I was in Hinesville, Georgia for a one-day technical assistance visit at the invitation of Vicki Davis, the executive director of the Hinesville Downtown Develoment Authority. DDAs are a common form of downtown, quasi-public management entity in the State of Georgia.

The Hinesville DDA and Fort Stewart are active in a great initiative called A-CHPP which stands for the Army-Community Heritage Partnership Program. This program, which is now 5 years old nationally, has had demonstrated success, but a further description of the program will have to wait for another day.

Anyway, after having read a number of studies, reports, and strategies before I arrived, I spent nearly the entire day with Vicki, City Manager Billy Edwards, and County Commissioner Donald Lovette. I also spent significant time with Mayor James Thomas, Director of the Liberty Consolidated Planning Commission, Sonny Timmerman, and Community Development Director Kenneth Howard and met with DDA board members and other members of the City Council and County Commission.

While the DDA was paying me to be there, I (as per usual) probably learned more than I imparted.

So here's four things that I learned Hinesville and Liberty County are doing right.

1. Cooperation. There is an extrordinary level of cooperation between the city government, the county government and the other 6 municipalities in Liberty County. They take cooperation seriously. It's not that I've never seen this before, but I have to tell you, it is the rare exception, not remotely the norm. And even though every local elected official in America will claim at the Rotary Club speech that he/she is for fiscal responsibility and frugal use of the taxpayers dollars, those who do not have close cooperative relationships among local levels of government are wasting scarce tax dollars every day.

I am sure there are occasions of tension and disagreement between Hinesville and Liberty County. But overall they have choosen to be less territorial and accept more shared decisions and responsibilities. The most obvious manifestation of this is the creation of the Liberty Consolidated Planning Commission. Each level of government is free to adopt its own zoning provisions, but the Comprehensive Plan is taking place on a county basis, there is a competent planning staff that serves all of the units of government, and there are systems in place that assure each level of government knows what the others are doing.

This cooperation extends, by the way, to Fort Stewart who makes sure they talk in advance (not after the fact) with local officials on future plans that will affect the adjacent communities.

2. Commitment to the Core. Downtowns have historically been the center of a community's leadership -- local government, major financial institutions, newspapers, the Chamber of Commerce, major law firms, etc. But for 40+ years some elected officials have decided that county court houses and city halls could just as well be next to the Dunkin Donuts out by the interchange. What an irresponsible act of both civic commitment and fiscal policy!

But in Hinesville all three levels of local government -- the city, the county and the school board in recent years have recommitted themselves to the core of the city -- even with significant (if misguided) public and political pressure to move out. The employees of local government and the daily visitors (to serve on a jury, to record a deed, to pay the water bill) to public offices should be the central customer base for a smaller town downtown. Further, the proximity of these functions to each other not only serves the customer (the local citizen/taxpayer) well, but also enhances the regular interaction among local government officials.

There is no doubt in my mind that the cooperation listed above directly influenced the decisions of all three levels reinvesting downtown -- one good public policy generating another.

3. Quality. OK, I'll admit that I have more than one issue that triggers my ire, but near the top of the list is crappy public buildings. And this is absolutely driven by taxpayers as generational parasites. Some unit of government will build a new building (or propose one) and out of the woodwork will crawl a bunch of self-proclaimed taxpayer advocates and say, "Why are you building palaces for bureaucrats? You could easily chop $40 a foot off that building. You're wasting tax dollars building the Taj Mahal. You should lower our property taxes rather than spend that much on that new building." Bullshit. That's not fiscal responsibility, that's sticking your kids with your bills. Yeah, you can build a tilt-up metal buildling, cover it with Z-Brick and install styrofoam beams. But the building is going to have to be replaced in 25 years. You've been a parasite on both ends. You've happily used the buildings your grandfather or great-grandmother paid for, but you're not willing to build one that will last long enough for your children to use. The ultimate in selfishness.

It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that the political environment in a Southern, Army town would be on the conservative side. But the elected officials in Liberty County, in Hinesville, and on the local school board understand what REAL conservatism is -- constructing buildings that last, that can be used by generations of taxpayers, that won't have to be replaced by their kids.

In downtown Hinesville the city, the county and the school district have all recently not only built in the core, but built quality buildings there. In doing so, they haven't wasted the taxpayers' dollars, they have frugally spent those dollars for the long term benefit of the citizens.

And guess what....when you build buildings that last, buildings of quality, you really are building the first landmarks of the 21st century.

4. Strategic Property Acquisitions. Cities will change. Even if there's no population growth, they will change. So the question is not "How to we keep everything just like it is?" but rather "How to we influence what, how, when, and where that change takes place to have the most positive influence on the city's future?" There are lots of tools to do that, of course, but a very effective one is the strategic acquisition of properties by a local government or its quasi-public entities. Hinesville has done that. The acquisition of properties as a result of highway realignment will create a great site large enough to accomodate a park, some recreational areas, perhaps new public facilities, and/or another mix of uses. Acquisition of residential land for redevelopment as housing for police, fire fighters, teachers, and the military AND for new housing for existing neighborhood residents is already demonstrating success. Acquisition of unused and underused commercial property and packaged redevelopment as mixed use and residential can begin to reconcentrate commercial activity where it can be mutually supportive.

All of the above are being supported by an excellent, multi-year public improvements program including street improvements, landscaping, way-finding systems, sidewalks, bike and walking trails and others.

Look, I was only in Hinesville for 36 hours. I'm sure there are things they are doing wrong.

But those of you who have it in your head, "There's nothing we can learn from some small town in Georgia" you're wrong. At least 90% of you don't have this level of inter-governmental cooperation, many don't have the commitment to the core, aren't seeing quality public buildings being built, and haven't imaginatively used a property acquisition program.

You've got a lot to learn from Hinesville. At least I did.

Labels: Hinesville, local government

Last week I was in three cities -- Phoenix, Seattle, and Portland -- that have people who "get it". But that's not just true of big cities. There are -- all over America -- people in smaller places who also understand good urbanism (even if on a smaller scale).

That was the case this week in Hinesville, Georgia.

Now I should write a word about how I see my professional obligations. About a third of my professional time is educational broadly construed -- giving a speech, doing a workshop, writing, etc. Another third is what I refer to as market strategic. That might be an economic impact study or a downtown revitalization plan, or a technical assistance visit, usually short and very focussed. The last third of my time is building specific -- helping a non-profit organization or a government entity create a strategy for the redevelopment and reuse of a white elephant building.

Now because in the first category I'm not providing any proprietary information to the client (or usually receiving any from them) I don't have any hesitation in writing about what I learned in that city. In the last two categories, however, I'm being paid to provide specific advice about a specific local issue. And that advice (whether or not it's useful) I view as the property of the client, not mine. So unless I received specific authorization from that client, I would never disclose on here what my recommendations were.

However I do think it's fair game on this blog to comment on the city itself and what I may have learned there. Hinesville, population of a bit over 30,000 is the county seat of Liberty County and lies 25 miles or so south and west of Savannah, Georgia. But Hinesville is also the gateway to Fort Stewart, home of the 3rd Infantry Division, 280,000 acres, 22,000 soldiers and thousands more military families, civilian DOD employees, and contractors.

"Army towns" do face a set of unusual challenges, not the least of which is when a whole brigade is deployed (as has frequently been the case with these soldiers during the Iraq War) the local economy greatly suffers.

But here's the first lesson I learned: in recent years Hinesville seems to have suffered less in this regard. Why? Well, the answers are no doubt complex, but here's part of the reason. Army wives are tending to stay in Hinesville during their husbands' deployment in far greater numbers than in the past when they often would go home to family until their spouse returned. Again, why? There seem to be four reasons: 1) more jobs are available in the local economy; 2) the Army has greatly improved its support system for the families of soldiers overseas; 3) much better and steadily improving housing and 4) (and maybe most importantly) Hinesville is a city that is open, welcoming, and supportive of Army spouses at home.


Lesson two: when there is a high quality of life in the community beyond the fence lines of the installation, Army towns become Army retirement towns. Of course being close to on-post medical facilities and the PX are part of that, but alone would be insufficient. The fact that many military retirees are relatively young and look forward to a second career plays a part. Because high numbers of civilian jobs exist on Army posts, there are often numerous employment opportunities working in the same general areas in which the soldier learned his/her skills during their uniformed days. But this too, is not enough. For retired soldiers to choose a particular "Army town" to retire to, it also requires community amenities -- in arts, culture, dining, shopping, recreation, parks, et al. And both the Army and some Army towns are recognizing and responding to this -- Hinesville among them.

Lesson three: A whole lot of assumptions that those of us not living in places like Hinesville, a whole lot of national retail chains, and a whole lot of developers have about Army towns, just ain't so. They constitute the "Myths of the Army Town" and here are some of them:

Myth 1: Yeah, there may be lots of soldiers, but they don't make much money so there's no economic opportunity.

Reality 1: Even at the lowest pay grades, and even for single soldiers, most of the income they do receive is disposable income as their housing needs are met either through on base housing or housing allowances. In fact for the 70% of Fort Stewart soldiers who live off post, many times they can find good housing at less than their monthly allowance so have additional disposable income. And whenever they want soldiers can eat on post. When a monthly budget is relieved of the housing and food components, what seems like not much pay goes much further.

Myth 2: The PX meets all the needs of the soldiers, so there's no opportunity for general merchandise stories or groceries off post.

Reality 2: There is PLENTY that the soldier and his/her family can't find on post and go elsewhere to buy. In the case of Hinesville, around 30% of the retail purchases that are being made by residents of Hinesville aren't made in Hinesville, rather in downtown and at the shopping centers of nearby Savannah and elsewhere. And much of that leakage is coming from military families.

Myth 3: The only businesses that prosper in Army towns are topless bars and pawn shops.

Reality 3: What an antiquated, frankly ignorant image of today's Army. Better educated, more female, more worldly, more sophisticated. Now you may have read stories that with the need for more soldiers the Army has lowered its standards for recruits. I don't know. But what I do know is that once in the Army, there is an obligation for both enlisted and officers to continue and advance their education. How is that manifested? Well, my vignette is that a major reason for the need for an enlarged education center on Fort Stewart was to accommodate the demand for more computers for lower ranking enlisted soldiers.

National retail chains mostly operate on some computer based formula saying "we'll only locate at a site that has x number of people with y amount of household income within z miles." But that approach fails to recognize the nuances of a place like Hinesville. I don't shed tears for the chains for being so myopic as to miss the chance to make money. But I do feel a bit sorry for soldiers and their families who have to schlep an hour away for goods and services that could be available down the street.

Next -- What Hinesville is doing

Labels: Army towns, small towns

The City of Portland gets it. What a great -- and a steadily getting better -- American city. I remember being at a conference some years ago in Portland. A friend of mine, Les Hall from Oklahoma, brought his wife along to the conference since neither of them had been in Portland before. While Les spent the first day at conference sessions, his wife wandered the streets of Portland. When they met back at the hotel that evening, Les' wife said to him, "I've found myself a new job." To which Les replied, "Really, what is it?" And she said, "I don't know yet, but it's going to be in Portland, Oregon." Who wouldn't want to live here?

I was in Portland on behalf of the Architectural Heritage Center. This is a remarkable organization run since its inception by Cathy Galbraith. The AHC is an outgrowth of the Bosco Milligan Foundation. The foundation owns the collection of architectural treasures salvaged by Jerry Bosco and Ben Milligan over 25 years when too much of Portland's built heritage was lost to the wrecking ball. Much of this collection is now on display and accessible to the public at the historic West Block in downtown Portland. By the way (although I have no idea how this technology works...just that it does) the Architectural Heritage Center taped my presentation there and has made it available in audio version on there web site, should you be interested.

Portland is known worldwide for its growth management policies and progressive planning practices, of course. But what Portland does better than any other American city is its public transit. It's dependable, easy to use, simple to understand, clean, quiet, safe, available in all parts of the city, and expanding. And the streetcar system is a particular treasure.

A very high quality development is taking place in what is known as the South Waterfront. This is 136 acres for reclaimed industrial land. Ultimately 20 high rises will be built, but a half dozen are there already. All are high quality, well designed (and no doubt expensive). But Portland developers are building the first landmark neighborhood of the 21st Century.

At the other end of the spectrum is 23rd Street. It was probably 20 years ago when I was first on 23rd, and it's emergence as a cool shopping/dining street had just begun. But it has certainly maintained that character. The vast majority of the shops are small, independently owned, and funky. The area is vibrant and while most of the people on the street are young, there was a wide chronological diversity. Don't go to Portland without visiting (and eating on) 23th Street.

Another high point of the Portland trip was catching up with a long time friend, Ruth Scott. Ruth started the Oregon Downtown Development Association over twenty years ago. She later ran the Association for Portland Progress the downtown advocacy and management organization. For the last nine years she's been the president of the Innovation Partnership. This organization is what Ruth calls a "think tank and do tank" bringing together community and political leaders to address Oregon's persistent problems. The Innovation Partnership leaves the easy issues to others; they only take on the tough ones. Every city should have the likes of an Innovation Partnership and a Ruth Scott.

My host in Seattle was Historic Seattle, Inc. This is an unusual organization, in that it is in part a membership based non-profit organization (like most preservation groups). But it is also part public development authority of the City of Seattle. This second role has allowed them to undertake some wonderful historic real estate development projects over the years. A great recent success story is the redevelopment of the Cadillac Hotel.

But the public event they hosted was at the Good Sheppard Center. The GSC was built in 1906 by the Sisters of the Good Sheppard as a home for "wayward girls." It finally closed in 1973 (although I doubt that it was because there were no more wayward girls by then). After strong neighborhood resistance to turning the 11 acre site into a shopping center, the City of Seattle acquired the property and turned it over to Historic Seattle to redevelop.


Today the Good Sheppard Center is a incredible complex housing a charter school, non profit offices, artists live-work spaces, an experimental garden, and, most recently restored, a wonderful small theater area. This last space is in big demand for musical performances, public lectures, and other events calling for an intimate space with great acoustics.

If for whatever reason you're interested in reading the text of my presentation, Historic Seattle has posted it on their website.

Historic Seattle is now headed by Kathleen Brooker, formerly the executive director of Historic Denver. Kathleen replaced long time Historic Seattle executive director John Chaney. And obviously both John and Kathleen are people who get it.

But I met two more in Seattle. The first is City Council member Sally Clark. Sally chairs the Planning, Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee of the Council. And is Seattle ever lucky that's the case. Here's why she impressed me: 1) she is obviously very smart (and in case you've never noticed that's not always true of elected officials. You don't have to be a Mensa member to be elected to the city council.) 2) She understands what the problems are; 3) She understands that the problems are complex; 4) She doesn't pretend to have all the answers; and 5) She is inclined to evaluate possible answers on a systematic, rational basis.

That might not seem such a great endorsement. But how many of your city council members possess those five characteristics? Damned few I expect.

And the second one who "gets it" is a young woman reporter for the Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce. Her name is Shawna Gamache, and she covers architecture, engineering and city government. Now I didn't actually meet Shawna, but we exchanged emails, talked on the phone and I read her blog, SeattleScape. I have occasion to talk to local reporters with some regularity. But it is rarer than you might think that they have both a nuanced understanding of and a passion for the areas that they are assigned to cover. But the sophistication of the questions that Shawna asked, and the commentary in her blog demonstrated to me that she's one of those who get it.

You know it isn't really necessary that everyone in a community "gets it". It's only necessary that there are a few articulate voices who do. And having a city council member and a young reporter is a great place to start.

Labels: adaptive reuse, Seattle

I've always loved Seattle, particularly the grittiness of it. Although the grittiness seems to be disappearing apace. But Seattle has always been at the forefront of trying to address difficult urban issues. They don't always get it right, but unlike many cities, they don't shy away from trying to find solutions (or at least mitigations) to seemingly intractable urban problems.

That means that Seattle is often the laboratory of urban ideas, policies, and approaches. But at the moment I think there's a real need to try to balance a series of legitimate public policy priorities. The Mayor, Greg Nickles, is among the leaders in the US on environmental issues, having lead the US Council of Mayors initiative to commit to meeting the Kyoto Protocol in their cities. Certainly a commendable goal. And Mayor Nickles' primary vehicles to do that are density (writ large, no pun intended) and public transit.

But walking around Seattle neighborhoods, talking to neighborhood activists, developers, preservationists and city officials, here's my observation -- there are unintended consequences to this "density above all" approach that need to be addressed. In Seattle three other important public policy priorities seem to be being sacrificed at the altar of density -- affordable housing, historic preservation, and small business.

Example one. Here's a picture of a 1930s apartment house close to downtown. I don't know exactly, but I'd guess it contained 35 or 40 apartments. I'd also wager that the rents there were on the "affordable" side, relative to much of Seattle, and the proximity to employment centers and public transportation meant one could live there sans automobile. From a preservation perspective it's ok, but certainly not a building I'd go to the mat for on historic preservation grounds alone. But it is now vacant, awaiting demolition and replacement by a 25 story condo building. Density, certainly, but at the expense of both affordable housing and historic preservation. Without knowing the particulars, I'd wager my exorbitant day's pay that the units in the new building will be out of reach for 100% of the residents of the old building. And of course the residents of the new high rise will have cars whether they need them or not, so there will be a 305 car parking garage beneath new the building.

Of course the argument is often made in justification of demolition, "well, that's not what the 'market' wants anymore". Well, in case there's a doubt whether the "market" would live in a building like this? Not three blocks away is the virtual twin of this building with a "no vacancy" sign in front, while every new high rise residential building I saw in the neighborhood had "for rent" signs.

Example two. Earlier (April 30, 2008) I wrote about the differences between neighborhood business districts and shopping centers in neighborhoods, using Boise, Idaho as an example. Well, unlike Boise, Seattle is fortunate in having lots of great neighborhood business districts. These are commercial areas, almost entirely populated by locally owned, independent businesses, serving the convenience needs of the nearby residents. And most of the buildings housing these businesses are one and two story. Like the apartment building above, one might not make the case for saving these buildings solely on a historic preservation basis, but when it's combined with providing relatively affordable space for small business, the case for keeping them in place gets stronger.

But in the push for density, these low scale commercial buildings are decidedly at risk. Now Seattle seems to have pretty good urban design guidelines. Across the street from the building above is this building, that meets many of the tests of a good urban structure -- built to the sidewalk, retail on the ground level, relatively good materials, mixed use, and a good design. And it certainly advances the Mayor's density drive by being six stories rather than one or two. But I can guarantee that none of the locally owned businesses across the street could afford the rents in this new building. And if the modest buildings they now occupy are razed to make room for the next version of this building? They'll be lost to the Seattle economy as small businesses entirely.

Historic preservation in most of America has moved from being an end in itself -- save old buildings in order to save old buidlings -- to being a vehicle for larger, and perhaps even more important ends. These two Seattle examples are great illustrations -- historic buildings providing affordable housing, and affordable space for small business. And the myopic focus on "density" is putting that substantial contribution of historic preservation at risk.

Labels: Density, neighborhoods, small business

This week I was fortunate to be hosted by three great preservation groups in three western cities -- Phoenix, Seattle and Portland. The Phoenix group that organized a luncheon was the Capitol Mall Association. This is an aggressive community development corporation that not only has historic preservation as part of their mission, but also affordable housing and economic development and has programs in English as a second language, financial literacy, crime prevention, and others. Over the last decade CMA has rehabilitated 10 historic homes in their neighborhood and built over two dozen infill houses.

Their credibility is now such that not only did they turn out 150 people to the luncheon at the historic Biltmore but the executive director, Shannon Dubasik, also got the mayor, Phil Gordon, to give introductory remarks. Well, lots of mayors show up and say, "thanks for being here today, I know what you're doing is important, so keep it up and thanks." But this guy really gets it. Gordon, a former real estate lawyer, has been an investor in historic rehabilitation projects himself and was part of drafting the first preservation ordinance in Phoenix long before he began his political career.

His presentation mentioned both historic preservation projects that have been completed and those on the drawing boards. But more important than those individual projects, Mayor Gordon succinctly identified historic preservation in a policy framework. He noted that Phoenix uses heritage buildings in four ways -- historic preservation, economic development, arts and culture, and sustainable development. And all four, says Gordon, are important for the future of his city.

But in Phoenix it isn't just CMA and the mayor who get it. One of the major sponsors of the lunch was the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, LISC. LISC is one of the most valuable non-profit resources in the country. Historically their primary focus has been affordable housing in inner cities. But in recent years LISC has become much more comprehensive in their understanding of what is needed beyond just housing to have great urban neighborhoods. Teresa Brice, the executive director of the Phoenix LISC office, is an example of that. Teresa was a Loeb fellow at Harvard a couple of years ago, an experience that I'm sure further expanded her view of the necessary variables for great neighborhoods -- historic preservation and sustainable development among them. And she was right to point out at the Phoenix luncheon that preservationists need to be more aggressive in presenting the historic preservation/sustainable development link beyond just talking to each other.

And one more who gets it -- Emily Talen, professor at Arizona State University in Tempe. Emily is the co-editor of a great new academic publication -- the Journal of Urbanism. Emily is the smartest of the New Urbanists, but is intellectually independent enough that she doesn't buy whole hog every piece of idiocy that some of the CNU leadership occasionally spout. Emily is a scholarly academic urbanist, but one who also understands the role of historic preservation in making great cities and the critical role of sustainable development in cities today.

Later this week, Seattle and Portland.

Sustainable development is critical for the future of the planet. So called green buildings are an important part of a comprehensive sustainable development strategy. An important part, but not the whole thing. Far, far too many environmentalists and "green architects" in the US think that green buildings and sustainable development are synonyms and they are not. That is equivilent to thinking that going to the dentist is all there is to health care.

Here is my latest example of myopic idiocy of environmental groups. The Nature Conservancy, allegedly a leader in the environmental world (in spite of the Congressional investigations into their conflict of interest policies) is building a new state headquarters in Indianapolis. Their director even says, "We're an international conservation organization. If anyone should be walking the walk of sustainability it should be The Nature Conservancy."

I couldn't agree more. So what is their version of "walking the walk?" - tearing down a hundred year old industrial warehouse to build a LEED certified suburbanesque green gizmo building. Why? "Oh, it's deteriorated beyond saving" they say, when in fact engineering reports say that is not the case. "Oh, but it would be too expensive" they say, and yet their budget would permit $175 per square foot to be spent. Is that enough? Well, another non-profit is renovating an older building of about the same size in Indianapolis which will be LEED certified, and their estimated costs? $68 per square foot.

OK, I'm not being exactly fair. The Nature Conservancy is going to be reusing the building - once it's demolished they are going to grind up the bricks and use them in the walkway of their "conservation" garden. And when local preservationists began objecting to the plans to demolish an historic structure, how did the Nature Conservancy respond? "You do that and we won't build here at all." - the bully tactics one expects from some sleazy corporate site selection guy, not from a non-profit organization which brags about its concern for communities.

So if any of you have connections with the Nature Conservancy you ought to let them know that their Indiana chapter is making a mockery out of the claim to be walking the walk of sustainable development.

Labels: green buildings, Sustainable Develoment