Rice 1 ABSTRACT SIGNIFICANCE/INTRO · 2019-05-13 · Rice 2 Abstract: Half of the global population...

Rice 1

Table of Contents: ABSTRACT SIGNIFICANCE/INTRO

-opportunity for natural building -establishing the “ideal” and how we’re a long ways from that

CONTEXT- GREEN AWARENESS -projects, policy toolkits, national networks, initiatives, measuring tools, yada yada -green building codes and energy codes -SDGs and how the cities were chosen

NATURAL BUILDING MATERIALS & METHODS

-, resources, dangerous materials, promising materials, MSA PROFILES & NARRATIVES

-zuse of materials, local codes -how i evaluated cities

CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS

- Some may be longer purely to ease of accessibility to their research, should not be taken as an indication of more vs. less sustainable per se

REFERENCES Appendix: 16 City Profiles

Rice 2

Abstract: Half of the global population lives in cities, 80% of GDP is generated in cities, 70% of carbon emissions are produced in cities (Prakash 2). The actions of city-dwellers are becoming more and more important. The following paper is an exploration into how cities are coping with this responsibility- particularly how they’ve kicked the door in for the natural building movement. This thesis reflects the importance of bottom-up change. Government regulations might help make certain solutions more affordable, but this won’t help if the market doesn’t first demand it. This is why it’s up to green builders and product developers to innovate solutions that accentuate the modern way of life.

Rice 3

Half of the global population lives in cities, 80% of GDP is generated in cities, 70% of carbon emissions are produced in cities (Prakash 2). The actions of city-dwellers are becoming more and more important. The following paper is an exploration into how cities are coping with this responsibility- particularly how they’ve kicked the door in for the natural building movement. Definitions are important in this discussion. Many terms and phrases are used interchangeably, and some evoke certain stigmas to mainstream culture. Among the most popular- “Sustainable Architecture” evokes a certain kind of aesthetic. It tends to paint an elitist picture, and often means more expensive. The focus in this category tends to be beautiful architecture with “more sustainable options”. “Green Building” is “designed to reduce overall impact of the built environment on human health and the natural environment by effectively using energy, water, and other resources protecting occupant health and improving employee productivity, reducing waste, pollution, and environmental degradation” (Green Building). The focus of green building are technologies like “alternative energy, geothermal systems, green roofs, cool roofs, energy-efficient windows, permeable pavements, stormwater planters” (6). Green Building is more accessible to more people than “sustainable architecture”, and the focus is mainly on energy efficiency.

Affordable housing is “housing that receives direct or indirect financial assistance, housing that is developed outside the purely market-rate private system” (1 Davis). The United States once called it “poor housing” or “subsidized housing”, while Europe prefers to call it “social housing”. The US carries its own stigma towards affordable housing, something Davis likes to call “NIMBYism”- or ‘Not In My Back Yard’. People tend to think affordable housing options bring the value of their neighborhood down, or will bring crime. When in actuality, diverse housing options positively affect cities and provide upward mobility and alternative life paths to crime. Natural building is not just the construction of dwellings free from building-related illness and discomfort, but it promotes well being and health (Indoor Air Quality & passive solar buildings). It takes green building principles a step further by prioritizing how the owner feels and is affected beyond the physical level by their dwellings. The term “natural building” evokes a stigma that makes people think of sacrifice- they believe they’d have to give up their current way of life in order to live greener. The image that comes to mind is usually of an earthship, or a yurt, or something off the grid. Yes these are natural methods, but there are ways to implement natural building methods into modern, or even suburban, ways of life seamlessly. These methods can include building with cob, clay, adobe, straw bale, rammed earth, hemp, and many others. Such dwellings are built with the utmost consideration that they have on their inhabitants and the environment that surrounds them. This comes down to analyses of specific materials, off-gassing, energy efficiency, emissions produced in transportation, and long-term carbon neutrality. Preconceived notions are the greatest hurdle any trend will have when it comes to mainstream acceptance. New building methods are no exception. Natural methods are slowly, but surely, proving their effectiveness, and superiority, in many cases. Green building methods are more broadly accepted than they were ten years ago- consumers are demanding greener solutions, and builders are increasingly comfortable implementing green solutions. Natural building will ride the coattails of the green building movement- it’s the next step further. Consumers just

Rice 4

need to know its possible, preferable, and fits seamlessly into their current lifestyle. “Opportunity” is an important definition as well. The research goal of this paper was to find “opportunities” for natural building- so what does it mean? In short, evaluation of possibility- how likely are these cities to support natural building methodology? This question can be answered generally by ascertaining the policies a city supports (recycling, materials recycling, etc.), looking into the building code it follows, and the kinds of projects that have been approved their planning commissions. In addition, evaluation of projects is like taking the temperature of the community’s readiness to demand greener solutions. Choosing areas to study is tricky business. Diverse geographies, population sizes, climate zones, socioeconomic diversity and range, and housing types were all elements intended to be reflected in this survey. As such, choosing them couldn’t just be the “Top Ten Sustainable Cities” that US News and other sources produce every year because those leaned towards wealthier and larger cities with more resources, and didn’t have consistent measuring tools throughout the years. In addition, sustainability issues present themselves at larger levels than just strictly the municipal level (Prakash 2), so a different measuring increment than the “city” was required for more accurate comparisons of opportunity. This is why the unit of study for this thesis is the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). This is a geographic entity defined by the US Office of Management and Budget for use in statistical research tabulating, collecting, and publishing federal statistics. Because this is the preferred measuring increment of the government, including the census, there is greater data availability when studying trends on an MSA level (Prakash 2). In order to find data on the MSA level regarding natural building, international sustainability surveys were looked at first, then data on smaller and smaller levels. The largest-scale organization keeping track of sustainability goals is the United Nations. In 2015, they produced 17 development goals they believed cities should begin incorporating into their plans immediately. These goals are also referred to as the Agenda 2030. The Sustainable Development Solutions Network is in charge of collecting data to see how countries are making progress on the Agenda’s implementation. They measured US MSAs’ general progress towards these goals, and they have produced two reports (in 2017 and 2018) that rank the top 100 most populous MSAs based on said progress, and they also rank top ten MSAs in each goal. In this survey, and in this thesis, the term “city-region” is used interchangeably with the term MSA. Cities were ranked with a score out of 100, which would indicate what percent they are towards “achieving” the goals. So, a score of 40 would mean the city has taken actions on 40% of the SDGs. Creators of the survey wanted it to spur action on the local level that was supported by the federal government (Prakash 15). This tool provided this thesis with city performance data, measuring metrics, and continuity over a period of time. To narrow down the city regions, only four goals were originally focused on- those deemed to be most relevant to natural building. Described below are these goals, and their targets as outlined in the plan (cited from Nixon’s SDSN report on San Jose):

● Goal 7: Affordable and Clean Energy: ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all.

○ By 2030, ensure universal access to affordable, reliable, and modern energy services

Rice 5

○ Increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix by 2030

○ Double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency by 2030 ● Goal 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure: Build resilient infrastructure, promote

inclusive and sustainable industrialization and promote innovation. ○ By 2030, upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable,

with increased resource use efficiency and greater adoption of clean and environmentally sound technologies and industrial processes, all countries taking action in accordance with their respective capabilities

● Goal 11: Sustainable Cities: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.

○ By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe, and affordable housing and basic services, and upgrade slums.

○ By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations, women, children, persons with disabilities and older persons.

○ By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacities for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries

○ By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying attention to air quality, municipal and other waste management

○ By 2020, increase by x% the number of cities and human settlements adopting and implementing integrated policies and plans towards inclusion, resource efficiency, mitigation, and adaptation to climate change.

● Goal 12: Responsible Consumption and Production: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.

○ By 2030, achieve sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources ○ By 2020, achieve environmentally sound management of chemicals and all

wastes throughout their life cycle in accordance with agreed international frameworks and significantly reduce their release to air, water, and soil to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment

○ By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling, and reuse.

○ Encourage companies, especially large and trans-national companies, to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle.

○ By 2030, ensure that people everywhere have the relevant information and awareness for sustainable development and lifestyles in harmony and nature.

Narrowing the search down to these 4 rankings meant that it was now down to 40 or so MSAs. From here, the parameters for each goal were examined. Two were thrown out because they used different ones from year to year, so that left goals 7 and 12. From here, the cities that were chosen were only those that increased their standing in the ranking from 2017 to 2018, or appeared new on the rankings in 2018. This left 15 cities. The 16th city (Madison, WI) was included from the rankings for goal 11 because it maintained its number 1 position both years, even though the parameters completed changed from year to year. It was the only city that was the same from 2017 to 2018 in this goal’s rankings. They had to be doing something right.

Rice 6

Once the 16 cities were selected, a variety of resources were utilized to gather information on each of them. Organizations like the Global Covenant of Mayors, and the Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance are groups whose members are mayors who have made plans and goals related to carbon neutrality and other aspects of sustainability. They track member cities’ progress towards these goals and they aggregate their climate plans on their website. Only two city regions, Seattle and Washington DC are members of the Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance. They have some of the most drastic carbon neutral goals in the nation. In addition, the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate Energy had five members in the group of city regions chosen for this thesis. Arlington, Washington DC, San Jose, Seattle, and Chicago. Membership in this organization means these cities have established a specific climate action plan. Additional information was located on the websites of the municipalities themselves within the MSA. Information was aggregated on specific green or natural building codes, any materials recycling programs they have, if they have expedited permitting for green projects, and to find the city’s comprehensive plan to see if they address sustainability at all. On top of this, demographic data was collected from the US Census Bureau’s database American Community Survey. With this tool, data on median income, age, housing stock, population, and permits granted was collected for analysis. In addition, the Housing Opportunity Index (HOI) created by NAHB and Wells Fargo was utilized to assess housing affordability in each region. All of this information was conglomerated onto a fact sheet for each city (see Appendix) for easy comparison. For this report, only two of the 16 cities will be covered in detail. San Jose, California and Scranton, Pennsylvania were chosen because of their difference in geography and climate, population size, level of urbanization, average incomes, and housing values. San Jose- Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA

The San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara metropolitan statistical area ranked the highest of the 100 most populous MSAs in America for both 2017 and 2018. Be this as it may, it’s score was 61.04 in 2017 and 68.57 in 2018 (Prakash 5)(Espey 23). This indicates that the region is only addressing 69% of the Sustainable Development Goals, yet it’s the highest of the United States. There is a lot of room for improvement.It should also be noted that the Bakersfield, CA MSA ranked 98 of 100 cities in the 2018 index (Espey 14). This indicates that the successes of the San Jose, Oxnard, and Fresno MSAs are not due to California’s state policies, but to local implementation. This is also an opportunity for intrastate networking between professionals in these MSAs- Bakersfield is only a few miles from three hubs of sustainable innovation. One predictor of success for the natural building movement has to do with the mindset of the city government. Are they amenable to natural building materials and methods? How progressive are they? How fast do they respond to consumer and industry trends? All of these questions are crucial to answer, considering that the city is an important collaborator when it comes to building construction. Their answers lie in documents produced by the government. In San Jose, relevant city documents include the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan, Climate Smart San Jose (formerly Green Vision), and the California Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategy Plan. All of these documents reference natural building principles in some fashion or

Rice 7

another, and will be useful to reference for natural builders pushing through red tape and other barriers on the bureaucratic level. San Jose’s current building code is the 2016 Building Energy Standards, which exceeds the stringency of the 2015 IECC. In addition, all buildings are subject to the 2013 California Green Buildings Standards Code (“Residential and Commercial Code Status”). The San Jose General Plan, also called Envision San Jose 2040, is a 500 page document outlining what the government and the community sees for its growing city. It was originally ratified in 2011, and amended in February 2018 with the Climate Smart San Jose addition. It explains San Jose’s definition of smart growth and development and has goals directly in line with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Of particular interest to natural building, the strategies in the plan relating to USD goals 7, 9, 11, and 12 are included on the following fact sheet. Generally speaking, it references the need for passive solar design and more innovations in building envelope design in order to meet the city’s energy efficiency goals. The plan recognizes that traditional construction methods produce carbon emissions and are responsible for the majority of the waste in landfills. The city’s desire to adopt progressive green building policies is expressed in the plan, including but not limited to discontinuing the use of non-renewable products (Nixon 38). This plan, and the later Climate Smart San Jose amendment, was significantly influenced by California’s Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan. Created by the California Public Utilities Commission in 2007, and later updated in 2011, this particular plan outlines California-specific goals for the conservation of energy. Two of its four goals are in particular reference to the natural building movement- the two that describe a wish for all new residential and commercial construction to be “zero net energy” by 2020 and 2030 respectively (Grueneich 6). In addition, the strategies that are outlined to achieve such goals lend themselves to natural building solutions. It encourages innovation in building envelope technology, materials, construction methods, building design, and the quick incorporation of such innovations into codes and standards. It also reflects the state’s desire to “adopt aggressive and progressive minimum energy codes and standards” (Grueneich 12). This plan also stresses the importance of passive solar design, high insulation values, and attention to climate- all things addressed by natural building. The Climate Smart San Jose amendment to the city plan in 2018 echoes these calls for zero net energy buildings by emphasizing their ability to manage heat and reduce energy loads in homes (Romanov 94). As the jewel of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, San Jose was chosen as one of the cities for the Sustainable Cities Initiative. As such, the city’s general plan was examined for adherence to the SDGs. It found that “extensive sets of goals, policy objectives, and measurable targets” were found in the plan in particular reference to Goal 7 for Affordable and Clean Energy and Goal 11 for Sustainable Cities. In reference to Goal 9 for Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure, the SCI report found a strong emphasis on innovation in the General Plan,

Rice 8

Goal 12 for Responsible Production and Consumption has several goals, but only a few targets. (Nixon 10). In addition, San Jose is a Global Covenant of Mayors Member. This is an “international alliance of cities and local governments with a shared long-term vision of promoting and supporting voluntary action to combat climate change and move to a low-emission, resilient society” (“History-Compact of Mayors” n.pag). Mayors join by taking the organization’s pledge to make a plan, get goals, and keep track of such goals. Only four other cities of those studied in this assessment are members- Arlington, DC, Seattle, and Chicago. The city’s perspective is important, but not of the utmost importance. The opinions that matter the most are those of the community. Consumers and constituents drive market trends, and are in control of who they put in office. A zealous and eager government can’t achieve what it may want without the voluntary actions of citizens. This is why it’s important to examine their incomes, the kinds of housing they occupy and demand, and the kinds of houses they are building and inhabiting. According to 2017 census data, 95.74% of San Jose’s housing units are occupied (US Census Bureau n.pag). This has actually decreased from 2016 when it was 96.1%, which was still a decrease from 2015 when it was 96.15%. This occurs when the housing stock increases more than occupancy does. Decreasing occupancy is good for renters when it means more housing stock because the pressure on rent is downward. However, the occupancy rate is still high, a trend that is consistent with decreasing housing affordability. In Q1 of 2016 San Jose’s HOI was 21.5 and in Q4 of 2018 it was 12.7 (Housing Opportunity Index n.pag). For 1-unit structures in both 2015 and 2016, occupancy was as high as 97.17%. Between those two years, there were only 31 more 1-unit structures built than there were newly occupied- meaning occupancy was dangerously close to increasing that year. Multifamily structures of 50+ units are also decreasing in occupancy due to a greater increase in newly built units than newly occupied units. Luckily this ratio is getting larger, albeit very slowly. In 2016, around 300 new and vacant units were added to the housing market, whereas around 500 were added in 2017. Just around 64% of the housing stock in the city is single family homes/structures (US Census Bureau n.pag). Real Personal Income increased 5.6% from 2015 to 2016 for the region, indicating that people are experiencing actual increases in income, not as a result of inflation (“Real Personal Income”). Projects: Cottle ZEH: This zero net energy home is the first of its kind in the entire state of California. Built by One Sky Homes, this 5 bedroom, 3.5 bath, two story home illustrates that the sustainable and carbon-neutral vision of the City of San Jose and the natural building movement is indeed possible. Its construction was verified by several notable green building certifying organizations-

Rice 9

Passive House Institute of the United States, Department of Energy’s Zero Ready Home, and LEED Homes (it achieved a Platinum rating).

The developer of this home paid careful attention to materials and methods during its construction. The home was given numerous layers of insulation. Its foundation was constructed with Insulated Concrete Form (ICF) blocks with an R-value of 22 (Department of Energy 2). One layer in the walls is 3-inch thick, 2 lb rigid expanded polystyrene foam (EPS) with an R-value of 14 (2). Over the exterior plywood, 1-inch EPS foam board is utilized

for extra insulation (2). The attic has blown-in cellulose insulation with an R-value of 51 (2). The windows and doors of the house are triple-pane with an R-value of 5 (2). The roof has 3 mounted solar thermal panels that deliver hot water to a storage tank without the use of natural gas (4). In addition, the house features a grey water recycling system filled by the showers and sinks that irrigates the yard- meeting about 80% of the yard’s irrigation needs (4). Last but not least, all the appliances used in the home are Energy Star rated, and vacancy sensors are used for lights in all rooms (4). The developer utilized methods for night cooling ventilation- reducing cooling costs by 98% (2). In addition, the “ladder blocking” technique was utilized at wall intersections to minimize lumber usage and maximize the use of R-value 23 dense packed cellulose (2). Raised heel trusses were used in the attic to maximize use of blown in cellulose (2). Natural ventilation methods were implemented in the attic with continuous eave and ridge vents (2). This allows for attic temperatures to regulate themselves to a certain degree, never getting 20 degrees above exterior temperatures (2). This allows for less strain on the cooling systems inside the house. Passive house principles were applied by considering solar heat gain; windows were positioned for maximum heat gain in winter, but minimal afternoon sun heat gain in summer (3). A central split system heat pump was used for heating and cooling, while a Heat Recovery Ventilator (HRV) brings in fresh air while ridding the house of stale air (3). Lastly, a 6.4 kW PV system meets 113% of domestic energy demand, the remainder of which is used to charge the owner’s electric car (4). Villa Sobrante: Massey Burke, a natural builder of El Sobrante, California, built this small guest house with straw-clay walls, clay & lime plasters, and earthen floors. She set a permit precedent in Contra Costa country for use of straw clay as a remodel material (Burke n.pag). Projects like

Rice 10

these within city limits are the most important to the natural building movement because they pave the way for broader acceptance.

Scranton-Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton, PA The Scranton-Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton, Pennsylvania MSA ranked 10th in the nation for Responsible Production and Consumption (SDG Goal 12) in the 2018 SDG Index. It wasn’t ranked in 2017, indicating that key players in the region have taken actions that have improved output where this is concerned. Despite being ranked highly in this category, this MSA is not ranked in any of the other goals in either year, and only produced a net score of 48.9 on the index in 2018 (Espey 13). None of the three cities that encompass this MSA have any green building or sustainability programs mentioned on their websites. However, both Scranton and Wilkes-Barre have an extensive recycling program, advertised in both english and spanish on their websites. In the late 1980s, Pennsylvania passed a law that focused on reducing municipal waste (Lynch n.pag). This required cities to recycle certain kinds of materials and track just how much was being recycled. Both Scranton and Wilkes-Barre have their own city ordinances that mandate the recycling of cardboard, office paper, aluminum cans, and leaf waste. Beyond this, Scranton has its own Recycling Office, in charge of providing technical assistance on establishing new recycling programs, waste reduction techniques, and municipal reports and grants (City of Scranton). In addition, they will conduct trainings and presentations on recycling at home, work, or school as well as composting & environmental shopping (City of Scranton). These measures are undoubtedly contributing factors to the region’s score of 99.68 on Responsible Production and Consumption (SDG Goal 12). Despite these cities’ lack of green building programs or sustainability initiatives, their emphasis on recycling could still be an opportunity for the natural building movement. Combined with the fact that this region often deals with issues of stormwater management, implementation of natural building practices like green roofs, rainwater harvesting, and recyclable construction materials are logical solutions to their common development concerns. The institutions that are addressing green building in the region are the universities. Hosted at Wilkes University, a partnership called The Institute for Public Policy & Economic Development was developed between ten colleges and universities specifically inside the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton MSA. In 2016, they released an informational pamphlet on green building practices and their importance to resource efficiency. It sets an important precedent that an organization studying policy and the economy finds green building important. Their work provides support to the green building movement in the region by providing them with legitimacy in fields other than design.

Rice 11

The report recommends the use of green strategies like alternative energy, geothermal systems, green roofs, cool roofs, energy efficient windows, permeable pavement, stormwater planters, rain barrels, and rain gardens (Green Building 6). It also makes reference to the fact that common building materials can be made from recycled materials or other environmentally-friendly products (Green Building 7). Projects: Scranton Passive House: This single family home is located in the heart of a Scranton neighborhood. It was certified by the Passive House Institute of America and utilizes many natural building materials and methods. The house defies the neighborhood’s prescribed house orientation, and its south side is oriented 5 degrees from solar south (Pedranti n.pag) Materials:

Throughout the process of researching these 16 MSAs, the details of each project was noted to see which materials were being used to code successfully in each region.

Rice 12

One of the staple principles of natural building is careful consideration of carbon, and the prevention of its off-gassing into the atmosphere. Many plant-based and recycled materials actually absorb carbon from the atmosphere- a property that makes them very appealing to natural builders, and as people start demanding it from their buildings, it will become desired by the conventional building industry as well. The following three materials have been used to code in the studied regions, and offer promising alternatives to conventional methods. Their increased success presents opportunities for the natural building movement to get its foot in the door and gain broader popularity and legitimacy. Hempcrete: This material is an insulation system made from the woody core of the hemp plant that is otherwise considered a waste/byproduct (“Hempcrete” n.pag.). It is prepared on the building site using a mixture of hemp hurd and lime, and is implemented in brick form. Its features include fire resistance, water resistance, vermon resistance, temperature and humidity regulation, and mold resistance (n.pag). This non-structural material has an r-value of around 2.1 per square inch. One incredible property of working with hemp is its carbon negativity- it reabsorbs carbon from the atmosphere. Straw Bale: This building method involves stacking straw bales, reinforcing them with wood, and sealing the walls with a plaster coating. Straw is what’s left of the grain stalk without the head of grain. The material has amazing carbon sequestration potential- as much to 60 times more than is used to grow it (“STRAWBALE” n.pag.). The average thickness of the walls is between 18 inches and 27 inches. Depending on how the bales are stacked, this range of thicknesses can achieve an r-value of 30. In 2015, the ICC released an appendix on straw bale construction. This action is a huge step for the natural building movement because it adds legitimacy to straw bale construction within the traditional construction industry. Cellulose: This product is another insulation material. It’s made of recycled paper products and comes in loose-fill, blown-in, and batt forms. It has a greater density than traditional insulation, it’s non-toxic, it’s an approved sound-proofing material, it’s pest resistant, energy-star rated, non-corrosive, has high r-values, and can be treated with boron to make it fire-retardant. Conclusion: These MSA regions in the United States are paving the way for broader acceptance of natural building methodology. However, it’s important to realize that just because the opportunity is there, the sustainability picture in the United States is still not a rosy one. Successes should absolutely be celebrated, but not used as excuses for slowing down. The top performers in the SDG indexes are only ⅔ of the way, at most, towards achieving the SDGs (Prakash 2). In addition, US MSAs’ at-large score the worst of all the SDGs in the area of climate change- the highest score for that SDG was 39.27 in 2017. The region with the greatest need for

Rice 13

improvement is that of the Rust Belt; they have the worst carbon emissions due to high levels of vehicle ownership, and increased energy usage at home due to extreme cold temps (2). Additionally, there are certain states that have a particular opportunity to seize. These are the states that contain both high ranking MSAs AND low ranking MSAs. States can learn from successful MSAs in order to craft state level policies that positively affect all of its’ MSAs. In the context of regions studied in this thesis, these states are Oklahoma and California. Tulsa, OK was ranked 91 out of 100 and Bakersfield, CA was ranked 98 out of 100 in 2018 (Espey 14). There are many resources out there for a city that wants to increase their sustainability efforts, learning from other cities is valuable, but there are also organizations that help craft original policies that would apply directly to the desired city. One such organization is called the Building Codes Assistance Project (BCAP), who help jurisdictions with energy codes that range from non-existent to extremely prolific. On top of government activity in green building and natural building, market activity is also important for predicting trends and opportunities for building methods. The Green Building Market Survey, sponsored by the National Association of House Builders analyzes these trends by surveying house builders across the nation. When asked about what factors they see driving future green building, builders overwhelmingly say that financial incentives from the government will be the most important (“Green Market Survey…” 35), next to the greater affordability and availability of green products (13). Also encouraging, is the recognition of passive solar design in the construction world- even builders who display a low commitment to building green think passive solar is a design trend worth implementing (22). Builders are also committed to using renewable building materials in their projects- about 88% of them indicate that they implement the practice regularly (26). This also goes for the reduction of construction waste on site- nearly all builders report that reducing waste is an active priority. The survey states that this indicates widespread industry acceptance of this practice (27). Zero waste is an essential principle of natural building and its popularity in the industry indicates that it might be easier to implement other elements of natural building. The survey also finds that the construction of net zero homes is rising, and will continue to rise (33). Builders find that this kind of expertise gives their business a competitive advantage. The survey states, “these findings demonstrate that net zero homes are neither a fad nor an aspirational goal, but a very real and growing segment of the single family residential marketplace” (33). These trends show great promise for natural building methods in the market at-large. Marketers find that the terms “long-term utility cost savings” and “operating efficiency” and “healthier homes” are the most effective terms when advertising the benefits of green homes (35). This thesis reflects the importance of bottom-up change. Government regulations might help make certain solutions more affordable, but this won’t help if the market doesn’t first demand it. This is why it’s up to green builders and product developers to innovate solutions that accentuate the modern way of life.

Rice 14

Works Cited Prakash, Mihir, et al. The U.S. Cities Sustainable Development Goals Index 2017. Sustainable Development Solutions Network, 2017, The U.S. Cities Sustainable Development Goals Index 2017, unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/US-Cities-SDG-Index-2017.pdf. Espey, Jessica, et al. The U.S. Cities Sustainable Development Goals Index 2018. Sustainable Development Solutions Network, 2018, The U.S. Cities Sustainable Development Goals Index 2018, unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/US-Cities-Index-Report.pdf. US Census Bureau; “American FactFinder”; generated by Kelly Rice; using American FactFinder; <https://factfinder.census.gov>; (2 Feb 2019). Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan. City of San Jose, 2011, Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan, www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/474. Romanov, Kerrie, et al. Climate Smart San Jose. City of San Jose, 2018, Climate Smart San Jose, www.sanjoseculture.org/DocumentCenter/View/75035. Grueneich, Dian M, et al. California Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan. California Public Utilities Commission, 2011, California Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, www.cpuc.ca.gov/General.aspx?id=4125. Nixon, Hilary. Implementing the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals at the Local Level. 2016, Implementing the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals at the Local Level, www.sjsu.edu/sustainable-cities/docs/sci-reports-sanjose-final.pdf. “History - Compact of Mayors.” Global Covenant of Mayors, Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, www.globalcovenantofmayors.org/about/. Housing Opportunity Index. NAHB/Wells Fargo, Housing Opportunity Index, www.nahb.org/research/housing-economics/housing-indexes/housing-opportunity-index.aspx. + “Real Personal Income for States and Metropolitan Areas.” Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2016, www.bea.gov/data/income-saving/real-personal-income-states-and-metropolitan-areas. “Cottle ZEH.” Passive House Institute - United States, 2012, www.phius.org/projects/1070?sort=%60Projects%60.%60StateId%60%2BASC. Department of Energy. DOE Zero Energy Ready Homes. DOE Zero Energy Ready Home, Department of Energy, 2012.

https://factfinder.census.gov/

http://www.bea.gov/data/income-saving/real-personal-income-states-and-metropolitan-areas

Rice 15

Burke, Massey. “EARTHEN REMODEL, EL SOBRANTE.” Massey Burke, 2014, masseyburke.carbonmade.com/projects/2531027#1. “Residential and Commercial Code Status.” The Building Codes Assistance Project, Building Codes Assistance Project, bcapcodes.org/code-status/state/. Lynch, Thomas. “Department of Parks and Recreation.” Received by All Scranton Commercial Businesses and Institutions , Weston Field, Jan. 2019, Scranton, Pennsylvania. City of Scranton, Pennsylvania - Official Website, CIty of Scranton, www.scrantonpa.gov/index.html. Green Building. Wilkes University, 2016, Green Building, www.institutepa.org/perch/resources/greenbuilding.pdf. Pedranti, Richard. Scranton Passive House. Zero Energy Project, 2015, Scranton Passive House, zeroenergyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/RPA_Scranton_Passive_House.pdf. “Pine Street Neighborhood: A New 'Green' Neighborhood Hazleton, Pennsylvania.” Design Coalition, www.designcoalition.org/projects/PineStreet/pinestreet.htm. “Residential and Commercial Code Status.” The Building Codes Assistance Project, Building Codes Assistance Project, bcapcodes.org/code-status/state/. “Tax Credits, Rebates & Savings.” Energy.Gov, US Department of Energy, www.energy.gov/savings/search?f%5B0%5D=im_field_rebate_state%3A860196&f%5B1%5D=im_field_rebate_eligibility_shor%3A435541. Greenfield, Kamaria. “Five Reasons Solar PV Is the Future of Clean Energy in Albuquerque.” The Building Codes Assistance Project, Building Codes Assistance Project, 17 Oct. 2017, bcapcodes.org/five-reasons-solar-pv-abq/. “Current Building Codes.” City of Albuquerque, www.cabq.gov/planning/building-safety-permits/current-building-codes. “Tax Credits, Rebates & Savings.” Energy.Gov, US Department of Energy, www.energy.gov/savings/search?f%5B0%5D=im_field_rebate_state%3A860196&f%5B1%5D=im_field_rebate_eligibility_shor%3A435541. Vadnais, Juliana. “New Mexico Leads the Way in Green Building Tax Credits, Says Expert.” Albuquerque Business First, American City Business Journals, 31 July 2017,

http://www.energy.gov/savings/search?f%5B0%5D=im_field_rebate_state%3A860196&f%5B1%5D=im_field_rebate_eligibility_shor%3A435541


Rice 16

www.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/news/2017/07/28/new-mexico-leads-the-way-in-green-building-tax.html. “ABC Comprehensive Plan.” City of Albuquerque, City of Albuquerque, https://www.documents.cabq.gov/planning/UDD/CompPlan2017/CompPlan-Chapter13.pdf. “Residential and Commercial Code Status.” The Building Codes Assistance Project, Building Codes Assistance Project, bcapcodes.org/code-status/state/. “Completely Off-Grid-Home - Cerrillos, NM Archives.” Earthen Touch Natural Builders, earthentouchbuilders.com/gallery-category/completely-off-grid-home-cerrillos-nm/. Poling, Charles C. “A Sustainable Rammed Earth Home in New Mexico.” Dwell, Dwell Life, Inc, 16 June 2013, www.dwell.com/article/a-sustainable-rammed-earth-home-in-new-mexico-75928146. “Sustainability and Climate Action Overview.” City of Thousand Oaks, July 2016. “Visioning 2064 Final Report.” City of Thousand Oaks, Feb. 2015. “Oxnard General Plan.” City of Oxnard, Sept. 2011. “Residential and Commercial Code Status.” The Building Codes Assistance Project, Building Codes Assistance Project, bcapcodes.org/code-status/state/. Projects: Birk, Nicholas, and Andrew Pattison. “The Importance of Sustainable Affordable Housing.” Journal of Housing and Community Development, 2016. California Tire-Derived Product Catalog. California Tire-Derived Product Catalog, CalRecy “Chicago.” Global Covenant of Mayors, Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, www.globalcovenantofmayors.org/about/. “Green Buildings and Homes.” City of Chicago, City of Chicago, www.chicago.gov/city/en/progs/env/green_buildings_andhomes.html. “Sustainable Chicago 2015.” City of Chicago, 2015. “Tax Credits, Rebates & Savings.” Energy.Gov, US Department of Energy, www.energy.gov/savings/search?f%5B0%5D=im_field_rebate_state%3A860196&f%5B1%5D=im_field_rebate_eligibility_shor%3A435541.

http://www.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/news/2017/07/28/new-mexico-leads-the-way-in-green-building-tax.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/news/2017/07/28/new-mexico-leads-the-way-in-green-building-tax.html

https://www.documents.cabq.gov/planning/UDD/CompPlan2017/CompPlan-Chapter13.pdf



Rice 17

“Residential and Commercial Code Status.” The Building Codes Assistance Project, Building Codes Assistance Project, bcapcodes.org/code-status/state/. Sharoff, Robert. “Not Easy Being Green.” Crain's Chicago Business, Crain Communications, Inc, 23 June 2012, www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20120623/ISSUE03/306239985/jahn-designed-schiff-residences-set-sustainability-bar-high-fell-a-little-short. Lifson, Edward. “All Aboard.” Dwell, Dwell Life, Inc, 6 Feb. 2019, www.dwell.com/article/all-aboard-f35d746a. “Tierra Linda Brings Affordable Passive Housing to Chicago.” PHIUS, Passive House Institute US, 28 June 2018, blog.phius.org/tierra-linda-brings-affordable-passive-housing-to-chicago/. Picture: https://lucha.org/tierra-linda/ “Green Building and Sustainable Development Ordinance.” Green Building and Sustainable Development Ordinance for King County, WA - King County, City of Chicago, 2013, kingcounty.gov/depts/dnrp/solid-waste/programs/green-building/county-green-building/green-building-ordinance.aspx. “Green Building.” Green Building - SDCI, City of Seattle, www.seattle.gov/sdci/permits/green-building. “Seattle Climate Action Plan 2013.” City of Seattle, 2013. “Seattle.” CNCA, Urban Sustainability Directors Network, cnca.wpengine.com/?page_id=176. Morollo, Michele Koh. “NODE Prefab Homes Aim at a Carbon Negative Future.” Dwell, Dwell Life, Inc, 8 Mar. 2019, www.dwell.com/article/node-prefab-homes-9dfa78a9. “Madrona Passive House.” International Living Future Institute, International Living Future Insititute, 8 May 2018, living-future.org/lbc/case-studies/madrona-passive-house/. “Environmental Action Plan 2-3-.” City of Alexandria, 2009. “Green Building Report 2014-2016.” Dc.gov, 2016. ppt. “Green Building Report 2014-2016.” Dc.gov, 2016. ppt.

http://www.dwell.com/article/all-aboard-f35d746a

https://lucha.org/tierra-linda/

Rice 18

“Empowerhouse Is the Result of a Community-Based Approach to Building Affordable, Site Net-Zero Housing That Addresses All Aspects of Domestic Life.” Empowerhouse: Design, Parsons School of Design, 2011, parsit.parsons.edu/our-house/. “Chapter 5: Action Plan.” City of Boise, 2011. “Ashtree Passive House.” Ashtree Passive House : Passive House Institute - United States, Passive House Institute, 2017, www.phius.org/phius-certification-for-buildings-products/case-studies/ashtree-passive-house. Moeller, Katy. “Developer of Shipping Container Subdivision in Garden City Aims to Be 'Housing Innovator'.” Idahostatesman, Idaho Statesman, 15 Feb. 2016, www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/community/boise/article60423841.html. Prentice, George. “She's a Straw House: Rare Strawbale Home Being Built in East Boise.” Boise Weekly, Boise Weekly, 28 Feb. 2019, www.boiseweekly.com/boise/shes-a-straw-house-rare-strawbale-home-being-built-in-east-boise/Content?oid=3765352. “The Columbia Compass.” The Columbia Compass, City of Columbia, 2018, www.columbiacompass.org/. “Center for Health and Well-Being.” US Green Building Council, US Green Building Council, www.usgbc.org/projects/center-health-and-wellbeing. “Plan-It Greenville.” City of Greenville, 2009. “GreenExhibits.org.” Green Buildings Case Studies: The Children's Museum of the Upstate, Madison Children's Museum, www.greenexhibits.org/dream/buildings_cmu_case_study.php. “DOE Zero Energy Ready Home Case Study.” Depertment of Energy, 2016. “DOE Zero Energy Ready Home Case Study.” Depertment of Energy, 2016. “Root Down Design Firm Introduces Their Services and Clients.” Root Down Designs, Root Down Designs, LLC, 17 Jan. 2019, rootdowndesigns.com/about-us/. “City of Fresno's Strategy for Achieving Sustainability.” City of Fresno, City of Fresno, 2007, toolkit.valleyblueprint.org/sites/default/files/fresnogreenpacketfinal50608_0.pdf. “The Homes.” Fresno Cohousing Site Plans for Fresno's Greenest Neighborhood, www.fresnocohousing.org/project.html.

Rice 19

“2016 SMUD Tiny House Competition.” Fresno State , Fresno State University, 2016, www.fresnostate.edu/engineering/specialprojects/tinyhouse.html. -“INSULATION.” Carbon Smart Materials Palette, Architecture 2030, materialspalette.org/insulation/. “GEOFOAM - Expanded Polystyrene Soil Substitute.” Insulation Corporation of America, Insulation Corporation of America, insulationcorp.com/geofoam/. “Icynene Foam vs Polyurethane Foam • Dura Foam Roofing.” Dura Foam Roofing, Dura-Foam Roofing & Solar Center, Inc, dura-foam.com/resources/foam-roofing/icynene-foam-vs-polyurethane-foam/. “HEMPCRETE.” Carbon Smart Materials Palette, Architecture 2030, materialspalette.org/insulation/hempcrete. “STRAW BALE.” Carbon Smart Materials Palette, Architecture 2030, materialspalette.org/insulation/straw-bale. Ruppert, Jeff. “A South Carolina Architect's Journey to Natural Building & Rammed Earth.” The Last Straw Journal, The Last Straw Journal, 22 May 2015, thelaststraw.org/a-south-carolina-architects-journey-to-natural-building-rammed-earth/. “Green Roofs.” Insulation Corporation of America, Insulation Corporation of America, insulationcorp.com/green-roofs/. Barrows, John A., and Lisa Iannucci. The Complete Idiot's Guide to Green Building and Remodeling. Alpha, 2009. Pedranti, Richard. Scranton Passive House. Zero Energy Project, 2015, Scranton Passive House, zeroenergyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/RPA_Scranton_Passive_House.pdf. Klenck, Thomas. “How It Works: Heat Recovery Ventilator.” Popular Mechanics, Hearst Magazine Media Inc., 14 Nov. 2017, www.popularmechanics.com/home/interior-projects/how-to/a149/1275121/. “Night Cooling.” Building Product Design, BPD Group, www.passivent.com/night-cooling. Solar: -PV: photovoltaic cell Converts solar energy into electricity (Barrows 264).

Rice 20

Cellulose: “Insulation Archives.” Zero Energy Project, Zero Energy Project, zeroenergyproject.org/zero-energy-home-products/insulation/.

The Green 16A targeted assessment of natural building

opportunity in 16 US cities

Undergraduate Thesisby Kelly Rice

contents MSA Profiles

The Green 16

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria

DC-VA

PeoplePopulation:

6,216,589Median Age:

33.9 yearsMedian Income:

$77,649

277,985

115,795

Housing

Units

Owner-Occupied

162,190Renter-Occupied

Median Value

Occupied Units

308,161

$537,400

47% of homes are affordable for median income

Q1-16 Q1-17 Q1-18 Q4-18

HOI

National Rank

Regional Rank

Housing Opportunity Index

72.3 69.2 70.6 66.3

139 128 121 121

50 41 38 39

5 to 9

1

Number of Units

Number of Structures

114,086

3 or 4

9,726

22,726

20,881

2

10 to 19 32,236

RV, Van, Boat

20 to 49 24,403

Mobile

84,574

126

48

50+

2016

2017

2018

Total - 256871 -------133842 -------803 & 4---16

5+ -------12207

Permits Granted/ Units per Structure

Total - 272651 -------142252 -------1143 & 4---16

5+ -------12910

Total - 254291 -------133222 -------1023 & 4---38

5+ -------11967

Trenton

NJ

PeoplePopulation:

374,733Median Age:


$77,027

129,546

83,188

Housing

Units

Owner-Occupied


Median Value

Occupied Units

144,385

$281,900


Q1-16 Q1-17 Q1-18 Q4-18

HOI

National Rank

Regional Rank


77.3 77.7 81 78

112 88 69 59

30 25 22 18

5 to 9

1

Number of Units


103,091

3 or 4

6,565

5,625

5,927

2

10 to 19 10,947

RV, Van, Boat

20 to 49 4,059

Mobile

7,770

378

23

50+

2016

2017

2018

Total - 7111 -------1752 -------323 & 4---53

5+ -------451


Total - 6051 -------1522 -------23 & 4---174

5+ -------277

Total - 5151 -------1762 -------123 & 4---54

5+ -------273

Scranton-Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton

PA

PeoplePopulation:

555,426Median Age:


$49,239

224,955

152,485

Housing

Units

Owner-Occupied


Median Value

Occupied Units

262,144

$136,300


Q1-16 Q1-17 Q1-18 Q4-18

HOI

National Rank

Regional Rank


89.7 91.2 89.2 88.4

21 9 19 13

4 4 4 3

5 to 9

1

Number of Units


196,581

3 or 4

19,795

16,778

7,602

2

10 to 19 3,275

RV, Van, Boat

20 to 49 3,083

Mobile

6,532

8,430

68

50+

2016

2017

2018

Total - 10181 -------8462 -------43 & 4---16

5+ -------152


Total - 5801 -------4252 -------103 & 4---27

5+ -------118

Total - 961 -------802 -------03 & 4---16

5+ -------0

San Jose- Sunnyvale- Santa Clara

CA

PeoplePopulation:



$105,809

647,891

369,967

Housing

Units

Owner-Occupied


Median Value

Occupied Units

676,737

$815,000


Q1-16 Q1-17 Q1-18 Q4-18

HOI

National Rank

Regional Rank


21.5 21.3 11.6 12.7

230 219 230 232

66 4 65 67

5 to 9

1

Number of Units


433,002

3 or 4

11,186

37,250

33,254

2

10 to 19 37,339

RV, Van, Boat

20 to 49 34,696

Mobile

69,371

20,049

590

50+

2016

2017

2018

Total - 61671 -------20992 -------143 & 4---110

5+ -------3944


Total - 85391 -------25922 -------143 & 4---68

5+ -------5865

Total - 83621 -------24422 -------243 & 4---24

5+ -------5872

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellvue

WA

PeoplePopulation:



$77,269

1,448,393

869,598

Housing

Units

Owner-Occupied


Median Value

Occupied Units

1,544,134

$365,000


Q1-16 Q1-17 Q1-18 Q4-18

HOI

National Rank

Regional Rank


50.3 43.3 39.6 36.8

209 197 212 206

48 45 49 43

5 to 9

1

Number of Units


988,220

3 or 4

33,135

61,222

87,286

2

10 to 19 105,760

RV, Van, Boat

20 to 49 92,698

Mobile

131,457

53,416

1,940

50+

2016

2017

2018

Total - 25,4891 -------9,4252 -------4783 & 4---501

5+ -------15,085


Total - 27,3341 -------99972 -------4703 & 4---628

5+ -------16,239

Total - 27,9501 -------90342 -------6263 & 4---840

5+ -------17,450

Oklahoma City

OK

PeoplePopulation:



$54,946

505,879

323,575

Housing

Units

Owner-Occupied


Median Value

Occupied Units

563,445

$146,800


Q1-16 Q1-17 Q1-18 Q4-18

HOI

National Rank

Regional Rank


81.3 83.1 82.4 80.4

81 57 61 48

22 11 14 8

5 to 9

1

Number of Units


419,811

3 or 4

11,454

17,816

30,920

2

10 to 19 24,724

RV, Van, Boat

20 to 49 11,279

Mobile

15,740

31,193

508

50+

2016

2017

2018

Total - 6,4701 -------50392 -------1583 & 4---50

5+ -------1493


Total - 54191 -------51322 -------2143 & 4---19

5+ -------54

Total - 57601 -------54562 -------2303 & 4---43

5+ -------31

Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura

CA

PeoplePopulation:

854,223Median Age:


$81,972

270,046

170,678

Housing

Units

Owner-Occupied


Median Value

Occupied Units

285,997

$520,300


Q1-16 Q1-17 Q1-18 Q4-18

HOI

National Rank

Regional Rank


31.9 23.2 24.8 18.4

225 216 226 225

61 61 61 60

7,523

10,159

10,746

2295 to 9

1

Number of Units


214,030

3 or 4

3,711

12,989

14,026

2

10 to 19 12,584

RV, Van, Boat

20 to 49

Mobile

50+

2016

2017

2018

Total - 16091 -------6692 -------163 & 4---70

5+ -------854


Total - 25651 -------10702 -------03 & 4---120

5+ -------1375

Total - 8161 -------3912 -------263 & 4---12

5+ -------387

Manchester-Nashua

NH

PeoplePopulation:

417,105Median Age:


$77,380

162,165

100,272

Housing

Units

Owner-Occupied


Median Value

Occupied Units

173,566

$279,242


Q1-16 Q1-17 Q1-18 Q4-18

HOI

National Rank

Regional Rank


69.3 74.9 69.4 70.8

149 104 129 98

36 31 37 28

12,676

4,757

3,168

425 to 9

1

Number of Units


107,925

3 or 4

13,201

11,336

8,856

2

10 to 19 7,328

RV, Van, Boat

20 to 49

Mobile

50+

2016

2017

2018

Total - 10971 -------7012 -------383 & 4---0

5+ -------358


Total - 10331 -------7172 -------363 & 4---16

5+ -------264

Total - 7031 -------3912 -------383 & 4---6

5+ -------268

Madison

WI

PeoplePopulation:

654,230Median Age:


$66,609

265,003

161,935

Housing

Units

Owner-Occupied


Median Value

Occupied Units

279,436

$230,200


Q1-16 Q1-17 Q1-18 Q4-18

HOI

National Rank

Regional Rank


78.5 74.9 75.9 67.1

109 104 99 118

36 34 36 40

22,918

16,467

3,897

405 to 9

1

Number of Units


176,281

3 or 4

12,077

15,594

16,436

2

10 to 19 15,726

RV, Van, Boat

20 to 49

Mobile

50+

2016

2017

2018

Total - 49531 -------16132 -------1223 & 4---88

5+ -------3130


Total - 46321 -------16562 -------903 & 4---48

5+ -------2838

Total - 36221 -------16042 -------1003 & 4---76

5+ -------1842

Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin

SC

PeoplePopulation:

895,923Median Age:


$49,371

334,042

226,476

Housing

Units

Owner-Occupied


Median Value

Occupied Units

275,585

$148,700


Q1-16 Q1-17 Q1-18 Q4-18

HOI

National Rank

Regional Rank


82.2 74.6 76.7 71.1

72 107 94 96

20 32 28 29

8,712

6,414

53,630

2715 to 9

1

Number of Units


259,626

3 or 4

8,324

8,839

15,199

2

10 to 19 14,570

RV, Van, Boat

20 to 49

Mobile

50+

2016

2017

2018

Total - 57531 -------42372 -------263 & 4---24

5+ -------1466


Total - 52991 -------44582 -------123 & 4---29

5+ -------800

Total - 64331 -------49652 -------83 & 4---17

5+ -------1443

Fresno

CA

PeoplePopulation:

989,255Median Age:


$48,730

301,824

160,001

Housing

Units

Owner-Occupied


Median Value

Occupied Units

326,213

$220,600


Q1-16 Q1-17 Q1-18 Q4-18

HOI

National Rank

Regional Rank


50.1 41 44.5 35.6

210 202 205 208

49 49 42 45

4,890

9,882

12,325

4475 to 9

1

Number of Units


228,560

3 or 4

9,997

27,541

23,539

2

10 to 19 9,032

RV, Van, Boat

20 to 49

Mobile

50+

2016

2017

2018

Total - 29041 -------25532 -------303 & 4---45

5+ -------1025


Total - 29331 -------17962 -------943 & 4---18

5+ -------800

Total - 29491 -------22252 -------523 & 4---35

5+ -------637

Chicago-Naperville-Elgin

CA

PeoplePopulation:



$67,003

3,151,519

2,010,252

Housing

Units

Owner-Occupied

1,141,267Renter-Occupied

Median Value

Occupied Units

3,453,010

$233,000


Q1-16 Q1-17 Q1-18 Q4-18

HOI

National Rank

Regional Rank


68.6 62.6 66.5 65

151 148 144 126

40 37 41 41

160,314

319,720

27,442

8805 to 9

1

Number of Units


2,001,212

3 or 4

238,637

274,606

272,952

2

10 to 19 157,247

RV, Van, Boat

20 to 49

Mobile

50+

2016

2017

2018

Total - 199411 -------80322 -------1923 & 4---685

5+ -------11032


Total - 221321 -------84162 -------2383 & 4---786

5+ -------12692

Total - 172201 -------84762 -------2703 & 4---631

5+ -------7843

Charleston-N.Charleston

SC

PeoplePopulation:

775,831Median Age:


$57,666

281,245

183,912

Housing

Units

Owner-Occupied


Median Value

Occupied Units

320,413

$207,500


Q1-16 Q1-17 Q1-18 Q4-18

HOI

National Rank

Regional Rank


65.1 65.2 61.8 60

163 142 163 147

60 48 66 53

9,669

6,772

34,604

1635 to 9

1

Number of Units


212,033

3 or 4

7,567

13,402

20,546

2

10 to 19 15,657

RV, Van, Boat

20 to 49

Mobile

50+

2016

2017

2018

Total - 69741 -------47872 -------183 & 4---10

5+ -------2159


Total - 72671 -------47262 -------83 & 4---0

5+ -------2533

Total - 70561 -------47202 -------43 & 4---31

5+ -------2301

ColumbiaSC

PeoplePopulation:

825,033Median Age:


$52,728

305,203

205,117

Housing

Units

Owner-Occupied


Median Value

Occupied Units

347,343

$145,900


Q1-16 Q1-17 Q1-18 Q4-18

HOI

National Rank

Regional Rank


86.8 86.1 82.5 77.5

37 34 60 62

9 5 13 11

8,380

8,297

48,219

3095 to 9

1

Number of Units


235,164

3 or 4

7,852

9,630

16,296

2

10 to 19 13,196

RV, Van, Boat

20 to 49

Mobile

50+

2016

2017

2018

Total - 46271 -------39162 -------03 & 4---0

5+ -------711


Total - 46291 -------40722 -------83 & 4---0

5+ -------549

Total - 49431 -------44792 -------283 & 4---0

5+ -------436

Boise CityID

PeoplePopulation:

709,845Median Age:


$54,120

305,203

205,117

Housing

Units

Owner-Occupied


Median Value

Occupied Units

347,343

$145,900


Q1-16 Q1-17 Q1-18 Q4-18

HOI

National Rank

Regional Rank


65.6 61.8 53.5 46

159 153 189 182

23 22 33 26

4,232

6,724

15,069

3825 to 9

1

Number of Units


209,649

3 or 4

5,139

11,314

5,855

2

10 to 19 4,822

RV, Van, Boat

20 to 49

Mobile

50+

2016

2017

2018

Total - 67581 -------53832 -------223 & 4---308

5+ -------1045


Total - 79091 -------62752 -------263 & 4---297

5+ -------1311

Total - 88871 -------69172 -------643 & 4---269

5+ -------1637

AlbuquerqueNM

PeoplePopulation:

910,726Median Age:


$50,781

345,399

231,638

Housing

Units

Owner-Occupied


Median Value

Occupied Units

385,146

$181,300


Q1-16 Q1-17 Q1-18 Q4-18

HOI

National Rank

Regional Rank


73.8 70.1 73.8 68.1

133 122 109 111

15 13 7 6

9,780

15,026

33,366

3615 to 9

1

Number of Units


276,350

3 or 4

5,265

16,974

13,096

2

10 to 19 14,928

RV, Van, Boat

20 to 49

Mobile

50+

2016

2017

2018

Total - 24651 -------19312 -------63 & 4---28

5+ -------500


Total - 22561 -------19962 -------63 & 4---3

5+ -------251

Total - 23811 -------22222 -------43 & 4---21

5+ -------134

Rice 1 ABSTRACT SIGNIFICANCE/INTRO · 2019-05-13 · Rice 2 Abstract: Half of the global population...

Documents

Transcript of Rice 1 ABSTRACT SIGNIFICANCE/INTRO · 2019-05-13 · Rice 2 Abstract: Half of the global population...