Green Building Makes Environmental and Economic Sense

SierraScape June-July 2005
Back to Table of Contents

by Jan Niehaus

Buildings are hogs.

In the U.S. alone, buildings:

  • Consume 30% of all wood and raw materials
  • Use 65% of all electricity and 30-40% of total energy
  • Account for 25% of all water use
  • Generate 30% of all waste
  • Produce 30% of all greenhouse gas emissions

Buildings are voracious hogs. But help is on the way!

U.S. Green Building Council

The not-for-profit U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) (www.usgbc.org) has enjoyed phenomenal success with their LEED™ Green Building Rating System. LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design) defines, quantifies and measures sustainable design and building practices in five categories:

  • Sustainable site
  • Water efficiency
  • Energy and atmosphere
  • Materials and resources
  • Indoor environmental quality

A building project earns "points" for adhering to the principles and practices specified in each category. For example, a new construction (NC) project earns one point if the site is a brownfield and if the site remediation meets the EPA's Brownfield Redevelopment program requirements. Total points determine the level of LEED certification: Certified (basic), Silver, Gold and Platinum (highest and hardest to achieve).

LEED principles aren't mainstream yet, but the notion of sustainably designing, constructing and operating buildings has garnered enormous attention in recent years. Consider:

  • USGBC membership (open to organizations only, not individuals) grew from 570 in 2000 to over 5,000 in 2004.
  • While the value of new construction starts declined by almost half between 2000 and 2003, the value of new LEED-NC registered projects rose from $792 million in 2000 to $5.76 billion in 2003.
  • Between 2002 and 2004, the total square footage of LEED projects jumped from 80+ million to 180+ million.

Green building is not a fad. It is not a passing fancy. It is not the latest marketing scheme (although architects, engineers and builders with LEED experience are enjoying a definite market advantage). Green building is here to stay.

Economic Benefits of Green Building

Architects tell us that green design is simply good design, and owners are reporting compelling bottom-line results:

  • The additional 1.8% investment in "green" building strategies (average) is recouped in three years, with annual returns of 25-40%
  • Energy savings of 30%, water use 30-50% and waste costs 50-97%
  • Improved productivity, increased property values, reduced liability and improved risk management
  • Schools: 20% better test performance
  • Hospitals: patients discharged 2.5 days earlier
  • Increased retail sales per sq. ft.
  • Increased production and fewer injuries in green factories
  • Office productivity up 2-16%

Some specific findings include:

  • Radnor Elementary School in Pennsylvania, with its geothermal HVAC system, spends 23% less to operate than an identical school without geothermal.
  • Natural gas costs are down 7%, electricity 18% and water and sewage expense 65% at the new Herman Miller Greenhouse in Michigan.
  • West Bend Mutual in Wisconsin boosted productivity 16% through daylighting, better access to windows, outdoor views of prairie and pond, and employees' control over temperature, air flow, lighting and background noise in their individual workstations. Employee complaints about being too hot or too cold dropped from over 40 a day to two a week. Since each call costs $25 plus $300 in maintenance, West Bend is saving $65,000 per week, almost $3.4 million a year.
  • The commercial Ridgehaven Building in San Diego uses 65% less total energy than its nearly identical neighbor.

Most "early adopters" of green design and construction are, understandably, owners with a mission-related interest, e.g., the Department of Natural Resources, earth science departments of universities, engineering and architectural firms.

A growing number of government agencies require adherence to LEED:

  • Environmental Protection Agency
  • General Services Administration
  • Eight states: Arizona, California, Florida, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Oregon, Washington
  • Three counties, two in California and Cook County, Illinois
  • 22 cities - as diverse as Berkeley, Omaha, Scottsdale, Dallas, Santa Monica, Kansas City and the District of Columbia

Green Leaders in St. Louis

None of the county or municipal governments in eastern Missouri have adopted green building code provisions, but they're listening, and University City and Maryland Heights have even LEED-registered their own building projects.

St. Louis' two LEED-certified buildings are Monsanto's Nidus Center for Scientific Enterprise and Washington University's Earth and Planetary Science Building.

Our area's LEED-registered projects include:

St. Louis will never, ever be a Portland or a Seattle in terms of green building. But we did recently rate a two-day visit from Rick Fedrizzi, President, CEO and Founding Chairman of the national USGBC. Fedrizzi's packed agenda, arranged by the USGBC-St. Louis Regional Chapter, included meetings with four separate audiences: university administrators, mayors and city managers, RCGA members and USGBC-STL members and guests.

After Fedrizzi's visit, architect JoAnn Brookes, LEED a.p., AIA, with Fox Architects and a USGBC-STL committee chair, commented: "We have a very dynamic chapter in one of the hardest cities to convert. Let's face it: St. Louis is usually 10-15 years behind the coasts on adopting new ideas like LEED. Right now, we're less than 5 years behind on LEED. I have a feeling that USGBC recognizes that if St. Louis converts to LEED, then they have gotten to or passed their 'tipping point' in the U.S."