UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Green marketing research tool for developers Sin, ChulWoo 2004

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2004-0629.pdf [ 20.49MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0091678.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0091678-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0091678-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0091678-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0091678-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0091678-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0091678-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0091678-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0091678.ris

Full Text

Green Marketing Research Tool for Developers By ChulWoo Sin B.Arch., The University of Suwon in Korea, 1996 M.Arch., The University of Suwon in Korea, 1998 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF M A S T E R OF A D V A N C E D STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE In THE F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES (School of Architecture) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A May 2004 © ChulWoo Sin, 2004 Library Authorization In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. ChulWoo Sin Name of Author (please print) Date (dd/mm/yyyy) Title of Thesis: Green Marketing Research Tool for Developers Degree: Master of Architecture Year: 2004 Department of Architecture The University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC Canada Market researchers employ various tools to determine whether certain products and features are likely to succeed. In real estate development, the process typically entails examining the demographics and characteristics of the market area and reviewing long-term national, regional, and local customer preference trends for a given product. Conventional market research compares existing products serving similar customers, often overlooking the possibility of new products or new customers. Conventional market research typically asks questions only about historic market performance of comparable products ("comps"). This practice may be one of green building's greatest barriers, because comps do not necessarily give an accurate reading of the appeal of the new, greener product. However, while the comps used in conventional market research examine similar projects, the analogs used in creative feasibility enable the researcher to pick and choose among projects, or specific features, much more widely without being limited by circumstances. Therefore, first of all, a reliable database of analogs has been created by collecting a large number of authentic case studies and associated performance statistics. Secondly, a faster, easier and more precise search engine has also been developed to enable the extraction of accurate analogs from the database and apply them to a certain building in this study. Utilizing the tool developed in this study, reasonable green designation levels that are now cost effective and more sustainable compared to conventional buildings have been established. These results assist developers forwarding understanding achievable environmental performance goals in green buildings that use little of energy, little of virgin materials and give little of negative impacts on natural environment in future. ABSTRACT TABLE. OF CONTENTS HST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES • • PREFACE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION PART 1 W h a t is a G r e e n B u i l d i n g ? PART 2 H o w G r e e n is G r e e n ? PART 3 W h y A r e n ' t A l l N e w D e v e l o p m e n t s G r e e n ? PART 4 Is G r e e n a C o s t to B u i l d better o r Inves tment G u a r a n t e e d ? CHAPTER. II DIRECTION OF STUDY PART 1 W h a t C o n v i n c e s D e v e l o p e r s ? PART 2 L i m i t a t i o n s o f C o n v e n t i o n a l M a r k e t R e s e a r c h PART 3 I n v i t a t i o n o f an A d v a n c e d M a r k e t R e s e a r c h M e t h o d - C r e a t i v e F e a s i b i l i t y PART 4 C r e a t i o n o f an A d v a n c e d M a r k e t R e s e a r c h T o o l 4-1 B u i l d i n g a Da tabase o f A n a l o g s b y C o l l e c t i n g A u t h e n t i c C a s e S tud ies 4-2 D e v e l o p i n g a Da tabase a n d P r o g r a m m i n g S e a r c h E n g i n e 4-2-1 Comparison of Functions with Conventional Database Tools in the Marketplace 4-2-2 Comparison of Capabilities with Conventional Search Engine Tools in the Marketplace CHAPTER, Ill METHODOLOGY PART 1 E s t a b l i s h i n g C u t t i n g E d g e P e r f o r m a n c e s fo r B o t h T y p e s o f F i n a n c i n g PART 2 E s t a b l i s h i n g G r e e n D e s i g n P e r f o r m a n c e Intensi t ies i n E a c h C a t e g o r y b y C o n t r i b u t i o n L e v e l PART 3 E s t a b l i s h i n g P o i n t s D i s t r i b u t i o n i n the C a t e g o r y o f E n e r g y & A t m o s p h e r e CHAPTER. IV RESULTS 19 PART 1 Cutting Edge Green Performances for Public and Private Developments 19 PART 1-1 Private Development 19 PART 1-1-1 Commercial/Office 19 PART 1-1-2 IndustrialAVarehouse 20 PART 1-1-3 Residential 21 PART 1-1-4 Hotel/Resort 22 PART 1-2 Public Development 24 PART 1-2-1 Institutional/Educational 24 PART 2 The Green Design Performance Intensities in each Category by Contribution Level 26 PART 2-1 Private Development 26 PART 2-1-1 Commercial/Office 26 PART 2-1-2 IndustrialAVarehouse 28 PART 2-1-3 Residential 30 PART 2-1-4 Hotel/Resort 32 PART 2-2 Public Development 34 PART 2-2-1 Institutional/Educational 34 PART 3 The Achieved Points Distribution of Energy & Atmosphere Category 37 PART 3-1 Private Development 37 PART 3-1-1 Commercial/Office 37 PART 3-1-2 IndustrialAVarehouse & 40 PART 3-2 Public Development 43 PART 3-2-1 Institutional/Educational 43 CHAPTER V CONCLUSION A 46 PART 1 Establishing Reasonable Green Performances for both Public and Private Developments 46 PART 1-1 Public Development 46 PART 1-1-1 Institutional/Educational 46 PART 1-2 Private Development 51 PART 1-2-1 Commercial/Office 51 PART 1-2-2 IndustrialAVarehouse 57 iv CHAPTER. V I CONCLUSION B A Comparative Rev iew o f "The Costs and Financial Benefits o f Green Bu i ld ings" 63 PART 1 Is the Premium for Green Bui ldings about 2%? 64 PART 2 Bu i ld ing a Green Bu i ld ing Wi th Added Cost 67 CHAPTER VII CONCLUSION C 76 Establishing the Geographic Influence on Green Designation Leve l & Intensity by Ana lyz ing the Implications o f Energy-Industry Structure PART 1 Green Performance Leve l & Intensity Distribution of National Green Bu i ld ing Leaders 78 PART 2 Ana lyz ing the Implications o f Green Performance Leve l & Intensity in Cal i forn ia and Oregon 79 PART 2-1 Energy Cost in Cal i fornia 79 PART 2-2 Incentive Programs for Energy Savings in Cal i fornia and Oregon 79 CHAPTER VIII. CONCLUSION D 84 Green Performance Difference Between Publ ic and Private Developments APPENDICES A Project List 88 B Wor ld Wide Web Sites and Resources 97 BIBLIOGRAPHY 98 V CHAPTER I [Table A] L E E D P e r f o r m a n c e Ca tego r i e s a n d A v a i l a b l e C r e d i t s 2 [Table B] L E E D P e r f o r m a n c e C e r t i f i c a t i o n T h r e s h o l d s 2 [Table C] E n h a n c e d G r e e n P e r f o r m a n c e i n Percen tage ( A c h i e v e d P o i n t s / T o t a l P o i n t s ) 2 CHAPTER. II [Table D01] T h e R e q u i r e d P r o f i l e s o f A u t h e n t i c C a s e S tud ies 8 [Table D02] C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f C a s e S tud ies b y P ro j ec t T y p e s 8 [Table D03] D e s c r i p t i o n o f the Da tabase o f G r e e n Da tabase V e r s i o n 1.0 10 [Table D04] D e s c r i p t i o n o f the Da tabase o f the U . S . G r e e n B u i l d i n g C o u n c i l 10 [Table D05] D e s c r i p t i o n o f the Da tabase o f the R o c k y M o u n t a i n Inst i tute 11 [Table D06] D e s c r i p t i o n o f the S e a r c h E n g i n e o f G r e e n Da tabase V e r s i o n 1.0 12 [Table D07] D e s c r i p t i o n o f the S e a r c h E n g i n e o f the U . S . G r e e n B u i l d i n g C o u n c i l 13 [Table D08] D e s c r i p t i o n o f the S e a r c h E n g i n e o f the R o c k y M o u n t a i n Insti tute 13 CHAPTER III [Table D09] D e s c r i p t i o n o f the C l a s s i f i c a t i o n b y T y p e s o f F i n a n c i n g S o u r c e s 16 CHAPTER IV [Table E01] Increase & Decrease Table o f Performance Intensities for Off icial Bu i ld ings o f Commercia l /Off ice 27 [Table E02] Increase & Decrease Table o f Performance Intensities for Off icial Bui ld ings o f IndustrialAVarehouse 29 [Table E03] Increase & Decrease Table o f Performance Intensities for Un-off ic ia l Bui ld ings o f Residential 31 [Table E04] Increase & Decrease Table o f Performance Intensities for Off ic ia l Bui ld ings o f Hotel/Resort 33 [Table E05] Increase & Decrease Performance Intensities for Un-off ic ia l Bui ld ings o f Hotel/Resort 33 [Table E06] Increase & Decrease Performance Intensities for Off icial buildings o f Institutional/Educational 35 [Table F01] Summary Table o f Ach ieved Energy Performance for Commercia l /Off ice Bui ld ings 39 [Table F02] A c h i e v e d P o i n t s D i s t r i b u t i o n fo r C o m m e r c i a l / O f f i c e B u i l d i n g s : O f f i c i a l (20 ~ 2 9 ) 39 [Table F03] A c h i e v e d P o i n t s D i s t r i b u t i o n for C o m m e r c i a l / O f f i c e B u i l d i n g s : O f f i c i a l ( 3 0 ~ 39.) 40 [Table F04] A c h i e v e d P o i n t s D i s t r i b u t i o n fo r C o m m e r c i a l / O f f i c e B u i l d i n g s : O f f i c i a l (40 ~ 4 9 ) 40 [Table GO 1] S u m m a r y o f A c h i e v e d E n e r g y P e r f o r m a n c e fo r I n d u s t r i a l A V a r e h o u s e ) 42 [Table G02] A c h i e v e d P o i n t s D i s t r i b u t i o n fo r Indus t r i a l /Warehouse : O f f i c i a l (20 ~ 29 ) 42 • [Table G03] A c h i e v e d P o i n t s D i s t r i b u t i o n fo r I ndus t r i a lAVarehouse : O f f i c i a l (30 ~ 39 ) 42 [Table G04] A c h i e v e d P o i n t s D i s t r i b u t i o n fo r I n d u s t r i a l A V a r e h o u s e : O f f i c i a l (40 ~ 4 9 ) 42 [Table H01] S u m m a r y o f A c h i e v e d E n e r g y P e r f o r m a n c e fo r I n s t i t u t i o n a l / E d u c a t i o n a l 44 [Table H02] A c h i e v e d P o i n t s D i s t r i b u t i o n fo r I n s t i t u t i o n a l / E d u c a t i o n a l B u i l d i n g s : O f f i c i a l (20 ~ 29 ) 45 [Table H03] A c h i e v e d P o i n t s D i s t r i b u t i o n fo r I n s t i t u t i o n a l / E d u c a t i o n a l B u i l d i n g s : O f f i c i a l (30 ~ 39 ) 45 [Table H04] A c h i e v e d P o i n t s D i s t r i b u t i o n fo r I n s t i t u t i o n a l / E d u c a t i o n a l B u i l d i n g s : O f f i c i a l ( 4 0 ~ 4 9 ) 45 [Table H05] A c h i e v e d P o i n t s D i s t r i b u t i o n fo r I n s t i t u t i o n a l / E d u c a t i o n a l B u i l d i n g s : O f f i c i a l (50 ~ 59) 45 CHAPTER. V [Table 101] S u m m a r y o f G r e e n P e r f o r m a n c e s for I n s t i t u t i o n a l / E d u c a t i o n a l B u i l d i n g s 46 [Table 102] T h e S u m m a r y o f E n e r g y P e r f o r m a n c e s fo r I n s t i t u t i o n a l / E d u c a t i o n a l B u i l d i n g s 47 [Table 103] Establishing Green Designation Levels Imposing Addi t iona l Costs for Institutional/Educational 47 [Table 104] S u g g e s t e d G r e e n D e s i g n P e r f o r m a n c e Intensi t ies for I n s t i t u t i o n a l / E d u c a t i o n a l 48 [Table 105] P ro j ec t D e s c r i p t i o n o f T y p e B i n I n s t i t u t i o n a l / E d u c a t i o n a l B u i l d i n g s 50 [Table J01] S u m m a r y o f G r e e n P e r f o r m a n c e s fo r C o m m e r c i a l / O f f i c e B u i l d i n g s 51 [Table J02] S u m m a r y o f E n e r g y P e r f o r m a n c e s for C o m m e r c i a l / O f f i c e B u i l d i n g s 51 [Table J03] Establishing Green Designation Level Imposing Addi t iona l Costs for Commercia l /Off ice Bui ld ings 52 [Table J04] S u g g e s t e d G r e e n D e s i g n P e r f o r m a n c e Intensi t ies fo r C o m m e r c i a l / O f f i c e B u i l d i n g s 53 [Table J05] P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n o f T y p e B i n C o m m e r c i a l / O f f i c e B u i l d i n g s 56 [Table J06] S u m m a r y o f G r e e n P e r f o r m a n c e s fo r Indus t r i a l /Warehouse 57 [Table J07] S u m m a r y o f E n e r g y P e r f o r m a n c e s fo r Indus t r i a l /Warehouse 57 [Table J08] Establishing Green Designation Levels Imposing Addi t iona l Costs for Industrial/Warehouse 58 [Table J09] Sugges t ed G r e e n D e s i g n P e r f o r m a n c e Intensi t ies fo r I ndus t r i a l /Warehouse 59 [Table J10] P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n o f T y p e B i n Indus t r i a l /Warehouse 61 [Table K] Sugges t ed G r e e n D e s i g n P e r f o r m a n c e Intensi t ies fo r each P r o j e c t T y p e 62 CHAPTER VI, [Table L] C o m p l e t e L i s t o f 33 projects , the i r L E E D L e v e l s a n d G r e e n P r e m i u m s 64 [Table M ] G r e e n D e s i g n P e r f o r m a n c e Intensi t ies fo r P A D E P C a m b r i a 66 [Table N01] P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n o f V a n c o u v e r I s l a n d T e c h n o l o g y P a r k 69 [Table N02] P ro j ec t D e s c r i p t i o n o f E c o t r u s t - J e a n V o l l u m N a t u r a l C a p i t a l C e n t e r 72 [Table N03] C o m p a r i s o n s o f G r e e n P e r f o r m a n c e Intensi t ies w i t h the S a m e L e v e l o f P ro j ec t s 73 [Table N04] D e t a i l e d D e s c r i p t i o n o f R e u s e a n d R e c y c l i n g Strategies 74 CHAPTER VII. [Table N05] Green Designation Levels & Performance Intensities in Cal i fornia , Oregon, and Pennsylvania 78 L I S T O F F I G U R E S CHAPTER I [Figure A] E n e r g y U s e i n C a n a d a CHAPTER. II [Figure B01] Sc reensho t o f the Da tabase o f G r e e n Da tabase V e r s i o n 1.0 [Figure B02] Screenshot o f the Da tabase o f the U . S . G r e e n B u i l d i n g C o u n c i l [Figure B03] Screenshot o f the Da t abase o f the R o c k y M o u n t a i n Inst i tute [Figure C01] Screenshot o f the S e a r c h E n g i n e o f G r e e n Da tabase V e r s i o n 1.0 [Figure C02] Screenshot o f the S e a r c h E n g i n e o f the U . S . G r e e n B u i l d i n g C o u n c i l [Figure C03] Screenshot o f the S e a r c h E n g i n e o f the R o c k y M o u n t a i n Inst i tute 9 10 11 12 13 13 CHAPTER III [Figure D ] F l o w C h a r t o f S t u d y M e t h o d o l o g y CHAPTER W [Figure E01] P o s s i b l e L E E D P o i n t D i s t r i b u t i o n fo r C o m m e r c i a l / O f f i c e [Figure E02] A p p l i e d G r e e n D e s i g n Fea tures In tens i ty fo r C o m m e r c i a l / O f f i c e [Figure E03] P o s s i b l e L E E D P o i n t D i s t r i b u t i o n for I ndus t r i a l /Warehouse [Figure E04] A p p l i e d G r e e n D e s i g n Features In tens i ty f o r I ndus t r i a l /Warehouse [Figure E05] P o s s i b l e L E E D P o i n t D i s t r i b u t i o n for R e s i d e n t i a l [Figure E06] A p p l i e d G r e e n D e s i g n Fea tures In tens i ty fo r R e s i d e n t i a l [Figure E07] P o s s i b l e L E E D P o i n t D i s t r i b u t i o n for H o t e l / R e s o r t [Figure E08] A p p l i e d G r e e n D e s i g n Fea tures In tens i ty fo r H o t e l / R e s o r t [Figure E09] P o s s i b l e L E E D P o i n t D i s t r i b u t i o n fo r I n s t i t u t i o n a l / E d u c a t i o n a l [Figure E10] A p p l i e d G r e e n D e s i g n Fea tures In tens i ty fo r I n s t i t u t i o n a l / E d u c a t i o n a l [Figure F01] G r e e n D e s i g n P e r f o r m a n c e Intensi t ies fo r C o m m e r c i a l / O f f i c e ( 1 0 ~ 1 9 ) [Figure F02] G r e e n D e s i g n P e r f o r m a n c e Intensi t ies for C o m m e r c i a l / O f f i c e ( 2 0 ~ 2 9 ) [Figure F03] G r e e n D e s i g n P e r f o r m a n c e Intensi t ies fo r C o m m e r c i a l / O f f i c e ( 3 0 ~ 3 9 ) [Figure F04] G r e e n D e s i g n P e r f o r m a n c e Intensi t ies fo r C o m m e r c i a l / O f f i c e ( 4 0 ~ 4 9 ) [Figure F05] G r e e n D e s i g n P e r f o r m a n c e Intensi t ies fo r Indus t r i a l /Warehouse ( 1 0 ~ 1 9 ) [Figure F06] G r e e n D e s i g n P e r f o r m a n c e Intensi t ies for Indus t r i a l /Warehouse ( 2 0 - 2 9 ) [Figure F07] G r e e n D e s i g n P e r f o r m a n c e Intensi t ies fo r I ndus t r i a l /Warehouse ( 3 0 ~ 3 9 ) [Figure F08] G r e e n D e s i g n P e r f o r m a n c e Intensi t ies for Indus t r i a l /Warehouse ( 4 0 ~ 4 9 ) [Figure F09] G r e e n D e s i g n P e r f o r m a n c e Intensi t ies fo r R e s i d e n t i a l ( 1~9) [Figure F10] G r e e n D e s i g n P e r f o r m a n c e Intensi t ies fo r R e s i d e n t i a l ( 1 0 ~ 1 9 ) 15 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 24 24 26 26 27 27 28 28 29 29 30 30 Vlll [Figure F l l ] Green Design Performance Intensities for Residential (20~29) 31 [Figure F12] Green Design Performance Intensities for Hotel/Resort (10-19) 32 [Figure F13] Green Design Performance Intensities for Hotel/Resort (20-29) 32 [Figure F14] Green Design Performance Intensities for Hotel/Resort (30-39) 32 [Figure F15] Green Design Performance Intensities for Institutional/Educational (10-19) 34 [Figure F16] Green Design Performance Intensities for Institutional/Educational (20-29) 34 [Figure F17] Green Design Performance Intensities for Institutional/Educational (30-39) 34 [Figure F18] Green Design Performance Intensities for Institutional/Educational (40-49) 35 [Figure F19] Green Design Performance Intensities for Institutional/Educational (50-59) 35 [Figure G01] Achieved Energy Performance Points Distribution for Commercial/Office (10-19) 37 [Figure G02] Achieved Energy Performance Points Distribution for Commercial/Office (20-29) 38 [Figure G03] Achieved Energy Performance Points Distribution for Commercial/Office (30-39) 38 [Figure G04] Achieved Energy Performance Points Distribution for Commercial/Office (40-49) 38 [Figure G05] Achieved Energy Performance Points Distribution for IndustrialAVarehouse (10-19) 40 [Figure G06] Achieved Energy Performance Points Distribution for IndustrialAVarehouse (20-29) 41 [Figure G07] Achieved Energy Performance Points Distribution for IndustrialAVarehouse (30-39) 41 [Figure G08] Achieved Energy Performance Points Distribution for IndustrialAVarehouse (40-49) 41 [Figure G09] Achieved Energy Performance Points Distribution for Institutional/Educational (10-19) 43 [Figure G10] Achieved Energy Performance Points Distribution for Institutional/Educational (20-29) 43 [Figure G i l ] Achieved Energy Performance Points Distribution for Institutional/Educational (30-39) 43 [Figure G12] Achieved Energy Performance Points Distribution for Institutional/Educational (40-49) 44 [Figure G13] Achieved Energy Performance Points Distribution for Institutional/Educational (50-59) 44 CHAPTER VI. [Figure H01] Green Designation Levels and Average Green Cost Premiums 65 [Figure H02] Average Green Premium vs. Level of Green Certification 65 CHAPTER VII, [Figure 101] L E E D Registered Projects in the United States of America 76 [Figure 102] L E E D Certified Projects Distribution in the United States of America 76 [Figure 103] L E E D Registered Projects Per State Per Capita 77 [Figure 104] L E E D Registered Projects Per Construction GSP 77 [Figure 105] Comparative Index of Electricity Prices O^esidential) 80 [Figure 106] Comparative Index of Electricity Prices (Commercial) 80 ix P R E F A C E During the two years of my study in University of British Columbia, I have mostly focused on studying Green Building Issues and Green Building Practices, and learning lessons about Cost and Value in Building Green from Dr. Raymond J Cole through numerous lectures, seminars and directed studies. After those academic years, I realized the importance of introducing an innovative way to convince developers in the marketplace and prove them following green is cost effective and an irresistible tide. However, it became increasingly necessary to understand the current trends and to establish what constitutes reasonable green building practices within current market conditions and expectations with the primary aim of convincing developers and involved in the business of building green. Therefore, through the process of a research, over 200 case studies have been examined, and 153 of 200 projects have been selected and included with a database. The case studies analyzed in this study demonstrate various levels and analogs of green buildings. No green building project thus far is "perfect", but each one stored in the database offers a valuable lesson and works as an element to show trends and patterns. These patterns of the green buildings will eventually become the rule rather than the exception in the development marketplace. Furthermore, the market research tool developed in this study - Green Data Base Version 1.0 - will assist in highlighting which currently available technologies and strategies can be achieved with relatively little investment of time for real estate developers, architects, planners, contractors, lenders, city officials, and all those who are concerned with the impacts of the built environment. x I am grateful for the generous support, assistance, and information from the many people who made this thesis possible. Without the academic support of Dr. Raymond J Cole over the two years of researching and writing this dissertation, it could not have happened. With sincerest gratitude I also acknowledge the faculty members in Architecture. It has been quite an extensive research to complete the thesis from collecting case studies to developing a web-based database. Especially, in the process of developing the database, I sincerely appreciate enormous help from Min Park who has been my best friend and business partner in Vancouver and his family. It has been already over four years since I came over Vancouver from Korea to study more about environmentally responsible buildings for possibly becoming a professional consultant in the field of building green. Like other international students, I have gone through a number of troublesome incidents in adaptation, language and finance. In the journey, numerous people have helped me out to overcome all those barriers. I cannot name all the people who have been friendly, generous and supportive to me. But, Keuntaek, Hyungju, Rocky and my girlfriend remind me of lots of happiest memories in Vancouver. In addition, the university of British Columbia has been very generous to lighten my financial burden by giving me supportive awards. Now I have to go back to Korea and practically utilize all these resourceful knowledge and experiences that I have learned in University of British Columbia, particularly in the field of Green Buildings. Well, it won't be easy. Innovation is always not easy. However, I am very proud of myself for the academic and researching years in the University of British Columbia. Dedicated to my mother, and I pray for her recovery from everything C H A P T E R I I N T R O D U C T I O N PART 1. What is a Green Building? Rather than ask the question - What is a Green Building, it may be more appropriate to ask why aren't all buildings currently being built to higher environmental standards? The reason is fairly clear. Simply, urban living keeps accelerating unsustainable energy consumption rates, and the construction industry has contributed significantly to overall consumption patterns. For example, in 2000, according to Transports Canada, 29 per cent of total energy use in Canada was consumed in the operation of buildings (commercial, 12 per cent and residential, 17 per cent. [Fig. A] Similarly, in 1997, 36 per cent of total energy use in the United States was consumed in the operation of buildings (commercial, 16 per cent and residential, 20 per cent. This figure represents almost 9 per cent of total worldwide energy use for that year. However, materials consumption by the construction industry represents an even greater proportion of total use energy. William Rees at the University of British Columbia estimates that 40 per cent of materials consumption worldwide is for the construction and repair of the built environment. Buildings also represent a major source of the pollution that causes urban air quality problems. They account for 49 per cent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 25 per cent of nitrous oxide emissions, and 10 per cent of particulate emissions, all of which damage urban air quality. In addition, buildings produce 35 per cent of the country's carbon dioxide emissions - the primary pollutant associated with climate change. E n e r g y Use in C a n a d a Green Building practices offer an opportunity to create environmentally responsible buildings by using an integrated approach to design. Green buildings promote resource conservation, including energy efficiency, renewable energy, and water conservation features; consider environmental impacts and waste minimization; create a healthy and comfortable environment; reduce operation and maintenance costs; and address issues such as historical preservation, access systems. The Fig-A entire life cycle of the building and • T r a n s p ortation • G overnm ent C o n s t r u c i o n • Residential • C o m m e r c i a l • M anufacturing 1 The term Green Building is used synonymously with Environmentally Responsible Building 1 its components is considered, as well as the economic and environmental impact and performance. Green Performance is comprehensive in scope and not just concerned with energy efficiency3. PART 2. How Green is Green? There are many assessment tools in environmental impact of building. The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED™) rating system is gaining tremendous momentum in North America and offers practical and comprehensive way to both discuss and introduce green building. LEED™ is a product of the US Green Building Council (USGBC) - a US, non-profit organization with a broad-based industry membership formed in 1993 to "accelerate the adoption of green building practices, technologies, policies, and standards." The currently available version of LEED™ Version 2.1 is specifically applicable to new designs and renovations of: • New commercial buildings • Institutional buildings; and • High-rise residential building the marketplace that are used to measure the IVrfoi m a < :it(.-{;or\ No ol \ \ i i i l : ihk- ( i edits Pis Sustainable Sites Water Efficiency Energy and Atmosphere Materials and Resources Indoor Environmental Quality Innovation and Design Process 2 Credits / 5 Points 8 Credits / 1 4 Points 3 Credits / 5 Points 6 Credits / 1 7 Points 7 Credits / 1 3 Points 8 Credits / 1 5 Points [Table A] L E E D Performance Categories and Available Credits I.LLI) ' l)t'Mi>n.itioii Required Points Total Possible Credits 64 + 5 innovation points L E E D ™ Certified Platinum Leve l 52 + points L E E D ™ Certified G o l d Leve l 3 9 - 5 1 points L E E D ™ Certified Silver Level 33 — 38 points L E E D ™ Certified 26 - 32 points [Table B] L E E D Performance Certification Thresholds I t H ) IKsisnalion Points I otul Points L E E D ™ Certified Platinum Level 75 + per cent L E E D ™ Certified G o l d Leve l 5 7 - 7 4 per cent L E E D ™ Certified Silver Level 48 - 55 per cent L E E D ™ Certified 3 8 - 4 6 per cent [Table C] Enhanced Green Performance in Percentage (Achieved Points / Total Points) The term Green Performance refers to performance that goes beyond conventional building practice by integrating the following elements: environmental responsiveness - benefiting the surrounding environment; resource efficiency - using resources in the construction and operations o f buildings in ways that are not wasteful; and indoor environmental quality - optimizing interior spaces for building occupants. 3 Energy Efficiency is using less energy to perform tasks. A strategy or system is energy efficient i f it provides comparable or better quality o f service while using less energy than a conventional technology. 2 LEED is basically a self-assessment system, with assessments undertaken within the design team and then submitted for certification. It consists of an explicit set of environmental performance criteria, organized within five (5) key performance categories: • Sustainable sites (SS) • Water efficiency (WE) • Energy and Atmosphere (EA) • Materials and Resources (MR) • Indoor Environmental Quality (EQ) A sixth category - Innovation Credits and Design/Build Process - rewards exceptional environmental performance or innovation over and above that explicitly covered in the basic LEED credits. Each credit (and sub-credit) carries an assigned number of "points." The number of credits and points available in each performance category is shown in [Table A]. The total number of points earned is aggregated and a final designation of the building is based on the threshold reached, as shown in [Table B] In addition, since "LEED™ Performance" addresses the same three broad practices: environmental responsiveness, resource efficiency and indoor environment quality as discussed earlier, the LEED™ designation levels determined by the aggregation of five categories of LEED™ performance - Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy & Atmosphere, Materials & resources and Indoor Environmental Quality — can be translated into "Green Performance Levels", and, finally, the performance levels communicates the green performance of buildings [Table C]. Buildings beyond the level of LEED™ Certified - an aggregate score of 26 ~ 32 points corresponded to 38 ~ 46 percent of more enhanced green performance - can be understood and qualified as green buildings by U.S. Green Building Council. PART 3. Why Aren't All New Developments Green? If green developments are so profitable, and so marketable, why aren't all new developments Green? There are many reasons, but the most significant is probably lack of awareness by the development community of the opportunities. There remains a widespread lack of understanding about what constitutes green real estate, the market for it, why it is beneficial, how to do it, and the business case. And, the second most important reason is developers fear that following a green agenda may delay project schedules and subsequently incur costs. 3 A means to overcome developer concerns and uncertainties about "Green Building" is to learn from the positive experiences. By seeing and hearing how such projects are envisioned, financed, built, and marketed, developers and landlords will gain confidence that this approach is not only possible but beneficial. Furthermore, if the actual profile and feasibility of currently reasonable green buildings can be provided by a faster and more specific way, developers are more likely to be convinced. PART 4. Is Green a Cost to Build Better or Investment Guaranteed? Current Green Building faces a potential image problem. Often, it is regarded as a luxury that can only be afforded by public or well endowed institutions. Green building typically requires greater up-front investments of time and money in design, but this need does not mean higher overall costs or delayed project schedules. Careful "front-loaded" planning and design can pay for itself - with interest - in avoided downstream costs such as elaborate mechanical systems, expensive redesigns, drawn-out approvals, litigation, and stalled construction. The US Green Building Council has asserted that a LEED Silver-rated building should not cost more than a conventional building (LEED platinum does typically cost more because it may involve cutting edge technologies and levels of performance that are far above and beyond standard construction). The goal of green building is not to squeeze energy-efficiency features into a tight construction budget but to analyze such interconnected issues as site and building design, energy and water efficiency, resource efficient construction, lighting and mechanical design, and building ecology, and optimize all these aspects in an integrated design for overall green performance. Moreover, many players in the real estate market are increasingly realizing that green development is good business and that "Green" enhances not only quality of life and environment, but also makes strong economic scene by selling faster than typical and an increased value for the region. For example, the Inn of the Anasazi is a fifty-nine-room luxury resort hotel in downtown Santa Fe. The value has increased by more than $2 million in less than 3 years, and the hotel features an outstanding 83% average occupancy rate and 35% repeat traffic. The development team's attention to environmental and community issues has boosted the inn's and the restaurant's performance by 15-20%. 4 C H A P T E R II D I R E C T I O N OI S T U D Y A key conclusions from Part I are the increasing need for green building, given their key role, and, the necessity of finding ways to convince developers of their value. Therefore, this work seeks to define currently reasonable green buildings and delivering the lessons from the experiences of others by analyzing mass of authentic case studies. More specifically, the research is intended to establish reasonable levels of green performance that are currently cost effective and more sustainable4 compared to conventional buildings, and, eventually, relieving developers from unsustainable forward to green buildings that use little of energy, little of virgin materials and give little of negative impacts on natural environment in future is the ultimate purpose of this research. PART 1. What Convinces Developers? Market research assists developers understand whom to target as buyers or renters, what features they are looking for, where they want to live and work, and how much they are willing to spend. Market research informs the planning and design phases of real estate development and provides a direction for positioning the product in the marketplace. Finally, market research provides critical information about the economic climate that will help the developers and any investment partners determine whether to risk moving ahead with a project. Market researchers employ various tools to determine whether certain products and features will succeed. In real estate development, the process typically entails examining the demographics and characteristics of the market area and reviewing long-term national, regional, and local customer preference trends for a given product. PART 2. Limitations of Conventional Market Research Conventional market research, however, compares existing products serving similar customers, often overlooking the possibility of new products or new customers. Conventional market research asks questions only about historic market performance of comparable products ("comps"). This practice can be one of green building's greatest barriers, because comps may not give an accurate reading of the appeal of the new, greener product. The information presented by conventional market research can stymie innovation and encourage risk-averse developers and financiers to shy away from entering the world of green building. This "rear-4 Sustainable: Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs 5 view mirror" approach to market research that bases feasibility studies on an extrapolation of the past often portrays innovative green developments as inherently less feasible, because there is no way to evaluate them using traditional methodology. However, despite their limitations, comps remain one of the most important tools for real estate development both in figuring out what buyers are looking for and in securing financing. In seeking comps for new development plans, market researchers collect detailed information about the value of buildings or space in terms of price, size, demand, and the value of particular features. These features are evaluated as negative, positive, or neutral - a neutral attribute being one that all products of that type would necessarily have, such as a roof on a house. For example, a homeowner may purchase a house because of such positive attributes as the floor plan, unique design features, or proximity to work, schools, and shops. Negative attributes, such as an inefficient heating system, may be tolerated if the positive attributes are judged to be of greater value or the customer does not perceive that he or she has another option. However, given a choice between two buildings with the same positive attributes, if one also has a more efficient heating system, this attribute may differentiate the product enough to give it an advantage in the marketplace. The product has all the comparable features of a conventional product and some green features as well. PART 3. Invitation of an Advanced Market Research Method - Creative Feasibility Just as product innovation in other markets relies on more creative market research to determine customers' needs and wants, green building may require more innovative strategies in order to demonstrate viability. Creative Feasibility uses such conventional standard market research strategies as focus groups, surveys, and interviews, with potential buyers. This information is then combined with analysis of analogs - similar projects or green design features - in other green buildings, usually outside the local market. Analogs are used to compare and assess the best practices of various real estate products and development methodologies of existing successful projects with new project ideas. While the comps used in conventional market research examine similar projects, the analogs used in creative feasibility enable the researcher to pick and choose among projects, or specific features, much more widely without being limited in locations. Analogs may be models, prototypes, or ideas developed by others that are analogous in some way to the planned 6 elements or green design features of a new building product. In other words, since the analogs consist of features and ideas developed by others, they are applicable to any circumstances. PART 4. Creation of an Advanced Market Research Tool Any attempt to create an advanced market research tool that uses the idea of creative feasibility and utilize the tool under any circumstances, needs up-front investments of time and effort likewise green buildings. First of all, a reliable database of analogs should be built by collecting mass of authentic case studies as many as we can compile statistics. Secondly, some kind of fast, easy and precise search engine is also absolute to extract accurate analogs from the database and apply them to a certain building. In addition, the engine should be able to find any intended analogs whatever the search criteria is. Eventually, when both parts - a reliable database and a fast, easy and precise search engine -are tied and work as one, the entire tool will become an advanced market research tool to attract developers and make them get involved in the business of green. PART 4-1. Building a Database of Analogs by Collecting Authentic Case Studies The database for this research consists of authentic case studies and case studies made of analogs that include applied green design features, location, date completed, building type and any valuable fragments from green buildings. The authentic case studies which are fundamental for the database, were derived from a number of sources - US Green Building Council and Rocky Mountain Institute.* The case studies have been selected under the condition of whether they include the following profiles. [Table D01] • Rocky Mountain Institute was established in 1982 by resource analysts, L . Hunter Lovins and Amory B. Lovins. What began as a small group of colleagues focusing on energy policy has since grown into a broad-based institution with more than 45 full-time staff, an annual budget of nearly $7 million (much of it earned through programmatic enterprise), and a global reach. R M I brings a unique perspective to resource issues, guides by advisory services within these areas of expertise: • Energy Use and Supply • Buildings and Land Development • Community Economic Development • Business • Profitable Climate Protection • Water Use and Supply It also contains over 200 case studies of green projects around the world and counting. 7 Profile Characteristic L o c a t i o n Offers the regional characteristics with their neighborhood Da te C o m p l e t e d Offers the overall trend o f green buildings in the marketplace D e s c r i p t i o n o f B u i l d i n g T y p e Offers the sphere o f building green D e s c r i p t i o n o f Project T y p e Offers the use o f green buildings C o n s t r u c t i o n C o s t & M a r k e t V a l u e Offers the economic trend o f green buildings A p p l i e d G r e e n D e s i g n Features Offers the technological trend o f green buildings L E E D ™ E v a l u a t i o n Sheet Offers the trend o f the performances for green buildings [Table D01] The Required Profiles of Authentic Case Studies One hundred and fifty three case studies covering ten kinds of project types were selected and stored in the database as shown in [Table D02] Project Type No. Of Case Studies Official 1 n-Offhial Commercial / Office 55 25 30 Educational 19 6 13 Health Care 3 - 3 Hotel / Resort 16 2 14 Mixed Use 7 - 7 Industrial /Warehouse 14 5 9 Institutional 15 3 12 Laboratory 4 3 1 Residential 12 - 12 Retail 8 - 8 153 [Table D02] Classification of Case Studies by Project Types The case studies are divided into the two phases of "official" and "un-official" through the process of qualification. The official case studies are the green buildings beyond certified buildings are those assessed using the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED Rating System. On The un-official case studies have been scored by the assessment based on their minimum green performances expected and engraved on the same evaluation criteria as official buildings, but by the author. 8 PART 4-2. Developing a Database and Programming Search Engine The primary purpose of the study is to establish what constitutes a currently reasonable level of performance of green buildings. This is achieved by processing the statistics by extracting analogs from a mass of authentic case studies incorporated within an advanced market research tool - Green Database Version 1.0. Therefore, the intention of Part 4-2 has been focused on developing and programming the far better green building database and search engine than any other tools in the marketplace. PART 4-2-1. Comparison of Functions with Conventional Database Tools in the Marketplace The comparison of the functions with conventional database tools - Rocky Mountain Institute and U.S. Green Building Council present - has been made to show the possible abilities of the databases. 41 Project . 162 projects total . * C l i c k < ^Project 1 vp* I \, Aitiniiii' iii r '1 | fi, Pruj t I - C M n m ' . w i O A . I I i i i i t C : 92 2211 West 4th &>% 901JCKefry, GAP :In'o'OffIee*' ! .? Building * ><r' : 2 AAAS Building ,101 A C T 2 H o u s e • . I• -^mvi.f' <:r-3MML : ^ A d a m - J . Lewis C e n t e r for Envi ronmenta l Studies 64 A m and an 6 5 A n a c o n d a Old Works Glof C o u r s e 01 A P S Manufactur ing Facility 66 Arbor H o u s e 3 ' A u d u b o n H o u s e 150 Balfour - Guthrie Building : 110 b a r 152 Barrel Ag ing Cel lar >«2;&atter^Park Crty^ .,,..., I l l Ben & Jerry's Scoop S h o p 103 Benedic t C o m m o n s Bincentennia l Hal l , : Middlebury Co l lege ;67 B o s t o n Park P laza 4 Burke Building -^USA^; 0 USA USA USA Bah USA USA USA ',USA USA USA , U S A USA USA i USA Constructioi ^ s C o m r n e r d a l / O f f i c e . - ; ; * N e * . Building •'<iV',."\- C o n J S C o m m e rci a 1/ Off i ce Building ^ R e s i d e n t i a l Harold Kalke GAP IncS^* Construct ion** : New , A m e r i c a n Assoc ia t ion foi Construct ion the A d v a n c e m e n t of Sciei 24i i ; | C j E:[ E S Education iiiii S S •••• :-:':-;:;rx2iS«;:: Hote l /Resor t Indus t r ia l /Warehouse Hote l /Resor t f c o m m a coa l / Off tee : Construct ion Ober l in C o l l e g e A n a c o n d a D e e r l o d g e Construct ion New a n e ,^>^; Construct ion B P S o l»M R e n o v a t i o n J o h n ^BulWlrtgH C o m m e rci a l / Office Building . , Retai l , , I ndus t r ia l /Warehouse . ^ R e s i d e n t i a l Retail i^S: R e n o v a t i o n 4 Nat ional A u d u b o n Society R e n o v a t i o n Bal four - Guthrie LLC ' Renovat ion^ GAP Corporat ion * ^< New Construct ion ; i f ;^Con structto rm R e n o v a t i o n Franch isees % Al b a n e s e ; D e « e ! o p m e n t Educat ion -Hote l /Resor t C o m m e r c i a l / O f f i c e Building Construct ion ^""^ZV""3' R e n o v a t i o n Boston Park P l a t a _ • . . Western P e n n s y l v a n i a R e n o v a t i o n - ' C o n s e r v a n c y 51 IS . 1 2 . . _ E i i ED 1 4 * * [C~ ".. . 1 3 28 |T. 33 [C l 2t\, [C" 34 [F 6 [Ej irj E: ' " IF] K i 16 14 12 E § E . | f s i E 3 ? F t E ' S ' E 3 Ezar Ear E © E ^ -E l -[Fig. B 01] Screenshot of the Database of Green Database Version 1.0 9 Icons Description of Function Button A (BA) Show the entire list of the database with active icons Button B (BB) Add new case study Button C (BC) Add/Delete members and Edit information Button D (BD) Sort by any criteria in the bar - ID, Project name, Country, Project type, Building Type, Owner and Points Button E (BE) On/OfF the status of projects to include or exclude from compiling analogs Button F (BF) Edit the full evaluation sheet of LEED™ Rating System Button G (BG) View and Edit the full document of the project descriptions including green design features, costs and so on Button H (BH) Delete project GENERAL The database contains both official and unofficial projects, and they are titled as official or unofficial [Table D03] Description of the Database of Green Database Version 1.0 Project Name F' I Ji Rm ij.y.-|..' "nil i I'nntil--^ ' I I - th-New YuiK S'.-fXe Depa-tmert of Environmental Conservation Balfour-Guthrie Building*-—— Building 1 Owner P-iiltf i"'-irr:i.)( '(•' ^^^^ ' Balfour-Guthrie LLC IBMJiyoli Systems City Albany Portland Austin State/Prouince: LEED Rating N Y ' Silver OR Tx Silver Certified [Fig. B 02] Screenshot of the Database of U.S. Green Building Council Icons Description of Function Button A (BA) Show the document of project descriptions or the evaluation sheet of LEED™ Rating System Button B (BB) Sort by any criteria in the bar - Project name, City, State, LEED Rating GENERAL The database contains only official projects qualified through U.S. Green Building Council [Table D04] Description of the Database of U.S. Green Building Council 10 [Fig. B 03] Screenshot of the Database of Rocky Mountain Institute Icons Description of Function B u t t o n A ( B A ) S h o w o n l y the d o c u m e n t o f pro jec t desc r ip t ions GENERAL T h e database conta ins b o t h o f f i c i a l a n d u n o f f i c i a l p ro jec ts , bu t they are no t t i t l ed as o f f i c i a l o r u n o f f i c i a l [Table D05] Description of the Database of Rocky Mountain Institute From the figures and tables above, it is believed that the database of "Green Building Database Version 1.0" can support a more variety of functions associated with establishing reasonable levels of green performance. At the same time, it is believed that the tool represents a more reliable database than others currently in the marketplace in terms of the user-friendly interface and number of authentic case studies. P A R T 4-2-2. Comparison of Capabilities with Conventional Search Engine Tools in the Marketplace A comparison of the capabilities with conventional search engine tools - Rocky Mountain Institute and U.S. Green building council present - was made to identify the possible capabilities of the proposed search engine. 11 I Searrh Projects Suruey Clidncje Pdsswioi (1 Siijn Out Keyword ° J" Project Namesas-I ProjectType: J Select Project Type j^ J° BuildingffypejAral Select Building Type jFJ '^Project Size Select Project Size fy- • City: | J ro l in te ' : J Select Stete / Province jfj, J S * i i S ! W : I Country: Select Country -.ner [~ ^Sustainable Sites;& Ecosystems • r,Energy& Atmosphere . ; ; I r-Matenal's & Resources ||X^^d(^|^iriwrnj^t j ^ ~ _ _ _ _ . L E E D Checklist U| \p Official T Unofficial •;».-:"' > — « — i ^ a x illiffs * mm "-'mm ** m i l ilijjllr l^llllfl l i i^ i i i iS i l l^S Jiiill | Points Achieved : | Select Points £j Sustainable Srtes Prereq 1 Erosion & Sedimentation Control • Credit 1 Credit 2 Credit 3 Credit 4°i Credit 4.2 Site Selection Urban Redevelopment Brownfield Redevelopment Alternative transportation, Public Transportation Access Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage & Changing Roams [Fig. C 01] Screenshot of the Search Engine of Green Database Version 1.0 Criteria (Analog) Description of Function G r o u p A ( G A ) S e a r c h b y K e y w o r d G r o u p B ( G B ) S e a r c h b y F u n d a m e n t a l P r o f i l e s G r o u p C ( G C ) S e a r c h b y A p p l i e d G r e e n D e s i g n Features i n the f i v e ca tegor ies - S S , W E , E A , M R , I E Q G r o u p D ( G D ) S e a r c h b y Q u a l i f i c a t i o n & P o i n t s A c h i e v e d G r o u p E ( G E ) S e a r c h b y 71 C r e d i t s G E N E R A L N / A [Table D06] Description of the Search Engine of Green Database Version 1.0 12 Search Criteria City: State/Province: Proiect Name and Owner: SEARCH [Fig. C 02] Screenshot of the Search Engine of U.S. Green Building Council Criteria (Analog) Description of Function G r o u p A ( G A ) S e a r c h b y F u n d a m e n t a l P r o f i l e s - O n l y C i t y , S t a t e / P r o v i n c e , P r o j e c t n a m e a n d O w n e r GENERAL N / A [Table D07] Description of the Search Engine of U.S. Green Building Council CASE STUDY PROFILE SEARCH Seletler enter searth twins. Ccrryylci seardies may yield few results. - i S e j r i h words [icparate by commjs) I | Pio;ect type -1 | Project size -1 1 Location -1 | Total cost -1 | Completion date:: -1 | Contact '1 j Building type -1 | Primary spaces -1 MlAny) liAny] llAnyl xii xl x| *li x]j Clear All] ! Searcr i [Fig. C 03] Screenshot of the Search Engine of Rocky Mountain Institute Criteria (Analog) 1 1 " n ' Description of Function G r o u p A ( G A ) S e a r c h b y K e y w o r d G r o u p B ( G B ) S e a r c h b y F u n d a m e n t a l P r o f i l e s GENERAL N / A [Table D08] Description of the Search Engine of Rocky Mountain Institute From the figures and tables above, it is believed that the proposed search engine of "Green Building Database Version 1.0" performs a better capability than any other search engines in the marketplace in terms of the elaborateness. 14 Part 4 of Chapter II described the advanced market research tool - a database and search engine. The tool searches the database and furnishes the analogs of the green buildings in the marketplace to seekers. However, to establish the reasonable green buildings in the marketplace, it is necessary to define what constitutes reasonable green performances. Therefore, the research will be focused on gathering the entire analogs, and then, putting them in order for the purpose of displaying the patterns of the phenomenon. So, eventually, the implications of the patterns will be explained by an analysis for this study. [Fig. D] In addition, the following three parts are the specific explanations of the methods and targets for finding out the reasonable green performances for each project type. However, because of limited number of projects to display the patterns of phenomenon and insist the implications of the patterns, five project types - Health Care, Laboratory, Mixed Use and Retail Buildings - have been excluded in this research. [Fig. D] Flow Chart of Study Methodology When researchers currently evaluate case studies in the marketplace, they normally tend to have classified them by project types in terms of building uses as shown in Table D02 -Commercial/Office, Institutional, Educational, Industrial/Warehouse, Residential, Hotel/Resort, Health Care, Laboratory, Mixed-Use and Retail buildings. Needless to say, it is useful to collect case studies and then classify them by building uses in the beginning of a research for the 15 convenience of classification and also for the analysis of characteristics. However, case-studies can also be re-classified by two broad sectors - Private Development and Public Development -in terms of what types of financing sources developers go after. In general, private developments seek the sources of financing such as bank loans, venture capital, and private investment while public developments seek after federal or state funding, organization or individual donations, grants, and the like. This classification by types of financing offers us the information about the influences of financing types on green performances, and how green developers react to green buildings in applying green design features on buildings. [Table D09] Through the re-classification by types of financing sources along with the classification by building uses, it is supposed that the implications of reasonable green performances will be revealed not only from an economic feasibility point of view but also from a developer point of view. Type of Financing Associated Project Types , Type of Financing Sources Public Development Institutional Educational Governmental Funding Organization or Individual Donations Various Grants Private Development Commercial/Office IndustrialAVarehouse Residential Hotel/Resort Bank Loans Venture Capital Private Investment Development Revenue Bonds Internal Financing by Corporation [Table D09] Description of the Classification by Types of Financing Sources PART 1. Establishing Cutting Edge Performances for Both Types of Financing First of all, to define reasonable green performances for each project type, it is important to establish the cutting edge green performances for each project type. For example, for commercial/office buildings, if only 5 cases of the green buildings have achieved beyond 40 points of green performance while the other 45 cases are in the range of 30 to 49 points, we could say the five cases have the cutting edge performance for commercial/office buildings. Moreover, if the developers reveal that the buildings cost considerably more than the market price, it is necessary to establish the reasonable green performance for commercial/office buildings within the range of 30 to 49 points or even below the performance. 16 Therefore, to indicate the cutting edge green performances for each project type, the possible LEED™ point distribution and applied green design features intensity for each project type have to be determined. In other words, to find out the common and reasonable green building performance for each project type and to insist the implications, the distribution of the achieved green performance and the intensity of the applied green design features for each project have to be established. This intention can be realized by utilizing "Green Database Version 1.0" through the steps as shown in [Fig. D], PART 2. Establishing Green Design Performance Intensities in Each Category by Contribution Level By the statistics compiled from Part 1, it shows possible LEED™ points distribution and green design features intensity for each project type. However, each category has its own different contribution to the entire green performance. For example, while the "Energy and Atmosphere" category has 17 points (25%) of green performance contribution to the entire performance, the "Water Efficiency" category has only 5 points (7%) of green performance contribution to 69 points (100%) of the entire performance. Therefore, to carefully select the core analogs that have a great influence on green performance, it is necessary to indicate the patterns of how much performances they are picking from each category at each green designation level within the given performance. In addition, for this study, the levels of green designation for green buildings have been divided into seven levels based on LEED™ Rating System: 0-9 Points (Level A), 10-19 Points (Level B), 20 - 29 Points (Level C), 30 - 39 Points (Level D), 40 - 49 Points (Level E), 50 - 59 Points (Level F), 60 - 69 Points (Level G). PART 3. Establishing Points Distribution in the Category of Energy & Atmosphere As mentioned in Part 2, the category, the "Energy and Atmosphere" category has the most contribution to the entire green performance of environmentally responsible buildings. However, not just because of the fact that Energy and Atmosphere has the most contribution to the entire green performance, the analysis of the category, "Energy and Atmosphere" has another significant implication to green buildings in terms of defining the economic feasibility if green buildings fit into the marketplace. More specifically, Credit 1 - "Optimize Energy Performance" - has considerable 10 points of 17 in the category of Energy and Atmosphere. In 17 addition, the energy performance - the points of the energy performance5 in the category of Energy and Atmosphere can be translated into the energy efficiency of conventional buildings -often becomes a critical indicator to determine the whole construction cost because of the significant weight that could cause extra costs in plants and structures. Therefore, the intention of Part 3 has been aimed at establishing the achieved energy performance point distribution within the category of Energy and Atmosphere to indicate the levels of energy efficiency at each green designation level and analyzing the implications through the same procedure as Part 1 and 2. 5 E n e r g y P e r f o r m a n c e = Energy Efficiency 18 C H A P T E R IV RESULTS PART 1. Cutting Edge Green Performances for Public and Private Developments In processing the procedure of Part 1 in Chapter III by utilizing Green Data Base Ver. 1.0 and Microsoft Excel, the patterns of "Possible LEED™ Point Distribution" and "Applied Green Design Features Intensity" have been indicated for both types of financing as described in the following diagrams. PART 1-1. PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT PART 1-1-1. Commercial/Office 100 80 60 2 40 1 a. 20 0 -I P o s s i b l e L E E D P o i n t s D i s t r i b u t i o n 17 lto 9 10 to 19 20 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 59 60 to 69 • O f f i c i a l B U n - O f f i c i a l Fig. E o i A p p l i e d G r e e n D e s i g n F e a t u r e s I n t e n s i t y 100 100 100100 100 100 1 I 100 S S W E E & A M & R I A Q • O f f i c i a l • U n - O f f i c i a l O v e r a l l Fig. E 0 2 19 Most environmentally responsible Commercial/Office buildings - whether Official or Unofficial - are in the range of 20 to 39 points, corresponding to L E E D ™ Certified to L E E D ™ Silver (Official: 76%, Unofficial: 80%). Figure E 01 further shows that no commercial/office building achieves a green performance better 40 to 49 points. In addition, as shown in [Fig. E 02], all official buildings include all aspects of green design features - Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy & Atmosphere, Materials & Resources and Indoor Environmental Quality. Therefore, achieving 40 to 49 points currently represents the cutting edge green performance of commercial/office buildings. P A R T 1-1-2. Industrial/Warehouse 100 80 o • 4 0 2 0 -I 0 -Possible L E E D Points Distribution 56 60 22 20 I22 20 u J] n l t o 9 10 to 19 2 0 to 29 3 0 to 39 4 0 to 4 9 5 0 to 59 6 0 to 69 • O f f i c i a l • U n - O f f i c i a l Fig. E 0 3 Applied Green Design Features Intensity 100 100 loaoo 100 loaoo ss W E E & A M & R I A Q O v e r a l l I O f f i c i a l • U n - O f f i c i a l Fig. E 04 20 Most environmentally responsible Industrial/Warehouse buildings are in the range of 20 ~ 39 points, corresponding to LEED™ Certified to LEED™ Silver (Official: 80%, Unofficial: 78%) [Fig. E 03]. Especially, a major portion (60%) of IndustrialAVarehouse official buildings is in the range of 30 to 39 points, corresponding to LEED™ Silver. In addition, as shown in [Fig. E 04], all official buildings include all aspects of green design features (Sustainable Site, Water Efficiency, Energy & Atmosphere, Materials & Resources and Indoor Environmental Quality). Therefore, achieving 40 ~ 49 points currently represents the cutting edge green performance of industrial/warehouse buildings. P A R T 1-1-3. Residential P o s s i b l e L E E D P o i n t s D i s t r i b u t i o n • U n - O f f i c i a l Applied Green Design Features Intensity 21 Unfortunately, there is no official case proven through LEED I M Rating System 2.0 for Residential Buildings at present, and most of environmentally responsible residential buildings are in the range of 10 ~ 19 points (58%) [Fig. E 05]. However, even if most of cases are not aggressive enough in green performance to be qualified by U.S. Green building council to gain media exposure, it is obvious that they yet hold 15 ~ 28 percent (The range between 10 ~ 19 points) of more enhanced green performance than conventional residential buildings in the marketplace. Therefore, achieving 20 ~ 29 points currently represents the cutting edge green performance of residential buildings. P A R T 1-1-4. Hotel/Resort Possible L E E D Points Distribution l t o 9 10 to 19 2 0 to 2 9 3 0 to 3 9 4 0 to 4 9 5 0 to 59 60 to 69 • O f f i c i a l B U n - O f f i c i a l Applied Green Design Features Intensity 100 100 100 100 100 S S W E E & A M & R I A Q • O f f i c i a l B U n - O f f i c i a l O v e r a l l Fig. E 0 7 Fig. E 0 8 2 2 Approximately 50% of environmentally responsible Resort/Hotel buildings are in the range of 20 ~ 29 points, corresponding to LEED™ Certified, and the other 50% are within 30 ~ 39 points, corresponding to LEED™ Silver rated in official buildings [Fig. E 07]. In addition, in un-official buildings, 43% of the buildings are in the range of 20 ~ 29, corresponding to LEED™ Certified [Fig. E 07]. And, as shown in [Fig. E 08], all official buildings include all aspects of green design features (Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy & Atmosphere, Materials & Resources and Indoor Environmental Quality). Therefore, achieving 30 ~ 39 points currently represents the cutting edge green performance of resort/hotel buildings. 23 P A R T 1-2. P U B L I C D E V E L O P M E N T P A R T 1-2-1. Institutional/Educational Possible L E E D Points Distribution l t o 9 10 to 19 2 0 to 2 9 3 0 to 39 4 0 to 4 9 5 0 to 59 6 0 to 69 • O f f i c i a l • U n - O f f i c i a l Fig. E 09 100 Green Design Features Intensity 100 100100 100100 100100 a u ss W E E & A M & R I A Q O v e r a l l • O f f i c i a l • U n - O f f i c i a l Fig. E10 Most environmentally responsible Institutional/Educational buildings are in the range of 20 ~ 39 points, corresponding to LEED™ Certified to LEED™ Silver as well (Official: 66%, Unofficial: 96%) [Fig. E 09]. However, there is a distinct difference from Commercial/Office buildings in that that a considerable portion of official buildings (22%) are in the range of 50 ~ 59 points, corresponding to LEED™ Platinum. This suggests that Institutional/Educational buildings are in the position of leading the technology and educating the public - they push the projects to the cutting edge with less anxiety of economic feasibility and marketability compared to Commercial/Office buildings. In addition, as shown in [Fig. E 10], all official 24 buildings include all aspects of green design features (Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy & Atmosphere, Materials & Resources and Indoor Environmental Quality). Therefore, achieving 50 ~ 59 points currently represents the cutting edge green performance of institutional/educational buildings. 25 P A R T 2. Green Design Performance Intensities in each Category by Contribution Level In processing the procedure of Part 2 in Chapter III by utilizing Green Data Base Ver. 1.0 & Microsoft Excel, the patterns of green design performance intensities in each category by contribution extent" have been indicated for both types of financing as described in the following diagrams. P A R T 2-1. P R I V A T E D E V E L O P M E N T P A R T 2-1-1. Commercial/Office G r e e n D e s i g n P e r f o r m a n c e I n t e n s i t i e s ( 10~19) c O 0. 100 80 6 0 4 0 20 0 j 36 12 n S S / 1 4 W E / 5 E A / 1 7 M & R / 1 3 • U n - O f f i c i a l • O f f i c i a l G r e e n D e s i g n P e r f o r m a n c e I n t e n s i t i e s ( 20~29) c u u Q. I A Q / 1 5 Fig. F o i S S / 1 4 W E / 5 E A / 1 7 M & R / 1 3 I A Q / 1 5 • U n - O f f i c i a l • O f f i c i a l Fig. F 02 26 G r e e n D e s i g n P e r f o r m a n c e I n t e n s i t i e s (30~39) S S / 1 4 W E / 5 E A / 1 7 M & R / 1 3 • U n - O f f i c i a l • O f f i c i a l G r e e n D e s i g n P e r f o r m a n c e I n t e n s i t i e s (40~49) I A Q / 1 5 Fig. F 0 3 S S / 1 4 W E / 5 E A / 1 7 M & R / 1 3 I A Q / 1 5 • U n - O f f i c i a l • O f f i c i a l Fig. F 0 4 [Table E 01] Increase & D e c r e a s e T a b l e o f P e r f o r m a n c e Intensi t ies for O f f i c i a l B u i l d i n g s o f C o m m e r c i a l / O f f i c e Official Level A (0-9) Level B (10-19) Level C (20 -29) Level D (30 -39) Level E (40 -49) Level F (50 -59) Level G (60 -69) - - 44 51 0 7 50 Ul - -W E / 5 - - 50 55 fr 5 70 ft 15 - -EA / 1 7 - - 22 38 ft 16 5 6 ft 18 - -MR/13 - - 33 4 2 ft 9 4 7 ft5 - -IEQ/15 - - 4 0 55 ft 15 73 ft 18 - -The performance in "Energy & Atmosphere" category shows the least Performance (22%) at Level C. However, EA has the most rate of increase (34%) in performance intensity while the 2 7 designation level advances from Level C to Level E. In addition, the performance, in the category of "Indoor Environmental Quality", shows a considerable rate of increase (33%) in Performance Intensity along with energy & atmosphere. At Level E, all performances for each category show beyond 50% of the full performance except Materials & Resources. P A R T 2-1-2. Industrial/Warehouse o U 2-2 0 G r e e n D e s i g n P e r f o r m a n c e I n t e n s i t i e s ( 10~19) 10 0 G r e e n D e s i g n P e r f o r m a n c e I n t e n s i t i e s (20~29) 100 S S / 1 4 W E / 5 E A / 1 7 M & R / 1 3 I A Q / 1 5 • U n - O f f i c i a l • O f f i c i a l Fig. F 0 5 S S / 1 4 W E / 5 E A / 1 7 M & R / 1 3 I A Q / 1 5 • U n - O f f i c i a l • O f f i c i a l Fig. F 0 6 28 Green Design Performance Intensities (30~39) c C U o E a . 100 80 60 40 20 0 S S / 1 4 W E / 5 E A / 1 7 M & R / 1 3 I A Q / 1 5 • U n - O f f i c i a l • O f f i c i a l Green Design Performance Intensities (40-49) ! 36 40 • L 1 S S / 1 4 W E / 5 E A / 1 7 M & R 7 1 3 • U n - O f f i c i a l • O f f i c i a l Fig. F 0 7 I A Q / 1 5 Fig. F 0 8 [Table E 02] Increase & Decrease Table of Performance Intensities for Official Buildings of Industrial/W arehouse Official Level A Level B Level C Level D Level E Level F Level G ( 0 - 9 ) ( 1 0 - 1 9 ) (20 -29) (30--39) (40 -49) (50 -59) (60 -69) SS/14 - - 43 52 09 3 6 Vl6 - -WE/5 - - 100 53 U47 4 0 U 13 - -EA/17 - - 6 57 051 59 02 - -MR/13 - - 38 33 U5 62 fr 29 - -IEQ/15 - - 60 33 U27 73 040 - -The performance, in the category of "Energy & Atmosphere", shows the least Performance (6%) at Level C. However, EA has the most rate of increase (53%) in Performance Intensity 29 while the designation level advances from Level C to Level E. At Level E, the "Energy & Atmosphere" category has a similar performance intensity (59%) as the performance intensity (56%) of "Commercial/Office" buildings. In addition, commercial/office and industrial/warehouse buildings have an identical performance intensity (73%) in the category of Indoor Environmental Quality. These two facts suggest that the environmentally responsible buildings for the uses of commercial/office and industrial/warehouse buildings show the very similar performance intensities in Energy & Atmosphere and Indoor Environmental Quality. P A R T 2-1-3. Residential Green Design Performance Intensities (1~9) SS/14 W E / 5 E A / 1 7 M & R / 1 3 I A Q / 1 5 • U n - O f f i c i a l • O f f i c i a l Fig. F 09 Green Design Performance Intensities (10~19) SS/14 W E / 5 E A / 1 7 M & R / 1 3 I A Q / 1 5 • U n - O f f i c i a l • O f f i c i a l Fig. F10 30 G r e e n D e s i g n P e r f o r m a n c e I n t e n s i t i e s (20~29) a p c SS/14 W E / 5 E A / 1 7 M&R/13 • U n - O f f i c i a l • O f f i c i a l I A Q / 1 5 Fig. F 11 [Table E 03] Increase & Decrease Table of Performance Intensities for Un-official Buildings of Residential Official Level A (0-9) Level B (10-19) Level C (20 -29) Level D (30 -39) Level E (40 -49) Level F (50 -59) Level G (60 -69) SS/14 29 23 116 29 It 6 - - - -WE / 5 10 14 ft 4 60 ff46 - - - -EA/17 0 24 (124 41 fll7 - - - -MR /13 4 2 U2 13 fill - - - -IEQ /15 0 14 ffl4 24 trio - - - -The performance in the "Energy & Atmosphere" category shows the least Performance ( 0 % ) at Level A. However, EA has a significant rate of increase (41%) in performance intensity while the designation level advances from Level A to Level C. In addition, the performance in the "Water Efficiency" category shows the most rate of increase ( 5 0 % ) in Performance Intensity. But, even if the most rate of increase occurred in the category of Water Efficiency, the influence of the performance in Energy & Atmosphere is more critical in terms of the contribution level to the entire green performance. 31 P A R T 2-1-4. Hotel/Resort Green Design Performance Intensities (10~19) 2 0 0 ; i n 21 17 J J | | J 1 ° o • 100 8 0 6 0 S S / 1 4 W E / 5 E A / 1 7 M & R / 1 3 I A Q / 1 5 1 U n - O f f i c i a l • O f f i c i a l Green Design Performance Intensities (20~29) 77 P 4 0 h 3 0 2 9 2 0 S S / 1 4 W E / 5 E A / 1 7 M & R / 1 3 I A Q / 1 5 • U n - O f f i c i a l • O f f i c i a l Green Design Performance Intensities (30~39) - 47 S S / 1 4 W E / 5 E A / 1 7 M & R / 1 3 I A Q / 1 5 • U n - O f f i c i a l • O f f i c i a l Fig. F 12 Fig. F 13 Fig. F 14 32 Table E 04] Increase & D e c r e a s e T a b l e o f P e r f o r m a n c e Intensi t ies fo r O f f i c i a l B u i l d i n g s o f H o t e l / R e s o r t Official Level A (0-9) Level B (10-19) 1 I ' M ' I C (20 -29) Level D (30 -39) Level E (40 -49) Level F (50 -59) Level G (60 -69) SS/14 W E / 5 - - 29 64 035 - - -- - 60 80 020 - - -E A / 1 7 - - 53 18 1)35 - - -M R / 13 IEQ ' 15 - - 38 15 U23 - - -- - 20 47 027 - - -Table E 05] Increase & D e c r e a s e T a b l e o f P e r f o r m a n c e Intensi t ies fo r U n - o f f i c i a l B u i l d i n g s o f H o t e l / R e s o r t Official Level A (0-9) Level B (10-19) Lewi (' (2D 2'J) Level D (30 -39) Level E (40 -49) Level F (50 -59) Level G (60 -69) SS/14 - 21 30 09 - - - -W E / 5 E A / 1 7 - 30 77 047 - - - -- 17 39 022 - - - -M R < 13 - 9 26 017 - - - -IEQ / 15 - 6 9 03 - - - -Since only two cases of official buildings have been found in the marketplace and stored in the database for Hotel/Resort buildings in this research, un-official buildings have been utilized to indicate "Increase & Decrease Table of Performance Intensities of Hotel/Resort" for the reliability of the pattern. The performance, in the category of Water Efficiency, has the most rate of increase (53%) in performance intensity while the designation level advances from Level B to Level C in addition to the highest performance (77%) among all categories at Level C. On the other hand, the performance of Indoor Environmental Quality (Unofficial: 9%, Official: 20%) seems to be relatively lower than the performances of the other project types -at Level C, Commercial/Office (40%), Institutional/Educational(50%), IndustrialAVarehouse (60%) and Residential (24%). 33 P A R T 2-2. P U B L I C D E V E L O P M E N T P A R T 2-2-1. Institutional/Educational Green Design Performance Intensities (10~19) 23 _12.... n 13 S S / 1 4 W E / 5 E A / 1 7 M & R / 1 3 I A Q / 1 5 • U n - O f f i c i a l • O f f i c i a l Green Design Performance Intensities (20~29) 100 SO a • 6 0 a 40 20 0 43 § « v , -— i 38 — 2 9 2 9 • • 5 0 — fl S S / 1 4 W E / 5 E A / 1 7 M & R / 1 3 I A Q / 1 5 I U n - O f f i c i a l • O f f i c i a l Fig. F 15 Fig. F 16 Green Design Performance Intensities (30~39) 65 2 6 24 35 _Li_a c S S / 1 4 W E / 5 E A / 1 7 M & R / 1 3 I A Q / 1 5 • U n - O f f i c i a l • O f f i c i a l Fig. F 17 3 4 G r e e n D e s i g n P e r f o r m a n c e I n t e n s i t i e s (40~49) 100 S S / 1 4 W E / 5 E A / 1 7 M & R / 1 3 I A Q / 1 5 • U n - O f f i c i a l • O f f i c i a l Fig. F18 G r e e n D e s i g n P e r f o r m a n c e I n t e n s i t i e s ( 50~59) S S / 1 4 W E / 5 E A / 1 7 M & R / 1 3 I A Q / 1 5 • U n - O f f i c i a l • O f f i c i a l Fig. F19 [Table E 0 6 ] Increase & D e c r e a s e T a b l e o f P e r f o r m a n c e Intensi t ies fo r O f f i c i a l B u i l d i n g s o f I n s t i t u t i o n a l / E d u c a t i o n a l Official Level A ( 0 - 9 ) Level B ( 1 0 - 1 9 ) Level C (20 -29) Level D ( 3 0 - 3 9 ) Level E ( 4 0 - 4 9 ) Level F ( 5 0 - 5 9 ) Level G ( 6 0 - 6 9 ) SS/14 - - 4 8 5 7 1T9 64 ft7 75 ftll -WE/5 - - 50 80 ft 3 0 100 ft 2 0 100 fto -EA/17 - - 18 2 6 ft8 24 U2 85 tt 61 -MR/13 - - 2 9 35 ft6 54 ft 19 4 2 Ul2 -IEQ /15 - - 50 7 7 ft 27 80 ft3 8 0 fto -The performance, in the category of "Energy & Atmosphere", shows the least Performance Intensity (18%) at Level C corresponded to LEED™ Certified. However, EA has the most rate 3 5 of increase (67%) in performance intensity while the designation level advances from Level C to Level F. In addition, the performance, in the category of "Water Efficiency", shows a significant rate of increase (50%) in performance intensity along with 100% of the maximum performance. Currently, in Level E, all performances for each category show beyond 50% of the full performance except Energy & Atmosphere. Moreover, at Level F, all performances for each category reach considerable performances - SS (75%), WE (100%), EA (85%), IEQ (80%) -except Materials & Resources. 36 P A R T 3 . The Achieved Points Distribution of Energy and Atmosphere Category In processing the procedure of Part 3 in Chapter III through the utilization of Green Data Base Ver. 1.0 & Microsoft Excel, the patterns of achieved energy performance point distribution within the category of energy & atmosphere" have been provided for both types of financing as described in the following diagrams. However, because of the doubt of the reliability due to the small number of official projects in Residential & Hotel/Resort buildings, those project types are additionally excluded from the study in this part. The U.S. Green Building Council currently requires green buildings to meet certain energy efficiency and performance as required by ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-1999 or the local energy code, whichever is the more stringent to be official. However, the majority of un-official buildings represent their enhanced energy performances measured by the comparison with the conventional energy performance that is inferior to the performance of ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-1999. According to Mark. Graham's technical article in ASHRAE, "ASHRAE claims it should result in site energy savings of about 16 percent and source energy savings of about 20 percent above the previous edition or conventionally marketed buildings and state codes". Therefore, the energy performances for un-official buildings are corrected into 'Revised Energy Performances' to display consistent "Achieved Energy Performance Point Distribution". P A R T 3-1. P R I V A T E D E V E L O P M E N T P A R T 3-1-1. Commercial/Office A c h i e v e d E n e r g y P e r f o r m a n c e P o i n t s D i s t r i b u t i o n (10~19) 12 10 8 c/1 • 4 - " .a 6 o CL 4 2 0 QX & & $ $ \ V O <? t& t£> <£> <£> <£> S> <g> <£> cf cf cf cf cf cf G* \ Fig . G o i — • — O f f i c i a l " • = U n - O f f i c i a l R e v i s e d 37 Achieved Energy Performance Points Distribution (20~29) o ft .0 .0 cf a cf c cf 0* cf cf ' O f f i c i a l U n - O f f i c i a l R e v i s e d Fig. G 0 2 Achieved Energy Performance Points Distribution (30~39) .5 o ft "S1 0 cf cf cf cf cf cf • O f f i c i a l U n - O f f i c i a l R e v i s e d cf Fig. G 0 3 Achieved Energy Performance Points Distribution (40~49) c "o 0. 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 X A' _ _ „ V A 0-6 ....V+ v „ . 1 spwi!ipia^B^^HBfip,ififfffi| cf cf SP cf 0 Cf Cf O f f i c i a l - « - U n - O f f i c i a l cf Fig. G 0 4 Table F 01] Summary Table of Achieved Energy Performance for Commercial/Office Buildings Level A Level B Level C Level D Level E Level F Level G (0-9) (10-19) (20 -29) (30 -39) (40 -49) (50 -59) (60 -69) M i n - - 0 2 4 - -Official Max - - 6 8 10 - -A.P - - 2 - 5 3 - 6 5 - 9 - -Min - 0 0 0 - - -Re\ isecl Max - 4 6 6 -A.P - 2 1 - 5 2 - 6 - - -I n Official Min - 4 2 4 - - -Max - 8 10 10 -A.P - 6 4 - 8 6 - 1 0 - - -Min: Minimum, Max: Maximum, A.P: Average Point Achieved Points Distribution by Credits in Energy & Atmosphere C R E D I T 1 - Optimize Energy Performance (Max. 10 Points) C R E D I T 2 - Renewable Energy (Max. 3 Points) C R E D I T 3 - Additional Commissioning (Max. 1 Point) C R E D I T 4 - Ozone Depletion (Max. 1 Point) C R E D I T 5 - Measurement & Verification (Max. 1 Point) C R E D I T 6 - Green Power (Max. 1 Point) [Table F 02] Achieved Points Distribution for Commercial/Office Buildings: Official (20 - 29) Cndii 11" ( i-t-iiit 2 * ( ri-dil.* 1 ( rodit 4 1 Credit 5/1 Credit 6/1 total Case 01 2 - - - - - 2 (use 02 6 - - - - - 6 C asc 03 - - - 1 - - 1 Case 04 4 - - 1 - - 5 (use 05 - - - 1 - - 1 Case 06 5 - 1 1 1 - 8 ( asc 07 2 - 1 -' 1 - 4 Case 08 5 - - - - - 5 Case 09 - - - 1 - - 1 Case in 2 - 1 - 1 - 4 39 [Table F 03] Achieved Points Distribution for Commercial/Office Buildings: Official (30 ~ 39) C r e d i t 1/10 C r e d i t 2/3 C r e d i t 3/1 C r e d i t 4/1 C r e d i t 5/1 C r e d i t 6/1 T o t a l Case 01 5 - 1 - - - 6 Case 02 8 2 - 1 1 1 13 Case 03 6 - - 1 1 1 9 Case 04 4 - - - - - 4 Case 05 3 - I - - - 4 Case 06 5 - 1 - - 1 7 Case 07 4 - 1 - - - 5 Case 08 2 - 1 1 1 - 5 Case 09 5 - - - - - 5 [Table F 04] Achieved Points Distribution for Commercial/Office Buildings: Official (40 ~ 49) C r e d i t 1/10 C r e d i t 2/3 C r e d i t 3/1 C r e d i t 4/1 [ C r e d i t 5/1 C r e d i t 6/1 T o t a l Case 01 10 3 - - - 1 14 Case 02 7 - 1 - 1 - 9 Case 03 4 - - - 1 - 5 Case 04 9 3 - 1 1 1 15 Case 05 5 - 1 1 1 - 8 Case 06 6 - - - - - 6 P A R T 3-1-2. Industrial/Warehouse 40 Achieved Energy Performance Points Distribution (20~29) 3 o PH C a s e 01 C a s e 0 2 O f f i c i a l C a s e 03 C a s e 04 C a s e 05 U n - O f f i c i a l R e v i s e d Fig. G 0 6 Achieved Energy Performance Points Distribution (30~39) 12 10 I 6 4 4 2 0 E 10 -0 <-C a s e O l C a s e 02 C a s e 03 C a s e 04 C a s e 05 • O f f i c i a l — U n - O f f i c i a l R e v i s e d Fig. G 0 7 Achieved Energy Performance Points Distribution (40~49) •g 6 -1 t h C a s e 01 C a s e 0 2 C a s e 03 C a s e 04 • O f f i c i a l - • - U n - O f f i c i a l C a s e 05 Fig. G 0 8 Table G 01] Summary of Achieved Energy Performance for IndustrialAVarehouse Level A Level B Level C Level D Level E Level F Level G (0-9) (10-19) (20 -29) (30 -39) (40 -49) (50 -59) (60 -69) Min - - - 6 - - -Official Max - • - - 10 - - -A.P - - 0 7 6 - -M i n - - - 0 - - -Revised Max - - - 4 -A.P - 0 0 - 4 4 - - -I n Official Min - - 2 - - - -Max - - 8 - -A.P - 4 4 4 - 8 - - -Min: Minimum, Max: Maximum, A.P: Average Point Achieved Points Distribution by Credits in Energy & Atmosphere C R E D I T 1 - Optimize Energy Performance (Max. 10 Points) C R E D I T 2 - Renewable Energy (Max. 3 Points) C R E D I T 3 - Additional Commissioning (Max. 1 Point) C R E D I T 4 - Ozone Depletion (Max. 1 Point) C R E D I T 5 - Measurement & Verification (Max. 1 Point) C R E D I T 6 - Green Power (Max. 1 Point) [Table G 02] Achieved Points Distribution for IndustrialAVarehouse: Official (20 - 29) Credit 1 in Credit 2/3 Credit 3 1 ( redit 4 1 ( redit 5 1 C i edit 61 1 otal J Case 01 - - 1 - - - 1 [Table G 03] Achieved Points Distribution for IndustrialAVarehouse: Official (30 ~ 39) Credit 1 1<> Credit 2/3 ( redit 3'1 Credit 4 1 C redit 5 1 ( redil ft 1 Total Case 01 7 - 1 1 - - 9 Case 02 10 - - - 1 - 11 Case 03 6 - 1 1 1 - 9 [Table G 04] Achieved Points Distribution for IndustrialAVarehouse: Official (40 ~ 49) Credit M O Ciedil 2 * C redit 3.1 C redit 4 1 Credit ?.• 1 Credit b< 1 total Case 01 6 3 - 1 1 1 12 PART 3-2. PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT PART 3-2-1. INSTITUTIONAL/EDUCATIONAL Achieved Energy Performance Points Distribution (10-19) .3 o a, a 12 10 6 4 | 2 f 0 <$V ^ # ^ cS> cp Cf Cf Cf cf Cf Cf Cf G * G * G * G * G * G * • Official Un-Official R e v i s e d Achieved Energy Performance Points Distribution (20~29) 12 10 8 f -6 Mr • 6 4 ^ « 4 B 4 4 ^ 4 - 4 * 4 - - 4 * 4 --I |_ C N ^ * « f ^ ^ ^ # ^ o <v o cf cf o*? cf cf cf cf cfcfc/'cfcf •Official Un-Official R e v i s e d Achieved Energy Performance Points Distribution (30~39) Fig. G 0 9 Fig. G 1 0 g "o Q\ <£> # ^ $ $ $ <§> S \ <V <3 cp <£> cp dp cp <$> cp cp cp cp cp cp cp Cf Cf Cf Cf Cf G * G * G * G * G * G * G * Cf " O f f i c i a l Un -Off ic ia l R e v i s e d Fig. G11 43 Achieved Energy Performance Points Distribution (40~49) o C> J& J& & & & $ \ * \ N <^ V 5 Cf Cf Cf Cf Cf G * cf G * G * G * cf G * G * •Official • Un-Official Fig. G 1 2 Achieved Energy Performance Points Distribution (50~59) 12 10 t * 10 6 m C> C> *?> ^ CJ5 CJ° ^ $> # \ \ <y < 5 cp cp cp cp cp cp cP cp cp cp cP cp cP cf cf cf cf cf cf cf cf G * G * G> G * G * "Official Un-Official Fig. G 13 [Table HOI] Summary of Achieved Energy Performance for Institutional/Educational Level A Level B Level C Level D Level E Level F Level G ( 0 - 9 ) (10-19) (20 -29) (30 -39) (40 -49) (50 -59) (60 -69) Min - - 0 - - - -Official Max - - 4 - - - -A.p - - 3 2-3 3 8-10 -Min - - 0 0 - - -Revised Max - - 4 6 - -A.p - 0 2-4 4-6 - - -Un Official Min - - 4 4 - - -Max - - 8 10 - -A.p - 2 6 5-8 - - -Min: Minimum, Max: Maximum, A.P: Average Point Achieved Points Distribution by Credits in Energy & Atmosphere C R E D I T 1 - Optimize Energy Performance (Max. 10 Points) C R E D I T 2 - Renewable Energy (Max. 3 Points) C R E D I T 3 - Additional Commissioning (Max. 1 Point) C R E D I T 4 - Ozone Depletion (Max. 1 Point) C R E D I T 5 - Measurement & Verification (Max. 1 Point) C R E D I T 6 - Green Power (Max. 1 Point) [Table H 02] Achieved Points Distribution for Institutional/Educational Buildings: Official (20 ~ 29) Credit 1 lu Credit 2/3 ( ri-dil 3 1 ( rcdil 4 1 Credit 5/1 Credit 6/1 Total ( asc 01 - - - 1 - - 1 C use 02 3 - - 1 1 - 5 Case 03 - - - - 1 - 1 ( use 04 4 - - - 1 - 5 [Table H 03] Achieved Points Distribution for Institutional/Educational Buildings: Official (30 ~ 39) C rcdil 1 in ( redil 2 . ( i edit 3 1 ( i edit 4 1 Credit 5/1 ( m l i i 6 1 total Case 01 2 - 1 1 1 - 5 ( a*e 02 3 - - - 1 - 4 [Table H 04] Achieved Points Distribution for Institutional/Educational Buildings: Official (40 ~ 49) ( rcdit 1 ]n Crt-dil 2 « C rcdil .V1 ( redit 4/1 Credit 5/1 Credit 6/1 I otul Case 01 3 - - 1 - - 4 [Table H 05] Achieved Points Distribution for Institutional/Educational Buildings: Official (50 ~ 59) ( redit 1 M ( redit 2' = Credit 3/1 Credit 4 1 ( redit 5 1 ( redit 6 i '1 otul Case 01 I" 3 1 - 1 1 14 1 Case 02 J 8 1 2 1 - 1 1 13 | 45 C H A P T E R V C O N C L U S I O N A PART 1. Establishing Reasonable Green Performances for both Public and Private Developments As intended at the outset of this thesis, the reasonable green buildings - reasonable green performances - for both types of financing are established through the analysis of the following stages: 1. Analyzing the implications of the green performances and energy performances resulted in Chapter IV for both types of financing. 2. Analyzing the experiences of case studies' construction costs for each project type at each green designation level. PART 1-1. PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT PART 1-1-1. Institutional/Educational ( lassitication Occurred Performances ( utliii»-i;dj»c Performance Ki-fcrciK-c O F F I C I A L Level C (20 ~ 29 Points): 44% Level D (30 ~ 39 Points): 22% Level E (40 ~ 49 Points): 12% Level F (50 ~ 59 Points): 22% Level F (50 ~ 59 Points): 22% Part 1-2 of Chapter IV U N -O F F I C I A L Level B (10 ~ 19 Points): 4% Level C (20 ~ 29 Points): 44% Level D (30 ~ 39 Points): 52% Level D (30 ~ 39 Points): 52% Part 1-2 of Chapter IV [Table 101] Summary of Green Performances for Institutional/Educational Buildings ( IsisMtii-iition Average energv performance al each » r m i designation level Cutting-Edge l".ncr»y Performance Reference O F F I C I A L • Level C (20 ~ 29 Points): 3 points • Numerously Appeared Performance 0 Point(s): 2 of 4 cases Level F (50 ~ 59 Points): 8-10 points Part 3-2 of Chapter IV • Level D (30 ~ 39 Points): 2-3 points • Numerously Appeared Performance Various 46 • Level E (40 ~ 49 Points): 3 points • Numerously Appeared Performance 3 Point(s): 1 of 1 case • Level F (50 ~ 59 Points): 8-10 points • Numerously Appeared Performance Various REVISED • Level C (20 ~ 29 Points): 1-5 points • Numerously Appeared Performance 0 Point(s): 4 of 13 cases 2 Point(s): 2 of 13 cases 4 Point(s): 5 of 13 cases Level D (30 - 39 Points): 2-6 Points Part 3-2 o f Chapter IV • Level D (30 - 39 Points): 2-6 points • Numerously Appeared Performance 4 Point(s): 7 of 13 cases 6 Point(s): 4 of 13 cases [Table 102] The Summary of Energy Performances for Institutional/Educational Buildings (>it'in l)t'M«ii.uion IUi-ku.ition ot ,in\ \ilditioiul 1 unds pnmdeil Im Green De\i»ii Level C (20 ~ 29 Points) YES NO | *1 Level D (30 ~ 39 Points) YES N O | *2 Level E (40 ~ 49 Points) Y E S NO | *3 Level F (50 ~ 59 Points) YES N O | *4 [Table I 03] Establishing Green Designation Levels Imposing Additional Costs for Institutional/Educational Kemsirk *1 None of the projects at Level C in Institutional/Educational buildings asserts that it is more expensive to build green than a conventional building. *2 Only the projects that reach more than 40% of energy performance enhancement (6 Points in energy performance) experienced about additional 5% of the total cost of the projects on green design features. *3 The only project at Level E never imposed any additional costs on green design features. *4 The projects that reach beyond 50% of energy performance enhancement including 50% (8 Points in energy performance) insist that they are looking at a fast payback in 5 years. Therefore, it is assumed that the energy performance beyond 50% still imposes additional funds on green design features for Institutional/Educational buildings even i f it guarantees a quick payback. 47 Through an analysis of the implications in the tables above - [Table I 01,1 02 and I 03], it is believed that the performance at Level E - 40 ~ 49 points of LEED™ Gold Rated - becomes the reasonable green performance by securing the following both critical concerns at once for Institutional/Educational buildings if the energy performance is targeted to design 6 points (40% of energy performance enhancement) and less: 1. Keeping pace with cutting-edge green buildings to gain positive media exposure 2. Building a environmentally responsible building within economic feasibility It is also believed that the inferior green buildings in energy performance should be relatively more stringent on the other four green design performances - Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Materials & Resources and Indoor Environmental Quality - than other superior green buildings in energy performance. Therefore, the possible green design performance intensities are shown in Table I 03 for Institutional/Educational buildings. The suggested Green Design Performance Intensities have been derived from the patterns of the actual projects in the database, and one of the models -Type C - is exemplified in Table I 05. SS/14 WE/5 MR/13 IEQ/15 I IIIT^J Perloriniince Type A 9 Points 5 Points 7 Points 12 Points 6 of 10 64% 100 % 54% 80% Points TypeB 10 Points 5 Points 5 Points 10 Points 6 of 10 71 % 100 % 38% 67% Points TypeC 11 Points 5 Points 6 Points 11 Points 6 of 10 79% 100 % 46% 73% Points [Table 104] Suggested Green Design Performance Intensities for Institutional/Educational T>peC Description Project Name School of Nursing & Student Center Project Type Educational Building Type New Construction Project Size 194,000 SF Owner UT,HSCH Contact Rives Taylor 48 Completion Year In Progress City Houston State/Province TX-Texas Country USA Green Design Features Sustainable Sites The new building will use the same building footprint as the current structure. Several bus transit lines connect to the site, and the area is also being designed for biking commuters. Green Roof Water Efficiency Rainwater is harvested through the roof and cisterns for storage. A future design for will include a black water living system. Waterless urinals and high efficiency fixtures also reduce overall water demand. Materials & Resources The existing building will be deconstructed. A construction waste minimization will be used during construction. "Baseline Green", a life-cycle analysis tool for material selection based on embodied energy and pollution, will be used. Concrete containing 51% minimum fly ash is to be used for the update of carbon. Many decisions are based on a 100-year life cycle cost analysis. Indoor Environmental Quality Daylighting and raised floors allow personal control of the work environment with operable windows. No polyvinyl chloride carpet or toxic materials will be used in the building. LEED™ Evaluation Document Sustainable Sites Sustainable Sites Prereq 1 Erosion & Sedimentation Control Credit 1 jSite Selection 11 Yes : Credit 2 jurban Redevelopment 1 ; Credit 3 Credit 4.1 -Credit 4.2 Brownfield Redevelopment Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access 1 Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms 1 Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation, Alternative Fuel Refueling Stations Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access 1 Credit 51 Reduced Site Disturbance, Protect or Restore Open Space j Credit 5 2 • Credit 6.1 Reduced Site Disturbance, Development Footprint 1 Stormwater Management, Rate and Quality 1 Credit 6.2 . Stormwater Management, Treatment 1 Credit 7.1 Landscape & Exterior Design to Reduce Heat Islands, Non-Roof 1 Credit 7.2 Landscape & Exterior Design to Reduce Heat Islands, Roof ,1 Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction 1 49 Water Efficiency Watei Lflir. Credit 1.1 Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50% 5 Credit 1.2 Water Efficient Landscaping, No Potable Use or No Irrigation 1 Credit-2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies 1 Credit 3.1 Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction 1 Credit 3.2 Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction 1 Materials & Resources Moteiidls & Resources Prereq 1 Storage & Collection of Recyclables (Credit 1.1 Building Reuse, Maintain 75% of Existing Shell 6 Yes .0. Credit 1.2 Credit 1.3 Building Reuse, Maintain 100% of Existing Shell 0 Building Reuse, Maintain 100% of Shell S. 50% ofNonrShell ; 0 1 Credit 2.1 Construction Waste Management, Divert 50% Credit 2.2 Construction Waste Management, Divert 75% 1 Credit 3.1 Resource Reuse, Specify 5% 0 Credit 3.2 Resource Reuse, Specify 10% 0 Credit 4.1 Recycled Content, Specify 25% 1 Credit 4.2 Recycled Content, Specify 50% 1 Credit 5:1 LocalJRegional Materials, 20% Manufactured Locally 1 Credit 5.2 LocalfRegibnalMaterials, of 20% Above, 50% Harvested Locally 1 Credit 6 Rapidly Renewable Materials 0 Credit 7 Certified Wood 0 Indoor Environmental Quality Indoor Environmental Oudlily Prereq Minimum IAQ Performance Prereq 1 Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control ICredit 1 Carbon Dioxide (C02) Monitoring 12 Yes Ye? Credit 2 Increase Ventilation Effectiveness _ i _ Credit 3.1 Construction IAQ Management Plan, During Construction Credit 3.2 Construction IAQ Management Plan, Before Occupancy 1 Credit 4.1 Low-Emitting Materials, Adhesives & Sealants 1 Credit 4.2 Low-Emitting Materials, Paints 1 Credit 4.3 Low-Emitting Materials, Carpet 1 Credit 4.4 Low-Emitting Materials, Composite Wood t Credit 5 Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control 1 Credit 6:1 Controllability of Systems, Perimeter 0 Credit 6.2 Controllability of Systems, Non-Perimeter 1 Credit 7:t Thermal Comfort, Comply with ASHRAE 55-1992 1 Credit 7.2 Thermal Comfort, Permanent Monitoring System 1 Credit 8.1 Daylight & Views, Daylight 75% of Spaces 0 0 Credit 8.2 Daylight & Views, Daylight 90% of Spaces [Table 105] Project Description of Type C in Institutional/Educational Buildings 50 PART 1-2. PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT PART 1-2-1. Commercial/Office ( liissil'iciilinn ( u t l in» -hdge Ocriirrt'ri Performances Performance Reference O F F I C I A L L e v e l C (20 ~ 2 9 P o i n t s ) : 40% L e v e l D (30 ~ 3 9 P o i n t s ) : 36% L e v e l E (40 ~ 4 9 Po in t s ) : 24% L e v e l E (40 ~ 4 9 P o i n t s ) : 24% Part 1-1 of Chapter rv UN-O F F I C I A L L e v e l B (10 ~ 19 P o i n t s ) : 17% L e v e l C (20 ~ 2 9 P o i n t s ) : 60% L e v e l D (30 ~ 39 P o i n t s ) : 20% L e v e l E (40 ~ 4 9 P o i n t s ) : 3% L e v e l E (40 ~ 4 9 P o i n t s ) : 3% Part 1-1 of Chapter rv [Table J 01] Summary of Green Performances for Commercial/Office Buildings ( lnssilii:ili(in \vei .me eneru\ pei fin iiiame .U e.uh green designation level C iilting-I'dge Knerg\ Pei lormanee Reference O F F I C I A L • L e v e l C (20 ~ 29 P o i n t s ) : 2-5 po in t s • N u m e r o u s l y A p p e a r e d P e r f o r m a n c e 0 P o i n t ( s ) : 3 o f 10 cases 2 P o i n t ( s ) : 3 o f 10 cases 5 P o i n t ( s ) : 2 o f 10 cases L e v e l E (40 - 4 9 P o i n t s ) : 5 - 9 po in t s Part 3-1 of Chapter rv • L e v e l D (30 - 39 P o i n t s ) : 3-6 po in t s • N u m e r o u s l y A p p e a r e d P e r f o r m a n c e 4 P o i n t ( s ) : 2 o f 9 cases 5 P o i n t ( s ) : 3 o f 9 cases • L e v e l E (40 - 4 9 P o i n t s ) : 5 -9 po in t s • N u m e r o u s l y A p p e a r e d P e r f o r m a n c e Various R E V I S E D • L e v e l C (20 - 2 9 P o i n t s ) : 2-4 po in t s • N u m e r o u s l y A p p e a r e d P e r f o r m a n c e 2 P o i n t ( s ) : 4 o f 18 cases 4 Po in t ( s ) : 6 o f 18 cases 6 P o i n t ( s ) : 4 o f 18 cases L e v e l D (30 - 3 9 P o i n t s ) : 4 - 6 P o i n t s Part 3-1 of Chapter rv • L e v e l D (30 - 39 P o i n t s ) : 4-6 po in t s • N u m e r o u s l y A p p e a r e d P e r f o r m a n c e 2 Po in t ( s ) : 3 o f 6 cases 6 P o i n t ( s ) : 2 o f 6 cases [Table J 02] Surnmary of Energy Performances for Commercial/Office Buildings 51 dri'i-n Designation Level Declaration of am Xdditional funds provided for (ireen Design 1 Valines? Kemark Level C (20 ~ 2 9 Points) Y E S N O *1 Level D (30 ~ 3 9 Points) Y E S N O * 2 Level E (40 ~ 4 9 Points) Y E S N O *3 [Table J 03] Establishing Green Designation Levels Imposing Additional Costs for Commercial/Office Buildings *1 O n l y one pro jec t confessed g reen c o m p o n e n t s i m p o s e d a d d i t i o n a l costs o n the b u i l d i n g . H o w e v e r , i t is a c o n t r a d i c t i o n to say that the b u i l d i n g is w i t h i n t h e c u r r e n t t r end s ince the b u i l d i n g w a s b u i l t i n 1987. I n the m e a n t i m e , a n u m b e r o f projects e x p e r i e n c e d 10 to 15% b e l o w the average c o n s t r u c t i o n cos ts fo r c o m p a r a b l e c o m m e r c i a l / o f f i c e b u i l d i n g s . *2 O n l y the pro jec ts that r each m o r e than 4 0 % Of energy pe r fo rmance enhancemen t (6 Points i n ene rgy p e r f o r m a n c e ) con fe s sed they inves t ed a d d i t i o n a l funds o n green d e s i g n features. I n a d d i t i o n , a c o u p l e o f pro jec ts e x p e r i e n c e d thei r c o n s t r u c t i o n costs c a m e b e l o w the marke t rate. *3 L i k e w i s e at L e v e l C a n d L e v e l D , none o f the projects that r e ach b e l o w 5 0 % o f ene rgy p e r f o r m a n c e enhancemen t i n c l u d i n g 5 0 % (8 Points i n ene rgy pe r fo rmance ) i m p o s e d a d d i t i o n a l cos ts o n the b u i l d i n g s . First of all, the results indicate that energy performance levels have a significant influence on construction costs, and also energy performance focused green buildings impose additional funds on green design features as predicted in part 3 of chapter III. Accordingly, through an analysis of the implications in the tables above - [Table J 01, J 02 and J 03], it is believed that the performance at Level E - 40 ~ 49 points of LEED™ Gold Rated - represent the current reasonable green performance by securing the following both critical concerns at once for commercial/office buildings if the energy performance is targeted to design 6 points (40% of energy performance enhancement) and less: 1. Keeping pace with cutting-edge green buildings to gain positive media exposure 2. Building a environmentally responsible building within economic feasibility Additionally, it is also believed that the inferior green buildings in energy performance should be relatively more stringent on the other four green design performances - Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Materials & Resources and Indoor Environmental Quality - than other superior green buildings in energy performance. 52 Therefore, the possible green design performance intensities are suggested as shown in Table I 02-2 for Commercial/Office buildings. The suggested Green Design Performance Intensities have been outputted from the patterns of the actual projects in the database, and one of the models - Type A - is exemplified in Table J 05. SS/14 WE/5 MR/13 IKQ/15 1 111 I six lYrloriiiaiu-i-Type A 10 Points 4 Points 7 Points 9 Points 6 of 10 71 % 80% 54% 60% Points TypeB 8 Points 4 Points 10 Points 9 Points 6 of 10 57% 80% 77% 60% Points TypeC 10 Points 3 Points 7 Points 11 Points 6 of 10 71 % 60% 54% 73 % Points [Table J 04] Suggested Green Design Performance Intensities for Commercial/Office Buildings l\pe V Project Name Vancouver Island Technology Park Project Type Commercial/Office Building Type Major Renovation Project Size 171,750 SF Owner BC Buildings Corporation Contact Idealink Architects; Bunting Coady Architects Completion Year 2001 City Vancouver State/Province BC-British Columbia Country Canada 53 Green Design Features Sustainable Sites Brownfield Redevelopment Redeveloping this abandoned hospital facility involved checking for soil contamination and removal of asbestos and underground storage tanks. Alternative Transportation Negotiated extensions of several bus routes to site; bicycle parking and showers for 18% of users; negotiated reduction of municipal parking requirements by 50%; designated carpool parking. Reduced Site Disturbance 97.8% of degraded habitat was restored by allowing previously irrigated turf area to restore itself naturally and planting native plants and trees. A no-build covenant protects treed areas. Water Efficiency Stormwater Management 100% of stormwater is treated and infiltrated on site through use of grass swales, grass gravel pave system and stormwater treatment and retention ponds. Water Efficient Landscaping Native plants and natural meadows require no permanent irrigation. Water Use Reduction Water consumption reduced by 33% through use of dual flush toilets, waterless urinals, electronic sensors on faucets, and flow showerheads. 54 Materials & Resources Building Reuse Reuse 100% of existing structure and 91% of existing shell. Construction Waste Management 99% of construction waste was salvaged or recycled, saving $600,000 and costing 60% less than other contractor bids. Resource Reuse Salvaged materials comprise 8% of total materials. Recycled content 33% of materials, measured by LEED's weighed cost value, contain post-consumer and/or post-industrial recycled content (e.g., rebar, millwork, insulation, aluminum panels and rubber flooring). Local/Regional Materials 31% materials were manufactured within 500 miles, including grass/gravel pavers, concrete, wood, aluminum panels, roofing, siding, windows, wallboard, carpeting and paint. Indoor Environmental Quality Low-Emitting Materials All adhesives, sealants, carpets and composite wood emit low or no VOCs LEED™ Evaluation Document Sustainable Sites Sustainable Sites 10 Prereq 1 Erosion & Sedimentation Control Yes Credit 1 Site Selection 1 Credit 2 Urban Redevelopment 0 Credit? Brownfield Redevelopment 1. Credit 4.1 Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access •1 Credit 4.2 Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms .1. Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation, Alternative Fuel Refueling Stations 0 Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access .1. Credit 5:1 Reduced Site Disturbance, Protect or Restore Open Space 1 Credit 5.2 Reduced Site Disturbance, Development Footprint X Credit 6:1 Stormwater Management, Rate and Quality 1 Credit 6.2 Stormwater Management, Treatment t. Credit 7.1 Landscape & Exterior Design to Reduce Heat Islands, Non-Roof 1 Credit 7.2 Landscape & Exterior Design to Reduce Heat Islands, Roof 0 Credit 8 ' Light Pollution Reduction 0 55 Water Efficiency ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 4 Credit 1.1 Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50% 1 Credit 1.2 Water Efficient Landscaping, No Potable Use or No Irrigation 1 Credit 2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies 0 Credit 3.1 Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction 1 Credit 3.2 Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction 1 Materials & Resources Materials & Resouir.es 7 Hrereq 1 Storage «, Collection of Recyclables Yes lcredit'1.1 Building Reuse, Maintain 75% of Existing Shell 1 Credit 1.2 Building Reuse, Maintain 100% of Existing Shell 0 Credit 1.3 Building Reuse, Maintain 100% of Shell &50% of Non-shell 0 Credit 2.1 , Construction Waste Management, Divert 50% 1 Credit 2.2 Construction Waste Management, Divert 75% 1 Credit 3.1 Resource Reuse, Specify 5% 1 Credit 3.2 Resource Reuse, Specify 10% 0 Credit 4.1 Recycled Content, Specify 25% 1 Credit 4.2 Recycled Content, Specify 50% 0. Credit 5.1 LocalJRegional Materials, 20% Manufactured Locally 1 Credit 5.2 LocalJRegional Materials, of 20% Above, 50% Harvested Locally 1 Credit 6 Rapidly Renewable Materials 0 Credit? . Certified Wood 0 Indoor Environmental Indoor Environmental Quality 9 Quality Prereq 1 Minimum IAQ Performance Yes Prereq 1 Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETSj Control Yes I Credit 1 Carbon Dioxide (C02) Monitoring 1 Credits Increase Ventilation Effectiveness 1 Credit 3.1 Construction IAQ Management Plan, During Construction 0 Credit 3.2 Construction IAQ Management Plan, Before Occupancy 0 Credit 4.1 Low-Emitting Materials, Adhesives & Sealants 1 Credit 4.2 Low-Emitting Materials, Paints 1 Credit 4.3 Low-Emitting Materials, Carpet 1 Credit 44 Low-Emitting Materials, Composite Wood 1 Credit 5 Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control 1 Credit 6.1 Controllability of Systems, Perimeter 0 Credit 6.2 Controllability of Systems, Non-Perimeter 0 Credit 7.1 Thermal Comfort, Comply with ASHRAE 55-1992 1 Credit 7.2 Thermal Comfort, Permanent Monitoring System 0 Credit 8.1 Daylight & Views, Daylight 75% of Spaces 1 Credit 8.2 Daylight & Views, Daylight 90% ofSpaces 0 [Table J 05] Project Description of Type B in Commercial/Office Buildings 56 P A R T 1-2-2. IndustrialAVarehouse ( liissificiilion Occurred Performances ( ulting-l d»e Performance Reference O F F I C I A L L e v e l C (20 ~ 2 9 P o i n t s ) : 20% L e v e l D (30 ~ 39 P o i n t s ) : 60% L e v e l E (40 ~ 4 9 P o i n t s ) : 20% L e v e l E (40 ~ 4 9 P o i n t s ) : 20% Part 1-3 of Chapter IV UN-O F F I C I A L L e v e l B (10 ~ 19 P o i n t s ) : 22% L e v e l C (20 ~ 2 9 P o i n t s ) : 56% L e v e l D (30 ~ 39 P o i n t s ) : 22% L e v e l D (30 ~ 39 P o i n t s ) : 22% Part 1-3 of Chapter IV [Table J 06] Summary of Green Performances for IndustrialAVarehouse ( lassifiiatinii A\crage ener»\ performance :u each green designation le\el ( iittiiig-Ldge I'.nergy Performance Reference O F F I C I A L • L e v e l C (20 ~ 2 9 P o i n t s ) : 0 po in t s • N u m e r o u s l y A p p e a r e d P e r f o r m a n c e 0 Po in t ( s ) : 1 o f 1 cases L e v e l E (40 ~ 4 9 P o i n t s ) : 6 po in t s Part 3-3 of Chapter IV • L e v e l D (30 ~ 3 9 P o i n t s ) : 7 po in t s • N u m e r o u s l y A p p e a r e d P e r f o r m a n c e Various • L e v e l E (40 ~ 4 9 P o i n t s ) : 6 po in t s • N u m e r o u s l y A p p e a r e d P e r f o r m a n c e 6 P o i n t ( s ) : 1 o f 1 case R E V I S E D • L e v e l C (20 ~ 29 Po in t s ) : 0-4 po in t s • N u m e r o u s l y A p p e a r e d P e r f o r m a n c e 0 P o i n t ( s ) : 3 o f 5 cases 4 P o i n t ( s ) : 2 o f 5 cases L e v e l D (30 ~ 3 9 P o i n t s ) : 0~4 po in t s Part 3-3 of Chapter IV • L e v e l D (30 ~ 3 9 P o i n t s ) : 0-4 po in t s • N u m e r o u s l y A p p e a r e d P e r f o r m a n c e 0 P o i n t ( s ) : 1 o f 2 cases 4 P o i n t ( s ) : 1 o f 2 cases [Table J 07] Summary of Energy Performances for IndustrialAVarehouse 57 (irt'L'ii Designation Level Declaration ofari) Additional Funds provided for CJreen Design 1 eatures'.' Remark Level C (20-29 Points) YES N O *1 Level D (30-39 Points) YES N O *2 Level E (40 ~ 49 Points) Y E S N O *3 [Table J 08] Establishing Green Designation Level Imposing Addi t ional Costs for IndustrialAVarehouse *1 Only one project confessed green components imposed additional costs on the bui lding. However, it has been revealed that the project reaches 59% o f energy performance enhancement, and they are looking at more than 7.5-year payback on the entire green design features. *2 Only the projects that reach more than 40% o f energy performance enhancement (6 Points in energy performance) confessed they invested additional funds on green design features. *3 The only project at Level E was built in market rate without imposing any additional costs on green design features. Accordingly, through an analysis of the implications in the tables above - [Table J 06, J 07 and J 08], it is believed that the performance at Level E - 40 ~ 49 points of LEED™ Gold Rated - becomes the reasonable green performance by securing the following both critical concerns at once for IndustrialAVarehouse if the energy performance is targeted to design 6 points (40% of energy performance enhancement) and less: 1. Keeping pace with cutting-edge green buildings to gain positive media exposure 2. Building a environmentally responsible building within economic feasibility Additionally, it is also believed that the inferior green buildings in energy performance should be relatively more stringent on the other four green design performances - Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Materials & Resources and Indoor Environmental Quality - than other superior green buildings in energy performance. Therefore, the possible green design performance intensities are shown in Table I 06-2 for IndustrialAVarehouse. The suggested Green Design Performance Intensities have been outputted from the patterns of the existing projects in the database, and one of the models -Type B - is exemplified in Table J 09. 58 SS/14 WE/5 MR/13 IEQ/15 Energy IVrforniaiui-Type A 8 Points 57% 3 Points 60% 6 Points 46% 10 Points 67% 6 of 10 Points TypeB 7 Points 50% 2 Points 40% 8 Points 61 % 11 Points 73 % 6 of 10 Points [Table J 09] Suggested Green Design Performance Intensities for Industrial/Warehouse l"\ pe R Description Project Name Herman Miller SQA Project Type Industrial/Warehouse Building Type New Construction Project Size 290,000 SF Owner Herman Miller Contact William A. McDonough Completion Year 1995 City Zeeland State/Province Mi-Michigan Country USA Green Design Features Sustainable Sites Site sensitivity in building placement. Used natural drainage, native plantings, and constructed wetlands to break down pollutants. Water Efficiency Water and sewer costs have decreased 65%. Materials & Resources Designated recycling areas. In manufacturing operations 85% of water is recycled. Striving to be a waste-free company. Indoor Environmental Good indoor air quality. Strove for zero off-gassing materials. Quality 59 LEED™ Evaluation Document Sustainable Sites Sustainable Sites Prereq 1 Erosion & Sedimentation Control Credit 1 Site Selection Yes Credit-2 Credit 3 Urban Redevelopment Brovnirfield Redevelopment Credit 4.1 i Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access Credit 4.2 Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms Credit 4.3 {Alternative Transportation, Alternative Fuel Refueling Stations Credit 4.4 Credits;! Credit 5.2 Credit 6.1 Credit 6.2 Credit 7.1 Credit 7.2 Credit 8 Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access Reduced Site Disturbance, Protect or Restore Open Space Reduced Site Disturbance, Development Footprint Stormwater Management, Rate and Quality Stormwater Management, Treatment Landscape & Exterior Design to Reduce Heat Islands, Non-Roof Landscape & Exterior Design to Reduce Heat Islands, Roof Light Pollution Reduction Water Efficiency Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50% Credit 1.2 Water Efficient Landscaping, No Potable Use or No Irrigation Credit-2 Credit 3.1 Credit 3.2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction [Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction Materials & Resources Materials & Resources Prereq 1 Storage & Collection of Recyclables : Credit 1.1 Building Reuse, Maintain 75% of Existing Shell: [Creditl.2_ Credit 1 3 Credit 21 Credit 2.2 Credit 3.1^  I Credit 3.2™ Building Reuse, Maintain 100% of Existing Shell Building Reuse, Maintain 100% of Shell & 50% of Non-shell Construction Waste Management, Divert 50% Construction Waste Management, Divert 75% Resource Reuse, Specify 5% Resource Reuse, Specify 10% Yes 1 Credit 4.1 Recycled Content, Specify 25% 1 Credit 4.2 Recycled Content, Specify 50% .1, Credit 5.1 LocalJRegional Materials, 20% Manufactured Locally 1 Credit 5.2 Local/Regional Materials, of 20% Above, 50% Harvested Locally Credit 6 Rapidly Renewable Materials Credit 7 Certified Wood 1 60 Indoor Environmental Indoor Environmental Quality 11 Quality Prereq-1" Minimum IAQ Performance i es 'Prereqitr, Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control Yes I Credit 1 Carbon Dioxide (C02) Monitoring Credit 2 Increase Ventilation Effectiveness .0 jCredit 3.1 Construction IAQ Management Plan, During Construction 1 I Credit 3.2 Construction IAQ Management Plan, Before Occupancy 0 Credit 4.1 Low-Emitting Materials, Adhesives & Sealants 1 Credit 4.2 Low-Emitting Materials, Paints 1 Credit 4.3 Low-Emitting Materials, Carpet 1 Credit 4.4 Low-Emitting Materials, Composite Wood 0 Credit 5 Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control 1 Credit 61 Controllability of Systems, Perimeter 1 Credit 6 2 Controllability of Systems, Non-Perimeter 0 Credit 7.1 Thermal Comfort, Comply with ASHRAE 55-1992 1 Credit 7.2 Thermal Comfort, Permanent Monitoring System 1 Credit 8.1 Daylight & Views, Daylight 75% of Spaces 1 Credit 8.2 Daylight & Views, Daylight 90% of Spaces 1 [Table J 10] Project Description of Type B in IndustrialAVarehouse As shown in [Table I 04], [Table J 04] and [Table J 09], the suggested green design performance intensities are somewhat different in each project type even if they are all at Level E. The difference is 3 ~ 6 points that influences about 4 ~ 8% on the entire green performance, and the green buildings for Institutional/Educational have the best performance among those three project types [Table K]. However, the differences are insignificant and it is believed that each project type has slightly different own targets to achieve for the needs in the marketplace. For example, the green buildings for Institutional/Educational beyond Level E reach 100% performance in the category of Water Efficiency. Not surprisingly, they assert that it is because of the needs for being a good example and educating the public. 61 Project l\pe SS/14 WK/5 7 MR/13 B§1§PI115PPIP IKQ/15 Suggested lotal EP/10 Points Commercial /Office Type A 10 Points 4 Points 7 Points 9 Points 6 Points 36 TypeB 8 Points 4 Points 10 Points 9 Points 6 Points 37 TypeC 10 Points 3 Points 7 Points 11 Points 6 Points 37 Institutional /Educational Type A 9 Points 5 Points 7 Points 12 Points 6 Points 39 TypeB 10 Points 5 Points 5 Points 10 Points 6 Points 36 TypeC 11 Points 5 Points 6 Points 11 Points 6 Points 39 Industrial /Warehouse Type A 8 Points 3 Points 6 Points 10 Points 6 Points 33 TypeB 7 Points 2 Points 8 Points 11 Points 6 Points 34 [Table K] Suggested Green Design Performance Intensities for each Project Type Consequently, as proved in Part 2, 3 of Chapter IV & Part 1 of Chapter V, it is very obvious that energy performance 10 of total 69 points (15 % of total contribution) has the most contribution to the entire green performance of environmentally responsible buildings and becomes a critical indicator to determine the whole construction cost because of the significant weight that could cause additional costs on green design features. However, it has been also revealed that the energy performance elevation is not evident at all green designation levels (Level A ~ G) by an analysis of the results in Part 2, 3 of Chapter IV. For example, for Commercial/Office buildings, over 33% of the official buildings within 20 ~ 29 points (LEED Certified) has zero energy performance elevation and 33% of them has only 10% of energy performance elevation, so about two third of them has only 0 ~ 10% of energy performance elevation that surpasses ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-1999, but they still shows 38 ~ 42% (26 ~ 29 points) of enhanced green performance acquired from the other categories -Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Materials & Resources and Indoor Environmental Quality - when compared to conventional commercial/office buildings. Moreover, even 67% of the official buildings within the 30 ~ 39 points (LEED Silver Rated) has only 15 ~ 25% energy performance elevation but shows significant 44 ~ 57% (30 ~ 39) of enhanced green performance. Therefore, the results suggest that "Green Buildings do not always mean cutting edge energy efficient buildings and nor do they cost more than Conventional Buildings. 62 A Comparative Review of "The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings" The report, "The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings", was developed for the Sustainable Building Task Force, a group of over 40 California state government agencies in October 2003. Funding for this study was provided by the Air Resources Board (ARB), California Integrated Waste Management Board CrWMB), Department of Finance (DOF), Department of General Services (DGS), Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Department of Water Resources (DWR), and Division of the State Architect (DSA). This collaborative effort was made possible through the contributions of Capital E, Future Resources Associates, Task Force members, and the United States Green Building Council. The cost analysis of 33 LEED project in this report is intended to counter the widespread perception in the real-estate industry that building green is significantly more expensive than traditional methods of development. A half dozen California developers interviewed in 2001 estimated that green buildings cost 10% to 15% more than conventional buildings. The cost data was gathered on 33 individual LEED registered projects (25 office buildings and 8 school buildings) with actual or projected dates of completion between 1995 and 2004. Those 33 projects were chosen because relatively solid cost data for both actual green design and conventional design was available for the same building. See below for a complete list of 33 projects, their LEED levels and green premiums. 63 rruject Location Type Green Cost Green Standard Energy Resource Cents** Downey, C A Office 1995 0.00% Leven-Certified KSBA Architects' Pittsburgh. PA Office 1988 000% Level 1 Certified Brertgei Tech Certfe?" Mifvvau'sea w i Offlca 2000 0.00% Level 1-Certified Stewart's Building2 Baltimore. MO Office 2003 0.50% Level 1-Certified Pier <W San Francisco. CA Office 2001 0.70% Level i-Certified PA EPA S. Centra! Harrisburg, PA Office 1S98 1.00% Level 1-Certified Rea.tonart! CMCSQO, IL Office 1993 1.80% LeveM-Certified Ca3EPAHsada i»«8 f s* Sacranterita, CA Office 2 0 0 0 1.60% Level 1-Certified EPA Regionar 198$ Level 2-Sdver Ash Creek Intermed. School 2002 0.00% Level 2-Siver School' 8 PNC FtrstsitSe Center1 PMsoufsh, PA Office 0.25% Level 2-Saver ClacXames Hiflfr School" Clackamas, OR School 2002 0.30% Level 2-Stfver Southern ASegheriies Loreito. PA Office 2003 0.50% Level 2-§4ver Museum? •: DPR-A8D QfHc® Sylldln^ Sacramento. C A Office 2(8)3 085% luhrs U w . Elementary1 SWppwistJUff PA School 2000 1,20% Level 2-Saver Cleaview Elementary* Hsnover, PA School 2002 1.30% Level 2-SUver Wfest VWeteterol Township5 Extort, PA Office 2004 1.50% Level 2-SBver Twin Valley Eismentsy 4 . Etvarson. PA • Sdiooi- 2004 1.50% Level 2-SBver Licking County Voestiona!3 Newer*. OH School 2003 1.80% Level 2-Saver 3 Portland Public Portland. OR Office since 1994 2.20% Level 2-Sifver Nidus Certer of Science' Creve Coevff, MO . Office 1999 3.50% Level 2-SBver Municipal Courts* Seattle, WA Office 2002 4.00% Level 2-SJv«sf S t Stephens Cetfedral" H&rri8bW0. PA School 2003 7.10% Level 2-SSver 4 Times S q ^ r e ' Office 1689 7.50% Level 2-Savar P A D E P Sou*easf NOffiStOwn, PA • Office 2003 0.10% Level 3-Gold The Dates Middle School** The Oaltes OR School 2002 • 0.50% Level 3-Gold Dev Resource Center* Chattanooga. TN Office 2001 1.00% Level 3-Gold PA DEP Cambria1 Ebemisting. PA Office 2000 1.20% Level 3-Gold PA DEP Cafifomia* California. PA Office 2003 1-70% Level 3-Gold East End Cemptax-aSt 225'' Sacramento CA Office 2003 641% Level 3-Gold Botarifesi Oarttefi Admirr4 Queens, MY Office 2003 6.50% Level 4J»satinum [Table L] Complete List of 33 projects, their LEED Levels and Green Premiums PART 1. Is the Premium for Green Buildings about 2%? According to the report, on average, the premium for green buildings is about 2%. The eight rated Bronze level buildings had an average cost premium of less than 1%. Eighteen Silver-level buildings averaged a 2.1% cost premium. The six Gold buildings had an average premium of 1.8%, and the one Platinum building was at 6.5%. The average reported cost premium for all 33 buildings is somewhat less than 2% as shown in Figures HOI and H 02. 64 Level of Green Standard Average Green Cost Premium Level 1 - Certified Level 2 - Silver Level 3 - G o l d Level 4 - Platinum 0.66% 2.11% 1.82% 6:50% Average of 33 Buildings 1.84% •Source: IJSGBC. Capital E Analysis [Fig. HOI] G r e e n D e s i g n a t i o n L e v e l a n d A v e r a g e G r e e n C o s t P r e m i u m Average Green Premium vs. Levei of Green Certification (for Offices and Schools) E 1 2 a. 10.00%  —. 8.00% S 6.00% 3 4.00% 0.00% 0.66% Level VCertlfied Level 2-Silver Level 3-Gold Level 4-P|atlfium (SbWgs) (IBbfdgs) (6 bldgs) (1 bldgs) Level of Green Certification Source: USGBC. Capital E Analysis [Fig. H 02] A v e r a g e G r e e n P r e m i u m v s . L e v e l of G r e e n Certification The conclusion and figures above indicate that while green buildings generally cost more than conventional buildings, the "green premium" is lower than is commonly perceived. As expected, the cost of green buildings generally rises as the level of greenness increases. However, the data anomaly is that averaged cost levels for LEED Gold buildings are slightly lower than for Silver buildings, whereas the higher performance level requirements to achieve Gold would be expected to cost more than Silver levels. At the same time, 5 of 16 LEED Silver buildings have higher cost premiums than the average green premium for LEED Gold buildings, and East End Complex Block 225 is considerably more expensive than the other Gold buildings. If that was the case, one could argue that the average premium for green buildings is about 2%? Because of the following troublesome facts, the assertion from the report is controversial: 65 1. The averaged cost level cannot represent the definitive cost for green buildings. 2. The costs for green buildings are various on applied green design features and the intensities. Furthermore, a cost analysis of green buildings should not be assumed by measuring the average costs for green buildings, but disclosed by finding out the green design components (Analogs) that impose additional costs on a green building or reduce capital costs. For example, when PA DEP Cambria - a LEED Gold building that imposed 1.20% of additional costs from Table L - is dug up to find out what could have been the factors that added costs on the building, an analysis has been attempted below through a detailed review of its green performance intensity. SS/14 WE/5 MR/13 IEQ/15 K \/17 PA DEP Cambria 6 Points 43 % 4 Points 80% 5 Points 38% 13 Points 87% 14 Points 82% Official (40 ~ 49) See Fig. F 04 58% 70% 47% 73 % 56% Increase & Decrease U 15 °/o ft 10% U 9% ft 14 % ft 26% [Table M] Green Design Performance Intensities for PA DEP Cambria The table above indicates that the green performance intensities increase in the categories of Water Efficiency, Indoor Environmental Quality and Energy & Atmosphere, whereas decline in the categories of Sustainable Sites and Materials & Resources. Especially, considering the contribution level to the entire green performance, the performance increase is considerable in the category of Energy & Atmosphere. As identified in Conclusion A, the green buildings that reach more than 40% of energy performance enhancement (6 Points in energy performance) impose additional funds on green design features, but Cambria building surpasses the LEED™ requirement as reaching dramatic 66% of energy performance enhancement and achieves the full mark of 8 points in energy performance. Currently, waste reduction strategies such as reuse and recycling, as promoted in the category of Materials & Resources, help to divert waste from being disposed of in landfills. Diversion strategies result in savings associated with avoided disposal costs as well as in reduced societal costs of landfill creation and maintenance. Nevertheless, the performance intensity of Materials & Resources in Cambria would rather decline than the average performance intensity of 66 Materials & Resources for LEED Gold Commercial/Office buildings in spite of the saving potential. Therefore, in Part 2 of Conclusion B, the alternatives that embody highly environmentally responsible and reasonable, or even cheaper green buildings will be introduced through tuning the green performance intensities of green buildings. PART 2. Building a Green Building With No Added Cost As of July 2003, Green Database Version 1.0 under the criteria below was searched to find comparable projects containing the analogs that include the potential of cost savings. 1. Commercial/Office Building 2. LEED™ Gold Rated Building for maintaining high green performance 3. Recently completed building since 2000 for the trend 4. No additional cost on green design features or below conventional Consequently, two projects below were selected from the Green Database Version 1.0 to indicate the alternatives for tuning the green performance intensities of green buildings, and their detailed previews have been displayed in Table N 01, Table N 02. • Ecotrust-Jean Vollum Natural Capital Center • Vancouver Island Technology Park Case Study A Description Project Name Vancouver Island Technology Park Project Type Commercial/OfFice Building Type Major Renovation Project Size 171,750 SF Owner BC Buildings Corporation Contact Idealink Architects; Bunting Coady Architects Completion Year 2001 City Vancouver State/Province BC-British Columbia Country Canada 67 Green Design Features Sustainable Sites Brownfield Redevelopment Redeveloping this abandoned hospital facility involved checking for soil contamination and removal of asbestos and underground storage tanks. Alternative Transportation Negotiated extensions of several bus routes to site; bicycle parking and showers for 18% of users; negotiated reduction of municipal parking requirements by 50%; designated carpool parking. Reduced Site Disturbance Allowing previously irrigated turf area to restore itself naturally and planting native plants and trees restored 97.8% of degraded habitat. A no-build covenant protects treed areas. Water Efficiency Stormwater Management 100% of stormwater is treated and infiltrated on site through use of grass swales, grass gravel pave system and stormwater treatment and retention ponds. Water Efficient Landscaping Native plants and natural meadows require no permanent irrigation. Water Use Reduction Water consumption reduced by 33% through use of dual flush toilets, waterless urinals, electronic sensors on faucets, and flow showerheads. Materials & Resources Building Reuse Reuse 100% of existing structure and 91% of existing shell. Construction Waste Management 99% of construction waste was salvaged or recycled, saving $600,000 and costing 60% less than other contractor bids. Resource Reuse Salvaged materials comprise 8% of total materials. 68 Recycled content 33% of materials, measured by LEED's weighed cost value, contain post-consumer and/or post-industrial recycled content (e.g., rebar, millwork, insulation, aluminum panels and rubber flooring). Local/Regional Materials 31% materials were manufactured within 500 miles, including grass/gravel pavers, concrete, wood, aluminum panels, roofing, siding, windows, wallboard, carpeting and paint. Energy & Atmosphere Optimize Energy Performance Exceeds ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-1999 by 28%; strategies include occupancy sensors to control lighting, C02 demand ventilation control and Optimal Start system to control fan start times. Indoor Environmental Quality Low-Emitting Materials All adhesives, sealants, carpets and composite wood emit low or no VOCs Green Performance Intensities SS, 14 \\ K 5 I.V17 MR/13 IKQ/15 10 Points 71 % 4 Points 80% 6 Points 35% 7 Points 54% 9 Points 60% [Table N 01] Project Description of Vancouver Island Technology Park In addition to the general project descriptions above, for the process of finances, the original budget and project timing for Vancouver Island Technology Park was set before the decision to build green was made. Renovation projects are often problematic due to unexpected costs because of pre-existing building conditions. Yet despite these costs, the project was built on budget and on time. Not only had the environmental techniques and not cost more, the savings from construction waste reduction helped cover unexpected costs. Further, several green building initiatives undertaken at VITP have generated economic opportunity to the local economy from new manufacturing opportunities to the generation of electricity from landfill gas utilization. 69 C use Study B Description Project Name Ecotrust-Jean Vollum Natural Capital Center Project Type Commercial/Office Building Building Type Major Renovation Project Size 70,000 SF Owner Ecotrust Contact Diane Dalcon Completion Year 2001 City Portland State/Province OR-Oregon Country USA Green Design Features Sustainable Sites Site Selection Reused a warehouse built in 1895 Urban Redevelopment Part of revitalization effort in Portland's historic Pearl District. Alternative Transportation Portland streetcar and seven bus stops within !4 mile of building; bicycle parking available for 47% of building occupants, showers for 27% and lockers for 60%; two alternative fuel car-sharing vehicles located on site with corresponding refueling stations. Reduced Heat Islands Fast growing native trees provide shading of impervious surfaces; light colored paving. 70 Water Efficiency Stormwater Management Impervious area of the site reduced by 26% by adding planters, landscaping islands, porous pavement, vegetative swales and a roof garden; infiltration swale recharges groundwater while removing 100% TSS and 100% TP. Water Efficient Landscaping Native plantings adapted to local conditions; no irrigation required after one year. Water Use Reduction 33% reduction. Materials & Resources Building Reuse Over 75% of exterior structure and shell and interior non-shell elements of original building retained; deconstructed materials reused in rehabilitation of building; reused all flooring. Construction Waste Management 98% of constructed materials recycled/salvaged. Resource Reuse Salvaged materials comprised 10% of total. Included stone, brick, lumber, paneling, moldings, heavy timbers and doors. Recycled Content Over 50% of materials, as calculated by USGBC's weighted cost value, contain recycled content. Includes concrete mixed with fly ash, steel (90-96% recycled content), insulation, resilient flooring, carpeting and interior paint (100% recycled latex). Local/Regional Materials 34% of materials were manufactured locally, including salvaged materials, lumber, concrete, structural steel and doors. Certified Sustainably Harvested Wood 66% of new wood was from forests certified by the Forest Stewardship Council, including nominal lumber, plywood, decking and windows. 71 Energy & Atmosphere Optimize Energy Performance Exceeds ASHRAE 90.1-1999 by 21.4% using a VAV system for common areas only, wider indoor temperature range for summer/winter, operable windows with HVAC overrides, daylighting and additional roof insulation. Indoor Environmental Quality Construction IAQ Management Plan HVAC system protected during construction and flushed out after construction, before occupancy. Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control Natural fiber mats provided at all entrances; janitors closets independently ventilated and isolated with deck-to-deck walls. Daylight & Views Daylighting reaches more than 75% of occupied spaces; more than 90% of spaces have access to outside views. Green Performance Intensities SS/14 WE/5 EA/17 MR/13 IEQ/15 8 Points 57% 4 Points 80% 5 Points 30% 10 Points 77% 9 Points 60% [Table N 02] Project Description of Ecotrust-Jean Vollum Natural Capital Center In addition to the general project descriptions above, for the process of finances, the building has not experienced any cost increases because of their green building efforts. Most of the added cost is in the design fees at about an 8 % increase, whereas the Green Cost Premiums of the equally scored projects on green design features are 4% to 6% of the total construction costs. For the purpose of establishing what are the factors that add costs on high performance green buildings, comparisons of Green Performance Intensities with the same level of projects that achieve the same LEED™ Score (41 Points) have been displayed in Table N 03. 72 Project SS/14 WE/5 EA/17 MR/13 IEQ/15 V a n c o u v e r I s l a n d 10 Points 4 Points 6 Points 7 Points 9 Points T e c h n o l o g y P a r k 71 % 80% 35 % 54 % 60% E c o t r u s t - J e a n V o l l u m 8 Points 4 Points 5 Points 10 Points 9 Points N a t u r a l C a p i t a l C e n t e r 57% 80% 30 % 77 % 60% E q u a l l y S c o r e d Pro jec t s 9 Points 64% 3 Points 60% 9 Points 53 % 5 Points 3 8 % 10 Points 67% [Table N 03] Comparisons of Green Performance Intensities with the Same Level of Projects As described above, the two projects - Vancouver Island Technology Park, Ecotrust-Jean Vollum Natural Capital Center - and the equally scored projects have the same fundamental profiles because of the identical criteria (Commercial/Office Building, LEED™ Gold Rated Building for maintaining high green performance, Recently completed building since 2000 for the trend). If that was the case, what are the concealed factors that impose additional costs on the buildings or not? Firstly, as indicated in Table N 03, the green performance intensities of the equally scored projects are different from the first two buildings. In the case of the other equally scored projects, they are Energy & Atmosphere intensified buildings, and also their energy performances - in other words, Energy Efficiency - reach 45 to 60% (5-8 points in LEED Score System). On the other hand, considering the contribution level to the entire green performance, the first buildings - Vancouver Island Technology Park, Ecotrust-Jean Vollum Natural Capital Center - are very Materials & Resources oriented buildings. Furthermore, their energy performances are 28% and 21.4% but 6 and 4 Points in LEED Score System due to 10% incentive in the credit of Optimize Energy Performance for major renovation. The strategies from the first two buildings - Vancouver Island Technology Park, Ecotrust-Jean Vollum Natural Capital Center - that promote reuse and recycling strategies are shown in Table N 04. 73 Calegorv Building Reuse VTIP Reuse 100% of existing structure and 91% of existing shell. JVNCC Over 75% of exterior structure and shell and interior non-shell elements of original building retained; deconstructed materials reused in rehabilitation of building; reused all flooring. Construction Waste Management VTIP 99% of construction waste was salvaged or recycled, saving $600,000 and costing 60% less than other contractor bids. JVNCC 98% of constructed materials recycled/salvaged. Resource Reuse VTIP Salvaged materials comprise 8% of total materials. JVNCC Salvaged materials comprised 10% of total. Included stone, brick, lumber, paneling, moldings, heavy timbers and doors. Recycled Content VTIP 33% of materials, measured by LEED's weighed cost value, contain post-consumer and/or post-industrial recycled content (e.g., rebar, millwork, insulation, aluminum panels and rubber flooring). JVNCC Over 50% of materials, as calculated by USGBC's weighted cost value, contain recycled content. Includes concrete mixed with fly ash, steel (90-96% recycled content), insulation, resilient flooring, carpeting and interior paint (100% recycled latex). Local/Regional Materials VTIP 31% materials were manufactured within 500 miles, including grass/gravel pavers, concrete, wood, aluminum panels, roofing, siding, windows, wallboard, carpeting and paint. JVNCC 34% of materials were manufactured locally, including salvaged materials, lumber, concrete, structural steel and doors. Certified Wood VTIP N/A JVNCC 66% of new wood was from forests certified by the Forest Stewardship Council, including nominal lumber, plywood, decking and windows. [Table N 04] Detailed Description of Reuse and Recycling Strategies Nevertheless, the equally scored green buildings newly constructed still record 5 Points in average from the category of Materials & Resources as adopting strategies such as Construction Waste Management, Recycled Content, Local/Regional Materials and Certified Wood. This does not imply that 2 ~ 5 points of the performance improvement in Materials & Resources offsets 4 to 6% of the total construction cost and maintains the high green performance by itself. The first two buildings - Vancouver Island Technology Park, Ecotrust-Jean Vollum Natural Capital Center - had been built through a major renovation. That distinction offers the privileges that benefit the renovated green buildings as identified below. 74 1. Reducing the construction cost by retaining exterior structure, shell and interior non-shell elements of original building and reusing deconstructed materials in rehabilitation of building. 2. Acquiring additional 2 points in energy performance and possible 4 points in total along with the credit of Building Reuse. LEED™ Rating System offers 1 0 % of the energy efficiency incentive for renovated green buildings. Therefore, renovated green buildings can avoid being an energy efficiency oriented building to become green, and boast their same high green performance at once. Consequently, not just because of helping to divert some waste from being disposed of in landfills and catalyzing further economic growth in industries that reprocess diverted waste and use recycled raw materials, building reuse should be promoted and seriously considered from the beginning because of embodying not an expensive green building. Moreover, building reuse is a key environmentally responsible strategy. 75 CHAPTER VII CONCLUSION C Establishing the Geographic Influence on Green Designation Level & Intensity by Analyzing the Implications of Energy-Industry Structure There are more LEED registered projects within California - Over 110 as of August 2003 -than in any other state [Fig. I 01] along with five certified LEED projects as of July 2003 [Fig. I 02]. In 2001, in support of state greening efforts, California's Sustainable Building Task Force developed the LEED supplement for California State Facilities. This regionalized supplement to LEED 2.0 is intended for guidance purposes and is not required for use in state projects. It provides information on California codes, policies and practices and is hosted on the CIWMB's website6 for public use, though it has not been officially adopted. L E E D Registered Projects I I s at 120 100 80 eo 40 20 O 1 SI 8 8 SO ,., ... 31 so ao • — 32 16 1 7 U. 12. — 18 1 1 18 J_l 21 A Z C A C O G A IL MA MO Ml N J NY O H O R P A TX W A State [Fig. 101] LEED Registered Projects in the United States of America, Source: U.S. Green Building Council t nmm Q [Fig. I 02] LEED Certified Projects Distribution in the United States of America 6 See: h t t p : / /www.c iwmb.ca .gov /GreenBu i ld ing / . Cal i fornia Integrated Waste Management Board Green B u i l d i n g Website 76 On the local level, LEED has been adopted in a number of California municipalities. The city of San Jose, San Francisco city and county, the city of San Diego, the city of Santa Monica, San Mateo County, and Los Angeles city and county all made commitments to LEED. The city of Oakland and Alameda County and have developed their own LEED-based green building guidelines. The city of Pleasanton recently passed an ordinance requiring both public and private buildings to meet the standards of LEED Certified level, subject to a few modifications. However, although more registered projects are located in California than any other state, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Washington and Oregon have the most extensive, documented experience with green building and LEED. Particularly, in Oregon, there are most LEED registered projects Per Capita and Per Construction GSP, as shown in figures 103, 04. LEED Registered Projects Per State Per Capita .3 a. «s O I t a. 0.000016 0 000014 0.000012 0.00001 0.000008 0.000006 0.000004 0.000002 0 AZ CA CO GA IL MA MD MI NJ NY OH OR PA TX WA State [F ig . I 03] L E E D Registered Projects Per State Per Capita, Source: U.S. Green Building Council [Fig. I 04] L E E D Registered Projects Per Construction GSP, Source: U.S. Green Building Council 77 Therefore, for the purpose of establishing the geographic influence on green designation level and intensity, their efforts of eco-industry on building green and the implications have been analyzed in Chapter VII. PART 1. Green Performance Level & Intensity Distribution of National Green Building Leaders To indicate the green performance level and intensity distribution in each state, only certified LEED commercial/office projects in California, Oregon and Pennsylvania from Green Database Version 1.0 were considered and analyzed due to the momentous meaning to the states as national dominant green building leaders and for the reliance of statistics. Pcrlormanci' SS 14 WE/5 EA/17 MU,13 N O 15 California 41.7 (Pts) 8.3 (Pts) 59% 3.0 (Pts) 60% 9.4 (Pts) 55 % 5.7 (Pts) 44% 10.7 (Pts) 71 % Oregon 34.5 (Pts) 7.8 (Pts) 55 % 3.0 (Pts) 60 % 6.3 (Pts) 37% 7.5 (Pts) 57 % 6.8 (Pts) 45 % Pennsylvania 29.5 (Pts) 6.5 (Pts) 46% 2.0 (Pts) 30% 6.5 (Pts) 38% 3.3 (Pts) 25 % 6.8 (Pts) 45 % Certified Projects Average 33.1 (Pts) (30-39 Pts) 51% (30-39 Pts) 55% (30-39 Pts) 38% (30-39 Pts) 42% (30-39 Pts) 55 % [Table N 05] Green Designation Levels & Performance Intensities in California, Oregon, Pennsylvania From the green designation levels and performance intensities indicated in Table N 05, resourceful facts are established as following: 1. The certified buildings in California are more aggressive by achieving 41.7 points of green performance than in any other state. 2. All performance intensities of the certified projects in California surpass them of the certified projects average. Especially, the performance intensities are remarkable in the category of Energy & Atmosphere and Indoor Environmental Quality compared to them of the certified projects average by surpassing 17 and 16% (about 3 and 2 Points more). 78 3. The certified buildings in Oregon have slight performance difference with the certified projects average by achieving 34.5 points of green performance. 4. The performance intensities of the certified buildings in Oregon are within the range of the certified projects average. However, the performance intensity in the category of Materials & Resources has better performance than the certified projects average by surpassing 15% (about 2 points more). 5. The certified buildings in Pennsylvania have relatively inferior green performance and green performance intensities than the certified projects average. Therefore, California and Oregon were selected for national green building leaders in terms of satisfying both sustaining high green performance and more number of completed certified buildings than other states. PART 2. Analyzing the Implications of Green Performance Level & Intensity in California and Oregon In part 2 of Chapter VII, the factors and implications of the green performance levels & intensities in California and Oregon are revealed out by analyzing the energy-industry structure. PART 2-1. Energy Cost in California The energy performance standard in California is Title 24. Since Title 24 is more rigorous than the prevailing ASHRAE standard, it might be expected that energy reduction efforts in California green buildings would be less than for LEED buildings nationally. However, this does not appear to be the case. In fact, the performance intensities are significantly higher in the category of Energy & Atmosphere and Indoor Environmental Quality compared to the average of certified projects by surpassing the average by 17 and 16% (about 3 and 2 Points) respectively. The reasons for this may include relatively high California energy prices [Fig. I 05], [Fig. I 06] (and recent price increases) that would tend to increase incentives for more aggressive energy reduction measures, and the existence of California standards in areas other than energy - such as indoor environmental quality - that provide a higher baseline for non-energy performance for California sustainable buildings, and that may make energy improvements below the Title 24 baseline not more costly relative to other dimensions of green design. 79 Winnipeg MontiiJa! 1 98 1 100 . Vanccueer ^ ^ ^ ^ H ioi jj Seattle Edmonton Toronto Portland I 112 1 125 1 138 I 155 j S E T I Ftsra'5CD 1 285 1 M B W Ycf k 1 352 [Fig. I 05] C o m p a r a t i v e I ndex o f E l e c t r i c i t y P r i c e s ( R e s i d e n t i a l ) , S o u r c e : T h e a n n u a l r epo r t f r o m B . C . H y d r o Sat Frarasco I I 191 MsvVofk I I 260 [Fig. I 06] C o m p a r a t i v e I ndex o f E l e c t r i c i t y P r i c e s ( C o m m e r c i a l ) , S o u r c e : T h e annua l r epor t f r o m B . C . H y d r o As a result of the energy crisis in California and various Flex-Your-Power energy efficiency campaigns, the State has already reduced electricity use in most buildings by close to 20%. Absolute energy savings typical of green buildings will be lower for energy efficient state buildings, which have already realized much of the benefit associated with energy efficiency. PART 2-2. Incentive Programs for Energy Savings in California and Oregon Higher up-front costs have often prevented consumers from purchasing energy-efficient products and design services. In an attempt to overcome this price barrier, several legislatures 80 have established funds to assist consumers. The funds are awarded in the form of a grant or loan. Grants are one-time funding packages, while loans must be repaid, with interest, over a certain time. Many states offer these loans at low interest rates between 3 percent and 5 percent. Often, a consumer can repay its loan using the funds it would have otherwise spent on energy. At least eight states have established a grant or loan program for equipment for improvements such as more-efficient lighting, boilers, heating/ventilating/air conditioning systems, and control systems to manage energy use. For instance, the California Energy Commission is the state's primary energy policy and planning agency. Created by the Legislature in 1974 and located in Sacramento, the Commission has five major responsibilities: • Forecasting future energy needs and keeping historical energy data • Licensing thermal power plants 50 megawatts or larger • Promoting energy efficiency through appliance and building standards • Developing energy technologies and supporting renewable energy • Planning for and directing state response to energy emergency With the signing of the Electric Industry Deregulation Law (Assembly Bill 1890), the Commission's role includes overseeing funding programs that support public interest energy research; advance energy science and technology through research, development and demonstration; and provide market support to existing, new and emerging renewable technologies. In the mean time, the California Energy Commission is providing low-interest loans to cities, counties and special districts for energy saving projects. Loans are offered at 3.95 percent interest for the installation of energy management systems, renewable energy projects and energy-saving lighting, heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems. The Energy Commission will lower the interest rate to 3.85 percent for projects that are completed and invoiced within nine months. In addition, the California Energy Commission is offering a variety of incentive programs to promote energy efficiency in two broad sectors: "Time-Limit" Solicitations • Energy Cooperative Development Program Grant Funding • Energy Efficiency Programs Funding Solicitations • Energy Technology Export Program • Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program Funding Solicitations 81 • Energy Innovations Small Grant Program • Renewable Energy Rebate Program "No Time-Limit" Solicitations • Low-Interest Loans for Energy Efficiency Projects (The maximum loan amount per application has been increased to $3 million) In Oregon, Oregon's Energy Loan Program was established in 1980. The program offers low-interest loans to promote energy conservation, renewable energy, alternative fuels, and recycled products. In addition to school districts, these loans are available to individuals, businesses, nonprofit organizations, tribes, special districts, and local and state governments. General obligation bonds provide funds for the loans. Between 1985 and September 2001, the Oregon Energy Office states that $18 million has been loaned to support energy-efficient measures in 90 school districts and community colleges. In addition to low-interest loans, there are numbers of incentives for renewable energy such as: • Business Energy Tax Credit & Residential Energy Tax Credit • Photovoltaic Electricity Production Incentive • New Renewable Energy Resources Grants • Small Scale Energy Loan Program (SELP) • Solar Electric Buy-down Program • Solar Water-Heating Buy-down Program Especially, the Energy Trust of Oregon (Energy Trust), a nonprofit organization created to invest public purpose funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy in Oregon, began accepting applications for its Solar Electric Buy-down Program in May 2003. The program is available to customers of Pacific Power and PGE who install new photovoltaic systems on their new or existing homes, commercial and community buildings, farms, and municipal facilities. Buy-down amounts for residential customers are currently $4.25/Watt DC installed, with a $12,750 cap per site. This incentive rate is good until at least 115 kW have been committed. At that time the incentive may be reassessed and further reduced over time to as low as $3.50AVatt. Buy-down amounts for commercial customers are currently $2.25/watt DC installed, with a $35,000 cap per site. This incentive rate is good until at least 75 kW have been committed, and may decrease over time to as low as $2.00/Watt. When the buy-down program began in May 2003, buy-down amounts for residential customers were $2.50/watt DC installed, with a $7,000 82 cap per site. Buy-down amounts for commercial customers were $1.75/watt DC installed, with a $20,000 cap per site. These amounts were increased in August of 2003. All PV systems must be grid-tied and net metered and no larger than 25 kW. Pre-approval of projects is required. The Energy Trust will provide referrals to contractors from their Trade Ally Network (self-installed systems will not qualify). The solar contractor you select will advise you on installation options and best siting designs to obtain the maximum performance and satisfaction from your solar electric system. The contractor will provide a system quote that estimates your PV system annual performance, installation date, and the cost after Energy Trust incentive deductions. After installation, the contractor will walk you through the system maintenance and operations, emergency contacts, system warranty and specifications, and will provide information on how to apply for the state tax credit. Once the Energy Trust approves your PV system, the buy-down incentive will be paid to your solar contractor and deducted from your final cost. Other available incentives include a residential tax credit through the Oregon Office of Energy of $3.00/Watt, up to $1,500 maximum, and a business tax credit through the Oregon Office of Energy of approximately 35% of installed system cost applied over 5 years. 83 C H A P T E R VIII C O N C L U S I O N D Green Performance Difference Between Public and Private Developments Part 1 of Chapter IV illustrated the cutting edge green performance for public development is in the range of 50 ~ 59 points corresponded to LEED™ Platinum while the cutting edge performance for private development is in the range of 40 ~ 49 points corresponded to LEED™ Gold. This suggests that public development is in the position of leading the technology and educating the public. For that reason, they push the projects to the cutting edge with less anxiety of economic feasibility and marketability in contrast to private development. Moreover, even the suggested green design performance intensities are somewhat different in public and private development even if both developments are at the same level. The difference was 3 ~ 6 points that influence about 4 ~ 8% on the entire green performance, and the green buildings for public development have the superior green performance than private development as described in Part 1-2 of Chapter V. However, the difference of the cutting edge green performance between public and private developments leads another implication in terms of the types of financing sources for both developments. Generally speaking, while public developments seek after federal or state funding, organization or individual donations and grants, private developments go after the sources of financing such as bank loans, venture capital, and private investment and the like. For private developers, although green buildings do not have to cost more than conventional projects, and even if the market is willing to pay the premium price, they are facing another problem that lenders may not be willing to provide more financing. This is a problem the private developers face. Lenders are often presented with concepts they neither understand nor care about - they have heard too many oddball ideas and have seen too many architectural renderings. What they want to know are the projected cash flows, revenues, and expenses. Lenders will better understand the benefits of resource efficiency if they see how it will reduce operating costs and affect net operating income, cash flow, and debt service mostly advantageous just for energy efficient buildings. Those trying to get financing for green buildings often miss the mark by failing to get financiers to understand the benefits of these projects in the financiers' own terms - not sustainability, diversity, or ecology, but return on investment, bottom line, and cash flow. 84 In general, the financial industry does not yet include the long-term economic implications of energy-saving design and other environmentally responsible measures in its definition of fiduciary responsibility. Energy is fairly easy to quantify, but such advantages as productivity and health are more difficult to put into dollar terms. In time, it is likely that financial tools will be developed that better account for life-cycle costs, resource depletion as a form of capital depletion, and the many benefits of green buildings that are described in this study. But for now, most of private green developers will have to pitch their arguments in ways that lenders relate to. This obstacle is one of the biggest reasons why the private developments are several steps behind the public development in terms of green performance at present. While many private green developers have faced serious challenges in financing their projects in the marketplace, it is important to note that this is not always the case. Some financiers have been impressed by a project's attention to environmental and community issues. Inn of the Anasazi - Case No. 72 in database - developer Robert Zimmer obtained his initial construction loan (a three-year construction/mini-permanent loan) from the Bank of America based on his track record and the bank's belief that Santa Fe - Case No. 100 in database - represented a viable investment. In late 1994, though, when the developers refinanced their permanent loan through ITT Real Estate Financial Services, ITT's vice president noted that ITT wanted to be associated with this project because of its authentic commitment to environment and community, as well as the developer's track record. While some current aspects of green buildings are perceived by lenders as negatives (lack of comps, untested markets, costs associated with land protection, etc), other features can be advantageous in seeking financing. Some of green buildings' advantages presented in this study accrue to future occupants, helping to ensure strong demand; others reduce project costs or reduce the likelihood of lawsuits. In addition to the case studies exemplified above, some creative financing strategies for private green developers are introduced below to get lenders convinced with. Reduced Capital Costs Lower capital costs mean that the private developer does not need to borrow as much as money, which means lower exposure for the lender and less risk of default. There are many ways in which environmentally responsible planning, design, and construction can lead to lower capital costs. One of the most obvious is that careful energy design can permit downsizing - or even elimination - of mechanical equipment. Construction costs can be reduced through more 85 efficient use of materials, and waste minimization. And cost savings, can accrue from more rapid construction schedules, which can result from careful front-end planning. Reduced Operating Costs Energy, water, maintenance, and disposal costs can all be dramatically reduced by using green design features. Not only will this benefit occupants, but also the savings can flow directly to the bottom line by providing more net operating income for the developer/owner and leading to higher building valuation. A building's value relates to financing, because the building is used as collateral by the lenders. When operating costs drop, the value increases. Since loans are based on a percentage of a building's value, a building that is worth more should be able to receive a higher loan amount. While a larger loan means higher payments, these higher payments will be more offset by the income increase resulting from efficiency improvements. If lenders refuse to recognize this fact and give a borrower less money than desired, at least the owner will have a higher cash flow to direct back to the building. Preferential Leases and Higher Occupancy Rates One way to appeal to financiers is to show them how green buildings can capture a market advantage or cost benefit through green design and construction. For example, in a tight market, owners/developers can charge more for space with lower operating costs. In a softer market, they can gain a market advantage by passing savings on to tenants. To date, green buildings in the commercial arena have generally enjoyed higher occupancy and absorption rates because of this competitive advantage. Reduced Liability Lenders are not comfortable with risky projects. However, there are many other faces of risk in the building industry including those that involve people's health, safety, and welfare. The current litigious climate has financiers increasingly concerned, yet they have generally failed to make the connection that green buildings are in fact less risky developments because they pay closer attention to such issues as environmental protection, occupant health, and building and materials quality. Therefore, before long, lenders will look back with retrospective wisdom and wonder why they had been so reluctant to finance the sort of environmentally responsible projects stored in 86 the database. Green buildings, after all, are providing less expensive places to live in and operate; they are providing more attractive, more popular communities; they are producing healthier, more productive and profitable work places; and they are less expensive to build as a result of finding out the reasonable green performance. On the other hand, I have realized the fact that incentive programs for energy savings and green features can stimulate consumers and give a motive to build green through this study. However, architects, developers, contractors and anyone related to the business of development also have a responsibility to give desirable suggestions to build green for their own success and consumers as resulted below from this study. 1. Design the green performance at Level E (A LEED Gold Building of 40~49 Points) 2. Build a Materials & Resources oriented building by reusing a building 3. Optimize the energy performance within 6 points and less (40% of better energy efficiency than conventional buildings) 87 A P P E N D I C E S A. PROJECT LIST II) P R O J E C T N A M E C O U N T R Y P R O J E C T T Y P E B L D G T Y P E O W N E R POINTS 92 2211 West 4th ( Canada Mixed use New Construction 1 Harold Kalke 23 1 901 Cherry, GAP Inc. Office Building USA Commercial/Office Building New Construction GAP Inc. 24 2 AAAS Building USA Commercial/Office Building New Construction American Association for the Advancement of Science 19 101 ACT2 House USA Residential New Construction 14 44 Adam J. Lewis Center for Environmental Studies USA Educational New Construction Oberlin College 51 64 Amandari Bali Hotel/Resort New Construction Adrian Zecha 12 65 Anaconda Old Works Golf Course USA Hotel/Resort New Construction Anaconda Deerlodge 11 81 APS Manufacturing Facility USA IndustrialAVarehouse New Construction BP Solar 14 66 Arbor House USA Hotel/Resort Renovation John 29 3 Audubon House USA Commercial/Office Building Renovation National Audubon Society 28 150 Balfour - Guthrie Building USA Commercial/Office Building Renovation Balfour - Guthrie LLC 33 110 Banana Republic USA Retail Renovation GAP Corporation 21 152 Barrel Aging Cellar USA IndustrialAVarehouse New Construction 34 102 Battery Park City USA Residential New Construction Albanese Development 28 111 Ben & Jerry's Scoop Shop USA Retail Renovation Franchisees 6 103 Benedict Commons USA Residential New Construction City of Aspen 11 45 Bincentennial Hall, Middlebury College USA Educational New Construction Middlebury College 16 67 Boston Park Plaza USA Hotel/Resort Renovation Boston Park Plaza 14 4 Burke Building USA Commercial/Office Building Renovation Western Pennsylvania Conservancy 12 88 46 Buxton Public School Austrailia Educational New Construction NSWDET 28 120 C.K. Choi Building Canada Institutional New Construction The University of British Columbia 22 5 Cambria Building USA Commercial/Office Building New Construction Miller Brothers Construction, Inc 45 145 Capitol Area East End Complex Block 225 USA Commercial/Office Building New Construction State of California Department of General Services 43 47 Center for Energy and Environmental Educational USA Educational New Construction University of Nothern Iowa 22 6 Center for-Indigenous Environmental Resources Canada Commercial/Office Building Renovation CIER 22 121 Center for maximum potential building systems USA Institutional New Construction Pliny Fisk, Gali Vittori 29 112 Centerra Marketplace Lebanon Food Co-op USA Retail New Construction Dartmouth College Real Estate 12 82' Chatham Plant (Interface) USA IndustrialAVarehouse Renovation 11 7 Chesapeake Bay Foundation USA Commercial/Office Building New Construction Chesapeake BF 38 104 Civano USA Residential New Construction Civano Development 21 93 Cleveland EcoVillage USA Mixed use New Construction 13 8 Commerzbank Germany Commercial/Office Building New Construction Commerzbank 23 68 Concordia US Virgin Islands Hotel/Resort New Construction Stanley Selengut 15 9 Conde Nast Building at Four Times Square USA Commercial/Office Building New Construction Durst Organization 26 10 Conservation Consultants Inc. Center USA Commercial/Office Building Renovation CCI 44 . 105 Conservation Co-op Canada Residential New Construction Conservation Co-operative Homes Inc. 22 11 Conservation Law Foundation USA Commercial/Office Building Renovation CLF 22 122 Contact Theatre United Kingdom Institutional New Construction 23 89 12 Crestwood Corporate Centre Canada Commercial/Office Building New Construction Bentall Development 17 48 Dana Building, University of Michigan USA Educational Renovation UM 22 123 David L. Lawrence — Pittsburgh Convention Center USA Institutional New Construction Sports & Exhibition Authority 31 94 Denver Dry Goods Building USA Mixed use New Construction Affordable Housing Development Corporation 11 154 Detroit Lions HQ and Training Facility USA Commercial/Office Building New Construction Ford Motor Land Services 26 49 Earth Centre United Kingdom Educational New Construction 31 106 Ecolonia Netherlands Residential New Construction Bouwfonds Woningbouw by, Delft 15 13 Ecotrust-Jean Vollum Natural Capital Center USA Commercial/Office Building Renovation Ecotrust 41 83 Ecover Belgium Industrial/Warehouse New Construction Ecover 25 14 Emerald People's Utility District Headquarters USA Commercial/Office Building New Construction EPUD 19 15 Energy Resource Center USA Commercial/Office Building Renovation 31 156 Federal Building U.S. Courthouse USA Institutional New Construction U.S. General Services Administration 27 16 Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis USA Commercial/Office Building New Construction FRBM 33 149 Ford Rouge Visitor Center USA Commercial/Office Building / New Construction Ford Motor Company 39 146 French Wing Additon to Conservation Center USA Commercial/Office Building New Construction SPNHF 44 124 Gilsland Farm Environmental Center USA Institutional New Construction Maine Audubon Society 34 157 Goodwillie Environmental School USA Educational New Construction Forest Hills School District 29 90 69 Grand Wailea Resort and Spa USA Hotel/Resort New Construction Takeshi Sekiguchi 13 84 Greater Pittsburgh Community Food bank USA Industrial/Warehouse New Construction GPCFB 31 17 Green on the Grand Canada Commercial/Office Building New Construction Ian Cook Costruction 26 18 Greenpeace USA Headquarters USA Commercial/Office Building Renovation Greenpeace USA 25 70 Harmony US Virgin Islands Hotel/Resort New Construction Stanley Selengut 23 85 Hennepin County Public Works Facility USA IndustrialAVarehouse New Construction Hennepin County 20 86 Herman Miller SQA USA IndustrialAVarehouse New Construction Herman Miller 41 135 Hewlett Foundation Headquarters USA Commercial/Office Building New Construction The William and Flora Hewlet Foundation 43 158 Ice Mountain Bottling Plant USA IndustrialAVarehouse New Construction Nestle Waters North America 27 19 Inland Revenue Centre United Kingdom Commercial/Office Building New Construction UKIR 22 71 Inn at Spanish Bay USA Hotel/Resort New Construction Pebble Beach 5 72 Inn of the Anasazi USA Hotel/Resort Renovation Aspen Design 15 20 International Netherlands Group Bank Netherlands Commercial/Office Building New Construction ING 22 147 IslandWood: A School in the Woods USA Educational New Construction Islandwood 40 107 Jackson Meadow USA Residential New Construction Harold Teasdale and Bob Durfey 17 73 Jean-Michel Cousteau Fiji Island Resort Fiji Islands Hotel/Resort Renovation Mike Freed 26 50 John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge USA Educational New Construction US Fish 32 51 John T. Lyle Center for Regenerative Studies USA Educational New Construction CSUP 17 74 Kandalama Hotel Sri Lanka Hotel/Resort New Construction Kandalama Hotel 30 143 KSBA Architects Office Building USA Commercial/Office Building Renovation Lawrenceville Development Corporation 27 91 125 Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center USA Institutional New Construction Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center 33 21 Lucasfilm, Letterman Digital Center@Presidio USA Commercial/Office Building New Construction George Lucas 37 155 Lynn Business Center USA Educational New Construction Stetson University 26 159 Magnolia Administration Building USA Commercial/Office Building New Construction InterGen 26 75 Maho Bay US Virgin Islands Hotel/Resort New Construction Stanley Selengut 20 52 McLean Environmental Living & Learning Center USA Educational New Construction Northland College 25 126 MCPON Plackett Manor Bachelor Quarters USA Institutional New Construction US Department of Navy 24 95 Middleton Hills USA Residential New Construction Marshal Erdman and Associates 9 22 Monsanto A-3 Building USA Commercial/Office Building Renovation Monsanto 22 127 Mont Cenis Academy Germany Institutional New Construction 33 53 Montana State University EPICenter USA Educational New Construction MSU 32 113 Mountain Equipment Co-op Canada Retail New Construction Mountain Equipment Co-op 36 23 Natural Resources Defense Council Headquarters USA Commercial/Office Building Renovation NRDC 20 24 New Offices for Parliament United Kingdom Commercial/Office Building New Construction UK Government 8 25 New York Life Building USA Commercial/Office Building Renovation UtiliCorp United 136 New York State Department of Environmental Conserv USA Commercial/Office Building New Construction Picotte Companies 33 141 Nidus Center for Scientific Enterprise USA Laboratory New Construction Monsanto Company 31 26, Norm Thompson Outfitters Headquarters USA Commercial/Office Building New Construction Trammel Crowe 24 92 164 North Boulder Recreation Center USA Commercial/Office Building Renovation 33 27 Northwest Federal Credit Union USA Commercial/Office Building New Construction N W F C U 15 54 Oakes Hall, Vermont Law School USA Educational New Construction Vermont Law School 25 96 Old Elm Village USA Residential New Construction 9 55 Ostratorn School Sweden Educational New Construction ML 31 87 Patagonia USA IndustrialAVarehouse New Construction Patagonia 20 28 Peace River Presbytery USA Commercial/Office Building New Construction PRP 22 76 Petit Byahaut West Indies Hotel/Resort New Construction Byahaut Gardens 18 118 Pharmacia Building Q-Lab USA Laboratory New Construction Pharmacia 41 88 Phillips Eco-Enterprise Center USA Industrial/Warehouse New Construction The green institute 34 97 Playa Vista USA Residential New Construction Maguire Thomas Partners 12 29 PNC Firstside Center USA Commercial/Office Building New Construction PNC 33 128 Portland City Hall Renovation USA Institutional Renovation City of Portland, Oregon 23 77 Post Ranch Inn USA Hotel/Resort New Construction Post Ranch 11 98 Potsdamer Platz Germany Mixed use Renovation Various, City of Berlin 20 108 Prairie Crossing USA Residential New Construction Prairie Holdings Corporation 16 137 Premier Automotive Group North American Headquarter USA Commercial/Office Building New Construction Ford Motor Company 26 89 Prince Street Technologies-Interface USA IndustrialAVarehouse New Construction Inerface Inc. 30 99 Prisma Germany Mixed use New Construction Kalsruker Insurance Company 21 56 Queens Building, DeMonfort University United Kingdom Educational New Construction DU 23 160 Redbud Administration Building USA Commercial/Office Building New Construction InterGen 27 114 REI Denver Flagship Store USA Retail Renovation REI 27 93 30 Reichstag Germany Commercial/Office Building New Construction FRG 23 119 Research Triangle Park USA Laboratory New Construction Environmental Protection Agency 34 31 Ridgehaven Green Building Demonstration Project USA Commercial/Office Building Renovation City SDESD 28 32 Rocky Mountain Institute USA Commercial/Office Building New Construction Hunter and Armory Lovins 27 33 S.C. Johnson Worldwide Headquarters USA Commercial/Office Building New Construction S.C.Johnson 33 151 Sabre Corporate Campus USA Commercial/Office Building New Construction 34 . 115 Sainsbury Grocery United Kingdom Retail Renovation Sainsbury's Supermarkets 14 57 School of Nursing & Student Center USA Educational New Construction UT, HSCH 52 100 Second Street Studios USA Mixed use New Construction Affordable Housing Development Company 14 129 Seneca Rocks Discovery Center USA Institutional New Construction USDA Forest Service 33 34 Seventh Generation Systems Center USA Commercial/Office Building New Construction Jim Sackett 31 78 Sleeping Lady Resort USA Hotel/Resort Renovation Harriet Bullitt 22 161 Social Security Administration Annex Building Reno USA Commercial/Office Building Renovation U.S. General Services Administration 26 35 Sonoma County Integrated Waste Division USA Commercial/Office Building New Construction Sonoma 19 36 South-central Regional Headquarters Pennsylvania USA Commercial/Office Building New Construction New Morgan Municipal Authority 27 130 Southface Energy Institute Resource Center USA Institutional New Construction Southface 31 162 SSA Child Care Center USA Commercial/Office Building New Construction U.S. General Services Administration 28 94 V 142 Steelcase Wood Furniture Manufacturing Plant USA IndustrialAVarehouse New Construction Steelcase Inc. Randy Bolser, LEED Cordinator 34 79 Sundeck Restaurant USA Hotel/Resort New Construction Skiing Company 29 58 Swindells Hall, University of Portland Science Lab USA Educational New Construction UT,HSCH 31 37 Telus-William Farrell Office Building Canada Commercial/Office Building Renovation Telus 25 90 The Body Shop Headquarters USA IndustrialAVarehouse Renovation The Body Shop 20 140 The Donald Bren School of Environmental Science & USA Laboratory New Construction University of California — Santa Barbara 39 38 The Nature Conservancy International USA Commercial/Office Building New Construction TNC 1 33 80 The Orchid Hotel India Hotel/Resort New Construction Kamat Hotels 23 163 The Russell Family Foundation USA Commercial/Office Building New Construction 27 59 The University of Victoria Canada Educational New Construction TUV 61 The Way Station USA Health Care New Construction TWS 27 148 Third Creek Elementary School USA Educational New Construction Iredell - Statesville schools 39 131 Thoreau Center for Sustainability USA Institutional Renovation National Park Service 30 39 Tuthill Corporate Center USA Commercial/Office Building New Construction Tuthill Corporation 34 62 United Indian Health Services Potawot Health USA Health Care New Construction UIHS 16 40 United Parcel Service Headquarters USA Commercial/Office Building New Construction UPS 15 60 University of Nottingham, Jubilee Campus United Kingdom Educational New Construction UNJC 30 41 Utah Department of Natural Resources USA Commercial/Office Building New Construction State of Utah 20 144 Utah Olympic Oval USA Commercial/Office Building New Construction Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the Olympic Win 20 95 42 Van Atta Design Studios USA Mixed use New Construction Wendall and Mona Van Atta 26 134 Vancouver Island Technology Park Canada Commercial/Office Building Renovation BC Buildings Corporation 41 91 VeriFone Worldwide Distribution Center USA IndustrialAVarehouse Renovation VeriFone Corporation 24 109 Village Homes USA Residential New Construction Village Homes 16 139 Viridian Place USA Commercial/Office Building New Construction RTJ Partnership 30 116 Wal-Mart Demonstration Store USA Retail New Construction Wal-Mart Stores Inc. 20 132 Wampanoag Tribal Headquarters USA Institutional New Construction Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head 22 153 Whitehead Biomedical Research USA Institutional New Construction Emory University 34 117 Whole Foods Market USA Retail Renovation Whole foods 18 63 Women's Humane Society Animal Shelter USA Health Care New Construction WHS 35 43 World Resources Institute USA Commercial/Office Building New Construction 26 96 B. WORLD WIDE WEBSITES A N D RESOURCES Note: While this is not an exhaustive list, many of these addresses are linked to other informative sites. Green Building Administrator Log in - http://www.66.51. 163.160/greenlogin.cfm Green Building Projects Log in - http://66.51.163.160/ Rocky Mountain Institute - http://www.rmi.org U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) - http://www.usgbc.org Green Building B.C - http://www.greenbuildingsbc.com BC Hydro - http .//www .bchvdro .be .ca Center of Excellence for sustainable Development - http://www.sustainable.doe.gov Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainable Technology (Crest) / Sustainable Energy & Development Online (Solstice) - http://solstice.crest.org/ Environmental Building News - http://ebuild.com/index.html Environmental Organization Web Directory - http://webdirectorv.com/ Indoor Air Quality Page - http://ttsw.com/AirJT.html Iris Communications (Resources for Environmental Design Index) -http://www.oikos.com/redi/index.html 97 B I B L I O G R A P H Y Alexander, Christopher, Hajo Neis, Artemis Anninou, and Ingrid King. A New Theory of Urban Design, New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. Alex Wilson, Jenifer L. Uncapher, Lisa McManigal, L. Hunter Lovins, Maureen Crueton, William D. Browning: Rocky Mountain Institute. Green Development: Integrating Ecology and Real Estate, 1998. Audin, Linday, David Houghton, Michael Shepard, and Wendy Hawthorne. Lighting Technology Atlas, 1994. Barnett, Dianna Lopez, with William D. Browning. A Primer on Sustainable Building, 1995. Benjamin Stein, Jon S. Reynolds. Mechanical and Electrical Equipment for Buildings - 8th Edition, 1992. Brand, Stewart. How Buildings Learn: What happens after they 're built, 1994. Charter, Martin. Greener Marketing: A Responsible Approach to Business, 1992. Cole Raymond J, Editorial. Cost and Value in Building Green, 2000. Committee on the Environment. Designing Healthy Buildings: Indoor Air Quality, 1992. Crosbie, Michael J. A Guide to Sustainable Design, 1994. Demkin, Joseph A. Environmental Resource Guide, 1994. Derman, Asher. Greening the office: Issues of Waste and Indoor Air Quality, 1994. Frank, James. The Costs of Alternative Development Patterns: A Review of Literature, 1989. Kasian, Kennedy Design Partnership. Design Smart, Energy Efficient Architectural Design strategies: BC Hydro Power Smart, 1995. 98 Loken, Steve, Rod Miner, and Tracy Mumma. A Reference Guide to Resource Efficient Building Elements, 1994. McHarg, Ian L. A Quest for Life, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1996 Miles, Mike, Richard Haney Jr., and Gayle Berens. Real Estate Development: Principals and Process, 1996. Public Technology, Inc. The Sustainable Building Technical Manual: Green Building Design, Construction, and Operations, 1996. Romm, Joseph J. Lean and Clean Management: How to Boost Profits and Productivity by Reducing Pollution, 1994. Talbott, John L. Simply Build Green: A Technical Guide to the Ecological Houses at the Findhorn Foundation, 1993. U.S. Department of the interior, National Parks Service, Denver Service Center. Guiding Principals of Sustainable Design, 1994. U.S. Green Building Council, Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design: Reference Guide Version 2.0. 2001. Watson, Donald, and Kenneth Labs. Climatic Building Design: Energy-Efficient Building Principals and Practice, 1983. 99 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0091678/manifest

Comment

Related Items