 |
(Capital E, 2006)
Review by Greg Papay, FAIA
Through the ages, architects’ design and production tools
have evolved from freehand sketches and watercolors through manual
T-square and parallel bar drafting to multidimensional modeling
software. Coupled with this has been the art of persuasion, often
seeking an appropriate balance between economics and aesthetics.
But where our profession has been weak and at a loss for tools and
arguments is in the realm of building performance, particularly
measures of a building’s impact on human health and
productivity.
Greening America’s Schools: Costs and Benefits, a
report by Capital E, gives architects of educational projects, and
in many ways any projects, a fantastic tool and persuasive
reasoning framework for working with clients who commission
schools. The report samples the costs and benefits of 30 schools in
12 states and quantifies the findings in sections on energy,
emissions, water, wastewater, earnings, health, learning, and
employment. While the general qualities of these schools are
described at length, it is the quantification of the data into
dollars per square foot of cost savings and percent of measurable
performance increase that creates fertile terrain here. Much like a
school curriculum is unbalanced if some subjects are omitted, so is
architecture incomplete unless it finds solutions that represent
the best integration of aesthetics, economics, and performance. In
this case, the science of sustainability in school buildings is now
available, albeit based on a relatively small sample of
schools.
The report documents the minimal additional cost for green
schools—typically $3 per square foot—but offers that the
benefits are closer to $70 per square foot. Of this total, $12 per
square foot are directly attributable to the school, with the
balance benefiting the community. Citing numerous other studies to
strengthen these findings, the report outlines productivity gains
that can be expected from improved indoor air quality, temperature
control, and lighting systems, among others changes. Since schools
operate in an arena where, conceptually, a dollar spent on
constructing or operating a building is a dollar that cannot be
applied to improved programs, additional staff, teacher salaries,
etc., it is refreshing to understand a green school as a way to
actually help fund those things in the future.
The report will certainly benefit architects as they work with
their school clients to increase project performance. Our office
has cited it several times in an effort to support good decisions.
It will have the most benefit the further “upstream” it
travels—to elected officials, school board members,
superintendents, principals, and facilities directors who are
tasked with establishing priorities for school design and
construction. I anticipate that those with an overall perspective
on myriad issues facing schools and their ability to create change
will continue to embrace the report’s findings and expand its
reach and impact. Thank you to Kats and Braman for compiling this
information into a concise, well-written, must-read for
architects.
Greg Papay, FAIA, is a partner at Lake|Flato Architects in
San Antonio, where he focuses his efforts on school design and
balancing the scientific and artistic aspects of architecture. He
is a recent past president of AIA San Antonio, and a husband and
father of two. He is currently installing photovoltaics on the roof
of his 1914 Prairie Style house.
See the Capital E report at http://www.cap-e.com/ewebeditpro/items/O59F9819.pdf
.
|
