JasonW
August 24th, 2009, 01:53 PM
http://blogs.nationaltrust.org/preservationnation/?p=5711
by Patrice Frey on August 24th, 2009
The environmental marketing firm TerraChoice recently released a study that suggests an astonishing 98% of claims that products are green are misleading in some way. Which may make some lawyers out there giddy at the thought of all that litigation over greenwashing claims, but leaves the rest of us wondering how we are ever supposed to make environmentally responsible decisions about, well, anything.
It’s hard enough to determine whether the laundry detergent I bought last night is really as green as it claims to be, much less evaluate complex systems such as buildings. So I don’t endeavor to provide an exhaustive list of what I think makes for a green building – but I do want to share a really thoughtful blog posting by Jaymi Heimbuch from Planet Green. Heimbuch recently wrote a piece, The Three Traits all Green Gadgets Have in Common , and I was struck by the similarity of the basic ingredients for a green gadget and what I think are the essential elements of green buildings. So herewith are Ms. Heimbach’s three(ish) green gadget traits, followed by my thoughts on their applicability to buildings.
Made without toxic materials and with longevity in mind: We know that less toxic materials are supposed to be a big component of green building rating systems like LEED (of course some of question whether that’s really the case when these rating systems embrace the use of products like vinyl.) But environmentally friendly materials mean fewer pollutants in our waters, soils, and air – and it means less indoor air contaminants that produce all manner of negative human health impacts. Fortunately, many (though certainly not all) of our historic buildings are made of traditional materials that tend to be less harmful for humans than modern materials that are made from petrochemicals and other nasty stuff.
What isn’t included in LEED – or any other green building rating program that I’m aware of – are measures of longevity. I’m not talking about just the durability of the various components of buildings (which is also extremely important). I’m also concerned about the viability of the building long-term. Is it designed in a way that will be flexible for undetermined future needs? Or is it overly-designed to fit the current occupant’s needs?
And, as Stewart Brandt would ask in his book How Buildings Learn, is the building lovable? (Before you roll your eyes, bear with me.) Is it a building that will stand the test of time? Or is this a building that has been value-engineered to within an inch of its life, without even the slightest bit of architectural merit or interest? Is it a building the people in our field – preservation – will fight to save in 100 years? Or does it have more in common with a strip mall than the quality architecture of our past or present?
The endless destruction and rebuilding of our built environment is simply not sustainable. Longevity is key.
Used well by someone who charges it with renewable power and maintains it for as long as possible. Well, here I part company with Ms. Heimbuch slightly. I am a proponent of doing everything we reasonably can to bring renewable sources of power to our heritage buildings and communities… but I am even more of a proponent of making them energy efficient first. We lose much of the benefit of solar when we slap panels on a house that hasn’t gone on an energy diet. Either that house still has to use some power from the grid…or the power it could be returning to the grid is wasted. Plus, efficiency is usually a lot cheaper than renewable. In short, have your efficiency vegetables before your renewable deserts.
But what really delights me here is the mention of maintenance… that all-important but rarely mentioned key ingredient for green. Why? It’s pretty basic. Maintain something well and it extends the life of the product – whether that product is a sweater, a car, or a 100-story building. And yet maintenance rarely gets the glory it deserves. (In fact I would argue that one of the biggest single contributions preservationists can make to the dialogue about sustainable development is our expertise on maintaining our buildings.)
This focus on maintenance also puts the onus of green on the product owner. It makes green a behavior, not just stuff you go out there and buy.
Is reused or recycled so there is no waste. I couldn’t have said it any better – that’s why reuse is the first of our sustainable stewardship principles. I would only add that in environmental terms, reuse trumps recycling most every time. When we recycle items, they are almost always down-cycled (down-cycling is recycling a material into one of lesser quality.) When we continue the viable use of a building we eliminate that loss, and avoid the environmental impacts of new construction.
by Patrice Frey on August 24th, 2009
The environmental marketing firm TerraChoice recently released a study that suggests an astonishing 98% of claims that products are green are misleading in some way. Which may make some lawyers out there giddy at the thought of all that litigation over greenwashing claims, but leaves the rest of us wondering how we are ever supposed to make environmentally responsible decisions about, well, anything.
It’s hard enough to determine whether the laundry detergent I bought last night is really as green as it claims to be, much less evaluate complex systems such as buildings. So I don’t endeavor to provide an exhaustive list of what I think makes for a green building – but I do want to share a really thoughtful blog posting by Jaymi Heimbuch from Planet Green. Heimbuch recently wrote a piece, The Three Traits all Green Gadgets Have in Common , and I was struck by the similarity of the basic ingredients for a green gadget and what I think are the essential elements of green buildings. So herewith are Ms. Heimbach’s three(ish) green gadget traits, followed by my thoughts on their applicability to buildings.
Made without toxic materials and with longevity in mind: We know that less toxic materials are supposed to be a big component of green building rating systems like LEED (of course some of question whether that’s really the case when these rating systems embrace the use of products like vinyl.) But environmentally friendly materials mean fewer pollutants in our waters, soils, and air – and it means less indoor air contaminants that produce all manner of negative human health impacts. Fortunately, many (though certainly not all) of our historic buildings are made of traditional materials that tend to be less harmful for humans than modern materials that are made from petrochemicals and other nasty stuff.
What isn’t included in LEED – or any other green building rating program that I’m aware of – are measures of longevity. I’m not talking about just the durability of the various components of buildings (which is also extremely important). I’m also concerned about the viability of the building long-term. Is it designed in a way that will be flexible for undetermined future needs? Or is it overly-designed to fit the current occupant’s needs?
And, as Stewart Brandt would ask in his book How Buildings Learn, is the building lovable? (Before you roll your eyes, bear with me.) Is it a building that will stand the test of time? Or is this a building that has been value-engineered to within an inch of its life, without even the slightest bit of architectural merit or interest? Is it a building the people in our field – preservation – will fight to save in 100 years? Or does it have more in common with a strip mall than the quality architecture of our past or present?
The endless destruction and rebuilding of our built environment is simply not sustainable. Longevity is key.
Used well by someone who charges it with renewable power and maintains it for as long as possible. Well, here I part company with Ms. Heimbuch slightly. I am a proponent of doing everything we reasonably can to bring renewable sources of power to our heritage buildings and communities… but I am even more of a proponent of making them energy efficient first. We lose much of the benefit of solar when we slap panels on a house that hasn’t gone on an energy diet. Either that house still has to use some power from the grid…or the power it could be returning to the grid is wasted. Plus, efficiency is usually a lot cheaper than renewable. In short, have your efficiency vegetables before your renewable deserts.
But what really delights me here is the mention of maintenance… that all-important but rarely mentioned key ingredient for green. Why? It’s pretty basic. Maintain something well and it extends the life of the product – whether that product is a sweater, a car, or a 100-story building. And yet maintenance rarely gets the glory it deserves. (In fact I would argue that one of the biggest single contributions preservationists can make to the dialogue about sustainable development is our expertise on maintaining our buildings.)
This focus on maintenance also puts the onus of green on the product owner. It makes green a behavior, not just stuff you go out there and buy.
Is reused or recycled so there is no waste. I couldn’t have said it any better – that’s why reuse is the first of our sustainable stewardship principles. I would only add that in environmental terms, reuse trumps recycling most every time. When we recycle items, they are almost always down-cycled (down-cycling is recycling a material into one of lesser quality.) When we continue the viable use of a building we eliminate that loss, and avoid the environmental impacts of new construction.