Does a green building cost more than other buildings?
It’s a myth in the minds of people that a green building costs more. Most think the price tag on building sustainably is 20 to 50% more than conventional construction. At the design stage of a building, if all of these features are introduced, it will help you to manage the expenses. The aim is to tell the ordinary person that green buildings do not cost more.
Anyone who constructs a house should keep in mind that the house will be there for, say, 60 years or so. Let’s agree that the cost of the house has increased a little bit. It doesn’t matter if you invest a little additional amount because, year on year, you will keep enjoying benefits such as reduced electricity bills, better comfort, and better health. You want better comfort at lower operating costs. And the payback period is hardly 1 or 2 years.
When we speak about the cost-effectiveness of a building, it is essential to know that the cost of its construction is not the only thing considered. Still, the analysis is more complex and is called the Life cycle assessment (LCA) approach. In terms of the built environment, ‘life cycle’ refers to a product, building, or service throughout its whole life. For example, this would include its design, construction, operation, and disposal concerning a building. Considering the complete life cycle of a building can help ensure that all aspects are appropriately considered, rather than just the construction cost.
Another common term related to life cycle assessment is cradle-to-cradle. Instead of designing cradle-to-grave products dumped in landfills at the end of their’ life,’ we need to transform the industry by creating products for cradle-to-cradle cycles, whose materials are perpetually circulated in closed loops. Maintaining materials in closed loops maximizes material value without damaging ecosystems.
From the point of view of green building, this is a fundamental approach because the investment in design and construction can be a bit higher than in conventional building. Still, the investment will be compensated during operation and disposal, i.e., the building will be cost-effective.
To be quite clear, we think that green building always pays off. It is only a matter of knowing how to put it into practice taking into account all the four phases in the life cycle of a building and correctly doing the basic calculations. But that’s why you are here, listening to a course that will teach you to perfectly understand one of the most critical elements of economic analysis, i.e., energy consumption.
We think the costs for green buildings are different, not more.
Interestingly, the public dramatically overestimates the marginal cost of green building. Green buildings are a long-term investment. The use of renewable energy sources can considerably reduce the costs of energy, heating, and air-conditioning costs, making the maintenance costs 20% lower than in traditional buildings. Investing just 2% in a green project will save you more than ten times investment in the long run. Therefore, if the construction project is worth $ 1 million and an additional $ 20,000 is invested in green design, it will save $ 200,000 for 20 years. The initial construction costs may be a bit higher, but when the future costs are estimated, and everything is summed up, it’s enough to convince everyone that green building is the right thing.
Benefits of green buildings
Green buildings may be easier to finance because they are designed to be durable, flexible, and healthy. In addition, the lifetime costs are lower—strategies for energy efficiency and water conservation yield operational savings for the lifetime of the building. Integrated design strategies allow tradeoffs that can reduce first costs. For example, techniques such as passive solar allow heating equipment to be downsized. Chiller size can be reduced with high-efficiency lighting, which generates a smaller heat load in the building.
Of course, in the end, one of the goals of green building is the optimization of costs because nobody wants this building to be expensive and unaffordable or technically too demanding. By no means can the price be considered apart from the benefits that green building brings, which can be:
- Economic benefits
- Human benefits
- Community benefits
We don’t speak only about savings or costs measured in money, but also about something much more important that needs to be taken into account: the comfort and satisfaction of occupants and their health. So if you’re the owner of a business, you want one that will increase productivity — thermal, visual, acoustic comfort — and that can impact 1 percent to 10 percent on worker productivity; the money isn’t in the construction or energy. The dollars are in the people. Green Buildings provide financial benefits that conventional buildings do not. These benefits include energy and water savings, reduced waste, improved indoor environmental quality, greater employee comfort/productivity, reduced employee health costs, and lower operations and maintenance costs.
Daylighting, improved air quality, greater thermal control, and other indoor environmental quality strategies improve occupant satisfaction. Greater satisfaction often leads to increased productivity and morale, decreased turnover, and reduced absenteeism. Integrated design strategies reduce the risk of sick building syndrome and minimize callbacks.
If, however, we consider energy improvements part of an overall process, we often find that long-term savings balance the added costs. The initial expenditures continue to pay back over time, like a good investment. The best returns on these investments are realized when the green building is integrated into the process at the earliest stages rather than as a last-minute effort. For instance, specification of more costly, high-performance windows may allow for the use of a smaller, lower-cost heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) system. Suppose we view sustainable design as part of the necessary functional requirements for building an energy-efficient structure and providing a safe, healthful environment. In that case, we can compare the cost of the green building with that of other buildings in the same class against an artificially low baseline.
The choice of green building as a concept and the desire to apply for a green building certificate shows that the investor has a broader picture and vision of the structure they want to build. The cost of getting a building certified should be considered a marketing cost and not a construction cost because the certification raises awareness about a building, leading to publicity and tenants who move in. After all, the building is green. Owners and developers who choose not to have green buildings or ignore certification will find that potential tenants aren’t interested in their buildings in a matter of a few or more years.
To summarize the lesson once again, concerns about the potentially higher first costs of building green have not been borne out by research. Studies conducted during the pre-recession building boom demonstrate that reasonable levels of sustainable design can be incorporated into most building types at little or no additional cost. However, green building is a significant predictor of tangible improvements in building performance, and those improvements have considerable value. Studies have shown that certified green buildings command significantly higher rents.
Green buildings, as many knows, have a less negative impact on the environment than traditional buildings. Their construction minimizes on-site grading, saves natural resources using alternative building materials, and recycles construction waste rather than sending truck after truck to landfills. A majority of a green building’s interior spaces have natural lighting and outdoor views, while highly efficient HVAC (heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning) systems and low-VOC (volatile organic compound) materials like paint, flooring, and furniture create a superior indoor air quality.
If you want to keep the construction of green buildings within the frameworks of the standard budget, there are some rules you can think about. Of course, we should keep in mind that each building, site, and investor is a separate case requiring a unique approach.
Understand a wider context
Some studies show that integrating green principles into a building’s planning and design process can generate 40% more savings and 40% better performance than simply adding green technologies to a traditionally planned and designed facility. Planning, designing, and constructing a green building isn’t like installing new signage or adding a design feature at the last minute. If a company wants to stay within a standard budget and reap the full benefits of a sustainable building, all development decisions from the start must be guided by a green mindset.
It’s crucial to hire the right project team members: architects, engineers, contractors, and consultants who are knowledgeable about the broad spectrum of green design tools and technologies and who have experience planning and constructing a variety of green facilities. Team members unfamiliar with green will often resist any deviation from standard design principles, building materials, and construction processes. They will make mistakes on everything from the amount of insulation needed to selecting interior components like nontoxic flooring, therefore limiting the building’s sustainability and harming the budget.
Choose location
It might be surprising for many of you that it is important to choose locations that have been devastated or that once were built on or the so-called brownfield sites for new construction. By selecting such places, we avoid contributing to sprawl and the degradation of environmentally significant areas. In that way, we don’t open newly built sites that waste untouched nature. We save simultaneously because the already built sites usually have inherited some infrastructure, making our construction less expensive. Of course, we must rehabilitate the site and increase its value by building on it through our intervention.
Carry out basic analyses
To complete a successful green building on a standard budget, the project team must apply a cost/benefit analysis to each component before allocating funding. For instance, a green roof costs more than a standard roof to install. Still, it brings a more significant return on investment because it lasts years longer and provides more benefits, particularly stormwater management and lower energy costs.
Cost/benefit analyses should also incorporate the financial assistance, tax breaks, and other incentives that more and more cities, states, and utility companies offer to organizations that construct green buildings.
Make the Site Plan Work for You
Site planning can minimize the number of on-site infrastructures like roads and parking lots, reduce grading and other earthworks, limit erosion, maximize sediment control, and provide easy access to public transportation. One simple site-planning strategy that can reap significant benefits is building orientation. Consider interior lighting. Typically, it makes up 20% to 25% of an office building’s direct energy use partly because the heat generated by the lights leads to more air-conditioning. Building orientation, however, can create a daylit interior that needs much less artificial lighting, saving money both upfront and over the long run. In locations commonly subject to winds, buildings can be oriented to capture the breezes through rooftop clerestories and other windows that provide cross-ventilation.
Landscape for Savings
Landscaping, particularly in suburban locations, is another cost-effective green tool. It is especially good at minimizing heat islands—heat buildup from the sunlight pouring onto dark, non-reflective surfaces. West- and south-facing building walls, for example, often become heat islands. Covering them with green screens (metal lattices planted with vines or climbing flowers) will significantly reduce the heat island effect and minimize interior solar heat gain. Mature trees can shade building walls, roofs on low-rise buildings, roads, and parking areas.
A green roof landscaped with drought-tolerant grasses and plants also lessens the heat island effect. On a downtown building surrounded by many other buildings—each of which acts as a heat island—the impact can be dramatic. For example, studies show that Chicago City Hall’s landscaped roof surface was, on average, 70 degrees cooler in the summer than the standard dark, heat-trapping roofs of nearby buildings, and the air temperature above the roof was 15 degrees cooler. A green roof also helps clean the air, serves as a wildlife habitat, and absorbs and filters rain that would otherwise flood storm drains and streets.
Take Advantage of Technology
Green building technologies help conserve and even generate energy. Companies can, for example, install motion-sensitive lighting sensors and individual climate controls in offices and at workstations. Again, such technologies cost more upfront than standard building systems. Still, companies and developers can stay on a mainstream budget by taking advantage of the growing number of incentives and funding opportunities offered to companies installing building systems that save energy over the long run.
Technology is advancing very fast, and the prices of appliances and systems are constantly falling. This is a fact that is beneficial to all those who want to build green. It takes lots of knowledge and consultations with other experts to choose the right system and technology that is optimal for a particular building and the conditions it is situated in.
Save and Manage Water
As water becomes scarcer and more expensive in many parts of the world, firms need to focus on conservation. They can install water-conserving irrigation systems and plumbing, waterless urinals (which are more sanitary than standard ones), native and drought-tolerant landscape plants, and use recycled (not potable) water for landscaping needs.
Use Alternative Materials
Green building materials create a healthier and safer workplace for employees. Many types of sustainable, nontoxic building materials are now readily available at reasonable prices. These include low- and zero-VOC paints, strawboard made from wheat (rather than formaldehyde-laced particle board), and linoleum flooring made from jute and linseed oil (rather than standard vinyl, which is packed with toxins). Materials like 100% recycled carpeting and heavy steel, acoustic ceiling tiles and furniture with significant recycled content, and soybean-based insulation often cost the same as or less than standard materials. They have a much less negative impact on the environment.
Construct Green
How you build is just as important as where and what you build. Achieving superior indoor air quality, for example, starts during the construction process. By coordinating wet and dry activities, construction crews can avoid contaminating dry materials with moisture and making them breeding grounds for mold or bacteria. Mechanical ductwork can be protected from project site pollutants if sealed in the factory before shipment and kept locked until installed.
Recycling construction waste is part of the green process that brings several benefits:
- The waste is not dumped in a landfill.
- Recycling costs are often much lower than landfill fees.
- By crushing the concrete and asphalt from a demolished facility and using it as structural fill for a new building on that site, a company can save hundreds of thousands of dollars because it doesn’t have to ship that waste off-site and buy gravel for structural fill.
Renovation
Of course, we don’t speak only about new buildings but also about those that need to be renovated. Renovation is a chance to upgrade a building and make it green in all aspects while being cost-effective at the same time.
As green goes mainstream, standard buildings will rapidly become obsolete and lose value. To avoid this problem, building owners should carry out green renovations. A green renovation can include everything from a new green roof to more efficient HVAC and lighting systems, enlarged existing windows, and low-VOC paints and flooring.
These are just some of the topics that are important to think about if we want to build green and cost-effectively at the same time.
As architects, we should give more time and think to design the building. Reduce, reuse and recycle are three components of a green building. One should use things that will reduce energy consumption or products that can be reused or recycled. For instance, some tiles are made of recycled products; one should consider such tiles. Even when we change the tiles, tiles can recycle them. Other simple concepts are: facilitating cross-ventilation and avoiding direct sun rays into the house. Of course, there can be limitations, such as if the building orientation is such that it does not allow you to do much. But even then, some measures can make a building more efficient, and one should explore them.
Therefore, to conclude, the construction of green buildings has no alternative. It is the construction of the 21st century, and it should be the only choice of us architects. However, this type of building requires us to educate ourselves and investors and developers constantly. It is a continuous process that makes both our facilities and us better. The price of design and construction of such buildings should in no way be an obstacle to building green because this type of building has no alternative.
