What Can You Do About It?

Respond to an article or write about a new topic

incitemagazine Web

GO GREEN: The Importance of Sustainable Design in the 21st Century

The 21st century world is granted a unique opportunity: the opportunity to respond to the problem of global warming with sustainable design and environmentally-sound technological innovations. Green building—also called “sustainable building” or “environmental building”—is construction that minimizes negative impacts on the environment and human health and is designed for the most efficient energy and resource use. Green building is becoming more and more economically viable, and there is evidence that sustainable design can benefit the environment, the economy and political and social conditions, as well as provide breakthrough educational centers to inspire a new generation in the study of sustainability. As educational centers, colleges and universities bear a particular responsibility in promoting green building.

The new University Center being constructed at Wesleyan will not be LEED certified, despite the conservation measures included in the project

Designing a structure that works in harmony with its surrounding natural environment is central to the concept of green building. William McDonough, one of the world’s leading green architects writes: “Today even the most advanced building or factory in the world is still a kind of steamship, polluting, contaminating, and depleting the surrounding environment, and relying on scarce amounts of natural light and fresh air. People are essentially working in the dark, and they are often breathing unhealthful air.”¹ He then goes on to describe the quintessential green building: “Imagine, instead, a building as a kind of tree. It would purify air, accrue solar income, produce more energy than it consumes, create shade and habitat, enrich soil, and change with the seasons.”²  The best green building would maximize its natural gains from the environment and employ environmentally-sound technologies in order to give back to natural systems instead of degrading them.

While many people conceive of green buildings as lined with solar panels, underground geothermal pumps and a system of water self-purification, such technology is secondary to factors that are not necessarily technological. For example, taking advantage of southern orientation and using as much natural lighting as possible is the first step in creating a green building.  Because the sun spends most of its time in the southern sky, orienting the building with a prominent, window-dominated side facing south is essential to maximizing natural lighting. Moreover, buildings with good southern orientation (especially when coupled by trees and overhangs on the south side) minimize heat loss during the winter and solar heat gain during the summer.³

The U.S. Green Building Council has implemented a system for determining the extent of a building’s greenness called LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. According to its mission statement, the LEED system was designed in order to “provide industry with consistent, credible standards for what constitutes a green building.”⁴ The LEED system takes into account the design, construction, and performance of buildings, and is based on five main categories: sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, material selection, and indoor environmental quality. Each category receives a number rating, and levels of LEED certification are awarded accordingly. Version 2.1 of the LEED rating system includes 69 possible points, with four levels of certification: Certified (26-32 points), Silver (33-38 points), Gold (39-51 points), and Platinum (52-69 points). While the LEED system can sometimes be deceptive because a project can receive nominal credit without being fully “green,” i5 has many strengths, including its allowance for continuous refinement as standards become higher and its strong emphasis on environmental integrity. The LEED building standard has inspired many institutions, corporations and individuals to design and construct green buildings and homes and dramatically lessen their negative impact on the environment.

According to Gregory H. Kats, the founding Principal of Capital E, a national clean technology deployment and strategy firm, buildings currently consume 70% of U.S. electricity, not including the significant amount of material and water they use and the waste they generate.⁵ U.S. buildings are responsible for more CO2 emissions than those of any other country in the world except China.⁶ This significantly contributes to the build up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, commonly known to cause global warming. With green building technologies, institutions have the power to cut their emissions to zero.

So what holds back institutions from building green? Concerns regarding costs are often at the root of the issue. While some of these concerns are well-founded, author Betsy Del Monte points out in Structural Engineer: “There is a common misconception that…green buildings…are more expensive to construct than traditional buildings. In fact, by adhering to green building principles a developer actually can save money in many construction areas. Additionally, in the areas that might require an increased upfront investment, there typically will be a short-term or long-term payback from cost efficiencies in operation of the building.”⁷

In 2003 Kats contacted several dozen building representatives and architects to determine the cost of 33 green buildings all over the United States in comparison to the cost of conventional designs for those same buildings. The average extra cost for the green buildings is slightly less than 2% (or $3-5/sq. ft.), which is significantly lower than common perception of green building costs.⁸ Interestingly, the majority of this extra cost is as a result of “increased architectural and engineering (A&E) design time, modeling costs and time necessary to integrate sustainable building practices into projects,” the prices of which can be expected to lessen over time as green building becomes more common.⁹

Studies of cities such as Portland and Seattle show that as more green buildings are built, the cost of sustainable building drops significantly. In Portland, three LEED Silver buildings were completed in 1995, 1997, and 2000, and they incurred cost premiums of 2%, 1%, and 0%, respectively. In Seattle, LEED Silver buildings have dropped from cost premiums of 3-4% in the late 1990s to 1-2% by 2003.

Financial savings from green buildings come in the form of reduced expenditures on energy and water, decreased waste disposal costs, greater employee comfort (and therefore, productivity), reduced employee health costs due to less intake of harmful air pollutants, and lower operations and maintenance costs for the building due to green technology efficiencies.¹⁰ Taking all of these factors and others into account, Massachusetts Technology Collaborative produced a report in which it was determined that “financial benefits of green design are between $50 and $70 per square foot in a LEED building, over 10 times the additional cost associated with building green.”¹¹ Moreover, some states offer additional financial incentives for going green.

Despite these long-term benefits, institutions and individuals must make a short-term sacrifice to go green. Still, many colleges and universities around the United States have recognized the importance of environmental sustainability and have taken the lead in green design. At Oberlin College, the Adam Joseph Lewis Center for Environmental Studies, designed by William McDonough, generates more energy than it needs to operate and purifies its own wastewater. Aside from all its environmental and financial benefits, the building is also an incredible educational resource to Oberlin College.¹²

Other campuses, like the University of Vermont, have held themselves to a standard of achieving LEED “Certified” as a minimum for all forthcoming construction and renovation projects.¹³ UMV emphasizes how this is directly in line with its Strategic Plan, including the strengthening of their academic programs, their recruitment of excellent students, faculty and staff, and the strengthening of their financial resources. Similarly, the Strategic Plan of Wesleyan University commits to “Strengthen and Develop Environmental Stewardship,” but unfortunately, we have not lived up to this commitment.

Wesleyan has done a few admirable things to incorporate green building techniques into new construction projects. The Fauver Field Residence Complex was the first construction project on campus to receive a minimum LEED certification. Similarly, the Suzanne Lemberg Usdan University Center currently being constructed incorporates multiple green building techniques, according to Project Manager Alan Rubacha. Constructed on an existing site which does not require excavation or alternation of a natural habitat, the building is oriented to the south, where it takes utmost advantage of natural lighting. Trees planted along the south elevation and large overhangs on the building will contribute to shade for natural cooling of the building in summer months, and double-insulated windows provide greater insulation in the winter months, both of which save energy. The building will contain florescent lighting and a day light dimming system (which senses light levels and automatically dims lights) along with some ambient control in each general space, preventing the waste of unneeded lighting and heating. Additionally, the building will incorporate some materials that are more environmentally-friendly than traditional materials, such as stone masonry material and a slate roof instead of asphalt. The carpets installed contain recycled components, and the heat given off from coolers and freezers within the dining facilities in the University Center will be collected and stored in 500 gallon tanks in the basement to be used to pre-heat the building’s water. However, despite all these notable steps towards environmental stewardship, the University Center will still not be LEED certified because it did not take the option into account early enough in the process for it to be economically viable.

Wesleyan has yet to take the step of firmly committing to green building, and this is evidenced not only by the University Center, but also in the planning of the new Science Center. While this building has not yet been designed, the Science Center committee did not interview any green architects, which is essential if the building is to be as green as possible. The Science Center committee narrowed their architect search down by October, interviewing fours firms on October 10-11: Ellenzweig Associates, Inc. Architects, William Wilson Associated Architects, Inc., SBRA Architects, and Payette. (The Science Center committee has selected one of these architects but the decision is not public until the Board of Trustees votes on November 18th). Despite ability to design a LEED certified building, these conventional architectural firms do not necessarily guarantee the ability to design a building that incorporates active sustainable techniques, such as use of solar energy. In order to guarantee a green building, Wesleyan should commit to hiring only experienced green architects. In light of the “environmental stewardship” component of our Strategic Plan, failing to make new construction projects and renovations green demonstrates hypocrisy and a blatant disregard for our university ideals.

Universities and colleges, as educational centers, should be paving the way in green building. How can we in good conscience offer courses in environmental studies and hold forums on sustainability and the importance of green building while engaging in and planning construction projects that are not green? If a Ford Dealership, which outputs pollution and steel, can carry on a green construction project, then why can’t a university, which outputs knowledge, social activism and global awareness, carry on a green construction project? Green building is not just a matter of preference, but a moral obligation.

As global climate change persists and environmental problems intensify worldwide, a new generation of thinkers and activists must rise to address the problem. Instead of persisting in old ways that have already been determined detrimental, our generation is being called upon—and must respond to the call—to combine new environmental technologies with a spirit of activism that will facilitate change for the better of the world.

Ashley Offt Casale ’10 is a social and environmental activist and a member of Wesleyan’s Environmental Organizers Network. Contact: acasale@wesleyan.edu