Green Intentions Gone Wrong
If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? It’s an age-old question, and thanks to the popularity of “green building,” there’s a new twist—if a green building stands empty or must be remodeled to fit the needs of its inhabitants, is it still “sustainable?” Green building is all about good intentions, but without proper implementation, these intentions are for naught. For example, can you really call a project sustainable if it’s not in use? And, if you haphazardly apply energy efficiency technologies merely for the sake of the “green” label without first taking the time to determine what makes sense for that structure or project, aren’t you rendering the label meaningless and perhaps even working counter to the precise needs and challenges of that structure and its surrounding environment?
Case in point: Lompoc, California. The city’s new fire and sheriff’s building exemplifies much of what can go wrong when the focus is on labels rather than results. After the grand opening of the new building, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors was forced to approve an additional $136,800 so that an after-construction air-conditioning system can be installed—quite a defeat for a structure designed with a “green” intent (including double-paned, tinted windows, and natural ventilation added precisely so that no additional HVAC system would be needed). Unfortunately, the sheriff’s portion of the building faces south, and on hot days the indoor temperature can get as high as 90˚F. The situation is so extreme that the Fire Department (situated on the north side of the building) has been asked on more than one occasion to send over emergency personnel to aid sheriff’s department employees on the verge of passing out due to the heat and lack of adequate ventilation.
This story could easily be entitled, “when good buildings go bad.” After all, what’s the point of paying lip service to sustainability if you end up with a building that is designed counterintuitively so that its site and local environment actually works against it? And these types of mishaps do nothing to help promote thoughtful building design; instead they turn a “green” label into a liability rather than a selling point.
Advertisement
With a tally of about $5.5 million, the additional $136,000 amounts to about a 2.5% increase in the building’s total construction cost—a small fraction of the initial budget, and an indication that the HVAC system was not initially included in anticipation of future energy savings rather than a reduction of the project’s initial cost. Now, of course, those hopes have evaporated.
I believe that if we make efficiency the focus when confronted with the need to reduce energy costs (be it in new or existing buildings), then a satisfying outcome is guaranteed. Less than a mile away from my office, the local hospital has just finished a new onsite power facility that officials anticipate will be twice as efficient as the facility’s former power plant. The 29,000-square-foot center houses three separate boilers (the steam will be harnessed to heat the hospital and sterilize surgical instruments), two water chillers to provide air conditioning and cool water (one of the chillers is powered by steam from the boiler and thus will able to operate off the grid during peak hours), and four emergency diesel generators. When backup is not needed, the local power company supplies energy through two separate grids—with the option to switch back and forth, should the regional grid become inoperable. By paying attention to the specific needs of the building’s inhabitants and taking into account the challenges and requirements inherent to the building’s location, the designers behind the power center have created a structure that is both efficient and sustainable—and ultimately, it’s that efficiency focus that’s the secret to a successful project, regardless of the label.
Author's Bio: Elizabeth Cutright is the Editor of Distributed Energy Magazine
September-October 2009
Green Intentions Gone Wrong
If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? It’s an age-old question, and thanks to the popularity of “green building,” there’s a new twist—if a green building stands empty or must be remodeled to fit the needs of its inhabitants, is it still “sustainable?” Green building is all about good intentions, but without proper implementation, these intentions are for naught. For example, can you really call a project sustainable if it’s not in use? And, if you haphazardly apply energy efficiency technologies merely for the sake of the “green” label without first taking the time to determine what makes sense for that structure or project, aren’t you rendering the label meaningless and perhaps even working counter to the precise needs and challenges of that structure and its surrounding environment?
Case in point: Lompoc, California. The city’s new fire and sheriff’s building exemplifies much of what can go wrong when the focus is on labels rather than results. After the grand opening of the new building, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors was forced to approve an additional $136,800 so that an after-construction air-conditioning system can be installed—quite a defeat for a structure designed with a “green” intent (including double-paned, tinted windows, and natural ventilation added precisely so that no additional HVAC system would be needed). Unfortunately, the sheriff’s portion of the building faces south, and on hot days the indoor temperature can get as high as 90˚F. The situation is so extreme that the Fire Department (situated on the north side of the building) has been asked on more than one occasion to send over emergency personnel to aid sheriff’s department employees on the verge of passing out due to the heat and lack of adequate ventilation.
This story could easily be entitled, “when good buildings go bad.” After all, what’s the point of paying lip service to sustainability if you end up with a building that is designed counterintuitively so that its site and local environment actually works against it? And these types of mishaps do nothing to help promote thoughtful building design; instead they turn a “green” label into a liability rather than a selling point.
With a tally of about $5.5 million, the additional $136,000 amounts to about a 2.5% increase in the building’s total construction cost—a small fraction of the initial budget, and an indication that the HVAC system was not initially included in anticipation of future energy savings rather than a reduction of the project’s initial cost. Now, of course, those hopes have evaporated.
I believe that if we make efficiency the focus when confronted with the need to reduce energy costs (be it in new or existing buildings), then a satisfying outcome is guaranteed. Less than a mile away from my office, the local hospital has just finished a new onsite power facility that officials anticipate will be twice as efficient as the facility’s former power plant. The 29,000-square-foot center houses three separate boilers (the steam will be harnessed to heat the hospital and sterilize surgical instruments), two water chillers to provide air conditioning and cool water (one of the chillers is powered by steam from the boiler and thus will able to operate off the grid during peak hours), and four emergency diesel generators. When backup is not needed, the local power company supplies energy through two separate grids—with the option to switch back and forth, should the regional grid become inoperable. By paying attention to the specific needs of the building’s inhabitants and taking into account the challenges and requirements inherent to the building’s location, the designers behind the power center have created a structure that is both efficient and sustainable—and ultimately, it’s that efficiency focus that’s the secret to a successful project, regardless of the label.