In an era defined by unprecedented innovation and an urgent call to action on climate change, flashy technologies like solar panels and electric cars claim much of the public consciousness. Often overlooked is another crucial part of the green transition: buildings. Traditional buildings, often associated with high energy consumption, excessive waste, and harmful emissions, are being challenged by a new wave of sustainable and environmentally-conscious structures. Representing a fundamental shift in the way we design, construct, and inhabit our built environment, green buildings are a testament to our commitment to a more sustainable and resilient future, where the built environment harmonizes with the natural world rather than antagonizing it.
While energy efficiency and material reuse measures have been implemented for economic benefits throughout history, Environmental Protection Agency historians assert that the formal green building field did not emerge until the 1990s. This era saw the establishment of numerous federal and institutional initiatives such as the American Institute of Architects Committee on the Environment and the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC).
Several certification systems have been created to assess and acknowledge the implementation of sustainable building practices. Daniel Matisoff, an expert in energy and environmental policy and the director of Georgia Tech’s Master of Sustainable Energy and Environmental Management program, describes these certification systems as “multidimensional choose-your-own adventure structures.”
Developers and designers can accumulate points and achieve certification by implementing measures that address different aspects of sustainability, such as stormwater management, materials, utility efficiency, and indoor air quality. Examples of green building certifications include the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification and the Living Building Challenge (LBC). The latter may sound familiar to Georgia Tech students in reference to the beloved Kendeda Building for Innovative Sustainable Design which bears this stringent certification.
The largest inhibitor to green building development is the upfront cost premium that it requires — a shortcoming that universities and major companies are often able to overlook but many penny-pinching developers cannot. According to the Kendeda Building’s website, the cost of construction and design of the building totaled $25,000,000, or roughly $532 per square foot, which is “about 15% more expensive than a comparable Georgia Tech building.” However, Matisoff attributes some of the commercially unappealing high costs to superfluous additions such as the composting toilets in Kendeda. Jimmy Mitchell, a civil engineer involved in the construction of the Kendeda Building, commented that “not every technology or expense is justified,” especially given the risk that new technology may not work.
While these economically unfavorable aspects of the field might raise questions about the rationale behind such investments, the true significance of green building certifications and challenges lies in their capacity to foster innovation and experimentation with cutting-edge green technologies while also catalyzing substantial cultural and market shifts in the construction industry.
According to Howard Wertheimer, professor of architecture and former Assistant Vice President for Capital Planning and Space Management at Georgia Tech, green buildings such as Kendeda are “living learning laboratories.” Wertheimer said the “return on investment starts on day one,” for their benefits extend beyond carbon or utility savings to the immeasurable but invaluable inspirational and learning opportunities they provide for students, budding professionals, and visitors. The data gathered on the Kendeda Building’s success of triple-paned windows, radiant heating and cooling, as well as large low-speed fans will likely influence the adoption of these measures in future structures.
More than anything, the importance of green buildings lies in their role in progressing and standardizing green building practices in the construction industry. In fact, Mitchell asserted that they “are the primary catalyst for change in the [construction] industry.”
Besides cost, a limiting factor in the adoption of green building practices is the limited familiarity with designing and building structures sustainably across the construction sector. However, as more green buildings are built, more professionals gain the skills required to design and construct them. As outlined by Matisoff, LEED certifications have had to become more stringent through the years, for building requirements that may have once qualified for a certification are now simply at code.
In a similar vein, as more green buildings get built, supply chain channels react to new demands, which results in increased availability and affordability of sustainable trims and technologies. Amplifying impact, the elevated accessibility of the technologies in question encourages further adoption of the measure. Matisoff offered an example of no-flush urinals adopted by the first LEED Platinum certified building, which had to be imported from Europe, costing roughly $1,300. Today, this simple utility saving measure has become more standard and the price of the product has dropped.
In essence, the elevated cost associated with green buildings reflects the evolving landscape of the construction industry and built environment. As the evolution progresses, the premium for green buildings will subside; with it, the moniker and certification of “green building” should also disappear, for the average building will inherently be green.
“I would love to see, in the not so distant future, the term ‘green building’ go away,” Wertheimer said.
