Big Green: ASHRAE 90.1 and maintainablity

Thu Oct 12 17:03:38 EDT 2006

Ralph,  

I don't disagree with you, but I just like to reinforce that tough standards do work, look what California's energy policy has accomplished over the last 30 years (see attachment--Art Rosenfeld's now famous Red vs Blue State energy comparison). A typical Californian uses half the electrical energy of a typical Missourian (I'm assuming Missouri to be your typical Red State). Much of California's tough energy policies have been directed at the building sector. California's Title 24 is still a much better energy standard than anything that ASHRAE has ever produced. It can be done. The attachment came from Art Rosenfeld's Fermi Talk (June 2006), you can view it at: www.energy.ca.gov/commission/comissioners/rosenfeld.html, than to articles & papers and than to Enrico Fermi Award Talk.

Let's start working on those Red States.

Regards,

Harvey 

_______________________________
Harvey Bryan, Ph.D., FAIA, LEED-AP
Professor of Architecture
P.O. Box 871605
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ, 85287-1605
480-965-6094

Current Address:
Guest Scientist
Building Technology Group, MS 90-3111
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
1 Cyclotron Road
Berkeley, CA. 94720
510-495-2324

________________________________

From: biggreen-bounces at lists.biggreen.org on behalf of Ralph Bicknese
Sent: Thu 10/12/2006 9:04 AM
To: 'Dean Sherwin'; grahame at bsc-worldwide.com; biggreen at biggreen.org
Subject: RE: Big Green: ASHRAE 90.1 and maintainablity

Dean points out critical problems with mass incorporation of 50% energy savings.  I am seeing these problems particularly in school projects as well as in others. This is a huge challenge for green designers of public schools in my region.

Public schools in Missouri are very strapped financially for facility improvements. (Illinois schools seem to be somewhat better funded).

*	School districts are very quick to hire someone that says they can design a school for $10 or $20 a square foot less than another.  People are clearly buying quantity and not quality. Two main reasons: 

1.       Client has difficulty in understanding life cycle benefits and trusting analysis. (Designers need to do a better job of making the case but first cost fund availability is still the main challenge). (Some states, like Missouri, have separate "performance contracting" funding that can help particularly for energy improvements by using money from a different pot to increase total funds available). 

2.       The funding mechanisms favor lower initial cost and not lower life cycle cost.  The money for construction and operations come out of different pots as dictated by the states. 

3.       The funds for building are relatively low especially for rural school districts. Our state legislatures need to revise funding mechanisms to be more equitable and to allow for reasonable budgets that allow quality buildings to be built, rather than force districts into a lowest possible cost mentality.

4.       Lack of school board understanding of benefits of the range of green design benefits. There is often very limited time to make the case before they move on to someone who says they can do the job cheaper

*	Most are very quick to hire a low fee design team because they are attracted to lower cost, like white on rice. They do not see the value of paying a few percent more in design fees (a very small part of the total project cost) to get better quality design. They think designers are paid to provide "drawings" not service. If someone can pull a set of drawings out of the drawer and cut and paste here and they that is fine. They do not understand that quality design requires thoughtful and attentive service.  Time is money and getting paid reasonable fees helps assure reasonable service. 

We lost two large school jobs recently because an architect came in and said they can provide a new high school - complete - with site work and fees for about $80-85/sf. We will see, but we are out and so is any hope of a green building. For the most part average PROJECT costs for schools in Missouri has been running $110-140/sf. I have seen some of the schools built at these dirt cheap budgets.  They look more like prisons that schools.  (That has been the growing trend in school design these days. It is shocking). And they typically have low efficiency lighting and hvac systems usually with poor ventilation and poor indoor air quality - along with a lack of attention to other basic environmental considerations. I would not want my child to go to school there nor would I want to work there. I refuse to design this way. The architects that design such facilities and school districts that hire this type of design are doing a huge disservice to our students and staff,  and to our state that has the responsibility to provide safe, healthy, effective and productive schools.

We designers are challenged to provide buildings that fit within budgets that are frequently very tight.  Incorporating green design is entirely possible if reasonable budgets are set.  But this is very difficult when the client's main objective is absolute lowest possible cost. Our ability to provide buildings with greatly reduced energy needs (and overall greener buildings) continues to improve. Green designers continue to face an uphill challenge. But I like challenges!

Cheers,

Ralph

Ralph Bicknese, AIA, LEED AP

Principal

hellmuth + bicknese architects

4112 west pine blvd.

st. louis, mo 63108

t:  314.531.9901

f:  314.531.9902

c: 314.265.0517

rbicknese at hellmuth-bicknese.com

www.hellmuth-bicknese.com

h+b is a member of the U.S. Green Building Council 

-----Original Message-----
From: biggreen-bounces at lists.biggreen.org [mailto:biggreen-bounces at lists.biggreen.org] On Behalf Of Dean Sherwin
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 9:42 AM
To: grahame at bsc-worldwide.com; biggreen at biggreen.org
Subject: Re: Big Green: ASHRAE 90.1 and maintainablity

At 11:03 AM 10/11/2006, grahame at bsc-worldwide.com wrote:

Building energy systems experts designing new buildings or major 
renovations should be able to provide initial energy performance at least 50% 
better than ASHRAE 90.1 without installation cost penalty over current 
popular systems selections and sizing. 

"should" be able to, maybe.  Perhaps you can tell the various engineers on jobs I get to estimate how. 
Right now for example i am working on a school that has a proposed mix of rooftop units and  air to air heatpumps for the classrooms - the latter a very short sighted solution IMO.  But they can hardly afford the building as it is.  Nobody wants to address almost certain rises in energy costs in the future.  The engineer points at favorable tariffs given by the electric co right now & I have to shut up.
Problems as I see it (in general) - 
 - lack of up-front capital especially in public funded jobs like this, 
 - lack of financial expertise on the Green side of the table
 - lack of technical expertise and leadership from architects

Dean Sherwin CPE
Certified Professional Estimator
LEED Accredited Professional
CONSTRUCTION COST MANAGEMENT
308 South Avenue
PO Box 11
Media, PA 19063-0011
(610)892 8860
fax (610) 892 7862
dsherwin at constructioncostman.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RedBlueStates.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 44350 bytes
Desc: RedBlueStates.pdf
Url : http://lists.biggreen.org/pipermail/biggreen/attachments/20061012/105b6f76/RedBlueStates.pdf