Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
REGENERATIVE SYSTEM DESIGN: APPLICATION IN THE GEORGIA
PIEDMONT
by
ANDREW KILINSKI
(Under the Direction of Jon Calabria)
ABSTRACT
In the southeast, our built environment will benefit from the productive and
functional ecological systems needed to address impacts on natural systems to
support forthcoming population growth, energy, and food production demands.
Through precedent study analysis, interpretation, and current regenerative rating
systems evaluation, regenerative design principles are applied to a ten-acre
urban site in Athens, Georgia, to show how a systems-based design can restore
ecological function within the built environment, while meeting energy and food
production demands. The design application reveals the components critical to
regenerative design, and illustrates how they are applied to a conceptual site
design; it may also be utilized as a template for laypersons, landscape architects,
or other design professionals interested in regenerative design for urban areas in
the built environment.
INDEX WORDS: net-positive, permaculture, regenerative design, regenerative
development, resilience, sustainability
REGENERATIVE SYSTEM DESIGN: APPLICATION IN THE GEORGIA
PIEDMONT
by
ANDREW KILINSKI
BLA, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA, 2000
MLA, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA, 2015
A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ATHENS, GEORGIA
2015
© 2015
Andrew Kilinski
All Rights Reserved
REGENERATIVE SYSTEM DESIGN: APPLICATION IN THE GEORGIA
PIEDMONT
by
ANDREW KILINSKI
Major Professor: Jon Calabria Committee: Robert Alfred Vick Thomas Lawrence Kerry Blind Electronic Version Approved: Suzanne Barbour Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia August 2015
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my family, friends, and co-workers for their support.
I would also like to thank Jon Calabria, Alfie Vick, Tom Lawrence, Kerry Blind,
Marianne Cramer, Bruce Ferguson, Donna Gabriel, Georgia Harrison, Darrel
Morrison, Bill Reed, David Spooner, Alison Smith, Ron Thomas, and Melissa
Tufts for graciously sharing their time, knowledge, support, and wisdom.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. ix
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................... x
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1
Research Question ......................................................................... 2
Purpose and Significance of Research ........................................... 2
Methodology ................................................................................... 3
Precedent Studies ........................................................................... 4
Limitations and Delimitations .......................................................... 6
Thesis Structure .............................................................................. 6
2 PRINCIPLES OF REGENERATIVE DESIGN ...................................... 8
Introduction ..................................................................................... 8
Systems Thinking ............................................................................ 8
History of Regenerative Design....................................................... 9
Defining Regenerative Design....................................................... 10
Key Principles of Regenerative Design ......................................... 13
A Shifting Mindset ......................................................................... 16
Bioregionalism............................................................................... 16
Biophilia ........................................................................................ 17
Biomimicry .................................................................................... 18
vi
Interdisciplinary Approach ............................................................. 18
Criticism of Regenerative Design .................................................. 19
Summary ....................................................................................... 20
3 EVALUATION OF REGENERATIVE RATING SYSTEMS .................. 22
Introduction ................................................................................... 22
Rating Green, Sustainable, and Regenerative .............................. 22
Sustainable Sites Initiative ............................................................ 24
SITES Structure ............................................................................ 25
Certification ................................................................................... 27
Summary ....................................................................................... 27
The Living Building Challenge ....................................................... 27
LBC Structure................................................................................ 28
Certification ................................................................................... 30
Summary ....................................................................................... 31
Comparison ................................................................................... 31
4 PRECEDENT STUDIES IN REGENERATIVE DESIGN……………... 36
Introduction ................................................................................... 36
Lyle Center for Regenerative Studies ........................................... 37
Design Process ............................................................................. 37
Buildings…… ................................................................................ 39
Energy Use…. ............................................................................... 40
Water Management ....................................................................... 41
Site and Landscape ...................................................................... 42
vii
Summary ....................................................................................... 43
The Willow School ......................................................................... 44
Design Process ............................................................................. 44
Buildings…… ................................................................................ 45
Water Management ....................................................................... 46
Site and Landscape ...................................................................... 47
Summary ....................................................................................... 48
Phipps Center for Sustainable Landscapes .................................. 48
Design Process ............................................................................. 49
Building and Energy Use ............................................................... 49
Water Management ....................................................................... 50
Site and Landscape ...................................................................... 52
Summary…. .................................................................................. 55
Conclusion .................................................................................... 55
5 APPLICATION OF REGENERATIVE DESIGN .................................. 57
Introduction and Site Context ........................................................ 57
Conceptual Site Design Program .................................................. 62
Site Analysis ................................................................................. 62
Conceptual Site Design ................................................................. 69
Buildings ....................................................................................... 74
Water Management ....................................................................... 75
Net-Positive Energy…. .................................................................. 77
Net-Positive Water ........................................................................ 78
viii
Landscape .................................................................................... 79
Summary ....................................................................................... 80
6 DESIGN ANALYSIS ........................................................................... 82
REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 87
APPENDICES
A SITES Scorecard application .............................................................. 94
B Project landscape plant list ................................................................. 95
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1: Summary of Regenerative Design Principles ....................................... 21
Table 2: Living Building Challenge Imperatives .................................................. 30
Table 3: Fundamental Similarities Between Rating Systems ............................. 33
Table 4: Fundamental Differences Between Rating Systems ............................. 35
Table 5: Regenerative Design Strategies at the Lyle Center .............................. 38
Table 6: Summary of Regenerative Design Strategies ....................................... 56
Table 7: Summary of Regenerative Design Strategies for Design...................... 70
Table 8: Estimated Energy Use .......................................................................... 78
Table 9: Estimated Water Use ............................................................................ 79
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1: Principles of Lyle’s Regenerative Design ............................................ 14
Figure 2: Photo, Lyle Center Entry ..................................................................... 39
Figure 3: Graphic, Lyle Center Slope Analysis ................................................... 41
Figure 4: Graphic. Lyle Center Land Use ........................................................... 43
Figure 5: Photo, Willow School Classroom Building ........................................... 45
Figure 6: Photo, Health, Wellness, and Nutrition Center .................................... 46
Figure 7: Photo, Constructed Wetlands at The Willow School ........................... 47
Figure 8: Photo, Sculptural Wind Turbine ........................................................... 50
Figure 9: Graphic, Water Management at the CSL ............................................. 51
Figure 10: Photo, Before and After Construction at the CSL .............................. 53
Figure 11: Photo, Project Site, Prior to Construction .......................................... 57
Figure 12: Graphic, Site Context ........................................................................ 58
Figure 13: Graphic, Proposed 2013 Site Plan .................................................... 60
Figure 14: Graphic, Proposed 2014 Site Plan .................................................... 61
Figure 15: Graphic, Athens-Clarke County Geology ........................................... 63
Figure 16: Graphic, Athens-Clarke County Hydrology ........................................ 64
Figure 17: Graphic, Project Site Hydrology ........................................................ 65
Figure 18: Graphic, Project Site Soils ................................................................. 66
Figure 19: Graphic, Project Site Elevation Change ............................................ 67
xi
Figure 20: Graphic, Project Site Topography and Slope Analysis ...................... 68
Figure 21: Graphic, Conceptual Site Design ...................................................... 72
Figure 22: Graphic, Street Section ..................................................................... 73
Figure 23: Front Elevation of Building 2 .............................................................. 74
Figure 24: Photo, Water Tower Inspiration ......................................................... 76
Figure 25: Graphic, Site Systems Diagram ........................................................ 81
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In the southeast, our built environment can benefit from more development that
emphasizes highly ecologically functioning systems. Although sustainability
seeks a return to doing no harm to the environment, we can go a step further and
begin to repair our communities and ecosystems by promoting regenerative
design to restore ecological function within our environment. Instead of reliance
on fossil fuel-powered mechanical equipment, synthetic chemicals, and practices
focused on directing water off-site, there is an opportunity to positively alter the
course of development toward true sustainability by changing our approach.
Conventional developments that feature expanses of turf grass, non-
native landscapes, little or no local food production, outdated stormwater
management practices, over-dependence on vehicular transport for even basic
needs, little or no green space to reconnect with nature or provide habitat for
wildlife, and few meaningful or accessible places to walk or exercise, all
contribute to the degenerative nature of our built environment and our
dependency on industrial systems.
The methodology of this thesis uses projective design as the primary
strategy. Secondary strategies used include classification, interpretation, and
evaluation. The principles and strategies of regenerative design, supported by
2
literature review, rating system evaluation, and precedent studies, are interpreted
to redefine regenerative design as it pertains to the built environment. These
principles and strategies provide the foundation for the conceptual site design
application in downtown Athens, GA. The design is evaluated and interpreted
through each of the regenerative rating systems for comparison and analysis in
the final chapter.
Research Question
The question this thesis explores is: In landscape architecture, how can the
principles of regenerative design be applied to a ten-acre urban site in the
piedmont of Georgia? A critique of the research will also specifically address
challenges and opportunities of adopting regenerative design principles instead
of current design practices in the built environment.
Purpose and Significance of Research
Chapter two distills the principles of regenerative design and relates them to
design in landscape architecture at site scale; chapter five connects systems
thinking with site design. While landscape is often used for ornamental purposes,
its primary purpose should be to restore ecological function to its ecosystems.
We currently rely on our dwindling fossil fuel resources for most of our energy
demands and can consider biologically based resources and systems as a
primary energy source, using mechanical and or industrial-based systems as a
secondary source or backup.
3
There is no consistent definition of regenerative design as it relates to the
built environment, resulting in ambiguity related to its meaning. Regenerative
design is defined by John T. Lyle as a system that provides continuous
replacement, through its own functional processes, of the energy and materials
used in its operation (Lyle 1994). In practice, regenerative design is “still in its
infancy” (Cooper 2012), and because it creates change in social and ecological
systems, the broad discipline of landscape architecture is qualified to embrace its
tenets.
Regenerative design and development needs to grow within the discipline
of landscape architecture, to help establish new benchmarks for health, safety,
welfare, and productivity in the built environment. The success of regenerative
design depends upon interdisciplinary participation, but each individual discipline
(architecture, engineering, interior design, landscape architecture) must have its
own skillset to successfully contribute to a holistic design process. The most
important aspect of this research is the potential to stall and reverse the decline
of social, economic, and ecological systems in the built environment. With an
ever-increasing number of green and sustainable developments built across the
globe, this research illustrates the benefits of surpassing current, green, and
sustainable methods of construction.
Methodology
A comprehensive literature review illuminates the history of and current
viewpoints on regenerative design; through interpretation of this literature review,
4
different definitions coalesce to redefine regenerative design in the built
environment. Interpretation and evaluation of three precedent studies and two
current regenerative rating systems inform the foundation of a design on an
approximately ten-acre urban site in the Georgia piedmont. The precedent
studies and existing regenerative rating systems, selected for their perceived or
self-proclaimed relevance to regenerative design concepts, are evaluated for
their similarities and differences. Through secondary observation and
classification, the collected research is interpreted and applied to the conceptual
site design. Site inventory and analysis maximizes the design’s cultural,
economic, and ecological potential. Goals and strategies for the design,
determined through the research process, provide a framework for the design;
the design process is then used to apply the identified goals and strategies. The
results, which provide a framework for larger application, are interpreted through
analysis of the design. Interpreting and evaluating the conceptual site design
through each rating system reveals how the rating systems’ strategies may be
applied. (Deming and Swaffield 2011)
Precedent Studies
The following sites: The John T. Lyle Center for Regenerative Studies at
California Polytechnic State University in Pomona, California, The Willow School
in Gladstone, New Jersey, and The Phipps’ Center for Sustainable Landscapes
(CSL) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, were selected for their utilization of
regenerative design strategies. These strategies include: energy production, food
5
production, water management methods, and use of native plant communities in
the landscape. The Lyle Center and Willow School were designed in part by Lyle
and Reed, both of whom have been influential in promotion of regenerative
design; this was a contributing factor to their selection as precedent studies. High
accolades in sustainable or green construction is a contributing factor to selection
of the CSL, which is the first project in the world to achieve LEED Platinum
Certification, Four-Star SITES Certification, and The Living Building Challenge
(Sustainable Sites 2014a).The three sites are also chosen based on their
chronology: The Lyle Center was built in the mid-1990’s, the Willow School in the
early 2000’s, and the CSL in the late 2000’s. Covering more than 20 years, this
timeline reveals differences in design processes and construction techniques.
The Lyle Center was completed in 1994 and designed by John T. Lyle,
professor and author of Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development. The
center is home to 20 full-time residents, and utilizes on-site resources, renewable
energy, and biologically based processes (Cal Poly Pomona 2014). The Willow
School, designed by Bill Reed and Regenesis Group, used ecological system
regeneration as a guiding design principle. Built in 2000, the school is home to
250 students from Kindergarten to eighth grade (Regenesis 2014). The Center
for Sustainable Landscapes at Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens is a
24,350 square-foot education, research, and administrative building, built on a
former brownfield. The precedent studies are evaluated in chapter three of this
thesis.
6
Limitations and Delimitations
Potential benefits of regenerative design are subject to a slow rate of adoption in
the Georgia piedmont; this is dependent upon variables including
communications, education, and social climate (Rogers 2003). Although
regenerative design demands full interdisciplinary participation, the nature of this
thesis limits the research to the discipline of landscape architecture. Some
architectural guidelines or benchmarks are included as they relate to building
form, function and energy use, but this thesis does not discuss any architectural
design. Greater social, economic, or political aspects and impacts will not be
included; these confounding variables are beyond the scope of this thesis.
Zoning laws in Athens-Clarke County (unified) do not necessarily influence the
design; current building and zoning codes, as well as infrastructure and parking
requirements, would hinder the site design as it relates to regenerative design
principles. The design program, presented in chapter five, differs from that of the
current developer, in that the design in this thesis seeks a more inclusive
development, versus one that is focused primarily on student housing.
Thesis Structure
Chapter two evaluates the principles, viewpoints, and definitions of regenerative
design. Chapter three evaluates two current regenerative rating systems,
summarizing their similarities and differences. Chapter four evaluates three
precedent studies to extract concepts, strategies, and design elements, which
7
are applied to the projective design in chapter five. The design is analyzed in
chapter six.
8
CHAPTER TWO
PRINCIPLES OF REGENERATIVE DESIGN
Introduction
The different principles, viewpoints, and definitions of regenerative design share
similar core beliefs, but they possess subtle differences. By researching both the
history and current state of regenerative design, this chapter distills the different
core beliefs and nuances into a new definition of regenerative design in the built
environment.
Systems Thinking
“We must learn to deal with the environmental problem at the systemic level,”
states scientist and sustainability advocate Karl-Henrik Robert; “if we heal the
trunk and the branches, the benefits for the leaves will follow naturally” (Lyle
1994). A system is a series of components that work together to produce an
action or a behavior. Simplifications of the real world, systems analysis can
reveal patterns that might not be seen at a smaller level (Meadows and Wright
2008). H.T. Odum was the first to conduct large-scale ecological experiments,
designed to look at whole-systems ecology (Mitsch and Day Jr. 2004). Odum
viewed energy flows as the basis for everything in nature, humans included. His
diagrammatic energy systems language, energese, is based on electrical circuit
9
charts, and offers a concise way to illustrate the performance of a system (Odum
and Odum 1977). Regenerative design seeks to replace our present linear
system of development, which is based on industrial technologies and throughput
systems, with one that is more cyclical and based on self-renewing natural
systems.
History of Regenerative Design
Ian McHarg’s seminal work Design With Nature introduced the notion of
landscape architect as steward of the earth (Weller 2014). McHarg’s methods of
planning emphasized logical processes to connect nature and culture, however,
postmodern design saw the profession of landscape architecture shift its focus
from planning to design (Weller 2014). Those who followed in McHarg’s footsteps
designed with ecological processes in mind, while others emphasized artistic
processes. Landscape planners including Carl Steinitz, Joan Nassauer,
Frederick Steiner, and John Tillman Lyle have succeeded in merging design and
planning with ecological processes. Some landscape urbanists acknowledge the
assimilation of nature and urbanization on a planetary scale; through intelligent
design and development, humans can be agents for positive change in the
environment. (Weller 2014)
As it pertains to land use, Robert Rodale first used the term regenerative
(Lyle 1994). An accomplished organic farmer and gardener, Rodale described
his methods in organic farming and gardening, which were capable of continually
renewing the life of the soil without reliance on chemicals or pesticides (Lyle
10
1994). Based in Kutztown, Pennsylvania, The Rodale Institute continues to
promote education, research, and outreach programs promoting organic
agriculture across the country (Rodale Institute 2015)
Landscape architect, architect, author, and educator John T. Lyle brought
forward the idea of regenerative design in the built environment with his 1994
book entitled Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development. Borrowing
ecology books from his wife, who worked in the biology department at UC
Berkeley, Lyle's interest in ecology began to influence his work while enrolled in
the university’s MLA program. Lyle's idea for the human ecosystem continued to
unfold after graduate school, while studying people's relationships with Tivoli
Gardens in Copenhagen, which provided services including food and drinking
water (Bennett 1999). Witnessing the connection between the garden, its
services, and the people who used them, may have signified for Lyle that
ecosystem services and systems thinking could be integral to any landscape.
Lyle’s vision for regenerative design culminated in construction of the Lyle Center
for Regenerative Studies, which is evaluated as a precedent study in chapter
four. Lyle passed away in 1998, but the knowledge and wisdom he left behind
remain in his projects, publications, and through the Lyle Center ‘s ongoing
research on regenerative studies.
Defining regenerative design
There is no consistent definition of regenerative design. Bill Reed and Pamela
Mang posit that “differing worldviews contribute to the ambiguity with regard to
11
the meaning of regeneration (Mang and Reed 2012). Since regeneration is
central to closed-loop systems and living processes, the meaning of the word can
be different, depending on the context.
To understand the meaning behind regenerative design, a sample of
definitions, culled from The Lyle Center for Regenerative Studies, Regenesis
Group, Biohabitats, and Whole Building Design Guide, are listed below1.
Biohabitats defines regenerative design as:
. . .an intentional practice that is community place-based. It is about finding and fostering the true essence of a place, exploring its possibilities and unlocking its potential to thrive. By emphasizing whole systems (discovering relationships, connections & patterns) and working within a living systems context (embracing diversity, resiliency and health). (Biohabitats 2015)
The Lyle Center for Regenerative Studies defines regenerative studies as:
. . .a unique descriptor for the interdisciplinary field of inquiry concerned with a sustainable future. While closely aligned with environmental, economic and social sustainability projects, regenerative studies places emphasis on the development of community support systems which are capable of being restored, renewed, revitalized or regenerated through the integration of natural processes, community action and human behavior. (Cal Poly Pomona 2015)
Regenesis Group defines regenerative development as:
A compass and touchstone: for coalescing community and team members, selecting the right sustainability technologies and strategies, and creating enduring value. A source of “Natural” intelligence: that shows how to integrate natural infrastructure and activities so that development restores health to communities and
1 Two companies genuinely promoting and practicing regenerative thinking, design, and development, are Regenesis Group and Biohabitats. Regenesis, a multi-disciplinary team, has been practicing regenerative design, development, and teaching courses on regenerative development since 1995 (Regenesis 2015). Biohabitats is a multi-disciplinary team specializing in conservation planning, ecological restoration, and regenerative design (Biohabitats 2015).
12
ecosystems. The story of who we can be: that defines a community, business, or project’s unique identity and role in the great work of healing the planet, place by place. (Regenesis 2015)
Whole Building Design Guide defines regenerative buildings and design as
follows:
A regenerative building and the regenerative design process not only restores but also improves the surrounding natural environment by enhancing the quality of life for biotic (living) and abiotic (chemical) components of the environment. The regenerative design process promotes the pattern of relationships between the physical, built, and natural environment. All of these design processes require a different way of engaging the design team than simply recommending green technologies. The end result is buildings that not only sustain all of their needs on-site, but also contribute to the health of the environment around them, increase biodiversity, and sustain a living relationship with the environment around them. (Nugent, Packard, Brabon, Vierra 2011)
While the four definitions are of regenerative building, design, development, and
studies; they have shared concepts: sense of place, potential, systems thinking,
restoration or regeneration, and benefit to the surrounding community. Therefore,
regenerative design is defined as: design that evokes a strong sense of place
(genius loci), finds the greatest cultural and environmental potential for the
project site, takes a systems-thinking approach to design and process, has a net-
positive impact with energy and water, and fosters a meaningful connection to
the surrounding community. This definition of regenerative design differs from the
popular definition of sustainability, “meeting the needs of present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World
Bank 1987), by being more specific and action-oriented.
13
Key principles of regenerative design
Lyle’s principles of regenerative design are based upon a view of landscape not
as scenery, but as a complex, diverse system of non-linear flows, as shown in
Figure 1. Humans interact with these complex natural systems, instead of
attempting to dominate them. Letting nature do the work, considering nature as
both model and context, seeking multiple pathways for various processes,
shaping form to guide flow, and use of information over power are among the key
concepts that form the foundation of Lyle’s regenerative design. An
interdisciplinary approach, and a change in mindset, is critical to bring regionally
based, regenerative developments to a community (Lyle 1994). Key principles of
Lyle’s regenerative design include:
Conversion: conversion can take place when solar radiation is converted
from energy to biomass and heat.
Distribution: distribution can be achieved with wind, which can help to
disperse seeds over long distances.
Filtration: filtration can be accomplished by plants, which can help filter
impurities from the soil or mycorrhizae on roots.
Assimilation: An example of assimilation is decomposition, where nutrients
can be absorbed back into the soil.
Storage: Aquifers, which store water underground, are one example of
storage. (Lyle 1994)
14
Figure 1: Principles of Lyle’s regenerative design (with elements of H.T.
Odum’s energy system language, energese). Adapted from Regenerative Design
for Sustainable Development by John Tillman Lyle.
Expanding on Lyle’s work, Mang and Reed’s principles of regeneration are
based upon a paradigm shift in thinking: about how humans view the built
environment, how they view themselves, and how evolution plays into this
transformation. Here, regeneration is not restoration of an ecosystem. It is the
“reconnection of human aspirations and activities with the evolution of natural
systems – essentially co-evolution. It means shifting communities and economic
activities back into alignment with life processes” (Mang and Reed 2012). For
Mang and Reed, two distinct methodologies: regenerative design and
regenerative development, work in tandem to help achieve this evolution (Mang
and Reed 2012).
15
Regenerative development:
(1) determines the right phenomena to work on, or to give form to, in order to inform and provide direction for design solutions that can realize the greatest potential for evolving a system; and (2) it builds the capability and the field of commitment and caring in which stakeholders step forward as co-designers and ongoing stewards of those solutions. (Mang and Reed 2012)
Regenerative design:
works within this direction and field, applying a system of technologies and strategies based on an understanding of the inner working of ecosystems (living systems) to give ‘form’ to processes that can generate new and healthier patterns in a place. (Mang and Reed 2012)
Key principles of Reed and Mang’s regenerative development include:
Place: The network of living systems and cultures in a region.
Patterns: An understanding of patterns in the various relationships that go
into a project, to understand how systems are shaped, and how they
function.
Story of Place: Use of stories, which are inherent to human history, as a
way to create a strong connection between people and place.
Potential: Connection of place to the larger systems to fulfill the full
potential of the site in relation to its surroundings.
Permaculture: Using patterns to connect natural and human systems.
Developmental change processes: An inclusive process, involving
developers and stakeholders, where open dialog allows for evolution in
thinking and process. (Mang and Reed 2012)
16
The first part of this chapter has been focused on some of the specific
elements of regeneration from different vantage points. The generally agreed
upon principles integral to regenerative thinking or regenerative design are the
focus of the last part of this chapter.
A Shifting Mindset
Regenerative design cannot succeed using compartmentalized design and
planning processes. Successful application of regenerative design requires a
fundamental change in the way we think about the world (Lyle 1994), a
worldview change from mechanical to ecological systems (Cooper 2012), a shift
in mindset of design teams and clients (Cole 2012), cultural transformation, a
new sense of humanity (Plaut, Dunbar, Wackerman, and Hodgin 2012), long
term thinking (Edwards 2010), and information over power (Lyle 1994). The
precedent studies in chapter four illustrate ways in which this elements resulting
from this shifting mindset can be applied; from the ecological systems in place at
the Lyle Center, to the cultural transformation, through connecting with nature in
everyday activities for the students in the Willow School, to the long-term thinking
among the design team, and educational outreach at the Phipps Center for
Sustainable Landscapes.
Bioregionalism
An idea born in the mid-1970s, a bioregion, or “life-place,” is defined by natural
boundaries – a watershed, a coastal area, a mountain range, etc. Identification
17
with a bioregion reinforces the connection between humans and nature, giving a
deeper meaning to sense of place (Thayer 2003). Bioregionalism familiarizes
humans with the local flora and fauna, the soil, the geology, and the water source
(Sale 1985). Similar to many of the key concepts in regenerative development,
Sale emphasizes knowing the land, learning the lore and culture, developing the
potential, and liberating the self to become rooted in community (Sale 1985).
Biophilia
Biophilic design is capable of “reestablish[ing] positive connections between
people and nature in the built environment” (Kellert, Heerwagen, and Mador
2008). These connections include exposure to daylight, outdoor ventilation,
patterns of change, rhythm and sound, and exposure to native flora and fauna.
“Mimic the structures of ancient landscapes, say the biomimics, and you’ll be
granted function” (Kellert et al. 2008). Exposure to nature has been associated
with health and wellness for hundreds, if not thousands of years (Kellert et al.
2008). This association cuts across boundaries of culture and socio-economic
conditions. E.O. Wilson’s hypothesis that humans are genetically predisposed for
positive reactions to natural environments indicates that this evolutionary trait
may have worked in tandem with the idea of natural selection; the idea of survival
of the fittest may have had a correlation to those who responded positively to
their natural surroundings (Kellert et al. 2008).
18
Biomimicry
Janine Benyus, co-founder of the Biomimicry Guild, developed the idea of
biomimicry, or life imitation, based on the ability of plants and animals to adapt to
changes in their environment (Peters 2011). The Biomimicry Institute, also co-
founded by Benyus, offers a database of biomimetic strategies that may be used
by design professionals. The Genius of the Place strategy focuses on the
ecology of a site to help the design team maximize the site’s strengths (Peters
2011). Using nature as model, measure, and mentor, biomimicry suggests that
humans use nature as a tool for design inspiration, and a benchmark for success
in innovation. In tandem with the aforementioned shifting mindset, viewing nature
as a tool for learning instead of a resource to be exploited is fundamental to a
biomimetic approach (Benyus 1997).
An Interdisciplinary Approach
Regenerative design is multifaceted; its success is reliant upon interconnectivity
among different disciplines (Cooper 2012). According to Steven Moore, any
practice of regenerative design should be interdisciplinary, accomplished within
the context of the marketplace (Nicolette 2012). Professional boundaries need to
be blurred, and responsibilities and skills of designers need to evolve (Cole
2012). Regenerative design requires a paradigm shift: economic, environmental,
and personal goals must evolve. Design and development teams must be
created and rearranged. Communications, systems, and procedures must align
19
in a process-based approach; this process is as important to the project as the
project itself (Plaut et al. 2012)
Criticism of Regenerative Design
Regenerative design does not lend itself to measurement against indicators, as
the benefits are only clear in the long-term within the context of ecological and
cultural scale (Cooper, 2012; du Plessis 2012). Not unlike the challenges facing
economists in efforts to integrate natural capital into a world focused primarily on
growth (Daly 2007), one challenge is to demonstrate that the long-term benefits
of regenerative design in the built environment are worth the effort required to
sway the opinions of existing and potential stakeholders away from conventional
design and construction. Additional challenges include fostering acceptance of
the potential upfront costs required in design and construction, and providing
examples of the beneficial impacts to building design and inhabitation (Cooper
2012). Anthropologist Joseph Tainter has concerns about the effectiveness and
sustainability of small scale applications (Cole and Oliver 2012), however John T.
Lyle states that regenerative technologies can be successfully applied in small
scale applications (Lyle 1994). Any small-scale application becomes part of the
larger system (Reed 2014), but small and large-scale projects each require a
different approach. These criticisms are largely pessimistic, however, as most of
the technologies and methods involved in regenerative design, including solar
energy production, thermal mass, greywater and blackwater reclamation, and
food production, are within reach. Regenerative design necessitates a different
20
approach to dealing with projects, but the potential benefits have the ability to
radically transform the built environment.
Summary
The multiple viewpoints expressed throughout this chapter illustrate how the
different perceptions of regenerative design, shown in Table 1, share a common
foundation. These commonalities coalesce to redefine regenerative design in the
built environment. Recent criticisms illustrate how potentially difficult negotiating
a paradigm shift in the built environment can be, however, the benefits of
regenerative design have the ability to extend beyond property lines (Cole and
Oliver 2012). Capable of restoring lost capacities, treating and reclaiming
rainwater and wastewater, production of food, and generating on-site renewable
energy, regenerative design can reestablish the connection between people and
nature, art and science. (Lyle 1994) In the words of Frederick Steiner, “It is time
to transition from green to regenerative design” (Nicolette 2012).
21
Table 1: Summary of regenerative design principles
Biomimicry
Interdisciplinary approach
Permaculture
Developmental change processes
Shifting mindset
Bioregionalism
Biophilia
Summary of regenerative design principles
Generally agreed upon principles:
Reed and Mang's principles:
Lyle's principles:
Conversion
Distribution
Filtration
Assimilation
Storage
Place
Pattern
Story of place
Potential
22
CHAPTER THREE
EVALUATION OF REGENERATIVE RATING SYSTEMS
Introduction
This chapter evaluates two regenerative rating systems, summarizing their
similarities and differences. The literature is divided among those who believe in
the benefits of current rating systems such as LEED, and those who believe that
current rating systems do not fully address the potential need for more holistic
design processes, capable of restoring and regenerating lost capacities. The two
rating systems evaluated in this chapter: Sustainable Sites Initiative and the
Living Building Challenge, address the shortcomings for which current rating
systems are often criticized.
Rating Green, Sustainable, and Regenerative
Green building and sustainable construction has become a worldwide movement
(Kibert 2008). Rating systems, including UK-based BREEAM (Building Research
Establishment Environmental Assessment Method), German-based DGNB, and
US-based LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) have
succeeded in integrating economic, environmental, and social elements into the
construction industry (Kibert 2008). Market transformation has been undeniable;
prior to the introduction of LEED in the late 1990’s, low-emitting construction
23
materials including paint and adhesives were costly; now they are widely
available and competitively priced (Todd, Pyke, and Tufts 2013). In 2006,
approximately 6,000 buildings were LEED registered and certified; in 2012, over
32,000 buildings were registered, with over 8,600 certified (Kibert 2008). The
metrics upon which the LEED rating system is based can evolve as market
demands shift; the rating system must continue to balance the goals of “market
transformation and environmental assessment” (Todd et al. 2013)
There is, however, some disillusionment with current rating systems.
Steven Moore said “voluntary systems such as LEED internalize the ethical
qualities of development” (Nicolette 2012). David Lake stated LEED should call
for design that expands boundaries, is built to endure and evolve, and “balances
ecology, economy, and humanity” (Nicolette 2012). Raymond Cole and Amy
Oliver criticize LEED’s checklist for not guiding design in a systems-approach,
and for missing the link between building and context (Cole and Oliver 2012).
LEED, according to architect Stephen Kieran, can be successful “only if its
environmental strategies are so integral that you can’t walk around the building
and count the points” (Russell 2007). Stephanie Hodgin believes the green
building movement does not allow for a fundamental shift in thinking, which
includes relationships between development and nature, education, beauty,
community, and socio-economic diversity (Plaut et al. 2012). Raymond Cole
acknowledges differences between the terms “green”, “sustainable”, and
“regenerative”, and notes the blur between the terms “green” and “sustainable”
(Cole 2012).
24
While criticism of current rating systems (LEED in particular) is not
unfounded, the rating system’s effect on market transformation in the built
environment cannot be understated. Rating systems or frameworks focused on
regenerative design have similar potential to positively affect market
transformation towards regenerative design.
Existing rating systems or frameworks that focus on regenerative design
include LENSES, REGEN, Perkins + Will Framework, Sustainable Sites Initiative
(SITES), and The Living Building Challenge (LBC). While rating systems or
frameworks such as LENSES, REGEN, and the Perkins + Will Framework hold
promise for the future of regenerative design, they are still under development
and thus will not be considered for evaluation in this thesis. SITES and LBC have
been released for public use, and they offer methods to quantify regenerative
design, therefore they are the rating systems chosen for evaluation in this
chapter. SITES and LBC are formatted differently and therefore cannot be
directly compared. However, comparing and contrasting the fundamentals
present in each rating system helps identify strategies that may be extracted to
assist in the design process and application in chapter five.
Sustainable Sites Initiative (SITES)
SITES was conceived at the 2005 Sustainable Sites Summit at the Lady Bird
Johnson Wildflower Center at the University of Texas in Austin. It is a
collaboration between the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center, the United
States Botanical Garden in Washington, DC, and the American Society of
25
Landscape Architects, however there are many other consultants and
organizations also involved in SITES. The goal is to have participating
organizations support and promote SITES, review SITES guidelines to suggest
modifications, and research to assist future SITES projects. Resilience to the
effects of population growth and environmental degradation are central to SITES’
mission statement, along with green infrastructure, carbon sequestration,
ecosystem preservation, and climate regulation. (Sustainable Sites 2015b)
SITES was chosen for its association with ASLA, emphasis on ecosystem
services, “regenerative outcomes” (Sustainable Sites 2015b) in the built
environment, and its highly-structured format. The current version, SITES v2,
includes a checklist and certified, gold, silver, or platinum scoring system, similar
to the LEED rating system.
SITES Structure
The objectives of the Sustainable Sites Initiative are based on the
program’s message, that:
Any landscape – whether the site of a large subdivision, a shopping mall, a park, an abandoned railyard, or even one home – holds the potential both to improve and regenerate the natural benefits and services provided by ecosystems in their undeveloped state. (Sustainable Sites 2015a)
The “guiding principles” of SITES are to:
Do no harm
Apply the precautionary principle.
Design with nature and culture.
26
Use a decision-making hierarchy of preservation, conservation, and
regeneration.
Provide regenerative systems as intergenerational equity.
Support a living process.
Use a systems thinking approach.
Use a collaborative and ethical approach.
Maintain integrity in leadership and research.
Foster environmental stewardship.
(Sustainable Sites 2014b)
SITES v2 Rating System has 18 prerequisites, all of which must be met to
qualify for certification; a project cannot be certified without meeting the
prerequisite requirements. Using the LEED rating system as a model, the
prerequisites and credits are divided into the following categories:
Site Context
Pre-Design assessment and Planning
Site Design - Water
Site Design - Soil and vegetation
Site Design - Materials selection
Site Design - Human health and well-being
Construction
Operations and maintenance
Education and Performance Monitoring
27
Innovation or Exemplary Performance
(Sustainable Sites 2014b)
Certification
Based on a 200-point system, credits are awarded in each category; similar to
the LEED rating system, sites can earn ratings ranging from certified, silver, gold,
and platinum, depending upon the number of prerequisites and total credits
achieved. To achieve SITES certification, the project site must be at least 2,000
square feet, and constructed within two years of the certification date
(Sustainable Sites 2014b). A Certification Challenge Policy may be conducted
within 18 months; SITES certification may be revoked within this time period at
the discretion of the Green Business Certification Incorporated (GBCI), a third
party certification and credentialing company (GBCI 2015).
Summary
SITES is a robust and pragmatic rating system, geared towards resilience and
regenerative design. The rating system is designed to be adaptive; future
versions will surely change as the database of projects grows. Built in LEED’s
image, SITES has great potential to affect market transformation, as LEED has
so successfully done. While SITES is not explicitly a regenerative rating system
in name, regenerative design is integral to its structure; the guidelines are
intended to “transform land development and management practices towards
regenerative design” (Sustainable Sites 2015b).
28
The Living Building Challenge (LBC)
What if every single act of design and construction made the world a better place? What if every intervention resulted in greater biodiversity; increased soil health; additional outlets for beauty and personal expression; a deeper understanding of climate, culture and place; a realignment of our food and transportation systems; and a more profound sense of what it means to be a citizen of a planet where resources and opportunities are provided fairly and equitably? (Living Future 2015)
Developed by the International Living Future Institute, the LBC is a multi-faceted
tool for regenerative design in the built environment. The LBC is “philosophy first,
an advocacy tool second and a certification program third” (Living Future 2015),
seeking a balance between metrics and intangibles. Intended to guide
individuals, buildings, landscapes, and communities toward a “culturally rich,
socially just, and ecologically restorative” (Living Future 2015) future, the LBC is
an ambitious and bold rating system, intent on affecting positive change in the
world, through a paradigm shift in how humans interact with natural systems and
the built environment (Living Future 2015).
LBC Structure
"There are never more than twenty simple and profound Imperatives that must be
met for any type of project, at any scale, in any location around the world” (Living
Future 2015). The LBC rating system has seven categories, described as petals:
Place: the place petal emphasizes the creation of regional, pedestrian-
oriented communities, built on greyfields or brownfields, with food
production to supplement existing industrial agriculture systems
29
Water: the water petal emphasizes changing the ways in which people
use water, to address current and future shortages of potable water. The
water petal challenges current code restrictions by proposing site and
district-scale solutions over centralized water treatment plants.
Energy: the energy petal emphasizes a shift away from fossil fuel
consumption toward renewable forms of energy, through decentralized
power grids.
Health and Happiness: the health and happiness petal emphasizes the
creation of conditions that promote health and well-being.
Materials: the materials petal emphasizes smart material selection,
through use of materials that are toxin-free and produced in a way that
minimizes environmental degradation.
Equity: the equity petal emphasizes communities that are socially and
economically diverse, with universal and equitable accessibility to
amenities and resources.
Beauty: the beauty petal emphasizes aesthetics as a necessary element
to foster the connections required for humans to care about their
environment. (Living Future 2015)
Within the seven petals, there are a total of twenty Imperatives, all of which must
be met in order to receive certification. The imperatives may be applied to any
project, regardless of location or scale. See Table 2.
30
Table 2: Living Building Challenge Imperatives
Certification
LBC certification is available on virtually all project types, from new buildings to
renovations, single-family homes, multi-family developments, commercial,
medical, and institutional projects. Certification is based on actual performance
instead of estimated metrics; buildings must be operational for a minimum of
twelve consecutive months prior to review for LBC certification.
Net Zero Energy Building Certification (NZEB) is available for buildings that meet
four of the seven petals: Limits to growth, Net Positive Energy, Beauty and Spirit,
and Inspiration and Education. (Living Future 2015)
Petal
Place 1 Limits to growth
2 Urban agriculture
3 Habitat exchange
4 Human powered living
Water 5 Net positive water
Energy 6 Net positive energy
Health & Happiness 7 Civilized environment
8 Healthy interior environment
9 Biophilic environment
Materials 10 Red list
11 Embodied carbon footprint
12 Responsible industry
13 Living economy sourcing
14 Net positive waste
Equity 15 Human scale and humane places
16 Universal access to nature & place
17 Equitable investment
18 Just organizations
Beauty 19 Beauty & spirit
20 Inspiration & education
Imperative
Living Building Challenge Structure
31
Evolution of the program is integral to its structure; as the database of projects
grows, the rating system can be refined to reflect changes in the market, or
changes in technologies. (Living Future 2015)
Summary
The LBC is intent on creating positive changes in cultural and natural systems,
emphasizing “lasting sustainability” (Living Future 2015) and a “regenerative
living future” (Living Future 2015) across the globe. Interchanging the terms
sustainability and regeneration, the LBC blurs the line between the two, pushing
the boundaries for design and construction in the built environment towards a
stronger future for humankind. While earlier versions of the LBC emphasized
doing no harm, the current version (3.0) has moved beyond a net-neutral
approach, and is focused specifically toward regenerative design (Living Future
2015).
Comparison
As Table 3 illustrates, both SITES and LBC have fundamental similarities
among their prerequisites and imperatives. LBC imperative 01 (Limits to
Growth) restricts development to greyfields or brownfields. SITES
prerequisites 1.1 – 1.3 limit development on farmland, protect floodplain
functions, and conserve aquatic ecosystems; SITES does not, however,
restrict development to greyfields or brownfields. (Living Future 2015;
Sustainable Sites 2014b)
32
LBC imperative 03 (Habitat Exchange) mandates a certain portion of land
away from the project be set aside in perpetuity. SITES prerequisite 1.4,
(Conserve Habitats for Threatened and Endangered Species) recommends
developing sites that do not impact threatened or endangered animal species.
Where impacts may be incurred, SITES suggests designing to minimize
disturbance and promote wildlife corridors. (Living Future 2015; Sustainable Sites
2014b)
LBC imperative 05 (Net Positive Water) specifies that a project shall be
supplied completely by captured rain and closed-loop water systems, purified
without chemicals. Greywater and blackwater shall also be treated onsite. SITES
prerequisites 3.1 and 3.2 (Manage Precipitation on site, Reduce Water Use for
Landscape Irrigation) do not specifically require net-positive results, but they
require infiltration and reuse strategies, including minimization of irrigation, and
promotion of impervious areas, bioswales, rain gardens, and constructed
wetlands. (Living Future 2015; Sustainable Sites 2014b)
LBC Imperative 09 (Biophilic Environment) specifies that a project must
include elements that foster the connection between humans and nature,
incorporating natural forms, patterns, and place. Sites prerequisites 4.2 and 4.3
(Use Appropriate Plants, Plan for Sustainable Site Maintenance), and 8.1 (Plan
for Sustainable Site Maintenance), provide strategies for responsible plant
selection and maintenance; these strategies are critical to design and
33
maintenance of biophilic environments. (Living Future 2015; Sustainable Sites
2014b)
LBC Imperative 12 (Responsible Industry), mandates the use of Forest
Stewardship Council-certified wood, or wood harvested from the project site.
SITES prerequisite 5.1 (Eliminate Use of Wood from Threatened Species)
focuses on specification of wood from non-threatened sources for all new and
temporary wood used on the project. (Living Future 2015; Sustainable Sites
2014b)
Table 3: Fundamental similarities between rating systems
Prerequisite (SITES) Imperative (LBC)
1.1 Limit development on farmland 01. Limits to growth
1.2 Protect floodplain functions
1.3 Conserve aquatic ecosystems
1.4 Conserve habitats for threatened and 03. Habitat exchange
endangered species
3.1 Manage precipitation on site 05. Net positive water
3.2 Reduce water use for landscape irrigation
4.2 Control and manage invasive plants 09. Biophilic environment
4.3 Use appropriate plants
8.1 Plan for sustainable site maintenance
5.1 Eliminate use of wood from threatened 12. Responsible industry
species
Similarities between prereequisites (SITES) and Imperatives (LBC)
34
There are differences between the two rating systems, as illustrated in
Table 4. While both rating systems are geared towards regenerative design, LBC
is focused on buildings, and SITES is focused on development of the land.
SITES contains best management practice prerequisites, including Prerequisite
2.1 (Use an Integrated Design Process), 2.2 (Conduct a Pre-Design
Assessment). Best management practices are implicit to the LBC rating system,
and thus are not articulated as imperatives. Urban agriculture, net-positive
energy, beauty, spirit, inspiration, and education, are more esoteric imperatives,
and are not specified within the structure of the SITES rating system. (Living
Future 2015; Sustainable Sites 2014b)
Both rating systems blur the line between terminologies, using
regenerative design as a means to achieve sustainability in the built environment.
35
Table 4: Fundamental differences between rating systems
Prerequisite (SITES) Imperative (LBC)
2.1 Use an integrated design process 02. Urban agriculture
2.2 Conduct a pre-design assessment 04. Human powered living
2.3 Designate and communicate vegetation 06. Net positive energy
and soil protection zones
07. Civilized environment
4.1 Create and communicate a soil
management plan 08. Healthy interior environment
7.1 Communicate and verify sustainable 10. Red list
construction practices
11. Embodied carbon footprint
7.3 Restore soils disturbed during construction
13. Living economy sourcing
8.2 Provide for storage and collection of
recyclables 14. Net positive waste
15. Human scale and humane places
16. Universal access to nature and place
17. Equitable investment
18. Just organizations
19. Beauty & Spirit
20. Inspiration & education
Differences in prerequisites (SITES) and imperatives (LBC)
36
CHAPTER FOUR
PRECEDENT STUDIES IN REGENERATIVE DESIGN
Introduction
This chapter evaluates three precedent studies to extract concepts and
strategies, which are applied to the design in chapter five. The three precedent
studies: The John T. Lyle Center for Regenerative Studies at California
Polytechnic State University in Pomona, California, The Willow School in
Gladstone, New Jersey, and The Phipps’ Center for Sustainable Landscapes
(CSL) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, were selected for their utilization of
regenerative design concepts. The following criteria are used to evaluate the
precedent studies: design process, building type(s), energy use, water
management, site, and landscape. The Lyle Center and Willow School were
designed in part by Lyle and Reed, both of whom have been influential in
promotion of regenerative design and development. These established, built
works by both Lyle and Reed, provide tangible examples of regenerative design
principles, specified in chapter two. High accolades in sustainable or green
construction were a contributing factor to selection of the CSL. The CSL is not
specified as a regenerative design, however, the ways in which it was designed,
built, and used, fit within the definition of regenerative design as specified in
chapter two. The CSL served as a pilot project for SITES, which is evaluated in
37
chapter three; and is the first project in the world to achieve LEED Platinum
Certification, Four-Star SITES Certification, and The Living Building Challenge
(Sustainable Sites 2014a).The three sites are also chosen for their chronology:
The Lyle Center was built in the mid-1990’s, the Willow School in the early
2000’s, and the CSL in the late 2000’s. Covering more than 20 years, this
timeline reveals differences in design processes and construction techniques.
Lyle Center for Regenerative Studies
The Lyle Center for Regenerative Studies in Pomona, California, is a 16-acre
living facility, demonstration, and research center for California Polytechnic State
University. Housing approximately 20 students, the Lyle Center is a community
and living laboratory for regenerative design. The Center produces food through
regenerative agriculture, energy through solar power, and recycles waste and
wastewater. On-site facilities include residential units for graduate students,
dining, and educational space (Lyle 1994). As Table 4 illustrates, several of
Lyle’s regenerative strategies were applied to the design and construction of the
Center.
Design process
The Lyle Center was designed and planned by an interdisciplinary team with
knowledge of regenerative design. The concept of landscape as ecosystem
provided the vision for the design team. Structure, function, and pattern were the
three fundamental components of the natural systems based design, which faced
38
its fair share of challenges from the bureaucratic tendencies of the university to
which it belongs, having to withstand “strong tendencies for rejection” (Lyle 1994)
and changes in direction from university authorities. Funds were raised from
private sources for the Center’s construction, but administrative difficulties at the
university provided numerous setbacks to the design process. Changes in
leadership at the university eventually lead to the Center’s construction,
beginning in 1992. (Lyle 1994)
Letting nature do the work
Nature as model & context
Aggregating functions
Optimum levels for multiple functions
Matching technology & need
Information over power
Multiple pathways
Common solutions to disparate problems
Storage as a key to sustainability
Form to facilitate flow
Form to manifest process
Runoff is captured and stored
Heat storage in buildings through thermal mass
Buildings sited to capture solar rays
Terraced agriculture to harness water
Wind, solar generators, and other devices revealed as features
Water quality and other environmental factors are monitored
Residents observe systems operations
Different plant communities for nutrition
Public utility backups
Greenhouses heat buildings and grow plants
Green roofs grow food, collect water, and regulate climate
Aggregating functions interact in a state of
Dynamic equilibrium
Higher technological items collect energy and cure food
Small food production area devoted to manual farming
Regenerative Strategies at The Lyle Center
Passive temperature regulation with plants,
air movement, passive solar heating
Water efficiency & recycling is emphasized in
dry southern California climate
Energy production, food production, waste recycling
Table 5: Regenerative Strategies at The Lyle Center (Lyle 1994)
39
Buildings
Several methods of construction were used at the Center, including earth-
tempered buildings, stilt construction, and solarium, or “sunspace” (Lyle 1994)
structures. To further emphasize the strengths of each building type, each
building was sited to take full advantage of its surroundings. The stilted building
was placed close to a pond, to take advantage of the evaporative cooling effect
of the water. The earth-tempered buildings were sited on steeper slopes to take
advantage of the topography. The two-story sunspace buildings were placed
towards the highest slopes to maximize solar exposure. All of the structures have
roofs that are used to collect energy, grow plants, and serve as outdoor spaces
for people.
Figure 2: Lyle center entry
(http://www.cpp.edu/~housing/housing-options/crs.shtml)
40
The roof gardens are extensive and intensive. In both cases, insulation for
the roof and building is from soil. Deciduous vines are planted on a trellis system,
mounted four feet from the building on the east and west sides, to block hot
summer sun. In the winter, the deciduous vines allow the sun to pass through
and heat the building. See Figure 2. Air intakes on the south faces of the
buildings intercept breezes coming from the south and southwest. The buildings
have vents over high ceilings, where the warm air is drawn up and out. These
designs are capable of maintaining temperatures that are within the human
comfort zone, but backup heaters were installed per code. (Lyle 1994)
Energy Use
The Center experimented with different technologies to provide energy, while
initially relying on utilities for electric and gas service. As energy uses stabilized,
energy flow models were generated, and the inflows were adjusted accordingly.
The four energy sources include solar power, the electric utility, the gas utility,
and gasoline – with solar power ultimately dominating energy production,
phasing out the utilities as energy flows are optimized through experimentation.
The Center is far enough from the Cal Poly campus that commuting, and the
energy used in commuting, resulted in the decision to encourage walking and
other means of transportation by eliminating on-site parking areas. (Lyle 1994)
41
Water Management
Water is scarce in southern California, and the site receives almost no runoff
from surrounding land, so the Center set out to prioritize water use and
management. Using form to shape flow, swales and hillsides were designed to
hold and direct water to plants. The different slopes on the site were designed to
take advantage of the natural forms already present. See Figure 3.
Figure 3: Lyle Center slope analysis (Used with permission from Wiley & Sons)
The valley: the lowest part of the site holds water naturally, so functions
here include aquaculture and wastewater treatment.
The knolltops: round hills are devoted to contour farming and grain
production.
The bases of the knolls: flat areas devoted to vegetable production and
intensive gardening or farming.
42
The knollsides: steeper slopes, from 10 to 35 percent, which require
terracing to produce food.
The steep slopes: over 35%, these forested areas remain productive
areas with permanent plants.
Water that is not used for agriculture or plants is held in retention ponds,
infiltrated, and stored underground. Roof water that isn’t captured by roof
gardens is directed to cisterns. The Pomona Water District provides additional
potable water. After use, it is treated on site in an aquaculture treatment system.
The treated water is then used to irrigate plants (Lyle 1994).
Three different systems are in place to treat wastewater at the Lyle Center. A
septic tank provides the first stage of collection. This is followed by three
treatment methods: aquaculture, a surface-flow wetland system, and a rootzone
system. These methods are observed and monitored for their effectiveness as
part of the Center’s experimentation. Sludge is periodically removed from the
septic tank, and converted to fertilizer for plants (Lyle 1994). Through multiple
pathways, Lyle’s basic processes of regeneration are all well represented in the
Center’s water management program: conversion, distribution, storage,
assimilation, and filtration.
Site and Landscape
The Center’s varying topography and microclimates allows for diversity in
agricultural techniques and methods. See Figure 4. Regenerative agriculture is
43
intended to function as an ecosystem, using less water and energy, and reducing
fossil fuel consumption, while enhancing biodiversity and minimizing waste
through polyculture farming practices. Livestock, such as goats, cattle, and
poultry, in addition to providing sustenance, are part of the nutrient cycling
system, as their waste is repurposed as fertilizer. Vegetables are grown
outdoors, and indoors, in greenhouses. Permaculture practices, including
vertically layered polycultures, crop rotation, integrated pest management, and
composting, are evident throughout the Center’s various land types (Lyle 1994).
Figure 4: Lyle Center Land Use (Used with permission from Wiley & Sons)
Summary
The Lyle Center is a tangible model of Lyle’s regenerative approach to design
and development that overcame many hurdles in its development and
44
construction. For over twenty years, The Lyle Center has continued to educate,
demonstrate, and research regenerative design, providing a living laboratory for
regenerative studies.
The Willow School
The Willow School is an independent preschool through eighth grade day school
in Gladstone, NJ. Mark and Gretchen Biedron founded the school in 2001. An
ethical relationship between humans and ecology was a founding value for the
school, and the Biedrons used systems thinking to view relationships with their
surroundings in a different way. They realized that it would be impossible to
teach children about these human and ecological relationships if a standard,
conventional approach was taken to building and campus construction. (Willow
School 2014)
Design Process
Originally intending to achieve LEED Certification, Regenesis helped the
Biedrons expand their approach to the design and construction of the school
towards regenerative design. The Story of Place method used by Regenesis
revealed the heritage of the site, which was at one time a productive forested
ecosystem that had been degraded over time by farming and overgrazing. From
this was born the idea of regenerating the forest ecosystem. (Regenesis 2014)
45
Buildings
The first classroom building on the Willow School campus, shown in Figure 5,
was awarded LEED Gold Certification in 2003; the second building achieved
LEED Platinum Certification in 2007. Both buildings were pioneers in green
building construction for schools, and use 60 – 70 percent less energy than
standard construction. (Willow School 2014)
The Health, Wellness, and Nutrition Center, built in 2014 and shown in
Figure 6, met the Living Building Challenge. This building will produce more
electricity than it is able to use; the other two buildings will consume the excess
energy. Materials used in building construction were salvaged, recycled, or
renewable. These materials include flooring, structural steel, and concrete. The
Figure 5: Willow School classroom building
(http://www.regenesisgroup.com/project/the-willow-school/)
46
school’s buildings and landscape are an integral part of the curriculum, and are
used to reveal the various systems that comprise the built environment. (Willow
School 2014)
Figure 6: Health, Wellness, and Nutrition Center
(http://www.regenesisgroup.com/project/the-willow-school/)
Water Management
Water is designed to follow natural processes at the school. Wastewater is
reclaimed through constructed wetlands. See Figure 7. Stormwater is infiltrated
through permeable paving, green roofs, and bioswales. It is stored, filtered, and
treated in deep-pool wetlands. Rainwater is collected, stored, and used for
irrigation and toilet water supply. Though multiple pathways, the flows of water in
and out of the site become integral to the story of the school, engaging both the
school’s students and visitors. (Regenesis 2014)
47
Figure 7: Constructed wetlands at the Willow School
(http://www.willowschool.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/watertreatment.jpg)
Site and Landscape
To provide habitat and eliminate irrigation and fertilizer use, a native plant palette
was used for the campus landscape design. By choosing native grasses and
perennials over conventional turf grass, stormwater runoff is reduced. Site
lighting was reduced to reduce both light pollution and energy use. Mature trees
were protected during construction, and shade trees were planted along south
facing portions of the building for protection from solar rays in the summer, and
heat from solar rays in the winter. All wastes from landscape management
activities are composted on site. (Willow School 2014)
48
Summary
The Willow School’s regenerative philosophy engages students with the campus
environment. The regenerative design concepts used on site promote Lyle’s
concepts of conversion, assimilation, storage, and filtration. With Regenesis, the
regenerative development process galvanized the story of place and
engagement between the curriculum and the students. The relationships that are
built between humans and natural systems reinforce the school’s sense of place
within the larger community, and the principles of regenerative design are
integrated into each student’s conscience to carry forward.
Phipps Center for Sustainable Landscapes (CSL)
Located in Pittsburgh’s Schenley Park, the Phipps Center is a cultural
centerpiece for the city of Pittsburgh. The center, founded in 1893, is focused on
educating people about horticulture, and advancing knowledge and practices
concerning environmental sustainability. The Center’s mission, says Phipps’
executive director Richard Piacentini, is to “find the most environmentally friendly
way to interact with nature, and then share it with people” (Phipps Conservatory
2015). Stocked with exotic plants in its early days, the center was a respite for
laborers working in filthy conditions, during a time when society often sought to
control nature. Over a hundred years later, the construction of the CSL reflects
an inclusive view of nature. Piacentini attended a green building conference in
2006, and after learning about The Living Building Challenge (LBC) from its
author, Jason McClennan, Piacentini and the Phipps’ board of trustees accepted
49
The LBC in 2007. The project’s three goals were to: meet the LBC, achieve
LEED Platinum Certification, and be a pilot project for the fledgling Sustainable
Sites Initiative (Thomas 2013).
Design Process
The two-year design process included charrettes with the Phipps staff on a bi-
monthly basis. This integrated design process provided information from all
stakeholders on how the building could be fully integrated into the landscape and
the community. Architect L. Christian Minnerly, landscape architect José
Almiñana, and Phipps staff worked to break down the typical barriers between
the disciplines. Architecture students from nearby Carnegie-Mellon University
used the CSL as an ongoing project, and the design team had full access to the
results. (Thomas 2013)
Building and energy use
The interconnection between siting a building and its potential for passive energy
benefits is fundamental to efficient design; the design team for the CSL took
advantage of the east-west orientation of the site. Through window glazing,
shading, overhangs, and landscape, the CSL embraces the passive energy
provided by the sun. Geothermal climate control is used to further regulate the
building temperature; due to site constraints, the geothermal wells were placed
underneath the parking area (Thomas 2013). Because the CSL has a green roof,
solar panels could not be placed effectively on the roof, so they were placed on
50
the adjacent maintenance building’s roof, the special events center roof, and also
on the ground. A wind turbine provides additional power for the CSL and the
overall campus (Thomas 2013). See Figure 8.
Figure 8: Sculptural wind turbine reveals process at CSL
Water Management
The Pittsburgh area has plentiful water, averaging 40 inches of rainfall per year.
However, the CSL was mindful of the amount of water that the overall campus
uses to irrigate plants. Although the CSL was not required to account for water
use on the overall campus, the project team’s systems thinking approach meant
that the overall campus was a necessary factor regarding water use. The
project’s net-zero approach to water would be achieved by balancing potable
water, greywater, and blackwater systems on site, as shown in Figure 9.
(Thomas 2013)
Constructed wetlands treat wastewater on site; the wetlands further
reinforce the building’s connection to the landscape. Site runoff is captured via
rain gardens and constructed wetlands, and stored in underground tanks that
51
were repurposed from the abandoned public works facility. The system is
capable of withstanding a seven-year storm event, according to calculations, and
would overflow at a ten-year event. Multiple flows are at work in the rain
Figure 9: Water management at the CSL (Image credit: The Design Alliance. Used with permission)
harvesting system at the CSL. Rainwater is stored in a 1,700-gallon underground
tank, and used to flush toilets and irrigate plants. The lagoon captures overflow
from the cistern and runoff from the overall site and roofs, and overflows into
52
80,000-gallon underground tanks below the access road. Tanks for irrigation
runoff can store 64,000 gallons, and tanks that capture road runoff can store
16,000 gallons. Sanitary water is cleaned via constructed wetlands and sand
filters. The water used to flush the toilets exists in a closed-loop system; no water
is drawn from the municipal source for this purpose. Excess water is pumped to
the conservatory on the upper campus, reducing demand from the municipal
provider. (Thomas 2013)
Site and Landscape
The project site is on land that was already owned by the Phipps Conservatory. A
former brownfield and the last remaining parcel of conservatory property, the site
neighbored an abandoned Pittsburgh public works service facility and yard,
which provided additional space for the CSL. The site is approximately 30’ lower
in grade from the main campus and its buildings. Due to the grade change, and
the 2.6-acre site’s space constrictions, the 24,350 square foot building was
designed to nestle into the site in the most beneficial and efficient way possible.
The building was sited so the roof garden became an entry point from the upper
campus. (Thomas 2013) See Figure 10.
53
Figure 10: Before and after construction of the CSL (Image credit: Hawkeye Aerial Photography. Used with permission)
54
The design team wanted to make the CSL a car-free campus, but they were
ultimately not able to do so. The solution was to provide a low number of spaces
on permeable paving. These spaces are reserved for electric vehicles and
visitors conducting business with the staff. Parking on the main campus serves
the remaining parking needs. (Thomas 2013)
Adjacent to the building, a terraced garden offers another way into the CSL.
Drought-tolerant plants are placed higher on the site, and plants that require
more water occupy the lower elevations. A permaculture garden is maintained on
the roof of the building. The garden emphasizes productive plants, such as edible
and medicinal plants. (Thomas 2013)
The landscape was designed to evolve, and create opportunities for visitors
and staff to experience the change over time, forming a biophilic connection with
the landscape. Several distinct, region-specific landscape nodes are featured on
the site. These include:
Constructed Wetlands
Rain Gardens
Entry Gardens
Lowland Hardwood Slope
Upland Groves
Water’s Edge
Shade Garden
Successional Slopes
Oak Woodland
55
Landscape architect José Almiñana, with Andropogon Associates, created a
“microcosm of a sloped site anywhere in the Allegheny Plateau. Landscapes that
are able to associate with water are at the bottom, and landscapes that are able
to deal with harsher, dryer, more demanding conditions occur at the top. This is
all part of the journey of the site (Thomas 2013).”
Summary
The CSL is the beneficiary of a visionary executive director and board of
trustees, and an excellent example of regenerative building, site design, and
development. Its mission, to promote a biophilic relationship between humans
and nature, reinforces the Phipps Conservatory’s message to educate staff and
visitors about environmental stewardship and sustainability. SITES and The living
building challenge provided strict guidelines for construction of the CSL, resulting
in a building and site that function efficiently to harness and generate energy
from natural sources, resulting in net-zero or net-positive energy and water use.
SITES four-star certification and The Living Building Challenge implicitly embrace
many principles of regenerative design, as illustrated throughout this precedent
study.
Conclusion
The three precedent studies share a multitude of regenerative landscape and
site-related strategies, including: agriculture, permaculture, composting, rain
gardens, constructed wetlands, rainwater collection, runoff storage, and
56
wastewater treatment. Common regenerative site and building strategies, as well
as common design and planning strategies, are shown in Table 6.
Table 6: Summary of regenerative design strategies
The regenerative design strategies in Table 6, culled from precedent studies, can
be utilized on a variety of project types. Critical indicators of regenerative design
include net-positive energy, net-positive water, use of salvaged, recycled, or
renewable materials, systems thinking, emphasis on human and ecological
relationships, bioregionalism, and an integrated design process. Many of these
concepts are applied to the site design in the following chapter.
Summary of regenerative strategies culled from precedent studies
Integrated design process
Net-positive water
Site & building strategies
Thermal mass
Roof gardens
Southern orientation
Passive climate control
Geothermal climate control
Salvaged, recycled, or renewable materials
Net-positive energy
Design & planning strategies
Bioregionalism
Systems thinking
Emphasis on human and ecological relationships
57
CHAPTER FIVE
APPLICATION OF REGENERATIVE DESIGN
Introduction and site context
In this chapter, the principles of regenerative design, culled from research and
precedent studies in previous chapters, are applied to an approximately ten-acre
site in downtown Athens, Georgia. The site was chosen for several reasons: it is
located in a vibrant and walkable downtown. It is adjacent to the University of
Georgia, which averages approximately 35,000 students per year (UGA 2015).
Figure 11: Project site, prior to construction (photo by author)
Connectivity to alternate transporation methods is an advantage for the
project site. The site, shown in Figures 11 and 12, is adjacent to the Firefly Trail,
a multi-use trail program supported by a special-purpose local-option sales tax,
the Athens-Clarke County Department of Leisure Services, and community
donations (Firefly Trail 2014), The 39-mile firefly trail follows a historic Georgia
railway line, the first segment of which will start construction in 2015. This multi-
58
use trail will eventually connect downtown Athens to the towns of Winterville,
Arnoldsville, Crawford, Stephens, Maxeys, Woodville, and Union Point (Firefly
Trail 2014). The trailhead in downtown Athens is adjacent to the project site.
Furthermore, the site has direct access to the Oconee River and its greenway.
Figure 12: Site context
59
Building supplier Armstrong and Dobbs, for which the site is named,
owned the project site prior to closing its business in 2008. Due to steep
topography and lack of infrastructure, the property was never developed to its full
potential.
In 2010, economic development association officials proposed a $41
million dollar plan to create a river district in downtown Athens, and the
Armstrong and Dobbs site was a key piece of the plan. Similar towns such as
Greenville, South Carolina and Chattanooga, Tennessee, successfully used
public and private funding to generate development along their downtown
riverfronts (Aued 2011).
The plan, dubbed Project Blue Heron, was intended to entice businesses
to the downtown area by providing incentives, generating revenue, and creating
jobs. Suggested developments included the Georgia Sports and Music hall of
fame, an amphitheater or arena, research facilities, office space, a grocery store,
and park space. By controlling the land, the economic development association
could prevent construction of more student apartments, which do not create
significant jobs or benefit the greater Athens community. One development idea
included a private research facility, which could draw grant money and attract
researchers, bolstering the university’s research work. (Aued 2010)
Debates over revenue generation became a political issue in regards to
how the property would be purchased and developed, and options that Athens-
Clarke County held on the property expired before Project Blue Heron was able
to get off the ground (Aued 2011). When the property hit the free market, a
60
private developer commissioned plans for a Walmart-anchored mixed-use
development. The development was met with staunch objection from many
residents of the community due to both its scale and the presence of Walmart,
who eventually backed out of the deal over concerns that their smaller-scale
urban stores were not meeting performance standards. (Aued 2012)
Figure 13: Proposed 2013 site plan (Aued 2013)
As Figure 13 illustrates, the developer’s plans were ultimately scaled back
in regards to the retail square footage, but the project remained an auto-centric
development focused on retail and student housing. In 2013, the developer
pulled out, citing rising material and labor costs (Aued 2013). The property was
purchased in December of 2014 by Athens developer Landmark Properties, and
construction began in January 2015. Figure 17 illustrates a site plan for the 928-
bed student housing development, with 41,000 square feet of office space, and
61
38,000 square feet of retail space (Cochran 2015). The site boundaries shown in
Figure 14 are not identical to the conceptual site design shown in Figure 21,
however with large building footprints, exposed parking lots, no energy
production, and little benefit to the surrounding community, the proposed site
plan, shown in Figure 14, differs from the conceptual site design, shown in Figure
21, in many ways. These characteristics illustrate the ways in which the proposed
design does not meet any of the regenerative design principles specified in
chapter two (see Table 1).
Figure 14: Proposed 2014 Site Plan
(Image from ACC Planning Department)
62
Conceptual Site Design Program
A mixed-use residential, commercial, and educational facility will best serve the
surrounding Athens community, acting as a regenerative demonstration for
education, research, and job incubation. The progressive and innovative
development also serves as a gateway to downtown from the east side of
Athens, engaging downtown with the Oconee River Greenway and the Firefly
Trail. This connection effectively links downtown with the other towns on the trail,
without dependence on the automobile (per LBC Imperative 04. Human Powered
Living). Regenerative design, as shown in precedent studies, is often used to
educate its users about the connection between humans and nature, and
construction of regenerative-designed facilities promotes such connections
among its users, visitors, the university, and the greater Athens community.
Site Analysis
The site analysis begins at the county scale, to discern patterns in the landscape,
including geology, hydrology, and soils. As Figure 15 illustrates, the geology of
Athens-Clarke County is comprised primarily of biotite gneiss, which is
sedimentary granite (Watson 1902). 100% of the project site is on biotite gneiss
bedrock with limited aquifer recharge areas.
63
Figure 15: Athens-Clarke County Geology
The hydrology map of Athens-Clarke County, shown in Figure 16, reveals
the drainage pattern throughout the county. As Figure 17 illustrates, the North
Oconee River is the closest major water body to the project site. A blue line
stream lies within the wooded area that separates the project site from the
adjacent Potterytown Neighborhood, but water is captured on site. Only the
64
extreme southeast corner of the site lies within a 500-year floodplain, according
to data acquired from FEMA. See Figure 17.
Figure 16: Athens-Clarke County Hydrology
65
Figure 17: Project site hydrology
The project site soils illustrated in Figure 18, although heavily altered from years
of construction, are 100% comprised of severely eroded pacolet sandy clay loam.
Typical of the southeast piedmont region, the soil quality was degraded from
poor farming and agricultural practices. Pacolet sandy clay loam is a “very deep,
well drained, moderately permeable soil that formed in residuum weathered
66
mostly from felsic igneous and metamorphic rocks of the Piedmont uplands”
(USDA 2008), with slopes ranging from 2 to 60 percent, but most commonly
Figure 18: Project site soils
ranging from 15 to 25 percent. The soil supports an upland forest, specifically an
oak-hickory pine forest. Upon his arrival to the Oconee River in 1773, near the
67
project site, William Bartram wrote of “. . .the banks of that beautiful river. The
cane swamps, of immense extent, and the oak forests, on the level lands, are
incredibly fertile…” (Bartram and Dallmeyer 2010). Bartram’s historical account of
the area provides the foundation for a narrative that influences the landscape
design for the site.
Figure 19: Project site elevation change
68
The 10 – 15 percent slopes typical of Pacolet sandy clay loam soil, with
the elevation change map shown in Figure 19, show how the project site has
been drastically altered from its original state.
Figure 20: Project site topography and slope analysis
The slope analysis, shown in Figure 20, reveals more information about
the site grades, with areas of relatively flat grades varying from 0 – 10%, giving
way to steeper slopes, ranging from 10 – 25%. Slopes greater than 25% can be
69
seen in areas adjacent to the old structures; these extremely steep slopes were
most likely a combination of retaining walls and steep grades that resulted from
the terracing of areas for buildings and parking.
Conceptual Site Design
The goals of the conceptual site design are to utilize the principles of
regenerative design, including: conversion, distribution, filtration, assimilation,
and storage (refer to Table 1). The site systems graphic, shown in Figure 25,
illustrates how these principles are achieved. The design must foster a sense of
place, to help reach the cultural and ecological potential for the site. The design
must have a permaculture-influenced food production component, and
demonstrate that net-positive water and energy are attainable. Regenerative
strategies shown in Table 7, including southern building orientation, thermal
mass, and biophilia, must be applied to the conceptual site design. See Figure 21
for the conceptual site design graphic.
70
Table 7: Summary of regenerative strategies for design
The conceptual site design is on an existing greyfield (per SITES prerequisite 1.1
Limit Development on Farmland and LBC Imperative 01. Limits to Growth).
Shown in Figure 21, the design delegates much greater amounts of open space
than a typical urban development. This is due to the open nature of the site, lack
of existing infrastructure, and existing grade, as shown in the slope analysis in
Figure 20. Site density has the potential to be adjusted by modifying the building
height, while keeping the amount of open space intact, however the current site
density provides a starting point for energy calculations, with a goal of net-
positive energy (per LBC Imperative 06. Net positive energy) and water use (per
LBC Imperative 05. Net Positive Water). A proposed road bisects the site, from
E. Broad Street to Oconee Street, providing on-street parking, vehicular access,
•
x
x
•
•
x
•
•
•
•
•
x
•
Salvaged, recycled, or renewable materials
Geothermal climate control
Net-positive energy
Net-positive water
Passive climate control
Permaculture food production
Roof gardens
Southern building orientation
Thermal mass
Summary of regenerative strategies for design
Systems thinking
(•) indicates application in design, (x) indicates not applied to design
Site & building strategies
Design & planning strategies
Integrated design process
Bioregionalism
Biophilia
71
bicycle infrastructure, sidewalks (per LBC Imperative 04. Human powered living),
and opportunities to infiltrate runoff from pavement. See Figure 22. Buildings 8
and 9 have parking garages for residences and offices, but alternate methods of
transportation to the site, including walking, biking, and bus service, are
encouraged.
72
Figure 21: Conceptual site design
73
Figure 22: Street section
Rainwater, captured from building roofs, is pumped to and stored in the
water tower for reuse; excess water is infiltrated for groundwater recharge (per
SITES Prerequisites 3.1, Manage Precipitation on Site, 3.2, Reduce Water Use
for Landscape Irrigation, and LBC Imperative 05. Net Positive Water)
Proposed grades from the existing railroad right-of-way to the proposed
road provide a 14 percent grade with eastern exposure. This slope and aspect
facilitate water and nutrient flow through a permaculture farm (per LBC
Imperative 02, Urban Agriculture). The shaping of form to influence flow helps to
produce food and engage the surrounding community through existing
organizations, including the Georgia Organics Volunteer Organization (Georgia
Organics 2015), West Broad Farmers Market (Athens Land Trust 2015), and
Athens Farmers Market (Athens Farmers Market 2015).
74
Buildings
There are nine proposed buildings shown on the conceptual site design, varying
in size and square footage. The site has a southeastern to northwestern
orientation; buildings 1 – 4, 8, and 9 have been placed to maximize southern
solar orientation, and are fitted with photovoltaic panels to harness solar
radiation. Buildings 1 - 4 nestle into the sloping grade along Oconee Street. See
Figure 23.
Figure 23: Front elevation of Building 2
The narrow profile and curved façade on buildings 1 – 4 allows for utilization of
daylight and solar radiation throughout the interior for passive heating in the cool
season. Window overhangs and deciduous shade trees allow for solar rays to
reach the building interior in the winter, but lessen the sun’s penetration on hot
days. Operable windows, phase change materials, and ventilation systems
75
passively regulate interior climate, and geothermal systems provide active
climate control in times of extreme temperatures, generally eight months per year
in northeast Georgia.
Buildings 5 and 6 are residential facilities that overlook the Firefly Trail. In
addition to engaging both the multi-use trail and the forested landscape, the
space between buildings 5 and 6 serves as a community event space, capable of
showcasing public art and holding gatherings or farmers markets (per LBC
Imperative 16, Universal access to nature and place) to sell goods produced from
the on-site farm. Building 7 is located adjacent to the proposed street; its position
envelops the forested landscape, promoting views to nature.
Materials for all buildings could have been partially reclaimed material
from the site’s original structures, but the unexpectedly rapid demolition of the
site did not allow for proper documentation of the existing structure’s material
integrity and composition. New construction materials include a mix of
sustainably-harvested or reclaimed wood (per SITES prerequisite 5.1 Eliminate
Use of Wood from Threatened Species and LBC Imperative 12 Responsible
Industry), locally made or reclaimed brick, and rammed earth. Concrete used in
new construction can make effective use of waste materials such as fly ash,
lessening its impact on use of raw materials.
Water Management
A proposed water tower is sited on high ground to facilitate water flow throughout
the site. The tower design is reminiscent of the historic towers that exist in the
76
northeast Georgia region. See Figure 24. The tower stores rainwater, releasing it
as needed to irrigate the farm and landscape. The tower also serves as a visual
and cultural icon for downtown, and as a focal point in the landscape. A series of
rain gardens or infiltration zones are placed throughout the site, from the highest
point near the water tower, to the lowest point near the constructed wetlands. If
percolation or drainage hinders water retention in the constructed wetland ponds,
compacted soils that existing on site from the Armstrong and Dobbs facilities may
be repurposed to amend the areas surrounding the constructed wetlands.
Greywater for buildings exists in a closed-loop system, stored in
underground tanks, and is filtered before being reused to flush toilets. Blackwater
is treated in constructed wetlands on the southeast side of the site. Once treated,
Figure 24: Historic water tower from nearby Oconee County provides design inspiration (photo by author)
77
this water is stored and used to drip-irrigate the farm and landscape. Once
established, the landscape will not require supplemental irrigation. See Table 9.
Net-Positive Energy
As Table 8 illustrates, it is within reason to assume that net-positive energy is
attainable through solar energy production, via roof-mounted photovoltaic (PV)
panels. While preliminary calculations, based on average rates of occupancy,
reveal that PV panels mounted on all building roofs would not produce enough
energy for the entire site, this estimation is based on average energy use per
person (International Code Council 2012). If a six percent energy reduction is
achieved through a combination of regenerative strategies including thermal
mass, daylighting, passive climate control, and by conscious efforts from the
building occupants, then the project has the ability to meet the threshold for net-
positive energy.
78
Table 8: Estimated energy use
(International Building Council 2012; Hesolar 2015; U.S. Energy Information
Administration 2015; EcoWho 2015)
Net-Positive Water
Athens, Georgia receives an average of 43.71 inches of rain per year (USGS
2015). As Table 9 illustrates, a 40,000 gallon tank is specified for rainwater
harvesting from building roofs for a one-inch rain event. Other runoff is infiltrated
throughout the site, as shown in the conceptual site design. Closed-loop
greywater systems require underground tanks totaling approximately 180,000
gallons to reuse water to flush toilets. Surface flow wetlands are not feasible on
the project site due to area constraints; there is only enough level ground to treat
Building Use Total Square Footage Max. floor area/occupant Total occupants/building Total roof area
1 Educational 9,000 20 450 4,500
2 Educational 9,000 20 450 4,500
3 Educational 9,000 20 450 4,500
4 Educational 9,000 20 450 4,500
5 Residential 14,000 200 70 7,000
6 Residential 14,000 200 70 7,000
7 Residential 14,000 200 70 7,000
8 Office & retail mixed use 26,000 100 260 13,000
9 Office & retail mixed use 40,000 100 400 20,000
72,000
2,670
29,124,360
4,800
5,760
27,648,000
1,476,360
256
3,845
Annual deficiency per occupant (in kWh) 553
5.07%
6%
http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/ibc/2009/icod_ibc_2009_10_sec004.htm
hesolarllc.com
eia.gov
Building Energy Use Calculations
Additional area (in square feet) required to house additional pv panels (15 sf per pv panel)
Additional pv panels needed to achieve net-positive energy
Estimated Annual Deficiency in (kWh)
Total proposed average annual solar energy production (in kWh):
Average annual energy production per pv panel (1.2 kWh per day)
Total proposed number of pv panels (15 sf each, divided by total roof area)
Average annual electrical consumption (10908 kWh per person):
Total estimated occupants (based on typical occupancy rates by building use):
Total roof area (in square feet)
http://www.ecowho.com/tools/solar_power_calculator.php
Annual average energy use reduction, per occupant, required to achieve net-neutral energy
Annual average energy use reduction, per occupant, required to achieve net-positive energy
Requirements for achieving net-positive energy by reducing occupant energy use (no additional pv panels)
Sources:
79
12.7% of site blackwater. The calculations in Table 9 illustrate that net-zero and
net-positive water are not within reach for the conceptual site design.
Table 9: Estimated water use
(International Code Council 2012; EPA 2015; Practical Applications 2015; USGS
2015; Melby and Cathcart 2002)
Landscape
The landscape, influenced by native piedmont plant communities commonly
found in upland forests, restores biodiversity to the site. Native plant communities
encourage native insects to feed on the plants, which attract native birds,
fostering diversity and habitat for fauna. Instead of relying on ornamental plants
to achieve beauty or create scenery in the landscape, beauty is achieved by
restoring regionally appropriate native plant communities. Given the existing
conditions inferred from the site analysis, and Bartram’s writings from his visit to
Athens, GA Average annual rainfall 43.71 inches
Roof surfaces to be used for catchment areas 72000 sf. total roof area
90% retention for roof surface (metal) 64800 sf.
Estimated 600 gallons per 1000 sf for every inch of rain *OR* 38880 gallons per year from roof catchment
72000 sf x 0.083 ft (one inch storm) x 0.90 x 7.5 gallons/cubic feet 40338 gallons captured from 1" storm
40000 gallon tank required
100 36,500 total gallons per person per year
65 23,725 gallons of gw per person per year
2,670 63,345,750 total available gallons of gw per year
Total estimated greywater to be stored, filtered, and reused 173,550 gallons per day
180,000 gallons to be stored in underground tanks
50 gallons per person per day (residential)
25 gallons per person per day (office, with showers)
15 gallons per person per day (educational)
2,670 Total building occupants x 30 gallons per person per day average = 80,100 gallons of sewage per day
10,709 cubic feet of water to treat per day
12-day detention period 128,503 hydraulic capacity of wetland in cu. ft.
Gravel with 33% pore space triples volume 385,508 cu. ft.
24" depth 192,754 sf. required for constructed wetlands
21780 sf. available for constructed wetlands
170,974 area deficiency
http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/ibc/2012/icod_ibc_2012_29_sec002.htm
http://paih2o.com/images/GreywaterSystems.pdf
http://www2.epa.gov/water-research/national-stormwater-calculator
Sources:
http://water.usgs.gov/edu/qa-home-percapita.html
Greywater (gw)
Rainwater
Water Use Calculations
Surface Flow Blackwater (bw)
Total building occupants
Percent of average daily water use considered to be greywater
gallons per day (average water use per occupant)
80
the area in the 18th century, an educated guess can be made that an oak-
hickory-pine forest is a landscape that would be appropriate for this site. It is the
dominant forest type of the piedmont, and would be at home in the sloping
conditions and moderately well drained soils on the site. While the forest that
Bartram saw cannot be restored, his account provides a narrative, or story of
place, from which a more contemporary restoration may take place. Native
woodland restoration at the nearby State Botanical Garden of Georgia could
provide such an analog. With over 170 native species, the plant list in Appendix
A reveals the potential complexity with which both the forest and constructed
wetland landscapes can be designed. Buildings nestled into the forested
landscape, views to nature, walking trails that provide access to plants and
encourage visitors to engage with the landscape, and natural views from the
surrounding buildings (Terrapin Bright Green 2015), foster a biophilic connection
and an emphasis on the relationship between humans and nature (per SITES
prerequisite 4.2, Control and manage invasive plants, SITES prerequisite 4.3,
Use appropriate plants and LBC Imperative 09. Biophilic environment). Walks
through natural settings, especially forests, influenced by the Japanese tradition
of Shinrin-Yoku or forest-bathing, have proven health benefits, including reduced
blood-glucose levels (Terrapin Bright Green 2015).
Summary
The design for this site answers the original question by applying the principles of
regenerative design (see Figure 1) in several ways: As Figure 25 illustrates,
81
systems thinking and regenerative design principles are used to implement
closed-loop systems for the site and building design. Regenerative design
strategies, shown in Table 7, are applied to the design. These strategies include:
thermal mass, southern buliding orientation, passive climate control, geothermal
climate control, recycled or renewable materials, biophilia, and bioregionalism.
Figure 25: Site systems diagram (modifications shown in blue text), adapted from Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development by John Tillman Lyle
82
CHAPTER SIX
DESIGN ANALYSIS
This chapter provides an analysis of the design in chapter five. As Table 7
illustrates, many of the strategies, culled from the three precedent studies in
chapter four, are applied. These strategies include: southern building orientation,
renewable materials, and bioregionalism (see Table 7). Other strategies
however, are not: the design is not able to utilize salvaged materials or an
integrated design process. The barriers to achieving salvaged materials were the
rapid demolition of the site, which was an impediment to inventory and
identification of materials that may have been candidates for repurposing. This is
overcome, however, by specifying recycled, renewable, and low-impact building
materials for site and building construction. The format of this thesis is a barrier
to an integrated design process; this is overcome in the site design by simulating
the outcome of a successful integrated design process, where different
disciplines work together toward a common goal. The design demonstrates that
net-positive energy is within reach (See Table 8), however it does not
demonstrate the ability to achieve net-positive water (see Table 9). Barriers to
achieving net-positive water include a lack of level area required to house
constructed wetlands for blackwater treatment. These site constraints are
present on a 10.32-acre urban parcel, so it is reasonable to assume that they
83
could also be present on smaller sites. This presents a potential barrier to
regenerative design application in urban areas. Because the conceptual site
design for this thesis did not meet all of the strategies for regenerative design, it
should be considered a restorative design (Reed 2015).
In accordance with the definition stated in chapter one, the design:
Evokes a strong sense of place (genius loci) through use of regionally
sourced or reclaimed building materials, and restorative landscape design
using native plant communities, influenced by historical narrative and site
analysis.
Finds the greatest cultural and environmental potential for the project site
by developing a project that serves the greater Athens community,
integrating educational facilities with job incubation, office space, retail,
residential facilities, and restoring biodiversity to a former industrial site or
greyfield.
Takes a systems-thinking approach to design and process for the
conceptual site design, as shown in Figure 27.
Has the potential for a net-positive impact with energy (see Table 8)
Fosters a meaningful connection to the surrounding community through
energy, job, and food production, innovative and progressive
development, and habitat restoration, engaging both the Athens
population and the university population. Once developed, the site
84
becomes a part of a larger network of green infrastructure that includes
the Oconee River Greenway and the Firefly Trail.
Conversely, the proposed site plan, shown in Figure 14 in chapter five, does
not meet any of the regenerative design principles listed above. With its
expansive, exposed parking lots and large building footprints with (presumably)
typical architecture, the proposed site plan lacks a strong sense of place. Student
housing developments offer little benefit to the surrounding community; such
developments do not find the greatest cultural potential for the site, nor are they
intended to foster meaningful connections to the surrounding community. An
absence of an integrated design process, food production, energy production,
and reliance on municipal utilities, reflects a lack of systems thinking.
The conceptual site design in Figure 21 may serve as a tool for regenerative
development (per LBC Imperative 20. Inspiration & education) if it promotes the
evolution of thought amongst potential stakeholders regarding humankind’s view
on how our environment is developed. LBC Imperative 19. Beauty & Spirit helps
promote this evolution by creating beautiful places for people to form connections
with; these connections foster care among stakeholders and occupants.
When viewed within the context of the rating systems in chapter three, the
conceptual site design can be evaluated against both SITES and the LBC.
Because LBC certification is performance-based, and has imperatives that are
not addressed in this thesis, including 08 (Healthy Interior Environment), 10 (Red
List), and 13 (Living Economy Sourcing), whether or not the project would qualify
85
for LBC certification cannot be specifically determined in this thesis, although
inability to achieve net-positive water is one variable that would certainly have to
be overcome to achieve LBC certification. The LBC petals and imperatives do,
however, provide strategies that directly influence the conceptual site design.
Although the design process for this thesis was not integrated, and thus
would not meet SITES prerequisite 2.1 (Use an Integrated Design Process), it is
assumed that in any other format, an integrated design approach would certainly
have been taken for such a project. The SITES rating system is used as a
checklist against the conceptual site design in Appendix A. The conceptual site
design achieves a platinum score of 142 out of 200 (the threshold for a platinum
score is 135).
The terms sustainability and regenerative design are interchanged throughout
both the rating systems and the precedent studies featured in this thesis. The
definition of regenerative design, presented in chapter two, is more specific and
action-oriented than the common definition of sustainability, but the word
sustainability is ingrained into the lexicon of the construction industry and the
built environment. If regenerative design and development are not increasingly
utilized to restore and regenerate communities and ecosystems, the likelihood of
reaching a state of true sustainability is bleak. Regenerative design and
regenerative development are critical to achieving true, lasting sustainability in
the built environment.
Opportunities for further research regarding regenerative design include life-
cycle cost analysis of regenerative design projects, exploration of the mindset of
86
the potential stakeholders involved in a regenerative design project, and
exploration of viewpoints regarding regenerative design versus traditional
development. This thesis provides a starting point, from which more detailed
information can be generated to promote regenerative design and development
going forward.
87
References:
Athens Land Trust. (2015). Athens Land Trust. Last modified July 9, 2015. http://www.athenslandtrust.org/
Athens Farmers Market. (2015). Athens Farmers Market. Last modified July 9, 2015. http://athensfarmersmarket.net/
Aued, B. (2010). River District Would Expand Downtown. Athens Banner-Herald.
Last modified January 21, 2015. http://onlineathens.com/stories/121410/new_756173159.shtml - .VXZC81xViko
Aued, B. (2011). Project Blue Heron Would Expand Downtown to the East. Athens Banner-Herald. Last modified January 21, 2015. http://onlineathens.com/stories/022011/bus_788140936.shtml - .VXZCqlxViko
Aued, B. (2012). "No Downtown Athens Walmart". Last modified January 21, 2015. http://flagpole.com/blogs/in-the-loop/posts/no-downtown-athens-walmart
Aued, B. (2013). "The Selig Project Is Dead". Last modified January 21, 2015. http://flagpole.com/blogs/in-the-loop/posts/the-selig-project-is-dead
Bartram, W., & Dallmeyer, D. G. 2010. Bartram's Living Legacy : The Travels and the Nature of the South. Macon, Ga: Mercer University Press.
Bennett, Paul. 1999. "Regeneration: John Tillman Lyle, FASLA (1934-1998)."
Landscape Architecture 89, no. 1: 64. Avery Index to Architectural Periodical
Benyus, J. M. (1997). Biomimicry :Innovation Inspired by Nature. New York :
Morrow Biohabitats. (2015). Regenerative Design. Last modified November 20, 2014.
http://www.biohabitats.com/regenerative-design/
88
Cal Poly Pomona (2014). History of the Lyle Center. Last modified February 17, 2015. http://www.csupomona.edu/~crs/history.html
Cal Poly Pomona, (2015). About Regeneration. Last modified February 17, 2015. http://www.cpp.edu/~crs/regeneration.html
Cochran, K. (2015). Construction Nearing on Next Downtown Student Housing Development. Athens Banner-Herald. Last modified January 21, 2015. http://onlineathens.com/local-news/2015-01-08/construction-nearing-next-downtown-student-housing-development
Cole, R. J. (2012). Transitioning From Green to Regenerative Design. Building Research & Information, 40(1), 39-53. doi: 10.1080/09613218.2011.610608
Cole, Raymond J., and Amy Oliver. 2012. "The Next Regeneration." Canadian Architect 57, no. 7: 29-30. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals,
Practical Applications (2015). Commercial & Industrial Greywater Systems. Last modified November 13, 2009. http://paih2o.com/images/GreywaterSystems.pdf
Cooper, Ian. 2012. "Winning Hearts and Minds or Evidence-Driven: Which Trajectory for Regenerative Design?." Building Research & Information 40, no. 3: 357. Advanced Placement Source doi: 10.1080/09613218.2012.662388
Daly, H. E. (2007). Sustainable Development and OPEC. Last modified October 29, 2001. http://www.hubbertpeak.com/daly/OPECsustdev.pdf
Deming, M. E., & Swaffield, S. R. (2011). Landscape Architecture Research : Inquiry, Strategy, Design. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.
du Plessis, Chrisna. 2012. "Towards a Regenerative Paradigm for the Built Environment." Building Research & Information 40, no. 1: 7. Advanced Placement Source doi: 10.1080/09613218.2012.628548
EcoWho. (2015) Solar Power Calculator. Last modified July 10, 2015. http://www.ecowho.com/tools/solar_power_calculator.php
89
Edwards, A. R. (2010). Thriving Beyond Sustainability : Pathways to a Resilient Society. Gabriola Island, B.C. New Society Publishers.
EPA (2015). National Stormwater Calculator. Last modified July 10, 2015. http://www2.epa.gov/water-research/national-stormwater-calculator
Firefly Trail (2014). Proposed Trail. Last modified January 14, 2015. http://www.fireflytrail.com/proposed-trail.html
GBCI (2015) Green Building Certification Incorporated. Last modified July 8,2015. http://www.gbci.org/faq
Georgia Organics. (2015). Georgia Organics. Last modified July 9, 2015. http://georgiaorganics.org/ Hesolar. 2015. Grid Tied Solar Systems. Last modified July 10, 2015 from
http://www.hesolarllc.com/how-does-solar-energy-work/ International Code Council (2012). International Building Code. Last modified
August 12, 2012. http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/ibc/ Living, Regenerative, and Adaptive Buildings. 2011. By Sarah Nugent, Anna
Packard, Erica Brabon and Stephanie Vierra. Last modified July 10, 2015. http://www.wbdg.org/resources/livingbuildings.php
Rodale Institute. (2015). Rodale Institute. Last modified December 12, 2014.
http://rodaleinstitute.org/
Kellert, S. R., Heerwagen, J., and Mador, M. (2008). Biophilic Design : the Theory, Science, and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.
Kibert, C. J. (2008). Sustainable Construction : Green Building Design and Delivery. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons.
90
Living Future (2015) Living Building Challenge 3.0. Last modified July 7, 2015. http://livingfuture.org/sites/default/files/reports/FINAL%20LBC%203_0_WebOptimized_low.pdf
Lyle, J. T. (1994). Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development. Hoboken,
N.J.: John Wiley & Sons
Mang, Pamela, and Bill Reed. 2012. "Designing From Place: A Regenerative Framework and Methodology." Building Research & Information 40, no. 1: 23. Advanced Placement Source. doi: 10.1080/09613218.2012.621341
Meadows, D. H., and Wright, D. (2008). Thinking In Systems : A Primer: White River Junction, Vt. : Chelsea Green Pub.
Melby, P., and Cathcart, T. (2002). Regenerative Design Techniques : Practical Applications in Landscape Design. New York : Wiley.
Mitsch, William J, and Jr., John W Day. 2004. "Thinking Big With Whole-
Ecosystem Studies and Ecosystem Restoration—A Legacy of H.T. Odum." Ecological Modelling 178, no. Through the MACROSCOPE: the legacy of H.T. Odum: 133-155. ScienceDirect. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2003.12.038
Nicolette, Matthew. 2012. "Beyond LEED: Regenerative Design." Landscape Journal: Design, Planning, And Management Of The Land no. 1: 229. Project MUSE
Odum, Elisabeth C., and Howard T. Odum. 1977. "Energy Systems Education." The American Biology Teacher, 1977. 420. JSTOR Journals,
Peters, Terri. 2011. "Nature As Measure: The Biomimicry Guild." Architectural Design 81, no. 6: 44-47. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals. Phipps Conservatory (2015). Center for Sustainable Landscapes. Last modified
January 9, 2015. http://phipps.conservatory.org/project-green-heart/green-heart-at-phipps/center-for-sustainable-landscapes.aspx
91
Plaut, Josette M., Brian Dunbar, April Wackerman, and Stephanie Hodgin. 2012. "Regenerative Design: The LENSES Framework For Buildings and Communities." Building Research & Information 40, no. 1: 112. Advanced Placement Source
Reed, B. (2014, 11-19-14). [phone conversation].
Regenesis (2014). Case Studies. Last modified January 3, 2015. http://www.regenesisgroup.com/CaseStudies
Regenesis (2015). Regenerative Development. Last modified January 3, 2015. http://www.regenesisgroup.com/RegenerativeDevelopment
Regenesis (2014). Case Studies. Last modified January 3, 2015. http://www.regenesisgroup.com/userfiles/SampleProjects08.pdf
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. New York : Free Press. Russell, James S., and Michael Silverberg. 2007. "Can LEED Survive the
Carbon-Neutral Era?." Metropolis 27, no. 4: 108-117. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals
Sale, Kirkpatrick. 1985. "Bioregionalism - a Sense of Place." Nation 241, no. 11: 336. MAS Ultra - School Edition
Sustainable Sites (2014a). Certified Sites. Last modified February 5, 2015. http://www.sustainablesites.org/certified-sites/phipps
Sustainable Sites (2014b). SITESv2RatingSystem. Last modified December 14, 2014. http://www.sustainablesites.org/rating-system
Sustainable Sites (2015b). Benefits. Last modified February 5, 2015. http://www.sustainablesites.org/benefits
Sustainable Sites (2015c). Collaborators. Last modified February 5, 2015. http://www.sustainablesites.org/about/collaborators
92
Terrapin Bright Green (2015). The Economics of Biophilia. Last modified March 11, 2015. http://www.terrapinbrightgreen.com/reports/the-economics-of-biophilia/
Thayer, R. L. (2003). LifePlace : Bioregional Thought and Practice. Berkeley : University of California Press.
Thomas, M. A. (2013). Building In Bloom. Portland, OR : Ecotone Publishing.
Todd, Joel Ann, Chris Pyke, and Robert Tufts. 2013. "Implications of Trends in LEED Usage: Rating System Design and Market Transformation." Building Research & Information 41, no. 4: 384. Advanced Placement Source
UGA. (2015). Points of Pride: Students. Last modified March 12, 2015. http://www.uga.edu/profile/pride/students/
USDA. (2008). Pacolet Series. Last modified September 28, 2010. https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/P/PACOLET.html
U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2015). Renewable & Alternate Fuels Last modified July 9, 2015. http://www.eia.gov/renewable/
USGS. (2015) Water Questions and Answers. Last modified July 10, 2015. http://water.usgs.gov/edu/qa-home-percapita.html
Watson, T. L. (1902). Granites and Gneisses of Georgia. Last modified March 20, 2014. https://epd.georgia.gov/sites/epd.georgia.gov/files/related_files/site_page/B-9A_Text.pdf
Weller, Richard. 2015. "Stewardship Now?: Reflections on Landscape Architecture’s Raison d’être in the 21st Century." Landscape Journal: Design, Planning, And Management Of The Land no. 2: 85. Project MUSE
Willow School (2014). Our Campus. Last modified January 2, 2015.
http://www.willowschool.org/about-willow/our-campus/
93
World Bank (1987). Last modified May 22, 2015. http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/sd.html
94
Appendix A: SITES Scorecard application
95
Appendix B: Project landscape plant list (Grey, 2012)
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Blackgum Nyssa sylvatica
Crabapple Southern Malus angustifolia
Chinkapin Castanea pumila
Dogwood, Flowering Cornus florida
Elm, Winged Ulmus alata
Hackberry Celtis laevigata
Hawthorn, Cockspur Crataegus crus-galli
Hawthorn, Littlehip Crataegus spathulata
Hickory, Mockernut Carya tomentosa
Hickory, Pignut Carya glabra
Hickory, Red or False Carya ovalis
Hickory, Sand Carya pallida
Holly, American Ilex opaca
Hophornbeam Ostrya virginiana
Maple, Chalk Acer leucoderme
Maple, Red Acer rubrum
Oak, Black Quercus velutina
Oak, Northern Red Quercus rubra
Oak, Post Quercus stellata
Oak, Shumard Quercus shumardii
Oak, Southern Red Quercus falcata
Oak, Water Quercus nigra
Oak, White Quercus alba
Persimmon Diospyros virginiana
Pine, Loblolly Pinus taeda
Pine, Shortleaf Pinus echinata
Plum, American Prunus americana
Plum, Hog Prunus umbellata
Redbud Cercis canadensis
Sassafras Sassafras albidum
Serviceberry Amelanchier arborea
Sourwood Oxydendrum arboreum
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua
Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera
OAK-HICKORY-PINE FOREST PLANT LIST
Trees
96
Basil, Georgia Satureja georgiana
Beautyberry Callicarpa americana
Blueberry,Elliott’s Vaccinium elliottii
Blueberry, Upland Low Vaccinium pallidum
Buckeye, Georgia Aesculus sylvatica
Deerberry Vaccinium stamineum
Devil's Walkingstick Aralia spinosa
Fringetree Chionanthus virginicus
Hazelnut Corylus americana
Hazelnut, Beaked Corylus cornuta
New Jersey Tea Ceanothus americanus
Paw Paw, Dwarf Asimina parviflora
Rose, Carolina Rosa carolina
Sparkleberry Vaccinium arboreum
St.Andrew’sCross Hypericum hypericoides
Strawberry Bush Euonymus americanus
Sweetshrub Calycanthus floridus
Viburnum, Blackhaw Viburnum prunifolium
Viburnum, Mapleleaf Viburnum acerifolium
Viburnum, Rusty Blackhaw Viburnum rufidulum
Crossvine Bignonia capreolata
Honeysuckle, Trumpet Lonicera sempervirens
Greenbriar Smilax glauca, S. bona-nox
Jessamine, Carolina Gelsemium sempervirens
Muscadine Vitis rotundifolia
Trumpetcreeper Campsis radicans
Virginia Creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia
Shrubs
Vines
97
Alumroot Heuchera americana
Beard-tongue Penstemon australis
Bedstraw Galium spp.
Beggarticks Bidens spp.
Bellwort Uvularia perfoliata
Bluet, Summer Houstonia purpurea
Buttercup Ranunculus spp
Cinquefoil Potentilla canadensis
Coreopsis, Whorled-leaf Coreopsis major
Elephant's Foot Elephantopus tomentosus
Fire Pink Silene virginica
Wild Ginger Asarum arifolium (Hexastylis)
Goat’s-rue Tephrosia virginiana
Green and Gold Chrysogonum virginianum
Hawkweed Hieracium venosum
Heal-all Prunella vulgaris
Pink Lady’s Slipper Cypripedium acaule
Lion's Foot Prenanthes serpentaria
Mint, Mountain Pycnanthemum incanum
Orchid, Cranefly Tipularia discolor
Partridgeberry Mitchella repens
Phlox, Carolina Phlox carolina
Phlox, Hairy Phlox amoena
Phlox, Smooth Phlox glaberrima
Spotted Wintergreen Chimaphlia maculata
Plantain, Rattlesnake Goodyera pubescens
Pussy-toes Antennaria plataginifolia
Sage, Lyre-leaf Salvia lyrata
Skullcap Scutellaria integrifolia
Solomon's Seal Polygonatum biflorum
Spurge, Flowering Euphorbia corollata
Tick-trefoil Desmodium spp
Violet, Bird's-foot Viola pedata
Bracken Fern Pteridium aquilinum
Christmas Fern Polystichum acrostichoides
Rattlesnake Fern Botrychium virginianum
Resurrection Fern Pleopeltis polypodioides
Spleenwort, Ebony Asplenium platyneuron
Flowering herbaceous plants
Ferns
98
Bluestem, Little Schizachyrium scoparium
Indiangrass Sorghastrum nutans
Needlegrass, Black Seeded Piptochaetium avenaceum
Oat Grass, Poverty Danthonia spicata
Oatgrass, Downy Poverty Danthonia sericea
Panic Grass, Beaked Panicum anceps
Plumegrass Saccharum alopecuroidum (Erianthus)
Rosette Grass Dichanthelium spp.
Sedge Carex spp.
Woodoats, Longleaf Chasmanthium sessiliflorum
Shrubs
Alder, Tag Alnus serrulata
Azalea, Swamp Rhododendron viscosum
Blueberry, Highbush Vaccinium corymbosum
Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis
Chokeberry Aronia arbutifolia
Dogwood, Silky Cornus amomum
Dogwood, Swamp or stiff Cornus foemina
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis
Indigobush Amorpha fruticosa
Leucothoe, Swamp Leucothoe racemosa
Maleberry Lyonia ligustrina
Possumhaw Ilex decidua
Rose, Swamp Rosa palustris
Snowbell, American Styrax americana
Spicebush Lindera benzoin
Swamphaw Viburnum nudum
Sweetspire, Virginia Itea virginica
Winterberry Ilex verticillata
CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS PLANT LIST
Grasses & sedges
99
Arrow Arum Peltandra virginica
Arrow Vine Polygonum sagittatum
Aster, Swamp Aster puniceus
Avens, White Geum canadense
Beggarticks Bidens aristosa, B. frondosa
Blue Lobelia Lobelia puberula
Butterweed or Ragwort Senecio glabellus
Cardinal Flower Lobelia cardinalis
Duck Potato, Arrowhead Sagittaria latifolia
Gentian, Soapwort Gentiana saponaria
Ginger,Shuttleworth’s Hexastylis shuttleworthii var. harperi
Goldenrod Solidago rugosa, S. gigantean
Green Dragon Arisaema dracontium
Iris, Virginia Iris virginica
Ironweed Vernonia altissima
Jewelweed Impatiens capensis
Joe Pye Weed Eupatorium fistulosum
Lily, Atamasco Zephyranthes atamasco
Lizard’sTail Saururus cernuus
Loosestrife, Fringed Lysimachia ciliata
Lopseed Phryma letpostachya
Mallow, Swamp Hibiscus moscheutos
Monkeyflower, Swamp Mimulus ringens
Nettle, False Boehmeria cylindrica
Ragweed, Giant Ambrosia trifida
Smartweed Polygonum spp.
Sneezeweed Helenium autumnale
Stinkweed Pluchea camphorata
Sunflower, Swamp Helianthus angustifolius
Turtlehead Chelone glabra
Cinnamon Fern Osmunda cinnamonea
Royal Fern Osmunda regalis var. spectabilis
Sensitive Fern Onoclea sensibilis
Netted Chain Fern Woodwardia areolata
Flowering herbaceous plants
Ferns
100
Broomsedge, Bushy Andropogan glomeratus
Bur-reed, Eastern Sparganium americanum
Cattail Typha latifolia
Cutgrass Leersia oryzoides
Deer-tongue Grass Panicum clandestinum
Fowl Manna Grass Glyceria striata
Rush, Soft Juncus effusus
Sedges Carex and Cyperus spp
Slender Woodoats Chasmanthium laxum
Switch Grass Panicum virgatum
Woodreed Cinna arundinacea
Woolgrass Scirpus cyperinus
Grasses, sedges, & rushes
