Assessment Of Tools For Rating The Perfomrance Of Existing Buildings

Assessment of Tools for Rating the Performance of Existing Buildings: A Report on the Options

Prepared for the GVRD by Elisa Campbell Consulting in conjunction with Innes Hood Consulting

April 2006

CONTENTS 1.0

INTRODUCTION 1.1 Document Structure 1.2 Background 1.3 Project Objectives 1.4 Project Process 1.5 Project Methodology

4

2.0

TOOLS FOR RATING THE PERFORMANCE OF BUILDINGS 2.1 What are Rating Systems? 2.2 Why use Rating Systems? 2.3 The Development of Rating Systems 2.4 How Rating Systems Support Market Transformation 2.5 Actors within Existing Commercial Building Industry 2.6 Benefits of Supporting Multiple Tools

7

3.0

SITUATION ANALYSIS: EXISTING BUILDING STOCK 3.1 Sector Profile 3.2 Commercial Building Retrofit Activity

9

4.0

SELECTING A RATING TOOL 4.1 Scoping the Options 4.2 Defining the Criteria 4.3 Evaluating the Options 4.4 Assessing the Tools

10

5.0

ASSESSMENT OF RATING TOOLS Audubon Green Leaf BOMA Go Green BOMA Go Green Plus CASBEE CHPS GBTOOL Green Guide for Health Care Green Star LABS 21 LEED-CI LEED-EB

17 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

6.0

CONCLUSIONS

42

APPENDICES Criteria for Determining Shortlist of Rating Tools Evaluation of Comprehensive List of Rating Tools

Page 2

44

Page 3

BACKGROUND

1.0

1.3 Project Objectives

Introduction 1.1

Document Structure

This Document is structured into two sections. The first provides some general background information to the project and its objectives, as well as to the concept of building rating systems more broadly. The second section provides a detailed assessment of each of the short-listed rating tools, according to the evaluation criteria listed.

1.2 Background Experience since 1993 has shown that building assessment methods offer an important tool for both promoting high performance buildings, and for increasing market demand for sustainable construction. At the 2005 World Green Building Council Congress, the mayors of fifty of the world’s largest cities signed an agreement that all new municipal buildings will be subject to green building rating systems by 2012. This event is only the latest in an exponential stream of activities that have served to transform the building delivery process over the past ten years to one that facilitates sustainable design, construction and operation. British Columbia has been at the forefront of this activity. Since 1993, when Canada’s BEPAC (Building Environmental Performance Assessment Criteria) program was developed as a way to measure the environmental performance of existing and new commercial buildings, Canadians have played a significant role in the greening of buildings. The selection of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) protocol as the appropriate building environmental assessment method for British Columbia in 2001, and the subsequent adaptation of LEED to suit first B.C., and then Canadian circumstances in 2004, played a significant role in redirecting the local and national building and development industries. The evolution of the BOMA suite of rating tools, endorsed in 2005 by Public Works and Government Services Canada, has assisted in effecting market transformation. While the focus to date has been predominantly on moderating the impact of new buildings in the commercial and institutional sectors, sufficient headway has been made to now shift the focus to transforming the stock of existing commercial buildings. Consistent with this shift, building assessment methods geared towards existing buildings have been developed. There currently exists a range of tools that permit the evaluation of the environmental performance of existing buildings. Each of these methods has similarities and differences that reflect the experience of different countries and organizations with the development and application of suitable and contextual assessment methods.

This project is intended to support the ongoing market transformation towards high performance buildings. In this context, its focus is on existing buildings in the commercial sector, and on tools that permit the rating of these buildings. The key objective of this project is not recommendation of one assessment method to use to the exclusion of the others, but rather the communication of what each rating tool can contribute individually to the collective effort to support the ongoing transformation of the building industry in Canada. For this reason, this report examines and communicates the characteristics and capabilities of a range of rating systems in order to permit different target audiences to assess their respective suitability to any given application. The scope of this document is therefore to: - review the attributes of a range of rating systems geared toward existing buildings; - understand the capabilities of each system in terms of greening the existing building stock; - provide information that allows actors in the industry to select the most appropriate system to their project needs.

1.4 Project Process A steering committee was assembled to assist in the evaluation of rating tools for existing buildings. The steering committee was initially composed of the client group (Canada Green Building Council, Greater Vancouver Regional District, Natural Resources Canada, Green Buildings BC). Additional members were identified by the client group and by the consultants. Table 1: Steering Committee Members Name

Organization

Thomas Mueller

Canada Green Building Council (CaGBC)

Orest Maslany Brian Miltimore

Green Buildings BC

Craig Shishido

Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD)

Ian Meredith

Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)

Bob Hunter

International Facility Management Association (IFMA)

Viera Veidner Craig Boyle

Public Works and Government Services Canada

Rod Yeoh

APEG-BC / ASHRAE

Karen Hearn Tom Knox

Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC)

Graeme Silvera

National Association of Institutional and Office Properties (NAIOP)

Page 4

1.5 Project Methodology

• • • • • •

The following methodology was followed to select and screen rating tools: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Identify potential rating systems Develop screening criteria for creating shortlist Create shortlist of tools to assess Conduct assessment of specified tools Ensure a comprehensive assessment

Each of these steps is described below. Identify potential Rating Tools A long list of rating tools was identified though the process of consultant experience, literature review, and Steering Committee / stakeholder input. Potential tools that were comprehensive, focused on the commercial sector, and existing buildings were highlighted. Rating tools identified for consideration included: • LEED-EB •LEED-CI • CASBEE •Green Star • NABERS •GBTool • BOMA Go Green •Boma Go Green Plus • ECO QUANTUM •ECO-PRO • HK-BREAM •BREEAM Greenleaf • TGBRS •GGHC • ECOmmodation •ISO 14000

BOMA Go Green CASBEE GBTool Green hotels LABS 21 LEED-EB

•Boma Go Green Plus •CHPS •GGHC •Green Star •LEED-CI

Conduct assessment of specified tools A comprehensive set of attributes was developed to use as a method for analysing and communicating the respective capabilities of each individual rating tool. The attributes were defined and prioritized with input from steering committee members. A listing of the attributes follows, while a detailed description of each attribute is presented on Page 14/15. Table 2: Attributes for Assessment Attribute Title a1

Target Audience / Building Type

a2

Development and Delivery

a3

Rating Approach

a4

Outputs

Develop screening criteria An initial screening of these potential tools was completed. The objective of the screening was to identify those tools of most relevance. While emphasis was in large part placed on rating systems of most relevance to the Canadian context, there was also consideration allocated for international tools that have characteristics that might be of educational value. Screening criteria were reviewed and augmented by the Steerning Committee. A brief description of each of these criteria is presented in Appendix A. Screening criteria included: • Existing • Industry Supported • Commercial /Research • Used in North America • Range of Building Types • Value Added • Ability to harmonize with other systems

a5

Costs

a6

Time on market

b1

Verification

b2

Mandatory Requirements

b3

Score

b4

External Benchmarks

b5

Baseline Model

b6

Customization

b7

Building portfolios

b8

Recertification

b9

Energy Model

c1

Comprehensiveness

c2

User-friendliness

c3

Support

Create shortlist of tools to evaluate A summary of the high level screening of the rating tools is presented in Appendix B. The consulting team completed an initial assessment, and the steering committee reviewed and finalized the selection of rating tools to be evaluated. On the basis of this screening, the following rating tools were chosen for detailed assessment:

c4

Value

c5

Education

c6

Versatility

c7

Challenge

c8

Management Tool

Page 5

Ensure a Comprehensive Assessment To ensure that the evaluation of the rating tools was comprehensive, the attributes were benchmarked relative to the quality management standards defined by ISO 9000. These principles provide a systematic and comprehensive framework to guide consistent evaluation and improved performance. The principles are derived from the collective experience and knowledge of the international experts who participate in ISO Technical Committee ISO/TC 176, Quality management and quality assurance, which is responsible for developing and maintaining the ISO 9000 standards. As can be seen based in Table 3, the attributes provide a comprehensive basis for assessing the rating tools. Table 3: Rating Tool Evaluation Criteria Goal

Rationale for Goal

Attribute

Customer focus

Organizations depend on their customers and therefore should understand current and future customer needs, should meet customer requirements and strive to exceed customer expectations.

• • •

Target Audience / Building Type Outputs Costs

Leadership

Leaders establish unity of purpose and direction of the organization. They should create and maintain the internal environment in which people can become fully involved in achieving the organization’s objectives.

• • •

Basis of Comparison Utility as Design Tool Comprehensiveness

Involvement of people

People at all levels are the essence of an organization and their full involvement enables their abilities to be used for the organization’s benefit.

• • •

User-friendliness Versatility / Flexibility Practicality

Process approach

A desired result is achieved more efficiently when activities and related resources are managed as a process.

• •

Ability to educate Level of Challenge / Encouragement of Innovation

System approach to management

Identifying, understanding and managing interrelated processes as a system contributes to the organization’s effectiveness and efficiency in achieving its objectives .

• • •

Value of Certification Flexibility to choose levels of performance Feedback Provided

Continual improvement

Continual improvement of the organization’s overall performance should be a permanent objective of the organization.

• •

Time on Market Ability to Evolve

Factual approach to decision making

Effective decisions are based on the analysis of data and information

•

Tool Developer / Delivery Agent / Partners Rating Approach Verification of Results

Mutually beneficial supplier relationships

An organization and its suppliers are interdependent and a mutually beneficial relationship enhances the ability of both to create value

Page 6

• • • •

Balance between performance and prescription Level of Support

2.0 Tools for Rating the Performance of Buildings 2.1 What are Rating Systems? Building rating systems represent key tools to evaluate and compare green buildings. They provide systematic frameworks for specifying performance criteria, thereby enabling actors in the building industry to be more measured and accurate about the movement towards more sustainable forms of designing, constructing and operating buildings.

BREEAM Green Leaf that characterized this change. A key focus has now become that of existing buildings, as represented by the popularity of the BOMA Go Green tools. As will be dicussed further on, it is the existing building segment that stands to have a significant role to play in reducing the overall impact of buildings on the environment.

Table 4: Development of Building Rating Tools • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

The key advantage of rating systems is that they are a tool that provides credible frameworks for specifying and achieving high performance buildings.

2.2 Why use Rating Systems? Building rating systems fulfill a number of important roles. While they essentially provide a standard for what systems, materials and strategies can help make a building green, they are also key tools for using the market to increase demand for high performance buildings. They provide a means for a building owner or tenant to ask for a green building, and to compare the green-ness of their building choices. At another level, organizations working to effect market transformation can use building rating systems as a tool for specifying minimum performance levels, and to create an industry standard that is above and beyond what is required by code. They help to increase a broader understanding of the impact buildings have on our society, and they provide a means for dissseminating information on how to reduce these impacts. For those who are charged with operationalizing the movement towards high performance buildings, building rating systems help to structure the thought process, and help to keep issues at the top of the priority list that might not have been given serious consideration otherwise. They can serve to offer structured advice, including goals, strategies, and actions that are suitable for improving performance. Finally, building rating systems have created a market in part by virtue of the standardized recognition they permit, thereby enabling owners, developers and professionals to gain credit, awards, and other marketing outputs.

2.3 The Development of Rating Systems

Building rating systems have existed as a tool to effect change for the past fifteen years. Initially they were focused on new buildings, and were represented by various protocols around the world. While rating systems have been popular in Europe since the early 90’s, it was in the later 1990’s in Canada that the exponential transformation of the building industry commenced. It was the widespread acceptance of LEED, BREEAM Canada /

1990 1993 1996 1993 1998 1998 1998 2001 2002 2002 1993 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004

– BREEAM UK released – BEPAC developed – BREEAM Canada introduced – BEPAC developed – BREEAM/Green Leaf developed – GBTool-1 applied – LEED-NC launched – LEED-BC recommendation – CHPS operational – LABS 21 available – BEPAC developed – Green Star introduced – BOMA Go Green launched – LEED Canada operational – BOMA Go Green Plus released - CASBEE disseminated – GreenGuide for Health Care piloted - LEED-CI , LEED-EB launched

2.4 How Rating Systems Support Market Transformation One definition of market transformation is “the reduction of barriers to cause lasting changes in the structure of a market, or the behaviour of market participants, resulting in accelerated market adoption”1 of the desired product. In other words, market transformation is the process of intervening to change customer behaviour. In the case of the building industry, the desired end state is to ensure that the market demands buildings that are high performance, or green. The intent of a market transformation initiative is to accelerate the natural growth of the technology or approach, and to increase the overall market demand for it. Over time, the typical market transformation objectives and intervention tools evolve. Markets can be considered as moving towards technologies that provide a net increase in social welfare. But occasionally market dynamics are not sufficient to reach a desired objective that is considered to be in the greater social interest. In these cases, barriers and/or failures prevent the markets from achieving that societal objective. Market Transformation: Accelerating market adoption of energy efficient products in Canada. Natural Resources Canada, Navigant Consulting Inc. 1

Page 7

Rating tools for assessing the performance of buildings can therefore be considered as a “technology” thatcan help transform the building industry towards higher performance buildings that minimize impacts on the environment, optimize economic, and ensure achievement of social goals and quality of life. They are an important market-based tool for transforming the building industry, raising consumer awareness and stimulating competition and dialogue.

2.6 Benefits of Supporting Multiple Tools While LEED has in many ways become an industry standard in the United States, other countries, including Canada, have acknowledged the value of having more than one rating system available as a tool to be used. This report supports this perspective, and is focused on an assessment of a wide range of rating systems in order to facilitate the application of a number of tools in the marketplace. A range of benefits have been identified that support the endorsement of multiple rating tools3. In particular:

2.5 Actors within Existing Commercial Building Industry Understanding the potential role of rating tools within this sector is closely linked to understanding the nature of the people who would be using the tools, and what their needs are. The following table outlines the range of target audiences for rating tools, and emphasizes what needs are associated with each of these actors.

•

•

A range of tools are already in use in the market place. These tools are complementary, and, suitably positioned, may transform the market more successfully than reliance on a single tool. The market is not likely to be confused by the presence of multiple tools.

Table 5: Needs of End Users of Rating Tools

Actor

Design Best resource practice guide

Audit tool

Monitor

Market Transfor mation

Property manager Property owner Design professional Operations staff Supplier Progam Administrator Tenant As is evident, the use of rating systems as a mechanism for providing best practices is a need shared by many of the actors in the existing building industry. Design professionals and tenants require tools to use as a design resource, and often as a mechanism for monitoring performance. It is the owners and property managers that rely on building rating tools to facilitate auditing and monitoring, as these functions feed into roles related to ongoing operations. At the level of consciously effecting market transformation, it is the program administrators who rely on the rating tools to play a direct role in changing behaviour. What becomes clear is that within the existing building industry there are a range of phases of building / operations, and there are a range of actors. Because of this diversity, it is inappropriate to consider that one tool alone would satisfy the needs sufficiently. For this reason, multiple tools are necessary.

• • •

Building certification is only one of the potential values and benefits of rating tools. No one tool or system should be expected to meet the full range of needs of the building community. The range of groups, budget, knowledge and interest is addressed by the presence of multiple tools.

The ultimate system is likely to be a harmonized set of tools with horizontal integration to meet the requirements of a range of different building types, as well as vertical integration to meet the requirements of different client groups, budgets, knowledge and interest levels. 3

ECD Energy and Environment Canada LEED Canada Adaptation and BREEAM/Green Leaf Harmonization Studies, Part III, BREEAM Green Leaf Harmonization Study, Feb 2002

Page 8

3.0 Situation Analysis: Existing Building Stock

3.2 Commercial Building Retrofit Activity

3.1 Sector Profile It is estimated that at least 65% of the building stock in 2030 will be comprised of buildings built before 2005. Therefore, market transformation of the existing commercial sector represents a significant opportunity .

An extensive retrofit industry already exists for commercial and institutional buildings. While information on types of retrofit activity is limited, a recent survey was completed and identified the following trends: •

Overall, 11% of a random sample of 3,151 buildings underwent retrofits in 2000, and 22.4% underwent retrofits in the preceding five years. Within this sample, just over 50% of the buildings are between 1,000 and 10,000 square feet (100-1,000 square metres), while a further 35% range in size between 10,000 and 50,000 square feet (1,000 -5,000 sqaure metres).

•

In general, the proportion of buildings undertaking retrofits, both in 2000 and in earlier years, increases as the size of the building increases, with almost 50% of buildings exceeding 500,000 square feet (50,000 square metres) being retrofitted in 2000 and over 75% being retrofitted in 1995-1999.

•

Over 75% of the buildings are privately owned, but nonprofit and government buildings are the most likely to undergo energy-related renovations.

Figure 1: Commercial Floor-space in Canada, by Segment1

•

1990-2003: Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). June 2005. Energy Use Data Handbook: 1990 and 1997 to 2003. http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/ corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/data_e/handbook05/index.cfm?attr=0 2005-2030: Forecast assuming same proportion of building types in 2030 as in 2003 and using sector growth rate past 2003 from: Marbek Resource Consultants study for the Canadian Gas Association. 2005. Energy Demand-side Management Potential in Canada.

Older buildings (pre-1994) are more likely to be retrofitted, while those with electricity as the main heating source (25% of the sample) are the least likely to undergo this process.

•

Of the buildings that undertook any type of retrofit in 2000, over 60% reported that their retrofit involved only one component.

Ultimately, one of the primary goals of building rating systems is to reduce resource consumption and operating expenditures from buildings. Through an improved understanding of the building stock and associated resource consumption, it is possible to focus program activity on the most significant drivers. Figure 1 profiles the commercial building stock over the period 1990-2030. In 2003, it is estimated there was a total of 550 million square meters of commercial and institutional floor area in Canada. As can be seen, educational services, offices and retail trade make up almost 70% of commercial floor area. Therefore, in terms of achieving significant environmental impacts, a focus on those commercial segments is key.

1

Page 9

•

1

The four main retrofit packages each involved only one component – heating equipment, other, lighting systems, and ventilation or air conditioning equipment – although the fifth main retrofit package (accounting for almost 7% of buildings retrofitted in 2000) involved both heating and ventilation systems. 1

www.ualberta.ca/~cbeedac/newsletter/documents/spring-04b1.pdf

3.3 Building Operating Costs A breakdown of building operation costs is summarised in Figure 21 for private sector office buildings in Canada. On average, building operation costs are approximately $79.19/sq m. Of this, the largest portion representing 28% is attributable to energy costs. Ongoing repair costs and administration costs are also significant. From a program perspective, understanding how rating tools can contribute to a reduction of these operating costs is critical and requires further analysis. 1

Ref BOMA 2004 Experience Exchange Report, Pg 484.

4.0

Selecting a Rating Tool

4.1 Scoping the Options As described previously, there are a range of tools pertinent to the existing commercial building stock. The intent of this document is to facilitate the decision-making process related to which specific rating tool to use in any given circumstance. All of these tools are pertinent to a range of actors within the industry, and all of the tools have a role to play in terms of supporting market transformation. That being said, one or another of the tools will most likely be more appropriate to a specific actor for a specific project. Key to selecting the best tool for a specific building and /or project is to start by clearly defining what you are trying to achieve, what your needs are, and what is important to you. As FIgure 3: Decision Tree for Selecting Tools demonstrates, reviewing the detailed assessment of each rating tool will ultimately not be useful until this initial step is conducted.

Figure 2: Building Operating Costs

Page 10

Figure 3: Decision Tree for Selecting Tools

Page 11

4.2 Defining the Criteria

4.3 Evaluating the Alternatives

Once a high-level review of the options has been conducted, it is possible to examine the alternative rating systems which are appropriate to the needs. In this context, there are a range of key questions which can be asked when considering a rating tool and its pertinence. Table 6: Key Questions (Criteria) to Consider

The final step is to review the range of appropriate tools, and keeping these key questions (criteria) in mind, to evaluate the possible alternatives. Indeed, because these are the key questions, they have been transformed in this report into the attributes through which each of the rating tools are assessed and described in the next section.

1

□ □ □

What is the range of actors that will use and apply the tool? What specific types of buildings does the tool focus on? What part of the retrofit / renovation process does the tool target?

2

□ □

What organizations developed and administer the program, or have been involved in its creation / delivery? What organizations support and or endorse the tool?

3

□ □

What is the main type of scoring system used by tool (aggregated points, comparative performance, best practices)? Who is charged with conducting the scoring?

4

□ □

What materials are created in the process of rating performance? How is performance communicated and marketed?

5

□ □ □

What are the costs of preparing an assessment? What are the costs of having an assessment reviewed? What are the cost implications of an assessment on building design?

6

□ □ □

When was the tool was created? How long was the pilot phase? How long has the tool been used in the industry?

7

□ □ □

What is range of building performance aspects that are covered? What scope of environmental issues does the tool cover? How extensively does the tool cover strategies for achieving desired performance levels?

8

□ □ □ □ □

How easy is the tool to adopt and implement? How easy is it (real and perceived) to conduct an assessment? How easy is it to access and understand the results? How quickly does the learning curve taper off? What is the time required to gather data and conduct an assessment?

9

□ □ □ □ □

What level of organizational infrastructure is provided by the tool’s administrators? How much supporting information is provided? Does support result in additional costs? How much feedback is provided during the analysis and submission phases? How is feedback provided?

10

□ □ □ □

What is the perceived value to different actors? What kind of market recognition is offered for certification? Does the tool result in awards? How does use of the tool impact on the triple bottom line?

11

□ □ □ □

Do the inputs and outputs of the tool serve as an educational tool about environmental issues? Does the tool communicate emerging concerns and issues? How transparent is the process and the results? Can outputs represent stand-along materials for education of a broader audience?

Page 12

4.4 Assessing the Rating Tools Table 7 lays out the attributes that are assessed for each of the tools. Consistent with the different kinds of information, the layout is intended to clearly articulate the characteristics of each respective tool, and to provide a level of specificity of information that permits a decision to be made about which tool best suits the given situation. The attributes through which the rating systems are assessed have been classified into three arenas: the first (A) are those which are factual, and can be considered in a descriptive way; the second (B) are those which can be answered fairly easily in a “yes / no” manner; and the third (C) are those which can be described in terms of magnitude of achievement along with a description of the graphic rating. These ratings are broad-brushed, and are simply intended to give a quick sense of whether achievement is low, medium or high in the given attribute areas. Table 8 demonstrates the methodology used to determine the “C” attribute ratings. Table 7: Attributes Assessed for Rating Tools A=

Title

Key Question

Sub-Questions

a1

Target Audience / Building Type

What building type(s) and audience does the tool target?

What is the range of actors that will use and apply the tool? What specific types of buildings does the tool focus on? What part of the retrofit / renovation process does the tool target?

a2

Development and Delivery

Who directed the develoment and administers the delivery of the tool?

What organizations developed and administer the program, or have been involved in its creation / delivery? What organizations support and or endorse the tool?

a3

Rating Approach

What system does the tool use to rate performance?

What is the main type of scoring system used by tool (aggregated points, comparative performance, best practices)? Who is charged with conducting the scoring?

a4

Outputs

What are the outputs produced by the tool?

What materials are created in the process of rating performance? How is performance communicated and marketed?

a5

Costs

What are the direct costs of the tool?

What are the costs of preparing an assessment? What are the costs of having an assessment reviewed? What are the cost implications of an assessment on building design?

a6

Time on market

How long has the tool been operational?

When was the tool was created? How long was the pilot phase? How long has the tool been used in the industry?

B=

Title

Key Question

Response

b1

Verification

Are the results of an assessment verified by an objective, certified third party?

Y/N

b2

Mandatory Requirements

Does the tool include mandatory requirements?

Y/N

b3

Score

Does the tool result a single overall score or label?

Y/N

b4

External Benchmarks

Does the tool reference external benchmarks?

Y/N

b5

Baseline Model

Does the tool require a baseline model?

Y/N

b6

Customization

Does the tool permit customization to different situations and circumstances?

Y/N

b7

Building portfolios

Can the tool be applied to portfolios of buildings?

Y/N

b8

Recertification

Does the tool require regular recertification?

Y/N

b9

Energy Model

Does the tool require an energy model?

Y/N

Page 13

Table 7: Attributes Assessed for Rating Tools (cont.) C=

Title

Key Question

Sub-Questions

c1

Comprehensiveness

How comprehensive is the tool?

What is range of building performance aspects that are covered? What scope of environmental issues does the tool cover? How extensively does the tool cover strategies for achieving desired performance levels?

c2

User-friendliness

How user friendly is the tool?

How easy is the tool to adopt and implement? How easy is it (real and perceived) to conduct an assessment? How easy is it to access and understand the results? How quickly does the learning curve taper off? What is the time required to gather data and conduct an assessment?

c3

Support

How much feedback and support is offered for the tool?

What level of organizational infrastructure is provided by the tool’s administrators? How much supporting information is provided? Does support result in additional costs? How much feedback is provided during the analysis and submission phases? How is feedback provided?

c4

Value

What is the value of certification?

What is the perceived value to different actors? What kind of market recognition is offered for certification? Does the tool result in awards? How does use of the tool impact on the triple bottom line?

c5

Education

How does the tool provide / support education?

Do the inputs and outputs of the tool serve as an educational tool about environmental issues? Does the tool communicate emerging concerns and issues? How transparent is the process and the results? Can outputs represent stand-along materials for education of a broader audience?

c6

Versatility

How versatile is the tool?

How adaptable is the tool to local conditions? Is the tool applicable to a range of building types? Is the tool useful to a range of actors / needs withint the retrofit / renovation process? Does the tool have a balance between performance and prescription?

c7

Challenge

How rigorous is the tool?

Does the tool push the envelope well beyond code and / or standard performance? Is there a broad performance spectrum permitted within the tool? Does the tool require verification of results by a third party?

c8

Management Tool

Does the tool align with management responsibilities?

Does the tool align with job responsibilities? Does the tool support a management plan? Can the tool guide management towards achievement of high performance buildings? Does the tool permit an analysis of portfolios of buildings?

Page 14

Table 8:Criteria for Determining Ratings for “C” Attributes ATTRIBUTE LOW Comprehensiveness

User-Friendliness

Support

Value

HIGH

Cursory treatment of strategies

Detailed treatment of strategies

Light coverage of issues

Inclusion of broad range of issues

Low depth of coverage

Different parameters included for each issue

Results confusing

Results easy to understand

Assessment difficult to conduct

Assessment easy to conduct

Lack of templates or standard approach

Templates easy to use

Level of effort high

Time and costs not onerous

Input / information provided periodically

Fast access to input / information

Feedback provided at end

Feedback provided during analysis

Assistance dependent on hiring professionals

Assistance in identifying and selecting strategies

Low market recognition

Wide recognition by market

Costs exceed return on investment

Process affordable to undergo

Impact on market transformation low

Resultant bottom line savings substantial Measurable change encouraged by techniques

Education

Information not embedded in material

Emerging issues / concerns included

Too academic to support broad understanding

Transparent enough to aid behavioural change

Explanations of rationale not robust

Raises awareness about going beyond standard Provides details necessary to incur innovation

Versatility

Applicable to narrow audience / sector

Can be adapted to regional / other circumstances

Does not allow for regional differentiation

Allows different levels of achievement

Difficult to link to other tools

Is applicable to range of audiences Can link to other tools

Challenge

Performance standards not included

Level of rigour is high

Results in limited change over the norm

Goes substantially beyond conventional

Certification possible without broad coverage of issues

Provides incentives to do more Keeps key issues as priority Breadth of activities required

Management Tool

Adds extra layers to job responsibilities

Aligns with job responsibilities

Does not support management plan

Fits within management plan

Applicable to individual buildings only

Supports portfolios of buildings

Does not inform design / operation process

Helps prioritize strategies

Page 15

Page 16

Page 17

ASSESSMENT OF RATING T OOLS

5.0

Assessment of Rating Tools

The following section contains the detailed assessment of each rating tool shortlisted through the project methodology. As mentioned previously, the layout is intended to clearly articulate the characteristics of each respective tool, and to provide a level of specificity of information that permits a decision to be made about which tool best suits the given situation. The intent is to permit different target audiences to assess their respective suitability to any given application. The table below provides a summary of the “B” and “C” attributes as assessed on the following pages. Table 9: Summary Table of “B” and “C” Attributes

Attribute

Audubon Green Leaf

BOMA Go Green

BOMA Go Green Plus

CASBEE

CH

b1

Verification

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

N

b2

Mandatory Requirements

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Y

b3

Score

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Y

b4

External Benchmarks

No

No

Yes

No

Y

b5

Baseline Model

No

No

No

No

Y

b6

Customization

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Y

b7

Building portfolios

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Y

b8

Recertification

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

N

b9

Energy Model

No

No

No

Y

c1

Comprehensiveness

Medium

High

High

High

H

c2

User-friendliness

High

High

High

Medium

c3

Support

Medium

Medium

High

High

L

c4

Value

High

Medium

High

High

Me

c5

Education

High

Low

High

High

Me

c6

Versatility

Medium

Medium

High

High

L

c7

Challenge

Low

Low

Medium

High

Me

c8

Management Tool

High

High

High

Medium

Me

Page 18

Me

HPS

GB Tool

Green Guide for Health GreenStar LABS21 Care

LEED-CI

LEED-EB

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

N/A

No

No

No

N/A

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

High

High

High

High

High

Medium

High

edium

Low

Medium

Medium

Medium

Medium

Medium

Low

Low

Low

Medium

Medium

High

High

edium

Medium

Medium

High

Medium

High

Medium

edium

High

Medium

Medium

Medium

Medium

Medium

Low

High

Low

Medium

Low

Medium

Medium

edium

High

High

High

Medium

Medium

Medium

edium

Low

High

Medium

Low

Medium

Medium

Page 19

RATING SYSTEM:

AUDUBON GREEN LEAF

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

Audubon Green Leaf is an eco-rating program developed for the hospitality sector. The program is focused on encouraging the hotel industry to improve their environmental commitment while simultaneously demonstrating the eco-effiiciency advantages of doing so. It aims to provide assurance that audited facilities meet environmental best practice standards, allowing people to understand the extent of the measures undertaken to improve a hotel’s environmental performance.

TA RG E T AU D I E N C E / BUILDING TYPE

Audubon Green Leaf is targeted specifically at the accommodations aspect of the hospitality industry. It includes functions that target the owners and operators of hotels, as well as providing travellers with access to a verified environmental ‘seal of approval’ for hotels they stay at.

DEVELOPMENT & D E L I V E RY

The program was developed by TerraChoice Environmental Marketing in 1997 with the Hotel Association of Canada. In 2004 it partnered with Audubon to continue to deliver the program. Available throughout North America and internationally, the program is managed by TerraChoice, a Canadian company that is a leader in delivering eco-rating programs of various types.

R AT I N G A P P ROAC H

There are two levels to Green Leaf. The firstprovides materials that result in increased awareness and understanding of the issues.. The second level entails a full audit of a hotel’s operations in relation to best practices, as well as a rating of one to five green leafs (one for a minimum of devising and committing to a set of environmental policies and principles; and two through five for results achieved by applying those principles), and a report that details how to get to the next level of performance.

OUTPUTS

Outputs include individualized reports that provide specific guidance on opportunities in a range of resource areas, as well as checklist-based self-assessment reports. The facility can then display the number of Green Leafs it has received as a rating. Facilities earning at least four Green Leafs are eligible to apply for Environment Canada’s EcoLogo.

COSTS

TIME ON MARKET

F O R I N F O R M AT I O N

Verification?

Annual fees vary based on size of facility.

Initially developed in 1997 by TerraChoice, the program was enhanced by partnership with Audubon International in 2004.

www.terrachoice.ca

Y N

Score? A rating of 1-5 Green Leafs is provided.

Terra Choice conducts independent verification of assessment results, as well as periodic spot checks. Mandatory requirements?

Y N

Y N

External benchmarks?

Certain minimum best practices must be in place in order to achieve Green Leafs. The adoption of any one, individual practice is not required though; the achieved score is cumulative.

Page 20

Y

N

COMPREHENSIVENESS

The rating is based on a survey questionnaire that is filled out by the hotel and independently verified. It includes energy efficiency, resource conservation, pollution prevention and environmental management.

USER-FRIENDLINESS

The program is tailored to easy fulfillment of the certification process. A survey questionnaire is filled out with questions requiring simple responses. Following this, TerraChoice scores the survey, and returns it with a technical report outlining methods for improving results. Finally, an independent audit is performed.

SUPPORT

Through the provision of the technical report, and the final audit, much of the work is done by TerraChoice. However, there is very little online information that supports the process, and the process is iterative as opposed to dynamic.

VA L U E

Significant marketing is conducted to communicate Green Leaf hotels, ensuring that an important by-product of running the program is the attraction of travellers. The program is also very good at showing how the rating can translate into savings in operating costs.

E D U C AT I O N

Using the best practice model, the program attempts to ensure that a major focus is on educating hotel/motel owners and operators about how to improve the performance of their facility. Not a lot is done to communicate to the travelling audience what specific best practices the Green Leafs are associated with.

V E R S AT I L I T Y

The program is directed solely to the accommodation sector. It is flexible given its focus on a best practice approach -- ratings are based only on services and circumstances associated with the property in question. This being said, the Green Leafs concept has been successfully applied to other commercial sectors.

CHALLENGE

The best practices are fairly easy to implement, and are not related to specific performance targets. For example, rather than specifying overall energy performance, the practices ask that lightbulbs be changed to preferred eco-efficient models. The overall rating does not demand an enormous amount beyond code.

MANAGEMENT TOOL

The program is very focused on providing information and recommendations in a way that is directly applicable to an owner or operators responsibilities. The requirements are broken down in a way that leads to direct action (see the lightbulb example above) rather than the need to determine actions to achieve a prescribed goal.

Low

Baseline / energy model?

Customization?

High

Y

N

Building portfolios?

Recertification? Annual fee required.

Y N

The rating is related only to the services provided by the hotel.

Y

N

Y N

Audubon GreenLeaf Page 21

RATING SYSTEM:

BOMA GO GREEN

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The BOMA Go Green Environmental Certification program is a voluntary program designed for existing or occupied buildings. It is offered by BOMA Canada as a service to all member and non-member commercial building owners. The tool is being marketed nationally, however, BOMA Go Green has been used mostly in Vancouver, Calgary and Montreal, with little exposure in other locations in the country.

TA RG E T AU D I E N C E / BUILDING TYPE

BOMA Go Green targets institutional and commercial sectors, with a key focus on the office and retail segments. As the tool was developed by the Building Owners and Managers Association, the tool has been designed to specifically target building owners, managers and operators.

DEVELOPMENT & D E L I V E RY

The tool was developed in British Columbia by the Building Owners and Managers Association of BC (BOMA BC). BOMA GO Green was initially delivered only through BOMA BC, but is now directed and administered by Building Owners and Managers Association of Canada (BOMA Canada). Delivered by BOMA local associations across the country.

R AT I N G A P P ROAC H

BOMA Go Green utilises “best practices” as defined by a survey of the commercial building industry. These best practices cover energy use,water use, construction was te,recycling,hazardous materials,material selection,ozone depleting substances,indoor air quality, HVAC maintenance, communication program.

OUTPUTS

A series of audits and management plans are generated in each of the issue areas described above. Upon successful application a decal and GoGreen designation is provided to the applicant.

COSTS

Costs range from $750 - $3,500 depending on size of building or number of buildings in an office park. Fees are higher for applicants who are not BOMA members.

TIME ON MARKET

BOMA Go Green has been operating since 2003 in British Columbia. It is now being rolled out as a national program.

F O R I N F O R M AT I O N

Verification?

www.bomagogreen.com www.bomacanada.org

Y N

Score?

Y

N

Application is completed by building management. BOMA certifies accuracy with walk-through.

The system uses a pass or fail approach.

Y N Mandatory requirements? Mandatory audits and a written management plan are required in each issue area. All ten best practices must be addressed.

External benchmarks? Y N There are no standardized benchmarks used to define the requirements of the audits or management plans.

Page 22

BOMA Go Green is comprehensive in terms of breadth but less so in terms of depth. While Go Green covers a broad range of aspects, the level of detail and the performance expectations is left to the individual user.

COMPREHENSIVENESS

The tool is easy to implement, but does not have the ability to be customised. The tool is simple to use and understand. The time requirements to conduct the necessary audits may be relatively short.

USER-FRIENDLINESS

SUPPORT

Go Green documentation provides information on program requirements, recommended practices and documentation requirements. Target user is building manager, therefore, the requirements are integrated into their work environment.

VA L U E

The value includes cost savings, enhanced envirnomental performance, and peer recognition. Cost savings have been profiled and demonstrated. By structuring Go Green as a system of pass or fail, it does not permit third parties to assess whether one rated building performs better than another rated building.

E D U C AT I O N

The tool provides a high level assessment of environmental issues and opportunities, thus providing education to the user.

V E R S AT I L I T Y

The tool is primarily focused on the office sector, and was originally designed and piloted in BC. However, Go Green has now gone national and is providing ratings across the country.

CHALLENGE

BOMA Go Green uses “best practices” as defined by industry experts. No additional recognition is provided for innovation. A common criticism of BOMA Go Green is that the best practices represent a minimum level of performance and the tool does not encourage performance that exceeds it.

MANAGEMENT TOOL

The target user for Go Green is the building operator and is aligned with his/her reponsibilities. Further, the tool was designed with input of the target users, and therefore it is structured with that user group specifically in mind.

Low

High

Baseline / energy model?

Y

N

Building portfolios? There is a reduced price for office parks.

Customization?

Y

N

Recertification? Y Recertification is required every three years.

Y N

N

BOMA Go Green Page 23

RATING SYSTEM:

GO GREEN PLUS

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

BOMA Go Green Plus (formerly Go Green Comprehensive) is the newest element of the Go Green program. Based on the Green Globes web-based assessment tool, Go Green Comprehensive adds a more in-depth benchmarking tool to Go Green’s best practices model. Go Green Plus uses an on-line audit tool for assessing and rating buildings against best practice, industry standards, and general concepts underlying green buildings.

TA RG E T AU D I E N C E / BUILDING TYPE

BOMA Go Green Plus is an industry developed national environmental recognition and certification program for existing commercial buildings. While designed primarily for office buildings, Go Green Plus is being used for institutional, industrial, and retail properties.

DEVELOPMENT & D E L I V E RY

BOMA Go Green Plus is directed and administered by Building Owners and Managers Association of Canada (BOMA Canada). The verification process is delivered by BOMA local associations across the country. Based on Green Globes Assessment Tool.

R AT I N G A P P ROAC H

Builds on 10 best practice requirements of Go Green and drills down into additional depth, adding a benchmarking tool for each requirement. The Report gives an overall percentage rating. Buildings must achieve at least 70% to be certified, and receive a pass or fail score.

OUTPUTS

Comprehensive report that measures the performance of each building based on the ten requirements, and that identifies strengths, weaknesses, and areas for potential savings. Recognition signage and materials (including a certificate of achievement) aer provided for display at the site.

COSTS

Costs range from $1,500 to $7,000 depending on the size of the building, or the number of buildings in an office park. The fees are higher for applicants who are not BOMA members.

TIME ON MARKET

May 2005, as a development from BOMA Go Green (which was launched in January 2004).

F O R I N F O R M AT I O N

Verification?

www.bomagogreen.com www.bomacanada.org

Y N

Score?

Y N

A verifier authorized by BOMA conducts a site review to ensure conformity.

A score is provided, although certification is either pass or fail.

Y N Mandatory requirements? Improvements in energy performance may be required as a condition for maintaining certification.

Y N External benchmarks? References CBIP requirements. Is more focused, however, on leveraging each building’s strengths.

Page 24

Low

COMPREHENSIVENESS

Includes fairly standard coverage of a wide range of issues, including such aspects as noise. Light coverage in areas of environmental impact.

USER-FRIENDLINESS

The dynamic on-line tool asks directed questions, and then generates a report that includes recommendations, sources of information, preliminary modelling results, etc. The comments and input are generated on-the-fly by the tool.

SUPPORT

Support is provided through the use of the on-line tool, and therefore is ongoing and unlimited.

VA L U E

Provides good value in terms of tenant health, comfort and productivity. Provides recognizable label.No studies yet on whether premiums are required.

E D U C AT I O N

The online tool and report provides a detailed range of information and links specifically directed towards possible strategies for inclusion.

V E R S AT I L I T Y

Because the emphasis is on leveraging the value of each building, a fair amount of versatility is provided in terms of strategies, best practices, and so on. The on-line tool includes examples of best practices that allow the applicant to choose those that best suit the situation.

CHALLENGE

Program measures each building’s environmental factors such as energy use, indoor health and environmental performance against the existing best industry operation and management practices.

MANAGEMENT TOOL

Is developed to allow for the development of action plans to achieve savings on resource consumption costs and through waste management.

High

Baseline / energy model? Y N A baseline model is not required, although audits are called for. A preliminary CBIP rating (compliance path) is automatically generated based on report inputs. Customization? Y N

Building portfolios? Y N Portfolios of buildings can be assessed, although the focus in this regard is on office parks. Buildings on other multi-building complexes must be certified individually. Recertification? Y N Certification is valid for three years from date of application. Certification applies to the building, so does not change with ownership transfer.

Go Green Plus Page 25

RATING SYSTEM:

CASBEE (EXISTING BUILDING)

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environment Efficiency, or CASBEE, is a suite of assessment tools for the various phases of the building being evaluated: planning, design, completion, operation, and renovation. It also adopts an environmental efficiency approach, by providing results that are based on the quality of environmental performance, divided by the environmental load.

TA RG E T AU D I E N C E / BUILDING TYPE

This assessment tool targets the existing building stock, based on operation records for at least one year after completion. It was developed to be applicable to asset assessment as well. It can be used to generate proposals for building operation monitoring, commissioning and upgrade design with a view to ESCO (Energy Service Company) projects, which will be increasingly important in future, and for building stock renovation. This tool is designed for ascertaining the degree of improvement (increased BEE), relative to the level that preceded renovation. Labeling is also possible by thirdparty agencies.

DEVELOPMENT & D E L I V E RY

Research and development of CASBEE has been carried out as a cooperative project between industry, government and academia with the assistance of Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. Newly-formed Japan Sustainable Building Consortium and affiliated sub-committees provide overall management of CASBEE,

R AT I N G A P P ROAC H

The assessment result is communicated in terms of an equation: BEE=Q/L. Building environmental efficiency is equal to building environmental quality and performance divided by building environmental loadings. The numeric score is translated to a chart, which results in a letter rating (Class S, which is excellent, to Class C, which is poor).

OUTPUTS

Comprehensive report that measures the performance of each building based on the ten requirements, and that identifies strengths, weaknesses, and areas for potential savings.

COSTS

TIME ON MARKET

F O R I N F O R M AT I O N

Verification?

Disseminated for use in June 2004.

www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english

Y N

Score?

Verification can be provided, although typically the tool is used to improve performance. Some municipalities are mandating its use. Mandatory requirements?

Y N

Scores are given on program areas and then translated into an overall number. The final score is associated with poor to excellent designations.

Y N

External benchmarks?

Page 26

Y

N

Low

COMPREHENSIVENESS

Includes detailed coverage of a wide range of criteria, and allows for extension of these to scales broader than building alone.

USER-FRIENDLINESS

A fairly mathematical approach is used, which can be confusing in the process. However worksheets are simpler, and the final result is easy to understand.

SUPPORT

Support is provided through the use of the on-line tool, and therefore is ongoing and unlimited.

VA L U E

It is mandatory for building permit applicants (larger than 2000m2) in Nagoya, Osaka, Yokohama to submit the assessed data, part of which is to be disclosed on the website of local government.

E D U C AT I O N

Outputs are provided in a standardized, yet graphical way that is educational and indicates broader impact of performance.

V E R S AT I L I T Y

Can be applied to range of different buildings, regions, scales, and the synergy between different tools in the suite is strong.

CHALLENGE

CASBEE includes a broad range of categories, and has many sub-areas under each category. The level of rigour is very good, and weightings are included that ensure a suitable mix of effort.

MANAGEMENT TOOL

CASBEE is designed to support the management of assets, although the structure of the inputs and outputs are not closely aligned with typical job reponsibilities. High

Baseline / energy model? Y N Models are required for an evaluated building and a standard building so that comparisons can be done.

Building portfolios? Multiple projects can be evaluated.

Y N Customization? Scores are relative to a standard building, which can be selected to reflect the regional circumstances within which the assessed building will be considered.

Y N

Recertification?

Page 27

CASBEE (Existing Bldg.)

CHPS

RATING SYSTEM: GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS, often pronounced “chips”) aims to facilitate the design of high performance schools. CHPS is developing a certification system that explicitly defines a high performance school while remaining flexible to accommodate a particular district’s needs.

TA RG E T AU D I E N C E / BUILDING TYPE

CHPS was designed to enhance the performance of new school facilities in California and targets school administrators and designers. Many of the credits are based on a customisation of LEED-NC Credits to a california school environment.

DEVELOPMENT & D E L I V E RY

CHPS was developed and is delivered through the Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS) in California, USA.

R AT I N G A P P ROAC H

CHPS utilises a series of Best Practices. Buildings are rated based on the aggregation of points based system and prerequisities. A minimum of 28 points is required for certification and a maximum of 81 points are available.

OUTPUTS

A scorecard is developed in completion of CHPS. The program is marketed primarily to reduce operating energy costs, and increase school attendance and these are the primary outputs.

COSTS

TIME ON MARKET

F O R I N F O R M AT I O N

Verification?

An annual membership is required.

CHPS has been operating since 2002.

www.chps.net/

Y

N

Score?

Y

N

Self certification is used.

CHPS uses a pass/fail system. A minimum of 28 out of a possible 81 points are required to achieve CHPS certification.

Y N Mandatory requirements? Prerequisites are defined, utilising Title 24 energy and ventilation codes, as well as a range of US national standards.

External benchmarks? Y N The primary benchmark is the california energy code requirement, Title 24.

Page 28

CHPS is a customised version of LEED. Therefore it is comparable to LEEDNC in terms of issues addressed.

COMPREHENSIVENESS

USER-FRIENDLINESS

The Tool is designed to be easy to use, with less flexibility and more prescriptive requirements than LEED.

SUPPORT

There are design guidelines and a support network to assist in tool application.

Cost Savings, enhanced environmental performance.

VA L U E

E D U C AT I O N

CHPS offers design support, workshops best practice guides and a resource manual for program participants.

The tool is designed specifically for schools in California and has less applicability ouside that building segment and jurisdiction.

V E R S AT I L I T Y

CHPS is based on LEED-NC so is comparable to LEED-EB and LABS21 in terms of rigour.

CHALLENGE

CHPS aligns with building operations by including maintenance procedures and requirements.

MANAGEMENT TOOL

High

Low

Y N Baseline / energy model? A baseline energy model is requred to demonstrate compliance with relevant codes.

Building portfolios? School districts can participate

Y N

Customization?

Recertification?

Y

Y N

N

The tool focuses on schools and school districts in California, and is not supported outside that jurisdiction.

CHPS Page 29

GBTOOL

RATING SYSTEM: GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The GBTool software has been developed as part of the Green Building Challenge process, an international effort to establish a common language for describing “green buildings”. GBTool provides a standard basis of comparison for a wide range of buildings. A feature of GBTool is that the method is designed from the outset to reflect the very different priorities, technologies, building traditions and even cultural values that exist in various regions and countries.

TA RG E T AU D I E N C E / BUILDING TYPE

GB Tool covers all Institutional and Commercial Segments targeting architects, engineers, and academics. GB Tool was originally designed for rating new buildings, however it has also been applied to existing buildings. Finally, the tool has been used most extensively within a reaserch context, and while commercially available, it does not target widespread commercial application.

DEVELOPMENT & D E L I V E RY

GBTool is under development and is currently supported by iiSBE. It was originally developed as the rating tool used in the Green Building Challenge (1998), and has been used in subsequent forums.

R AT I N G A P P ROAC H

GBTool includes an assessment scale and best practices. One of the key benefits of GBTool is that it is based on a life cycle assessment methodology, and permits customised weighting of aspects. As the tool was designed to permit comparison among international design teams, GBTool can account for the very different priorities,

OUTPUTS

Spreadsheet documentation is prepared in support of accreditation. As the tool has been used primarily in support of international sustainable building competitions, a complementary output is the potential for recognition within the international design community.

COSTS

TIME ON MARKET

F O R I N F O R M AT I O N

Verification?

The tool is free for members of iiSBE ($75 annual membership fee).

Since 1998.

www.iisbe.org/iisbe/gbc2k5/gbc2k5-start.htm

Y

N

Score?

The tool requires self-assessment.

Mandatory requirements?

Y N

Scores are provided for 4 phases of building activity including, Pre-Design, Design, Construction and Operations.

Y N

Y N External benchmarks? National benchmarks are defined by the teams using the tools.

Page 30

GB Tool can be customised to expand the breadth and depth of analysis to accommodate different situations. Includes normal to detailed coverage of a a very broad range of issues, including a number of environmental impacts such as global warming, ozone depletion, smog, etc.

COMPREHENSIVENESS

GB Tool is primarily a research tool and has limited application beyone the GBC activities, therefore, user-friendliness has come second to research rigour.

USER-FRIENDLINESS

SUPPORT

GB Tool is supported by the iiSBE, but there is little support during assessment.

As a research tool, certification provides a basis of comparison for international competitions.

VA L U E

E D U C AT I O N

The tool offes a lifecycle assessment methodology that provides an extensive educational component.

The tool has been applied to a range of building types and throughout the world, permitting extensive comparison.

V E R S AT I L I T Y

Low

CHALLENGE

The tool may be scoped up or down in terms of rigour to accommodate the interests of the user. In addition, the user may adopt his own benchmarks and best practices, permitting flexibility in terms of rigour.

MANAGEMENT TOOL

The tool is intended as a research tool and is not designed as a tool to assist in the management of buildings.

High

Y N Baseline / energy model? GB Tool includes an assessment baseline model. An energy model is mandatory. Y N Customization? GB Tool can be customised in terms of weighting of assessment criteria and customisation of benchmarks.

Page 31

Building portfolios? Multiple projects can be evaluated.

Y N

Recertification?

Y

N

GBTool

RATING SYSTEM:

GREEN GUIDE FOR HEALTHCARE

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

Green Guide for Health Care™ is the healthcare sector’s first quantifiable sustainable design toolkit integrating enhanced environmental and health principles and practices into the planning, design, construction, operations and maintenance of their facilities. The Green Guide for Health Care borrows the credit numbering scheme and credit outline structure of the US Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED® family of products, with some modifications.

TA RG E T AU D I E N C E / BUILDING TYPE

The GGHC is focused on the healthcare sector, and applies to new freestanding facilities, additions to existing facilities along with renovation, and extensive rehabilitation / adaptive reuse projects. It is customized for buildings such as acute care hospitals, medical office buildings and clinics, and others.

DEVELOPMENT & D E L I V E RY

The GGHC was initiated by a diverse group of health care industry leaders. It is convened by the Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems, and has three major: founding sponsors (Hospitals for a Healthy Environment; Merck Family Fund; NYSERDA); 25 Founding Partners; and numerous Endorsers.

R AT I N G A P P ROAC H

The GGHC borrows the credit scheme and organizational structure of the LEED. It does not provide achievement level thresholds, but these come during the current pilot phase. During the pilot phase, achievement is indicated by total number of points. Total of 96 points for design and construction, and 72 for operations.

OUTPUTS

Similar to LEED, outputs include the various documentation materials that are required to show compliance with individual credits.

COSTS

TIME ON MARKET

F O R I N F O R M AT I O N

Verification?

The GGHC is an open source document provided at no charge.

Pilot version released in November 2004.

www.gghc.org

Y

N

Score?

Y N

Provides points, but does not translate them into achievement ratings (such as silver or gold, etc.)

Y N Mandatory requirements? As it is informed by LEED products, GGHC has prerequisites in the same vein as LEED tools.

External benchmarks? Includes thresholds and reference standards.

Page 32

Y N

COMPREHENSIVENESS

It includes different credit categories associated with Construction and Operations. For Construction, the credit categories are the same as LEED-EB, but for Operations a different structure is used. Includes many of the LEED strategies, but has also added some standards from ISO 14001.

USER-FRIENDLINESS

The main document is somewhat dense, with over 400 pages included. Navigating the full document requires a lot of time and focus. Some information is included in the document of what strategies to employ to achieve credits, but in a minimal, text-based way. Not linked to on-line tools.

SUPPORT

Currently, the Steering Committee and staff are unable to offer consultation on individual projects. Participants can engage in peer-to-peer discussions through a web-based Forum.

Currently identifies early adopters.

VA L U E

E D U C AT I O N

The program is designed to serve as a voluntary educational guide for early adopters of sustainable design, construction, and operations practices, to encourage continuous improvement in the healthcare sector.

Is focused on healthcare buildings, and in particular, institutional occupancies such as acute care hospitals, where regulatory requirements have created particular needs. Medical office buildings, clinics and other buildings where healthcare concerns are dominant can also use the Guide.

V E R S AT I L I T Y

Provides some strategies for how to achieve credits, but like LEED does not prioritize.

CHALLENGE

The Operations section is structured in a way that facilitates management roles and responsibilities. In the Operations section, alignment is much more direct than within the Construction section.

MANAGEMENT TOOL

High

Low

Baseline / energy model? Similar to LEED tool.

Y N

Customization?

Y

Building portfolios? Y N Is targetted to healthcare facilities, thus allows for portfolios to be considered (particularly in terms of Operations section).

N

Recertification?

Y

N

GGHC Page 33

RATING SYSTEM:

GREEN STAR (OFFICE SUITE)

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

Green Star is a national voluntary rating system which evaluates the environmental performance of buildings. It has been developed by the Green Building Council of Australia, but has been built on existing systems and tools in overseas markets including the British BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) system and the North American LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) system.

TA RG E T AU D I E N C E / BUILDING TYPE

Focuses on encouraging developers, professional services, and project managers to assess the environmental attributes of existing office buildings. The tool is oriented towards all existing buildings that have been constructed and handed over not less than 24 months prior to application.

DEVELOPMENT & D E L I V E RY

Was developed by the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA). Is also delivered by the GBCA. The UK’s Building Research Establishment is acknowledged, as is VicUrban.

R AT I N G A P P ROAC H

A six star approach is used to rate building performance. Credits are given a score, with different weightings for each. 1-3 stars are not eligible for formal certification. 4 stars (45 points) represent Best Practice, 5 stars (60 points) is Australian Excellence, 6 stars (75 points) is World Leadership. Based on original BREEAM approach.

OUTPUTS

Building input worksheet with general information about the building construction and services, net lettable area, etc. Checklist of points. Graphical summaries provide bar chart analyses. Successful certification results in an award certificate and GreenStar logos.

COSTS

The GBCA provides worksheets and credit calculators free of charge. The tools allow for a quick evaluation for points likely to be received through formal certification process. Less 5000m2 NLA=$5500;5,000 - 10,000m2 NLA $6,500; 10,000 - 20,000m2 NLA $8,500 ; 20,000 - 40,000m2 NLA $11,500; greater than 40,000m2 NLA $15,500.

TIME ON MARKET

While some of the Green Star tools have been on the market since 2003, OfficeAsset is still in pilot phase.

F O R I N F O R M AT I O N

Verification?

:

www.gbcaus.org

Y N

Score?

Formal assessment required in order to publicly communicate a Green Star rating. Mandatory requirements?

Y N

A single overall score is identified through aggregating the weighted scores for each category. This is thenN translated into a “Star” rating.

Y N

External benchmarks?

Y N

References “predicted” performance as calculated by a calculator tool.

Page 34

COMPREHENSIVENESS

Addresses a wide range of issues (energy, emissions, water, indoor environment, materials, transport, biodiversity,some environmental impacts). Does not address embodied or renewable energy, materials consumption, water reuse, amongst others.

USER-FRIENDLINESS

An excel worksheet tool is provided that assists in managing the identification of credits and requirements. Automated, linked calculators are provided for individual credits. Graphical summaries are provided. Identifying what strategies to use to achieve credits is not part of the tool.

SUPPORT

Incorporates calculators and tools right into system. Provides manuals and training sessions. Technical clarifications are provided on-line.

VA L U E

Provides good value in terms of tenant health, comfort and productivity. Provides recognizable label. Facilitates carbon emissions trading.

E D U C AT I O N

Some information is provided, and access to resources, but it is up to the design teams to identify.

V E R S AT I L I T Y

Is applicable to “Class 5” office buildings, so not directed at all types of commercial buildings. Allows for modification based on regional location -- the building’s location and type alters the predicted rating. Is appropriate for use by both design professionals and property managers.

CHALLENGE

Achieving full points for credits requires a broad range of strategies that address all aspects of a building’s impacts.

MANAGEMENT TOOL

Includes strategies that can be incorporated into action plans,and that are aligned with management responsibilities. Certification necessary for each building in a portfolio. High

Low

Baseline / energy model?

Y

N

Y N

Building portfolios? Is suitable for portfolio profiling.

Customization?

Y N

Recertification?

Y

N

The building’s location and type can alter the predicted rating, against which the ultimate score is calibrated.

Green Star (Office Asset) Page 35

LABS 21

RATING SYSTEM: GENERAL DESCRIPTION

Labs21 is a voluntary program dedicated to improving the environmental performance of U.S. laboratories.

TA RG E T AU D I E N C E / BUILDING TYPE

The target audience for LAB21 includes owners and designers of laboratory facilities. As the tool is based off a LEED rating platform, the target audience will likely have a previous knowledge of that tool.

DEVELOPMENT & D E L I V E RY

LABS21 was developed in partnership with the US EPA, US Federal Energy Management Program, Lawrence Berkely Laboratory and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. LABS21 is delivered though the US EPA.

R AT I N G A P P ROAC H

Performance standards Using the LEED rating criteria with additional credits that are specific to the unique circumstances of laboratory facilities, including for example, management of hazaedous materials, and occupant safety. In addition, LABS21 encourages users to utilise lifecycle costing in their decision making process related to building retrofit and renovation activities.

OUTPUTS

Documentation is prepared in support of each credit, including for example, signed letters of compliance, drawings, work sheets and simulation model outputs. The USGBC presents the project team with an award letter, certificate and metal LEED plaque indicating the certification level

COSTS

There is no cost to participate in LABS21, although should participants also wish to participate in the LEED Program there are costs associated with that.

TIME ON MARKET

F O R I N F O R M AT I O N

Verification?

LABS21 has been available since 2002.

www.labs21century.gov

Y N

Score?

Y N

There is a team of expert reviewers who provide design advice. In addition, for those wishing to achieve LEED certification, 3rd party verification is provided.

Like LEED, a score is associated with level of performance, including certified, silver, gold, platinum.

Y N Mandatory requirements? Yes, all the prerequisites defined in LEED are mandatory. In addition there are a number of requirements specific to laboratories,

External benchmarks? Y N A range of external benchmarks are referenced (primarily LEED-NC), however all are US based benchmarks.

The tool covers all the aspects of LEED NC. In addition there are a range of aspects related specifically to laboratories, including hazardous materials etc.

COMPREHENSIVENESS

The tool includes a series of case studies and resource guides to enhance the user friendliness. As noted previously, LABS 21 is built off a LEED NC platform and sufferes from the structural limitations of that program.

USER-FRIENDLINESS

SUPPORT

There is a users group, case studies and an extensive support network to assist in the implementation of the tool.

Cost Savings, enhanced environmental performance, peer recognition.

VA L U E

E D U C AT I O N

In addition to the resources provided through LEED, LABS21 offer design courses, telephone forums and a student design competition.

V E R S AT I L I T Y

The tool is designed specifically for labs and is not intended for other building types.

CHALLENGE

LABS 21 Is more rigourous than LEED as it contains additional prerequisites and points.

LABS 21 is intended as a design tool for new construction and is not designed as a management tool for operating facilities.

MANAGEMENT TOOL

Low

High

Baseline / energy model? Y N ASHRAE compliance is a prerequisite, resulting in mandatory energy models.

Building portfolios?

Customization?

Recertification?

Y N

There is the potential for points related to design innovation. As noted previously, LABS21 is largely a customised version of LEED, so extensive customisation has already occurred.

Y N

Y

N

LABS 21

LEED (CI)

RATING SYSTEM: GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The LEED-CI (Commercial Interiors) Rating System is part of a comprehensive suite of LEED assessment tools under development by the USGBC to promote sustainable design, construction, and operations practices in buildings. The LEED-CI Rating System is applicable to tenant improvements of new or existing office space. LEEDCI gives the power to make sustainable choices to tenants and designers, who do not always have control over whole building operations.

TA RG E T AU D I E N C E / BUILDING TYPE

LEED-CI deals with design and construction during tenant improvement --focuses on aspects of fit-out that are within control of the tenant and design team. As such is more relevant to new construction than to existing buildings, considered to go handin-glove with LEED-Core &Shell. Its focus on the tenant is a unique characteristic of this tool.

DEVELOPMENT & D E L I V E RY

LEED-CI was developed and administered by the US Green Building Council, a diverse non-profit membership based organization. It will be administered by the Canada Green Building Council for Canadian projects at the end of September 2006.

R AT I N G A P P ROAC H

Aggregation of points (up to 57) to end up with a final score that is then correlated to 4 performance levels (certified,silver,gold,platinum).

OUTPUTS

Documentation associated with each individual credit, including signed compliance letters, supporting drawings, simulation models, etc. USGBC presents the project team with an award letter, certificate and metal LEED plaque indicating the certification level.

COSTS

For Design Review: Less than 50,000 sq ft - $1,250; 50,000 to 500,000 sq ft - $0.025/sq ft; more than 500,000 sq ft, $12,500. For Construction Review: Less than 50,000 sq.ft. - $500; 50,000-500,000 sq.ft. - $0.01/sq.ft.; more than 500,000 sq. ft., $5,000.

TIME ON MARKET

F O R I N F O R M AT I O N

Verification?

Launched in November 2004 following a pilot phase.

www.usgbc.org

Y N

Score?

Y

N

Verification of credits is completed by USGBC staff.

Score is associated with level of performance, including certified, silver, gold, platinum.

Y N Mandatory requirements? As with other tools within LEED suite, prerequisites are included.

External benchmarks? Y N A range of benchmarks are referenced, although all are US-based benchmars.

Page 38

COMPREHENSIVENESS

Includes a fairly standard coverage of a wide range of issues. Light coverage in areas of environmental impact.

USER-FRIENDLINESS

LEED Online is being launched in March 2006 for LEED-CI. This makes the documentation and submittal process much easier, although it is more of an information management tool than an input tool. The Reference Manual is still a necessary component of the process, however, and is not yet online.

SUPPORT

Technical support is provided through credit interpretations, as well as generalized training workshops. As well, full review and validation of submission package is included.

VA L U E

Provides good value in terms of tenant health, comfort and productivity. Provides recognizable label.No studies yet on whether premiums are required.

E D U C AT I O N

The Reference Guide has some information, although less than the original Guide for LEED NC. The USGBC website offers some links, but the educational value tends to be directly related to the research activities of the design / management team.

V E R S AT I L I T Y

Is applicable to a broad spectrum of commercial buildings, and can be used for interiors on different floors of a building. Like other LEED tools, references US standards, and is not easily customized to different locations / regions.

LEED CI ensures minimum performance through prescriptive requirements. Additional rigour is provided with higher performance levels.

CHALLENGE

Is relevant to capital costs associated with design and construction of tenant improvements. Permits managers to identify priorities and strategies for interior improvements.

MANAGEMENT TOOL

Low

High

Y N Baseline / energy model? Simulation models are required to demonstrate achievement of energy performance. Customization?

Y

N

Page 39

Building portfolios?

Y

N

Recertification?

Y

N

LEED-CI

LEED-EB

RATING SYSTEM: GENERAL DESCRIPTION

(LEED-EB) is part of a suite of assessment tools under development by the USGBC to promote sustainable design, construction, and operations in buildings. Focused on existing buildings, the LEED-EB criteria cover building operations and systems upgrades in existing buildings where the majority of interior or exterior surfaces remain unchanged. It provides sustainable guidelines for building operations, periodic upgrades of building systems, minor space use changes and building processes.

TA RG E T AU D I E N C E / BUILDING TYPE

LEED-EB covers all institutional and commercial segments. Whereas LEED-CI targets tenants in commercial buildings, LEED-EB focuses on building managers and owners. The intent of LEED-EB is to certify the operation of the building, capturing both its physical systems (equipment, design, etc.) as well as the way the building is occupied and operated by its managers (waste management, temperature monitoring,etc.) So where LEED-NC and LEED-CI certify the act of renovating, constructing or tenant fit-out, EB certifies the completed and operated building as it functions on an ongoing basis.

DEVELOPMENT & D E L I V E RY

LEED-EB was developed and is delivered through the US Green Building Council. The LEED-EB Committee, a group of experts representing various facets of the industry, developed a draft of the rating system with input from the LEED Steering Committee. Technical Advisory groups, the Technical and Scientific Advisory Committee, and representatives from all major sectors of the building industry also guided the development of LEED-EB. The rating system was piloted in 100 buildings to ensure its practicality as a tool for achieving sustainability.

R AT I N G A P P ROAC H

LEED-EB utilises a series of Best Practices. Buildings are rated based on the aggregation of points based system and prerequisities. A maximum of 85 points are available. Four performance levels are considered including certigied, silver, gold and platinum.

OUTPUTS

Documentation associated with each individual credit, including signed compliance letters, supporting drawings, simulation models, etc. USGBC presents the project team with an award letter, certificate and metal LEED plaque indicating the certification level.

COSTS

For Design Review: Less than 50,000 sq ft - $1,250; 50,000 to 500,000 sq ft - $0.025/sq ft; more than 500,000 sq ft, $12,500. For Construction Review: Less than 50,000 sq.ft. - $500; 50,000-500,000 sq.ft. - $0.01/sq.ft.; more than 500,000 sq. ft., $5,000.

TIME ON MARKET

Comments on the pilot rating system received from pilot participants and members of the public guided revisions to the draft system, and the USGBC membership approved a final, ‘balloted’ version of LEED-EB in October of 2004.There are currently no plans to support a Canadian version of the product.

Verification?

Y N

Score?

Y N

Verification of credits is completed by USGBC staff.

Score is associated with level of performance, including certified, silver, gold, platinum.

Y N Mandatory requirements? Mandatory requirements include such categories as Erosion & Sedimentation Control, Age of Building, Water Efficiency, Existing Building Commission, Energy Performance, etc.

External benchmarks? Y N A range of benchmarks are referenced, although all are US-based benchmars.

Page 40

COMPREHENSIVENESS

Addresses cleaning and maintenance issues including chemical use; ongoing indoor air quality; energy efficiency; water efficiency; recycling programs and facilities; exterior maintenance programs; and systems upgrades to meet green building energy, water, IAQ, and lighting performance standards.

USER-FRIENDLINESS

A criticism of the current version of LEED-EB is the labour intensive requirements for certification. Future plans may include development of a web based platform to enhance the user-friendliness.

SUPPORT

Reference guides and user templates are provided. In addition, workshops are delivered periodically. Target user is architect or registered professional, rather than occupant of building.

VA L U E

Value includes cost savings, enhanced envirnomental performance and peer recognition. LEED-NC is currenly positioned as the premier new building rating tool with a high level of brand recognition. As a result, the value of LEED-EB certification may be enhanced.

E D U C AT I O N

USGBC is developing an accreditation for LEED-EB. As noted above, extensive resource material is currently available, including training and a resource guide.

V E R S AT I L I T Y

LEED-EB references US Standards, limiting its versatility in Canda in the short term. LEED-EB covers a range of ICI building segments and focuses on building managers. LEED EB includes performance based and prescriptive based requirements.

CHALLENGE

LEED EB ensures minimum performance through prescriptive requirements. Additional rigour is provided with higher performance levels.

MANAGEMENT TOOL

As an outgrowth of LEED_NC, the tool is designed more with architects in mind, rather than building owners or managers. While LEED-EB was not designed to align with management responsibilities, it is consistent with property manager responsibilities.

Low

High

Baseline / energy model? Y N Baseline energy model required. Minimum EnergyStar 60 required.

Building portfolios? Y N May be addressed by modelling and submitting for each building.

Customization?

Recertification? Required every five years.

Y N

Points are provided to design innovation, which may be customized.

Page 41

Y N

LEED EB

6.0

Conclusions

Multiple rating tools are available and in use through-out the commercial and institutional building sector. These tools may contribute to a range of benefits to building owners and tenants, including cost savings and reduced environmental impact. As the drivers for utilising rating tools vary among a range of actors, there is a rationale for the support of multiple tools While there is a range of tools available, experience with their application in Canada is limited. Currently, the BOMA Go Green product has the most significant market penetration with over 60 buildings rated and a target of 100 buildings by the end of 2006. Go Green Plus has recently been chosen by Public Works Government Services for the rating of their owner occupied stock, and while application of the tool to date is limited, other large corporate users (such as Great Western Life) are using it. Conversely, there have been no buildings rated using LEED EB, and the application of LEED CI for renovation is limited. Evaluating and showcasing the impact of the rating tools in terms of cost savings and enhanced environmental performance will be key to creating market demand for these tools. Analysis of the impact of rating tools through a post-retrofit performance evaluation is recommended. The development of multiple stand alone building rating tools is symptomatic of an immature market. As the market matures over the next three to five years, it can be expected that harmonisation of tools will occur, resulting in a more streamlined process. The ISO is currently developing a protocol for the design of building rating tools, and this will provide a framework for subsequent harmonisation efforts that may be supported by the client group. While rating tools are an important component of a management system for buildings, they will benefit with greater integration to other management systems currently in place, such as the financial, environmental and human resources management systems, and additional analysis of this issue is recommended. Finally, the explosion of building automated control systems is having a profound impact on how buildings and facilities are being operated and managed. There is growing interest and awareness in the opportunities to integrate “smart” and green technologies as the “next big thing”. Better understanding of the opportunities and challenges may have a much greater impact than focusing efforts only on rating tools.

Page 42

Page 43

APPENDICES

6.0 Appendices Appendix A: Criteria for Determining Shortlist of Rating Tools Criteria

Description

Existing/New Building

Describes whether the tool targets new or existing buildings. The scope of the current analysis is on rating tools for existing buildings.

Industry Supported

As a market transformation driver, tools must evolve to remain relevant and to push the envelope of innovation. This criteria reflects whether the tool is currently supported and whether continued evolution of the tool is likely.

Commercialized / Research Tool

Different tools focus on discrete stages of the market transformation process. While a research tool may assist the early adopters in more of a research capacity, rating tools that focus on the design community and have been commercialized will have the largest uptake.

Used in North America

Most industrialized countries have developed rating tools that reflects the unique social, environmental and economic opportunities and constraints from the country of origin. The current focus is on tools that can be readily adapted to fit the Canadian context. This in turn is reflected by whether the tool has been used previously in North America.

Range of Building Types

Different tools focus on specific segments of the commercial/institutional sector, while other tools may be applied across all segments. The scope of the current analysis is the entire commercial and institutional sector, however, as noted previously, educational services, offices and retail trade make up almost 70% of commercial floor area. Tools that target those segments will have the most significant impact.

Educational Value

Tools can offer education value through the broader awareness they bring to the environmental impacts of buildings. They can also offer value through encapsulating methodologies and approaches that are interesting and important for those developing / investigating tools to be exposed to.

Analyse

Based on the results of the above criteria, a decision whether to analyse the tool was made using the qualitative analysis.

Page 44

Appendix B: Evaluation of Comprehensive List of Rating Systems

Rating System LEED-EB LEED-CI CASBEE Green Star NABERS GBTool BOMA Go Green Boma Go Green Plus ECO QUANTUM HK-BEAM BREEAM Greenleaf TGBRS GreenGuide for Healthcare Audubon Green Leaf CHPS LABS 21 ISO 14000

Existing/New Building Existing Existing/New New Existing Existing New Existing

Industry Supported Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes

Commercialized /Research Commercial Commercial Research Commercial Commercial Research Commercial

Used in North America Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes

New/Existing New Existing/New

Commercial Research Commercial

Yes No No

Commercial Commercial Residential/Commercial

Yes No No

Yes No No

Existing/New Existing/New

Yes No Yes Yes, But Superceded No

Commercial Commercial

Yes No

Residential/Commercial All

No No

No No

Existing / New

Yes

Commercial

No

Healthcare

Yes

Yes

Existing Existing / New Existing /New Existing

Yes Yes Somewhat Yes

Commercial Commercial Both Commercial

Yes No No Yes

Hotel / Motel Schools Laboratories

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes No

Page 45

Range of Building Types Educational Value Commercial Yes Commercial Yes Commercial Yes Office Only Yes Residential/Commercial Yes Commercial Yes Commercial Yes

Analyse? Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes