Cost Effectiveness of Green Buildings
By Amado de Jesus
Inquirer
ONE MAJOR reason green buildings are not easily accepted by many people is the widespread misconception that they cost more to build than conventional construction. On the contrary, new data indicate that up-front costs for green buildings may be more than offset by long-term savings. Given a specific project budget cost, front-loaded design will maximize the benefits of green planning and design, to ensure that green issues are addressed in the initial stages of a project.
Green buildings can be cost-effective when ecologically-sound principles are applied. The basic principle in green buildings that directly affects the cost of construction is the restraint in the use of all types of resources like labor, materials and energy use.
Economic benefits
A green building may cost more up front, but it saves through lower operating costs over the life of the building. Through a process called the life cycle cost analysis, the appropriate up-front costs are determined. A basic concern of this system that directly relates to green buildings is the concept that the longer a product or material lasts before replacement, the better it is in environmental and economic terms. Other concerns are the use of renewable materials and the recycling and reuse of materials.
These cost savings can be realized only when the concept is adopted at the initial stage of a project and with the assistance and cooperation of all the players involved. The whole construction team should approach the project as one integrated system rather than a series of separate systems.
Even with tight budgets, many green building features can be incorporated with minimal up-front costs to yield considerable future savings.
• Site selection. Starting with the site, keeping the cost of the land down is not only environmentally sound but is also an economic imperative. This is in keeping with the basic rule of green design, which is to reduce the amount of land needed to build a house. Another basic rule is by building houses in clusters or closer together to preserve more open spaces. These measures reduce the impact of the buildings on the environment. They are also an economic necessity.
• Design requirements. The next important step is to finalize the design requirements of a house. At this stage, it is not only the budget that is clearly defined, but also the most essential parts of the house-the parts that are definitely needed, not merely optional requirements. Other non-essential or unnecessary features have to be left out. It is also important at this stage to develop a budget that includes green features.
• Interior space planning. Cost reductions can also be done through the effective use of space within a house. For example, stairwells can be integrated into the living room instead of allocating an area specifically for the stairwell. The foyer or entrance halls can be greatly reduced or eliminated altogether and integrated with other common areas of the house. An open-type kitchen can be designed with a breakfast nook and a counter opening up to the living-room area that is also characterized by open planning, thus eliminating the need for expensive partitions, doors, jambs, painting, etc.
• Renovations and additions. By anticipating future additions and renovations, it will be helpful to identify opportunities for future remodeling to save the owners expensive renovations to reconfigure spaces. Technical provisions can also be made to accommodate structural, electrical and plumbing needs in the future.
For example, adding concrete columns to carry an upper floor inside an existing house can be a very stressful especially if the workers are not as careful and sensitive to the homeowners' needs for cleanliness and privacy.
If possible changes are not planned or anticipated, the house could end up with awkward roof configurations that eventually leak; old bathrooms that are "trapped" inside living rooms with no direct ventilation to the exterior; a kitchen with no direct exhaust, thereby causing dangerous smoke and possible LPG gas buildup inside the house; adding a room above the septic tank especially if it is going to be an enclosed room, which is a big health risk due to possible leakage of toxic gas. There are many renovation horror stories that we are familiar with. Fortunately, many of these can be avoided with some advance planning.
Simple design
Green buildings that are cost-effective are characterized by such traits as simplicity of design, green construction practices and good materials specifications. These buildings and homes are designed for durability and easy maintenance.
The layout of the exterior walls of a house has a direct influence on the total cost of the project. For example, an L-shaped house is more expensive to build than a square-shaped house because it will require 25 percent more exterior wall area. At today's cost of building materials, that would be a notable difference, in terms of concrete hollow blocks, steel bars, plastering, roof, ceiling, painting, etc.
With a simple and compact design, there is also ease in construction, that results in less mistakes and less wastage of materials caused by a complicated design.
Other strategies
The other strategies that have to do with operations and maintenance of the house are also important to consider.
Features like maximizing the use of daylighting and natural ventilation, the use of natural materials, rainwater collection system, recycling of water for flushing and irrigation, and composting of waste all have a positive effect on the economic as well as physical well-being of the homeowner.
Education is the key
The whole project team starting with the owners, the professionals and others should be made aware of green issues for sustainable building. This means they need to have a clear vision of what a green building is.
This will entail well-informed thoughtful choices about design, material specs and construction practices. We all have to invest in educating ourselves about the issues.
For comments or inquiries, e-mail amadodejesus@gmail.com.
©2006 www.inq7.net all rights reserved
12 Comments:
don't believe everything you read
especially if it is on a newspaper
Granted that we shouldn't believe everything we read especially if it is on a newspaper, What about this particular newspaper shouldn't be believed?
my point is...
good design is not necessarily cheap.
many green buildings do cost more than conventional buildings, even in the long run, but that doesn't mean that we should do away with green design.
we just need to frame our argument differently, not just in terms of cost (which is a losing proposition since we often end up shouldering part of the cost with our shrinking fees!)
It seems to me that what you said and what was discussed in the article are very much the same.
i see a difference, if you read the article carefully, it is all about limitations.
we need green buildings now more than ever, but not every building should be durable, cheap, have smaller footprints, clustered together, purely functionalist, and squarish.
these are very narrow definitions about what is green!
and to begin with, why does the writer assume that a single family house with more open space is a green building typology?
The similarity that I was talking about between what you said before and the article was about good design not necessarily being cheap. The article clearly states that from the beginning. Another similarity was when you said that "we just need to frame our argument differently, not just in terms of cost" because the article did do that by also stressing on education for one.
Personally, I liked the article because it made a case for the value of "restraint in the use of resources". For me, this is exactly the key to sound green design or to any kind of design altogether when one begins to strive for refinement.
I do not believe that we should automatically equate restraint to limitation since doing so is in fact.... for lack of a better word... limiting. They are two very different things since restraint is obviously an exercise of choice while limitation is the imposition of the absence thereof.
I do believe that I have read the article very carefully and it is my opinion that it is all about restraint and not at all about limitations.
we are both quite opinionated and we are obviously reading this article differently.
green design is important and i do not have any problem with that.
however, the idea that you gleaned from the article that green design is about "restraint in the use of resources" is deceptive. for one, as a player in the construction industry, how do you reconcile restraint with a livelihood dependent on building?
that is why i am being critical about the myths of green design mentioned in the article, which i believe are not contributing positively to the discussion. i would love to explain each one with you, if time permits.
ey raymond, why don't you write something about the "myths of green design?" :)
I don't really consider myself "deceived" by the article nor do I find my observation "deceptive" in any way.
You asked: as a player in the construction industry, how do you reconcile restraint with a livelihood dependent on building? As an architect in a design/build firm, they reconcile with each other very well.
Where you see myths, I see options in the context of the article.
Anyway, go ahead and be critical and do indulge us with your thoughts if time permits as you say.
I've been a participant at the American Institute of Architect's panel about Green building and "Greenwashing" which specifically deals with green building myths in different industries (construction, design, media, etc.) so I'll be more than interested to see what you can say about the matter. You seem very knowledgeable about the subject so I think everyone here will be able to benefit from your views as well.
i am impressed that you have already reconciled restraint and green design with a livelihood of building, because i honestly haven't (well at least not yet). maybe we have more to learn from you.
being a participant on the panel on "greenwashing," are you sure all of the examples mentioned in the article are legitimate and in context?
Raymond, yes, the examples are quite legitimate and very much within the context of the cost effectiveness of green buildings which is the main theme of the article.
The context of the article was never about the ultimate definition of green buildings. It was about examples of options we have to make green buildings cost effective.
As a participant on the panel on "greenwashing", I do appreciate the importance of taking everything presented to me about green buildings with a grain of salt so I do sympathize with your skepticism about the matter. I really do.
I hope you do decide to write about what you think are myths about green design and post it here. I am genuinely curious about what your thoughts are. In fact, I'm very intrigued about what your insights might be judging on the comments you have been making since most of them actually seem more contratry to what green design is.
Post a Comment
<< Home