Chapter One
Green Concepts and Vocabulary
Abstract
This chapter essentially consists of an introduction to what the handbook is mainly about. It discusses why green building and sustainability are important to building construction, and why the environmental impacts of LEED have dramatically impacted how many contractors and their subcontractors today operate. This chapter illustrates how sustainable development and green construction have become part of the mainstream in the construction industry and outlines many of the incentives and benefits that can be acquired by the application of green principles. Tax incentives and liability issues are also briefly discussed in this chapter as is the need to establish measurable green criteria. In addition, the main economic benefits of fostering social equity, improving indoor environment, and producing healthier places to work are discussed, including increased productivity, reduced absenteeism, and reduced employee turnover. Finally, “Emerging Directions: Moving Forward” is debated.
Keywords
Certification; Ecosystem; Greenbuild; Greenhouse gas emissions; LEED; Liability; Microclimate; Recycling; Stewardship; Sustainability
1.1. General—The Green Building Movement Today
Green building is increasingly being described as a “movement,” particularly in the United States. This may be partly due to the fact that for some time, sustainable processes such as LEED certification, BREEAM, Green Globes, and others have been rapidly growing and improving as new techniques and sustainable developments are discovered and pursued. And because of this, the construction industry and the architectural/engineering professions both in the United States and globally have witnessed fundamental changes over recent years in the promotion of ecofriendly buildings. These facts have prompted the creation of green building standards, certifications, and rating systems aimed at mitigating the impact of buildings on the natural environment through sustainable design. Moreover, the 1973 oil crisis was a powerful catalyst in spurring the green building movement forward to gain increasing momentum across the various sectors of industry and “green” construction rapidly become the norm on many new construction projects. In fact, many architects, designers, builders, and building owners are increasingly jumping on the green building bandwagon. Numerous national and local programs advancing green building principles are now flourishing throughout the Nation as well as globally. This has helped the green movement to penetrate most areas of our society, including the construction and home-building industries. Nevertheless, Achim Steiner, Executive Director, UNEP, continues to believe that “If targets for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction are to be met, decision-makers must unlock the potential of the building sector with much greater seriousness and vigor than they have to date and make mitigation of building-related emissions a cornerstone of every national climate change strategy.” Steiner goes further and says, “Public policy is vital in triggering investment in energy efficient building stock, achieving energy and cost savings, reducing emissions, and creating millions of quality jobs. In developing countries where more than 50% of households (up to 80% in rural Africa) have no access to electricity, affordable, energy efficient, low-carbon housing helps address energy poverty.”
Green construction in the United States remains in its relative infancy and is constantly developing. And although the practices and technologies that are utilized in green building construction continue to evolve and improve, they, nevertheless, differ from region to region and from one country to the next. Although this is true, there remain certain fundamental principles that all green projects will conform to. These include: siting, structural design efficiency, energy efficiency, water efficiency, materials selection, indoor environmental quality (IEQ), operations and maintenance, and waste and toxics reduction. Because of this, good environmental stewardship now dictates that our built environment be sustainable. It is no surprise therefore that at the local and state levels, government is increasingly mandating that projects be built to green standards of construction which is driving our industry to become more involved toward making sustainable projects for our clients and communities a priority. This is also because of the pressure from occupants and tenants who have to work and live inside these structures.
While the definition of sustainable building design is constantly changing, there are a number of fundamental principles that persist and which will be discussed in detail in later chapters. But, with respect to building green and sustainability, architects and the project team should focus on designing and erecting buildings that are energy efficient, use natural or reclaimed materials in their construction, and are more in tune with the environments in which they exist. Building green means being more efficient in the use of valuable resources such as energy, water, materials, and land than conventional buildings or buildings that are typically built to the latest codes. This is why green buildings are more sympathetic to the environment and provide indoor spaces that occupants find to be typically healthier, more comfortable, and more productive. This is supported by a recent CoStar Group study (CoStar’s 25,000-square foot Boston office was awarded LEED Platinum CI in 2010), which concluded that sustainable “green” buildings outperform their peer nongreen assets in key areas including occupancy, sale price, and rental rates, sometimes by wide margins. It should be noted that CoStar is also an ENERGY STAR Partner and was honored in 2009 with an Excellence in ENERGY STAR Promotion Award for incorporating the U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC) list of LEED-Certified and Registered buildings, ENERGY STAR-Certified buildings, and BREEAM-assessed properties into its database. This has enabled CoStar clients both in the United States and the United Kingdom to implement miscellaneous queries for green buildings and classify buildings with these designations in their corresponding markets.
Sustainability scholars have undertaken numerous studies, all of which clearly show that buildings are the primary sponsors that are impacting our environment—both during the construction phase as well as through their operation. This helps us understand why they have become an area of focus for sustainability investors, developers, and green investment dollars. Research also shows that buildings are the planet’s prime consumer of natural resources, which partly explains why we have been recently witnessing a flurry of architects, engineers, contractors, and builders reevaluating how residential and commercial buildings are being designed and constructed. Additionally, we are now seeing various incentive programs around the country and internationally put in place, which encourage and sometimes stipulate that developers and federal agencies go green. It should be noted, however, that while sustainable or green building is basically a strategy for creating healthier and more energy-efficient ecofriendly buildings, i.e., the design of environmentally optimal buildings, it has been found that buildings designed and operated with their life cycle impacts taken into consideration are most often found to provide significantly greater environmental, economic, and social benefits. Moreover, the incorporation of green strategies and materials during the early design phase is the best approach to increase a project’s potential market value. Also, incorporating green strategies and materials at the outset of the design phase allows sustainable buildings to amass a vast array of applications and techniques to reduce and ultimately eliminate most of the negative impacts of new buildings on the environment and human health. For example the EPA recently stated that as many as 500 buildings out of the 4100 or so total commercial buildings that have earned Energy Star use a full 50% less energy than average buildings. Moreover, many of the efficiency practices, such as upgrading light bulbs or office equipment, pay for themselves in energy cost savings within a short period of time.
Successful green building programs typically focus on a number of environmentally related categories that emphasize taking advantage of renewable resources, such as natural daylight and sunlight through active and passive solar as well as photovoltaic techniques and the innovative use of plants to produce green roofs, and for reduction of rainwater run-off. But, as previously mentioned, sustainability is typically best achieved when an integrated team approach is used in the building design and construction process. In fact, in today’s high-tech world, an integrated team approach to green building has become pivotal to a project’s success; this means that all aspects of a project, from the site selection to the structure, to interior finishes, are all carefully considered from the outset before the commencement of the project.
Architects and property developers have come to realize that focusing on a single component of a building can profoundly impact the project negatively with unforeseen and unintended social environmental and/or economic consequences. For example, the design and construction of an inefficient building envelope can adversely impact IEQ in addition to increasing energy costs, whereas a proper sustainable building envelope can help lower operating costs over the life of a building by increasing productivity and utilizing less energy and water. As we have seen, sustainable developments can also provide tenants and occupants with a healthier and more productive working environment as a result of improved indoor air quality (IAQ). Likewise exposure to materials like asbestos, lead and formaldehydes which may contain high volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions are less likely to exist in a green building, thus avoiding potential health problems such as “sick building syndrome” (SBS) resulting from poor IAQ. An interdisciplinary team should therefore be considered a prerequisite to building green.
The main objectives of most designers who engage in green building do so to achieve both ecological and aesthetic harmony between a structure and its surrounding environment. Helen Brown, former board director of the USGBC and a Fellow of Post Carbon Institute, echoes the sentiment of many green proponents and says, “Viewed through a green building lens, conventionally built buildings are rather poor performers. They generate enormous material and water waste as well as indoor and outdoor air pollution. As large containers and collection points of human activity, buildings are especially prodigious consumers of energy. They depend on both electricity and on-site fossil fuel use to support myriad transactions: transporting and exchanging water, air, heat, material, people, and information.”
Rob Watson, author of the Green Building Impact Report issued in November, 2008, states that, “The construction and operation of buildings require more energy than any other human activity. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimated in 2006 that buildings used 40% of primary energy consumed globally, accounting for roughly a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions (Fig. 1.1a). Commercial buildings comprise one-third of this total. In Fig. 1.1b, we see a pie chart showing US greenhouse gas emissions in 2011 by economic sector. Urbanization trends in developing countries are accelerating the growth of this sector relative to residential buildings, according to the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD).” Additionally, it is estimated that buildings account for an about 71% of all electricity consumed in America and 40% of global carbon dioxide emissions. The impact of building on the US economy is clearly evident from the use of construction materials, e.g., it is estimated that infrastructure supplies, building construction, and road building, make up about 60% of the total flow of materials (excluding fuel) through the US economy. Likewise, studies show that building construction and demolition waste accounts for roughly 60% of all nonindustrial waste. Other building impacts such as water usage show that building occupants consume about 50 billion gallons per day, i.e., over 12% of US potable water consumption. This amount of water consumption is mainly to support municipal, agricultural, and industrial activities which have more than tripled since 1950. Construction also impacts the indoor levels of air pollutants and VOCs in buildings which can be two to five times higher than outdoor levels. It should be noted that in the United States, for example, over 83% of people live in cities and their surrounding metropolitan areas (NRDC, 2014). Many cities are increasingly implementing a variety of sustainability plans, programs, and initiatives, from water policies to climate action to resiliency plans.
Figure 1.1 (a) Pie chart showing U.S. total greenhouse gas emissions in 2005. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) typically breaks down U.S. energy consumption into four end-use categories: industry, transportation, residential, and commercial. Almost all residential greenhouse emissions are CO2, which are strongly related to energy consumption. The chart shows that the residential sector generates very little greenhouse gases other than CO2 and so accounts for only 18% of total greenhouse gas emissions measured in MMT CO2 equivalents. (b) Pie chart showing total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2011 by economic sector. (c) Global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions broken into eight sectors for the year 2000. (a) Source: After National Association of Home Builders—Paul Emrath and Helen Fei Liu. (c) Source: Robert Rohde Wikipedia: Greenhouse Gas.
Because of this, the design of sustainable buildings today requires the integration of many kinds of information into an elegant, efficient, and durable whole. Thus, the encompassing of sustainable/green building strategies and best practices presents a unique opportunity to create environmentally sound and resource-efficient buildings. And by applying an integrated holistic design process from the outset, this can be achieved, especially by having the stakeholders—architects, engineers, land planners, building owners, and operators, as well as members of the construction industry and consultants from various specialized fields, work together as a team throughout the design of the project. Additionally, the best and most efficient buildings typically result from continual, organized collaboration among all players and stakeholders throughout the building’s life cycle. Indeed, today’s architects and urban engineers around the world are building cities designed to cope with a future of growing populations, increasingly scarce resources and the need to reduce carbon emissions. We now see examples of future cities debuting in Britain, China, and the U.A.E.
In the forefront of the green building offensive is the federal government which is the nation’s largest single landlord. In fact, the Federal government has for some time been a leader in constructing green buildings, and LEED has been the Federal standard of choice. Moreover, the Department of Energy (DOE) issued a final rule on October 14, 2014 updating its recommended certification standards and levels for all Federal buildings. It is well known that the General Services Administration (GSA) was one of the first adopters of LEED-NC. The GSA became committed to incorporating principles of sustainable design and energy efficiency into all of its building projects. It is the intent of the GSA that sustainable design will be integrated as effortlessly as possible into the existing design and construction process. In this regard the GSA recently announced that it will be applying more stringent green building standards to its $12 billion construction portfolio which includes more than 361 million square feet of space in 9600 federally owned and leased facilities occupied by more than 1.2 million federal employees and consisting of post offices, courthouses, border stations, and other buildings. The GSA decided to use the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System of the USGBC as its tool for evaluating and measuring achievements in its sustainable design programs. In keeping with the spirit of sustainability, the GSA recently increased its minimum standard requirement for new construction and substantial renovation of Federally owned facilities by adopting the LEED Gold standard, which is the next highest level of certification (just below Platinum). Until recently, the GSA had only required a LEED Silver certification. In justifying this move, Robert Peck, GSA Commissioner of Public Buildings stated, “Sustainable, better-performing federal buildings can significantly contribute to reducing the government’s environmental footprint,” and “This new requirement is just one of the many ways we’re greening the federal real estate inventory to help deliver on President Obama’s commitment to increase sustainability and energy efficiency across government.”
The CEO and Founding Chairman of the USGBC, Richard Fedrizzi echoed the Federal government’s lead in adopting green building practices when he said, “The Federal government has been at the forefront of the sustainable building movement since its inception, providing resources, pioneering best practices and engaging multiple Federal agencies in the mission of transforming the built environment.” A first-ever “White House Summit on Federal Sustainable Buildings” conference was held on January 24–25, 2006. This summit attracted over 150 Federal facility managers and decision makers in addition to 21 government agencies to formulate and witness the signing of the “Federal Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable Buildings Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)”. Agencies that signed this MOU all committed to federal leadership in the design, construction, and operation of high-performance and sustainable buildings. The signing of the MOU highlights the sense of urgency felt by green building proponents and represents a significant accomplishment by the federal government through its collective effort to define common strategies and guiding principles of green building. To consolidate these goals, the signatory agencies will now need to coordinate with complementary efforts in the private and public sectors. This implies that the Federal government is making an unswerving commitment to designing, maintaining, locating, in addition to constructing, and operating its facilities in an energy efficient and sustainable manner. The objective is to achieve a balance that will realize optimal standards of living, more comprehensive sharing of life’s amenities, maximum attainable reuse, and recycling of diminishing resources, in a manner that is consistent with and meets the objectives of the Department and Agency missions. According to the Whole Building Design Guide (WBDG), “The Federal government owns approximately 445,000 buildings with total floor space of over 3.0 billion square feet, in addition to leasing an additional 57,000 buildings comprising 374 million square feet of floor space. These structures and their sites affect our natural environment, our economy, and the productivity and health of the workers and visitors that use these buildings.” (© 2016 National Institute of Building Sciences).
The above is a clear indication that the gap between green and conventional construction is narrowing and is another sign that green construction has come of age, especially when we learn that currently there are more than 80 green building programs operating in the United States alone, not including numerous other countries like Canada, Japan, China, India, Australia, the U.A.E., and the United Kingdom. A measure of the growth of green building programs and its success is reflected by the number of cities that have established or adopted such programs. For example, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) reported that by 2008, there were 92 cities with populations greater than 50,000 that had established green building programs, up from 22 in 2004, a 318% increase. Many of the programs in the United States are either city, county, or state programs; there are also three that are national in scope. The three national green building programs in the United States are the LEED program of the USGBC, the Green Globes program of the Green Building Institute (this program was designed by the UK Building Research Establishment), and the National Green Building Standard of the National Association of Home Builders. In the United States, the LEED program is the most widely recognized, but all of these programs were developed and operate outside of government.
The USGBC has recently announced that, as of November 2010, the footprint of LEED-certified commercial space in the United States has surpassed 1 billion square feet. This is in addition to another 6 billion square feet of projects around the world that are registered and working toward certification. It should be noted that while not all projects that register with LEED achieve certification, nevertheless, the milestone remains a significant one. “The impact of these one billion square feet resonates around the world,” said Peter Templeton, president of the Green Building Certification Institute (which certifies LEED projects). One example of where LEED codes are mandated is in the District of Columbia which has some of the strongest green building codes in the country; likewise, the D.C. area has the most LEED-certified space per person in the United States and one of the highest concentrations of LEED professionals in the nation.
Lastly, Chicago’s hosting of the USGBC’s annual Greenbuild International Conference and Expo (for the second time), proved to be a great success and united many people from different countries, different backgrounds, and different professions around a single common cause: building a better, healthier, more sustainable world. Greenbuild is the premier event for sustainable building and is the world’s largest conference and expo dedicated to green building. The three-day conference normally attracts more than 20,000 attendees and 600 exhibitors annually from across the green building sector, spanning commercial and residential professionals, architects, building owners and operators, students, advocates, and educators. The 2015 conference took place at the Washington Convention Center in Washington, D.C. on November 18, 19, and 20.
Following the Chicago conference, Rick Fedrizzi said, “For years, we’ve asked ourselves: Can we build it taller? Can we build it faster? Can we build it cheaper? At the USGBC, we ask a different question: Can we build it better? Can we build in ways that are more sustainable, more energy efficient and that provide clean air and good lighting? In ways that can create jobs, restore our economy, and build healthier, more livable communities?” Kate Hurst, vice president, community advancement, conferences and events, USGBC says, “Many factors are considered in regards to the location of Greenbuild, including the sustainability climate of the city we’re considering.” She goes on to say, “The selected cities are conducive to sustainability and the mission of Greenbuild – from walkability of the convention center area and public transportation options to initiatives currently taking place within each city – all these factors contribute to our ultimate decision.”
1.2. Green Building Basics—What Makes a Building Green?
It has never been easy to give a precise definition of the term “green building” or “sustainable building,” especially since they are relatively new additions to our vocabulary. Green/sustainable building is also known by some as “high-performance building.” The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), for example, defines it as “a structure that is designed, built, renovated, operated, or reused in an ecological and resource-efficient manner. Green buildings are designed to meet certain objectives such as protecting occupant health; improving employee productivity; using energy, water, and other resources more efficiently; and reducing the overall impact to the environment.” The EPA on the other hand, defines it as, “the practice of creating structures and using processes that are environmentally responsible and resource-efficient throughout a building’s life-cycle from siting to design, construction, operation, maintenance, renovation, and deconstruction.” This practice expands and complements the classical building design concerns of economy, utility, durability, and comfort. Still another definition for sustainable development was offered at the Gothenburg European Council meeting of June 2001, “as a means of meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising those of the future.” But, however, one wishes to define the term, green building or sustainable development has had a profound impact on the U.S. and global construction market over the last two decades, although it may be several years before we can ascertain the full impact on the building construction industry and its suppliers. However, since there is no uniform definition of green, it is essential that every “green” term in the contract is specifically defined and that agreed-to objective standards of performance are established in the contract. For example, when specifying explicit energy efficiencies requirements, they should be outlined in a carefully drafted and technically correct and verifiable manner.
While the United States remains the undisputed global leader in the construction of green buildings, we are witnessing a sharp increase in countries around the world that are investing in sustainability and jumping on the green bandwagon. The European Union (EU), for example, has agreed on a new sustainable development strategy that has the potential to determine how the EU economy evolves in the coming decades. In addition to the USGBC’s LEED rating system, there are many other green building assessment systems currently being used around the world, such as Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency (CASBEE), Green Globes US, and Green Building (GB) Tool (Mago and Syal, 2007).
As previously stated, green building strategies relate primarily to land use, building design, construction, and operation that together help minimize or mitigate a building’s overall impact on the environment. The chief objectives of green buildings is therefore to increase the efficiency with which buildings utilize available natural resources such as energy, water, and materials, while simultaneously, minimizing a building’s adverse impact on human health and the environment. There are numerous strategies and approaches that can be used in green construction that can be employed in the construction of a new building designed for long-term operations and maintenance savings. Moreover, the United States has a vast number of existing buildings that can be made greener and more efficient, and studies show that many property owners have shown considerable interested in exploring this possibility of adopting green principles.
However, as discussed in the Introduction and echoed by Leah B. Garris, senior associate editor at Buildings magazine, “Myth and misinformation surround the topic of sustainability, clouding its definition and purpose, and blurring the lines between green fact and fiction.” Remarking on aspects of aesthetics, the well-known green building proponent, Alan Scott, principal, Green Building Services in Portland, OR says, “You can have a green building that doesn’t really ‘look’ any different than any other building.” Ralph DiNola, also a principal with Green Building Services reaffirms this statement, believing that a level of sustainability can easily be achieved by designing a green building that looks “normal.” DiNola goes on to say that “People don’t really talk about the value of aesthetics in terms of the longevity of a building. A beautiful building will be preserved by a culture for a greater length of time than an ugly building.” Thus a building’s potential longevity is one of sustainability’s principle characteristics, and aesthetics is an important factor in helping achieve this.
To understand sustainability, one really needs to understand nature and how to work in harmony with it and not against it. It certainly is not about constructing structures that purport to be environmentally responsible but that in reality sacrifice tenant/occupant comfort. This does not imply that purchasing green products or recycling assets at the end of their useful lives is not sustainable, because it is. It is also appropriate for both the environment and for the health of a building’s occupants. However, before making a final determination, a developer or building owner should first take the time to research the various options available that are most appropriate for the project and which would offer the best possible return on investment. This will also ensure that the wrong decisions can be avoided.
It should be noted that many green professionals believe that sustainability starts by having a thorough understanding of the climate and the primary reason that green strategies are considered green is largely because they work in harmony with the surrounding climatic and geographic conditions that exist and not against them. However, this necessitates a thorough understanding of the environment in which a project is being designed to fully apply this information to a project’s advantage. Most architects and designers who specialize in sustainability and green building are fully aware of the need to being familiar with year-round weather conditions such as temperature, rainfall, humidity, site topography, prevailing winds, indigenous plants, etc., to succeed in sustainable design. And although climate impacts sustainability in a number of ways, partly depending on the project’s location, measuring the degree of a project’s success in achieving sustainability can be made by comparing its performance to a baseline condition that relates to the microclimate and environmental conditions of the project’s location. Additionally, to successfully achieve sustainability, it is necessary to identify and minimize a building’s need for resources that are in short supply or locally unavailable and encourage the use of readily available resources such as the sun, rainwater, wind, etc. A thorough understanding of the microclimate where the project is located is imperative because it reflects a comprehension to what is and what is not readily available at a project’s disposal such as the sun for heating and lighting, the wind for ventilation, and rainwater for irrigation, and other water requirements. CalRecycle, for example, cites the main elements of green buildings and sustainability as:
Siting: This includes selecting a suitable site that takes advantage of mass transit availability. This will include the protection and retention of existing landscape and natural features. Plants should be selected that require low water and pesticide needs and that generate minimum plant trimmings.
Water Efficiency: This can be achieved by applying certain water efficiency strategies which according to CalRecycle include designing “for dual plumbing to use recycled water for toilet flushing or a gray water system that recovers rainwater or other nonpotable water for site irrigation” and “Minimize wastewater by using ultra low-flush toilets, low-flow shower heads, and other water conserving fixtures.” In addition, CalRecycle suggests the use of recirculating systems for centralized hot water distribution, and the installation of point-of-use hot water heating systems for more distant locations. The landscape should be metered separately from the buildings, and microirrigation should be used to supply water in nonturf areas. Whenever possible, state-of-the-art irrigation controllers and self-closing nozzles on hoses should be used.
Energy Efficiency: To achieve optimum building energy performance and energy efficiency, a number of passive design strategies need to be employed such as utilizing a building’s size, shape and orientation, passive solar design, and taking advantage of natural lighting. Alternative sources of energy should be considered such as photovoltaics and fuel cells which are now widely used and readily available. Renewable energy sources are a sign of the emerging technologies of the future. Computer modeling has also become part of the mainstream and is a very helpful tool in energy calculations and optimizing the design of electrical and mechanical systems and the building envelope. These are discussed in greater detail in other sections of the book.
Materials Efficiency and Resource Conservation: This necessitates the selection of construction materials and products on the basis of key characteristics such as reused and recycled content, zero or low off gassing of harmful air emissions, zero or low toxicity, sustainably harvested materials, high recyclability, durability, longevity, and local production. Likewise, the incorporation of dimensional planning and other material efficiency strategies will increase sustainability as well as the reusing recycled construction and demolition materials.
Environmental Air Quality (EAQ): Studies show that buildings with good overall IAQ can reduce the rate of respiratory disease, allergy, asthma, sick building symptoms and increase worker productivity. In addition to adequate ventilation, construction materials and interior finish products should be chosen with zero or low emissions to improve IAQ. Many building materials and cleaning/maintenance products emit toxic gases, such as VOCs and formaldehyde. These gases can have a harmful impact on occupants’ health and productivity.
Building Operation and Maintenance: Commissioning of green buildings upon completion ensures that they perform according to the design goals that were intended. Building commissioning includes testing and adjusting the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems to certify that all equipment meets design criteria. It also requires instructing the staff on the operation and maintenance of equipment. Proper maintenance allows a building to continue to perform at optimum levels and as designed and commissioned.
Water conservation and energy efficiency both rely heavily on the climate, whereas indoor environment quality and materials and resource conservation are largely independent of climate. And while site sustainability will depend on climate to some degree, and more specifically on the specifications and microelements that are particular to a specific site, it is important to note that different regions or locations may encounter diverse climates—from hot, arid to humid, freezing, and windy. Therefore, understanding a region’s climate and readily available resources are important as this can help avoid applying inappropriate techniques to a project which may have an adverse impact and invariably increase the costs and feasibility of the project.
1.3. Incentives, Barriers, and Benefits of Going Green
Since the oil crisis of the 1970s, but particularly over the last two decade or so, architects, designers, constructors, and building owners have increasingly taken an interest in green building. Sustainability and the green building movement today is flourishing throughout the United States and globally due mainly to the increasing demand for green buildings and greening existing buildings (partly a result of public awareness of its benefits, and also federal and national laws recently put in place) and in addition to the many national and local programs in place offering various incentives. Thousands of projects have been constructed over recent years which provide tangible evidence of what green building can accomplish in terms of resource efficiency, improved comfort levels, aesthetics, and energy efficiency. One example is Montgomery County Government (Maryland, U.S.), which along with local utilities and other government agencies now offer a range of financial incentives to help businesses reduce their ecological footprint and contribute to the green economy.
Below are some of the primary benefits of building green, which are not always easily quantifiable and therefore are not typically adequately considered in cost analysis:
• Reducing energy consumption
• Reducing pollution and protection of ecosystems
• Improved occupant health and comfort
• Increased productivity
• Reducing landfill waste
The Dutch economist Nils Kok has published what is reportedly the most comprehensive statistical analysis to date on the relative value of green and conventional buildings. The study concludes that U.S. buildings labeled under the LEED or Energy Star programs charge 3% higher rent, have greater occupancy rates, and sell for 13% more than comparable properties. According to the study, “Labeled buildings have effective rents (rent multiplied by occupancy rate) that are almost 8% higher than those of otherwise identical nearby non-rated buildings.” As for residential buildings, McGraw-Hill Construction’s 2008b SmartMarket Report, “The Green Home Consumer” says that 70% of homebuyers are more or much more inclined to buy a green home over a conventional home in a depressed housing market. That number is 78% for those earning less than $50,000 a year; moreover, the study shows that 56% of respondents who bought green homes in 2008 earn less than $75,000 per year, and 29% earn less than $50,000.
What is interesting to note is that studies have also shown that buildings’ operating costs normally represent only 10% or less of an organization’s cost structure, whereas personnel usually constitute the remaining 90%. This lends strong credence to the view that even minor improvements in worker comfort can result in substantial dividends in performance and productivity. Likewise, there is substantial evidence linking high-performance buildings with improved working conditions; this in turn typically leads to reduced turnover and absenteeism, increased productivity, improved health, and other benefits. These benefits have become major contributing factors to the growth of building efficiency, particularly with respect to the occupants and tenants that have to live and work inside these buildings.
Although the global economic recession sometimes tends to dominate year-end headlines, we nevertheless see a cascade of newly released studies and reports that point to green building as one of the growing bright spots for the U.S. economy. With regard to existing buildings, more than 80% of commercial building owners have allocated funds to green initiatives according to a “2008 Green Survey: Existing Buildings,” a survey jointly funded by Incisive Media’s Real Estate Forum and GlobeSt.com, the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) International, and the USGBC. The study furthermore concluded that nearly 70% of commercial building owners have already implemented some form of energy monitoring system. The survey also confirmed that energy conservation is the most widely employed green program in commercial buildings, followed by recycling and water conservation. In addition, the study shows that 45% of respondents plan to increase sustainability investments in 2009, and that 60% of commercial building owners offer education programs to assist tenants in implementing green programs in their space, up 49.4% from the previous year.
Another study recently conducted by the Henley University of Reading in the United Kingdom, concludes that commercial building owners can reap higher rental premiums for green buildings of about 6% if the buildings enjoy LEED or Energy Star certification. This study also concludes that the more highly rated that a building is, the higher the rental premium. The study also suggests the presence of a sales price premium of about 35% based on 127 price observations of LEED-rated buildings, and 31% premium based on 662 price observations of Energy Star–rated buildings. Andrew Florance, president and CEO of CoStar, echoes these findings and says “Green buildings are clearly achieving higher rents and higher occupancy, they have lower operating costs, and they’re achieving higher sale prices.”
As for Turner’s “Green Building Barometer” survey, it calculates that 84% of respondents indicate that their green buildings have resulted in lower energy costs and 68% reporting lower overall operating costs. These figures are perhaps lower than one might expect from truly sustainable buildings. Likewise, nearly 65% of building owners who have built green buildings claim that their investments have already produced a positive return on investment.
The limited supply of green buildings, which although steadily increasing, still accounts for only a minor percentage of the total U.S. building stock which appears to be one of the factors for the “green” premiums, particularly since the number of green certified buildings continues to grow and the supply fails to keep pace with demand. Most developers and property owners generally agree that among the more tangible benefits of attaining a green certification for a building (e.g., LEED, Green Globes, Energy Star) is the ability to use this accomplishment as a marketing tool, and designers and contractors who have certified buildings in their portfolios typically find that they have a greater competitive marketing edge. Tenants and employees continue to show a clear preference in living and working in certifiably green buildings resulting in a greater demand and greater capability to attract quality tenants and thus higher rents. And according to McGraw Hill Construction (2012), the top two reasons for building green: client demand (35%) and market demand (33%).
1.3.1. Tax Deductions and Incentives
It was previously stated that there are numerous tax incentives in place for homeowners and businesses that purchase and install energy-efficient equipment or make energy efficiency improvements to homes and buildings. This is in addition to the health and environmental benefits of living and working in a green building. Furthermore, the federal government’s offer of tax incentives is to encourage consumers and businesses to develop and adopt energy-efficient technologies and products. Today, many local and state governments, utility companies, and other entities nationwide are offering rebates, tax breaks, and other incentives to encourage the incorporation of ecofriendly elements in proposed building projects. In fact, the majority of large cities in the United States now provide financial and other incentives for building green. In some states, green or sustainable building has ceased to be an option but rather a requirement. Recent estimates show that there are in excess of 65 local governments throughout the United States that have already made a commitment to LEED standards in building construction, with some reducing the entitlement process by up to a year in addition to various tax credits. Energy costs have become a major office building expense although this can be reduced by as much as 30% and increasing even more with the development of new technologies. Moreover, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 extended many energy efficiency and renewable energy tax incentives originally introduced in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT) and extended provisions in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. It should be noted, however, that a tax credit is generally more useful than an equivalent tax deduction because a tax credit reduces tax dollar-for-dollar, whereas a tax deduction only removes a certain percentage of the tax that is owed. Consumers should itemize all purchases on their federal income tax form to lower the total amount of tax they owe the government.
Some of the tax incentives available for Commercial Buildings under this act include (from the DOE Website):
Deduction of the Cost of Energy-Efficient Property Installed in Commercial Buildings
A tax deduction of up to $1.80 per square foot is available for buildings that save at least 50% of the heating and cooling energy of a building that meets ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2001. Partial deductions of up to $.60 per square foot can be taken for measures affecting: the building envelope, lighting, or heating and cooling systems. This act extends the deduction through December 31, 2013.
Buildings must be within the scope of ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2001 including addenda 90.1a-2003, 90.1b-2002, 90.1c-2002, 90.1d-2002, and 90.1k-2002 (in effect as of April 2, 2003) and within the control of the building designer. Retrofit of existing buildings is also eligible for the tax deduction.
Extension of Energy Investment Tax Credits
The 30% investment tax credits (ITCs) for solar energy and qualified fuel cell properties are extended to January 1, 2017. The 30% ITC now also applies to qualified small wind energy property. The cap for qualified fuel cells increased to $1500 per half kilowatt of capacity. Finally, a new 10% ITC is available for combined heat and power systems and geothermal heat pumps.
Accelerated Depreciation for Smart Meters and Smart Grid Systems
Currently, taxpayers generally recover the cost of smart electric meters and smart electric grid equipment over a 20-year period. This act allows taxpayers to recover the cost of this property over a 10-year period, unless the property already qualifies for a shorter recovery schedule.
On the DOE website, you can also find information about the tax deductions available for relating the purchase and installation of energy-efficient products and the construction of new energy-efficient homes. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 offers tax credits for residential energy efficiency measures and renewable energy systems (Note: Recipient reporting for Recovery Act awards was repealed by Congress on February 1, 2014). Here too, many of these credits were originally introduced in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT) and amended in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-343).
Tax incentives available for Residential Buildings under this act include (source: DOE website):
Energy Efficiency Tax Credits for Existing Homes
Homeowners are eligible for a tax credit of 30% of the cost for improvements to windows, roofing, insulation, and heating and cooling equipment. These improvements must be placed in service from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2010 (i.e., now expired), and there is a limit of $1500 for all products. Improvements made in 2008 are not eligible for a tax credit. A number of tax credits for residential energy efficiency have been renewed. These tax credits are offered for purchases made in 2016, as well as backdated purchases made in 2015.
See the ENERGY STAR website: www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=tax_credits.tx_index for a detailed listing of eligible improvements.
Renewable Energy Tax Credits for Existing or New Homes
Homeowners can receive a tax credit of 30% of the cost of the following renewable energy technologies with no upper limit: geothermal heat pumps, photovoltaic systems, solar water heaters, and small wind energy systems. Fuel cells are also eligible for a tax credit with a cap. These must be placed in service by December 31, 2016 (See the ENERGY STAR website for detailed information). The Internal Revenue Service also offers information on these tax incentives, e.g., the Tax Incentives Assistance Project (TIAP) offers a flyer with more information about these tax credits. TIAP is sponsored by a coalition of public interest nonprofit groups, government agencies, and other organizations in the energy efficiency field. The program is essentially designed to give consumers and businesses information they need to make use of the federal income tax incentives for energy-efficient products and technologies passed by Congress as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and which was subsequently amended on a number of occasions. It is important for readers to visit the relevant websites for the latest updates and incentive programs will change from time to time. Moreover, it is always wise to consult a tax professional on questions for specific situations, particularly since funding availability and eligibility requirements are continuously evolving and changing.
In California, for example, there is increasing evidence that the state’s homebuyer tax credit which was enacted at the beginning of 2009 helped to generate new home sales, and in turn, job-generating home construction. Various links to funding sources for green building that are available to homeowners, industry, government organizations, and nonprofits in the form of grants, tax credits, loans, and other sources can readily be found on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency website (www.epa.gov). Likewise, the Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE) which is a nonprofit project funded by the U.S. Department of Energy through the North Carolina Solar Center and the Interstate Renewable Energy Council, also contains on its website (www.dsireusa.org/) much information regarding local, state, federal, and utility incentives available for switching to renewable or efficient energy use. Other ways to attain federal tax credits include the use of energy-efficient products such as those proposed by the U.S. government’s ENERGY STAR program (www.energystar.gov/). Energy savings must be calculated using qualified computer software approved by the IRS. The DOE provides a list of qualified software programs that commercial building owners can use to calculate energy and power cost savings that meet federal tax incentive requirements. As previously mentioned, the federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 established a tax deduction for energy-efficient commercial buildings applicable to qualifying systems and buildings which were placed in service from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2007. This deduction was later extended several times and is now set to expire at the end of 2016.
1.3.2. Green Building Programs
According to an AIA study of Green Building Programs in our nation’s communities, “The Local Leaders Report” scrutinizes the current state of green building laws in American cities as of 2007. The report states that, “Since 2003 the number of cities with green building programs has increased greater than 400%, due to a concerted effort by local political leaders, officials, architects and others within the design/building industry, and grassroots support. The primary goal of this analysis is to provide a tool for communities as well as other levels of government that seek to design green building programs in the future. It is based on research conducted by the AIA on all American cities with a population greater than 50,000 (661 communities) to spotlight the growth and effectiveness of green building policies.”
Research also shows that cities throughout the United States are now supporting the use of various external green building programs. An excellent example of this is the City of Seattle which is one of the top cities in the nation for LEED facilities as well as being the largest single owners of LEED facilities in the world. This achievement was spurred by the City’s adoption of the Sustainable Building Policy as early as 2000. And in 2000, Seattle broke some major ground by requiring city buildings be LEED Silver. Seattle’s Green Building Policy to achieve a LEED Silver rating, applies to all new City-funded projects and renovations which contain in excess of 5000 square feet of occupied space. This policy affects all city departments that are involved with construction, including the Department http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cms/groups/pan/@pan/@sustainableblding/documents/web_informational/dpds_007262.pdf of Planning and Development (DPD) is now the Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections which monitors implementation of the policy. Francesca Lyman of MSNBC’s award-winning “Your Environment” column says that Seattle leads the nation’s cities in LEED-certified buildings.
The City of Seattle currently promotes a number of green building programs such as the following:
• Built Green: This is an environmentally friendly, nonprofit, residential building program of the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties, developed in partnership with King County, Snohomish County, and other local environmental groups in Washington State. The Built Green programs are: New Home Building, Remodeling, and Multifamily Development and Communities.
• Energy Star Homes: A program for new homes that was created by the U.S. EPA and U.S. Department of Energy. Seattle witnessed a total of 5995 ENERGY STAR qualified homes built to date, whereas the State of Washington witnessed a total of 14,673 ENERGY STAR qualified homes built to date.
• LEED for Homes: Recently created residential rating system by the USGBC. The USGBC says that “LEED for Homes is a consensus-developed, third party-verified, voluntary rating system which promotes the design and construction of high-performance green homes.” For example, the City of Cincinnati currently offers a sizable tax incentive for new and renovated homes that are certified under the USGBC’s LEED green building rating system. The local Cincinnati chapter of the National Association of Home Builders is requesting their organization’s residential green building rating system, known as the National Green Building Standard (NGBS), to be adopted for the same tax incentive.
• Multifamily: Includes apartments, townhomes, and condominiums. Incentives are offered for building efficiency, renewable energy (visit: www.seattle.gov/dpd/greenbuilding for more details).
Another city deserving special mention is Nashville, Tennessee. For many years, Nashville has been known as the country music capital of the world. It is now also being acknowledged for its innovative community planning and sustainability efforts. In fact, in recent years the city has started to assert itself as a green building leader in the southeast by passing a green building law, working together with the state on sustainability efforts and helping to revitalize an aging community into a green community. Indeed, the city’s sustainability efforts provide a model of leadership for Tennessee and the wider southeast and some green proponents are seeking to make Nashville the “greenest city” in the south. Nashville now requires LEED certification for city owned buildings, so that all new and renovated structures meet green standards. Likewise, municipal facilities costing more than $2 million or are in excess of 5000 square feet of occupied space must seek LEED Silver certification.
In addition to the Cities of Seattle and Nashville, there are many other cities in the United States that promote green building programs such as Honolulu (Hawaii), New York (New York), Phoenix (Arizona), Fremont (California), San Francisco (California), City of San José (California), Anchorage (Alaska), Minneapolis (Minnesota), Portland (Oregon), Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania), Virginia Beach (Virginia), Washington (District of Columbia), and many others.
1.3.3. Defining Sustainable Communities
The interest in sustainability and sustainable communities arose out of a desire to increase quality of life and opportunities that economic development can bring, but in a manner that preserves the environment for present and future generations. However, the concept of sustainable communities remains somewhat elusive, perhaps even complicated, and to offer a precise definition may vary from source to source. Community planners around the country have started to formulate a perception or vision of how http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cms/groups/pan/@pan/@sustainableblding/documents/web_informational/dpds_007254.pdf such a community will grow to embrace the sustainability of its citizens’ core values which include: the community, social equity, economic prosperity, environmental stewardship, security, and opportunity.
Since LEED and sustainability has become part of the mainstream in the United States, numerous cities have commenced adopting an all-inclusive plan that incorporates goals and policies designed to help guide development toward a more sustainable and environmental friendly future. This new forward-looking “green urbanism” desires to apply leading edge tools, models, strategies, and technologies to encourage cities into achieving ecofriendly sustainability goals and policies. The application of an integrated, whole-systems design approach to the planning of communities or neighborhoods puts the city in a stronger position to achieve increased environmental protection levels. Among the other compelling inducements for building owners and property developers to invest in green buildings, is the LEED certification program which includes the financial benefits of operating a more efficient and less expensive facility. The adherence to LEED guidelines will go a long way to ensuring that the facilities are designed, constructed, and operated more effectively, mainly because LEED would prefer project teams to concentrate on operating life cycle costs, rather than initial construction costs.
As previously mentioned, many states are now offering various incentives in the form of tax benefits for green building and LEED compliance. An excellent example of this is the State of New York, where Governor George Pataki in May 2001, signed into law the nation’s first Green Building Tax Credit (GBTC) program. This is a 25 million dollar income tax credit created to promote the funding of concepts and ideas that encourage green building practices, particularly owners and tenants of buildings that meet specific criteria regarding energy, IAQ, water conservation, materials, commissioning, appliance, and size criteria as set out in the State regulations, maintained by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation. This and other programs led to the building of the first high-rise green office building in the United States as well as the first high-rise green residential building in the United States. Governor Pataki also established New York’s leading brownfield program encouraging increased development in cities across the state by creating a $200 million fund to support the redevelopment of contaminated sites and instituting a $135 million tax credit program to stimulate public–private investment in brownfields. And after several failed attempts over recent years, the New York State Legislature and Gov. Andrew Cuomo were able to reach agreement as part of the 2015–16 state budget on extensive amendments to the New York State Brownfield Cleanup Program (BCP). This achievement is very significant in light of the scheduled expiration of tax credits under the existing program on December 31, 2015.
What is unusual is that until recently, no single organization had the vision and foresight to move toward bringing green construction to the American residential market. Any residential green programs that did previously exist were typically sponsored by local homebuilder associations (HBAs), nonprofit organizations, and municipalities. Since this situation was unacceptable and unlikely to last, the National Association of Home builders (NAHB) and the NAHB Research Center (NAHB RC) took preemptive action and produced the Model Green Home Building Guidelines and several other utility programs. But while these programs may have provided many of the solutions relating to the nation’s residential building market, with respect to commercial construction, LEED was until recently the only viable program available. However, this has recently changed and many states such as the State of Oregon, for example, now stipulate that, “The building must meet an established standard set by the USGBC’s LEED or be rated by a comparable program approved by the Oregon Department of Energy.” Likewise, in early 2007, N.Y.C. adopted broad sustainable rules for school construction; the School Construction Authority’s (SCA) adopted a new Green Schools Rating System, giving the SCA a robust LEED equivalent standard and new green guidelines which were a sweeping redefinition of the rules that immediately raised the bar for future construction projects even higher than required by the new law. New York City has a number of green building laws and regulations, as well as a green building policy for schools. The Green Schools Guide was developed primarily to achieve compliance with Local Law 86 of 2005, known as New York City’s Green Building Law, which was enacted by the City Council and signed into law by New York’s Mayor Bloomberg. This law established a set of sustainable/green standards for public design and construction projects and makes NYC one of the first and largest school districts in the nation to have sustainable guidelines stipulated by law. Local Law 86 (LL86) requires many capital projects that involve building construction and receive city funds, to be constructed in accordance with the standards of the national LEED, a green building rating system developed by the USGBC.
The NYC Green Schools Guide was released in 2007 and updated in 2009. This Guide focuses primarily on addressing IAQ, including addressing indoor air contaminants, such as hazardous chemicals of concern associated with PVC such as phthalates. The Guide states that schools should: “Reduce the quantity of indoor air contaminants that are odorous, irritating and/or harmful to the comfort and well being of installers and occupants. This credit is required for all projects” and “Reduce exposure of building occupants to potentially hazardous particulates and chemical pollutants. This credit is required for all projects.” In this respect, Philadelphia has recently enacted a Green Roofs Tax Credit for costs incurred by installing a roof that supports living vegetation. Likewise, Philadelphia has proposed a sustainable zoning ordinance mandating the incorporation of green roofs for buildings that occupy a minimum of 90,000 square feet (Fig. 1.2 www.facilities.upen.edu).
Figure 1.2 One of two University of Pennsylvania building projects that received LEED Gold certification by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC): Wharton School’s Steinberg-Dietrich Hall West Tower Entrance addition was opened in early 2013. The project was designed by Kling Stubbins and was originally built to achieve LEED Silver but exceeded that in its use of green features, having green roofs that manage stormwater runoff and reduce cooling loads and heat island effects, which utilize high-performance building materials with high-efficiency mechanical, lighting, and ventilation systems.
Of note, competition on a national scale to the LEED program in the United States came from Canada in the form of the Green Globes system. This provided a green management tool that includes an assessment protocol, rating system, and guide for integrating environmentally friendly design into commercial buildings. Green Globes hopes to offer the U.S. commercial construction industry a simpler, less expensive method for assessing and rating a building’s environmental performance. Green Globes is a web-based auditing tool that was developed by a Toronto-based environmental consultant, Energy and Environment Canada. The system’s greatest strength is purported to be its rapid and economical method for assessing and rating the environmental performance of new and existing buildings. Rights to market the program in the United States were purchased by the Green Building Initiative (GBI) which has budgeted more than $800,000 as a first step to promote national awareness of Green Globes as a viable alternative to the LEED program throughout the construction and development community and try and capture a significant percentage of its market share. Green Globes is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2 of this handbook.
California and New York’s building codes are among the Nation’s forerunners in sustainable development. Since taking office, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has made it a priority to develop a self-sustaining solar industry for California, and the solar initiatives he introduced (e.g. the Million Solar Roofs Initiative), included $2.9 billion in incentives to homeowners and building owners who install solar electric systems and were pivotal in motivating and creating a solar industry in the state and which has now become the nation’s largest market. On December 14, 2004, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-20-04, which requires the design, construction, and operation of all new and renovated state-owned facilities to be LEED Silver-certified. New York City’s Local Law 86 (also known as “The LEED Law”) took effect in January 2007. It basically requires that many of New York City’s new municipal buildings, as well as additions and renovations to its existing municipal buildings, achieve certain standards of sustainability that would meet various LEED criteria. Mayor Michael Bloomberg also announced his Greener, Greater Buildings Plan in 2009 in which he set a target of 30% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2017. In 2007, New Mexico passed its own major green building tax credit, and Oregon followed by passing a 35% tax credit for the employment of solar energy systems. These numerous tax incentives have spurred green building tenant attraction and retention to continue to grow and become stronger, thereby making a green building a sound investment. With regard to reconstruction projects, building teams seeking to attain LEED Gold and Platinum certifications for their projects need to be resourceful to preserve cost premiums to a minimum. The principal obstacles are often optimizing daylighting and thermal performance, but even this can be overcome through well-conceived planning and design. According to THA Architects’ Keltner, “I would make the bold statement that doing a (reconstructed) LEED-certified building doesn’t cost you a nickel more than what it would be to do a standard building, if you are smart about what you are doing,” “Furthermore, if you want to go to high levels of LEED certification, you can get really far with an added 5%.”
1.3.4. Potential Risks of Building Green
The recent release by the AIA of six new contract documents that address the distinctive roles, risks, and opportunities we come across in Green building and generate a resolve in considering how best to mitigate risk in Green building. Risk mitigation is extremely important to all in the field of Green building, not only builders and owners of Green buildings, but also architects/designers, engineers, LEED consultants, building contractors, material suppliers, landlords, tenants, financiers realtors, and others, all who are involved with new construction or renovation of existing buildings.
Judah Lifschitz, author and copresident of Shapiro, Lifschitz & Schram, P.C., says, “The potential liability associated with taking on a green project without proper preparation is huge. Potential causes of legal action include claims for misrepresentation, fraud, negligence, negligence per se, and breach of contract. Some factors that will likely contribute to an increase in green building litigation include: (i) the volume of inexperienced parties attempting to build green; (ii) a lack of understanding and defining the term “green”; (iii) a lack of understanding of the LEED certification requirements; (iv) unintentionally guaranteeing an outcome that does not occur; and (v) failing to draft green building contracts to appropriately account for the unique risks inherent in green building projects. Thus, it is essential that before undertaking to work on a green project, you think through all aspects of the project and fully understand what a green building project constitutes and requires.” Lifschitz also advises against promising more than can be delivered, and that if stakeholders are “to avoid the prospect of costly claims and litigation, green-project participants must be proactive at the outset of a project and pay careful attention to potential pitfalls when drafting and negotiating contract documents.”
Green litigation and liability issues are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 16.
1.4. Establishing Measurable Green Criteria
The green movement continues to surge in strength and vitality, creating an urgent need to establish measurable green criteria. Rating systems in the United States and globally like LEED, BREEAM, and Green Globes are making a serious attempt to define the qualitative and/or quantitative measures of sustainability and the data needed to implement and assess these measures. These efforts are of the utmost importance because they assist us to determine if a building is having the impact on human health and the environment its designers intended and the estimated cost or saving of this achievement.
An early recognition of the urgent need to address sustainability problems facing the planet and the necessity for establishing measurable green criteria to facilitate this, was evidenced by the creation of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) in December 1983 by the United Nations with the main purpose of addressing growing concerns “about the accelerating deterioration of the human environment and natural resources and the consequences of that deterioration for economic and social development.” The establishment of the WCED commission is a clear recognition by the UN General Assembly that the environmental problems we face are global in nature. The UN determined that it was in the best interest of all nations to establish common policies for sustainable development (Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future—http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm). Following the formation of the WCED, came the Brundtland Commission in 1987 which produced the Brundtland Report (also known as Our Common Future) in August of the same year. The significance of the report is that it alerted the world to the urgency of making progress toward economic development that could be sustained without depleting natural resources or harming the environment. The report highlighted three essential components to achieve sustainable development: (1) environmental protection, (2) economic growth, and (3) social equity. Some have found the findings of this report rather troubling; it states among other things:
“The ‘greenhouse effect,’ one such threat to life support systems, springs directly from increased resource use (Fig. 1.3). The burning of fossil fuels and the cutting and burning of forests release carbon dioxide (CO2). The accumulation in the atmosphere of CO2 and certain other gases traps solar radiation near the earth’s surface, causing global warming. This could cause sea level rises over the next 45 years large enough to inundate many low lying coastal cities and river deltas. It could also drastically upset national and international agricultural production and trade systems.
Figure 1.3 The human activities that cause climate change: Pie chart showing global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions broken down into eight different sectors for the year 2000. The three gases most responsible for warming are naturally occurring gases and a group of man-made chemicals. The natural gases are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). The manufactured chemicals are collectively called the halocarbons and include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and others. Concentrations of these greenhouse gases have increased over time and human activity may be increasing the greenhouse effect. Credit: Wikipedia File: Greenhouse Gas by Sector.png.
Another threat arises from the depletion of the atmospheric ozone layer by gases released during the production of foam and the use of refrigerants and aerosols. A substantial loss of such ozone could have catastrophic effects on human and livestock health and on some life forms at the base of the marine food chain. The 1986 discovery of a hole in the ozone layer above the Antarctic suggests the possibility of a more rapid depletion than previously suspected.”
The Report goes on to say, “A variety of air pollutants are killing trees and lakes and damaging buildings and cultural treasures, close to and sometimes thousands of miles from points of emission. The acidification of the environment threatens large areas of Europe and North America. Central Europe is currently receiving more than 1 g of sulfur on every square meter of ground each year. The loss of forests could bring in its wake disastrous erosion, siltation, floods, and local climatic change. Air pollution damage is also becoming evident in some newly industrialized countries.” Fig. 1.4 is a graphic illustration of the greenhouse effect.
Figure 1.4 The earth’s greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases are generally gases that trap heat in the atmosphere. Some greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes and human activities. Other greenhouse gases (e.g., fluorinated gases) are produced and emitted solely through human activities. The main greenhouse gases that enter the atmosphere because of human activities are: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), fluorinated gases (hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride).
When trying to establish green measuring and performance criteria, we are immediately faced with several significant challenges—both conceptual and practical. On the conceptual side, we are challenged with the need to determine precisely what our understanding of “performance” is. For example, “Performance” can be understood to mean: Does the building, as built, exhibit or embrace characteristics that are green or sustainable? It can also mean: Are the building upgrades, renovations, and reconfigurations sustainable? In some cases, green criteria is measured by the environmental results and consequences of sustainable strategies, in terms of resource consumption and environmental impacts, and in others, it is measured by the ultimate savings and costs realized from a sustainable building.
As for the practical challenges, these mainly revolve around actual versus modeled performance. But while actual performance data are obviously more preferable, it may not always be easy to obtain, in which case one is forced to use models or estimations. Where models are necessary, it is preferable when possible to use any relevant existing data available, as this better reflects operating performance as opposed to design performance. A typical example of difficulty in obtaining relevant data to support performance is on campuses where buildings are not separately metered for energy or water use. This means that extra individual effort may be required to gather the needed data. But even when measured data are available, there still remains the question of quality and reliability of the data. Thus, to be really useful, we need to apply benchmarks for comparison to determine the level of performance and compare it to a typical well-documented building in a similar climate, with the same occupancies. Benchmarks can be a building’s performance measured over time, or based on external yardsticks such as LEED, Green Globes, BREEAM, EnergyStar, the European Passivhaus, or other acceptable organizations.
In an article entitled, Measuring Performance of Sustainable Buildings, Joel Todd, Environmental Consultant and Kim Fowler, Senior Research Engineer, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, says, “In recent years, building owners and designers, researchers, and others have begun performing studies related to the costs and benefits of sustainable design. Some of these studies attempt to address the full impact of sustainable design, while others emphasize the economic aspects, the environmental impacts, and the social aspects separately. Other differences in the studies include whether or not the data is measured, modeled, or some combination of both, whether the information is based on a single building or multiple buildings and the differences in how the baseline or benchmark is being used.” Some of these studies include:
• The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings: A Report to California’s Sustainable Building Task Force by G. Kats et al (2003)
• The Business Case for Sustainable Design in Federal Facilities by the U.S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP).
• LEED Cost Study and LEED Applications Guide by Steven Winter Associates, Inc. for U.S. General Services Administration.
• Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) by Sieglinde Fuller. National Institute of Standards and Technology, in WBDG. Updated 2008.
• 2007 The Cost of Green Revisited, Lisa Fay Matthiessen and Peter Morris, Davis Langdon, 2007.
• Measuring performance of sustainable buildings. JA Todd, KM Fowler—Pacific Northwest National laboratory, 2010—wbdg.org
.
What is common to most assessment schemes essentially is the concept of looking at the complete building, evaluating impacts in various categories then weighting the scores in some way, tallying them up, and giving an overall score. Important categories to be considered typically include energy, water use, waste, health, materials impact, and future adaptableness. But condensing the performance into a single score is not a simple task and necessitates having the comparative relevance and importance of the various issues to be addressed by apportioning more points to the more important sections. Energy, for example, is a key criterion and is therefore typically given greater weighting than other criteria.
It is problematic that while we witnessed a substantial building boom in recent years, it was often underpinned by inferior design and construction strategies including highly inefficient HVAC systems, thus placing buildings at the top of the list of contributors to global warming. Federal and private organizations are making serious attempts to address these problems with some success, and due partly to these efforts we are now witnessing a surge of interest in green concepts and sustainability. Many developers and project owners have become aware of the numerous benefits of incorporating green strategies and are increasingly aspiring to achieve green certification for their buildings, particularly LEED certification. The principal objectives of the green building rating systems are essentially to create incentives to produce high-performance buildings and to increase demand for sustainable construction. Green buildings have been shown to be economically viable, ecologically benign and whose operation and maintenance have proven over the long term to be sustainable and very viable.
This encouraged the collaboration of the Partnership for Achieving Construction Excellence and the Pentagon Renovation and Construction Program Office who together recently issued a Field Guide for Sustainable Construction which consists of 10 chapters:
Chapter 1: Procurement – Specific procurement strategies to ensure sustainable construction requirements are addressed.
Chapter 2: Site/Environment – Methods to reduce the environmental impact of construction on the project site and surrounding environment are identified.
Chapter 3: Material Selection – Identifies environmentally friendly building materials as well as harmful and toxic materials that should be avoided.
Chapter 4: Waste Prevention – Methods to reduce and eliminate waste on construction projects are identified.
Chapter 5: Recycling – Identifies materials to recycle at each phase of construction and methods to support the onsite recycling effort.
Chapter 6: Energy – Methods to ensure and improve the building’s energy performance, reduce energy consumed during construction, and identify opportunities to use renewable energy sources.
Chapter 7: Building and Material Reuse – Identifies reusable materials and methods to facilitate the future reuse of a facility, systems, equipment, products and materials.
Chapter 8: Construction Technologies – Identifies technologies which can be used during construction to improve efficiency and reduce waste (especially paper).
Chapter 9: Health and Safety – Methods to improve the quality of life for construction workers are identified.
Chapter 10: Indoor Environmental Quality – Methods to ensure indoor environmental quality measures during construction are managed and executed properly.
The object of the Field Guide is to providing guidance and educating construction field workers, as well as supervisors and managers and other stakeholders to making appropriate decisions that can help the project team to meet sustainable project goals. Most of the topics discussed in the Guide are incorporated in the LEED and other rating systems.
Additionally, there are a number of other sustainability programs that outline important green criteria. The DOE, for example, has an Environmental Protection Program, the goals and objectives of which are “to implement sound stewardship practices that are protective of the air, water, land, and other natural and cultural resources impacted by DOE operations and by which DOE cost effectively meets or exceeds compliance with applicable environmental; public health; and resource protection laws, regulations, and DOE requirements. This objective must be accomplished by implementing Environmental Management Systems (EMSs) at DOE sites. An EMS is a continuing cycle of planning, implementing, evaluating, and improving processes and actions undertaken to achieve environmental goals.”
Architects, designers, property developers, contractors, and other stakeholders must have a clear understanding of the different certification programs that are currently available, and why certification is a necessary requirement if property owners want to remain competitive in an increasingly green market. Certification implies independent verification that a building has met accepted guidelines in these areas, as outlined, for example, in the LEED Green Building Rating System. LEED certification of a project has become a recognized testimonial to its quality and environmental stewardship, especially since the LEED green building rating system has become widely accepted by public and private owners—not only in the United States but in many countries around the world and continues to increase in popularity.
Due to the major inroads into the mainstream design and construction industry by the LEED rating system, contractors and property developers are realizing that it is in their best interest to contribute toward a project’s success in achieving green objectives. This is not difficult to achieve once the LEED process is understood and its specific role in achieving LEED credits, followed by through early involvement (preferably from the planning phase) and participation throughout the various project phases by implementing a team approach in an integrated design process. The application of measureable benchmarks is necessary to enable verification and confirm a building’s satisfactory performance. One must point out here that ASHRAE puts the responsibility of defining design intent requirements squarely on the shoulders of the project owner. Normally, in the practice of architecture and engineering for building design, the owner hires an architect and/or engineer to develop the design intent in the design phase of the project. But to do this, it is imperative to have in place all information necessary to accomplish the design intent. Otherwise, it would be difficult if not impossible to correctly measure a building or project’s performance without the necessary information being made available regarding the criteria upon which the project’s design and execution was based. This requires that a project’s plans and specifications, etc. are prepared in a manner that can provide measurable results, without which it would not be possible to make a meaningful or credible evaluation of a project to determine if it has met the specified objectives and original design intent of the owner. Likewise, before measureable sustainable criteria can be established, it is necessary to first agree precisely what is understood by “green construction” and to clearly articulate specifically what the finished product is to consist of. This is why in many building construction projects, points of dispute arise due to these misunderstandings of how a building, product, or system, is evaluated prior to, during, and after construction. Where disputes cannot be resolved through standard meeting minutes or interpretation (RFIs), the parties then end up going to mediation, arbitration, or trial. Below is a useful table that highlights the responsibilities and decision making parties for each credit in the LEED Certification Process (Fig. 1.5).
The USGBC currently promotes its LEED rating system by emphasizing the simplicity of the system in addition to its other benefits. But the uniqueness of the LEED certification system is that it typically mandates performance over process. Moreover, the USGBC through the application of its widely circulated and recently updated LEED v4 scoring system and other efforts has compelled many contractors and their subcontractors to change the way they operate. Perhaps, the most notable change from LEED v3 to v4 is an expansion to include rating systems for different building types and renovation types. LEED v3 has also improved its rating system by taking into account the impact of microclimate and incorporating Regional Priority to its rating system. In addition, LEED v4 will now also include Location and Linkage (transportation) and Awareness and Education. This is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2.
Figure 1.5 Table highlighting decision makers and parties responsible for achieving LEED credits. Courtesy: GreenExam Academy.
Other organizations such as the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) has also put forward a set of green home building guidelines that “should be viewed as a dynamic document that will change and evolve as new information becomes available, improvements are made to existing techniques and technologies, and new research tools are developed.” The NAHB states that their Model Green Home Building Guidelines were written to help move environmentally friendly home building concepts further into the mainstream marketplace; it is one of two rating systems that make up NAHBGreen, the National Green Building Program. The NAHBGreen program allows new construction or remodel projects, driven by builders, ANSI-compliant standard, middle ground between Energy Star, and LEED more flexibility to balance cost and localization.
Unlike the LEED rating system which has four levels (certified, silver, gold, and platinum), the NAHB point program contains only three different levels of green building—Bronze, Silver, and Gold. The system is available to builders wishing to implement these guidelines to rate their projects. “At all levels, there are a minimum number of points required for each of the seven guiding principles to assure that all aspects of green building are addressed and that there is a balanced, whole-systems approach. After reaching the thresholds, an additional 100 points must be achieved by implementing any of the remaining line items.” It should be mentioned that Green Globes which is very popular in Canada uses the NAHB standards for evaluating residential buildings. Of note, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) has recently signed on to become one of three Greenbuild Top Tier Partners (for 2015), in addition to the AIA and Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) International.
While the general appearance of a green building may be similar to other conventional building forms, the conceptual design approach is fundamentally different because it revolves round a concern for the building’s potential impact on the environment. It also endeavors to extend the life span of natural resources, seeks to improve human comfort and well-being, as well as security, productivity, and energy efficiency. That sustainably designed buildings will culminate in reduced operating costs including energy, water, and other intangible benefits is now globally recognized. In this regard, the Indian Green Building Council (IGBC) which administers the LEED India rating system highlights a number of salient Green Building attributes such as:
• Minimal disturbance to landscapes and site condition
• Use of Recycled and Environmental Friendly Building Materials
• Use of Non-Toxic and recycled/recyclable Materials
• Efficient use of Water and Water Recycling
• Use of Energy-Efficient and Eco-Friendly Equipment
• Use of Renewable Energy
• IAQ for Human Safety and Comfort
• Effective Controls and Building Management Systems
There are several other organizations like the WBDG in the United States that also set out certain objectives and principles relating to sustainable design. These are outlined below:
Objectives:
• Avoid resource depletion of energy, water, and raw material.
• Prevent environmental degradation caused by facilities and infrastructure throughout their life cycles.
• Create built environments that are livable, comfortable, safe, and productive.
Principles:
• Optimize site potential
• Optimize energy use
• Protect and conserve water
• Use environmentally preferred products
• Enhance IEQ
• Optimize operations and maintenance procedures
James Woods, previous executive director of The Building Diagnostics Research Institute (July 2002–December 2009), believes that “Building performance is a set of facts and not just promises. If the promises are achieved and verified through measurement, beneficial consequences will result and risks will be managed. However, if the promises are not achieved, adverse consequences are likely to lead to increased risks to the occupants and tenants, building owners, designers and contractors; and to the larger interests of national security and climate change.”
Alan Bilka, a sustainable design expert with ICC Technical Services, correctly points out that “Over time, more and more ‘green’ materials and methods will appear in the coders and/or have an effect on current code text. But the implications of green and sustainable building are so wide and far reaching that their effects will most certainly not be limited to one single code or standard. On the contrary, they will affect virtually all codes and will spill beyond the codes. Some green building concepts may become hotly contested political issues in the future, possibly requiring the creation of new legislation and/or entirely new government agencies.”
The U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory has created a High-Performance Buildings (HPB) Database to help improve building performance by showcasing examples of green buildings and providing a standardized format for displaying performance results. The DOE is also working on standardizing methods for reporting building performance by collecting relevant data on sustainable topics such as land use, energy, materials, water conservation, and IEQ. The HPB Database presents information at various levels of detail. An “Overview” level, for example, describes key information, including a project’s function and most pertinent green features. More detailed information on the project is divided into a series of modules on process, performance, and results.
1.5. Emerging Directions: Moving Forward
We live today in both challenging and exciting times in a volatile design and construction industry. Architects, engineers, manufacturers, and the construction industry are currently facing colossal technological and institutional changes and challenges, particularly the proliferation of information technology and suitable application of sustainable practices. The 21st century architect and engineer must be able to cope with this rapid pace of technological change, an almost totally interconnected world, and multifaceted problems requiring unusual multidisciplinary solutions. Happily, sustainable design has provided us with a way to efficiently use our resources and make a minimal impact on our environment, preserving it for ourselves and future generations. But “The one constant in a volatile industry has been our ability to help construction professionals make the right decisions to drive their businesses,” and “During these tough economic times, gaining insight and intelligence about where our industry is headed and what role we will each need to play to be successful is extremely important.” said Keith Fox, former president of McGraw-Hill Construction (now Dodge Data & Analytics). Most design professionals as well as developers, contractors, manufacturers, and federal, state and local governments are enthusiastically embracing this emerging green phenomenon. And although the world of building design and construction has over the last couple of decades been increasingly going green, it has today become an integral part of our global culture. The enthusiastic embracement of green and the increased public awareness of its benefits has brought increasing pressure on the construction industry to undergo a fundamental change in the manner it does business and executes projects. This significant development has proved to be a milestone in the construction industry. Moreover, according to a 2008 Green Building Market Barometer online survey of commercial real estate executives conducted by New York City–based Turner Construction, even the 2008 credit collapse has failed to adversely impact the desire of property developers to go green. This debunks one of the many myths that green building is a fad but rather validates the fact that it is global and here to stay. In fact, in McGraw Hill Construction’s recent (2011) Construction Outlook, it predicted an increase in overall US construction starts for 2011. It predicted the level of construction starts in 2011 to advance by 8% to USD 445.5 billion, following the 2% decline predicted for 2010. Furthermore, based on the research and analysis of macrotrends McGraw-Hill Construction’s 2011 Construction Outlook made other significant predictions for each construction sector, as follows:
1. Single family housing in 2011 will climb 27% in dollars, corresponding to a 25% increase in the number of units to 565,000 (McGraw Hill construction basis)
2. Multifamily housing will rise 24% in dollars and 23% in units, continuing to move gradually upward
3. Commercial buildings will increase 16%, following a 3-year decline, which dropped contracting 62% in dollar terms. The level of activity expected for stores, warehouses, offices, and hotels in 2011 will still be quite weak by historical standards
4. The institutional building market will slip an additional 1% in 2011, retreating for the third straight year. The difficult fiscal climate for states and localities will continue to dampen school construction, although the healthcare facilities category should see moderate growth
5. Manufacturing buildings will increase 9% in dollars and 11% in square feet
6. Public works construction will drop 1%, given the fading benefits of the federal stimulus act for highway and bridge construction
7. Electric utilities will slide 10%, falling for the third year in a row.
However, according to Dodge Data & Analytics (formally McGraw-Hill Construction) after the steady growth in 2014, the construction industry is expected to see a strong uptick in construction starts in 2015. Dodge forecasts that the total value of construction starts in 2015 could reach $612 billion—up 9% from 2014. Moreover, according to Dodge, “The residential, commercial and institutional sectors, in particular, are expected to boost activity.” Dodge also estimated that 2014 will close out with $563.9 billion in starts—a 5% increase over 2013. That tally is well above the $550 billion total that Dodge initially forecast for the year.
Moreover, after steady growth in 2014, the construction industry is expected to see a strong uptick in construction starts in 2015, according to Dodge Data & Analytics (formally McGraw-Hill Construction). Dodge also forecasts that the total value of construction starts could reach $612 billion in 2015—up 9% from 2014. Based on research of specific construction market sectors, the 2015 Dodge Construction Outlook details the forecast as follows:
1. “Commercial building will increase 15%, slightly faster than the 14% gain estimated for 2014. Office construction has assumed a leading role in the commercial building upturn, aided by expanding private development as well as healthy construction activity related to technology and finance firms. Hotel and warehouse construction should also strengthen, although the pickup for stores is more tenuous.
2. Institutional building will advance 9%, continuing the moderate upward trend that has been established during 2014. The educational building category is now seeing an increasing amount of K-12 school construction, aided by the financing made available by the passage of recent construction bond measures. Healthcare facilities are expected to show some improvement relative to diminished activity in 2014.
3. Single family housing will rise 15% in dollars, corresponding to an 11% increase in units to 700,000 (Dodge basis). It’s expected that access to home mortgage loans will be expanded, lifting housing demand. However, the millennial generation is only gradually making the shift toward homeownership, limiting the potential number of new homebuyers in the near term.
4. Multifamily housing will increase 9% in dollars and 7% in units to 405,000 (Dodge basis). Occupancies and rent growth continue to be supportive, although the rate of increase for construction is now decelerating as the multifamily market matures.
5. Public works construction will improve 5%, a partial rebound following the 9% decline estimated for 2014. Highway and bridge construction should stabilize, and modest gains are anticipated for environmental public works. Federal spending restraint will be offset by a greater financing role played by the states, involving higher user fees and the increased use of public–private partnerships.
6. Electric utilities will slide 9%, continuing the downward trend that has followed the exceptional volume of construction starts that was reported during 2011–12. With more projects now coming on line, capacity utilization rates will stay low, limiting the need for new construction.
7. Manufacturing plant construction will settle back 16%, following the huge increases reported during both 2013 (up 42%) and 2014 (up 57%) that reflected the start of massive chemical and energy-related projects. Next year’s volume remains quite high by recent historical standards.”
The public’s increased environmental alertness has become an integral component of the corporate mainstream and general global awareness of human impact on the environment as well as an increase in consumer demand for sustainable products and services are creating new challenges and opportunities for businesses in all aspects of the construction-related industries. Enlightened corporations have responded to these challenges by becoming more mindful of these environmental impacts. “Green” organizations such as the USGBC and Green Globes play a pivotal role in raising corporate awareness and encouraging increased participation in the green movement. Moreover, in addition to the United States, LEED and other building rating systems can be found the world over, in countries as diverse as Britain, Mexico, Australia, Spain, Canada, India, China, United Arab Emirates, Israel, and Japan, to name but a few examples, where the green movement is well underway. What is even more profound is that green buildings are by codification, becoming the law of the land. For some organizations, this will just mean business as usual, but for others, this sudden change will be cataclysmic. The new codes will invariably mean increased expectations from designers and contractors and possibly increased litigation due to the increased standard of care.
The concept and practice of sustainability continues to have a profound impact on building construction and design and helps to fundamentally transform the building market, and change our perception of how we design, inhabit, and operate our buildings. In fact, among the primary factors that are accelerating the push toward building green include: An increased demand for green construction, particularly in the residential sector, increasing levels of government initiatives, and improvements in the quality and availability of environmentally friendly building materials. This increasing demand for sustainability has forced many businesses to seek new ways to become more sustainable, mainly by focusing their efforts on improving their buildings’ energy efficiency and interior environmental air quality.
Spurred by this growing demand for building projects that employ environmentally friendly and energy-efficient materials, a strong green movement in the construction industry has emerged. With this in mind, we witness a number of forward-looking general contracting companies such as DPR Construction, Inc. jumping on the green bandwagon and being well prepared and well placed to deliver successful green projects. According to DPR, which is an employee-owned firm, they have LEED-trained and accredited professionals in every one of their 19 national offices across the country. DPR, which boasts a resume of over $1 billon in green building projects, claims to have trained more than 500 professionals in overall sustainability and green building in addition to all of the available LEED programs. Furthermore, 27% of DPR’s professionals having acquired LEED accreditation; this is reportedly the highest percentage of LEED accredited professionals in the nation among general contractors. Their main competitors in the United States are: Skanska USA Building, Turner Construction, Clark Construction Group.
In January 2009, President Obama inherited a depressed economy, yet even with the downturn in the economy and the construction industry, the amount of “green buildings” being built in the United States is estimated to be in excess of $10 billion. According to the Department of Commerce (2008), the construction market constituted about 13.4% of the $13.2 trillion U.S. GDP, which includes all commercial, residential, industrial, and infrastructure construction. Commercial and residential building construction on their own accounted for about 6.1% of the GDP (source: Department of Construction—2008). Furthermore, as of 2006, the USGBC’s LEED system certified 775 million sq. ft. of commercial office space as green. This represents a mere 2% of US commercial office space. However, this is expected to increase exponentially, with green buildings accounting for 5–10% of the US commercial construction market by 2010. Still, according to Howard Birnberg, executive director of the Association for Project Managers, “Whatever the condition of the economy, technology continues to advance. While it remains to be seen if Building Information Modeling (BIM) will be a game changer for the industry, the ability to integrate new technology is an expensive and endless challenge. Training of design and construction staff in new technology and important subjects such as project management has been widely neglected during the downturn. When workloads improve, many organizations will need to play catch up on their staff training.”
At the annual 2010 Greenbuild Conference, the USGBC announced that it achieved a major milestone in the certification of more than one billion square feet of commercial real estate through its LEED Green Building Rating System. It further reported that another 6 billion square feet of projects around the world are registered and seeking to achieve LEED certification. Whereas in 2015, more than 13.8 billion square feet of building space was LEED-certified (as of August, 2015).
Among the many indicators reflecting global interest in the USGBC and LEED is evidenced each year by the large attendance and number of different countries represented at Greenbuild, the USGBC’s International Conference and Expo. As an example, nearly 17,500 people attended the Greenbuild 2014 conference in New Orleans, Louisiana (source: USGBC Green Building Facts), compared to only 4200 who attended the same event in Austin, TX, in 2002. The attendees at the 2014 New Orleans Greenbuild included representatives from all 50 states, over 85 countries, and 6 continents. There were also 552 exhibiting companies participating in 142,000 square feet of exhibit and display space on the trade show floor.
There growing evidence once again shows that the shift toward green construction is truly a global trend, with more countries putting more resources into improving efficiency and sustainability. In 2008, for example, the McGraw Hill “Global Green Building Trends” states that 67% of global construction firms reported that at least 16% of their projects are green buildings. And in 2013 the global green building market grew to $260 billion, including an estimated 20% of all new U.S. commercial real estate construction. This trend is a clear signal that green construction has not only become part of the mainstream but can be expected to intensify in the future in addition to achieving a significant share of the construction industry’s multi trillion dollar global market.
Europe has reportedly achieved the highest level of sustainable building activity in the international arena, with an unprecedented 44 % of European construction firms building green on at least 60% of their projects. Following, comes North America and Australia but the gaps are gradually closing. However, Asia has the greatest potential for increasing its market share, where the number of firms dedicated to green construction is projected to increase three-fold in the coming years.
It is interesting to note that although the AIA has concluded that buildings are the leading source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, a recent online survey conducted by Harris Interactive shows that only 4% of US adults were aware of this fact. However, the quantity and quality of much of the data that generally relate to business and the environment unfortunately remains inadequate and wanting. It is sad that some government agencies, corporations, nonprofit groups, and academic institutions, continue to maintain a lethargic approach and produce relatively little to quantify or assess simple measures of business environmental impact. However, it must be stated that increasing interest is being observed in recent years.
For example, according to Frank Hackett, an energy conservation sales consultant for Mayer Electric Supply Co. Inc., says that one of the simplest things that a business can do to improve its efficiency and reduce costs is to update or retrofit its lighting system. Among the various examples he gives is to modify and update existing lighting fixtures to use the more energy efficient T-5 or T-8 fluorescent lamps in place of the T-12 models that are widely used. Replacement of the magnetic ballasts in the lighting can also help increase the system’s energy efficiency. Recent DOE estimates show that a significant percentage of a business’s normal energy bill consists of lighting costs, and being able to reduce these costs can have a favorable economic impact. Employing automatic control systems that take advantage of natural light and automatically switch off when no one is around should also be considered as an energy-saving option.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), issued a recent ruling that States must now certify that their building codes meet the requirements in ASHRAE/IESNA’s 2004 energy efficiency standard. The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating & Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) has moved forward in developing the nation’s first standard for high-performance, green commercial buildings (Standard 189.1P). This standard requires buildings to be significantly more efficient than that required by its Standard 90.1-2007, Energy Standard for Buildings except Low-Rise Residential Buildings. The USGBC also reaffirmed its commitment to the development of Standard 189.1P, which when completed will be America’s first national standard developed to be used as a green building code. Standard 189.1P is being developed as an ANSI standard, created specifically for adoption by states, localities, and other building code jurisdictions that are ready to require a minimum level of green building performance for all commercial buildings. ICC Chief Executive Officer Richard P. Weiland says that “The emergence of green building codes and standards is an important next step for the green building movement, establishing a much-needed set of baseline regulations for green buildings that is adoptable, usable, and enforceable by jurisdictions,” and that “The IGCC provides a vehicle for jurisdictions to regulate green for the design and performance of new and renovated buildings in a manner that is integrated with existing codes as an overlay, allowing all new buildings to reap the rewards of improved design and construction practices.”
On October 3, 2008, President Bush signed into law H.R. 1424 and extended the Energy Efficient Commercial Building Tax Deduction as part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. This provides a tax deduction and is not a tax credit i.e., an amount can be subtracted from the gross taxable income and cannot be directly subtracted from tax owed. This recently created program can offer benefits to the taxpayer and be used as an incentive to assist in choosing energy-efficient building systems. Thus, GBIs were suddenly popping up on all sides of the equation.
California passed its Revised Title 24 Code in October 2005 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The Energy Commission later adopted the 2008 Standards on April 23, 2008, and the Building Standards Commission approved them for publication on September 11, 2008. Additionally, a new law that took effect on January 1, 2009, states that owners of all nonresidential properties in California are mandated to make available to tenants, lenders, and potential buyers, the energy consumption of their buildings as part of the state’s participation in the Federal ENERGY STAR program. These data will then be transmitted to the Environmental Protection Agency’s ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager who will benchmark the information under its ENERGY STAR Standards. Upon assembling this data beginning in 2010, building owners will be required to disclose the data and ratings. The compelling reasons why the Energy Commission adopted changes to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards in 2008 include:
1. To provide California with an adequate, reasonably priced, and environmentally sound supply of energy.
2. To respond to Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, mandating that California must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
3. To pursue California energy policy that energy efficiency is the resource of first choice for meeting California’s energy needs.
4. To act on the findings of California’s Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) that Standards are the most cost-effective means to achieve energy efficiency, expects the Building Energy Efficiency Standards to continue to be upgraded over time to reduce electricity and peak demand, and recognizes the role of the Standards in reducing energy related to meeting California’s water needs and in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
5. To meet the West Coast Governors’ Global Warming Initiative commitment to include aggressive energy efficiency measures into updates of state building codes.
6. To meet the Executive Order in the GBI to improve the energy efficiency of nonresidential buildings through aggressive standards.
The majority of major cities within the United States have since initiated some form of energy efficiency standards for new construction and existing buildings. Washington State, for example, in April 2005 began requiring that all state-funded construction projects having more than 5000 square feet are to be built green. In May 2006, Seattle moved forward and approved a plan offering incentives to encourage site-appropriate packages of greening possibilities that included green roofs, exterior vertical landscaping, interior green walls, air filtration, and stormwater runoff management. Seattle can also boast of becoming the first municipality in the United States to adopt the USGBC’s LEED Silver rating for its own major construction ventures.
The state which boasts the second highest number of LEED-certified buildings in the nation is Pennsylvania which currently has 83 and is just behind California. Pennsylvania now has put into place four state funds, including a $20-million Sustainable Energy Fund that offers grants and loans for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. The city of Philadelphia has also recently enacted a “Green Roofs Tax Credit” to encourage the installation of roofs that supports living vegetation and has also proposed a “Sustainable Zoning” ordinance that mandates buildings that occupy a minimum of 90,000 square feet or more to incorporate green roofs in their design.
In April 2007, the Baltimore City Planning Commission in Maryland voted to require developers incorporate green building standards into their projects by 2010. Boston also amended its zoning code to require all public and private development projects in excess of 50,000 square feet to be constructed to green building standards. When Washington, D.C.’s Green Building Act of 2006 went into effect in March 2007, it became the first major US city to require LEED compliance for private projects. The application of these new green building standards became mandatory in the District in 2009 for privately owned, nonresidential construction projects with 50,000 square feet or more; public projects are also now required to comply with these new standards.
The USGBC says that as of September 2010, “Various LEED initiatives including legislation, executive orders, resolutions, ordinances, policies, and incentives are found in 45 states, including 442 localities (384 cities/towns and 58 counties), 35 state governments (including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico), 14 federal agencies or departments, and numerous public school jurisdictions and institutions of higher education across the United States.” Furthermore, with the increasing onslaught of building green into the mainstream, it seems that soon, green or sustainable building will cease to be an option to participate in but rather a requirement to be adopted. Stacey Richardson, a product specialist with the Tremco Roofing & Building Maintenance division says, “It is the way of the future, and industry developments in new green technology will provide building owners increasing access to energy saving, environmentally friendly systems and materials. Everything from bio-based adhesives and sealants, low-VOC or recycled-content building products, to the far-reaching capabilities of nanotechnology—the movement of building ‘renewable’ and ‘energy-efficient’ will only continue to strengthen”. Even colleges and universities such as Harvard University, Pennsylvania State, the University of Florida, the University of South Carolina, the University of California–Merced, and others have jumped on the going green bandwagon.
A recent study, Greening Buildings and Communities: Costs and Benefits, by Landmark International that is purported to be the largest international study of its kind, and based on extensive financial and technical analysis of 150 green buildings in 33 U.S. states and in 10 countries worldwide, built from 1998 to 2008, provides one of the most detailed and reliable findings to date on the costs and financial benefits of building green. Some of the key findings outlined in the report are outlined below:
• Most green buildings cost 0–4 percent more than conventional buildings, with the largest concentration of reported “green premiums” between 0–1 percent. Green premiums increase with the level of greenness but most LEED buildings, up through gold level, can be built for the same cost as conventional buildings. This stands in contrast to a common misperception that green buildings are much more expensive than conventional buildings.
• Energy savings alone make green building cost-effective. Energy savings alone outweigh the initial cost premium in most green buildings. The present value of 20 years of energy savings in a typical green office ranges from $7/sf (certified) to $14/sf (platinum), more than the average additional cost of $3 to $8 per square feet for building green.
• Green building design goals are associated with improved health and with enhanced student and worker performance. Health and productivity benefits remain a major motivating factor for green building owners, but are difficult to quantify. Occupant surveys generally demonstrate greater comfort and productivity in green buildings.
• Green buildings create jobs by shifting spending from fossil fuel-based energy to domestic energy efficiency, construction, renewable energy and other green jobs. A typical green office creates roughly one-third of a permanent job per year, equal to $1/sf of value in increased employment, compared to a similar non-green building.
• Green buildings are seeing increased market value (higher sales/rental rates, increased occupancy and lower turnover) compared to comparable conventional buildings. CoStar, for example, reports an average increased sales price from building green of more than $20/sf providing a strong incentive to build green even for speculative builders.
• Roughly 50 percent of green buildings in the study’s data set see the initial “green premium” paid back by energy and water savings in five years or less. Significant health and productivity benefits mean that over 90 percent of green buildings pay back an initial investment in five years or less.
• Green community design (e.g., LEED-ND) provides a distinct set of benefits to owners, residents and municipalities, including reduced infrastructure costs, transportation and health savings and increased property value. Green communities and neighborhoods have a greater diversity of uses, housing types, job types and transportation options and appear to better retain value in the market downturn than conventional sprawl.
• Annual gas savings in walkable communities can be as much as $1000 per household. Annual health savings (from increased physical activity) can be more than $200 per household. CO2 emissions can be reduced by 10–25 percent.
• Upfront infrastructure development costs in conservation developments can be reduced by 25 percent, approximately $10,000 per home.
• Religious and faith groups build green for ethical and moral reasons. Financial benefits are not the main motivating factor for many places of worship, religious educational institutions and faith-based non-profits. A survey of faith groups building green found that financial cost effectiveness of green building makes it a practical way to enact the ethical/moral imperative to care for the Earth and communities. Building green has also been found to energize and galvanize faith communities.
Despite the fact that the USGBC, a nonprofit membership organization was founded in 1993, it was only in the last few years that it has become a significant driving force in the green building construction movement and by the end of 2015 encompassed roughly 20,000 member companies and organizations. Its important leadership role was achieved mainly through the early development of its commercial building rating system known as the Leadership in Energy and Design (LEED). The process for earning LEED certification typically starts in the early planning stage, where the interested stakeholders make a determination to pursue certification. This is followed by registering the project and paying the required fee. Once the project is completed and commissioned and all the required numbers are handed in with supporting documentation, the project is submitted for evaluation and certification. This is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2.
It is quite evident that the USGBC has had a very significant impact on green building and has emerged as a clear leader in fostering and furthering green building efforts throughout the world. In the United States, the LEED Green Building Rating System is increasingly becoming the national standard for green building; it is also internationally recognized as a major tool for the design and construction of high-performance buildings and sustainable projects. With its eye clearly focused on the future, the USGBC has recently issued its LEED v4. The USGBC has also recently put in place a strategic plan for the period 2009–13 in which it outlines the key strategic issues that face the green building community such as:
• “Shift in emphasis from individual buildings toward the built environment and broader aspects of sustainability, including a more focused approach to social equity;
• Need for strategies to reduce contribution of the built environment to climate change;
• Rapidly increasing activity of government in green building arena;
• Lack of capacity in the building trades to meet the demand for green building;
• Lack of data on green building performance;
• Lack of education about how to manage, operate, and inhabit green buildings; and
• Increasing interest in and need for green building expertise internationally.”
One of the primary indicators reflecting international interest in the USGBC and LEED can be evidenced by the large annual attendance and the increasing number of countries represented at Greenbuild, the USGBC’s International Conference and Expo. Again, this substantial attendance reflects the international importance of the annual Greenbuild Conferences and Expos and once again shows that Greenbuild has become an important forum for international leaders in green building and in which ideas and information can be exchanged.
Of particular importance is the 2008 Greenbuild conference, because many international delegations attended including a high-level delegation from China headed by the Vice Minister of the Ministry of Construction, Mr. Qiu Baoxing. This is significant because over the past decade, China’s economy has been expanding and growing at a phenomenal rate, and some forecasts predict it will become the largest economy in the world by 2020. In the wake of such growth, however, comes a series of potentially severe environmental challenges. China has been able to make substantial inroads to addressing these challenges and reversing many of these environmental trends. To further this goal, China announced the initiation of a new energy efficiency strategy, of which green building is a primary component. This was followed by the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Chinese Ministry of Construction and the USGBC, in which points of mutual interest are identifying for collaboration in the advancement of constructing environmentally responsible buildings in both the United States and China.
Project teams around the world are today applying the LEED rating system as developed in the United States. The USGBC was quick to recognize, however, that certain criteria, processes or technologies may not always be appropriate for all countries, and that successful strategies for encouraging and practicing green building will vary from one country to another, depending on local conditions, traditions, and practice. This reality was addressed by the USGBC agreeing to sanction other countries to license LEED, and allow them to adapt the rating system to their specific needs on the understanding that LEED’s high standards are not compromised. Various countries worldwide have expressed an interest to being LEED licensed, and several countries like Canada and India now have their own LEED licensing programs.
On the international stage, the USGBC works through the World Green Building Council (WorldGBC) which was formed in 1999 by David Gottfried. The WorldGBC defines itself as a union of national Green Building Councils from around the world, making it the largest international organization influencing the green building marketplace. It is currently on the ground in more than 90 countries. One of WorldGBC’s primary goals is to help other countries in establishing their own Councils and finding a way to work effectively with policy makers and local industry. The WorldGBC is devoted to transforming the global property industry to sustainability as its states on its website, the “WorldGBC draws on the support of its partnerships to support the work of Green Building Councils around the world and to further drive the transition toward market transformation of the global property industry. Key partnerships have been made with private sector companies, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations, and academic institutions.” The main mission of the WorldGBC is to serve as a forum for knowledge transfer between Green Building Councils and to support and promote the individual Green Building Council members. The WorldGBC also has the mission of recognizing global green building leadership and encouraging the adoption and development of market-based environmental rating systems that meet local needs for each country. However, the WorldGBC does not promote any particular system or methodology as a global standard.
Responding to the various terrorist attacks such as on the World Trade Center in New York, in Mumbai, India, and Europe (mainly France and Belgium) many architects and building owners are now demanding that their facilities be designed to have greater blast resistance and to better withstand the effects of violent tornadoes and hurricanes, for example, by the use of blast-resistant windows with protective glazing. This is of particular importance with high-rise buildings. Federal buildings are now required to incorporate windows that provide protection against such potential threats. Likewise, there are increasing demands from both governments and the public alike, for structures to be sustainable and meet general environmental requirements.
USGBC has emerged as a driving force of an industry that is projected to contribute $554 billion to the U.S. gross domestic product from 2009 to 2013. USGBC leads an unlikely diverse following of professional designers and engineers, builders and environmentalists, federal agencies, corporations and nonprofit organizations, as well as teachers and students. Moreover, USGBC now comprises some 80 local affiliates, 20,000 member companies and organizations, and more than 155,000 LEED Professional Credential holders. This unprecedented growth of the USGBC is further evidenced by the dramatic increase in the number of certified and registered projects since LEED was first launched in 2000. As of August 2015, there was more than 13.8 billion square feet of building space are LEED-certified. Certified projects are projects that have been completed and verified through the ’s process, while registered projects are those that are still in the process of design or construction. Also, as of August 2015, there are more than 72,500 LEED building projects located in over 150 countries and territories. This makes LEED the most popular and widely used green building rating system globally. This astonishing increase in LEED project registration is very significant as it is a clear indicator of future prospects for the green industry.
Industry executives like Bob Schroeder, Industry Director (Americas) for Dow Corning’s construction business, echoes this sentiment and says, “Today, sustainable design has been recognized by the industry and the public as critical factors in achieving high quality architecture and benefiting the building owners - the companies that occupy these structures and the wider community.” Additionally, a substantial number of mergers and acquisitions are taking place allowing firms to reposition themselves in emerging markets and gaining added expertise while developing new relationships. Moreover even with a depressed economy, green design has become a fixture and is here to stay. It no longer suffices for owners/institutions/agencies to just talk about green. There is a strong incentive to implement elements of green design into new and existing construction projects.
While most design professionals consider great architecture to be a delicate balance of form and function, we nevertheless find high-rise buildings being constructed on a global scale with increasing ferocity, often with little concern for due diligence, the environment, or aesthetics. What is transpiring from this unusual green building upheaval, is the emergence of several interesting trends such as the building of spectacular landmarks as exemplified by the Sydney Opera House (Fig. 1.6), and Burj Dubai (Fig. 1.7) which is the highest building in the world and which was recently awarded CTBUH’s Highest Award: “Global Icon”. It was also awarded the “Best Tall Building” award. Bill Baker, Chief Structural Engineer for Burj Khalifa and SOM Partner says, “Burj Khalifa is a game changer. This incredible team of architects, engineers, consultants and contractors has been able to create something that goes far beyond what has been done before. We are extremely grateful to the CTBUH for creating this prize for the project and recognizing the Burj Khalifa’s impact on the art of tall buildings.”
The towering Burj Khalifa skyscraper is the center of a large scale, mixed-use development comprised of residential, commercial, hotel, entertainment, shopping, and leisure outlets with open green spaces, water features, pedestrian boulevards, a shopping mall, and a tourist-oriented old town. The design of the tower combines historical and cultural influences with cutting-edge technology to achieve a high-performance building. Its massing is manipulated in the vertical dimension to induce maximum vortex shedding and minimize the impact of wind on the tower’s movement. Also of note, on New Year’s Eve, there was a huge fire which engulfed the 63-storey Address hotel which is located near the Burj Khalifa tower, ahead of a New Year’s Eve firework display.
Figure 1.6 Photo of Australia’s Sydney Opera House which overlooks the harbor which is considered to be one of the most recognizable buildings in the world and has become the city’s landmark. It consists of 14 freestanding sculptures of spherical roofs and sail-like shells sheathed in white ceramic tiles. The original plan to build the opera house was won in competition in 1957 by the late Danish architect John Utzon, but because his vision and design were too advanced for the architectural and engineering capabilities at the time, it was not until 1973 that the Opera House was finally opened. Source: Best places of world.
Figure 1.7 Illustration of Burj Khalifa, Dubai which was inaugurated on January 4, 2010. Burj Khalifa is currently the tallest skyscraper in the world in all three categories recognized by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), the world leading authority which compiles and ranks the world’s tallest buildings. CTBUH ranks buildings on the basis of height to architectural top, highest occupied floor and height to tip. Burj Khalifa, was designed by the Chicago office of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (SOM) and constructed by Samsung/BESIX/Arabtec Corporation for Emaar properties, UAE. Turner Construction International was the project and construction manager. The height of the completed tower is 2717 feet (828 m) and built at a cost of about $1.5 billion. It reportedly contains 160 habitable floors, 57 elevators, apartments, shops, swimming pools, spas, corporate suites, Italian fashion designer Giorgio Armani’s 160 room hotel, and an observation platform on the 124th floor. Source: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill.
We often find that the main driving force behind the creation of national landmarks is basically twofold: the primary desire is to provide cities with important recognizable symbols to foster local and national pride; the second is essentially an economical one, e.g., increasing tourism.
..................Content has been hidden....................
You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.