Buildings, Infrastructure, and Ecology Chapter Draft

How do we get UVic to adopt a "visionary ethos" as their building policy? A sustainable campus could attract students and be economic blessing.

How will UVic deal with funding cuts due to an aging population?

Answer:

* Ensure agreement and support from UVic admin, staff and students for the campus CO2 initiative

* Learn what a CO2 inventory is and how to plan one

* Learn what data you need and how to find them

* Calculate the emissions

* Decide on an emissions reduction target

* Act!

Answer: There are many buildings, even in BC, to inspire UVic toward adopting a completely sustainable mindset for university development. A few are listed below:

The Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS). www.cirs.ubc.ca

Being built by a four-institution academic consortium on former industrial land in downtown Vancouver, CIRS may be the most sustainable building in the world on completion in 2008.

Operations Centre, Gulf Islands National Park Reserve (Parks Canada), Sidney, BC

http://www.cagbc.org/green_building_projects/leed_certified_buildings.php?id=41&press=1&draw_column=3:3:2

The first project in Canada (July 2006) to achieve LEED Platinum level.

UVic Medical Sciences Building

http://www.cagbc.org/green_building_projects/leed_certified_buildings.php?id=50&press=1&draw_column=3:3:2

Vancouver Island Technical Park, Victoria, BC

Canada's first refurbished LEED-Gold building (February 2002)

BC Cancer Agency Research Center, Vancouver

“This project has never been just about building a great facility, but about creating an environment where researchers can achieve their best” (President and CEO Mary McNeil). The (LEED Gold) research centre opened in March 2005, $6 million under budget and on schedule.

McDonald (2005) lists 17 Canadian examples of which the 10 educational institutions follow.

Information and Communication Technology Building, University of Calgary, Alberta

Burnaby Mountain Secondary School, Burnaby, BC

C.K. Choi Building UBC, Vancouver, BC

Grant Building, Royal Roads University, Victoria, BC

Nicola Valley Institute of Technology, Merritt, BC

Vancouver Island Technology Park, Victoria, BC

Red River College Princess Street Campus, Winnipeg, Manitoba

Sir Sandford Fleming College, Applied Computing and Engineering Science Building, Peterborough, Ontario

York University Computer Sciences Building, Toronto, Ontario

York University Pond Road Residence: the first ‘green’ student housing in Ontario. Toronto, Ontario

New Research Question: While the LEED system of sustainable building assessment is now well known, what other sustainable building standards could UVic consider instead when designing and constructing its buildings?

Answer: Certification, e.g., by the LEED standard, incurs significant costs and may or may not be necessary for members of the design team. In the end, perhaps some standard is desirable. See the discussion at:

http://www.construction.com/greensource/projects/case_studies/2007/0701_planetary/0701_mag_planetary.asp

Other certification or rating systems are:

* The Living Building Challenge (2006)—beyond LEED platinum

http://www.cascadiagbc.org/resources/living-buildings/living-building-challenge

There are no credits (as in LEED), just 16 prerequisites and all must be met to comply. Many of the prerequisites have “exceptions” that are intended to acknowledge market realities. The standard needs to be challenging, not impossible to obtain. The Living Building is performance based, not prescriptive, and for the most part does not concern itself with how prerequisites are met, which should be the domain of the design team and owner. A project cannot get a rating before it is completed and has been operating for a year.

* GBC 2000 (Green Building Challenge): uses the GBTool assessment software.

* BREEAM™ (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method): European, but adapted for use in Canada in 1996.

* Green Globes: overseen by Green Buildings Initiative in the US, an industry entity.

* NRCan CBIP (Commercial Building Incentive Program): 25% less energy use than MNECB. Scheduled to end March 2007; incentive funds are fully subscribed and no more applications are being accepted.

* [old] NRCan MNECB (Model National Energy Code for Buildings)

Answer: With green building becoming part of the mainstream, the remaining barriers are social and human rather than economic or technical. These ‘mindset’ constraints prevent us from more quickly making the shift to high performance buildings.

While there is still a lack of knowledge about sustainable design and construction, most of the resistance to adopting sustainable practices are based in ignorance, myths about green building.

A list of the 10 most common myths?

* Green building is a passing fad

* Green materials are not available

* Owners aren’t concerned about being green

* Green building is easy

* Construction waste management is a waste of time

* Green buildings cost more

* Green building is the architect’s responsibility

* Green buildings look strange or different

* Green building information is not available

* Green buildings don’t work

Answer: The scale of productivity and health benefits is potentially enormous, and may exceed the value of all real estate expenditures (not just energy, operations and maintenance but other costs such as rent/mortgage as well). Surveys of green building owners, developers, architects, engineers and consultants. Significant percentages of executives say that green buildings outperform conventional ones.

The benefits of ‘green’ buildings include:

* human health—no ‘sick building syndrome’, no ‘off-gassing’ by interior finishing materials, pleasanter (daylit, naturally ventilated) surroundings, more control of and participation in personal working space;

* academic productivity and achievement—higher test scores, increased attendance, increased teaching satisfaction;

* profitable opportunities for developers—compressed project schedules, greater marketability, lower capital costs, improved public profile and community relations, lower liability risk, future-proofing against rising utility costs, extra loan security, free publicity;

* business productivity—post-occupancy studies show: operational cost savings, lower tenant churn or turnover, basis for higher building valuations, reduced absenteeism, improved employee morale, increased occupant satisfaction, higher ROI;

* community and local government—less pressure on local infrastructure, increased economic activity, greater integration with community;

* environmental—lower resource use, lower waste generation and air emissions, lower site impacts; and

* fund raising—increased philanthropic, community and corporate support.

For developers, the real opportunity of green development lies in their ability to offer UVic a superior, high performance building that will help them achieve their business objectives while respecting the environment – and make money.

Finally, “BC leads North America in sustainability” (Kevin Keen, President, Keen Engineering, North Vancouver). UVic can take advantage of easy access to existing local knowledge and expertise.

New Research Question: What is the specific economic case (what are the positive factors) supporting sustainable (‘green’) buildings?

Answer: McDonald (2005) found the average cost ‘premium’ for green over conventional buildings in five Canadian cases to be -5%, that is, 5% cheaper. His research considered another survey of Canadian high performance buildings, indicating an average of +3.5% (more) for construction costs than for traditional methods. He further reported on a survey of 138 US cases studies which showed no positive (direct) correlation between green construction and extra cost. Meaning that the premium, which can be either positive (the building did cost more) or negative (it cost less), depended on individual factors applying to each case. Based on McDonald’s research, UVic could consider that a +2.6% premium would easily be achievable. Most building developers are quite willing to accept a swing of ±5% in the contingency costs of a project.

Kats et al. (2003), reporting to the California Sustainable Building Task Force, prepared the seminal American study of the costs and financial benefits of green buildings. The authors found, particularly for California, but using US-wide data, that a minimal up-front cost of 0 to 2% will result in life-cycle savings of 20% of total construction costs.

The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (2005) in the UK studied the value of green building to businesses. “A lot of attention has been focused on energy savings. However, they are usually less than 1% of business operating costs. By comparison, total annual real estate expenses are usually around 10% of such costs, whilst staff costs can be as high as 85%. This means that the biggest return on investment should arise when green buildings improve business productivity. While the benefits to asset value are compelling, they are minor compared with the benefit to business.”

Busby, Perkins + Will (n.d.), the Vancouver-based architectural firm with perhaps the most sustainable building design experience in Canada, found the total cost increase for all scenarios to be: best case 0%, worst case +10%.

As future construction costs rise, but the experience with the process increases and the cost of materials falls, the proportion of any green premium over conventional construction will continue to fall if it starts at greater than zero.

Currently, certain strategies have been found to be critical for reducing costs:

* use a highly communicative design process like IDP (integrated design process); * engage all key stakeholders;

* commit to high performance (green) objectives at the earliest possible stage;

* reference a recognizable set of standards; and

* achieve performance objectives at the lowest life cycle cost – instead of focusing on the lowest capital cost up front.

NB: planning for sustainable building needs to take place as early as possible; by the time the first 1% of a project’s up-front costs are spent, up to 70% of its life-cycle costs may already be committed.

New Research Question: How can UVic raise capital funding for building green buildings?

Answer:

Is it worth retrofitting old buildings rather than building new, more efficient buildings?

Embodied energy of existing buildings vs. overall lifecycle energy savings of newer building technology/design. Which buildings should be examined with this question in mind.

How much energy/water/etc. do buildings consume?

Answer: See www.greenbuildingsbc.com . Not necessarily cost/benefit analyses, but has major Retrofit pages.