Landmark Buildings Going Green

by Deb Powers

Photo Credit: Singulare@stock.xchangIf you're looking for more reasons to make your home renovation a greenovation, look no further than this article on landmark buildings going green. Chris Kahn reports on high profile buildings across the nation that have recently been given green facelifts. They include:

• New York City's Empire State Building ($120 million)
• Chicago's Sears Tower ($350 million)
• Lansing's Christman Building ($8.5 million)
• Albequerque's Sheraton and Hilton Hotels
• Manhattan's United Nations HQ

Green renovations good for bottom line

If you're thinking that there must be more to it than warm, fuzzy feelings about saving our Earth, you're absolutely right. If you're thinking that it's all about government investment and tax breaks, well - not quite. While many of these buildings will/have received some tax benefits from going green, most of the money invested in each of these green renovation projects is private money - you know, the money that's supposed to be in such short supply these days. It comes down to something much more basic - going green with renewable energy and conservation measures has a very postive effect on the bottom line.

How positive? Anthony Malkin, head of the real estate group that owns the Empire State Building figures that its green makeover will save $4.4 million a year. Malkin says that the project costs will have been recouped in less than three years in energy savings alone. After the three years, that $4.4 million will be money sliced right off the top of current operating costs.

How Office Buildings are Going Green

Greenovating older landmarks and office buildings is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. Each of the green renovation projects features innovations that make the most sense for that particular building. At the U.N., for instance, plans aim for a 44% reduction in energy loss by doing things like eliminating window seats that are huge heat drains, replacing aging air conditioning and heating elements and replacing the glass in the front wall with energy efficient - and blast resistant - safety glass. The Empire State Building expects to reduce energy use by 40% by installing new windows, insulating radiators, modernizing the air conditioner and installing occupancy sensors to reduce electricity use. And the Sears Tower expects to "reduce electricity use in the tower by 80 percent over five years through upgrades in the glass exterior, internal lighting, heating, cooling and elevator systems - and its own green power generation."

Green Renovation Benefits

While the energy savings and the carbon footprint reduction are significant benefits in all of the renovations, there are other benefits to going green when renovating. According to a report released by CoStar, an office services company, office buildings that receive the EPA Energy Star rating for energy efficiency

• command higher rents
• have higher occupancy rates
• have lower operating costs

In fact, the average annual cost for heating a U.S. office building is $1.81 per square foot. An Energy Star rated building averages about $1.27 per square foot. That means that an Energy Star building will spend about $108,000 less PER YEAR than the average office building.

But it gets better. Energy Star rated buildings have higher occupancy rates than non-rated buildings - 89.2% vs. 87.5% - and while that may seem like a small difference, consider this:

According to the McGraw-Hill 2006 Green Building SmartMarket Report, green buildings deliver: 3.5 percent higher occupancy rates, 3 percent higher rental rates, a 7.5 percent average increase in building values and a 6.6 percent higher return on investment.

Sorting Through Green Building Myths and Facts, Martin Melaver

In addition, there are less tangible effects. Numerous studies find that companies who move their employees into LEED certified buildings see their absenteeism rates decrease and their productivity rates increase.

Building Green Doesn't Cost More

One of the pervasive myths about green building is that it costs more than conventional construction. Again, there are many studies that suggest that the extra cost factor of building green is greatly exaggerated. In Sorting Through Green Myths and Facts, Martin Melaver names studies in 2003, 2004, 2005  2006 and 2007 that showed costs for building green from the start are only very marginally higher (less than 2% in most cases) and in some cases lower than conventional building. In fact, one banking company found that their green bank branches cost $100,000 less and took 45 days less to build than their conventional bank branches.

Greening the Bottom Line

The fact is that building green and greenovating has actually dropped in cost over the past decade. Green technologies are less expensive to produce as they've become more mainstream. Building green incorporates common sense strategies like buying from local sources, which cuts down on shipping costs and reduces overhead - and as the green construction industry grows, there are more and more local sources from which to buy. Recycling, repurposing and upcycling of existing materials cuts costs further. Even before you start to factor in the significant energy savings, green renovations make more cents than not. The bottom line is that building investors are finding their bottom lines are greener when they invest in green renovations.

Those savings translate to home renovations in many ways. While you may not be concerned with market rent and vacancy rates, the significant energy savings can free up your cash for years to come while making your home more pleasant, more comfortable and more homey than ever before.