SEATTLE--(BUSINESS WIRE)--A new study finds that the most financially responsible design approach to new construction in the mid to long term is a “Living Building,” a building that generates its own power, as well as cleans and reuses its water. In fact, a building that is only slightly green may end up costing more in ten years than a building that is designed and built as high performance as is currently possible. Living Buildings offer significantly larger savings in water and energy costs, and cost less to construct than previously believed.
Given the rising cost of energy and water, Living Buildings, as defined by the Cascadia Region Green Building Council, are the smartest financial option in today’s economy. The only exceptions, according to a study team led by SERA Architects with Skanska USA Building, Gerding Edlen Development, New Buildings Institute, and Interface Engineering, are “spec” buildings meant to be “flipped” in a few years.
The study was initiated in an effort to put a price tag on the Living Building Challenge rating system – a relatively new program that has already sparked huge interest in North America with at least 60 proposed Living Buildings in some stage of design or actual construction.
Jason F. McLennan, CEO of Cascadia and the author of the Living Building Challenge, says, “Some people have thought this idea was \'pie in the sky\' and unachievable. But the study clearly demonstrates that we can increase green jobs, greatly enhance our energy security, and most effectively utilize federal stimulus money by constructing Living Buildings, especially for those in the public sector where taxpayers are going to own and operate a building for the long term.”
The study was done by examining construction documentation on nine buildings, ranging from schools to homes and high-rises, in four different US cities representing various climate zones. Each of these reference buildings were certified LEED Gold, already incorporating many green features and representing current best practices. The construction documents were modified to meet the goals of a Living Building and then re-priced based on the modifications, with the purpose of comparing the cost difference of making the leap to net-zero energy and water. The science behind the study is the same methodology that is typically used by the construction industry for cost-estimating projects prior to construction.
While initial costs are higher, the bottom-line finding is that investing in Living Buildings will have significant economic impact – with less than a ten-year payback in several instances. The study finds that Living Buildings can cost as little as five percent to no more than 49 percent more depending on the building type and location, representing paybacks for many buildings that are well within the range (less than 7-15 yrs) for any institution, corporation or homeowner looking at holding onto their asset for a few years.
One of the most exciting surprises from the study was finding basically no extra cost to build a University classroom building in Portland, Oregon to the ultra high-performance standard of a Living Building. Lisa Petterson, SERA Architects’ Manager of Sustainability Resources and overall manager for the study, explains, “The combined impact of Portland’s mild climate, plus existing and upcoming incentives for green building and net-zero energy projects, make the incremental costs almost zero.”
The degree of cost effectiveness depends on the following five key factors:
* Use of the building: Public schools and classrooms had the lowest cost. Private sector developers building spec buildings had the largest cost differential.
* Size of the building and the roof: The larger the building and roof size (for solar and water catchment systems), the lower the cost premium.
* Climate matters: A mild climate with regular rainfall provides the most cost-effective opportunity for a Living Building, although net-zero energy and water is technically possible for all regions in the study.
* Incentives and rebates matter: When communities offer incentives and rebates for saving energy and using renewable energy, it reduces the cost premium significantly.
* Cost of resources matter: The higher the cost of energy and water, the shorter the payback period, making a Living Building more feasible in areas with high energy rates.
According to McLennan, “This study goes a long way in proving the financial viability of Living Buildings. Given that it involved some of the heavy hitters in our industry and the shift in values in our nation, we can see clearly that the opportunity is ripe for Living Buildings to emerge in many building types of the US and Canada right now. Other building types that are not currently prime targets for being a Living Building will likely follow suit in a few years. It’s time we rethink how we build – and this study should open eyes about what is possible.”
“As we emerge from the current economic crisis, a tremendous opportunity exists to create new businesses and local enterprises that can provide these materials and systems,” says Dennis Wilde, principal at Gerding Edlen. “It is time to re-invent ourselves.”
The full study and executive summary are available here: www.cascadiagbc.org/lbc/resources/financial-study/. For Living Building images, contact Parsons Public Relations.
The Living Building Challenge will be the key topic of discussion at Living Future, Cascadia’s annual event. Scheduled for May 6-9 in Portland, Oregon, the conference will bring together 600 of the most cutting-edge green builders, developers, contractors, design professionals and thought leaders from all across North America.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
No comments:
Post a Comment