I Want a Big Belly!

YES, they make solar compacting recycling stations too!

The BigBelly is a compacting trash receptacle that is completely self-powered. Instead of requiring a grid connection, BigBelly uses solar power for 100% of its energy needs. The unit takes up as much space as the "footprint" of an ordinary receptacle—but its capacity is five times greater. Increased capacity reduces collection trips and can cut fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions by 80%. BigBelly also provides cost efficiencies from labor savings, fuel cost and maintenance savings, as well as environmental benefits from reduced emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants.

What I really like about this is that it is a very people-friendly solar device - something everyone will connect with at some point. I have worked on some DC Parks and Recreation projects that would have greatlt benefitted from something like this. And I have heard rumors that these badboys have earned a LEED point in Innovation and Design. Not bad for the little trash compactor that could!

LEED Innovation Points

For those of you who are members of the USGBC, you have access to some very good resources on their website. Much of the site is dedicated to resources and links helpful for becoming an Accredited Professional (AP) or to certifying your building. Because technology and design options are always changing, and because the criteria used for LEED are sometimes up to interpretation, there is a section online dedicated to Credit Interpretation Rulings (CIRs). This is one of my favorite places to go for new ideas, because these CIRs are where LEED applicants go to state their "case for creativity" to the USGBC in order to get points for certification. Anyone who is a member can see all requests for any LEED registered project. Here are a few things I learned poking around in the "innovation points" section:

Bank of America announced on June 7, 2006 that it will reimburse Associates living within 90 miles of Charlotte, Boston, and Los Angeles and purchasing a new hybrid vehicle $3,000. Available to more than 49,000 associates, the program addresses a correlation between air quality, limited travel options (other than single-rider vehicles), and commute length. As of September 7, 2006, 200 Bank of America associates, including 118 in Charlotte, have taken advantage of the program and the Bank expects up to 100 more will participate by the end of 2006. The program is available to all associates working in the Bank of America Corporate Center and it is possible to monitor how many of those associates take advantage of the program.

Here's another great one:

Our project is a 198,000 square foot, high-rise dormitory on a university campus in an area with constant, prevailing trade winds. Due to its location, the project has provided natural ventilation for its building corridors as well as operable windows for all student apartments. In order to provide a comfortable environment for building occupants, we have undertaken a wind tunnel study, which is not typical design practice for this type of building.

Two approaches were undertaken in this wind tunnel study: numerical calculations and a wind tunnel test. The numerical calculations considered input parameters such as wind speeds, wind pressure coefficients, air temperatures, opening sizes for doors and windows, and different air permeability rates for the windows, doors and cracks.

The wind tunnel test was conducted by creating a 1:150 scale model of the building complex based on the drawings of the architects. The model of the planned building complex was instrumented with approximately 500 pressure taps to test for pressurization, and it was exposed to 36 different wind directions spaced 10 degrees apart (0 to 360 degrees). The building model was mounted on a turntable with a large inertial mass, allowing any wind direction to be simulated by rotating the model to the appropriate angle in the wind tunnel.

The wind tunnel study resulted in a change to the project's natural ventilation design. It was determined that several windows needed to be moved to different façades, while some operable windows were made inoperable and vice versa. This redesign was critical in enhancing the natural ventilation approach of the corridors, consequently creating a more comfortable environment for the building occupants.

What's great for LEED applicants is that they get the USGBC's ruling and/or additional infomormation required. It gives your company an inside view as to what you can expect when certifying your building, but also saves time for all involved. Check the site out: www.usgbc.org

Your Green Grade

Last week some colleagues and I met with an well known organization to work through ways to green their real estate portfolio. We all came armed with lots of ideas, and at the end of the day walked away with a list of solid projects that they could start on tomorrow. Very productive. Afterwards, the sustainable champion asked me a question that I get every once in a while... he asked, "What grade would you give my company on their sustainable practices?"

Thinking of an answer for him made me think carefully. I mean, a grade is effectively a comparison score. Should I compare this organization against all other firms globally? Or just companies in the same industry? Or should it really a comparison against other companies in the same region? This organization participates in the Carbon Disclosure Project (at least their parent company does) and so I could look there for answers, but I chose a different tack.

I decided my "grade" for this real estate group should be based on the following:

• Size and volume of projects they were actually doing versus talking about,
• If they had a vision statement or mission to share with the organization,
• Whether they had a set of green guidelines that outlined their specific priorities and goals for the organization,
• How much the company at large really knew real estate's green initiatives (sign of a communication or change management strategy),
• Whether they were coordinated with other groups in the organization like HR, IT, Communications, Social Responsibility or Sustainability executives, on the green front and
• If they were fully leveraging their "sphere of influence" with brokers, developers, contractors, architects, food service providers, carpet manufacturers, furniture dealerships, etc. by greening their vendor contracts, RFPs and leases.

This particular company fell short on many of these items, but I have to commend them on their willingness to roll up their sleeves and get started. Many companies are still overwhelmed by the whole idea of "getting green" and have not even made the first step by asking, "What should we be doing?" And most companies haven't even budgeted for the time it takes to think through the full range of issues that come up. My question to these gun-shy companies is... How long can you afford to resist getting green? Let me warn you, I'm a harsh grader. It's time to up your score.

The Snowball Effect

I’ve always been an avid recycler, but three years ago my boss recommended that I take the USGBC's LEED exam. Studying for the test took some time, but I learned some great things that I’ve been able to apply in my daily life in addition to what’s required to commission HVAC systems.

The one thing that stood out to me was how much my newfound knowledge has “snowballed”:

• Writing articles for my Homeowners Association Newsletter – sharing simple ideas in a large forum can make a big difference – I’ve seen lots of small measures taken in the community, and some large ones too.
• Joining the community Architectural Control Committee – and making recommendations as to how to make the community’s guidelines more environmentally-friendly. I’m now receiving calls about composting, solar panels, energy efficient window replacements and more.
• Turning my husband into a recycling, reuse, and conservation Nazi – sometimes a little bit more than I can handle, but it’s all for the cause, right?
• Thanks to his newfound environmentalism, my husband has been making major steps with his company, including starting a recycling program and harassing the boss for transit incentives (see my post on Greenwashing Hits Home for more info). His latest endeavor is a Six Sigma project – green initiatives, starting just with his project, but hopefully spreading company-wide. Quick update on the transit: still hasn't talked the boss into paying for transit instead of (or even in addition to) parking - maybe the Six Sigma will help.

It’s amazing how just a little bit of sharing and education can make a big difference. I encourage everyone to share the small ideas (the big ones too) and let us know your success stories!

Setting Trends in Kansas?

“There’s No Place like Home, There’s No Place like Home”….Sound familiar, well Dorothy isn’t headed to the Emerald City anymore; there’s another kind of Green in her future.

Do you remember hearing this news on May 4th, 2007? “The town of Greensburg Kansas was destroyed in a matter of 15 minutes by an EF-5 tornado, the strongest of 25 tornados’ that night that broke out over Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas and South Dakota.” (http://abcnews.go.com) I don’t know about you, but hearing this sent shivers up and down my spine. Coming from a small town in Kansas myself, this news hit too close to home for me. With all of the devastation, many homes and businesses were entirely demolished. The community decided to approach rebuilding with a very different outcome in mind.

Well…. now almost a year later there is much HOPE, this amazing town is trying to make their dream of helping to protect the environment from future destruction come true. After this tornado destroyed 95% of their town and depleted all of their resources they have the chance to create an entirely sustainable town. The people of Greensburg have decided as a community to promote a highly sustainable enriched society. Their mission is to provide the residents with the resources, information, and support they need to rebuild as “The Greenest Town in America, named Green Town” (http://www.greensource.construction.com/) The Greensburg City Council has approved a motion that all city building projects will be built to LEED Platinum level standards as updated throughout the years to keep its LEED Certification. There is also a development called the Model Home Project. Tourists would receive a guide books for touring the different Sustainable sites and building to learn about the process of building green. There is also an opportunity to stay in eco-friendly, energy efficient homes while visiting this amazing new town. “Money made from renting the demonstration homes, will go toward maintenance and possibly other green initiatives within the town’s location.” (http://www.greensburggreentown.org/) "If we are going to build a community from the ground up, it is our responsibility to think about the future," said city administrator Steve Hewitt
What this tiny community is doing will hopefully change the views of all towns and cities across the county and help others see the significance of making changes that will impact our future generations……

“I don’t think we’re in Kansas anymore, Toto.”

Baseball Goes Silver…but There’s Still Work to Be Done

Last night was Major League Baseball’s opening day and the first game of the season just so happened to be in my home town at the brand new Nationals Stadium. I managed to score tickets to both opening night and the exhibition game the night before. I am happy to report that the Nats won both the exhibition game (versus the Orioles) and also beat the Braves on opening night!

HOK designed the stadium, and I must say, the designers did a fabulous job. The stadium is fantastic! A tremendous leap from RFK, and as an ex-Marylander it pains me to say it, but this place far surpasses Camden Yards.

One of the greatest things about the new stadium is that it’s achieved LEED Silver – it is the first LEED certified ballpark. This is an amazing accomplishment!

After spending a couple of evenings at the stadium, there were a few things I noticed that the owners/managers might want to work on to make the facility even more green:

• As a LEED facility, there is no smoking permitted inside the stadium; however, there is a dedicated smoking zone immediately outside the park. This is located right where you have to walk by to get to the gate to get in – lovely to walk past a haze of smoke. The location of the smoking enclosure is also an exit – lovely to walk through a haze of smoke and across a field of cigarette butts on the way out.
• There are recycling bins all over the stadium; however, there is not one next to every trash can, and as far as I am aware, there is no additional signage, announcements, or other reminders to fans to recycle their beer bottles.
• The beer vendors sell their wares in what at first glance appear to be plastic cups, but if you look closer, they are actually compostable cups made from corn. Very cool, except that they are either being thrown in the plastic recycling bin or in the trash, neither of which gets the cup composted.
• The ladies rooms have dual flush toilets, but the only signage is a teeny tiny little up and down arrow on the toilet flushing lever. Unless you already are familiar with flushing up for #1, it’s extremely likely that you will flush down. Additional signage or announcements might help this.

Again, many props to the designers, construction professionals, and visionaries that helped bring this great stadium to DC. I sincerely hope that as operations continue, the facility will continue to meet and surpass expectations as a green facility.

LEED is Just Not Enough

The U.S. Green Building Council and their LEED certification process is truly making a difference in the building industry. See Jetson Green's ovation for their recent success: Green Buildings Financially Crush and Outperform Non-Green Buildings!!

That's all well and good, but look at some of the real hurdles we're setting for ourselves. Take California for example. Executive Order S-3-05 targets a reduction in greenhouse gases to:

• 2000 levels by 2010
• 1990 levels by 2020
• 80% below 1990 levels by 2050

This means that by 2050 we must reduce our emissions to roughly 17% of what they are today. Yikes. So how do we attack this? Well, transportation is roughtly 41% of emissions, electricity production impacts 22% (with 75% of that used for buildings) and residential and commercial bulidings emit roughly 9%. The built environment affects 2/3 of CA's GHG emissions.

So even if every single building in the state achieves LEED certification , we won't even come close to meeting this target. The solution? To realistically meet this target, we need to stop building buildings. And reduce single occupancy driving as much as humanly possible. We need to find new ways to create energy and transport goods / people through our cities. We have to overhaul the system. LEED certification just isn't enough by itself.

Admittedly CA, as usual, has set some of the more aggressive of U.S. policies, but all the government targets I'm seeing (and listed on the USGBC website) require significantly more attention than we're giving them today. Find the public policies that affect your neck of the woods. Turning off lights and driving hybrids is not going to do it. We need to engage in some extremely creative thinking about how we work, recreate and live.

Companies that are starting to think this way today are already avoiding costs and receiving kudos by environmentalists at the same time. It takes time to work through these issues, but isn't it worth it?

Are Photovoltaics Part of the Answer or Part of the Problem?

I have always been a huge proponent of PVs. What's not to love really? You have an inert panel, you put it in the sun, and just like magic you get electricity. Well, there is an article in the Washington Post this morning showing some of the down sides of photovoltaic manufacturing, Solar Energy Firms Leave Waste Behind in China.

This article raise a lot of questions in my mind. I am working on a project where we were going to install PVs even though it doesn't provide the minimum 2.5% of our buildings energy to get the coveted LEED On Site Renewable Energy credit. Is it worth putting the PVs on the roof if the manufacturing of them is going to wipe out or poison a Chinese village?

I realize that there are two things we [the people on this planet] are trying to achieve with PVs. The first is to fill the growing energy gap, both because of the dwindling supplies of fossil fuels and the increased demand for energy. But more importantly, in my opinion, isn't it to reduce carbon output and environmental impacts? Why do manufacturers loose this perspective? Why is this there huge disconnect between the profit motive and our ecosystem? Why do manufactures continuously trick us into thinking we are doing something good, while we are poisoning a village on the other side of the world?

I am sure this is not true of all PV manufacturers so if anyone has additional information on who recycles their silicon tetrachloride please let us know. It is clear to me that PVs and other forms of solar energy are a major component to our growing energy needs. This is just one more reason why we as consumers need to be diligent about the cradle to cradle cycle of our consumerism.

Water Conservation and LEED

....Again, I love LEED and the USGBC because without them we would not be writing about a lot of the 'stuff' we are talking about here. That being said I have recently had a frustrating experience in calculating our water usage on a project.

Very early in the project the engineers suggested designing a cistern to collect rain water from the roof, condensate from the air handlers and environmental rooms, and the backwash of specialty equipment. Since this water should be relatively clean they wanted to use is as make-up water for the cooling tower, as opposed to irrigation. [A few weeks ago I wrote a note about how much water electrical plants use, so hold on to your hat.] For our ~280,000sf lab project we are estimating that the cooling towers will require 8.5MILLION gallons of water per year. [Don't think your 500,000sf office building is any better by the way.] The cistern collecting water from the three sources listed above should collect ~2million gallons per year. Even though this is a 24% reduction in our cooling tower usage, it does not count towards our water efficiency credits under the LEED 2.2 rating system. Fear not, we are going to get at least a 40% reduction by using low flow fixtures and the like, but this seems a bit odd to me.

All of this being said I am going to try and explain some of the stuff in the previous paragraph. [Disclaimer, I am a designer not an engineer so please correct me on my technical errors.]

A cooling tower is essentially a big radiator on top of a building. It's sole purpose is to reject heat from the building to facilitate the refrigerant cycle enabling the 68 degree, low humidity environment we have become addicted to.

Roof run off is pretty easy to understand. Rain falls, it hits the roof, goes into a roof drain, and normally goes to a storm sewer in the street. There is growing concern over this because in large urban areas this leads to two major problems. First the water table never gets replenished. All of the water goes into the sewer instead of percolating back into the ground. This was a huge problem a few years ago in places like New Jersey where there was a drought. Everybody kept watering their fields and lawns and such. All of a sudden the water wells for the public water supply were dry and there was no water to drink let alone take a bath. Second the water is diverted into major waterways such as streams and rivers. This water is warmer and flows more quickly than normal, so it destroys sensitive habitats and accelerates erosion downstream.

Condensate water is water that condenses on the cold mechanical equipment in the building. Most large buildings have air handling units [AHU] to push the air around to all of the space in a building. These AHUs have coils in them that are either hot or cold depending on the weather outside. In most office building and such, you are cooling almost year round due to the heat gain from the people, equipment, lighting, and other heat sources from within the building. [By the way this is a pretty energy efficient way to do it. Many of the buildings you see every day have DX units for heating and cooling which are much less energy efficient.]

Certain equipment, especially in lab buildings, are backwashed to clean the filters. Think of a Britta filter on your kitchen sink, but instead of wanting a glass of water you need tens of gallons per minute. Obviously that little filter would need to be replaced very frequently. So in lab buildings instead of replacing those filters they backwash them to clean the filters out. That 'reject water' is usually put into the sanitary sewer, refer to the roof run off paragraph above to see why this is an issue.

Tossing millions of gallons of water into the air is not great, but that is where we are today. Even if we are not going to get a coveted LEED point for cisterns we should still try to conserve water. Oh, by the way there are cooling towers available that reclaim the evaporated water and recycle most of the water. But like most cool, pun intended, building technologies they are only widely available in Europe, right now.

LEED and Solar Energy

In the LEED rating system, the on-site renewable energy credits are hard to get, especially on urban sites. Essentially you need to generate 2.5-7% of the buildings electricity from wind, water, or solar energy. In a city environment the first two usually go out the window due to site constraints, so you get focused on solar energy.

From an economic point of view, the payback for PVs can be very long, sometimes you hear numbers like twenty years. This takes into account the monetary cost to manufacture the units, get them to your building, plug them in, and produce enough power to pay for themselves. This is obviously a dated way to look at our energy production.

If you use carbon as your benchmark the return on investment can go down to 1-5 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics#Energy_returned_on_energy_invested. This takes into account how PVs are manufactured and how much carbon is produced in that process. Then how much carbon is produced to make energy..it's zero by the way. Not to mention that there is exceptionally low cost to maintain the system once it is operational.

On a lab project that I am currently working on, we have chosen to install a 40kW system that will take up a huge amount of roof space. We are hoping to finance the installation in large part through incentives and rebates but some of the money is still going to come out of the bottom line. It is not going to give us the illusive 2.5% of our buildings energy, but how could we not do it?

There is a reason why countries like Germany are investing so heavily in PVs. They are cheep and clean sources of energy. The LEED rating system is helping to get Americans focused on this infinite energy source.

Master Builder? And Owner? And Developer?

Those of you who have read Paul Hawkin have probably already heard about this (from A Road Map for Natural Capitalism). Interface carpet has really turned their traditional service on it's head.

"Under its Evergreen Lease, Interface no longer sells carpets but rather leases a floor covering service for a monthly fee, accepting responsibility for keeping the carpet fresh and clean. Monthly inspections detect and replace worn carpet tiles. Since at most 20% of an area typically shows at least 80% of the wear, replacing only the worn parts reduces the consumption of carpeting material by about 80%. It also minimizes the disruption that customers experience - worn tiles are seldom found under furniture. Finally, for the customer, leasing carpets can provide a tax advantage by turning a capital expenditure into tax-deductible expense. The results: the customer gets cheaper and better services that cost the supplier far less to produce."

This got me thinking about buildings. What if, as architects, we stopped selling a building and started selling "healthy places to work?" What if architects financed their buildings and partnered with biologists, engineers, water and energy specialists, contractors and building maintenance organizations to create the healthiest workplaces possible?

And what would our clients look like? They are the new mobile workforce. They come to one of our many strategically located LEED Super-Platinum offices in the city to meet their team or to work in a place with a "buzz" as needed... and to use the fabulous amenities we build (pool tables, cafes, you name it). For our mobile clients, they've already leveraged technology to communicate effectively. All they care about is finding a space that suits the group's functional need or preference when they need to get together. They will go to the place that minimizes their commute, is close to a client or adjacent to public transportation.

So how do they pay for space? What if they didn't commit to leasing just one space, but their lease covers using any number of spaces that meet their general specifications. They reserve space online ahead of time. Online reservation systems have come a long way since we first tried using them with management consulting firms.

So we accommodate a highly agile workforce in a healthy environment where and when they need it. Utlization is 100% if we plan it right.

Keeping the Green Momentum

The first step in green building is starting with a beautiful, healthy, energy & water efficient, overall high performance building.

Many LEED projects have come on line to date and have had a chance to 'prove' themselves in the marketplace. While many are lauded in the media for delivering the results promised, there are still many others that aren't delivering. Why not?

There are several answers, but here are the top two that I see the most often:

1. Often building occupants end up using a space in a different manner than it was designed for. If people are sharing offices meant for single occupant use, or using spaces designated as meeting/conference rooms as office space, or partitioning open office space, then some of the benefits of 'green' features such as occupant controls, daylighting and views may lose their efficacy. Building in the flexibility and the capacity to change/shift/expand contract/move/transform in a space while still maintaining the environmental quality to maximize the workspace for occupants is key. It can not only help maintain quality of workplace, but can save money in alterations and reorganization.

2. Another hugely influencing factor on the performance of green buildings is operations and maintenance. While the typical LEED charrette is doing a great job of bringing the architects, owners, engineers and even contractors to the table early on, it is very rare that facility operators are included in the discussion. Building staff have much to contribute to the optimization of building use and performance and their involvement in the creative, integrated thought process can help the team make useful decisions about where to invest green building capital. Continuing education and training for facility managers and their staff can also ensure consistent quality of operations as well as the energy savings the building was designed to achieve.

The market has evolved to a point where we are labelling the environmental attributes of new construction and major renovations with a LEED plaque (or Green Globes, etc), but we haven't yet begun to address the same level of accountability in operations.

Food for thought:

In the UK there is a labelling program for public buildings that makes it very visible to both the tax-paying citizens and to building occupants how the building was a) designed to perform and b) how it is operated. See label graphic above and check out this site for more information:
http://www.eplabel.org/. I have been told that there is a level of accountability derived when the Minister from some department or other has to host their colleagues in the building and it is plainly evident if the building is underperforming.

What if we developed some system for accountability as well? We give green building tours as part of the Education and Outreach credit in LEED, what if we had to show tour guests our actual energy bills and occupant survey results? What if we had to report building performance back to the USGBC every year in order to maintain certification - and it was posted on their website?

I am really fascinated by the idea of accountability - in taking it beyond green design and construction. I would love to hear thoughts on what this might look like.

Thanks!

2007: A Green Space Odyssey... Hal at the Desktop

I interviewed Frank Bick with Bick Group a few months ago for about his office in St. Louis. It's LEED Gold Certified and a wonderful example of how users can be engaged in the process of making their space green. The building has sensors that measure temperature, humidity, air quality and light levels at the work surface. Lights are automatically dimmed when the light outside increases. But that's not the cool part! What's really unique here is they created software with "pop ups" that appear on every employee's desktop that say when you might want to close the windows because it's too humid outside or the air quality is too low (they have operable windows). Also, the HVAC system automatically shuts down at 6pm. The software allows users to click on a floor plan (in their section of the building) using the same software and the HVAC automatically stays on for another 2 hours. I think they now sell this software to other companies, leveraging what they learned.

When in Doubt, Ebay!

HOK's St. Louis office recently moved and received LEED Silver certification. Some of their furniture didn't work with the new location and was was very old and pretty dated. The designers tried to sell the furniture back to the furniture manufacturer or through secondary furniture markets, but no one would accept it. Some of the folks in the office suggested selling the furniture on Ebay... which they did, and used the extra money to buy cool new green conference tables.

Who says being sustainable means spending money?

Green Office Leadership in NYC

I really enjoyed this 10/31 New York Times article about the LEED platinum rated Cook & Fox office in New York City:
Architects Go Green at the Office

The story highlights several ideas that could be very simple to replicate:

• Using rows of plants instead of high workstation partitions to provide visual privacy without inhibiting access to daylight


• Using ground up tires instead of gravel to cover planting soil


• A composting program for disposing of coffee grounds and other food waste


• Offering each employee an allowance to purchase a plant and thus play a role in personalizing their space

Measuring Your Carbon Footprint

For all of you real estate mangers being asked to respond to the Carbon Disclosure Project, and for those of you who aren't, take a minute and measure your own carbon footprint. It's really helpful for putting everything in perspective. The Carbon Calculator on The Inconvenient Truth website is a good one. It's a fast exercise.

I don't know about you, but I was surprised how travel dramatically affected my footprint. Without it I look really good. The U.S. average is 7.5 tones per year of carbon. Before travel, I'm at a 4.7. I live in a small space with two other people, I share a car with my husband and I walk to work a good deal. But add on travel and I'm at a 8.3!

Most of my travel last year was for work. Though many times its out of my control, I figure it's worth a shot to try and change. For example, I travel from DC to NY several times a year. Turns out I can save over 1 ton a year by taking the train rather than flying. Besides, the train is significantly more pleasant. Also, I'm also starting to change my tune about asking clients to meet virtually. Hey, it can't hurt to ask!