It has been about two decades now since the idea of sustainability and building ‘green’ has strongly emerged at a global level. In the current times, it is quite evident that the term ‘green’ is certainly misused and misconstrued by most of the architectural and engineering domain. It is slowly turning into one of those transient trends set up to support marketing of related fields of construction activity.
We are well aware that all natural living systems possess designs/mechanisms/processes that are inherently triumphant in their instinctive intent of sustainability because they relate with the environment in holistic manner and aim at optimisation and reduction. There are numerous lessons on sustainability that can be learnt from nature. On the contrary, in my view, many of the current green building rating systems, such as LEED (US), Greenstar (AUST) and BREEAM, are predominantly structured to support solutions that are in majority additive in nature and encourage consumption over conservation. This is simply because the rating systems in my view are initially conceived to have set of sections for sustainability; that are then packed with technologies and products to achieve it. Architects and engineers now depend greatly on these intelligent products/service systems to make up for their neglect of basic building design.
It is regrettable that rating systems have converted architecture and engineering into a statistical or accounting exercise. This practice has completely digressed from what could have been a healthy exercise in coming out with sustainable architecture based on simple logic and common-sense. We are allowing these statistical procedures to dominate our logical thinking and creativity. The potential benefits of merely achieving a certification should not be the primary motive of the initial design/creative process. There is no point in accommodating ample green ideas and techniques and ultimately land up with a building that’s not comfortable to live or work in. If achieving genuine sustainability is the primary aim, simplicity and common sense is the key.
My query is – why are a majority of the sustainability certification/rating credits weighted similarly, when it is clear that some points have far more environmental benefits than others?
Although installing the efficient HVAC system would amount to saving a huge amount of energy and add environmental value on a massive scale, according to some rating systems – it may still statistically match the points/credits of having bicycle racks within a campus. In my view, the solution here is to make a careful study of all the critical credits that add superior environmental value and make them mandatory. Then, the playing and manipulation of points can be done by professionals within the feeble credits.
It is a fact that the development of green/sustainable buildings will in a majority of cases cost more upfront, than a conventional building. We also have to add costs associated with procedures for green certifications. I wonder why consultants break their heads making up deceptive reports and statistics to show clients otherwise. The hidden costs will show up as the project marches towards completion and will cause clients havoc. Let us be brave enough to acknowledge that they cost more and are definitely worth it.
Somewhere along the line, organisations have also realised it could profit of these rating systems. These rating systems have undoubtedly been promoted and marketed globally. These organisations charge considerable fees for commissioning and for becoming an Accredited Professional. In my opinion, if an organisation is truly concerned about the environment and making buildings globally green, it should make it affordable.
Additionally, the AP (Accredited Professional) is being converted into an ‘elite’ certification. I am forced to question the significance of paying for and passing this test, as all APs eventually go back to referring to the handbooks again when commissioning all aspects of a project. So why have this costly and superfluous testing system in the first place? Orientation and training would more than suffice in this regard.
Instead of this technocratic certification, the procedures should be more involving and subjective. Points should be granted for innovative approaches that are not included in the rating handbook. The handbook should be treated only as a useful guide.
Instead of APs judging buildings solely through paper and e-media submissions, regular visits to analyse project sites, and inspections of materials/products should be conducted. Clients and consultants spend a lot of money and effort to analyse a project through mere paperwork, but this does not justify the entire system at all. Decisions can be made on project sites through discussions with clients, consultants and contractors, collectively. This is how innovative and fresh the rating systems can evolve to be; rather than being a mundane system of compiled data on which buildings are rated.
My suggestion is that handbooks for rating systems are not to be used as the encyclopedias for Green and Sustainable designing. The requirement for architecture to contribute to the social and environmental sustainability now charges architects with a responsibility that goes beyond a simple design brief. Architects cannot free themselves from being responsible for basic environmental design. Designers cannot simply consider product suppliers/specialist engineers to assume responsibility for maintaining the internal conditions desired for habitation, while basic design aspects of a building envelope/skin are ignored, for instance.
Architects and engineers must possess prior basic knowledge on analysing climatic data and geography, human comfort, passive design techniques, careful use of materials/resources and efficient building services. These basic principles should drive our primary design process. Green rating systems can serve as an ultimate ‘check list’ to our evolving design concepts but nothing more.
In conclusion, the world needs green buildings more than green buildings need green certification. If certifications continue to cost too much money, time, and effort, the building of green projects may continue, but the certification of them may not.