The Jackson Square Partnership is developing the above 12-acre, 450-unit community with the help of financing from the Green Building Production Network.

A collaboration of community development organizations has banded together to provide $2 million in financing to promote green building applications in the construction of affordable housing. The funding, announced in mid-August, will go toward the creation of 800 units of mixed-income housing in four area projects that will be built with innovative and progressive energy-efficient and environmental design features.

The consortium is made up of five Greater Boston area groups: Local Initiatives Support Corp., Boston Community Capital, Massachusetts Association of Community Development Corporations, New Ecology and the Tellus Institute. The group, working in cooperation as the Green Building Production Network, was brought together by a common interest and an interested financial backer.

“A little over a year ago, a major foundation, which has chosen to remain anonymous, invited a few groups to come in and begin to talk about some ways of providing significantly more funding on a more systematic basis to green projects being developed by [community development corporations],” said Mat Thall, senior program director of the Greater Boston Local Initiatives Support Corp. “What came out of the discussions was the notion of not only trying to maximize the greening of specific projects, but also to use the process of collaboration to help CDCs explore new ways of development.”

The four projects (three are in Boston and one in Cambridge) selected for investment were: Jackson Square Partnership in Jamaica Plain, which will provide 450 units of mixed-income housing, retail space, a community center and offices on 12 acres; Parcel 24 in Chinatown, a development of 315 units of new housing; Fort Hill Place, a new 36-unit condominium in Roxbury’s Dudley Square neighborhood; and The Greening of Cambridge Initiative of Homeowners Rehab Inc., which will incorporate sustainability into capital upgrading of 40 to 60 units of existing housing.

“We received 11 proposals, and the team of partners reviewed those and selected the finalists,” said Dick Jones, loan fund president and chief operating officer of Boston Community Capital. “It had to be determined how far along each project was, which organizations were the most committed to doing this and to learn what types of ideas and thoughts they had on the issues.”

The Green Building Production Network leaders believe that green building encompasses a vast array of elements including the conservation of natural resources, the elimination of unhealthy and dangerous materials from buildings and building sites, the long-term reduction of building operating costs and design of buildings that contribute to improved regional land-use patterns, also known as smart growth.

Learning Project

The four projects selected are vastly different from each other in terms of scope, but are tied together by a common objective.

“It was evident in the applications we received that nonprofit developers and their architects are thinking big and boldly about green development. Now the hard work begins to realize those ambitions within the budgetary and regulatory constraints associated with developing and operating affordably housing,” said Ed Connelly, president of New Ecology, in a prepared statement. “We are dealing with a highly sophisticated group of nonprofit developers and their private development partners. It is inevitable that some entirely new solutions will come out of this process.”

Innovation is a key part of Green Building Production Network’s mission. In the current market conditions CDCs are being presented with some immense roadblocks to development – including lack of available land and high building costs – which also act as an impediment to considering green building as a part of the equation.

“We have a theory. It’s just a theory now, but we will soon be testing it. We believe that through the process of major investing in several high-impact projects we might be able to develop more efficient ways of doing business that will drive costs out of the system,” said Thall. “The program really has a dual objective. One is pushing the envelope on building green. The other is that we want it to be very cost-effective – we’re going to have to do some major changes in how green and affordable housing is designed, financed, built and managed.”

Redesigning the way such housing is constructed will not only help to push forward future projects, but it also may help to assuage some current concerns of CDCs and the public sector.

“The primary negative reaction, which is something from the CDCs, was that [green building] is an additional burden that will be imposed on them by funders, and at the same time they’re trying to do something for low-income people. The CDCs say, ‘This is a great idea, but it will cost money and the public sector won’t support that.’ The economics just may not work,” said Jones.

The current way of building both affordable and green housing is no doubt an added cost to builders. CDCs, which are facing already-tight budget constraints, may just not be willing to invest in the money they perceive is necessary to build environmentally friendly structures.

“It is expensive how it’s done now. But part of the change in thinking is that you can’t just look at the upfront costs. We recognize that the costs upfront of doing green [projects] are higher and that’s the immediate pressure point for CDCs. But if we can develop ways to look at the lifelong costs of the building, that’s where you see the worth,” Thall said.

Some expenses of green building come from lack of proper planning. If environmental aspects are added as an afterthought, then additional costs can easily accrue.

“You have to look at new ways to incorporate green [building elements]. Doing green development tends to add complexity, which tends to add cost, so you have to look at ways to reorganize the work. If you commit yourself to doing green stuff, but don’t plan from the start, it gets even more expensive. For instance, you can drive a lot of heating costs out by orienting a building for maximum solar exposure, but you certainly can’t do that at the end,” said Jones.

Another cost issue comes when examining what other prices may have to be paid by residents if green aspects of building are not adopted. Although incorporating environmental aspects may involve spending more money, not building green may involve serious long-term risks for inhabitants and neighbors.

“There is a common mission between affordable housing and green building, particularly if you consider all the aspects. You have to look at what the costs will be in terms of health and longevity in poor communities, where a lot of affordable housing is needed, if you don’t build green. If you are being conscious in terms of the well-being of individuals and the lifecycle of the [structure], you don’t have to go too far to see that not building green is a burden on poor communities,” said Jones.

Ultimately, the Green Building Production Network hopes to extend its commitment to environmentally friendly affordable housing construction beyond the $2 million pledged to date and there is a strong possibility that the groups involved will work together after this round of development is complete in order to expand their mission.

According to Jones, even further financial support is expected for the current projects, all of which are expected to be complete in two years. He predicts that the groups involved ultimately will commit a total of around $7 million, though some worry even that may not be enough.

“One of my concerns is while we did get a great deal of initial funding from this foundation and expect more, it may just not be enough to transform the industry,” said Thall. “But, even so, it’s going to be a very interesting learning project.”