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

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.

iv

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

v

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

vi

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

vii

Landscape ...... 79

Summary ...... 80

6 DESIGN ANALYSIS ...... 82

REFERENCES ...... 87

APPENDICES

A SITES Scorecard application ...... 94

B Project landscape plant list ...... 95

viii

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

ix

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

x

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

xi

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

1

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.

2

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,

3

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

4

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.

5

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

6

are applied to the projective design in chapter five. The design is analyzed in chapter six.

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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).

11

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.

12

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)

13

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).

14

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)

15

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

16

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).

17

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

18

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

19

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).

20

Table 1: Summary of regenerative design principles

Summary of regenerative design principles

Lyle's principles: Conversion Distribution Filtration Assimilation Storage

Reed and Mang's principles: Place Pattern Story of place Potential Permaculture Developmental change processes

Generally agreed upon principles: Shifting mindset Bioregionalism Biophilia Biomimicry Interdisciplinary approach

21

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

22

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).

23

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

24

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.

25

 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

26

 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).

27

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

28

 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.

29

Table 2: Living Building Challenge Imperatives

Living Building Challenge Structure Petal Imperative 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

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)

30

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)

31

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

32

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

Similarities between prereequisites (SITES) and Imperatives (LBC) 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

33

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.

34

Table 4: Fundamental differences between rating systems

Differences in prerequisites (SITES) and imperatives (LBC) 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

35

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

36

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

37

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)

Table 5: Regenerative Strategies at The Lyle Center (Lyle 1994)

Regenerative Strategies at The Lyle Center

Letting nature do the work Passive temperature regulation with plants, air movement, passive solar heating

Nature as model & context Water efficiency & recycling is emphasized in dry southern California climate

Aggregating functions Energy production, food production, waste recycling

Optimum levels for multiple functions Aggregating functions interact in a state of Dynamic equilibrium

Matching technology & need Higher technological items collect energy and cure food Small food production area devoted to manual farming

Information over power Water quality and other environmental factors are monitored Residents observe systems operations

Multiple pathways Different plant communities for nutrition Public utility backups

Common solutions to disparate problems Greenhouses heat buildings and grow plants Green roofs grow food, collect water, and regulate climate

Storage as a key to sustainability Runoff is captured and stored Heat storage in buildings through thermal mass

Form to facilitate flow Buildings sited to capture solar rays Terraced agriculture to harness water

Form to manifest process Wind, solar generators, and other devices revealed as features

38

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)

39

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)

40

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.

41

 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

42

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

43

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)

44

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)

Figure 5: Willow School classroom building (http://www.regenesisgroup.com/project/the-willow-school/)

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

45

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)

46

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)

47

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

48

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

49

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

50

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

51

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.

52

Figure 10: Before and after construction of the CSL (Image credit: Hawkeye Aerial Photography. Used with permission)

53

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

54

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

55

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

Summary of regenerative strategies culled from precedent studies

Site & building strategies Thermal mass Roof gardens Southern orientation Passive climate control Geothermal climate control Salvaged, recycled, or renewable materials Net-positive water Net-positive energy

Design & planning strategies Systems thinking Emphasis on human and ecological relationships Bioregionalism Integrated design process

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.

56

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-

57

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

58

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

59

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

60

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)

61

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.

62

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

63

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

64

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

65

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

66

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

67

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

68

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.

69

Table 7: Summary of regenerative strategies for design

Summary of regenerative strategies for design (•) indicates application in design, (x) indicates not applied to design Site & building strategies • Geothermal climate control x Net-positive energy x Net-positive water • Passive climate control • Permaculture food production x Roof gardens • Salvaged, recycled, or renewable materials • Southern building orientation • Thermal mass

Design & planning strategies • Biophilia • Bioregionalism x Integrated design process • Systems thinking

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,

70

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.

71

Figure 21: Conceptual site design

72

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).

73

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

74

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

75

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.

Figure 24: Historic water tower from nearby Oconee County provides design inspiration (photo by author)

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,

76

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.

77

Table 8: Estimated energy use

Building Energy Use Calculations 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 Total roof area (in square feet) 72,000 Total estimated occupants (based on typical occupancy rates by building use): 2,670 Average annual electrical consumption (10908 kWh per person): 29,124,360 Total proposed number of pv panels (15 sf each, divided by total roof area) 4,800 Average annual energy production per pv panel (1.2 kWh per day) 5,760 Total proposed average annual solar energy production (in kWh): 27,648,000 Estimated Annual Deficiency in (kWh) 1,476,360 Additional pv panels needed to achieve net-positive energy 256 Additional area (in square feet) required to house additional pv panels (15 sf per pv panel) 3,845 Annual deficiency per occupant (in kWh) 553 Requirements for achieving net-positive energy by reducing occupant energy use (no additional pv panels) Annual average energy use reduction, per occupant, required to achieve net-neutral energy 5.07% Annual average energy use reduction, per occupant, required to achieve net-positive energy 6% Sources: http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/ibc/2009/icod_ibc_2009_10_sec004.htm hesolarllc.com eia.gov http://www.ecowho.com/tools/solar_power_calculator.php

(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

78

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

Water Use Calculations Rainwater 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 Greywater (gw) 100 gallons per day (average water use per occupant) 36,500 total gallons per person per year 65 Percent of average daily water use considered to be greywater 23,725 gallons of gw per person per year 2,670 Total building occupants 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 Surface Flow Blackwater (bw) 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 Sources: 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 http://water.usgs.gov/edu/qa-home-percapita.html

(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

79

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,

80

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

81

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

82

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

83

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

84

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

85

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.

86

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/

87

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

88

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.

89

Living Future (2015) Living Building Challenge 3.0. Last modified July 7, 2015. http://livingfuture.org/sites/default/files/reports/FINAL%20LBC%203_0_We bOptimized_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

90

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

91

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/

92

World Bank (1987). Last modified May 22, 2015. http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/sd.html

93

Appendix A: SITES Scorecard application

94

Appendix B: Project landscape plant list (Grey, 2012)

OAK-HICKORY-PINE FOREST PLANT LIST

Trees 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

95

Shrubs 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

Vines 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

96

Flowering herbaceous plants 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

Ferns Bracken Fern Pteridium aquilinum Christmas Fern Polystichum acrostichoides Rattlesnake Fern Botrychium virginianum Resurrection Fern Pleopeltis polypodioides Spleenwort, Ebony Asplenium platyneuron

97

Grasses & sedges 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

CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS PLANT LIST

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

98

Flowering herbaceous plants 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

Ferns Cinnamon Fern Osmunda cinnamonea Royal Fern Osmunda regalis var. spectabilis Sensitive Fern Onoclea sensibilis Netted Chain Fern Woodwardia areolata

99

Grasses, sedges, & rushes 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

100