SUSTAINABLE DESIGN DOES NOT HAVE

SUSTAINABLE DESIGN DOES NOT HAVE
TO COST MORE
A lot can be done within traditional first-cost constraints. Integrated
design solutions allow for cost shifting within a conventional budget.
For example, increased expenditures on the building envelope and
improved lighting can lead to reductions in the size and the cost of
mechanical systems.

A design process that is more rigorous in seeking out efficiencies and
eliminating waste also provides economic benefits. Many of these savings
are small when considered in terms of the overall budget; however,
they can allow for meaningful upgrades in other areas. For example,
low-impact site development leads to reduced earthwork and more balanced
cut and fill, elimination of irrigation systems, and reduced
stormwater requirements. The funds that would have gone to installation
of an irrigation system, for instance, can be shifted to another part
of the budget.

• Santa Clarita: To reduce costs on their new office building, the City of Santa
Clarita project used heavy timber construction with long spans, rather than
the typical steel-braced frame. This solution allowed for the ceiling to be eliminated
and for the wood structure to be exposed.

• National Wildlife Federation: Bioretention areas in the parking lot naturally
treat stormwater and contribute to a network of rich and diverse wildlife habitat
areas on the site. It did not, however, add cost to the project because the
bioretention areas enabled the team to build a much smaller stormwater
retention area, or dry pond.

A SHIFT TO LIFE CYCLE ECONOMICS EXPANDS
OPPORTUNITIES
Even though it is not necessary to spend more to create a green building,
a shift to life cycle economics does expand the opportunities for improv-
Introduction
EXAMPLES
ing building performance. By considering first cost together with operating
and maintenance costs, periodic replacement, and residual value,
designers help their clients choose options that make sense over the long
term.
Long-term owner-occupants of buildings clearly have an interest in
life cycle economics. Speculative builders can also benefit from increased
life cycle value, provided the added value can be measured and translated
into increased market value.
Before the project budget is fixed, the issue of life cycle economics
should be clearly addressed. Will decision making be based on life cycle
costing or first-cost economics? This is a fundamental distinction. Then,
if life cycle costing will be used, assumptions regarding the life cycle,
discount rates, fuel cost escalations, and so on need to be clearly established.
If life cycle costing is going to be used to justify decision making, it
is very useful to have a mechanism to increase funding for the project
if it is warranted. In some cases life cycle costing is used within fixed
budget constraints. Another approach is to work within a fixed budget
that has a contingency amount set aside to pay for life cycle costeffective
upgrades. Yet another approach is to secure special financing
for life cycle cost-effective upgrades through energy service contractors
(ESCOs).
• Stadium Australia: Use of innovative, ecological design strategies reduced
energy use by over 30 percent and potable water use by over 50 percent,
and boosted the recycling of waste streams. These strategies required some
additional first-cost investment; however, the payback for this project provides
significant economic benefits for years to come.
• Emory University: At the Whitehead Biomedical Research Building, the additional
cost incurred to achieve a LEED Silver rating was estimated at 1.5 percent
of the building’s total construction cost. Emory’s savings in energy costs
alone over the decade after completion will make up for the additional first
cost.