Our first week, we discussed going “Green” and what it meant to be aware of our effect on the environment, making positive choices and considering the full life cycle of our products. One aspect that is often discussed in correlation with these ideas is the built environment and what steps can be taken to minimize our environmental impact. While there is often deserved praise for energy efficient buildings, this article is a very thorough study that emphasizes the environmental value of retrofitting buildings as opposed to new construction. At a basic level, this idea is not very surprising; what I found more interesting is exactly how “Green” this can be in practice. As stated in the study, each year, almost ¼ of current construction is demolished and rebuilt! Even if this new construction is very much energy efficient, utilizing the best products and practices, it can take between 10 and 80 years to overcome the climate impacts incurred during the construction process!!! In contrast, upgrading and readapting an existing building produces almost immediate environmental savings. Through very informative graphs and case studies, these claims can be explored in greater detail.
Today in class, we discussed how different communities use and live within their environment. In some groups, farmers would consistently adapt their habits and strategies to maximize their gain, while instinctively respecting and preserving their surroundings. In our modern society, that attachment to our environment is often forgotten, and habits allow for a replacement of products instead of reuse. In fact, according to this study, current building policies and regulations are an obstacle to sustainability, historically favoring new construction and undermining sustainability efforts. This study was an intriguing look at just how much recycling buildings can help us meet our carbon reduction goals in contrast to even the best replacements. This is quite a long article. I recommend reading the first couple pages that summarize the study and glancing over the charts: some of them are quite concise in demonstrating the results. Often, it seems to me, a retrofitting process can be just, if not more costly and wasteful as brand new construction. Do you think these findings are valid and what, if any are some other issues in play here?
I thought this article presented a very interesting perspective on building in the U.S. It does seem that in developed countries (including China, Japan, Dubai etc) there is an urge to build bigger and bigger buildings each year. Construction has become more of a competition between nations to showcase their wealth and innovation rather than a way to provide housing and shelter to the masses as is the case in underdeveloped nations. The buildings of ancient civilizations, like Rome for instance, were built to last forever, and many of these great buildings still exist and are maintained today. From the temples in Greece to the mosques in Spain, these monuments stand as physical testaments of the people's ingenuity, dedication, and social values. Somewhere along the line, America lost its respect for the environment, and like Acid Rain said, "our attachment to the environment." The question is, how do we re-attach ourselves to the environment? I think the first step is altering America's perception of construction. We need to learn to treasure buildings like the ancient Romans did - renovating and retrofitting to ensure their longevity. But it all begins with the altering the mindset of the people. It needs to be a bottom-up transition to drive a shift in the market.
ReplyDelete** HIghlighted Article of the Week **
ReplyDeleteWhen the U.S. Green Building Council established the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program, it set out to award buildings on their efforts to "go green", and ranked them on their "green-ness". Recently, the LEED certification system has come under scrutiny for not being as green as it may seem. A mechanical engineer for the city of New York is a major opponent of the LEED system claiming it is false advertising. LEED certified buildings are supposed to be more energy efficient than non-LEED buildings, but this is just an illusion. According to the engineer's own study, LEED certified buildings use 29% more energy than regular buildings.
ReplyDeleteAn architecture teacher from Notre Dame gave a lecture in my Environmental Politics class last semester and raised her own objections to the LEED certification system. Her main problem with it was that the system did not award many points for re-using an existing structure and making it more green (aka retro-fitting). Getting rid of an entire building is very wasteful, and finding ways to re-use the building is more helpful to the environment. What stuck with me the most from this lecture was just how easy it was to receive points under the LEED system. Merely reserving front parking spaces for low emissions vehicles can gather the building points towards certification.
The LEED system is an important start in changing the mindset of the American people, but changes and improvements can be made in order to make the system more legitimate. Focusing on the re-use of a building rather than constructing a new building will help this transition that The Domer talked about above.
While, I agree with Summer's opinion that the LEED system needs improvements, I think that the certification system deserves more credit; after all, we have to start somewhere.
DeleteThe LEED system is based on points, and all LEED credits are worth a MINIMUM of 1 point. Therefore, since the parking space is allotted 1 point, this signifies its relative insignificance among other "green" building initiatives.
The purpose of awarding a point for parking spaces for low emissions vehicles is to "reduce pollution and land development impacts from automobile use." It's a simple way to encourage consumers to invest in low emissions vehicles which will hopefully drive the automobile industry to produce greener cars.
Furthermore, to be LEED "certified", the lowest category in the LEED ranking system, one has to have 40 points! And for the highest category, you need 80 points. This is no easy task. But at the same time, the whole point behind the LEED system is that accreditation is possible for the owner to attain. If the LEED certification system were too rigorous, no one would pursue it.
At work, I am in charge of documenting LEED points at the project site. EVERY single product (from toilet paper dispensers, to lockers, to concrete mixes, etc) has to have it's recycled content, manufacturing location, VOC content, and other criteria documented. All of this info, in addition to recycled contents from the on-site dumpsters is submitted to a review committee who then decides how many points should be awarded for our efforts. From personal experience, I have found it is very difficult to attain all of these points. One point can make all the difference in the world in the certification system, and we have to work hard to merit each one.
In conclusion, I don't entirely disagree with your views on LEED, but experience has taught me to think of the certification system in another light.