Seeing the Future at The Living Learning Center in St. Louis
The Living Building Challenge has been in existence for a few years now, and its goal was to strive past LEED in terms of exceptional performance for the built environment. Last week I had the opportunity to see the first of two buildings ever to complete the challenge. I didn’t have to go far… for right here, in the middle of carbon country, just down the road from Peabody “Energy” and Arch Coal, stood one of the finest additions to modern architecture in our lifetimes, and it’s purpose, among many, was to make those companies obsolete.
The Living Learning Center sits among the woods in St. Louis County, a place not known for a simple climate or immune to extreme weather. Yet this building was created to ensure it could withstand it all, without the need for the city or system around it. That is what the challenge is all about. The Living Learning Center must create all of its own electricity, harvest all of its own water, process all of its own waste (Yup, even that waste), and do it all while maintaining a sense of beauty. I can assure you, it does all of these things with ease.
It has 2 composting toilets that use no water or chemicals. It has half of its roof covered by solar panels. Its rain garden and pervious pavement allow for zero runoff. It is made with wood from around the region, a lot of it from fallen trees on the Tyson Research Center campus. It has clean lines, fresh air, and issued for graduate research, teaching, and stands as a symbol of progress.
Looking for inspiration
I visited the site to gain some otherworldly inspiration, to relive the feeling I had at Greenbuild just a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, I have to admit, it almost inspired the opposite reaction. While the building itself was a feat of immense consideration and planning, it was completed a full 3 years ago. While it was beautiful and functional and modern, it felt dated and lackluster compared to my imagination. I think it did those things because while it was an amazing step forward, it serves as a reminder that we haven’t kept the momentum going, at least not here in the Midwest. It is the only living building in the state, and I don’t know of any plans for any more. It proved that a self-sustaining, environmentally positive building could be built without incredible expense, and yet we just stopped there. I felt deflated.
My graduate alma-mater Washington University in St. Louis hailed the building at its ribbon cutting, but then went back to building to LEED certification. It’s as if, to use another sad analogy, we landed on the moon, and then when back to building satellites. Not that there is anything wrong with satellites, or LEED (especially the upcoming LEED V4), it’s just once you know we can do more, why aren’t we?
My question to you is, why aren’t we going to Mars? Or rather, why aren’t all of our buildings being built this way? Learning from the lessons of natural lighting, composting toilets (check out the picture…it looks..European?), and harvested rainwater? Why aren’t our own roofs covered with solar panels, our own lights turning off when we leave the room, our own floors made with recently felled wood? It seems so straightforward to me. Anyone can plainly see that while the upfront costs are higher, they serve as investment in the future. These choices can’t just be made for research any longer (although I praise Wash. U.), they need to be implemented every day, with every building.
But how can we accomplish things like this on wide scale, not just at institutions of higher learning?
How can we make our “best practices” better?
Certainly updated building codes, laws and regulations would stir the construction industry into better practices…but that’s just the old stick method. What about the carrot? What about people demanding buildings be built like this, because they can see the impacts? That’s where we’ve failed the general public.
Stop hiding these buildings in the woods on a research center that demands an appointment to visit.That’s where the Living Building Challenge can and is making a difference. Check out the International Living Future Institute’s plans to for their new HQ in the middle of downtown Seattle. Stop hiding these buildings in the woods on a research center that demands an appointment to visit. Stick them in the middle of cities, towns, neighborhoods and hail their success. Show your neighbors the incredible savings they’re missing, the dirty air they’re breathing, and the chemical compounds they’re surrounding themselves with. Because that’s what we’re missing. We’re missing the center city display, the coordinated message that all of our lives will be better if we live and build in a different way. Again, at least here in the Midwest.
I can tell you right now, the air in that building was glorious. The sunshine on my face was enlightening. The water I drank was more pure than out of the bottle. It was an inspiring place. It inspired me to drag my Mom along. It inspired me to tell my local friends, who are clearly unaware of its existence, to visit it. It made me happy for my alma mater, that they did invest in the process. I just want us all to keep going. To keep taking steps forward. I want to visit that place with my children someday and say this, this is the place it started. This is the place that taught us we didn’t have to do things the old way. This is the place that showed us it was possible.
Take an afternoon and visit your nearest Living Building. They are achievements in architecture, design, and thoughtfulness, and hopefully, they are just the first step.
Leave your comment below, or reply to others.
Please note that this comment section is for thoughtful, on-topic discussions. Admin approval is required for all comments. Your comment may be edited if it contains grammatical errors. Low effort, self-promotional, or impolite comments will be deleted.
Read more from MeetingoftheMinds.org
Spotlighting innovations in urban sustainability and connected technology
Social distancing is becoming the new normal, at least for those of us who are heeding the Center for Disease Control’s warnings and guidelines. But if you don’t have reliable, high-speed broadband, it is impossible to engage in what is now the world’s largest telecommunity. As many schools and universities around the world (including those of my kids) are shut down, these institutions are optimistically converting to online and digital learning. However, with our current broadband layout, this movement will certainly leave many Americans behind.
Accenture analysts recently released a report calling for cities to take the lead in creating coordinated, “orchestrated” mobility ecosystems. Limiting shared services to routes that connect people with mass transit would be one way to deploy human-driven services now and to prepare for driverless service in the future. Services and schedules can be linked at the backend, and operators can, for example, automatically send more shared vehicles to a train station when the train has more passengers than usual, or tell the shared vehicles to wait for a train that is running late.
Managing urban congestion and mobility comes down to the matter of managing space. Cities are characterized by defined and restricted residential, commercial, and transportation spaces. Private autos are the most inefficient use of transportation space, and mass transit represents the most efficient use of transportation space. Getting more people out of private cars, and into shared feeder routes to and from mass transit modes is the most promising way to reduce auto traffic. Computer models show that it can be done, and we don’t need autonomous vehicles to realize the benefits of shared mobility.
The role of government, and the planning community, is perhaps to facilitate these kinds of partnerships and make it easier for serendipity to occur. While many cities mandate a portion of the development budget toward art, this will not necessarily result in an ongoing benefit to the arts community as in most cases the budget is used for public art projects versus creating opportunities for cultural programming.
Rather than relying solely on this mandate, planners might want to consider educating developers with examples and case studies about the myriad ways that artists can participate in the development process. Likewise, outreach and education for the arts community about what role they can play in projects may stimulate a dialogue that can yield great results. In this sense, the planning community can be an invaluable translator in helping all parties to discover a richer, more inspiring, common language.