First off, I'm a little skeptical of LEED. What I got out of Doug Faar's lecture (guy from LEED) is that they give superficial consideration of the urban environment itself despite them being leaders in "environmental design" (higher density = higher rating? urr..it's a little more complex than that...). But anyway, I know that with historic sites and historic districts you must abide by regulated building materials and such. I'm wondering what they are and how they rank as far as energy efficiency. I don't know much about the subject and I'm hoping someone on here knows a lot about it and can fill me in.

*crickets chirping*

 

 

.....

 

*tumble weed blows by*

 

 

... lol

David, I have read some articles addressing this subject, and there are preservation / historic architects that are making the claim that traditional building materials are greener, especially if you consider their longer lifespan.  As you probably know, they now have a LEED certification for existing buildings, and there is a push to put more emphasis on new urbanism or even an historic cert.  I don't really know the details, but I would like to learn more about this myself.

 

I am on a new urbanism email list and this relevant article was posted:

Here is a choice quote “..the most intrinsically "green" buildings

are those that already exist. This is because constructing a new

building consumes 15 to 30 times the building's annual energy use.

Reusing it after its original purpose is obsolete makes an old

building even greener, because the new purpose does not require a new

building..”

 

David Brussat: How green is our architecture?

 

08:05 AM EDT on Thursday, April 19, 2007

DAVID BRUSSAT

 

As discussed at a number of the conference seminars, the recently

developed system for certifying a proposed building's green status

gives short shrift to the energy efficiency of old buildings and

their reuse. The Leadership for Energy and Environmental Design

(LEED) certification process treats only a small part of true

sustainability. The ultimate green building using no external energy

at all will cause, depending on where it is erected, a waste of

energy (in gasoline) greater than the value of the energy saved in a

year by the building's green gadgetry.

 

Therefore, the real green movement is not LEED but Smart Growth and

New Urbanism, which promote sustainable planning at the regional and

local levels. Historic preservation plays a big role in both movements.

Both press for higher population density and reuse of existing road

and utility infrastructure. But in their emphasis on historical

context and sense of place, both also tend to promote new buildings

of traditional design, upon which many preservation professionals

look with the same jaundiced eye as modern architects and other

design elites.  A panel of experts at the conference -- including

its keynote speaker, Jean Carroon, of the Boston architects Goody

Clancy -- pooh-poohed the idea that new traditional architecture

might promote sustainability better than modernism. Preservation's

reluctance to embrace its true allies may be understand-able, but it

remains perilously shortsighted.  It's understandable because

historic preservation is clearly not about building anew, but

shortsighted because the goals of the preservation movement are

inimical to the interests of the powerful corporate building and

design elites that dominate the industry. After all, every building

preserved prevents the design and construction of a new building.

 

No wonder LEED spurns the obvious ecological benefits of preservation

and adaptive reuse. To play those benefits down while playing up the

narrower benefits -- however important -- of green energy savings is

environmentally counterproductive.  The push is on to mandate local,

state and federral LEED standards for development projects, be they

new construction or adaptive reuse. Until the LEED system is changed

to give equal (if not more) weight to the broader sustainability of

adaptive reuse, preservationists should resist this trend.  If the

government wants to require yet another level of design standards, it

would get more green for the (builders') buck by mandating the use of

natural materials from the region that last longer and needn't be

transported from afar. Or buildings with windows that open, and

central courtyards that admit natural light and air. (Sick Building

Syndrome is caused by Ugly Building Syndrome.) Why not pass laws

forcing architects to use classical ornament to build public

affection for buildings? Such insurance against demolition might lead

to genuinely sustainable cities and towns with a greater sense of

place, and a public with a stronger sense of civic pride.  In short,

build new buildings with the same qualities that make old buildings

worth preserving. That is what preservationists should fight for. All

the ammunition they need is waiting for them at places like the

Pawtucket Armory, if they will join the battle.  David Brussat is a

member of The Journal's editorial board (  [email protected].)

<mailto:[email protected]>

 

 

 

Also see this:

http://greenerbuildings.com/news_detail.cfm?Page=1&NewsID=35827

Thanks for the article  :-D

 

I don't get it... I've always heard that old buildings result in much higher utility bills. From what I've seen they also don't offer as much natural lighting. They keep bringing up the importance of "sense of place" (which I agree with) but it seems to have little to do with energy efficiency.

 

 

...I've always heard that old buildings result in much higher utility bills. From what I've seen they also don't offer as much natural lighting.

It depends on the age of the building and how it has been maintained and upgraded.  Building built before the electric light were built with high ceilings and high windows, so that natural light could reach deep into the room, however a building built in the 40's would typically have much smaller windows and much less natural light.

 

Vinyl, double glazed windows have a lower U value, but they may have to be replaced in 20 years, whereas original old-growth cedar wood windows could last forever if properly maintained.  If you add an interior magnetic energy panel, or an exterior storm you could have equivalent energy efficiency. 

 

High ceilings while helping with natural light, also mean heat rising to the ceiling and making it harder to heat and cool.  Many buildings had no insulation, so obviously, insulation should be added if possible. 

 

A good solid old building has an inherent green value in that it is existing and it takes lots of energy and trees to tear it down and build a new one.  It seems to me that a good solid masonry historic building, if properly upgraded and maintained could easily be classified as green.

I was at historic Zoar Village in Tuscarawas County last week.  They created insulation by wrapping straw and mud around a wooden plank form.  They placed these planks below the floors and above the ceilings of their buildings. 

 

Does anybody here have a great link to LEED building concepts?  I was asked for advice for the new county building that is proposed for my county.

That information should be on LEED's website but you probably have to register to access that info. www.usgbc.org/LEED/

LEED's website ... www.usgbc.org/LEED/

Thank you, David.  I poked around a bit and found my way back to the Cleveland Green Building Coalition.  http://www.clevelandgbc.org/ :)  Now, I have some reading to do.

You get the same amount of LEED points for putting in a bike rack as you do for reusing an entire building (learned this at one of the Breuer Tower symposiums).  Remember, LEED is a product SELLING organization.  And new buildings sell more product than existing ones.

My house was built in the mid-19th century. It has pretty high ceilings and windows. The windows are original, and the house is made from brick. I don't pay alot for heating and cooling.

Its just an odd thing about my house, in hot summer I just have to turn one AC on for a few minutes and the whole house is cooled, same with heating.

You get the same amount of LEED points for putting in a bike rack as you do for reusing an entire building (learned this at one of the Breuer Tower symposiums).  Remember, LEED is a product SELLING organization.  And new buildings sell more product than existing ones.

 

That's hilarious!

 

I wonder if LEED is becoming so popular because subsidized building materials = lower building cost for developers in a lousy residential housing market. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

The City of Cincinnati is working on developing a historic structures green building standard.  Currently the city has a major tax incentive to build new projects with LEED certification, but as it has been touched on...this is much harder to do with existing structures (especially historic ones).  Therefore the city is looking to create its own standards for which existing/historic structures can be rehabbed in a 'green' way and still receive some of the incentives that they really deserve.

 

I couldn't agree any more with the following quote:

 

"The most intrinsically "green" buildings are those that already exist."

The City of Cincinnati is working on developing a historic structures green building standard.  Currently the city has a major tax incentive to build new projects with LEED certification, but as it has been touched on...this is much harder to do with existing structures (especially historic ones).  Therefore the city is looking to create its own standards for which existing/historic structures can be rehabbed in a 'green' way and still receive some of the incentives that they really deserve.

 

I couldn't agree any more with the following quote:

 

"The most intrinsically "green" buildings are those that already exist."

I wish Indy had programs like that. Most green roof programs are for mason commercial buildings, as the historical housing stock is dominatly woodframe.

You get the same amount of LEED points for putting in a bike rack as you do for reusing an entire building (learned this at one of the Breuer Tower symposiums).

 

That's not true, and the person who said it was obviously both ill-informed and had a chip on their shoulder about LEED.

 

For MR Credit 1, Building Reuse, you can earn up to 3 regular points for reusing interior and exterior structural and non-structural elements, depending on how much you save. If you go beyond the percentage LEED prescribes for maintaining non-structural elements (doors, floors, non-structural walls), you can earn additional innovation points.

For MR Credit 3, Materials Reuse, you can earn up to 2 points for refurbishing and reusing permanently installed interior features -- either for their original purpose or reconditioned for a different purpose (e.g. a door used as a reception desk). Again, innovation points are available for exceptional performance.

 

By comparison, you can only get 1 regular point for bicycle storage, and the requirements are more stringent than you imply. For commercial and institutional buildings, you must provide bike storage AND shower/changing facilities for a certain percent of building occupants. For residential buildings, you have to install racks for 15% of all building occupants.

 

To tally, that's 5+ points for reusing an existing building and its elements, versus 1 point for installing bike storage.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think LEED should more heavily reward historic preservation -- but it's false to say you get as much for that as for "putting in a bike rack."