… seeks to reduce negative impacts on the environment, and the health and comfort of building occupants, thereby improving building performance. The basic objectives of sustainability are to reduce consumption of non-renewable resources, minimize waste, and create healthy, productive environments.
Sustainable design principles include the ability to:
optimize site potential;
minimize non-renewable energy consumption;
use environmentally preferable products;
protect and conserve water;
enhance indoor environmental quality; and
optimize operational and maintenance practices. Utilizing a sustainable design philosophy encourages decisions at each phase of the design process that will reduce negative impacts on the environment and the health of the occupants, without compromising the bottom line. It is an integrated, holistic approach that encourages compromise and tradeoffs. Such an integrated approach positively impacts all phases of a building's life-cycle, including design, construction, operation, and decommissioning.
Isn’t this just another fad?
I would argue no.The reason why is a simple case of Economics 101: build a better mousetrap at a better price.Each of us makes buying decisions based upon some fundamental factors:does the product or service solve my problem, is it priced within what I am willing to pay, & is it the best option for me.If the product, in this case sustainable design, saves me money both now & in the future, uses less resources, makes a better environment for me & my family, keeps us healthier which costs us less in a number of ways, etc. why would you NOT want to purchase the product which less expensive, more durable, & better than the old product among other things?It really is that simple.
Why should I care & won’t it cost me more?
To not look at the overall big picture of the total cost involved in a building is to not look at the actual cost of the building.It’s like looking at the cost of two garments: one is dry clean only & the other is machine wash.The dry clean garment is initially less expensive in this scenario but the long term costs associated with it e.g. gas to take to cleaners, time to get to & from cleaners, the dry cleaning costs, etc. are much greater so the actual cost is actually more expensive for the less expensive garment.
It can, but not necessarily, cost more up front depending upon materials selected, but that is simply a choice.Overall, the great thing about design is that good design is good design, regardless if it is sustainable or not.Why should you care is pretty simple:the ongoing cost of throwing away things becomes expensive, buying new things repeatedly costs more, off-gassing can have negative health impacts from respiratory to a whole host of other possibilities, & in terms of use, end up costing less because one is saving monies on continuous expenses such as water, sewer, & energy costs.
Put another way, it’s either pay me now or pay me a LOT more later.The up front costs can be more, but NOT necessarily so, but most so-called traditional building has a smaller up-front cost & a lot higher cost in the long run to operate & maintain the building.When one looks at the savings in energy, water, sewer & even health related issues, it is whole other story.These “green buildings” are often, or if they are LEED certified then regularly, dissected from every angle so there is ample data to support the claims.
Won’t it make my house difficult to sell?
Quite the contrary!An interesting thing is that as more people hear about the benefits to them of good sustainable design, they are willing to pay for it when they buy your home.Case in point, all things being equal in this scenario; you are looking at two homes.One has documented utility costs of $1000/month & the other has documented utility costs of $600/month, which house would you choose?And that’s just for starters!For a starting place you may want to read the article entitled Valuing Green Buildings by Constantine Valhouli of the Hammersmith Group. http://www.thehammersmithgroup.com/about/press.html
Doesn’t “sustainable or green design” look strange or different?
Not at all.Good design is good design.There isn’t good design & then green or sustainable design; they are not mutually exclusive.
Here are real world examples of green or sustainable design for new construction:
Look around you…all over New England there are great examples of green & sustainable design:they are called old houses & old buildings.The greenest design of all is historic preservation & what is called adaptive reuse.If you take an old mill & repurpose it for residential or commercial use that is called adaptive reuse. This does not mean a total gut of the house down to the frame! Nor does it mean living in a museum.
An example of a historic preservation project that can be made incredibly green is by restoring the dilapidated historic windows which will then be as energy efficient as any new window & last longer & cost less in the long run instead of buying new ones that won’t last as long or pay for themselves, by using eco-friendly products whose quality is identical to “traditional” building materials, by using locally produced products that help keep local people employed, etc.Some examples of green design:James Steam Mill in Newburyport, the Tannery in Newburyport, Monarch on the Merrimack in Lawrence, Boston Old City Hall, Gardiner Building / Chart House Restaurant, Long Wharf in Boston, Mills Falls Apartments in Methuen, the Millyard in Amesbury, Dimock Community Health Center in Roxbury, The Tate Modern in London, & MassMOCA in Boston.