Growing Feeling in AEC Industry: Sustainable Buildings Cost More

The October 2007 Green Building Research White Paper (AEC Industry Continues to Embrace Green Building But Is It Only a Niche?)by Building Design+Construction revealed that an overwhelming majority of respondents (86%) felt that green buildings cost more. Twenty-eight percent (28%) felt the additional cost was less than 5%. While forty-one percent (41%) felt it was over 15%. What surprised me more is that despite the marketing campaign by the USGBC and others that those who responded to the question, “What are building owners and developers saying about barriers to incorporating sustainable or green design into their projects?”, the response “Adds significantly to the first cost” has grown from forty-four percent (44%) in 2003 to Seventy-eight percent (78%) in 2007. The real increase in cost depends greatly on the type of project, project site, and the market of the project. This is particularly true in relation to LEED certification. The reason for this is that if it is an urban site verses a rural site, there are obvious point differences that cost more than others. A well chosen site encouraged by LEED will garner a number of “easy” points. There is no indication where the respondents were practicing or working other than it represented a cross section (631 responded in 2007, their professions ranged from design professionals to developers to contractors). I agree that a building that did not exhibit site characteristics encouraged by LEED would cost more because you will have to rely on other points such as increase in energy efficiency that would likely cost more on the front end. In addition, this would be true if it only includes the building cost itself and not the property cost (assuming land is cheaper outside urban areas).

When it comes to stormwater, I have seen sustainable approaches cost less or the same when compared to conventional methods. But it is not often that you can directly compare project strategies. Rain harvesting first cost is more than connecting to the municipal water system, but in places where water is expensive, you can see a payback over time or if harvest the condensate from the HVAC system you can often have water in times of drought while other conventional developments do not. Unfortunately, when making design decisions during a project, the first cost are often the focus primarily because of that is the way the system works. Over time hopefully this will change. Long-term building owners are more likely to value the longer term savings. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of the respondents in the BD+C survey felt that it was hard to justify these cost. Of course there are benefits that are hard to quantify and/or do not have a lot of research. Because of this, building a case for sustainability on this alone is difficult when dealing with short-term building owners or those that are not convinced of the benefits. More research in all benefits of sustainable buildings is an important part of making the case and reducing the barriers.

The encouraging news is that the market for green building is growing and firm’s are recruiting design professionals with green building experience in order to meet this need. Forty-three percent (43%) of respondents said acquiring sustainable building expertise has attracted new clients or projects. Though only ten percent (10%) said significantly more and forty-one percent (41%) said some new business. Still this is encouraging.