PlaceEconomics Blog

This blog is the lessons learned from cities, clients, and students about what makes good cities, about historic preservation, about downtown revitalization and about economic development based on my work and travels throughout the US and elsewhere.

Friday, May 2, 2008

Sustainable Development and "Green Buildings" Aren't Synonyms

Sustainable development is critical for the future of the planet. So called green buildings are an important part of a comprehensive sustainable development strategy. An important part, but not the whole thing. Far, far too many environmentalists and "green architects" in the US think that green buildings and sustainable development are synonyms and they are not. That is equivilent to thinking that going to the dentist is all there is to health care.

Here is my latest example of myopic idiocy of environmental groups. The Nature Conservancy, allegedly a leader in the environmental world (in spite of the Congressional investigations into their conflict of interest policies) is building a new state headquarters in Indianapolis. Their director even says, "We're an international conservation organization. If anyone should be walking the walk of sustainability it should be The Nature Conservancy."

I couldn't agree more. So what is their version of "walking the walk?" - tearing down a hundred year old industrial warehouse to build a LEED certified suburbanesque green gizmo building. Why? "Oh, it's deteriorated beyond saving" they say, when in fact engineering reports say that is not the case. "Oh, but it would be too expensive" they say, and yet their budget would permit $175 per square foot to be spent. Is that enough? Well, another non-profit is renovating an older building of about the same size in Indianapolis which will be LEED certified, and their estimated costs? $68 per square foot.

OK, I'm not being exactly fair. The Nature Conservancy is going to be reusing the building - once it's demolished they are going to grind up the bricks and use them in the walkway of their "conservation" garden. And when local preservationists began objecting to the plans to demolish an historic structure, how did the Nature Conservancy respond? "You do that and we won't build here at all." - the bully tactics one expects from some sleazy corporate site selection guy, not from a non-profit organization which brags about its concern for communities.

So if any of you have connections with the Nature Conservancy you ought to let them know that their Indiana chapter is making a mockery out of the claim to be walking the walk of sustainable development.

Labels: ,

posted by rypkema @ 3:32 PM  

3 Comments:

  • At February 5, 2009 4:25 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

    While I understand some of the concerns about the Nature Conservancy, there are definitely some comments made that are very incorrect.

    First of all, I am not sure where information was located stating that the building was sound and able to be reused. This is not the case, and the consensus was that it was unsafe.

    Secondly, the brick is being used as more than just ground up sidewalk material. They are actually reusing the brick for the exterior of the building for the new Nature Conservancy building. This is a great effort in trying to maintain a piece of the run-down sight that is being torn down.

    I am very interested in hearing about the building that is going to reach LEED certificatin for $68 /sf. Do you happen to know what level of certification they are attempting to reach? This is an important factor in the amount of money that the company has to pay. Nature Conservancy is doing the best to "walk the walk." While they are going to build a new building, they are attempting to achieve the highest LEED certification level possible, which does not currently exist in the state of Indiana. Perhaps you should do your homework a bit more before lashing out at The Nature Conservancy.

    The Nature Conservancy is basically taking a vacant lot with a run down building, and turning it into a beautiful site that is going to have landscape and places for people to come sit out at tables to enjoy the trees and weather. Show me another area in this neighborhood that can offer that. They are also going to open their doors up to the public so people can become more familiar with the LEED process they went through as well as the work they do on a day to day basis for our state. Nature Conservancy is "walking the walk" better than anyone else in the state if they reach the certification level they are trying to obtain. Bite that tongue until the project is complete.

     

  • At February 5, 2009 4:16 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

    This is a very interesting topic to discuss, and I am pleased that the Nature Conservancy is getting so much publicity from their new building. As a person that is very familiar with this project, I would like to lay a couple of these issues to rest. While there is a debate over whether or not the building was sound enough to work with to use the existing shell, the consensus was to tear it down. I agree that reusing the materials from the building is not the same as reusiing the building, but the salvaged materials are being used for more than just being ground up in the walkway. Brick from the existing building is going to be reused for brick on the new building, and timber is being used from the existing building as well. Some may still point fingers at this effort, however the Nature Conservancy is doing more to utilize the brick than just being ground up for the sidewalk.

    On another note, The Nature Conservancy is "walking the walk." They are taking a run-down building on an urban plot of land and turning it into something that is going to function. There is going to be landscape all around it, which will bring a softness to this worn down area of downtown, and there will be an outdoor area that will allow people in the area to hang out. On another note, it may only cost $68 /sf to make a building LEED certified, but there are different levels of certification. The higher the certification a project wants to achieve, the more expensive it gets because of all the items that need to be a part of the project to make it truly sustainable. Did you ever bother to ask what the building that is spending $68 / sf for their space is actually trying to obtain from LEED? I guarantee it is not LEED Platinum, which is the "walk" that the Nature Conservancy is trying to obtain. While this debate is ongoing, I definitely believe that people are being way too critical about something they know so little about. Nothing could be better than a company like Nature Conservancy that is willing to clean up a site that is not being used, creating a different feel for the neighborhood, and allow its facilities to be a public learning space for both its LEED certification and what they do for our environment on a daily basis.

     

  • At February 5, 2009 11:24 PM , Blogger rypkema said...

    I have posted both of the comments (which were obviously written by the same person) since I'm happy to provide an opportunity for someone to respond to what I have written.

    The arguments, of course, are exactly the same as excuse makers for demolition always make "...oh it's just a run down old building....our new squeaky clean building will be so much better...AND it will have lots of gizmos so we can get a LEED Platinum Plaque for our Porch"

    The point is this -- the Nature
    Conservancy is phony as hell to say they are "walking the walk" of sustainability when they are destroying historic buildings, saving a couple of bricks, and hauling the rest to the landfill.

    I'll continue to point out the hypocrisy of the Nature Conservancy in every speech I give (and that's a hundred or so a year).

    But at least I'm willing to put my name on what I write and what I say in public...this person didn't have the balls to even identify themselves.

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home