Early Design Process

During a period of ten plus years, the client hired three different architect-led teams to design the building to a conceptual level so that the plans and renderings could be used for fundraising. Inspired by the school’s aspirational focus, each of the architects proposed to pursue LEED Certification at varying levels. Farr Associates was initially brought in by the Owner’s Representative to serve as a consultant to elevate the team’s sustainability capacities. The project had set a goal of achieving LEED Silver certification.

During the kickoff workshop our principal pulled the client into a sidebar meeting to ask “why was the sustainability target LEED Silver?” I am not sure, what should it be?” “Living Building Challenge.” “Can we achieve that?” “Absolutely!” This quick exchange led to a series of sidebar meetings with the client and Owner’s Rep. (Urban ReSolve) and General Contractor (Power Construction) to discuss the viability, pros, and cons of pursuing LBC Certification.

It was decided that LBC Certification was consistent with the school’s global aspirations and that being sustainably ambitious could help with fundraising (the school had yet to identify core funding). Before committing to LBC, two barriers had to be overcome: 1. Understanding and managing the cost premiums and 2. The team’s inexperience with LBC.

The soft and hard cost premiums associated with achieving LBC certification were discussed extensively and resulted in the following:

1. The A/E fees were increased to somewhat above the cost of LEED Platinum Certification
2. Specialty consultants were added to support the extensive vetting and advocacy associated with attaining the Materials Petal
3. The hard cost premiums associated with attaining the Energy Petal (solar panels and batteries) were taken out of the GC budget and made an Owner’s responsibility
4. A specialty consultant was added to design an on-site wastewater treatment system and to advocate for its approval
5. The General Contractor allocated cost premiums to many budget line items and contingencies

Since the current architecture team did not have sustainability expertise, the decision was made to assemble a new LBC-optimized design team, nearly from scratch. The team was led by an architectural partnership between AOR SMNGA Architects (school specialists) and Collaborting Architect Farr Associates (LBC experience as AOR on the LBC-Petal Certified Keller Center). Firms with previous integrated design experience included dbHMS (MEP, Energy Modeling), Site Design Group (Landscape), V3 (Civil), and Steran Joglekar (structural) rounded out the core team.

The Owner secured project funding from the State of Illinois, unrelated to the LBC commitment. The LBC commitment did help raise money for the renewable energy systems. The project was designed, bid, and started construction during Covid and experienced real-time cost increases due to supply chain issues.

Photo Credit: Farr Associates

Construction

Through the end of design AGC was on track to show how a tight Owner, Designer, and Contractor collaboration made it possible to efficiently achieve LBC certification, especially through the submittal and construction process. The team’s prior experience taught them that smaller subcontractors and suppliers can be particularly hard to track down after submittals are approved, and payment is made in full. To address this concern, the team started with the “end in mind”, integrating the Materials Petal documentation (Declare, etc.) into the routine submittal process.

Unfortunately, the Coronavirus pandemic happened early in the project. The design team led a full day Integrated Design Workshop (50% Schematic Design) on Friday March 13th, the last workday before Covid shut the world down. The resulting chaos placed unforeseen stresses on the project in the form of design and entitlement delays, supply chain disruptions, and volatile material pricing. Covid forced this orderly system to be abandoned.

The project had an inviolable delivery date: that the school be ready to receive students in mid-summer 2023. Against this challenging context, the contractor was struggling to deliver the project on time and on budget. Providing LBC-related documentation, alongside routine submittals, was slowing the project down to the point of missing the project’s “drop dead” date. To keep the project on schedule, the Owner’s Representative directed the architect to edit the submittal requirements to omit the required LBC documentation.

This one “tough call” both saved the project and cast a pall on it. The school opened on time to enthusiastic students and rave reviews, based on the assumption that AGC was on the path to LBC certification. However, this outcome was uncertain because the documentation related to the LBC Materials Petal had not been submitted. The design team and GC was forced to scramble to exert pressure on every contractor and supplier to submit their documentation after the fact. Final proof that the Materials Petal could be achieved occurred early in 2025 more than a year after the school was occupied. The stress of not knowing if the building would certify was an unavoidable consequence of the pandemic.

The other unanticipated construction item was miscellaneous thermal bridges that were part of a sub assembly. Particularly the roof supports had more steel than anticipated, and quick mitigations had to be developed in the field. All to a successful conclusion.

Photo Credit: Tom Rossiter Photography

Photo Credit: Tom Rossiter Photography

Advice

The Living Building Challenge® is a very rigorous program and there is a steep learning curve for any individual who has not previously gone through the LBC process. The documentation is demanding and time consuming, the pressure on design fees is substantial, and the performance period for energy and water can be nerve wracking. AGC’s energy performance period was eerily smooth. The project passed on the first try with a slight cushion—107% supplied versus 105% required—with no behavioral interventions required whatsoever.

Our advice if for project teams to make sure they have enough of the right mix of experience and expertise. Specifically, it is highly recommended to include specialty team members with prior LBC-experience on the Water and Materials Petals.

Optimal conditions for project teams pursuing LBC:

• Every member of the team—Owner, Designer, and Contractor—is mission-driven.
• Every member of the team—Owner, Designer, and Contractor—is bought into the vision and is collaborative, flexible, and pulling for the project’s successful certification.
• The design team has experience leading a sophisticated Integrated Design Process that leads to cost savings and performance synergies.
• The team has experience with high-level green building certification (ideally LBC) but may include LEED Platinum or LEED Zero.
• The team understands exactly what is required to meet the big three Petals—Energy, Water and Materials—both in terms of staffing/consultants and hard cost premiums.
• The design fees and preliminary construction budget reflect LBC realities.
• The team has “gamed out” behavioral adjustments in case the performance period does not go as planned.

Photo Credit: Tom Rossiter Photography

Early Design Process

The owner (Utah Clean Energy) selected the architectural firm because they shared the organization’s vision for a super-efficient, all-electric, emission-free and Zero Energy certified showcase building and because they had experience with other “net zero” projects. Before selecting the architect, the owner made the decision to pursue Zero Energy certification and ENERGY STAR certification and added these certifications as part of the Owner’s Project Requirements document. These certifications were prioritized since they are performance based and focus on eliminating operational emissions through energy efficient construction, all-electric equipment and appliances, and being powered with clean energy. From the beginning of the project and throughout design and construction, Utah Clean Energy staff communicated to the entire project team that Zero Energy certification was a fundamental requirement of the project. Along with a supportive and aligned architect, the mechanical engineer, general contractor, and other project partners accepted the vision for our project from the get-go.

Minor misgivings were expressed by some subcontractors involved in the mechanical system installation, wall assembly construction details and window installation details but were addressed with assistance from the architect, system commissioning agent, and building envelope commissioning agent. After occupancy, Utah Clean Energy staff made the decision to apply for Zero Carbon certification, given their attention to adaptive re-use, using salvaged material, , and selecting low embodied carbon materials throughout the design and construction process.

Photo Credit: Paul Richer

Construction

The requirements for Zero Energy certification and ENERGY STAR certification were incorporated into the Owner’s Project Requirements document. This document was shared with core construction partners, including the mechanical engineer, electrical engineer, general contractor, system commissioning agent, building envelope commissioning agent, and others early in the design process.

At the early design phase, Utah Clean Energy staff met weekly with the architect and mechanical engineer/energy modeler to evaluate the energy efficiency and cost impacts various design decisions. At the direction of the owner and architect, the energy modeler ran numerous iterations of the model to compare the energy and cost impacts of several mechanical system types, wall and roof insulation levels, glazing performance levels, and lighting power density. This process helped the owner select the mechanical system, wall and roof insulation levels, glazing performance levels, and lighting power density levels to meet an EUI target of 28.
This EUI target was selected based on the 2021 IECC Appendix CC Zero Energy Commercial Building Provisions. The estimated annual electricity consumption from the energy model helped identify the amount of solar PV that needed to be installed to generate more than 100% of our estimated annual electricity consumption with on-site solar energy.

The team also prioritized construction and finish materials that have low embodied carbon throughout the process, but the Utah Clean Energy team didn’t analyze the embodied carbon of the project until occupancy. The owners met weekly with the architect and the general contractor to check in on construction progress to meet the ZE requirements and discussed any additional direction that subcontractors required.

Photo Credit: Paul Richer

Photo Credit: Paul Richer

Lessons Learned

During the energy modeling phase for the Climate Innovation Center, the oil recovery process associated with the VRF mechanical system was not fully understood or accurately accounted for. As a result, the model did not anticipate short-duration demand spikes caused by oil recovery operation. In the first winter of occupancy, these spikes, each lasting less than three minutes, were sufficient for the utility to reclassify the building to a higher rate schedule, increasing utility bill costs significantly. This experience underscored the importance of fully understanding and modeling the VRF system, including oil recovery, and evaluating the peak kW demand impacts of different scenarios. For example, after the fact, the owners realized that they may have avoided these large demand spikes and unintended utility rate consequences if the outdoor VRF condenser units had been separated to avoid simultaneous oil recovery.

Another key lesson learned with the VRF system is that it is best to “set it and forget it” when it comes to settings. VRF systems do not operate as efficiently when the building temperatures are “set back” during the nighttime and weekends, as they typically require more time to return a space to setpoint than traditional systems. When the system is allowed to drift and then forced to recover, demand can peak significantly as the system ramps up to regain temperature. Proper controls strategies, occupant expectations, and operational practices are essential to avoid unnecessary demand spikes and ensure the system operates as intended.

The solar PV system has demonstrated highly consistent and predictable performance, reinforcing its value as a reliable energy resource. However, this experience also highlighted the importance of establishing an operations and maintenance (O&M) plan at the time of commissioning to ensure long-term performance is sustained. By contrast, the battery system has had some limitations. It has not been able to reliably shave short-duration demand spikes. In addition, the project underscored that battery use cases, such as peak shaving, energy arbitrage, and resilience, are not always complementary. Early clarity around priorities, performance expectations, and monitoring strategies is critical to realizing the intended benefits of battery storage.

A final lesson learned was that calculating embodied carbon is easiest when integrated early in the design process, as it enables teams to make informed material decisions when influence is greatest. For the Climate Innovation Center, using Athena highlighted the importance of clearly defined material quantity data, requiring design teams to report information in terms of material volumes. Complete Revit models with embedded material attributes proved especially valuable, as they could be uploaded directly into tools like Athena, simplifying the process. The project also reinforced that reusing existing structures or materials is one of the most impactful strategies for reducing embodied carbon and supporting Zero Carbon certification, emphasizing the value of preservation and reuse alongside new construction decisions.

Photo Credit: Paul Richer

Early Design Process

From the first conversations, the design process was driven by a simple but demanding brief: achieve true Zero Energy performance while holding to a “just enough” philosophy in programming and form. The team treated compactness as a performance tool, working with the client to rigorously right‑size each space so that every square foot carried its weight in function, comfort, or flexibility. That discipline yields a tight, efficient massing paired with a high‑performance envelope and a thermally active slab, which together suppress heating and cooling loads before systems are even considered. Orientation, exterior shading, carefully placed operable windows, and ceiling fans are all calibrated to local sun angles and prevailing winds, so passive comfort strategies are not decorative they are the first line of climate control.

On the energy and climate side, the building is unapologetically all‑electric, delivered three years ahead of local requirements and powered by onsite PV sized and monitored as a “living model” of net‑positive operational resilience. High‑efficiency heat pumps serve both space conditioning and domestic hot water, while an induction kitchen removes on‑site combustion entirely, driving down carbon emissions and preserving indoor air quality during regional smoke events. The result is a rigorously low‑carbon building type: technically resolved, compact yet generous in use, and framed as evidence that disciplined programming, precise envelope design, and straightforward electric systems can meaningfully advance Zero Energy practice.

Photo Credit: Doug Birnbaum

Lessons Learned

Resilience for this project is defined very directly as a response to climate risk, not as an abstract idea. Located in a wildfire‑prone part of California that was hit by the 2022 Electra Fire, the building is deliberately designed to stay habitable during power shutoffs and extended smoke events, with systems and detailing that maintain clean air, safe temperatures, water, and the ability to cook when nearby homes cannot. During the Electra Fire, this was tested in real conditions: the Box Factory functioned as a resilience hub for neighboring properties through major power shutoffs and evacuations, exactly as intended, giving displaced residents a safe, stable place to gather and recover.

Technically, the project operates as an integrated, full‑scale prototype for climate‑ready rural infrastructure, sitting several years ahead of many current projects and policy mandates on resilience. Its all‑electric, solar‑powered systems, envelope performance, and passive strategies are coordinated so that mitigation (deeply reduced operational emissions), adaptation (continued function under heat, smoke, and grid disruption), and community protection all reinforce one another rather than competing for priority. In that sense, the Box Factory is less a one‑off building and more a working model for how future‑forward design can braid climate mitigation, climate adaptation, and social resilience into a single, coherent architectural response.

Photo Credit: Doug Birnbaum

Product Selection / Material Reuse

The team kept the existing slab and chose to design the building precisely to that footprint rather than demolish and start over, directly cutting embodied emissions and avoiding unnecessary construction impact. That decision set the tone for the rest of the project. Prefabricated structural components further reduced waste, noise, and on‑site disruption, and they also make future disassembly, relocation, or reuse far more realistic an intentional move toward circular‑economy thinking rather than a one‑off, “build it and forget it” approach. A whole‑building life‑cycle assessment was completed well before any mandates would have required it, and the results weren’t just filed away; they actively guided low‑carbon material choices, detailing, and construction sequencing so the design and the data stayed tightly linked.

At the scale of the site, the project follows the same philosophy of doing only what’s necessary and no more. On its 9‑acre parcel, the building and its immediate outdoor zone occupy only a small portion of the land, leaving most of the site including existing native species, wildlife habitat, and a creek corridor largely undisturbed. This light‑touch approach aligns with resilience frameworks that foreground nature‑based solutions: maintaining ecological function, supporting biodiversity, and letting the landscape itself help absorb and buffer climate stresses. Taken together, these decisions make the Box Factory both a low‑carbon building and a considerate neighbor in its environment, pairing material frugality with a climate‑adaptive landscape strategy that feels grounded and real rather than theoretical.

Photo Credit: Doug Birnbaum

Advice

When advising design teams considering Zero Energy certification for a school on tribal land, the most critical guidance is to shift from a purely technical mindset to one of deep community integration. Net Zero Energy (NZE) architecture in this context is not just an engineering goal; it is an exercise in sovereignty, cultural preservation, and long-term community resilience. Design teams must also understand that many Tribes are sovereign Nations and that negotiating on their behalf with the electrical utility should not be unilateral, but give the Tribe the opportunity to negotiate on behalf of their own interests which may have different goals than a normal school board / leadership may have. Many utilities do not have good relationships with Tribes, so being an advocate and fighting for your clients might need to be added to your services.

First and foremost, teams must co-create the project with the community from day one. Successful zero energy design requires weaving cultural values, ecological stewardship, and local traditions directly into the building’s identity. This means engaging tribal elders, educators, and community members in visioning sessions to ensure the school serves as a true community hub. When the community sees their heritage and values reflected in the architecture, they take profound ownership of the facility, which is vital for the building’s long-term operational success.

Second, goal setting and Energy Use Intensity (EUI) targets must be established early and aligned with local realities. Teams should balance national zero-energy benchmarks with the specific regional climate and available tribal resources. It is essential to include facility managers and maintenance staff in these early conversations. Designing a complex, hyper-efficient system that cannot be easily serviced locally defeats the purpose of sustainable design. Instead, teams should prioritize rugged, highly efficient mechanical systems and an exceptionally robust thermal envelope. This ensures the building remains resilient and manageable within regional operational constraints.

Furthermore, teams must treat the net-zero infrastructure as a fragile “ecosystem” that requires strict protection during construction. Lessons learned from successful projects highlight the absolute necessity of educating the general contractor and subcontractors. Holding specialized pre-construction workshops ensures that the construction team understands how minor field adjustments—like a compromised air barrier or an unapproved material substitution—can completely disrupt the tight energy budget required for certification. Fostering this shared accountability transforms contractors from simple builders into active guardians of the school’s energy performance.

Finally, early and intensive energy modeling must be paired with continuous post-occupancy training. A zero energy school relies heavily on human behavior and active energy management. By viewing the project not merely as an environmental milestone, but as a multigenerational investment in tribal self-reliance and community education, teams can deliver a repeatable framework that empowers the community for decades to come.

Photo Credit: Dangerbird Productions

Lessons Learned

When analyzing the successful implementation of a Net Zero Energy (NZE) school, project teams consistently find that the transition from a design blueprint to a fully operational facility hinges on a deep understanding of the building as a delicate, interconnected ecosystem. One of the most critical lessons learned is that achieving zero energy certification is not purely an engineering or architectural challenge; it is a construction and execution challenge. A net-zero building operates on an incredibly tight energy budget where every component—from the continuous air barrier and high-performance thermal envelope to the geothermal wells and sophisticated HVAC controls—relies on the precise performance of the others. If one element fails or is improperly installed, the entire energy balance is disrupted, jeopardizing the building’s ability to offset its loads with on-site renewable generation.

Consequently, a foundational lesson at the beginning of a project is the absolute necessity of intensive contractor and subcontractor education. Traditionally, subcontractors operate in silos, focusing solely on their specific trade. For an NZE school to succeed, however, the construction team must be educated to view the project through a holistic lens. Project teams have learned that holding specialized pre-construction workshops and continuous, hands-on field orientations is vital. During these sessions, contractors are shown exactly how minor, seemingly inconsequential field adjustments—such as a poorly sealed penetration, a slight gap in insulation, or an unapproved material substitution—can create thermal bridges or air leaks that completely compromise the Energy Use Intensity (EUI) targets.

Furthermore, fostering shared accountability across all trades transforms the workforce from general builders into active guardians of the net-zero ecosystem. When a drywaller understands how their work affects the air barrier, or when an electrician realizes how a box installation impacts thermal performance, quality control improves exponentially. Ultimately, the lesson is clear: design excellence must be matched by construction literacy. By investing time early to educate the contractor on the “why” behind stringent net-zero specifications, project teams secure the meticulous craftsmanship required to turn an ambitious environmental vision into a high-performing, resilient reality.

As we continue to monitor this building, our actual EUI is performing better than the design EUI and that goes to show to partnership between all trades didn’t go unnoticed and everyone should be proud to have worked on this project. “The energy performance of this school is a bit surreal….from my research, it is one of the best if not THE BEST performing school EUI in the country!” – David Vig, CMTA.

Photo Credit: DSGW Architecture

Other Insights

In 2014, a pivotal moment in educational design unfolded during a tour of a pioneering Net Zero Energy (NZE) elementary school in Kentucky, Richardsville Elementary School. Walking through the facility, the design team witnessed firsthand how a building could move beyond mere efficiency to become a self-sustaining ecosystem. Richardsville Elementary demonstrated that achieving net-zero status required a seamless integration of a high-performance thermal envelope, geothermal HVAC systems, and a robust solar array. However, the most profound lesson learned from the school tour was not about the technology itself, but about the critical role of human behavior and operational clarity. The school’s success relied heavily on active energy management and an engaged administration, proving that a net-zero building must be designed to operate intuitively for its end users.

This foundational insight heavily informed the approach taken years later at Fort Totten. Recognizing that a school on tribal land faces unique geographic and resource realities, the team translated the Richardsville Elementary lessons into a strategy tailored for the local climate and community context. At Fort Totten, the design prioritized rugged, low-maintenance, and highly efficient mechanical systems coupled with an exceptionally airtight envelope. The team understood that the building’s net-zero “ecosystem” is fragile; even minor on-site construction deviations or unapproved material substitutions could jeopardize the tight energy budget. Therefore, extensive pre-construction workshops were held to educate the general contractor and subcontractors, ensuring the entire construction team understood how individual components directly impacted the overall Energy Use Intensity (EUI).

Moving forward, several key lessons learned from the Fort Totten project are being shared to help other communities replicate this sustainable model successfully. First, early and intensive energy modeling must be paired with genuine community visioning; co-creating the school ensures that cultural values, ecological stewardship, and operational realities are balanced from day one. Second, setting aggressive yet realistic EUI targets must involve both tribal elders and facility managers to ensure long-term sovereignty and self-reliance. Finally, educating the construction team and establishing clear, post-occupancy training for staff guarantees that the building continues to perform as intended. By sharing these strategies, the model transforms from a single isolated project into a repeatable framework for generational resilience and community-centered education.

Photo Credit: DSGW Architecture

Early Design Process

Humanscale has a long history of working with Living Futures and an equally long list of “firsts.” In 2016, Humanscale was the first manufacturer to achieve the full Living Product Challenge certification for any product; published the first JUST label in the furniture industry; and published the first 3rd Party Verified Declare labels. The Living Product Challenge inspired updates across Humanscale’s manufacturing facilities, including on-site solar, rainwater harvesting for process water use, and diverting more than 90% of waste from landfills. Humanscale is the only major brand in the commercial furniture industry in the US to become B Corp certified, and is a signatory to the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi).

Humanscale made the ambitious commitment to pursue Living Building Challenge Petal certification for the Chicago showroom because the certification supported their corporate social responsibility program and aligned with their robust product certifications. Humanscale’s products contribute to the Living Building Challenge Petal certification in the following ways: FSC certification, 3rd Party Verified Declare labels, local manufacture, low VOC emission CDPH testing, and biophilic design inspiration. For example, Imperative 14 Responsible Sourcing only required 4 Declare labeled products due to the small size of the interior fit-out project but the project achieved 42 Declare labeled products, many of which are Humanscale’s furniture offerings.

Humanscale chose to pursue Living Building Challenge Petal certification early in schematic design. They engaged a dedicated sustainability consultant to manage the process. The Design and Construction Team had experience with LEED and were familiar with third-party green building certifications. The simplified palette and energy-related systems streamlined materials research.

Humanscale chose to pursue Design for Freedom Pilot Project recognition at the beginning of construction. Much of the materials research completed for Living Building Challenge Petal supported the Design for Freedom process. The team identified 5 materials, including one from Humanscale, to research transparent and ethical supply chains. Living Building Challenge and Design for Freedom worked together to enhance material selection and ensure that the Design Team selected, invested, and rewarded materials redefining the industry in responsible and ethical manufacturing processes.

Photo Credit: HUMANSCALE

Budgeting for Certification

Early in Schematic Design, the team analyzed the Living Building Challenge Petal requirements and budgeted for additional hard and soft costs. Initial estimates were much higher and team was able to eliminate some strategies due to exceptions in the Petal Handbook that excluded “Interiors” projects. The preliminary budget considered additional costs related to but not limited to the following: additional consulting and design fees, certification fees, indoor air quality testing, FSC-certified wood, construction waste management, and donations.

One of the major coordination challenges for the project was FSC-certified millwork. The team had to contact several local millwork shops to find an FSC-certified shop that could meet the rigorous construction schedule. One contractor considered becoming FSC-certified to support the project, but ultimately decided not to pursue the certification. The team was able to find a local shop to meet FSC and schedule goals.

Another major cost consideration was FSC-certified wood flooring. The initial design proposed a white oak solid hardwood floor. Team had difficulty finding a solution that was Red List Free, FSC-certified, had short lead time to meet rigorous schedule, and met low VOC emission CDPH testing. Generally, FSC-certification added hard cost and lead time. Many residential-grade products did not have CDPH testing. In the end, team chose to forgo the hardwood floor solution and move forward with a poured-in-place concrete flooring, which compliments the furniture displays and makes the Humanscale products shine. Team agreed the poured flooring was the best fit in the end but team spent a considerable amount of time researching various hardwood floor options that were ultimately not installed.

Lastly, the team initially specified Red List Free lighting fixtures with a long lead time that could not meet the rigorous schedule. The team chose to proceed with Red List Free lighting fixtures from Finelite with similar performance but slightly greater energy consumption. As a lesson learned for other projects, the longer lead time for some Red List free and/or FSC-certified materials created a challenge for this small scale fit-out project with a constrained construction schedule.

Photo Credit: humanscale

Product Selection / Material Reuse

Local manufacture requirements had major impact on product selections. Team chose to proceed with Rockfon ceilings because they were manufactured locally in Chicago, Illinois. Other similar products were manufactured overseas. The team investigated wood flooring options and one sustainable option complied with Red List and CDPH was manufactured overseas. Since wood flooring was a major percentage of the cost of the project, it skewed the local manufacture calculations. The Team created a live calculator to test substitutions and material selections in real time and understand how selections impacted various Imperatives.

The fit-out space was a cold dark shell with a dirt floor upon signing the lease, so there were limited reuse opportunities prior to start of work. The team specified a new concrete floor with 40% alternative cementitious material to replace Portland Cement, thereby reducing embodied carbon in primary structural materials.

Humanscale had an existing sales office in the suburbs of Chicago. The team evaluated the existing space for reuse opportunities but the fit-out was more than 10 years old and many products were at the end of their useful life. During design, intent was to keep the existing sales office in operation concurrently with the new Chicago showroom so reuse opportunities were limited to minimize disruptions to team working in the space.

Team identified wood doors would be a challenge to meet FSC, Red List and low VOC emission CDPH compliance and so design documents required salvaged wood doors. Many wood doors are manufactured with formaldehyde-based resins. The Contractor was able to source 8’ high salvaged wood doors from a nearby project. The Contractor appreciated that the salvaged doors had no lead time and supported rigorous schedule goals. Fire-rated wood doors had to be purchased new to meet code requirements.

Another reuse opportunity was reused furniture. Humanscale had installed furniture at a pop-up event space for Chicago-based conference Fulton Market Design Days and stored the furniture for future installation in the space.

Photo Credit: HUMANSCALE

Early Design Process

The Tina and Hamid Moghadam Building (Building 55), initiated in 2019, houses a department focused on climate, MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences (EAPS). A key driver for the project was to evaluate innovative strategies to address sustainability and, specifically, the potential to explore the environmental impact of building materials.

As part of the initial sustainability charrette, the design team discussed the potential of addressing embodied carbon and specifically implementing the ILFI Zero Carbon Certification. Since the certification was approximately one year old, concerns arose regarding the learning required and the state of the building materials industry at the time. After discussions between MIT, the design team and the construction manager, the team decided to integrate the certification as part of the design process, while monitoring the ability of industry to meet the needs of the project. Whole building life cycle assessments were integrated into the design process starting in design development to ensure that the team was able to meet targets.

One of the key considerations was the availability of lower embodied carbon building materials and the state of environmental product declarations. Mass timber was evaluated early on for the structure. However, because the existing building is Type I construction with concrete as the primary structural material, the team was required to use concrete to meet the intent of the design. As a result, the design team worked to explore options for lowering the embodied carbon of concrete. The team explored options for using less cement through the incorporation of supplementary materials, such as fly ash and slag. The design team identified, in collaboration with the construction manager and a local concrete supplier, a proprietary concrete mix design with a 60% reduction of embodied carbon that was used in foundations. As a result, the team was able to reduce the total embodied carbon of concrete in the building by approximately 22% while optimizing for performance, schedule limitations, and design requirements. This was a key component in enabling the team to meet its goals and to pursue certification.

Photo Credit: © AW-ARCH / Photo: Florian Holzherr

Occupancy

MIT has a campus Central Utilities Plant that serves the majority of its campus buildings. The Tina and Hamid Moghadam Building (Building 55) is one of those buildings connected to the Central Utilities Plant. The building has no on-site combustion and uses water source variable refrigerant flow (VRF) systems as a source for both heating and cooling. The VRFs are set up to extract heat from or reject heat to the campus chilled water systems with the goal of enabling a more efficient operation of the Central Utilities Plant. More importantly, for the current operation of the building, this setup allows the chilled water to be positive (i.e., the building is “consuming” chilled water) when the building is predominantly cooling, or negative when the building is predominantly heating (i.e., the building is extracting heat from the chilled water systems, returning colder water to the loop). This strategy delivered during the performance period and resulted in significant energy savings in the winter months, reducing the overall EUI of the building from 45.4 to 34.6 kBtu/ft2/yr.

While the VRF units provided energy savings, MIT also encountered some challenges with the quality of the water being used for the VRFs. The condenser water is sourced from the MIT campus chilled water loop, with the water being directly fed from the return side of the loop. Separation of the condenser water loop from the campus chilled water loop would have allowed tighter control of the water quality and could potentially have prevented some of the faults the system experienced during start up. The team is in the process of adding filtration for the chilled water to maintain water quality and prevent strainer clogging.

Photo Credit: Gretchen Ertl

Lessons Learned

The Tina and Hamid Moghadam Building (Building 55) is composed of both an addition and the renovation of the first two floors of the Green Building (Building 54), an 18-story tower by I.M. Pei built in the 1960s. The program of the existing building consisted of two separate entry lobbies separated by an outdoor open thoroughfare on the first floor and an auditorium on the second floor. The team was adding approximately 11,900 sf of new space that would infill the space between the existing lobbies to create a new lobby with exhibition spaces and convening spaces, new classrooms, and offices while renovating the lecture hall in Building 54 for a total project of approximately 20,000 sf.

Because the project was neither a new building nor a full renovation of an existing building, this added complexity to establishing baselines, goal setting, and energy and life cycle analysis modeling for the project. From an energy performance perspective, a key question was how to establish energy targets for the renovated lecture hall and the addition. Because the Green Building does not have submetering, the team collected building-level energy data and information on building envelope and MEP equipment and systems. The team then modeled the existing spaces and calibrated them against the building level information. With this information, the team was able to establish an operational goal aimed at offsetting all the added energy footprint of the new addition through the renovation of the existing lecture hall.

Similarly, conducting a whole building life cycle analysis for this project required a new approach to addressing the baseline. As the structure on the first two floors reflected the high-rise nature of the existing building, the team realized that they could not create a baseline based on the existing structure. The team established a new baseline and worked with ILFI to get approval for the approach. The new baseline enabled the team to take advantage of while not over estimating the impact of the existing structure on the embodied carbon of the project.

Finally, the team spent a lot of time identifying how to meter the project to meet the needs of ILFI, MIT, and the City of Cambridge. Three levels of metering were required:

1. Maintaining the building level metering for Building 54 as a whole, which includes the renovated lecture hall
2. Metering for the Building 55 addition only, not including the lecture hall
3. Metering that encompassed the Building 55 project: the addition and the lecture hall in Building 54

Furthermore, because the buildings are connected to the Central Utilities Plant (CUP), separate meters were needed to address the services provided to the building from the CUP. The two buildings receive water and electrical service from the same source and chilled water from different loops. This added complexity to the metering setup and required significant coordination during design, construction, and turnover with MIT operations engineers.

Early Design Process

The Pā Reo project was initiated by Te Wānanga o Raukawa as part of a long‑term vision to normalise and strengthen te reo Māori within everyday teaching, learning, and administration. From the outset, the project was kaupapa‑led rather than architect‑led, with cultural values, rangatiratanga, and kaitiakitanga forming the foundation for all subsequent decisions.

The core design team was assembled early, with Tennent Brown Architects engaged alongside key consultants who had experience working within kaupapa Māori contexts. The client’s leadership group remained closely involved throughout the process, ensuring continuity of intent from briefing through to occupation. The Living Building Challenge (LBC) was first discussed during early design conversations as a potential framework that could align environmental regeneration with the Wānanga’s cultural and social aspirations.

The possibility of LBC certification was initially raised by the architect, who was already a Living Future Ambassador and had experience with the framework. However, the decision to pursue certification was ultimately client‑led. The client recognised that LBC offered a values‑based structure that resonated strongly with Māori worldviews — particularly the emphasis on long‑term stewardship, intergenerational responsibility, and net positive outcomes rather than harm minimisation.

Once the decision was made, it was clearly communicated to all project participants. Importantly, this was not treated as a technical overlay but as a shared kaupapa. The architect led multiple induction sessions with consultants, contractors, and subcontractors to explain the intent of the Living Building Challenge, the implications for material selection and construction practice, and the cultural significance of the project. These sessions emphasised collective responsibility, reinforcing that everyone on site had a role to play in achieving certification.

Early misconceptions — particularly the perception that LBC was primarily about cost or compliance burden — were addressed through education and transparency. By framing LBC as an extension of the project’s cultural values rather than a separate sustainability agenda, the team was able to build genuine buy‑in. This early alignment proved critical during later stages, particularly when navigating material compliance, construction challenges, and audit requirements.

Photo Credit: ANDY SPAIN

Product Selection + Material Reuse

Material selection for Pā Reo was driven by a combination of cultural appropriateness, environmental performance, and Living Building Challenge requirements. Timber was selected as the primary structural and architectural material due to its alignment with Māori concepts of whakapapa, renewability, and repair, as well as its significantly lower embodied carbon compared to steel and concrete alternatives.
The project team undertook early comparative analysis of structural systems, assessing embodied carbon, durability, construction efficiency, and long‑term maintenance. Timber consistently emerged as the preferred option, both technically and culturally. All structurally engineered wood products and LVL were grown and manufactured within approximately 380 kilometres of the site, strengthening the local materials economy and reducing transport emissions.

A particularly significant aspect of the project was the depth of materials documentation undertaken to meet the Materials Petal. The team tracked and documented 2,559 individual materials, identifying their city of manufacture and distance from site. This enabled full compliance with Living Economy Sourcing requirements under the Oceania exception, with clear evidence of regional, national, and broader sourcing thresholds being met.

Several materials were new to the team, including thermally modified radiata pine cladding sourced locally. This material was used to achieve durability and weather resistance without reliance on chemical treatments, aligning with Red List requirements. The team also engaged directly with manufacturers and suppliers to obtain Declare labels, FSC documentation, and ingredient disclosures where these were not initially available.

Advocacy played a key role in this process. In several instances, manufacturers were required to provide additional transparency or modify documentation to meet LBC requirements. While time‑consuming, this engagement strengthened supplier understanding of regenerative design expectations and contributed to broader industry learning.

The material strategy for Pā Reo demonstrates that rigorous material compliance is achievable on complex projects when embedded early and supported by strong values alignment. The project provides a replicable model for teams working in regions with limited Declare availability, showing how detailed tracking, early advocacy, and local sourcing can collectively meet Living Building Challenge aspirations.

Photo Credit: ANDY SPAIN

Community Engagement

Community engagement for Pā Reo was grounded in tikanga Māori and led by Te Wānanga o Raukawa as mana whenua and project client. Rather than a conventional consultation process, engagement was ongoing, relational, and embedded within the governance and design of the project from inception.

The project sits within an existing campus that serves students, staff, whānau, and the wider community. Engagement therefore occurred across multiple layers — from governance and leadership discussions to day‑to‑day interactions with staff and learners. The design team worked closely with the client to ensure that architectural decisions supported cultural practices, spatial customs, and the lived experience of te reo Māori being spoken, taught, and normalised.

Key aspects of engagement included collaborative design workshops, regular hui, and shared decision‑making around site planning, building form, and landscape design. The concept of a contemporary pā reo emerged directly from these discussions, shaping the clustering of buildings, the pedestrianisation of the site centre, and the creation of shared outdoor spaces for gathering and learning.

The landscape strategy further reinforced community connection, incorporating ethnobotanical planting, rongoā species, and māra kai. These elements support both cultural practice and wellbeing, while also contributing to ecological regeneration. Plantings were selected in collaboration with local knowledge holders and are used actively by the Wānanga and associated kōhanga reo.

Challenges did arise, these were addressed through open dialogue and a shared commitment to kaupapa over expediency. Rather than defaulting to standard solutions, the team consistently returned to first principles, ensuring that regulatory and certification requirements did not undermine cultural integrity.

The success of community engagement at Pā Reo lies in its authenticity. The project did not seek to “include” the community; it was created by and for the community it serves. This approach offers a powerful model for future projects, demonstrating how regenerative design can be strengthened when community leadership, cultural knowledge, and environmental responsibility are genuinely integrated.

Photo Credit: ANDY SPAIN

Early Design Process

Early in schematic design, Anderson Mason Dale recognized that Aspen Distillers held exceptionally ambitious sustainability goals and reached out to long- time partner, Group14 Engineering, to explore how best to translate those aspirations into measurable outcomes. Together, the team convened a sustainability-focused design workshop that brought together the owner, architects, engineers, and key consultants. During this workshop, it quickly became evident that Aspen Distillers was not only seeking operational efficiency but also wanted to create a regenerative facility that embodied environmental
stewardship. The owner expressed early interest in net zero energy, on-site water treatment, local agriculture, and a holistic approach to health and wellness—all indicators that this project could go beyond
conventional sustainability standards.

It was during this early workshop that Group14 first introduced the idea of pursuing certification under Living Future’s Living Building Challenge (LBC). The framework resonated strongly with the client’s mission and values. After evaluating the
overlap between LBC and LEED v4 for New Construction, the team agreed to pursue both, targeting LEED Platinum and full Living Building Challenge Certification.

The decision was communicated through a series of collaborative meetings and shared resources that outlined the implications for design, materials, and operations. These efforts helped to build collective buy- in and a shared vision of success. The team worked
collaboratively throughout design, construction, and into operations to identify challenges early and work to solve for issues as they arose – especially when it came to Red List vetting and sourcing materials through the supply chain challenges of the COVID19 pandemic.

Photo Credit: aspen vodka

Advocacy to Local Jurisdictions

One challenge the team encountered during design development was achieving the Net Positive Energy imperative under the Living Building Challenge framework. The high energy intensity of the distilling process limited the ability to install sufficient on-site renewable generation to fully offset annual energy use while adhering to a net metering cap set by the local utility. Recognizing this, the project team engaged with utility representatives and Living Future to explore creative pathways that could satisfy both regulatory requirements and the intent of the certification.

The team’s proactive engagement helped local authorities better understand the innovative intent of the Living Building Challenge and its alignment with the community’s long-term sustainability objectives.

Ultimately, this collaboration resulted in optimizing the on-site photovoltaic array to the greatest extent feasible– exceeding the net metering cap – while also partnering with Holy Cross Energy to allocate verified off-site renewable energy from their expanding clean
energy portfolio that are now attributed to the project with retired RECs. This allowed Aspen Distillers to meet the intent of the Net Positive Energy imperative while simultaneously contributing to the growth of renewable infrastructure in the Roaring Fork Valley.

The process served not only as a technical solution but also as a model of how advocacy and transparent dialogue with local jurisdictions can advance sustainability innovation. By demonstrating the value of flexible, performance-based solutions, the team helped influence regional conversations around renewable energy integration for future high-performance projects.

Photo Credit: Anderson Mason Dale Architects

Construction

The project team engaged the general contractor as soon as they were brought on board during the construction documents phase, recognizing the importance of early contractor involvement in achieving the rigorous requirements of the Living Building Challenge (LBC). This early collaboration allowed the entire team—including Anderson Mason Dale, Group14 Engineering, Aspen Distillers, RWI, and key subcontractors—to establish a shared understanding of
Living Future’s performance-based expectations and to integrate
those requirements directly into specifications, bid packages, and procurement processes.

From the outset, the contractor participated in training sessions and onboarding workshops led by Group14 to familiarize field teams and trade partners with the LBC imperatives—particularly Red List material vetting, waste management protocols, and documentation
requirements. To maintain transparency and alignment, the team created and regularly updated tracking tools that offers product documentation, tracked waste diversion data, and progress toward certification goals.

The team held weekly coordination meetings throughout construction, with additional check-ins whenever critical material decisions or substitutions arose. This structure was vital during the COVID-19 pandemic, when supply chain disruptions necessitated
rapid evaluation of alternative materials. When substitutions were required, the project team worked collaboratively to review manufacturer disclosures and compliance with Red List criteria. Where necessary, the team engaged directly with manufacturers to advocate for greater material transparency or to obtain further
documentation.

Several challenges emerged during construction that had the potential to impact certification—most notably around sourcing compliant materials in a relatively remote location. However, through proactive communication and a shared commitment to the project’s sustainability goals, the team was able to problem-solve in real time and identify “what good looks like” for any given decision.

Place Petal

I01 Limits to Growth

Liza was developed on a site that had been developed as early as 1903. The project site is not on or adjacent to any sensitive ecological habitats or 100-year floodplain areas. Preserving and managing biodiversity and natural resources was a key focus for the Liza design team. The landscape design emulates the Puget Lowland Forest ecosystem with a deliberate selection of native plants which provide wildlife and avian habitat. This layered approach is supported by hosting over 50,000 pollinators on the site in two hives.

Landscape maintenance is carefully managed, both to limit unnecessary water usage and to restrict the use of any petrochemical fertilizers or pesticides. Aligning our water conservation goals with our landscape maintenance contractor has been a challenge we’ve had to overcome. The property management team has had to focus on ensuring frequent communication about when the irrigation system is activated and watering durations with the landscape maintenance contractors. They have successfully collaborated to ensure the Liza landscaping is thriving without excessive watering.

I02 Urban Agriculture

Liza’s rooftop hosts over 50,000 bees in two hives and includes native flowering plantings specifically for our bee population. Honeybees are an indicator species that will help the project infer the state and health of the local ecosystem. Having bees on the property protects wild and ecologically significant places by pollinating and, therefore, proliferating local plant species and increasing biodiversity. The beehives encourage ecological regeneration by enhancing the function of the local ecosystem. Increased biodiversity has a multitude of impacts, including clean air, clean water, more raw materials, etc. The project’s apiary consultant, Best Bees, utilizes Honey DNA reports to get a snapshot of how the local ecosystem has changed since having bees on the property.

We were thrilled to distribute our first honey harvest in November of 2024. Best Bees packaged the honey and it was distributed to residents, who greatly appreciated the connection to the rooftop hives.
While no pesticides are used at Liza, our bees travel up to three miles away from their hive to pollinate. We were saddened to learn this spring that our bees encountered pesticides, causing the entire colony to die off. The property management team conducted a full audit to ensure the landscape maintenance wasn’t the culprit. Best Bees has restocked our pollinators and we hope for greater success with our new colony.

PHOTO CREDIT: Clarity NW – Ryan Slimak

I03 Habitat Exchange

Established in 1989, Forterra NW is a 501(c)3 nonprofit land trust, accredited by the Land Trust Accreditation Commission. With experts working across Washington’s landscapes to conserve properties in the public interest, Forterra NW is a national innovator, combining conservation, community real estate and policy development to deliver on their mission. They have completed over 400 land transactions covering more than 275,000 acres, reaching more than 100 counties, cities and towns.

Alukw’át Nisháykt or “Frog’s Home” is located south of Union Gap, near Yakima, where the Yakima River flows wide through the landscape forming braids of new and old water patterns. For millions of years this river, the longest in Washington, has shaped the landscape by constantly altering its course. In doing so, it has created a thriving wetland, rich in plants and wildlife; miles of cottonwoods and water stargrass provide habitat for hundreds of migratory bird species, all kinds of salmon and trout, deer, elk and big horn sheep. Frog’s Home is 180 acres of significant ancestral and cultural value for the Yakama Nation.

Forterra and the Yakama Nation established a formal conservation partnership in 2021. In early 2022, both parties mutually agreed to pursue the purchase of Frog’s Home to conserve its significant natural and cultural resources. Yakama Nation has secured some of the land for the Frog’s Home, while Forterra has provided interim financing to take the remaining land off the market. Together, we are working to raise the funds necessary to preserve and transfer the property to the Yakama Nation, obtaining ownership of Frog’s Home will restore lands that have been degraded by recent land use.

Liza assisted with these conservation efforts by providing funding for a 1 acre offset through the Habitat Exchange for the Living Building Challenge. With many others, Liza’s support of this project puts 180 beautiful acres of riparian land into preservation forever. It reverses decades of historic use that has been damaging to an otherwise lush and vibrant area. It also is an action point for pushing back on the effects of climate change by restoring large areas of cottonwood trees and other native plants which, in turn, provide a lifeline to threatened species. The collective goal is to restore critical habitat through traditional Tribal stewardship and ultimately return the ecologically and culturally significant site to Yakama Nation ownership.
Through its donation, the Liza project team has fostered a relationship with Forterra that will help facilitate habitat exchanges pursued by future projects.

PHOTO CREDIT: Clarity NW – Ryan Slimak

I04 Human Powered Living

Human powered living is prioritized through thoughtful design that encourages healthier alternatives to personal automotive transportation. Located within a well-connected bicycle network of streets with reduced speed limits, painted bicycle lanes, protected bicycle lanes, and bicycle trails, the project’s location lends itself to bicycling. The project design of 2517 Eastlake accommodates and encourages bicycle transportation for its retail and residential occupants through bicycle amenities that include 167 long-term and short-term bicycle stalls, 14 lockers, a shower, and access to bike tools. Additionally, Liza offers all employees (including retail employees) the option of either free transit passes or an annual bike tune-up. Residents utilizing electric vehicles are rewarded with well-located, reserved parking stalls in the garage. While this imperative requires one electric vehicle charging station at Liza, ownership included 20 EV chargers in the project.

Within the building, residents are encouraged to use the stairs instead of taking the elevators. Instead of treating the stairwells as a “back-of-house” space, the design team selected a warm carpet and installed botanical artwork along the walls to encourage their use.

Outside of the building, the design team focused on enhancing wellness and safety in the pedestrian realm. At Louisa Street and Eastlake Avenue, the project extended the existing curb by over eight feet. This curb extension features new plantings, bike racks, and benches and allows for greater pedestrian safety at an intersection where many children cross the street to the neighborhood K-8 school immediately east of the property. The parking garage entrance fronts this popular pedestrian route, so the team added safety warning lights to provide vehicles notice when pedestrians approach the driveway.

Additionally, project ownership advocated for improvements to city-controlled public areas that would greatly enhance pedestrian, cyclist and transit rider safety. The suggested improvements included adding a four-way stoplight at the intersection to increase pedestrian safety, converting the adjacent alley to one-way travel, adding bike lanes, and increasing bus stop and pedestrian safety with additional lighting. Seattle Department of Transportation is currently installing protected bike lanes and enhanced transit stops along Eastlake Avenue. This process provides a model for how our team can advocate in future projects.

PHOTO CREDIT: Clarity NW – Ryan Slimak

Energy Petal

I06 Net Positive Energy

Liza has reduced its overall energy consumption by more than 25% beyond the Seattle Energy Code’s Target Performance Path and when adjusted for monthly occupancy, saved more than 215,000 kWh over the performance period relative to the ILFI target (75% of the TPP target INCLUDING the full restaurant cooking energy). The design team carefully integrated many design features to help achieve this level of energy efficiency. Liza has a high efficiency building envelope, with triple pane windows and 2×8 wood framing. Domestic water heating is provided by a reverse cycle chiller plant. All residential homes are heated/cooled by a Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) system that can efficiently balance heating and cooling needs across the property. All common areas are served by Energy Recovery Ventilation (ERV) systems. No combustion is used for heating or cooling within the building.

Energy use is metered to provide detail to the operations team about how to best optimize energy usage. This is also provided to residential tenants as part of a feedback loop, aimed at modifying resident behaviors.

Liza also achieves net-positive energy by offsetting 134% of the energy used in the building through both an on-site solar array and an offsite renewable energy project. For the on-site solar, the design team had to carefully evaluate the definitions of “available roof area” to determine how to meet the requirements. To achieve the requirements, we cantilevered the solar panels out over the edge of the building, included solar glass canopies in several areas, and built a steel support structure to elevate solar panels above our mechanical equipment. This added quite a bit of structural design (and associated construction cost) and created a warranty challenge, as the manufacturer was not thrilled with the compromised airflow of those mechanical units due to the proximity of the solar panels. Ultimately, the construction team was able to convince the manufacturer to provide the warranty.

The team used an exception to the on-site renewable energy requirement due to the relatively small roof area and higher energy density of apartment buildings. The initial strategy for finding an off-site partner involved utilizing our on-site solar provider, who reached out to clients in their pipeline to find a suitable project the Liza team could finance. After over two years of searching for such a partner within the regional power grid, it became clear that this strategy was not working. The team reached out to ILFI and asked for a further exception to allow us to go beyond the regional power grid. At the time, costs of construction locally were skyrocketing, and many projects weren’t proceeding. Additionally, the cost of hydro-powered electricity locally and the relative lack of sunshine in the Pacific Northwest weren’t compelling many solar projects to move forward. Thankfully, ILFI granted the exception, which allowed the team to send out over 100 emails to renewable energy companies across the country. The team finally connected with Evergreen Renewables, Inc., who was about to break ground on a massive wind farm renovation project in Forsin, Texas. This wind farm will supply clean, renewable energy to one of the country’s dirtiest grids and help Liza achieve net positive energy for the next 15 years.

Photo Credit: SKY SOLUTIONS NORTHWEST

Perhaps the greatest challenge to achieving the energy petal requirements was mitigating resident behavior. During the performance period, Liza’s actual energy use didn’t line up exactly with what we modeled. A major reason was tenant behavior in how they utilized HVAC systems set-points and if/when they utilized setbacks. Plug loads were steady, so the biggest fluctuations came from use of heating and cooling.

For cooling, the model assumed a worst-case setpoint of 74°F, and cooling was expected to be a very small part of total energy use. In practice, some residents preferred cooler settings – 72°F or lower – especially at night for sleeping. As we approached the hotter months, we became concerned that lower cooling setpoints could push us beyond our target EUI. However, the summer months did not pose an issue as our actual EUI was below our target.

To balance comfort and performance, management tried having one-on-one conversations with residents. For example, Liza property management suggested allowing cooler temperatures at night, paired with higher daytime setbacks when units were empty. In some cases, that worked. In others, residents were frustrated because they felt they weren’t fully aware the building was part of a performance-based pilot. One tenant felt thermostat limits were being used mainly to provide benefit to the building owner.

• Key lessons learned:
  • Energy models are very sensitive to the assumptions about how residents use their thermostats. Even small changes in setpoints across many units can significantly impact total building energy use in multifamily projects.
  • Performance expectations need to be clearly explained upfront – in leases and during move-in – so residents understand how building operations may differ from a typical apartment.
  • Regular communication and visible feedback (such as dashboards) are important to help residents connect their comfort choices with overall building performance goals.

Going forward, we would make performance expectations more visible and easier to understand from the start – through leasing materials, onboarding, and simple, ongoing updates. The technical design was strong, but this experience reminded us that transparency and collaboration with residents are just as important to meet Energy Petal goals.

One of the more interesting challenges was meeting the on-site energy storage for resilience requirement. The team had concerns about the environmental issues surrounding batteries and sought an exception for this requirement. Instead of meeting the on-site energy storage, the project team proposed providing means for residents to stay warm, cook food and have potable water for drinking during an emergency.

The “Resiliency Room”, internally dubbed our “bunker”, is our carefully crafted solution and includes space blankets, 100-hour candles, battery back-up for phone charging, a refrigerator connected to the generator for medicines requiring refrigeration, water filtration devices and cooking fuel. Space constraints proved a challenge when brainstorming strategies for the food and water requirements. The project found solutions in stocking the Resiliency Room with emergency stoves and non-toxic, indoor-safe fuel that provides the means for cooking food, and high-quality water and other materials for treating water from neighboring Lake Union. All strategies are complemented by an extensive resiliency handbook that involves detailed plans for implementing each strategy.

PHOTO CREDIT: Clarity NW – Ryan Slimak

Beauty Petal

I19 Beauty + Spirit

Liza’s exterior architecture includes many design elements, textures and details meant to delight the public, who may experience Liza driving by on Eastlake Ave, jogging or biking by on the 6-mile Lake Union loop, or playing at the adjacent Rogers Park. The building’s corner is composed of a dark iron brick incorporating textural fields of projecting Flemish Bond, punched window openings, and stainless steel cable mesh guardrail panels, reminiscent of fishing netting.
The project re-fabricated the existing “E-A-S-T-L-A-K-E” sign that was originally located on the former structure. The sign is now present on the top of the corner canopy and brands the neighborhood visually.

The lighter façade along Eastlake Ave fronts Rogers Park and the neighboring TOPS School and offers clear expression of a multi-story grid of residential apartment homes clad in white façade panels punctuated with recessed façade modulation elements and highly reflective phenolic panels to reflect the sky and greenery from the park. A memorable rooftop feature – projecting photovoltaic panel array serves as a biophilic signature.

The building includes townhouse units with entrances opening to Eastlake Ave. These two-level “treehouse” units meet the sidewalk and offer a pedestrian scale to the larger massing.

Liza’s interior design reflects a focus on biophilia, actively connecting residents with the natural world. From nearly every home, corridors and amenity spaces, there are views of verdant landscaping and the shimmering Lake Union. Corridors are daylit, 70% of homes have balconies and MERV 13 filters provide fresh, filtered air. The incorporation of live indoor plants in all common areas helps to bring nature indoors while improving air quality and enhancing the overall aesthetic and well-being of occupants. Interior finishes are warm and reminiscent of a lake house, with layers of woven textures, neutral tones with soft accents and custom art pieces that hint at the proximity of the lake.

In March 2025, we conducted a survey of residents living at Liza. The survey sought to identify how well the design team integrated features intended solely for human delight and the celebration of culture, spirit and place and meaningfully incorporated public art into Liza.
The team had concerns with achieving the required 10% response rate, as surveys are often ignored. To ensure we received enough responses, we offered gift cards to a local coffee shop for the first 20 respondents and entered all respondents into a drawing for a $100 gift card to their choice of local neighborhood restaurants.

We created the survey through Survey Monkey and asked residents to respond to how well we achieved various Living Building Challenge requirements. In total, 83 residents participated, representing approximately 30% of the residents living at Liza at that time.

With respect to how well we meaningfully integrated public art into the community, 93% of respondents thought the reinstallation of the E-A-S-T-L-A-K-E letters was a success. With respect to the public mural along Louisa Street, 92% of respondents felt it was successful.

PHOTO CREDIT: Clarity NW – Ryan Slimak

We then asked residents to respond to how successful a variety of strategies were at “celebrating Liza’s location, its connection to the community, the environment and it’s sustainable features”. Overall, across all strategies, the majority of respondents felt we were successful. The strategies with the highest percentage of respondents indicating they were “successful” or “very successful” were the Lake Union inspired interior design (99%), the locally inspired landscape design (98%), the “treehouse” design of the street-level homes (96%) and the rooftop apiary (96%). The least successful strategy (though still with 84% of respondents thinking it was a success), were the reflective phenolic panels on the Eastlake Ave façade.

I20 Inspiration + Education

The Liza design team focused on many ways in which we could educate our residents, the local neighborhood, the public and other real estate developers about the sustainable operations and performance of the project. The ownership and property management teams have collaborated on two public open houses since the project opened. The first occurred on April 21, 2024 and corresponded with Earth Day, and was advertised in the local community newsletter and via signage. We estimate between 50-75 community members came to tour the project, which had just received its Certificate of Occupancy.

The event was a great way to share the project with neighbors, many of whom had suffered through the impacts of construction and were happy to see the project finally open. Leasing staff toured visitors through the common areas and vacant units and shared highlights of our Living Building strategies.

The second open house was held on June 20th, 2025. Despite our best efforts to advertise for this event (both in the Eastlake Community Council Newsletter and with signage facing Eastlake Ave), we had no attendees at this open house. While the team is disappointed, we can find a lesson learned in this experience. On reflection, it may be that some of the success of the large attendance of the first Open Day was due to the social media post that was part its advertising efforts. The team did not repeat this social media for the second Open Day. We will re-engage on social media for subsequent annual Open Days in the hopes to get attendance back up. It is also highly possible that the attendance of the first Open Day was aided by the fact that the building was new in the neighborhood, largely unoccupied, and in the market for tenants.

The first Open Day attracted not only those who are interested in learning about the Living Building Challenge, but also those in the neighborhood who wanted to check out their new neighbor and prospective tenants looking for a new home to rent. For the second Open Day, with the latter two reasons largely gone due to the building having already been in the neighborhood for a year and being almost completely rented out, the drop in attendance is more understandable.

The Liza team compiled an extensive Operations Manual for the property management and maintenance teams to ensure that staff are educated on the specific requirements of the project. Each Liza resident is given a brochure that highlights Liza’s Living Building sustainability efforts. They are also provided with a helpful list of ways they can contribute positively to these efforts – keeping lights off and appliances unplugged when not in use, programming their thermostats, and taking shorter showers to conserve water.

The design team came up with many creative ways to incorporate interpretive signage into the project. An a-board sign in front of the project asks “What is a Living Building?” and directs those interested to the Living Building page on our website. Infographic signs on walls near elevator lobbies outline how we’re saving energy and water.

A sign near our leasing office outlines all of the facets of Living Building and how Liza is achieving them. Along the public sidewalk, there’s a sign that says “LOOK HERE” with an arrow pointing toward a porthole window, which provides the public with a view into the building’s greywater treatment room and an explanation of how the system works to save water in the building. The view wasn’t as compelling as we had hoped (turns out greywater treatment equipment isn’t that exciting to look at) but we hope it will still serve to educate those passing by.

A mural by local artist Sarah Robbins greets pedestrians and highlights native flora.

One challenge we faced was how to integrate Living Building signage in our main lobby. This space was meant to feel like the lobby of a hotel, and generally devoid of anything that screams of marketing. The team came up with a clever solution to include a sign with a quote from the founder of the Living Building challenge, which was both inspirational and fit within the aesthetics of the lobby.

Within each apartment home, residents are reminded to turn off lights with a small sign above the light switch at their unit entry door saying “remember to turn off the lights!”. Tent cards are placed on toilets to let residents (and their guests) know about the graywater used in toilet flushing.

Our educational website can be found at www.theliza.com/livingbuilding. The site features sections describing our goals of net positive energy, water use reduction, biophilic design, place-making and inspiring and educating.

Photo Credit: Clarity NW – Ryan Slimak

Early Design Process

From the project’s inception, the Utah State University Moab Academic Building aspired to set an example of sustainable development in the region. It was critical to assemble a team that not only understood the values of the University but was also able to deliver on holistic performance with a constrained budget on a sensitive and challenging site. Salt Lake City-based MHTN Architects, with deep ties to USU over its 100-year life, partnered with sustainable visionaries, Lake | Flato, sustainably minded engineers at Colvin Engineering and Spectrum Engineers, and legacy Utah contractors, Hogan Construction, and began brainstorming possibilities.

The design team collaborated with an envelope consultant, soils and permaculture specialists, along with the CM/GC to conceptualize potential scenarios along with real-time cost impacts starting as early as interview-preparation through predesign and programming. USU requires all new buildings to be certified LEED Silver at a minimum, but it became clear early on that the aspirational goals for the project were more in alignment with Living Building Challenge.

Less than nine inches of water per year meant that the net zero water requirement of an LBC building would prove to be challenging to achieve. The architectural team initially recommended LBC Petal Certification in Energy, Equity, and Beauty. Various combinations of framework certifications were studied in terms of costs, process, and best fit. Ultimately, the team recognized that the goals of the project were best aligned with a path that capitalized on the project’s focus on energy performance and renewable energy production, which included LEED and ILFI Zero Energy certifications.

Once this decision was made, the design team and owner rallied around the framework requirements. The thresholds and requirements of certification were communicated to the team and consultants, and progress was reviewed at the beginning of all meetings. Because this decision was made relatively early-on in the design process, it aligned the team and brought clarity and specificity to goals of the project.

Photo: KIMBERLY MaNZANO

Construction

Although the goals of the project were clearly articulated and the team was in alignment, there was a point during the Project, when design was complete and the construction documents were being produced, that the client, Utah State University, had decided to pursue a grant for the solar array. The solar array, a key component that both the LEED and ILFI Zero Energy certifications hinged on, was taken out of the scope of the Project and became a separate project.

To mitigate any misunderstandings of the purpose of the array, the design team provided bridging documents that communicated the design intent, the minimum energy production requirements and emphasized the critical performance indicators. It was decided to require the solar array to produce 10% over the predicted power consumption of the building, slightly over the minimum 5% threshold to ensure ILFI ZE requirements would be met. To monitor progress and stay aware of issues, certification frameworks were discussed at the beginning of all the owner-architect-contractor meetings. A live document was maintained and updated that tallied all LEED and ILFI ZE items and identified any barriers or issues as they came up. The accuracy of the predicted use and occupancy of the Project was routinely tested and discussed between the design team and owner as it was critical to have a clear picture of the actual energy consumption of the building.

Ultimately, the integrative approach and consensus built across the stakeholder group and design team developed the shared vision and trust needed to execute and accomplish the goals of the project. The contractor involvement during the design process was critical and ensured that there was an understanding that the sustainability and performance of the project were directly tied to the success of the project. Continuous communication about and reiteration of the goals and paths to meeting them ensured the requirements were met.

Photo: Paul Richer. Copyright © 2022 All Rights Reserved. Paul Richer / Richer Images

Lessons Learned

There are several lessons the design team learned over the course of the Project that would have made the process of achieving certification more streamlined including: avoiding an undeveloped site, the timing of certification documentation, and the creation of a team agreement.

During the Project outset, the USU Moab Academic Building was considered the first building on a new campus. The large site, somewhat disconnected from the city of Moab, was selected for its scenic views and its ability to accommodate an expanding campus in the future. The site did not, however, have developed utilities including water and electricity, the costs of which were born on the Project. If the project were located in a previously developed site, it would have had more access to utility connections, transit, and the greater community, not to mention, make more certification framework credits accessible.

A simple practice that any team embarking on a certification process would be to begin documentation as early as possible, even concurrently with construction documents. The fresher the project is in the minds of the team, the more efficiently documentation can be completed. As time passes and the design team, consultants, and owner move onto other projects, the more challenging it becomes to engage team members and articulate the Project’s story. Understanding all documentation requirements early on, scheduling the documentation effort concurrently or directly after construction documents and communicating that intent to the team is critical.

One simple document that would have been extremely beneficial to this project because of its aspirational sustainability goals, is a Team Agreement. This would have served as a place to articulate in clear, concise terms the goals of the project available to anyone that is brought onto the project during later phases. Shared with the contractor and all relevant subs, this Team Agreement would be a way to orient those unfamiliar with the Project to the “what” and the “why”. We plan to implement this practice on all projects moving forward.

PHOTO: Paul Richer. Copyright © 2022 All Rights Reserved. Paul Richer / Richer Images

Photo: Paul Richer. Copyright © 2022 All Rights Reserved. Paul Richer / Richer Images