Eco-Friendly Structures Catching On

Pittsburgh, PA, Nov. 17--They've figured out how to build carpets from recycled materials, urinals that don't use water, and energy-efficient roofs covered with plants, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. The real challenge, for the thousands of architects and manufacturers at the international Greenbuild conference last week, is how to make anyone care. "I never start out talking about green," said Marc Richmond, a former Bethlehem, PA, builder who now conducts green-building seminars for a Texas-based utility. "We're trying to mainstream it...If you say 'green building,' they think straw-bale house." Mainstreaming the concept of environmentally conscious construction is imperative, energy experts say, given that constructing, using and tearing down buildings accounts for more than 40 percent of world's energy use, by some estimates. Besides saving energy, green buildings are touted for reducing breathing problems and allergies and saving water. At the David Lawrence Convention Center this week, the concept appeared to have gained a foothold. Corporate America was jostling for space on the convention floor, with companies including Toyota, DuPont and Carrier all fielding exhibits of products designed to be environmentally friendly. The nonprofit U.S. Green Building Council, the conference sponsor, reported that it had certified more than 100 million square feet of new commercial construction as "green" since it began rating such structures in 2000. A notable addition came just last week, when the council awarded the green label to the recently unveiled Pittsburgh convention center itself. The striking addition to the Allegheny riverfront, at 1.5 million square feet, is the world's largest green building. Still, those at the conference said only a small fraction of new construction these days is environment-conscious. Many seemed to have a favorite story about skeptical reactions from clients, government officials or builders when confronted with the green building concept: It'll cost too much. It's too politically correct. It won't work. In New Jersey, where a state program provides $7,500-per-unit subsidies for the use of energy-efficient materials in affordable housing, one builder was reluctant to try new methods. At Eastampton's 100-unit Town Center project in Burlington County, the contractor was reluctant to pour a concrete foundation on top of a two inch layer of insulating foam, said Darren S. Port, administrator of the New Jersey Green Homes Office in the state Department of Community Affairs. The builder agreed to do so only after obtaining a signed letter that he would not be held responsible if the concrete cracked, Port said. Two years later, it still has not. "All these folks have to be educated," Port said. In Pennsylvania, a waterless urinal at the Natural Lands Trust drew similar skepticism from building officials in Marple Township, Delaware County, recalled David Ade, an architect at Susan Maxman & Partners in Philadelphia. Building inspector Al Mazza confirmed the incident. "We sent them a letter stating that if there was any problem, they'd have to change it," Mazza recalled in a telephone interview. The owners also had to sign a form absolving the township of responsibility, he said. Perhaps the biggest perception that green builders strive to overcome is that such buildings cost too much. Some industry experts say environmentally safe construction can cost ten percent more than the regular variety. For example, it can be cheaper to erect an office building on virgin farmland than to reclaim an urban site. Other architects say that with good design, the construction costs of green and nongreen are comparable. Either way, according to a study prepared for the state of California that was presented at the conference, the green features typically pay for themselves within a few years.

Print the Article