Public Architecture and LEED: Making It Green AND Fair

"The concept of sustainability has broader applicability than the environmental arena. In fact, like good governance, sustainability is fast becoming a cornerstone of public sector management." ⁱ

--J. W. Cameron, Auditor-General, State of Victoria, Australia

As many public architects already know, LEED^TM in the public sector is here to stay. The U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED^TM) Green Building Rating System^® has been adopted as a standard or guideline by dozens of state, local, and federal agencies. Today, these groups alone have registered almost 750 new construction projects, totaling over 83 million square feet.ⁱⁱ

The reasons for LEED’s success are many. As a design template, it systematically guides designers through many of the environmental requirements that most of us already have. And through its certification and commissioning requirements, LEED includes useful quality-control tools for design and construction. Certification requirements also help us to establish a design baseline when dealing with the private sector. As commercial owners begin to understand that we are serious about these requirements in both government-owned and -leased spaces, they will begin to plan ahead, building greener facilities that provide the kinds of spaces that meet our needs.

GSA’s Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service (P100) requires all new construction and major modernization projects to be certified through the LEED program, with an emphasis on obtaining Silver ratings. There has been some concern about the premium associated with green design. However, a recent study by the GSA Public Buildings Service found that, in some scenarios (depending on the design solution, market conditions, and other contingency factors), “a LEED rating could potentially be achieved within a standard GSA project budget (without a green building budget allowance).” ⁱⁱⁱ

Creating Long-Term Value
There are economic, environmental, and social issues associated with every business decision we make. Getting the best value for the American people means doing more than getting the lowest first cost for a project. It means understanding, acknowledging, and even celebrating the choices that public agencies make across the broad spectrum of programs and responsibilities.

Getting the greatest long-term benefit and creating value in our facilities means making the most economical long-term choices. While LEED can help us achieve our environmental and business goals, social strategies are absent. Where achieving the government’s business goals (like those of GSA) includes the commitment to “carry out social, environmental, and other responsibilities,” ^iv this absence can be problematic.

According to the USGBC, LEED “provides a complete framework for assessing building performance and meeting sustainability goals.” But, while LEED is intended to be a “complete framework,” the details within that framework are not complete. Generally, LEED is successful in addressing issues of the environment, health, and safety; however, one key part of sustainable development—social equity—is only briefly addressed.

Considering Social Equity
Part of the difficulty in incorporating social equity has been defining it. Social equity is a broad topic that includes both individual and corporate responsibility. Common in the longstanding discussion of social equity are the ideas of “respect” for people, including ” their “well-being” and “quality of life.” This means remembering the people and communities affected by the products and services we use.

Frederick Douglass wrote in 1881 for North American Review, “Neither we, nor any other people, will ever be respected till we respect ourselves and we will never respect ourselves till we have the means to live respectfully.” The connection to sustainable development is clear. As Stephanie Luce, at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, writes:

When policymakers talk about sustainable development, the emphasis is often on factors such as the impact of new building on the environment, the use of recyclable and renewable resources, and designing communities in order to minimize excessive transportation requirements and other sources of pollution. Often, the piece that gets ignored in the conversation is labor: the labor that is required in the actual building or production, as well as the working conditions of people who inhabit the community in question.^vi

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development repeats similar themes:

As an engine for social progress, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) helps companies live up to their responsibilities as global citizens and local neighbors in a fast-changing world. We define CSR as business’ commitment to contribute to sustainable economic development, working with employees, their families, the local community, and society at large to improve their quality of life. We are convinced that a coherent CSR strategy, based on integrity, sound values, and a long-term approach offers clear business benefits to companies and contributes to the well-being of society.^vii

Generally, societal issues such as respect, quality of life, and well-being have not been addressed in the sustainable development equation. Considering the complexity of the subject, this is not unexpected. But as our understanding of sustainability develops, opportunities exist for building more effective tools and strategies.

Tools and Strategies
One useful tool is the McDonough Braungart Design Protocol™ Fractal, which facilitates modeling of sustainable design’s basic elements—economy, ecology, and equity—as well as the more complex interactions.

The basic questions posed at the corners of the fractal are:
• Ecology. Does the product return to a reusable or biodegradable state?
• Economy. Can we make it and sell it at a profit?
• Equity. Are employees treating one another with respect?

The secondary questions posed by this fractal model are the most useful for identifying equity needs:
• Economy–Equity. Are our employees earning a living wage?
• Equity–Economy. Are men and women paid the same for the same work?
• Equity–Ecology. Are employees and customers safe making and using our products?
• Ecology–Equity. Is our production safe for the local and global communities?
• Ecology–Economy. Are we making effective use of our resources?
• Economy–Ecology. Are we being efficient with our use of resources?

Public Architects’ Connection to Equity
Those of us in the public sector are familiar with many of the issues raised by the McDonough-Braungart Protocol. Responding to them is a normal part of our tasks in executing publicly funded design and construction programs.

GSA, like all federal agencies, has procurement preference goals for contracting with small businesses through its various programs. The procurement preference categories include Small, Small Disadvantaged, Section 8-A, Hub Zone, Woman Owned, and Service Disabled Veteran Owned.

In the area of wages, the federal and many state and local governments invest in communities by minimizing local wage impacts of federal projects and supporting a well-trained and stable workforce by paying prevailing wages to those employed under construction, manufacturing, and service contracts.

Other laws administered in public contracts include nondiscrimination (ensuring that men and women are paid the same for the same work), protection of occupational safety and health, prohibition of bribes and kickbacks, and prohibition of slave, convict, and child labor. The question of making effective and efficient use of our resources, which also has equity aspects, is addressed in numerous ways, including requirements to conserve energy, use bio-based and recycled-content products, and reduce or eliminate toxics in the environment.

Currently, the LEED certification template exemplifies an economic and environmental approach to sustainable development, with prerequisites and credits principally addressing those areas. By focusing on these two core values, the USGBC was able to bring together diverse segments of the building industry to create a national standard for high-performance buildings. But the third core value, equity, is only peripherally addressed, with few incentives for investments in that area.

As a result, LEED, in its current version, does not adequately consider the government’s (or any other owner’s) investments in equity. Without such consideration, it is unlikely that we are making the most sustainable—or economical—decisions.

Designers now get points for strategies such as energy conservation and building on brownfields. If social equity were a consideration, they would also get points for using building products made in a way that doesn’t harm the workers and their community, the fabricators and the installers.

A Starting Point
To begin the conversation on social equity, GSA’s forthcoming publication, “Sustainable Development and Society,” addresses the issues of toxics and safety, especially how they affect investment decisions regarding the design, construction, operation, maintenance, and final disposal of real and personal property. In this example, the two relevant questions from the McDonough-Braungart Protocol are these:

• Are employees and customers safe in making and using the products we specify? And are our tenants safe?
• Are the production and use of those products safe for the local and global communities?

The publication will help to answer these questions by explaining two underlying concepts of sustainable development: (1) present-value, life-cycle cost analysis and assessment, and (2) toxics. It will present tools to assist in making informed choices as well as strategies and case studies for their application.

We hope to discuss other equity issues of particular interest to public architects in future publications and forums.

Going For the Gold
As mentioned above, GSA has found that, when compared with our standard requirements, construction costs associated with attaining LEED certification (and in some cases, a Silver or Gold rating) are negligible. Other public agencies will likely find this to be true in their own programs as well because our basic environmental and energy conservation mandates coincide with those of LEED.

But not all of our mandates, particularly those associated with our social goals, are recognized in the current LEED credits system. Perhaps consideration should be given to credits where the government is investing in communities by (1) paying wages that support local economies, increase skills, and reduce reliance on social welfare, and (2) minimizing the use of materials that generate toxics that threaten the environment and threaten existing communities.

Sometimes it is hard to invest in all of the design features and strategies that lead to a particular rating level while meeting all of our mandates. Perhaps a more complete definition of sustainability is needed. Why not pursue equity credits as well as the economic and environmental ones? We would expect future versions of LEED to more fully recognize and incorporate equity. In the meantime, where might these be pursued using the current version of LEED?

Innovation in Design
LEED grants “innovation credits” to recognize and reward exemplary performance “where the outcome provides substantial benefits.” Under the present version of LEED, this appears to be the logical place to introduce equity. LEED’s “Innovation in Design, Green Building Concerns” could be enhanced as described below.

Environmental Issues. With all sustainable design strategies and products, it is important to consider related impacts on the environment and occupant well-being and to ensure that other building aspects are not adversely affected.

Economic Issues. Innovative strategies and measures have variable first costs and operating costs, depending on the degree of complexity, materials incorporated, and the novelty of the technology. Initial costs can range from free to prohibitive. To understand the implications of design features, a life-cycle analysis can determine whether the strategy or product is cost-effective over the lifetime of the building.

Community Issues. Community issues are those that affect others in close proximity to the project as well as members of regional and world communities. Local actions can have dramatic effects on the world when considered in aggregate.

Green and Fair Means Best Value
GSA’s Office of Governmentwide Policy is committed to educating and helping federal decision makers to plan and carry out their real property programs in a way that will result in the most effective use of limited resources. This means investing in building products that have the best long-term value over their entire life cycle. We must be aware of the future costs and impacts of our decisions—and take steps to mitigate them.

The good news is that LEED is still evolving as the USGBC responds to users’ concerns and ideas. With the success of LEED, we should be comfortable re-examining its goals and expanding the discussion. While significant improvements to LEED 2.1 appear to be problematic, a great opportunity still exists to incorporate the concept of social responsibility into the new LEED products now being developed.

Sustainable development only works when all three pillars of sustainable development—economic prosperity, environmental quality, and social equity—are considered. A full understanding of them will help us build and operate our facilities more responsibly and economically and lead us towards getting the best value for the American people.

Jonathan Herz, AIA, LEED, is a team leader in the U.S. General Services Administration’s Innovative Workplaces Division. His most recent publication, as coeditor and contributor, is “Innovative Workplace Strategies” (2003). His next publication, “Sustainable Development and Society,” will be available in November 2004. Herz holds a bachelor's degree in architecture from the University of Virginia and a Master of Architecture degree from the University of California at Berkeley.

Notes

ⁱ “Beyond the Triple Bottom Line: Measuring and Reporting on Sustainability,” Occasional Paper, Victoria Auditor-General's Office, Melbourne, Australia, June 2004. www.audit.vic.gov.au, ISBN 0 9752308 2 4.

ⁱⁱ http://www.usgbc.org/leed/project/stats/projects_by_owner_type.asp (October 2004).
 
ⁱⁱⁱ Depending on the location and building type, LEED-certified building requirements cost from -0.4 percent to 1.1 percent. LEED Silver building requirements cost from -0.1 percent to 4.1 percent. LEED Gold building requirements cost from 1.1 percent to 7.9 percent. (Source: GSA LEED Cost Study [October 2004], page 8. Available at http://www.wbdg.org/ccbref/ccbdoc.php?category=gsa&docid=280&ref=1.)

^iv GSA’s “Mission, Values, and Goals” are listed at www.gsa.gov.

^v http://www.usgbc.org/LEED/LEED_main.asp, (October 2004).

^vi Stephanie Luce, “Why Living Wages Are Part of Sustainable Development,” unpublished paper, 2004.

^vii World Business Council for Sustainable Development Web site: www.wbcsd.ch. 2004.

^viii LEED-NC Version 2.1 Reference Guide, May 2003 Edition, p.314.