Grant,

I just stumbled on your blog, and have found it to be pretty interesting. In particular is the theory of the “architect as sustainable development leader”, with which I thoroughly disagree. The key to long term adoption of, and successful implementation of, sustainable development concepts is to have the developer take the lead. The developer is already involved in coordinating the interaction between all of the different parties to a development deal (contractor, architect, lawyers, appraisers, financiers, etc.). The architect only interacts with about 40-50% of project team members, so there would still be opportunity for the sustainability aspects to lose their “meat”. Also, from general experience, most architects do not hold as much concern for the budget or for value engineering projects to meet a budget.

So the next question is why aren’t developers already implementing this philosophy of integrated design, with or without a sustainable angle? Probably because they are unaware of the financial benefits that may come from this integrated design approach, as well as some are still skeptical of the “value” of sustainable practices (read – NOT the environmental impacts). What the architecture community (in large part represented by the USGBC) could do is reach out to developers and owners to educate them on the fiscal benefits of integrated design, both from a cost perspective and a long term value perspective. Unfortunately, the architecture community has chosen to go the alarmist, environmentalist route (led by Ed Mazria), which by its very nature creates resentment. Furthermore, it has become apparent in my interaction with the USGBC local chapter that the architects and engineers enjoy their little “sustainability fiefdom” they have created, and seem to INTENTIONALLY leave the development community out of their “circle”. This leads me to believe that while they stand on their soapbox and beat their chests about the evils of the greedy developers, they are just as guilty of “money grabbing” where they can, and see the long term revenue prospects available to them by leaving developers on the outside looking in.

So, with all that being said, I will propose a topic for your study which may attract a broader readership and promote the idea of my first paragraph. How about a study that looks at integrated development versus non-integrated development from a budgetary and cost containment perspective? This could be measured in a variety of ways, but the most insightful would be percentage deviation from the original budget (with or without explanation), the number of change orders from a construction perspective, or some other measurable variable. My guess is that the results would steer people towards a more integrated design approach.

Thanks for listening to the ramble, and good luck promoting sustainable development!

Alex Brennan, LEED® AP
Cannon Equities, Inc.
Development Manager
359 East Paces Ferry Road
Suite 150
Atlanta, GA 30305
404-869-8088 (o)
404-869-8055 (f)

"If your project wishes to link energy efficiency with renewables (solar PV) and would be available to everyone including those least able to afford it, please consider my patented energy credit card at www.brobecksolarenergy.com"

My ideas on how to popularize the integration of sustainable development professionals is to make BIM and sustainability participation popular. This is tapping into that all powerful consumer mindset that is the reason the development industry exist. Think "iphone/ ipod" popularity. This is more than just mass marketing , education or doom & gloom projections - it is about the "professional" consumer and "branding"a new process in a way that drives adoption because they want too. The triple bottom line of being good for "people/ planet / profit is a great thing and should be a prime directive but in such a way that it's desirable to do.

"what are the details of this project and what kind of professionals are you looking for. Is this a paid grant?"

"Professionals" (i.e., sustainable development professionals) are defined for the purposes of the study, consistent with the definition at the Institute, as architects, appraisers, land-use planners, landscape architects, accountants, engineers and attorneys. The cost of the project will be paid by the Institute and developed by its advisors and members - there will not be any outside paid researchers.

"A key component of moving forward should be mandatory continuing education programs in which all of the licensed professionals must participate together on an on-going basis. Many of the professions don't require any continuing education (e.g., contractors), while others typically stay within their own area of professional expertise (e.g., appraisers). The opportunity/requirement to have the various professionals interacting in the same room at the same time would be a great way to ensure that the information is getting out across the trades. It would also provide a sounding board for improvements to techniques for handling on-going issues, as well as a potential head's-up for new issues that might be on the horizon."

Message: My colleges and I have "wrapped-our-minds-around since 1982 when we asked ourselve if our Panel Concept of 100% recycled materials can grow sufficent to displace a major and significant share of the construction market. Just because a product/materials focus is not conventional (yet profitable), can/should it be developed for the profit or enviromental reasons.

I hope that you have answers or at least, conduct the Socratic Dialectic and persue the argument where it leads.

Hi,

Good day to you.

Following is a proposal for "integration of sustainable development professionals" research project. Please let me know the follow-up on this. I am located in Orlando, FL.

========================

A study on ‘Sustainability value chain for Habitat industry’.

The objective would include creation of standards for evaluating processes, resource inventory, KPIs, output standards and ‘sustainability balance sheet’ for habitat industry.

The industry segments to include are the following - land management, real estate businesses, construction advisory, material manufacturers, users (residential/business/institutions), waste management etc.

I am an alumnus of Center for Environmental Planning and Technology (CEPT) University, specialized on environmental planning and urban design, researched in sustainable development projects – I appreciate the effort in the area of Sustainable Development. Later I also invested my energy on gaining insights on Business through my MBA studies and works.

It is known fact that all growth and development activities has an ‘environmental cost’. The important actors of the development process are the ‘development supply-chain’, ‘producers’ or ‘consumers’ of habitat.

The IT system of BIM, GIS, Project Management all are important technology that would help establish the sustainability value chain measures. The value chain measures shall ultimately cover the complete life-cycle of habitat development. I consider this study can also evaluate the practices across regions and markets for efficiency benchmarking.
===========

regards,