The cost and value of high performance buildings and certifications
Naismith also reflected on the impact of changing expectations around certification – citing the rise in interest around the WELL building standard, which has influenced elements of the science and technology developments in the city of Oxford.
“While not directly associated with low carbon, it offers a holistic view of health and well-being driving productivity at work, and helps recruit major talent, which is the key asset for a lot of life science companies.
That’s primarily driven by the US market, as life science companies and investors are coming to the UK, particularly Oxford and Cambridge.”
James York of Morgan Sindall discussed how it’s not always possible to include all the desirable design factors in a project and there has to be compromise. “There are always cost limitations and you can’t always be reactive to market trends and changes during a live scheme.”
There are always cost limitations and you can’t always be reactive to market trends and changes during a live scheme.
The panel also debated whether some certifications, such as WELL, don’t always fit the needs of certain markets.
For example, it was debated whether life science occupiers might have a large need for life storage materials and tissue culture that do not necessarily need natural daylight all the time and whether that would exclude them from getting the certification currently.
Patric Vale of AECOM led a debate about certifications and what makes a high-performance building important to a customer.
For commercial marketing, sales and leasing, it’s important in terms of attracting your end user, because without those aspects, you can’t stand out from your competition. Naturally, firms want all the systems and the benefits of Passivhaus and Passivhaus principles, which is great, because that's the right thing to do, but in doing that there's a cost premium.
He stressed that firms must really interrogate what you are trying to achieve when it comes to setting the budget.
Kathryn Andrew of MEPC asked: “If a building is going to do all these amazing things and is a great place to work and promotes health, does it matter that it doesn't have the certification?”
It was agreed by some that while it does depend on the target audience, ultimately the goal is high performance per se but the certification is an obvious bonus and an excellent “badge” to have.
The panel also addressed how it’s not always possible to have certain certification combinations, such as Passivhaus and WELL, so you might have to make a choice, particularly when it comes to cost.
Wayne Dobbins of ADP Architecture spoke about the fact that it’s more about monitoring performance gaps. “I built my house to Passivhaus principles so I did everything myself and while I might not have had to show proof to get certification, I know it will deliver the same exceptional results. So perhaps it should be more about how we monitor buildings than about the certification itself.”
Joel Callow, Founding Director at Beyond Carbon Associates stressed the unequivocal importance of certification.
If you don't certify then you are not going to have the same outcome. You cannot simply take some numbers and put them over the line and imagine they will be delivered to the UK construction industry meaningfully into the same product, as you would have got if you had done a counterfactual with the certification process, because it will be compromised and there will be a performance gap if someone isn’t checking every aspect.”
James York of Morgan Sindall discussed the importance of incorporating any high-performance building certification requirements into a brief in the earliest stages of discussions:
A client might have aspirations to gain certifications, but it can fall through the gaps if it’s not reinforced in the design briefing process at the very beginning. The back and forward steps in the design process can be costly and time consuming.
Joel Callow agreed: “Client clarity and commitment is ultimately the biggest cost determinant for a high-performance building, along with the levels of experience and maturity of the design team,” which the panel agreed on and that “vagueness costs everyone time and money.”
He also stressed again that there is no substitute for Passivhaus certified – it’s a binary decision.
“Nothing else is Passivhaus, looks like it, or behaves like it. You can’t replicate it using numbers and when people try, they normally make a more expensive building than they would if they’d certified it in the first place.”
It's a must have
It doesn't matter
William Naismith of Hoare Lea reflected on how the WELL Certification differs from Passivhaus in the fact it is an ongoing performance standard with ongoing operational costs:
“This puts pressure not only on the people in this room, but the client’s facilities management team monitoring and managing various data and reports that they have to submit.
Then you have a re-certification process every three years from IWBI, who administer the WELL Building Standard. You must upgrade to the latest standard version every six years.
It's an ongoing process rather than a one off, which means it's an ongoing commitment as an organisation to have the right facilities management teams in place to manage a WELL certified building.”
The panel agreed that the facilities management, particularly in multi-let commercial buildings, can be complex and can be overlooked from an ongoing cost perspective.
Buildings are responsible for 40% of global carbon emissions, 70% of which come from operations, so technology within our buildings is key to achieving targets.
The panel agreed we must listen to the data to ensure buildings are sustainable throughout their lifecycle for more efficient operation and maintenance.
James York of Morgan Sindall added: “It’s really got to be about how you service the building.”