Oregon schools slow to embrace LEED

Wendy Miller has a sobering report in today's Oregonian: Of the 27 new schools approved by Oregon voters in 2006, only about one in four have achieved LEED certification at any level. That doesn't mean the non-LEED-rated schools do not have sustainable features but rather that they didn't pursue registration.

Still, as Miller writes, going green but not pursuing LEED amounts to a kind of honor system. Should Oregon be requiring its public K-12 schools to earn certification?

"School boards cite cost as the main reason they haven't pushed for such schools," Miller writes. "But there appears to be a move by some districts to build green without the expense and perceived hassle of meeting national standards. Green is a nebulous term, they say, and they don't need a certificate to prove their new schools were built to be sustainable."

The story also says that five schools across Oregon have received LEED certifications, and another 16 new public schools are expected to be approved for certification within the next year. But Miller does not report, by comparison, how many schools there are which are not receiving or seeking LEED documentation.

Miller does, however, delve into the issue of whether LEED certification sometimes steers design and contruction toward decisions that have less to do with the efficiency of the school. "For example, LEED requires contractors to recycle their construction debris and use wood from certified forests," she writes. "It's a holistic approach. School districts that don't pursue LEED may skip those requirements and put the money into the building to enhance its energy efficiency or improve its comfort."

Again, though, a school could conceivably use these arguments that embracing LEED isn't necessary because you can be just as green or greener within school walls than without it, but then abandon a lot of the efficiency measures with "value enginering" (an industry euphamism for cost cutting) when no one is looking.

Then there is the issue of whether LEED certification adds to a project's total cost. According to a study Miller cites by the US Green Building Council, administrator of LEED, these measures can add one to three percent to a project's total cost.

But I have long been hearing from local architects that a LEED-rated school can be done for no extra cost. Way back in 2003, for example, I wrote an article for Metropolis magazine about three Oregon schools designed by BOORA Architects: Clacamas High School (pictured in the diagram above), The Dalles Middle School, and Ash Creek Intermediate in Independence (pictured at the top of this post). In each case, architect Heinz Rudolf and his team at BOORA were able to eliminate enough mechanical and other costs by embracing sustainable methods to make the total construction cost for these projects no larger than that of conventionally built schools.

"I believe in functionalism," Rudolf said in the Metropolis story. "You design a building according to analysis, and everything is in the right place. Then you don't need a big electrical system or a big mechanical system. You take advantage of all the things you can. If you ignore all these good things that nature provides automatically, then you have to overcome them." Each of these three buildings underwent significant commissioning to ensure optimum knowledge and performance of ventilation and mechanical systems, verifying that everything was built the way it was intended to be.

What do the rest of you think: Should Oregon pass a law requiring all public schoos to achieve at least LEED Silver? Or are contemporary energy codes and other measures already assuring more efficient schools without such interference?

As so often happens with Oregonian stories, I found Miller's reporting itself to be well reasoned and written, but the headline -- which an editor usually writes -- made me cringe a little: "Oregon schools: It's not easy, or cheap, being green." The headline takes a more pessimistic attitude than the story itself, casting skepticism on going green at all when Miller's story was about whether to certify. (The paper did the same with a recent story about Memorial Coliseum, expressing skepticism in its headline and sub-healine about a recent tour that didn't exist in the Casey Parks-written story or the tour itself.) Nobody should be arguing at all about the merits of sustainable design and construction itself, especially when it comes to public schools. Students learn better and are healthier, and Portland's own architecture community has already long since proven it can be done at conventional budgets. So as it happens, it can indeed be easy, and inexpensive, to do the right thing.

Comments

[gc]

Of course it would be wonderful if all of Oregon's new school projects achieved LEED, but even a full one quarter of projects is pretty amazing! How many other states have even a single LEED school?
I love Oregon.

[dyob]

I typically find this debate over green cost lacking in clarity: hard costs or soft costs. It's incorrect to state pursuing LEED certification has no extra cost - there are admin fees to the Council, fees to architects and engineers to document and submit for LEED, and likely additional design fees to design some of these unique and/or complex systems (whether for a LEED building or just a green one). As an architect I would rather see those fees go into the building's hard costs in the way of materials and systems that could make a code compliant building even more green without killing the budget; or even make a green project pencil out when it might not get built at all if LEED (and it's soft costs) were mandatory.

[Lyle]

This question holds for all types of buildings, schools are just an example.

LEED measurementis only part of the bigger equation... what about points for the mix of uses themselves, for addressing the existing social fabric of the community (does this project enhance the existing community?), for creating new concepts and ideas which eliminate more traditional wasteful practices, etc. Obviously, some of these items are difficult, if not near impossible, to quantify. LEED certification is a good tool but it isn't the end all and be all.

[Steve L.]

LEED scores needs to reward for the reuse of existing structures, and possibly subtract from scores for the destruction of historic structures.

If a district demolishes a school like the Riverdale Doyel to build a new “green” school, that is ironic greenwashing and hurts the green movement

The terrazzo floor you have is greener than the new recycled carpet that will be worn out in 20 years.

[Steve L.]

Another lesson to learn from Portland’s “green” Rosa Parks School is to plan for population growth. Portland’s two youngest schools, Forest Park School and Rosa Parks School, were both built too small. As a result, PPS had to add portable trailer classrooms to Forest Park just a couple years after opening and at Rosa Parks, PPS had to change the grade configuration just a couple years after opening. The sixth grade at Rosa Parks is now bussed out of the area and the prospects for expanding the school are poor since Rosa Parks was built on such a small lot.

I also feel building a school like Rosa Parks with no outdoor playfield for playing soccer or other team sports and no outdoor study areas is unhealthy and not green.

[John]

A lot of the components that go into sustainable design can be incorporated for no cost if done at the right phase in the design. Things like siting, ventilation, daylighting, etc. are all design elements that architects and engineers can design well or can design poorly. A lot of school districts across the country are embracing good, sustainable design without the added expense of documentation and verification which does add to the overall budgetary cost.

I believe that an approach to require LEED certification that is done at the state level will fail. It would put districts in those states that have a requirement at a financial disadvantage to other districts around the country. The real approach should be lobbying, ideally on the part of the AIA, to the ICC to incorporate those sustainable elements into the Building Code that all states have adopted. It should holistically require that the owner commission their systems to ensure they are working properly. They should have higher energy and ventilation requirements. If the code required them then owners would not think twice about having to do them.

[Andy]

Re: John
I'm not sure about Oregon yet, but that is how state buildings in Minnesota are beginning to go. There's the B3 State of Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines. Which does apply to state university institutions, and basically anything funded in whole or part by Minnesota bond monies is required to follow it. Last time I checked, it wasn't as stringent or multi-faceted as LEED, though revisions are getting closer and closer, and it's priorities are able to dovetail w/ LEED points fairly comfortably.

[HB]

If the GSA can do it, we can do it.

[Rachel]

Wow, what a great article! I just did some researching and found out some pretty cool stuff pertaining to architecture in classrooms.

www.yovia.com/structurallysound/2009/09/08/progressive-classrooms

[Michael Napolitano]

I'm sure this is an extremely tough choice to make. It does cost a lot of money, but thinking about the future is the most important thing we can do.

Like the old saying goes "Do it right the first time, or don't do it all."

[Vickey Silvers]

I am an editor for Christian.com which is a social network dedicated to the christian community. As I look through your web site I feel a collaboration is at hand. I would be inclined to acknowledge your website offering it to our users as I'm sure our Pentecostal audience would benefit from what your site has to offer. I look forward to your thoughts or questions regarding the matter.

Vicky Silvers
vicky.silvers@gmail.com