Share this on

A Formerly Hard Sell Getting Easier

Penny Bonda -- Interior Design, 1/22/2007 11:37:00 AM

Closing the deal on green used to be a whole lot harder than it is now, for two reasons. First, green is the new black – it’s everywhere and everyone looks good in it. It’s rare to turn on the TV or read a newspaper or magazine without finding an article or feature on climate change—daffodils in January? — but there is also plenty of coverage of green buildings.

Try this. Set up the Google Alerts feature on your computer with the search term "green buildings" and you’ll be amazed what shows up in your inbox—links to an amazing array of stories from around the world on sustainable building events and practices. If you’re a USGBC member you’re probably receiving a weekly email, "USGBC In the News," offering further proof that everyone’s going green. During one week in January news features were listed on environmentally focused architecture (Bloomberg.com), a green school library (New York Daily News), an eco-friendly dormitory (Oregon News-Times), the need for LEED criteria in building codes (The Tennessean) and green building initiatives in Newport News Virginia (Daily Press).

Your clients can’t help but notice.

However, your best green selling tools are recently published and very solid financial data on the costs benefits of green design. One of the most valuable is the updated Davis Langdon cost study evaluating the construction costs associated with green as compared to non-green buildings. First completed in 2004, the results showed that projects are achieving LEED within their budgets, and in same cost range as non-LEED projects. The 2006 study reveals similar findings. Meaningful data was collected for five project category types, designed to both LEED criteria and others that were not: libraries, academic buildings, laboratories, community centers and ambulatory care facilities. All the projects, LEED and control, were normalized for time and location – Sacramento 2006. Cost data, including construction costs and commissioning for projects within each project type was then compared on a $/sf basis.

The findings, quoted from the project summary, are as follows:

"The 2006 study shows essentially the same results as 2004: there is no significant difference in average costs for green buildings as compared to non-green buildings. In fact, this study shows the differences in averages to be even closer than in the 2004 study, suggesting that the difference between green and non-green design approaches has gotten even smaller.
"Average construction costs have risen dramatically in just 2 1⁄2 years - between 25% and 30%. And yet we still see a large number of projects achieving LEED within budget. This suggests that while most projects are struggling with cost issues, LEED is not being abandoned.
"We continue to see project teams conceiving of sustainable design as a separate feature. This leads to the notion that green design is something that gets added to a project – therefore they must add cost. This tendency is especially true for less experienced teams that are confronting higher levels of LEED certification (Gold and Platinum). Until design teams understand that green design is not additive, it will be difficult to overcome the notion that green costs more, especially in an era of rapid cost escalation."

The 2006 study is not yet posted on the Davis Langdon website but the 2004 Costing Green study is available.

Another recently published resource is the ASID series of five white papers on sustainable design, including Selling Green, an overview of the costs and values of green buildings with an emphasis on interiors. The paper is filled with examples of green savings such as the 41-story office tower in Atlanta that received a LEED Core and Shell gold rating. Hines, the real estate developer, reported that "the premium for the environmental features of this 678,000 square foot office building were $153,000, a small fraction of the overall project costs of more than $100 million, or an average of 23 cents per square foot. With features like onsite stormwater management, low VOC interior finishes and a green roof, Hines has paid a small premium for an environmentally responsible building that is likely to attract tenants for the long term."

Selling Green is especially strong in its discussion of costs savings in energy, water, operations, maintenance and construction costs. For example, in an HOK designed classroom facility at the University of Wisconsin, "extensive daylighting strategies resulted in energy savings in excess of $18,000 per year, providing an economic payback in approximately five years." The series also includes papers on the larger issues of sustainable design, indoor air quality, materials and products and a reference guide. The papers deal with both residential and commercial projects, offering good statistics and case study results for each specialty, stuff you can really use in talking to your clients. The ASID Research Study on Sustainability is available for purchase.

Both the commercial and residential sectors are also represented in two McGraw-Hill Construction publications—the Green Building Smart Market Reports. Each addresses the growing trends and opportunities in sustainable design and construction and are available for sale in print or electronically. Market penetrations, trends and insights, opportunity areas and characteristics that define companies involved in green building versus those not involved are covered. The primary message from both publications is that market demand for green buildings is growing and is an increasingly important way to do business.

Bottom line: the competitive advantage is out there, the resources are too. Use ‘em!