"The majority see the obstacles; the few see the objectives; history records the successes of the latter, while oblivion is the reward of the former."
- Alfred Armand Montapert

Americans believe the economy and the environment are connected, but...

Polls show that about 75% of Americans claim to be concerned about environmental issues and believe the environment and the economy can go hand- in-hand. [1]A 1995 Roper Worldwide poll found that 75% of Americans describe themselves as environmentally active or sympathetic, and 69% think environmental protection and economic development go hand in hand. In 2003, a Roper Poll found that 47% of Americans felt environmental protection should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth. [2] Americans clearly value environmental protection. However, there is a large gap between this concern and environmentally responsible action.

If Americans care so much about the environment, why are conventional buildings still built? The following paragraphs address the barriers to implementing high performance building design (HPBD).

Barriers to Overcome

• Lack of High Performance Buildings Design Awareness
• Misperceptions that high performance buildings are cost-prohibitive
• Brown Fiscal Policies Promote Inefficiency
• Lack of Environmental Leadership from Top-level Administration
• Lack of Institutional Planning Memory
• Steep Learning Curve and Lack of Unified Goal Communication

Lack of High Performance Building Design Awareness

The principal barrier to overcome is the fact that many people have not thought about High Performance Building Design (HPBD). Most building owners do not ask for High Performance Buildings because they assume meeting building codes means high performance. They are not aware of many proven, cost-effective methods to building above code. Designers must balance many concerns and if HPBD is not explicitly communicated as a priority, architects too frequently fail to incorporate related responsible building practices into the designs. If a person knows about HPBD, he or she will request it because it can produce a higher quality, resource-efficient building for the same price as a traditional building. Making planners aware of HPBD is a large part of pushing these beneficial process over the tipping point.

Coordinators in Harvard's Sustainable Building Program conclude:
What is becoming clear is that the cost of sustainable design is directly related to:

• How soon in the process sustainability is incorporated,
• The degree of shared commitment and collaboration within the design team in identifying, developing and implementing sustainability design,
• The degree of creativity, systems thinking and integrated design utilized by the design team.

Fortunately, utilizing high performance design is like picking the low hanging fruit; it is easy to do and its benefits outweigh the costs. This website educates readers about the economic, social, and environmental benefits of high performance buildings. Many detailed sources of information on HPBD are available.

Misperceptions that high performance buildings are cost-prohibitive

Some building owners and designers who recognize the environmental and social benefits of HPBD still misperceive the costs. However, recent professional studies and many existing High Performance Buildings show HPBD is justified from a cost-benefits perspective. In October 2003, the Capital E Group, under conservative assumptions, found the average premium on significantly higher performing buildings to be less than 2%. The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings, also reported this cost premium is returned up to 10 times over the life of a high performance building. It takes focus and attention to environmental issues to build a better building. There are many people already experienced in designing and building high performance buildings. As demand for HPBD increases, the cost premiums will decrease the cost. Brown University should seek design professionals with true HPBD experience and this should not cost more than conventional architects and engineers.

Life cycle cost accounting is the key to realizing the financial benefits of HPBD. When capital costs (initial, short-term) and operating costs (long-term) are considered together, designers are able to choose building systems that cost less over the life of the building. These long term effects include increased occupant productivity and electricity utility savings from HPBD can repay the initial costs many times over. To take advantage of these benefits, building designers must consider the life cycle costs of building systems and materials. Brown should require life cycle cost accounting in the building design phase.

For the few HPBD features that have significant environmental or social benefits but have no clear economic benefit, such as photovoltaic panels in New England, 100% recycled content materials, and rainwater harvesting, alternative funding sources should be investigated. Brown should also consider other benefits of these additional building features, such as public relations and educational value.

Brown University's Fiscal Policies Promote Inefficiency

The initial costs of constructing a building typically account for only 5-10% of the total expenditures made over the life span of a building. On the other hand, operations and maintenance costs represent 60-80% of the total life-cycle costs. [3] A designer that only pays attention to first costs might choose a less expensive, less efficient building system or technology that ends up costing Brown a great deal more over the life of the building. Brown's current fiscal policies separate a project's capital costs and operating budgets. These costs are related and both are paid from Brown's budget. Unnecessary operations and maintenance costs due to original design decisions deplete the resources available for other needs. This artificial separation creates a fiscal decision-making process that provides little incentive to make upfront design decisions based on long-term operational or maintenance savings.

Decisions made in the design phase greatly effect costs over the life of a building. This website recommends that life cycle cost accounting become a requirement during integrated design of high performance campus buildings.

Another surmountable financial barrier to successful HPBD at Brown University is its design fee structure. Brown's standard payment for design consultants does not include motivation for design professionals to increase the performance of the resulting buildings. Engineers who are paid a percentage of the initial cost of the systems they designed have an incentive for over-sizing systems. However, correctly sized systems function the most efficiently and thus use the least energy possible to create comfortable indoor environments. Performance-based compensation increases designers' incentive to properly design the systems. One way to do this is for Brown University to share operations savings, compared to industry standards or energy codes, with the designers. By instituting performance-based contracts, Brown can commission better quality buildings, enjoy complete user satisfaction, and ultimately save money on operating costs.

Top-level Administration at Brown University lacks Environmental Leadership

Top-level administration support is instrumental for universities to reduce adverse environmental impacts, save money, and improve their reputation as a responsible institution. The Brown University Administration is aware of the University's significant impact on the environment, but unfortunately, top-level support to reduce this impact is hard to find. Perhaps in the medley of competing priorities, the Administration has overlooked the opportunity to commit to a better natural environment and lead by example. Brown's Mission Statement reads,

"The mission of Brown University is to serve the community, the nation, and the world by discovering, communicating, and preserving knowledge and understanding in a spirit of free inquiry, and by educating and preparing students to discharge the offices of life with usefulness and reputation. We do this through a partnership of students and teachers in a unified community known as a university-college."

HPBD fits into Brown's mission, but explicit environmental policies are necessary for significant environmental improvements to occur. For example, members of the largest environmental student group on campus, Brown Environmental Action Network (BEAN) consistently create, advocate, and act on environmental initiatives, but, without real authority and palpable administrative support, large change is impossible.

Brown's current administration designed the Environmental Change Initiative (ECI), a step in the right direction. To gain support and progress, ECI needs to be effectively communicated to the Brown community. Explicit top-level support for environmental awareness in University operations is a place to start. Knowing their environmental actions align with Brown University values will give departments, campus groups, and associated programs confidence to pursue environmental improvements. Please take a moment to read a potential Environmental Mission Statement for Brown and a HPBD statement.

This website recommends that Brown set a good example and enjoy the myriad of benefits by committing to high performance building design for all future construction and renovation projects.

Steep Learning Curve and Lack of Project Goal Communication

The first intense HPBD project Brown University undertakes will require a larger investment of human energy. Educating all design team members on associated environmental issues, high performance building practices, and the integrated design process will add to the design costs. The steep learning curve associated with HPBD should not prevent Brown from insisting that design take place in a situation where all stakeholders, including subcontractors, maintenance/custodial staff, and prospective occupants are involved early in the process. HPBD is optimized when all the individuals who take part in the planning, construction, and occupancy stages of the project are involved from the start. To minimize the complexities of HPBD, Brown should hire design professionals with proven HPBD qualifications.

Even if Brown requires HPBD and the designers plan for it, the construction team needs to understand the high performance goals in order to make the project a success. Too often, a single component or material is changed during construction affecting the total building performance. HPBD considers the building as a whole; all systems work together. The construction team needs to be aware of the performance goals. The integration of all building systems need to be explicitly outlined in the construction diagrams and materials specifications. The integrated design process creates a higher quality building with great user satisfaction. Brown University should require an integrated design process.

 Lack of Institutional Planning Memory

MacMillan Hall, built at Brown in 1998, exemplifies environmentally responsible building. Kurt Teichert, Brown's Resource Efficiency Manager comments:

"Hundreds of meetings went into MacMillan Hall's planning, but more important than the quantity is the fact that the meetings included input not only from designers, faculty, administration, and architects, but also from the janitors, electricians, and plumbers who create a lifeline keeping buildings operational. The difference is notable."

People look forward to learning, researching, and teaching in MacMillan. The demand-side controls incorporated into MacMillan Hall save over $60,000 in energy costs per year.

The Watson Institute, completed in 2002, was not designed with the same attention to environmental impacts and energy efficiency. It seems as if many lessons learned during MacMillan Hall's integrated design process were forgotten on the Watson Project. Although Watson contains less toxic and more durable carpeting and extensive daylighting, opportunities to reduce operational energy demand were not fully utilized. Administration and staff shifts might be one reason for this less comprehensive process. Brown does not have a clear policy addressing the environmental aspects of its building plans. Without written policies and guidelines, progress can be lost when staff changes occur.

Construction of Brown's 186,000 square foot Life Sciences Building is already underway. What high performance building features are incorporated in this $94 million dollar facility? Were energy efficiency, occupant health, and environmental impacts a concern to the designers? If Brown University required designers to follow high performance guidelines, these answers would be clear.

Following these recommendations is one way to start overcoming these barriers.

[1]http://www.getf.org/file/toolmanager/O16F2358.pdf

[2]http://poll.orspub.com/poll/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm

[3]U.S. Federal Facilities Council.(2001) Sustainable Federal Facilities: A Guide to Integrating Value Engineering, Life Cycle Costing, and Sustainable Development. Federal Facilities Technical Report No 142. National Academy Press: Washington, DC http://books.nap.edu/books/0309072999/html/index.html