The greenest building is the one that does not get built. Something to think about in that statement.
There”™s no question today”™s builders are buffeted with a raft of conflicting trends ”“continue to pile up vacant residential properties, under-utilized malls and empty office buildings, or rethink the building mania that has been the guiding principle for decades and only build sustainable structures and what exactly does that mean?
The word “sustainable” has taken on new meaning in recent months, but in the 1970s and ”˜80s it implied that we should live in a way that the environment we leave for our children will be of the same quality as we found it. This means the air, water, farmland, health of the population, etc. would not be degraded.
No one really understood how tough living sustainably would actually be and no controlled studies were ever done as far as we know. Nonetheless, sustainability was seriously discussed but in no way seriously implemented. As Oscar Wilde said, “Moderation is a fatal thing. Nothing succeeds like excess” ”“ apparently the mantra for the U.S.
Grass is always greener
Years later the word “sustainable” was modified significantly. It came to mean bringing buildings new and already built into a sensitive relationship with nature.
In 1998 the U.S. Green Building Council began to develop a numerical system whereby the sustainability of a structure could be assessed. The rating system was organized in five environmental categories: sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources, and indoor environmental quality.
By 2000 the first LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) pilot project program was born. It strikes a balance between known established practices and emerging concepts, a performance-oriented system where credits are earned. Now, 14 years later, after enjoying a good deal of favorable publicity the LEED accreditation program has come under question.
In the suburbs there is the sense if there is green around the house it is therefore much greener than, say, an apartment building in New York City. Surprise! Any apartment building in the city is far and away greener than any LEED-accredited home in the suburbs.
This sounds like heresy but it is factual and here is why. Density is the single most important word in this comparison. On a per-capita basis each person in an apartment has far less stuff, probably does not own a car, walks to most destinations or takes available transit ”“ in other words a far smaller carbon footprint. In the suburbs space is prime, the more the better. The McMansion, because of its excessive space, requires massive inputs of stuff, all of which require energy, to make and to ship. There will more than likely be a three-car garage. Therefore, a McMansion cannot be considered green even with a LEED platinum designation.
Un-sustainable goals?
According to the WalkerArchitect”™s blog ”“ “There exists little reason to assume that a LEED rating actually creates a reduction of the carbon footprint of the built environment. ”¦ When the program was launched, the hope was that it would transform the design and construction of commercial and residential buildings, usher in a new age and more sustainable way of building. ”¦ LEED certification simply costs more and does not equate to a more sustainable built environment.”
The real problem with LEED accreditation is that it does not take into account the size of the home and its distance from town amenities. The Whole Building Design Guide has a more holistic approach. “The main objectives of sustainable design are to avoid resource depletion of energy, water and raw materials.”
Here is a more persuasive directive for building in uncertain times. “Building resiliency is the capacity of a building to continue to function and operate under extreme conditions, such as (but not limited to) extreme temperatures, sea level rise, natural disasters, etc. As the built environment faces the impending effects of global climate change, building owners, designers (and) builders can design facilities to optimize building resiliency.”
The building industry has not yet recognized the limitations of its future.
Surviving the Future explores a wide range of subjects to assist businesses in adapting to a new energy age. Maureen Morgan, a transit advocate, is on the board of Federated Conservationists of Westchester. Reach her at maureenmorgan10@verizon.net.
This article introduces the idea that people need to face the truths of living in a single family dwelling as opposed to a building with multiple families. I think that this is comparing apples to oranges. A person who wants to live greener will still decide about where they are going to live by considering many factors. Most folks want to help the environment, but how many children they have, schools, and where they work as well as the quality of life will always come first in our decisions about where we want to live. Perhaps electric vehicles could soon help offset one of the drawbacks to the burbs.
Byron Fuentes,
Los Angeles (Suburbs)