July 11, 2011
by macko
in EBS News
Tags: Green Building, LEED
On June 8th our team participated at the Greener Builder 2011 Conference, at the South SF Conference Center.
Environmental Building Strategies is now very well known in San Francisco and the Bay Area. And we are working to only strengthen this trend as well as to go further. We want to promote ourselves all over the US and beyond! According to McGraw-Hill Construction’s Green Outlook 2011 Report, the green building market comprised a third of all new nonresidential construction in 2010, and it is expected to continue growth to represent up to 48% of new nonresidential buildings in five years! Not only do we want EBS to take this huge opportunity but we also want it to be a shaper of this trend. We would like to share our vision and innovation with this growing market. The Greener Builder Conference is exactly the kind of event we are looking for!
This year, the US Green Building Council teamed with leading Architect/Engineer/Contractor firms in Northern California to present Greener Builder 2011. This time, the aim was to focus on the future of the Green Building Industry: Where is LEED going? What are the Green Tech trends? Commissioning Beyond Green etc. Our team had a really exciting and full day, as the event was very well attended with actors coming from the whole industry: architects, general contractors, sub-contractors, engineers, LEED Project managers and even aspiring green builders. The conference schedule was jam-packed, starting with a really interesting opening session: McGraw-Hill 2011 Green Outlook Report, great speakers, tons of educational sessions, lots of ongoing networking and the latest technology and trends presented in the expo hall.
Our booth was really well attended all throughout the day, with professionals particularly interested in our services (not mentioning our amazing beer-sponsored quiz game). People were particularly impressed by our approach and how much we do in particular regarding our commissioning AND contracting services. This is part of our vision here at EBS: all encompassing, as the way to optimize sustainability. Yes, we like to aim high!
November 16, 2010
by macko
in Green Building, LEED
Tags: 2010, Chicago, Green Building, GreenBuild, USGBC
As we decend upon Chicago to immerse ourselves in what is expected to be an epic GreenBuild, I am left to wonder where the industry is headed…
Last year 30,000 plus people moshed through the doors in Phoenix Arizona at Green Build 2009 but after Tuesday night on the showroom floor at Green Build 2010 in Chicago, I am left wondering how many will be pushing through the front doors of the Chicago Convention Center in less than 12 hours. Either way, virtually all of them will be curious about one question: where is the green building industry headed?
The much anticipated Green Outlook 2010 from the folks at McGraw Hill will be out soon and GreenBiz.com’s “State of Green Business” has been released just in time for GreenBuild. The “State of Green Business” is, as usual, written in a passive voice thats tone overly skirts around getting to the point in it’s quest to uncover advancements in “green.” The Green Outlook however is the much more quoted study referencing the potential market value of the green building sector. It is expected to suggest significant growth in this sector continuing the expotential growth it has experience throughout the 2000s.
Whether looking for trends, networking, education, or the “experience,” GreenBuild 2010 in Chicago will forcast exactly where the USGBC is headed. Membership to what was the largest environmental NGO in the world and the fastest growing NGO in the world, has dwindled from 20,000 members to 16,000 during the past 12 months. The showroom floor tonight demonstrated to me that the spending just isn’t there – Kohler who built a monstrosity covering better than 5000 square feet last year with water features galore, occupies maybe 1/5 of that space this year. Although I didn’t make it everywhere Tuesday night, remis is Anderson Window’s massive demonstration, Home Depot’s 2-story structure, and the modular house tours that existed in Phoenix. Where is the USGBC in their growth pattern and how will they continue to impact the green building sector?
This question and other’s remain – to be continued…
October 10, 2010
by Environmental Building Strategies
in Energy, Green Building, LEED
Tags: energy, Green Building, productivity
Today attention is paid to one of two things regarding green building: energy cost reductions and/or the coveted LEED Plaque. Both are important – one to demonstrate return on investment while the other showcases a company’s ability to “walk the walk.” However within the world of commercial office space, one component of green building should shine above all else – impact of indoor environments on the people who occupy them.
If you haven’t read the University of San Diego study titled “Green Buildings and Productivity,” then you may be missing the largest piece of why green building is so important. The question that CBRE’s Director of Sustainability and folks from the Journal of Sustainable Real Estate address in “Green Buildings and Productivity” is relevant to triple bottom line thinkers but hones in on the crux of why traditional bottom line thinkers are still not sold on green. Green Builders continue their inability to convey value through delivered tangible and tractable economic benefits. Why is this?
The USGBC has failed to convey the importance of life cycle costs to owners and developers and while an overwhelming number of buildings continue to be certified (now over 6000 commercial spaces bear the logo), the meat of the value equation lies in productivity. The question we need to ask is “Do green buildings provide more productive and sustainable environments for workers than non-green buildings, and if so, what is that value?” This question has rarely been addressed and since it bears relative importance, we must first understand the 3 main workforce trends driving this ideal:
This group of up and comings are integral to any organization and that trend will only be augmented in the next 10 years – Gen Ys refuse to be part of traditional office environments and have leverage even in today’s job environment.
Office communication is increasingly crucial – team environments and sharing of ideas in the fast pace of today’s world, even more so. Traditional office environments often lack the parameters to foster this type of productivity.
Productivity loss and sick days cost firms the most money and at the same time offer the greatest opportunity for return on investment especially when comparing that to traditional green building efficiencies such as energy and water.
The University of San Diego study finds that an average productivity value added impact per worker to be over $5,000 while the average fewer sick days value added impact per worker was lower at $ 1,250. Combined, that translates to a $153.61/sq ft Net Present Value (Discounted at 10%) and since building green costs relatively little in terms of a total initial increase to project costs, the choice should be as obvious as cost-efficient green buildings’ impact to the bottom line. Since we know that employees and their associated costs are the largest component of most budgets, we must wonder why the correlation between environment and employees is just surfacing. Knowing that a 2008 JLL study found that 70% of corporate executives value sustainability as a “crucial business issue,” we’re left to wonder when the real tipping point for corporate sustainability will begin and the greenwashing will end. As evidence by the overwhelming number of “green” commercial interiors spaces, we certainly know that LEED for Commercial Interiors Certification is where it begins.
March 22, 2010
by Environmental Building Strategies
in Energy, Green Building
Tags: China, Green Building
The Shanghai Tower will be the tallest building in China by its completion in 2014, but that is not it’s biggest accomplishment. The term “vertical city” has been used to describe the cornucopia of spaces that it will offer including Class-A office space, a luxury hotel, high-end retail, and event space. This aspect still pales in comparison to the building’s biggest accomplishment, its innovation in green design.
With wind turbines, a complex rainwater collection system, two envelope layers that surround nine interior sky gardens, and an ingenious design that mitigates lateral loads from wind and reduces the necessary structural steel by over 20%, this building is setting the bar high for super-tall buildings. Remarkably, all of these sustainable strategies are being implemented in China. To further explain the design process and to prove that sustainability in China is not that surprising I asked the Director of International Architecture and lead designer on the project Peter Weingarten a couple of questions regarding sustainable building in China and how the Shanghai Tower epitomized the emerging trend.
EBS:
I wanted to start of by asking you what the marketplace is like for sustainable building in China. Is it as popular or as big in China as it is in the United States?
Peter: That is an interesting question because on the one hand you could argue that it has never not been popular because a lot of the practices indigenous to other countries are typically more sustainable then what we are accustom to. So we come over there and say “well we are going to talk to you about being sustainable” and they say “we are already are, we already have wastewater and recycling programs”. In Europe they already all shop with reusable bags. It’s kind of an Americanize view if you take that perspective; if you don’t embrace their cultural phenomenon. When we come in we don’t just talk about the US Green Building Council, which is a benchmark here, we talk about global sustainability. There is such booming economic growth in China and India that these issues have been present there for along time. Sustainable agriculture, indoor air quality concerns, getting rid of coal burning power plants, these are issues that have been very prevalent in those regions for a while.
EBS: That is very interesting and quite different than what most Americans would expect.
How did the Chinese bureaucracy affect your project?
Peter: The Chinese government has a strong commitment to developing the future of Shanghai as a financial center on par with New York and Los Angeles and where there is a will there is a very strong way. So we are not getting tied in up the typical bureaucratic issues we normally run into. This project is a priority. It is great to be on a project that is on the fast track and that is well liked. That certainly helps.
EBS: Is the Chinese government’s influence a factor when you are looking at sustainable practices?
Peter: They are pushing for more. We are not just doing because it is an ego `statement; we are doing it to show China’s emersion as green, clean and sustainable. There is such an urban vitality there and this project is building on the standard they set with the Olympics.
EBS: How similar is the China Building Council to USGBC?
Peter: Well we were using the China Star Program and it is very similar to LEED. I think the core tenants are all the same. The performance metrics are based on a different set of regulations. We use ASHRAE, and sometimes they use ASHRAE but sometimes they use something else.
EBS: But in general they are pretty similar?
Peter: It translates very well.
EBS: Is the popularity of the China Star Program on par with LEED in the US or is it in its beginning stage?
Peter: It is pretty popularity because the Chinese are very proud of their system.
EBS: I also wanted to know a bit about the sustainable practices you implemented in this project. The rain collection system was really interesting as was the wind turbines you implemented. Where exactly did you put the turbines?
Peter: Well it’s a 662-meter building and up that high the wind is very strong. In a super- tall building the wind is both your friend and your enemy. Once you get above 80 stories most private brokers will tell you that the economics of the building don’t pan out, because you have so many structural considerations because of the lateral load. With this project we designed the building to mitigate the wind forces by using a curved shape. We were able to save 25% of the ton steel tonnage by not presenting a broad face to the wind. By allowing the wind to flow aerodynamically we mitigate direct lateral pressures. We also made use of the Diagrid System, which allows the wind to flow in a natural way instead of orthogonally like with classic designs. 25 percent savings is huge in the scheme of things.
EBS: How was the whole process of designing the structure to use 25 percent less steel but still hold up to the shearing force of the wind?
Peter: We reached a point where we have the technology to accomplish this. Early on it was about technical achievements. It was about figuring out how to design a super-tall building to stand at all. Now we have the technology and we can look to incorporate architectural aesthetics in these buildings in a much more integrated way. This building embodies the integrated design process. The skin, the structure, the façade, its all designed to increase the efficiency of the building. The way this works you have got this aerodynamic shape and every 14 floors you have what is called an outrigger truss. That acts like your shoulder. The outrigger trust broadens the base of the building. The broader the base the better it supports itself. A big tall thin building will move more than a tall broad building. What that enables us to do is create a double skin. We built a space between the inner skin and what’s really the façade of the building. That creates a sky garden. That sky garden acts as thermal buffer so you don’t have the climate coming right to the face of the building. What that means is that instead of having a completely opaque building you have a clear one. Most skycrapers are essentially opaque to the outside because of the high reflectivity of their windows, a necessity to limit solar heat gain. With the Shanghai Tower, because the façade is not in direct contact with the outside, we could make it completely transparent. For the first time in super-tall buildings you will be able to see occupants in the sky gardens, and you get a strong visual connection not only from the inside but also from the outside. With other buildings it is like wearing sunglasses. When you are the street you have no idea what’s going on inside.
These experiential sustainable practices are so important to the industry especially with architecture. We have the ability to improve energy efficiency and use daylighting controls, but if we can bring a noticeable change to a building that the tenants will see and feel, that is really the future.
EBS: There has always been an issue of how to make buildings green and look good? How do you combine sustainable building and building aesthetics?
Peter: You have heard of the term “vertical city”. This is the first time I think we have actually seen that truly realized. There have been other projects that have claimed to be a vertical city but you can’t really have a vertical city if the building is not transparent. You can imagine that there is quite a contradiction as the building is in China, which is seen as closed. Its communist and this project is open, transparent.
EBS: Thank you so much for meeting and discussing the future of sustainability in China.
— The EBS Team —
Recent Comments