Mobile Edition
Print
Get the Mag
Weekly UpdatesINTRODUCTION
Sustainable design does not necessarily result in a sustainable building. As an architect practicing in the area of building enclosure failure investigation and repair design, personal experience has taught me that there is often a sizeable gap between design intent and actual performance. This is particularly true when viewed in the context of the overheated rhetoric currently surrounding "green" building and sustainable design. The benefits of solar, wind, double skins, various insulating technologies, and an endless array of materials and methods all require serious performance verification before owners of real estate can feel comfortable that their investment is truly "green" and, more critically, that their investment is economically viable in the long term.
To assure the economic viability and performance of the sustainable building (or any building for that matter), it is crucial to understand two things. First, one can only verify what one can measure. Second, it is important to understand from the beginning the business goals shaping the performance requirements of a building asset. What needs to be measured will be determined by these larger business issues, and the verification protocols must be tuned accordingly. The recent National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) report to Congress regarding the attributes of a "high performance" building is instructive and worth keeping in mind. It says:
"The high-performance building concept comes at a time when the building community is being pulled in many directions and is in need of a framework for balancing competing interests. The increasing popularity of sustainable or "green" building, post-9/11 safety and security concerns, the new contractual and delivery methods available to builders, and the market mechanisms driving institutional investors to seek out energy and other efficiencies in building asset portfolios all confirm that this is the right time to begin ...". (1)
The operative word here, of course, is "begin.17 As we stand on the precipice of what can be fairly judged a sea-change in the role of the architect in sustainability and environmentally conscious design, it is becoming increasingly vital that we, as architects, resist the temptation to "greenwash," and instead look critically at our own role in this process and the tools available to us to truly deliver on both the potential and the promise of high-performance buildings and sustainable design.
THE CHANGING ROLE OF THE ARCHITECT: PERCEPTION VS. REALITY
In a thoughtful discussion of the changing role of architects, Professor Barry "Yatt of the School of Architecture at Catholic University in Washington, D.C., recently wrote: "Architects see themselves and, to a larger extent, are seen by society as "creative types." As a culture, we recognize these individuals as renaissance people--licensed professionals who think in the abstract and possess the rare combination of vision, creativity and the scientific rationale necessary to bring us informed, responsive and, in some instances, truly inspiring and thought-provoking design. This notion of the architect's place in our society is reaffirmed time and again in the popular press when business leaders and politicians are referred to as the architects of a given mission or success--be it the start of a successful new business or, perhaps, the outcome of a successful piece of legislation. We use the term reverentially because, as a society, we have come to recognize architects as individuals with a proven ability to solve major problems through the use of a creative, yet structured and thoughtfully applied intellectual process." (2)
Ironically, this societal view of the architect has begun to apply less and less to those who, by definition, are actually engaged in the practice of architecture. Due largely to development models that increasingly reflect near-term profitability rather than long-term durability and performance--and the corresponding increase in liability and risk associated with this shift--architecture has evolved into a profession that, in many respects, is better known for the services and expertise it no longer provides than for the services that were once the foundation of the profession. In-depth technical research, comprehensive and effective detailing during the design phases of a project, and a commitment to regular inspections of the work during construction to ensure proper installation and performance have increasingly fallen victim to the demands of compressed schedules and often, unrealistically low budgets. Architects recognized this shifting demand and responded by reducing their scope of services--and shielding themselves from liability--by outsourcing these tasks to what has become a breathtakingly large and still expanding field of design consultants. Developers, for their part, unwittingly contributed to this shift by creating a more competitive environment for design services during the conceptual stages of a project--an environment that, while perhaps more cost-effective in the near term, nonetheless contributed to the compartmentalization of design and an attempt, in many instances, to redistribute design responsibility "downstream" into the construction industry and trades--arguably lowering the bar for a profession that is increasingly unwilling or unable to invest the time and resources necessary to respond to the rapidly evolving technical challenges of a project.
"It should come as no surprise, then," says Professor Yatt, "that developers increasingly turned to consultants to fill this void. And architects who did, in fact, invest the time and financial resources to design responsively, increasingly found themselves facing a market that no longer expected to see them in this role." (2) While design responsibility (and fees) for architects engaged in traditional practice have suffered, the number of players and costs associated with a project team have continued to increase, with (arguably) little or no significant reduction in risk for the owner/developer, and only minimal gain in the long-term durability and performance of the buildings that continue to emerge from this process.
How do we address this concern? One popular refrain among owners, developers and contractors is to reflect wistfully upon the idea of the architect as master builder "... that legendary paragon of creativity and pragmatism that once guided both design and construction before the increasing complexity of building technology warranted building codes and public regulation of teh architecture profession." (2) As tempting as it may be for architects to want to resurrect that ideal, the notion that the profession will return triumphantly to recapture that mantle is one that can only be viewed through the romantic lens of history. It holds little or no promise when viewed through the multi-faceted prism that has come to define project delivery today. Perhaps, then, it is more appropriate to consider the possibility of an architect (or engineer) serving as the steward of the pre-design, design and construction process--a design professional who possesses a level of base-building knowledge, intellectual curiosity and technical competence necessary to understand, evaluate and effectively balance the desire to take advantage of rapidly advancing construction materials and technologies with the reality (and often competing interest) of initial project cost, life-cycle cost, short- and long-term environmental impact, energy efficiency, and the long-term durability, serviceability and performance of the modern building enclosure. These are the same principles we consider fundamental to good design practice and, by definition, sustainable design.
WHY COMMISSION THE BUILDING ENCLOSURE?
In any effort to produce a new building project or manage an existing building asset, proper design and maintenance of the building enclosure is vital. This is even more critical when trying to create or manage a sustainable building. In general, the transfer of heat and moisture between the building interior and exterior has a fundamental impact on the design and eventual operation of a building asset. The heat transfer through the building envelope, including both the facades and the roof, dominates the design requirements in virtually all buildings with floor plates smaller than 15,000 square feet and, depending on the building configuration, can have a significant effect for buildings with larger floor plates. Generally speaking, the impact of the building envelope penetrates to 15 feet from the envelope in most buildings.' Therefore, proper design and maintenance of the building envelope is crucial to the sustainability and eventual durability of the asset. Building envelope failures quickly obviate the best laid plans for an energy-efficient building as we shall see in the Chesapeake Bay Foundation building below.
Energy efficiency is not the only goal of a sustainable building. Other goals include indoor environmental quality and durability. Simply put: uncontrolled rainwater penetration, condensation and moisture ingress are three of the most common threats to the long-term durability, structural integrity and performance of the building enclosure. In the past, statistical data has suggested that collectively they represent up to 80 percent of all construction-related claims in the United States. (4) Today, a new pipeline of litigation has been added to that list--one that arises not simply from the deleterious effects of moisture intrusion, but rather from the noble, though perhaps short-sighted and frequently ill-informed objectives established for energy efficiency in the name of sustainable design. The continuation of this trend is troubling, and has only taken on added significance when one considers the irrational exuberance that now appears to surround sustainable design and the rush to mandate the objectives of the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) through hastily crafted and what may prove to be short-sighted and ill-conceived legislation. The changing role and perception of the architect have contributed to this trend.
FEED