I am not a builder, but here are a few things to consider

When renovating an existing project VAT is charged at 5% for any Renewable energy projects and 17.5 % for other work. I think new builds are 0% whatever?

There are some grants available for "green building". Less in england/wales and more in scotland.

Green Buildings running costs should be alot lower then their equivelants.

Some green directions don't cost more, such as underfloor heating should cost around the same as radiators, energy saving light bulbs are very little more than standard ones and some green building is supposed to be non optional on new builds such as ventalation, insulation etc.

Does it cost more to Build Green?
Not that it guarentees a deep green building but have a look at the Cyril Sweet/BRE Report "Putting a Price on Sustainability." The documents looks at the cost impact of targeting the various standards within BREEAM. Low energy standards like PassivHaus cost 10-15% more than the current UK bargin basement design. (You should be able to get hold of a copy if your Uni has TI-One-Stop or something like it.)

Please define "project costs" surely as an designer you should try and get the client to think about whole life costs. If you suceed in this then sustainable buildings can save (and even make) money rather than cost it.

Part 3 student, where are you based?

Thanks guys. Being inexperienced I am having particular difficulty with:
"(discuss) how effectively the architect can propose, monitor and manage costs at all stages of the work".

(Studying in Portsmouth by the way)

What if the client is not the end user? Then surely he/she will not be as interested in the long-term-savings of building a sustainable building? All he/she will sees is the extra up-front extra cost for going green?

What do ya think?

Posted By: remashiachWhat if the client is not the end user? Then surely he/she will not be as interested in the long-term-savings of building a sustainable building? All he/she will sees is the extra up-front extra cost for going green?

The commercial property rental world has already seen attainable rent figures heavily affected by how 'green' an office building is, expressed (so far) as how its heating/cooling costs contribute to potential tenants' running costs. Many demolition decisions have resulted. Public building are now obliged (or soon will be?) to prominently display a certificate of energy efficiency, for all to see and judge. HIPs (Home Information Packs) incorporating an energy efficiency rating become compulsory on house sellers in July. EC is prosecuting UK for its failure to bring in a similar energy rating scheme for rented houses.

As fuel costs go through the roof (after Russia allowed the west one last winter of cheap-energy complacency - hear Putin's sabre begining to rattle now!), simultaneous with expected heating costs becoming declared info to any house buyer, watch The Mail's Personal Finance journos connect the two phenomena, watch house values begin to reflect their 'green-ness' (in terms of heating costs to begin with), and anticipate the galvanising effect that will have on the property market and upon Middle England's actions. Green-ness will have a spiraling positive value - the more ultra-green the better the energy rating, even extending to selling surplus energy back to the grid. A+++ houses will race ahead in value; properties incapable of modification to a good rating will eventually become unsaleable - another negative equity crisis. This value-divergence will apply, may even be accelerated, by the long-overdue crash (whether that comes as a traditional housing market crash, or as a general economic downturn).

So - good news and good pensions for those of us prepared to invest in A+++ energy ratings, even if the economy collapses!

I think you have hit on the problem with low minimum standards i.e. there is a tendancy to just do enough to comply which isn't enough to be sustianable. If there was no standard, then specifiers would have to use their brains a bit more and weigh up what was worth doing and what wasn't. This could work if we had a system of Tradeable Energy Quotas which effectively rationed emissions and ratcheted up the overall cost of energy each year, in a predictable fashion. You would get some, of course, who just built rubbish, but, as Tom said, this probably will not be the profit maximising approach as people become more aware of energy costs that rise relentlessly year on year. The alternative is to set the bar on energy effciency very high right now and force compliance.

On the fees point, of course the more complicated a build is, for whatever reason, the more specialist knowledge you have to buy in and the higher the overall build costs (good advice can also save money as well remember). However, I refer to my earlier point about eco-minimalism i.e. most of the energy savings come from simple things like insulation, draft proofing, choice of materials and orientation for which expensive advice need not be sought (it is set out in black and white in numerous books for those would can be bothered to read them).

Sustainability is not really about technologies, although those who sell them would perhaps say otherwise. Energy consumption has risen relentless during the last 200 years as, through advances in technology, man has found new ways of using it. We will get some real benefits from more energy efficient technologies and renewable energy technologies, but fundamentally this is about doing with less energy. The route to this is a simpler, slower pace of life where we don't consume things we don't absolutely need, don't make unnecessary journeys, accept that it is colder in winter etc. We should consider the embodied energy in the technology we install and the alternative uses of the cash we invest e.g. what is the point of spending £3k on solar hot water if you are driving a Jag or taking regular low cost flights to a holiday home in France? Spend the cash on a more fuel efficient car and taking the train when you visit the Gite - a much better use of money to save energy.

"sustainable" - able to endure for a long time. Most buildings are sustainable other then mud huts. Low carbon footprint housing, uses low energy in its construction and running and finally in its demolition and re-use of components. There is a substantial added building cost both in specialised techniques, new and not life tested components. As Architects are on a percentage of the project cost, is it in their interests to ensure the building costs fall below the clients budget limit?
Frank

Sorry I am a bit thick so I looked up sustainable in a dictionary, hence the definition. Its our way of life that is not sustainable, the amount of oil we burn, the amount of CO2 we generate etc.

Is not what I said about the Architects fees correct? years ago I was tempted to hire an Architect, he wanted 15% of the project cost ( a rather small extension), a structural engineer did my drawings for a flat fee.

frank

Frank,
Architects can be on a percentage, but they don't have to be. The architect may use a percentage in the first instance in order to derive a fee, however, once this is done the client and architect could agree on a lump sum fee i.e. a guarenteed maximum price.
On the face of it this framework could be considered to establish clear boundaries for the architect to work within, however, one of the probelms faced by an architect is that clients aspirations often far out stip the budget. It is in this respect that you have to ask, should the architect design what the client wants or what they can afford? This is never an easy dilema to address.....thus ensues the bedate. Determining the right balance between aspriation and affordability is what the architect/ client relationship is all about. If the client is experience and well informed the debate is likely to be relatively short as the cost/quality issues will be well understood. With less inexperienced les informed clients some readjustment may (is likely ) to need to take place.

Mark

Thanks for that- enhanced capital allowance? will definately look into that - will let you know if I find anything interesting.

Where u based emily?

Portsmouth.- Doing part 3 though not third year!

Posted By: Chris WardleAnother important source of savings is the removal of the need for a conventional heating system through super insulation, air tightness and heat recovery i.e. the savings on the heating system pay for the improvements to the building fabric which pay dividends in lower bills and emissions throughout the life of the building.

Sorry to wake-up an old thread but this is particularly interesting.

Is the elimination of a main heating system achievable in the South-East of England with little or no extra capital expense? How would the building costs of a conventional new build be re-diverted? I guess most is going to wall/roof insulation and low U-Value windows.

PAHS appears to unconventional to me, I was looking for a design that at least from the outside looks in some way similar to a traditional house :)

However AGS certainly looks interesting ...

http://www.greenershelter.org/images/GeoSolar3.jpg

Has anybody here actually tried it in the UK? What are the associated costs?

Is there a risk with AGS that the thermal store in effect runs out during a winter? Would this then leave you with an internal space that was extremely difficult to warm, with any extra space heating going into the ground.

Just a guess, but maybe a solution to my hypothesized problem would be to just slightly oversize the windows and add some adjustable shading. If the building turns out to be slightly too cool one winter than you have the option to reduce the shading slightly.