Developers Say Green Projects Worth Their Weight in Gold
November 2, 2007
Birmingham Business Journal

Coyne, the sustainable development company's chief operating officer, remembers one potential developer wondering about the public perception of having an environmentally friendly building.

He recalls being asked, "Are people going to perceive us as walking around naked and eating granola."

Fast-forward to 2007 and things are much different in Birmingham.

While developers, and possibly tenants, were once concerned about the perception of being "green," Coyne said the opposite is likely true now.

"As green has become en vogue, everybody is saying, 'We're green, too,'" he said. "Five years from now, I think if folks aren't doing things in an environmentally forward way, I think they will be penalized."

That possible social cost is just one of the many economic factors that could impact a building owner or developer's decision to choose to build a green building or to seek Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certification from the U.S. Green Building Council.

There has been much debate over the cost of building green versus the cost of building a conventional structure, but many developers say the cost really depends on several factors.

In Melaver's experiences, Coyne said it really depends on what level of sustainability the building owner or developer is going for. He also noted that economic sustainability is always a factor.

"We see ourselves as sustainable developers," Coyne said. "We are competitive businesspeople who are profit-seekers."

Coyne said whether or not a green building costs more than a traditional building often depends on whether the developer wants the project to be LEED certified, and if so, what type of certification.

He said silver, gold and platinum certifications carry added costs that could make those options more expensive, but also have rewards.

"You can always build a building cheap, but at the end of the day, 90 percent of green design is just good design," Coyne said.

He said his company can build a good LEED certified project for no more than a regular building.

But those who promote green design and green building say that even if it costs more initially to build green, the choice will easily pay for itself over the long run.

"I think the truth of the matter is that green building is more expensive in construction costs, but if you calculate a project over its life, it certainly is a money saver," said Chris Engel, a department head at Goodwyn Mills & Cawood Inc.

Over the long-term, Engel said there are several ways that green building is a money saver - particularly in the cost of electricity.

He said studies have shown buildings with more daylight - a fixture of green design - also promote less absenteeism and greater productivity, which are two added cost-savers for tenants of green buildings.

Engel said the movement has also impacted the way companies choose building materials and even has a bearing on location, which can also result in lower costs and a lesser impact on the environment.

For instance, by developing a brownfield, rather than choosing an undeveloped location, he said it is less costly because infrastructure is already there.

Engel said Jenkins Brick Co. was able to use an existing landfill to help produce the methane gas necessary for its large kiln at its manufacturing facility.

"Industry totally gets this, because it trickles down into what they can sell their product for," Engel said. "If they can save $5, they can charge less for the cabinets or bricks they produce and that makes them more competitive."

Engel acknowledged that there is some confusion about the potential savings and economic impact of going green, largely because it is such a new development.

While it is possible to generate computer models that can estimate savings or impact, the truth isn't revealed until a building comes on line. "At the end of the day, you don't know until you're in the building and operating," he said.

Engel said it is going to take time before there are enough tangible green projects operating in Birmingham to allow potential developers and owners to see the results.

And with a young generation that is pushing for protecting the environment, Coyne said a decision to not build a green or sustainable project could be costly.

"Suddenly, the young people are saying, 'We're expecting this type,'" he said.

There is also the possibility that Birmingham could follow the lead of areas such as Boston or Washington, D.C., which have guidelines that require LEED standards for new construction.

"Birmingham can be a leading city if we choose to," he said.

But that will mean choosing to change, which is often an issue.

Coyne said the perceived complexity associated with building green, can also dissuade building owners or developers from taking the step toward green design.

In fact, Coyne said many times, the choice has little to do with not wanting to build green or to LEED specifications, but everything to do with the status quo.

"A lot of times, the answer (developers give) is, 'Because I'm choosing not to have to change the way I've always done it,'" he said. "It's easier to keep things the way they are."