LEED ND Oct 08 Initial Estimate
From Edgewater 2020
Edgewater is an historic and dense residential community of Chicago. The following LEED ND analysis is the first attempt at reaching a points consensus, using the current LEED criteria. Further review and discussion will be needed since this criteria appears to be focused toward newer subdivisions or neighborhoods & may need to be discussed with the LEED committee (by participant LEED qualified members) to request an adjustment, in order to reflect how an established urban residential area may qualify for certification.
Edgewater Analysis Committee - Chair: Peter Locke; Members: Mike Johnson, Tom Murphy, Allen Stryczek, Anne Comeau
LEED ND: Draft Edgewater Certification Analysis as of October 2008
| Category | Available Points | Current Points | Edgewater Potential Points | Total Points |
| Smart Location and Linkage | 30 | 15 | 6 | 21 |
| Neighborhood Pattern and Design | 39 | 15 | 12 | 27 |
| Green Technology and Construction | 31 | 0 | 16 | 16 |
| Innovation and Design Process | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 106 | 30 | 34 | 64 |
| Certification Levels | Points |
| Certified | 40-49 |
| Silver | 50-59 |
| Gold | 60-79 |
| Platinum | 80-106 |
CATEGORY: SMART LOCATION & LINKAGE
| Prereq/Credit | # | Title | Available Points | Current Points | Edgewater | Actionable | Potential Points | Notes |
| PreReq | 1 | Smart Location | 0 | Y | Y | n/a | n/a | LEED ND is evolving; assume prequisites n/a for now. Will need to be addressed eventually. Question: Urban Community-Adjust criteria? |
| PreReq | 2 | Proximity to Water | 0 | Y | Y | n/a | n/a | Urban Community-adjust criteria? |
| PreReq | 3 | Imperiled Species | 0 | Y | Y | n/a | n/a | Urban Community-adjust criteria? |
| PreReq | 4 | Wetland & Water Body Conserv. | 0 | Y | Y | n/a | n/a | Urban Community-adjust criteria? |
| PreReq | 5 | Farmland Conservation | 0 | Y | Y | n/a | n/a | Urban Community-adjust criteria? |
| PreReq | 6 | Floodplain Avoidance | 0 | Y | Y | n/a | n/a | Urban Community-adjust criteria? |
| Credit | 1 | Brownfield Redevelopment | 0 | 0 | 0 | N | 0 | Not easy in first SWAG; maybe for a parcel |
| Credit | 2 | High Priority Brownfields Redevelopment | 1 | 0 | 0 | N | 0 | n/a |
| Credit | 3 | Preferred Location | 10 | 8 | 6 | N | 2 | 4 for Infill Site& 2 for 24 Centerline Miles |
| Credit | 4 | Reduced Automobile Dependence | 8 | 5 | 7 | Y | 1+ | 400 Redline(200in/200out); Numerous Buses; I-GO |
| Credit | 5 | Bicycle Network | 1 | 1 | 1 | N | 0 | May be close; Bike paths on Kenmore, Winthrop, LSDrive;Ravenswood, Clark, Granville, Check w.CDot |
| Credit | 6 | Housing & Job Proximity | 3 | 0 | 0 | Y | 0+ | Option 1 |
| Credit | 7 | School Proximity | 1 | 1 | 1 | N | 0 | No Comment |
| Credit | 8 | Steep Slope Protection | 1 | 1 | 0 | N | 0 | Option 1 |
| Credit | 9 | Site Design for Habitat or Wetland Conservation | 1 | 1 | 0 | N | 1 | Option 1? Opportunity at Osterman Dunes or Foster Beach/ and whole FOTP plan (Paul Boyd) |
| Credit | 10 | Restoration of Habitat or Wetlands | 1 | 0 | 0 | N | 1 | Kathy Osterman Beach Dune restoration? |
| Credit | 11 | Conservation Management of Habitat or Wetlands | 1 | 0 | 0 | N | 1 | No Comment |
CATEGORY: NEIGHBORHOOD PATTERN AND DESIGN
| Prereq/Credit | # | Title | Available Points | Current Points | Edgewater | Actionable | Potential Points | Notes |
| Prereq | 1 | Open Community | 1 | 0 | 0 | N | n/a | no comment |
| Prereq | 2 | Compact Development | 0 | Y | Y | n/a | no comment | no comment |
| Credit | 1 | Compact Development | 7 | 2 | 3 | N | 1 | Close to 29 DU/Acre (29,716 Dwelling Units/est.1000 Acres) Increasing
overall density of Edgewater would be nearly impossible |
| Credit | 2 | Diversity of Uses | 4 | 3 | 4 | Y | 0 | 7 Uses Average; may be less or more in specific spot(Use is shop, ban, school, within 1/2 mile of 50%) |
| Credit | 3 | Diversity of Housing Types | 3 | 1 | 2 | Y | 1 | Only consider housing categories 1-8 (detailed assumptions follow) |
| Credit | 4 | Affordable Rental Housing | 2 | 0 | 1 | Y | 1 | 15 year requirement for all three options present a challenge. OPTION 2 seems best- Research with Dept of Housing |
| Credit | 5 | Affordable For-Sale Housing | 2 | 0 | 1 | Y | 1 | Area Median Income is $71,600 |
| Credit | 6 | Reduced Parking Footpring | 2 | 0 | 0 | Y | 1 | Jewel & perhaps Thybony's lots are probably > 2 acres |
| Credit | 7 | Walkable Streets | 8 | 0 | 0 | Y | 4 | Requirement dealng with speed limits present challenges; 25 mph on residential streets; Needs redefinition for urban environment. Check Tom Samuels and WalkAmerica |
| Credit | 8 | Street Network | 2 | 2 | 1 | N | 0 | Most areas of city have 24 miles of streets/sq mi; streets at 1/8 mi intervals in one direction (100 numbers; 1/16th mi interals in other direction (50 numbers) |
| Credit | 9 | Transit Facilities | 1 | 0 | 0 | Y | 1 | This credit requires covered/enclosed shelters at every transit stop. Don't see that happening. Modifying the requirement for existing scenarios might be an option. |
| Credit | 10 | Transportation Demand Management | 2 | 1 | 1 | Y | 0 | One point for Option 1: Assuming the CTA addresses this; Unlikely a second point can be earned through either of the remaining two options given their requirements |
| Credit | 11 | Access to Surrounding Vicinity | 1 | 1 | 1 | N | 0 | Not many cul de sacs or dead end streets |
| Credit | 12 | Access to Public Spaces | 1 | 0 | 0 | Y | 1 | The 1/6th mile requirement makes this credit a challenge; This credit could be obtained in pockets of Edgewater. |
| Credit | 13 | Access to Active Spaces | 1 | 0 | 0 | Y | 1 | Option 1: The 1 Acre requirement is challending. This credit could be obtained in pockets of Edgewater For reference Senn Park is approx 1 Acre; Option 2: 3 miles in length is challenging (check LakeFront length); Option 3 Requires Public Recreation Centers (check against Broadway Armory) |
| Credit | 14 | Universal Accessibility | 1 | 0 | 0 | N | 0 | This seems challenging given the the number of three flats that do not support this criteria |
| Credit | 15 | Community Outreach and Involvement | 1 | 0 | 1 | Y | 0 | Well connected to individuals, businesses and government |
| Credit | 16 | Local Food Production | 1 | 0 | 0 | Y | 0 | Option 1: Assuming 24-29 du/acre; 100 sq.ft per du does not currently appear to be available; Option 2: Does not seem to be an option given the magnitude needed to purchase into a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) program. |
GREEN CONSTRUCTION AND TECHNOLOGY
| Prereq/Credit | # | Title | Available Points | Current Points | Edgewater | Actionable | Potential Points | Notes |
| Prereq | 1 | Construction Activity Pollution Prevention | 0 | Y | 0 | N | no comment | no comment |
| Credit | 1 | LEED Certified Green Buildings | 3 | 0 | 0 | N | 0 | Certifying all existing buildings in Edgewater is currently not feasible |
| Credit | 2 | Energy Efficiency in Buildings | 3 | 0 | 0 | N | 0 | Auditing the energy efficiency of all existing buildings in Edgewater is currently not feasible |
| Credit | 3 | Reduced Water Use | 3 | 0 | 0 | N | 0 | Auditing water consumption or fixtures for all existing buildings in Edgewater is currently not feasible |
| Credit | 4 | Building Reuse and Adaptive Reuse | 2 | 0 | 0 | N | 0 | Assuming no Edgewater-wide application |
| Credit | 5 | Reuse of Historic Buildings | 1 | 0 | 0 | N | 0 | Assuming no Edgewater-wide application |
| Credit | 6 | Minimize Site Disturbance through Site Design | 1 | 0 | 0 | N | 0 | Relevent for new construction |
| Credit | 7 | Minimize Site Distrubance during Construction | 1 | 0 | 0 | N | 0 | Relevant for new construction |
| Credit | 8 | Contaminant Reduction in Brownfields Remediation | 1 | 0 | 0 | N | 0 | Relevant for new construction |
| Credit | 9 | Stormwater Management | 5 | 0 | 0 | TBD | 5 | Only Option 1 appears relevant. Could undertake initiatives to improve stormwater management but Edgewater-wide measurement of diversion levels would be challenging |
| Credit | 10 | Heat Island Reduction | 1 | 0 | 0 | Y | 1 | Option 1 seems possible given the 50% requirement with 3 sub-options to meet. Using open grid paving system would contribute to stormwater management credit |
| Credit | 11 | Solar Orientation | 1 | 0 | 0 | N | 1 | Option 1 Not viable given east/west vs north/south length of blocks; Option 2 Not viable given 25% shading on December 21st at noon |
| Credit | 12 | On-Site Energy Generation | 1 | 0 | 0 | N | 1 | Assuming no Edgewater-wide application at the moment |
| Credit | 13 | On-Site Renewable Energy Source | 1 | 0 | 0 | N+H63 | 1 | Assuming no Edgewater-wide application at the moment. New technologies and incentives could change this. |
| Credit | 14 | District Heating and Cooling | 1 | 0 | 0 | N | 1 | Assuming no Edgewater-wide application at the moment |
| Credit | 15 | Infrastructure Energy Efficiency | 1 | 0 | 0 | Y | 1 | Achieve credit by installing energy efficient street and traffic lights within Edgewater and piggy backing on the city's water, wastepump, and treatment system improvements (assuming they have, or will do, something to that infrastructure) |
| Credit | 16 | Wastewater Management | 1 | 0 | 0 | N | 1 | Assuming no Edgewater-wide application at the moment |
| Credit | 17 | Recycled Content for Infrastructure | 1 | 0 | 0 | Y | 1 | Maybe could achieve credit if local code included requirements for all new construction |
| Credit | 18 | Construction Waste Management | 1 | 0 | 0 | Y | 1 | May already be a requirement under local Chicago construction waste management code..to be researched |
| Credit | 19 | Comprehensive Waste Management | 1 | 0 | 0 | Y | 1 | May already meet sub-options 1 and 2. Improving local business recycling could be an initiative to improve on recycling requirements. |
| Credit | 20 | Light Polution Reduction | 1 | 0 | 0 | Y | 1 | May already meet the requirements for LZ3. Need to do the analysis to verify |
