Again, this is a draft which has been kicking around a long time. I hope the links are still valid. I was originally going to post this as part of a BREEAM primer, which still hasn’t quite materialised. Some day I’ll pull all the threads together …
I’m beginning to see a dangerous tendency towards taking BREEAM almost as the definitive bible of green in British building. This is a step in the wrong direction for a number of reasons.
Firstly, BREEAM is not infallible. Certain credits can contradict others. The scheme covers such a breadth of disciplines that it would be impossible ‘to please all of the people, all of the time’. It has never been possible for a building to score 100% using the scheme, and it is hard to see without a major revision of the scheme how a building ever could.
What I believe BREEAM should be used for is a means to an end. By applying the principles of green design at the inception of a project, it should inherently be sustainable. What the world needs is not more BREEAM assessors (well, we do actually, but more of that another day), but more designers with green credentials.
The market at the minute is in an odd state. Clients, much like the rest of the country, are voting with their feet and demanding green buildings. BREEAM is currently the most widely used standard in the UK, and so is being ’specified’ by clients to ensure they get what they want (which in essence is: low energy bills, satisfied occupants and employees and an element of green kudos). This is, in some cases, in lieu of choosing designers on their green merits. In many cases the risk is transferred to whoever has to deliver the building. The BREEAM assessor, instead of auditing a designer’s green building, is instead dictating what elements must be included to ensure the building gains the rating required by the client. As this gains momentum, the number of BREEAM assessors required increases, diverting a scarce resource (designers who are conversant with BREEAM and green design) away from design and into what is rapidly becoming a lucrative (in terms of volume of work, if not fee level) niche in the industry – providing BREEAM assessments and advice.
BREEAM in response to it’s growth and success has become increasingly more prescriptive, to enable a more administrative approach to simplify and speed up the process. This is turn reinforces the illusion of it being a rulebook.
There is also the danger of what happens legally if a building does not meet the required standard – think what the consequences of a highly publicised legal battle between designers and clients would be and what this could do to BREEAM? Potentially highly damaging to the entire industry.
We are in danger of running adrift here. I am a fan of BREEAM – it has some flaws but it is well established and still well respected. But to halt what I see as a downward spiral a number of things must change:
- a return to a less prescriptive scheme which enables the designers to decide how best to address the environmental standards which are set
- many more architects and designers embracing all aspects of green design and stopping using BREEAM as some kind of crutch
Perhaps we should be looking stateside and taking from LEED:
• Achieving LEED Platinum comes with a money-back guarantee. The USGBC will refund all certification fees (which can range from $2,000 to $12,000, depending on the project) for any building that achieves LEED Platinum. “We dare you to put us out of business,” Fedrizzi challenged the audience.
However, there are rumblings of dissension stateside too, with some comment here on the usefulness of LEED:
“The fact is that although LEED offers credible third-party certification, it needs to evolve and be more flexible to local conditions. It has proven weak at the national policy level and at times hampered more progressive approaches to high performance construction.”
BREEAM and LEED are victims of human nature – by instinct, we try to simplify complex matters. Sustainability (oops – I said I wasn’t going to use that word, didn’t I?), OK, green buildings, are inherently complex and whilst simplifying issues into check lists, top ten rules and pieces of paper makes the “concept” easier to understand, we have to allow some flexibility into the system, or we run the risk of losing the big picture and missing the goal entirely.
mel starrs Opinion low energy bills, United Kingdom, USD
Recent Comments