Richmond pushes green buildings
Richmond is pushing to incorporate green-building standards in new or renovated schools and other public facilities.
The City Council adopted a policy last week that calls for city construction projects to follow guidelines of the U.S. Green Building Council.
Though the standards are expected to increase construction costs, proponents believe the benefits will be greater, with long-term operational savings, healthier workplaces, better energy efficiency and lower greenhouse-gas emissions.
"It's going to cost us money, but it's going to cost us even more if we're not willing to make a change," Councilwoman Ellen F. Robertson said.
Beginning with the fiscal year that starts July 1, the policy calls for projects of more than 10,000 square feet to meet the Silver standard of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Green Building Rating System.
By comparison, Chesterfield County started last year requiring that standard for projects of 20,000 square feet or more -- generally the size of a new library, said Robert D. Rivers, manager of the county's capital projects management division.
"Every jurisdiction across the country is beginning to look at this stuff pretty carefully," he said.
The City Council approved its policy in a 7-1 vote. City Councilman Bruce W. Tyler opposed the measure, challenging its claim that the new standards would add only 3 percent to the costs of construction.
Tyler, an architect with Baskervill, said his experience suggests the higher costs could be at least 5 percent under basic LEED standards and as much as 10 percent to 15 percent if the Silver rating is pursued. He said the extra costs could run into the millions in a city with extensive needs for schools, a new jail and other facilities.
"There's going to be more expense to the taxpayer, and we need to be honest with this," he said.
It was unclear yesterday to what extent Mayor Dwight C. Jones plans to account for additional costs this spring when he proposes a new five-year plan for capital projects.
Tyler said he believes the city should consider green-building standards on a project basis as it pursues other environmentally friendly measures such as planting shade trees.
Contact Will Jones at (804) 649-6911 or
.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Bill, sounds like you may be coming at this from the perspective of a residential developer, and you bring up an important point. The finance institutions seem to be a little behind the curve, and I can understand your frustrations. I applaud you for exploring this option however. Below is a recent EPA report that adresses this issue; You should find this interesting:
http://www.nemw.org/RemovingMarketBarriers2GreenDevReport.pdf
In response to this, many large architectural firms are striving to incorporate many of the sustainable strategies found in the LEED rating system into their designs at no net cost to the project budget. For example, reducing the energy demand of a building allows you to spend less on a smaller mechanical system, which in turn save square footage, and structure. And the lower energy bills are the gifts that keep on giving.
Incentives are another way to help pay for a sustainable building. They are out there, you just have to look for them; reminds me of college scholarships.
Lastly, I wouldn’t say I believe wholeheartedly in LEED, but I do believe in sustainable design. LEED (and there are other rating systems) is just a way to qualify sustainability in a building, and I think that you need that. Rather than put our heads in the sand and insist on doing things the way we have always done, we can do so much better in the way we design our buildings. And it has been demonstrated over and over again that it does not have to cost more than 2-3% extra. If you would still like to speak about this with someone who has done multiple sustainable residential projects, I can put you in touch.
Tom,
Thanks for the reply. One question: How does one finance the above and beyond costs of a LEED project when it adds $0 in actual current value? I’d love to tell my banker he should lend me additional dollars for a LEED project because employees in the building will be happier and they’ll have lower energy bills, but you probably know how this conversation would end. If you believe wholeheartedly in LEED projects, you should work on a way to finance the add-on costs for developers (including architect’s LEED consulting fees) over 20 years like commercial lenders. You will also need to convince tenants to pay above-market rents to cover the additional debt. And last but not least, I’d like you to guarantee the 3% add-on number or be responsible for any costs above it. In other words, I’m only asking you to put your money where your mouth is.
Bill, a building cannot be LEED accredited, a person can. You are also mistaken about having to use one of their (USGBC I assume?) consultants in order to do a LEED certified building. Any architect should be able to do one. LEED projects often (but not always) cost a little more than business as usual, however, the big picture that many people are missing is that there is a payoff. Let’s totally ignore the environmental benefits for a minute, since they will not put money in your pocket. LEED buildings can still give you reduced water and energy costs, increased worker productivity, less toxic interior air, increased retail sales, shorter hospital stays, and higher test scores. Tyler’s view is short sighted. If we spend a little more up front on our buildings (and 15% is very high), we can save so much more energy and money over the life of the building.
Unfortunately, the council has been badly misled by the US Green Building Council. Tyler has the figures correct. As an architect it makes sense that he would. On average, green construction, be it LEED, EarthCraft or whatever, adds between 7 and 9 percent nationwide to the cost of a facility. For government buildings it will be more. The Silver standard is much higher than average. Tyler’s 15 percent figure is pretty close.
So the city got suckered again. I’d hoped things would change under a new mayor. Oh well…
Tyler is right. The US Green Building Council, who oversees the LEED accreditation program, says the increase in cost is 3%. They are a non-regulated, non-profit organization with no affiliation with the US Government. To get the accreditation, you must use one of their consultants, which runs $20,000+. I seriously looked into doing a LEED project two years ago, but it was more than a 10% add-on. And there is no data that suggests a LEED project adds value to the property. Banks won’t lend additional funds for it so developers shoulder the entire load.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement