New Book — “Build Beyond Zero: New Ideas for Carbon-Smart Architecture” by Bruce King and Chris Magwood

With all the talk of electric vehicles it’s easy to forget that buildings are a major contributor toward climate change. Building low or neutral carbon buildings has been the goal for a long time, now a new book is proposing going even further:

“Net Zero” has been an effective rallying cry for the green building movement, signaling a goal of having every building generate at least as much energy as it uses. Enormous strides have been made in improving the performance of every type of new building, and even more importantly, renovating the vast and energy-inefficient collection of existing buildings in every country. If we can get every building to net-zero energy use in the next few decades, it will be a huge success, but it will not be enough.  
 
In Build Beyond Zero, carbon pioneers Bruce King and Chris Magwood re-envision buildings as one of our most practical and affordable climate solutions instead of leading drivers of climate change. They provide a snapshot of a beginning and map towards a carbon-smart built environment that acts as a CO2 filter. Professional engineers, designers, and developers are invited to imagine the very real potential for our built environment to be a site of net carbon storage, a massive drawdown pool that could help to heal our climate.
 
The authors, with the help of other industry experts, show the importance of examining what components of an efficient building (from windows to solar photovoltaics) are made with, and how the supply chains deliver all those products and materials to a jobsite. Build Beyond Zero looks at the good and the bad of how we track carbon (Life Cycle Assessment), then takes a deep dive into materials (with a focus on steel and concrete) and biological architecture, and wraps up with education, policy and governance, circular economy, and where we go in the next three decades. 
 
In Build Beyond Zero, King and Magwood show how buildings are culprits but stand poised to act as climate healers. They offer an exciting vision of climate-friendly architecture, along with practical advice for professionals working to address the carbon footprint of our built environment. (Island Press)

We need as many “climate healers” as we can get! Like so many books this is highly detailed and technical. So here’s the chapters so you can see how they present their arguments:

• Chapter 1: The Story of Carbon: The Birth of the Universe, of Carbon, and of Life
• Chapter 2: A Brief History of Green Building: Waking Up to Climate Emergency
  Box 2.1: The Existing Building Solution by Larry Strain
• Chapter 3: Life Cycle Analysis: Tracking Carbon’s Stocks and Flows
• Chapter 4: Metals and Minerals: Steeling Ourselves
• Chapter 5: Concrete: Many Ways to Make a Rock
  Box 5.1: Asphalt: the Other Concrete
  Box 5.2: The Case for Modern Earthen Building by Lola Ben Alon
  Box 5.3: Human Health is Climate Health by Gayatri Datar
  Box 5.4: Entering the Market as an Earth Block Producer by Lisa Morey
  Box 5.5: Can We Grow Carbon-Storing Buildings? by Wil Srubar
• Chapter 6: Biological Architecture: Wood and Mass Timber, Agricultural By-Products, Purpose- Grown Crops, Waste Stream Fibers, and Lab-Grown Materials
  Box 6.1: Landscape: Connecting the Carbon Conversation by Pamela Conrad
• Chapter 7: Witches’ Brew: Plastics, Chemistry, and Carbon
• Chapter 8: Construction: On Site and Under Zero
• Chapter 9: Education: We All Need Schooling to Make This Possible
• Chapter 10: Circular Economy: Extending the Lifespan of Captured Carbon
• Chapter 11: Policy and Governance: Twenty-first Century Cat Herding
• Chapter 12: A Just Transition: Building a Better Society Means More than Capturing Carbon
  Box 12.1: A Manifesto for the Pivotal Decade by Ann Edminster
• Chapter 13: The Next Three Decades: Where Do We Go from Here?  15 by 50
  Box 13.1 Case study, Trent University’s Forensic Science Building
• Chapter 14: What’s Next? Wow. Just, wow.

I can’t say they’ve hit on the right solution, but those making building decisions (architects, developers, code officials, etc) should give this a serious review. If you’re planning new construction or a major renovation project these ideas might also be good food for thought.

— Steve Patterson

Potential North-South & County Light Rail Line Should Include ‘Green Track’

No, I don’t want the rails to be painted green. Instead I want the space between the rails to be green with vegetation, where possible.

Why? Aesthetics, cooler temperatures, management of stormwater runoff, etc.

Green track isn’t limited to only historic lines, it’s increasingly common in Europe with some limited use in North America.

Over more than 6 (six) decades Green Tracks are popular through out Europe in dense urban areas. They are a fantastic tool to mitigate stormwater issues, to reduce noise and certainly to beautify their integration. Green light rail tracks demonstrate environmental responsibility and they value their customers by making things nice, green and beautiful. Today there are over 500 miles of Green light-rail tracks in Europe.

The living green layers within and around the tracks reduces the noiseand absorbs stormwater. Thus, reducing combined sewer overflow. Modern track systems are typically Ballastless Tracks or Slab Track systems. Basically, a traditional elastic combination of ties/sleepers and ballast is replaced by a rigid construction of concrete or asphalt. Because such systems are ideal for greenery, it is even possible to create additional stormwater retention and detention from surrounding impervious areas with the system.

Already, in 1995 Green Roof Technology filed patents for greening systems on Ballastless Track systems. Currently there are around 300 miles of green tracks in Germany alone. As a result, these tracks eliminate at least 150,000 gallons of water per years from entering the combined sewer system.

In North America, Baltimore started with some experimental Green Light-rail Tracks in 2011 insisting on Sedum mats. The testing was less promising because Sedum mono-cultures are not a good choice for most green light-rail track system. Unfortunately the advice from Green Roof Technology using a smart mixtures of grasses, herbs and wildflowers was not heard. Some call it learning by doing – well – they just don’t do it. (Green Roof Technology).

Typically rails are supported by ballasts, treated wood or concrete pieces set into the ground perpendicular to the rail. Our original 1993 light rail line used wood ballast, the 2006 Shrewsbury extension (aka Blue) line was constructed with longer-lasting concrete ballasts.

Our current lines are Red & Blue so naturally I’d like this new line to be the Green Line. Green track for the Green Line!

It can’t be everywhere, but in many places it can be. A lot of the new line would be in the center of Natural Bridge, which recently went through a quick traffic calming project that reduced vehicle travel lanes to one per direction. Adjacent to Fairgrounds Park the center is green — would be greener if not on top of asphalt.

I think the green looks nice, helps keep the area slightly cooler.

While we’re on the subject of alternatives to impervious concrete, another would be water — yes, wet track! Rail going through a fountain…

Not sure if or where this might work, but I think it’s very interesting. Perhaps on Jefferson near the stop near Olive or Market? Guests in new hotels could look down from their rooms and see transit & water converge.

I’d just like us to consider something other than boring ordinary impervious paving.

— Steve Patterson

North-South MetroLink Study Update Looking To Stay On Jefferson Avenue, Avoid Previously Planned Circuitous Route

The idea of a North-South MetroLink light rail line has been discussed for many years — too many. We’ve had a couple of studies and locally preferred alternatives over the 15+ year period. Currently Metro is looking at the most recent and “tweaking” it to make it work financially with the city funds from our transit tax. So when I heard this would be included in the Citizens for Modern Transit (CMT) June “Talking Transit” online event I immediately registered. It took place a week ago, but it’s online — link in a moment.

The last alternative was eastbound on Natural Bridge, coming south on Parnell/Jefferson to Cass (to include the large NGA workforce), east to 14th, eventually to 10th, back over to 14th, west on Chouteau, south on Jefferson.

So basically on Jefferson north of Cass and south of Chouteau, but taking a highly circuitous detour to go through downtown — and briefly east of Tucker.  The distance between those two points on Jefferson is 1.6 miles — in basically a straight line that would require no left or right turns.m

In a 2006 post I suggested a modern tram route on Jefferson, with a new MetroLink station where Jefferson crosses over the existing light rail line, so riders could transfer between lines. Well 16 years later they’re looking at doing basically just that — run in-street light rail on Jefferson with the addition of a MetroLink station at Jefferson. This was disclosed by Bi-State Development President & CEO Taulby Roach at 3:23 in CMT’s event a week ago (watch 0n YouTube).

With the NGA, Centene Stadium (MLS) and planned new hotels (Jefferson & Market) this a hot corridor.

The rail wouldn’t be a tram in mixed traffic, it would be in a separate dedicated center section, still low-floor though. The vehicles for both are nearly identical. In-street light rail vs tram basically means dedicated right-of-way and fewer stops, to improve overall speed.

Obviously I’ve long thought a stop at Jefferson on the original MetroLink was a good idea — the distance between the Union Station & Grand stations is just so excessive. I often talk about focusing on corridors, not circuitous routes, and Jefferson is an obvious corridor for a transit project.  It’s not a perfectly straight line, but it would eliminate a huge amount of turns.

Like previous North-South studies, the idea of going out west on Natural Bridge allows a future phase to connect into North County. This could help get county residents to employment opportunities at NGA, and in Downtown West/Midtown.

The study update is looking at the latest low-floor vehicles to use. Because of some tight points they’re looking at vehicles that could run for short distances on battery, with the usual catenary most of the distance. This is called off-wire. An example is the Brookville Liberty, in use in cities like Dallas, Milwaukee, and Oklahoma City.  I have no idea which specific vehicles Metro is considering, but the technology to go without a catenary for a short distance is proven.

I’d hoped to have visited Oklahoma City by now and ride their Brookville Liberty vehicles., but rental cars & flights have just been too expensive. Again, I’m not sure what vehicles Metro is considering, this is the only off-grid vehicle I’ve ever ridden before.

In the CMT event on Zoom Taulby Roach indicated they’re planning on closed platforms  — having to pass through a fare gate to reach the platform.  This coincides with Metro’s platform project to install fare gates at all MetroLink stations in Missouri & Illinois.

Hopefully Metro’s latest look at North-South rail will result in actual construction, eventual operations.

Steve Patterson

Mega-Convenience Store Wally’s Follows Popular Buc-ee’s Concept With Second Location In Fenton MO…Is Bigger Better?

When I was a kid a 1970s filling (gas) station was a small corner location with a few pumps and a small interior. Inside they might have a vending machine or two. They also did some automotive work, like tire repairs, in the shop portion of the building. Restrooms were often small and accessed from the outside. Fuel was their primary revenue source.  The closest was a 2-canopy Phillips 66 “gull wing” design — similar to the single canopy one at Page & Vandeventer.

Small convenience stores also existed, and some sold fuel.

At some point (80s?) gas stations and convenience stores merged. It was 1982 when Buck-ee’s opened its first convenience store/gas station in Clute Texas (near Houston), followed by others. These were typical suburban filling stations for the day, significantly smaller than today’s QuikTrip.

In the years since these new gas/convenience hybrids became bigger and nicer, the number of fuel pumps has steadily increased. What was once a small corner lot is now multiple acres.

In 2001 Buc-ee’s owners decided to go big instead of incremental growth — opening their first mega location along I-10 near Luling TX (map). It’s a stop between San Antonio and Houston, in the middle of nowhere. Even now the only other thing at this exit is a Love’s Travel Stop and a couple of hotels, all on the other side of the interstate. Sheer size was the gimmick. Rather than have multiple separate locations along the interstate they put all those fuel pumps, food, restrooms, employees, etc into one big location. It was a brilliant idea — great for marketing, simplifies logistics, etc.

During the last two decades others have replicated their logo and/or concept.

In recent years, during the company’s rapidly growing success, Buc-ee’s has filed numerous lawsuits against other convenience store chains, most of them based in Texas, for trademark and trade dress infringement.

In 2014, Buc-ee’s filed a lawsuit against Texas based convenience store chain “Frio Beaver”. Frio Beaver, a company with a logo also depicting a beaver in a yellow circle with a black outline, was accused of copying the iconic Buc-ee’s beaver head logo, which the company is widely known for in Texas.

In 2016, Buc-ee’s sued “Choke Canyon BBQ”, another Texas convenience store, for copyright infringement and trade dressing. Choke Canyon uses a logo of a grinning alligator in the middle of a yellow circle, which Buc-ee’s claims is an attempt by the chain to resemble the Buc-ee’s logo. Choke Canyon is also calling their new stores “Bucky’s”.

In 2017, Buc-ee’s again filed a lawsuit for breaking an agreement, this time against a Nebraska-based convenience store chain known as “Bucky’s”. The two companies had agreed to remain in their respective states and expand only to states where the other did not operate.

There was also a non-logo related lawsuit filed in 2013 against “Chicks”, a convenience store located in Bryan, Texas, for trade dressing by allegedly copying Buc-ee’s mega convenience store designs and layout. The case was settled out of court.

Wally’s opened its first Buc-ee’s style mega-convenience store/filling station in Pontiac IL in 2020 (map). I checked, it’s inside the city limits. Barely.  Their logo would never be confused with Buc-ee’s, so they’re safe there.  Since Buc-ee’s doesn’t have a Missouri or Illinois location (yet) Wally’s is likely safe from a trade dress lawsuit.

The new Wally’s in suburban Fenton MO is their second location. They’re looking to expand, interested in sites 2-8 acres in size.

Likes:

• Clean.
• Cheese pizza slice was good.
• Nice seeing food prepared on site.
• Friendly employees.
• Contactless payments accepted inside and at fuel pumps.

Dislikes:

• Excessive impervious paving.
• No solar.
• No trees.
• No seating, inside or out.
• Long walk to restrooms.
• Higher fuel prices than most others in zip code.
• Higher food, beverage prices.
• Number of disabled/accessible parking spaces seems too few.
• A few ADA violations.

Let’s take a look:

I don’t fault the owners or patrons of Wally’s, it is certainly of the current times.  Thankfully I don’t think we’ll see too many of these in the future. The typical big gas station (looking at you QT) is bad enough.

We shouldn’t even be building any new gas stations at this point.

— Steve Patterson

New Book — ‘Risky Cities: The Physical and Fiscal Nature of Disaster Capitalism’ by Albert

A new book explores one of my favorite topics: the overlap of urbanization, capitalism, and disasters. Think our bad habit of developing in flood plains, then acting shocked when levees results in flooding elsewhere. The term “disaster capitalism” is very appropriate.

Over half the world’s population lives in urban regions, and increasingly disasters are of great concern to city dwellers, policymakers, and builders. However, disaster risk is also of great interest to corporations, financiers, and investors. Risky Cities is a critical examination of global urban development, capitalism, and its relationship with environmental hazards. It is about how cities live and profit from the threat of sinkholes, garbage, and fire. Risky Cities is not simply about post-catastrophe profiteering. This book focuses on the way in which disaster capitalism has figured out ways to commodify environmental bads and manage risks. Notably, capitalist city-building results in the physical transformation of nature. This necessitates risk management strategies –such as insurance, environmental assessments, and technocratic mitigation plans. As such capitalists redistribute risk relying on short-term fixes to disaster risk rather than address long-term vulnerabilities.  (Rutgers University Press)

You can read the introduction at Barnes and Noble.

— Steve Patterson