The Rose Case Study by Healthy Materials Lab

The Rose Innovative Practices for Healthier Homes A Case Study

Acknowledgments Project Team Aeon Hope Community MSR Design & their consultants Weis Builders Center for Sustainable Building Research For a full list of contributors please refer to page 45. Without their generous contribution this work would not be possible. Many thanks. Research & Publication Team The Healthy Materials Lab Parsons School of Design The New School New York, NY Director, Alison Mears AIA LEED AP Director of Design, Jonsara Ruth Research Fellows Gamar Markarian Larissa Begault Mochi Liu Sara Minard This study was completed in June 2016

The Rose Innovative Practices for Healthier Homes A Case Study Minneapolis, MN Aeon + Hope Community Partners Opened September 2015

CONTENTS The Rose

Innovative Practices for Healthier Homes

1. Introduction

p.7

1a. Case study methodology 1b. Why The Rose?

2. Overview & Lessons Learned

p.12

3. Forming Partnerships and Building Trust

p.16

3a. The Design Team 3b. The context of The Rose 3c. Land use policy - rezoning process 3d. Finding appropriate funding for innovation in the affordable housing sector

4. Certifications: Innovation, Feasibility and Replicability

p.26

5. Innovation in Design

p.30

5a. Designing innovative affordable housing 5b. Researching and selecting healthy materials beginning with the apartment’s interior 5c. Post disposal

6. Conclusion

p.43

6a. Identifying Strategies for Building Healthier, Affordable Housing

7. References

p.44

1. INTRODUCTION 1a. Case Study Methodology This report is the first in a series of five which document case studies undertaken by the Parsons Healthy Materials Lab to record systems of processes and decision-making that go into the building of new affordable housing developments across the United States. The team investigates particular developments that incorporate healthier building products and developers that have a stated mission to advocate for and transform standard building practices within the Affordable Housing industry. The case studies approach is based on a systems thinking methodology that interrogates the quantitative and qualitative factors that determine key decisionmaking factors in the Affordable Housing sector. The reports examine and identify the important decision making relationships that exist within these systems to specifically identify how, why and when building product decisions are made. The case studies will create a current baseline of existing best practices for healthier buildings within the affordable housing industry. Understanding the various construction visions adopted by Affordable Housing Developers allows us to catalogue the distinct lenses and the variety of approaches that are characteristic of this sector. The case studies have an intentional regional distribution. By understanding the regional variation of affordable housing across the US, we are able to identify key regional drivers and obstacles in the process of healthier construction. In particular, we explore healthy building products selection, procurement and installation processes.

Cover page: Courtyard view of The Rose. p.4: montage of the Construction and opening day of the development Left: Living room of an apartment

Build, and state policies that promote better building practices. Positioning these tools within the context of affordability permits an analysis of their accessibility, implementability and replicability. Case study analysis brings together both quantitative and qualitative research to draw conclusions, allowing a nuanced and in depth analysis of particular situations. We adopted a range of research methods to capture the range of key factors including stakeholder interviews, videography, photography, analytical mapping and diagramming, media coverage, stakeholder analysis and a review of current census and other data sources. The results of these studies reveal the innovative approaches that various developer teams utilize for achieving healthier, affordable housing. Additionally the results provide a list of existing healthy and affordable building products that can be broadly shared. This list will contribute to the making of a library of better building products to be showcased in a number of different contexts including the Donghia healthier Materials Library at Parsons School of Design, The New School. The case studies have also revealed a number of notable affordable building products worthy of analysis. Finally, other evaluation tools used by the various designers nationwide can be collected and shared to ease the specification process and to continue paving the road to innovation through collaborative practices.

This first case study was initiated by the Healthy Materials Lab in collaboration with Aeon, Hope Community and MSR Design in Minneapolis in June 2015. Each stakeholder provided critical information via in person interviews and follow-up phone conversations A systems approach highlights the challenges, drawbacks and emails. Without their cooperation and input this case study would not be possible. We are grateful to all and compromises that take place when specifying and of the Rose team for their time and support. installing building products. This approach enables a critical analysis of the current processes of funding, design and construction in place within the affordable housing sector. Ultimately, such research has the potential to impact the overall housing sector through demonstrating both the health benefits for residents associated with using healthier products but also future new market potential for sales of better products. Finally, case studies also enable a critique of the existing benchmarks and certifications that exist in the industry such as the Living Building Challenge, LEED, Enterprise Green Communities Criteria, Delos® Well

Research demonstrates that substantial human health risks can result from exposure to toxic chemicals present in both exterior and interior constructed environments. These health risks can include an increase in cases of asthma, cancer and health issues related to developmental and reproductive health. The health risks are particularly high for children, pregnant women and people living in poverty. The research in this case study focuses on the interior environment within affordable housing developments. Residents, and occupants generally in the United States, spend significant amounts of time inside and are therefore vulnerable to the health hazards posed by products used to construct the interior. Regulation controlling chemical use in common building products falls within the purview of the Toxic Substances Control Act, which has been largely ineffective in chemical oversight and regulation.2 As a result of this limited oversight, many typical building products used in the interior may present possible pathways to unintended chemical exposure.3 Toxic chemicals are introduced into building products for a number of different reasons including performance, maintenance and cost.4 The challenge for all of us working in the affordable housing industry is to look for products that are both healthier and affordable that can be substituted for current building products. The intention of this case study is to understand how it is possible to start removing toxics from the homes of Affordable Housing residents. 1

“Epidemics of pediatric disease and the studies of them established that early -life exposures to toxic chemicals and other hazards in the environment can have devastating effects on children and that these effects can be lifelong” (Landrigan PJ, 3, 2015)

The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA) is the only U.S. law regulating toxic chemicals. 84,000 chemicals are in the current EPA inventory, 62,000 of existing chemicals were “grandfathered” in 1976, under the assumption that they were safe unless proven otherwise. Only 250 chemical have been required to be tested, and only 5 chemicals have been partially restricted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_Substances_Control_Act_ of_1976 2

3“75

substances linked to asthma are found in paints and adhesives — two products found in most typical indoor environments” (Perkins and Will, 2011). As noted by researchers in the environmental health field in the “Pilot Study of Urinary Biomarkers of Phytoestrogens, Phthalates, and Phenols in Girls” “Effects of hormonally active environmental agents on early child development have been of concern, as knowledge has become available about their biological activity and about effects in humans that might arise from exposure to phthalate are of concern” (Wolff MS. et al. 2014).

Left: Interior corridor

In the construction industry, residents of Affordable Housing are disproportionately impacted by the use of construction products that contain toxic chemicals. Other construction sectors are often able to afford healthier building products, but with restricted budgets in Affordable Housing, inexpensive, less healthy products are often used to build new homes. Unfortunately, chemical exposure also disproportionately affects the poor and working class populations who live near to, or work in factories. These communities may also be subjected to additional environmental pollutants disposed from or emitted within nearby factories. The negative impact of construction products that contain toxics is compounded, as the impact of chemical exposure may be present throughout the entire product supply chain. Workers in manufacturing plants, contractors installing products on site, and eventually residents who occupy apartments all have contact with building products and are exposed to hazardous toxics contained within. Affordable housing development sits within a complex system of intersecting forces including (a) affordable housing policies, funding and planning process (b) building industry processes ranging from manufacturing, design, specification, procurement and construction, and (c) health including access to systems of education, employment, transport and health services as well as post occupancy practices. Though the research into these factors is not per se an outcome of the study they are important factors that impact product selection within the larger context. The case studies provide examples of current best building practices including better, healthier product selection within the Affordable Housing industry. The intention of the reports is to share a range of resources that will support the transformation of construction practices in the affordable housing sector to create healthier housing for all people. Case study research will be disseminated through various means including a written report, short films and animations that target a wide public and aims to communicate a difficult and complex topic in a widely accessible manner. These reports and videos will be available on an ongoing basis. This study is supported by a grant from The JPB Foundation and is part of the larger Healthy Affordable Materials Project.

WHY THE ROSE ? 1b. Why The Rose? The Rose is a mixed-income housing project in Minneapolis developed by Aeon and Hope Community. Investigating this project offers an introduction to understanding the processes and challenges of designing and building affordable, sustainable housing. It is particularly interesting to explore such a development and connect with key stakeholders of the project as all parties have demonstrated an intention to prove that sustainable, net-zero-ready, healthier housing development can be built on a stringent budget. Such a common motivation between stakeholders in the housing development industry is timely and offers a momentum to work together towards tools, mechanisms, and propositions to make the process more transparent, practical, affordable, and replicable, and thus, more easily accessible to other housing developers. The transparency and commitment to share information on promising practices from the developers, architects, contractor and consultants demonstrates a real desire to work together for positive change, moving beyond competition towards collaboration in the affordable housing sector. Our hope is that this report is a resource for the organizations involved in the building of The Rose and an aid to widely disseminate and replicate better building practices. Dissecting the challenges of specific moments, key decisions, and negotiations brings to light the road to innovation for the creation of more sustainable, healthier buildings. The network of complex relations, partnerships and decision-making processes existing between National and State policy, Developer, Architect, Contractor, Manufacturer and local communities is an important characteristic of the project. This development would not have been as successful without the dedication and perseverance of members of the design team and the leadership of Aeon and Hope Community.

Left: Interior courtyard at The Rose

Examining The Rose as a pilot project also enables an understanding of the current benchmarks for sustainable and affordable developments. In understanding the guidelines of the two certifications the development subscribed to, the Living Building Challenge (LBC) and Enterprise Green Communities Certification (EGCC), allows for a critical analysis of the implementability and replicability of their requirements in relation to human health and affordability. LBC is a philosophy and tool for the construction industry that is defining the current highest measures of sustainability.

The LBC criteria is based on seven different petals: Site, Water, Energy, Materials, Beauty, Equity and Health. Each petal requires its own individual certification, and each petal certification must be achieved in the development in order to gain full certification. The EGCC is encouraged for Multifamily and Single Family new construction and rehabilitation projects requesting Minnesota Housing financing. EGCC has created a standard that is based on health, energy efficiency, and environmental responsibility, and informs the design, construction, and operation of a development. The EGCC method is based on a point system and promotes an integrated design process throughout the entire lifecycle of the development. This case study uses a particular lens on the specification and procurement process of the interior building products of the development in order to uncover the relationship between affordability and the challenges of purchasing less toxic construction products. This study is part of the Healthy Affordable Materials Project that seeks to improve the lives and health of residents living in affordable housing by reducing exposure to toxic substances used in building products. The long term vision for the Healthy Affordable Materials Project is first, to understand best practices in the building industry; second, to create tools that aid the decisionmaking process around product specification for all stakeholders designing, constructing and occupying homes; and third, to bring transparency to the building supply chain through the introductions of mechanisms for declaring product ingredients. Sharing the resources and information of the innovation and success of The Rose, is a first step that supports the Healthy Materials Lab’s initiative. This research was carried out from May to November 2015, and includes excerpts from interviews carried out with numerous stakeholders who participated in this development. MSR Design and their documentation of the process and Aeon’s expertise in affordable housing development were key resources to this research. The Rose opened in October 2015 and a post-occupancy survey and analysis has been set up and will be ongoing in the coming years.

2. GENERAL OVERVIEW THE ROSE Street Address

Ward

LESSONS LEARNED

Zoning

Typology

Portland ave S, Minneapolis, MN

Voting precinct(6-6)

Multi-family District and NP North Phillips Overlay District

Number of units

Number of Residents

Apartment type:

Strong

Partnerships and supportive network Creative funding to support

healthy products

Affordable Units Studio 2 bedroom 3 bedroom Streets + surface parking

Site Area

FAR

Landscape + open spaces

$635 - $650 $825 - $925 $1050 - $1150

research and installation

Market Rate 1 bedroom 2 bedroom Building Footprint

Residential Building Area

All Parking Area

•

to healthier homes

•

Innovation

•

Regional

•

emerges out of Incentives + Strong aspirations Gross Building Area

•

Certifications as

pathway

$1100 - $1200 $1600 - $1700

•

factors impact design process and resolution

•

The Rose’s success is in large part due to the strong and supportive partnerships between Hope Community, a local nonprofit organization, co-developer Aeon, and the architects, MSR Design. These relationships were built over time which allowed for trust and a clear alignment in aspirations. Partnering with a local organization such as Hope Community enabled the process of development to be inclusive of the population currently living in the neighborhood, and ensured local needs were targeted. An informal ‘Integrated Project Delivery’ process (IDP is an AIA contract) was implemented leading to the early integration of the General Contractor in the design team. This was critical for examining life cycle costs and establishing energy budgets at design inception. It also played an important role in bidding cycles with better product alternatives that took place during construction as grants and funding permitted. In order to accomplish the health aspects driving the design of The Rose, a funding approach had to be established. Additional funds were needed to support consultants and researchers required for adhering to the Materials Petal of the Living Building Challenge certification. Further, purchasing and installing healthier materials required strategic maneuvering in the allocation of funds. Reaching out to philanthropic foundations, as well as utilizing a section of the contingency budget, proved successful for accomplishing these aspirations. The Rose had a total of 29 capital sources, which require a persistent and savvy approach to enable budget flexibility with regards to unplanned circumstances and mortgage terms. The team pursued the Living Building Challenge (LBC) aspirationally and the Green Communities Criteria. Both these, offered guidelines towards sustainable endeavors. The LBC is very difficult to achieve for affordable developments, especially achieving the Material petal; therefore, the LBC was used as a pathway to start establishing healthier building practices. This development was one of the first in the affordable housing sector to attempt the LBC. As a pilot, it paved the way for others to establish similar practices as a baseline approach, regardless of achieving full certification. Prioritizing elements which have most impact on residents, such as healthier interior products and healthy interior air quality, helped narrow the scope of research and concentrate efforts. In order to ensure better quality of life for the residents, a decision was made to create larger apartments and provide a higher percentage of open space on the site - to build a sense of community and provide spaces for children to play. Specifying healthier products throughout the interior spaces was a leading aspiration. A process for choosing healthier products was established by MSR Design, which filtered products through various existing benchmarks, including the US EPA, Pharos, and various versions of the LBC. The decision to specify a product was dependent on cost, alternative options, durability and performance, aesthetics, carbon footprint, calculations of toxic ingredients, and the VOC content.

Climate: The 130 degree temperature swing from -25 to 105 degrees between summer and winter months call for a specific construction type and materials. Exterior wall construction is particularly critical. Further the envelope system has to be designed for moisture management for rapid changes in relative humidity levels as the region experiences dry cold winters followed by hot and humid summers.

MAPPING THE PROCESS

MIXED USE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUNDING SOURCES

CERTIFICATION GOALS

PROJECT TEAM

• LIHTC • PUBLIC DEFERRED LOANS • FIRST MORTGAGE • PRIVATE/PHILANTHROPIC

AEON • GINA CIGANIK

FORMER VP OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

ENTERPRISE GREEN COMMUNITIES CRITERIA

HOPE COMMUNITY • WILL DELANEY • BETSY SOHN

THE LIVING BUILDING CHALLENGE™

• JAMES LEHNHOFF VP OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

MSR ARCHITECTS • PAUL N.C. MELLBLOM • RHYS MACPHERSON • SIMONA FISCHER

PROJECT INCEPTION AND PLANNING

% POVERTY

ZIP CODE 55404

• USE LESS TOXIC BUILDING PRODUCTS • MAINTAIN HEALTHY INDOOR AIR QUALITY • COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

• ENERGY, 3M, ECP, WEIDT GROUP, PLACE, LBC

FINANCING

DESIGN

BUILDING PRODUCTS

47 47

UNIT TYPES 43

Mar˜et ˜a te

35 x 2bed

Mar˜et Mar˜et ˜a te˜a te

8 x 1bed

35 2bed 8 xx1bed

8 x 1bed

35 x 2bed

LOCATION

<30% AMI

Formerl˜ ˜omeless 23 Individuals and Families <50% AMI Mar˜et ˜a te

˜0

15 23 <30% AMI <50% AMI

15 1 Bed 35 x 2bed 2 23 Bed

8 x 1bed <30% AMI

Formerl˜ õmeless Individuals and Families 9 43 õmeless Formerl˜ Mar˜et ãand te Families Individuals

<50% AMI 43 Mar˜et ˜a 23 AMI AMI 43 2Studio x<50% studio_<50% Mar˜et ˜a

2 Bed

6 15 1 8 2 43 Mar˜et ˜a te 15

21 2 15 2

2 x studio_<50% AMI

6 6

8 135 8

THE2 21 x 2bed - tax credits_low income housing_<50% AMI 21

21 ROSE 15 x 3bed - Section 8_<30% AMI

2 x 3bed - tax credits_low income housing_<50% AMI

2 x 3bed - tax credits_low income housing_<50% AMI 2 x studio_<50% AMI

3 Bed

1 x 2bed - homeless Families 15 x 3bed - Section 8_<30% AMI

2bed - tax credits_low income housing_<50% AMI 221xxstudio_<50% AMI

615xxstudio homeless individuals 3bed -- Section 8_<30% AMI

2 xx3bed 21 2bed- -tax taxcredits_low credits_lowincome incomehousing_<50% housing_<50%AMI AMI

2bed - -homeless 61 xx studio homelessFamilies individuals

2 x 3bed - tax credits_low income housing_<50% AMI

1 x 2bed - homeless Families

3 Bed

DATA

CLIMATE GEOGRAPHY Minneapolis Temperature °F in 2014 100°

100

45%

FEWER TOXIC INGREDIENTS LOWER VOC CONTENT

8.5

10,000 15 x 3bed - Section 8_<30% AMI 6 x studio - homeless individuals

COST

LBC$ 148/sq 2.1 ft

1 x 2bed - homeless Families

40°

LBC$ 250,000 3.0

Maximize Roof Space for future PV installation

$ 800,000

PV-Utility Company Incentive Program

$ 0/incentives To be implemented post occupancy

32° freezing temp.

GOAL: HEALTHIER + AFFORDABLE

PV-Solar Community Garden

20°

$ 0/incentives

LIVING ROOM

The Rose 31 k.BTU/sf

0°

20 -20°

-40°

-35° year of occurence: 1970

Highest Daily Maximum Lowest Daily Minimum http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov

INTERIOR TBD SPACES AS PRIORITY IN SELECTION OF BUILDING PRODUCTS AS THESE ARE THE SPACES RESIDENTS ARE MOST EXPOSED AND CLOSEST TO

Wet wall

AESTHETIC REASON

77.5

60°

COST

NO ALTERNATIVE PERFORMANCE REASON

High Performance Building

Solar Thermal Systems

29’

118.5

80° 80

16’ 4”

Wet wall

LBC 2.0

Minnesota Building Base Code 111 k.BTU/sf

105° year of occurence: 1988

EUI 120

120°

ZIP CODE 55404 (2013) TOTAL POPULATION: 28,309

FRANKLIN AVE 2

6 x studio - homeless individuals

2 Bed

15,000

1 CENSUS 8

21 x 2bed - tax credits_low income housing_<50% AMI

Studio

2,792 OTHER

100%

Mar˜et MARKET AFFORDABLE UNITS ˜a te RATE

or family of 4

˜ ˜˜˜ ˜˜S˜˜

Formerl˜ ˜omeless Individuals and Families

Some information available Better product based on PHAROS

15%

CARBON FOOTPRINT

STREET + SURFACE PARKING 11%

1,337 ASIAN

47 ˜˜˜ A˜ ˜˜M˜˜˜ ˜F ˜˜I˜S A

DE 55404

OPEN SPACE 53%

90 PARKING BAYS

PORTLAND AVE

VERTY

30% AMI

˜˜M˜˜SI˜I˜˜ ˜F ˜˜˜ ˜˜S˜ ˜˜˜ A˜ ˜˜M˜˜˜ 25 ˜F ˜˜I˜S A ˜ ˜˜˜ ˜˜S˜˜ ˜0 47 43 50% AMI MARKET RATE UNITS ˜˜M˜˜SI˜I˜˜ ˜F ˜˜˜ ˜˜S˜ 15 ˜˜˜ A˜ ˜˜M˜˜˜ ˜F ˜ ˜˜˜ ˜˜S˜˜ ˜043AMI ˜˜M˜˜SI˜I˜˜ ˜F˜˜I˜S ˜˜˜ A˜˜S˜ <30%

INTERSTATE 35W

OVERTY

˜0

1,077 NATIVE AMERICAN

100%

BUILDING 36% ˜ ˜˜˜ ˜˜S˜˜

18%

AESTHETIC

COMMUNITY GARDEN + PLAYGROUND

4,183 HISPANIC OR LATINO

$22,113 for family of 4

BUILDING 2

18%

PERFORMANCE

Limited information available Better product than US EPA compliant

˜˜M˜˜SI˜I˜˜ ˜F ˜˜˜ ˜˜S˜ ˜˜˜ A˜ ˜˜M˜˜˜ ˜F ˜˜I˜S A HOMELESS 7 FORMERLY

ZIP CODE 55404

COURTYARD

FILTERING

% POVERTY

BUILDING 1

9,246 BLACK

FAMILIES IN POVERTY

MARKET RATE UNITS

NO ALTERNATIVE

STREET + SURFACE PARKING 11% US EPA compliant

THE ROSE DEVELOPMENT

11,375 WHITE

AFFORDABLE UNITS

OPEN SPACE 24%

EXTERIOR + INTERIOR DECISION FACTORS

COST

BUILDING PRODUCT CATEGORY

$22,113 for family of 4

BUILDING 65%

INSTALLED PRODUCTS

DECIDING FACTORS

PRECONSTRUCTION

AFFORDABLE HOUSING + MARKET RATE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNIT: 90

100%

• AIR QUALITY TESTING • COMMUNITY BUILDING • MAINTENANCE TRAINING

EVALUATION + SELECTION FILTERS

LAND USE POLICY AND ZONING

MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT

POST OCCUPANCY

CONSTRUCTION

PHYSICAL, SOCIAL REGULATORY DATA

HOUSING UNIT COMPOSITION

• ENERGY REDUCTION • PRIORITIZE LIGHT AND AIR • GREEN SPACE ALLOCATION TO FOSTER A SENSE OF COMMUNITY • HEALTHY PRODUCT SPECIFICATION CORE TO DESIGN PROCESS

HEALTH

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE BUILDING RESEARCH,

SITE ACQUISITION

• COMMUNITY OUTREACH • TARGET POPULATION

S IN POVERTY

CONSULTANTS • BILLY WEBER

DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS

Resident Education

EXTERIOR PERIMETER WALLS INTERIOR WALLS PARTY WALLS COMPONENTS

OTHER ECO-FOOTPRINT REASON FEWER TOXIC INGREDIENTS LOWER VOC CONTENT

69 33

Wet wall

3. FORMING PARTNERSHIPS & BUILDING TRUST 3a. The Team

Will Delaney, Hope Community, 2015

“What we are trying to do here is create a community that works for people who live here, low to moderate income people who often get pushed out of neighborhoods that get revitalized and for people of color who have, for decades and decades, called this place home” (Will Delaney, Hope Community, 2015)

An informal ‘Integrated Project Delivery’ process was implemented leading to the early integration of the general contractor (Weis Builders) in the design team. This was critical for aligning incentives at the earliest stages of design and examining life cycle costs, establishing energy budgets, return on investment strategies and providing real time budget information for financing cycles. This strong and supportive partnership eased the design process and facilitated construction oversight. Further, Weiss Builders were critical to the bidding process for alternative, healthier products to install, when grant funding was acquired mid-construction. Further, consultants and the in-house property managers at Aeon participated in the early design discussions. Together, this development team initiated a strong dynamic process to work through the challenges that are inherent to such an innovative development.

In 2006, Aeon adopted a comprehensive campaign to raise sustainability standards in construction and they embarked on a disciplined process to think holistically about better performing and healthier properties. They completed three pilot projects each adding to their growing expertise in low cost, socially and environmentally sustainable housing. As Gina Ciganik, Vice President of Housing Development at Aeon, stated, “everybody, no matter what their income level is, has a chance to live in a place that is healthy” (Gina Ciganik, Aeon, 2015). This simple objective has been the key driver for Aeon in leading the path towards MN POPULATION FAMILIES IN POVERTY continuous innovation in the affordable housing zipcode areas ZIP CODE 55404 (2013) % POVERTY % POVERTY MINNEAPOLIS ZIP CODE 55404 POPULATION: 28,309 constructionTOTAL industry. 60% Non-White

COMPOSITION OF THE ROSE

R6 Zoning Requirements Maximum development

courtyard

Site Limits

Building Footprint 36%

162 standard baseline units

% POVERTY 43

$22,113 for family of 4 30,000

$22,113 for family of 4

MINNEAPOLIS

Market Rate ZIP CODE 55404

100% 100%

Market Rate

8 x 1bed

2013

15 2 21

35 2

15 x 3bed - Section

The Need for Healthy Affordable Housing

21 x 2bed - tax credits_low income housing_<50% AMI

6 x studio - homele

2 x 3bed - tax credits_low income housing_<50% AMI

1 x 2bed - homeles

15,000

Open Space 24%

the Rose buidling 2

2 x studio_<50% AMI

35 x 2bed

200,000

Street + Surface Parking 11%

community garden + playground

2011

55% affordable units

SURFACE AREAS

% POVERTY

22.5% 22.3%

SURFACE AREAS 65% includes the neighborhoods Building of: Ventura Village and sections of: 2,500 Phillips Whittier 90 healthy units + The Rose Development Loring Park communityElliot garden Park the Rose buidling 1 Seward

2011

47 FAMILIES IN POVERTY

40.9% 42.5%

ZIP CODE 55404

5,000

400,000

2,792 other

If Aeon and MSR Architects had followed the

2013

1,337 asian

11,375 white

1,337 asian

2,792 other

2011

1,077 native american

162 standard baseline units

10,000

90 9

The Need for Healthy Affordable Housing

15,000

9,246 black or african american

Site Limits

1,077 native american

55404

100% 100%

ZIP CODE 55404 (2013) TOTAL POPULATION: 28,309 60% Non-White 200,000

TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS AT THE ROSE:

$22,113 for family of 4

40.9% 42.5%

2,500

100% 100%

22.5% 22.3%

includes the neighborhoods of: Ventura Village and sections of: Phillips Whittier Loring Park Elliot Park Seward

$22,113 for family of 4 30,000

POPULATION

15,000 4,183 hispanic or latino of any race

5,000

ZIP CODE 55404

Right: Demographics of population living in the neighborhood of the Rose

400,000

4,183 hispanic or latino of any race

MN 10,000 zipcode areas

55404

“We focus on building environments that will support and enhance healthy community interaction and quality of life” (Hope Community, 2015)

“This is where our community is. This is where we are. This is our home.” (Betsy Sohn, Hope Community, 2015)

To date, The Rose is the most sustainable, healthy, and comprehensive development in Aeon’s portfolio. The partnership between Aeon and Hope Community has been an essential factor in the success of the redevelopment. For the design centered on sustainable and health targets, Aeon worked with MSR Design who have a reputation for designing outstanding affordable, efficient, and sustainable buildings. The team at MSR Design became indispensable in working towards the LBC certification and developing best practices in the design process and construction of The Rose, while also actively advocating for healthier practices in the construction industry.

15,000

Hope Community’s development and renovation of both affordable housing and related public spaces in the neighborhood is evidence of the organization’s community focused mission. Their goals are to build for the future by providing housing that is well designed, constructed with quality materials, and thoughtfully sited to rebuild neighborhoods.

Hope Community’s outreach and powerful connection to the neighborhood has also enabled them to understand the priorities of the local populations, and has built a culture of trust among local residents and more recent arrivals to the neighborhood.

Hope Community’s close community ties and interest in building for the future align well with Aeon’s core mission which aims to build affordable housing and public spaces that include a range of uses including community centers, playgrounds and gardens. Aeon is also deeply embedded in the community, providing extensive community engagement that involves hundreds of youth, adults and families each year in learning, leadership and community opportunities. Hope Community and Aeon partnered as co-developers in the early 2000s to work together on the four parcels of land in the Phillips neighborhood. The first three corners were redeveloped between 2003 and 2008 and included affordable apartments, ground-floor commercial space and the headquarters for Hope Community. The final phase, the South Quarter project, includes both The Rose and the renovation of Pine Cliff, a 30-unit apartment building on the northwest corner of the block.

9,246 black or african american

In order to create positive change, Hope Community works with existing populations of the area and aims to represent the range of needs of various stakeholders to establish their right to participate in the making of their environment.

11,375 white

The Rose, a mixed income project, is the fourth and final phase of the redevelopment of the South Quarter, centered on the intersection of Franklin and Portland Avenues. This initiative was co-led by two local organizations, Hope Community and Aeon. Hope Community has worked with local community residents since 1977 to help stabilize, provide improvements and create opportunities for the Phillips neighborhood, one of the most ethnically and economically diverse areas of Minneapolis. The neighborhood is located south of downtown Minneapolis in the Venture Village neighborhood and has almost 20,000 residents with a long history of immigrant and minority populations, including Native American and African American communities. The organization initially started as a shelter and hospitality house for the neighborhood, and their success within the community has led to their expansion as leaders in the transformation of the area.

2013

2011

2013

If Aeon and MSR Architects had followed the

R6 Zoning Requirements Maximum development 90 parking bays

Bike racks

Street + Surface Parking 11%

Open Space 53%

Resources: [1] American Fact Finder, Population Census Data: [2] http://www.aeonmn.org

KEY STAKEHOLDERS 3b. The context of The Rose AHTF - Minneapolis Affordable Housing Trust Fund ECP - Enterprise Community Partners EDHC - Minnesota Housing Economic Development & Housing Challenge funds FFCC - Minnesota Housing flexible financing for capital costs loan

MWMO Def. fee Fundraising

PCAD

Philantropy

HRA FHF EDHC LCDA

LMIR

AHTF

Public Sector Capital Source

HRA - Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority

FFCC

LBC - Living Building Challenge

LIHTC US Bank

Debt Capital Source

Capital Sources

LCDA - Met Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account LIHTC - Low Income Housing Tax Credit

TCESP

LMIR - Minnesota Housing first mortgage MSR - Meyer, Scherer & Rockcastle PLACE - Sustainability Consultants UMCSBR - University of Minnesota Center for Sustainable Building Research

Hope Community

Center for Sustainable Building Research

AEON

Partner Developer

Core Design Team

Local Community

Weis Builders

The Rose is located on a site at the intersection of Franklin and Portland Avenue, just south of downtown Minneapolis. The site, acquired by Aeon, was comprised of 13 parcels, including some that were contaminated by previous historic uses and necessitated remediation. The Franklin-Portland Gateway was proposed to be developed as one cohesive project, even though the individual phases have been funded and constructed at different times. The corner site is a challenging one, primarily because of its location between two highways that are noisy and a source of local air pollution (see map 01). The team developed both a comprehensive sound barrier strategy to mitigate the impact of traffic noise from the highway, and an air filtration system that would help filter the air pollution from the highways. The other three corners of the intersection were redeveloped over the past decade by Aeon, Hope Community, and other partners. Phase one of the multi-phased project, Children’s Village Center, was approved by the City Planning Commission in April 2002. This development includes Hope Community offices, a community center, and property management offices on the first floor. This space was conceived as a focal point of the area and provides facilities for year-round community based programing. The center also includes 30 rental units of affordable

housing on the three upper floors. Phase Two of the redevelopment, The Jourdain, was approved in May 2003. The Jourdain is a mixed-used block comprising of 41 units varying from small studios to three-bedroom units, two-thirds of which are affordable. The street level includes commercial spaces. Phase Three, The Wellstone, was approved for development in July 2007 and incorporates 49 units (75% affordable) and the Twin Cities Child Care Center that occupies 7,000 square feet at street level of commercial and community space, bringing a critical resource to the neighborhood. Further, this development was certified by Enterprise Green Communities and demonstrates the economically achievable possibilities of building sustainably. All three of the developments have been completed and are now occupied. The Rose was the fourth and final phase of this larger redevelopment scheme in the neighborhood. In total, the four buildings at the intersection add 250 dwelling units and approximately 23,100 square feet of office and commercial space to the neighborhood. We will see later that the location of the site and the regional climate had an important influence on the design and choice of materials for the development.

MSR Design

Contractor

EOR

Landscape + Civil Engineer

MBJ

Structural Engineer

Elert

Technology Engineer

Near North

KFI

Como

MEP Engineer

Downtown Minneapolis

Mississippi River

Jim Miles Owner’s rep

QSE Commissioning Agent

PLACE

ECP

Weidt Group

Judd Allen Group

LBC

Consultants The Rose

Xcel Energy

Left: Map of the key stakeholders involved in the development Right: Map locating the Rose in relation to central Minneapolis

Calhoun Isles

Phillips

CONTEXT OF THE ROSE 3.c Land use policy - rezoning process Downtown Minneapolis

10 m inu te w

ius rad ing alk

The Rose

Peavey Park

1000

2000

233A 35W

Left: Maps locating the Rose Right: diagram outlining who will reside at the Rose

POPULATION 15,000 POPULATIONZIP CODE 55404 (2013)

native american

2,792

other 2,792 other

1,337 asian

asian

1,077 native american 1,337

E Franklin Ave

4,183 hispanic1,077 or latino of any race

9,246 4,183 black or african american hispanic or latino of any race

4,183 hispanic or latino of any race Portland Ave 1,077 native american

35W

9,246 black or african american

2,500

15,000 200,000

If Aeon and MSR Architects had followed 2011 the 2013

If Aeon and MSR Architects had followed the

Site Limits

162 standard baseline units

R6 Zoning Requirements Maximum development Maximum development R6 Zoning Requirements

ft Limits If Aeon and MSRSite Architects hadLimits followedR6 the Zoning Site 100 Requirements 200 400

162 standard 162 standard Maximum development baselinebaseline units units

100% 100% The Need for Healthy Affordable 15,000 Housing

15,000

2011

2013

$22,113 for family of 4

40.9% 40.9% 42.5% 42.5%

Seward

5,000

200,000

22.5%

includes the neighborhoods of: Ventura Village ZIP CODE 55404 and sections of: includes the neighborhoods of: 2,500 Ventura Village Phillips and sections of: Whittier Phillips 2,500 Park Loring Whittier Elliot Park Loring Park Seward Elliot Park

100% 100%

200,000

22.5% 22.3%

Whittier

includes the neighborhoods of: Ventura Village and sections of: Phillips Whittier Loring Park Elliot Park Seward

5,000

100% 100% 400,000

$22,113 for family of 4 30,000

22.5% 40.9% 22.3% 22.3% 42.5%

ZIP CODE 55404

ZIP CODE 55404 5,000

11,375 9,246 white black or african american

10,000

55404

Neighborhood 100% 100% 60%Philips Non-White

2,792 other

10,000

55404

11,375 white

10,000

55404

Although R6 zoning allows for six story high buildings, The Rose was developed as two four story buildings to remain consistent with the surrounding urban context and nearby properties in order to reinforce the fabric of the existing neighborhood. The Rose also features a courtyard, a productive garden, and several outdoor amenities to promote accessible community gathering. (2) Land Use Policy 1.2 states: “Promote quality design in new development, as well as building orientation, scale, massing, buffering, and setbacks that are appropriate with the context of the surrounding area.” The Rose has a wide range of sustainable features and an intelligent approach to design in terms of aesthetics, green building and affordability. The buildings are aligned in an east-west layout, and their arrangement maximizes solar gain while the rain gardens of the setbacks collect rain and runoff water which is recycled as irrigation water for the productive garden.

FAMILIES IN POVERTY COMPOSITION OF THE ROSE % POVERTY POVERTY FAMILIES IN%POVERTY COMPOSITION OFTOTAL THENUMBER ROSE OF UNITS AT THE ROSE: 90 MINNEAPOLIS ZIP CODE 55404

TOTAL POPULATION: 28,309 ZIP CODE % POVERTY % POVERTY MN55404 (2013) $22,113 for family of 4 for family of 4 POPULATION FAMILIES IN$22,113 POVERTY zipcode areas 60% Non-White 15,000 MINNEAPOLIS 400,000 ZIP CODE 55404 TOTAL POPULATION: 28,309 30,000 ZIP CODE 55404 (2013) % POVERTY % POVERTY $22,113 for family of 4 $22,113 for family 100%of 4 100% 100% 100% 60% Non-White MINNEAPOLIS ZIP CODE 55404 TOTAL POPULATION: 28,309 400,000 30,000

1,337 asian

15,000

11,375 white

MN zipcode areas

2011

2013

TOTAL NUMBERCOMPOSITION OF UNITS AT THE OFROSE: THE ROSE

TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS AT THE ROSE:

The Need for Healthy The Affordable Need for Healthy Housing

9 9

47 47

Affordable Housing

Market Rate 43 Market Rate

8 x 1bed 8 x 1bed 35 x 2bed

8 x 1bed

Market Rate

500

Market Rate

According to The Minneapolis Plan for Sustainable Growth, The Rose could have built up to a density ratio of 50 to 120 dwelling units per acre, equating to a high density range. Instead, a density of approximately 52 dwelling units per acre or 120 units in 2.3 acres (see diagram on next page) was designed. Aeon wanted to construct more units but the available funding could not support more apartments at the level of design and specification desired. The design decision maximized open space while limiting the height of the building to four stories in order to respect the current scale of the neighborhood. This was also a strategic decision to limit cost as a taller building would require a different structural system than wood framing (currently the most affordable) as well as additional safety systems mandated by the building code. Further, a number of new zoning policies were applied to the site of the development. These had a considerable influence on the design approach and process. A few of the most impactful policies include:

Market Rate

Loring Park

(1) Land Use Policy 1.1 states: “Ensure that land use regulations continue to promote development that is compatible with nearby properties, neighborhood character, and natural features; minimizes pedestrian and vehicular conflict; promotes street life and activity; reinforces public spaces; and visually enhances development.”

Rezoning for the Phillips neighborhood was approved in 2013, and the area became an R6, Multiple-family District with NP North Phillips Overlay District. This adds specific district regulations, such as increased height and density, and other policies detailed below. The proposed program for The Rose was to include 90 additional dwelling units in two new buildings. In contrast to the other phases, this was to be a purely residential development.

35 x 2bed

15 9

15 2

86 1

35 x 2bed2 x studio_<50% AMI

35 35

15 x 3bed - Secti 15 x 3bed - Section 8_<30% AMI

15 x 3bed - Section 8_<30% 21 x 2bed - tax credits_low income housing_<50% AMI AMI

6 x studio - hom

21 x 2bed - tax credits_low income housing_<50% AMI

6 x studio - homeless individuals

2 x 3bed - tax credits_low income housing_<50% AMI

1 x 2bed - homeless families

21 x 2bed - tax credits_low income housing_<50% 6 x studio - homelessAMI individuals 2 x 3bed - tax AMI credits_low income housing_<50% 2 x 3bed - tax credits_low income housing_<50% AMI

2 x studio_<50% AMI 2 x studio_<50% AMI

43 Market Rate 21 21 2

1 x 2bed - homeless families

1 x 2bed - home

PROJECT SECTION

5) Housing Policy 3.2 “Encourage and support housing development along commercial and community corridors, and in and near growth centers, activity centers, retail centers, transit station % areas, and POVERTY % POVERTY % POVERTY % POVERTY neighborhood commercial nodes. ZIP CODE MINNEAPOLIS MINNEAPOLIS ZIP55404 CODE 55404

(3) Land Use Policy 1.8 states: “Promote a range of housing types and residential densities, with highest MN MN density concentrated in and along zipcodezipcode areas areas 15,000 development 15,000 ZIP CODE 5540455404 (2013)(2013) appropriateZIP landCODE use features.”

POPULATION POPULATION

FAMILIES FAMILIES IN POVERTY IN POVERTY

TOTALTOTAL POPULATION: POPULATION: 28,30928,309 The Rose is60% designed a range of strong Non-White 60%using Non-White

1,077 1,337 native american asian

5,000

1,077 4,183 hispanic or latino of any race native american

5,000

200,000 200,000

15,000

ZIP CODE ZIP CODE 55404 55404 The Rose provides new housing for a range of incomes includes the includes neighborhoods the neighborhoods of: of: 2,792 other

2,500

22.5% 22.3% 22.5% 22.3%

2,500

2,792 1,337 asian other

in a neighborhood close to downtown Minneapolis.

Ventura Village Ventura Village and sections and of: sections of: Phillips Phillips Whittier Whittier Loring Park Loring Park Elliot ParkElliot Park Seward Seward

2011

2011 2013

2013

The Need The Need for Healthy for Healthy Affordable Affordable Housing Housing

47 47

2013 2011

2013

35 35

Market Market Rate Rate

15,000

2011

9 15 156 1 6 1 8 8 2 2 21 21

43 43

8 x 1bed 8 x 1bed

Market Rate Market Rate

9,246 4,183 or of african american hispanic black or latino any race

(4) Housing Policy 3.1 “Support the development of new medium and high density housing in appropriate locations throughout the city.”

40.9% 42.5% 40.9% 42.5%

9,246 11,375 black or african american white

55404

90 90

TOTALTOTAL NUMBER NUMBER OF UNITS OF UNITS AT THE ATROSE: THE ROSE:

$22,113 for $22,113 familyfor of 4family of 4 $22,113 for $22,113 familyfor of 4family of 4

400,000 400,000 30,000 30,000of an important The Rose is situated at the intersection 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% historic, cultural, and commercial neighborhood. It is well connected to nearby downtown business district of Minneapolis, and is close to key destinations such as the University of Minnesota.

architectural processes including contemporary approaches to building form and public space making with particular attention to the existing streetscape, 10,000 10,000 including the re-creation of the street wall at the intersection of Franklin and Portland Avenue. 11,375 white

55404

COMPOSITION COMPOSITION OF THE OF THE ROSE ROSE

35 x 2bed35 x 2bed

Right: Bike racks installed in underground parking area. 2 x studio_<50% 2 x studio_<50% AMI AMI 15 x 3bed15 - Section x 3bed 8_<30% - SectionAMI 8_<30% AMI Below: diagram outlining building footprint and 21 x 2bed21 - tax x 2bed credits_low - tax credits_low income housing_<50% income housing_<50% AMI AMI 6 x studio6- xhomeless studio - homeless individuals individuals massing 2 x 3bed -2tax x 3bed credits_low - tax credits_low income housing_<50% income housing_<50% AMI AMI

1 x 2bed -1homeless x 2bed - homeless families families

If Aeon and If Aeon MSRand Architects MSR Architects had followed had followed the the

Site Limits Site Limits R6 Zoning R6 Zoning Requirements Requirements Maximum Maximum development development

162 standard 162 standard baseline baseline unitsunits

SURFACE SURFACE AREASAREAS

Building Building 65% 65%

Open Open SpaceSpace 24% 24%

90 healthy 90 healthy unitsunits + + The The RoseRose Development Development community community garden garden the Rosethe buidling Rose buidling 1 1

courtyard courtyard

the Rosethe buidling Rose buidling 2 2

StreetStreet + Surface + Surface Parking Parking 11% 11%

community community garden + garden playground + playground

55% affordable 55% affordable unitsunits

SURFACE SURFACE AREASAREAS

Building Building Footprint Footprint 36% 36%

Open Open SpaceSpace 53% 53% 90 parking 90 parking bays bays

Bike racks Bike racks

StreetStreet + Surface + Surface Parking Parking 11% 11% Resources: Resources: [1] American Fact Finder, Population Census Data: [1] American Fact Finder, Population Census Data: [2] http://www.aeonmn.org [2] http://www.aeonmn.org

3d. Finding appropriate funding for innovation in the affordable housing sector The next step of The Rose development was to acquire the financing that would support Aeon and Hope Community in their co-development of a highly sustainable proposal that promoted the health and quality of life for the residents. Every real estate deal for affordable housing is unique, and can often be complicated. It took approximately five years to secure the financing before construction could begin on The Rose. Aeon uses the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program to raise capital for construction. LIHTC is a federal plan for affordable housing development that incentivizes the private sector to invest in housing for low-income populations. Although it is a federal program in which tax credits are most often applied for through the state, developers in Minneapolis apply for the tax credits through the city, which is the sub-allocator for the credits. For The Rose, Aeon applied for a 9% LIHTC, which raises the most equity from the federal program but is also a highly competitive process. Developers are required to first apply for the Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP), a list of state established requirements and criteria that address specific local needs for affordable housing. Aeon was awarded 9% LIHTC in 2012, putting the project on a direct course to closing. Aeon had two years to complete the project and put the building into service.

Developer fee

mortgage terms and interest rates present challenges frequently faced by developers. These changes potentially create gaps in financing that must be filled by other funds. Aeon was able to fill these gaps in financing through a specific capital campaign to help raise funds for The Rose and a few other developments. This campaign did not detract from other Aeon services. Lastly, mission driven philanthropic grants from The JPB Foundation, Kendeda Fund and other anonymous funders helped Aeon achieve their goals in healthy material selection and sustainable building practices. Aeon is able to creatively finance the purchase of healthier materials by leveraging the 5% contingency which is built into their construction budget. Contingency is built into construction budgets to cover any unforeseeable construction problems, such as unplanned construction delays due to weather, a real concern in climates like Minneapolis. Aeon has extensive experience developing in Minneapolis and they are able to plan for most potential construction issues. Without any major construction complications, there is often funds left in the contingency budget to be reallocated to the purchase of healthier and more sustainable building products.

Philanthropy

Fundraising

The JPB Foundation Kendeda Fund Anonymous Funders MWMO - Minneapolis Watershed Management Organization PCAD - Pine Cliff assumed debt HRA - Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority

Public Sector Capital Source

FHF - Family Housing Fund EDHC - Minnesota Housing Economic Development & Housing Challenge funds LCDA - Met Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account AHTF - Minneapolis Affordable Housing Trust Fund

Aeon The Rose LMIR - Minnesota Housing first mortgage Debt Capital Source FFCC - Minnesota Housing flexible financing for captial costs loan

Aeon partnered with The US Bancorp Community Development Corporation (USBCDC), who purchased the LIHTC, providing equity for The Rose’s construction. Aeon has worked on previous projects with USBCDC, who have a history of being proponents of green initiatives, and this ongoing partnership makes for a more efficient process. It is standard practice that once investors for the tax credits are established, a 15 year partnership is formed between the developer and the investors. In the case of the Rose, this partership was called The Franklin Portland Gateway Phase IV Limited Partnership, this was formed and set as the owner of The Rose.

LIHTC

US Bancorp Community Development Corporation (USBCDC)

As mentioned in prior sections of this report, unforeseen circumstances can complicate the financing plan of affordable housing developments. Changing Right: Diagram outlining funding sources for the development

LIHTC - Low Income Housing Tax Credit

4. CERTIFICATIONS: INNOVATION, FEASIBILITY AND REPLICABILITY The Rose development followed one of the most demanding certifications currently existing in the construction industry: The Living Building Challenge (LBC), while also using the Enterprise Green Communities Criteria (EGCC) – a less stringent certification adopted in most of the country as a requirement for publicly subsidized developments – to guide their design. Both involve a comprehensive design process, a high standard of sustainability, energy and water efficiency considerations, and the use of healthier materials in construction, amongst many other prerequisites less relevant to the purpose of this research. The two certifications do have some differences in their approach, focus and long-term impact. Here, we aim to highlight these differences in order to gauge their direct significance with regards to advancing the specification process of non-hazardous materials and their intersection with affordability. EGCC is based on a point and checklist system that requires fulfilling all mandatory considerations and complying to the equivalent of an additional 35 optional points specifically for new constructions. These points were set out by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency as a local requirement and may vary nationwide. This system makes for a relatively linear decision-making process. On the other hand, the more complicated LBC (version 2.0 and 2.1) process consists of 20 imperatives divided into seven petals based on seven themes: Site, Water, Energy, Health, Materials, Equity, and Beauty. These imperatives necessitate an integrated design process, involving various stakeholders from the very inception of the project. Integrated design is also a requirement of EGCC. Thus, in order to enact these successfully, a strong collaboration and dedication from the entire project team including the developers, designers, contractors, and consultants is mandatory, making these certifications tools for increased and more transparent teamwork. It is important to note that the LBC is currently the only national certification to take such a strong stance on materials for both residents of new construction and the communities impacted by polluting manufacturing industries. The LBC’s mission is driven by long term impact; “what if every active design and construction made the world a better place?” The LBC drastically moves beyond standard certifications and inspired the design team of The Rose to embark on this difficult path. As quoted by the developers, “We would often call the Living Building Challenge, LEED [Leadership

in Energy, and Environmental Design - another certification] on steroids” (Gina Ciganik, 2015).

climate, state policy, etc., making the requirement more adaptable and suited for distinct types of developments.

Another considerable difference between these certifications lies within the material sections. The LBC not only requires the design team to incorporate certain design guidelines and a strict material specification process, but also demands that they become advocates for more transparency in the industry. Through the LBC’s Red List material criteria, designers have to ensure that they do not specify any materials from the list, and also contact a minimum of 10 manufacturers to campaign for the declaration of the chemical content of their products. This works to simultaneously advance transparency in the construction industry while radically diminishing the use of the hazardous materials in new constructions.

The LBC allows developer and designers to customize their approach for a particular project, thus enabling its application to distinct geographical and site situations. The EGCC is a simpler checklist approach to creating more sustainable buildings that has been widely adopted across the country. However, EGCC places less emphasis on material selection, the focus of this study.

This demand, while important and forward thinking, is time consuming and requires allocated resourcing to carry out material research effectively, adding a substantial cost to the design process. During the process of The Rose, MSR Design received less than 50% response rate from manufacturers about declaring their products. As Simona Fischer (MSR Design) stated, “I was just calling and calling and calling a lot of manufacturers and did not get any calls back, but when they did, they would just say that they are in the midst of deciding what to disclose” (Simona Fischer, 2015). Such hurdles are unavoidable when working with the LBC. Nonetheless the adoption of LBC criteria leads to measurable, lasting transformations in the long run that can bring about significant changes to the industry. Fischer added, “now a year or two later, there is so much more health and toxicity related disclosure happening” (Simona Fischer, 2015). Additionally, healthier materials tend to cost more. Therefore, a fine balancing act between cost and health impact must be deliberated at length, further exhausting resources within the design team. The energy sections of the LBC also take a different approach from other standards. The LBC v2.0 appears to have less rigid guidelines, with only one imperative goal to be met: “One hundred percent of the project’s energy needs must be supplied by on-site renewable energy on a net annual basis” without the use of on-site combustion (LBC v.2.0 and v.2.1). This necessitates various creative and innovative strategies that can be designed by the team in relation to specific needs due to

While certifications, through their guidelines, undeniably support a path to innovation for the construction industry, one cannot avoid asking the questions: how can these requirements become standard practice? And, are they able to be achieved within all of the complexities of the affordable housing sector? The Rose’s challenging process demonstrates that the feasibility of the LBC certification in that sector still has some way to go. The team had to continually negotiate which elements to prioritize in order to complete the development within budget and time constraints. Billy Weber from University of Minnesota questioned: “What is the right thing to do? What is the optimal solution without letting go of the LBC to actually get the project done?” (Billy Weber, 2015). These factors indicate that even when a team had the will and dedication to produce an LBC certified development, the demanding requirements made it an unattainable objective. Through the advocacy work that the LBC promotes there is an opportunity for transformation in manufacturing practices. However, in order to impact a range of other practices in the affordable housing market, more support must be provided to developers and designers wanting to participate in this drive for change. Paul Mellblom of MSR Design adds, “there are some assumptions built in LBC that I think are valid to question, and they are not valid in terms of the value of LBC in itself, but rather questions like - is this the best thing for our circumstances?” (Paul Mellblom, 2015). The values of the LBC were wholly embraced by The Rose team throughout the design process; however, without some changes to the certification, the expansion of the applicability of the requirements into the affordable housing market is questionable. Despite this challenge, positive change can incrementally take place as transparency and collaboration are promoted by teams using the LBC process as a guideline. Further, the LBC promotes the expansion and dissemination of such

“Now a year or two later, there is so much more health and toxicity related disclosure happening.” (Simona Fischer, 2015)

knowledge to others wanting to make change. Finally, using this certification can change the baseline practice of designers, developers and contractors in future projects. As MSR Design mentioned “the firm is now much more aware of human health issues with materials and we are working on how to embed this knowledge within the broader practice of the office.” (Simona Fischer, 2015)

LBC Red list

Alkylphenols Asbestos Bisphenol A (BPA) Cadmium Chlorinated Polyethylene and Chlorosulfonated Polyethlene Chlorobenzenes Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) Chloroprene (Neoprene) Chromium VI Chlorinated Polyvinyl Chloride (CPVC) Formaldehyde (added) Halogenated Flame Retardants (HFRs) Lead (added) Mercury Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs) Phthalates Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Polyvinylidene Chloride (PVDC) Short Chain Chlorinated Paraffin Wood treatments containing Creosote, Arsenic or Pentachlorophenol Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in wet applied products

CERTIFICATIONS DIAGRAM

“What we found was that there weren’t databases that had filters strict enough to meet the Red list.” (Simona

ENTREPRISE ENTREPRISE

INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL LIVING LIVING FUTURE FUTURE INSTITUTE INSTITUTE

- A guide - A for guide development for development teams to teams navigate to navigate criticalcritical details details of achieving of achieving a a green building green building - Two step submission - prebuild and postbuild - Two step submission - prebuild and postbuild - Point-system - In order gainto full certification, all mandatory requirment but be but be Point system - Intoorder gain full certification, all mandatory requirment achieved and 35 and optional points points are required for newfor constructions. achieved 35 optional are required new constructions.

EntireEntire Lifecycle Lifecycle

Location Location

Site Site Improvements Improvements

WaterWater

Energy Energy

Building Buildi Building Building Design Design Interior Interior Design Design Operations Operat and Construction and Construction and Construction and Construction and Maintenanc and Maint

- LBC is - LBC a philosophy is a philosophy and tool and fortool the for construction the construction industry industry that is defining that is defining the current the current highesthighest measures measures of of LBC 2.0 LBC & 2.1 2.0 & 2.1 sustainability. sustainability. - Projects - Projects can achieve can achieve three types threeoftypes certification: of certification: Living Living Building Building Certification, Certification, Petal Certification Petal Certification or Net or Zero Net Zero EnergyEnergy Building Building Certification. Certification. - Process - Process includes: includes: registration, registration, documentation documentation + + operation operation and audit and+audit certification + certification

GCC GCC

Intergrative Intergrative DesignDesign

PointsPoints System System

7 7 PetalsPetals

Materials Materials

HealthHealth

Operation Operation Maintenance Maintenance

Key Relevant Key Relevant Requirments Requirments

- Low /- No LowVOC / Nopaints, VOC coatings paints, coatings and and primersprimers - Low /- No LowVOC / Noadhesives VOC adhesives and and sealantssealants - Recycled - Recycled contentcontent materialmaterial (25%) -(25%) opt - opt - Regional - Regional Materials Materials - opt - opt - Composite - Composite wood products wood products that emit that emit low/ nolow/ formaldehyde no formaldehyde - Environmentally - Environmentally preferable preferable flooringflooring - Mold -prevention: Mold prevention: surfaces,tub surfaces,tub and and shower shower enclosures enclosures - Asmagen-free - Asmagen-free materials materials (insulation (insulation / / flooringflooring (PVC, Vinyl) (PVC,/Vinyl) wall coverings / wall coverings (Vinyl) (Vinyl) / composite / composite wood) -wood) opt - opt - construction - construction waste management waste management - opt - opt

- Operation - Operation and maintenance and maintenance manual manual and planand plan - Emergency - Emergency management management manual manual - Resident - Resident ManualManual - Orientation - Orientation for stafffor and staff residents and residents - Data collection - Data collection and monitoring and monitoring system system

Site Site

Energy Energy

WaterWater

Unachievable Petal Unachievable Petal due to due to requirments of the design requirments out of out the design team’s team’s controlcontrol

HealthHealth

Materials Materials v 3.0 v 3.0

EquityEquity

BeautyBeauty

Key Relevant Key Relevant Requirments Requirments

Key Relevant Requirments Key Relevant Requirments

- No materials - No materials containing containing Red Listed Red Listed ingredients. ingredients. - Accounting - Accounting for totalfor embodied total embodied carbon carbon impact impact from used from materials used materials and and incorporate incorporate carbon carbon reductions reductions - Advocating - Advocating for sustainable for sustainable resourceresource extraction extraction and fairand labor fairpractices labor practices by by using 100% usingFSC 100% timber FSC and timber have and 1 have 1 productproduct decalreddecalred every 500s/m every 500s/m while while sendingsending declare declare programprogram to minimum to minimum 10 manufacturers. 10 manufacturers. - Choosing - Choosing materials materials that support that support investment investment in local in economies local economies by 20%by 20% materialmaterial manufactured manufactured within 500km within 500km of of site, 30% site, at 30% 1000km, at 1000km, 25% at 25% 5000km at 5000km and 25% and from 25%anywhere. from anywhere. - Reducing - Reducing materialmaterial waste and waste integratand integrating waste ingback waste inyo back industrial inyo industrial loop orloop or natural natural nutrientnutrient loop loop

-The project must contain -The project must contain design design intended solely for human featuresfeatures intended solely for human the celebration of culture, delight delight and theand celebration of culture, spirit andappropriate place appropriate spirit and place to its to its function. function. - Educational materials about the - Educational materials about the operation and performance operation and performance of the of the be provided to the public. project project must bemust provided to the public.

Key Relevant Key Relevant Requirments Requirments - Goal setting - Goal setting - Criteria - Criteria documentation documentation - Design- Design for health for health - Design- Design for resilience for resilience - Vulnerability - Vulnerability assesment assesment

LEED,LEED, or Leadership or Leadership in Energy in Energy & Environmental & Environmental Design,Design, is a green certification program that that is a building green building certification program recognizes best-in-class building strategies and practicrecognizes best-in-class building strategies and practic- LEED LEE es. To receive es. To receive LEEDLEED certification, certification, building building projectsprojects satisfy satisfy prerequisites prerequisites and earn andpoints earn points to achieve to achieve different different levels2015) of levels certification. of certification. Prerequisites Prerequisites and credits and credits differ for differ for Fischer, each rating and teams the bestthe fitbest for fit for each system, rating system, and choose teams choose their project. their project.

Key Relevant Key Relevant Requirments Requirments

Key Relevant Requirments Key Relevant Requirments

Key Relevant Key Relevant Requirments Requirments

- Building - Building performance performance standardstandard - Sizing-of Sizing heating of heating and cooling and cooling equipment equipment - Energy - Energy STAR aplliances STAR aplliances - Lighting - Lighting - Electricity - Electricity meter - meter opt - opt - Photovoltaic - Photovoltaic panels -panels opt - opt - Renewable - Renewable energy -energy opt - opt

- Adequate ventilation - Adequate ventilation - Clothe- dryer Clotheexhaust dryer exhaust - Combustion equipment - Combustion equipment - Vapor-retarder strategies Vapor retarder strategies - Water -drainage Water drainage - Water -Heater for mold Water Heater forprevention mold prevention - Radon- mitigation Radon mitigation - Garage- Garage isolationisolation - Integrated pest management - Integrated pest management - Active- Design Active Design - Interior and exterior activity activity spaces -spaces - Interior and exterior opt opt - Reduce lead hazards in pre-1978 - Reduce lead hazards in pre-1978 buildings buildings - Smoke- Smoke free building - opt - opt free building

- One hundred - One hundred percentpercent of the project’s of the project’s energy needs energymust needsbemust supplied be supplied by by on-site on-site renewable renewable energy on energy a on a net annual net basis.without annual basis.without the use the of use of on-site on-site combustion. combustion.

- Civilized - Civilized environment: environment: everyspace everyspace to to containcontain an operable an operable openingopening windowwindow - Healthy - Healthy interiorinterior environment: environment: no no smokingsmoking within site’s within boundary, site’s boundary, Indoor Indoor Air Quality Air Quality test before test and before nineand months nine months after occupancy, after occupancy, Compliance Compliance with thewith the CDPH CDPH Standard Standard MethodMethod v1.1-2010, v1.1-2010, exhaustexhaust systemssystems for kitchens, for kitchens, bathrooms, bathrooms, and janitorial and janitorial areas, entry areas, entry approach approach that reduces that reduces particulates particulates tracked tracked in through in through shoes, outline shoes, outline of a of a cleaningcleaning protocolprotocol that uses that cleaning uses cleaning products products that comply that comply with thewith EPAthe EPA Design Design for the for Environment the Environment label label - Biophilic - Biophilic environment environment by designing by designing spaces that spaces include that include elements elements that that nurturenurture the innate thehuman/ innate human/ nature nature connection connection

- Design - Design to createtohuman-scaled create human-scaled rather rather than automobile-scaled than automobile-scaled places promotplaces promoting culture ing culture and interaction and interaction including including specificspecific max andmax minand requirements min requirements for for paved areas, pavedstreet areas,and street block anddesign, block design, buildingbuilding scale and scale signage. and signage. - All primary - All primary transportation, transportation, roads and roads and non-building non-building infrastructure infrastructure externally externally focusedfocused must bemust equally be equally accessible accessible -Prohibit -Prohibit blockingblocking access to, access nor to, nor diminishdiminish the quality the of, quality freshof,air,fresh air, sunlightsunlight and natural and natural waterways waterways for any for any membermember of society of society or adjacent or adjacent develop-developments. ments.

Hurdle 1: Resources on information of building products content are Location Location Water Waterhard Energy scattered and toEnergy interpret Hurdle 2: Deciding which building products to prioritize Hurdle 3: The Architect is burdened by the research and advocacy on building products, adding cost and time Hurdle 4: Balancing using healthier products, the area of the building footprint and landscaping space with the overall budget for the project.

Hurdles in the process of The Rose

Site Site

-S Re -W -T op m -B op de an -P ca

5. INNOVATION IN DESIGN 5a. Designing innovative affordable housing “We never asked if we can do it, we started out by asking how do we do it” (Billy Weber, 2015) The Rose team has developed a design process that makes them leaders in the affordable housing sector. By designing for both net zero energy and advocating for the installation of healthier, non-hazardous building products, The Rose team is creating the next generation of buildings, and their innovative ideas for transformation have been designed to be replicated. By sharing practices and documenting the challenges of the process, the team has allowed for other Affordable Housing developers to learn from their experience and further the expansion of knowledge and collaborative implementation in new affordable housing nationwide.

To achieve this, a number of criteria were adopted by the team to guide the design process. In addition to their use of the LBC and EGCC as guidelines, the team used six key principles to impact their decision making: 1) innovative design decisions 2) constructibility and replicability 3) life cycle cost reduction 4) complexity and maintainability 5) flexibility/ability to retrofit 6) health and toxicity reduction. The design of the project was also dictated by factors such as the physical conditions of the site, project standards laid out by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, the harsh climate, and the concept of equity in which all affordable and market-rate units were to be designed to be similar in size, design and material finishes. MSR Design were critical in developing and executing this “balanced formula” (MSR Design, 2015). In this section, the design process is unpacked to reveal the important challenges that the team confronted in their decision to disseminate the planning process to a wider audience as a means to promote change.

“Not only is The Rose the only registered multifamily building of scale attempting the Living Building Challenge™, it is also in a more challenging climate and has the lowest price point of all certified or registered projects in this program” (Gina Ciganik, 2015). The climate in Minnesota, Minneapolis plays a major role in shaping the design and construction method of new buildings. The humid continental climate within the American Midwest is typified by large seasonal temperature differences, with hot and often humid summers and severely cold winters. The temperature in Minneapolis ranges from -35° to 105° which makes constructing a zero net energy building (Energy Use Intensity (EUI) =0) a difficult challenge. Within these conditions, following the Minnesota Building base code, The Rose building size and location was initially at an

EUI of 111 and had to be reduced to zero to comply with the LBC. “In cold climate, we ran into performance issues” (Simona Fischer, 2015) This, inevitably, was a strenuous undertaking and a range of strategies, described on the following page, were devised in order to reduce the EUI to 31 k.BTU/sf. The team was able to improve the building performance by an incredible 72% compared to the standard building code base line. Further, within these strategies, “the top goal was to reconcile the performance ambitions with the cost [$156/sq ft]” (Paul Mellblom, 2015). Thus, each design move was considered and balanced against other decisions as some implied important financial investments versus others where long-term cost savings could be achieved.

EUI

Minneapolis Temperature °F in 2014

COST

120

120°

Minnesota Building Base Code 111 k.BTU/sf

105° year of occurence: 1988 100°

100

High Performance Building

$ 148/sq ft

Solar Thermal Systems

$ 250,000

Maximize Roof Space for future PV installation

$ 800,000

PV-Utility Company Incentive Program

$ 0/incentives

80° 80 60°

40°

To be implemented post occupancy

32° freezing temp. 20°

PV-Solar Community Garden

$ 0/incentives

Resident Education

TBD

The Rose 31 k.BTU/sf

0°

Left: Street view of The Rose Right: diagram highlighting temperature range in Minneapolis compared with the development’s EUI.

20 -20°

-40°

-35° year of occurence: 1970

Highest Daily Maximum Lowest Daily Minimum http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov

ENERGY STRATEGIES 5b.Researching and selecting healthy materials beginning with the apartment’s interior

2• Envelope

A robust building envelope is critical for energy consumption and the sizing of heating and cooling systems. The Rose design team tested several envelope assemblies until they found the highest return. This forms part of an essential investment opportunity as a tight envelope reduced energy consumption by half. The windows were Red List compliant and also upgraded to foam filled frames and a higher u factor glass to improve performance. This has an impact of 0.8 to 1.0 EUI reduction and also dramatically improves thermal comfort.

5• Multi-functional elements

The design team sought to incorporate building elements or systems that perform more than one function as a way to reduce overall costs. For example, the water garden is designed to drain excess rainwater from the buildings acting as a water collection tank as well as an irrigation system for the community’s productive garden.

6• Net zero energy

of the apartment, to create toxin free environments where people spend most of their time. The research entailed a systematic investigation into all of these products. The results of this research aimed to upgrade products that are typically used industry wide and currently contain red listed chemicals or that are noncompliant with LBC. This additional work required that the team request additional funds. The team expanded their work to include the common areas as further financial support was obtained.

As mentioned previously, the Living Building Challenge™ has created a “Red List” of toxic chemicals that should be eliminated from building products used on a construction site. With several thousand specified building products and component parts, meeting this goal required an efficient research process. The investigation started with twenty material categories and included items such as wallboard assemblies, paint, carpeting, flooring, countertops, joint sealants, doors, LBCdesign wood paneling and trim, and window shades. The MATERIALS team decided to concentrate this effort on the interiors SELECTION

“Our material approach took the idea of focusing on the inside materials and start from the inside faces of what is the most ubiquitous surfaces and what you touch” (Rhys MacPherson, 2015).

LBC 2.0 MATERIALS PROCESS LBC due diligence is simple when a manufacturer has disclosed; complicated when they have not. PROCESS Identify components of the speciﬁc material assembly Discuss product category impacts:

environmental, human heal th, cost, durability, aesthetic

CLIENT INPUT

The due diligence process takes longer when manufacturers have not disclosed ingredients publicly.

Does material require I-14 tracking? Note source exceptions, Red List exceptions.

DUE DILIGENCE PATH: Investigating non-declared products by communicating with manufacturers

The due diligence process for materials selection is simple when manufacturers list products in the DECLARE database., or whenthey have an Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) or Health Product Declaration (HPD) that provides a full list of material ingredients. PRODUCT SELECTION PROCESS: Simple

In-house speciﬁcation manual C2C Pharos GreenSpec

FOR PRODUCTS FOUND IN:

PRODUCT ON DECLARE

SEE DECLARE LABEL FOR INFORMATION

PRODUCT

[contact manufacturer]

[draft Request to Declare Letter with product list, form, sample label, send to manufacturer]

RED LIST free?

YES

NO LBC compliant: Willing to disclose? YES - the only way to be on DECLARE

APPROPRIATE SOURCING? NO

YES

This product:

Only product that meets other performance needs?

YES [REQUIRED ADVOCACY: Tell regional companies that you are not using their product and why]

YES

etc

FORM INCORRECT OR NOT COMPLETED

LBC compliant: Willing to disclose? YES

[REQUIRED ADVOCACY: Request that company removes Red List chemicals from their products]

APPROPRIATE SOURCING? YES

[REQUIRED ADVOCACY: Request that company removes Red List chemicals from their products]

This product:

Only product that meets [REQUIRED ADVOCACY: Tell other performance needs? regional companies that you are not using their YES NO product and why]

[Exception needed: Apply for established exception or make a case to ILFI]

ALLOWED

ACCEPTABLE

GOOD

Living Building Challenge Process Materials Petal: I-11 and I-14 MSR_sﬁscher

[Exception needed: Apply for established exception or make a case to ILFI]

REVIEW MATERIAL CHOICES

[REQUIRED ADVOCACY: May need to pick one of these companies to send advocacy letter (to prove due diligence)]

[Exception needed: Apply for established exception or make a case to ILFI]

GOOD

CLIENT INPUT Cost & ultimate health / environmental goals

[no response]

RED LIST free?

GREAT!

ACCEPTABLE

REVIEW MATERIAL CHOICES

OKAY

GREAT!

Living Building Challenge Process Materials Petal: I-11 and I-14 MSR_sﬁscher

[Exception needed: Apply for established Red List exception or make a case to ILFI]

FORM RECEIVED: REVIEW INFORMATION

NO EXCEPTION, MUST FIND ALTERNATIVE

[Exception needed: Apply for Appropriate Sourcing Exception or make a case to ILFI]

NO EXCEPTION AVIALABLE, MUST FIND ALTERNATIVE MATERIAL

[REQUIRED ADVOCACY: Request that company removes Red List chemicals from their products]

EVERY MATERIAL, EVERY PRODUCT

The surface area available for photo-voltaic panels at The Rose is able to support less than a quarter of the units (apartments) even with the most efficient panels available and an Energy Use Intensity (EUI) at 72% less than the standard code. District-wide approaches considered the preferred method to implement in the future, such as outsourcing energy production to community solar gardens. The design incorporates the future potential of retrofitting for solar energy production and future innovation and technological advances to achieve an EUI=0.

Left: Photograph of construction drawings Right: Diagrams of PRE-INVESTIGATION specification process for LBC complying with the LBC MATERIALS © MSR Design SELECTION PROCESS INTRODUCTORY INFORMATION

EVERY MATERIAL, EVERY PRODUCT

The other critical investment for this property was the HVAC-IAQ system. With a tight envelope in the Minnesota climate, a robust ventilation and indoor air quality system was essential. This strategy also enabled the team to address the local air pollution from the nearby freeways to ensure cleaner indoor air for the residents.

The unit sizes were designed to be compact, yet functional. Decreasing the size of units and circulation space throughout the building decreased construction costs and will further reduce energy costs over the life of the building, an important consideration for the building owner and the occupants.

...

3• Heating, ventilation, air conditioning and indoor air quality (HVAC-IAQ)

“Our goal was to find a library of materials that we could share with other housing developers, whether affordable or not, so that other people won’t have to do that investment of time and research” (Gina Ciganik, 2015).

MSR Design / S.Fischer, 2014

1• Orientation and massing

The scale, massing and orientation of the design optimized solar gain, constructibility, and solar energy production by aligning buildings to maximize southern exposure.

4• Compact unit sizes

Due diligence path for non-disclosing manufacturers...

The “LBC challenges us to close loops, to utilize rather than consume energy” (Billy Weber, 2015). This effort was a key driver for the energy strategies outlined below:

CLIENT INPUT Cost & ultimate health / environmental goals

MIXED USE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUNDING SOURCES

CERTIFICATION GOALS

PROJECT TEAM

“We did a lot of analysis to•figure LIHTCout what is the best deployment of dollars •and whereDEFERRED do we could PUBLIC spend those dollars so that weLOANS most positively • FIRST MORTGAGE affect the innate health of the people living in the • PRIVATE/PHILANTHROPIC building” (Paul Mellblom, 2015).

AEON • GINA CIGANIK

FORMER VP OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

HOPE COMMUNITY • WILL DELANEY • BETSY SOHN

• JAMES LEHNHOFF VP OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

The specification process was a lengthy one, with little readily accessible or reliable information, MSR Design led the research and aggregated information from existing databases and by contacting manufacturers directly.

MSR ARCHITECTS • PAUL N.C. MELLBLOM • RHYS MACPHERSON • SIMONA FISCHER

“We started by looking at Declare database and Green Spec and Pharos because those are some of the most common places you can find ‘green’ materials [...] what we found was that there weren’t databases that had filters strict enough to meet the PROJECT INCEPTION Red List” (Simona Fischer, 2015). AND PLANNING

CONSULTANTS • BILLY WEBER

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE BUILDING RESEARCH,

• ENERGY, 3M, ECP, WEIDT GROUP, PLACE, LBC

SITE ACQUISITION

• COMMUNITY OUTREACH

TARGET POPULATIONbut many organizations Systems are• still not harmonized are currently working to create more robust and integrated evaluation systems to be used by designers.

FINANCING

PHYSICAL, SOCIAL REGULATORY DATA

HOUSING UNIT The complexity of the problem and the multiple COMPOSITION

DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS

meaning they do not contain any of the ingredients • ENERGY post occupancy surveys and air quality data collection. ENTERPRISE GREEN COMMUNITIES CRITERIA REDUCTION listed in the Red List. The impact of the installation•ofPRIORITIZE The rest of AND the building products that were installed LIGHT AIR better products in the common areas also created better seemed likely, in some cases to be THE LIVING BUILDING CHALLENGE™ • GREEN SPACE ALLOCATION TO FOSTER A LBC compliant environmental interior characteristics in community SENSEbased on the teams’ research but the chemical content OF COMMUNITY • HEALTHY PRODUCT SPECIFICATION TO spaces. of the products could not beCORE confirmed because the DESIGN PROCESS manufacturers did not fully disclose and document the product’s ingredients. Through their research, the design 3: Infrastructure – Due to financial constraints team has developed an effective and useful process and the difficulty in identifying infrastructure components that are Red List Free, the design team was for pursuing and tracking the LBC’s Materials Petal. Using existing tools such as Declare, HPD and Pharos, not able to address all product categories. Some items HEALTH MSR Design have utilized these as filters to choose were Red List compliant, including cellulose insulation, • USE LESS TOXIC BUILDING PRODUCTS and track the research on each building product. Once exterior siding and masonry but other items such as • MAINTAIN HEALTHY INDOOR AIR QUALITY a product’s compliance to these labels is mapped, the water pipes, electrical conduit and the spray applied air • COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT decision to specify is then determined based on factors barrier did not comply. such as cost, options or alternatives, durability and performance, aesthetics, carbon footprint, amount of Overall, MSR carefully prioritized what spaces and toxic ingredients, and the VOC content. Visualizing this OCCUPAN product categories to focus on for choosing LBC POST DESIGN CONSTRUCTION complex process demonstrates the fine balance between compliant, healthier materials that would most impact • AIR QUALITY TESTING numerous factors such a decision encompass and• the COMMUNITY BUILDING the lives of the residents by radically reducing the • MAINTENANCE TRAINI expertise required to make these informed selections. toxins in the interiors of their apartments. The longterm health impact will have to be measured through

BUILDING PRODUCTS

MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT challenges that confront the specifier signals the critical + MARKET RATE needAFFORDABLE for a tool thatHOUSING aggregates the information from the % POVERTY TOTAL NUMBER OF UNIT:including 90 Red List with existing databases, Pharos and ZIP CODE 55404 Declare. Seemingly simple decisions, such as wall types 100% BUILDING 65% OPEN SPACE 24% STREET + SURFACE PARKING 11% and wall finishes, became an intense investigation of 47 fact-finding and analysis. As stated by MacPherson “we AFFORDABLE THE ROSE DEVELOPMENT UNITS wall43types and we then distilled looked at 35 different BUILDING 1 COURTYARD BUILDING 2 COMMUNITY GARDEN + PLAYGROUND MARKET RATE UNITS that down to 23 and from there we kept distilling that such as wallboards, paint, resilient flooring, tiling, wood ILIES IN POVERTY process down” (Rhys MacPherson, 2015). Other issues, cabinetry, specialties and furnishings. This substitution % POVERTY ZIP CODE 55404 OPEN SPACE 53% Network STREET + SURFACE PARKING 11% such as lack of transparency of chemical content BUILDING- 36% FAMILIES IN POVERTY what our colleagues at the Healthy Building ˜˜M˜˜SI˜I˜˜ ˜F ˜˜˜ ˜˜S˜ %of POVERTY 100% the products and the lack of existing healthier 90 PARKING BAYS ˜˜˜ A˜ ˜˜M˜˜˜ ˜F ˜˜I˜S A ˜ ˜˜˜ ˜˜S˜˜ ˜0 FORMERLY HOMELESS 7 would call the Avoided Hazard - ensured that almost ZIP CODE 55404 15 product alternatives 30% AMIat a reasonable price range, further 90%9of all the surface area of 6the interior spaces of POVERTY 100% ˜˜M˜˜SI˜I˜˜ ˜F ˜˜˜ ˜˜S˜The key design strategies Formerl˜ õmeless 15 1 CENSUS DATA complicated the process. CLIMATE GEOGRAPHY OVERTY 8 LOCATION 15 Individuals and Families the dwelling units was2impacted because healthier EUI Minneapolis Temperature °F in 2014 ˜˜˜ A˜ ˜˜M˜˜˜ 25 ˜F ˜˜I˜S A ˜ ˜˜˜ ˜˜S˜˜ ˜0 <30% AMI CODE 55404 47 43 15,000 that MSR developed for the specification of materials N 50% AMI ZIP CODE 55404 (2013) This was a products substituted more toxic alternatives. Minnesota Building 9 ˜F ˜˜˜ ˜˜S˜MARKET RATE UNITS Base Code 6 TOTAL POPULATION: 28,309 100% õmeless 15turning included: ˜˜M˜˜SI˜I˜˜ FAMILIES IN POVERTY 1 point and lead 111 k.BTU/sf 23 major to conversations with the 21 8 15 ˜˜˜ A˜ ˜˜M˜˜˜ ˜F ˜ ˜˜˜ ˜˜S˜˜ ˜043AMI Formerl˜ Individuals and Families <50% AMI ˜˜M˜˜SI˜I˜˜ ˜F˜˜I˜S ˜˜˜ A˜˜S˜ 43 <30% % POVERTY 2 35 Mar˜et ã te 47 International Living Future Institute to begin rethinking ZIP CODE 55404 ˜˜˜ A˜ ˜˜M˜˜˜ ˜F ˜˜I˜S A ˜ ˜˜˜ ˜˜S˜˜ ˜0Mar˜et ã9te 6 2 Formerl˜dwelling õmeless 15 affordable 1 1: Focus on the dwelling units – The the LBC housing criteria. The Institute is also 8 15 Individuals and Families 23 UNIT TYPES 100% 21 6 <30% AMI 9 <50% AMI 2 15 43 43 Formerl˜ õmeless 1 10,000 47 unit is where the residents of their time, 35 introducing a tracking sheets for exceptions inspired by Mar˜et ãand te Families Mar˜et ã tespend most15 8 Individuals <30% AMI 2 1 Bed 1 is the greatest 47 and a place where there possibility of THE2Design as a strategy for affordable housing. MSR 23 2 Bed 21 <50% AMI 43 15 6 43 potential2contamination environment 35 Mar˜et ã te and Mar˜et 8 ãofte the interior 23 21 ROSE <50% AMI 43 43 Studio 2 exposure to chemicals, for children. Great 35to common space – There are Mar˜et ã te Mar˜etparticularly ã te 2: Scaling 2 Bed AVE in the interior units that could 2 progress was List free materials. manyFRANKLIN 21 made in identifying Red elements found The key Rose 35 Left: Diagram outlining The team also identified which items3 Bed have no affordable easily be installed in the common areas. Items that were 31 k.BTU/sf Studio requirements for choosing alternative, such according to LBC 2 as doors, that could,2 Bed installed in the common spaces such as the wallboard, healthier products. criteria, receive an exception. The team Right: diagram of the filtering 3 Bed was successful carpet and hard surface flooring, paint, bathroom tile process for choosing the in identifying and installing healthier building products and fixtures, and cabinetry are Red List free elements., healthiest possible product

COST

BUILDING PRODUCT CATEGORY

$22,113 for family of 4

NO ALTERNATIVE

FEWER TOXIC INGREDIENTS

6 x studio - homeless individuals

2 x 3bed - tax credits_low income housing_<50% AMI 2 x studio_<50% AMI

1 x 2bed - homeless Families 15 x 3bed - Section 8_<30% AMI

2bed - tax credits_low income housing_<50% AMI 221xxstudio_<50% AMI

6 xxstudio homeless individuals 15 3bed -- Section 8_<30% AMI

2 xx3bed 21 2bed- -tax taxcredits_low credits_lowincome incomehousing_<50% housing_<50%AMI AMI

2bed - -homeless 61 xx studio homelessFamilies individuals

2 x 3bed - tax credits_low income housing_<50% AMI

1 x 2bed - homeless Families

118.5

LOWER VOC CONTENT

8.5

20°

LBC$ 250,000 3.0 $ 800,000

PV-Utility Company Incentive Program

$ 0/incentives To be implemented post occupancy

GOAL: HEALTHIER + AFFORDABLE

PV-Solar Community Garden

$ 0/incentives

LIVING ROOM

0°

-20°

-40°

-35° year of occurence: 1970

Highest Daily Maximum Lowest Daily Minimum http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov

INTERIOR TBD SPACES AS PRIORITY IN SELECTION OF BUILDING PRODUCTS AS THESE ARE THE SPACES RESIDENTS ARE MOST EXPOSED AND CLOSEST TO

Wet wall

AESTHETIC REASON

77.5

Maximize Roof Space for future PV installation

COST

NO ALTERNATIVE PERFORMANCE REASON

COST

LBC$ 148/sq 2.1 ft

Solar Thermal Systems

16’ 4”

Wet wall

High Performance Building

32° freezing temp.

2,792 OTHER

21 x 2bed - tax credits_low income housing_<50% AMI

40°

1,337 ASIAN

1 x 2bed - homeless Families

9,246 BLACK

6 x studio - homeless individuals

60°

1,077 NATIVE AMERICAN

15 x 3bed - Section 8_<30% AMI

4,183 HISPANIC OR LATINO

2 x 3bed - tax credits_low income housing_<50% AMI 15 x 3bed - Section 8_<30% AMI

45%

80°

11,375 WHITE

35 x 2bed

Mar˜et MARKET AFFORDABLE UNITS ˜a te RATE

Mar˜et ã te Mar˜et Mar˜et ã teã te

2bed 835xx1bed

8 x 1bed

100°

21 x 2bed - tax credits_low income housing_<50% AMI

2 x studio_<50% AMI

FILTERING

35 x 2bed

2 x studio_<50% AMI

PORTLAND AVE

8 x 1bed

INTERSTATE 35W

$22,113 for family of 4

Some information available Better product based on PHAROS

15%

CARBON FOOTPRINT

LBC 2.0

105° year of occurence: 1988

100

18%

AESTHETIC Limited information available Better product than US EPA compliant

120

120°

18%

PERFORMANCE

US EPA compliant

$22,113 for family of 4

13 for family of 4

EXTERIOR + INTERIOR DECISION FACTORS

DECIDING FACTORS

PRECONSTRUCTION

FAMILIES IN POVERTY

$22,113 for family of 4

INSTALLED PRODUCTS

EVALUATION + SELECTION FILTERS

LAND USE POLICY AND ZONING

Resident Education

EXTERIOR PERIMETER WALLS INTERIOR WALLS PARTY WALLS COMPONENTS

OTHER ECO-FOOTPRINT REAS FEWER TOXIC INGREDIENTS LOWER VOC CONTENT 33

• HEALTHY PRODUCT SPECIFICATION CORE TO DESIGN PROCESS 36

THE FINAL SEVEN LBC COMPLIANT PRODUCT LIST FROM MSR DESIGN

HEALTH • USE LESS TOXIC BUILDING PRODUCTS • MAINTAIN HEALTHY INDOOR AIR QUALITY • COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

The main challenges encountered by the design team in the research and specification process included:

3. The time, resources, and financial burden placed on the architects for the LBC advocacy requirements

The Materials List

Location POST OCCUPANCY

CONSTRUCTION DESIGN The time spent on a material ranged from 20 minutes

1. The small number of equivalent options for healthy and affordable building products currently available in the market

2. The hesitancy of some manufacturers to disclose the full building product composition and sourcing information.

• AIR QUALITY TESTING1. WOOD 1. WOOD division•6 COMMUNITY BUILDING . Veneer plywood: PureBond . Throughout in the cabinetry, casing MAINTENANCE process• domestic veneer core TRAINING and base trim. hardwood plywood . Wood base: PureBond process domestic veneer core hardwood plywood

(in the rare cases where there was an acceptable material on Declare and only documentation in the tracker was necessary) to 10+ hours of research when several different conversations with multiple manufacturers were necessary. On average the investigation process may be assumed to take about eight hours per building material.

BUILDING PRODUCTS

INSTALLED 2. PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES 2. PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES PRODUCTS division 10

EVALUATION + SELECTION FILTERS

COST NO ALTERNATIVE PERFORMANCE AESTHETIC

•

ECO REASONS

FILTERING

Over half of contacted companies have Although The Rose development did not achieve the been responsive to the request for ingredient Limited information available Materials Petal certification, both the developer and information. Better product than EPAexperience compliant the design team haveUS gained in the LBC • Of these, less than half have provided partial or Materials process. Further, an initial list of companies complete ingredient information. and products that are either Red List free or LBC Compliant (becauseavailable they have taken the step to disclose Some information It is obvious that this transparency is one of the biggest their ingredients, and do not have >1% proprietary Better product based on PHAROS hurdles to overcome to bring about change in product ingredients) has been recognized, adding to the specification and enable designers to specify better existing library of such products and manufacturers, building products. LBCthus 2.0participating in the process to slowly change the industry.

EXTERIOR . Corian counters: DuPont+ INTERIOR . bathroom countertop in all DECISION FACTORS bathroom + window sill

DECIDING FACTORS NON-ECO REASONS

Some manufacturers relied on a general “green” (Analysis carried out by Simona Fischer, MSR Design, statement of sustainability of their product and were PRECONSTRUCTION not able to provide the kind of transparency demanded 2014) by the LBC process. Of the 48 manufacturers 4. Finalizing the CATEGORY filtering process of the researched, eight have returned fully completed ProductBUILDING PRODUCT most healthy and affordable product Declaration Forms to the architects, three already had their products on the Declare database, and four was further complicated by having to provided a complete ingredient information in the also comply with the performance needs MSDS sheet or a health product declaration (HPD). in relation to Minneapolis’ climate and US EPA compliant Analysis of the process demonstrates that: building program.

FEWER TOXIC INGREDIENTS LOWER VOC CONTENT

LBC 3.0

GOAL: HEALTHIER + AFFORDABLE INTERIOR SPACES AS PRIORITY IN SELECTION OF BUILDING PRODUCTS AS THESE ARE THE SPACES RESIDENTS ARE MOST EXPOSED AND CLOSEST TO

3. THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION

4. FINISHES - Wall Boards 45% 5% division 9 . Wall board: National Gypsum . Ceiling board: National Gypsum . Damp board: National Gypsum . Wet board: National Gypsum

4. FINISHES - Wall Boards

. party wall + ceiling . exterior perimeter wall . common space wall

15%

CARBON FOOTPRINT

LBC 2.7

3. THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION division 7 . Acoustical insulation: EcoBatt 18% PolarBarrier 18% . Cellulose insulation: . Acoustical insulation: UltraTouch recycled denim insulation

LIVING ROOM

EXTERIOR PERIMETER WALLS INTERIOR WALLS PARTY WALLS COMPONENTS

COST

. interior wall . ceiling . kitchen wall . bathroom

5. FINISHESNO- ALTERNATIVE Tiles + Flooring 5. FINISHES - Tiles + Flooring division 9 PERFORMANCE REASON . Floor/wall tile: Tweed glazed . common space bathroom AESTHETIC REASON porcelain tiles . Tile base: OTHER ibid ECO-FOOTPRINT REASON . Resilient Sheet Flooring: . level 1 shared area FEWER Marmoleum StriatoTOXIC INGREDIENTS . Resilient sheet flooring: Armstrong . living room, kitchen and bedroom LOWER VOC CONTENT bio base tiles . Sheet Flooring: Takiron Wells . bathroom sheet . Carpet tile: Superflor and Shaw . entrance accent in hallway and shared area 6. SPECIALTIES division 10 . Wall protection, wall panel and corner guards: Alpar . Toilet: Niagra

6. SPECIALTIES

7. FURNISHINGS division 12 . Granite countertop: Coldspring

7. FURNISHINGS

. common space . bathroom

. kitchen and community room

INSTALLED PRODUCTS LIBRARY INTERIOR APARTMENTS

Red List free LBC v2.1 Some level of transparency Red List free LBC v.3.0 Product containing Red list ingredient from LBC v2.1 and v3.0

5c.Post disposal

INSTALLED PRODUCTS LIBRARY COMMON SPACES

One of the requirements for LBC compliance is to develop a program for the disposal of post construction debris. The imperative also demands that the project “optimizes materials in each of the following phases: 1. Design Phase, including the consideration of appropriate durability in product specification 2. Construction Phase, including product optimization and collection of wasted materials. 3. Operation Phase, including a collection plan for consumables and durables and 4. End of Life Phase, including a plan for adaptable reuse and deconstruction.” (LBC 3.0)

• Metals – 95% • Paper and Cardboard – 95% • Soil and biomass – 100% • Rigid foam, carpet & insulation – 90% • All others - combined weighted average 80%

During construction, according to LBC, the project team must divert and reduce waste material from landfills to the prescribed levels indicated below. This means that depending on the materials, a range of 80% to 100% of the disposable materials should be recycled, reused or composted.

Furthermore, the owner of the development was also required to develop a program for post-construction waste diversion, including future remodeling efforts. This demands the full participation of the residents and employees as a way to maintain health standards within The Rose.

The use of certification tools such as LBC help achieve quality in maintenance of buildings. However, the overall goal of The Rose was not to purely pursue the certification, but also to build a better building for its community and maintain the development through best practices. Here, post-disposal becomes a further The importance of minimizing waste and implementing refinement of the definition of better buildings in relation to the supply chain. Though the LBC programs for potential reuse aids in creating a better certification was not fully pursued, The Rose team environment for everyone, from the manufacturing managed to apply some of these objectives in their post process to construction. As a general principle it is disposal strategy. The GC managed to deter from a important to reduce waste from the waste stream as discarded toxic materials can find their way back into the landfill, 75% of the waste through recycling and reuse. environment through unregulated recycling, leakage, etc. The initial goal set out by MSR Design was to reduce Proper disposal and recycling as a practice is an essential landfill by 55%. Weis Builders went well beyond this percentage during the construction period. part of maintaining the high quality of a building.

6. CONCLUSION 6a. Identifying Strategies for Building Healthier, Affordable Housing Through this research, we were able to describe the tactics created and the substantial barriers encountered in the design, funding, procurement and construction process of The Rose. It is critical to take into account the role of the wider development ecosystem that impacts and shapes the affordable housing sector in order to understand the current challenges that complicate delivering healthier housing. The successes of The Rose are rooted in the creative navigation of the complex systems involved. The informal Integrated Design and Delivery Process was essential in bringing a solid team together at the earliest stages of the project. The early integration of the General Contractor in the design team was particularly important for examining life cycle costs and establishing energy budgets at design inception. The contractor also played an important role in bidding cycles and installing upgraded product alternatives during construction as grants and funding permitted. The partnership between the co-developers, Hope Community, and Aeon was also key. Hope Community’s strong ties to the neighborhood enabled the development process to be inclusive of current populations, and ensured local needs were targeted from the inception of the project. Pursuing the Living Building Challenge was an aspirational goal that brought numerous benefits. While the project did not acquire full certification, The Rose project was identified as a LBC pilot for housing developers nationally, and the project paved the way for others to establish similar practices as a baseline approach to achieve better affordable housing. The certification became a tool for identifying potential material health hazards that have the most impact on residents. The revelation that the team would focus on the interior environment lead to the focus on healthier interior products and interior air quality, and helped to narrow the scope of research and the team’s efforts. Focusing on a healthier interior apartment is a useful strategy that could also guide future developments and may lead to the elimination of a range of “classes” of chemicals (Green Science Policy Institute, 2013). A process for choosing healthier products was established by MSR Design, which “filtered” products for their chemical content through various existing benchmarks, including the US EPA, Pharos, and various versions of the LBC. This process provided a range of

information that informed the specification process. The decision to specify a product was dependent on a range of typical design factors including cost, alternative options, aesthetics, carbon footprint, durability and performance but also included calculations of toxic ingredients, and the VOC content. This difficult and lengthy product evaluation process was exacerbated because of incomplete chemical information and lack of transparency in the industry. It is evident that designers can only specify better products if manufacturers declare the content of their products. With the new HPD v2 (Healthy Product Declaration Collaborative) more product information is becoming available that will allow architects to use a range of information tools to evaluate and specify a wider range of better products. The Living Building Challenge sets a high bar to achieve certification. We identified that more support must be provided to designers to be able to conduct the necessary research to identify better products for affordable housing. At the moment, it is only through the persistence of individual team members that designers are able to make any progress. As Paul Mellblom states: “The take-aways (to address and respond to the LBC) are twofold 1) the effort is worth it since it makes us smarter and better designers, and 2) you need to have a few people on the project team that want to live and breathe LBC if you are going to be successful - Rhys, Simona and Rachelle were inspired to really do a great project and each invested their own time to be smarter and understand the nuances of LBC and its intentions (often times beyond the imperative itself) in order to build the best building we could with the limited resources we had available to us.” (Paul C.N. Mellblom, 2016) At this time there are very few healthy and affordable products on the market. This dramatically limits the potential scope of impact. We identified that a market opportunity exists for manufacturers to develop healthy, affordable substitutes particularly suited to the affordable housing sector. The manufacturing industry

has a long way to go to become leaders in changing the market. This is an issue worthy of advocacy and further research. Out of the many products installed in The Rose apartment interior, six are compliant with LBC v.3.0, three comply with LBC v.2.1 and 11 contain a red listed ingredient. For the development team it is important to note that products covering the largest portion of apartment surface areas (wall, floor, countertop) were mostly Red List free. The team was able to fundamentally impact the health of the future occupants by avoiding many harmful chemicals by choosing healthier product options. The design team focused primarily on products that impact the interior environment. This was an intensive and costly process. The team was unable to further spend their resources in evaluating other construction materials. The post occupancy analysis of the development is currently being established and the main challenge will be to maintain the long term interior environmental quality of the apartment through best cleaning and maintenance practices. This can only be accomplished through robust and inclusive engagement with the residents. The real life of the building begins when it becomes a new home for the residents. The Rose has leveraged a range of creative funding sources, established and consolidated long-term partnerships within the community and with the design and construction teams, and challenged the statusquo in affordable housing through their dedication to achieving the goal of creating better healthier housing for all residents.

7. REFERENCES

2011 Enterprise Green Communities Criteria. 2011. Enterprise Community Partners.

Living Building Challenge V.2.0. December 2010. International Living Future Institute, WA, Seattle.

“Six Classes.” September 22, 2013. Accessed April 14, 2016. http://greensciencepolicy.org/topics/six-classes/.

Design Team and Contributors

Ciganik, Gina. “The Rose Development Process.” Interview by author. July 13, 2015.

Living Building Challenge V.2.1. May 2012. International Living Future Institute, WA, Seattle. Living Building Challenge V.3.0. 2014. International Living Future Institute, WA, Seattle.

“Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.” Wikipedia. Accessed January 25, 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Toxic_Substances_Control_Act_of_1976.

Aeon Gina Ciganik James Lehnhoff Steve Plotz

Delaney, William, and Betsy Sohn. “The Rose Development Process.” Interview by author. July 14, 2015.

“National Weather Service Climate.” National Weather Service Climate. Accessed September 16, 2015. http:// w2.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=MPX.

“Demographic Census Data Minneapolis Zip Code 55404.” Census Bureau, 2014. Accessed July 22, 2015.

Newberg, Sam. ULI Case Studies The Rose. Report. July 2015. Accessed August 15, 2015. http://casestudies.uli. org/wp-content/uploads/sites/98/2015/12/TheRose_ CaseStudy.pdf.

Wolff, Mary S., Susan L. Teitelbaum, Kathleen Mcgovern, Susan M. Pinney, Gayle C. Windham, Maida Galvez, Ashley Pajak, Michael Rybak, Antonia M. Calafat, Lawrence H. Kushi, and Frank M. Biro. “Environmental Phenols and Pubertal Development in Girls.” Environment International 84 (2015): 174-80. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2015.08.008.

Capen, Alison, James Connelly, Krista Elvery, Marisa Hagney, Kathleen Smith, Amanda Sturgeon, and Sam Wright. Living Building Challenge Framework for Affordable MacPherson, Rhys, Paul Mellblom, Simona Fischer, Housing. 2014. International Living Future Institute, WA, and Billy Weber. “The Rose Development Process.” Seattle. Interview by author. July 14, 2015.

Farrah, Kim, Breeze Glazer, Carolyn Roose, Peter Syrett, Chris Youssef, and Kristina Buller. HEALTHY ENVIRONMENTS A Compilation of Substances Linked to Asthma. July 2011. NY, New York City. “Health Product Declaration Collaborative - HPD Collaborative.” HPD Collaborative. Accessed April 14, 2016. http://www.hpd-collaborative.org/. “Home | Hope Community.” Home | Hope Community. Accessed June 30, 2015. http://www.hopecommunity.org/. Jossi, Frank. “Sustainable: Aeon Building Ultra-efficient Affordable Apartments.” Finance & Commerce, February 2, 2015. Accessed July 20, 2015. http://financecommerce.com/2015/02/sustainable-aeon-buildingultra-efficient-affordable-apartments/ Landrigan PJ. Children’s Environmental Health: A Brief History. Academic pediatrics 2015 Oct;. Accessed Feburary 10, 2016. http://www.mountsinai.org/ profiles/philip-j-landrigan#sthash.4scmLACZ. DYA9HPL9.dpuf Lehnhoff, James. “The Rose Development.” Telephone interview by author. July 31, 2015.

PHILLIPS WEST MASTER LAND USE PLAN. July 17, 2009. Adopted by the Minneapolis City Council, MN, Minneapolis. Plotz, Steve. “The Rose Development.” Telephone interview by author. July 31, 2015. South Quarter Phase IV (The Rose). February 28, 2014. Specification document. MSR Design, Minneapolis. “The Rose - South Quarter - Minneapolis - Aeon.” Aeon. Accessed June 30, 2015. http://www.aeonmn. org/properties/rose/. “OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS.” Map. In Minneapolis Zoning Plate. Minneapolis: Community Planning & Economic Development, 2011. Accessed July 23, 2015. Rezoning Permit and Conditions. April 8, 2013. Department of Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED), Minneapolis. Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit, Variance, Site Plan Review, Preliminary Plat and Alley Vacation BZZ-5968, PL-275 and Vac-1613

“Ventura Village Neighborhood - Existing Land Use.” MSR Design Map. In The Minneapolis Plan for Sustainable Growth, Land Use Chapter. Minneapolis: Community Planning & Paul C.N. Mellblom Rhys MacPherson Economic Development, 2010. Accessed July 23, 2015. Simona Fischer

Wolff, Mary S., Susan L. Teitelbaum, Gayle Windham, Susan M. Pinney, Julie A. Britton, Carol Chelimo, James Godbold, Frank Biro, Lawrence H. Kushi, Christine M. Pfeiffer, and Antonia M. Calafat. “Pilot Study of Urinary Biomarkers of Phytoestrogens, Phthalates, and Phenols in Girls.” Environ Health Perspect Environmental Health Perspectives 115, no. 1 (2006): 116-21. doi:10.1289/ehp.9488. Wolff, M. S., S. L. Teitelbaum, K. Mcgovern, G. C. Windham, S. M. Pinney, M. Galvez, A. M. Calafat, L. H. Kushi, and F. M. Biro. “Phthalate Exposure and Pubertal Development in a Longitudinal Study of US Girls.” Human Reproduction 29, no. 7 (2014): 1558-566. doi:10.1093/humrep/deu081.

Center for Sustainable Building Research Billy Weber Hope Community Betsy Sohn William Delaney