DOCSLIB.ORG

Urban Sustainability Issues — What Is a Resource-Efficient City?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Urban Sustainability Issues — What Is a Resource-Efficient City? EEA Technical report No 23/2015 Urban sustainability issues — What is a resource-efficient city? ISSN 1725-2237 EEA Technical report No 23/2015 Urban sustainability issues — What is a resource-efficient city? Cover design: EEA Cover: © EEA Layout: EEA/Rosendahls Legal notice The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the official opinions of the European Commission or other institutions of the European Union. Neither the European Environment Agency nor any person or company acting on behalf of the Agency is responsible for the use that may be made of the information contained in this report. Copyright notice © European Environment Agency, 2015 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015 ISBN 978-92-9213-710-6 ISSN 1725-2237 doi:10.2800/389017 European Environment Agency Kongens Nytorv 6 1050 Copenhagen K Denmark Tel.: +45 33 36 71 00 Web: eea.europa.eu Enquiries: eea.europa.eu/enquiries Contents Contents List of figures, tables and boxes ............................................................................................... 5 Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... 7 1 What is this report about? ................................................................................................... 8 1.1 Policy background ................................................................................................................... 8 1.2 Urban areas are critical to achieving resource efficiency ................................................... 8 1.3 Resource efficiency as a step towards urban sustainability .............................................. 9 1.4 Three reports on resource-efficient cities ..........................................................................11 1.4.1 What is a resource-efficient city? .............................................................................11 1.4.2 Resource-efficient cities: good practice ..................................................................11 1.4.3 Enabling resource-efficient cities .............................................................................12 1.5 Scope of this report ...............................................................................................................12 2 The context .......................................................................................................................... 13 2.1 The urban age ........................................................................................................................13 2.1.1 Europe: a network of small and medium-sized cities ������������������������������������������14 2.1.2 Cities with no clear limits .........................................................................................14 2.2 The increasing global demand for resources ...................................................................16 2.2.1 The difference in consumption of resources between European countries ......17 2.2.2 Hidden flows ..............................................................................................................17 2.3 Major socio-economic changes ...........................................................................................18 2.3.1 The rise of consuming classes around the world �������������������������������������������������18 2.3.2 Changes in household structure .............................................................................18 2.3.3 Changes in the demand for housing ......................................................................18 2.4 The policy context .................................................................................................................19 2.4.1 EU strategy .................................................................................................................20 2.4.2 Sectoral and thematic EU policies ...........................................................................20 2.4.3 International policies .................................................................................................21 2.4.4 Urban policies are gaining in importance ...............................................................22 3 Cities as a living organism .................................................................................................. 23 3.1 Decoupling economic growth from resource use ............................................................23 3.2 Urban metabolism ................................................................................................................25 3.2.2 An open system .........................................................................................................25 Urban sustainability issues — What is a resource-efficient city? 3 Contents 3.2.3 The main factors ........................................................................................................26 3.2.4 Stocks shape the city in the long term ....................................................................26 3.2.5 Methods for analysing flows ...................................................................................27 3.3 The scale issue .......................................................................................................................29 3.4 Ecosystems as model ............................................................................................................30 3.4.1 The circular approach ..............................................................................................31 3.4.2 Changing the model .................................................................................................32 3.4.3 Emerging concepts ...................................................................................................35 4 Compactness for resource‑efficient cities ....................................................................... 37 4.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................37 4.2 Land as a finite resource ......................................................................................................37 4.2.1 Urban sprawl threatens services provided by land ..............................................37 4.2.2 Reuse of land ..............................................................................................................43 4.3 Urban forms and challenges ................................................................................................46 4.3.1 Cycles of the urban fabric .........................................................................................46 4.3.2 Spatial and temporal scales .....................................................................................49 4.4 From traditional to modern urban form ............................................................................50 4.5 The concept of urban compactness ...................................................................................51 4.5.1 Understanding compactness ...................................................................................51 4.5.2 Urban sprawl versus compactness .........................................................................52 4.5.3 Compactness and green infrastructure .................................................................56 3.5.4 Compactness and land use ......................................................................................62 4.5.5 Compactness and mobility .......................................................................................64 4.5.6 The causal loop of urban transport .........................................................................64 4.5.7 Compactness and water consumption ...................................................................68 4.5.8 Compactness and heating/cooling ..........................................................................70 4.5.9 Compactness and infrastructure costs ...................................................................70 4.5.10 Compactness and waste generation ......................................................................70 4.5.11 Trade-off .....................................................................................................................71 References ................................................................................................................................. 72 4 Urban sustainability issues — What is a resource-efficient city? List of figures, tables and boxes List of figures, tables and boxes List of figures Figure 1.1 The urban system ........................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 1.2 The links between the three reports on resource‑efficient cities ............................................. 12 Figure 2.1 The urban profile in Europe .......................................................................................................... 14 Figure 2.2 Relationship between different types of delineations (Paris and Sofia) .................................. 15 Figure 2.3 Domestic material consumption (DMC) split by category in the EU-27, 2011 ........................ 17 Figure 2.4 Average living space (m² per capita) in buildings (1996
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ecodistricts Organization Engagement and Governance June 2011, Version 1.1
    EcoDistricts Organization Engagement and Governance June 2011, Version 1.1 www.pdxinstitute.org/ecodistricts Copyright Copyright © 2011 Portland Sustainability Institute. All rights reserved. Acknowledgements The EcoDictricts Toolkits were developed by the Portland Sustainability Institute (PoSI) in partnership with practitioners from the EcoDistricts Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) in 2010-2011. Its publication would not have been possible without the dedication of these many volunteers. PoSI staff led the development, writing and research. TAC members reviewed draft toolkits and, in some cases, provided content. In addition, a targeted group of topic area experts provided a peer review. PoSI would like to thank the following individuals and organizations for their contributions and dedication to this process: Organization Working Group Jim Johnson (Chair), Oregon Solutions Paul Leistner, Portland Office of Neighborhood Involvement Jill Long, Lang Powell Tim O’Neal, Southeast Uplift Ethan Seltzer, Portland State University EcoDistricts Toolkit Organization Development, June 2011, Version 1.1 2 Contents Introduction .................................................................................... 4 Phase 1 – Engagement.................................................................. 6 Step 1. Engaging Stakeholders .................................................................6 Determine Representatives in Your Community...........................6 Make an Inventory of Community Resources.................................7 Define
    [Show full text]
  • Geoengineering in the Anthropocene Through Regenerative Urbanism
    geosciences Review Geoengineering in the Anthropocene through Regenerative Urbanism Giles Thomson * and Peter Newman Curtin University Sustainability Policy Institute, Curtin University, Perth 6102, WA, Australia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +61-8-9266-9030 Academic Editors: Carlos Alves and Jesus Martinez-Frias Received: 26 June 2016; Accepted: 13 October 2016; Published: 25 October 2016 Abstract: Human consumption patterns exceed planetary boundaries and stress on the biosphere can be expected to worsen. The recent “Paris Agreement” (COP21) represents a major international attempt to address risk associated with climate change through rapid decarbonisation. The mechanisms for implementation are yet to be determined and, while various large-scale geoengineering projects have been proposed, we argue a better solution may lie in cities. Large-scale green urbanism in cities and their bioregions would offer benefits commensurate to alternative geoengineering proposals, but this integrated approach carries less risk and has additional, multiple, social and economic benefits in addition to a reduction of urban ecological footprint. However, the key to success will require policy writers and city makers to deliver at scale and to high urban sustainability performance benchmarks. To better define urban sustainability performance, we describe three horizons of green urbanism: green design, that seeks to improve upon conventional development; sustainable development, that is the first step toward a net zero impact; and the emerging concept of regenerative urbanism, that enables biosphere repair. Examples of green urbanism exist that utilize technology and design to optimize urban metabolism and deliver net positive sustainability performance. If mainstreamed, regenerative approaches can make urban development a major urban geoengineering force, while simultaneously introducing life-affirming co-benefits to burgeoning cities.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Footprints of Nations
    ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS OF NATIONS HOW MUCH NATURE DO THEY USE? -- HOW MUCH NATURE DO THEY HAVE? March 10, 1997 Mathis Wackernagel, Larry Onisto, Alejandro Callejas Linares, Ina Susana López Falfán, Jesus Méndez García, Ana Isabel Suárez Guerrero, Ma. Guadalupe Suárez Guerrero With comments and contributions by Gianfranco Bologna, Hazel Henderson, Manfred Max-Neef, Norman Myers, William E. Rees and Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker Illustrations by Iliana Pámanes Centro de Estudios para la Sustentabilidad Universidad Anáhuac de Xalapa Apdo. Postal 653 91000 Xalapa, Ver., MEXICO tel.: ++52 (28) 14-96-11 fax: ++52 (28) 19-15-15 e-mail: [email protected] SUMMARY This “Footprints of Nations” report compares the ecological impact of 52 large nations, inhabited by 80 percent of the world population. It also shows to what extent their consumption can be supported by their local ecological capacity. One key finding is that today, humanity as a whole uses over one third more resources and eco-services than what nature can regenerate. In 1992, this ecological deficit was only one quarter. After introducing the rationale and assessment method for this study, the report explains how such biophysical analyses can help build a sustainable future. A computer diskette is included in this report. It contains the data and the calculations for the ecological footprints for each country. THIS “RIO+5 FORUM” STUDY WAS COMMISSIONED AND FINANCED BY THE EARTH COUNCIL, COSTA RICA.1 1 ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS OF NATIONS Why measure our use of nature? BOX 1: Sustainability and people’s use of nature When the Earth Summit concluded at Rio in 1992, the world was challenged to lessen its Sustainability requires decent and equitable impact on the Earth.
    [Show full text]
  • Innovating Cities Policy Report for EU R&I Sustainable Urban Development
    Innovating Cities Policy Report for EU R&I Sustainable Urban Development Cities P4P-Project for Policy: Policy Review Report from EU DG R&I funded urban projects under Framework Programme Seven (FP7) Written by David Ludlow, Ana Bartolo, Maria Del Mar Delgado, Evgenia Koutsomarkou, Elena Marchigiani, Daniel Monterescu December – 2019 Innovating Cities Policy Report for EU R&I Sustainable Urban Development European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Directorate D — Clean Planet Unit D.2 —Future Urban & Mobility Systems Contact Maria Yeroyanni Email [email protected] [email protected] European Commission B-1049 Brussels Manuscript completed in December 2019 The European Commission is not liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse of this publication. The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu). PDF ISBN 978-92-79-62954-9 doi:10.2777/389661 KI-04-16-933-EN-N Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020 © European Union, 2020 The reuse policy of European Commission documents is implemented based on Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated.
    [Show full text]
  • Portland Pilot Program Evaluation 2 (1)
    Portland Ecodistrict Pilot Program Evaluation Report of Findings FEBRUARY 2015 © 2015 EcoDistricts. All Rights Reserved 1223 SW Washington St., Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 4 Background 7 Beyond the Portland Pilot 10 Pilot Evaluations 11 South of Market 12 South Waterfront 22 Foster-Green (Lents) 32 Gateway 44 Lloyd 52 Lessons Learned 60 Appendix 64 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Through the support of the Bullitt Foundation, EcoDistricts undertook an evaluation of the Portland Ecodistrict Pilot program, a three-year partnership between the City of Portland, Portland Development Commission (PDC) and Portland Sustainability Institute (PoSI) to accelerate sustainable neighborhood-scale projects in five districts throughout Portland between 2009 and 2012. The City selected the five following districts to participate in the program in order to promote sustainability across a diverse set of neighborhood “typologies”: • Portland State University - South of Market Ecodistrict (“SoMa”) • North Macadam Urban Renewal Area - South Waterfront Ecodistrict • Lents Urban Renewal Area - Foster-Green Ecodistrict • Gateway Urban Renewal Area - Gateway Ecodistrict • Lloyd District - Lloyd Ecodistrict This evaluation is one element of a four-part Bullitt funded project to more deeply understand best practices for district and neighborhood sustainable development in the region. The four elements are: Portland Pilot program evaluation; analysis of neighborhood sustainability projects in the Cascadia Region; update of the EcoDistricts Protocol; and a technical guide for green infrastructure and ecosystem services. All four elements of this project have been designed to inform the development of the Global EcoDistricts Protocol and other EcoDistricts-initiated programs intended to accelerate district-scale sustainable development in the region and beyond.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Turnaround” Udo E
    Simonis Asian Journal of German and European Studies (2016) 1:5 Asian Journal of German DOI 10.1186/s40856-016-0007-9 and European Studies ORIGINAL ARTICLE Open Access Reflections on the call for a global “ecological turnaround” Udo E. Simonis Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract Social Science Centre Berlin, Reichpietschufer 50, D- 24116 Kiel, This paper is about excessive overuse of resources and about serious environmental Berlin, Germany impacts, and the need for a global ecological turnaround. Ideas about a social contract for sustainability are being discussed, and examples given of resource decoupling and impact decoupling. Global environmental governance is seen as being insufficient and in need of vigorous reform. It seems that only through improved planetary cooperation can a collapse of the global ecosystems be prevented and global sustainability be secured. Abstrakt Die Konferenz der Vereinten Nationen 1992 in Rio de Janeiro markierte einen Meilenstein in der globalen Umweltpolitik. Der German Advisory Council on Global Change (WGBU) begründet in seinem jüngsten Hauptgutachten die Notwendigkeit einer großen globalen Transformation, wozu ein neuer Gesellschaftsvertrag zu schließen sei. Die “Große Transformation”, das Konzept des Ökonomen Karl Polanyi für die Analyse der ersten Industriellen Revolution, wird vom WBGU normativ umgedeutet: Ein radikaler Umbau der nationalen Ökonomien und der Weltwirtschaft innerhalb spezifischer “planetarischer Leitplanken” soll die Überforderung und den Zusammenbruch der globalen Ökosysteme
    [Show full text]
  • LLOYD Ecodistrict ROADMAP
    LLOYD ECODISTRICT ROADMAP PROSPEROUS EFFICIENT BIOPHILIC CONNECTED NOVEMBER 2012 Contributors CLIENT ADVISORY TEAM Portland Development Commission Lloyd EcoDistrict Board Lloyd EcoDistrict Lisa Abuaf Irene Bowers Ashforth Pacific Technical Advisory Committee Lew Bowers Hank Ashforth Portland Development Commission Irene Bowers Lloyd EcoDistrict Bonneville Power Administration Sarah Heinicke Anita Decker Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability Vinh Mason Doubletree Hotels PROJECT LEAD Arianne Sperry Terry Goldman Portland Sustainability Institute David Tooze Rob Bennett Glimcher Properties Bruce Walker Wanda Rosenbarger Naomi Cole Portland Bureau of Transportation Langley Investment Properties Peter Hurley CONSULTANTS Wade Lange Portland Bureau of Environmental Services Puttman Infrastructure, Inc. Liberty Northwest Alice Brawley-Chesworth Tom Puttman Danny Schamma Amy Chomowicz Arup Linda Dobson Lloyd TMA Stephen Burges Tim Kurtz Rick Williams Orion Fulton Brian Wethington Dave Whitaker Cole Roberts Metro John Williams Zero Waste Alliance Portland Water Bureau Janet Senior Jay Coalson Oregon Convention Center Brittin Witzenburg Lloyd EcoDistrict Sarah Heinicke PacifiCorp Pat Egan Lloyd TMA Owen Ronchelli Portland Development Commission Lindsay Walker Lew Bowers Metro Portland Mayor’s Office Matt Korot Lisa Libby Portland Sustainability Institute Rob Bennett Rose Quarter Chris Oxley Justin Zeulner LLOYD ECODISTRICT ROADMAP PROSPEROUS EFFICIENT BIOPHILIC CONNECTED WWW.PDXINSTITUTE.ORG PORTLAND SUSTAINABILITY INSTITUTE 2 Table of
    [Show full text]
  • The Ecodistrict: a Framework for Environmental Mitigation at the Neighborhood Level Stephen Deal
    10 AUGUST 2017 • W ATER LOG 37:3 The Ecodistrict: A Framework for Environmental Mitigation at the Neighborhood Level Stephen Deal A view of Millvale, Pennsylvania. Photograph courtesy of ornoth Liscomb. While there are many conservation groups that focus planning process, ecodistrict neighborhoods can then use on preserving pristine wilderness, few groups focus on this baseline to craft projects and performance goals that greening up the city landscape. Worse yet, an overly improve upon existing environmental conditions. This simplistic understanding of natural systems in an type of planning approach has value because it ties urban context may result in greenery that amounts to environmental mitigation directly into the institutional little more than window dressing and is not fully life of a neighborhood. integrated to provide comprehensive ecosystem services. New Urbanist developer Andres Duany used the An ecodistrict and its elements term “green camouflage” when describing green The Portland Sustainability Institute provides a good infrastructure that fails to properly acknowledge its definition of the term ecodistrict: urban context: “an urban paradigm cannot be based on An EcoDistrict is a neighborhood that is committed the implantation of natural vignettes in the residual to sustainability that links green buildings, smart places between buildings.” 1 infrastructure and behavior to meet ambitious One way to ensure that urban greenery provides sustainability goals over time. EcoDistricts are the tangible benefits is to create an ecodistrict. An ecodistrict right scale to generate sustainability – small enough helps establish a baseline of environmental performance to innovate quickly and big enough to have a in a neighborhood. By engaging in a comprehensive meaningful impact.
    [Show full text]
  • Revisiting Rebound Effects from Material Resource Use. Indications for Germany Considering Social Heterogeneity
    Resources 2014, 3, 106-122; doi:10.3390/resources3010106 OPEN ACCESS resources ISSN 2079-9276 www.mdpi.com/journal/resources Article Revisiting Rebound Effects from Material Resource Use. Indications for Germany Considering Social Heterogeneity Johannes Buhl Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, Doeppersberg 19, Wuppertal D-42103, Germany; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +49-202-2492-156; Fax: +49-202-2492-108 Received: 7 November 2013; in revised form: 7 January 2014 / Accepted: 20 January 2014 / Published: 10 February 2014 Abstract: In contrast to the original investigation by William Stanley Jevons, compensations of energy savings due to improved energy efficiency are mostly analyzed by providing energy consumption or greenhouse gas emissions. In support of a sustainable resource management, this paper analyzes so-called rebound effects based on resource use. Material flows and associated expenditures by households allow for calculating resource intensities and marginal propensities to consume. Marginal propensities to consume are estimated from data of the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) in order to account for indirect rebound effects for food, housing and mobility. Resource intensities are estimated in terms of total material requirements per household final consumption expenditures along the Classification of Individual Consumption according to Purpose (COICOP). Eventually, rebound effects are indicated on the basis of published saving scenarios in resource and energy demand for Germany. In sum, compensations due to rebound effects are lowest for food while the highest compensations are induced for mobility. This is foremost the result of a relatively high resource intensity of food and a relatively low resource intensity in mobility.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysing Resource Efficiency Transitions in Asia and the Pacific United Nations Publication Copyright © United Nations 2017
    Analysing Resource Efficiency Transitions in Asia and the Pacific United Nations publication Copyright © United Nations 2017 ST/ESCAP/2807 Disclaimer The designations employed and the presentation of the materials in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Analysing Resource Efficiency Transitions in Asia and the Pacific follows the United Nations practice in references to countries. Where there are space constraints, some country names have been abbreviated. Mention of a commercial company or product in this publication does not imply endorsement by the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. The use of information from this publication concerning proprietary products for publicity or advertising is not permitted. Reproduction and dissemination of material in this publication for education or other non-commercial purposes are authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holders, provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of material in this information product for sale or other commercial purposes, including publicity and advertising, is prohibited without permission of the copyright holders. Application for such permission with a statement of purpose and extent of the reproduction, as well as questions and comments should be addressed to: Director, Environment and Development Division United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific United Nations Building Rajadamnern Nok Avenue Bangkok 10200 Thailand United Nations publication Copyright © United Nations 2017 All rights reserved Printed in Bangkok ST/ESCAP/2807 This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided that the source is acknowledged.
    [Show full text]
  • Transforming Consumption: from Decoupling, to Behavior Change, to System Changes for Sustainable Consumption
    UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Previously Published Works Title Transforming Consumption: From Decoupling, to Behavior Change, to System Changes for Sustainable Consumption Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7qn670bv Journal Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 40(1) ISSN 1543-5938 Authors O'Rourke, D Lollo, N Publication Date 2015 DOI 10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021224 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California EG40CH09-ORourke ARI 11 October 2015 12:38 ANNUAL REVIEWS Further Click here to view this article's online features: • Download figures as PPT slides • Navigate linked references • Download citations Transforming Consumption: • Explore related articles • Search keywords From Decoupling, to Behavior Change, to System Changes for Sustainable Consumption Dara O’Rourke1 and Niklas Lollo2 1Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, 2Energy and Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, 94720; email: [email protected] Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2015. 40:233–59 Keywords First published online as a Review in Advance on sustainable consumption, efficiency, decoupling, behavior change, September 11, 2015 sustainability transition, postgrowth economics The Annual Review of Environment and Resources is online at environ.annualreviews.org Abstract This article’s doi: Consumption, although often considered an individual choice, is deeply in- 10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021224 grained in behaviors, cultures, and institutions, and is driven and supported Copyright c 2015 by Annual Reviews. by corporate and government practices. Consumption is also at the heart All rights reserved of many of our most critical ecological, health, and social problems. What is referred to broadly as sustainable consumption has primarily focused on making consumption more efficient and gradually decoupling it from energy and resource use.
    [Show full text]
  • The SW Ecodistrict, a Vision Plan for a More Sustainable Future
    | SW Ecodistrict National Capital Planning Commission The National Capital Planning Commission is the federal government’s central planning agency in the District of Columbia and surrounding counties in Maryland and Virginia. The Commission provides overall planning guidance for federal land and buildings in the region. It also reviews the design of federal construction projects, oversees long-range planning for future development, and monitors investment by federal agencies. COMMISSION L. Preston Bryant, Jr., Chairman, Presidential Appointee John M. Hart, Presidential Appointee Elizabeth Ann White, Presidential Appointee Arrington Dixon, Mayoral Appointee Robert E. Miller, Mayoral Appointee, NCPC Vice Chairman The Honorable Leon E. Panetta, Secretary of Defense Represented by Bradley Provancha The Honorable Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior Represented by Peter May The Honorable Dan Tangherlini, Acting Administrator of General Services Represented by Mina Wright The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman, Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, United States Senate Represented by Elyse Greenwald The Honorable Darrell Issa, Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, United States House of Representatives Represented by Howard A. Denis The Honorable Vincent C. Gray, Mayor, District of Columbia Represented by Harriet Tregoning The Honorable Phil Mendelson, Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia Represented by the Honorable Tommy Wells, Member, Council of the District of Columbia Marcel Acosta, Executive Director The SW Ecodistrict Plan was prepared through the collaboration of the federal government and the District of Columbia. The National Capital Planning Commission had primary responsibility for oversight of the project and ZGF Architects LLP served as the principal consultant. SW Ecodistrict | Chairman's Message We have a compelling opportunity to revitalize a federal precinct in the heart of the nation’s capital into a showcase of sustainability.
    [Show full text]