I started writing this blog just over four years ago on a dare. I accepted a challenge, and my part of the bargain was to write regularly about my design firm, Bergmeyer, and our adoption of the AIA 2030 Commitment. Seventy-two posts later, I’m still volunteering for big, hairy, audacious challenges. Still haven’t learned.
The challenge I’m writing about today is a bigger but related one. I’m setting sustainable design performance goals for Bergmeyer, and using the AIA 2030 Commitment to help. Allow me to elaborate.
We believe we are walking the sustainable design walk. We have many LEED Certified projects in our firm’s portfolio. Since we signed the AIA 2030 Commitment, we have written and updated our Sustainability Action Plan and have completed our fourth year of project energy use reporting.
But yet, year to year, our energy use metrics have not significantly improved. So a little while ago, we had the Sustainable Performance Institute in to do an assessment of our approach. Executive Director Barbra Batshalom took a deep-dive into our design process. She left us – as expected – with good news and bad news. The good news was the unusual degree to which our firm’s leadership and staff are committed to sustainable design. What needed improvement, she said, was our “project delivery methodologies.”
We were unsure of how to tackle that one, so Barbra advised us to create SMART goals. I immediately grabbed my shoe phone to call the Chief back at CONTROL headquarters.
You may know that SMART is an acronym for goals that are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Results-focused* and Time-bound. SMART goals are objective success measures that – if applied and observed rigorously – can show whether an organization is continually improving or not. And for Bergmeyer, participation in the AIA 2030 Commitment is what will make our SMART goals possible.
One example of a SMART goal: Improve our use of Lighting Power Density.
We do a ton of interior design projects. Many of them don’t involve base building MEP systems, so the energy use metric we use is lighting power density or LPD. A goal for us would be to promote greater understanding and use of LPD by our design teams. We need to be able to calculate this ourselves and make design choices while in schematic to improve it. So a SMART goal would be: Have 50% of our interiors project teams using LPD in schematic design so our aggregated LPD in 2016 is 20% better than our 2015 number.
Specific? Improved use of LPD. Measurable? It’s against 50% of however many interiors projects we do in a year. Achievable? We don’t have a baseline yet, so we’re hoping it is. Results-focused? That aggregate annual AIA 2030 LPD number doesn’t lie. Time-bound? We report again in March of 2016.
Another example: Improve our firm-wide PEUI reduction.
This might be a tougher one than LPD reduction. We only model about 50% of the whole building projects we do. But since some of our work is multi-site implementation of a building we design once (a prototype), if we model and improve a prototype that would affect more of our whole buildings. We just finished report on energy use payback analysis for big-box retail stores to help us make the business case for this approach. So a SMART goal for us would be: improve our 2016 firm-wide whole-building PEUI reduction to 40% below average.
Specific? PEUI reduction. Measurable? Target is 40% below average. Achievable? We were at 25% reduction last year (missed it by that much) so it’s also a stretch. Results-focused? We’ll all be looking at that 2016 AIA 2030 summary together. Time-bound: Same deadline as above.
Possible? Would you believe . . .? With the tools and support of the AIA 2030 Commitment, it is.
(* There are many different versions of the “R” goal. Besides Results-oriented, others are Relevant, Realistic [which changes the “A” from Achievable to Assignable], Resourced, and etc. And there are some counter-arguments here.)
Greetings from Herring Cove Beach, Cape Cod, Massachusetts. The only place in the Northeast USA where you can watch the sun set in the west over the ocean. Or something like that.
Vacation can be a great way to get a new perspective. But all the time you’re on the Cape, you can’t help but think about climate change and sea level rise. The Ocean, the ecosystem, the climate: it’s why we come here. But a one meter rise in sea level and most of the Cape Cod National Seashore is gone. Throw a 100-year storm at high tide on top of that and Provincetown becomes an island. Meanwhile, up in that bright azure sky, atmospheric CO2 is at 400 ppm and buildings continue to produce 44.6% of the US’s annual CO2 emissions.
Surely, there can be no more important issue for architects in Massachusetts (or in the world!) than driving radical reduction in building energy use as a way to mitigate climate change and sea level rise and protect our beloved natural environment.
Perhaps. But perhaps not.
Flashback to a few months ago. I had the honor of being asked to participate in the first daylong work session of the City of Boston with the 100 Resilient Cities initiative. If you don’t know about the “100RC”, you should. This program – formed and financed by the Rockefeller Foundation – works to “help cities around the world become more resilient to the physical, social, and economic challenges that are a growing part of the 21st century”. Boston’s selection to be part of 100 RC was headline news. The award comes with grant funding to hire a Chief Resilience Officer and access to a global networks of member cities, NGOs, and other strategic public and private resources.
I found myself in this daylong work session at Boston’s Fanieul Hall with a couple hundred people from the City’s many charitable, cultural, civic, advocacy, and educational organizations. I was one of only two architects there. And when we got to the first breakout group, I astutely observed that I was the only white guy over age 50 at my table.
Then came the assignment. The table facilitator had two stacks of cards, labelled STRESSES and SHOCKS, each describing about 20 different chronic problems or acute threats that could potentially jeopardize the survival of urban systems. We were asked to work together to rank these stresses and shocks on an X-Y scale of increasing likelihood and greater severity.
When the card for SEA LEVEL RISE turned up I was all over it. This was shock number one. Boston is a low lying coastal city. Flooding and storm surges will disrupt transportation, businesses, housing, public safety. Imagine one to two feet of sea level rise by 2050 and hurricane Sandy and nobody has a plan to get us ready for it.
Silence. Looks were being exchanged around the table. One brave soul offered: “But in the near term? How is this more important to us than addressing income inequality or lack of social cohesion?”
I was schooled. In the future, urban resilience will depend fundamentally on social cohesion. Climate change impacts are inequitable. No defensive or resilient infrastructure planning can happen unless all the city’s residents are working cooperatively to achieve shared well-being. Boston certainly needs some work here. While some residents see growth and opportunity, others see gentrification and disenfranchisement. Some people demand better public schools and transportation while some get bent out of shape about curb cuts that don’t look historic enough for their neighborhood. Sure, these debates aren’t unique to Boston or the 21st century, but the point was that basic human needs have to be addressed before we can talk about turning parking lots into storm water retention basins.
I had to agree. People come first. We do what we do to enable productive human uses and enhance lives. That is why the built environment exists.
We architects spend a lot of time talking to each other. We know the architecture and climate change script so well by now we can recite it in our sleep. So I left the 100RC workshop with another insight: It’s important for us to listen to the new voices and get a new perspective once in a while. I haven’t changed my mind about the AIA 2030 Commitment one iota, but I can see it as one part of a larger sustainability mission.
That’s it for now. Time for more sunscreen.
Here’s the headline news: If you are really, seriously committed to doing sustainable design, the Design Data Exchange (aka the DDx) – the new AIA 2030 Commitment reporting tool – will light up your life. The AIA COTE and a 2030 Commitment Working Group worked with the US Department of Energy for almost a year on DDx. It was unveiled at Convention with dramatic flourish at an open public forum.
“We have a few laptops over there with dummy logins so you can try DDx yourself.”
I’m a visual and kinesthetic learner. I need to see something and get my hands on it to understand it. Being inclined to break things, I also found the term “dummy login” very attractive. As soon as the presentation was over, I made a beeline for the work station.
But . . . rather than just reading about what I discovered, why not see it yourself?
Do this: Follow this link to the AIA 2030 Commitment home page. Click the URL for the AIA 2030 DDx. Enter the email address 2030Tester1@gmail.com with the password AIA2030DDx and watch DDx in action. Without flying to Atlanta. Or leaving at 5:30 AM. With a change in Charlotte.
The AIA 2030 DDx home screen is a sleek, clean user interface. Very unintimidating. When you log in, you’ll be looking at the fictional projects of imaginary firm Acmeview Architects. See the four main tabs? Portfolio, Inputs, Reports, and Research. You know what those mean. The five little buttons on the side are what you use to add data on a new project. One button even lets you duplicate a project record for those multi-site commissions. So far so good.
In the “Summary” pulldown box, select 2014 as the Reporting Year. The list edits to show 55 projects by building use type, location, and predicted, baseline, and target EUI. Acmeview Architects’ 55 projects comprised 15 million GSF of total floor area. They must do some pretty big buildings!
Next, pick a project at random and check out the “Inputs” tab. Here’s where data gets entered. Again, there are easy pull-downs for everything. The “Target Certification” menu includes LEED levels, Energy Star, and many others. The “Design Energy Code” menu includes many active versions of ASHRAE, IECC and California Title 24. Go ahead, poke around. You can’t break it.
The “Building Envelope” tab asks for broad brush R Values and U Factors. Not too hard. But I opened the “HVAC Systems” tab with some hesitation. When confronted with “Zone Equipment”, the “Heating” tab asks to select from 16 choices that include radiant floor, fan coils, VAV, package terminal heat pump . . . heck, even I know what those things are. Not a problem.
Back to the main menu. The “Reports” tab is where it gets exciting. This firm has four offices: North Bethesda, Atlanta, Jacksonville, and Houston. Look again at the 2014 reporting year. Combined, all four offices reached a 46.5% reduction in PEUI and a 14.4% reduction in LPD. Nice. But as you click though each office’s individual reporting, you see the Houston office pulled the numbers down. Houston reported one project and only achieved a 28.1% reduction in PEUI. Houston, we have a problem.
Go back to Portfolio, 2014, and sort by Building Use Type. There it is: a 1.7 million GSF inpatient hospital in Louisiana. Its 202 kBtu/sf/yr. compares to a baseline of 281 kBtu/sf/yr. But Acmeview Architects’ North Bethesda office designed inpatient hospitals in 2014 at 83 and 95 kBtu/sf/yr, far better than Houston’s job. Maybe it’s time for a trip to Houston to see what’s going on. Let’s see. Lots of direct flights from Atlanta . . .
There was much more to see, but a restless crowd had formed around the work station. And my next seminar was about to begin. Besides, after only 10 minutes of study I had a good grasp of what DDx could do. Seeing was believing.
As I bolted for room B406, I couldn’t help thinking that convincing architects to sign the AIA 2030 Commitment would be a little easier now.
Want proof that college is worth it?
This was the title of a recent article in the Washington Post. The story included a chart of 100 different college majors ranked by median lifetime earnings in millions of dollars. Architecture was around number 26, just ahead of Political Science. The top nine majors: all Engineering.
I had lunch with an engineer the other day: Kim Shinn, PE, LEED Fellow, of TLC Engineering. Kim calls himself a recovering physicist (physics came in at #14 on that chart) doing engineering to make a living. He was intense. Tall, lanky, bald, and dressed in black. Picture Yul Brynner with a Texas twang. And he spoke with urgency as if to share dire prophesies.
Bergmeyer hired Kim for a unique assignment. One of our commercial building clients had new sites in California. They wanted to know how the prototype we designed for them could conform to CALGreen, the state’s 2014 Green Building Standards Code.
Kim’s short answer: Not easily. CALGreen required a 20% increase in energy efficiency. Title 24, the state building code, had gone from basing its Energy Conservation Chapter from ASHRAE 90.1-2007 to ASHRAE 90.1-2010 in one fell swoop. It was the single biggest jump in energy codes he had ever seen.
His example: If a building designed to meet ASHRAE 90-1975 had a theoretical baseline energy performance of 100, that same building measured by CALGreen would be below 50.
And Kim was convinced that California was just the beginning. The rest of the country would eventually adopt these more stringent building energy codes. “I know where this is going! We’ll all be there soon!” (If by “being there soon” he meant in Sonoma County with a nice zinfandel, I was ready.)
But he didn’t. He had a warning for architects. Pressing his fists firmly together, he added “there’s fixin’ to be some conflict here!” because new energy codes would start influencing Architecture!
Like this: the newest version of the International Energy Conservation Code (which is also based on ASHRAE 90.1-2010) mandates skylights and daylight controls for single-story commercial spaces over 10,000 SF with 15’ high ceilings. It set a window-wall ratio (WWR) of not more than 30% glass, unless 50% of floor area was in a “daylight zone” and high Solar Heat Gain Coefficient glass was used – and that just nudges the WWR to 40%. All-glass buildings? Only possible through energy modelling and the “performance” code compliance path. Which meant COMcheck – the old standby code compliance checklist – would be useless.
Excited by the thought of truly progressive building codes, I asked: What’s driving this change?
Kim had more insight. He lowered his voice and looked around the restaurant. It’s the US Department of Energy, he said. The US DOE wants to get us to net zero by 2035. ASHRAE and the International Code Council are on board, too. And they have the Pacific Northwest National Labs doing cost-benefits analyses. If a new energy code causes a $2-$3/SF increase in construction cost and produces a $0.25-$0.50/SF/year in energy cost savings, it’s a 4 to 8 year payback and within their “sweet spot”. So it gets adopted in the next code update. That’s how they’ll get us to net zero by 2035.
Just then, I had a vision. I saw a Dr. Strangelove–like setting. A windowless room, huge computer screens on every wall, big conference table in the middle, full of . . . engineers. With a red desktop telephone connected directly to the DOE. All conspiring to make building energy codes so rigorous that engineers and energy modelling would soon become indispensable. And then, engineers would take control of the design of the built environment . . . for good.
And I smiled. I suddenly felt the Architecture 2030 Commitment might be a little easier to achieve. Because engineers were together and mobilized. And on our side.
I promised not to tell anyone. And I paid for his lunch.
4/22/2015 update: For architects heading to Atlanta for the 2015 AIA Convention, I highly recommend a full-day pre-conference workshop titled “Transforming Firm Culture and Process: Embracing Sustainability and Getting to 2030.” With all-star presenters Barbra Batshalom, Nadav Malin and Betsy del Monte, this is a don’t-miss. Here’s a link.
I know how to turn it on, make it go and stop. And that’s about it. There may as well be a nuclear reactor under the hood. When the dashboard “check engine” light goes on, I take it to someone who knows what they’re doing.
The AIA 2030 Commitment is like a dashboard indicator light for your architectural firm. (Hopefully, we all know a lot more about our firms than I know about my car!) My firm, Bergmeyer, has been reporting the energy use intensity and lighting power density of all our projects since 2011. We now have three years of reporting data to show for it. The collective EUI of our whole-building projects has been steadily improving against a baseline comparison: 15.0% better in 2011, 25.1% better in 2012, 29.6% better in 2013. This is surely good.
But – here’s the important part – we are not gaining ground on the AIA 2030 Commitment reduction target. In order to get us to carbon-neutral by 2030, our work needs to be 60% better than baseline now. That’s a 30-percentage-point delta between where we are and where we need to be.
So our AIA 2030 “check engine” light is on. What do we do next? We get help.
We called Barbra Batshalom at the Sustainable Performance Institute. SPI’s goal is to help your firm deliver on its sustainable design promises. It’s like having dealer warranty service for your firm. But Barbra makes house calls. And without greasy overalls.
We brought SPI in for a practice assessment. They did staff and client surveys about our firm’s sustainable design expertise. Barbra then joined us for a two-hour deep-dive work session to simulate a typical project delivery process. This step felt a whole lot like having the hood up. We met again later to review her diagnostics.
As expected, it was good news and bad news. The best good news was that Bergmeyer’s leadership is very commitment to sustainable design. In Barbra’s experience, that’s not always the case. But the bad news: not all of our project teams are connected to the mission. Again, not unusual for a firm of our size, but to accelerate the energy efficiency of all our design work we need to be firing on all cylinders.
We learned that we need to pay more attention to how sustainable design goals inform our project delivery methodology. I know that sounds a bit like MBA-style doubletalk, but when we discussed it together we began to see strategies. Like these:
- Promote LPD (Lighting Power Density) fluency on project teams. LPD sounds like an easy concept (watts divided by square feet, right?) but it gets complicated when retail projects have extra wattage allowances for display and fixture lighting that vary depending on what code is being used. And our MEP engineers do the calcs for us. We need to own that process and build it into our design work.
- Focus on project initiation: That’s traditionally when the rules of the road are made clear. But we have a lot of small, high-speed projects. The sports metaphor of a “kick-off” meeting doesn’t always apply. Many of our projects are more like “get your motor runnin’!” then we’re zero to sixty in three-point-five. We’ll have to find a way to get alignment around sustainability goals within these dynamic schedules.
- Get better at making the business case of sustainable design: Heard this one before, right? Not easy. But our project teams are already very adept at managing the cost implications of design decisions. We’re good with budgets. So maybe we can merge that budget-consciousness with energy consciousness and “sell” it as one package. Hmm . . .
So thanks to the AIA 2030 Commitment and the Sustainable Performance Institute, the road ahead of us is clear. We’re back on track. Ready to put the pedal to the metal. (Enough already!) Stay tuned, we’ll keep you posted on our progress. Just don’t drive like my brother.
A Neil Armstrong moment: That’s when you realize that some unremarkable event is actually the result of a long, arduous, and purposeful process.
We at Bergmeyer recently had one of those Neil Armstrong moments. We finally got a look at how one of our project’s post-occupancy energy use compared with its designed energy use. There it was: actual performance versus design intent. If your firm has signed the AIA 2030 Commitment, you’ll understand why this felt a bit like walking on the moon.
Each year, we record the energy use intensity and lighting power density for every project we design and compare our whole-firm numbers to a declining scale that will get us to zero by 2030. But those numbers are not for actual energy use. They’re theoretical. And as we dutifully and optimistically send those numbers to the AIA every year we wonder: how do our projects actually perform?
Getting actual energy performance data wasn’t as easy as it sounded. After many false starts and frustrating meetings, we have succeeded – with lessons learned. So if you’re thinking about doing your first post-occupancy energy use analysis, consider this advice:
1. Pick the right project: For our first venture into POEs, simpler was definitely better. We used a small, owner-occupied built-to-suit office building as our beta project. Something where the energy use sectors looked familiar (think ASHRAE Advanced Energy Design Guide) and where the building users were the same people who paid the utility bills. That disqualified a lot of our retail and restaurant projects (as tenants in their spaces) and our university projects (too many different parties involved in building finance and operations).
2. Pick the right client: The first several clients we asked to share actual energy use data were reluctant. It was either “our electricity costs are not a problem” or “that information is private” or “we don’t want to be your guinea pig!” The right client for us turned out to be one that understood our mission. The willing client, Historic Boston Inc., is an organization committed to strengthening Boston’s neighborhoods through historic preservation. The building – the Eustis Street Fire House – was built in 1859 in Boston’s Roxbury neighborhood. It was gutted to the structure and historic exterior shell and adaptively-reused as HBI’s headquarters.
We simply asked HBI if we could use their energy use data to help us learn and become smarter. They kindly agreed.
3. Find a good data aggregator: We used WegoWise. They’re a web-based utility tracking and benchmarking company that is committed to using data and analytics to promote building energy efficiency and mitigating the effects of climate change. Good people to have on your side.
4. Don’t flub the math: The first data you get will not be in a useful form. Our first report from WegoWise was about 30 months’ worth of raw energy use numbers. To begin, pick a twelve-month baseline period. Then convert those kilowatt hours of electricity into BTUs, divide total BTUs by 1,000, and divide again by floor area to get kilo-BTUs per square foot per year. Gas use is recorded in “therms”, which also needs to be converted to KBTUs/SF/yr and added to the electricity use. Now you’re apples-to-apples with your energy modelling results.
5. Don’t fear the results: Our beta project performed pretty well in year 1. Our energy model described a designed intent Energy Use Intensity (EUI) of 74.02 kBtu/sf/yr. The actual first-year performance data was 76.64 kBtu/sf/yr: only 3% higher than designed. Pretty remarkable given the number of variables involved the gut renovation of a historic property. And we were still 5% more energy efficient than benchmarked New England buildings. Not bad.
But at 42 kBtu/sf/yr., our AIA 2030 Commitment target was quite a bit lower than even our designed EUI. And our year 2 WegoWise data is showing a mysterious 10% increase in overall energy use . . . which of course gives us an opportunity to go back to our gracious, mission-driven clients to understand the reason for the increase. And to get even smarter.
That’s the story. OK, it’s not nearly as big a deal as that historic stroll from Apollo 11 at Tranquility Base on July 20, 1969. But still. It was one giant leap for Bergmeyer.
I am frequently reminded of the difference between skepticism and cynicism. A certain amount of skepticism is necessary to form an honest critical evaluation. Be skeptical when you must. But avoid cynicism. It erodes objectivity.
I recently attended a public forum on the likely effects of climate change on my home town, Boston, Massachusetts. The first panelist was a historian. She had archival maps showing how Boston’s waterfront had been modified over the centuries. Next up was the natural resource policy advocate. She had impact analyses showing how flood-stage storm surge augmented by sea level rise and high tide could reintroduce Boston to its mid-18th century coastline.
Wrapping up was an architect. She brought images from design competitions on how our built environment could be redesigned to allow us to live in a dynamic, new relationship with water. Barrier reefs. Aquaculture shellfish farms. Canals. Raised sidewalks. New ground planes. Infrastructure improvements.
Then – like fingernails on a chalkboard – came the moderator’s inevitable question: Sure. But how are we gonna pay for all that stuff?
Was that question skeptical or cynical? Or just provocative? Whatever. It pissed me off enough to speak up. We can’t talk about know how to pay for something until we know what that thing is. What we need is a vision. An actual resilience plan. Then we can talk about how much it will cost. And for that, we need a real client.
Which, admitted our Boston panel, doesn’t exist yet.
Political leadership changes. Mayors change. Governors change. We have new folks in both offices in Boston and Massachusetts. Boston has a 2014 Climate Action Plan. We have greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2025 and 2050. Our new governor has not been shy about his top priorities, either: the budget, drug addiction, educational reform, health care costs. All very necessary.
But who will write the request for proposals for a comprehensive climate change adaptation and preparedness plan? Architects know that we can improve the energy efficiency of our buildings and help reduce greenhouse gas emissions as we work to meet the AIA 2030 Commitment. But we do this work for clients. We’ve all seen the climate change impact analyses by now. The design work that can prepare our coastal communities for those likely impacts needs a client, too.
And look, seriously. The cost to create an actual, build-able, fund-able regional resilience plan is a drop in the proverbial leaky bucket compared to the eventual construction and implementation costs. Say nothing about the catastrophic costs of continuing to do nothing. As we say to our building clients: it’s short dollars.
So what’s happening in the meantime? More design competitions. It’s hard for me to admit this, but I’m growing skeptical of design competitions. The Big Dig and the Boston Harbor cleanup were not theoretical projects. They were real commissions with real consultant teams with budgets and schedules.
So who will be our #ClimateChangeClient?