Vivian Loftness, FAIA
Carnegie Mellon University
2005 RFP Recipient

Investment in high-performance, sustainable building design and technologies is limited by first-cost decision-making. In our collective enthusiasm to define and promote sustainability, we may be making two fundamental errors: first, broad “motherhood” definitions of sustainability, and second, arguments that green design need not cost more.

Environmental designers often argue for broad sustainability objectives without further detail, as expressed in the AIA/UIA declaration of Interdependence for a Sustainable Future “Sustainable design integrates consideration of resource and energy efficiency, healthy buildings, ecologically and socially sensitive land-use, and an aesthetic sensitivity that inspires, affirms and ennobles.” However, investors and clients will need to understand the specific quality differences of sustainable design alternatives—component by component—if they are to move beyond least-first-cost decision making. Imagine selling only “mobility” with cars ranging from $10,000 to $30,000. Every ‘investor’ knows component by component the quality differences in the two cars, including life cycle benefits, and typically invests in the higher cost product to purchase performance qualities. Imagine selling only “computational capability” with laptops ranging from $1000 to $3000. Again, the computing industry has made quality differences in even the most hidden infrastructures in laptops evident to the customer, leading to higher quality purchases. The genius of LEED™ certification from the U.S. Green Building Council2 is that it defines sustainability in 69 more defined goals, giving the client the opportunity to qualify a greater investment of expertise or capital in their buildings.

   >
01  02  03  04  05  06  07  08  09  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18