The first grant is "The Affordable Housing Initiative" offered by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) through a grant from the Home Depot Foundation and is intended to developers achieve LEED for Homes (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Certification of their affordable housing projects by helping to cover the costs of the certification process including registration, verification and certification costs.

The second source is the Green Communities Program through Enterprise Community Partners, Inc. and includes grant opportunities specifically for Green Affordable Housing projects including:

• Charrettes Grants which provide up to $5,000 in funding "to assist housing developers with integrating green building systems in their developments and engage in a serious discussion of green design possibilities".
• Planning & Construction Grants of up to $75,000 to cover the increases in planning & construction expenses that may be attributable to upgrading the design and performance of the project for sustainability.
• Sustainability Training Grants of up to $5,000 for affordable housing developers to cover the costs of designing and implementing a comprehensive training curriculum and operations & maintenance manual supporting the long-term operations and maintenance of the properties after construction is complete.

Green Communities offers these grants and provide a range of loan products and Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Equity assistance to affordable housing projects that adhere to the Green Communities Criteria, which is similar to the LEED for Homes Certification Criteria.

Bringing well thought out green design to affordable housing projects adds another level of true sustainability to the project and to the community in which it is built by increasing the efficiency of the project and reducing the long-term operations and maintenance costs of the building. Projects may apply for and qualify for any combination of these special funding opportunities available specifically for green development. They can be added to the Pro Forma along with the other affordable housing funding opportunities that may be available.

On October 4, 2009 we introduced our readers to our "Eco-Craft" series of homes.  These homes were designed with Central Texas home builder Dustin Dewald, president and founder of DPD Custom Homes.  Dustin Dewald and Gene Dane, principal in charge of our Texas office, collaborated in a a true Design / Build approach to develop the design of the first 5 homes in this series.

The design intent behind the "Eco-Craft" series of homes was to produce a "Green Built" home for the average home buyer.  The target price of these homes was set at $199,999 or as Realtors like to say, "Below $200,000".

Every home in the "Eco-Craft" series has been sold before construction has been completed at exactly the target price point.  In a market that has speculative homes being completed and sitting on the market for sale for six month or more we consider this a spectacular success.

Each home in the "Eco-Craft" series has achieved the highest level of green buding standards in the Central Texas Home Builders Association Green Building Program.  All five homes qualified for "5+ Stars" in the Energy Star program and posted HERS Ratings of 60.

The pictures below are examples of the style and quality of the "Eco-Craft" series of homes currently on the market.  We would like to think that these are examples of homes that can be constructed to meet the most stringent requirements of green building, sustainable design, and affordability while being timeless in design style and attractive in the very competitive market of affordable homes.

There are many aspects that must be integrated in order to develop a successful affordable housing cooperative. Often cooperative housing developments form a type of corporation, similar to a business, but this corporation only generates money that goes directly into operating and maintaining the building. In this way, the corporation is like that of a non-profit, however is not incorporated as a 501 (c) (3). Once this corporation is set up there are various policies that need to be adopted to ensure the corporation continues to provide affordable housing. These policies vary between co-ops because they are democratically run and every community has different definitions of affordability, priorities and values.

The following is a list of items integral for co-op developments. These elements have been adapted from “The Urban Homesteading Assistance Board” (UHAB) and more information can be found at www.uhab.org

• Understanding the initial definition of affordability, (i.e. what population will this corporation serve?)
• Outlining the qualifications of those seeking the housing, (i.e. income and asset restrictions)
• Setting the initial sales price for the shares of the corporation
• Adopting a resale price cap
• Allocating a “flip tax” to financially assist the co-op during sales
• Waiting list for purchasers internal and external
• Establishing Resale procedures
• Setting up Regulatory Agreements and by-laws for residents
• Monitoring and enforcing all policies
• Initial and ongoing education for those entering the co-op lifestyle and understanding ownership responsibilities

Defining Affordability, Income restrictions & Initial Sales Price:

One way to define affordability is to use the Federal Government’s Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) categories of income levels as follows:

This method may work for identifying what type of income levels you want the co-op to serve. The policy for the co-op can stipulate that it will house people of “low incomes” which would be 80% of the defined area medium income (AMI).

Often times however, the defined AMI will be much higher then you would expect because it includes the larger metropolitan area. The metropolitan area will include households with higher incomes and therefore skew the “medium income.” For example, if the AMI is $100,000 then a family is considered “low income” if making 80% or $80,000. This may not be the “low income” population your co-op was hoping to serve. (This is not always the case, but it is a good idea to check with the US Census Bureau to see what is considered the AMI.)

As an alternative look at the neighborhood level, the school district or the local census track to get a more accurate and local medium income level. The Center for Urban Pedagogy put together a great toolkit to help visualize what the median income is based on their neighborhood vs. the AMI. An interactive map can also be found at http://envisioningdevelopment.net/ to better understand what is actually considered affordable in a neighborhood. (Sorry Denver this is just in NYC for now.)

It is also important to consider that the cost of purchasing shares of this co-op may require the purchaser to take a loan. So on top of the monthly co-op maintenance fee the resident has an individual mortgage. Many affordable housing advocates support that residents should only pay 30% to 35% of their monthly income on their cost of housing.

Taking all this into consideration the co-op can develop its policies around the type of people they want to provide housing for and how much they will charge incoming residents.

Resale Price Cap, “Flip Tax,” Waiting List, and Resale Procedures:

There is no official legislation, federal or state, around affordable cooperative housing and therefore, in order to sustain a co-op as an affordable housing method resale policies have to be adopted by the shareholders.

The co-op sustains itself financially through the monthly maintenance fees and the sale of shares. Resale caps have to be carefully thought out, taking into consideration that the co-op makes money off of the sale (flip tax, which will generally go into a reserve fund) and the individual shareholder makes money off the sale (their reasonable profit). Resale caps can increase over time to compensate for inflation rates and can take into consideration any major capital improvements the building has received.

It is important for shareholders to understand that they are a part of something that initially allowed them to have housing at an affordable rate and that they should ensure that they provide that same opportunity to the next shareholder. The financial equity a shareholder builds in an affordable housing co-op is limited. However there are many qualitative benefits a shareholder gains by being a part of this type of community. Having stable housing is the first step toward gaining things like a stable job, higher education and social networks. These factors all have to be a part of defining a resale price.

Regulatory Agreement, Enforcement and Continual Education:

Regulatory agreements can outline the requirements that help make a co-op function. Many times lenders will require a regulatory agreement be in place and will add their own terms to the agreement, like an income limit. Establishing regulatory agreements and by-laws also helps the residents understand their rights and responsibilities as a co-op owner. No two co-op agreements will ever be a like because the shareholders democratically govern their co-op and all that define it.

Aspects of Regulatory Agreements often include:

• Income Restrictions
• Resale Prices
• Procedures
• Resale Policy
• Annual Elections
• Budgeting and Monthly Charges
• Subletting
• Financial Statements and Audits
• Insurances
• Physical Conditions and Inspections
• Commercial Spaces and Leasing
• Reserves
• Taxes

Finally, the most important aspect of successful affordable housing cooperatives is on-going training and education. Often times those who are a part of affordable co-ops are not accustom to being an owner of property. The more the shareholder understands that they are responsible for minor repairs and improvements the more they will care for the property. New homeowners need to be educated not only about physical up keep of the property but also the political up keep of the corporation. Residents of co-ops must be active in co-op board elections and be aware of any changes to their regulatory agreements.

Though cooperative living is not for everyone, it can provide sustained affordable housing to those who are engaged in their communities.

Here are some other great resources for understanding the limit equity co-op option!

National Association of Housing Cooperatives: www.coophousing.org

The Boulder Housing Coalition: www.boulderhousingcoalition.org

The Urban Homesteading Assistance Board (UHAB) www.uhab.org and www.uhab.coop

Cooperative Housing Coalition: www.coopsdc.com

 Contact: 303-674-4917 or www.bluesprucerestore.org for more information.

Typically residential units are 20' wide or wider but on occasion we design units that are much narrower. The example above is only 13' wide (4 meters) with a total living area of 1,200 square feet or about 120 square meters. This is a townhome unit and would be bordered by other units on both sides. With a comfortable size room being at least 10 feet (3 meters) wide this configuration leads to four rooms that can have windows. Typically that means the living room, kitchen/dining and two bedrooms. This unit is set up with a shared upstairs bathroom that would work better if the second bedroom was primarily used as an office.

This unit is about the same size but slightly wider and less deep. It has two bathrooms upstairs and is slightly more efficent.

The difficulty with these small units is that the stair is not terribly efficient, it takes up a lot of space per unit. This client wanted townhome type condo units but if we had been able to use two common area stairs and 1,200 square foot flat units we would have had more options in the unit plans. A townhome unit also tends to necessitate an additional powder room per unit to avoid having guests using the upstairs bathrooms.

The narrowest that you can make a room in the International Building Code is 7' which provides a minimum unit width but a unit that narrow would be very hard to make inviting.

In addition to the many large custom homes that we design and engineer at EVstudio we also put together a fair number of smaller homes. This floor plan comes from a speculative investment home that we designed for an affordable lot in Denver.

In only 1,200 sf it combines three bedrooms and two bathrooms, an eat-in kitchen, a large living area and oversized walk-in storage closet.  Small floor plans really benefit from an architect and the ability to think creatively with minor details of the design. It is important to eliminate hallways and wasted space, combine functions where possible and still provide functional rooms. In some cases we've put 3 bedrooms into as little as 1,000 sf.

EVstudio would like to help spread the word of the Habitat for Humanity of the St. Vrain Valley fund raiser.  Please visit their website to learn more.

Fund Raiser website

http://www.5dollardifference.org/

HFHSVV website

http://www.stvrainhfh.org/

EVstudio is proud to work with HFHSVV providing Architectural and Structural Engineering services.   Jim Houlette & EVstudio were recently awarded a 2009 Silver Level Construction Partner award for our dedication to providing high quality service and value engineering.

Two workshops I attended focused on energy awareness. Though the workshops did not really introduce new technologies it did introduce a process for implementation of energy saving devices for existing multifamily building.

Tom Sahagian, of Power Concepts, LLC, administered the workshop on organizing a “Green Committee” within your co-op or condo development. He highlighted that first and foremost you and your fellow building owners must want to make the energy awareness changes and follow through on the plans. Mr. Sahagian outlined a 5 step process for successful transition into cost effective energy efficiency and water conservation.

The five steps include;

1.)    Identifying a political will that exist among the residents is essential; the residents have to be committed to the process of transitioning to energy saving devices. One way to ensure the commitment is to set tangible goals and deadlines.

2.)    Set up a framework, or the committee. Assign people who are excited and energized to see this process through to a unified committee. This committee can begin with outlining what changes are realistic for the buildings. Are the changes you want to make to your building technically feasible and cost effective?

3.)     The Committee can then start gathering energy consumption and cost data as well as maintenance and repair costs. This data can cover 1 or 2 years and should include; electric, oil, gas, and water. Having repair and maintenance costs will help the committee understand if the building is allocating a lot of money to a particular system like the boiler or burner, for example.

4.)    The group will next assess the assets of the building. The committee should identify both internal and external assets. Does the building have a reserve fund it can use? Does the building have the ability to apply for a loan? Or does the building have enough people willing and able to do some light renovation work themselves?

5.)    Finally, with all the above information the committee should seek a technical adviser. This could be an engineer or architect. Some qualities your technical advisory should have are a custom approach, flexibility, and a true commitment to the planet. Through face to face conversation and collaboration you will get a better sense of the qualities your adviser has.

The committee should first identify and implement devices and fixtures that do not cost much and they can install themselves. Examples of simple cost effective energy saving devices include;

• Water: Any number of low flow fixtures that can be attached to sinks, toilets and showers.
• Electrical: Energy Star appliances (particularly refrigerators), power strips for all electronics so they can all be easily powered off, compact florescent light bulbs.
• Heat: Programmable thermostats, or individual thermostats on shared steam heat systems.

This is a website that lists the many ways you can easily increase energy efficiency and water conservation: http://globalwarming-facts.info/50-tips.html

The next level of energy efficiency comes with the help of your technical adviser. Have them review the different systems of your building that you may not be able to asses on your own. Example of items the adviser may identify include;

• Insulation on the hot and cold water supply pipes
• Windows and doors for wear and tear on the weather stripping
• Roof penetrations for insulation
• Properly working kitchen and bathroom exhaust fans

Overall systems can be review for efficiency and necessary upgrades as well. This may include energy modeling which can play out different scenarios for your buildings systems.

Finally, the main take-a-way from this seminar was it is most important to first identify the financially feasibility of energy retrofits and then with the money you save from these simple upgrades, install innovations like solar panels or gray water reuse systems that can lead to greater energy efficiency and water conservation.

Mr. Sahagian advice was very realistic and a great outline for how to activate people to organize themselves within their community.

The workshop that followed; “Harnessing the Sun and the Wind” was co-taught by representatives from Solar One (www.solar1.org), Chris Neidl, and The Community Environmental Center (www.cecenter.org), Larson Plano, echoed energy saving ideas that were also cost effective, meaning the savings are greater than the upfront cost.

Though wind and solar energy are not as cost effective today as other types of energy the workshop suggested purchasing renewable energy credits (REC’s) as a way to “utilize” wind energy. You can insure that you are buying “local” REC’s to help your regional environment, meaning you are purchasing wind energy from a local wind farm.

The idea of buying REC’s is that you are offsetting the cost of the infrastructure wind energy requires because it is not as established as traditional methods of energy production. The goal is to make wind energy more mainstream so that the cost of producing this renewable energy is more competitive with oil or coal for example.

Chris Neidlthen stated the case for solar panels. Granted when you think of NYC you do not really think about solar energy. Despite this fact, there are actually quite a few incentives that make PV an appealing idea for New Yorkers. With the various federal, state and city incentives the cost of installing PV panels is reduced almost 93%!

Here is the breakdown Solar One gave for a 250 Unit Co-op:

Though this cost analysis makes for a solid financial argument the physical conditions of the city, with it many towering high-rises, present another case. The shadows that are cast present little to no opportunity for many buildings in the city. There are some neighborhoods, Long Island City in Queens, with buildings of a similar height and plenty of roof real estate that could have potential, given that the zoning requirements can continue to restrict the heights.

Obviously Colorado has more opportunities for PV, it has more days of sun and has plenty of real estate that is not yet blocked by towering buildings.

Solar thermal presents an interesting case for pre-heating domestic hot water. It is not recommended to use solar thermal to heat a building because of the time of use factors (when you need heat in the winter, there is not much sun in NYC, and water will not get up to the 200+ degrees required to heat a space.) In addition, solar thermal does not have nearly the same financial insensitive PV has.

Finally, Larson Plano discussed wind power and its possibilities in the urban environment. Wind power is not ideal for the city. In order for wind turbines to work efficiently the wind must be smooth(laminar flow). In an urban environment the wind is very choppy because it is bouncing off of all kinds of surfaces; buildings, trees, bridges, etc. So the wind is never smooth enough to create the lift that circulates the turbine (like airplane lift). Larson did mention a particular type of turbine that was used on Melrose Commons, an affordable housing development in the Bronx. These are 1 kW parapet mounted wind turbines.  Though they have not been tested as part of a building system so it will be interesting to see how well they generate energy for the building.

View from roof

Parapet mounted wind turbines

These recommendations I took away from the workshops for existing multifamily buildings turned me on to the realistic side of implementing cost effective efficient technology. Though the workshops were specific to New Yorkers I think Denver, in its rapid transition to urbanity, can learn from what New York has face in attempting to sustainably house millions.

The American Institute of Architect Denver Chapter (AIA), the Home Builders Association of Metro Denver (HBA), the Denver Board of Realtors and the Apartment Association of Metro Denver have spent a fair amount of time testing the code. As the testing was moving forward their coalition found several items that they felt needed to be addressed. This week they released a letter to address these issues and encourage the city to:

• "Establish a formal system for comment submittal, making responses available and identifying any corresponding changes in the code.
• When appropriate, responses to comments or updates to the code should be made public at www.newcodedenver.org, providing broader access and transparency to the process as well as avoiding duplication in future modeling.
• Publish all modeling carried out by CPD staff for public review.
• Provide support for the assertion that non‐conformity will not increase.
• Provide support for the assertion that product and design flexibility will not be diminished.
• Provide a distinct contextual approach for new‐build developments in Greenfields .
• Evaluate proposed design standards, such as increased setbacks or height limitations, for their impact on the ability to deliver housing that meets market demands (e.g. a third and fourth bedroom, walk‐in closets, reasonably sized bathrooms, appropriate ceiling heights, etc.)
• Evaluate the code for the potential unintended consequences of reduced buildable area on single‐family zone lots, form‐based design standard like a mandatory building step‐back, or reductions in allowable density.
• Work with the undersigned in a collaborative undertaking of modeling/testing to further identify and resolve issues in the draft code."

The full letter:

Several other groups including the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and the Downtown Denver Partnership are also studying the effects of the Denver Zoning Code Update on potential development.

The rules also create virtual floors for spaces over 16' high and these floors count against the FAR as do basements more than 36" out of grade. They've also doubled plan check fees. The Daily Camera has a good list of the rules.

There are better ways to address the problems with form based codes, but there is a strong lobby against many types of development in Boulder.

There is now a facebook group called Boulder Council Watch that is addressing this issue along with many other peeves. There is a great deal of frustration with councilman Macon Cowles in the group, but he has joined the group and posted replies. If you are interested in Boulder politics there is a lot to find here.

It is also interesting that the Denver Zoning Code Update is eliminating the FAR while Boulder is ratcheting it up. More than ever you need an experienced architect to interpret these complex zoning documents.