46 Reasons Why

Building Green puts forward a selection of benefits to, erm, building green, for architects to pick and choose the ones relevant to a project and make selling it to the client more likely.

To those of us entrenched in the green building world the benefits seem obvious. Why would anyone choose to build in a way that isn’t comfortable, healthy, and energy efficient? In the process of designing and building green, however, we keep running into others who are not yet as convinced. For those situations, it’s useful to be able to spell out the benefits.

The building owner ultimately calls the shots, so getting that person or group on board early is essential. But not every owner will find the same arguments compelling: a hospital board may opt for green because certain green features promote healing, a commercial office property holding company may incorporate green features to speed the lease-out and thus lower carrying costs, a federal agency may desire green features to improve employee morale and increase job retention.

Even within a single project, different team members often have different reasons for promoting a green agenda. The architect may promote environmental measures because she feels it’s the right thing to do. The facilities manager who will take care of a building may recognize inherent durability and maintenance advantages. And the owner may look strictly at bottom-line financial benefits of green.

via Treehugger

Technorati tag: ,

0 thoughts on “46 Reasons Why

  • Anonymous

    For ‘green’ just read ‘good management’. The only things that can be called ‘green’ are based on emotion and bad science.
    By all means build according to what is suitable, optimum features and sound pricing… but please don’t call it ‘green’!
    ‘Green’ is the province of Al Gore and his wild speculations.
    ‘Good management and design’ are the province of genuine architects who are neither duped by bad science nor cynically milking the public for all they can get by pretending to be ‘green’.

  • Ian

    I think you’ve been listening to the denialists a bit too much. You’re right that low energy, low impact buildings should be a matter of course, and clients shouldn’t have to be convinced of it, but you spoil it with a paranoid rant.