International Living Future Institute

The Living Building Challenge (developed by the International Living Future Institute) is known as on of the most rigorous and demanding benchmarks of sustainability in design. I was first introduced to it back in undergrad and have been keeping up with it off and on the past four years. The premise of the LBC seems to align perfectly with what we've been discussing in class: What if every single act of design and construction made the world a better place? 

I think the ILFI is so applicable to our discussions for a couple of reasons. First, their principles are:

1. Living Building Challenge compliance is based on actual, rather than modeled or anticipated, performance. Therefore, projects must be operational for at least twelve consecutive months prior to audit to verify Imperative compliance.

2. All Living Building Challenge projects must be holistic—addressing aspects of all seven Petals through the Core Imperatives.

These principle relates to what I gathered from Mostafavi's text. He mentions that, "the emphasis on quantity - on energy reduction - obscures its relationship with the qualitative value of things." The petals of which the LBC is measuring are not solely based on data. They are place, water, energy, health and happiness, materials, equity, and beauty. Additionally, unlike other sustainability initiatives such as LEED, certified buildings are measured based on their operational qualities, not just a checklist of taking sustainable measures.

ILFI also takes their idea of design and construction and applies it to product design and materials, the Living Product Challenge (LPC). Examples of products that can apply for LPC certification include textiles, electronics, food, personal care, building products, and cleaning products. In this way, the institute is looking beyond architecture and challenging the design industry as a whole. In accordance to the LPC, I've thought about the ILFI's Red List of materials and how we as architects play an integral part when it comes time to specifying materials and products in buildings. There is so much that goes into design a sustainable building and we cannot forgo the details.

Another reason I think this institute is applicable involves scale, as a site and regional dimension. The actual LBC allows you to scale jump for certain petals, i.e. going outside the limits of the site for better solutions. The International Living Future Institute has also developed the Living Community Challenge (LCC) which aims to engage with community-scaled projects. Again, it's looking beyond the realms of a single building and addressing ways to make our urban environment, our communities, a healthier and more sustainable place.

Mostafavi states that a key characteristic of ecological urbanism is "its recognition of the scale and scope of the impact of ecology, which extends beyond the urban territory." I think that the ILFI attempts to address this through each of its challenges in a very unique way. I also believe that, as Abalos describes in Aesthetics and Sustainability, it attempts to cross the boarders between aesthetics and sustainability, of beauty and high technology. 

First project I visited that was LBC certified. Phipps Conservatory in Pittsburgh.

My only gripe with the International Living Future Institute is the cost of application and registration. How do design teams that prioritize the design and construction afford the certification if there is no money left in the budget (a very noble thing to do in my opinion). While the ILFI is working through this issue, I still think it raises a bigger question of how do you get the client to pay? How do you get them to understand the need and importance of this kind of standard in architecture?