Thinking Small About Going Green
By Peter Scott | Sustainability | Tuesday 26th August 2008More and more significant building developments are setting out to achieve five star green building ratings. Large insurance companies, banks, and energy companies are leading the charge to go green.
And there is no doubt that these buildings are both grand and green, costing much more than the average.
So what happens to the rest of us? Do we end up like Cinderella not going to the ball because either as commercial tenants or property managers we don’t have the same resources as the larger corporations?
There is no question that we have to go there, to some degree. The trends around going green are not going to go away. But is it necessary to go the whole hog and spend a lot of money on making a building green?
I don’t think we all need to leap into going green without testing the water. Frequently a range of smart initiatives can get the ball rolling, such as conserving water, managing waste, saving costs in power. These actions are not only good for the environment but good for the bottom line.
It is also smart to have business and office policies about how to practically apply environmentally sensitive practices.
Other more expensive design features are best left to the big players for now.
Some commentators are predicting a green bubble in the boom and bust cycle that started with the dot.com bubble and then the property bubble in the United States.
It would be wise to keep a weather eye on the green bubble, watching out for “green washing” and “green marketing” hype as every one starts jumping on the bandwagon.
Tuesday 26th August 2008 at 3:47 pm
Peter, a good blog – a topical item. A couple of comments…
The first is the fundamental flaw in the star rating. This rating is given on design – not implementation. My wife works in the Landcare Research building that has a 5 star rating. Design and result are poles apart. In the winter single bar heaters are under most desks. In the summer most happen to find work in the few parts of the building that have air con – the labs and collection rooms.
The second comment is the ‘expensive design features’ you mention. I am well down the track of desiging and costing a build for a new residential house. I have chosen a north west facing site and am integrating passive heating via sun on a concrete thermal mass and cooling via roof shape/design. If I get it right (unlike Landcare) artificial heating and cooling should not be needed. My point is the cost of this passive heating cooling is research and design, not material or labour cost.
Regards – Stu Smith
Thursday 16th October 2008 at 10:11 am
Stu/Peter
I agree entirely that the rating system should also include both as-built and in operation ratings. It’s all very well to draw things on paper but until you build it and operate it you won’t see the results. Stu’s wife’s experience would also indicate flaws in the rating system even based on the design – if the end result is so far removed from the intention when designing, then there’s something seriously wrong with both the design and the rating system.
It’s clear this is an emerging part of the building industry that can’t be ignored. I believe it will continue to grow and be adopted more widely as new technologies become more affordable, but as Stu says the research and design are critical to the end result.