Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 83
D
Transformative Action Through
Systems-Based Thinking
Robert Berkebile, Fellow of the American Institute of Architects, BNIM Architects
Today I want to share some thoughts and information with you about the tools being used to create
sustainable buildings and also about the role of systems-based thinking. While we would benefit from
improvements in the technology, tools, and materials needed for sustainable development, the primary
limitation is our thinking. So, I’m going to focus on utilizing the available tools and, as importantly, on
systematic processes for using those tools to their maximum advantage.
Between 1970 and today, the focus of architecture and construction has evolved. In the 1970s,
the focus was on conservation at the building scale. As we began looking at larger and larger scales—
neighborhood, city, region, watershed, airshed, jobshed, and so on—we began thinking in terms of
sustainability, “Living Buildings,” restoration, and regenerative approaches.
From my perspective, systems-based thinking for the U.S. construction industry really began in 1989
through creation of the American Institute of Architects’ Committee on the Environment (AIA COTE).
The AIA COTE’s dialogue with diverse industry and environmental stakeholders gave rise to the U.S.
Green Building Council (USGBC).1 Since then, we have seen dramatic savings in energy, water, and
materials from buildings that are certified under the USGBC’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) rating system. Even more importantly, we have seen other benefits, including human
health and productivity effects and positive social, economic, and environmental impacts on the sur-
rounding community, which are a direct result of using a more systems-based approach.
The definition of what constitutes good design is evolving. It is a given that building design must
satisfy the owner’s programmatic needs, including budgets for time and cost, and designs must comply
with public safety requirements defined by building codes. But, historically, good design has been a
beauty contest. Approximately 25 years ago that definition was called into question when a series of
“well-designed,” award-winning buildings caused their occupants to be uncomfortable or sick, had exces-
sive operating and maintenance costs, and resulted in negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood
or environment. Today, if a building is not healthy for its occupants, for the planet, and for the future of
all life, it is not well designed, no matter how good it looks.
1 Information available at http://www.usgbc.org.
83
OCR for page 84
84 ACHIEVING HIGH-PERFORMANCE FEDERAL FACILITIES
FIGURE D.1 Internal Revenue Service building, Kan-
sas City, Missouri. SOURCE: Courtesy of BNIM
Architects.
fig d-1.eps
bitmap
The “Top Ten Green” building design awards that the AIA COTE bestows every year provide a
snapshot of this evolution. On the AIA Web site (http://www.aia.org), one can see how the industry has
progressed in its concept of what is green and what is good design.
One recent example of good design recognized in AIA’s Top Ten program is a large Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) center in my hometown, Kansas City, Missouri (Figure D.1). This building of approxi-
mately 1 million square feet of space was constructed using a design-build process in which the IRS,
the General Services Administration (GSA), the developer, the city, and the source of financing were
all partners.
The design team used building information modeling (BIM) to analyze many scenarios quickly to
advance the best concepts—those that would satisfy a range of stakeholders and create an environment
within which the people processing tax returns could feel good about their environment and experience
increased health and productivity.
BNIM Architects has used BIM technology on a variety of projects including a band shell in North
Charleston, South Carolina (Figure D.2). This facility was part of a 3,000-acre redevelopment, and
our client wanted it to be ready for a Fourth of July concert. However, by the time design approval
was received from the city, we did not have time for a typical design-bid-build process. So, our office
e-mailed our design (using BIM) to the contractor. The design documents were created and approved
electronically and then entered directly into the contractor’s manufacturing system (computer-controlled
fabrication). The only piece of paper that was printed for this project was the foundation drawing for the
local contractor. Technology and collaboration, in this case, made the impossible possible.
We find that high-performance goals require systems-based thinking, collaboration, and computer
tools to facilitate a collaborative dialogue of discovery. A comprehensive redevelopment plan for 3,000
acres in North Charleston, South Carolina, is a good example. We first looked back 12,000 years at the
deep ecology of the place to understand its history—not to restore it, but to create the best options for
moving forward and adding vitality with each decision. As seen in the conceptual plan in Figure D.3, we
were examining human systems of 5- and 10-minute walking circles, centering them on the 11 schools
within the area. This approach influenced transportation systems and the co-location of community
centers, libraries, health clinics, and other community services within the schools. These decisions, in
turn, increased the efficiency, quality of life, and economic performance of our community.
OCR for page 85
85
APPENDIX D
FIGURE D.2 Point Pavilion in North Charleston, South Carolina, designed and delivered using building information modeling.
fig d-2.eps
SOURCE: Courtesy of BNIM Architects.
bitmap
fig d-3.eps
FIGURE D.3 Conceptual plan for North Charleston, Southbitmap using 5- and 10-minute walking circles centered on exist -
Carolina,
ing schools. SOURCE: Courtesy of BNIM Architects.
OCR for page 86
86 ACHIEVING HIGH-PERFORMANCE FEDERAL FACILITIES
As far as I know, this was the first time in the United States that a developer had entered into an
agreement with a city making a commitment that every decision related to design, planning, invest-
ment, and construction would increase the vitality of the social, economic, and environmental systems
simultaneously. This commitment required holistic, systems-based solutions. The developer and design
team could not forward recommendations that included trade-offs between social and/or environmental
vitality and economic performance; the recommendations had to improve all three sectors from the
community developer’s perspective.
This vision was created through collaboration during a 2-year planning process involving a wide
range of stakeholders, including community interests, government agencies, neighborhoods, 65 consult-
ing firms, universities, developers, economic consultants, and nonprofit foundations. All stakeholders
made decisions in a series of meetings at various venues. Over time, the BNIM design team built a
tool to inform and document these decisions, goals, and metrics. We named it the Noisette Rose, after
the French botanist who created a beautiful white rose in Charleston (Figure D.4). Sadly his rose was
exported to France; none remain in South Carolina, and the stream named for him has been destroyed
by urban development and industrial pollution.
The design team built the Noisette Rose tool to inform our team about the design commitments, to
inform our client about their investment options, and to provide the community with a way to monitor
the results. It tracks the social, environmental, and economic goals; at some point we renamed these
“people, planet, and prosperity,” which we refer to as the Triple Bottom Line. Each spoke on the graphic
is a specific goal, and each goal has a specific metric against which it will be measured. The spoke at
three o’clock for example, is energy efficiency. On the project represented here, we exceeded the goal
slightly, and so the rose projects beyond the ring. By glancing at this diagram, anyone in the community
can see that the project is going well. If the shape is a rosebud, it indicates poor performance. If the
shape is asymmetrical, it indicates that some sector needs more attention. With this type of approach,
FIGURE D.4 Noisette Rose evaluation tool. SOURCE:fNoisette Sustainable Master Plan. Courtesy of BNIM Architects.
ig d-4.eps
bitmap
OCR for page 87
87
APPENDIX D
FIGURE D.5 Greensburg, Kansas, after the
tornado in July 2007. SOURCE: Courtesy of
Larry Schwarm.
fig d-5.eps
bitmap
using these tools and what I call a “creative dialogue of discovery,” it becomes much easier to improve
the relationships between people, planet, and prosperity.
In 2007, a category EF5 tornado destroyed every structure except the grain elevator in the town of
Greensburg, Kansas (Figure D.5). Possibly the second greatest shock to the community, however, was
waking up to the headline in the New York Times, “Nature Performed a Coup de Grace on Kansas Town”
(July 24, 2007). The residents began meeting in tents and other makeshift venues to determine what
future they wanted to create. It was dialogue and systems-based thinking that allowed them, in a series
of meetings held in the months following the tornado, to develop a unique, high-performance vision for
the future of their community (Figure D.6).
Their vision was: “Blessed with a unique opportunity to create a strong community devoted to
family, fostering business, and working together for future generations.” To implement that vision, they
wanted to promote a high level of efficiency in new construction and to look to renewable options for
energy generation.
FIGURE D.6 Community meeting in Greensburg, Kansas, after the 2007 tornado. SOURCE: Courtesy of BNIM Architects.
fig d-6.eps
bitmap
OCR for page 88
88 ACHIEVING HIGH-PERFORMANCE FEDERAL FACILITIES
Although the vision was beautiful, it was too vague to provide a basis for design and investment
decisions. So the BNIM planning and design team helped the residents of Greensburg develop a set
of specific goals related to community, family, prosperity, environment, affordability, growth, renewal,
water, health, energy, wind, and the built environment. For example, each goal has specific metrics that
inform every project that occurs in Greensburg. These goals and metrics dramatically transformed the
master plan and changed the town forever with regard to its buildings’ efficiency, performance, and
operating costs. There is more connectivity, more biodiversity, and more intimacy with the landscape
(Figure D.7) For example, the plan treats every drop of water as a precious resource. Water is captured
from buildings and landscape (including the streetscape), purified, stored, used, and returned to ground-
water as clean as when it fell from the sky (Figure D.8).
FIGURE D.7 Open space and green corridors sys-
tem, Greensburg, Kansas. SOURCE: Courtesy of
BNIM Architects.
fig d-7.eps
bitmap
FIGURE D.8 Conceptual design for streetscape,
water capture, and storage, Greensburg, Kansas.
SOURCE: Courtesy of BNIM Architects.
fig d-8.eps
bitmap
OCR for page 89
89
APPENDIX D
New city-owned buildings in Greensburg must be twice as efficient as the ones that they replaced and
must provide for better health, more comfort, and more passive survivability. Moreover, the city’s wind
farm will generate far more energy than the city needs, and the excess will be sold to the grid, creating
a revenue stream for the city. Greensburg was the first U.S. city to adopt a resolution making USGBC’s
LEED Platinum its standard building goal. The six buildings completed to date —city hall, a community
center, a K-12 school, a business incubator, a regional hospital, and a John Deere dealership—all meet
that goal (three of these buildings are shown in Figure D.9).
One year following the tornado, the New York Times said, in essence: This is the most brilliant recov-
ery in America. This should be the model for how to build after disaster. My hope is that this approach
becomes the model for revitalizing rural America: using systems-based thinking to inform community
designs and decisions, including buildings, economy, and lifestyles.
Greensburg is one response to Einstein’s statement that “we shall require a substantially new manner
of thinking if mankind is to survive.” But even though they utilized LEED Platinum—and I would
argue that the LEED rating system has been the most transformative tool in the design and construction
industry—even LEED Platinum is only third-party certification that one is doing less damage to the
environment than everyone else. Surely it is time to move beyond the concept of doing less damage, to
doing something positive (restorative or regenerative).
I have been working on this idea since the mid-1990s, when my firm was working on a demonstration
project for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for the LEED 1.0 rating system.
At that time, we called the rating system “Plus Ultra” (Latin for “more beyond”). It evolved with input
from many, including Janine Benyus, Jason McLennan, and a major study funded by the David and Lucile
Packard Foundation, to become what is known as a “Living Building.” The Packard Foundation hired my
firm to design a new headquarters, and we signed a contract to deliver a LEED Platinum building. When
we shared the idea of moving beyond LEED Platinum (less bad) to something positive, like a Living
Building, they commissioned us to create six building designs on their site: a market rate building, the
four levels of LEED, and a Living Building.2 The foundation wanted a comprehensive analysis of the
relative costs, timing, and benefits of each level of performance, including 30, 60, and 100 years. When
the study was completed, the foundation’s chief financial officer said that the only responsible decision,
financially, was to design and build a Living Building. Since then, the concept has continued to evolve
under the shepherding of the Cascadia chapter of USGBC to become the Living Building Challenge, 3
which we introduced at Greenbuild4 in 2007.
Living Buildings gain that stature by being audited after their first year of operation to verify that
they perform at the level at which they were designed, including generating more energy than they con-
sume and purifying more water than they pollute. A facility that BNIM designed in Rhinebeck, New
York, for the Omega Institute was recently the first LEED Platinum building in the world to become
a certified Living Building (Figure D.10). It’s also the first sewage treatment facility (biological waste
water treatment system) that has been claimed as the venue for the institute’s yoga classes.
Living Buildings are informed by and heavily rooted in the indigenous characteristics of a building’s
eco-region in order to renewably generate their own energy; capture, treat, and use their own water; and
operate by embracing the essence of what the site can provide. It is very simple but very demanding.
There are five typologies within the Living Building Challenge: renovation, building, neighborhood,
2A Living Building harvests all of its own energy and water, is adapted to the climate of the site, operates pollution-free, promotes health
and well-being, is composed of integrated systems, and is beautiful.
3 For information, see http://ilbi.org/the-standard/lbc-v1.3.pdf.
4 See http://www.greenbuildexpo.org/Home.aspx.
OCR for page 90
90 ACHIEVING HIGH-PERFORMANCE FEDERAL FACILITIES
FIGURE D.9 LEED Platinum buildings in Greensburg, Kansas. NOTE: LEED, Leadership in Energy and Environmental
fig d-9.eps
Design, the rating system of the U.S. Green Building Council. SOURCE: Courtesy of BNIM Architects.
3 bitmaps
OCR for page 91
91
APPENDIX D
FIGURE D.10 Omega Institute for Holistic Studies fa-
cility in Rhinebeck, New York. SOURCE: Courtesy of
BNIM Architects.
fig d-10.eps
landscape, and infrastructure. Both LEED and the Living Building Challenge started at the building
bitmap
scale but are now moving to the larger, community scale.
Our firm, with a stellar team of consultants that includes Vivian Loftness, is working on a Living
Building at the neighborhood scale at the University of Georgia, Athens—the new Odum School of
Ecology. Eugene Odum was arguably the father of systems-based thinking in the United States. It seems
appropriate that the school named after him would have these attributes and could measurably transform
the campus, the city, and the state in terms of utilizing systems-based thinking to achieve new levels of
performance. For example, our design for the landscape surrounding the building was created in col-
laboration with the faculty and nine programs that are part of the curriculum and research. The faculty
and administration are helping us articulate priorities that are now being assigned metrics as part of a
strategy for achieving their goals (Figure D.11).
FIGURE D.11 Odum School of Ecology at the University of Georgia, Athens. SOURCE: Courtesy of BNIM Architects.
fig d-11.eps
bitmap
OCR for page 92
92 ACHIEVING HIGH-PERFORMANCE FEDERAL FACILITIES
Over time, BNIM has learned that if we use a systems-based approach it changes the architecture
and the landscape, and the line between the two becomes blurred. Often it becomes difficult to distin-
guish where one ends and the other begins. I find it helpful to try to understand the metabolism of the
system. By examining how the whole system operates, we can design ways to close loops or make new
connections to add vitality. For example, we like to convert “waste” to a resource by finding ways to
put it back into the system as something productive and useful, much like how a natural system would
manage waste.
Part of the design process for this project and others is to look for opportunities to create biomimetic
materials that improve performance. The first famous biomimetic material used was for the swimsuits
that U.S. athletes wore at the Beijing Olympics in 2008, when they broke so many swimming records.
The swimsuits were made from a biomimetic fabric that was inspired by analyzing shark skin and dolphin
skin. Scientists discovered that the skin of those animals is not smooth, but actually consists of a series of
dimples and bumps that reduce friction. That knowledge was used to create the fabrics that dramatically
improved the times registered by U.S. swimmers. We believe that incorporating biomimetic materials
in buildings could result in building materials that are self-cleaning and self-healing or materials whose
thermal value changes as needed.
By utilizing BIM on the Odum building project, or more specifically a green BIM, we can “test-
drive” this building and compare it to the two best-performing buildings on campus. (It is not a one-
to-one comparison, because one is a school of art and one is a classroom building, but we found that
the Odum building out-performs the others, even though laboratories typically use far more resources
[energy and water] than are used by other types of buildings.)
We did not plan to analyze carbon offsets, but potential donors were interested in tracking economic
performance over time, including a measure for carbon offsets or carbon credits.
Now, I’m going to shift gears. We had hoped that Gregory Norris of the Harvard School of Public
Health would be here to talk about life-cycle assessment and transforming the supply chain as it relates
to buildings. Because he was unable to come, I was asked to fold some of that information into this
presentation.
Work on a life-cycle assessment of the supply chain began in 1993 as part of a research project
at Montana State University in Bozeman that was funded by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology. The project was a research laboratory, and the subject of the grant was to create a building
design that was more energy efficient than any building of its type. While we were interested in energy
efficiency, it seemed that we knew a lot more about energy efficiency in 1993 than we knew about human
health and productivity, about increases in biodiversity, and about the consumption of water and other
materials and resources. I asked if we should not also be looking at those issues.
NIST expanded our commission to look at those issues, and a series of new approaches and tools
were created as a result. This was at the time that the USGBC was born, and the building was being
designed by many of the same people who were involved in creating the LEED rating system. We
explored the possibility of resourcing all materials from within a 500-mile radius, which soon thereafter
influenced the LEED rating system. We also looked at converting waste streams to new building mate-
rials. In order to inform the decisions, we had to know what the material flows were, although at the
time this information was not available; so, we physically located, tracked, and modeled the resources
that were available in the region. This research created several interesting new materials, but it was a
labor-intensive process.
Several years later, with LEED in place, BNIM began working on a new School of Nursing for the
University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. We knew that we needed a more efficient process
to analyze the best material choices, and Gregory Norris agreed to create software that would allow
OCR for page 93
93
APPENDIX D
2
1
PD: Pre-design
Effort/Effect
SD: Schematic design
DD: Design development
CD: Construction documentation
PR: Procurement
CA: Construction Administration
OP: Operation
4
1 Ability to impact cost and
functional capabilities
2 Cost of design changes
3 3 Traditional design process
4 Preferred design process
FIGURE D.12 Cost influence curves and Archi-
tecture, Engineering, Construction (AEC) produc-
Time
PD SD DD CD PR CA OP
tivity. SOURCE: Construction Users’ Roundtable.
fig d-14.eps
us to use a large body of data collected on a county-by-county basis by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the Department of Commerce. The software allowed us to use those data to evaluate
the upstream environmental impact of our design decisions. Using this tool on the School of Nursing to
gain access to a much larger body of information improved the environmental impacts of our selections,
as well as the performance of the building.
But our client was even more excited about the economic impacts of these decisions. An analysis
comparing the base case to the final design showed that we improved the economy in Harris County,
Texas, by $1.1 million through intentional design decisions.
The good news is that Greg Norris continues to improve this software. Walmart is now using the
new generation of this “open source” tool, currently called “EARTHSTER,” to communicate with and
improve the environmental performance of all of its suppliers. The suppliers and manufacturers can
log on, describe their process, and answer a series of questions, and the tool will provide an evaluation
of their environmental performance. Assuming a good evaluation, they can send it back to Walmart
and qualify to be a supplier. A supplier that does not like an evaluation does not have to share it with
Walmart, but EARTHSTER captures all the data. As a result, this tool will generate an open-source,
Web-based database on materials.
Fortunately there is a growing family of tools and processes that one may want to consider in order
to increase quality and performance or to decrease time and costs. One promising approach is called
“lean construction,” which changes the relationship between the project owner, designers, and contractors
by contract and stimulates a healthy dialogue and partnership among all the stakeholders. One of the
things we know is that our ability to have meaningful impact on cost or quality is reduced as the project
advances (Figure D.12). If quality information is available early in the project, effective decisions can
be made as a collaborative team, improving the outcome dramatically.
Another process that can be utilized if one is working at the community scale (for example, on a
military complex, hospital campus, or neighborhood development) is One Planet Communities. 5 This is
an excellent program that incorporates a systems-based approach. There are 10 areas of study (Figure
D.13).
For each of these areas, the user must establish a specific goal for his or her project. Software is
5 Information available at http://www.oneplanetcommunities.org/about-2/.
OCR for page 94
94 ACHIEVING HIGH-PERFORMANCE FEDERAL FACILITIES
FIGURE D.13 One Planet Communities areas of study. SOURCE: Petite
Rivière Regenerative Plan, April 2009.
fig d-15.eps
bitmap
available to help you assess possibilities during the design-alternatives period of planning, and then,
once the project is complete or begins implementation, the user can receive a regular, ongoing follow-up.
One Planet Communities was originally developed by BioRegional (a not-for-profit in the United
Kingdom). It was trying to create a prototype community to reduce its environmental footprint in Eng-
land. At the time BioRegional calculated that if everyone lived like an Englishman, it would require
three planets to provide the resources. The goal of the first project, BedZED (Beddington Zero Energy
Development), was to provide quality living but reduce consumption to the equivalent of one planet.
After measuring the results at BedZED, BioRegional discovered that it had fallen short of its goal and
was operating at the equivalent of one and one half planets. It also realized that if resource reduction was
its goal, it should be working in North America, where resource consumption is closer to the equivalent
of five to six planets. So, BNIM is working on a redevelopment project in Montreal, which is a golf
course surrounded by existing development and next to the rail. Over time, it will be transformed into
a community with more biodiversity than existed when it was a golf course and hopefully will serve as
a model for living successfully in the 21st century.
One Planet Communities, like the Living Building Challenge, is simple. Both require a shift in
thinking clarity and a willingness to embrace very high goals. As Kevin Kampschroer said earlier during
this workshop, “It’s about claiming the future and then living into it.” Buckminster Fuller taught me that
the best way to predict the future is to design it. He also believed that we are all born geniuses, and that
we are gradually “de-geniused” by our parents and our teachers. I believe these initiatives come at the
perfect time for us to reclaim our genius—by improving the quality of our dialogue with better tools,
better information, and inspiring one another to create 21st-century regenerative solutions.
