Green Design

“Green Design” is a widely adopted term for developing strategies to improve the environmental and economic performance of buildings over time. It is becoming more of a mainstream emphasis for many architects. It includes such things as site selection and planning, energy efficiency, use of recycled and renewable materials, water conservation, construction waste reduction, use of sustainable materials, and designs to allow for more use of the natural environment. Many cities, including San Francisco, have already begun adopting green design policies to improve the performance of their building stock. Seattle, WA , Portland, OR , New York City , and the State of California have all established programs with explicit targets for performance improvement in their building stock.

The City of San Francisco has taken positive steps towards green design through parts of its General Plan, the 1997 Sustainability Plan, and most specifically in the 1999 Resource-Efficient City Building Ordinance.

The 1999 ordinance began a modest pilot program, under the joint jurisdiction of the Department of Environment and the Department of Public Works, to incorporate green building features into new city-owned facilities. Although there is a continuous push to have the city do more to move municipal buildings in an ecological direction, it has been recognized that there is an urgent need to move private sector development toward more ecologically sensitive design.

While there are many benefits to green design, some of the reasons why green design has been slow to move forward are: (1) Tradition and Current Practice. The design and building professions are used to operating in a certain fashion and are resistant to change, particularly, if it may cause them more time, effort, and money. (2) Code Barriers. In some instances, the building code makes it more difficult to implement green design features. For example, it is currently illegal to capture rainwater and use it on-site. Or it is difficult to build office buildings that are entirely naturally ventilated without violating the fire code. (3) Extra Cost. The extra cost to implement green design features vary widely. The cost to install technologically advanced and higher quality (i.e., longer lasting) systems may be higher over the short term, but cost-benefit calculations may show greater benefit over an appropriate time horizon. (4) External Impact and Costs. Developers may only consider their own cost to build a building, but the cost-benefit analysis should consider the environmental and social costs as well.

There are many things that can be done to remove some of the barriers mentioned above and to promote green design. Some of these would include making some changes to the building and planning codes, and through education and increasing the awareness of the benefits of green design. To learn more about the benefits and some to the possible strategies to implementing green design features, refer to a paper written by the Green Building Task Force of SPUR’s Sustainable Development Committee Task Force, by contacting the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR).

SPUR is a non-profit, public policy think tank in San Francisco that was formed in 1959 to fight for the revitalization of San Francisco as the Bay Area's central city. Frankie Lee (flee@soha.com), Chairman of SOHA Engineers, also chairs SPUR.

For additional information on “green design” or “green buildings,” go to the City of San Francisco’s Department of Environment site at http://www.sfgov.org/sfenvironment/pages/sup_pages/homepage_items/resource.htm.

>> Back to New Design & Construction Services