The Stranger reports that The Schuster Group is laying off staff and trying to sell its double-LEED-certified headquarters building in lower Queen Anne for $4 million.

An interior view of The Schuster Group\'s headquarters building

Dominic Holden’s post quotes Scott Bevan, senior development manager of Schuster, saying, “The building is actually owned by one of our investment groups and part of our responsibility is to return money to our investors … In order to return in that investment, we have got to sell the property.”

In addition to Mosler Lofts, this building has been a very significant feather in the green developer’s cap. It represented the company’s commitment to green building, and was often cited as an example of what could be done in green development. 

Last June, I reported on the double LEED certification for existing buildings and interiors here. The building’s improvements included daylighting 90 percent of the office space, installing daylight sensors control lighting, using rainwater barrels and a reflective roof.

In that story, Mark Schuster, founder and CEO of The Schuster Group, said, “We didn’t just want to create an environmentally savvy building, we wanted to create an environmentally friendly atmosphere in which every tenant and employee has an active role in using green practices every day.”

Schuster also spoke at a forum in February on how green development would be affected by the economy.  At that event, he said people in the green movement are going to have to be committed to jumpstarting green building once the economy comes back in a couple of years. To read the story, see the DJC here.

Earlier today, NAIOP national released a report that looks at the levels of energy efficiency a standard office building can achieve while remaining economically feasible.

The study looked at whether commercial development could achieve reduction

The Casey in Portland is designed to use 52 percent less energy than a similar, conventional building

targets of between 30 and 50 percent above ASHRAE 90.1-2004. It compared results on a four-story, 95,000-square-foot, Class A office building in climate zones represented in Chicago, Baltimore and Newport Beach, Calif.

The results?

“Findings show that although significant energy efficiencies can be achieved (varying by climate zone), reaching a 30 percent reduction above the ASHRAE standard is not feasible using common design approaches and would exceed a 10-year payback. The study concluded that achieving a 50 percent reduction above the standard is not currently reachable.”

Here is the breakdown:

Chicago had a 23 percent increase in energy savings at a $188,523 cost increase at an 8.8 year payback.

Baltimore had a 21.5 percent increase in energy efficiency at a $165,148 cost increase at an 11 year payback.

Newport Beach had a 15.8 percent increase in energy savings at a $169,898 additional cost at a 12.2 year payback.

Ouch. Those are long paybacks for most developers. But then again, developers ARE targeting these goals and reaching them. Heck, there are net-zero buildings under development! NAIOP’s goal in developing this study was to prove that a one-size fits all approach does not work in green buildings, but that almost seems to holds true in countering the study, too. Though most of the developers who really push the green envelope, both in design and energy efficiency, are long-term holders of buildings.

Is that what it all comes down to? What a developer’s business model is?

The study also said elements of a holistic, integrated design approach that could create higher energy efficiencies were impractical in the study’s building prototype. The example the study gives is that a geothermal system requires an additional two acres of space, at least in the Newport Beach model.

To read the entire press release, go here.

READERS, if you like this post, subscribe to a free reader to make sure you are alerted whenever there’s a new post to the Green Building Blog. Just click on the ‘Subscribe in a Reader’ link at right!

Green building has many elephants in the room and thanks to the current state of the economy, this is a big one: will green building suffer because of the current state of the economy?

The problem with trying to answer this question is that it all comes down to

The road to market-wide green buildings?

definitions: what do you consider to be a green building? Does it need to be certified by a third party operation? Are you talking about all markets - commercial, homes, mixed use etc.?

Assuming you can answer the definition question, another one immediately presents itself: how do we measure how green buildings are doing? Is there any way to realistically measure the buildings that are putting off plans, and then how green building is a factor in that?

I cannot answer these questions without doing a lot of research with time I frankly don’t have. But in the end, it seems like there are two groups out there:

1. The group that thinks yes, green buildings will take a hit because they’re more expensive.

and

2. The group that thinks green buildings are actually more valuable because they cut down on energy use and electricity bills, and will hold their value better in future markets.

Which group do you belong to? Comment on my new poll at right, or tell me more below, to let me know!

P.S. For great coverage about how the market is affecting the Puget Sound region, check out the DJC. On Oct. 13, we ran a story from local contractor’s perspectives. On Oct. 14, we run a story on local architecture and engineering firm’s perspectives. Don’t miss them!

First off, let’s be clear. I’m not fear mongering, my point isn’t to scare people. But the doomsday scenario of China’s taking over the U.S. housing industry the same way Asia took over the U.S. auto industry was a driving factor behind Parr Lumber’s development of a building science-based efficient home product. 

In case you missed it, I discussed the product (and Asian threat, real or not) in an article last Thursday here.

The product is called the Parr High Performance System. Parr takes an architect’s plans, tweaks them, builds pieces of a house’s frame at a climate controlled plant and assembles the building’s envelope on site. It’s quick, easy and they say more efficient.

Parr says it reduces energy bills, reduces job site lumber waste by 75 percent, shortens the construction schedule, and provides cleaner air and consistent room temperature.

Oh, by the way, Toyota Housing Services has already entered the housing market in San Antonio, Texas.

Apparently, Toyota has been in the housing business since the 1970s. For more information on what the Japanese modular homes look like, see below or click here.

Nate Bond, director of sales at Parr, says houses have been built the same way since the stud frame home was invented in the 1800s. He says something needs to change to keep American homes competitive and efficient. If Asia brings a great, cheap, modular house to the mass American market, he said, “They would take over the U.S. housing market without firing a shot.” What do you think? Is he right?

If he is right, could efficient easy homes be the answer?

For an overview of the housing market from a mortgage planning perspective, check out this post called Brian’s Blog O-Parr-Tunity here.

For more on the Parr product, where the idea came from, how it works and building science, read my story in the DJC here.

In case you, dear reader, doubt big time American business is interested in the business opportunities of green, look no further to be convinced than the attendance list at a business-oriented event this week.

Amazon. Boeing. Battelle. Microsoft. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Expedia. Seattle City Light. The list read like a who’s-who in Northwest business.

The event was presented by Climate Solutions and McKinsey & Co. It presented a global view of business opportunities, and discussed cost effective strategies for Washington’s place in the market. A panel of leaders talked afterwards about where Washington is.

All the panelists were interesting. But after the event was done, attendees spent most of their time twittering about the perspective of Rob Bernard, chief environmental strategist at Microsoft. It is, after all, Microsoft.

Bernard was appointed to the role last winter. To read more about him (apparently he began his career in construction and building management), visit ‘A blog by Joev’ here.

So how does Microsoft see the world and its role in sustainability?
(more…)