August 20, 2004—A new report by Lisa Fay Matthiessen and Peter Morris of Davis Langdon Adamson (DLA) offers compelling evidence that if there is any premium associated with building green, it is far less significant than a range of other factors that affect building cost.
The paper, “Costing Green: A Comprehensive Cost Database and Budgeting Methodology,” draws on DLAs extensive database of cost information for both LEED and non-LEED projects to compare their costs while normalizing for building type, location, and other factors. DLA, a member of Davis Langdon Seah International, specializes in cost estimating and cost management in construction, with offices in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, Seattle, and New York.
DLA maintains a database of the projects it has worked on, including information on the construction and design parameters of each of the projects. The database also tracks the LEED points being pursued, and those that are achieved, by the projects. Based on this data, the paper goes point-by-point through the LEED for New Construction version 2.1 Rating System and provides a cursory analysis of the cost implications of pursuing each point. The authors then put this analysis in the context of a broad set of cost factors:
- Demographic location
- Bidding climate and culture
- Local/regional design standards, including codes and initiatives
- Intent and values of the project
- Climate
- Timing of implementation
- Size of building
- Point synergies
Matthiessen and Morris also provide a macro-level analysis of the cost of green projects. Focusing on libraries, academic classrooms, and laboratories, they compare the cost per square foot of 45 LEED-seeking projects with 93 that are not pursuing LEED certification. They found “no statistically significant difference between the LEED population and the non-LEED population.” This finding held up within each building type as well as across the whole range of projects. Interestingly, the graphs in the report appear to indicate that cost is largely indifferent to the level of LEED certification being pursued, whether certified, silver, or gold-platinum (the latter two being combined into one group for the study).
The authors even took the step of creating LEED scorecards for the non-LEED buildings in their study, to see how they might have scored if they sought certification. They found that this control group of projects would typically have achieved between 15 and 25 pointsshy of the 26 points needed for a LEED rating.
The authors also briefly explore other ways of determining whether it costs more to build green. They found that of the LEED-seeking projects they analyzed, over half were built within a budget set without regard to any green goals. Of those that did receive added funds towards green features, those funds were usually for specific, high-cost items such as photovoltaic systems.
Matthiessen and Morris conclude that other factors affect cost so much that any possible green premium is, in effect, lost in the “noise” in relation to average cost per square foot. For additional details, download the full pape.
—From www.buildinggreen.com
