The cost of this credit is project-specific.
OPTION 1. HISTORIC BUILDING REUSE
OPTION 2. RENOVATION OF ABANDONED OR BLIGHTED BUILDING
OPTION 3. BUILDING AND MATERIAL REUSE
The cost implications of pursuing any of these three credit options will rely heavily on project specifics. Reuse of an existing building can increase or decrease construction costs depending on the condition of the structure, presence of hazardous materials, acquisition cost, the extent of renovations, incentives, and other factors. Many projects considering building reuse versus new construction undertake a detailed planning study, including cost factors, to weigh their options.
OPTION 4. WHOLE-BUILDING LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT
Option 4 encourages projects to create a 60-year, cradle-to-gate LCA (life-cycle assessment) model of core and shell systems to demonstrate reduced environmental burdens for the design case, from a hypothetical baseline case. Though limited in scope, this option brings computer modeling, already used in energy, water, and daylighting analysis, to the Materials and Resources category.
Whole-building LCA may result in construction cost reductions due to the opportunity
to optimize design and reduce materials use, as well as the opportunity to integrate structural considerations with other aspects of design. For project types that typically rely on concrete and/or steel construction, switching to structural wood framing is likely to be the most reliable way to improve carbon footprint and other life-cycle impact metrics.
However, this will be very project-specific and dependent on project goals, and a successful process will benefit from experienced guidance. To use whole-building LCA to its fullest potential, project teams should explore options early in design and consider expected operational savings. This will tend to involve creating more than one iteration of a model as the design evolves and is informed by the results.
Projects will incur soft costs associated with modeling, subject to project scope and project team capabilities. One key tool that can be used for this analysis, the Athena Impact Estimator, is free. Another useful tool, Tally, works off Revit and costs $1,200 for a commercial license. If you choose to learn how to use these tools rather than hiring a consultant, budget for the time and cost of that learning curve as well.
Between constructing the design case building in the LCA software, and constructing
a base-case building, as well as communicating details about materials and assemblies back-and-forth amongst the integrated design team, and writing a narrative, earning this credit is likely to take a professional in a design firm about a week of person-hours to document. No special expertise (i.e., engineering or LCA training) is required beyond the software tutorials, but experience definitely helps and could further reduce billable time spent on documentation, depending on project goals. Structural engineering and cost- estimating expertise will be invaluable when it comes to optimizing the design.
Deeper expertise may be required when project materials, sourcing, or delivery methods are not found in the software database; if there is difficulty identifying systems of equivalent functional performance for the base-case building; and if there is a need to hone in deeply on design changes to maximize environmental impact savings.
Other than experience and project objectives, building size is not a variable in the time required for whole-building LCA; the complexity and number of assemblies plays a more significant role, because each major assembly type needs to be modeled in the software.
Cost Synergies
LTc3: High Priority Site
LTc4: Surrounding Density & Diverse Uses
EAp2/c2: Energy Performance
MRp2/c5: Construction & Demolition Waste Management
EQc2: Low-Emitting Materials
EQc7: Daylight
EQc8: Quality Views