Green Building Rating Systems. Part 1: A Primer

Green Building Rating Systems. Part 1: A Primer

Green Building Rating Systems. Part 1: A Primer

EPISODE DETAILS

Green, sustainable, and high-performance buildings have been around now for over three decades. Green building rating systems have been developed around the world to address the impact the built environment has on our health and our planet. There are many green building rating systems out there, but how good are they and do they adequately address the challenges facing our planet from the looming climate crisis. In this video series, we’re going to look at 10 of the most significant green building rating systems in the world. In this part 1 of our series, we’ll begin by looking at why we need sustainable buildings, how green building rating systems came about, and the five underlying foundations on which all rating systems address the aims of a sustainable building.

Buildings have a direct and indirect impact on human health and the natural environment. Energy, water, and natural resources are used and waste and harmful emissions are produced during the construction, renovation, operation, and demolition of buildings. In the United States. Buildings account for

[grdi_column_chart show_card=”off” bar_direction=”true” chart_title=”Resources Used By Building Construction & Operation” category=”energy, CO2,electricity,water,materials” data_element_name1=”%” data_element_value1=”41,40,73,14,40″ fill_color1=”#1c91bf” responsive_chart_direction=”1″ _builder_version=”4.17.4″ _module_preset=”default” _unique_id=”3ef9d64e-8d6e-40b0-9d33-36301ae0529f” global_colors_info=”{}”][/grdi_column_chart]

 in their construction and operation. According to the United Nations 2019 Global Status Report for buildings and construction, building construction and operations accounted for the largest share of both global final energy use at 36% and energy-related carbon dioxide emissions at 39%. To put it bluntly, the architectural and building industries have contributed the most to the current global climate crisis.

So how can these industries help to reduce, or more importantly, eliminate their impact on the environment? To understand why green building rating systems have developed, we must first look at what mechanisms are already in place to regulate the design, construction, and operation of buildings. Building codes exist around the world to meet minimum human health, safety, and welfare standards. These mandatory building codes are signed into law and vary widely from country to country and from city to city within a country.

In some areas of the world model building codes have been developed to minimize differences between neighboring jurisdictions. The International Code Council or ICC establishes model building codes called the I-Codes, which are predominantly used in the United States and the European Committee For Standardization establishes the Eurocodes predominantly used by countries in the European Union. As an example, the international code council updates its model building codes every three years, which are then adopted by most states in the US However, most buildings only meet the minimum requirements of building codes. To put this another way, most buildings are the worst buildings that can be built without breaking the law, and little attention is given to eliminating the ongoing negative effects of a building on the natural environment.

Most buildings are the worst buildings that can be built without breaking the law.

Voluntary green building rating systems try to fill the gap between mandatory building codes and designing and constructing a building that has the least impact on the natural environment. They not only consider a building’s impact on its inhabitants and the natural environment, but also a building’s ongoing operational footprint. Educating a building’s inhabitants and some green rating systems. Even look into the social and equitable implications of a building.

In an ideal world, the mandatory building codes would fully mitigate any environmental impact. However, building codes are far from addressing the full needs of the natural environment. The International Code Council has tried to address these concerns with the International Green Construction Code. However, the adoption of this code has been slow and states, so cities that do adopt it generally allow for voluntary participation. Two green building standards have also been developed in the United States. The ICC ASHRAE 700-2020 National Green Building Standard was first developed in 2008 for residential green building and received approval from the American National Standards Institute or ANSI. Also a collaboration between the American Institute of Architects, the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, ASHRAE, the US Green Building Council, and the Illuminating Engineering Society produced Standard 189.1 – standard for the design of high-performance green buildings except for low rise residential buildings. The International Green Construction Code is powered by standard 189.1 green building rating systems began back in 1990 with the launch of the Building Research Establishment Environment Assessment Method or BREEAM rating system in the United Kingdom. This was followed in 2000 by the US Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design or LEED rating system. Over the past few decades these and other green rating systems around the world have matured and developed into highly sophisticated blueprints on how to build sustainable high-performance buildings that protect human health and the natural environment.

Green building rating systems can vary in their approach to measuring a building’s performance. Some are prescriptive based and specify minimum or maximum values for various elements in construction. For example, minimum R-values for insulation, the efficiency of water heaters, or maximum air infiltration rates. In contrast, others are performance-based where the desired outcome is modeled in computer software and compared to a baseline. There is a push towards outcome-based verification that measures the energy usage of the final occupied built project over a 12-month period to validate that a building meets the requirements of the rating system.

Let’s look at the five fundamental areas that all green building rating systems and the green construction code use to help reduce the impact of a building on our planet.

1. Location & Site

Where a building is located has a direct effect on many of the other aspects of a building’s performance. The local climate, solar access, shading, the form and orientation of a building on a site all have direct impacts on a building’s energy, ventilation, and lighting needs. Most rating systems encourage construction on sites that are brownfields, sites that are contaminated that would enhance the natural environment through their environmental cleanup. Greyfields sites that have previously been developed with more than 20% impervious surfaces and infill, vacant lots within previously built areas.

All these types of sites restrict the spread of the built environment into the natural environment by preventing construction on Greenfield sites – lands not previously developed. Forests, protected natural areas, or near to wetlands where rainwater runoff from the built environment could adversely affect these delicate ecosystems.

Location & Site. An infill location in a city.

2. Water

Freshwater makes up just 2.5% of the water available on our planet with an even smaller percentage accessible for human consumption. With the Earth’s population growing and as water becomes more scarce, the ability to effectively use water becomes more incredibly important.
Every rating system looks at how we can reduce water usage in a building’s construction operation and its surrounding site. Alternatives to using drinking water to flush toilets and irrigate landscapes, such as onsite rainwater harvesting and closed-loop systems that recycle and reuse water are recommended. Saving drinking water and reducing wastewater is synergistic with the building site and location and with reducing energy.

3. Energy

Energy efficiency and consumption are the main focus areas of all rating systems. By reducing energy consumption and generating onsite energy, a building can achieve a net-zero or even net-positive energy consumption. Eliminating a building’s contribution to climate change has always been the primary focus of green building rating systems. A net-zero or net-positive energy building eliminates its operational carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. The focus is always efficiency first generation second.

4. Materials

The type and amounts of materials used in construction can have huge impacts on the planet. Imagine a building in Miami being constructed from materials sourced from China. The amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced by transporting these materials halfway around the world from China to Miami would create a huge carbon footprint. This is what is called embodied energy and we’ll go into more depth about this in another video. Locally sourced and sustainable materials are a priority. The toxicity and off-gassing of materials also plays a considerable role. Some materials are banned outright for their polluting attributes or if they are known to cause damage to humans.

5. Air

On average humans spend about 90% of their time indoors. If the air that you are breathing inside is terrible, you will probably end up feeling not too good. Sick building syndrome is a well-documented phenomenon related to harmful indoor air environments and ill people. The focus of most rating systems is to have optimal indoor air quality and environments free of pollutants.

If we make slow changes and are resistant to completely rethinking the role of architecture, we will remain part of the problem instead of emerging as part of the solution.

Building codes a mandatory, whereas green building rating systems, are voluntary. If building codes fully adopted environmentally sustainable requirements, then the landscape of construction would change significantly and quickly. However, this requires political will to make a change. Just like we only react to a pandemic once people start dying, it may be too late before we get to 100% environmentally sustainable design and construction. The architectural industry has the lead role and responsibility to design our way to a better future for our planet. If we make slow changes and are resistant to completely rethinking the role of architecture, we will remain part of the problem instead of emerging as part of the solution. It’s our choice. We hold an obligation to design and lead the way to a completely sustainable future and save the only real home we have. Planet Earth.

Some Useful Links for You to Get Started

Some Useful Links for You to Get Started

It seems like you’re running a default WordPress website. Here are a few useful links to get you started:

Migration

General

Performance

Security

Email

Our Partners

Join The Community Forum

50 Years of Earth Day – The Architecture Industry’s Responsibility to Planet Earth

50 Years of Earth Day – The Architecture Industry’s Responsibility to Planet Earth

50 Years of Earth Day – The Architecture Industry’s Responsibility to Planet Earth
50 Years of Earth Day – The Architecture Industry’s Responsibility to Planet Earth

Today, April 22, 2020, marks the 50th anniversary of Earth Day. According to the United Nations’ 2019 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction, the building sector accounts for 39% of global emissions contributing to climate change. Building construction and operations account for more than any other industry. With such a responsibility, has the architectural sector been able to meet its promises to eliminate harmful greenhouse gas emissions? Are we designing our way out of the climate crisis or are we stagnating in our traditional ways of thinking?

Similarly, architecture schools and accreditation boards must fully embrace a sustainable and net-zero emissions curriculum. We can no longer settle for the “greenwashing” of the architecture curriculum with environmental design isolated in its silo. Instead, we need a fully integrative curriculum that requires every design class to meet net-zero emissions. Architectural history should include the impacts historical buildings have had on the climate. Perhaps this may make us look at once revered architects in a different light. Materials and methods courses should highlight how bad building-as-usual is for the environment and focus on the embodied energy of a particular material or method of construction. Why aren’t structures classes not only calculating structural loads but also environmental loads? Surely, practice and project management should teach only integrative sustainable practices and procedures and leave the rest for the history books. Net-zero energy and emissions should be the baseline for all designs, not building codes. Every architecture student should be fully aware of the impact their design decisions make on the planet from day one of architecture school. If a design does not meet the criteria that the AIA has signed onto, net-zero emissions, then a student should fail. Unless we fully commit to net-zero energy and emissions, from education through to a finished and operating building, we are not living up to our responsibility nor the AIA’s commitment and declarations.

As architects and architectural companies, we have to be careful that we are not “greenwashing” our commitments and responsibilities to the planet. Joining initiatives such as Architecture 2030, a program for designing buildings that operate as carbon neutral by 2030, and pledging support to similar causes weakens our credibility if such promises only appear in publicity materials, on websites, or in email footers. As an industry, we have to face up to the considerable contribution we have made to the climate crisis. The American Institute of Architects (AIA) partnered with the Architecture 2030 Challenge to create the AIA 2030 Commitment in 2006. Such a big step forward must be congratulated for recognizing a need for such a program together with the AIA’s 2019 ratification of theResolution for Urgent and Sustained Climate Action. However, if we take a look at the large number of architectural companies that joined the AIA 2030 Commitment, many still have yet to report actual projects that meet the challenge. In addition, many companies that signed onto the Architecture 2030 Challenge over 20 years ago have not completed a project, and large architecture companies only have a handful of projects in relation to the size of their firms. Architecture companies need to step up their game, educate their clients, and push for change. If the entire industry recognizes this, then the path forward will be much easier.

Greenwashing of Architecture

AIA has already pushed the net-zero emission target for the building sector from 2030 to 2050. That’s 30 years from now! And we are still not fully addressing embodied energy – the amount of energy used, and subsequently, carbon produced from the mining, manufacturing, and transportation of building materials. According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the planet does not have that amount of time! Unfortunately, similar to the exponential increase of coronavirus infections in the United States from 1 to 827,022 cases and 45,398 deaths in 94 days, the world’s climate pandemic is already underway. The impacts of the climate crisis will scale rapidly and overload our ability to handle the crisis effectively. If we do not commit 100% now, millions of people will die or be displaced. Hundreds, if not thousands of species will become extinct as we head closer to a planet incapable of sustaining life as we know it. The death and irreversible destruction we face will dwarf that of any global pandemic.

Architects Looking Over Architectural Plans

Similarly, architecture schools and accreditation boards must fully embrace a sustainable and net-zero emissions curriculum. We can no longer settle for the “greenwashing” of the architecture curriculum with environmental design isolated in its silo. Instead, we need a fully integrative curriculum that requires every design class to meet net-zero emissions. Architectural history should include the impacts historical buildings have had on the climate. Perhaps this may make us look at once revered architects in a different light. Materials and methods courses should highlight how bad building-as-usual is for the environment and focus on the embodied energy of a particular material or method of construction. Why aren’t structures classes not only calculating structural loads but also environmental loads? Surely, practice and project management should teach only integrative sustainable practices and procedures and leave the rest for the history books. Net-zero energy and emissions should be the baseline for all designs, not building codes. Every architecture student should be fully aware of the impact their design decisions make on the planet from day one of architecture school. If a design does not meet the criteria that the AIA has signed onto, net-zero emissions, then a student should fail. Unless we fully commit to net-zero energy and emissions, from education through to a finished and operating building, we are not living up to our responsibility nor the AIA’s commitment and declarations.

As the most significant sector contributing to climate change, the architectural industry has the lead role and responsibility to design our way to a better future for our planet. If we make slow changes and are resistant to completely rethinking the role of architecture, we will remain part of the problem instead of emerging as part of the solution. It’s our choice. We hold an obligation to design and lead the way to a completely sustainable future and save the only real home we have – planet Earth.