February 20, 2006

YOUR ENEMIES AREN'T ALWAYS WRONG:

Eco-friendly builders starting to grow (DAVID ROEDER, 2/20/06, Chicago Sun-Times)

Gold is the second highest of four ratings the organization gives office buildings. It's awarded on a point system, with 111 S. Wacker accumulating its score on many factors, from the landscaping and storm-water collection system on its roof to the recycling system and bicycle storage space in the building's depths.

In between, attention was paid to column-free floors that allow deep penetration of natural light. Working with architectural firm Goettsch Partners and other advisers, Buck met standards for sourcing construction material nearby, with much of it recycled, and for the design and installation of air-filtration systems and monitors for indoor pollutants.

Why go to the trouble? Daniel Jenkins, principal at the Buck firm, said the little green details can produce savings for tenants. In turn, that enhances a building's image and can justify a higher rent.

The details include the programmable light switches and motion sensors that can reduce the electric bill. But Jenkins said those savings just scratch the surface. Expenses such as utilities or taxes are a small part of a tenant's overall occupancy costs. Typically, 81 percent of the cost is for the tenant's labor, he said.

By emphasizing cleaner air, natural light and other amenities, LEED-certified buildings can cut turnover and absenteeism, producing savings in the largest source of tenant expenses, Jenkins said.

Kent Swanson, chief financial officer at Buck, said understanding of the LEED process has grown quickly. When the Buck firm opened its 1 N. Wacker office tower in 2001, LEED was on no one's agenda. "It's now a conversation point, and many of the big tenants are demanding LEED certification. The larger organizations have corporate goals to support the environment," he said.

Swanson said Buck is again going for the gold rating for a potential office building at 155 N. Wacker that it currently is shopping to users. "It's getting to the point where if you're not LEED, you won't have the anchor tenants you need to start the building," he said.

Steven Nilles, a partner with the Goettsch firm, commented, "When an idea like this becomes mainstream, the power of the market is enormous." Nilles is certified in LEED design, an architectural subspecialty in increasing demand.

For evidence of cost savings, the Washington-based green building council points to studies showing that "people-friendly" green designs improve productivity by 16 percent. Nilles said companies have reported efficiency gains of from 10 percent to 26 percent.


The funny thing is that the econocons, who would normally think such efficiencies a good thing, oppose them because of their feelings about conservation and the environment and their emotional attachment to wasting gasoline. But reactionaries never beat the market.

Posted by Orrin Judd at February 20, 2006 9:26 AM
Comments

Well, you're a little confused about what efficiency means in this context, but I have no idea why you think "econocons" would oppose this. It would be more truthful if the tenants accounted for the extra rent as advertising or a distribution, but econocons don't believe in accounting.

Posted by: David Cohen at February 20, 2006 9:37 AM

Because:

"Following works for me, though admittedly it's not as good as standing still.
Posted by: David Cohen at February 19, 2006 05:51 PM "

Posted by: oj at February 20, 2006 9:44 AM

Two completely different things.

Posted by: David Cohen at February 20, 2006 9:48 AM

Note that the poor tenant pays extra for the privilege of being efficient, sort of the same way you pay a bigger premium for a Prius than you will usually get back by fuel savings. This sort of thing is simply another luxury item: fine by me if you want it and can afford it.

Posted by: joe shropshire at February 20, 2006 10:15 AM

I work on the second-to-highest floor in 111 S. Wacker. Great building. Humorously for the timing of this article, the heat was out over the weekend and the lobby and common areas were the same 10 degrees as it was outside. Brrr.

Posted by: rds at February 20, 2006 10:16 AM

McStain Homes, Denver's eco-builder (if you will), has fast become Colorado's top homebuilder due to selling mainly on home energy efficiency. And McStain Homes aren't that much more costly than, say, Pulte or KB Homes are.

Most econocons object to this because this simply is not their "Value."

Posted by: Brad S at February 20, 2006 10:20 AM

And OJ, I don't think we should try to steal the enviros "Value." We should simply say we can't compete for the time being and wait until the enviros can no longer defend or sustain their "Value."

It's what a lot of the other side is doing with our "Values:" They're waiting until we screw up.

Posted by: Brad S at February 20, 2006 10:22 AM

Brad:

Political power is built on popular Values.

Posted by: oj at February 20, 2006 10:27 AM

But OJ,

There are times when political parties can no longer hold onto or defend espoused Values. The Democrats used to believe in a strong defense, remember?

Posted by: Brad S at February 20, 2006 10:38 AM

Brad:

No, I don't. I remember when they feared being portrayed as pro-Communist.

Posted by: oj at February 20, 2006 10:47 AM

Those Dems must've kept old Crazy Uncle Scoop Jackson in the Capitol basement all those years, then. Along with Pat Moynihan, JFK, and Truman.

Posted by: Brad S at February 20, 2006 12:05 PM

"For evidence of cost savings, the Washington-based green building council points to studies showing that "people-friendly" green designs improve productivity by [exactly?] 16 percent [in all cases?]. Nilles said companies have reported efficiency gains of from 10 percent to 26 percent."

I'm always skeptical when such seemingly precise numbers are given for difficult to measure quantities. And isn't it likely that moving to a new office with new equipment would naturally produce some gains initially?

Posted by: jd watson [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 20, 2006 12:21 PM

Who the heck are the econocons? Are we pro or con econocon? Where are all these rules and values found, I really need to brush up?

Posted by: erp at February 20, 2006 4:13 PM

erp:

Libertarians, free marketeers, etc. who vote Republican only because of economic issues.

Posted by: oj at February 20, 2006 4:25 PM

erp: in other words, people whose votes oj can't take for granted. Sort of the way African-Americans may or may not be to the Democrats in another 10-15 years. When that happens the resentments from the respective party establishments will be of similar blast-furnace intensity.

Posted by: joe shropshire at February 20, 2006 4:37 PM

joe:

No, the beauty of it is that they can be taken for granted. Because Christian conservatives want to refurbish society at the expense of the State the econocons will always follow along.

Posted by: oj at February 20, 2006 4:43 PM

Sorry I asked.

Posted by: erp at February 20, 2006 5:50 PM
« YOU MEAN IT'S NOT THE SECOND GREAT DEPRESSION?: | Main | THE FALL »