An IntervIew wIth PAtrIck Bellew, AtelIer ten - BetterBricks

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Bellew: We have explored and developed high performance building technologies over many years with greater and lesser degrees of success with our clients. In every project, we attempt to bring in a degree of environmental thinking; usually phrasing it in terms of ‘no-brainers’ that one ought to do as a matter of course on the building. The next level are things that are slightly more of a stretch to reach, and then on to the more complex things that require a major shift in thinking about how buildings perform. We have been fortunate, however, to work with many clients for whom a push towards more sustainable design has been at the core of the selection process of their design team. In the early days, this type of client tended to be either owner/occupiers of buildings, such as universities and schools, or they would come from the government sector or The Blue Bird Restaurant and Store in London cultural buildings such as art museums, schools again or public buildings of any kind. These were people who both owned and operated the buildings and, as it’s now phrased, the triple bottom line applied to very well. This means that they were paying the fuel bills, and so the benefits of investment in energy reduction were clearly demonstrable throughout the life of the building. It has been far more difficult to persuade the developers of commercial buildings, who are not paying their own fuel bills, to come to the party and build high performance, sustainable buildings. This has changed somewhat in recent years, particularly the last two years in the UK, where the corporate social responsibility demands of the potential building tenants have moved our commercial sector much more towards the development of high performance buildings. I would say this has certainly been helped by the emergence of benchmarking rating systems. In the UK this is BREEAM, and in the US this is LEED. The impact of these benchmarking systems has been really significant in encouraging developers to achieve higher standards for their buildings, and recognize that they have a better chance of leasing a building that’s deemed to be high quality, than leasing a building that’s either not certified or of a lower quality. In a way this is exactly what the benchmarking systems set out to achieve in the first place. They are frequently derided by the nay-sayers as being a painful process, involving too much paper pushing, and many other negatives. However, I think they add extraordinary value in providing a level playing field for comparison of designs and design qualities. Our experiences in the US in recent years have very much paralleled this situation in the UK. Our earlier projects were almost exclusively with universities and one or two enlightened developers, such as Liberty Property Trust out of Philadelphia. The universities were beginning to recognize the benefits of reducing their energy consumption and their infrastructure costs when developing new buildings, if they built them to a higher standard. At the same time, or soon after, the property development sector recognized that there were some pretty big changes on the horizon and started to respond. I wouldn’t say that they are all the way there yet, but certainly a good start is being made in certain parts of the country. To respond to the second part of the question, about how to coordinate with other team members; the truth is that sometimes it’s very straight forward, and sometimes it’s not. Despite the fact that it is widely recognized that the architecture of the building is a key component of the way that buildings perform, and despite the fact that all the architects that we work with seek to incorporate environmental design Despite it is widely recognized that the architecture of the building is a key component to a buildings performance, and despite that all the architects that we work with seek to incorporate environmental design measures into their buildings, there still remains a reluctance on the part of many architects to compromise architectural or aesthetic considerations for a technical one, no matter how carefully they are explained! measures into their buildings, there still remains a reluctance on the part of many architects to compromise architectural or aesthetic considerations for a technical one, no matter how carefully they are explained! As the calculation tools have become more user friendly and particularly more graphical in the way that they represent energy flows within buildings, we have found it increasingly viable to speak with the architects at a graphical level, get Patrick Bellew 2
them to understand the consequences of their decisions, and start to move towards making better buildings. For the most part however, the collaborative relationship within design teams, whether it be architects or structural engineers, has been exciting and for the most part fruitful. “In the earlier part of my career, we used to do what we called “stealth” engineering... The minute that you put it up as an additional item in the “green column” of the analysis, it is then a hostage to fortune and to budget cuts, whereas we would rather see it as being an intrinsic part of a good building.” Nonetheless, a realistic look back at many of our projects would suggest that most clients prepare a little bit in their ambitions, but moving them to more innovative environmental ideas still remains extremely difficult. I do think that sometimes we over analyze the things that we are doing. In the earlier part of my career, we used to do what we called “stealth” engineering where we would simply install something, such as heat recovery, as standard on all the ventilation systems in the building, having satisfied ourselves that the energy efficiency gained was worth having. We wouldn’t necessarily do the detailed life cycle cost analysis to show that the client would realize a benefit over the long term, because we knew it would be so. The minute that you put it up as an additional item in the “green column” of the analysis, it is then a hostage to fortune and to budget cuts, whereas we would rather see it as being an intrinsic part of a good building. So these days, we do a combination of things that we just do as standard, and we then look for areas where we can “push the boat out” to make for buildings that move the debate about green design forward. BetterBricks: Are you familiar with the AIA’s 2030 Challenge? How would you characterize the best approach or strategies to get to net-zero carbon buildings? Bellew: I have some knowledge of the AIA’s 2030 Challenge documentation, and I think that it contains a very strong message. In the UK, our government is looking to mandate a more ambitious timeline to carbon neutral buildings, aiming for the domestic sector to be carbon neutral by 2016 and the commercial sector to be carbon neutral by 2019. There is some debate about the meaning of carbon neutral, and a particular debate is developing about the fact that the carbon neutrality of the project is intended to be established without the ability to import energy from green sources offsite, or by using certified renewable energy credits. As you can imagine, this makes life rather challenging! There is also some debate about the definition of zero carbon and the tax breaks that are being allocated to zero carbon buildings; one supposes the treasury tries to make it difficult to achieve them in order to minimize the number of tax concessions they have to give! I wouldn’t take issue with any of the points raised in the 2030 Challenge headlines, except to highlight that one thing we are very interested in looking into is how we can make the construction of new buildings somehow link to the energy reduction in the existing building stock. To me it always seems crazy to spend a million dollars on a photovoltaic array to take a building from a 60% carbon reduction to a 64% carbon reduction, when the same amount of carbon could be saved by spending $250,000 on an adjoining building or nearby housing estate. How do we put in place mechanisms to allow the money to flow from one sector to another, and avoid wasting the green dollar on uneconomic renewable energy systems, when there are much softer targets nearby? I know this is a really difficult problem to solve, but it seems to me to be one that our legislature needs to get its head around in order to allow it to become part of the planning system. In the UK, the town of Brighton has recently introduced a system that allows developers to realize the best building performance possible by incorporating economically feasible renewable sources into the design. Any short fall from the required 10-20% renewable energy target, in effect any residual carbon emissions can be paid off via a one-off development charge. This then goes into a community Monsoon PLC in London Patrick Bellew 3
Page 1: An IntervIew wIth PAtrIck Bellew, A
Page 5: question, but there are an increasi

An IntervIew wIth PAtrIck Bellew, AtelIer ten - BetterBricks

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?