 |
(Davis Langdon, 2007)
Review by Pauline Souza, AIA
Engaging in conversations about sustainability these days is not
difficult. Subconsultants, builders, and clients are conversant in
the details of energy efficiency, life cycle cost, resource
management, air quality, and even carbon footprint targets. While
talking about sustainability is easy, truly integrating
green design into the DNA of a project often remains a challenge,
one that more often than not hinges on the perceived cost of going
green.
Davis Langdon explored this topic in its 2004 report,
Costing Green: A Comprehensive Cost Database and Budgeting
Methodology. The study built on its extensive database,
developed from its core practice as one of the premier estimating
firms, responsible for hundreds of projects each year. The company
had begun to notice a growing trend in client requests for green
cost itemization. The assumption was, and still is, that green
design features should be analyzed as individual components,
project additives as opposed to the building blocks of program, and
that these costs always increase project costs. In other words,
going green always costs more.
In their report, Lisa Fay Matthiessen and Peter Morris analyzed
approximately 600 projects in 19 different states, using a balanced
sample of common project types—academic buildings,
laboratories, hospitals, offices, and parking structures. Each
sample included projects that were developed per conventional
standards (without stated sustainable objectives) versus projects
that were developed per the U.S. Green Building Council’s
(USGBC’s) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED®) system (their measure and validation of green
building). All projects were normalized for comparison—taking
into account location and date.
The study revealed that many LEED-rated projects cost the same
as projects with no stated green goals. In fact, many projects with
LEED level ratings often cost less than non-LEED projects. At the
same time, the opposite was often true. In other words, Davis
Langdon found no direct correlation between higher costs for going
green and lower costs for conventional building.
During the past several years we have witnessed a phenomenal
climb in construction costs. Simultaneously, we have experienced
increased client demand for integrated design and sustainable
buildings. Universities, private organizations, school districts,
counties, and cities have begun to require benchmarks for energy
efficiency, LEED levels, and resource management in a majority of
their projects. The number of requests for proposals requesting
some level of sustainability as a project goal is now the norm
rather than the exception. These trends have changed the nature of
doing business.
In the report Cost of Green Revisited, released in July
2007, Davis Langdon reexamined the cost of going green based on its
last two years of data in an effort to understand the mutual
impacts of these two trends—rising construction costs and
growing demand for green buildings.
With the addition of 221 projects to their analysis—83 of
which were not actively seeking a LEED level—they reviewed the
data with a similar approach to the one they took in 2004. Davis
Langdon found that despite rising construction costs projects still
managed to attain their sustainable goals within budget.
LEED-certified and LEED Silver projects were in the “same cost
range as non-LEED projects”. Likewise, many LEED Gold projects
were completed within budget or at no more than a 10 percent added
cost. Though construction costs have continued to rise
dramatically, often at 1 percent per month, many clients continued
to pursue LEED rating for their projects. As Matthiessen states,
“the cost of green cannot be a major (cost) issue or LEED
measures would be eliminated as part of a VE process.”
What the report suggests is a trend in thinking that transcends
the notion of sustainability as a line item cost. There is a
greater understanding that true sustainable design can be achieved
if the desire is there and the value of sustainable approaches and
systems is recognized. When sustainability is valued it does not
“cost” more because it is as much a part of the project
as any other project component—any wall, window, or door.
Factored in at a programmatic level, green can not be parsed from
its integrated whole or singled out as a line item. Going green
does not put a project above budget because the project’s
budget is built around it. Conversely, if sustainability is not
part of the value system, it will always be perceived as costing
more.
Architecture is ultimately about choices and weighing one
benefit and cost against another. Studies like Davis Langdon’s
can be invaluable in helping us engage our clients and project
teams in these nuanced conversations about core values and
costs.
Pauline Souza, AIA, LEED Accredited Professional, is an
associate partner and the director of green services for WRNS
Studio. She has 24 years of management and design experience,
focused on facilities for the education, transportation, and civic
sectors. Her career has been dedicated to the building and advocacy
of learning places that promote the health, well-being, and
education of school children and school staff. Souza currently is
serving as for a new 200,000-square-foot high school in Livermore,
Calif. and several projects for the Hillsborough City (Calif.)
School District. These projects employ both the Collaborative for
High Performance Schools (CHPS) system and the LEED for Schools
benchmark system. Souza also has participated in greening the
Hillsborough City School District Standards.
See the Davis Langdon report at
http://www.davislangdon.com/upload/images/publications/USA/The%20Cost%20of%20Green%20Revisited.pdf
.
|
