X hits on this document





13 / 16

Emerging Directions

Measures to cope with problems of constructability, cost, coordination of drawings, and attention to client requirements have been woven into the high-performance green building delivery system. Three powerful approaches coexist to ensure the cre- ation of a truly high-performance building: performance-based fees, the charrette, and building commissioning. Although none of these concepts is new, each has rapidly gained acceptance among procurers and providers of green construction.


Ensuring collaboration and cooperation among the building team members during the design and construction phases is a challenge inherent in any building project. The use of performance-based fees (PBFs) has been suggested as an effective and ethical incentive for cooperation in which the savings derived from highly efficient design increase the designers’ compensation. Since PBFs are dependent on the build- ing systems’ performance and efficiency rather than on initial cost, the greater the savings in electricity, natural gas, liquid fuels, and other resources, the higher the fees earned by the architects and engineers. For example, PBFs were used for the Clacka- mas Senior High School in Clackamas, Oregon, a 265,000-square-foot (25,000 square meters) facility that opened in April 2002, with a projected energy consump- tion level 44 percent below Oregon Building Code specifications. Optimizing the building’s design meant reducing the mechanical plant size by investing in a high- performance building envelope and low-emissivity glass. Unlike a conventional pro- ject, mechanical plant size reduction actually resulted in increased fees due to projected energy savings.21

Establishing building efficiency goals and objectives at a project’s inception is essential for the effective use of PBFs. Presently, practical goals are limited to energy consumption. It is also necessary to define and establish specific methods for quan- tifying system performance, which are typically expressed in terms of energy use or energy cost per unit of building area and may be impacted by other variables. For example, differences in heating and cooling degree-days, compared to the year in which the building’s energy uses were modeled by computer simulation, can make enormous differences in the results.


According to the National Charrette Institute, “[t]he ‘charrette’ is often used to describe the final, intense work effort expended by art and architecture students to meet a project deadline.”22 The term originates from the École des Beaux Arts in Paris during the nineteenth century, where proctors circulated a cart, or charrette, to collect final drawings while students frantically put finishing touches on their work. Today’s charrette brings a wide range of stakeholders together to facilitate a dynamic exchange of ideas, with the benefit of immediate feedback to all partici- pants. An ideal charrette would include the owner, design team, builder, facility managers, members of the community, nonprofit organizations, children—literally anyone affected by the building. By incorporating the building into the fabric of the community, local opposition is lessened; the approval process is expedited; and community concerns, along with owner and builder needs, are addressed in a holis- tic process. Although not required by the USGBC’s LEED standard, the charrette has been an enormously successful feature of the green building delivery process. The role of the charrette in the green building process is covered in more detail in Chapter 4.

Chapter 1

Introduction and Overview


Document info
Document views16
Page views16
Page last viewedFri Oct 21 02:21:56 UTC 2016