Comments on: A Call To Action: Buildings Key to Corporate Sustainability

By: George Ahn

George Ahn — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:39:51 +0000

Thank you both for the comments. George G. – I wholeheartedly agree! A non-existent building is much more environmentally friendly than any “green” building. Unfortunately, over 5 billion square feet of office stock is added annually in the United States, and another 5 billion is renovated each year (according to Architecture 2030). With this in mind, it’s important to consider the full lifecycle of real estate and make improvements every step of the way. As you point out, the initial step involves improving space utilization and mobility programs to reduce the need for new buildings in the first place. When we do have to construct new spaces, the second key stage of the lifecycle comes into play: using green building techniques to construct energy – efficient new buildings that use renewable energy sources. Finally, to accelerate the overall reduction of buildings’ impact, the last part of the lifecycle involves improving and greening existing buildings by implementing retrofits to make buildings more energy efficient and use renewable energy sources. We’re at a point of transformation, in that people and companies increasingly recognize the value of improving sustainability, but because the shift to a greener world has barely just begun, we must capitalize on every opportunity and address all aspects of the factors – such as buildings – that impact the environment.

By: Green Sustainability Advocate

Green Sustainability Advocate — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 12:29:37 +0000

I’ve always wondered why big buildings never turned off their lights during the night. I’m glad to see this is starting to change, they are one of the biggest wasters of energy and it is important to get them in line. Turn things off when not in use – how hard is that?

By: George Gosieski

George Gosieski — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:16:53 +0000

Mr. Ahn makes a valid point regarding the impact of buildings on the environment but it is not the root cause of the problem. It is a significant contributing factor.

I find it interesting that there is continued growing focus on green buildings as a major solution to our environmental and capacity problems when stepping back to an earlier point in the decision-making process creates significantly greater financial, environmental, and performance benefits.

This shift in focus allows a company to investigate and leverage workplace alternatives which would defer or eliminate the need to build in the first place. Additional benefits from this approach include better recruiting and retention, lower capital and operating expenses, smaller environmental footprint, better performance, and new branding opportunities.

Traditional workplace strategies focused on 1:1 desk ratios and immobility create an under-utilization of our workspace and general work-life imbalance. Several independents studies, including one that I supported, measured space utilization of assigned office space finding occupancy levels as low as 25% – 30%. This means that a typical office building is upwards of 75% vacant making them significantly underutilized assets that generate a sizeable environmental liability.

Driving down a building’s environmental footprint is very important. But first, we should be determining if “that” green building or space needed to be built in the first place since an unnecessary building, regardless of its greenness, is not good for the environment.