In Seattle, Washington, the Bullitt Center generates more energy than it uses. On the opposite coast in New York City, the Bank of America tower uses far more energy per square foot than its neighboring skyscrapers. What do these two buildings — one a model of sustainability and the other a laggard — have in common? They are both deemed “green.”

The Bullitt Center in Seattle, Washington (Credit: Joe Wolf)

A 2022 literature review by Liu et al., published in the journal Sustainability, offers insight into why the range of performance of green buildings is so large. The review also makes clear the current benefits and barriers to green buildings and offers suggestions for overcoming these barriers for architects, builders, and, just as importantly, the general public.

While the review digs into the details, green buildings can be thought of as sustainable development that is mutually beneficial for humans and nature. From an environmental standpoint, green buildings conserve water and energy, minimize waste production, and reduce CO2 emissions. Because of their energy efficiency, green buildings can also reduce long-term costs, which yields economic benefits. For example, because the Bullitt Center is so energy efficient, its owners are able to sell the excess electricity it produces for profit. 

In a world where corporations have increased social responsibility, investing in green architecture can also have professional benefits for architects, developers, and builders alike. For its actual users, green buildings can be beneficial because they often have a better indoor environmental quality (IEQ). The Bullitt Center is designed to provide fresh air and natural light for its occupants, improving their health mentally and physically.

Unfortunately, the Bullitt Center is the gold standard for green buildings, not the norm. As the review article in Sustainability explains, there are several environmental, economic, societal, governmental, regulatory, and technological barriers to green architecture that must be addressed. 

These barriers help explain why the Bank of America tower didn’t live up to its green credentials. The building earned a “LEED-Platinum” certification for its innovative and sustainable design elements (i.e. rainwater capture systems and an efficient on-site power plant). However, architects and regulations didn’t account for how its users would interact with the building, in part because they had no control over it. As it turns out, almost a third of the building is devoted to trading, whose computers require an excessive amount of energy to run, heat, and cool.

In order to avoid these shortcomings and to create sustainable buildings that curb emissions rather than accelerate them, a larger, whole-systems approach to designing and regulating buildings and their systems is necessary. Both the architects and the actual users should be involved in this process.

The Bank of America Tower in New York City (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)

Liu and colleagues found that well-thought-out and well-designed sustainable buildings, like the Bullitt Center,can conserve 40% more energy than their traditional counterparts. What’s more, the life-cycle emissions (total emissions associated with the materials, production, construction, maintenance, and disposal process) of green buildings can be reduced by up to 30% using low-carbon building materials. By designing buildings to be flexible and replaceable over time, as the Bullitt Center has done, life-cycle emissions can be further improved.

Several steps are necessary to reap the benefits of green buildings and to avoid problems like those associated with the Bank of America tower. Architects must conduct more research and develop new technology to maximize the energy efficiency of buildings and its users. Part of this must include developing and standardizing a way to analyze a building’s components (i.e. materials, energy systems, floor plans, etc.) and their associated carbon impact. Doing this in collaboration with its users prior to breaking ground can help ensure lower carbon emissions.

Governments must also support new green building research and technology, offer stronger incentives for green development, and create campaigns to inform people of the associated benefits. Stronger green legislation and standards must also be implemented to account for the shortcomings of current regulations. 

With stronger standards, more Bullitt Centers can be built to support human and environmental health.