The Washington Policy Center, a conservative think-tank whose mission is to “improve lives through market solutions,” has issued a report on green buildings in the state that has less than stellar results.

However, the center is not totally a nonpartial organization. And the study, which is not even a full four

You should know better!

pages long, seems shaky to me in that references cited include articles that are not cited, single emails, and only a small handful of case studies that really don’t provide the reader with much information with which to make an informed decision. It also is very narrow in scope and only looks at a few types of projects.

Nevertheless, the points brought up in the study are of interest. The gist is that performance-based contracting in Washington State and schools that use the Washington State High Performance Schools Protocol have mixed results. Some save energy, some don’t and many have long pay back times. Additionally, the study says there is often not enough information available to track how much energy is actually being saved.

These are important issues that need to be studied on the local level. But I’d like to see them investigated in a more thorough and scientific manner.

The study also proposes three solutions to the problem: rigorous audits of green projects, local control and flexibility as state mandated “cookie-cutter” approaches don’t always work, and accountability in holding agencies and contractors responsible for project results. The study says “if there are no costs for the agency or contractor for failing to achieve energy savings targets, there is unlikely to be strict enforcement or effective auditing. Without those elements, savings are not likely to materialize.”

In general, these suggestions do make sense. Green projects should be audited and if something is wrong with the design, that information needs to circulate back to the architect so they can learn from their mistakes. Flexibility often has beneficial results (though I don’t know I’d go so far as to change state policy on that front). And there should be some level of accountability for projects or team members that don’t meet their goals.

Now, how do you think we should do this? I’ve heard that rough times (ie the past year, anyone?) are the best times to make sweeping changes to the way we work. But I find it hard to imagine legislators moving on requiring audits or some level of accountability in green building at any point in the near future.

Ignoring the study’s flakiness, is the Washington Policy Center right with their three suggestions? In a perfect world, what would you want to see? What is the best way to ensure that green buildings are living up to their planned predictions?

In case you missed it, I wrote a story in yesterday’s DJC about how Intracorp Marketing & Sales had been hired by Bank of America to finish and sell the remaining 17 properties at Ashworth Cottages. Ashworth Cottages, Seattle’s first LEED platinum housing project, went into foreclosure in August.

Last May, I wrote a post about what went wrong at Ashworth here and it has been one of my most popular

Image courtesy Intracorp

posts ever since. Most commenters said the prime problem was houses were simply priced too high. Judging by how they’re being snapped up now, you were right.

When the homes came on the market, they were priced between $739,000 and $950,000. Today, they are priced between $399,000 and $649,000. Of the original 20 homes, 17 went into foreclosure. Since those 17 homes went on the market in a soft opening last week, eight of them have received purchase and sale agreements as of Wednesday, according to Jeff Smallwood of Intracorp.

In the article, I reference a few of your comments that said the price point was too high, even if they were LEED platinum. I wish I could have referenced more comments; they were so varied and insightful.

Today, Smallwood said the homes are probably selling at a little below market value and that the LEED features are mentioned by every buyer so far. But what does this say about green, expensive projects? While Ashworth is the prime example because it has had such a public story told, it’s not the only one. A number of super green expensive projects - haven’t sold. Or are being used for different purposes by the developer.

In my original Ashworth post, Anne Whitacre had a great comment that developers may expect green buyers to pay more because their utility bills will be lower over the life of a building. But if people don’t expect to stay in a building for years, then they can’t really take that value into account. This is why institutions, schools and nonprofits are often more likely than private developers to jump on the green bandwagon.

A few other commenters said they had been excited and interested in Ashworth but the price tag was just too much. How much of a premium would you pay for a super green house? Five percent? Ten percent? Nothing?

Similarly, if my price range is $950,000 I have a lot of options.  I could buy a great, old house with a lot of character for $650,000 (especially in today’s market) and then spend $300,000 rehabbing it with super green features. For that much money, I could make a lot of green improvements that were functional and tailored to what I wanted AND I would be saving and improving an old structure, rather than sending whatever originally existed to the dump. Even if you recycle the majority of your construction waste, some of it still ends up being tossed.

A number of green builders believe that the market is ready to pay more for green projects and a number of studies support this to different variations. (There’s this study on local green certified homes, this study on national commercial buildings and this one on four local examples).

But in today’s economy, where is the line drawn? How much more are people willing to pay if they’re willing to pay more at all? And would this be a different situation in a better economy?

I’d love to hear your thoughts, your response to Ashworth’s situation and anything you know about other high priced green projects that haven’t sold or have been in a similar situation.

Last week, I attended a Town Hall lecture by David Owen, a columnist at the New Yorker and author of the book ‘Green Metropolis.’

Owen spoke about his own experience of living in both Manhattan and in the countryside, and about which is greener (cities because people have everything they need at their fingertips).

But he also said something striking: that big, tall buildings in cities are actually the greenest projects we

Inherently green?

have, not projects that are LEED certified. High-rises get lots of people working in one space. That gets lots of people living nearby and walking between the two. The effects of this and the concentration of people, he said, is far, far greener than a LEED certified project in the middle of nowhere (though he didn’t mention if it were greener than a LEED certified high-rise in the city). The premise touches on one of the main problems of LEED: that it only looks at pieces instead of the whole.

For example, Owen discussed Sprint’s (now Sprint Nextel) headquarters outside of Kansas City, Mo. The corporate campus, he said, consists of 15,000 employees spread among a 50 building low-rise campus. The space also has 15 parking lots and an underground parking garage, providing one parking space per worker because everyone has to drive to the headquarters in the middle of nowhere. Though the campus was planned before LEED came out, one of the buildings at the site ended up receiving LEED certification. The space also preserves 200 acres of property as open space.  How is this a greener situation, he asked, then simply letting the farmland be that had previously existed?

He argued that setting up a business in a location that requires car travel is not green, even if the buildings are certified as such.

Should buildings in the middle of nowhere receive LEED certification? And should organizations that are about sustainability - like the Rocky Mountain Institute and its headquarters in Snowmass, Colo. - be held to a higher level of accountability and locate in a dense area? Or is there value to having great environmentally friendly buildings in the wilderness?

I suppose it comes down to what you prioritize and what you think the future of cities and urban planning is.

In this economy as well, it’s worth noting that cities across the nation have vacant high-rise buildings that currently are not at capacity, and are likely wasting large amounts of energy.

What do you think? Is Owen right on or way off base? If Owen is right - and the greenest project is in a city be it LEED certified or not is a high-rise - than should LEED reflect this in its rating system and how so?

Incidentally, his book also argues that New York City is the greenest city in the world. That seemed to touch an interesting nerve at Portland’s The Environmental Blog here.

Yesterday’s New York Times has a great overview on the the elephant in LEED’s room. The story, “Some Buildings Not Living Up to Green Label,” by Mireya Navarro, discusses how many buildings aren’t as efficient as they were planned to be, or should be.

It’s a good overview for those who don’t already live the problems and issues discussed in it. Though the article discusses a very valid question, I don’t know that it’s really fair, considering the

Should your building get retested?

USGBC did not even require a LEED building be more energy efficient than a standard building until June of 2007. Plus, both the main building cited in the article and the study of 121 buildings mentioned in it looked at buildings certified through 2006. (Doing a similar study looking at buildings designed and built since then would be fascinating but I digress.)

Anyhow, what I find most interesting is the last line of the story where Scot Horst of the USGBC says LEED may eventually move towards the EPA’s Energy Star Model where buildings must attain the label each year in order to keep it. “Ultimately, where we want to be is, once you’re performing at a certain level, you continue to be recertified,” he said.

This raises two main questions in my mind. First, if that’s where the USGBC wants to be, why isn’t it there now? LEED 2009 has some major changes in it, but it will be another couple years until the next version is released. I understand that LEED is still a growing tool (and money-maker) but if this is really the way it will be in the end, why not just bite the bullet and figure out a way to incorporate the goal now? The Living Building Challenge had some pretty audacious goals as a part of its first incarnation. Why can’t LEED make these changes now?

Which brings me to my other main question. Is the idea of making LEED something that can be rescinded even realistic? While there is no denying that it would be valuable to require LEED buildings be tested every year to retain their certification, LEED is an investment and an expensive one at that. Would it become a less attractive investment from a business perspective if your pretty little plaque could disappear due to let’s say a crummy building manager?… or to a changing system? What if further versions of LEED required changes that you simply couldn’t add on to a building. Would you be penalized and lose your certification because you, or the person you bought a building from, didn’t make a significantly different decision in design?

Maybe commissioning should become a required part of LEED. But that also adds costs to a project.

What do you think?

This week, I wrote a story in the DJC about the Sustainable Sites Initiative. The initiative has been in the works since 2002 and is geared to be a comprehensive certification similar to LEED but focused on landscape, rather than efficiency.

I spoke to Deb Guenther of Mithun about the initiative, as she’s been working on it

What do green certifications ignore?

since the beginning. When I asked her whether site treatment was just touched on or ignored in green building certifications, she said “a little bit of both.”

The idea that green building certifications ignore critical development considerations is a constant complaint. Here are some of the most cited aspects of what people say green building ignores:

• The historic value of a site or building
• The value of keeping a building - and recognizing its embodied energy, rather than demolishing a structure to build a new one
• Accurately measuring how well the building works
• Indoor air quality
• Beauty and aesthetic value

(For more information on what your colleagues think is most ignored, check out my poll at right.)

But a green building certification cannot be all things to all people. And LEED has a great track record of appealing to different projects in different regions, states, climates and cities. How then, should new certifications that deal with in depth, important topics only touched on by LEED - like the Sustainable Sites Initiative - be dealt with? The initiative, by the way, will be considered in future versions of LEED, though it is unclear how it will be incorporated.

Should this initiative - and future ones like it - become a part of LEED or be developed as separate certifications?

A single certificaiton might be easier, but would force those who don’t care about things like sites or historic value to consider those aspects, and would also likely raise the certification’s cost. 

But if new certification’s aren’t incorporated into LEED, they might never get off the ground or gain market value.  And would developers really want to go get multiple certifications for multiple things, just to prove they have a green project?

What do you think?

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!

My recent post called “Is green building dangerous?” raised a number of comments. In the post, I mentioned a project that had won a significant green award but was “poisoning” its inhabitants. One commenter asked for more information on the subject, so I went to Dan Morris, the indoor air quality specialist mentioned, for specifics on the project. Here is his response (WARNING, may be overly technical):

Morris said the problem with the green house in question was the location of things. It had a large gas water heater used to heat the hydronic infloor heating and domestic hot water that was in a small laundry room with a washer, dryer, an exhaust fan and a fixed window. The occupants were not “poisoned” (as I originally stated) but were exposed to somewhat elevated levels of carbon monoxide over long periods in the house (either way though, it’s not good for you). 

Morris said the carbon monoxide and other trace pollutants found in the flue gasses from gas combustion were drawn into the house whenever the dryer or exhaust fan was operated when the water/space heater was operating. The dryer or exhaust fan took air out of the laundry room with no provision for make-up air from outdoors. The only open hole to the outdoors was the water heater flue. The make-up air was drawn down the flue pipe and back drafted the water heater. In short, it was out of balance and pressure.

In Morris’ words: “What was so disturbing about this house was that no one understood the basics of building science, or were not paying attention. This includes the: architect or building designer, builder, homeowners, code officials/inspectors, green building award people.”

Obviously, this isn’t every green designer or builder or award program… but how common is it? And whose responsibility was it to notice that all those things should not have been in the same room?

Another commenter, SteamboatEcoBroker, said with newer green buildings, air quality and ventilation systems are a must because they are much tighter than older buildings. So should more attention be paid to the air quality systems in a green building? Do green building systems focus too much on energy and not enough on other important aspects?

If you have any insights, please share them with me below.

Seattle Public Schools has decided to cut down 92 trees at Ingraham High School in North Seattle. I don’t know much about the politics of the decision. But I do know about the trees and what it meant to grow up near them.

When I was little, I spent eight years on the Madison Mad Dogs (are the best!) swim team directly next to the trees in question. Being an environment reporter, I know the trees are a valuable resource. But looking back in my memories, I remember a sense of horror whenever I got too close to them. The few times I did venture into them (via dares from other children) I found things that no six-year-old should ever find - used condoms, drug paraphernalia, beer bottles etc. After that I took care to stay away from them with super hero-like force.

Even when I got older and worked at the pool, I took care to park far away from the trees when I closed up at 11 p.m. Maybe I was being paranoid, or maybe I was being safe. At the same time, the trees have always been a part of the school, and I don’t remember anything really sinister coming from their existence. In fact all the sinister things seemed to happen in buildings.

It seems a good example of when environmentalism comes face to face with other issues …. like security.  Which one do you think should win out?

For more, visit the PI’s blog here, the Stranger here or Majority Rules here (photo above courtesy of Majority Rules).

Green building is fairly new, so naturally there are a lot of questions about it. But somehow, amidst the excitement of pursuing new technologies and arguing about what works and what doesn’t, it seems a fundamental question has been left in the dust…. is green building dangerous?

Like any good question, it can be answered with another question: dangerous to whom? Dangerous to the developer, the inhabitant, the team members, the insurer, or to the economy? That answer, dear reader, is a mixed bag.

Now, I’ve most likely caused a number of you to see red by even suggesting that green could be dangerous. But remember that other cultural innovations through history - the atomic bomb and nuclear energy to name a few - have been viewed at times with the frenzied level of expected salvation that green building and green products have recently encountered.

Obviously, green building isn’t about to physically blow up and kill people, so it’s not “dangerous” in that way. Theoretically at least, it might even be increasing people’s life spans by taking harmful chemicals out of buildings like volatile organic compounds.

But remember, green building is just a kid. And kids grow up into amazing - or horrifying - adults. What happens when green building suddenly spawns a spate of lawsuits (which local LEED certified lawyers assure me will happen, the only question is when). What happens when someone discovers a green building sacred cow does more harm than good (biofuels anyone?) What happens when the greenest greenie we know inevitable turns out to be clear cutting Amazon forests in their backyard?

Will the increasing green momentum implode or is green building and the ideals behind it stronger than that? It probably depends who you’re asking.

A while back I spoke with an indoor air quality expert who said he’s been in green buildings - LEED, Built Green, etc - that had such bad indoor air quality the house was effectively poisoning the people that lived in it.  While it’s (hopefully) an anomaly, what if it isn’t?

If we look at the legal aspects of green alone, the trial has just begun. I wrote a story in February here about the legal issues facing green buildings. Just getting information for the one article was excruciating because there just isn’t that much information, or people willing, to talk about the subject. In the past few months however, I’ve heard more and more people saying that green developers need to protect themselves in contracts against possible green building issues. Green building, they say, is a whole new ball game. And many clients aren’t aware of what they could be doing for protection. For more on this issue, check out the excellent green liability subject on greenbuildings NYC, especially this post.

So is green building dangerous? You know as well as I there is no answer to that right now. But it’s still a question that can be raised, and often isn’t. If you’ve heard it raised before in any printed form, please comment below to tell me about it, or just tell me what you think.

 I suppose even if there were an answer, it could be answered by yet another: if green building is dangerous, does the good it does outweigh the danger?

I think we can all agree that green is a snowball that is slowly getting bigger and bigger as it rolls down the mountainside.  But contrary to what marketing firms want you to believe, not everybody is on the green bandwagon yet.

So here’s the question: why not? What stops you from going green?

I’ve heard a lot of reasons.

Last week I was talking with Pam Worner of Green Dog Enterprises and she said the economic downturn isn’t helping anything. High-end home builders can still go green because their buyers can afford the premium. But everyday home builders just can’t afford it right now, she said.

Usually, what I hear is that green is too expensive. So I, for one, am surprised by the current results of my poll at right. So far, what stops the majority of respondents from building green is people just aren’t asking for it.

But as you can see, not that many people have answered the poll yet. If you haven’t please choose an answer. If you have more to share, please add your comment below.

I want to know why you’re not building/designing/working green… what stops you, and what, if anything, could convince you to make the jump!