Page 021
Source section: Section 1 - Introduction to Green Buildings and Communities PDF page: 21 Guide page: 14 OCR quality: high (516 words)
OCR Text
Selecting a location is one of the earliest decisions made in a project, and this decision defines many of the opportunities and constraints that the project team will encounter. It can determine whether a project can take advantage of sunlight, have access to public transportation and other services, and protect habitats. As discussed earlier in this section, a building whose occupants must drive long distances may contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, as well as destruction of natural habitat for infrastructure development. To design sustainably for place, a team can start with a project site and determine what uses are most appropriate there. Alternatively, the team can start with a function and find the best place to put it. In either case, the goals of the project must be clear and the needs and resources must be clearly identified so that the building can be carefully integrated into its context and support a thriving and sustainable local community. Project teams with a goal of sustainability develop a deep understanding of the place and context in which their projects are built. They go beyond a cursory site assessment and study the land and its history. They look for ways to make connections to the immediate site, the surrounding watershed, or ecological features and promote their healthy evolution. They also engage the community’s traditions, strengths, and needs in order to ascertain how the project can contribute to social and economic well-being and growth. At first glance, the additional work and alternative materials needed to build green may seem like a burdensome cost, but closer attention reveals this perception to be misleading. If sustainability is viewed as an expensive add-on to a building, we would mistake efforts to reduce energy costs or improve indoor environmental quality as comparable to specifying a better grade of countertop or a more impressive front door. Under this approach, any improvement beyond a minimally code-compliant baseline looks like an added cost. If, however, we consider energy improvements part of an overall process, we often find that the added costs are balanced by long-term savings. The initial expenditures continue to pay back over time, like a good investment. The best returns on these investments are realized when green building is integrated into the process at the earliest stages rather than as a last-minute effort. For instance, specification of more
s costly, high-performance windows may allow for the use of a smaller, lower-cost heating, ventilation,
e and air-conditioning (HVAC) system. More fundamentally, if we view sustainable design as part of the
a necessary functional requirements for building an energy-efficient structure and providing a safe, healthful
aI environment, we can compare the cost of the green building with that of other buildings in the same class,
= rather than against an artificially low baseline.
|
a Alandmark study by the firm Davis Langdon found no significant difference between the average cost
3 of a LEED-certified building and other new construction in the same category: there are expensive green
e buildings, and there are expensive conventional buildings. Certification as a green building was not a
o significant indicator of construction cost.”
Ww
5
2 11 LR Matthiessen and P. Morris, “Cost of Green Revisited: Reexamining the Feasibility and Cost Impact of Sustainable Design in
th the Light of Increased Market Adoption” (Davis Langdon, 2007), davislanadon.com,
a
14