High Performance and Sustainable Buildings

A Historic Preservation Perspective
Don Horn, AIA, LEED AP
Director of Sustainable Design

1. High Performance and
Sustainable Buildings
A Historic Preservation Perspective
Don Horn, AIA, LEED AP
Director of Sustainable Design
U.S.
General Services Administration
Public Buildings Service

2. Memorandum of UnderstandingFederal Leadership in High Performance
and Sustainable Buildings
•
S
igned January 24, 2006 by 21 individuals
representing 17 agencies and over 95% of all Federal buildings

3. Federal Government Commitment•
.
. . to designing, locating, constructing,
maintaining, and operating its facilities in an
–
e
nergy efficient and sustainable manner that
–
s
trives to achieve a balance that will realize •
h
igh standards of living,
•
w
ider sharing of life’s
amenities,
•
m
aximum attainable reuse and recycling of depletable
resources, in an
–
e
conomically viable manner,
–
c
onsistent with Department and Agency missions.

4. MOU Goals •
Reduce the total ownership costs of facilities;
•
I
mprove energy efficiency and water
conservation;
•
P
rovide safe, healthy, and productive built
environments; and,
•
P
romote sustainable environmental
stewardship.

5. I.
Employ Integrated Design
Principles •
I
ntegrated Design. –
I
nitiates and maintains an integrated project
team . . .
–
E
stablishes performance goals . . .
–
Considers all stages of the building’s
lifecycle . . .

6. I.
Employ Integrated Design
Principles

7. I.
Employ Integrated Design
Principles •
C
ommissioning.
–
E
mploy total building commissioning
practices . . .

8. I.
Employ Integrated Design
Principles

9. II.
Optimize Energy Performance
•
E
nergy Efficiency.
–
Establish a whole building performance target that takes into account the intended use, occupancy . . .
–
F
or new construction, reduce the energy cost
budget by 30 percent . . .
–
F
or major renovations, reduce the energy cost
budget by 20 percent . . .

10. II.
Optimize Energy Performance

11. II.
Optimize Energy Performance

12. II.
Optimize Energy Performance

13. II.
Optimize Energy Performance
•
M
easurement and Verification.
–
.
. . install building level utility meters in new major
construction and renovation projects . . .
–
.
. . measure all new major installations using
Energy Star . . .
–
E
nter data and lessons learned from sustainable
buildings into the High Performance Buildings Database

14. II.
Optimize Energy Performance

15. III.
Protect and Conserve Water
•
I
ndoor Water. –
E
mploy strategies that in aggregate use a
minimum of 20 percent less . . .

16. III.
Protect and Conserve Water

17. III.
Protect and Conserve Water
•
O
utdoor Water.
–
U
se water efficient landscape and irrigation
strategies . . . to reduce outdoor potable water consumption by a minimum of 50 percent . . .

18. III.
Protect and Conserve Water

19. IV.
Enhance Indoor Environmental
Quality •
V
entilation and Thermal Comfort.
–
M
eet the current ASHRAE Standard 55 . . .
and ASHRAE Standard 62.1 . . .

20. IV.
Enhance Indoor Environmental
Quality

21. IV.
Enhance Indoor Environmental
Quality •
M
oisture Control.
–
E
stablish and implement a moisture control
strategy . . .

22. IV.
Enhance Indoor Environmental
Quality

23. IV.
Enhance Indoor Environmental
Quality •
D
aylighting.
–
A
chieve a minimum daylight factor . . .
–
P
rovide automatic dimming controls or
accessible manual lighting controls . . .

24. IV.
Enhance Indoor Environmental
Quality

25. IV.
Enhance Indoor Environmental
Quality •
Low-Emitting Materials.
–
S
pecify materials and products with low
pollutant emissions . . .

26. IV.
Enhance Indoor Environmental
Quality

27. IV.
Enhance Indoor Environmental
Quality •
P
rotect Indoor Air Quality during
Construction.
–
F
ollow . . . Indoor Air Quality Guidelines for
Occupied Buildings under Construction . . .
–
After construction and prior to occupancy,
conduct a minimum 72-hour flush-out . . .

28. IV.
Enhance Indoor Environmental
Quality

29. V.
Reduce Environmental Impact of
Materials •
R
ecycled Content.
–
.
. . use products meeting or exceeding
EPA’s recycled content recommendations . . .

30. V.
Reduce Environmental Impact of
Materials •
B
iobased Content.
–
.
. . use products meeting or exceeding
USDA’s b
iobased content recommendations
. . . use b
iobased products made from
rapidly renewable resources and certified sustainable wood products.

31. V.
Reduce Environmental Impact of
Materials

32. V.
Reduce Environmental Impact of
Materials •
C
onstruction Waste.
–
D
uring a project’s planning stage, identify
local recycling and salvage operations . . . recycle or salvage at least 50 percent construction, demolition and land clearing waste . . .

33. V.
Reduce Environmental Impact of
Materials

34. V.
Reduce Environmental Impact of
Materials

35. V.
Reduce Environmental Impact of
Materials •
O
zone Depleting Compounds.
–
Eliminate the use of ozone depleting
compounds . . .

36. V.
Reduce Environmental Impact of
Materials

37. MOU & LEED Integrated Design. •
EA p1 –
Fundamental Commissioning
•
EA 3
– Enhanced
C
o
mmissioining
1 pt.
Optimize Energy Performance. •
EA 1
– Optimize Energy Performance
5 pt.
Protect and Conserve Water. •
W
E 3.1 –
Water Use Reduction
1 pt.
•
W
E 1.1 –
Water Efficient Landscaping
1 pt.

38. _____
MOU & LEED Enhance Indoor Environmental Quality. •
E
Q 7.1 – Thermal Comfort
1 pt.
•
E
Q p1
– Minimum IAQ Performance
•
E
Q 8.1 – Daylight and Views:
Daylight 75% of Spaces
1 pt.
•
E
Q 4.1 – Low-Emitting Materials:
Adhesives & Sealants
1 pt.
•
E
Q 4.2 – Low-Emitting Materials:
Paints & Coatings
1 pt.
•
E
Q 4.3 – Low-Emitting Materials:
Carpet Systems
1 pt.
•
E
Q 3.1 – Construction IAQ Management Plan:
During Construction
1 pt.
Reduce Environmental Impact of Materials. •
M
R 2.1
– Construction Waste Management:
Divert 50%
1 pt.
•
EA p3 –
Fundamental Refrigerant Management
•
EA 4
– Enhanced Refrigerant Management
1 pt.
16 pt.

39. Financing Historic Federal Buildings An Analysis of Current Practice •
G
SA Draft Report, May 1999
•
O
verall, the operating costs per rentable square foot
for historic buildings were 10 percent less than non-historic buildings.
The cleaning costs were 9 percent
less.
The maintenance costs were 10 percent less.
The utility costs were 27 percent less.

40. Financing Historic Federal Buildings
F
i
g
u
r
e
9
-
U
t
ilit
y
C
o
s
t 1998
R
ent
abl
e S
quar
e F
eet
U
s
eabl
e S
quar
e F
eet
O
w
n
e
d
O
f
f
i
c
e
-
lik
e
B
u
ild
in
g
s
$1.
10
$1.
69
$1.
49
$2.
08
$0.
00
$0.
50
$1.
00
$1.
50
$2.
00
$2.
50
Utility Cost per Square Foot
Hi
s
t
o
r
ic
N
on-
H
is
t
or
ic

41. HI
G
H
WI
T
H
I
N
LO
W
I
NDUS
T
R
Y
S
T
ANDARD
Financing Historic Federal Buildings
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
0
-
U
t
ilit
y
C
o
s
t
s
o
f
C
o
m
p
a
r
e
d
t
o
I
ndust
r
y
S
t
andar
d
1998
W
t
.
A
v
g:
$1.10
W
t
.
A
v
g:
$1.
49
25.
9
M
illion R
SF
56.
0 m
illion R
S
F
193 B
u
ildi
ngs
287 B
u
ildi
ngs
100%
90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%
0%
6%
2%
14% 24%
92%
62%
H
i
s
t
or
ic
N
on-
H
i
s
t
or
i
c
U
t
ilit
y
C
o
s
t
o
f
B
u
ild
in
g
s
R
S
F
=
R
ent
abl
e S
quar
e F
eet

42. Financing Historic Federal Buildings
1.
200
F
i
g
u
r
e 14 -
E
f
f
i
ci
en
cy o
f
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
C
o
m
p
ar
ed
t
o

U
t
ilit
y
C
o
s
t
s

1998
$4.
00
1.
000
y
=
0.
0005x
+
0.
6078
$3.
50
$3.
00
Efficiency
0.
800
E
ffi
c
ie
n
c
y
$2.
50
0.600
$2.
00
$1.
50
0.400
U
t
ilit
y
C
o
s
t
s
$1.
00
0.
200
$0.
50
y
=
0.
0012x
+
0.
951
0.000
$0.
00
Utility Cost per RSF
1836
1950
1993
RSF = Rentable Square Feet
B
u
ild
in
g
s
b
y
Y
e
a
r
Efficiency = Usable SQFT/Rentable SQF
T

43. Ariel Rios Building Washington, DC

44. Howard M. Metzenbaum
U.S. Courthouse
Cleveland, OH

45. Howard M. Metzenbaum U.S. Courthouse

46. Scowcroft Building Ogden, UT

47. Scowcroft Building

48. GSA LEED Registered Historic Buildings•
J
ohn McCormack Building, Boston, MA
•
M
artin Luther King, Jr. Federal Building, Atlanta, GA
•
P
otter Stewart U.S. Courthouse, Cincinnati, OH
•
536 S. Clark, Chicago, IL
•
F
ederal Building/U.S. Courthouse, Davenport, IA
•
U
.S. Courthouse, Little Rock, AR
•
W
illiam Nakamura U.S. Courthouse, Seattle, WA
•
M
ary Switzer Building, Washington, DC
•
M
ain Department of the Interior, Washington, DC
•
E
isenhower Executive Office Building, Washington, DC
•
H
erbert Hoover Building, Washington, DC
•
Lafayette Building, Washington, DC
•
1800 F Street, Washington, DC
•
.
. .

49. GSA Building Washington, DC

50. GSA Building

51. GSA Building

52. Eisenhower Executive Office Building Washington, DC

53. Embodied Energy

54. Life-Cycle Assessment

55. Life-Cycle Assessment Approach•
D
efine the scope
•
Consider energy, materials, emissions
•
T
he historic building is already there
•
No upstream profile for historic building

56. Sustainable Design =
Good Design
Historic Preservation =
Good Maintenance

57. Don Horn
909 First Ave.
Room 411Seattle, WA 98103
206-220-4944 [email protected]