Radical Sustainable Construction

1
Green Building Project Planning Cost Estimating
National Green Building Conference
Exposition Toronto, Canada 30 November 2006
Charles J. Kibert, Director Professor Powell
Center for Construction Environment University
of Florida Gainesville, Florida 32611-5703
USA ckibert_at_ufl.edu 1 352 273 1189
2
Overview

• Cost Estimating
• Green building cost studies
• Green buildings cost more?
• Cost differences
• Mitigating cost impacts
• Project Planning
• Green building as a unique building delivery
  system
• Training and orientation
• Project Team
• Building Team

3
Key Studies/Statements Green Building Costs

• The Cost and Financial Benefits of Green
  Buildings, A Report to Californias Sustainable
  Buildings Task Force, Greg Kats, Capital E,
  October 2003
• Costing Green A Comprehensive Cost Database and
  Budgeting Methodology, Lisa Fay Matthiessen and
  Peter Morris, July 2004
• GSA LEED Cost Study Final Report, Steven Winter
  and Associates, October 2004.
• LEED is Broken, Lets Fix It, Auden Schendler and
  Randy Udall, Grist Magazine, 26 October 2005,
  http//www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/10/26/l
  eed/index1.html
• Greening Americas Schools, Greg Kats et al.,
  Capital E, October 2006
• http//www.cap-e.com/ewebeditpro/items/O59F9819
  .pdf

4
More key inputs

• Good summary of green building economics CIWMB
  http//www.ciwmb.ca.gov/greenbuilding/Design/CostI
  ssues.htm
• And from the Southface Energy Institute
  http//www.southface.org/web/resourcesservices/pu
  blications/policy_docs/Greenbuilding-toolkit/GBT-H
  ow-much.htm
• Sustainable Construction Green Building Design
  and Delivery, Charles J. Kibert, John Wiley
  Sons, 2005.
• My Experience approximately 15 green buildings

5
(No Transcript)
6
(No Transcript)
7
(No Transcript)
8
(No Transcript)
9
Costing Green Davis Langdon, Inc. Matthiessen
Morris

• Database contains (at time of report) 600
  projects in 19 states
• All types of buildings were assessed to determine
  costs of green vs. conventional buildings
• Conclusions
• Inconclusive, differences in first cost fall
  within the normal variation for buildings of a
  given type
• Buildings normally have a wide /GSF cost

10
Laboratories
11
Mathiessen and Morris - Conclusions

• Major influences on cost
• Demographic (location)
• Bidding climate and culture
• Local and regional design standards, including
  codes and incentives
• Intent and values of project
• Climate
• Timing of implementation
• Size of building
• Point synergies

12
Suggested Budgeting Methodology (Matthiessen
Morris)

• Establish Team Goals, Expectations, and Expertise
• Include Specific Goals
• Align Budget with Program
• Stay on Track

13
GSA LEED Cost Study

• Compared two building types
• A new 5-story 262,000 GSF federal courthouse ,
  baseline construction cost 220/GSF, including
  15,000 GSF underground parking
• A renovation to a 9-story 306,000 federal office
  building, baseline construction cost 130/GSF
  including 40,700 GSF underground parking
• Rationale the two types represent a significant
  percentage of GSAs planned capital projects

14
GSA Study Results
15
(No Transcript)
16
Some GSA Caveats Not part of LEED Premium

• GSA requires commissioning
• Required energy efficiency is higher than local
  codes or ASHRAE 90.1
• Underfloor air delivery systems are encouraged
• Dedicated ventilation system
• Recycled content materials max to EPA guidelines

17
(No Transcript)
18
GSA Study Conclusions

• GSA to refine the amount of sustainability
  funding provided to projects
• Prior to study, 2.5 additional was provided.
• Likely to be between 2.5 and 4.0
• LEED certified and silver building added costs
  fall within estimating uncertainty

19
20 years 7 discount 2 inflation
Greening Americas Schools, Greg Kats et al.,
Capital E, October 2006
20
Greening Americas Schools, Greg Kats et al.,
Capital E, October 2006
21

• http//web.dcp.ufl.edu/ckibert
• ckibert_at_ufl.edu

22
Greening Americas Schools, Greg Kats et al.,
Capital E, October 2006
23
Greening Americas Schools, Greg Kats et al.,
Capital E, October 2006
24
Greening Americas Schools, Greg Kats et al.,
Capital E, October 2006
25
Greening Americas Schools, Greg Kats et al.,
Capital E, October 2006
26
LEED is Broken Lets Fix It

• LEED costs too much
• Non-profit paying 50,000 for a 10,000 SF
  building
• Commissioning 25,000
• Energy models 15,000
• LEED documentation 20,000
• Total entry fee 68,450 (only for paperwork!)
• Added systems rainwater harvesting, daylighting
  controls, low-e glass, energy recovery
  ventilators..

27
The rest..

• Point Mongering and LEED Brain
• Energy modeling is fiendishly complicated
• Crippling bureaucracy
• Overblown claims of Green Building are misleading

28
USGBC Cost Guides
29
USGBC Cost Guides Sorted by Hard Costs
30
(No Transcript)
31
(No Transcript)
32
Green Light Strategies Paul Shahriari,
Consultant
33
Why are LEED buildings generally more expensive?

• New systems ERVs, occupancy and daylight
  sensors, cisterns and pumps, eco-roofs, low
  emitting materials, new materials
• New requirements Energy modeling, LEED
  documentation, daylight modeling, added
  engineering costs (rainwater harvesting,
  integrated lighting/daylight controls),
  commissioning
• Higher overhead LEED-AP, consultants,
  documentation (contractors, subcontractors)
• Result better buildings.. And this should be the
  desired outcome.

34

Economic Factors

• First Costs/Savings costs and savings from
  incorporating green features into a building.
  Rarely are there First Savings
• Life-Cycle Costs/Savings costs/savings over a
  buildings or features useful life. There should
  be substantial life-cycle savings.

35
Economic Factors

• Life-Cycle Savings from
• Energy Efficiency substantial
• Passive Design cooling, heating, lighting,
  ventilation
• Envelope including walls, windows, doors, roof
• Energy efficient mechanical and electrical
  components (chillers, motors, lighting,
  transformers)
• Water Efficiency small to negligible
• Materials Efficiency actually higher costs
• Employee Health Productivity soft data
• Construction Debris Recycling small
• My Conclusion energy savings must pay for all
  other green attributes of the project

36

Energy Efficient Lighting

• Energy savings up to 80
• Sources of Savings
• Lighting
• Windows
• HVAC Systems
• Efficient lighting better windows can lead to
  smaller and less costly HVAC system

37

Energy Efficient Windows
Can decrease heating costs by 40
38

Energy Efficient Windows
Can decrease cooling costs by 32
39

Water Efficiency

• Water savings from
• Water-efficient fixtures and appliances
• Water-efficient landscaping
• Rainwater collection systems
• Reclaimed or recycled water
• Benefits include
• ? water bills
• ? volumes of wastewater
• ? energy costs for hot water

40

Employee Productivity
Case Study US Post Office, Reno, NV

• Features
• Energy efficient lighting and dropped ceiling
• Cost 300,000
• Energy savings 22,400/year, payback 13 years
• Impact on productivity
• Sorting errors dropped to 0.1
• 8 ? in mail sorted per hour
• Annual productivity gains 400-500K
• Payback period lt 1 year

41

Employee Productivity

• Claim Green buildings ? worker productivity
• Environmental factors impacting productivity
• Indoor air quality
• Climate control
• Lighting, esp. daylighting
• Views
• Noise vibration
• Odors

42

Employee Productivity
Case Study Herman Miller SQA Building

• 295,000 s.f. office manufacturing center
• Extensive daylighting
• Interior street with plants
• Passive heating cooling
• 35,000 annual energy savings
• Impact on productivity
• ? worker effectiveness and productivity

43

Employee Productivity
Example Daylighting Student Performance

• ? Daylighting, windows, skylights
• 15-25 faster progress on math and reading tests
• 7-18 higher test scores
• Improved dental health
• Students in daylit facility for multiple years
• 14 ? on standardized tests

44
More on Occupant Benefits

• Cost of building 22/ft2
• Energy costs 2/ft2
• Cost of employees
• 140 to 350/ft2
• 10 health and productivity boost 14 to 35/ft2
  added to bottom line
• 1 health and productivity boost 1.40 to 3.50
  added to bottom line
• Daylit North Carolina schools (K-12)
• 15-20 improvement in test scores
• Improvement in dental health

45

Claims for Materials Efficiency

• ? Initial costs
• Right-sizing of infrastructure and mechanical
  systems
• Optimum value engineering (OVE)
• ? labor materials in foundations, framing
  finishes
• ? wood in framing 25 without ? performance
• ? Life-cycle costs
• ? costs for energy water
• Durable materials last longer, ? costs

46

Claims for Materials Efficiency
Case Studies

• Emeryville, CA affordable housing development
• Framing at 24 instead of 16
• Significant saving on volume of wood used
• 50,000 sq. ft. school
• Costs of carpet vs. durable floor compared
• Includes installation, maintenance replacement
  costs
• Over 40 years, durable flooring saves 5.4
  million

47
Materials Efficiency - Reality

• Green materials generally cost more
• Linoleum vs. VCT
• Compressed wheatboard millwork vs. plywood
• Increased durability of materials
• Carpet vs. durable floor a normal, not a green
  issue
• Right sizing of mechanical systems
• A normal, not a green issue

48

First Cost Incentives

• Cost/Benefits of Green Building
• Most benefits now accrue to owners tenants
• Green practices sometimes ? cost of building
• State/Province and local policies can
• Provide incentives
• Provide financial/technical assistance to reduce
  soft costs

49

First Cost Incentives

• Local Green Building Incentives
• Expedited (fast track) permit review for local
  building permits
• ? Permit fees
• ? Inspection fe s
• Subsidized training in green building practices
• Free professional advice design assistance
• Grants to offset LEED costs

50

First Cost Incentives

• Other Local Policy Initiatives
• Fees based on estimated energy use
• Adjusted for size of building
• Waived if on-site renewable energy system
  installed
• Standards and regulations
• Bigger the building, more green components
  required
• Minimum recycled content (in concrete, etc.)
  required
• Old-growth wood, high VOC materials prohibited

51

First Cost Incentives

• State Green Building Incentives
• Tax credits for developers
• Environmental performance criteria must be met
• Approach minimizes state overhead costs
• Portland Green Building Standard
• 20,000 per commercial project to help with green
  design, LEED cerfitication and energy modeling
  costs
• 3,000 per residential home

52
Rinker Hall as a HPB

• Designed and built using the LEED Standard
• Uses 35 of the energy of a UF building designed
  to code 35,000 BTU/SF/yr
• Extensive daylighting strategy
• Energy shedding building façade wall as shading
  device
• Automatic lighting controls on/off, throttling
• Energy recovery ventilator
• Advanced building automation system
• Rainwater harvesting, waterless urinals, low flow
  fixtures
• Capability for deconstruction
• Very low emissions materials

53
Water Efficiency

• Rainwater harvesting
• Low-flow fixtures
• Low flow faucets
• Waterless urinals (right)
• Reclaimed water system for irrigation

54
Energy Atmosphere

• Building Envelope/High Performance Wall
• Lighting Controls/Fixtures Photocells/Motion
  Detectors
• Energy recovery systems

55
Material Selection
Reused Products

• Brick (right)
• Hume Hall demolition
• Cleaned palletized by Students
• Stored for use
• Irrigation PVC for brick weeps

56
IEQ (Indoor Environmental Quality)

• Daylighting Strategies
• Central Atrium
• Daylighting Louvers
• Low-emitting/VOC materials
• Pure Performance Paints by Pittsburgh Paints
  (rated by Environmental Building News as "Product
  of the Year")
• Environmentally sensitive adhesives
• Operable windows
• No Smoking Policy

57
IEQ (Indoor Environmental Quality)
Daylighting Strategies

• Building orientation
• Central, 3-story atrium
• 14 pyramid skylights
• Sloped lightwells in center-core
• Daylighting louvers
• Sloped acoustical ceilings in classrooms
• Level 5 drywall finish
• White paint

58
Construction IAQ

• Eliminate dust, dirt at ductwork
• Store products off floor (drywall, insulation)
• 100 outside air flush prior to occupancy
• No smoking policy during construction

59
Waste Management

• Stockpiled products for recycling on-site
• Container loaded ad-hock
• Regular container/pick-ups for mixed-use only
• Drywall waste returned to plant (635 per load
  vs. 230 per load mixed)

60
RINKER HALL

• Costs of
• LEED Initiatives

61
LEED COSTS Daylighting
Daylighting Premium 8/ft2 370,000
62
LEED COSTS Energy Savings
Energy Premium 5/ft2 233,000

63
LEED COSTS Rainwater Harvesting
Rainwater Harvesting 1.10/ft2 52,500
64
LEED COSTS Miscellaneous
65
Cost Summary including Life Cycle Costs

• Total added cost about 700,000
• Project base budget about 7,000,000
• Cost of green features about 10
• Life cycle savings (energy) 10 year payback
• Added Cost/GSF 14.73

66
Key to Green Project Planning

• Integration and training of project team
• Owner
• Design Team Architects, Landscape, Interiors,
  Civil, Structural, Mechanical, Electrical,
  Plumbing, Fire Protection, Controls
• Construction Team CM, GC, subs (30)
• Commissioning Group
• Consultants
• Others who need to be brought up to speed
• Local codes enforcement agency
• Building officials

67
Goals of Green Project Planning

• Integrated Design
• Use talents of team to achieve project goals
• Extraordinary level of collaboration
• Constructability
• New systems rainwater harvesting, integrated
  lighting controls, ERV
• New materials wheatboard, linoleum

68

• Predictable Costs
• Take into account additional design inputs
• Factor in new systems and approaches
• Maintainability
• Commissioning and building operator training are
  key
• Recommissioning is probably even more important
  than commissioning
• Improve building operation as part of the
  maintenance cycle

69
Role of Cost Estimating

• Cost estimating is critical
• Conceptual estimating for green buildings is weak
• New systems, complexity, higher cost materials,
  differing processes (waste management and IAQ in
  particular)
• Note The owner has always expected this!