Define Green Building July 7, 2008

Defining Green is an important first step towards understanding the conversation taking place surrounding the idea. When we first set to work writing the Green building standards for Minnesota we started by looking for a definition of Green building. Surprisingly very few people or organizations had sought to define it, so we did it ourselves. Here is what we came up with:

Green building is the application of the five key components to the traditional building practices for the purpose of improving the life of the occupant and the impact of the home on the occupant, the surrounding community, and the environment.

The five key concepts are as follows:

· Resource Efficiency (includes concepts of durability, embodied energy, Life Cycle Analysis)

· Water conservation (includes irrigation, plantings, indoor and outdoor water used)

· Energy Efficiency (Energy consumed in the operation and occupation of the home)

· Indoor Environmental Quality (Includes EMF, Radon, Lead, and air pollutants)

· Site and Community Impact (Erosion, storm water, land use, social impact, air pollutants outside the home, global community impact)

Since then, a number of people have also taken a pass at creating a definition of Green building and they all look rather similar to this one. The primary difference in definitions comes in the key concepts chosen. Some authors have taken a much narrower view eliminating the Site and Community Impact, or have chosen to deal with indoor air quality rather than indoor environmental quality. I do not buy into the stool or the chair metaphors (3 legs, 4 legs) but argue that there are five distinct sets of glasses that must be used to evaluate Green building. (Note: in theory we could move water into the resource efficiency category as water is a resource that we should be efficient with, however I don’t feel that it takes it far enough. It is not sufficient to be efficient with our water usage. Rather we must actively conserve our water resources and given waters close relationship with life it is deserving of its own category)

Which of these is the most important? I could make a strong case for Water, as we are rather dependant on it for survival, but in the eyes of Green building all five should be equal. In fact it is the balance that we strive to create between these five concepts that makes Green both viable and attractive to everyone. Green is the first win-win proposition to come around in a long while.

I would like to point out that we used the term “traditional building practices”. There are non-traditional building practices that can be very Green, however since the majority of construction in our world uses traditional techniques it seemed important to indicate that this was a shift in the way that we use those traditional methods. Keep in mind that “traditional” would include stick frame, masonry, concrete and steel, as well as cob, straw bale, stone, and earth (adobe and rammed). I look forward to the day when we can plant a seed and grow our bio-home, but until then we need to look to more accessible methods of construction.

It is also interesting to mention that under this platform of Green, we have seen numerous environmental groups come together along with generally conservative building associations and industry. Additionally, regulatory and government agencies have been willing to work with these groups in partnership; a change from the previously adversarial roles everyone had been used to playing.

To build Green or not to build Green June 17, 2008

I had a meeting this afternoon with a colleague who posed an excellent question that I thought was worth sharing here. The questioned asks: Is it ethical for architecture to produce anything but Green design? Is it ethical for builders to build anything but Green? Is it ethical for remodelers to do anything but remodel Green?

This comes across as a tough question when in fact the answer should really be easy.

There is a great deal of noise and attention given to projects across the world that purport to be Green when in fact little about the project is truly Green. Attention may be given to a single attribute that has minimal impact or should really be the baseline for projects rather than celebrated as an achievement. Projects that have met code requirements are hardly examples to be followed.

Much of the problem falls back to our media outlets who struggle to maintain readership and complain that they have to keep their readers attention. The general public doesn’t care about a life-cycle analysis study, or an achievement in embodied energy. You can’t publish pictures of PEX piping or flashing details. Counter-tops, flooring solutions, large homes and lavish furnishings – this is what we want to see.

Even the trade publications want it kept simple and palatable. “We don’t want to overwhelm people.” “We have to take it one small step at a time.” “We don’t want to appear to be too far out there.” “You know how tradespeople are, most of them don’t own computers. You can’t expect them to understand how to properly document a job.”

This pervasive culture of mediocrity and acceptance of the lowest common denominator as the status quo is the reason why in todays world we still question whether the world is changing, whether we humans have an impact on the planet, whether climate change is a hoax, and whether Green building is important. This allows us to still design and build outrageous buildings with no consideration given to impact. It gives us permission to construct 12,000 sf homes for a family of two and present it to the public as Green. The media accepts this and in the interest of a story (substance need not be included) promotes this same monstrosity rather than condemn it.

So is it ethical to continue down the road we are on? At what point do we take responsibility for our actions? When does the Architect refuse to design buildings that are not efficient in resources and healthy for the occupants? When will the public demand a higher standard of living? When will ethics play a role in Architecture?