Seattle ‘s chapter of the American Institute of Architects has half the answer to its question: “What Makes It Green?” About 200 people, wearing angular eyewear and tidy seersucker tops, packed into FareStart Restaurant downtown this evening to cheer for this year’s top 10 winners for environmentally sound architecture.
Of course, all these architects already know the answer. Hell, they design the buildings that use drafts instead of air conditioning, collect rainwater for plumbing, and harness the sun for heat to reduce a building’s energy consumption. As Dan Bertolet writes in a beautiful screed over on Hugeasscity, “The mystery that we need to solve is why, given the dire need to make buildings more energy efficient, isn’t every new midrise office building being designed for no air-conditioning in a temperate climate like Seattle’s?”
So the question is actually: “What promotes green design?” And there are two basic tools: carrots and sticks. Awards and recognition are a good incentives—carrots, if you will—for the voracious development industry. More specifically, the awards demonstrate builders can make money building green. “The operating costs are lower than a typical building of this size,” said Sandy Wiggins, a juror and principal of Consilience, regarding the Weber Thomson Headquarters, which won a top-ten slot. He added that all of the top 10 designs fell within market costs for a comparable non-green building. For example, the Joseph Vance Building, on Third Avenue and Union Street, also won an award. The building is 80 years old, but a renovation reduced its energy requirements by 60 percent, allowing the owner to reduce the rents and increase occupancy from 65 to 95 percent. “It is an economic marvel,” said juror Kevin Hydes, CEO of Integral Company. By showing these buildings are not just feasible but financially viable, the AIA is systematically recruiting builders who have built green, made money, received recognition, and want to build green again. These developers are the unlikely advocates—the best advocates—before legislatures and local councils to not just promote, but require green buildings.
The AIA needs to aggressively use its second tool: a stick to swing at lawmakers, demanding more laws like the bill the state legislature passed this session that requires buildings constructed from 2013 through 2031 to incrementally reduce energy use by 70 percent. The AIA needs to swing that stick because individual architecture firms won’t (they fear backlash from developers who scoff at green design). The AIA has the goodwill and clout to continue confronting development lobbies and timid lawmakers.
* Of course, part of promoting green development is providing recognition, which would entail showing you what these top-ten winning designs look like. The AIA said they would have those images for people like me to share with folks like you, but they didn’t have those designs so you will have to imagine.
The mystery that we need to solve is why, given the dire need to make buildings more energy efficient, isn’t every new midrise office building being designed for no air-conditioning in a temperate climate like Seattle’s?
Because it costs money to do so and energy is cheap. And even if energy were expensive its not a cost born by developers. If purchasers or tenants demanded it either out of concern for the environment or because it made economic sense then you would see it more.
Either that or we need to require it, which is going to increase the cost of space which makes it harder to do buisness, or incentivize it, which will make it cost born by all of us.
The AIA needs aggressively use its second tool: swing a stick at lawmakers to demand more laws like the bill the state legislature passed this session
And we’re doing just that, Dominic. AIA Washington has been doing a great job tracking the bills in Olympia and rallying support for energy efficiency and sustainable design.
Did someone say affordable? And I don’t mean condos.
that weber thompson abortion isn’t architecture. sure, it functions better from an energy standpoint than most, but like all weber thompson projects, it’s fuglier than most, too.
I partly agree with sgiffy.
The carrot (lower long-term energy costs) is only an effective carrot if the developer gets the carrot. In this case, it only matters to them if they plan to build and KEEP the building. But if a developer has the intent of building the building and then selling it off, then they don’t much care about long-term energy or maintenance costs. It isn’t their problem. They will pay little more than lip service to long term costs. So you need a different carrot, or apply the stick to developers who plan to sell the building as soon as they can.
“Green buildings” is an oxymoron. Who really needs to go to work in a buidling. Wimax netbooks can be carried anywhere, and 10 people can sit down and create in a park or canyon.
@5 and even still they are almost certainly leasing the building and the leasee(s) will most likely be paying. I’ve known a few people who leased commercial space and none of them put any thought into the energy efficency of the place. It was just to small a cost. Now they should care but like you said we need a good carrot or stick and need to decide if we should all pay through taxes and subsidies or if we should make buisness pay the upfront costs.
@6 I think we are aways away from most people being comfertable with that. The notion of face to face meetings with employees or customers is still pretty salient and logistically having a common space is easier. So while we should encourage telecommuting it’s not going to get rid of buildings. Not anytime soon.
What makes it green? Not building it in the first place.
What makes green design?
Quite frankly the major impact is actually how much energy it takes to heat and cool the building, and how much water it uses.
All the rest is a very very very small impact.