Part 1 - Integrative Design & Tunnelling through the cost barrier
David Baggs, CEO and Technical Director
Background
One of the first responses of many clients and building industry
professionals who practice Business as Usual (BAU) development,
design and construction when someone suggests that they should
consider the benefits that green buildings deliver is 'But they
cost more, why should I bother?'. The equation often proposed that
Sustainability = Added Cost is actually in many
instances a falsehood. There are many aspects of passive thermal
design that are no net added costs and there are many examples of
world leading eco-products and technologies that also do not come
more expensively than business-as-usual products. Often 'best in
class' products have near market costs and when viewed from a
Whole-of-life-cycle cost point of view they are invariably
significantly cheaper overall - often even in the short-term. Some
products and technologies when combined with smart design and usage
can even reduce initial capital cost. This paper introduces
concepts as to how this might be done.
In this first part of a 2 part paper is included some of the
distilled experiences of experienced green development design
teams from around the world in how to deliver green projects at no
or low cost differential to conventional ones. Part 2 [
insert link] presents information from 4 different
continents about recent discoveries in the benefits of green
buildings to developers, occupants, society and living systems.
In their 1997 book
'Factor Four: Doubling Wealth, Halving Resources', Amory Lovins and
Ernst Weizsäcker first used the term, 'Tunnelling through the cost
barrier' as an introduction to how to pursue a process of costing
sustainability initiatives to ensure all costs and benefits are
being captured and the true cost picture exposed. This is not the
'life cycle cost' argument that many developers decry as being of
no interest to them because the benefits flow to the occupants when
they sell, its about finding the actual lowest first cost.
Imagine two alternative scenarios. In the first an architect
suggests to an unconvinced client that they should upgrade the
quality of the windows and frames in their project from
conventional aluminium frames and insulated glazing units (IGUs) or
double glazing to thermally improved aluminium frames with high
performance IGUs to reduce energy costs. With energy being so cheap
the client is unsure and asks the builder who does a quick
calculation and says 'that's going to cost an extra $20,000 at
least- and it won't pay back for over 20 years'. So the client
shrugs saying 'that's too expensive' and the architect doesn't
pursue it any further effectively committing the client to high
energy costs and greenhouse emissions for the life of the
building.
In the second scenario, the architect suggests to a client very
committed to sustainability that they should upgrade the quality of
the windows and frames in their project to thermally improved
aluminium frames with high performance IGUs externally shaded and
upgrade the insulation to the whole building to reduce energy
costs. Because the client is committed to wanting a truly green
building he asks the architect, the other consultants and the
builder to do a thorough calculation of all of the costs and
related possible savings and report back on the total building
costs that result from the changes.
The architect and the MEP Consultant/Energy modeller work with
the builder and realize that with the upgraded window, shading and
insulation specifications, they can massively reduce the air
conditioning plant, reduce the size and overall length of ducting
(as not as much conditioned air is needed) as well as reducing the
size of the electrical conductors, wiring and backup generator. The
properly designed external shading (the design relates to the solar
aspect of the elevation and is different north/south and east/west)
also means that there is no glare control needed. All in all, the
up-front savings outweigh the extra costs to the extent that they
will pay for interactive daylighting controls and lighting
system.
Along the way the client asks the architect to pursue a green
building rating. In the first scenario, the building barely rates a
'Certification' level, yet without even worrying about credits or
points, when the architect tallies up the achievements of the
second scenario, he is confident the project will easily achieve
'Gold' (just in this example ignoring all the other issues involved
in green building).
The client is delighted and instructs the team to pursue the
green approach effectively committing the building to massive long
term energy and greenhouse emission savings for the life of the
building. In the meanwhile the client/developer has the
considerable benefits of a low energy, low cost building to market
and corporately and personally gain great credence and respect for
moving into the green building arena. In the end, it doesn't matter
if the client is committed to green because it can all be justified
on a cost basis and provides additional non-tangible and financial
benefits as well.
These types of successes are being played out right now in many
countries where enlightened clients and design teams are using
similar approaches. In the USA several LEED Platinum rated
buildings have been built at lower than average market rates using
similar design processes.
Key Factors in Tunnelling
through the cost barrier
There are several key factors in the success illustrated by
scenario 2 and the lower than market average cost '6 Star' or
'Platinum' buildings:
- the clients and the teams were committed to finding high level
sustainability and by doing this they found synergistic benefits
that drove costs down. This is 'Tunnelling through the Cost
barrier' because SYNERGY = $AVINGS;
- the team used SYSTEMS THINKING to look at the building as an
integrated whole, not elements in isolation or a collection of
individual systems to find and drive synergy; and
- they used an INTEGRATIVE DESIGN PROCESS (IDP) to work together
to find ALL the benefits and drivers of SYNERGY, amend the design
of the building and systems to realize the benefits of the synergy
in all relevant systems and fully cost them as a whole.
The benefits of an
Integrated Design Process
Indeed the whole approach used in scenario 2 is an example of an
IDP. IDP is the only way to drive costs down while delivering
additional sustainability benefits. While some clients, developers
or builders might be tempted to take the savings and not commit to
the extra costs, they will quickly realize the benefits only flow
from an integrated package of initiatives.
An IDP is best started right up the front of a project even
before pen is put to paper for a design. The further down the
design and documentation path IDP is engaged, the fewer options are
available and the higher eventual costs will be. One thing can be
guaranteed, if you follow a BAU approach to delivering LEED,
Estidama or any other type of rated green building and just 'chase
the points' by buying green technology 'add ons', your built costs
WILL be higher, considerably higher.
The use on IDP is the best way to find and drive
synergy between materials, design, technologies, practices and
policy.
The 10 key characteristics of
an Integrative Design Process
- The whole team share their respective roles as joint
'Designer': An interdisciplinary team who drop their roles
as 'discipline experts' and become co-learners, co-researchers and
co-testers before the architect even puts pen to paper;
- Develop up-front a shared project vision and set
goals: Goals that are indeed 'Commitments' things that
will be done. They also set aspirational or 'stretch goals', things
they would like to achieve if possible economically and practically
within timeframes. It is important for the team to have a shared
mental model of what they are trying to achieve and a 'Vision
setting' workshop or 'charette' (as it is sometimes called)
delivers what is needed. In my experience as sustainability
facilitator to 10 of the Sydney 2000 Green Olympic Games venues,
80% of the stretch goals that were set by individual project teams
were met on time and on or under budget, just because the whole
team focused on trying to delivering them;
- Meet early and often: At least 3 -5 key
sustainability focused meetings/workshops/charettes (depending on
the size of the project) should be held with no design taking place
before the second or the third meeting and once all of the energy,
water and other key testing and research is available to the team.
Regular meetings should be held following these to continue the
process as much as possible;
- Involve the whole team: An IDP should involve
all members of design team including client and, in particular, the
financial decision maker. Everyone has some impact on most
ecological impacts of development and many affect healthy indoor
environment conditions. They all bring different pieces of the
puzzle to the table and to work without some in key processes might
result in missing important synergy and cost savings;
- 'Tunnel through the cost barrier':
don't lightly 'try' and end up retreating by:
- costing sustainability initiatives fully, ensuring that all
implications for all changes are fully considered by the
relevant consultants and whole project (including life cycle
cost) benefits reported also;
- Using whole-building and/or whole site energy modeling and
water balance models to test different scenarios and optimise the
building design progressively throughout the research and design
processes from very first pre-design stages and then redefine and
refine strategies adding increasing detail as more information
becomes available during progressive stages. It is important to use
simple 'box' or 'massing' based energy model simulation to
multi-scenario test different window/wall ratios, window and wall
types, insulation levels, orientation options (if the site is large
enough) building shape etc. All can be done before concept design
to inform the architects design and building image.
- Use systems thinking to look at options, look 'outside the box'
to consider whole systems benefits and options rather than looking
only at the obvious.
- Use wise or SEE2R consultants:
Consultants who drive to find Synergy, are Enthusiastic, Educated,
Experienced with direct Expertise about and in sustainability and
who are willing Risk managers not risk avoiders;
- Commit to a SEE2R sustainability
consultant: ensure that all major decisions pass through
the 'sustainability screen' to ensure that green commitments are
not being adversely affected when key consultants 'Don't know what
they don't know' and make decisions unaware of the sustainability
ramifications;
- Don't be afraid of Innovation: innovative
products, technologies and systems can often be your winning
synergy edge and result in major whole-project cost benefits that
are worth the risk;
- Manage don't avoid risk: Experienced project
and construction managers know how to manage or externalise risk.
In doing this it is possible to use innovative technologies that
drive synergy and costs down to offset other increased costs and
make high performance green buildings a low or no cost option;
- Experience is needed: to achieve these
outcomes with IPD, don't expect to do it in one project- unless
your team is already experienced in IDP. BUT if not, at least make
a start. Start small and work up to larger projects with
experienced team members moving from smaller to larger
projects.
While it might seem that all this process will take more time
and cost more in fees, experience around the globe has shown, done
properly, the extra up-front costs are easily saved in less
re-doing and mistakes down the track and faster more efficient
construction processes.
While it means changing the way things are typically done,
leading edge projects and consultancies in countries such as USA,
Australia, Canada, India, UK and Singapore have shown the biggest
benefits of change can flow with integrative design.
The Emirate of Abu Dhabi in the UAE has taken these lessons to
heart and in wanting to leapfrog the typical 10 year learning phase
that the aforementioned countries have experienced, has introduced
regulatory processes in the Development Application stages of
project approval to ensure that all projects must demonstrate that
an IDP process has not only been used, but by requiring
demonstration that the IDP process has been successful in
increasing the efficiency in water and energy efficiency at each of
the 3 stages of the application, they ensure the process is
properly undertaken and yields real outcomes in reducing the
impacts/m2 of floorspace on the need for new
infrastructure.
Integrated Design
Process Standard
In July 2007 a public ballot approved the 'Whole Systems
Integrated Process Guide' (WSIP) for Sustainable Buildings &
Communities, [ANSI/MTS 1.0 Standard WSIP 2007]. While the standard
was developed under the auspices of the Institute for Market
Transformation to Sustainability (MTS), it is also approved by the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and sets out the form
of an integrated design process.
The Document goes beyond a dry checklist of steps by not only
explaining why this practice is important, but then describing how
an integrated process differs from the standard linear process. It
then suggests specific measures for each phase in a hypothetical
design-construction-occupancy process.
The purpose of the Standard according to ANSI is:
This Standard Guide supports the
building industry in the practice of integrative design. The
purpose of Integrative Design is to effectively manage the
optimization of complex systems while pursuing sustainable
practices in design and construction. To achieve cost effective and
increasingly more effective environmental performance, it is
necessary to shift from conventional linear design and delivery
processes to the practice of interrelated systems
integration.
As at January 2011 the standard is under review and in draft
comment for until February 2011.
Refer here for a copy of the Draft
Integrative Process Standard: Design and Construction of
sustainable buildings and communities, Draft ANSI Consensus
Standard 2.0 - 31 December 2010
US Architect Bill Reed, chairman of the AIA committee that
developed the Standard and his colleagues from 7group in the US
have developed an IDP guide book to help set out and inform IDP
processes: The integrative design guide to green building:
Redefining the practice of sustainability. With integrative
thinking that reframes what sustainability means, they provide a
how-to guide for architects, designers, engineers, developers,
builders, and other professionals on incorporating integrative
design into every phase of a project.
Google Books summaries the Guide succinctly, it:
- Explains the philosophy and underpinnings of effective
integrative design, addressing systems thinking and building and
community design from a whole-living system perspective
- Details how to implement integrative design from the
discovery phase to occupancy, supported by process outlines,
itemized tasks, practice examples, case studies, and real-world
stories illustrating the nature of this work
- Explores the deeper understanding of integration that is
required to transform architectural practice and our role on the
planet
ecospecifier commends all green building owners,
developers, architects and design team members and facilities
managers to use IDP in their next project and using this highly
detailed and informative Guide will make the process much easier
and effective.
Further Information:
ecospecifier
Technical Guide 8 - An Integrative Design Process Primer
References:
- ANSI/MTS, (2007) ANSI/MTS 1.0 Whole Systems Integrated
Process Guide (WSIP)-2007 for Sustainable Buildings &
Communities, ANSI, Washington DC.
- Accessed 5.01.11 at
http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ANSI%2fMTS+1.0+WSIP+Guide-2007
- Reed, W & The 7 Group, (2009), The
Integrative Design Guide to Green Building: Redefining the
Practice of Sustainability, John Wiley & Sons, NY.
- See http://books.google.com.au/books?id=GUpyUI010gQC&dq=Bill+reed+IDP&source=gbs_navlinks_s