Jameson Detweiler

I was originally going to write a post titled “Entrepreneurs Need Friends that Will Smack Them” today, but I’m tired, and I’m going to write that tomorrow. Instead, I’m going to dump some thoughts I’ve been having about the lack of transparency in the building industry. One of my goals with this blog is to develop and refine rough thoughts and ideas that have to do with my professional life. This is the first post to that end, and you’ll likely see these thoughts pop up on the GreenKonnect blog in the not too distant future.

On to the point, the industrialization of the world has done some amazing things. To me, one of the most amazing things is the advances in materials. (Disclaimer: My background is in Materials Science & Engineering, so I’m a little biased.) The ability to actually synthesize and manufacture new materials has allowed us to transform the world virtually overnight. (The invention of plastics was especially important in this transformation.)

Part of me loves the advances that we have made. Part of me is bothered that we’ve been irresponsible about the way we’ve used resources that cannot be replenished any time soon. The part of me that I want to address now is the my concern that these advances have also created significant health problems.

Today, if you say asbestos, people freak out. No one will step foot in a building that has it and for good reason. What many people fail to realize is that there are many other materials which are dangerous to our health. The list of hazardous materials is continuously growing.

PVC, which is widely used and previously believed to be safe, is definitely not safe. New carpet can aggravate allergies. Old carpets can harbor allergens. Many paints release unhealthy levels of VOCs. It is estimated that as many as 30% of the buildings we live and work in are “sick”. (The study is from 1982, but there is no reason to think it is better today.) Sick buildings are due to two things: bad materials and poor maintenance.

We spend the majority of our time indoors, yet, we know hardly anything about what we’re being exposed to in these buildings. You wouldn’t move to a new city without researching crime statistics. You wouldn’t take a prescription drug without knowing the potential side effects. (At least I hope you wouldn’t do any of these things.) We like to know what we’re getting into. Why shouldn’t we know what we’re stepping inside of?

LEED is a fantastic label, but it does not adequately addresses this issue. If you expect me to step into a building, I ought to be able to find out how it was built, how it is maintained and what it was built with. Building labels have been talked about for the past decade, but those will not be useful until building owners and operators are willing to share this info. Even if they were willing to share it, most of them would not be able to find it. This needs to change. This info should be available for every building we live and work in.

Today, the only thing transparent about buildings are the windows.

I am a long time proponent of U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) and its LEED Green Building Rating System. LEED has drawn a lot of criticism. The rating system has some flaws, but it is the only third party verified rating system that is trustworthy. Unlike its competitor, Green Globes (which was started by industries because USGBC did not think their products or practices were sustainable), USGBC is transparent in its operations and in the rating systems itself. Some say LEED adds too much cost too a project. I believe that LEED does not add any significant cost, but lets look at why. I propose that the majority of the added costs of LEED would be incurred anyway if people were already building sustainably and responsibly. Essentially, you cannot honestly build “green” unless you add these costs anyway.

First, the fees for USGBC are $600 ($450 for USGBC members) for initial project registration, and the certification fees range from $2,250 to $22,500 depending on the size of the project ($1,750 to $17,500 for USGBC members). This number is not an unreasonable addition to a building project. When people say that LEED is too expensive, it is typically not because of USGBC’s fees. In fact, the major added costs come from “greening” and soft costs. The “greening” costs are the premiums required for green building products and green building services/practices. This typically adds between 3-8% to the cost of a non-green building and is an inherent requirement for building green. “Greening” costs are not typically criticized. Soft costs are.

Soft costs are incurred from additional design work (0.4-0.6% total construction cost), commissioning of the project (0.5-3%), documenting for LEED ($8,000-70,000), energy modeling (~0.1%) and LEED application fees (previously discussed). The additional design work for “greening” is not criticized as a part of LEED, but generally, people would rather avoid commissioning, documentation and energy modeling. But these three components are very useful, and I would even argue that with our without LEED, should still be performed any time. “Commissioning involves an outside team of individuals that is not part of the design and construction team. Their primary area of responsibility is to ensure compliance of ‘fundamental building elements and systems’ with the LEED guidelines.” This is about accuracy and transparency (you’ll be hearing this word a lot more from me). Commissioning ensures honesty and helps prevent mistakes. Energy modeling is an absolute no brainer and is one the simplest things you can do to ensure energy efficiency of a building. It is also one of the cheapest things to do, but it frustrates people because it requires learning new software or hiring a consultant.

But the most the thing that most people complain about is the documentation which is often the most expensive and time consuming component of LEED certification. It is important to understand though that the strain documenting a LEED project is often misrepresented by teams who are doing it for the first time. Plenty of outside consultants (such as Re:Vision Architecture in Philadelphia) have done this process many times and are able to perform this task quickly and easily. More importantly, this documentation should really be a part of every project. As I said, before, it is all about transparency. The details of the efficiencies, materials, etc. are something that should be readily available for every project. The documentation essentially is a record of the “vital statistics” of the building. What went into it, how it was put together, how it effects the surrounding area, etc. This is the sort of info that should be available to anyone who enters the building and for public critique. Remember, we occupy these buildings. It ought to be our right to know what might present a problem in a building.

Essentially, I’m saying that while LEED may add cost to a project, what the USGBC requires should be standard for any building, so the only cost that I would consider “additional” is the $600 registration fee and $2,250 to $22,500 certification fees (and those are nonmember rates). These fees certainly justify the benefits of the LEED label. Additionally, LEED has proven to be a good investment due to lower operating costs (25-30% in energy savings) and increased market value (an additional $11.24 per square foot and 3.8% higher occupancy). Much of this information came from a study titled Analyzing the Cost of Obtaining LEED Certification. It is a very worthwhile read.

LEED isn’t perfect. In many ways, it is little more than a checklist, but this checklist has an established track record, third-party verification and the guarantee of transparency.