INDUSTRY CORNER

URBAN SUSTAINABILITY AND URBAN FORM METRICS

Susan Spencer Lewin, OAA, LEED AP BD+C, NDa

INTRODUCTION
A significant milestone was recently passed, with the majority of humankind now living
in cities. For the first time in the history of our species, the immediate human
environment will primarily be the built environment. Accelerating urbanization does
not change the fact, however, that human beings ultimately remain dependent on the

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/7/2/44/1768835/jgb_7_2_44.pdf by guest on 29 December 2020

environment. Cities and their growth will necessarily become major drivers of
environmental and ecological change, and global sustainable development will therefore
be inextricably tied to the development of cities.
As a global term, ‘sustainability’ attempts to balance myriad social, economic, and
environmental factors, and is so complex in its application that a simple directive is
useful to condense the discussion. As Wheeler succinctly describes it, sustainable urban
development ‘improves the long term social and ecological health of cities and towns.’ 1
As cities are the major consumers of natural resources and the major producers of
pollution and waste, it follows that if they can be designed and managed so that
resource use and pollution are reduced, a major contribution to the solution of the
global problem can be achieved.2 Urban areas will always be net consumers of resources,
and major degraders of the environment, however, it may be possible to move toward a
greater degree of sustainability.
The question that this paper will address is whether the spatial built form of a city
can affect its sustainability, what this relationship may entail, and what metrics might
exist to help guide the growth of cities. Different points of view will be explored,
illustrating the lack of consensus that exists on certain ‘truths.’ The relative sustainability
of, for example, high and low urban densities is still disputed. Certain urban forms may
appear to be more sustainable in some respects, for example in reducing travel, but
detrimental in others, perhaps in harming the environment or producing social
disparities. Some forms may be sustainable in a local sense, but not on a larger scale.
If advances in urban sustainability are to be made, then a connection between
urban form and a range of elements needs to be established. How are issues of urban
size, shape, density, and compactness, urban block layout and size, housing type, green
space distribution, to be guided along a sustainable path? What is in fact sustainable
urban form? How can it be achieved? I propose to investigate many of these questions by
researching current debates and points of view, together with evaluating a popular and
accessible urban sustainability metric to see if it can meaningfully guide sustainable
urban form.

a
Principal, CS&P Architects, http://www.csparch.com, slewin@csparch.com.

44 Journal of Green Building

 LEED for Neighbourhood Development is a planning metric for urban
sustainability and contains a normative set of ‘building blocks’ for sustainable urban
form, in the form of a checklist of components. A review of this planning metric for
community sustainability will be undertaken, as it relates to urban form, as well as
inherent biases that may exist. Strengths and weaknesses of this system will be evaluated,
with examples of designed and built communities broadly evaluated. The issue of how
LEED-ND may be able to affect urban form will be explored, and whether it has a
deep enough reach to be transformative. How this rating system can be used to measure
and compare urban forms will be explored, as well as the ability of this rating system to
encompass balanced social, economic, and environmental factors. A key issue is whether

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/7/2/44/1768835/jgb_7_2_44.pdf by guest on 29 December 2020

this, and other rating systems, can truly reverse dominant trends, or whether they are
doomed to create ‘sustainable islands in seas of unsustainability.’ 3

KEYWORDS
urban sustainability, LEED-ND, smart growth, new urbanism

SUSTAINABLE URBAN FORM

Sustainable urban form, as a ‘pattern of human settlement,’ is driven by a mix of forces broadly
encompassing social, economic, and environmental factors. A consensus is needed to refine
sustainability directives, as conflicts exist between many environmental goals. The complexity
and contradictions of sustainability discussions requires the straining out of simple directives.
Current metrics for sustainable urban form are commonly understood to include:
decreased energy use; reduced waste and pollution; reduced automobile use; preservation of
open space and ecosystems; and a liveable and community-oriented environment. The rela-
tionship between energy consumption and urban form have been evaluated by Owens in
some detail, who concluded that up to 70% of the overall energy used in the city could be sus-
ceptible to land-use planning.4 Owens warns, however, that the relationship between energy
systems and urban form is complex. It is difficult to predict how changes in one will affect the
other, making spatial structure only one of the factors influencing energy consumption.
Wheeler identifies five holistic design values related to sustainable urban form: compact-
ness; contiguity; connectivity; diversity; and ecological integration.5 Jabareen similarly identi-
fies seven core directives related to sustainability: compactness; sustainable transport; density;
mixed land uses; diversity; passive solar design; and greening.6
There is a special role for discussions of compactness in these sustainability directives, as
intensification uniquely drives urban form. Increased density is considered by many to be a
key sustainability indicator. It is argued that the dispersal of cities, along with lower densities,
results in increased car dependence, profligate energy use, and global pollution. However,
these arguments are contentious and the evidence sometimes contradictory. Compact urban
form, with the associated restrictions on car travel and the promotion of public transit, are
relatively recent and contested ideas in North America.7

Volume 7, Number 2 45
 Other opinions have cautioned against the compact city ‘orthodoxy’ that presently pre-
vails. Williams8 concludes that intensification can produce urban forms that contribute to
efficient land use; however, by itself it does not necessarily promote sustainability. Though the
compact city does offer benefits, such as opportunities for public transport and land savings,
these are not as straightforward as they might seem. Furthermore, there are considerable costs
associated with environmental quality and acceptability which had not been foreseen by the
advocates of the model. The greatest gains in reducing energy consumption have occurred
where public transport provision is part of a major investment in green strategies of transport
integration, car restraint, and enhanced pedestrian facilities. Williams concludes that simply
providing transport itself will not make a difference.
Banister argues that some degree of urban containment is required,9 that new residential
development should be related to jobs and services, and that satellite developments close to

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/7/2/44/1768835/jgb_7_2_44.pdf by guest on 29 December 2020

and integrated with urban developments are likely to be energy efficient. While there is gen-
eral agreement that compact cities can conserve land and reduce costs, other factors such as
personal preference and livability need to be accommodated. However, he feels that singular
objectives in the pursuit of greater energy efficiency are misguided, as a balance should be
struck between transport and other social, economic, and environmental objectives.
Breheny cautions against the wisdom of going against the grain of well-established and
powerful trends. For example, the suggestion that people should give up ‘cherished’ suburban
lifestyles, for the compact city, may be unrealistic. The assumption that counter urbanism,
which has been the dominate force since 1945, can be suddenly halted and even reversed may
simply not be possible. He feels it may be better to redirect trends or practices, rather than try
to beat them back, ‘Canute-like.’10 The compact city proposal requires a complete reversal of
decentralization, which has been the most persistent trend in urban development in the last
50 years. The compact city solution does not necessarily accept that sustainability must bal-
ance environmental and other human aspirations, as there is little point in creating an alien-
ated community for the sake of energy conservation from high densities.
Breheny concludes that policies on urban containment and urban form need to be
adopted, based on the idea that certain urban forms are more sustainable than others. The fol-
lowing actions are recommended and have been widely adopted:
• Urban containment policies should continue.
• Extreme compact cities are unrealistic and undesirable.
• Various forms of decentralized concentration may be appropriate.
• Inner cities must be rejuvenated.
• Urban greening must be promoted.
• Public transport must be improved.
• People intensive activities must be deployed around transit nodes.
• Mixing uses must be encouraged.
• District energy systems should be promoted.

METRICS FOR BUILT FORM

In order to facilitate the widespread adoption of sustainable urbanism, benchmarks for design
and development are essential. These benchmarks can give definition to the term ‘sustainabil-
ity,’ which in its more general use has become an umbrella term that ‘somehow encompasses

46 Journal of Green Building

any altruistic thought about the environment.’11 In particular, metrics and benchmarks are
useful for the measurement and verification of civic action on sustainability. As Farr noted,
‘. . . our leaders trust technique . . . they require studies to provide them with ‘metrics’ that
support ‘accountability.’12
Three sustainability reform movements are noteworthy in that they define sustainability in
accessible and complementary metrics: Smart Growth, New Urbanism, and the green build-
ing movement. While all share an interest in comprehensive economic, social, and environ-
mental reform, they differ in their history, approaches, and focus. LEED for Neighbourhood
Development (LEED-ND) is fairly recent sustainable metric, formally launched in 2009, that
brings these three movements together, in the hopes that a sustainable urban design philoso-
phy will be created. This philosophy holds that sustainable urbanism is essentially a walkable
and transit-served urbanism, integrated with high performance buildings and high perfor-

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/7/2/44/1768835/jgb_7_2_44.pdf by guest on 29 December 2020

mance infrastructure.13
Some background is provided on Smart Growth, New Urbanism, and Green Building
metrics, in order to further understanding of LEED-ND. Some overlap between directives is
apparent, as many of the goals and initiatives are similar.

Smart Growth
Smart Growth is primarily concerned with growth management and attempts to use plan-
ning, policy, and regulatory techniques to influence the allocation of new development. Smart
growth policies, as such, were first implemented in Maryland in the 1950s, and have since
become codified and are increasingly viewed by regulatory authorities as a positive frame-
work for directing development. Smart Growth is broadly defined as managed growth that
attempts to fulfill the need to provide for growth while at the same time limiting the undesir-
able impacts of that growth. National Resources Defence Council (NRDC) defines Smart
Growth as solutions that ‘reinvigorate our cities, bring new development that is compact,
walkable, and transit-oriented, and preserve the best of our landscape for future generations.’
The goal of Smart Growth is to prevent the unplanned, haphazard, and undesirable effects of
uncontrolled suburbanization. The main goals of Smart Growth include:14
• Open space conservation
• Boundaries limiting the outward extension of growth
• Compact, mixed use developments, amenable to walking and transit
• Revitalization of older downtowns, inner ring suburbs, and rundown commercial areas
• Viable public transit to reduce auto dependence
• Regional planning coordination
• Equitable sharing of fiscal resources

New Urbanism
The Congress for New Urbanism (CNU) views disinvestment in central cities, the spread
of placeless sprawl, increasing separation by race and income, environmental deterioration,
loss of agricultural lands and wilderness, and the erosion of societies built heritage, as serious
problems which threaten community sustainability. Throughout the 1990s, the tenets of New
Urbanism became an increasingly large part of mainstream development practice.

Volume 7, Number 2 47
 Peter Calthorpe, a New Urbanism spokesperson, defines sustainable urban design as fol-
lows: ‘A well designed city is walkable. It’s a place where your destinations are close enough to
walk to and where you feel safe enough to walk. And it is a place that is interesting enough
socially to make you feel that walking is perhaps something more than getting from A to B.’15
A basic tenet of New Urbanism is the idea of the bounded neighbourhood, defined by
the radius of a walking circle. This idea was originally proposed by Clarence Perry in 1924, in
his ‘neighbourhood unit.’ It called for an ideal neighbourhood size of 160 acres, bounded by
major streets; a mix of retail, office, civic, and park uses connected by a street network; and a
population large enough to support walking to school. This concept hinges on the idea of the
neighbourhood unit as the basic unit of human settlement.
It is argued that the benefit of defined neighbourhoods is a finite social network, as the
sidewalks and close quarters typical of urban neighbourhoods encourage sociability. The lim-

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/7/2/44/1768835/jgb_7_2_44.pdf by guest on 29 December 2020

ited size of a neighbourhood increases the chance of being recognized or met by an acquain-
tance. People enlarge their circle of acquaintances and friends by contact on the street, and
through local civic organizations and activities. The bounded neighbourhood form encour-
ages neighbourhood identification and engagement, which is the underpinning of a true
community.16
New Urbanist principles are in general alignment with Smart Growth principles, however,
a fundamental difference is the lack of strict adherence to Smart Growth urban continguity
and infill principles. Many New Urbanist projects are located in suburban or exurban areas,
and as such are not particularly urban, with prescriptive urban form outcomes being the main
focus. For example, New Urbanists are able to excuse a greenfield leapfrog development as
long as it is designed well. This disconnect has been reconciled within the LEED-ND rating
system by prioritizing the Smart Growth location principles.

Green Building Movement

LEED for New Construction (LEED-NC) is an industry established green building certifica-
tion system that was created by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) in 2003.
LEED-NC has become an increasingly mainstream force that attempts to focus the building
industry towards more sustainable practices in the construction of individual buildings. Energy
efficiency is a core value of sustainable buildings, with the overall goal to reduce carbon emis-
sions and related global warming. Categories in this credit-based rating system, which attempt
to define a wide range of green initiatives, fall under the categories of: Sustainable Sites; Water
Efficiency; Energy and Atmosphere; Materials; Indoor Air Quality; and Innovation.

LEED-ND RATING SYSTEM

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design and Neighbourhood Development (LEED-
ND) is a joint venture of the USGBC, the Congress for New Urbanism, and the Natural
Resources Defence Council (NRDC), a proponent for Smart Growth policies. LEED-ND
is intended to go beyond the well-established core LEED methodology of rating individual
buildings, and is intended to certify entire development projects that consist of anywhere
from a series of buildings to entire neighbourhoods. It is meant to be a voluntary approach,
and is intended to ultimately ‘transform the marketplace.’ The LEED–ND pilot program

48 Journal of Green Building

commenced in 2007, and was launched officially in 2009. It has since been adopted widely by
various proponents and authorities, as standards to guide urban development.
The stated objectives of LEED-ND rating system are to improve energy and water effi-
ciency, revitalize existing urban areas, reduce land consumption, reduce automobile depen-
dance, promote pedestrian activity, improve air quality, decrease polluted stormwater runoff,
and build more liveable, sustainable communities for people of all income levels. 17 This is
consistent with the goals of Smart Growth and New Urbanism.
Because neighbourhood development projects may require long periods from inception
through to construction, the LEED-ND system allows for three possible stages to certifica-
tion. Stage 1 is certification based on a preliminary review, stage 2 involves certification of the
plans, and stage 3 involves certification of a completed neighbourhood.
The rating system contains a number of mandatory prerequisites as well as optional attri-

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/7/2/44/1768835/jgb_7_2_44.pdf by guest on 29 December 2020

butes for which credit can be earned towards certification. A project must satisfy each pre-
requisite and earn a minimum of 40 credit points towards LEED-ND certification, out of
a total of 110 points. Projects earning higher scores can be rewarded with LEED-ND silver,
gold, or platinum certification, depending on the specific thresholds that they reach. There are
four major categories in the LEED-ND rating system: Smart Location and Linkage; Neigh-
bourhood Pattern and Design; Green Infrastructure and Buildings; Innovation and Design
Process; and Regional Priority Credit. The first three categories have both mandatory prereq-
uisites and optional criteria. The following is an overview of the categories.

Smart Location and Linkages

Smart Growth policies are expressed in this section of LEED-ND, and contiguous, dense
development is a prerequisite, mandating project sites to be urban infill, brownfield, or largely
urban-oriented development. This prerequisite excludes leapfrog developments and many
semi-rural developments. The smart location and linkages restricts projects from being built
on environmentally-sensitive sites, such as wetlands or agricultural land. This section also
rewards projects further for the use of preferred locations and for locations with reduced auto-
mobile dependence.(27 points)

Neighbourhood Pattern and Design

This section is largely based on New Urbanist principles, and promotes the idea of ‘creating
community’18 by implementing specific traditional neighbourhood design standards. Prereq-
uisites include walkable streets, compact development, and a connected and open commu-
nity, which disqualifies gated communities and lower-density projects from certification. The
compact development prerequisite requires a minimum density of 7 units per acre (versus the
norm of 2 units per acre). This is intended to both decrease the rate at which development
consumes land and to concentrate population to create markets.
Prescriptive form-based criteria are included for bounded neighbourhood design, street
network design, and walkable tree-lined streets. Community outreach, mixed uses, diverse
income, affordable housing, universal design, local food production, and the provision of civic
spaces are also promoted.(44 points)

Volume 7, Number 2 49
Green Infrastructure and Building
This category requires a minimum of one project within the development to be fully certified
as LEED for buildings, as well as requiring as a prerequisite that 90% of new building area
be constructed with a 10% improvement in energy efficiency over a base-case building. Water
savings within all new buildings must be 20% less than baseline. Solar orientation to maxi-
mize energy efficiency is encouraged. Stormwater management, construction waste manage-
ment, recycled content, adaptive reuse, district heating and cooling, and heat island reduction
are also promoted. (29 points)

Innovation and Design Process

The innovation category provides an opportunity to earn additional points for criteria that are
important but not covered elsewhere in the criteria. This provides additional flexibility to the

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/7/2/44/1768835/jgb_7_2_44.pdf by guest on 29 December 2020

system. Points can also be assigned for exemplary performance in an existing credit (i.e., more
water conservation). (6 points)

Regional Priority Credits

The regional priority credit gives extra points for credits that have been determined to be
of extra significance locally. For instance, as Phoenix is a dry climate, extra points for water
conservation are available. This category was assigned in the 2009 version of LEED-ND as a
response to criticism that LEED-ND was regionally insensitive. (4 points)

LEED-ND CASE STUDIES

As part of the creation of metrics, successful demonstration projects can become a signifi-
cant inspiration and motivator as a tool to learn from and evaluate. A range of solutions are
needed to address the complexity and multiplicity of local conditions. As Farr19 noted, ‘there
are few more powerful tools of local reform than excellent model projects.’ There are presently
about 24 pilot projects in Canada seeking LEED-ND certification and more than 100 in the
United States. Following are two of the larger Canadian projects, West Don Lands in Toronto
(unbuilt) and South East False Creek in Vancouver (built). Both projects used the LEED for
Neighbourhood Development Pilot 2007 rating system, and as such do not incorporate the
regional priority credits. These two examples will be broadly outlined to assist in the evalua-
tion of LEED-ND as a sustainable urban metric

Waterfront Toronto—West Don Lands

The West Don Lands, one of the first precincts planned by Waterfront Toronto, is located on
a brownfield site in the southwest corner of Downtown Toronto, with the community design
initially created in 2005 by Urban Design Associates. It achieved Stage 1 LEED-ND GOLD
in July 2009. It is envisioned as a high density mixed-use community with an emphasis on
urban living that integrates natural and built environments. It includes high-order transit,
alternate transportation modes, parks, community uses, and emphasis on design excellence.
The stated intent is to provide a ‘quality of place that can attract people to a lifestyle focused
on walking to work, local shopping, and amenities; where living with a decreased footprint,
less focused on the automobile, can be more attainable.’20 The construction of the Don River
Park and River View precinct of the development has commenced and will be fast tracked, as
it will be used for the Pan Am games as the temporary Athletes Village.

50 Journal of Green Building

West Don Lands Precinct Plan

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/7/2/44/1768835/jgb_7_2_44.pdf by guest on 29 December 2020

Key Elements of the West Don Lands Precinct Plan include:
• 23 acres of parks and public spaces, including 18-acre Don River Park
• Public transit within a five-minute walk of all residences
• 5,800 residential units, including 1,200 units of affordable rental housing
• One-million square feet of employment space
• Pedestrian & cycling connections within the neighbourhood and to the city centre
• Elementary school and recreation centre, two childcare centres
• District Energy systems
The residential density is approximately 211 dwelling units/acre, with a non-residential den-
sity of approximately 4.4 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Close to 90 percent of dwelling units will
be within 1/4 mile walk distance of a transit ride and 86 percent of dwelling units will be
within a 1/4 mile walk distance to a trail. Each dwelling is planned to be served by public
transit within a five minute walk.
A survey of the West Don Lands LEED-ND chart shows that 61 points out of a total of
106 points are achieved, which achieves LEED-ND Gold. The breakdown is as follows (refer
to Appendix for full chart):

Volume 7, Number 2 51
Category Points Achieved Possible Points
Smart Location and Linkages 26 30
Neighbourhood Pattern and Design 23 39
Green Construction &Technology 9 31
Innovation & Design Process 3 6
Total 61 106

The maximum points are assigned for the Smart Location, and a more moderate number
for the Neighbourhood Pattern. A very high ratio of points are awarded for reduced automo-
bile dependence, compact development, diversity of uses, walkable streets, reduced parking
footprint, transit facilities. A very low amount of points are awarded for the Green Construc-

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/7/2/44/1768835/jgb_7_2_44.pdf by guest on 29 December 2020

tion credits. It should be noted that, under the LEED-ND evaluation system, it is possible to
get certified without incorporating many of the optional green construction features, which
are often the most expensive and difficult to incorporate.
The built form of the development is reminiscent of traditional European city design,
with mid-rise blocks, no high rises, and a dense street wall. Building heights at 6 to 10 stories
on the major routes, incorporating setbacks at the upper levels, lower on the side streets. This
mid-rise concept follows the idea that mid-rise is a human-scaled environment, and that the
continuous rows of tree-lined building front-
ages form a strong sense of enclosure, a key West Don Lands Streetscape
goal of New Urbanist design. Density is quite
high and is over 4.4 FAR, with 7 out of 7 pos-
sible points awarded for compact development.
There is a hierarchy of street types, designed to
stitch into the existing street structure, from
the grand multi-laned Front Street boulevard,
to the intimate mid-block residential mews.
Block sizes are small, and are intended to serve
as the foundation for a walkable environment.
Land use is mostly residential, with retail
planned for the main street frontages.

West Don Lands Street and

Block Morphology

52 Journal of Green Building

 The project is oriented around the new 18-acre Don River Park, designed by Michael Van
Valkenburgh, which provides a community focus. Other than that, green space is limited to
the inner courtyards of residential uses and the tree lined streets.

Southeast False Creek

Southeast False Creek (SEFC) is built on a large tract of undeveloped brownfield waterfront
land near downtown Vancouver, across from the False Creek Inlet. It was the site of the Van-
couver Olympic Village during the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. The SEFC
development was originally envisioned in 1999, with the final Development Plan by HBBH
Architects adopted in 2006. The overall neighbourhood plan for the 80-acre site incorporates
a mix of market-rate, affordable, and rental housing, with 16,000 residents and 6.5 million sf
total. The Olympic Village portion of the overall development was completed in 2010, in an

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/7/2/44/1768835/jgb_7_2_44.pdf by guest on 29 December 2020

extremely compressed timeline. This development targeted the Stage 1 LEED-ND Gold des-
ignation, as a LEED-ND Pilot project. Ultimately the project was able to claim extra points
to achieve LEED-Platinum Stage 2 certification. The high number of points is awarded based
on proximity to the downtown core, mixed residential and commercial use, affordable hous-
ing, green buildings, and shoreline habitat restoration.
The project is intended to represent ‘a strong civic statement with regard to housing mix,
the quality of the public realm, and leadership in sustainable development. It is envisioned
as a high-density mixed-use community with an emphasis on urban living that integrates
natural and built environments.’21 SEFC was developed at the highest density possible while
meeting walkability, livability, and sustainability objectives. The public realm in SEFC, which
includes open space, parks, streets, and pathways, is intended to connect the entire site and
link the adjacent neighbourhoods, with a network of paths and streets designed for pedestri-

Aerial View of Southeast False Creek Model

Volume 7, Number 2 53
ans, cyclists, and transit. A green building strategy was adopted, which requires that all indi-
vidual buildings on City Lands be constructed to an objective of LEED Gold.
Key Elements of the Olympic Village completed portion of the Southeast False Creek
Plan include:
• Eight city blocks on 18 acres, 16 buildings all LEED Gold minimum
• 1,100 residential units, including live/work units, total of 1.2 million sf
• 20% affordable units originally planned
• 68,000 sf commercial/office space
• 30,000 sf LEED Platinum Recreation centre completed, on the waterfront
• Pedestrian & cycling connections within the neighbourhood and to the city centre
• Elementary school, playgrounds, child care, grocery store, retail

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/7/2/44/1768835/jgb_7_2_44.pdf by guest on 29 December 2020

• Salt Building—restored historic building as centerpiece of community
• District Energy systems using reclaimed City sewage heat
A survey of the LEED-ND chart shows that 71 points out of a total of 106 points are achieved,
which achieves LEED-ND Gold. The breakdown is as follows (refer to Appendix for full chart):

Category Points Achieved Possible Points

Smart Location and Linkages 21 30
Neighbourhood Pattern and Design 24 39
Green Construction &Technology 24 31
Innovation & Design Process 2 6
Total 71 106

A consistent number of points has been awarded for the three main categories, includ-
ing a very high number of points for green construction. A balanced ratio of points has been
awarded for reduced automobile dependence, compact development, diversity of uses, walk-
able streets, reduced parking footprint, and transit facilities.
The built form of the development is reminiscent of traditional European city design,
with mid-rise blocks and dense street wall. The development is midrise predominating, with
a maximum of 12 stories, which is a departure from the Vancouver style point tower norm.
Density is quite high and is over 3.7 FAR, which gave the development 7 out of 7 possible

South East False Creek Mid Block Mews South East False Creek Mid Block Mews

54 Journal of Green Building

points for compact development. The buildings are pushed to the edge of the narrow streets
and courtyards. Plazas and inner courtyards create shared space and the streetscape design uses
the woonerf concept of combined sidewalk/street, to encourage enhanced use of the street by
pedestrians and cyclists. There is a hierarchy of street types, from the larger street to intimate
mid block mews. Block sizes are small and are intended to serve as the foundation for a walk-
able environment.
The development is centered around the adaptive-reuse Salt Building, located in a large
central plaza, and which is envisaged to become a community/retail space. Open space is
largely located on the waterfront, which has a continuous boardwalk feature and community
centre building. Greening is effectively located along inner block mews and is lushly repre-
sented in the streetscape landscaping, which favours large strips of soil along the street edge
in which to plant numerous trees and plants. Green roofs are also abundantly located, albeit

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/7/2/44/1768835/jgb_7_2_44.pdf by guest on 29 December 2020

not noticeable from the street. The development that is built so far is mostly residential, with
commercial use envisaged for the Salt Building and a few other locations.

LEED-ND EVALUATION
As LEED-ND has the potential to influence the world of planning and development, critical
analysis of the LEED-ND certification process is needed to better understand outcomes and
to evaluate the robustness of its standards in generating green neighbourhood development.
LEED-ND is still very new, however, with very few built projects, so it is challenging to evalu-
ate its effectiveness in promoting sustainable urban form in a comprehensive way. There are
very few Canadian projects that are certified LEED–ND, with the Waterfront Toronto and
Southeast False Creek projects being two exemplars of large-scale public-sector community
projects. Both were, in fact, largely planned before the LEED-ND rating system was devel-
oped, and adjusted as the design proceeded to improve credit scores. As both projects have
high LEED-ND scores, however, they are reflective of LEED-ND sustainable concepts in
built form outcomes.
The reason why these public projects pursued the LEED-ND rating, even though the
initial design was completed before the rating system existed, may have a lot to do with the
value LEED-ND rating has for public relations, by assisting in putting the ‘environmental
seal of approval’ on a project, and getting a ‘third party’ accreditation. This can assist with city
processes and approvals as well as the public consultative process. In addition, the LEED-ND
rating can generate considerable publicity, which can give the associated residential and com-
mercial elements a marketing advantage.
These types of very large neighbourhood projects have an immense advantage in getting
LEED-ND rating due to the scale. The LEED process may be too expensive, complex, and
time-consuming for smaller projects, which may be why there are so few LEED-ND applica-
tions for smaller projects.
A traditional mid-rise European model of urban design is used in both case studies, with
human-scaled, tree-lined streetscapes, consistent with the urban design goals of New Urban-
ism. This ‘historicist’ model may be questioned as the correct model for a sustainable city;
however, as this traditional urban model has evolved over time to suit human needs and
proven to work in many city contexts, it is perhaps unassailable as an appropriate response.
However, LEED-ND would also be able to support other solutions, such as a street-based
high rise project, so the flexibility exists to move in other directions.

Volume 7, Number 2 55
 Both case studies were able to garner many points by virtue of their inner city locations:
West Don Lands had 9 out of 10 possible points for Preferred Location, and SEFC had 6 out
of 10. The SEFC score was somewhat lower based on the problem that there was no exist-
ing development in the areas to be directly ‘contiguous’ to. Certainly the inner city project
case studies presented in this report were able to maximize many of the Smart Location and
Linkages credits essentially because they were already downtown, as infill locations are heavily
favoured. These bonus points mean that a downtown may be able to fairly easily certify a proj-
ect without incorporating many of the optional green construction points, and still achieve a
LEED-ND Gold.
This inner city and urban bias is felt by some to be a bias specifically against suburban
and exurban development, and that it is difficult for typical home builders to receive the
LEED-ND certification22. There is heavy emphasis in LEED-ND on projects’ location-related

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/7/2/44/1768835/jgb_7_2_44.pdf by guest on 29 December 2020

characteristics and much less emphasis on items in the green construction and technology
categories.23 Some critics say that that the preferred location bias is impractical; will actually
increase housing costs without solving congestion or reducing automobile use; and simply dis-
place growth to other communities that do not have similar growth-control policies. 24 Since
LEED-ND and other related metrics are so new, and the timeline to see changes is so long, it
will take some time to evaluate these criticisms.
Both case studies maximized the Compact Development credit, with 7 out of 7 possible
points. The value of the compact development is to reduce land usage per capita and to reduce
travel, and studies have indicated there are real savings possible. However, this increased den-
sity must be weighed against the need to respect the ecological carrying capacity of cities and
the related liveability.25 Garde feels that there is a fundamental conflict between the idea of
dense urban form versus the desire to green the city, as well as a conflict between higher urban
densities possibly reducing the quality of urban life.26 It is possible therefore that the values of
‘liveability’ conflict with the values of sustainability on some levels. The compact development
ideology holds to the idea of the social benefits of dense living, but again this is not proven.
The implication is that tradeoffs may have to be made.
The ecological integration, or greening of the city, is very difficult to measure in a quanti-
tative system such as LEED-ND. Greening is addressed in the rating system primarily in the
credits related to tree-lined streets, habitat restoration, and reduced heat island effect, which
rewards green roofs. However, the rating system overall is strictly focused on the hard built
form of the city and much less focused on an underlying landscape urbanism approach, which
seems to be far harder to measure in a prescriptive rating system. This relative paucity of green-
ing and landscape planning incentives seems to be a gap in the rating system, in my opinion.
Both case studies had very high Reduced Automobile Dependence scores: West Don
Lands 7/8, and SEFC 6/8. The Reduced Automobile Dependence LEED-ND credit rewards
locations with multimodal transportation choices or otherwise reduced automobile usage,
to reduce carbon emissions and related health effects. The compact city concept is directly
related to this directive, as the compact city is considered more able to provide effective and
convenient transit for users. Related advantages to this incentive include less land dedicated
for parking. Studies have shown that one car owned in the city requires the provision of many
supporting parking spaces located across the city to serve its parking needs, and that approxi-
mately 30% of land in the city is consumed by streets for automobiles. Therefore, the issue
of reduced automobile use is quite significant and broader than carbon emissions alone. Less

56 Journal of Green Building

land earmarked for automobiles, narrower streets, and reduced automobile use seems critical
for sustainability in terms of increased land available for greening, for pedestrians, and other
modes of transit.
LEED has been criticized as a set of broad national standards that are regionally and con-
textually insensitive. This is basically the ‘the one size fits all conundrum.’27 A rating system
that is not developed for a specific region may be incompatible with local conditions, and
therefore may not contribute to local sustainability goals. LEED-ND attempted to address
this by adding four possible Regional Credits (out of a total of 110), but the gist of the issue
remains. LEED can also be insensitive in certain site-specific circumstances, and may actually
create a building that may inadvertently fail to benefit the environment. For example, a white
cooling roof may be completely unnecessary in Vancouver, yet rewarded with LEED points.
However, it may be argued that many of the values expressed in LEED-ND are intended to

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/7/2/44/1768835/jgb_7_2_44.pdf by guest on 29 December 2020

be universal and transcend regional importance, such as the social value of a walkable street.
A criticism of the LEED rating systems is that all points are weighted equally, even though
some have far greater environmental benefits than others. However, it is difficult to determine
the relative importance of the criteria. For instance, it is difficult to know whether solar orien-
tation or heat island reduction will contribute more to the sustainability of a neighbourhood,
even though it is known that addressing these criteria will help to some extent. 28 This lack
of precise surety is, in my opinion, a necessary feature of a broad international points-based
system and the benefits have to be weighed against the advantages. The inequity, or lack of
precision of points, may not matter in the end as long as a balance of many points is obtained,
which, as in a scattershot fashion, must hit the target at least occasionally. The flexibility of
the selection of points is one of most appealing aspects to this credit system for developers,
and this alone may be responsible for much of the popular uptake. A large basket of possible
points, with a lot of flexibility and choice, will hopefully create a balanced representation of
sustain ability, even with some anomalies.
This flexibility works well in the marketplace, allowing a project to incorporate only well-
suited green building strategies. The voluntary approach probably encourages projects that are
likely to achieve certification with minimal changes, but discourages projects that will require
substantial changes in their planning and design. Items that are least cost-effective, therefore,
are least likely to be addressed.
The rigidity of the prerequisites, which are credits that are determined to be imperative,
may be an impediment to certain projects that may on the whole exhibit improved sustain-
ability in other areas, yet will be overlooked and turfed from obtaining the rating. LEED cri-
teria in this respect is specialized to fit a certain interpretation of sustainability, which makes it
important to be sure that that is indeed the correct interpretation. As the LEED rating system
is an ongoing process, and the rating system regularly updated with feedback, it is to be hoped
that if there are issues that come to light, the system can be corrected and revised.
The focus on measurable and not intangible is a necessary feature of this third party,
points-based system. The inherent disadvantage is that this quantitative analysis gives no
credit to aesthetic factors, including the art of urban design. The huge number of LEED
applications worldwide has made it impossible for the third-party assessors to carefully study
each project, visit the site, or make any kind of qualitative assessment. As LEED is going
global and spreading rapidly to other countries, this quantitative prescriptive bias may be the
only approach that could work in this type of assessment.

Volume 7, Number 2 57
CONCLUSION
Can a few ‘sustainable’ or ‘smart’ projects—such as LEED-ND projects—reverse dominant
trends? Critics argue that such projects represent superficial attempts to achieve sustainabil-
ity in a context where many cultural and economic factors conspire against it. Others con-
tend that sustainability initiatives are promoted because they provide reassurance that present
unsustainable patterns of growth can be maintained providing there are marginal shifts in
behaviour, when what is needed is revolutionary shift in attitude. A significant contribution to
sustainability can be made by putting urban infrastructure in place that offers urban residents
the choice to live more resource-efficient lifestyles.
To be truly effective, urban sustainability planning must incorporate a holistic and inter-
disciplinary approach, and a balance of environmental, economic, and social objectives. Since
there is a reasonable degree of consensus on general directions of urban sustainability plan-

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/7/2/44/1768835/jgb_7_2_44.pdf by guest on 29 December 2020

ning—such as compact and efficient urban form, reductions in automobile use, and eco-
system protection—the question becomes, how to make progress toward these goals in the
face of structural forces supporting unsustainable development.29 Greater understanding and
accommodation for the complex interrelation of forces that shape our cities, together with
balanced and active planning, may be the way forward.
A range of coordinated policies is required, from a national to a local level, with integrated
land use and transport planning. Institutional change will be necessary to achieve genuine
integration of energy efficiency and other sustainability metrics into the urban development
process. The creation of accountability associated to support these directions is therefore
important. Rating systems models can be used as ‘heuristic windows’30 through which we can
identify how policy and regulatory strategies interrelate with urban development practices.
Any system of accountability and metrics also needs to identify the ‘complex pathways toward
different urban futures which may all claim to be sustainable.’31 A single static notion of sus-
tainable urban form cannot address true contextual sustainability.
Because sustainable urban form is unlikely to be contained within one fixed model, the
ability of any planning system or policy directive to be adaptive to local conditions and pro-
mote flexibility and change is critically important. Changes in spatial form alone cannot deter-
mine sustainable cities. Social, economic, and environmental factors need to be woven into
the mix together with massive shifts in attitudes and lifestyles. However, urban form direc-
tives and policies along with related spatial metrics have an important role to play in creating
an urban form that can facilitate change and assist in adjusting our direction toward greater
global urban sustainability.
The impact of LEED-ND on creating complete communities is likely to be incremental in
the short term rather than transformative, as the length of time it takes to create entire com-
munities is onerous, and the benefits and examples of complete communities take many years
to become apparent. LEED-ND can assist if it can facilitate built form and lifestyle modifi-
cations and reduced demands on the environment. It is to be hoped that popular uptake in
sustainability principles, with the assistance of sustainability metrics, will eventually reach a
‘tipping point,’ and mainstream adoption of sustainability principles will become entrenched
in all levels of society.

58 Journal of Green Building

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Banister, D. (2000). Energy Use, Transport and Settlement Patterns, Achieving Sustainable Urban Form, London,
New York: E & FN Spon. p. 160–181.
Beatley, Timothy. (2000). Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities, Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Black, Elissa. (2008). Green Neighbourhood Standards from a Planning Perspective: The LEED for Neighbour-
hood Development (LEED-ND). Focus Vol. 5, p. 41–47
Blowers, Andrew. (1992). Sustainable Urban Development: The Political Prospects.p. 24–38, Sustainable Develop-
ment and Urban Form. London: Pion.
Breheny, M. J. (Ed.) (1992). Sustainable Development and Urban Form. London: Pion.
Breheny, M. J., and R. Rookwood. (1993). Planning the Sustainable City Region, in Planning for a Sustainable
Environment, A. Blowers. (Ed.) London: Earthscan: 150–189.
Devuyst, D., L. Hens, et al. (2001). How Green is the City?: Sustainability Assessment and the Management of
Urban Environments. New York, Columbia University Press.

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/7/2/44/1768835/jgb_7_2_44.pdf by guest on 29 December 2020

Farr, Douglas. (2008). Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design with Nature, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New Jersey.
Garde, Ajay. (2009). Sustainable by Design? Insights from U.S LEED-ND Pilot Projects, Journal of the American
Planning Association, Vol, 75: 4, p. 424–440.
Gillham, Oliver. (2002). The Limitless City: A Primer on the Urban Sprawl Debate: Island Press, Chapter 10, p.
155–160
Godschalk, David R. (2004). Land Use Planning Challenges: Coping with Conflicts in Visions of Sustainable Devel-
opment and Livable Communities. Journal of the American Planning Association. 70(15–13).
Grant, Jill. (2004). Canada’s Experience in Planning for Sustainable Development, Towards Sustainable Cities: East
Asian, North American and European Perspectives, p. 147–160 . Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Guy, Simon and S. Marvin. (2000). Models and Pathways: The Diversity of Sustainable Urban Features, p. 9-18,
Achieving Sustainable Urban Form. London, New York: E & FN Spon.
Jabareen, Yosef Rafeq. (2006). Sustainable Urban Forms, Journal of Planning, Education, and Research 26: 38–52.
Jenks, M., K. Williams and E. Burton. (2000). Achieving Sustainable Urban Form. London, New York: E & FN
Spon.
Newberg, S. (2005). Certifying neighbourhoods: LEED-ND could have far reaching effects on the development indus-
try. Urban Land 64 (11–12), p. 32, 35.
Orson, L., and F. Snickers. (1992). On the Sustainability of Urban and Regional Structures. Sustainable Develop-
ment and Urban Form, p. 106–121. London: Pion.
Owens, S. (2000). Energy, Environmental Sustainability, and Land Use Planning. Achieving Sustainable Urban
Form, London, New York: E & FN Spon. p. 79–105.
Prime, L., and A. Palamarchuk. (2009). Sustainable Transformation of Toronto’s Waterfront, p. 169–178, Planning
Sustainable Communities, Edited by Sasha Tsenkova, University of Calgary.
Pugh, C. D. J. (1996). Sustainability: The Environment and Urbanization. London, Earthscan Publications.
Soderstrom, Mary.(2006) Green City: People, Nature & Urban Places. Vehicle Press, Montreal.
Soloman, N.B. (2005) How is LEED faring after five years of use? Architectural Record 193(6) 135–138, 140, 142.
Sorensen, A., P. J. Marcotullio, and J. Grant, Eds. (2004). Towards Sustainable Cities: East Asian, North American
and European Perspectives. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Williams, Katie. (2000). Does Intensifying Cities Make them More Sustainable? Achieving Sustainable Urban
Form, London, New York: E & FN Spon. p. 30–45.
Waldheim, Charles. (2006). The Landscape Urbanism Reader, Princeton Architectural Press, New York.
Wheeler, Stephen. (2000). Planning for Metropolitan Sustainability. Journal of Planning Education and Research
20: 133–145.
Wheeler, Stephen. (2003). The Evolution of Urban Form in Portland and Toronto: implications for sustainability
planning. Local Environment, 8(3): 317–336.

Internet:
CNW Newswire Releases. Retrieved March 22, 2011: Waterfront Toronto achieves LEED Gold For Neighbourhood
Plans http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2009/16/c5774.html
Hiske, Jonathan. Vancouver’s Olympic village aims for green, runs into problems, dated July 15, 2009, http://www.
grist.org/article/2009-07-15-green-vancouver-olympic-village-problems

Volume 7, Number 2 59
LEED 2009 for Neighbourhood Development, USGBC, http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=148
London, Scott. (2002). The City of Tomorrow: An Interview with Peter Calthorpe, http://www.scottlondon.com/
interviews/calthorpe.html
NAHB. (2007). New LEED certification for development found wanting. Retreived March 19, 2011 from:
http://www.nbnnews.com/NBN/issues/2007-11-05/Green+Building/index.html
Schendler, A., and R. Udall. (2005). LEED is broken—Let’s Fix it. Retrieved March 19, 2011 from: http://www.
grist.org/article/leed/
SEFC Master Plan Summary, City of Vancouver, http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/southeast/public/
06augSubArea2ARezSub/masterplansummary.pdf
Waldheim, Charles. Lecture at UNC College of Arts and Architecture, February 17, 2010, www.planetizen.com/
node/46262

REFERENCES

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/7/2/44/1768835/jgb_7_2_44.pdf by guest on 29 December 2020

1. p. 134, Wheeler, S., Planning for Metropolitan Sustainability, 2000.
2. p. 2, Breheny, M. J., Sustainable Development and Urban Form, 1992.
3. p. 3, Jenks, M., Williams, K., Burton, E., Achieving Sustainable Urban Form, 2000.
4. p. 80, Owens, S., Energy, Environmental Sustainability, and Land Use Planning, 2000.
5. p. 327, Wheeler, S., The Evolution of Urban Form in Portland and Toronto: Implications for Sustainability
Planning, 2003.
6. p. 38, Jabareen, Y.R., Sustainable Urban Forms, 2006.
7. p. 11, Sorensen, A., Marcotullio, P.J., Grant, J., Towards Sustainable Cities: East Asian, North American and
European Perspectives, 2004.
8. p. 45, Williams ,K., Does Intensifying Cities Make them More Sustainable?, 2000.
9. p. 12, Banister, D., Energy Use, Transport and Settlement Patterns, 2000.
10. p. 21, Breheny, M. J., (Ed.), Sustainable Development and Urban Form, 1992.
11. p. 19, Breheny, M. J., (Ed.), Sustainable Development and Urban Form, 1992.
12. p. 9, Farr, D., Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design with Nature, 2008.
13. p. 10, Farr, D., Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design with Nature, 2008.
14. Gillham, O., The Limitless City: A Primer on the Urban Sprawl Debate, 2002.
15. London, S., The City of Tomorrow: An Interview with Peter Calthorpe, 2002.
16. p. 10, Farr, D., Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design with Nature, 2008.
17. USGBC, LEED 2009 for Neighbourhood Development, 2009.
18. p. 45, Black, E., Green Neighbourhood Standards from a Planning Perspective, 2008.
19. p. 59, Farr, D., Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design with Nature, 2008.
20. p. 173, Prime, L, Palamarchuk, A., Sustainable Transformation of Toronto’s Waterfront, 2009.
21. City of Vancouver, SEFC Master Plan Summary, 2006.
22. NAHB, New LEED certification for Development Found Wanting, 2007.
23. Garde, A., Sustainable by Design? Insights from U.S LEED-ND Pilot Projects, 2009
24. p. 11, Sorensen, A., Marcotullio, P.J., Grant, J., Towards Sustainable Cities: East Asian, North American and
European Perspectives, 2004.
25. p. 8, Orson, L., Snickers, F., On the Sustainability of Urban and Regional Structures, 1992.
26. p. 151, Breheny, M. J., Rookwood, R., Planning the Sustainable City Region, 1993.
27. p. 43, Black, E., Green Neighbourhood Standards from a Planning Perspective, 2008.
28. Garde, A., Sustainable by Design? Insights from U.S LEED-ND Pilot Projects, 2009.
29. p. 143, Wheeler, S., Planning for Metropolitan Sustainability, 2000.
30. p. 17, Guy. S., Marvin, S., Models and Pathways: The Diversity of Sustainable Urban Features, 2000.
31. Ibid.

60 Journal of Green Building

 Toronto Waterfront Area 1
Project # 10096747
Certification Level: GOLD
Stage 1
LEED® for Neighborhood Development Pilot 7/23/09

61 Points Achieved Possible Points: 106

Certified 40 to 49 points Silver 50 to 59 points Gold 60 to 69 points Platinum 80 or more points
26 Smart Location & Linkage Possible Points: 30 9 Green Construction & Technology Possible Points: 31
Y Y
Y Prereq 1 Smart Location, Option 1 Y Prereq 1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
Y Prereq 2 Proximity to Water & Wastewater Infrastructure, Options 1 3 Credit 1 LEED Certified Green Buildings, Option 2 3
Y Prereq 3 Imperiled Species & Ecological Communities, No Species Credit 2 Energy Efficiency in Buildings 3
Y Prereq 4 Wetland & Water Body Conservation, Option 1 Credit 3 Reduced Water Use 3
Y Prereq 5 Agricultural Land Conservation, Option 2 Credit 4 Building Reuse & Adaptive Reuse 2
Y Prereq 6 Floodplain Avoidance, Option 1 1 Credit 5 Reuse of Historic Buildings 1
2 Credit 1 Brownfields Redevelopment 2 1 Credit 6 Minimize Site Disturbance through Site Design, Option 1 1
1 Credit 2 High Priority Brownfields Redevelopment 1 1 Credit 7 Minimize Site Disturbance during Construction, Option 1 1
9 Credit 3 Preferred Locations 10 Credit 8 Contaminant Reduction in Brownfields Remediation 1
7 Credit 4 Reduced Automobile Dependence, Option 1 8 Credit 9 Stormwater Management 5
1 Credit 5 Bicycle Network 1 Credit 10 Heat Island Reduction 1
3 Credit 6 Housing & Jobs Proximity, Option 1 3 Credit 11 Solar Orientation 1
1 Credit 7 School Proximity 1 Credit 12 On-Site Energy Generation 1
1 Credit 8 Steep Slope Protection, Option 1 1 Credit 13 On-Site Renewable Energy Sources 1
Credit 9 Site Design for Habitat or Wetland Conservation 1 1 Credit 14 District Heating & Cooling 1
Credit 10 Restoration of Habitat or Wetlands 1 Credit 15 Infrastructure Energy Efficiency 1
1 Credit 11 Conservation Management of Habitat or Wetlands, Option 2 1 Credit 16 Wastewater Management 1
APPENDIX

Credit 17 Recycled Content in Infrastructure 1

Volume 7, Number 2
23 Neighborhood Pattern & Design Possible Points: 39 1 Credit 18 Construction Waste Management 1
Y 1 Credit 19 Comprehensive Waste Management 1
Y Prereq 1 Open Community Credit 20 Light Pollution Reduction 1
Y Prereq 2 Compact Development
7 Credit 1 Compact Development 7 3 Innovation & Design Process Possible Points: 6
4 Credit 2 Diversity of Uses 4 Y
Credit 3 Diversity of Housing Types 3 1 Credit 1.1 Innovation in Design: Exemplary Performance in NPDc15 1
1 Credit 4 Affordable Rental Housing, Option 2 2 1 Credit 1.2 Innovation in Design: Exemplary Performance in GCTc1 1
Credit 5 Affordable For-Sale Housing 2 Credit 1.3 Innovation in Design 1
2 Credit 6 Reduced Parking Footprint 2 Credit 1.4 Innovation in Design 1
5 Credit 7 Walkable Streets 8 Credit 1.5 Innovation in Design 1
Credit 8 Street Network, 2 1 Credit 2 LEED Accredited Professional 1
1 Credit 9 Transit Facilities 1
Credit 10 Transportation Demand Management 2
1 Credit 11 Access to Surrounding Vicinity 1
Credit 12 Access to Public Spaces 1
1 Credit 13 Access to Active Spaces, Option 2 1
Credit 14 Universal Accessibility 1
1 Credit 15 Community Outreach & Involvement 1
Credit 16 Local Food Production 1

61
Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/7/2/44/1768835/jgb_7_2_44.pdf by guest on 29 December 2020
Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/7/2/44/1768835/jgb_7_2_44.pdf by guest on 29 December 2020

Journal of Green Building

62
Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/7/2/44/1768835/jgb_7_2_44.pdf by guest on 29 December 2020

63
Volume 7, Number 2