GREEN SKYSCRAPERS

by Harry Blutstein

Ever since the Tower of Babel nudged the heavens, the announcement of a new
skyscraper is usually greeted with the question on how high it is. Of course there is
always the ultimate prize of being the highest building in the world – even if this is
for just a short time, as the next super skyscraper project gets off the ground. Seldom,
if ever, does anyone ask whether it is the greenest skyscraper. While the demand for
environmentally-friendly skyscrapers is still low, interest is growing.
In their book Natural Capitalism, Amory Lovins and Paul Hawkins drew
attention to the excessive consumption of ecological services and resources, called
"natural capital", that goes into maintaining our high standard of living. The authors
argue that humans are using up natural capital at an unsustainable rate to maintain
business activity. Any economist, even one of the rationalist variety, would agree that
to use capital to generate profits is folly, and if allowed to continue will end in
bankruptcy.
Skyscrapers significantly deplete natural capital, and have been described by
architect Ken Yeang in his book The Green Skyscraper as "energy-hungry parasites
that feed upon the city's surrounding ecosystems, the landscape and global resources".
Don Henry, Executive Director of the Australian Conservation Foundation
(ACF), believes that companies need to seriously consider how to minimise the
environmental impact of their office accommodation. "Australia is one of the most
energy inefficient countries in the OECD, so there is significant room for
improvement," he says.
To ‘walk the talk’, ACF has commissioned the incorporation of green features
into its new $6 million Carlton headquarters. It will use 70% less energy and 90%
less water than a conventional office building, and solid wastes will also be
substantially reduced. In pursing this development, ACF found that not only was it
conserving natural capital, but that significant savings will be made in operating costs.
While ACF’s decision to commission a green office building is not surprising,
it has gained some unexpected bedfellows. BHP’s new corporate headquarters and
the Eureka Tower being developed by Grollo, both in Melbourne, will have green
features incorporated into them. While BHP’s decision on it new accommodation is
based on its corporate environmental commitments, Grollo sees such features as
giving the Eureka Towers a market advantage. While these early pioneers of green
skyscrapers should be given every encouragement, unless the economics of such
developments show that they are profitable, few will follow.
This requires some re-thinking about the economic models used for
commercial developments. The main economic benefit of green buildings is their
lower operating costs. To ensure that such benefits are reflected in the financial
model, skyscrapers need to be costed over their life. In that way additional up front
capital costs of incorporating green features can be shown to be offset by operating
costs.
Not only are the economics of green skyscrapers becoming attractive, but the
greater use of natural light and ventilation, and elimination of hazardous chemicals
from fittings have been shown to make such buildings more productive workplaces.
For example, when the Internationale Nederlanden (ING) Bank built its new

Page 1
headquarters in Amsterdam in 1987, it spent $700,000 in extra construction costs for
an energy efficient building. The result is that it uses only 10% of the energy of its
predecessor and it has cut worker absenteeism by 15%. The combined savings equals
$3.4 million per year, making it an excellent return on investment. A 1994 study by
the Rocky Mountain Institute confirmed these figures showing that an increase in
productivity of between 6 and 16% has been achieved in commercial buildings with
passive lighting and heating systems. Considering that about 83% of the total lifetime
costs that go into a commercial building are salaries, then a relatively small
investment up front in environmental features can have a large pay off in labour
productivity.
How then does a green skyscraper differ from the run-of-the-mill buildings
that stride our cities? Occupants would not see much difference from a conventional
building. The most noticeable feature would be greater use of natural light. Less
obvious green features are part of the fabric of the building or internal systems,
providing services such as energy efficient features, water conservation measures, use
of plantation timber, durable or biodegradable fixtures and avoiding fittings that emit
hazardous vapours.
That does not mean that green skyscrapers need to be boring. Malaysia-based
architect Ken Yeang’s "bioclimatic" skyscrapers include features such as parks in the
sky on recessed balconies, which can be accessed from the inside of the building. His
award winning 15-storey tower for IBM in Kuala Lumpur features a series of sky
gardens spiralling up the building, which regulate internal climate and purify the air of
pollutants. His buildings also breathe by taking in air through open windows,
protected by shutters and spoilers to control air flows, allowing occupants to enjoy
gentle breezes.
If green skyscrapers are to become a common feature of our skylines, clients
will need to be more assertive, insisting on cost estimates based on the whole lifetime
of the building, as will banks and financial institutions. Companies that have made a
commitment to sustainable development will need to ensure that their accommodation
is consistent with such commitments.
There are also technical and institutional issues that will need to be addressed
before green skyscrapers become common. Incentives to developers and architects
based on the capital cost of developments doesn’t do much to drive green
developments. Also, there is a need to develop benchmarks for energy, water and
resource use to ensure that claims of green credentials can be substantiated. Some
already exist, but more work needs to be done in this area. Finally Australian
designers, architects and service engineers will need to develop expertise and
knowledge on how to produce a genuinely green skyscraper.
While there are still substantial economic, institutional and technical barriers
to the development of genuinely green skyscrapers, there are encouraging signs that
some trailblazers have seen the need. Even more encouraging is that the market could
drive such developments.

Page 2