with Jason F. McLennan, CEO, Cascadia and Jessica Woolliams, BC Co-Director, Cascadia
 
This Workshop
This workshop will look at Cascadia's research on the code, regulatory and financial barriers to truly sustainable buildings. With research showing that the paybacks are starting to make truly sustainable buildings the best financial choices in today's market, the workshop participants will engage in an interactive session that explores transformative solutions that are also fiscally sound.
 
Cascadia’s Code and Regulatory Work
In 2009, Cascadia performed extensive research on the current regulatory obstacles to innovative green technologies and approaches, such as green roofs, rainwater harvesting, greywater use, composting toilets, and alternative stormwater solutions. Cascadia has done critical work in this area with the City of Vancouver WA and Clark County, and has published three reports focused on action - learning how the regulatory environment can incentivize rather than block adoption of living buildings. These include:
 1.     Report #1: Findings highlighted the obstacles project teams may encounter when seeking approval for a Living Building project.  Some of the barriers found were directly related to City and County regulations, while others extended beyond the authority of the local jurisdiction to the state level.
 2.     Report #2: Strategies and Recommendations provided a prioritized list of key barriers with short and long term recommendations for overcoming those barriers.
 3.     Report #3: Costs and Benefits, provides some understanding of the costs of implementing each of the twenty-one recommendations identified in Report #2 and provides a summary of the environmental, societal, and financial benefits of sustainable, affordable, residential development. The report also provides developers of single and multi-family residential projects with a range of additional first costs for developments, which strive to achieve the Living Building Challenge. Finally, the payback period for investing in single and multi-family residential buildings, which strive to attain this high level of sustainability, was evaluated against water and energy costs in the City of Vancouver and Clark County.
 
Cascadia’s Living Building Financial Study
Cascadia’s financial study has proven the viability of ultra green buildings that eliminate energy and water bills. Study participants include leading design, engineering, building research, construction and development firms and the study was released April 14, 2009 in Seattle. Specifically, Cascadia’s study finds that the most financially responsible design approach to new construction in the mid- to long-term is a “Living Building,” a building that generates its own power, as well as cleans and reuses its water. In fact, a building that is only slightly green may end up costing more in ten years than a building that is designed and built as high-performance as is currently possible. Living Buildings offer significantly larger savings in water and energy costs, and cost less to construct than previously believed. Given the rising cost of energy and water, Living Buildings, as defined by the Cascadia Region Green Building Council, are the smartest financial option in today’s economy. The only exceptions, according to a study team led by SERA Architects with Skanska USA Building, Gerding Edlen Development, New Buildings Institute, and Interface Engineering, are “spec” buildings meant to be “flipped” in a few years.

The study was initiated in an effort to put a price tag on the Living Building Challenge rating system – a relatively new program that has already sparked huge interest in North America with at least 60 proposed Living Buildings in some stage of design or actual construction. The study was done by examining construction documentation on nine buildings, ranging from schools to homes and high-rises, in four different US cities representing various climate zones. Each of these reference buildings were certified LEED Gold, already incorporating many green features and representing current best practices. The construction documents were modified to meet the goals of a Living Building and then re-priced based on the modifications, with the purpose of comparing the cost difference of making the leap to net-zero energy and water. The science behind the study is the same methodology that is typically used by the construction industry for cost-estimating projects prior to construction.

While initial costs are higher, the bottom-line finding is that investing in Living Buildings will have significant economic impact – with less than a ten-year payback in several instances. The study finds that Living Buildings can cost as little as five percent - to no more than 49 percent more depending on the building type and location, representing paybacks for many buildings that are well within the range (less than 7-15 yrs) for any institution, corporation or homeowner looking at holding onto their asset for a few years.

One of the most exciting surprises from the study was finding an almost immediate payback for University classroom buildings in Portland, Oregon built to the high-performance standard of a Living Building.

This workshop is part of the Gaining Ground Conference  Click here for more details.