April 1, 2008
D.C. Paves Way for Environmental Responsibility
Washington, D.C. has quickly become a pioneer for environmental sustainability. The new Nationals stadium, for example, is the first baseball stadium in the country to receive LEED certification. Certification for LEED, which stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, is given by the U.S. Green Building Council, when buildings qualify for a certain number of points in five categories: sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection and indoor environmental quality.
The District already broke new ground when it became the first major city to require LEED certification on all new public and private buildings under the Green Building Act of 2006. The new rules begain applying to building plans submitted to the city on January 1, 2008. Other large cities have implemented similiar, but more lax rules, such as New York City and Boston, which require LEED certification, but only on public buildings. Even before the D.C. law was proposed, the National Association of Realtors headquarters became the first LEED certified building in the city when it was completed in 2004.
The motivation to go green seems to be spreading, with some commercial entities taking on environmental responsibility before the laws have required them to. Yesterday the Legal Times featured an impressive series on actions being taken by D.C. area law firms to reduce their carbon footprints -- and just the sheer number of law firms in the District means their actions could have a huge impact locally. The subscription-only articles mention the efforts by a slew of firms such as Nixon Peabody, Arnold & Porter, Drinker Biddle, O'Melveny & Myers, and Weil, Gotshal & Manges to drastically reduce paper waste, incorporate post-consumer materials, and reduce energy consumption in their offices. Most have formed special "green" committees to enact the changes and encourage environmental responsibility generally within the firm.
The Legal Times also included an article about law firm Mayer Brown, which contracted with developer Vornado/Charles E. Smith to construct a new building with LEED Silver (one step up from regular) certification. Mayer Brown already resides in one of the greenest offices in the city -- the Millenium Building at 1909 K Street, NW, constructed by Tower Cos., the first local developer to make a real investment in green buildings. When the firm decided to make a move, they wanted to bring the environmental features with them, committing to LEED certification before the D.C. law was proposed, and according to Mayer Brown partner Peter Scher in the article, will likely be "the first law firm to go green in a new building in Washington."
The Nationals stadium received its certification by including "energy-saving light fixtures, water-conserving plumbing, drought-resistant plants, and a green roof over the concessions area," in addition to a number of other features, including its proximity to Metro.
Photo of National Association of Realtors building by Grundlepuck
|
i wonder why, then, DC didn't participate in the Lights Out event last Saturday... ?
I agree DC should participate in Earth Hour. I don't know how exactly they could've implemented that during Saturday's exhibition game though. Candelabras in the outfield...
They should have at least shut down the lights on the monuments or Capitol or White House. I was mildly excited at 8 to look out the window and see the lights on the capitol go out but no dice.
But really, wouldn't it have been "greener" for Mayer Brown not to have had a building knocked down and another one built (I'll admit, the destruction of that building significantly decreased the visual pollution in that neighborhood)? Isn't the whole LEED system completely arbitrary? Shouldn't the fact that a building was destroyed and another one built be a huge strike against the greeness of any building?
It's one thing to say "This new building is greener than a new building built with traditional methods". But it's a whole 'nuther thing to go bragging about how green the building is.
(and that's not even considering the question of whether LEED properly "punishes" a building enough for offering parking, and thus encouraging driving).
Nats stadium green? Then why were the lights on all last night and no one home.
I'm just glad that LEED certification doesn't mean that a building has to be ass ugly. That Realtors building is super cool looking and a vast improvement over the gas station that used to be there charging $.40 more per gallon than every other station in DC.
Maybe one day the Feds will also learn to build green buildings and bask in the accolades.
But here's an economics angle: For some, the additional costs of going green and LEED are worth it. But for most, I don't think that's necessarily the case. For instance, I like the new curly lightbulbs b/c they are long-lasting. BUT, I'm not rushing out to buy a ton of them to replace all my old bulbs b/c of their significant cost. I'm happy to replace the old ones with the curly ones as the old ones burn out, but the initial cost is kinda steep and the energy savings would take quite some time to balance out that initial cost. I would imagine this same thing is being replicated on a larger, commercial scale.
There was a gas station there? All I remember was a small park permanently occupied by a couple homeless men...
It's even cooler looking with the heart attack inducing Billy Goat's Tavern as one of it's tenants.
But I wonder if Billy Goat also has the composting toilet bowls like the NAR office does.. 'Cuz that will be nasty, with how Billy Goat makes my butt cry.
Cranky.
Don't worry; the biggest Federal building around will be LEED Certified once the Pentagon renovations are complete.
These are already LEED Certified.
Potomac Yards 1 and 2/EPA (Arlington, VA)
Annex Building for Social Security Administration (Woodlawn, MD)
Child Care Building for Social Security Administration (Woodlawn, MD)
NOAA Satellite Operations Center (Suitland, MD)
The NAR building only looks cool cause they had to shoehorn it into that odd-shaped lot.. it's basically a modern flatiron building.
I must say, I love the oxymoron in the headline.
There was a gas station there? All I remember was a small park permanently occupied by a couple homeless men...
Yep. Before that "park" was there, it was a ridiculously expensive gas station up until the late 90's.
LEED is far from perfect, no doubt. Still, it's great that it's becoming the standard for new construction. Hopefully it can be a jumping off point for a more expansive definition of sustainable design and construction.
The biggest thing LEED has done is make some longer term efficiencies very palatable to developers and real estate types that all too often focus on the quick returns - especially when those buildings will last far, far longer than their expected window for a return on their investment.
"Still, it's great that it's becoming the standard for new construction."
Sure, I agree with that. But I just get a little annoyed at how hard people are patting themselves on the back for achieving LEED certification, when a far more environmentally friendly option would be to simply renovate an existing structure. It'd be kind of like Exxon patting itself on its back for using hybrid vehicles to clean up an oil spill. Sure, it's great you're doing that but the oil spill (like the decision to build a new building) created the problem in the first place. You're simply mitigating the problem you caused.
I'll second blocksi, the LEED certification process is a good starting point with the very flaws that Reid has pointed out. But it's flexible. As I understand it they're re-evaluating their scoring system and trying to make it better.
My alma mater, UT Austin, is tearing down one of the biggest buildings (and a beauty too in my opinion) on campus and replacing it with a LEED building and claiming that it's an environmental choice and not an economic one. They even started a campaign of calling it ugly. I agree they should start way in the hole in this type of situation.
Not to be totally cynical but LEED is hardly a huge step in the right direction.
While it is certainly an all around positive to require new building to be LEED certified, most of the buildings would nearly as efficient on their own accord b/c that's just the way design and technology have progressed.
The real problem in becoming more efficient as a city is precisely what Reid touched on, transportation and affordable housing for the people who have to work in the LEED buildings, and I sadly have no easy solutions for that one.
I really think a lot of you are making half-cocked comments on something you don't really know much about. A few specific points:
As I understand the Earth Hour thing, it is mostly symbolic and while laudable, LEED looks to make significant and long-term improvements to the construction of a building. Very different things.
As for knocking a building down, there are LEED certifications both for new construction AND renovations of existing buildings. Both have their place.
I'm glad RJ pointed out that the Feds are also pushing LEED. They deserve a lot of credit for that. I'm currently working on a renovation of a GSA building that will probably get a LEED Gold certification. They tend to take a longer view than many private developers and will sometimes be willing to pay more up front because they can realize long term benefits.
As for it being just "standard" for buildings these days, there are a lot of things that LEED takes into account, like access to public transportation and redeveloping brownfields that have nothing to do with building techniques. That also addresses West's point about public transportation for the citizens. You get LEED points for siting a project where it is accessible via public transport.
@RJ - they could have been cleaning it or making any small repairs.
Certainly, the basic LEED certification doesn't require much beyond energy star appliances and fancy-pants light bulbs. However, as more jurisdictions require LEED Silver or higher, I think that's where the impact is made.
As far as the question of adaptive reuse (ie, renovation of existing buildings), that is something that is done a lot in Baltimore as a green mechanism (Streuver Brothers are known for it) in places like the Power Plant, Natty Boh Building, and the Montgomery Ward building. LEED has points for reduction in waste and energy during construction so those that are adaptive reuse do get more points for that.
Finally, as far as costs, the construction cost is 2% of the cost of the building over its life. Of that 2%, green building features are on average, about 2% more than traditional features. This cost decreases as the experience of the developer increases and also as the planning for these features is earlier.
The issue is changing the market so that the materials are the same price or less. In Boulder, for instance, Green Building standards are required for private and public buildings (commercial and residential) and the result is that the market has changed.
LEED certified? I thought they meant weed certified...
Sorry ZGoos, I'm just going off of what I've read, which points out that the LEED certification standards are totally gameable, and do not adequately "punish" buildings despite the fact it takes such things into account as transit and parking.
As the article points out, a single family home with 138 parking spaces and a helipad(!) received LEED certification. That's ludicrous.
The way LEED is set up there are prerequisites and points. Prerequisites are mandatory and you need a certain number of points to get certified. The more points, the higher certification. There is no "punishment", unless you fail to meet a prerequisite. Maybe some buildings need a helipad. That doesn't mean you can't get credits for using high-efficiency LED lighting.
I agree that LEED isn't perfect. It's definitely dupable as they put it in the article, and all points are not equal, but I think the things it promotes are generally positive.
Something to keep in mind when criticizing LEED. As ZGoos points out you can utilize the LEED rating system for renovations as well as new construction, there is even a commercial interiors category and many others. What ZGoos starts to discuss are the prerequisites [this is very important]. If you can't get some [or even one] of the prerequisites, you can't get any type of LEED certification. We ran into this problem recently b/c of a building's HVAC system. Sometimes replacing the entire building's system is more expensive then starting fresh. If a developer decides to build a new building in place of an old one, and pursue LEED, there are requirements for how this is done in order to make sure it's done as sustainable as possible. A new building going up on the corner of 20th and K street, designed by Helmut Jahn did just this. I work in a firm that has a view of the construction site and we watched them tear the building down, piece by piece, and then load it onto a truck [itemized] and shipped to be re-used elsewhere. The process is all very interesting.
Currently I'm working on a number of projects: new construction, renovation and commercial interiors all in and around DC that are going for a LEED certification. The process isn't perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. We have to start somewhere right? If this policy weren't in place, and LEED didn't exist, how would we fix the past and build a better future?
Just for the record, I wasn't saying LEED is not a good idea. I'm simply saying the standards should be stricter so we don't create a false sense of accomplishment.
And by the way, that building at 20th and K is the new Mayer Brown building mentioned in the post. One thing that confuses me about that is how they call it a "limited edition" from Helmut Jahn. What does that mean? Does that mean there are other buildings that will look exactly the same, but only a limited amount? Does it mean that absent that qualifier, there'd be a lot of buildings exactly the same? Or is it just a stupid meaningless marketing term, much like the planned Maxim building in Tenleytown, which promises "high performance condos". wtf?