Image by The Library of Congress via Flickr

A recent screening of an in-progress film, The Architecture of Life by Stephen Kellert and Bill Finnegan at the Yestermorrow School in Waitsfield, Vermont, started me thinking about the connection — or more possibly the disconnection — between biophilic design and environmental design. The former focuses its efforts on the user, attempting to provide a better environment for living, in both seeking shelter and experiencing the natural world. The latter requires only that design address the external: the building’s impact on the environment. I would argue that when done right, environmental design should address both the external impacts and the user’s internal needs, as encompassed by the tenets of biophilic design.

Defining the Terms

For those of you that aren’t familiar with the idea of biophilia, it is a term that has been popularized in some fields while remaining virtually unknown in others. The concept, first introduced by Erich Fromm in 1964 and popularized by Edward O. Wilson in 1984, can be described as the biological need to connect with the natural world, or the attraction towards that which is alive. The idea of biophilic design is the natural extension of this concept, and posits that since humans inherently seek connections with the living world, architecture and design should nurture this contact in order to create a favorable environment for humans.

As someone working in the architectural field, understanding this concept is unquestionably important, but it is also important to the entire population. All of us are affected by the environment in which we live and work, even more so than we might realize. For most of us, the majority of our time is spent indoors, within these built environments. Though the statistics might be slightly different for Vermonters, the average American spends an almost inconceivable 90% of her/his time indoors. With this in mind, and understanding on a deeper level why some buildings are a joy in which to live and work, while others contribute to a negative experience, the importance of (and path to) seeding an architectural revolution becomes clear.

Telling the Story

Kellert and Finnegan’s movie is doing the important early work of collecting the anecdotes and the statistical knowledge base that starts to frame this new understanding of the built environment. A compelling storyline in the movie discusses the long-term benefits of building better schools, as taken from a 2006 report “Greening America’s Schools: Costs and Benefits” by Gregory Kats.

The upfront cost of greening schools, while at least roughly following the tenets of biophilic design, is on average 2% more than not doing so, or an extra $3 per square foot. These well-designed schools provide better learning environments and ultimately higher test scores for their students, alongside the better recognized energy and water costs savings. What is more amazing in this study is the quantification of this small investment in green building, in terms of the potential future earnings of the students. The better learning environment and test scores on average result in a $49 per square foot increase in future earnings. As these long-term benefits of good design continue to be recognized, a transformative change could take place in the market, advancing our built environment into its next evolutionary stage.

Envisioning the Future

It is my hope that the stories of good design begin to reach a larger audience and spur more of us to request the best from our built environment. Offices no longer need to be windowless rooms filled with endless rows of cubicles, lit by flickering fluorescent lights. Hospital rooms need not be painted in sterile tones, filled only with bright blinking lights and beeping machinery with no thought of the outdoors or even a leaf moving on the plastic greenery decking the halls and waiting rooms. We have an ability to build better buildings, following the tenets of both biophilic and environmental design. The places we live and work can nurture the environment through the use of sustainable materials, by producing more energy than they consume, and by being places we truly want to spend time — as relaxing as a mountain spa, as vibrant as a bustling marketplace, and as productive as well-managed farmland.

On a sunny day in July, I was happy to find myself in Boothbay, Maine for the grand opening of our most recent net-zero project, The Bosarge Family Education Center at the Coastal Maine Botanical Gardens. Heralded by the press as “The Greenest Building in Maine”, this educational center is the first net-zero commercial/institutional project to be completed in the state of Maine.

Image copyright of Robert Benson Photography

The grand opening ceremony provided an opportunity for those in Maine to collect over the idea of net-zero and high-performance building. With representative attending from all of Maine’s governmental branches, ample discussion moved towards the challenges of high-performance building and the goals achievable in building and energy policy in the future. It is my hope that these relatively small building can have a wide reaching audience and begin to change minds in Maine and New England about green building practices and the ability to build net-zero.

This unique project didn’t become a net-zero building by accident. From the very beginning the board at the Coastal Maine Botanical Gardens set out strict environmental goals for this project. Compared to many other projects, where Maclay Architects has spent time bringing the client and team on board with high-performance design practices, this project hit the ground running with goals of both net-zero energy and LEED Platinum. I believe it is because these goals were understood clearly from the beginning by the entire project team that the design was able to morph quickly into the construction of the building, even allowing for a shortened construction schedule, which was required by the Gardens to preserve their visitor’s experience during the busy summer season.

With thousands of visitors each year to the Coastal Maine Botanical Gardens, in addition to the programs to be housed in the new Bosarge Family Education Center, there is a great opportunity for this building to teach many about the process and advantages of building net-zero. Solar panels cover the south-facing roof, which can be seen from the parking lot, prominently displaying the building’s green energy features. High-performance characteristics of the building that are not as readily visible to the visitor’s eye are highlighted throughout the Education Center by signage and an interactive building dashboard. These educational tools provide opportunities for visitors to learn about the design process and green features installed in the building, as well as interact with the building to understand energy production, energy consumption, water consumption and daily use patterns.

Image copyright of Robert Benson Photography

The Garden’s ultimate vision of creating a building that both meet the goals of being net-zero energy and achieving LEED Platinum has been met, but the further vision, and I believe more important vision,  of communicating to visitors the importance of resource and energy conservation still continues to be developed. A teachable mantra brought forth at the building’s grand opening, one that describes the finished product, “If a plant designed a building…” continues to grow this learning experience. Visitors to the Gardens can now complete that sentence with firsthand experience, “It would be powered by the sun,” “It would use natural materials as its building blocks,” and “It would harness the daylight.”

If you find yourself in the Boothbay region, I invite you to come visit and explore the building, the larger site and the gardens.

The Bosarge Family Education Center at the Coastal Maine Botanical Gardens was designed by Maclay Architects of Waitsfield, VT and Scott Simons Architects of Portland, ME.

I recently had the chance to travel to Montreal and present one of our Vermont projects, the net-zero Putney School Field House, at the international ASHRAE conference. This was an exciting chance for us to share with others how it really is possible to achieve net-zero in the cold climate of Vermont. This was also a great opportunity to learn about other projects, as the session we were presenting in also highlighted two other groups of net-zero building professionals, one from Italy and one from Canada.

Lessons from Across the Border

The Canadian group, which presented a study on high-performance Canadian buildings, i.e., those consuming less than 60% of Energy Code baseline, identified the fact that though there are a significant number of high-performance projects there are only a few of these that are close to net-zero and there are no existing net-zero commercial projects in the country. The presentation highlighted three of these close to net-zero buildings: the Creek Side Community Center in Vancouver, a material testing lab in Hamilton, Ontario and the Earth Ranger Center in Woodridge, which is north of Toronto. What was apparent through the description of these projects is though they were utilizing many of the strategies that we  also utilize in our building projects — such as daylighting, low energy equipment and heat recovery technologies — they were definitely missing pieces too. These projects focused quite a bit on the visible technologies of energy efficiency, but through this focus missed some of the places where we see the largest reduction in loads, such as envelope design, including high insulation levels and low air infiltration readings.

Lessons from Across the Ocean

The Italian group focused on a single project, the Leaf House located in Anacona, Italy. This project focused on the goal of its team to analyze the net-zero building process in an effort to better define the term “net-zero energy buildings,” and to inform the process of the International Energy Agency (IEA). An IEA work group has been established to study Net-Zero Energy Buildings to inform international actions related to energy and greenhouse gas requirements in the building industry. To optimize energy use, the Leaf House project uses the most advanced available technologies for the processes of distributing heat and producing electricity from renewable sources. Built as somewhat of a test facility for high performance design, where the major focus of the design was the reduction of CO2 emissions, this house has over 1000 sensors to monitor performance. Even after the installation of this advanced monitoring, this group determined that a more effective strategy of monitoring and a better building automation system could make significant improvements to the energy performance of the building. All in all, the project highlighted a very expensive way to achieve high-performance building design.

Lessons to Bring Back to Vermont

It has always been my point of view that the best high-performance and net-zero building projects are the simplest; They are the ones that take into account beauty in the living condition and contribute to a better way of life for the users. From the experience at the ASHRAE conference, this point was hammered home. What we are doing in Vermont, in a colder climate than any of these other projects were located, is making net-zero work.

Projects such as the Putney School Field House work because they take into account the high-performance building technologies and strategies that are readily available in the marketplace, but in addition, they are designed for a specific place, to integrate into the human experience and to make a better place for the users. Using technologies that are already commonly available in the marketplace means these buildings can work, and they can work cost effectively.

In order to make the best high-performance buildings a reality, the focus of our profession needs to be on design, on building the best teams possible, and on determining when simple out of the box strategies are more cost effective than their advanced technology counterparts.

Related articles

• Net Energy vs Net Zero Energy (brighthub.com)
• IEA will publish new energy projection where Nuclear build to 2035 will only by 180 GWe (nextbigfuture.com)
• Latest Free Publications and Papers from IEA (talkenergy.wordpress.com)

There are many measures used for building energy efficiency: total kBtu, kBtu/sf/yr, kWh/yr, therms/yr, kWh/sq.m/yr, $/yr or kBtu/person, and more. But determining when to use which metric, and even more important, how to make sense of a comparison of the energy efficiency of two different buildings, is no easy task.

An Example

Let’s use two glasses of water as an example. Some comparisons seem black and white – such as the question of which of the two cups of water sitting in front of us is hotter. Obviously the one that burns your finger is hotter than the one with the ice cubes floating around the rim. But the comparison becomes much more difficult when we start looking at which building performs better. Not only is there much more information required in making this decision, there is also the question of how you look at the numbers.

Variables

Let’s return to the example of the two cups of water. Our first question was pretty easy, but now let us look at the question of which cup of water requires less energy to maintain a temperature of 90 degrees. At this point quite a few more variables come into play. First, how much water is in the cup? If one cup has more water, it will require much more energy to maintain its temperature. Second, what type of cup is the water held in: glass, plastic, ceramic, or maybe an covered, insulated coffee mug? Third, how are the cups being heated — maybe one is being heated efficiently in the microwave, while another is being held over an open campfire. The cup over the open campfire will require much more energy to be used to keep it at temperature because the heating source is extremely inefficient. Another consideration might be where are the cups sitting while not being actively heated? If one cup is sitting on a sunny window ledge while another sits in a dark closet, it would make a dramatic difference. These are simple examples of the types of questions that have to be dealt with when measuring buildings and their energy performance, though building variables are even more varied and complex.

Making Sense of the Numbers

Now let us look at the second challenge – how to make sense of the numbers. The best way to look at energy utilization is to have an actual measured number for the amount of energy used during a defined period of time. For a building, this would be the total btus or kWhs used by all energy sources for a year, though in our example of the two cups of water this would likely be in btus per hour. For the sake of example, let’s say that cup 1 required 100 btus per hour to maintain temperature, while cup 2 used 150 btus per hour to maintain the same temperature. At first glance, you would say that cup 1 was more energy efficient. But here is where it gets complicated. What if cup 1 contained only 10 ounces of water while cup 2 contained 30 ounces of water. Therefore cup 1 requires 10 btus/hr/ounce while cup 2 requires 5 btus/hr/ounce. Looking at the numbers this way, it seems as if cup 2 is more energy efficient. So what really is the standard that we should be using? When looking at buildings what really makes sense?

A Solution?

I don’t have a definitive answer. The purpose of this discussion is not to decide on an unit of energy measurement that should always be used, but to outline the inherent challenges in comparing these metrics. Trying to understand how one building compares to anther in terms of energy usage is an enormous task, and different answers emerge based on how the numbers are manipulated and reported. Making it easier to make sense of building energy statistics is a challenge that needs to be addressed if we want to change the status quo and move toward increasing the stock of net-zero energy buildings. Do you have a suggestion? Please comment below.

Is obfuscation one of your goals? I didn’t think so. It does seem to be a goal in many architectural, energy efficiency and sustainability circles though. The terms zero energy building, net-zero carbon, net-zero energy cost, zero net energy, net-zero energy site, net-zero electricity, near net-zero, and net-zero ready…are all tossed about to describe a certain category of buildings that I have made the personal decision to refer to as “net-zero energy buildings” (or NZEBs).

Now as a self-professed word nerd, I recognize you may think this concern about terminology is my problem. Yet Wikipedia’s neutral point of view requires no less than six distinct definitions for ZEBs, including interesting differences between use of the term in the United States, Canada, and the rest of the world. (Note that in addition to ZEBs, Wikipedia adds additional definitions with separate entries for green buildings and sustainable architecture.)

Why does it matter?

Buildings consume over 40 percent of all energy and over 70 percent of all electricity used in the United States, and are responsible for about 40 percent of US carbon dioxide emissions. If there’s any hope of mitigating the effects of climate change, we need to get this right. Instead it sometimes feels as if, (excuse me), all our energy is being used to debate fine distinctions that do not matter in the larger scheme of things. (Shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic comes to mind.)

Image via Wikipedia

Major Greenhouse Gas Trends

<<<<<<

Net-Zero as a Journey

I have written before about my aversion to thinking of net zero energy as a single end point.

I tend to think of net zero energy as a mindset rather than a single end point. True, there are those who favor purity, specific definitions and exact measurements whenever the term net-zero energy is used, but for a layperson like myself interested in change, there’s value in thinking in terms of a never-ending journey rather than a goal achieved.

Celebrate NZEBs

So, buildings use a tremendous amount of energy to operate and are a leading source of greenhouse gas emissions. We climate hawks need to work together. The goal of net-zero building design is to minimize energy use first through energy efficiency, and then meet any remaining energy needs with on-site renewable energy systems. Over the course of a year, these buildings will produce as much energy as they consume. That, to me, is a clear definition of a net-zero energy building. (In contrast, the term zero-energy building falsely implies to me that no energy was used to produce the building.)

If as Orwell wrote, we should use English to reveal rather than conceal, here’s to consistently using one term, net-zero energy building, and applauding every step on the journey to increasing their number. If you are interested in the fine distinctions, be sure to ask for the specifics of the definition being used for a particular structure — but please, only after celebrating the positive step forward.

Resources

• For a Premier Lab, a Zero-Energy Showcase (green.blogs.nytimes.com)
• Are We Nearing Net Zero? Archi-Tech
• Zero Energy Building for NREL Slideshare presentation

I tend to think of net zero energy as a mindset rather than a single end point. True, there are those who favor purity, specific definitions and exact measurements whenever the term net zero energy is used, but for a layperson like myself interested in change, there’s value in thinking in terms of a never-ending journey rather than a goal achieved.

One reason is innovation. If net zero energy, or any sustainability practice for that matter, is framed as an end point readily achievable with existing building, efficiency and development practices, what will motivate us to keep trying to do more?

I was reminded of this recently by a post by Chris Milton on Clean Technia entitled “Top Five Clean Tech Gamechangers.” Compiled from the World Wildlife Federation’s “Green Game-changers Databank,” Milton describes five energy innovations in development, but with great potential.

My favorite is the idea of energy from footsteps, by Pavegen. It just seems so fitting to convert the human energy in high footfall areas into clean electricity. Pavegen’s paving slabs generate energy from footsteps to power street lighting, information signage, and other energy needs in shopping areas, commuter stations, stadiums — just imagine! From Milton’s post:

How It Works: Each paving slab on a busy sidewalk gets stepped on over 50,000 times each day. Specially designed rubber slabs (made from recycled tyres) move a minuscule 5mm with each footfall, capturing the kinetic energy and converting it into electricity. This can then be used to power pedestrian lighting, shop displays, etc.

Progress To Date: Field trials are being conducted around the UK in 2010. The company’s aim is to have them installed in Times Square and Disneyland by the end of 2011.

Here’s Pavegen’s product demonstration video from a UK trade show last year.

It’s innovations like this that make me favor net zero energy as a mindset rather than an end point. Do you agree?

Resources

“Top Five Clean Tech Gamechangers,” by Chris Milton in Clean Technia
Pavegen, developer of footfall-to-electricity energy technology
World Wildlife Fund Green Game-Changers, Energy

Image via Wikipedia

As pleased as I was to see the new Jeffords building at the University of Vermont featured in The Chronicle of Higher Education, I must confess to being somewhat disappointed by the article. Although Dean Tom Vogelmann appears amiable and approachable in the first photograph, the remaining photos do little to convey the “functional elegance” of the exterior or interior design of the new home for plant biology, soil sciences, and life sciences at UVM.

The more important omissions to my mind, however, are details on the myriad steps and design choices made to enable a large building with teaching science labs to minimize its environmental footprint and to be potentially eligible for LEED gold certification. I yearned to know more about how that was accomplished.

True, the teaching landscape featured in the article is interesting, yet I’ve begun to fear we fall further behind in the battle to minimize the effects of climate change whenever we miss an opportunity to inform and educate.

I expected more from a building and grounds feature article in this publication for higher education. But then again, perhaps I’ll be more appreciative of specialized publications such as Greener Buildings News and Sustainable Facility.

Disclosure: I currently serve on the Board of Advisors for the UVM College of Agriculture & Life Sciences.

Vermont Energy Investment Corporation (VEIC) recently invited Christiane Egger from O.O. Energiesparverband, an organization similar to VEIC located in Upper Austria, to visit Vermont. O.O. Energiesparverband functions to promote energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy in the federal state of Upper Austria. What is interesting is that the state of Upper Austria provides 33% of its energy from renewable sources including hydroelectric, solar thermal and biomass and is similar in size to Vermont. Upper Austria has a population of 1.38 million (similar to that of New Hampshire) and is about the size of Connecticut – with a quality of life equal or some might even say better than the majority of the U.S.

Upper Austria has made major strides in increasing the market share of renewable power as well as in the field of energy efficiency. The average residential home in Upper Austria today consumes 39 kWh/m² (12.4 kBtu/ft²)­­, as compared to the average residential home in the northeastern United States which consumes 163 kWh/m² (51.7 kBtu/ft²). One in every two new homes in Upper Austria is built with a solar thermal system which seems like almost an unconceivable number in the American market where solar panels are still thought of as a pricey accessory to a home where only those who can afford it and ask for it specifically include the solar panel in their design.

The organization of O.O. Energiesparverband has been in business since 1991 and has developed a strategy in Upper Austria to use a series of legal measures, financial measures and information activities which they refer to as the “stick”, “carrot”, and “tambourine” respectively. Their policy has followed the rule that these measures must be implemented together in order to make a difference, so all legal measures are backed up by financial incentives and financial incentives are backed by information activities so all measures have a chance of succeeding.

O.O. Energiesparverband’s accomplishments and ambitious goals for the future should work to function as an inspiration for those of us in Vermont. This is an example of a place, similar to Vermont in many senses, that is making renewable energy and energy efficiency work. Walking away from this talk I was struck by the sense that we in Vermont often think of ourselves on the cutting edge of energy efficiency and renewable energy, but really there are people in the world that are significantly further along than we are. We should actively search out these places and learn from their successes and failures to implement a plan in order to ensure a better future for all of us here in Vermont.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Renewable energy consumption grows in Europe (energyrefuge.com)
• Europe’s Renewables Unfazed by Recession (technologyreview.in)

Image by climatesafety via Flickr

I’m jealous. I know it’s not becoming, but I can’t help it. We’ve been outdone not once, but twice. As a firm believer in the theory you’ll never get there if you don’t set a stretch goal, a BHAG, it’s inspiring but galling to find out from Alex Steffen and Amanda Reed that Britain has reaffirmed its goal of becoming Zero Carbon by 2030 (ZCB2030). Seattle, Washington has declared the same goal.

ZCB2030 report
The ZCB2030 report has a time line for implementation, five detailed sections, and a complete bibliography at the end of each major section of the report. It’s a tremendous resource. The report’s authors intend to demonstrate that “Britain has the potential to become a global leader in sustainable technology and policy” — that climate action is an economic development strategy– and spur discussion and debate on how “greenhouse gas emissions could be completely eliminated from a developed society.”

Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility, Renewable Energy Vermont and others have been singing this song for years – seemingly to little effect.

Rural versus Urban
After commending the report, Steffen and Reed point out: “There are some major flaws and questionable assumptions in the report. One flaw is that it almost completely ignores urban issues, concentrating on green building and transportation, but ignoring planning, infrastructure and the role of services in a bright green city.” While I appreciate the fact that for the first time the majority of the world’s population now lives in urban areas, we should not forget nearly half still live in rural areas like Vermont.

A Question for Vermont Gubernatorial Candidates

It is exactly the focus on green building and transportation in this report that holds such promise for a rural state like Vermont. The Vermont Governor’s Commission on Climate Change came to the same conclusion, but Governor Douglas ignored its recommendations. The ZCB2030 report outlines a time line and action plan for an entire country. When can Vermont announce its zero-carbon goal and related economic plan?

It’s a question to be asked of each of our gubernatorial candidates.

Related articles by Zemanta

• A New, Bold Plan for a Carbon-Neutral UK by 2030 (worldchanging.com)

The Promise

A recent opinion piece by Alec Appelbaum in the New York Times caught my eye. In “Don’t LEED Us Astray,” Appelbaum wrote about the promise represented by the grand opening of 1 Bryant Park, a new LEED platinum-certified office tower in New York city. The tower is the first to rate platinum, the highest level of certification from the United States Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program, known as LEED, which is recognized as “the most widely used green-building measure.”

The LEED program, which awards points for incorporating eco-friendly material and practices into buildings’ design and construction, has led to a sea change in the industry, introducing environmental awareness into everything from regulatory processes to rents.

But while the standard is well-intentioned, it is also greatly misunderstood. Put simply, a building’s LEED rating is more like a snapshot taken at its opening, not a promise of performance. Unless local, state and federal agencies do their part to ensure long-term compliance with the program’s ideals, it could end up putting a shiny green stamp on a generation of unsustainable buildings.

The Performance Gap

Image via Wikipedia

It’s this intersection between market forces and effective change strategies that interests me. Applebaum acknowledges the LEED program was intended to be simply a set of guidelines for architects and engineers, rather than a standard for building performance. But the marketing value of LEED certification is a proven factor driving rental and resale pricing, and that’s where the problem has arisen, which Applebaum clearly recognizes:

Such market-driven motives wouldn’t matter — if LEED in fact measured energy performance. But it can’t: some certified buildings end up using much more energy than the evaluators predicted, because the buildings are more popular than expected or busy at different times than developers forecast, or because tenants ignore or misuse green features. Bike racks merely encourage cycling to work, and operable windows merely offer the opportunity to use less air-conditioning.

The Green Building Council reformed the system last year to reflect actual energy use by having owners report annual performance data. But that’s not enough detail to measure energy consumption accurately, and there’s no clear way to repeal certification if tenants or owners miss their energy-saving targets. As a result, a five-year-old building can turn into an energy hog and still carry its LEED designation.

Solutions
How can we fulfill the promise of improved performance by building on LEED certification guidelines? Applebaum notes the solution “isn’t to replace the system, but to supplement it.” He suggests government agencies provide subsidies and tax credits that could be reduced or eliminated if building performance does not measure up.

We all know money talks, but initiating and establishing such programs at the government level takes time – and I’m wondering if it wouldn’t be more effective as well as faster to simply develop and publicize new norms for post-construction commissioning, as advocated by Yale360, in combination with annual reporting of performance, using the IMVP, or the International Measurement & Verification Protocol. The impact of norms is a well-established principle of behavior change. If every new building, and especially every new LEED-certified building, began publishing its annual energy use measurement and verification report, it might not take long to close the gap between LEED promise and performance.

So, the next time you hear a claim about a building’s LEED certification, how about asking what its annual performance report shows?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Op-Ed Contributor: Making Eco-Friendly Construction Work (nytimes.com)
• Bank of America Tower at One Bryant Park is First Commercial Skyscraper in U.S. to Achieve LEED Platinum (prweb.com)