Big Green: ASHRAE 90.1 and maintainablity
Healthyschools at aol.com
Healthyschools at aol.com
Fri Oct 13 07:43:03 EDT 2006
Good morning. More on schools-- the most challenging of all green building
clients.
With the energy crunch in the early 70's, many schools shut down their HVAC
systems; the result was that a generation of poorly maintained and ventilated
buildings gave "energy efficiency" in schools a well deserved and very poor
reputation. There are schools in high-end suburbs today that have never
really looked at the HVAC systems and still are finding the vents boarded over.
Let's learn from that lesson: no one should initiative EE in schools
without similar steps to ensure IAQ/IEQ. Policy on green cleaning? Pest-proof
engineering? Durable surfaces? Operable windows? How much more science do we need
to remember that children do better with a little fresh air and sunshine
indoors, that is, the way great schools were designed at the turn of the last
century.
One of the major problems Healthy Schools Network encounters repeatedly is
the organizational separation in large districts of the facility upfront costs
from the ops costs, as described in the previous post. We find the
design/construction team is asked to minimize costs and at the same time the maintena
nce/custodial team is being asked to minimize costs-- but without being able
to interact.
Architects can play a unique and valuable role by ensuring that the design
conversation takes place at a table that includes custodial staff and the
parents of asthmatic and or children with disabilities.
Architects can also play a valuable role in talking to school clients about
"designing for children". If you need help with this message, let us know.
For us it means understanding and acknowledging children's developmental
needs: children outnumber adults by ten to one in schools and children are more
vulnerable to environmental hazards, for example, they breathe more air per
pound of body weight than adults. Inadequate facilities are associated with
higher absenteeism, lower test scores and higher suspension rates: every
educator's nightmare.
Claire Barnett
In a message dated 10/12/2006 10:32:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Harvey.Bryan at asu.edu writes:
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
_______________________________________________________________
This green building dialogue is provided as a public service
by Drew George, along with Environmental Building News
http://www.buildinggreen.com. For instructions see
http://www.biggreen.org/discussion.html
_______________________________________________________________
Claire L. Barnett, Executive Director, Healthy Schools Network, Inc.
518-462-0632, cell 518-573-5878
Coordinator, Coalition for Healthier Schools
202-543-7555
_www.healthyschools.org_ (http://www.healthyschoolsl.org/)
children, environment, health, learning, schools
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.biggreen.org/pipermail/biggreen/attachments/20061013/f3d28bea/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the BigGreen
mailing list