The green building movement, also known as sustainability, has expanded rapidly in the past ten years. It is the galvanizing issue in the building design and construction community across the nation, and the movement is still evolving. Within the rapid growth of the movement, a special area of concern has been out-of-focus until recently: the nexus between sustainability and historic preservation. There is a need to account more equitably for preservation concerns in sustainability rating systems. The skills of preservationists in understanding the value and durability of the built environment and their ability to extend a building's future are some of the strongest contributions that can be made to the rapidly growing field of sustainable design. However, many preservationists feel that sustainable design advocates are not doing enough to acknowledge or promote historic preservation and adaptive reuse.

Sustainability is defined as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Translating this theory into everyday decisions about the built environment leaves plenty of room for interpretation. Seattle designers use the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) evaluation tool developed by the U.S. Green Building Council and launched in March 2000. The program is intended to elevate standards in sustainable building design and provide assessment criteria in numerous categories: recyclable materials, energy use, waste disposal during and after construction, storm water management, mechanical systems, and many others. Building owners apply for LEED certification, through which their architects earn points for various features, culminating in ratings of "certified," "silver," "gold," or "platinum." Under LEED, buildings can gain recognition for precisely the sorts of achievements in which preserved historic buildings excel. For more information on this tool, please visit: http://www.usgbc.org. But LEED is still evolving and preservationists need to have a better understanding of these systems before comfortable common ground with LEED can be found.

Most preservationists feel that preserving buildings is inherently an act of sustainable design. Historic buildings have many inherent attributes that are now promoted as green design. For example, operable windows and cisterns that capture rainwater were features common in late nineteenth century buildings which are now championed as green. Nevertheless, the LEED rating system does not always seem to measure appropriate design elements when it comes to preserving the character of historic buildings. To be effective, LEED must include considerations particular to older buildings and must also weigh social and cultural factors. Although LEED representatives talk about embodied energy in historic buildings, and community design review boards and preservation boards invariably capitalize on that nexus, the final product at some Seattle projects results in the green movement trumping preservation's ace.

Originally U.S. Green Building Council wrote the LEED standards only for new commercial buildings. With a growing interest in the standards, the Council has begun to create different standards for different building types, a revision prompted by complaints from sustainable designers and preservation architects alike. As of the summer of 2006, the LEED checklist does not fit the large spectrum of building types it is being applied to, and preservationists need to be in the forefront of the LEED revision process. The present LEED Existing Building standard is primarily a performance standard rather than prescriptive. Although the present language does not conflict with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Buildings, a prescriptive standard would make the LEED Existing Building standard flexible for all types of historic buildings, structures, and objects.

In the spring of 2006, one of Historic Seattle's Advocacy student interns from Seattle University examined a project that combined the preservation of a designated City landmark with new sustainable construction. Called "Alley 24," the project stands at 221 Yale Avenue N. across the street from the flagship REI store in the Cascade neighborhood and was designed by the venerable architectural firm NBBJ. The project was designed to incorporate the New Richmond Laundry building at 224 Pontius Avenue N., a brick utilitarian structure built in 1917 and designated as a City landmark in 2003. Like most of its peers in Seattle, the old laundry building was not pristine and had experienced many incremental changes and additions. The landmark nomination report found that the 1917 portion had retained the most historic integrity, but that the interiors had been severely altered over the decades. Seattle's Landmarks Preservation Board protected the exterior, the roof, and the site with a landmark designation, but not the interior.

During her examination of the property, the Historic Seattle intern found that the laundry building interior was gutted and the exterior was stripped of its distinctive sawtooth roof and original window framing as it was reduced to a brick shell which was then fitted alongside the new green construction. The Landmarks Board requested that a portion of the original roof be reconstructed since the original was badly deteriorated and owner Vulcan, Inc., consented to this effort along with retention of the original window openings but with replacement double panes. Vulcan also took the extra step of exposing the original 1917 primary façade of the laundry building which had been obscured by a 1944 addition.

Still, Historic Seattle's intern found that the new green building construction overwhelmed the old historic landmark in size, bulk, scale, and massing. Although this project was directed by a sensitive owner, designed by a respected architect, reviewed and approved by the City's Landmarks Preservation Board, and achieved LEED certification, what happened to the Richmond Laundry building cannot be called historic preservation. The nexus between preservation and sustainability failed in this instance even though all the proper evaluations, certifications, and reviews were in place.

Sustainability is critical to Seattle's need to promote the wise use of the built environment. However, there is also a need to force heritage issues to be recognized in this context. Ensuring respect for the heritage dimension requires a process of incorporating historic integrity into sustainability assessment systems that will encompass both quantitative and qualitative measures. To accomplish that goal, the Association for Preservation Technology drafted recommendations in 2005 for preservationists:

1. Become active in green building organizations.
2. Identify and explore existing green building rating systems.
3. Participate in the review and approval of evolving green building rating systems and standards.
4. Develop an environmental rating system for heritage properties and/or develop a heritage building application guide for existing rating systems.
5. Develop audit and treatment processes for evaluating energy performance of heritage properties.
6. Develop an easily usable method for embodied energy analysis
7. Develop education modules to educate preservationists and green advocates about each other's issues, concerns, and priorities.
8. Conduct training workshops using the education modules developed in Item 7.
9. Write articles for publication in green and heritage media.

Little of that effort has been conducted in Seattle as the emphasis of green building advocates remains on quantifiable values in existing sustainability rating systems. This makes it difficult to consider the qualitative values of heritage properties. Preservation advocates must hear the call to action and become informed enough to contribute to the sustainability dialog. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has commissioned research on this topic which is expected to become available before the end of 2006. Preservationists must educate themselves, publish in various media, speak out at public meetings, and generally get the word out that the sustainability movement needs to be more sensitive to data it cannot measure.

The first sustainability issue to consider when rehabilitating historic buildings is: does the energy use profile need correction? It may not. Seattle uses the latest version of the International Existing Building Code (please visit http://www.iccsafe.org for more information on the IEBC) which identifies levels of intervention and specifies appropriate levels of compliance. The bigger the rehab project, the closer the existing building will be expected to be brought to code compliance. In most historic structures, strategies for energy conservation should include abstention from air conditioning, reducing infiltration, allowing float in interior temperature and humidity settings, using energy efficient equipment, and operating windows effectively.

One of the most contentious issues in the preservation-sustainability nexus is the installation of replacement windows where authenticity is crucial to the historic character of the building. In this instance, sustainability is not just about energy conservation. The preservation of historic windows is more labor-intensive and less material-intensive. (See Jane Powell's 2004 book Bungalow: The Ultimate Arts and Crafts Home for the most penetrating description of why and how to restore an old window ever printed.) Additionally, operable windows afford more natural ventilation possibilities that can reduce the size of mechanical equipment. Continued use of existing materials such as wood sash windows can also reduce the need to harvest trees or extract other natural resources to produce replacements. As practiced preservationists know, retaining existing building fabric is crucial, but it also promotes sustainability.

Current approaches to sustainability, including LEED Standards, focus on new construction and often overlook the holistic benefits of preserving windows, conservation of embodied energy, reduction of environmental costs, economic benefits, superior long-term performance, and ease of maintenance. Advertising for windows marketed as no or low maintenance is usually misleading or inaccurate. Ratings for whole window performance should be taken from the National Fenestration Rating Council (see http://www.nfrc.org/getratings.aspx) rather than from manufacturer claims.

Any assessment of the performance and material quality of historic windows must include the higher quality and longevity of denser wood used in their production and the far superior joinery techniques used in their manufacture as compared to processes used today. Aesthetics and authenticity considerations need to involve the variety of historic window types, and molding details which are simply not available on standard replacement windows. High-quality “equivalent” replacements may cost as much as three times as much as restored windows.

Sustainable design decisions are based on whether a material is durable, locally available, or salvaged. The analogous criteria for materials used in preservation work are longevity, regional appropriateness, and in-kind replacement to retain historic character. One of the best ways designers can incorporate preservation concepts into sustainability principles is to understand fully and follow closely the original construction techniques of a building and their relationship to the historic fabric used. Traditional craftspeople had an intimate knowledge of the behavior of materials, and this familiarity is reflected in the construction details. Before rehabilitation construction drawings are produced, original details should be thoroughly documented and studied for clues to improve current design.

To decrease the amount of wood needed on a restoration project, a well-planned wood-testing program is recommended for structures with significant timber elements. Using wood testing data, a designer can specify the replacement of only the decayed wood elements. When wooden members need replacing, use salvaged wood such as sawn lumber and timbers obtained from the demolition of existing structures, preferably on site. Older woods will likely be higher density timbers cut from old growth. The Internet is now a useful resource in locating salvaged materials, including steel. New steel made of more than 95 percent scrap steel requires half the energy needed to produce virgin steel. Reused salvaged steel has a comparatively minute energy cost.

Just as sustainability advocates need to be more accountable to preservation prescriptions in existing building rehabilitations, preservationists need to understand how embodied energy calculations can be used as a more quantitative method of measuring the overall environmental benefits of building renovation versus new construction. The underlying research upon which almost all U.S. embodied energy applications are based is the 1976 report: Energy Use for Building Construction. This pioneering effort is still the most thorough evaluation of the embodied energy of building materials produced in the U.S.

The publication was recognized by the national Advisory Council on Historic Preservation as a research tool to support its mission. The Council commissioned an application study of the use of embodied energy and historic preservation and the results were published in 1979 as Assessing the Energy Conservation Benefits of Historic Preservation: Methods and Examples. The study was not widely distributed, so the National Trust for Historic Preservation used the data in its 1981 publication entitled New Energy from Old Buildings. None of these publications used measured, quantifiable data to assign points in a consensus-driven system as today's LEED process does.

The LEED New Construction 2.1 rating system has a number of categories in which points are awarded to reduce the embodied energy of a building. Using recycled materials, reused or salvaged materials, and regionally available materials will earn points because of reduced embodied energy. LEED 2.1 offers up to three points for reusing a building's structure, shell, and fifty percent of the interior. The reused embodied energy of these components could easily be fifty percent of the building's total embodied energy. If one compares the benefit of reusing a building versus the construction of a new building, the embodied energy savings is even greater. What this evaluation suggests is that LEED 2.1 for new construction or major renovation drastically undervalues the true ecological benefit of building reuse. Sustainability rating tools are currently using the concept of embodied energy but in a manner that does not result in equitable quantification for historic buildings. Historic preservationists must help develop a better rating system that utilizes embodied energy more comprehensively.

The previously described Richmond Laundry/Alley 24 project illustrates the problems that local preservationists are experiencing with the nexus between heritage and sustainability. The Richmond Laundry was constructed by a well-known architect in 1917 and played an important role in industrial evolution in Seattle, as well as being a unique structure in the South Cascade neighborhood. Vulcan Inc, the Paul Allen real estate group in charge of constructing Alley 24, envisioned incorporating the laundry into their new building designed with sustainable concepts. Vulcan went through the City's landmark designation process for the laundry building, as well as a series of design reviews for the adjoining new construction.

By using a presently existing building, Vulcan Inc. constructed something inherently sustainable, by saving a building and materials, while retaining the historic importance and cultural value of the brick laundry structure. The benefits from this project are all remarkable, and it is praiseworthy for Seattle to have a major enterprise making the ecological and historical environment a priority. However, not all interested parties are pleased with the outcome and the incorporation of the Richmond Laundry building into the new construction.

According to Seattle Municipal Code, landmarks cannot be demolished and must go through a system of approval before any changes take place. The Alley 24 project went through this process, and the project proponent's main focus was to retain the presence of the old laundry building on the street. However, due to the size of the new Alley 24 complex, the larger sustainable building engulfs the old brick laundry, and it looses much of its streetscape presence. Original character defining elements such as the sawtooth factory roofline are now gone with only a partial reconstruction as a nod to history. The final product is unrecognizable as a contributor to Seattle's heritage. Through no fault of Vulcan, NBBJ, or the City Landmarks Board, the LEED standards failed to recognize the building's historic character. This means that the LEED standards are simply are not applicable to every historic building. The Richmond Laundry has gone through a transformation using sustainable building systems, and although it was an adaptive re-use and not a historic restoration, it cannot be called a preservation success. Old buildings with numerous existing elements tend to be much more complex than the LEED standards can accommodate.

Rebecca Flora, a member of the U.S. Green Buildings Council national board, recognized that such criticisms are occurring nationwide and felt they are based on use of the LEED system when it was still under development. As improvements are being drafted and implemented, particularly for existing buildings, specialized program divisions will help get the revisions into the hands of designers nationwide. Ms. Flora described life-cycle cost analyses and more elaborate evaluations for existing buildings as part of new rating systems under development. So far, both the greens and preservationists have been fanatical about their respective causes, but not willing to debate the topic of both movements how both movements intersect. The 2006 annual conference of the National Trust for Historic Preservation will devote a day-long forum to this topic.

A structure such as Alley 24, built with sustainability as the goal, is attempting to receive an award based on the LEED national sustainability rating system. The checklist evaluation system itself highlights one of the problems historic preservationists experience with the sustainability movement. The system does not recognize historic structures distinctly. It does not address specifically how sustainability standards can be used when working on historic projects. The LEED system’s failure to recognize the important and inherent characteristics in a historic structure sends a flawed message to real estate developers such as Vulcan Inc. and architects such as NBBJ by not recognizing the cultural and historical values of the older building.

Further, the LEED point system creates the potential for the use of historic structures as a means to receive points, and not for the preservation their cultural importance. What this means for historic buildings is that their use in reconstruction and conversion into a sustainable structure could serve solely for gaining points in the current system. When a building’s historic character is not recognized in the LEED system, it is not protected and is in danger of being destroyed.

The Alley 24 project is more eligible for LEED points because it incorporated the existing brick structure, but loses no points for diminishing the historically significant presence of the brick building on the street. Points are the ultimate goal in the sustainability system and not the historic integrity of the structure. The Richmond Laundry has fallen victim to this lack of coherency in the preservation-sustainability nexus.

To reach its goal, the sustainability movement must move beyond efficiency and effectiveness and look holistically at cycles of material use. Who knows more about the cycles of buildings than preservationists? The preservation movement is forty years old this year and has been extending the service life of buildings through renewal and finding new uses for structures in all those decades. The sustainability movement is ten years old and still in its formative stage. Calculations of efficiency and effectiveness dominate current sustainability practice and the energy embodied in building materials is largely overlooked. There is a strong ethical bond between preservation and sustainability which is commonly recognized in community design review and preservation boards across the nation. The time is now for preservation and sustainability professionals to both learn from and teach each other.

In Seattle, a call to action for preservationists was sounded in the summer of 2006 with a visioning workshop conducted by the Cascadia Chapter of the U.S. Green Buildings Council and the City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development. At the workshop, all participants acknowledged that the LEED 3.0 tool needs improvement, a greater awareness among all involved parties, and a cost effectiveness analysis. Suggestions for change included the following:

Reconcile the Secretary of the Interior Standards with LEED 3.0. Conduct awareness training for preservationists, designers, media, and general public. Create incentives with the LEED system to avoid demolition. Link LEED to tax incentives for historic preservation. Develop a sliding LEED point scale for rehabilitation projects. Realign building and energy codes with preservation and LEED. Develop a liaison with the USGBC and universities for grant-funded research. Develop embodied energy baselines for different building types. Clarify and categorize materials and re-use nomenclature to include older and historic buildings. Refine energy performance evaluation metrics to include preservation. Educate stakeholders (designers, decision makers, educators, media, and the general public). Create tools such as databases and case studies made easily accessible as learning experiences. Reconcile growth management with sustainability using a point system. Award LEED points for cultural value measured by historic designations.

What is your vision of a sustainable community and how can the next generation of LEED effectively employ historic preservation as a partner in that vision?

Sources:
Association for Preservation Technology. Journal of
     Preservation Technology, Vol. 36, No. 4, 2005

Lasich, Jenna. A Case of Historic Preservation in the
     Hands of the Sustainability Movement, Historic Seattle
     Student Intern from Seattle University, June 2006

LEED 3.0 Visioning Workshop With a Focus on Historic
     Buildings. Cascadia Chapter of the U.S. Green
     Buildings Council and the City of Seattle Department of
     Planning and Development, July 26, 2006.

Rosenblum, Charles L. "Going Green," Preservation
     Magazine, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Vol.
     58, No. 5, September-October, 2006.

Back to Top