Buildings are everywhere. We work, sleep, and recreate inside buildings. The earth is dotted with different structures that serve a myriad of purposes. Vast establishments, tiny houses, and everything in between are anything from places of worship to chemical laboratories. These buildings went through quite a lengthy process to come into existence. As an aspiring urban planner, I will one day be involved with the planning and construction of buildings. Urban planners aim to do what is best for the environment and people. A rather unfortunate result of my occupation will be changing natural parts of the environment; the demand for more buildings will continue, meaning previously untouched land will be turned into urbanized areas. As an urban planner, I will be responsible for informing developers and governments how to use land in the least environmentally harmful way. In a previous environmental science class I took, we discussed constructing buildings to benefit the environment as a popular possible solution to lessen the effects of developing the surface of our planet. While this seems straightforward, this construction method is contested because it is perceived as expensive by the construction industry. This has led me to wonder if green building is cost-effective compared to traditionally constructed buildings.

People dislike spending money. On any given building in the design phase, a budget is determined and then the building is designed to fit within that budget. To state the obvious, a majority of a building’s construction cost is made up of its materials and systems. The more expensive the materials and premium of systems, the more the project cost increases accordingly. A study by the World Green Building Council (WGBC), a network of Green Building Councils, discovered that green architecture can be up to 12.5% more expensive than a building constructed to the standard code (Business Case for Green Building 13). Whether it’s because a particular system is more sophisticated and therefore has a higher cost, or materials are much more complicated to obtain, green building is certainly not cheap. Often companies want to construct green buildings but are unable to afford them. For some companies, the extra price isn’t an issue, but a substantial added cost is a deterrent to many builders operating on a budget or trying to save money. In a contrasting view to the WGBC, Metha Meetam, a professor of biology, claims that when building green buildings, using local materials can reduce the price (Meetam et al). After learning that local materials can reduce the expense of green architecture, I found that building green doesn’t necessarily have to come with a hefty monetary value. In addition, the PNNL advocates for retrofitting existing buildings with more advanced building controls as a passive way to make buildings more energy efficient (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory). Qualified scientists argue that it is possible to avoid breaking the bank while building green with forethought and planning.

So which is it—are green architecture practices something project managers should seek after, or should they boycott them? Clearly, there are discrepancies; that’s what I’m researching after all. The WGBC, who have their boots on the ground in the construction process, say it’s too expensive and debate the practicality of producing green buildings. These individuals have the street smarts of the construction industry. On the other hand, scientists say that the materials don’t have to be a deterrent. Energy Procedia, an energy-focused academic journal, shares an example of the Bahrain World Trade Center using a deep layer of gravel on the roofs of the two towers to provide thermal insulation (Masood, et al 10). Providing insulation at the top of the building reduces heat. Gravel is fairly inexpensive to obtain and in most cases can be bought locally, so it doesn’t come as too much of an additional cost. This in no way reduces the original price of the building, but it has the potential to reduce utility bills in the future.

A lower lifetime cost for a green building struck me as a silver lining of green building, meaning that it could potentially pay back for its upfront cost. If an excessive price deters people, could lower expenses throughout the lifetime of a building incite them? In a joint study, the Schools of Building at the University of Moratuwa and Massey University uncovered that green buildings save on average 19% of the average energy utilities of green buildings (Weerasinghe et al). Comparing that with the number from earlier, WGBC articulated green buildings cost 12.5% more to build than a traditional building (Business Case for Green Building 13). While the percentages are different, it’s vital to note what they mean. A building’s materials will have a higher value than the energy costs. The 12.5% can be quite an astronomical value depending on the size of the building and can increase depending on the extent of green architecture employed in a given building. On the other hand, since a building is constructed to last for decades, it will presumably eventually cost more to pay for energy and utilities than a one-time cost of materials.

An interesting example I found that compares the possible prices of green architecture is green roofs. The Finnish Meteorological Institute defines green roofs as “roofs that are partially or (almost) completely covered with vegetation” (Nurmi et al 7). Green roofs are common in cities where little open space is available to plant vegetation. Plants are good, especially in areas mostly devoid of nature; green roofs have the potential to be an asset to ecosystems in urban areas. As always, I’m trying to discover if environmentally friendly practices are also economically friendly. Faculty of environmental engineering at Lublin University of Technology cautions that a green roof is much more expensive than a traditional roof and that upkeep fees are much higher (Widomski 2). Having a green roof incurs costs that could be avoided by having a more conventional roof. However, it’s worth noting that vegetation doesn’t necessarily need to be extensive and costly. A study assessing drought-tolerant usage plants in green roofs found that plants such as miniturtle and sea purslane use relatively little water and need low amounts of upkeep (Meetam et al). Thoughtfully choosing the vegetation that goes into a green roof greatly affects the startup and ultimate recurring charges. In the context of green buildings in general, this shows that every green architecture project needs to be individually appraised to find the solution most cohesive for the owner, and often most importantly, the cost.

It is unknown if a needed increase in the production of green architecture practices will happen, stimulating the industry and making it more affordable. Green building is a highly contested practice. Environmentalists advocate for the practice while construction professionals are wary of the idea because of the cost. In a world driven by economics, I’m finding that the price of green architecture isn’t black and white. In an effort to find a middle ground, it’s worth noting that green architecture doesn’t have to be an all-or-nothing. Implementing small changes that aren’t as big of an economic strain can save resources, conserving the environment and the budget all at once.

The emerging field of green architecture still needs exploration. Researching alternative cost-effective materials would make green architecture more accessible to everyone. In addition, more precise energy savings studies would make the field more stable. This would enable those designing a building to make better-informed decisions about what systems to install and which to pass by. Building with both the interest of the environment and people can be quite the puzzle. Finding the balance between the right price for a budget’s constraints and an environmentalist’s goals is a hard activity. Every building is a case-by-case decision, and with more information, the way will be more clear. In advising as an urban planner, I will invite developers to make the right choice for them. I will point out that green architecture is expensive, but has lower life cycle costs. In the end, it’s up to everyone whether they choose to use green building or if sticking to more traditional building practices is in their best interest.

Works Cited

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. “Green Buildings.” Sept 28 2021. Web. Oct 17, 2024 <https://www.pnnl.gov/explainer-articles/green-buildings>.

World Green Building Council. “The Business Case for Green Building.” (2013) Web. Oct 17, 2024.

Weerasinghe, Achini Shanika, Thanuja Ramachandra, and James O. B. Rotimi. “Comparative Life-Cycle Cost (LCC) Study of Green and Traditional Industrial Buildings in Sri Lanka.” Energy and Buildings 234 (2021): 110732. Web. Oct 28, 2024.

Masood, Osama Ahmed Ibrahim, Mohamed Ibrahim Abd Al-Hady, and Ahmed Khamies Mohamed Ali. “Applying the Principles of Green Architecture for Saving Energy in Buildings.” Energy Procedia 115 (2017): 369–82. Web. Oct 2, 2024.

Nurmi Väinö, Votsis Athanasios, Perrels Adriaan, Lehvävirta Susanna. “Cost-Benefit Analysis of Green Roofs in Urban Areas: Case Study in Helsinki.” (2013) Web. Oct 19, 2024.

Widomski, Marcin K., Anna Musz-Pomorska, and Justyna Gołębiowska. “Hydrologic Effectiveness and Economic Efficiency of Green Architecture in Selected Urbanized Catchment.” Land 12.7 (2023): NA–. Web. Oct 2, 2024.

Metha, et al. “Assessment of Physiological Parameters to Determine Drought Tolerance of Plants for Extensive Green Roof Architecture in Tropical Areas.” (2020) Web.

Xuan Liang, Meng Liu & YiHong Huang. “Studying Financial Development with Low-Carbon Architecture Development and Green Technological Innovation: Sustaining SDG-9.” (2023) Web.

---

City Dwellers Cannot Not Afford Green Roofs

Modern cities are burning themselves from the inside out. Squelching heat attacks helpless newborns, business professionals in formal attire, and residents running errands. The days are getting hotter, and we are suffering.

Facing the facts, global temperatures are at an all-time high. Consequently, there has been an alarming increase in the amount of heat-related hospitalizations and deaths since 2016. Heat leads to a myriad of ailments, including heat exhaustion and dehydration. It worsens existing conditions like kidney disease and triggers health emergencies such as heart attacks and strokes. Most at risk are the vulnerable: children, the elderly, and those with existing conditions.

To illustrate the peril of city dwellers, it’s important to note that as natural climatic warming processes have combined with human actions, there has been a rise in temperatures globally. The deadliest heat is found in cities. The average city is built very densely and with little vegetation. This, in combination with the usage of synthetic materials, creates a phenomenon known as urban heat islands. These heat islands are an additional 8℉ to a staggering 18℉ warmer than the surrounding areas. Populations of these cities suffer the consequences of extreme heat yearly. This staggering issue has an effective solution: green roofs.

Green roofs are a mitigation method that has been proven to lessen the effects of urban heat islands. If hearing the phrase green roofs only brings to mind thatched roofs in a quaint English town, or intricate scientific systems constantly beeping, you can rest easy. The only requirement for a roof to be considered green is to be partially or fully covered in vegetation.

For some necessary explanation, tree enthusiast Professor Bekker of BYU explains that the environment’s cooling mechanisms are similar to our own. In hot weather, people sweat and the sun evaporates the sweat off of their skin, leaving a refreshed feeling. In nature, water from plants and trees is evaporated in the same way, through a process called evapotranspiration. After this action, the temperature of an area is decreased. When cities are built solely with artificial materials and traces of vegetation are eradicated, the area is unable to reduce heat via evapotranspiration.

Foliage on a roof combats urban heat islands. By adding vegetation to the urban landscape, nature works its superpowers to cool an area during high temperatures. In a metaphorical sense, cities can sweat again by utilizing evapotranspiration. Almost like magic, a regional application of green roofs in an area can lower temperatures in urban heat islands by up to 9℉. These lower temperatures will be a boon to all who live in cities.

However, if green roofs will greatly lessen the consequences of urbanization, why doesn’t every skyscraper have a green roof? A majority of the pushback for green roofs comes as a result of the perceived cost. To be fair, there are many elaborate green roofs with immense start-up costs as well as substantial upkeep fees. These high-reaching outliers don’t have to be the rule. Mahidol University in Thailand researched inexpensive, low-maintenance plants and found that it is more than possible to purchase and implement these plants in green roofs. Hearty plants without the need for lots of care are inexpensive and will still keep cities cooler.

Furthermore, green roofs are an investment. Having vegetation on top of a building does wonders for energy costs. Green roofs help regulate a desired temperature by providing ample insulation. This leads to warmer temperatures inside during the cool winter months and vice versa when there’s hot weather. More temperate temperatures mean a lower energy bill. Any additional costs from installing green roofs have been shown to become negated, usually within the first six years.

Ultimately, urban heat islands aren’t just a fable invented to scare adults into not idling their cars. Urbanization will continue, and the climate will keep growing warmer. Before you know it, it could be your city experiencing soaring temperatures. In a few short years, it might be your children suffering from heat stroke as they play outside. Or your elderly neighbors will have to move away to protect their health and lives. By using green roofs, we have the power to extinguish burning cities. Implementation will take time and money, but incorporating green roofs must be a priority to ensure cities are safe for people now and the generations to come.