North American Tools for

Communities & Existing Neighborhoods

Module 2

Eliot Allen, Principal, AICP, LEED AP-ND

Criterion PlannersPortland Oregon USA

eliot@crit.com

Module 2 Topics

• North American tools for communities &

existing neighborhoods

• Other notable tools

• Current prospects & future trends

Community & Existing Neighborhood Tools

STAR

Community

Living

Community

Challenge

EcoDistrict

Protocol

Comparative Qualities

STAR

Community

Living

Community

Challenge

EcoDistrict

Protocol

Outcome rating Outcome rating Process-basedassessment

City or county Neighborhood Neighborhood

Present, future Past, present, future Past, present, future

Geographic scale

Temporal scale

Appraisal type

Comparison Continued

STAR

Community

Living

Community

Challenge

EcoDistrict

Protocol

Top down, rigid Top down, rigid Bottom up, adaptable

framework

Elective MandatoryMandatory scope, user

selected criteria

Every 3 years Every 3 years Every 2 years

Assessment criteria

Recertification

Approach

Appraisal Scale & Type

Physical scale

• Entire municipality or county

Appraisal type

• Certification of point-based rating that awards

“stars”

Scope – Goal Areas

• Built environment

• Climate & energy

• Economy

• Education & arts

• Equity & empowerment

• Health & safety

• Natural systems

• Innovation

Local Government Motivations

• Demonstrate commitment

• National recognition

• Competitive advantage

• Improve transparency

• Fiscal strength

• Build partnerships

Certification Levels

5-STAR 600+

4-STAR 400-599

3-STAR 200-399

Reporting STAR <200

Total Points - 750Certification Levels

STAR Rating Points Allocation

Built environment 15%

Climate & energy 15%

Economy & jobs 15%

Equitable empowerment 15%

Health & safety 15%

Natural systems 15%

Education & arts 10%

Who is Using STAR?

50+

certifications

STAR Framework

7 Goals

44 Objectives

108 Outcomes

408 Actions

Built environment

Affordable housing

Document 10% of units are

affordable

Require affordable units in

new projects

Example

Notable Objectives

• Quality jobs & living wages

• Workforce readiness

• Community cohesion

• Education opportunity & attainment

Action Types

• Education & outreach

• Plan development

• Policy & code adjustment

• Partnership & collaboration

• Practice improvements

• Inventory & survey

• Enforcement & incentives

• Programs & services

• Facilities & infrastructure

Rating Procedure

• Self-assessment checklist - preliminary examination

• 2nd party certification review by STAR staff

• Recertification required every 3 years

• No public engagement in rating process

User Skill Requirements

• Familiarity with subject matter principles/practices

• Inter-departmental collaboration

• Data management & quantitative analysis

• No associated credential – relying on ISSP credential

Rating Timeframe & Cost

• Data collection & submission preparation – minimum 1 year

• Certification - 2-3 months

• Cost – approximately $10,000 fees, plus staff labor

Summary of STAR Community

• Only tool available for certifying entire jurisdiction

• Institutionalize “sustainability” in local government

• Relies on extensive tool provider support

• Valuable catalog of social, economic, environmental measures

• Difficult to scale-up for greater impact

Group Question 5:

How are Japanese municipalities rating

their sustainability?

Appraisal Scale & Type

Physical scale

• Neighborhood – increment or entirety

Appraisal type

• Two tiers of certification: 3 or more prerequisites,

or all 7

• Two certification stages: master plan & operating

Scope – Performance Areas or “Petals”

• Place

• Water

• Energy

• Health & happiness

• Materials

• Equity

• Beauty

Who is Using Living Community Challenge?

Test sites

• Seattle

• Washington DC• San Francisco

• New Orleans

• Normal, Illinois

Rating System Structure

• 7 performance areas or ‘petals’

• 20 imperatives – all mandatory

• 6 zones on a “living transect”

Notable Rating Criteria

• Net positive water, energy, waste

• Embodied energy – 1-time off-set

• 1:1 habitat protection off-site

• 100% of population within 3.6 km of shop, meet, work, learn

% of Neighborhood

for Food

Production

Off-Street

Parking

Streets &

Intersections

2 Firms on

Team Must be

JUST-certified

Notable Criteria Cont.

• Sharing programs – tools, books

• Equity off-set to nonprofit – ½ cent per project cost dollar

• Public art

• Health & wellbeing plan for each resident

Disaster Preparedness Criteria

• Emergency back-up power - all buildings except single homes

• 1 week of energy storage

• Safe gathering location – 100% of population

• 2 block captains/500 persons

• Emergency response plan to each resident

Rating Procedure

• Significant public engagement in planning process

• 1 year of performance data

• 3rd party certification review by independent assessor

User Skill Requirements

• Technical knowledge of subject matter & “Living Building

Challenge” rating system

• Data management & quantitative analysis

• Optional credential – ILFI Accreditation

Rating Timeframe & Cost

• Data collection & submission preparation - 1,000+/- person hours

• Certification - 2-3 months

• Cost - $10,000-$36,000 fees, plus labor

Summary of Living Community Challenge

• Aspirational rating criteria, all mandatory

• Beauty, disaster preparedness, equity criteria

• Performance data required for certification

Group Question 6:

Would Living Community Challenge be

suitable for Japanese neighborhoods?

Appraisal Scale & Type

Physical scale

• Neighborhood

Appraisal type

• Formative, process-based self-assessment

• Certification of process completion &

performance reporting

ScopeImperatives

• Equity

• Resilience

• Climate

Priorities

• Place

• Prosperous

• Health & Wellbeing

• Connectivity

• Living Infrastructure

• Resource Restoration

Imperatives Woven Into Priorities

Priorities

Imperatives

Equity

Resilience

Climate Protection

PLC PRS HWB CON LIV RES

Primary Users

Government

Redevelopment Authorities

Planning Agencies

Transportation Departments

Housing Authorities

Developers

Real Estate Developers

Business Improvement Districts

Campuses/Institutional Developers

Civic-Led Organizations

Community Development

Corporations

Non-Profit Groups

Community-Based Organizations

Operating EcoDistricts

Emerging Districts• Atlanta• Austin• Cambridge• Denver• Detroit• Los Angeles• Washington DC

Seattle

Portland

San Diego

Saint Paul

Ottawa

Washington DC

Atlanta

Protocol Framework

3 IMPLEMENTATION PHASES

6 PRIORITIES

3 IMPERATIVES

• Pledge to pursue equity, resilience, climate protection

• Must commit before starting certification of

implementation phases

Imperatives Commitment

Equity Imperative

“Cities that embrace equity identify and acknowledge the

populations most vulnerable to change. These cities experience

stronger and longer-lasting growth.

District teams must ensure their population has the opportunity

to meaningfully participate, lead, and thrive.”

Types of Equity

• Procedural

• Structural

• Distributional and cross generational

Resilience Imperative

“Resilience is the capacity of cities to function so that all people

are able to withstand the stresses and shocks they encounter.

Districts must address resilience with a broad lens that prepares

for social, economic, and environmental stresses and shocks.”

Resilience Assets

• Knowledge & expertise

• Organizations & networks

• People

• Place

Climate Protection Imperative

“Cities are responsible for a majority of global carbon dioxide

emissions, the dominant greenhouse gas contributing to climate

change.

District teams must build a pathway to carbon neutrality.”

Collaborative Governance

Commit to

collaborate

Co-define

dilemma

Co-deliver

actionsCo-create

solutions

Co-design

process

Increasing trust ->

Building relationships ->

Enhancing capability ->

Requires appreciative mindsets

Embraces deliberative processes

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Declaration of collaboration:

• Decision-making body & procedures

• Backbone organization

• Committed stakeholder resources

Formation Phase

Each Priority:

• Objectives

- Indicators

- Current baseline

- Future targets

- Strategy to achieve targets

Roadmap Phase

Assessment Method

• All imperatives & priorities must be addressed,

extent is up to district

• District establishes baseline, sets targets, reports progress

• Certification using 3rd party verifiers is pass/fail completion of

process - no points or scoring

Notable Assessment Criteria

• Stakeholder engagement & inclusion

• Cultural celebration

• Active living

• Digital connectivity

• Nature connection

Performance Certification – Biennial Progress Reports

Capitol Hill EcoDistrict Seattle WA

User Skill Requirements

• General familiarity with subject matter

• Public outreach, process facilitation, leadership

• Optional credential – EcoDistricts Accredited Professional (AP)

Summary of EcoDistricts Protocol

• Neighborhood regeneration through equity,

resilience, & climate protection

• People-centered, multi-year process

• Assessment framework, locally calibrated

• Performance data required to maintain

certification

Group Question 7:

Would the EcoDistricts Protocol be

suitable for Japanese neighborhoods?

Other Notable Tools

Other Notable U.S. Tools for Neighborhoods

• Enterprise Green Communities - affordable housing

• Envision - infrastructure

• LEED-ND - green neighborhood

• SITES - landscape

Other Notable Neighborhood Tools Internationally

• BREEAM Communities – UK

• DGNB Urban Districts - Germany

• Green Star Communities - Australia

• HQE for Urban Planning & Development - France

Group Question 8:

Other Notable Tools?

Current Prospects & Future Trends

Prospects

Sectors with planned green activity next 3 years

Global Average

Trends

• Globalization of tool marketing & brands

• Consolidation of tool providers

• Big data & the Internet of Things

LEED Dynamic

Plaque

Environmentaldashboard.org

OBERLIN, OHIO

We Cannot Afford to Not Appraise Urban Sustainability

Sustainability Savings

SocialEnvironmental Economic

Vitality Gains

Prosperity Improvements

International Mandate – New Urban Agenda

• “We will put in place…mechanisms for cooperation, consultation, and review

processes that create ownership among different stakeholders, for the

elaboration, monitoring, and continuous review of urban policies…”

• “We will foster the creation, promotion, and enhancement of open and

participatory data platforms using technological and social tools…to transfer

and share knowledge among…local governments and other

stakeholders…to enhance effective urban planning and management…”

National Mandate – Japan Future Cities Initiative

Neighborhood

Accounting of

Sustainability

Transactions

Neighborhood Accounting of Sustainability Transactions

Capacity Credit Payments• Less traffic• Less energy• Less water• Less waste

Ecosystem Service Revenues• Stormwater mgmt.• Urban forestry• Wastewater treatment• Pollination

NeighborhoodRegeneration

Funds

Continuous ImprovementSocial &

EconomicImprovements

Improving Appraisal Tools

• Bottom-up approach, greater relevance to daily life

• Affordable cost & simplicity

• Dynamic

• Monetize & account for benefits - GHG, water, waste,

transportation, health

Taking Appraisal Tools Into the Future

• People-centered - relevant to daily life

• Simple, affordable, efficient

• Dynamic, sensor-based

• Transactional – benefits accounting

Group Question 9:

What Are Other Future Prospects for Tools?

Thank You

Eliot AllenCriterion Planners

Portland Oregon USAeliot@crit.com