flexiblefullpage
billboard
interstitial1
catfish1
Currently Reading

6 myths holding back green building

Green

6 myths holding back green building

Sustainable design has proven benefits, so why isn’t it more widely adopted?


By BD+C Staff | March 22, 2015
6 myths holding back green building

1225 Connecticut Avenue NW is an office building in the Dupont Circle neighborhood of Washington, D.C. Built in 1968, with a $32 million renovation in 2009 by Brookfield Properties and RTKL Associates. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Green building has not gotten as much traction as it should, given its many benefits, writes Lance Hosey, Chief Sustainability Officer with RTKL.

Despite reports that LEED-certified buildings can cut greenhouse gas emissions and water consumption by half, while costing 25% less to operate, only about 1% of the U.S. building stock is green. Hosey attributes this situation to six misperceptions about sustainable design:

1. Myth: Sustainability Equals Environmentalism. Reality: Green design is not just for tree huggers. It also produces economic value.

2. Myth: Sustainability Equals Technology. Reality: Sustainability is not just about solar panels and wind turbines.

3. Myth: Sustainable Design Costs Too Much. Reality: Today, LEED-certified buildings can be built at the same cost or even lower cost than conventional construction.

4. Myth: Sustainable Design Takes More Time. Reality: Integrated design, which brings together a project's key stakeholders, designers, consultants and contractors early to get consensus on goals, can save time by ensuring more thorough coordination and avoiding costly changes later.

5. Myth: Sustainability Isn't About Design. Reality: Green design is not just about specifications in a technical manual. For instance, decisions about a building’s shape have a significant impact on the resources needed.

6. Myth: Sustainable Design Isn't Beautiful. Reality: The look and feel of design are essential to sustainability. “Following the lessons of sustainability to their logical conclusion will inspire more designers to reconsider the impact of every decision, including form and image,” Hosey says.

Related Stories

Codes and Standards | Mar 19, 2020

CaGBC launches new version of its Zero Carbon Building Standard

Version 2 draws on lessons from more than 20 zero carbon projects.

Codes and Standards | Mar 16, 2020

Concrete industry reduces carbon footprint by 13% over five years

Result mostly due to more efficient use of Portland cement.

Resiliency | Mar 13, 2020

Feds push use of eminent domain to force people out of flood-prone homes

Local officials that don’t comply could lose federal money to combat climate change.

Codes and Standards | Mar 12, 2020

Design guide for sloped glazing and skylights updated for first time in 30 years

Helps with choosing proper glass for non-residential applications.

Codes and Standards | Mar 11, 2020

Two tree species native to the Northeast found suitable for CLT

Eastern white pine and eastern hemlock pass strength testing.

Codes and Standards | Mar 10, 2020

Prescient receives ICC certification for seismic resilience system

Technology suitable for buildings up to 12 stories in earthquake-prone areas.

Codes and Standards | Mar 6, 2020

Design firms creating plans to re-imagine D.C.’s tidal basin

Area including National Mall is facing increased flood risk.

boombox1
boombox2
native1

More In Category


Resiliency

U.S. is reducing floodplain development in most areas

The perception that the U.S. has not been able to curb development in flood-prone areas is mostly inaccurate, according to new research from climate adaptation experts. A national survey of floodplain development between 2001 and 2019 found that fewer structures were built in floodplains than might be expected if cities were building at random.



halfpage1

Most Popular Content

  1. 2021 Giants 400 Report
  2. Top 150 Architecture Firms for 2019
  3. 13 projects that represent the future of affordable housing
  4. Sagrada Familia completion date pushed back due to coronavirus
  5. Top 160 Architecture Firms 2021