The more I examine the construction landscape, the more green building makes sense. As argued by Chris Cheatham at Green Building Law Update, customers want it.
Set aside all of the environmental and political reasons for building green (less oil dependence and the corresponding dependence on middle eastern interests, “global warming” and the like), and look at the economics. Not only do contractors need to keep up with the times, but they need to provide what their customers want. Quite simply, owners want to look good and save money in the long term. The owner of a project can do both by building green.
On the one hand an owner can strut a bit and brag about his new green building, on the other he or she can save long term cash! A win win for the owner. (As an aside, the latest IBM commercials have been brilliant in focusing on this aspect of “green”)
What does this mean for builders? Quite frankly, go green or go home! You need to distinguish yourself from the rest. Green certified contractors will have a leg up on others without this certification, and will get more work! How can this be a bad thing.
Of course (and you knew this was coming), you as a contractor will need an attorney to help with the contractual and regulatory issues. I will be posting more on this later, but good thoughts on this were posted at the Green Building Law blog and at Wolfe Law to get you started. Frankly, contract forms and other issues have not been vetted in courts and building codes and safety regulations have not caught up with this relatively new area. Having a competent, knowledgeable attorney on your side will help with this immensely.
I hope all my readers have a great holiday season and get off on the right foot in 2009.
As always, I welcome your comments. Also, please subscribe to keep up with this and other Construction Law Musings.
This is so true. Not only does going green benefit society from an environmental aspect, but also benefits the owners of luxury manhattan real estate.
I have my doubts about the long term benefits of the LEED movement and wonder if anyone else has thoughts. Coming from a 25 year background in K-12 design/construction in the Rocky Mountains, I’ve seen so many “latest and greatest” ideas pushed onto school districts. Nearly all of them fall into disrepair and eventually are dismantled or become a part of a future bond election for “upgrades.” Districts simply can’t/won’t invest in the people and the maintenance required to keep “latest and greatest” ideas functioning. Ex: Auto dimming systems generally have a 3 year life. After that new staff members complain and they are disconnected. Solar panel systems installed widely throughout the RM’s in the ’70’s have long been removed or abandoned because no one has the budget or skill to repair them. Young trees have a very short life on a school property and no district has money to replace vandalized trees. HVAC computerized control systems get replaced with simple t-stats or else fall to default mode because the maintenance guy retired and no one picked up the knowledge. Sophisticated glazing systems get vandalized and replace with plain glass. Will LEED be any different in 20 years? Just another expensive system for the taxpayers to repair/replace?
Thanks for the thoughtful post. I sympathize with these issues and hope that the sustainability movement moves toward actual usability as well as LEED.