Developers and building owners are not aware that they are paying too much for their buildings. Most commercial buildings have higher capital costs than they need to, are more expensive to operate and, in some cases, are not healthy.
Efficient, high-performing buildings are not only more cost effective to build and operate but can be more appealing to buyers and tenants, especially at a time when the market is slow. Current design and construction practices do not take advantage of passive strategies or maximize building system integration, and therefore result in wasteful, inefficient designs.
An educated owner or developer can set clear expectations for their design team to meet best practices and deliver higher performing, less costly buildings.
Decisions made early in the design have a significant impact on many aspects of building performance. There are a few key ways that good design can reduce the up front costs of a building. First, in new construction, proper siting of a building can impact its energy use by roughly 30 percent. If a building is designed to require significantly less energy for heating and cooling, the mechanical equipment can be downsized. By not over-sizing the mechanical systems, the initial equipment costs can be reduced, as well as long-term operating costs. More importantly, mechanical systems have a significant effect on the health, comfort and productivity of occupants.
The siting of a building is one aspect that relates to energy and comfort, but there are other design strategies that contribute to raising efficiency even further. A building’s facades are a critical place to control energy usage and impact indoor environmental quality.
The “glass box” is an overly familiar site, and an icon of unresponsive and wasteful design. No two sides of a building are responding to the same conditions, so they shouldn’t respond with the same design. North facing windows provide excellent daylighting conditions because the sun only hits there in the early morning and late evening during midsummer. South-facing windows are also easier to control because the high angle of the south sun can be easily shaded. East- and west-facing facades are more problematic because shading devices are of limited use when the sun is low in the sky.
Careful facade design and proper use of shading devices can protect excessive heat gain while providing better quality daylighting at the same time. Good daylighting design can reduce the electricity needed for both lighting because daylight provides a higher ratio of light to heat than electrical sources. This ratio, known as lighting efficacy, means that daylight provides more light and less heat, which can greatly reduce cooling loads.
The most important thing to understand about building systems is that they impact each other and are interdependent. Siting, massing, facade design and interior design – when coordinated – all play a role in the bottom line performance of the building as a whole. The amount, size and location of windows on a building facade impact the amount of electricity needed for lighting which together impacts the internal heat loads in a space and therefore the amount of cooling needed.
When decisions are being made about one element of the building without considering their impact on the other building systems, redundancy is built into the design, and this results in an immediate increase in costs.
Energy performance is a good indicator of a well-designed building, but safeguarding the health of occupants requires looking at materials at a much more detailed level. Just as we currently assume that buildings are doing what they’re supposed to be doing, we assume that the materials on the market are equally fit for consumers. Most building owners don’t realize that there is no “consumer reports” protection to identify harmful building products.
Material Difference
There are many building materials and products commonly specified in buildings that contribute to poor indoor air quality. Wood products can contain urea-formaldehyde and many interior finish materials are installed using adhesives, sealants or coatings that are toxic and/or emit volatile chemicals during and after installation. Alternative products that use nontoxic, low volatile organic compounds, water-based adhesives and coatings are available and should be specified. It is also important to select materials that do not require the use of toxic cleaning supplies for ongoing maintenance and are not susceptible to moisture damage that can foster mold growth.
This sounds fairly simple, obvious and even sensible, yet it is not standard practice. No one sets out to build a building that costs more, wastes energy and contains toxic materials, but there are reasons why this is still common. First of all, owners and developers are not yet aware of these issues and opportunities, and therefore do not set clear expectations for their design teams. They assume that they are getting the best value for their money. Second, many design firms are not up to speed on new “best practices” that target building system optimization and high performance.
Third, and most importantly, the design process itself is usually a fragmented, disconnected experience that is not conducive to integrated design and close coordination. Separate building systems are often designed in parallel based on standard assumptions, which results in redundancy and inefficiency. For example, reducing capital costs by achieving high levels of energy efficiency, 40 percent or more above current building codes, can not be accomplished by the current method of linear design.
The example of a “glass box” building illustrates a common scenario where an architect develops a concept, and a mechanical engineer is directed to “make it work.” The mechanical engineer is essentially then creating a “life support system” to pump unnecessary amounts of conditioned air through an inefficient building, and must additionally oversize the equipment to make sure there are no complaints from occupants. In this example, the mechanical engineer is not engaged early in the process to help inform the design at a fundamental level, which is where the opportunities for efficiency and cost savings are best.
Although the current landscape of design and construction is still rife with inefficiency and lack of collaboration, there are tools to overcome these problems. The U.S. Green Building Council has developed a tool called “Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design,” which provides a checklist to help owners and design teams focus on strategies that, if used correctly, can result in significant cost savings.
This LEED Rating System is a third-party certification system that can be paid for, but can also be used as a guide for design without formal registration. For material selection and specification, design teams can be directed to refer to another independent and objective tool called “Greenspec,” produced by Building Green. This tool provides a “Consumer Reports” type of product review, as well as searchable database of all construction products.
Although current building practices are typically inefficient and, therefore, more expensive, it is not a necessity. Design professionals have not been taking the lead on producing higher performing buildings, but have been very responsive to the demand they see growing from their clients. If an owner or developer sets clear expectations for the design team from the very first day of a project, and the design team takes advantage of good tools now available, the end result will be less wasteful, more valuable buildings that are more efficient to operate, healthier for occupants and more attractive to tenants.
