IBE Facilitates Colorado’s First Outdoor Green Wall

andy

Andy Madrick
Sustainability Associate, Landscape Architecture


In 2014, the City of Fort Collins launched the “Nature in the City” initiative to ensure every citizen has access to nature close to where we live and work. The focus of the initiative is on how our built environment can better contribute to our sense of nature within Fort Collins. One of the deliverables that IBE has been supporting is the development of a set of design guidelines aimed at implementation of design features that enhance ecological function and access to nature within the built environment.

However, many of these approaches have not been proven in our regional climate. One of these design features are ‘living’ or green walls.Living Wall

Partnering to Build Colorado’s First Outdoor Green Wall

IBE lead the administration, design, and installation of the first perennial, outdoor green wall in the State of Colorado in collaboration with: Perspective Design, the Urban Lab, CSU’s Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, and The City of Fort Collins Planning, Parks, Operation Services, Stormwater, and Natural Areas departments.

Why a Green Wall?

Green walls improve both indoor and outdoor air quality, provide the building insulation from heat and cold while protecting the wall from water and sunlight.  They help lower summer temperatures in cities by reducing heat gain on hard surfaces, known as the urban heat island effect. Green walls add vegetation to the urban environment and provide habitat for urban animal species.

Green walls are also great for people. Studies have shown that viewing and interacting with greenery reduces stress and mental fatigue, while improving feelings of neighborhood safety and overall well being.

The Fort Collins Green Wall project will serve as a high profile case study on the feasibility and creation of green walls in arid climates. The wall has been designed to showcase plants work best in a vertical setting and how urban habitats can be enhanced through green walls.  The project will continue to monitor success, evaluating the resilience of the plants, the efficiency of watering, and if energy savings are seen in the adjoining building structure.

 

Learn more:

American Society of Landscape Architects, Green Infrastructure

City of Fort Collins Nature in the City Initiative

The Urban Lab 

 

Advertisements

District-Scale Health and Wellness

katie_colorKatherine Vega 
Sustainability Associate, Public Health

In the Unites States, 75% of our health expenditures are attributed to chronic diseases . This realization has prompted a shift toward preventative health measures for individuals and entire communities. Still, it is important to understand that active living is influenced by much more than personal behavioral choice. The built environment plays a significant role in human health to either support a healthy lifestyle or serve as a barrier to health for individuals. Research has continually found connections between built environments that emphasize safe and healthy communities with better human health and wellbeing. A spectrum of Millennials to Baby Boomers who want to age in place, have begun exploring and seeking opportunities to be healthy in their homes, workplaces, schools, public spaces, and communities. This demand has triggered built environment designers and planners to enlist healthy community design that can positively affect physical and mental health.

HealthyIntegrating Health into the Built Environment

A healthy built environment includes more than hospitals, and medical facilities to treat illness. It is an environment that promotes health at a district-scale by incorporating energy efficient buildings, promoting effective resource use, establishing quality control of air and water, and creating regenerative social, economic, and environmental systems. In a sense, it is the creation of a healthy ecosystem that integrates health into various aspects of building construction, land use, city governance, resource provision, and community development. For example, induction of a policy for ‘complete streets’ in a city Master Plan can promote multi-modal transportation use among citizens ultimately increasing pedestrian physical activity and reducing harmful emissions from car use. Support of urban agriculture in the form of community gardens and living walls not only provides the neighborhood with local fresh foods but also stimulates social cohesion among community members. The creation of more walkable neighborhoods with features that accommodate citizens of all abilities offers residents easy, close access to amenities and essential services to live their daily lives. Focusing on health at a district scale has the ability to accelerate urban regeneration starting with small innovations that grow to leverage long-term investment and public policy .

Planning for Health

District-scale solutions that address health in the built environment are best created by transdisciplinary teams who aim to promote population health, economic growth, and social sustainability. These teams consist of researchers, private developers, planners, city officials, business owners, community-based organizations, and other key members of the community who bring their expertise to the table in order to explore various determinants of health in the built environment. These diverse individuals have the insight and experience to discuss current conditions within the community, decide on a common agenda and key priorities, and set sustainability goals that will benefit the physical, financial, and environmental health of the community. The creation of a healthy district-scale built environment proves to be a complex process but has incredible potential to promote the health of an entire population. With the rapid growth of urban populations, sustained healthy built environments can serve as a formidable defense against environmental threats, changing lifestyle patterns, and increased demand for resources. The healthy choice becomes the easy choice when health is integrated into the very infrastructure and culture of a community.

Sources:

[1] Urban Land Institute. Intersections: Health and the Built Environment. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 2013.

[2] EcoDistricts. The EcoDistricts Protocol version 1.0. Portland, OR: EcoDistricts, 2016.

Upcoming Event! The LENSES Framework

lenses2The LENSES Framework
Presented by
The Institute for the Built Environment, CLEAR, USGBC & Alliance for Sustainable Colorado

Monday, February 22, 2016 5:30 – 7:30 pm

Leaders in green building design and construction and sustainable development are looking to push beyond current practices into “regenerative design” and “living” built environments. This different way of thinking shifts away from a “less bad” approach to the built environment and toward a wholly positive, benefit-creation process — one that we call “regenerative development.”

LensesAt the leading edge of this transition is LENSES, or Living Environments in Natural, Social, and Economic Systems. LENSES is an open source framework that guides project teams and communities toward regenerative solutions for their development needs. The LENSES approach has already sparked “way-outside-the-box” discussions and innovations in leadership retreats, community workshops, and college courses. The outcome? Living environments that foster and celebrate happier people, a healthier planet, and financial comfort.

Join us on February 22 to learn about regenerative development and LENSES from the creators of LENSES. See how you can use this framework to affect positive change in the sustainable development space, including achieving LEED Platinum, the Living Building Challenge, and other high-performance goals.

This event will qualify as a GBCI credit. Just make sure to sign in at the door to ensure you receive it!

5:30 – 6:00 pm: Networking

6:00 – 6:45 pm: LENSES presentation

6:45 – 7:15 pm: Hands-on LENSES activity

7:15 – 7:30 pm: Wrap up and Q&A

Please register here!

The 5 Principles of Innovative Teams

Projects Manager
Building design and construction is incredibly complex.  Countless perspectives and disciplines—from users to engineers, architects, contractors, craftsmen, and financiers—are required to collaborate in order to design a multitude of building systems that will work in harmony, while also being functional and beautiful.  The process we use to bring together these individuals is called integrative design (ID).
Why integrative design? 
To many, this simply means getting more people in the room. But is more people and more meetings really what it takes to develop meaningful solutions?
The Integrative Design Process is the arguably largest determinant of the success and efficiency of a building. Along with the advancement of building technologies, this process is a critical tool in reducing the environmental impact of buildings and supporting the health of those who inhabit them. So it’s really important we get this right.
But with so many people involved, how can we come to better decisions faster?
Most design teams would agree that the Integrative Process is meaningful, but they are often overwhelmed with the number of people that should be at the table and the time required to make decisions in large groups.  They often ask, how can we come to better decisions faster?
IBE: Taking research to practice
In 2009, the Institute for the Built Environment, Dr. Jeni Cross and additional CSU researchers began evaluating what differentiates the best integrative design projects from those that struggled.  From this research, we discovered that team structure was one of the primary indicators of success in the ID process.
We used social network analysis to visualize teams and illustrate the people, relationships, and structure of teams.  These diagrams showed that although diverse team membership is necessary, this is not all that is required to support collaboration and innovation.  Instead, it is the communication patterns and relationships between people that distinguishes successful integrative design teams.
So, how do we create successful integrative design teams?

Through this research, we identified five key principles of Integrative Design.  By using these principles, teams can build a network with the capacity to make better decisions faster.

1. A Facilitator Guides the Team

A trained facilitator is necessary to moderate the interactions on a team and build trust. Facilitators also develops willingness to take risks and openness to learning within the team, while encouraging equal participation.

Every Team Needs a Cat Herder 

2. The Team Establishes Rules of Interaction

Teams must establish ground rules to guide their interaction.  These ground rules most often resemble:
-Everyone knows everyone
-We all have an equal voice & an expectation to contribute
-Decisions are informed by whole group input
-We are all learning and don’t individually have all the answers

3. The Team has Diverse and Inclusive Membership

Innovation doesn’t happen in a team with people who all think the same or have the same perspectives and opinion. Diversity is required in order to bring the unique data, perspectives, and specialized expertise which are necessary for innovation.

4. The Team has a Core-Periphery Structure

The core team is dense and everyone is very connected (everyone knows everyone), but this team reaches out to a periphery of resources to bring in new ideas and information to the group.

5. The Team Utilizes Integrative Decision Making

The team utilizes a process of generating major decisions as a group, vetting them with appropriate individuals, making sure they align with project vision and goals, and refining decisions as a team.

To learn more about optimal team structure, why it is critical to success, and how to create it download the new white paper, the Social Network of Integrative Design.
At IBE, our mission is to advance the development of healthy thriving built environments, and we do this by taking research to practice.  So, take advantage of the other white papers, presentations, and publications in our research library to advance your knowledge and your work.

Social Networks and Innovation

By Reanna Putnam

Sustainable Behavior Associate

Social networks can tell us a lot about how organizational structure promotes innovation. And don’t worry, this post is not about optimizing Facebook and Twitter to boost creativity. The term social network can be used to describe the relationships between any collection of two or more people, groups or organizations with common goals or interests(1).

Figure 1: Structural Holes(6)

There are different theories as to what produces innovation in social networks. One common explanation is that the presence of structural holes, defined as places of disconnection in the network, promote creativity in the individuals nearest to the structural hole(2, 3,4). Individuals who are near structural holes are more likely to have access to diverse, often contradictory, information and interpretations because they are able to draw on information from outside of their immediate connections(2). Encouraging indirect ties that bridge structural holes is a cost effective way for organizations to access diverse knowledge and contribute to innovation without adding to project expenses(5).

Another, perhaps conflicting, way to increase innovation in a network, is through strengthening relationships among members of a design team and creating a more densely connected network. This is important because it can increase performance(7,8,9), reduce conflict among team members(10), and increase in the duration of group membership(11).
Figure 2: Core Periphery Structure (12)

So how do we bridge these two contradictory concepts? One way is through promoting a core-periphery structure. A strong project team will consist of a densely connected core of key decision makers who are loosely connected to a peripheral network form which they draw ideas and information into the network. These loose connections to the periphery network allows for the network to be larger, bringing in new and diverse ideas. Because not all members of the core are connected to the periphery, innovation producing structural holes are formed.

Integrative design teams often take on this core-periphery structure. They do so by having a densely connected decision making core who are loosely connected to a diverse periphery of building users, facilities and operation staff, design specialists and construction professionals. The core-periphery structure allow for integrative design teams to come up with innovative design solutions that produce efficient buildings and increase occupant satisfaction.

(1) Anklam, P. (2007). Net work: a practical guide to creating and sustaining networks at work and in the world. Routledge.

(2) Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas1. American journal of sociology, 110(2), 349-399.

(3) Walker, G., Kogut, B., & Shan, W. (1997). Social capital, structural holes and the formation of an industry network. Organization science, 8(2), 109-125.

(4) Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative science quarterly, 116-145.

(5) Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative science quarterly, 45(3), 425-455.

(6) Farral, Kenneth. (2004) Web Graph Analysis in Perspective: Description and Evaluation in terms of Krippendorff’s Conceptual Framework for Content Analysis (version 1.0). Retrieved from: http://farrall.org/papers/webgraph_as_content.html.

(7) de Montjoye, Y. A., Stopczynski, A., Shmueli, E., Pentland, A., & Lehmann, S. (2014). The strength of the strongest ties in collaborative problem solving. Scientific reports, 4.

(8) Balkundi, P., & Harrison, D. A. (2006). Ties, leaders, and time in teams: Strong inference about network structure’s effects on team viability and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 49-68Lazega 2002

(9) Nelson, R. E. (1989). The strength of strong ties: Social networks and intergroup conflict in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 377-401.

(10) McPherson, J. M., Popielarz, P. A., & Drobnic, S. (1992). Social networks and organizational dynamics. American Sociological Review, 153-170.

(11) Borgatti, S. P., & Everett, M. G. (2000). Models of core/periphery structures.Social networks, 21(4), 375-395.