Cap Stone Historic Preservation Leed

Planning for Historic Preservation, Sustainability & LEED:Considering Sustainability and LEED Standards in Salisbury, North Carolina’s Historic Preservation Planning By Walter Price Wagoner, II A thesis submitted to the faculty of The University of North Carolina at Charlotte Charlotte, NC May 2010 Committee Members: Dr. Tyrel Moore Dr. Walter Martin Ms. Jamie Strickland Table of Contents TOC quot;
1-3quot;
Research Statement PAGEREF _Toc266008438 1 Introduction PAGEREF _Toc266008439 3 The Origins of Historic Preservation in America PAGEREF _Toc266008440 9 Social Fabric of Preservation PAGEREF _Toc266008441 11 Changes to the Tax Code and Preservation Practice PAGEREF _Toc266008442 13 Energy Saving Characteristics of Historic Buildings PAGEREF _Toc266008443 15 Future of Historic Preservation PAGEREF _Toc266008444 20 Sustainability in Preservation PAGEREF _Toc266008445 21 Understanding LEED PAGEREF _Toc266008446 28 Research Methods and Data PAGEREF _Toc266008447 31 Historic Preservation and LEED PAGEREF _Toc266008448 39 Keeping track of LEED PAGEREF _Toc266008449 40 Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc266008450 43 Works Cited PAGEREF _Toc266008451 46 List of Figures TOC quot;
Figurequot;
Figure 1 (City of Salisbury) PAGEREF _Toc265226605 3 Figure 2 (Piedmont Players.com) PAGEREF _Toc265226606 6 Figure 3 (Piedmont Players.com) PAGEREF _Toc265226607 7 Figure 4 (DSI 2009) PAGEREF _Toc265226608 8 Figure 5 (State of Michigan 2010) PAGEREF _Toc265226609 19 Figure 6 (Rypkema 2008) PAGEREF _Toc265226610 25 Figure 7 (DSI 2009) PAGEREF _Toc265226611 27 Figure 8 (Hover 2006) PAGEREF _Toc265226612 32 Figure 9 (Hover 2006) PAGEREF _Toc265226613 32 List of Tables TOC quot;
Tablequot;
 Table 1 (Mason 2005) PAGEREF _Toc265226653 26 Table 2 based on LEED 2.2 (rdmag.com) PAGEREF _Toc265226654 30 Table 3 (calculated by author from O'Toole 2009) PAGEREF _Toc265226655 35 Table 4 (calculated by author from Piedmont Players) PAGEREF _Toc265226656 37 Research Statement Historic preservation has occupied a long-standing and central role in comprehensive planning processes in Salisbury, North Carolina. The city has been quite successful in efforts that preserve individual buildings that comprise its historic commercial core and its residential districts. Over the past decade, LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) has emerged as a much sought after initiative in planning for sustainability and has elements that may be incorporated into historic preservation planning. As planning practices, historic preservation and the newer concept of green buildings and sustainable design each lie at the intersection of community goals that municipalities are increasingly seeking. Achieving those common goals embody a vision for the future and for the maintenance of the rich heritage that have created an enduring sense of place (Daniels, et.al. 2009). The bridging of the unique connections that exist between a community’s past and its future is, in itself a worthwhile and instructive example of sustainability. This research presents historic preservation efforts within the City of Salisbury, and explores the potential of incorporating LEED concepts into future preservation projects. That use of older and newer sustainability tools is complicated. The analytical findings of this research present options and limitations for consideration in the broader application of preservation opportunities and especially, sustainable planning practices. Sustainability is perhaps more now than ever, at the forefront of planning practice. It clearly has societal relevance in comprehensive planning and its multiple goals (Levy, 2009). Introduction The City of Salisbury began its progressive approach to historic preservation in 1975 in creating the West Square historic district. Since that time, four additional local historic districts have been created. Along with the Cities five local historic districts, there are an additional ten stand alone sites that are registered on the National Register of Historic Places. City of Salisbury’s local historic districts Figure 1 (City of Salisbury) Over the last ten years the City of Salisbury has become a model in the state, region and in some areas the nation in many aspects of successful community planning (Salisbury 2001). Not only has the city become a model for community planning, Salisbury has earned recognition for its efforts in historic preservation, downtown revitalization, community appearance, neighborhood revitalization and parks and recreation. Cities typically are always on the verge of growth, change and evolving as places of human interchange. The city of Salisbury is no exception and through the Vision 2020 plan a number of issues are addressed. Among these issues are: Traffic congestion on major streets increasing at a pace far in excess of population growth. Some neighborhoods hampered by poor housing, crime and other social problems. Strip commercial development and its plasticized, quot;
anywhere USAquot;
appearance. Leapfrogging, single purpose subdivisions, isolated from services and jobs. Near total dependence on the individual automobile, with few options for biking, walking or riding the bus. The rising cost of city services in the face of an inefficient, sprawling growth pattern. A downtown area that, despite considerable success, has on-going needs for revitalization and reinvestment. Aging water and sewer systems in need of major improvements and replacement. Parks, recreation and open space facilities being strained to keep up with growth-induced demand. Inappropriate development threatening Salisbury’s natural and cultural resources, unique sense of place, and quality of life (Salisbury 2001). When reviewing these issues one key component is prevalent throughout, that is sustainability. In order for a city to grow and thrive there needs to be a sustainability plan put into place, this plan would take into account the relationships that will make the community livable, equitable and sociable. These ideals are a part of David Godschalks’ planning triangle, these three ideals help a community become economically competitive, which in turn makes the community economically sustainable. All three when accomplished creates a community that is sustainable through economic, environmental and social responsibility. The idea is in place, now a plan around sustainability needs to be put into place. Historic preservation is a major factor in creating a plan for a sustainable community. Salisbury continues to have constant attention and energy being poured into the preservation and rehabilitation of the city's historic buildings and other natural resources (Salisbury 2001). Having a sustainability plan in place where historic preservation is a key point will help in making the community more energy conscience as well as help in educating people of how naturally efficient our older buildings are, these efficient features can be seen as you tour our historic sites and especially during the October Tour. This tour shows the results of the cities pride in preserving our past while trying to incorporate the new technologies of today. Having over 10 historic districts in place as well revitalizing the city’s historic downtown, the city has shown how revitalization can be an economic incubator. With having a sustainability plan that has preservation as a key component takes into account the three responsibilities that make up viable sustainability. The downtown historic district of Salisbury has seen, through the use of façade grants, the economic responsibility needed to make this area a destination location. With the downtown becoming a place that people come to visit, eat and socialize, the second part of responsibility is brought about, this is of social responsibility. Finally, just by preservation alone, the downtown historic district helps with environmental responsibility. With growing up in Salisbury, where historic preservation has been a large part of its growing identity, as well as my travel to Italy while in college made me aware of the grand architecture and the history buildings have to tell. Through my father’s construction company, my family was fortunate enough to bring one such historic building back to its glory of the early 1900’s. Meroney Theatre circa 1905 Figure 2 (Piedmont Players.com) In 2005, the Meroney Theatre turned 100 years old. Through the years it had been a movie house more than once, but during its early years, the Meroney was a performing arts theatre. In 1992, after the Piedmont Players purchased the theatre, the $1.9 million renovation started, along with this renovation, a look back into the past came to light. Coins from the early 1900’s were found under the stage, and old movie and theatre posters were found in the walls to help with insulation. Bringing this cultural gem back to its glory was later followed by my performance on its stage the Meroney stirred my love for historic buildings, architecture and the stories that they tell. Meroney Theatre circa 2005 Figure 3 (Piedmont Players.com) After the renovation of more than 280 buildings in the downtown historic district of Salisbury, the city along with Downtown Salisbury Inc. (DSI), have created a downtown that is soon to be a destination area. With a new farmers market, logos and branding, new streetscape for the Fisher street entertainment district as well as the $2.5 million renovation of the new Waterworks Visual Arts Gallery, DSI is implementing economic sustainability. However the downtown is just not a place to visit or work, it is also a place to live. There are over 125 housing units in downtown Salisbury, including the Kress building which has been renovated into retail shops on the first floor and condos on the second. Kress Building Mixed Use Figure 4 (DSI 2009) The Origins of Historic Preservation in America Barthel (1989) traces the roots of the preservation of America’s historic properties to a patriotic act in 1853 by South Carolinean Ann Pamela Cunningham who sought to save and restore Mount Vernon. Barthel adds that while patriotism was the major force behind many 19th-century preservationist efforts, it was soon joined by economic motives, John D. Rock-efeller and Henry Ford where the most forceful proponents of this second 20th -century economic message towards preservation (Barthel 1989). Although patriotism and economic motives were the driving forces behind preservation, few examples of preservation were as significant as Colonial Williamsburg. Williamsburg became the model for other restorations and also influenced exterior and interior design for new housing (Butler, 1985). A federal role in preservation was minimal until 1930 when responsibility was evenly split between the War Department, which focused on monuments and battlefields and the National Parks Service (NPS). The NPS expanded its authority in the 1930s and won support for the Historic American Building Survey (HABS). The HABS shared similar goals with other Depression-Era initiatives that sought to create employment that did not merely add jobs but most importantly, matched specialized skills among a national labor force with tasks that otherwise could not be undertaken. The preservation opportunity was undertaken as a collaborative effort between the NPS and the American Institute of Architecture (AIA). Unemployed architects and landscape architects went to work, not to save buildings, but to study and record them before they disappeared (Tomlan 1994). With the NPS involved in so many government programs, it became clear that an independent organization could handle the needs that preservationists valued. Chief among these values was the idea that an agency separate from the Federal Government could pursue preservation as its single goal. Modeled after the British Trust, the National Trust for Historic Places (NTHP) was founded in 1949 by professionals and activists in government, as well as in the private sector for the reason of preservation being its single goal (Barthel 1989). With the NTHP founded, work could be done to help preserve and revive historic areas of America through National Historic district designations. However, there can also be local historic districts designated; these are put into place to be able to receive State and Federal money (Young 2009). One example of the American Trust known now as the NTHP is its sponsorship of the Main Streets program, which is designed to help revive small towns’ and cities’ business districts suffering from competition with suburban malls (Barthel 1989). The origins of preservation education in academia are rooted in several of the currents of early architectural education during this period: the evolution of modernism, the increased attention to the social sciences and environmental awareness. Multidisciplinary studies of the environment, for most architects and planners are the study of the built environment, providing the seeds of historic preservation education to be very fertile ground for initial growth (Tomlan 1994,). Although the history of architecture was taught, it was not until the late fifties that a course was actually offered pertaining to historic preservation. The course work of early preservation education began under the auspices of architectural historians, who were trained as architects. The first preservation course was offered by Frederick D. Nichols of the Department of Architecture at University of Virginia (UVA), in 1959 (Tomlan 1994). Many other schools over the years began to offer preservation courses, but no school offered a degree in preservation. Columbia University developed courses quickly and was the first to establish a degree in historic preservation, an Masters in historic preservation, even though UVA and Cornell university began offering courses earlier In 1973 (Tomlan 1994). Many more schools followed and began to offer courses in preservation, in fact at least seventy institutions were teaching historic preservation throughout the country, by the time of the Bicentennial (Tomlan 1994). Even through the growth of courses and degrees being offered in historic preservation, the planning, architecture and engineering world did not anticipate it becoming an occupation. Not until the mid-eighties was preservation recognized as a distinct profession among architects and planners, as well as among historians, public administrators and engineers (Tomlan 1994). Social Fabric of Preservation Preservation was not simply a case of rich versus poor, upper class versus new working class, but reflected the new class alignments that resulted from industrialization. Interest in preservation was demonstrated by both social elites, to look back to the past to legitimate their present power and to maintain it in this new context, or in the case of the culturally progressive forces, to identify status group of artist and intellectuals, who saw in it an alternative to the human and natural costs of industrialization (Barthel 1989). A form of integration came out of preservation including increasingly diverse racial and ethnic populations not just of social classes (Barthel 1989). Used to teach civic obedience to new immigrants arriving throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries as well as the next generations, the homes of local heroes, revolutionary leaders and of presidents were meant to be tools (Barthel 1989). We need to know where we have come from so we know where we are going and what to do when we get there. With America being a young nation, we needed to look for our own Athens and Rome, places of great history and architecture, so preserving Indian ruins came about at the turn of the century, bringing us parks such as the Mesa Verde (Barthel 1989). “As the glorious beginning of American society, the Revolution, along with revolutionary homes and monuments would inculcate political virtues. What is relatively commonplace in Boston has become historic in Los Angeles. For this reason, the US has been more willing to plumb the recent past, including the commercial past: early McDonald’s hamburger stands are seen as structures worth preserving” (Barthel 1989, p. 99). Newsom (1983) has detailed how Georgetown, now a major preservation enclave, was as late as 1930, a neighborhood with a black population of greater than 40 percent, showing us how physical structure and social structure sometimes intersect. When an area is considered “ripe” for preservation, it is often “ripe” for gentrification (Barthel 1989). A new policy was created in the late sixties that would help with the promotion of preservation and continues to be a guideline to this day and will help well into the future. “The 1966 Preservation Act created the National Register of Historic Places administered by the National Park Service in conjunction with a newly designated state partner—the State Historic Preservation Officers. For the first time a broad national historic preservation policy existed in the United States, designed to promote the preservation of historic buildings, structures, sites and districts” (Fisher 1998, 7). Changes to the Tax Code and Preservation Practice Historic preservation was sometimes overlooked by the public as well as the government, due to the fact that it was usually more economical to demolish a historic building and construct a new one in its place. With the changing of the tax code in 1976 the federal tax code began looking into the reuse of existing buildings in favor of new construction. As a result federal tax incentives have been available to promote the preservation through rehabilitation of income-producing historic properties (Fisher 1998). With these new tax incentives private investment into preserving historic properties has grown tremendously. The rehabilitation of more than 26,000 buildings has been certified, representing more than 13 percent of the total number of currently eligible income producing properties in the United States, since passage of these incentives (Fisher 1998). Generating a private investment of more than $20 billion, the economic benefits of the federal tax credit program have been widely recognized (Fisher 1998). With these changes in the tax code and the influx of private money into preservation, guidelines and recommendations were put into place to ensure the historic significance was not being modified. Also, with new building codes requirements being created and requirements pertaining to such policies as the Americans Disability Act, preservationists wanted to make sure that different Government agencies worked together to ensure equal representation. Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 provides an example of coordination at national level between federal agencies to ensure that modifications for accessibility would not “threaten or destroy” those qualities that make a building historic” (Fisher 1998, 8). For example, through time the NPS came to realize that more than just the exterior needed to be preserved for its historical significance. As more and more buildings were being put on the register and were renovated, their interiors took on a whole new identity, and the buildings became just a shell of their historic past (Fisher 1998). Through a significant step for historic preservation, the NPS established the policy that the historic character of a building should encompass the overall resource and not just the facades, as had been the case of earlier federal programs that largely confined attention to exteriors. With ornate masonry work as well as the beautiful birds -eye glass in older windows, the federal government and particularly the NPS, expended considerable effort in raising the quality of preservation practices in this country in these two particular areas (Fisher 1998). With more and more buildings beginning to reach required age 50 years, picking and choosing which areas are to be preserved has become complex. The financial commitment of preventive and cyclical maintenance may only be available to those historic buildings that have very significant value to the community (Fisher 1998). With a new movement in its infancy phase, sustainability could be a major factor into swaying towards rehabilitation versus replacement. With help from our long-term concern with the natural environment and the slow continuing push of the sustainability movement, someday may help promote repair over replacement of building materials (Fisher 1998). To encourage the preservation of historic buildings through various means, the Federal government created Federal tax incentives to support the rehabilitation of historic and older buildings (NPS.com 2009). These tax incentives promote the rehabilitation of historic structures of any shape, size or era. Incentives not only help preserve a building, but they also create jobs and bring an influx of money into an area that may not have come otherwise. Through private developers and their partnerships with local banks, many buildings that once would have been torn down are now being preserved and becoming new businesses or residential units for the community. Tax incentives help transform an older building that could potentially be an economic drain on the community into a revenue maker for both state and local governments through increased property, business and income taxes (NPS 2009). The current tax incentives that are used were established by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and include a 20 percent tax credit for certified rehabilitation of certified historic structures or a 10 percent credit for non-historic, non-residential structures built prior to 1936 (NPS.com, 2009). According to NPS guidelines, structures are certified either on the National Register of Historic Places or are located within a registered historic district and are further certified by the NPS as a contributing structure to the historic heritage of the district (NPS 2009). There is also a 30 percent tax credit for non-income producing structures (Young 2009). This credit can be taken over five years at the end of the project and is credited towards what is spent with at least a minimum of $125,000 towards the renovations (Young 2009). Energy Saving Characteristics of Historic Buildings When we think of historic buildings we do not immediately think of energy efficiency, but many historic buildings constructed prior to 1940 were built with energy saving characteristics. However, buildings that were constructed between 1940 and 1975 tend to have poorer energy efficiency then buildings built pre 1940. This can be linked back to the popularity of installing heating and air conditioning during this period. Older buildings used less energy for heating and cooling and therefore may not need extensive weatherization. Historic buildings typically use less energy because they maximized the natural sources of heating, lighting and ventilation to help with the sense of physical comfort (Smith 1978). The U.S. Energy Information Administration states that commercial buildings constructed prior to 1920 have an average energy consumption of 80,127 BTUs per square foot, compared to the buildings built since 2000 that have average energy consumptions of 79,703 BTUs. However the energy efficiency of buildings constructed between the 1940s and 1970s, was less enviable—reaching around 100,000 BTUs—reflecting the cheap oil and electricity of the thermostat age (Kueber 2008). Anyone who owns a historic building should understand these energy saving features in helping them determine what should be done to improve upon energy efficiency. The use of operable windows to provide natural light and ventilation is the best example of an energy saving characteristic used in older buildings. In the design of these older commercial and public buildings, architects would include interior light/ventilation courts, rooftop ventilators, clerestories or skylights. These features would help provide energy efficient fresh air and light, assuring minimal use of mechanical systems only to supplement as needed (Smith 1978). Anytime the use of mechanical systems can be reduced or eliminated, energy efficiency automatically goes up. One major argument towards historic buildings is the inefficiency of the single-paned windows. As Baird Smith (1978) states, the opposite can be true. First, the number of windows in an early built building was kept to only those necessary to provide adequate light and ventilation. This differs from the approach in many modern buildings where the percentage of windows in a wall can be nearly 100 percent. Historic buildings where the ratio of glass to wall is often less than 20 percent are better energy conservers than most new buildings. Secondly, to minimize the heat gain or loss from windows, historic buildings often include interior or exterior shutters, interior venetian blinds, curtains and drapes, or exterior awnings. Thus, a historic window could remain an energy efficient component of a building (Smith 1978). Besides the use of windows, skylights, clerestories, interior and exterior shutters there are many other characteristics that take into account natural heating and cooling effects and energy efficiency. Also, the use of balconies, large overhangs, porches and shade trees minimized the heat gain during the course of the day. In the cold winters of northern climates and minimizing heat loss, many buildings were constructed with heavy masonry walls, smaller windows and used darker exterior paint color schemes to help in absorbing the heat gain from the afternoon sun. Walls of large mass and weight (thick brick or stone) have the advantage of high thermal inertia, also known as the M factor (Smith 1978). By lengthening the time scale of heat transmission, the thermal resistance (R factor) (1) of the wall is modified by this inertia. A wall with high thermal inertia, subjected to solar radiation for an hour, will absorb the heat at its outside surfaces and transfer it to the interior for as long as six hours. However, a wall having the same R factor, but low thermal inertia, will transfer the heat in perhaps two hours (Smith 1978). Builders also positioned the buildings on the site to take advantage of natural heating and cooling. In the north, builders situated the building facing South to get the afternoon sun in the winter which would help with warming; however in Southern climates buildings would face south to avoid the heat gain from the later afternoon sun in the summer. Although these characteristics may not be typical of all historic buildings, the fact is that historic buildings often have thermal properties that need little improvement. We first must understand the inherent energy saving qualities of a building, and remember, by reopening the windows to cool the building as it was intended (Smith 1978). Many traditional builders incorporated sustainable elements into buildings, they would work to incorporate what the natural environment had to offer, including siting, local materials, natural ventilation, shading, reflective roofing, cisterns, indigenous plantings, not unlike today’s “green” standards (Kueber 2008). True Words Figure 5 (State of Michigan 2010) Future of Historic Preservation With our knowledge of the origins of Historic Preservation, the early days of education as well as the enactment of the Tax Code and policies that ground our ideas and actions in the preservation of our historic places, what does the future hold for our nation’s historic places? First, what is the benchmark to be eligible to be on the Register of Historical Places? Fifty years is the convenient benchmark but, local preservation agencies are not necessarily bound by it. For example, New York City’s limit is thirty years—and neither, for that matter, is the National Register program, which while using 50 years as a cut-off, will also considers newer sites if they are deemed of “extraordinary” significance, e.g. Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (Robins 1995). Over the years historic preservation has grown “from the occasional house museum to, in Baer’s words, a role as “catalyst in central city renewal and economic stimulus.” Historic districts have been revived in cities and towns across the country, to become unexpected new economic powerhouses and urban success stories (Robins 1995). With this growth over the years and the fact that structures that were built post-1940 are now becoming eligible for being on the Register of Historic Places, “Historic preservation should no longer be thought of as a piecemeal endeavor,” that “it requires systematic forethought,” and that “its integration into our evolving cities requires long-range planning” are all proposals that can only be seconded in the world of historic preservation.” So what consideration of the Nation’s pre-1949 building stock has been identified and do these same parameters support building stock post-1940 yet to be identified. Baer’s argument, briefly stated, is this: On average, in a dozen major cities, preservation advocates have identified roughly 5.5 percent of the surviving pre-1949 building stock, the building stock old enough to be considered for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places, as worthy of preservation. Therefore, we can assume that as the years pass, roughly 5.5 percent of the country’s post-1940 building stock, as it reaches the fifty-year mark, will also be identified. Even today, the country’s post 1940 building stock is much larger than its pre-1940 building stock, perhaps three times as large. Most of that post-1940 building stock is located in the suburbs, in the form of housing tracts and “malls, office clusters and industrial parks.” Planners therefore have to consider the implications of landmark designation approaching the neighborhood of 5.5 percent of all post-1940 housing tracts, malls, office clusters and industrial parks. Because there are so many of these building, in the next five decades we will see a much greater amount of preservation than anything known to date, tripling or quadrupling today’s numbers from this source alone” (Robins 1995, p 97). Sustainability in Preservation “Historic preservation can-and should-be an important component of any effort to promote sustainable development. The conservation and improvement of our existing built resources, including re-use of historic and older buildings, greening the existing building stock, and reinvestment in older and historic communities, is crucial to combating climate change” (National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2009 PAGE#). This is a very true statement, so we might want to define what it means to promote sustainable development. The Global Development Research Center (GDRC.com 2010) defines sustainable development as “maintaining a delicate balance between the human need to improve lifestyles and feeling of well-being on one hand, and preserving natural resources and ecosystems, on which we and future generations depend”. The re-use of historic buildings is the key for sustainability, there is no better way to preserve our natural resources or ecosystems. According to Donovan Rypkema (Rypkema 2008) during his talk at the Community Conversations series in Raleigh,; 1) sustainable development is crucial for economic competitiveness, 2) sustainable development has more elements than just environmental responsibility, 3) Green Buildings and sustainable development are not synonyms, 4) historic preservation is, in and upon itself, sustainable development, 5) development without historic preservation as a component is not sustainable and finally abolish the EPA. According to the AIA, not until the twenty-first century did sustainable design become a common phrase; looking back many sustainable features can be found in historic buildings. Sustainability can be brought about by the use of passive heating and cooling as a result of site orientation and natural ventilation, natural daylight, and use of durable local materials (Reeder, 2009). There are actions that need to be taken by Local, State and Federal policy makers. According to the NTHP, they will work with several cities to develop model policies that encourage preservation as sustainable development (NTHP 2010). With cities and towns creating policy that promote as well as make it economically feasible to incorporate preservation into sustainability development, not only has a building been saved, but the environmental effects of demolition and reconstruction have been avoided. According to the NTHP, construction, operation and demolition of buildings accounts for up to 48 percent of the United States’ greenhouse gas emissions. But, by reusing and retrofitting our existing buildings we can reduce these emissions dramatically. In fact, our existing buildings are one of our greatest renewable resources (NTHP 2010). However, the NTHP does not discount the value of new, green construction, these green buildings will one day be a building that will be on the National Historic Register, in fact green technologies can and should be applied to existing buildings to improve performance (NHTP 2010). Green buildings techniques are nothing new, especially if we include structures built to take into account local climates and building materials (Cidell 2009). When we look at historic buildings that in today’s standards would be considered using green technologies, we find the Crystal Palace in London, circa 1851 and the Galleria Vittorio Emanuele II in Milan circa 1877, used green techniques in their construction, namely passive heating and cooling systems. First among Whole Building Design Guide principles is to promote sustainability in optimizing site potential. That this is already accomplished with restoring a historic structure, the need to optimize site potential has already been taken care of. The second principle is to minimize energy consumption. The third principle is that of protecting and preserving water resources. No matter if the project is that of new construction or of a historical renovation, preserving our water is critical. The use of environmentally preferable products is the fourth principle of sustainability, products that are reused in the process of restoration cut down on environmental impacts. The fifth and six principles are to enhance the indoor environmental quality and to optimize operational and maintenance practices. These last two principles go hand in hand. By incorporating HVAC systems as well as electrical systems that can maintain a long use between checkups helps in optimizing operational costs as well as maintenance costs. King Surge, an international real estate consulting firm based in Great Britain, has been at the forefront in broadcasting and communicating the concept of sustainable development. Their framework of sustainable development certainly includes environmental responsibility but also economic responsibility and social responsibility (Rypkema, 2008). In order to be economically sustainable it is necessary for a community to be economically competitive. According to Rypkema, in order for a community to be viable there needs to links among economic, social and environmental sustainability, these links can be traced back to David Godschalk’s planning triangle. Godschalk details of the property conflict between economic growth and equitable sharing as well as resource conflict between economic and ecological utility and finally the developmental conflict between social equity and environmental preservation (Godschalk 2004). In comparison, Rypkema states, in order for this viability, there needs to be link between environmental responsibility and economic responsibility as well. In order for the community to be livable a link between environmental responsibility and social responsibility needs to be in place and finally in order for a community to be equitable, there needs to be a link between economic responsibility and social responsibility (Rypkema 2008). Sustainable Viability Equitable ViableLivable Figure 6 (Rypkema 2008) A study released in Australia in 2007, reached this series of conclusions: 1) a sustainable city will have to have a sustainable economy; 2) in the 21st century, a competitive, sustainable economy will require a concentration of knowledge workers; 3) knowledgeable worker’s choose where they want to work and live based on the quality of the urban environment and 4) heritage buildings are an important component of a high quality urban environment (Rypkema, 2008). Not only do our historic places promote a higher quality urban environment, they also can bring in tourism money. For the past 34 years, Salisbury has set aside the second weekend of October for a tour of eight to ten historic properties. Meticulously planned and organized by the Historic Salisbury Foundation, October Tour stands among the elite historic home tours of North Carolina. The city provides a short course in architecture, history, restoration and antiques as well as providing the foundation with funds that have helped save or protect some 100 older homes from demolition (Historic Salisbury Foundation). There can be a large economic impact on a city that has historical preservation projects in the works. In his discussion paper prepared for the Brookings Institution of Metropolitan Program Policy Program, Randall Mason (Mason 2005) incorporates a spreadsheet that points out the economic impacts per million dollars of initial expenditure: Economic Effect National Residential Historic Rehabilitation Book Publishing Pharmaceutical Production Electronic Component ProductionEmployment(jobs) 36 35 28 30Income ($000) 1,240 1,160 1,045 1,018GDP 1,672 1,722 1,546 1,483State Taxes ($000) 106 103 93 87Local Taxes ($000) 89 86 79 74 Table 1 (Mason 2005) As is shown in Table 1, residential historic preservation exceeds in all categories which are studied. Although this is for residential rehabilitation, I am sure that the economic impact on commercial and industrial scales would also far exceed the other categories. In another study which was done by the state of New Jersey Historic Trust, the researchers found that for each $1 million spent on non-residential historic rehabilitation, two new jobs were brought to the area over that of new construction. The study also found that $79,000 more income was generated, an additional $13,000 in taxes and sum of $111,000 more in wealth over the life of the project (Mason, 2005). Green buildings benefits are sometimes purely economic. Studies show savings of up to 30 percent, occupancy rates that are 3 percent higher and up to a 40 percent increase in sales for stores using natural light (Cidell 2009). Historic preservation can be a great economic incubator for a whole city or just the downtown area. Let us look at what Downtown Salisbury Inc., (DSI) has accomplished over the past 30 years in revitalizing the downtown of Salisbury. Since 1980, downtown Salisbury has seen over $97 million in total investment with $37 million of that happening since 2001 (Hemann 2010). Along with this large investment came an increase of 943 jobs, 288 building renovations and 301 new businesses (Hemann 2010). Innes Street Drug Figure 7 (DSI 2009) According to Diane Young, president of Downtown Graphics Inc, as well as a former Main Streets Manager, said the major revitalization of downtown Salisbury started in the 1970s and continues through today (Young 2009). This is a lot of revitalization as well as new development over the years. Not only has DSI been involved in revitalizing the downtown area, so has the City with its 2009 renovation of the 100 block of Fisher Street into a brick paved events area. With this renovation brought about the Brick Street Live concert series, which will bring live music to this entertainment district one night a month from May until October. On its inaugural night, Brick Street Live had over 1400 patrons from around the city, county and state that enjoyed live music and great food from the four restaurants within the block. This event series came about after many years of revitalization and community input as to what they wanted for downtown Salisbury to offer. Understanding LEED The U.S. Green Building Council’s website (Council 2009), LEED provides building owners and operators a concise framework for identifying and implementing practical and measurable green building design, construction, operations and maintenance solutions. One problem with LEED, is that LEED does not incorporate any point ratings towards the rehabilitation or renovation of historic structures. The NPS, which oversees historic preservation believes that the USGBC should allow LEED points, up to 10, towards the in place preservation of existing building materials over the recycling of them. The retention of existing materials is a sustainable act as well as eliminates the consumption of energy used to create new materials for the project. With LEED not of yet incorporating Historic Preservation standards into its rating system, is that a place for LEED sensitive historic preservation? According to the U.S. Department of Energy’s website (Agency 2010)in their presentation on “Trends in LEED and where do historic building fit in”: For LEED to work currently, significantly more effort needs to happen at the planning, analysis and design phases of a project to find the best approach within LEED. Projects with sufficient budget and team determination will make it through the hoops. Smaller and simpler projects will not have enough “improvements” to meet LEED’s prescriptive rating systems. So in order to understand and be able to determine whether the benefits of being LEED certified outweigh the potential premium added to historic preservation, I needed to understand three sets of costs/benefits. First, LEED certification costs and benefits, Second, historic preservation cost and third, look into what impact LEED certification might have on tax incentives for historic preservation. LEED buildings, according to the U.S. Green Building Council, consume roughly 70 percent of the energy in the United States, 39 percent of energy usage and 12 percent of potable water usage, as well as generating 39 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, exclusive of any goods or services produced inside (Cidell 2009). LEED’s four different certification standards are based on LEED 3.0 which was launched on April 27th 2009 (Council 2009). LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations: 100 base points; 6 possible Innovation in Design and 4 Regional Priority points Certified 40–49 points Silver 50–59 points Gold 60–79 points Platinum 80 points and above With these different point certifications I was able to locate a study conducted by MHTN Architects, Inc out of Salt Lake City Utah in July of 2008. Table 1 shows the relative cost between: Certified, Gold, Silver and Platinum accreditation levels (RDmag.com, 2009). LEED for Laboratories was the basis for Table 1, there is a chance that the credits will need to be adjusted once LEED for Laboratories has been approved, and the point system is based on older LEED standards not the updated 2009 standards. • Certified Level (26 – 32 points): Credits pursued 28; total lowest additional cost (approximately); $1,699,670 (3.01% of the cost of the facility); $11,182 average cost per credit; annual savings per year $438,511.; 3.88 years payback; cost per square foot $11.29; 20 years savings $8,770,220 and inflation rated $14,499,784.• Silver Level (33 – 38 points): Credits pursued 35; total lowest additional cost (approximately) $2,472,297 (4.38 % of the cost of the facility); $13,081 average cost per credit; annual savings per year $484,099; 5.11 years payback; cost per square foot $16.42; 20 years savings $9,681,972 and inflation rated $16,007,183.• Gold Level (39-51 points): Credits pursued 41; total lowest additional cost (approximately) $3,635,902. (6.45% of the cost of the facility); $16,232 average cost per credit; annual savings per year $572,940; 6.35 years payback; cost per square foot $24.15; 20 years savings $11,458,798 and inflation rated $18,944,805.• Platinum Level (52 – 69 points): Credits pursued 54; total lowest additional cost (approximately) $6,309,105 (11.19% of the cost of the facility); $21,030 average cost per credit; annual savings per year $786,159; 8.03 years payback; cost per square foot $41.90; 20 year savings $15,723,180 and inflation rated $25,995,098. Table 2 based on LEED 2.2 (rdmag.com) Most of the data pertaining to the cost/benefit of LEED are based on large scale jobs. This realization as well as the data found on potential costs/benefits will help in my research on whether LEED can bring about enough benefits to justify the cost premium on a rehabilitation of a historic building as well as determine a price point at which a LEED certification is cost prohibited. While looking at the pros and cons of going to LEED certifications or just wanting ones building to be more energy efficient, one should take into account the following questions. Prefatory to considering energy efficiency and historic buildings bear in mind the following: 1. Where does energy efficiency rank for you as a priority in building use and function? 2. Do you understand how your home or building deals with energy? 3. Do you keep track of your home or building energy usage and costs? 4. Have you have had an energy audit? 5. What can you afford to spend to have an energy efficient home? 6. Do you think you need new windows? (Hover 2006, p. 1) With taking these questions into consideration, one can make an informed decision on whether to seek a more energy efficient lifestyle or to work towards a LEED certification if they are working on renovating a historic structure. The first thing to take into account is to understand where your efficiency status stands and where you would like to be. In order to do this, one would need to understand your local climate as well as the recommended design efficiency’s , then take into account your current buildings systems as well as your energy costs. The most useful way to get this information is through the use of the Insulation Zone Map and the tables of Insulations groups provided by the Department of Energy. Whether a house is historic or not, we need to take into account where air may escape as well as how we use energy in our homes to fully understand how efficient a building is or isn’t. Knowing this information can potentially save a lot of money and could potentially gain points for a LEED certification, should that be the goal you are striving for. Research Methods and Data After looking at figures eight and nine we are able to depict how efficient our homes are so we can then get a better idea of how energy efficient our buildings are. 5238759525 Figure 8 (Hover 2006) Figure 9 (Hover 2006) In using the example presented by Hover (2006) on Tax Incentives for Energy Efficient Buildings, we can understand how fixing small areas can bring about energy savings. To accomplish this, a building systems assessment should be done first. Should this assessment reveal that penetrations through walls are not sealed, openings aren’t caulked and weather-sealed, and ductwork is not properly sealed and insulated, these repairs should take priority. Air leakage from these areas accounts for almost half of the infiltration total and the single worst culprit is ductwork, which accounts for 15%. Sealing and insulating ductwork, caulking plumbing and other penetrations could eliminate more than a quarter of the air leakage, and relatively speaking, doing so is easy and inexpensive, as typically everything is readily accessible, and the quantity of the materials small and reasonable cheap. To get a sense of what this means relative to energy efficiency figure 9, shows that 34 percent of energy used is for space heating and eleven percent for cooling. By repairing at least 25 percent of the leaks found should reduce total energy usage by about 12 percent (.34+.11=.45x.28=.126). While more expensive because of the amount of material you’d need, adding insulation to recommended levels is also cost effective, especially if added to attic spaces and floors over unconditioned spaces. In such a scenario, since the chart combines floors, walls, and ceiling leakage (31 percent), let us say floors and ceilings account for about half of that – 16 percent – doing so should reduce energy usage another seven percent (.45x.16=.072). In this hypothetical example, over 19 percent energy savings could be achieved by doing things relatively easy that would not have a major disruption factor on building use. Real- world results may vary (Hover 2006). Using this hypothetical situation let us make a few more assumptions and see what the potential payback would be should you take the measures to correct these energy inefficiency’s. Assuming a 2000 square foot house and an average monthly heating and cooling cost of $300 or $3600 per year, a 19 percent energy savings would put $684 dollars back into your bank account a year. Now we need to take into account the potential cost for the fixes to make ones home more energy efficient. Assuming that one does the work themselves, the total cost to add insulation to the attic, crawlspace, as well as foam insulation in cracks and around windows brings a total project cost of $2235, using market pricing from Lowe’s from February of 2010. This uses R-30 in the attic which covers 88 sq. ft/bag at a cost of $60/bag as well as R-19 in the crawl space covering 133.68 sq. ft/bag at a cost of $54/bag and finally using a combination of 10 cans of spray foam insulation for cracks and around windows at a average cost of $4.50 per can. With the project cost of $2235 and annual savings of $684, it will take approximately 3.5 years to get paid back for the initial investment. Of course these savings will depend on the size of home, cost to update insulation. For example, a couple renovated a home in Ann Arbor, Michigan built in 1837 to LEED Platinum Standards in 2009 (O'Toole 2009). The project took two years to complete and the total cost including materials and labor came to $420,000. The original house had 1330 square feet and after the renovation was completed; the new foot print grew by 534 square feet for a total heated area under roof of 1864 square feet. According to the architect for this project, the homeowners could expect to add as much as 15% to the cost of the project (O'Toole 2009). This depends on what area of LEED you are trying to achieve. The cost to be certified would add a much smaller percentage to the overall cost where as the premium for Platinum certification would be more along the lines of this project. With this in mind let us look as some figures in Table 3. Hypothetical Payback for Residential Revitalization Table 3 (calculated by author from O'Toole 2009) Using the architect’s projection of a 15% premium over the standard cost, the Platinum certification for this project added an additional $63,000 to the overall project. Not incorporating the LEED premium, this project had a cost basis of $191 per square foot, which is a premium upon itself. When we factor in the 15 percent premium that LEED Platinum brought to the project we add an additional $34 per square foot, with a combined square foot cost of $225. By no means is this a small price to pay to say that you are LEED Certified Platinum. Although the architect concedes that a 15 percent premium could be expected in the goal for LEED certification for homeowners, he declares that the lifetime heating and cooling bill costs will be reduced substantially (O'Toole 2009). According the architect, for this project, the homeowner’s average monthly heating and cooling cost fell to $45 per month. Not knowing what the original costs were to heat and cool this home, this researcher will infer an average of $500 per month, considering a house built in the late 1800’s, plus being in Michigan for very cold winters. At an average cost of $500 per month this yielded a yearly pre-LEED heating and cooling bill of $6000. After the project was complete, the couple ended up with an average monthly heating and cooling bill of $45, a $455 savings a month or $5460 per year. Looking at the 15% premium over a standard renovation or $63000, the couple can expect to recoup the additional cost of going LEED Platinum in approximately 11.5 years ($63,000/$5460 year). Again, this is assuming that the before renovation average cost was $500 per month, should the actual figure be higher, then the recoup time table will be shorter, on the other hand, if the average monthly cost for heating and cooling was much lower, then the number of years to recoup the additional cost will be longer. Depending on the length of time the couple plans on staying in this residence they may recoup the cost of becoming LEED Platinum, but according to the National Association of Realtors (NAR) the average length of homeownership is six years. Before homeowners take on the increased cost of achieving LEED certifications they need to determine if they will be able to recoup the cost in energy savings in the amount of time they are planning on living in the dwelling. Comparing LEED standards versus Tax Credits can give a detailed breakdown that can be beneficial on making an informed decision when planning on revitalization. Depending on whether you are looking at revitalizing a residential building or a commercial structure, the payback on LEED investment versus taking tax credits into account can be a great indication on whether the economic benefit will be worth the initial premium. Table 4 details the initial upfront costs for revitalization versus the payback in incorporating LEED standards in the historic Meroney Theatre. Hypothetical Payback for Meroney Theatre Table 4 (calculated by author from Piedmont Players) In this generation of green buildings and working to make existing buildings more energy efficient, single-pane windows can be a major source of lost energy inefficiency of one’s home. Historic homes, with those big, drafty windows, with birds - eye glass, cause heating costs soar in the winter months. This is what we are led to believe from window manufacturers, the Green Building Council and the Dept. of Energy, according to Keith Haberern, this is far from the truth. In his “Old” wood window vs. replacement window analysis, Keith shows how in fact replacement windows may not recoup the cost to install them over the life of the window in an older home. Consumers see ads displaying saving lots of energy by replacing those “old” wood windows with replacement windows and start to think my “old” windows have beautiful wood and wavy antique glass but they must be costly (Haberern 2009). In this first analysis, we look at the difference between a 3 x 5 single-pane windows vs. a new double-pane thermal replacement. The yearly energy savings in this scenario is 625,922 BTU’s, using gas heat at $.95/therm, would provide you with a $9.65/yr savings per window. Looking at simple payback if we assume a decent replacement window would cost $400 installed, gives us $400/$9.65 yr or 41 ½ years to recoup the cost of replacing the windows. Can installing storm windows really make that much difference and will they pay for themselves in the long run? Haberern’s second scenario, installing storm windows over the older more architecturally pleasing wood windows, gains an additional 96,296 BTUs a year. At the annual savings per window of $.95/therm, this provides a gas heated home with a $11.72/yr savings, with a simple payback, assuming a $50 storm window, of 4 ¼ years. Finally he looks at the newest of energy efficient windows, doubled paned, low E/argon filled windows. Looking at the yearly energy savings between the older wood windows with storm window vs. the new replacement window nets a yearly savings of 132,402 BTUs per window. Using gas heat at a rate of $.95/therm, nets a yearly savings of $2.03/window, assuming that a low E replacement window installed cost $450 each will net a simple payback of 222 years. Most buildings built these days more than likely will not be around then. Let’s look at one last real world example. Don Hartley, a Utah State Historical Society architect, decided when faced with $12,000 for replacing 21 existing windows in his own house, and figuring a 77 year payback on the so-called “investment”, to refinish, weather-strip and add storms for $5000 and deposit $7000 in the bank (Haberern 2009). Historic Preservation and LEED While looking into the feasibility of using LEED to make historic structures more energy efficient addressing sustainability issues is necessary. One must take into account the energy that’s already bound up in preexisting buildings, embodied energy, not the energy used to construct a new green building instead of reusing an old one. Thought of as a fossil fuel repository, old buildings are places where we’ve saved energy (Kueber 2008). In his analysis, Haberern (2009) uses the example of a new window. Producing a new window uses about 2,300,000 Btu of embodied energy; this only includes the energy to produce the window. The embodied energy required in mining, delivering the raw materials, shipping and packaging, delivery, the gas used to drive the contractor’s pickup truck to the job, and the energy needed to dispose of the old window is not part of the production number (Haberern 2009). Just looking at the production of the window this gives us an energy payback of 4 years, if we considered the total embodied energy used, now we are looking at roughly six years before we begin saving energy. Now let’s look at what the embodied energy payback time will be for the low E replacement windows, if we just look at the initial energy, it will take approximately 17 ½ years in order to see any energy savings. When we consider the total embodied energy for these windows, we are now looking at over 20 years before we are saving energy. Keeping track of LEED Just because people have taken the effort to become LEED certified does not mean that now they do not need to worry about the energy efficiency of their building. Becoming LEED certified is just a step in becoming more energy efficient and energy friendly. Now that we have taken this step, we need to make sure that we are keeping track of our energy usage. From Bruce Henderson’s article in the Charlotte Observer, “the owner’s of Charlotte’s first “green” public building, ImaginOn, recently analyzed its energy usage and got a surprise.” (Henderson 2010). The building is home to a children’s theatre and library, owned by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg library system. With its unexpected popularity came longer hours of operation which in turn doubled the energy use of the building. However, even with the longer operation hours and greater energy use, the building owners still save thousands of dollars a month over a standard design. “The LEED program, which certified ImaginOn and 48 other Charlotte buildings, rates new buildings based on predicted energy savings and other factors. How they really work might be far different.” (Henderson 2010, 1A). Here the potential for misconception can occur. With LEED working on the potential of energy savings, it is up to the consumer to actually take the design and make it work to its full benefit. Just because the building was designed to be energy efficient does not mean it will be. Extended operating hours, failing to turn off lights can work against the efficient design that was put into place. In a study conducted by the Green Building Council, which runs LEED, done in 2008 shows that on average, new LEED buildings consume 28 percent less energy than a standard building design. However, 30 percent can do better than expectations, but 25 percent fare worse. Without tracking your buildings energy efficiency, building owners really do not know if the cost premium for LEED is paying off. “ImaginOn averages about 450,000 visitors a year, not the expected 300,000. Its two theaters are used an average of seven hours a day, not two hours as predicted. Offices are used on weekends, not just weekdays. Temperature adjustments drove up costs.” (Henderson 2010, 1A). The buildings mechanical engineer concluded that ImaginOn used twice as much energy in 2007 than what was predicted when the building was designed. What did this mean, well first off this meant higher heating and cooling costs, but at what expense? Without tracking the cost versus the energy use was a “reflection of our faith in the LEED-certification process that we did not go back and second-guess the efficiency of the equipment,quot;
(Henderson 2010) stated Cordelia Anderson, spokesperson for the library system. In fact after looking at models and bills, even with the increased usage, the building and its systems saved the library owners approximately 28 percent over a standard design. Although there was increased energy use, the LEED standards put into place for the mechanical systems saved ImaginOn $78,594 a year in energy bills over the projected $40,224. “ImaginOn scored points for an innovative design that floods the interior with daylight. Recycled detergent bottles were turned into bathroom partitions. The building got credit for efficient water use, recycling construction waste and nontoxic interior finishes.” (Henderson 2010, 1A). Out of a possible total of 110 points to become LEED certified Platinum, only 35 points pertain to energy efficiency. With buildings consuming as much as 72 percent of the Nation’s energy, it stands to say that it is a good idea to know how efficient they are. Looking at their efficiency is a big factor on how many power plants we need to build to keep up with consumption and also the rate the consumer pays on their own utility bills. “Unlike LEED, which is based on predicted performance, Energy Star compares one building's performance to that of similar buildings. Only about half the LEED buildings surveyed would qualify for Energy Star, according to the 2008 report to the Green Building Council.” (Henderson 2010). A joint program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Star, is helping us all save money and protect the environment through energy efficient products and practices (Agency 2010). Opened in 1998, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center has shaved roughly 26 percent off its energy consumption since 2003 helping earn the building the Environmental Protection Agencies Energy Star label last year. “The Government Center earned its star after years of changes, including more efficient lighting and retuned mechanical systems. Large changes were tested for their performance and payback before they were made.” (Henderson 2010). With the help of Energy Star, Americans have saved enough energy in 2009 alone to avoid greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those from 30 million cars, all while saving nearly $17 billion on their utility bills (Agency 2010). When it comes to achieving energy efficiency, sustainability as well as being economically beneficial, shall Historic Preservationists strive to become Energy Star Certified versus becoming LEED Certified? Conclusion Using current housing as well as retail and industrial building stock can be a great asset towards sustainable development. The social attitude towards a building that may once have been an eyesore being restored to its original glory can help in any revitalization of a town. Local workers can reap the economic benefits of the restoration and finally, we are not tossing excess materials into the landfills as well as not consuming more energy to demolish the buildings or to produce the new materials needed to build a new one. When revitalizing a historic building or a downtown, cities are on the way to applying the three ideas of viable sustainability. Revitalization promotes economic responsibility by using local suppliers and contractors, while the revitalization in and upon itself helps in the environmental responsibility of owners or the city. Finally, with buildings as well as downtowns being revitalized, social responsibility takes shape. With many downtowns now promoting mixed use, the buildings that are being revitalized have retail on the ground floor and residential on the upper floors. The concept of making sustainability a part of historic preservation planning only grows stronger with creating a more energy efficient building while using the features that were built into the building as well as low cost features such as storm windows more viable. Two outcomes have arisen in this research. First, when incorporating LEED into new commercial and industrial buildings, the benefits far out weigh the upfront investment. These buildings tend to use more energy on average, so the potential 24% savings realizes clear environmental returns.. Even when the buildings are used more than the projection, the energy savings is far more than that of a standard designed building; this is evident with the ImaginOn building in Charlotte. LEED standards can also be beneficial as well as economically feasible in large - scale historic preservation jobs. This is more likely to happen when a building is turned into an office, retail or eating establishment. By usage alone commercial buildings typically use more energy on average than say a single - family residential property. So the overall cost premium along with the energy savings plus the fact that most of the tenants in these building typically stay in place for a long period of time makes the payback period worth the upfront cost. One important conclusion of this research is that incorporating LEED into historic preservation does not economically benefit the owner is when it is a residential use, non-income producing designation. Depending on the type of certification that the owners are trying to achieve, the upfront cost is more than the return to the owners. With the average homeowner now staying in one residence for six years, a LEED certification that may take up to 11 years to be paid back in energy savings is just not economically smart. The payback period does fluctuate with the amount of energy that is saved by incorporating LEED standards, but if the savings are small the payback period extends. There are many ways to make a historic structure more energy efficient without being an economic burden on the owners. As stated earlier, historic buildings in their design were built to be efficient, maybe not in today’s world of heating and air-conditioned buildings, but by incorporating architectural design as well as site placement, buildings that are considered historic are as just efficient. Adding something as minor as storm windows and closing up air leaks can make an older structure more efficient without a major economic impact on the owners. Although LEED may not be an economic success for an owner, the revitalization of a historic building links the environmental, social and economic responsibilities that make a sustainable community viable. In conclusion, we need to work on a revision of our planning process for historic preservation to incorporate historic preservation as a tool of sustainable development as well as standards that would make our existing older building stock more energy efficient. Incorporating LEED standards along with sustainability ideals into the historic preservation planning process is one that needs to be done and can help our older building stock become a more viable option for restoration. There are benefits of LEED that can be brought into the revitalization of our older buildings, but should be looked at as the exception to helping these buildings become more energy efficient not the norm. Developing a plan that takes into account the natural ideals of energy efficiency that were built into our older buildings, as well as realizing the benefits that LEED can bring to our society in the future, can create a community that is environmentally, economically and socially sustainable. Works Cited Barthel, Diane. quot;
Historic Preservation: A Comparartive Analyses.quot;
Sociological Forum, Vol. 4, No. 1, March 1989: 87-105. Cidell, Julie. quot;
Building Green: The Emerging Geography of LEED-Certified Buildings and Professionals.quot;
The Professional Geographer, 2009: 200-215. Council, United States Green Building. United States Green Building Council. February 7, 2009. www.USGBC.org (accessed February 9, 2009). Daniels, Thomas L., Keller, John W., Lapping, Mark B.,Daniels, Katherine and James Segedy, 2007. The Small Town Planning Ha Downtown Salisbury, Inc., Recruitment Optimized. Report to City Council, Salisbury: Downtown Salisbury Inc., 2009. Fisher, Charles E. quot;
Promoting the Preservation of Historic Buildings: Historic Preservation Policy in the United States.quot;
APT Bulletin, Vol. 29, No. 3/4 Thirtieth-Anniversary Issue, 1998: 7-11. Foundation, Historic Salisbury. October Tour. May 5, 2009. http://historicsalisbury.org (accessed May 5, 2009). Godschalk, David. quot;
Coping with conflict in sustainable development and liveability community decisions.quot;
Journal of the American Planning Association, 2004: 70 (1): 5-13. Haberern, Keith. Preservation Alliance of Minnesota. November 1, 2009. http://www.mnpreservation.org/resources/windows/ (accessed February 19, 2010). Hemann, Randy, interview by Price Wagoner. Executive Director, Downtown Salisbury Inc. (May 7, 2010). Henderson, Bruce. quot;
It's complicated being green.quot;
Charlotte Observer. Charlotte: McClatchy Company, February 10, 2010. 1. Hover, Bill. quot;
Energy effieniency and Historic buildings.quot;
Tax Incentive Workshop for Energy Efficient Buildings. Savannah: Chatham County-Savanna Metropolitan Planning Commision, 2006. 8. Kueber, Pam. quot;
Emodied Energyquot;
: The greenest building is the one that is already built. May 22, 2008. http://retrorenovation.com/2008/05/22/embodied-energy-the-greenest-building-is-one-thats-already-built/ (accessed March 4, 2010). Levy, John M. 2009. Contemporary Urban Planning, Eight Edition. Upper Saddle River, NewJjersey: Pearson Prentice-Hall. Mason, Randall. Economics and Historic Preservation: A guide and review of the Literature. Discussion Paper, Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program, 2005. O'Toole, Patrick L. quot;
Classic Platinum Greene.quot;
Qualified Remodler, 2009: 16-19. Preservation, National Trust for Historic. quot;
Our position on Sustainability.quot;
Preservation Nation. March 27, 2009. http://www.preservationnation.org (accessed March 27, 2009). Reeder, Linda. quot;
Reuse of Historic Buildings to Address Climate Change.quot;
The American Institute of Architects. January 30, 2009. http://www.aia.org (accessed March 27, 2009). Robins, Anthony W. quot;
Historic Preservation and Planning.quot;
Journal of the American Planning Association, Winter 1995: 95-101. Rypkema, Donovon D. quot;
Economics, Sustainability & Historic Preservation.quot;
Preservation North Carolina. June 23, 2008. http://presnc.org (accessed May 5, 2009). Salisbury, City of. Salisbury Vision 2020 Plan. Comprehensive plan, Salisbury: City of Salisbury, 2001. Smith, Baird M., AIA. Conserving Energy in Historic Buildings. April N/A, 1978. http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/briefs/brief03.htm (accessed February 26, 2010). State of Michigan. Michigan State Housing Development Authority. January 25, 2010. http://www.michigan.gov/mshda/0,1607,7-141-54317_50104---,00.html (accessed February 19, 2010). Tomlan, Michael. quot;
Historic Preservation Education: Alongside Architecture in Academia.quot;
Journal of Architectural Education. Vol 47, No. 4, May 1994: 187-196. U.S. Department of Energy and the Enviromental Protection. About Energy Star. May 11, 2010. http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=about.ab_index (accessed May 11, 2010). Young, Diane, interview by Price Wagoner. President, Downtown Graphis Inc. (August 6, 2009).

Cap Stone Historic Preservation Leed

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Semelhante a Cap Stone Historic Preservation Leed

Semelhante a Cap Stone Historic Preservation Leed (20)

Cap Stone Historic Preservation Leed