Resilience: The Forest and the Trees
Architects and others involved in making buildings have a wealth of guidance on how “sustainability” can be achieved with their work. The Living Building Challenge sets the standard for on-site autonomy. LEED BD+C has been very effective in pushing design practice and the building materials market to evolve. Green Globes, and BOMA BEST engage the activities of building operations and maintenance. And now the Well Building Standard offers direction for measures enhancing the health and welfare of building occupants. All of these systems have a particular starting point, and present a slate of activities that will improve building performance from the perspective of their target audience. All of them have checklists to make the instructions easier to follow.
With all this “help,” it’s hard to see the forest for the trees! Worse, the achievement of a certain level of certification has become the definition of the broader condition of sustainability. But problems are arising with this replacement definition. For a variety of legitimate reasons, many certified buildings do not live up to the promises made on the checklist, let alone the broader condition of “sustainability.” A review of the fundamentals is needed to understand why there are shortfalls between the promise of a certification level and the reality of experience.
A good place to start is with expectations. How does the desired certification level correspond to the owner’s program requirements? How complete are the owner’s program requirements for that matter? Is the desire of the owner’s marketing team to have a stellar certification level consistent with the owner’s commitment to maintenance funding? More pointedly, can a design level certification equal a long-term history of performance? Is it reasonable to say that a LEED BD+C Platinum building, or a certified 5 Green Globes building is sustainable? I suggest that it is not.
When considering time periods greater than 15 years (or any time exceeding the design service life of any building system), one could say that sustainability is an outcome, not a product; and a series of services not a single event. While a design level green building certification establishes the capacity of a building to serve in an effective and environmentally economical manner, the actual performance of that building over time depends on the owner and operator. There is always celebration of a new building certification, but in reality, a re-certification is a much more important event.
“Sustainability” implies continuity over time, and therefore the ability to absorb change. When the service life of a facility exceeds the service lives of its components it is reasonable to expect the components to be changed while the use of the facility continues unchanged. Each successive generation of equipment in turn influences the “sustainability” of the operation.
Eventually, the building use itself may change, requiring the general form of the building to be flexible enough, or attractive enough, to accommodate new uses. Stewart Brand addresses this concept in his book How Buildings Learn by using two categories: “low road” buildings that are easily cut up and modified to suit new needs, and “high road” buildings that have sufficient character that new uses accommodate themselves to the existing condition. From this perspective, “sustainability” can be described as the product of accumulated good decisions with regard to design of spaces, material and equipment purchasing, operations, and maintenance.
The definition can be further described as the result of periodic good design and construction practices, plus continuous good operational practices. The good design and construction practices lead to low operational and embodied energy consumption with high quality interior environmental conditions. Good operational practices support effective energy management, building maintenance and durability. Good design is the early investment that facilitates good construction quality, ease of operations, and eventually, sustainability. But for all of the skill manifested by the architect and the constructor, the keys to sustainability lie with the owner.
The engagement of the owner with the design process facilitates good design and is the beginning of the process. This engagement isn’t just a function of providing the project budget. It starts with the program requirements and continues with time spent over the design process guiding the design team as opportunities arise. Opportunities inevitably arise because in many cases, the owner’s program requirements are only a bare sketch requiring development.
The chain of connection – from owner, to design professional, to constructor, to maintenance staff – is one of the foundational ideas behind integrative design processes. That will be the topic of a future installment.