Here in Vancouver, the city is abuzz with pre-Olympic enthusiasm, as the 2010 Winter Olympic Games brings our athletes, and our city, into the international limelight. It should be said that not everyone is on board with the Olympics, some arguing that there are more important issues to look at, and toward which to spend municipal and provincial monies. Yet, for me, the events represent more than just a two-week tourist attraction.
The Olympics is a tradition that is many thousands of years old. Yet one of the things that typifies it is a way of showing the world where technology and innovation is taking us. In the realm of green building, the Olympics, and the infrastructure that the events demand, there is a chance for green builders and designers to strut their stuff on the world stage, and to produce buildings that shine as beacons of modernity that reflect the times in which they are built.
To a greater degree, it is a chance to show how green building isn’t just a novelty to show off a world class event. It’s a chance to demonstrate how green thinking and design can transform our ideas of how to manage resources more efficiently, while still keeping an eye on what is attractive, too.
In this particular case, I’m talking about the Olympic Village, being designed and built on a 100 acre lot in the False Creek area of Vancouver. Some of the features of this LEED platinum certificate project is:
optimum use of natural light through passive design
A big issue in Vancouver is that of homelessness, and affordable housing in general. This is as true here as it is in many major cities. I think this lies at the crux of a lot of anti-Olympic sentiment.
Yet, what if we can take what we’ve learned in creating building projects that exemplify optimal energy efficiency and best use of resources? And what if we then apply those principles of efficiency to make housing more accessible and more affordable in all future projects? If this were the case, which is hope it is, I’d like to think that we don’t have to choose between a serious issue like affordable housing and a chance at worldwide attention.
For more information about the Olympic Village project, including timelines and more detailed green building information, investigate the Vancouver Park Board website.
When we think ‘green’, maybe we have certain associations that float around our minds. Maybe we think of a solitary hemp-clothed peacenik living on a grassy rolling plain, at one with nature, and uncluttered by the accouterments of the city. And maybe Edvard Greig’s ‘Peer Gynt’ is playing somewhere in the background, too.
Yet, according to recent research it seems that, when it comes to the greenest place in America, we should change our vision from a bucolic rural scene of a solitary man with Greig floating all around him, and change it to the bustling metropolis of New York City, with its teeming masses, apartment buildings, and maybe put on a little Talking Heads, Ramones, Blondie, or the New York Dolls.
David Owen, staff writer for the New Yorker, writes this article about New York City as a green capital of America . The argument is pretty compelling, and some of the many reasons Owen cites are extremely interesting, yet not really all that surprising. In New York City, it is the size of the place measured against the number of people in that space which really drives a tendency toward greener living, and more green building too. For instance:
car ownership is lower than in other places - emissions and gas consumption is also lower
public transit use is the norm, not the exception
walking to local amenities is easy practically everywhere in the city
apartment living is more energy efficient- New Yorkers consume less electricity than any other place in the country
One of the most interesting things about this is the cultural expectation question. As Owen points out, most people think of cities as the’ great dispoilers’ of the environment. The image of the densely populated city is often just the image used to portray the antithesis of green. Yet, Owen is suggesting that in terms of consumption, use of building resources, and use of energy as well, the exact opposite is true.
Once again, I really think that perceptions play a huge role when it comes to the shifting paradigms needed to make green living, and green building. Yet, when communities are made with a public transit system close by, and with plenty of locations to walk to instead of having to drive, and when populations are forced to make more with less in terms of space, changing of habits fall into place without much of a change of mind.
It makes me wonder how this information will have an impact on city planning, and in the curtailing of suburban sprawl, which practically makes a multi-car household a necessity. It kind of amuses me that with an anti-urban sentiment in the rhetoric of a lot of people when it comes to environmental degradation has been shown to be extremely questionable at best.
Perhaps cities serve the environment best by keeping more people self-contained and provided for while also keeping them out of the natural world, too. It’s an interesting idea.
About a year and a half ago, we launched our green building guide and green flooring guide. The reason for these pages was to get information out thereabout our specific products, and also about the very idea of green building materials as options for ethical renovations.
Even at that point, not too many consumers knew too much about things like LEED points, for instance, or even about post-industrial tile, or strand-woven bamboo floors. I think that has changed. And I hope we’ve been a voice in helping to bring that change about.
By now the average consumer is more educated than ever before. And I think resource pages like this really help to round out the decision-making process when it comes to home renovations. They also provide a basis for the decision-making process for those whom we call BIYers (buy-it-yourselfers).
These are folks who purchase green flooring and other building materials and then inform their hired contractors about their advantages. The contractors then realize how durable and easy to work with a strand-woven bamboo floor is, for instance. And then that wisdom is passed along from consumer to professional, and perhaps then to another consumer.
It seems that making buying decisions centred around ethics as well as practicality and look is becoming more and more the norm in any case, which to me is a credit to the awareness of buyers where issues of sustainability are concerned. It’s kind of a chicken and egg scenario in many ways, I suppose, what with a multitude of DIY TV programs such as Building Green TV and others that are having an impact on buying decisions.
But, I think it’s also a credit to manufacturers and designers, who have created products which make the decision to choose green a pretty easy one. Buying a green materials means you’re getting look and durability as well as sustainability, and the idea that these are mutually exclusive is now a thing of the past.
For another example of an exemplary green building materials guide, I’d encourage you to check out Planet Green green materials guide, which is an accessible and informative set of pages that gives buyers an overview as to what some of the main advantages are with modern flooring and other building materials.
Before being introduced to the world of building materials and construction, it never really occurred to me to think that the process of designing and constructing a building should be any different from location to location. Well, I suppose there is a question of greater heat retention in a place like Winnipeg, or North Dakota, where winters are more severe than they would be in, say, Palm Springs. Yet, even in these cases it is assumed that we’ve got large scale HVAC systems to account for extreme temperatures and other climate conditions.
But, given the major concerns about dwindling resources, and the threat of global climate change, many designers have sought to rethink the way that they approach their jobs. The thinking when it comes to green building is about separating from the dependency on these systems in favor of looking at and building toward the prevailing environmental conditions of a site before foundations are laid. This concept has been referred to as passive design.
Passive design involves using as little technology as possible to heat and cool a building, with a reliance on building placement in relation to the sun more so than on HVAC systems.
In this article from Palm Springs CA The Desert Sun, an interview with San Francisco-based green building architect Eric Corey Freed reveals that part of the problem in recent energy inefficiency is not down to bad practices of residents so much as it is down to when Freed considers to be bad design. Here’s what he says from that article:
“We cover buildings with stucco that makes them hotter; we put on tile roofs that store up heat,” Freed said. “We build potentially hollow wooden boxes and don’t concern ourselves with how they face the sun.”
And,
If we’re not careful, in the next 10 years, we’re not going to recognize the environment. The whole thing is tied up with bad design. We’ll plunk down a big air conditioner, and we externalize the cost to everyone we can. We externalize it to the homeowner; we externalize it to the environment. We’re externalizing it to foreign countries.
In the context of this article, he’s talking about the desert climate, which has a set of conditions which do not apply in the Pacific Northwest, for instance. And where I don’t think he’s advocating the abandonment of HVAC systems, I think he is saying that greater energy efficiency and physical placement of buildings are directly tied, and that it is this which should drive design, not dependence on external systems and the outside economies it takes to run them. It is a compelling idea that convinces me that green building really is just common sense when it comes to design.
Take a look at this interview with Freed, talking about the green building approach in general, appealing to the consumer’s perspective:
In addition to his pursuits in design, Freed has founded Urban Re:Vision, which is a passive design, green building organization that seeks to find ways of greening urban areas at the city block level.
One of my favourite stories is J.R.R Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, and its prequel the Hobbit. Tolkien, who had it in for progress and the industrialization of England, wanted his main character to be one who demonstrated a life of simple pleasures, and being at one with his surroundings. And to show this, he described the homes of the Hobbits as being integrated with and not intrusive on the natural world.
When directed to this article about a self-built, earth sheltered home, I was instantly reminded of the home of Bilbo Baggins in J.R.R Tolkien’s the Hobbit. Click the link to read the article and take a look at the incredible pictures taken by the family who built the house.
Built in Wales, the home was conceived by a low-income family with two children and constructed using natural raw materials and items ‘from a rubbish bin somewhere’. The cost of building? $5000. The tools? A chisel, a chainsaw, a hammer. The materials? Fallen trees, rocks and mud from diggings, plastic moisture barriers, and turf, among other things. Power? Solar panels that provide enough energy for lighting and appliance use. Incredible.
Simon Dale and his family and friends built this house from the ground up, using fallen timber, earth, and items from a scrap heap.
Overall, I think that stories like this show us that there is more than one way to build, and more than one way to establish a comfortable living space that celebrates non-intrusive, sustainable living. This may seem like an extreme case, but it is interesting to see that the idea of ‘progress’ which Tolkien detested, doesn’t necessarily mean destroying the natural world to provide shelter.
My question of course is how can we take the example that this young family has provided, and create our own vision for sustainable construction as an industry on a larger scale. The fact is that natural resources have largely been spoken for when it comes to access to land and to reliable water sources off of the grid. It is an interesting question, and proves once again that sustainability practices tend to drive creativity.
Thanks to @EcoInsight on Twitter, I was directed to an article in the Epoch Times about the cost of green building. For a while now, one of the big barriers to a developer looking for LEED certification was greater upfront cost. A part of this is the cost to hire consultants and designers who are themselves LEED certified in order to see that the resulting project can be rated according to bronze, silver, gold, and platinum status.
Yet, according to the article, there are some early indications in the New York City development community that these additional costs are not adding as much to the budget as was previously thought. It is admitted in the article that the numbers require a more in-depth review across the board, and that much of the data is anecdotal. Yet, I wonder if we’re reaching a point in history where the real barriers to building green are becoming less about balance sheets, and more about perceptions. From the Epoch Times article:
“I think if you ask the average developer, they would say it [green building] costs more,” said Russell Unger, executive director of the Urban Green Council. The results from “The Cost of Green in NYC” study debunked the cost myth with a comparison of the average cost per square-foot for certified green and non-certified construction.
Throughout 2008, data were gathered on 107 projects throughout the five boroughs of New York, 63 of which were either pursuing or had achieved Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification, the report said. Surveys were conducted for buildings with and without sustainability goals. Data points included construction costs, design fees, LEED design fees, LEED additional fees, and commissioning fees. The average square-foot construction cost for a high-rise residential building without LEED certification was $436; while the average cost with certification was $440.
I think a great deal of work needs to be done to prove this data for all time. More examples in more urban centers are needed in order to express this trend in a budgetary context to decision-makers. I think this will do much in terms of changing people’s perceptions of the short term, upfront costs which have often been a prohibitive force to affect decision-making thus far. Yet, I also wonder how many decision-makers have balked on green building and LEED certification because it is simply perceived to be more costly upfront without even considering a comparative analysis.
NYC image courtesy of Joe Schlabotnik. Click image to view Flickr stream.
Once again, it seems that cultural perceptions and commerce are inextricably tied and both must be examined if sustainability and best construction practices are to move permanently into the mainstream and become the standard. Perhaps for many decision-makers who are paying close attention to the comparative numbers, economic proof will be all that is needed to change their minds.
Perhaps soon, decision-makers won’t even need to pore over the numbers to make the right economic, and environmentally-responsible choice. Soon, responsibly managing resources and building with low environmental impact in mind will come to be the perception that rules the roost.
A colleague of mine pointed out an interesting survey by the University of British Columbia. It’s the sustainability calculator, which is really two surveys which measure eco-footprints as well as general attitudes surrounding the issue of sustainable living.
You can take the surveys here where your answers will be stored in the database. Be prepared to be surprised by the results, particularly the eco-footprint survey which tells you how many ‘earths’ it would take if everyone lived the way you’ve described your own habits.
The surveys feature a few leading questions, the most leading being “do you think that sustainability is your responsibility or someone else’s” with only those two answers available. I mean, I know what they’re getting at with that question. But as it is, the question comes off as being entirely rhetorical which weakens the impact for me.
Yet, I think the main point of the survey, beyond some clunky wording here and there, is that sustainability is about the examination and revision habits, and accepted social norms. For instance, most of the questions centre around your choice of diet, your daily means of gettting from A to B, and your general habits as a consumer overall.
There are all kinds of nuances here that are certainly open to discussion. For me, there are shades of the old 70s ‘Give a Hoot, Don’t Pollute’ campaign creeping in, which despite its good intentions, puts the burden of ecological health solely on individual consumers, without mentioning big business.
Image courtesy of Fuzzy Gerdes. Click image to view Flickr stream.
The burden of a sustainability mandate can’t rest entirely on individual results. Revising consumerist or dietary habits is certainly a part of the equation. But, there has to be more to it than that. There must be ubiquitous mechanisms in place which make more sustainable living a matter of course, rather than a hardship complete with accusatory finger-waggling at ordinary people. Let’s make it easy and attractive for people to use their cars less than they do, to buy locally produced food, to eat less red meat, and yes - to buy green building materials, too. This to me is a major area of discussion, and where the biggest room for growth is.
Examination and revision of social norms and societal expectations when it comes to lifestyles are a huge part of sustainability. This seems like a necessary step in moving toward a civilization which requires only one earth to sustain us, even as we sustain it. But, we need the support of those systems which currently manage resources, and the support of distribution channels that allow consumers access to them.
“Is sustainability your responsibility or someone elses’?”
In recent times, cultural attitudes surrounding work life have changed. This is mostly due to the fact that most companies recognize that the line between a personal life and a work life is imaginary. We take our personal lives to work, and we take work home with us, even if it’s just work in our heads if not our briefcases or laptops. Employees who have a healthy work-life balance as encouraged by their employers means that they do a better job, and tend to stay in their jobs for a longer period of time.
And now, there has been a study that links the environment, green building, and increased productivity as well. Take a look at this Reuters press release from the University of San Diego, which has gathered together data which draws the correlation between green buildings and productivity, with sick days used as a measurement. From that release:
On the self-reported productivity measure, 12 percent of respondents said that
they strongly agree that employees were more productive in green buildings,
42.5 percent agreed that employees were more productive and 45 percent noted
no change in productivity. According to the authors’ calculations, the
increase in productivity translates into a net impact of $20.82 per employee,
based on an office space of 250 square feet per worker and using average
salary as an index.
The numbers in this particular study are not startlingly in favor of the idea. There are a lot of factors that remain difficult to pin down (i.e what constitutes a sick day, and does that mean that the employees were, not to put too fine a point on it, actually sick)?. But, it does seem to be a viable connection. It will be interesting to see if more studies on this shed greater light on this interesting correlation.
Natural light is one way to increase employee productivity and retention. Creative design with green building principles as a guide are excellent ways to get the most of out of a work day. This image courtesy of Imiloa. Click on the image to view Flickr stream.
For me, it’s not really the numbers that make this an interesting question. It is the idea that our work environments have an impact on our approach to work, an idea that seems pretty compelling. Work spaces with more efficient air circulation seems like a definite productivity booster. After all, the healthier the air, the less people get sick. And that means fewer days away from work.
But more subtly, a building that uses more natural daylight, and less artificial light has tremendous psychological implications which contribute to happier employees, and the higher quality of work that results. Another series of studies that have been done to show the correlation between natural light and productivity. Environment, attitude, health, and employee retention seem to go hand in hand. On this front, it certainly makes sense to invest in green building design, and in green building materials too.
The great thing about green building is the benefits it seems have across all kinds of lines, from financial gains, to ecological ones, to the general health and welfare of people living and working in our communities. With green standards slowly making inroads into the mainstream, it may be that we’re moving toward a greater quality of life both at home and at work, which may never have come about with traditional design and construction.
It seems to me that when civilization is on the cusp of a new era, one of the things that hurries it along is International cooperation. And a big part of that is not just about governments and nations coming together to talk about common legislation. It’s also about inviting citizens to take part in the process, through dialogue and through education, too.
The movement toward globalizing green building practices seems to be moving closer and closer into the public eye with the first annual World Green Building Day. The day is observed as a series of events around the world for the promotion of green building practices, involving various green building councils in the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, Asia, and Western Europe.
Earth image courtesy of Aussiegall. Click image to view Flickr stream.
A major thrust of these events is about education of the public on sustainability issues. Some of the events associated with World Green Building Day are:
educational tours of certified buildings (Austria)
training courses for building professionals and volunteers (Taiwan)
The building sector is responsible for more than one third of total energy use and, in most countries, is the largest greenhouse gas emissions source,” said Tony Arnel, Chair, World Green Building Council. “This makes buildings the greatest and most cost-effective opportunity for tackling climate change, especially when technologies exist that can reduce a building’s energy consumption by 30-50 per cent. World Green Building Day is a call to action to ensure green buildings are an international priority, a part of the climate change solution and are in the forefront of decision makers’ minds when the world gathers at the United Nations Climate Change Conference this December.”
Winning the hearts and minds of both the decision makers as well as citizens of industrial countries all around the world seems to make sense if green building is to become the standard by which all construction is measured in this century and beyond.
To learn more about World Green Building Day, sustainability, and international efforts to promote green building standards and practices, check out the World Green Building Council website.
Las Vegas has quite a reputation for greed, self-indulgence, and to use an older word - sin. Hence, its affectionate nickname Sin City. They say what happens there, stays there. Although in the age of Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube I’m not so sure.
On paper, you’d think that Las Vegas was the least green city in the world. With all of the lights that burn 24/7, to the energy expended to keep the casinos, the barrooms, the clubs running around the clock, and the fact that the city is built in the desert which puts demands on buildings being constantly air conditioned, it would have been the last place on earth to embrace sustainable living, I would have thought. But, I would have thought wrong.
Regardless, Las Vegas is a forward-thinking city when it comes to sustainability and green building. This is so much the case that they are among many US cities that offer builders appropriate rebates on green building practices, and put strict demands on LEED silver certification on new building projects. Here’s where you can read more about the Las Vegas green building program. Here’s hoping that large-scale green building, energy efficiency, and builders gaining financial benefits through sustainable construction, doesn’t just stay in Vegas.
The Strip! Image courtesy of http207. Click on image to view Flickr stream.
For more information about what the City of Las Vegas is doing to encourage green building practices, check out the City of Las Vegas website.
The Olympics is a tradition that is many thousands of years old. Yet one of the things that typifies it is a way of showing the world where technology and innovation is taking us. In the realm of green building, the Olympics, and the infrastructure that the events demand, there is a chance for green builders and designers to strut their stuff on the world stage, and to produce buildings that shine as beacons of modernity that reflect the times in which they are built.![[Post to Twitter]](http://blog.builddirect.com/greenbuilding/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter2.png){kind=icon}
