Latest comments posted about Beijing's eco-friendly architecture on ChinaDialogue en-gb http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/635-Beijing-s-eco-friendly-architecture http://staging.chinadialogue.net/images/cdlogo.gif http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/635-Beijing-s-eco-friendly-architecture 好，好，说得真好，但太贵，而且不能解决老百姓的问题。 Frankensteim Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:01:01 -0400 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/635#comment-3498 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/635#comment-3498 EMSI has worked on more than 20 large new green building projects in China, as well as several community developments (including MOMA). In our experience (which includes most of the projects mentioned in the article) the incremental capital cost has never exceeded 3.5%, and the simple payback period has been kept within 3.5 years. And for "spec" developers who will sell their projects (and thus not benefit from the long-term annual operating savings), the added cost can often be covered by the developer's PR/marketing budget. Further, spec developers in China are beginning to realize a price premium associated with the sale of LEED certified projects. Ken Langer President, EMSI Thu, 04 Jan 2007 19:59:44 -0500 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/635#comment-867 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/635#comment-867 According to two oft-cited studies conducted in the U.S., the 2-5% figure is generally accurate. One 2003 study in California looked at 33 LEED-certified buildings (at various levels of efficiency, ranging from Bronze to Platinum) for which solid data existed on both conventional construction estimates and the actual “green” budget for the same building. It concluded that the average premium for the buildings was slightly less than 2 percent ($3 to $5 per square foot). Another report in ’04 http://davislangdon-usa.com/Attachment%20Files/Research/costinggreen.pdf says that the costs of achieving a bare-bones LEED certification are virtually the same as a typical building. One of the major factors in keeping initial costs down—and providing the best efficiency—is ensuring that sustainable elements are incorporated in the design from the beginning; adding them on later or in a piecemeal fashion, as the studies demonstrate, is a surefire way to raise costs. Also, keep in mind that these studies were conducted a few years ago: since then, the costs of green design have decreased. And these numbers don’t take into account the savings in operating costs offered by an energy-efficient building, which can be as high as 40 percent per year. Increasingly, analysis of a building’s life-cycle is becoming part of budgetary considerations. I think the above figures can be hard to believe (I for one was surprised at first) largely because actual green buildings are still rare. Thus the initial costs of green building have attained a sort of mythic status in building circles, and it’s a reputation that feeds on itself. But the more that people pursue this kind of construction, the greater awareness there will be about the potential costs and benefits—and the lower the costs will be. For technological, political and economic (and of course environmental) reasons, China has an opportunity to lead the way in green construction, at least in Asia. Even with higher initial costs, the year-on-year benefit of green buildings is undeniable—if only people were better informed about it. You’re right that promoting it is a big challenge. As with much that is “green” in China, skepticism is high and information is still scarce. It will take not just more government support but considerable initiative on the part of corporations, local governors and the media to make green construction mainstream in China. I think one simple way to do this is to remind people that green building need not be the province of big developers. Sustainable and low-cost design choices can be made on a small scale—from solar heaters to high-efficiency faucets to the sealing of window leaks in one's home. I'd be very curious to hear comments on how to mainstream green building in China, or thoughts on the current situation. -Alex Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:02:46 -0500 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/635#comment-819 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/635#comment-819 It goes without saying that eco-friendly buildings require huge initial investment, just as mentioned in the article, "the costs of “greening” a building are considered to be 2-5% higher than the original costs". I think it is a bit of moderate, and the true figure could be even higher. I'd like to know more about the initial investment of the green buildings. In my opinion, how to gradually increase the publicity of green building concepts in today's China is a big challenge. I think green buildings can only have further development when people enjoy higher living standards. At least, it is the case in China. However, we should not regard this green concept as a symbol of a well-off society. Instead, we should promote it and have it accepted as a commonsense way of living for ordinary people. Wed, 20 Dec 2006 11:35:03 -0500 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/635#comment-814 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/635#comment-814