See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265009084

A Framework to Guide Sustainable Housing Development

Article  in  Housing and Society · June 2015

DOI: 10.1080/08882746.2010.11430582

CITATIONS READS

19 2,129

2 authors:

David A. Turcotte Ken Geiser

University of Massachusetts Lowell University of Massachusetts Lowell
30 PUBLICATIONS   182 CITATIONS    54 PUBLICATIONS   1,020 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mainstreaming sound chemicals management @ UN Environment Chemicals Branch View project

Asthma - Multifaceted Home Environment Interventions View project

All content following this page was uploaded by David A. Turcotte on 25 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Housing and Society
Journal of the Housing Education and Research Association
Refer to manuscript submission guidelines on the HERA Web site
www.housingeducators.org
© 2010 Housing Education and Research Association
All rights reserved.
HOUSING AND SOCIETY, 37(2), 2010
Turcotte, Geiser • 87
A FRAMEWORK TO GUIDE SUSTAINABLE
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
David A.Turcotte and Ken Geiser
Abstract
This paper presents two urban case studies of attempts at developing sustainable
housing in the Boston, Massachusetts metropolitan area. The case studies are
used to test a multidimensional framework to see how well it might be applied as
a guideline for development and a tool for understanding and evaluating actual
housing development projects. This framework includes 10 sustainable housing
development principles formulated from previous research. Using this framework,
the manuscript examines two housing developments that incorporate several
principles from the framework. Using these principles as a definitional and
evaluative tool, this manuscript assesses the extent to which these projects make
reasonable progress in achieving sustainable housing and why certain aspects of
sustainable housing and the principles presented here are or are not included in
these projects. The paper concludes with a detailed discussion of key findings and
how they impact the likelihood of sustainable housing development in the future.
Introduction
The U.S. has over 80 million residential structures (U.S. Census, 2008),
but almost none of this housing has been built in a sustainable fashion and
most of it has negative impacts on the environment. In the U.S., residential
buildings today represent 38% of electricity consumption and 26% of total
energy consumption while generating 24% of greenhouse gas emissions and
12% of toxic waste emissions (Ochoa, Hendrickson, & Matthews, 2002).
Recognizing this, there is now a drive to build houses that are green and
environmentally sound. This paper focuses on how we can promote more
sustainable housing development in the U.S., particularly within urban settings.
David A. Turcotte is Research Professor in the Department of Economics, and Ken Geiser is Professor in the
Department of Work Environment, both at the University of Massachusetts Lowell.
HOUSING AND SOCIET Y, Volume 37, Issue 2, Pages 87–117.
Copyright © 2010 Housing Education and Research Association
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0888-2746.
HOUSING AND SOCIETY, 37(2), 2010
88 • A Framework to Guide Sustainable Housing Development
Most of the literature on sustainable housing mainly focuses on
environmental aspects (Bhatti, Brooke, Gibson, 1994; Chiu, 2000, 2003a;
Hugo, 2005; Lovell, 2004; Parrott & Emmel, 2001; Sunikka & Boon, 2003;
Swanson, 2003; Zhu & Lin, 2004). Nevertheless, the widely accepted
definition of sustainable development from the Brundtland, Our Common
Future Report highlighted three fundamental components: environmental
protection, economic growth, and social equity (United Nations, 1987). Thus,
Chiu (2003a) argues “not until the other sustainability aspects of housing are
adequately researched and integrated, would it be possible to seek a sustainable
development path for housing” (p. 224). This paper addresses this question.
The social aspect of sustainability is often ignored because the term “green”
is often used interchangeably with “sustainable” when referring to housing
and buildings (McLennan, 2004; Turcotte, 2007). While green design is an
important element of sustainable housing, it is not the exclusive dimension.
We still need a sufficient definition of sustainable housing development.
Due to inadequate definitions of sustainability and sustainable
development, some have argued that a framework is more useful than a specific
definition when relating these concepts to housing (Bhatti, 2000; Bhatti,
Brooke, & Gibson, 1994). Some have also concluded that the U.N. concept
of sustainable development has failed to change unsustainable trends, and a
systematic framework is needed to achieve social, economic, and environmental
objectives equally and in an integrative fashion (Hugentobler, 2006). Others
have also argued for the need to examine the social, economic, and environmental
dimensions of housing and sustainability (Bhatti, 1999, 2000; Brown & Bhatti,
2003; Chiu, 2002, 2003a, 2003b, 2004; Huong & Soebarto, 2003; Thorns,
2004). Besides helping to define sustainable housing, these researchers have
proposed analytical frameworks to holistically guide the development process,
as well as evaluate the multidimensional strands of housing sustainability.
These researchers claim that each dimension is interconnected and should
not be examined in isolation, but, when discussing the social side of housing
sustainability, the question of equity takes on paramount importance.
Building from the aforementioned work, we created a framework
with a set of principles to help define sustainable housing development within
the U.S. context. This paper attempts to clarify the meaning of sustainable
HOUSING AND SOCIETY, 37(2), 2010
Turcotte, Geiser • 89
housing by testing the multidimensional framework that serves as a guideline
for development, as well as a tool for understanding and evaluating housing
development projects. Accordingly, this research tests the framework by
examining two concrete examples of housing developments that are not
pure examples of sustainable housing. While these projects were developed
independent of this multidimensional framework, they incorporate several
elements of the sustainable housing development framework presented here.
Using these principles as a definitional and evaluative tool, an assessment is
made as to what extent these projects made reasonable progress in achieving
sustainable housing. The analysis attempts to explain which aspects of these
holistic sustainable housing principles were found in these projects, and why
other elements were not found. The paper concludes with a detailed discussion
about the strengths and weaknesses of the framework and makes suggestions
about future research using these principles.
Methodology
Development of the Framework’s Principles and Study Design
Based on our personal experience and literature review of the
aforementioned holistic approaches in evaluating and understanding the
multidimensional aspects of housing and sustainability and other ongoing,
related initiatives, we developed a preliminary set of sustainable housing
principles. This effort included a review of other sets of related principles, such as
the Hannover Principles: Design for Sustainability1, Smart Growth Principles,
and the Massachusetts Office of Commonwealth Development’s Sustainable
Development Principles. In recognition that definitional and analytical
frameworks of sustainable development are very value laden, principles became
the basis of this framework. An analytical framework of this type is also more
conducive to promoting sustainable housing development because it includes a
clear set of principles to guide development and assess completed projects.
After identifying these principles, several factors influenced the
ultimate decision to use qualitative methods instead of taking a quantitative
approach. First, our research problem focused on developing and testing a
holistic, multidimensional framework and the literature review determined
HOUSING AND SOCIETY, 37(2), 2010
90 • A Framework to Guide Sustainable Housing Development
that this was a novel approach in the U.S. Thus, qualitative methods appeared
well suited for research that is exploratory (Creswell, 2003). Second, a
quantitative approach was not useful to pursue as we were not seeking to
generalize the results of this research, but instead intended to explore the
use of this framework. We selected one-on-one interviewing as it is also an
excellent data collection technique as indicated by Rubin and Rubin (2005,
p.3) when describing a social and political process like housing development,
particularly when explaining “the how and why of change.” In-depth interviews
allowed key informants to articulate their perspectives in greater detail and
provide thoughtful feedback on complex issues of housing and sustainability,
including framework principles.
In total, 15 key housing informants (e.g. community and housing
development professionals, planners, researchers, and construction trade union
officials) from around the nation were selected using a criterion sampling approach
and interviewed to test the preliminary framework, thereby contributing to its
ultimate refinement. Key informants were identified from a list of participants
at an American Institute of Architects Roundtable on Sustainability, as well
as individuals indentified during our initial research. Afterwards, a “snowball”
sampling approach was used, as key informants suggested other experts willing
to participate in this research. During interviews, key informants were asked
a series of questions related to the preliminary framework’s principles. In
addition, the principles were shared with participants for feedback. From these
interviews, 10 sustainable housing development principles were developed.
Using the results of this research, we evaluated the efficacy of this framework and
fine-tuned these sustainable housing development principles. The framework
includes the following 10 principles:
1. Incorporate green design: Promote integrative approaches through water and resources
conservation, energy efficiency and renewable energy use, improved indoor air quality,
use of natural sunlight, recyclable and less toxic materials, and ongoing sustainable
operation practices to minimize adverse environmental impact.
2. Provide safe internal conditions: Maintain an indoor environment with adequate
space, comfortable temperature and humidity levels that are physically safe and healthy,
and where overall psychological well-being is promoted.
3. Encourage affordable and equitable distribution/consumption of housing resources:
Maintain occupant housing costs at a level that does not sacrifice resident’s ability to
HOUSING AND SOCIETY, 37(2), 2010
Turcotte, Geiser • 91
meet other needs; allow individuals at the same income level and housing needs to
access comparable housing resources with the targeting of these resources (subsidies
and tax incentives) to groups with the greatest needs; and regardless of household
income, all individuals will have access to a level of housing quality as defined by and
occupied by most groups in society.
4. Support financial viability for housing producers: Create an economic environment
with sufficient incentives (but not so excessive as to impact affordability) to address the
community demands and needs for shelter over the long-term.
5. Promote occupant-neighborhood linkage: Locate and design housing in mixed-
use neighborhoods to maximize density and efficient land use, minimize sprawl and
automobile use by encouraging alternative transportation options (trains, buses, metro,
biking, walking, etc.), and to promote active living near employment, commercial
establishments, and important community institutions.
6. Maximize access to healthy environments and support services: Promote access
to safe and attractive public recreational areas, community institutions, and healthy,
affordable food outlets and support services, recognizing the relationship between
occupant health and a safe, attractive, cohesive, and quality neighborhood, and
development of positive social capital.
7. Support worker well-being: Maximize the health and safety of workers throughout
the supply chain, during construction and maintenance of buildings, and provide
fair compensation.
8. Preserve cultural and housing heritage: Design housing that preserves, respects, and
recognizes the unique historical and cultural characteristics of an area and its residents.
9. Foster participation and harmonious decision-making: Promote full stakeholder
participation as appropriate to their interests, while addressing the needs of current
and future residents, regardless of socioeconomic status, ethnic, religious, and racial
background, while enhancing understanding, consensus, and harmony.
10. Increase adaptability and flexibility: Provide occupants with flexibility to economically
change and upgrade the shape and layout of their homes to meet changing needs within
the households (e.g., “Open Building” system) and offer “visitability” for everyone.
Case Study Selection
During the 15 interviews, key informants were asked if they were
aware of housing development projects in the Boston area that were
considered good models for sustainability and reflected many of the
sustainable housing development principles. Because these principles were
tested during preliminary research with 15 key informants, cases were selected
that could test the final set of principles, measure to what extent they were
incorporated into these projects and help explain factors that influenced their
HOUSING AND SOCIETY, 37(2), 2010
92 • A Framework to Guide Sustainable Housing Development
degree of inclusion. Based on their suggestions, a list of recommended sites
was developed and narrowed to two. Maverick Landing in East Boston and
Trolley Square in Cambridge were selected for the following reasons: both
reflected most of the sustainable housing development principles; they were
in different cities and demographically dissimilar neighborhoods, but within
the same regional housing market; they represented different sizes; one is a
redevelopment of an existing site, the other not; both are redevelopments in
older cities lacking sufficient affordable housing; and one was with a for-profit
developer, one is exclusively not for profit.
Data Collection and Analysis
This research used multiple data and evidence-gathering techniques
to ensure validity of the case study research as recommended by Yin (2003).
Accordingly, the research followed the principle of triangulation by using the
following data-gathering techniques.
Documentation: such as internal communications, reports,
proposals, formal evaluations and studies, newspapers, media
articles, and other documents from web searches. Each person
interviewed was asked for any written documentation that
would help provide useful information as part of the case
study. Several documents were also indentified using Google
web searches “to corroborate and augment evidence from other
sources” (Yin, 2003, p. 87).
Archival Records: including organizational and occupant records,
such as budgets, maps and site plans of projects, survey data
on the relocation of Maverick Gardens residents (see case
description below) to Maverick Landing and other locations;
Interviews with Multiple Stakeholders and Informants: such
as developers, project and property managers, architects,
contractors, financiers, government officials and planners,
consultants, unions, tenant and community leaders.
Direct Observations: visits were conducted for each case location
with information about structures, construction, and residential
and neighborhood activities recorded in a journal.
HOUSING AND SOCIETY, 37(2), 2010
Turcotte, Geiser • 93
We decided to use, as a unit of analysis, the housing project level as
it appeared to be the best approach to achieve our major research goals. We
approached the analysis of case study evidence as described by Yin (2003),
following the general strategy of theoretical propositions that shaped the
basis of this study. Most specifically, the study is based on the premise that
true sustainable housing development must reflect the 10 principles within
this framework. Accordingly, the analysis of case study data using a pattern
matching approach evaluates to what extent these principles are embodied
in each project and why they were or were not reflected in each case. As
part of this analysis, we examined all evidence from the four data collection
methods to determine to what extent these principles were incorporated in
the development process and product.
Descriptions of Cases
Maverick Landing
Maverick Gardens, a 413-unit, public-housing complex built in 1942
as “war housing,” is located in East Boston, Massachusetts, an ethnically and
racially diverse low-income and working-class neighborhood. As a result
of physical deterioration and unhealthy conditions, the Boston Housing
Authority (BHA) began to work with tenants to explore site revitalization.
With the support of Maverick tenants, BHA’s HOPE VI2 application for
demolition and redevelopment of the site was approved by the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in October 2001, awarding $35
million in grant funds to BHA. Before the demolition and redevelopment in
August 2002, Maverick Gardens was one of the most diverse BHA projects as
18 different languages were spoken among the 356 families in the site. After
this extensive public process, a joint committee of Maverick residents and BHA
staff members selected Trinity East Boston Partners as the developer for the
site. This HOPE VI project is a four phase, 396 mixed-unit development (305
low-income units and 91 market-rate units) located on the original Maverick
Landing site as well as an adjacent site. The first two phases, totaling 230 units,
were completed in 2005. According to federal law and the Maverick Gardens
Relocation Plan, relocated residents must be given comparable replacement
HOUSING AND SOCIETY, 37(2), 2010
94 • A Framework to Guide Sustainable Housing Development
units and provided financial assistance to aide their move to replacement
housing. Moreover, residents of the Maverick Gardens received first priority
to return. Indeed, 186 (57%) of the 324 households that were at the site when
relocation began actually returned to the new development. The final phases
were completed and fully occupied by the end of 2006.
Trolley Square
This 37,645 square-foot site is located in a mostly moderate- to
middle-income neighborhood in Cambridge, Massachusetts, north of Porter
Square on Massachusetts Avenue. This site was used by the Massachusetts Bay
Transportation Authority (MBTA) to store and repair trackless trolleys (electric
buses) since the inception of streetcars in Cambridge. The MBTA deeded the
site to the City of Cambridge as part of an agreement on an extension of a
mass-transit line within the city. As part of the accord, the MBTA required the
site to be used only for “public benefit purpose.” The City of Cambridge began
a participatory process regarding the use of the site when the city manager,
on December 2001, appointed the Trolley Square Committee to make
recommendations to him on future uses of the site and the configuration of
buildings. Shortly after their appointment, the city manager sent a letter to the
committee summarizing possible uses of the site, but urging the committee to
consider affordable housing as a significant element of the development. After
a year of meeting and deliberations, the committee recommended a mix of
uses, including open space, affordable housing, community and retail uses. The
city council, based on the city manager’s recommendation, decided the land
should be transferred to the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust (CAHT)
which then selected a non-profit developer, Homeowner Rehab, Inc., (HRI),
to develop 35–40 affordable-housing units on the mixed-use site.
Results
Principles Represented in Both Cases
Within this section, we will discuss the eight principles that were
similarly embodied in each case. Several green design features were reflected
in both cases, because developers succeeded in accessing funding to support
an integrated green approach, which involved all development disciplines/
HOUSING AND SOCIETY, 37(2), 2010
Turcotte, Geiser • 95
professionals and other stakeholders from the project’s inception with the
goal to achieve a holistic building design. A commitment to occupant health
was also reflected in these cases, as developers wanted to avoid duplicating the
unhealthy housing conditions that many low-income families face. In addition,
both experienced affordable housing developers were successful in obtaining
large subsidies, which allowed each project to incorporate high levels of
affordability and overall financial viability. Developers successfully integrated
their high density, mixed-use projects into the neighborhood fabric, creating
solid occupant-neighborhood linkages to easily access alternative public
transportation, including on-site and adjacent support services. Furthermore,
all construction workers in these case earned union-scale wages and had union
health and safety officers on site. Finally, both developers acknowledged the
importance of cultural housing heritage by designing their projects to reflect
the historic character of these neighborhoods.
Green Design
Both cases made serious commitments to incorporate green
integrative design into the development from the very beginning. In addition,
both developments have several green features, including photovoltaic (PV )
energy generation systems, energy efficient building frame, Energy Star
appliances and lighting, use of recycled materials, improved indoor air quality
through enhanced ventilation and the use of Low-VOC emitting materials,
high efficient heating and hot water systems, drought resistant landscaping
techniques to conserve water, and highly reflective and energy efficient white
roofing membranes. The new Maverick Landing project received LEED
certification from the U.S. Green Building Council for their midrise building.
Trolley Square was designed to be LEED certifiable, however HRI decided
not to pursue certification due to the added costs and time involved.
There were two key reasons why both cases integrated green design
into the project. First, both were highly committed to green design for both
philosophical and practical issues. In the case of Maverick Landing, the Boston
Housing Authority (BHA) was focused on energy efficiency measures so as to
lower and control rising utilities and operational costs. The BHA believed that
costs would be lower if all green components were integrated into the design
HOUSING AND SOCIETY, 37(2), 2010
96 • A Framework to Guide Sustainable Housing Development
at the very beginning of the process. Furthermore, the BHA required Trinity
to incorporate these features, as they wanted to provide a healthy environment
to tenants who lived in unhealthy and decrepit conditions at the old Maverick
Gardens. HRI had incorporated energy efficiencies into their recently
completed developments and was committed to follow integrated design
practices in future projects. Philosophically, HRI also embraced resource and
energy conservation to protect the environment and combat global warming.
Second, both cases were able to incorporate green design into the
projects by accessing available grants to pay for the added upfront costs. The
new Maverick Landings received a $477,675 Green Building Design and
Construction Grant from the State’s renewable energy trust. This funding was
used to pay for the costs of the PV and cogeneration system, absorption chiller/
heater, and recycled materials. HRI was able to access grant money from the
Green Communities Program, Energy Star, and local banks to cover the costs
of their green features. HRI estimates that green aspects of the project added
an additional 1–3% to the construction costs of the project, excluding the PV
system which will be paid by the renewable energy trust grant.
Occupant Health
The developers of Maverick Landing and Trolley Square placed
considerable emphasis on occupant health and improvement in overall indoor
air quality. Asthma was the main health issue that both projects attempted to
alleviate. The senior project manager for Trolley Square noted that HRI was
cognizant of asthma problems among lower-income and minority children
based on the experience at their other developments and knew that low
income and minority, inner-city children had a higher incidence of asthma
than children from the general population.
The BHA was also aware of high asthma rates among children
within the old Maverick Gardens and other projects, thereby requiring
specifications in the request for proposal for developers to improve indoor air
quality. Specifically, tenants at Maverick Gardens also experienced unhealthy
conditions due to infestations of cockroaches, rats, and other pests, and wanted
these health risks mitigated during the design and construction process, as
indicated by a former resident of the old Maverick Gardens. “It was a mess.
HOUSING AND SOCIETY, 37(2), 2010
Turcotte, Geiser • 97
It had to come down . . . we even had bed bugs” (Nichols, 2005). As a result,
BHA required the developer to seal each unit, using low VOC sealants, from
common areas and other units, so pests and secondary smoke from other
occupants could not penetrate the indoor environment3. This is particularly
crucial for families with asthmatic children, as these hazards are triggers for
asthma attacks.
Each unit within each project has windows that open, exhaust fans
in bathrooms and kitchens, as well as air intakes and ventilation systems
that provide fresh air to ensure adequate air exchange. While it appears
these ventilation systems incorporate the latest healthy design specifications,
ongoing maintenance is required for these systems to effectively function. In
addition, the quality of air entering each unit is only as good as the ambient
air source. Because Maverick Landing is located on the ocean waterfront, the
quality of air is probably superior to inner neighborhoods in East Boston and
Cambridge. In order to minimize mold problems, each bath and kitchen area
in both projects was constructed to prevent moisture accumulation by using
marmoleum4 for the kitchen and bathroom floors. Furthermore, Maverick
Landing has 15 carpet free units and another 15 with marmoleum flooring in
all bedrooms for families with seriously asthmatic children.
Due to awareness of past conditions, both projects incorporated these
elements to eradicate potential health hazards for occupants. Furthermore,
each project accessed sufficient funding to cover added costs related to green
and healthy home features. The Maverick Landing architect believed that these
design features did not make the project more expensive, as energy efficient
building envelopes save money by allowing the use of smaller mechanical
systems (Design Advisor, n.d.).
Affordability and Financial Viability
Both Trinity Financial and HRI have considerable experience building
affordable housing, and this was a major component of each project. In the
case of Maverick Landing, the BHA required Trinity to develop the project
with 77% of the units as affordable. Accordingly, 305 of the total 396 units
were designated under a tiered structure for low-income tenants that would
provide financial viability to the project and evolve over the long term. While
HOUSING AND SOCIETY, 37(2), 2010
98 • A Framework to Guide Sustainable Housing Development
the HOPE VI grant allowed Trinity to ensure that most units were affordable
to tenants at the lower end of the economic spectrum from the old Maverick
Gardens, it is likely that the percent of families under 30% of the area median
income (AMI) will decrease overtime and be replaced by higher income
tenants who will pay higher rents. Therefore, this tiered structure provides
financial viability by increasing the number of higher income residents who
pay more rent to support ongoing operational costs.
While Maverick Landing assures that low-income residents will
remain in the neighborhood, an assessment report on neighborhood impact
commissioned by the BHA did raise concerns about this project increasing
housing demand and “about the possibility of gentrification forcing low-
income residents out of the area” (Herbert & Ly, 2005, p. 13). Nevertheless,
this report also concluded that forces of gentrification could be moderated by
factors such as limited inner city access, noise from the nearby airport, and
the number of affordable-housing units in East Boston. “It will be quite some
time before it will be evident whether Maverick Landing has contributed
to a process of gentrification” (Hebert & Ly, 2005, p. 22). Despite these
moderating factors, the report also states that four planned developments
in the neighborhood—over 1,200 units of mostly market rate housing—
will have a bigger impact: “To the extent that gentrification does occur, by
providing 305 affordable rental units and 30 workforce homeownership units,
Maverick Landing will actually represent an important counterweight to the
process” (Herbert & Ly, 2005, p. 37).
The City of Cambridge, on the other hand, required HRI to include
32 permanently affordable rental units for families earning 50% of AMI or
less and eight homeownership units (five for individuals earning between
60–80% of AMI and three between 80–100% of AMI). The Trolley Square
project was able to develop a high percent of affordable units because HRI
received 32 project-based Section 85 vouchers from the Cambridge Housing
Authority (CHA) and a $500,000 grant from NeighborWorks America6 to set
aside at least 17 units for families earning less than 30% of AMI. The CHA
within their request for proposals requires HRI to provide rental housing
opportunities to families that are on the CHA Section 8 Voucher waiting list
and at or below 50% of AMI.
HOUSING AND SOCIETY, 37(2), 2010
Turcotte, Geiser • 99
Substantial governmental and community support enabled both
developers to incorporate a high percent of affordability into their projects.
Both Boston and Cambridge have made increasing the supply of affordable
housing a major priority, thereby contributing significant funding to these
projects. Furthermore, each city had vocal advocacy groups clamoring for more
affordable housing, and the Trolley Square and Maverick Landing projects
received significant Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits funding from
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Both developers were also able to create a financial package that ensures
long-term viability and affordability of the housing projects. The track record
of success of both Trinity Financial and HRI in conjunction with the high
profile nature of these projects allowed both developers to effectively attract
funding from several sources. However, in the case of Trolley Square, some
project lenders raised concerns about the longevity of the 32 project-based
Section 8 vouchers, requiring the housing authority to make a commitment
to hold the vouchers for a minimum of three years according to the CHA
director of occupancy and leasing (M. Johnson, personal communication,
June 20, 2006). If Trolley Square lost some of these Section 8 Vouchers, HRI
would probably need to attract tenants earning more than 50% of AMI who
would pay more rent to help ensure the project’s long-term financial viability.
Occupant-Neighborhood Linkages
Both projects place considerable emphasis on design principles
encouraging occupant-neighborhood linkages, noticeably influenced by “new
urbanism” and “smart growth” concepts, which in the case of Maverick is similar
to national trends with HOPE VI projects (Popkins, Katz, Cunningham,
Brown, Gustafson, & Turner, 2004). Maverick Landing, in particular, is
designed to reconnect the original streetscape and patterns existing prior to
the construction of the old Maverick Gardens. The BHA constructed the
original public housing project with little concern for neighborhood linkages,
as the structure resembled a “super block” or fortress plunked into the middle
of the neighborhood. Many streets were blocked by these buildings and all
open space was situated in the complex’s interior, separating residents from the
outside community. In contrast, Maverick Landing links the site to a network
HOUSING AND SOCIETY, 37(2), 2010
100 • A Framework to Guide Sustainable Housing Development
of pedestrian sidewalks and green spaces, visually and physically connecting
the project to area parks and the nearby waterfront. In addition, the site is
located two blocks from a bus terminal and subway station (two stops from
the downtown and one from the airport) and received a “smart growth” award
from the governor in 2005.
HRI was attracted to the Trolley Square development because it is
easily accessible to alternative and public transportation points, and they
wanted to develop sites that contributed to smart growth. The developer was
able to successfully balance the diversity of goals formulated during the public
process mandated in the RFP, including mixed uses such as open, retail, and
community space, as well as affordable housing. In addition, the site was
designed to encourage tenant and homeowner use of the adjacent bike path
connected to a local subway stop and 26 miles of trails through five other
communities. The site is located on Massachusetts Avenue, a main thoroughfare
with several nearby amenities, such as shops, restaurants, a public bus terminal
and Zip Car pick-up location. However, most developments in Cambridge are
in mixed use neighborhoods and easily accessible to mass transit.
Support Services and Healthy Environment
Maverick Landing and Trolley Square were designed to maximize
access to support services and a healthy neighborhood environment. Maverick,
as a new HOPE VI redevelopment project, enabled BHA to access $2.55
million in funding for support services as part of the $35 million HUD
grant. The money was used to address the supportive services needs of project
occupants. The following wide range of community and supportive services
were provided by the grant: an array of case management services including
assessments, referrals to counseling, education, and job training, help with job
searches, daycare and transportation services, relocation assistance, workshops
on budgeting, and housekeeping; partnerships programs with neighborhood
entities providing adult learning opportunities, such as GED preparation,
English for Speakers of other Languages (ESOL), and computer instruction;
youth recreation and arts programs; Section 3 pre-apprenticeship training
opportunities to prepare residents for potential hire by one of the building
trade unions; and homebuyer counseling programs.
HOUSING AND SOCIETY, 37(2), 2010
Turcotte, Geiser • 101
Unfortunately, the $2.55 million of HOPE VI is only available
to provide these services over a five-year period. However, a non-profit
organization was established to continue the most important support services
needed by residents at the new community center within Maverick Landing.
In addition, the developer used surplus funding to capitalize this nonprofit.
Many community organizations also provided support services to residents
in partnership with Maverick. One identified advantage is that new Maverick
residents can easily access these organizations and other local amenities, such
as a large grocery store and neighborhood health center, without a long ride
by car or public transportation. The tenant organization is also expected to
continue to provide referral, counseling, and advocacy assistance, as well as
summer job opportunities for teen residents through funding from the state
entity operating the airport.
The Trolley Square project offers a variety of support services and
has a resident services coordinator. Unlike Maverick, HRI lacked a large
HOPE VI grant to fund many of the initial support services. Nevertheless,
HRI explores opportunities to fill gaps with local service providers and makes
the community center available so organizations can provide these resources
to residents. Trolley Square also has the advantage of being located in an
existing mixed-use neighborhood with many institutions that offer services to
occupants such as a health center, library, and daycare center. In addition, the
fact that Trolley Square has on-site retail space is advantageous to residents.
Worker Well Being
As members of unions, all trade workers at Maverick Landing
and Trolley Square received fair compensation at union pay scales.
Generally, Trinity and their general contractor only employ union labor
on their construction sites. The Carpenters Union has a long-term, cordial
relationship with Trinity as it is a signatory to their union contract. A
representative from the general contractor noted that because most of their
work is on affordable housing developments in Boston, they are required
to hire union labor. When asked for a clarification of who requires them to
hire only union workers, this individual explained that political and union
leaders expect them to employ union labor and that it would be disruptive
HOUSING AND SOCIETY, 37(2), 2010
102 • A Framework to Guide Sustainable Housing Development
for future business if they did otherwise. Apparently, within the Boston
area, unions are politically influential and public officials respond to their
complaints and pressure, and are willing to use their clout to ensure that
large publicly funded projects use union labor.
An instructive case in point is Trolley Square. While HRI and their
general contractor planned to use union carpenters on the project, the most
competitive bids for other trade work came from non-union contractors. As a
result, other trade unions, specifically the Painter’s Union, asked Cambridge
City Councilors to intervene. Afterwards, the council voted to instruct the city
manager to “confer with the Executive Director of HRI to resolve all disputes
with organized labor prior to the start of construction to Trolley Square, as
such issues could potentially threaten future appropriations for such projects
by the City Council” (Cambridge Civic Journal, 2005). A representative of
the Painter’s Union claimed that eventually the contractor accepted a slightly
higher bid from a union contractor than the non-union bid.
In contrast, the status of maintenance workers is different than that of
construction workers. A major private management firm for affordable housing
projects manages both developments and has a non-union workforce. In regards
to Maverick Landing, this was a change from the previously managed BHA
project, as all maintenance workers were union members. The site manager at
Maverick Landing claims that their maintenance workers earn between $15–20
per hour which he feels is appropriate, even though a maintenance worker at the
BHA with seniority could earn as much as $35 per hour.
In regards to health and safety of workers on site, there is concern that
green building practices may lead to “risk shifting” away from the environment
onto the workers (Levenstein, 2001; Turcotte, 2006). For example, both
developments use cement fiber siding boards that when cut, expose workers
to silica dust, a hazardous inhalation exposure (Armenti, 2004). However,
while we did not have access to injury incident records, the union official
representing carpenters at the Maverick Landing project believed health
and safety conditions were good, as risks were not any different because
of green features. According to a union steward for Local 40 of the New
England Regional Council of Carpenters, Trolley Square had a better than
average health and safety record. The contractor and union were also aware of
HOUSING AND SOCIETY, 37(2), 2010
Turcotte, Geiser • 103
potential hazards with the usage of cement fiber siding boards, as health and
safety training was provided by the manufacturer of HardiePlank® cement
board siding. However, the union steward indicated that many workers did
not consistently wear masks and follow all safety procedures when working
with cement boards.
Cultural and Housing Heritage
Both projects, in their own way, tried to preserve the cultural housing
heritage of their neighborhoods. In the case of the redevelopment of Maverick
Landing, Trinity reconnected the historic streetscape and made it consistent
with other parts of the neighborhood. The project was also designed to
match the facades in the neighborhood and connect to the waterfront
(K. Carlton, personal communication, April, 20, 2006). Recognizing the
historic connection to the older Italian neighborhood, the developer wanted
to highlight an adjacent church with the design of a park on a section of
the Maverick site. This church, one of the largest in New England, is now
the home of newer Latin-American residents, who value community and
family networks. Consequently, the park was designed to “sort of highlight
the communal feel as people in the neighborhood like to get together” (S.
Barnat, personal communication, April 26, 2006). While Maverick was
required under HOPE VI guidelines to build to “market standard” to ensure
equitable conditions for all tenants by having all units indistinguishable
from one another in design, the developers also incorporated many three
and four bedroom apartments into the project, recognizing the family sizes
of existing diverse tenants.
Like Maverick Landing, HRI tried to design the development so
that it would emulate the original Trolley barn structure and be compatible
with the existing architecture, pleasing many community members with the
final design (K. Mernin, personal communication, June 20, 2006). During the
community process, there was considerable research on the old trolley yard,
and trolley wheels were discovered while digging on site. During the design
and construction of the site, HRI did not know who the residents would
ultimately be, nevertheless, HRI has had considerable experience with tenants
from diverse cultural backgrounds.
HOUSING AND SOCIETY, 37(2), 2010
104 • A Framework to Guide Sustainable Housing Development
Differences among Principles as Reflected in Each Case
Participation
While both developments involved participatory processes, the nature
of these processes differed due to the nature of the projects themselves. In the
case of Maverick Landing, the BHA needed to involve the Maverick Tenant’s
Organization (MTO) and project residents. From the very beginning, the
BHA engaged tenants in the planning process to revitalize the site, conducting
meetings in all 19 buildings (K. Bennett, personal communication, April 20,
2006). One indicator of the influence and importance of the tenants in this
process was the fact that the BHA wanted to include an adjacent project
(Clipper Ship) in the application, but the residents opposed redevelopment.
Consequently, the BHA went forward only with Maverick Gardens. However,
during the first application in 2000, some tenants were concerned about
displacement and the ability to return after redevelopment and let their
concerns be known to federal officials and the BHA, according to Ruth
Capone, MTO co-president (personal communication, May 8, 2006). This
first application was unsuccessful and the BHA successfully submitted another
in 2001. By this time, the tenants were more supportive, as most signed a
petition in support of the application. While tenants generally trusted the
MTO to ensure what was promised by the BHA would be delivered, a few
elderly tenants and others with lease problems were somewhat concerned. In
addition, tenants were preoccupied about their relocation for two years during
the redevelopment process. Thus, tenants played an active role throughout
the application, relocation, demolition, and redevelopment processes.
Consequently, all tenants in good standing at the old Maverick Gardens had
the right to return.
Despite these misgivings and disruptions, elderly and other tenants
returned happy and received better services. Furthermore, tenants appeared
very engaged in the management and ongoing activities at Maverick Landing.
According to a senior property manager, “tenants are very involved with
everything, from the way the property looks to how it’s maintained on the
safety and security level” (M. Milco, personal communication, May 8, 2006).
An indication of MTO’s influence is the fact that the property management
HOUSING AND SOCIETY, 37(2), 2010
Turcotte, Geiser • 105
company sends all correspondence to MTO for review before forwarding
it to tenants. In partnership with Winn, the MTO also set up a Security
Committee that meets monthly with police and residents.
Besides the above-mentioned participatory process, a larger East
Boston Master Planning Process was ongoing. As with any construction
project, the redevelopment of old Maverick Gardens required BHA and
Trinity to obtain permits and go through other regulatory hurdles. Prior
to redevelopment, the neighborhood image of Maverick Gardens was low,
consequently, area residents generally supported any changes leading to
improvement. The plans presented at public meetings were usually well
supported by the neighborhood and the city despite skepticism that BHA
could deliver as promised (S. Barnat, personal communication, April 26, 2006).
The MTO also played a role in ongoing outreach to community groups and
stakeholders during the process. The BHA, Trinity, and MTO all believed the
overall process was generally harmonious (S. Barnat & R. Capone, personal
communication, 2006).
Unlike Maverick Landing, Trolley Square, as a new residential
development, lacked existing tenants to participate in project conceptualization
and planning. Therefore, the level of public participation was much lower.
However, the city engaged in a participatory process after the land was given
to Cambridge by the state transportation authority. The committee, appointed
by the city manager, consisted of 12 members, including two planners,
neighborhood business representatives, and local residents. The committee
conducted 10 meetings and one community-wide forum over one year.
A diversity of opinions was heard during this period by committee
members and local residents. According to the Trolley Square Committee
Report (2002), some members and residents advocated to convert the site
into a park with 100% open space while others wanted no more than 25% of
the land used as a park. The city manager also sent a letter to the committee
stating that a key goal of city government was to expand and preserve the
affordable housing supply. Some committee members expressed concern about
this letter at the March 7, 2002 meeting, because the city manager wanted
the committee to consider affordable housing on site before they had their
first meeting and could ponder all possibilities (Trolley Square Committee,
HOUSING AND SOCIETY, 37(2), 2010
106 • A Framework to Guide Sustainable Housing Development
2002). A number of residents stated that building housing would exacerbate
existing parking and traffic problems. On the other hand, most neighborhood
residents were just happy to see something built on this empty lot, feeling
comfortable that a quality development would increase property values
(K. Mernin, personal communication, June 20, 2006).
While recommendations from the committee appeared to represent
an attempt to compromise and reach a consensus on a mixed vision for the
site, some participants engaged in heated and angry exchanges (G. McCray,
personal communication, July 21, 2006). Some of the committee members and
residents who supported the recommendations of the committee to include
15 to 25 housing units were also bothered when the city council decided
to increase the density and number of housing units on site and disregard
the work of the committee. Others also opposed the scope of the project
because most affordable housing in the city was located disproportionately
in North Cambridge, and residents feared the project would increase crime.
Nevertheless, many believed that most residents supported Trolley Square as a
real need existed for affordable housing, community, and retail space at the site.
Recognizing that undeveloped land was scarce, the city council
decided to increase the number of housing units to maximize the quantity,
making the site more economically viable for developers. Once selected by
the city, the nonprofit developer held a series of meetings with the community
to determine what the design of the site would look like. While several
people were still upset by the city-sponsored process, the developer tried to
be responsive to community opinions and had the executive director and
architect involved at every meeting (K. Mernin, personal communication,
June 20, 2006). HRI responded to the key concern of insufficient parking by
incorporating an underground parking garage on-site, successfully receiving
additional funds from the city to pay for the added costs ( J. Jones., personal
communication, April 7, 2006).
Overall, the developer tried to respond to concerns and competing
visions among stakeholders with a project that incorporated open and community
space, retail, including rental and owner occupied housing ( J. Jones., personal
communication, April 7, 2006). Nevertheless, this community process was less
contentious than the city’s, because people were tired of attending ongoing
HOUSING AND SOCIETY, 37(2), 2010
Turcotte, Geiser • 107
meetings and many critics recognized that they had less influence over the
housing component of this development (G. McCray, personal communication,
July 21, 2006; K. Mernin, personal communication, June 20, 2006).
Principles Excluded from Each Case
Adaptability and Flexibility
Unlike the other principles that were reflected in these cases to varying
degrees, adaptability was not incorporated into the design and construction.
While absent in both cases, flexible design principles have been practiced on
a limited level internationally, as well as within the U.S. One well-known
example is Project Renewal in Israel that built-in flexibility into their urban
renewal efforts by allowing residents to adapt their homes to changing family
needs and economic status (Carmon, 2002). Some U.S. developers have
promoted other methods to encourage more flexible design, such as moveable
walls and floors that adapt to changing household needs (e.g., Bensonwood
Homes, n.d.; Newport Partners, n.d.).
When asked to what extent this principle was considered, the BHA
responded by saying that they don’t remember any conversation about this
issue during the initial design stages. Nevertheless, Trinity emphasized that
10% of the units are designed for handicapped households. Furthermore,
Trinity exclaimed that because Maverick Landing is a 396 unit development
with a variety of one, two, three and four bedroom apartments that, in fact,
they do have flexibility built into the project despite the inability to adapt
individual apartments. Trinity believes that if the needs of a particular family
changes, they will have the flexibility to move to other units. HRI indicated
that they did not look at this approach as an option. However, Trolley Square’s
residential component will always be housing; consequently, HRI believes they
could just modify the units if needed in the future by adding partition walls.
Discussion
This research indicates that these housing projects are not ideal
examples of sustainable housing, but both conform to many principles
within our sustainable housing development framework. Our case studies
HOUSING AND SOCIETY, 37(2), 2010
108 • A Framework to Guide Sustainable Housing Development
demonstrated that HRI embraced the principle of green design to help
protect the environment and combat global warming, while both developers
were motivated by the potential of long-term energy and operational cost
savings. We also documented that both developers embraced the principle of
safe interior conditions due to their awareness that low-income tenants often
live in unhealthy homes. The BHA specifically incorporated healthy design
standards in Maverick Landing to provide a healthier environment to tenants
who experienced elevated asthma rates in unhealthy and decrepit conditions
at the old project. However, these green and healthy design elements increased
overall construction costs. Nevertheless, because these developments were high
profile, innovative project developers were able to access adequate funding to
incorporate costly design features, as well as affordability for many families
below 30% of AMI. Yet, both developers also recognized that green features
would reduce long-term operational costs through lower energy, water, and
maintenance expenses.
While both projects conformed to the third principle, encouraging
affordable housing, only Trolley Square incorporated 100% affordability into
the project and expanded the overall supply of affordable housing as a new
residential development. While the BHA and HRI were able to substantially
improve the quality of living environments for occupants and set aside 77%
(a total of 305) of the units at Maverick Landing for low-income households,
this still resulted in a net loss of housing units for poor families. Consequently,
the Maverick Landing case illustrates clear contradictions between the
development of a more sustainable housing project and the lack of available
subsidies needed to replicate 100% of the low-income housing units lost
through a public housing demolition. Despite limited available housing
funds, both developers astutely identified and accessed necessary funding and
governmental regulatory support at all levels of government, particularly at
the state and local level to ensure long-term project financial viability.
Both projects conformed to the occupant-neighborhood linkage
principle; developers recognized that higher density, transit oriented, mixed-
use developments were advantageous and becoming popular with state and
local government officials. In addition, the existing area density and diversity
of building types were conducive to the successful integration of these mixed-
HOUSING AND SOCIETY, 37(2), 2010
Turcotte, Geiser • 109
use projects into the neighborhood fabric with easy access to alternative public
transportation. Maverick Landing and Trolley Square were also designed to
maximize access to a healthy environment and support services due to existing
neighborhood amenities, mission focus and commitments. Nonetheless,
Maverick Landing had more resources from the HOPE VI grant to dedicate
for residential support. Yet, each developer had the experience and capacity to
provide ongoing support services.
The influence of local unions—combined with political expectations
that publicly financed housing development projects would involve union
labor—helped ensure some conformity with the principle to support worker
well-being. However, this did not prevent the use of potentially unhealthy
construction material, such as cement fiber boards, nor eliminate the usual
risks involved with the dangerous work of construction. Nevertheless, these
fiber boards made from recycled cement were embraced as a more desirable
green alternative than wood-siding by green building advocates and developers
without considering how a new environmentally friendly material could
increase worker health and safety risks.
As both cases were constructed in older, historic neighborhoods,
developers were encouraged to design these housing developments to adopt the
principle of preserving cultural and housing heritage. Each neighborhood had
its own predevelopment planning process where residents, business owners and
other stakeholders articulated their vision that new housing projects should
recognize and conform to the unique local character. In addition, government
support for the preservation of cultural and historic characteristics within
new developments was well established with both developers cognizant that
necessary funding and permits would only be granted if projects conformed
to neighborhood character and were acceptable to local stakeholders.
While both projects adopted the principle of participation, their
forms differed in significant ways. Within the Maverick Landing’s case, the
BHA was required under HOPE VI requirements to encourage participation
of existing public housing tenants. Moreover, the BHA’s planning staff was
committed to a highly inclusive and participatory process from the beginning
with old Maverick Gardens tenants, which continues under the new operation
of Maverick Landing by a private management company. Tenants were
HOUSING AND SOCIETY, 37(2), 2010
110 • A Framework to Guide Sustainable Housing Development
involved in all stages, including attending and speaking at meetings during
the neighborhood master planning process. Overall, the process of tenant and
other stakeholder participation was reasonably harmonious.
Since Trolley Square was a new development, it lacked pre-occupancy
tenant involvement. The only participatory process involved abutting
homeowners, businesses, city planning staff, and other stakeholders. Unlike the
more harmonious process in the Maverick Landing case, the Trolley Square
planning effort was contentious, as many abutters opposed the inclusion of
affordable housing and project density. While the Trolley Square Committee
attempted to achieve middle ground with a recommendation of 15 to 25
housing units, including open, retail and community space, neighborhood and
city stakeholders never reached a true consensus. Several individuals seemed
concerned about how this development would negatively impact traffic
congestion, shortages of off-street parking and neighborhood crime rates.
Others opposed the project because a disproportional amount of affordable
housing within Cambridge is located in this neighborhood. In addition, the
subsequent decision by city government to increase housing density at the site
led to more discord.
While other principles were reflected within these cases to varying
levels, the principle to increase adaptability and flexibility was not adopted
in either project. Evidently, this principle never received much consideration
among both design and development teams. Despite this principle being
piloted in several other projects, it is generally not understood nor practiced
by the vast majority of development professionals in the U.S.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Framework
We conducted this case study research in an attempt to clarify what
sustainable housing is within the U.S. urban context by developing and
testing a multidimensional framework to serve as a guideline for development
and a tool for understanding and evaluating housing development projects.
These case studies demonstrate the value of these 10 sustainable housing
development principles as a useful framework for evaluating projects and as
a tool for understanding factors influencing support for and obstacles against
adaptation of those principles. We suggest that a completely sustainable
HOUSING AND SOCIETY, 37(2), 2010
Turcotte, Geiser • 111
project must adopt all 10 principles during the development process and
embody these principles during operation. Nevertheless, while many of these
principles were reflected in these cases, others were embraced on a limited
basis or not embraced at all. For example, the Trolley Square case completely
ignored the potential health risk to occupants from the adjacent maintenance
facility and highlighted the shortcomings of a participatory process with only
limited local residential and business involvement. In addition, the health
and safety risks of workers actually increased in both projects due to the
introduction of green materials, the cultural heritage of residents was only
partially addressed in both cases, and the tenth principle, adaptability and
flexibility, was not addressed by either case. Because the adaptability and
flexibility principle was largely missing from these cases, some could argue
that it is inappropriate to include this principle. However, we contend that the
inclusion of adaptability and flexibility is fitting based on preliminary research
and reviews of existing literature.
The greening of affordable housing is relatively new, but now accepted
by many as a necessary ingredient to sustainability, as it saves low-income
residents and/or nonprofit management entities money over the long-term,
as well as minimizes negative environmental impacts. We recognize that
flexibility in design is still in its infancy, probably at the stage that greening of
affordable housing was 25 years ago. Consequently, we are confident that the
adaptability and flexibility principle will be more readily incorporated into
future housing developments, considering its compatibility with the goals of
the “Aging in Place” home modification movement to keep the elderly, as
they age, comfortable and safe in their homes. Not every housing project will
stack up to all these principles equally, such as was the case with the principles
of health and participation. But, we believe all of these principles should
be considered in housing developments, but some are at different levels of
understanding and practice.
The framework could also be used to assess a variety of housing types
beyond the two affordable housing developments in this paper. Affordability
relates to those who can afford housing and is usually based on area medium
income (AMI), which is a relative term. Housing is not sustainable if families
and individuals are paying disproportional amounts of income on shelter,
HOUSING AND SOCIETY, 37(2), 2010
112 • A Framework to Guide Sustainable Housing Development
restricting their ability to meet other basic quality of life needs. Moreover, a
green gated luxurious housing project segregated from the larger community
may incorporate several of these principles, but would be seriously lacking in
others. While we designed this framework to guide housing development and
evaluate completed projects to their degree of sustainability, the framework
can also help evaluate to what extent housing policies encourage affordable
housing development, as well as the equitable distribution and consumption
of housing resources. Our research indicates that social equity is central to
achieving housing sustainability.
These case analyses, using this framework, accentuate the critical
role that government policy plays at various levels in advancing or
hindering sustainable housing development. Each municipality had policies
in place that provided a supportive regulatory and financial environment.
Accordingly, these cities invested considerable amounts of resources
from affordable housing trusts and various block grant sources. Both
developments also received significant state support, particularly for their
green and “smart growth” components, accessing low-income tax credits
and other state funding to ensure project affordability and viability. These
cases clearly demonstrate that more sustainable housing is difficult without
the active participation and support of all levels of government. However,
the use of this framework also revealed where government is not doing
enough to promote sustainable housing development, especially on the
federal level, as direct subsidies to produce new affordable housing have
steadily declined for several years ( Joint Center for Housing Studies, 2007).
Consequently, federal housing policy, through inadequate funding, hinders
the development of sustainable affordable housing, especially for individuals
living below 50% of AMI.
This lack of federal subsidies was also evident within the financial
structuring of the Maverick Landing project. While the majority of
subsidized households are below 30% AMI, the long-term financial viability
is dependent upon decreasing the percent of families living below 30% AMI.
Thus, Maverick Landing is contributing to the reduction of affordable units
for the neediest families. This contradiction is caused by the lack of federal
subsidies for local housing authorities, as the BHA lacks the financial
HOUSING AND SOCIETY, 37(2), 2010
Turcotte, Geiser • 113
resources to renovate existing public housing, while continuing to support
the current number of families living below 30% AMI. Therefore, the BHA
must take advantage of HOPE VI funding to upgrade the quality of housing
for current tenants while decreasing the percent of families living below
30% AMI to increase operating revenue, as higher income occupants pay
more rent. Therefore, the use of this framework as a policy evaluation tool
helped emphasize that advancing sustainable housing requires policies in
place that provide ample financial commitment and regulatory support from
all levels of government.
To determine the efficacy of this framework in other settings, further
case studies and other research should be conducted in different types of
housing developments and urban areas, as well as suburbia, to explore the
applicability of these sustainable housing development principles. Theoretically,
the unique conditions within different regions and variety of housing types
could require the modification or addition of one or more principles. For
example, testing this framework on owner occupied single-family housing
or townhome developments could lead to different results. Accordingly, this
framework could also be tested in an international context, despite having
been developed and implemented within a U.S. setting. Additional research
to test these principles would determine if modifications to the framework are
needed when examining other cases.
As many factors influence sustainable housing development, the
framework of sustainable housing principles was used to evaluate these cases
without the benefit of specific quantitative measures. Consequently, while the
use of these principles offers a framework to understand and evaluate the
degree of housing sustainability, they could be more effective if accompanied
by specific metrics and indicators. Therefore, future research will be needed to
develop and test indicators and other qualitative measures, such as described
by Chiu (2003a, 2003b) in the Hong Kong case, to assess the degree of
sustainable housing development. Again, these indicators could possibly
be different in some regions of the U.S. than others, depending on unique
conditions and availability of quantitative data. Obviously, all principles do
not lend themselves to quantitative measure, thus, qualitative evaluation
methods would continue to play a critical role in future research.
HOUSING AND SOCIETY, 37(2), 2010
114 • A Framework to Guide Sustainable Housing Development
Endnotes
1
In 1992, the City of Hannover, Germany asked William McDonough and
Michael Braungart to create a set of design principles for the planned 2000
World Fair to guide construction and development related to the fair to be
more sustainable, which was a major theme of the fair.
2
HOPE VI is a program operated by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) that permits public housing authorities to apply for
funding to redevelop distressed housing projects by focusing on the following:
physical and management improvements, and social and community services
to address residential needs. While HOPE VI funding was reduced under
the G.W. Bush Administration, it remains the key rehabilitation program for
public housing. However, a report by the National Housing Law Project, False
HOPE: A Critical Assessment of the HOPE VI Public Housing Redevelopment
Program ( June 2002), concluded that the program has reduced the number of
affordable housing units overall and only 11.4% of former residents have been
able to return to new developments at HOPE VI sites.
3
Sealing of the units was also a requirement for LEED certification for the
midrise because it is a residential building and BHA does not impose a non-
smoking policy on all tenants within their units.
4
Marmoleum is made from natural renewable materials such as linseed oil,
rosins, and wood flour. The bactericidal properties prevent micro-organisms
from multiplying and is easy to keep clean from dust accumulation and dust
mites, which are triggers for asthma suffers. Unlike vinyl flooring, marmoleum
does not off-gas VOCs.
5
Section 8 Rental Vouchers are provided through a federal program to offer more
affordable housing choices to low income households by allowing families to live
in private housing. Public housing authorities usually pay landlords the difference
between 30% of household income and a predetermined fair market rent.
6
NeighborWorks America is a national nonprofit organization that works
to revitalize communities through affordable housing opportunities, training,
and technical assistance.
HOUSING AND SOCIETY, 37(2), 2010
Turcotte, Geiser • 115
References
Armenti, K. (2004, October). Pollution prevention and worker protection. In U.S.
General Services Administration, Sustainable development and society (pp.
41-48). Washington, DC: GSA Office of Governmental Policy.
Bensonwood Homes. (n.d.). Open-Built. Retrieved December 19, 2009, from
http://www.bensonwood.com/innovation/openbuilt.cfm
Bhatti, M. (1999). Housing and the housing environment. In T. Brown (Ed.),
Stakeholder housing—A third way. London: Pluto Press.
Bhatti, M. (2000). Greening housing: A challenge for public policy? Hume
Paper on Public Policy, 8(4), 63-71.
Bhatti, M., Brooke, J., & Gibson, M. (1994). Housing and the environment:
New agenda. Coventry, England: The Chartered Institute of Housing.
Brown, T., & Bhatti, M. (2003). Whatever happened to ‘housing and the
environment’? Housing Studies, 18(4), 505-515.
Cambridge Civic Journal. (2005, June 20). Cambridge City Council meeting
minutes. Retrieved April 12, 2006 from http://www.rwinters.com
Carmon, N. (2002). The Phoenix Strategy for updating housing stock:
Preventing neighborhood deterioration and promoting sustainable
development. APA Journal, 68(4), 416-434.
Chiu, R.L.H. (2000). Environmental sustainability of Hong Kong’s housing
system and the housing process model. International Planning Studies,
5(1), 45-64.
Chiu, R. L. H. (2002). Social equity in housing in the Hong Kong special
administrative region: A social sustainability perspective. Sustainable
Development, 10(3), 155-162.
Chiu, R. L. H. (2003a). Social sustainability, sustainable development, and
housing development: The experience of Hong Kong. In R. Forrest and
J. Lee (Eds.), Housing and social change (pp. 211-238). London: Routledge.
Chiu, R. L. H. (2003b, November). Sustainable development: A new perspective
for housing development. Paper presented at the 2003 National Housing
Conference: Housing Futures, Adelaide, Australia.
Chiu, R. L. H. (2004). Socio-cultural sustainability of housing: A conceptual
exploration. Housing, Theory and Society, 21(2), 65-76.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Design Advisor. (n.d.). Green housing projects-Maverick Landing. Retrieved
December 10, 2009, from http://www.designadvisor.org/green/
maverick.htm
HOUSING AND SOCIETY, 37(2), 2010
116 • A Framework to Guide Sustainable Housing Development
Herbert, C., & Ly, H. (2005). Early assessment of the neighborhood impacts of the
Maverick Landing HOPE VI development. Cambridge, MA: Abt
Associates Inc.
Houng, N., & Soebarto, V. (2003). Gaps in understanding sustainable housing:
Case study in Adelaide and Hanoi. Architectural Science Review, 46,
369-374.
Hugentobler, M. (2006). Man as the measure of all things: A limiting approach
to urban regeneration. New Solutions, 16(4), 395-410.
Hugo, P. (2005). How to make housing sustainable? The Dutch experience.
Environment & Planning B: Planning & Design, 32(1), 5-15.
Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. (2007). The state of
the nation’s housing. Retrieved September 22, 2010, from http://www.
jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/son2007/son2007.pdf
Levenstein, C. (2001). Thinking sustainable development: Health, work, and
the environment-Introduction. In R. Forrant, J.L. Pyle, W. Lazonick,
& C. Levenstein (Eds.), Approaches to sustainable development (pp.
165-167). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
Lovell, H. (2004). Framing sustainable housing as a solution to climate change.
Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 6(1), 35-55.
McLennan, J. F. (2004). The philosophy of sustainable design: The future of
architecture. Kansas City, MO: Ecotone Publishing Company.
Ochoa, L., Hendrickson, C., & Matthews, H. S. (2002, December). Economic
input-output life-cycle assessment of U.S. residential buildings.
Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 8(4), 132-138.
Newport Partners, LLC. (n.d.). PATH releases concept home design.
Retrieved December 18, 2009, from http://www.newportpartnersllc.
com/PDFs/PressReleases/2006/concepthomeplansrelease31406.pdf
Nichols, R. (2005, July 8). Building support for ‘green’ housing [Electronic
version]. The Boston Globe.
Parrott, K., & Emmel, J. M. (2001). Sustainability in housing: A curriculum
case study. Journal of Family and Consumer Science, 93(5), 31-34.
Popkins, S. J., Katz, B., Cunningham, M. K., Brown, K. D., Gustafson, J., &
Turner, M. A. (2004). A decade of HOPE VI: Research findings and policy
challenges. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing
data. Thousands Oaks: Sage Publications.
Sunikka, M., & Boon, C. (2003). Environmental policies and efforts in social
housing: The Netherlands. Building Research and Information, 31(1), 1-12.
HOUSING AND SOCIETY, 37(2), 2010
View publication stats
Turcotte, Geiser • 117
Swanson, J. (2003). Sustainability sweeps into Broome: Public housing looks
set for a makeover in this WA town. Habitat Australia, 31(3), 23.
Thorns, D. C. (2004, February). Creating sustainable housing: The challenge of
moving beyond environmentalism to new models of social development.
Paper presented at the meeting of the International Conference,
Housing for the 21st Century: Challenges and Commitments, Hong
Kong, China. Retrieved December 20, 2009, from http://www.
housingauthority.gov.hk/hdw/ihc/pdf/cshf.pdf
Trolley Square Committee. (2002, December) Trolley Square study recommendations.
Retrieved April 12, 2006, from http://www.ci.cambridge.ma.us/
CDD/cp/zng/trolley/index.html
Turcotte, D. A. (2006). Sustainable development: A better holistic view. New
Solutions, 16(4), 398-401.
Turcotte, D. (2007). Developing sustainable housing: Moving beyond green.
Progressive Planning, 172, 34-37.
United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development.
(1987). Our common future: Report of the World Commission on
Environment and Development. Retrieved December 13, 2009, from
http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm
U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). American Housing Survey for the United States:
2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved
December 14, 2009, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/
h150-07.pdf
Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Zhu, Y., & Lin, B. (2004). Sustainable housing and urban construction in
China. Energy & Buildings, 36(12), 1287-1297.
HOUSING AND SOCIETY, 37(2), 2010