The Cascadia Center for Sustainable Design and Construction strives to be the first of its kind: an urban mid-rise Living Building^TM.  The vision of the Bullitt Foundation and its director, Denis Hayes, is to develop a game-changing place that creates a ripple effect to change the way designers, cities, and occupants think about their buildings.

One of the many unique factors of the project is the development process and the fact that the players have been willing to think differently at each step of the way. In essence, the team that enables this kind of performance includes the designers/developers, the tenants, and also the city. “We all feel like we have a chance at promoting much larger change if we can get others to do this kind of building,” says Chris Rogers, principal at Point32, the project’s developer .

The Cascadia Center is a 50,000 SF commercial structure in Seattle’s central district slated for completion in late 2011. The team includes Point32, The Miller | Hull Partnership, PAE Consulting Engineers, and general contractor Schuchart as well as the University of Washington’s Integrated Design Lab with support from the BetterBricks initiative of the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. The Bullitt Foundation is the anchor tenant, but will only occupy half of one floor; other leases are in negotiation.

A Performance Driven Team

The process was almost entirely driven by the project’s energy goals, which are to meet the net-zero energy imperative of the Living Building Challenge.

Rogers says that these energy goals were the “most intriguing part of the process and has influenced every step of the design.” Before the design team was even hired, the Integrated Design Lab was engaged to develop an energy profile for the hypothetical building.

When the Miller | Hull/PAE design team began its work, aesthetic design was not up for discussion until every aspect of the technical performance was understood. Craig Curtis, partner at Miller | Hull, says the team refers to it as “performance-based design.”

Big ideas about how to reduce and capture energy drove the highly iterative design process. According to Rogers, this was largely due to the openness of the team. The architects were willing to let the performance vision drive the design, allowing for a highly collaborative relationship where the engineers were as much in the drivers seat as the architects.

Similarly, the contractor was brought on early and was able to weigh in regularly with cost checks to keep the concept within a reasonable budget.

Major energy savings will be achieved through a highly efficient envelope (preassembled and delivered to the site air tight); automated shading; and heat recovery on the mechanical and ventilation systems. As the architecturally imposed loads headed towards net zero, the internal equipment load took over. The team realized they needed an expert in computer and server loads.

The building and systems designs were so highly calibrated that every tweak threw the energy concept slightly out of balance. Joel Loveland, Director of the Integrated Design Lab, explains the need for a “facile modeler as part of the engineering team to pick up the results of small and nuanced energy changes during Schematic Design.”

The performance requirements even affected the program. Early plans included a coffee shop on the ground floor, but the internal loads were too high to meet the net zero goals, so a restaurant tenant was out of the question.

Loveland describes Miller | Hull and PAE as a dream team. “Everyone has been incredibly dedicated, way beyond the call of duty. It is pretty exceptional.”

An Open Minded City

In addition to the highly capable and dedicated design and development team, the City of Seattle has made the unique process all the more manageable.

Last fall, Seattle passed an ordinance that allows twelve projects to go through a process that identifies regulatory obstacles to achieving the Living Building Challenge. Rogers characterizes it as the city essentially saying, “Let’s use the Cascadia Center and 11 other buildings to explore how our current codes and methods for supporting the building design and development process could be modified to achieve better performance.”

Part of the process is for the design team to help the City to think differently about its regulatory structure and to understand performance-based design. In the case of the Cascadia Center, the City will allow a zoning exemption for a larger rooftop solar array (essential for meeting net zero targets) than is typically permitted in urban areas.

The idea is for the building to not only be a point of departure from a performance standpoint, but also from a regulatory perspective for the local policy agenda.

This is essential because, as Curtis points out, “everything about the design is unique to this particular location in the world.”

Flexible Occupants

The final members of the performance team are the occupants. Design and technology can only take the performance so far; the final increments of energy savings depend on the tenants of the building.

Occupant behavior is a fundamental factor in meeting the net zero goals. Plug loads are the primary occupant-imposed energy loads and are expected to be half of typical building use.

The design team developed a survey for prospective tenants, to determine how many people expect to bike to work, shower at the office, and the length of each shower. The energy and water impacts of these habits will ensure availability of excess water for irrigation and the ability to not exceed energy use allotted to water heating. In this way, every individual action plays into energy assumptions, to ensure adequate resources to meet other needs. If someone takes too long a shower, the plants in the greenhouse will bear the consequences.

Given that the major energy consumers are expected to be the computers and server systems, the team is exploring new ways of sharing these services across companies with the expectation that tenants become more collaborative.

One idea that is being explored is an internal cap and trade system among tenants, by which a high energy user may be able to trade credits with a light energy user.

The Opportunity

Ultimately the goal is a building that inspires more of its kind. While some may dismiss Living Buildings as one-off solutions, only possible with an owner who values innovation and is willing to pay more for it, The Cascadia Center team is committed to a design solution that is broadly applicable to the industry and thus has the potential to be transformative. At every decision point, the team was thoughtful about the replicability of a particular design. The initial design concept included an unusually shaped floor plate with atrium to optimize solar potential, but the shape would be difficult to emulate (and far exceeded average construction costs) so a more conventional floor plate was selected to fit the urban grid and still maximize daylight.

As Rogers says, “The goal is for the building to become a catalyst, not to stand alone” The project is being designed for a 250-year lifespan, to adapt to evolving needs and technologies, chances are it will soon be standing among similar buildings that it inspires.

ZGF reported that they have now benchmarked all their projects worked on by the Seattle office and were advancing with other offices. Just the fact of reporting (mostly modeled performance at this point) has had an impact on the firm’s interest in improving performance.

NBBJ has been working on reviewing and revising their practice since 2006. Part of that process has been the use of the IDL Puget Sound to help in research and tracking. In early 2008 they signed on to the 2030 Challenge of Architecture 2030 and in early 2009 they signed on the the AIA’ 2030 Firm Commitment.  Part of that commitment requires reportiong on project performance in terms of energy and carbon emissions.

Chris Jordan, a Seattle-based artist, delivered a very interesting keynote address on the impacts of mass consumption.  Check out his work here www.chrisjordan.com.

NEEA’s BetterBricks initiative will be exploring the findings from the two Northwest firms in a future article. Stay tuned.

Portland is once again on the national stage, but this time it’s not the New York Times touting the city’s epic eateries (thanks for the nod, but enough already).  Architect Magazine released its second annual ranking of green architecture firms and two of the top ten firms call Portland home.

Sera Architects and Zimmer Gunsul Frasca (ZGF) Architects both earned a well-deserved seat among the nation’s most sustainable-focused firms.  Sera, coming in at No. 3, is behind the city’s greenest projects, including the Oregon Sustainability Center, which aims to be a net-zero high rise and is catching the attention of designers and developers the world over.  ZGF, coming in at No. 10, gained acclaim for its commitment to sustainable projects like the rain gardens at the Oregon Convention Center and its own offices at Twelve West in downtown Portland.  Perkins + Will came in as the number one green architecture firm according to the magazine.  While the firm is based in Chicago, the work coming out of the Perkins + Will Seattle office is on the cutting edge of green design (and of course adds to the sustainable cache of the Northwest).

On a related note, Clark Brockman of Sera Architects and a cadre of current and former ZGF architects, including Amy Cortese, John Breshears and Naomi Cole, have all been recognized with a BetterBricks Award over the years.

The other eight firms that made to the list include:

Perkins +Will , Chicago (No. 1)

EYP Architecture & Engineering, Albany, N.Y. (No. 2)

PGAL, Houston, (No. 4)

Cook+Fox, Chicago, (No. 5)

HOK, St. Louis (No. 6)

FXFOWLE, New York (No. 7)

Anshen + Allen, San Francisco (No. 8 )

DLR Group, Omaha, Neb. (No. 9)

David Cook of Behnisch Architekten, and currently the Pietro Belluschi Distinguished Visiting Professor in Architecture at the University of Oregon School of Architecture, will be speaking at the U of O White Stag Building on Thursday evening May 20th.

David Cook, Dipl. Architekt RIBA, ARB studied architecture at the Polytechnic in Manchester and obtained his Diploma at the University of East London in 1992. Together with Stefan Behnisch and Martin Haas, he has been heading the practice Behnisch Architekten since 2006. He has held teaching positions in Karlsruhe, Stuttgart, and New York and has given lectures in Manchester, London, Aarhus, Cagliari, Miami, and Beijing, among other places.

Behnisch Architekten is a leader in creating distinctive architectural solutions that are environmentally sustainable. The Stuttgart, Germany-based architecture and planning firm maintains U.S. offices in Venice, CA, and Boston, MA. Notable projects include platinum-LEED-rated Genzyme Center in Cambridge, MA; Norddeutsche Landesbank in Hannover, Germany; Cultural District Riverfront Development Plan in Pittsburgh, PA; Unilever Headquarters in Hamburg, Germany; Institute for Forestry and Nature Research in Wageningen, The Netherlands; and the Harvard Science Complex in Allston, MA.

David Cook will be speaking in conjunction with the very interesting and informative exhibit  ”Design, Ecology, Synergy”  which  redefines the term sustainability by examining how people inhabit their built environments. This exhibition which toured Europe, showcases the innovative design approach of Behnisch Architekten and Transsolar Climate  Engineering, as illustrated by several international projects and ongoing collaborations.  It is a cleverly designed exhibition that demonstrates the human senses to the built environment. Human scale diagrams show our intake of the environment and our reactions to light, material, temperature, air, and sound as conditions determined or often dictated by the enclosure system of the building. The exhibition appropriately features audio, visual, and tactile displays including large light boxes where information on each category (light, material, etc.) is printed on the surface; videos of interviews and projects; project models, and large colorful dome luminaries.

Presented by: U. of Oregon Department of Architecture

Date: Thursday  5/20/2010
Time: 6 :00 pm–Lecture,  7:15 pm–Reception
Free and open to the public

Location :
Event Room

White Stag Building
70 N.W. Couch St.
Portland, OR, 97209

Each year BetterBricks hosts an awards ceremony in four cities throughout the Northwest to celebrate the accomplishments of green building professionals.  The aim is to both recognize energy efficiency achievements in commercial buildings as well as inspire others to embrace high performance buildings.  After all, buildings consume more than 40 percent of the energy used in the U.S. – approximately half is used in the commercial sector alone. Needless to say, the pressure is on to address the energy needs of our built environment and the BetterBricks Awards celebrate those folks taking great strides to make a difference.

This year marks the seventh year of the Oregon / SW Washington Awards with a  total of 12 professionals honored at a sold out reception to nearly 250 people the morning of February 11th.  The award winners and finalists are listed below.  For more information, visit BetterBricks.com/Awards, read the press release or download  the Portland Business Journal’s BetterBricks Awards supplement.

Owner/Developer:
Those who make decisions about strategic direction regarding investments in high performance buildings. These executives, developers, owners and managers support, authorize and generally enable high performance building to be built and operated.

Winner — Garrin Royer and Danny McGinley, Principals, Redside Development.

Architecture:
Those who design buildings and lead the design team on projects that consistently achieve high levels of energy efficiency in both new construction and major renovations.

Winner — Dennis Cusack, Principal, SRG Partnership, Inc.

Finalists — Lisa Petterson, Associate, SERA Architects; and John Breshears, Principal, Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Architects.

Design Engineer:
Those who design buildings and lead the design team on projects that consistently achieve high levels of energy efficiency in both new construction and major renovations.

Winner — Bob Gulick, Principal, Mazzetti Nash Lipsey Burch

Finalist — Nick Collins, Principal, PAE Consulting Engineers

Facility Manager / Building Operations:
Open to a team or an individual who operates and manages the facilities of a building including facility directors, managers and building operators.

Winner — Fred Meyer Energy Team, led by Daniel Schmidlkofer and David Wright, Fred Meyer

Finalist — Melvin Mark Companies Operations Team, led by Melvin Mark Construction Company President, David Zier

Advocate:
Those who advocate for and support the design and operation of high performance buildings including consultants, government, non-profit, educators, and others.

Winner — Susan Steward, Executive Director, BOMA Portland

Finalist — Clark Brockman, Principal, SERA Architects

Multi-Disciplinary Team:
A team of professionals for integrated design on a specific high performance building project or projects that includes three or more of the following professionals: an owner/developer representative, architect, engineer (mechanical, electrical, structural), consultants, and building contractor (if involved during design).

Winner — Slocum Center Team: John Bauman; Dr. Thomas Wuest, Slocum Center for Orthopedics and Sports Medicine; Whitney Churchill, The Neenan Company; Galen Ohmart, Solarc Architecture + Engineering; Brian McCarthy, CMGS Landscape Architects; Doug McKay, Steve Korth, McKay Investment Company

Finalist — Twelve/West Team: Mark Edlen, Gerding Edlen Development; Greg Goodman, Downtown Development Group, LLC; Bob Packard, Gene Sandoval, Peter van der Meulen, ZGF Architects, LLP; Eric Hoffman, Hoffman Construction; James Thomas, Glumac; Norm Faris, Art Johnson, KPFF Consulting Engineers

We find that in Europe the time frame for building planning is longer, maybe even centuries. In the US we think in decades. Europe also has codes informed by their culture. Codes require every worker having access to views outside, not just daylight. Culturally they expect that. It is a given in design to have narrower floorplates to allow this. It also helps with natural ventilation. The workers expect to be able to open windows. What a strange world they have in Europe. Some great examples of fully integrated design with advanced design strategies for energy efficiency were presented (from North America but with European designers or engineers). These were:

- Manitiba Hydro’s new headquarters by KPMB Architects, with Transolar

- Genzyme Headquarters in Cambridge, MA by Behnisch and Behnisch

- Loyola University Information Commons in Chicago by Solomaon, Cordwel Buenz with Transolar

All these used an integrated design process and had some form of adaptation to the local micro-climate, early and repeated modeling (physical and simulation) to make trade off decisions on strategies, use of natural ventilation, solar chimney, orientation-specific glazing and shading, separation of ventilation from heating and cooling, some from of occupant control, daylighting with controls, and so on. Some used double skin, some used interior atrium for pre-conditioning air and humidity. Most integrated structural elements with heating and cooling. In short, any of the things covered in BetterBricks education program and on BetterBricks.com.

This morning, Day 2, there was more of European good lessons – discussion of use of displacement ventilation in European hospitals. This led to a study by a consortium of engineers and researchers to validate it for US application. That group, the Healthcare Ventilation Research Collaborative consists of Mazzetti, Stantec, Purdue University and others with funding from Kaiser Permanente. They are now taking their findings supportive of displacement ventilation to ASHRAE to hopefully change restrictions in Guideline 170 that currently can be seen as limiting displacement ventilation use.

Last night was the big opening ceremony in the Diamondback baseball stadium. After the National Anthem, we had Rick Fedrizzi, USGBC CEO as the cheerleader for the status of Green building and green products and services (it’s a growth industry going from $17 Billion in 2007 to an expected $60 Billion next year). We also found out that 28,000 people came to this conference from 75 countries traveling 33 million miles, and all transportation carbon emissions have been offset. Rick proclaimed a new world order and that green building movement is at a tipping point and a leverage point “big enough to move the world”.

We then had a charismatic speech by Al Gore followed by a rockin’ set from Sheryl Crow.

Al Gore said we have all the tools we need. We lack the policies and laws (and codes) and the political will to enact them. He also urged us to resist and speak out against greenwashing, as that is one thing that can hinder progress.He urged us all to be activists in our own realms.

Now, I’m off to a book signing with Seattle Green advocate, architect and friend, Lucia Athens. Her new book is Building and Emerald City (Island Press) www.buildinganemeraldcity.com and its about he development of the green movement and industry in the Northwest, mostly Seattle.

Chao for now,

John.

• Mixed Mode Cooling and Ventilation
• An Update on ASHRAE Standard 189
• Lessons from Europe

Details of these sessions will be forthcoming later.

Mixed Mode Systems

This is an emerging strategy that still requires some research and a bit of project specific innovation and careful analysis. The savings are there from reduced mechanical cooling and fan energy for ventilation. Care needs to be taken to avoid creating extra heating loads. The panel concluded that fully naturally ventilated buildings may not be the best solution but that a mixed mode has greater flexibility for complex zoning in buildngs. Radiant systems combined with natural ventilation are a good combination. A good source of information on this is an article by Erin McConahey or ARUP in the September 2008 ASHRAE Journal called “Finding the Right Mix”.

Erin ranks high in my book in this field, as does her colleague presenting today, Peter Alspach.

ASHRAE Standard 189

Be aware, this one is the big standard emerging for green buildings. It has had a long and complicated development history but now seems to be on the home stretch with publication expected in December of this year. This standard will codify strategies in many of the LEED categories. There will be a combination of mandatory measures, prescriptive measures and a performance option where through calculations or other analysis one must show a project meets the same combined requirements of mandatory and prescriptive ones.

I focused on the energy related requirements. This topic deserves a full article so I won’t cover the details here, so keep checking back.

Lessons from Europe

This session was dominated by a leading energy engineering frim from Europe, Transolar. Oddly, they focused on several North American buildings where they applied thier Euro-experience.

Stay tuned for my report tomorrow.  I’m off to see Al Gore!

John.

LEED, 2030 Challenge, and many utility and incentive programs, emphasize a relative approach, even though code baselines are moving targets: codes will evolve over time – what code applied and during what year and what jurisdiction?. .

Building performance is also regularly discussed in absolute terms: applying an energy use index (EUI) in units such as kBTUs/sf-yr (thousands of British thermal units, per square foot, per year). Once these absolute units are known you have a great metric that can also be used to determine relative performance and conversely add meaning to the energy units

Having the energy consumption data to consider building performance in absolute units is essential, but once you have that information, it really becomes meaningful when you apply it in relative terms, to any baseline building that you wish: the last, best building that you designed; or your chief competitor’s best building; or the regional average for buildings of the same type; or the best European building that you have read about. Don’t be constrained by a baseline defined by one program or another. Once you target, in absolute terms, the energy performance that you believe you can achieve, you can compare it to any alternative that is meaningful to you or your client.

Some programs, such as LEED and certain utility and incentive programs, define energy savings as the difference between the energy use calculated by two energy simulation models, one a baseline building that meets a particular standard and the other the building as designed. The models may provide a superb engineering calculation of performance, given a certain set of design and operating assumptions, but don’t even think of this comparison as a predictor of actual energy performance. That just isn’t an appropriate use of a design tool that has limited application. No matter how carefully a model is constructed, assumptions made during design, and changes during construction, will result in a different reality.

Energy performance comparisons are the most meaningful when using the performance data for actual buildings. Setting performance targets makes a lot more sense when based on an understanding of the energy consumed in comparable buildings. Start collecting performance data from your firm’s projects. You may be surprised by which projects are performing well and which have significant room for improvement. Review case studies that provide actual performance data (not just the energy consumption modeled during design) about similar buildings. And, since no two buildings are identical and even similar buildings will have design and operating characteristics that will cause energy performance to vary, develop an understanding about the average performance of a particular building type in your region. This is likely to be your most useful baseline.

There are a number of sources for data about the average performance and characteristics of existing buildings. The U.S Department of Energy with the Energy Information Administration conducts the Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS)  every four years, publishes reports and summaries of commercial energy use and costs based on the survey, and also makes raw survey data available in a variety of electronic formats. Much of the CBECS data is excerpted and combined with other energy use data and published each year by the Energy Information Administration as the Buildings Energy Data Book. CBECS data is also the basis for the Architecture 2030 Challenge, and EnergyStar Target Finder and Portfolio Manager, so it is always worth review.

The State of California has an extremely useful data set called Commercial End Use Survey (CEUS) that considers the floor stocks, electric and natural gas consumption, energy use indexes, and hourly use load profiles for twelve commercial building types.

In the Northwest, NEEA has published an Assessment of the Commercial Building Stock in the Northwest , which was recently updated <Baseline Characteristics of the 2002-2004 Nonresidential Sector: Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington.

Each of these data sets will be useful resources over time. An excellent introduction to this topic, yet with enough depth to really help you negotiate among various rating systems, and energy and sustainability program requirements, is Charles Eley’s presentation Some Thoughts About Percent Savings Calculations and Rating Scales for Nonresidential Buildings, which can be viewed here.  It will take about 40 minutes of your time, but it will be time well spent

BetterBricks is a regular sponsor of Cascadia’s Transformational Lecture Series (TLS) – an ongoing speaking circuit that invites some of the most accomplished figures in the world of green building to share their insights, wisdom and experience with those in the industry. In addition to funding the series, BetterBricks conducts interviews with some the speakers (see our recent post: an Interview with Guy Battle).

Last year, we had the opportunity to interview TLS speaker Patrick Bellew prior to his visit to the Northwest.  Patrick is the founding director of U.K. based Atelier Ten and is a Chartered Building Services Engineer with more than twenty years’ experience in the design of high performance buildings and their systems.   The following is an excerpt from our interview with Patrick – the full interview can be read here.

BetterBricks: What have you learned from your experience incorporating biomimicry principles into buildings? Any advice for architects? Or engineers?

Bellew: In my lecture I cover my favorite bit of biomimicry, which is the nest of the termite. I talk a little bit about the magnetic termite and the barossa termite. These creatures have an amazing way of constructing their nests, and in particular they use a thermal storage system contained in the ground and the earth tube that brings air into the nest. They also use evaporation of water to provide cooling in these same heat stores to produce an air conditioning effect without actually running any chillers. We have used these principals many times on our buildings to integrate subterranean thermal storage into air conditioning pre-heat and pre-cooling systems to minimize the demands on the air handling plant in the building, providing comfortable conditions with very low energy consumption. So I believe very strongly in the principal of biomimicry as a way of mirroring design techniques.

However, I think there is a limit to the extent to which it can be applied. Nonetheless, I have found it extremely useful in getting across to clients the benefits of certain types of systems, and establishing a clear understanding that it’s physical principles that we are working with and not smoke and mirrors!

BetterBricks: You’ve explored considerably the use of environmental technologies in regard to heating and cooling. How do you convince your clients to adopt these strategies and coordinate with other team members, e.g. engineers?

Bellew: We have explored and developed high performance building technologies over many years with greater and lesser degrees of success with our clients. In every project, we attempt to bring in a degree of environmental thinking; usually phrasing it in terms of ‘no-brainers’ that one ought to do as a matter of course on the building. The next level are things that are slightly more of a stretch to reach, and then on to the more complex things that require a major shift in thinking about how buildings perform. We have been fortunate, however, to work with many clients for whom a push towards more sustainable design has been at the core of the selection process of their design team. In the early days, this type of client tended to be either owner/occupiers of buildings, such as universities and schools, or they would come from the government sector or cultural buildings such as art museums, schools again or public buildings of any kind. These were people who both owned and operated the buildings and, as it’s now phrased, the triple bottom line applied to very well. This means that they were paying the fuel bills, and so the benefits of investment in energy reduction were clearly demonstrable throughout the life of the building. It has been far more difficult to persuade the developers of commercial buildings, who are not paying their own fuel bills, to come to the party and build high performance, sustainable buildings.

This has changed somewhat in recent years, particularly the last two years in the UK, where the corporate social responsibility demands of the potential building tenants have moved our commercial sector much more towards the development of high performance buildings. I would say this has certainly been helped by the emergence of benchmarking rating systems. In the UK this is BREEAM, and in the US this is LEED. The impact of these benchmarking systems has been really significant in encouraging developers to achieve higher standards for their buildings, and recognize that they have a better chance of leasing a building that’s deemed to be high quality, than leasing a building that’s either not certified or of a lower quality. In a way this is exactly what the benchmarking systems set out to achieve in the first place. They are frequently derided by the nay-sayers as being a painful process, involving too much paper pushing, and many other negatives. However, I think they add extraordinary value in providing a level playing field for comparison of designs and design qualities.

Our experiences in the US in recent years have very much paralleled this situation in the UK. Our earlier projects were almost exclusively with universities and one or two enlightened developers, such as Liberty Property Trust out of Philadelphia. The universities were beginning to recognize the benefits of reducing their energy consumption and their infrastructure costs when developing new buildings, if they built them to a higher standard. At the same time, or soon after, the property development sector recognized that there were some pretty big changes on the horizon and started to respond. I wouldn’t say that they are all the way there yet, but certainly a good start is being made in certain parts of the country.

To respond to the second part of the question, about how to coordinate with other team members; the truth is that sometimes it’s very straight forward, and sometimes it’s not. Despite the fact that it is widely recognized that the architecture of the building is a key component of the way that buildings perform, and despite the fact that all the architects that we work with seek to incorporate environmental design measures into their buildings, there still remains a reluctance on the part of many architects to compromise architectural or aesthetic considerations for a technical one, no matter how carefully they are explained!

As the calculation tools have become more user friendly and particularly more graphical in the way that they represent energy flows within buildings, we have found it increasingly viable to speak with the architects at a graphical level, get them to understand the consequences of their decisions, and start to move towards making better buildings. For the most part however, the collaborative relationship within design teams, whether it be architects or structural engineers, has been exciting and for the most part fruitful.

Nonetheless, a realistic look back at many of our projects would suggest that most clients prepare a little bit in their ambitions, but moving them to more innovative environmental ideas still remains extremely difficult. I do think that sometimes we over analyze the things that we are doing.

In the earlier part of my career, we used to do what we called “stealth” engineering where we would simply install something, such as heat recovery, as standard on all the ventilation systems in the building, having satisfied ourselves that the energy efficiency gained was worth having. We wouldn’t necessarily do the detailed life cycle cost analysis to show that the client would realize a benefit over the long term, because we knew it would be so. The minute that you put it up as an additional item in the “green column” of the analysis, it is then a hostage to fortune and to budget cuts, whereas we would rather see it as being an intrinsic part of a good building. So these days, we do a combination of things that we just do as standard, and we then look for areas where we can “push the boat out” to make for buildings that move the debate about green design forward.

BetterBricks contributor and sustainable architecture consultant, Naomi Cole, penned this article highlighting this growing trend. Click here to read the full article on the BetterBricks website.