Buildings, being one of the main causes of energy consumption, should be the main concern of people and authorities. Only then will the concrete jungles of today become attractive.
With the growing awareness of the environment in recent years, a term green or green buildings has emerged. Green buildings are energy efficient, which means that both heating and cooling are done through a combination of design features and operational processes. Certainly the preference should be to choose the appropriate design options when the building is initially constructed. However, energy audits and retrofit modifications to existing buildings are just as important. However, this is easier said than done. We always cut corners to reduce CAPEX, completely oblivious to the fact that later piecemeal upgrades end up in recurring costs that can exceed the initial CAPEX. While it may be technologically possible to achieve good retrofit green status for a building, much more can be achieved by adjusting existing legal statutes, which encourage useful choices during the design stage. The lethargy on charter reform is frustrating builders, while contributing heavily to global warming.
It is customary to give ratings to the level of environmental friendliness of a building, and certificates are sometimes issued as well. The grades can be named as platinum, gold, etc. or be numbered from 1 to 5. Obviously, the highest degree of respect for the environment requires more stringent characteristics.
Considering design options
There is much to be learned from the buildings of the past that have survived the vagaries of weather, including natural calamities such as earthquakes, storms and tornadoes. It is pleasing to see many buildings built centuries ago, with bricks and mud, without paint on the outside, still standing. Many of these are hot/cold from the inside. Using insulation and special materials to thwart external heat is one way to achieve interior comfort, but orientation of buildings that benefit from Venturi airflow through buildings comes at no additional cost.
For years, diagonal joints rather than straight brick laying have withstood the jolts and shudders caused by earthquakes. Local building materials are also known to not only reduce cost but are also compatible with local climatic conditions. These concepts should not be dismissed without sufficient examination and consideration.
Prudential investments
The fact that we haven’t made buildings green during the design stage shouldn’t deter us from taking the right steps now, despite the incremental costs. However, we cannot be afraid when making these expenses. For example, the wisdom is not to go for wind or solar power options, if this is going to incur a tremendous capital cost, and the payback period cannot be less than 10 years.
If we need additional pumping, additional piping, and an alarming maintenance effort for facilities that provide 24-hour support, we are wrong. If drinking water is used to wash clothes in today’s times, it only highlights our carelessness. If water transfer is required, and we use energy to make this possible, we are on a waste spree. Instead, we should be moving users, or buildings, near bodies of water or water sources.
The point is that any additional spending or extra consumption of natural resources that is of a supplementary nature must be carefully discussed for implementation. It might be easier and more effective to change the statutes to deny waste of energy or water.
Modification of the statutes
It is strange that the regulatory authority, which cannot fulfill its obligation to provide sustained energy, has no objections to the contracting of captive supply by consumers. It does not realize the increased demand for fossil fuels, and the consequent generation of greenhouse gases, that this silent approval could cause. Although increasing the supply of electrical energy is a specific exercise in itself, the promotion of buildings with reduced energy requirements should not raise doubts; but it does. Authority must not be hampered by external considerations, political or otherwise. It must not be bulldozed by product manufacturers, whose products would be out of demand if new rules were applied. No one can justify, even for commercial or financial reasons, avoiding energy-saving features.
It doesn’t take much intellect to change the regulations listed below.
- Provide subsidies for the incremental cost of converting an existing building to a green building, as this effort is in the direction of reducing greenhouse gases.
- Allow and encourage frames that provide protection against heat and dust, such as folding metal window covers on the outside, as are prevalent in the Middle East.
- Allowing to cover open terraces and balconies, using approved and standardized frames, for protection against heat, dust, storms, mosquitoes, insects and mice. Such coverage should not be considered as additional carpet area.
- Allow the construction of solar panels, as independent structures, without affecting the calculations of the built area
- It is, of course, possible to fit separate feeders for drinking and general use water. This must be enforced. Potable water pipes must be regularly tested for the quality of the water flowing through them. Whenever necessary, local water treatment plants for individual towers should be encouraged by providing an additional subsidy.
- Enforce provisioning of two separate circuits for street lighting; of which only one should be turned on as a matter of course. The second circuit will be turned on only during prime time when traffic (vehicles and people) increases, or during times of inclement weather.
- For high-rise condominiums or complexes, bylaws should make it mandatory that at least two levels of basement parking be built. A good option may be to place these basements not under the towers, but under the lawns and green areas within the complexes.
Isolated green buildings may not help
Green buildings seem like a feasible solution to reduce the effect of greenhouse gases. If implemented on a large scale, they could resist the degradation of the planet to a great extent. However, measures directed at individual buildings cannot be productive unless there is an overall urban or rural plan. There is no use having glamorous green buildings surrounded by slums. Likewise, it makes no sense to have green buildings without sufficient parking space for their occupants. In fact, large buildings create traffic jams and increase the fuel consumption of cars.
If we are convinced that green buildings make an important contribution to our efforts to save energy or reduce greenhouse gases, then this effort should not be isolated. It should be driven by concepts such as neighborhood living to reduce vehicular traffic, shift building complexes to existing natural bodies of water, and implement innovative sewer disposal systems. Still, much remains to be done in terms of urban planning or rural development initiatives. We are miles away from dismantling today’s concrete jungles, built by some greedy individuals.
