MAP Reports on Healthy Materials for Multifamily Construction

Magnusson Architecture and Planning recently published “From Standard to Safe: Investigating Harmful Materials and Healthy Alternatives for Multifamily Construction.” Inspired by the challenges that project teams face in reliably sourcing sustainable and non-toxic products, the report provides some guidance on how to incorporate materials that are both less toxic and less carbon-intensive when designing and constructing multifamily buildings. MAP used Sol on Park, a senior housing project currently in development in the Bronx, as the basis of their analysis. Funding for the report was provided by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority via the Buildings of Excellence Early Design Support program.

We’ve republished the Executive Summary below.

The project, Sol on Park [rendering above], will provide 228 units of affordable senior housing to the Bronx and house important community facilities including a Federally Qualified Health Center, a meeting space for the NYCHA Tenant Association center, and an urban agriculture center. The development was designed as a model for healthy, sustainable living and is planned to achieve LEED Platinum v4 Multifamily Midrise, Energy Star Multifamily New Construction, and Fitwell Level 3 certifications

Key Findings

Red List Free Alternatives

Living Future’s Safer Materials Shift process was designed to encourage project teams to take small, manageable steps towards incorporating healthier products, rather than tackling outright the formidable task of eliminating all Red List chemicals from a building. The program divided material categories commonly used in multifamily affordable housing developments, such as flooring or insulation, into two separate classifications: Type 1 and Type 2. Type 1 material categories are those that have Red List Free or Approved product options readily available, while Type 2 material categories are more difficult to source as Red List Free or Approved.

By following the research and product vetting process outlined by Safer Materials Shift, MAP was able to specify Red List Free or Approved product options for 100% of Type 1 categories and 25% of Type 2 categories. This was a significant improvement over the project’s initial baseline specifications, in which just 68% of Type 1 categories and 20% of Type 2 categories had a Red List Free or Approved option.

Embodied Carbon Analysis

Among Sol on Park’s specified products for which there were Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) available, this analysis found a negative correlation between Red List Free or Approved products and embodied carbon. Products that contain Red List ingredients often have higher embodied carbon impacts than those without because many Red List chemicals are or are derived from fossil fuels – in Sol on Park’s baseline specifications, the most common Red List and Priority List chemicals were formaldehyde and petroleum, respectively. This implies a strong link between the healthy materials economy and decarbonization efforts, indicating that limiting the production of Red List chemicals will support climate change mitigation goals.

Holistic Product Comparison

Just because a product is Red List Free or Approved does not mean it is automatically the best choice within its class. To gain a more thorough understanding of material health beyond Red List status, MAP analyzed Sol on Park’s specifications using Habitable’s Informed Product Guidance, a resource that evaluates materials based on human and environmental impacts at all life cycle stages. The analysis is organized by material type (e.g. insulation or adhesives) and ranks product options within each type using the Informed Product Guidance framework. This exercise, though not intended to produce definitive selections for the final building, helped MAP critically compare the benefits and drawbacks of each product type and build a more comprehensive foundation around which to shape future material selection practices.

Conclusions

The healthy materials economy has a long way to go. Many building materials currently have no Red List Free or Approved options available, while some prominent manufacturers have released eco-friendly lines but have yet to standardize safe, sustainable practices. Even when Red List Free options exist, lack of availability at the local level and the absence of widespread ingredient disclosure can be major barriers to responsible material choice.

Still, this study demonstrates that significant improvements can be made despite current market limitations. Research at this scale is not necessary for every project – steps as simple as requesting transparency documentation or investigating the feasibility of several non-toxic products will help to cultivate a market for safer materials. Industrywide advocacy for better practices and standards, as well as efforts to enhance product options and availability, will result in healthier communities across the globe everywhere that building materials are extracted, manufactured, used, and deconstructed.