1

Building Dedicated Sustainability Roles in AEC

(Architecture, Engineering, and Construction)

Eric “Blake” Jackson

1, Associate AIA, LEED AP(BD+C), EDAC, GRP

1Sustainability Practice Leader, Tsoi Kobus & Associates; Cambridge, MA USA

ABSTRACT: Today, no one claims to be a non-“green” designer or builder; however, we are far from reducing the

ecological impacts buildings impose upon the environment. With rising awareness in ecologically sensitive design,

AEC professionals are exploring integrated practices to counteract climate change and reduce the volatility

associated with a fossil fuel-based economy. Their objective is to break bad habits that have resulted in current

ecological and societal degradation, while differentiating themselves amongst an industry all claiming to be “green”.

This paper investigates how interdisciplinary leadership is emerging in AEC practices in the Boston area to facilitate

this process across disciplines. It explores key changes in education, skills, industry culture, and opportunities which

facilitates such positive behaviors, culminating in higher-performing buildings.

(Keywords: sustainability, leadership, green team, education, green jobs, entrepreneurship, LEED, green building)

INTRODUCTION In a time when everyone claims their “green”

credibility, how can those who actually manifest this

differentiate themselves and their products - the

buildings – from those merely making lofty

proclamations? To facilitate “green” ambitions, AEC

(architecture, engineering and construction)

industries are seeing an emergence of dedicated

sustainability professionals who embody and

implement an organizational commitment to their

brand and products, steering company’s assets,

products, and values towards more “green”

credibility. Like other industries, AEC professionals

are identifying and promoting leadership and

innovation to maintain their competitive edge, while

realizing higher performing buildings.

CONTEXT

The Boston Society of Architects (BSA)

Sustainability Education Committee (SEC) spent

2013 publicly addressing educational issues

regarding “green” building within the context of

National Architectural Accreditation Board (NAAB)

accreditation requirements, their focus was to

supplement current core competencies to include

equipping architectural students (and professionals)

with the capability of designing net-zero energy

buildings. Lacking experience is a critical factor: net-

zero projects cannot be taught unless enough

experienced mentors exist to pass on the knowledge -

currently not the state of the profession. This

knowledge schism is the result of decades of AEC

disciplines working separately in “silos”, and more

importantly, an underwhelming demand for such

performance from public and private sectors who

construct buildings to just meet code minimums.

The SEC hosted monthly meetings in 2013, entitled

“Reporting from the Trenches”, highlighting local

individuals possessing the desired skills aligned with

the committee’s mission. A trend was discovered

where many AEC companies possessed specialized

individuals whose sole responsibility is fostering

interdisciplinary exchange, company-wide “green”

practices, corporate responsibility, and education.

These individuals, typically Associate level or above,

work in on-going “greening” efforts and reflect the

emergence of dedicated sustainability roles in AEC.

Each role’s meaning is widely open to interpretation.

For example, the American Institute of Architects

(AIA) [The] Architects Group (TAG) has developed

a list of standard expectations and definitions of key

roles for each step of a typical architect’s career path

from A-1 (entry-level) through A-7 (firm principal).

Nowhere in TAG is sustainability mentioned, and

such knowledge is not prerequisite for the seven

Architectural Registration Exams (ARE). Some

mention sustainability, referencing concepts from the

U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC) Leadership

in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED)

Guidelines; however, the USGBC credential, LEED

AP (Accredited Professional), is not required

knowledge for licensure and is an additional exam

outside those required for AIA licensure. LEED

experience and credentialing are becoming

increasingly critical qualifiers for winning jobs

mandating LEED. Regardless, clients will likely

favor working with professionals able to demonstrate

triple-bottom-line approaches.i

Sustainability has taken a much firmer root than

when it first emerged in the 1970’s. Instead of biased

towards energy conservation only, it now is marketed

2

holistically; thus, it appeals to a wide array of mass

market interests. Now, any product, even buildings,

can (and is expected to) have “green” attributes. This

is highlighted by a McGraw-Hill Constructionii report

which states U.S. architecture firms are

overwhelmingly shifting towards building “green”.

Over half the respondents anticipate two-thirds of

their work to be “green” by 2015, with a range of

U.S. growth projected between 33-68%. An

overwhelming 91% estimate specifying “green”

building products by 2017!

If such capability is in such high demand, why is it

not part of designers’ basic skills? The report goes on

to say 94% of global AEC professionals report

engaging in “green” building. This is larger than a

style or fad; it reflects change at the same magnitude

seen when the production of buildings shifted from

pencil to computer-aided design (CAD). Engineering

News Record (ENR) reported the results of their top

(2013) 100 green design firms had a revenue for

third-party “green-certified” projects (typically,

LEED) of $4.18 billioniii

. When the top 300 U.S.

architecture firms’ revenue was $10.9 billion (2012),

“green” design can hardly be considered “niche”

when it approximates 38% of the top 300’s total

revenueiv!

TAG does not exclude everyone, defining other

specialists, such as dedicated Building Information

Modeling (BIM) managers - roles emerging after the

dawn of the USGBC (1993) and LEED (1998). TAG

guidelines are critical national benchmarks defining

professional performance levels and are a means of

salaries determination – broken down geographically.

Why them are there no AIA TAG definitions for

sustainability professionals or sustainability

expectations in A1-A7 roles? Some organizations

have attempted to address this. A survey of fifty U.S.

dedicated sustainability architects by BuidlingGreenv

in 2011 highlights several paradoxical statistics:

10 years was the mean time experienced in

various sustainability roles.

5 years was the mean time spent as a dedicated

sustainability professional.

50% of those surveyed were licensed architects

(many had other complimentary backgrounds

and/or were non-licensed).

Those surveyed ranged from A3 (non-titled

designers/5-7years experience) to A7 (senior

principals/20+ years experience) - the majority

being Associate level or above.

This data demonstrates no one-size-fits-all definition

for dedicated sustainability professionals exists.

These are not entry-level positions, and architectural

license or background is not prerequisite. It is no

surprise since AIA, NAAB, and NCARB have not

prioritized sustainabilityvi. It has historically been

viewed as “additional” skills. It must move to the

forefront to realize the necessary changes society

must make. Climate change is no small-scale

problem and is tied to AEC inextricably: U.S.,

buildings use 40% of our energy, 30% of our potable

water, and emit 40% of our greenhouse gas

emissions. The mission of the SEC is critical because

AEC is not reversing this trend fast enough to avoid

catastrophic results, and although these statistics are

well-known, the contribute malaise around

sustainability, the problems seeming too many and

too big to change.

ACADEMIA

Only recently have specialized programs in

sustainable design emerged in the U.S. Other

countries, such as Germany, Switzerland, and the

UK, have established sustainable design programs

within most design schools. One exception is the

Boston Architectural College’s (BAC) Sustainable

Design Institute (SDI), headed by Shaun O’Roarke.

SDI is the most extensive sustainable design program

in the U.S. with over 30 courses, offering certificates,

undergraduate, and graduate majors. All courses are

online, allowing anyone anywhere access. Such a

program exists at the BAC because it operates as a

guild, requiring practice based learning supervised by

practitioners. This solves a critical problem with

academic sustainable design programs, the leap from

research to applied skillsvii

. The online platform

allows mentors from over the world; however, many

Boston experts are leading courses.

Another effort is being undertaken by Troy Peters at

Wentworth Institute of Technology (WIT). His ten-

week second-year studio equips students with skills

to demonstrate net-zero energy projects. Peters

claims students continue utilizing this expertise as

they progress at WIT; however, this points out a flaw

in U.S. curriculum: these types of courses are no

required for NAAB approval. Although great that

increased educational opportunities in sustainability

exist, sustainability is not fully integrated into U.S.

design school. Our goal should be to see it as equally

an expectation as designing for budget,

constructability, and structural soundness by

recognizing American design schools are still

operating in “silos”viii

.

3

The San Francisco Institute of Architecture (SFIA)

has raised sustainability to the all-encompassing core

of their curricula; however, this and similar institutes

are young and need time to build their “brand”.

Success with this educational model is not well

documented, particularly in comparison to

established NAAB accredited institutions, like the

BAC (SFIA actively seeks NAAB accreditation).

Since NAAB accreditation is the gateway to

architectural licensure eligibility, until sustainable

design becomes an overarching competence of all

graduates, the U.S. will continue to producing

licensed professionals without these skills, missing

the opportunity to deliver more resilient buildings

and mitigate manmade climate changeix

.

TALENT POOL

Specialists are highly valuable but largely must create

opportunities themselves. If TAG-level skills,

experience, and training are not defined, where and

how do firms recruit and build these roles, how do

they define success within a well-defined profession

excluding them, and how do they measure on-going

professional development and growth? This has

largely been a “grassroots” effort by practitioners

who found an edge via sustainability or by those who

approach sustainability from the moralistic stance of

it being “right”. This has exploded in recent years

with the popularity of designing to rigorous “green”

third-party certifications, creating opportunity for

entrepreneurial designers to fill these niche roles left

by gaps in the NAAB-ARE-TAG triumvirate.

The AEC industry is beyond the “Early Adopter”

phase. Still, there are several means that AEC firms

can incorporate sustainability into their culture. For

the purposes of this paper, they are classified as:

“Out-sourcing”: reliance on an external party to

coordinate “green” projects and practices on a

case-by-case or ongoing basis.

“In-sourcing”: promoting interested and/or

experienced personnel from within an organization

to coordinate “green” projects and practices.

“Up-sourcing”: hiring new talent from outside the

organization to bring desired ideas and skill sets

into the organization to coordinate “green” projects

and practices.

Many companies “out-source” as an economical way

to start at a high level of sophistication. New

approaches are applied without training or hiring new

staff, requiring no cultural change to the organization

(a positive and negative aspect). “Out-sourced”

companies often “bundle” sustainability with other

services, such as LEED, energy modeling, etc.

Increased demand for “green” buildings means many

companies find this a competitive way to manage

large volumes of sustainability work.

Often, “grassroots” movements by passionate

individuals often coalesce into dedicated or part-time

sustainability roles – “in-sourcing”. This method

promotes and rewards “green” leadership from

within. A strength of this method is existing

personnel are familiar with the company’s culture,

history, and capabilities. A minor change in the

person’s job can render a major cultural impact.

Others experiment with “up-sourcing” (hiring new

talent) to acquire new competency and initiate

unforeseen cultural impact. “Up-sourcers” have can

have varied backgrounds, encourage new research

and collaboration, and they often challenge co-

workers norms. Each means has advantages and

disadvantages, explored later.

OWNERSHIP

Clients are demanding “greener” buildings on tighter

margins. They initialize projects by defining

viability, requesting qualifications, and by choosing

integrated teams to work with. Their desires are what

ultimately are translated into “green” architecture,

and they often occupy and use the buildings over

their useful life; thus, informed, well-intentioned

clients certainly are the most important player in this

game with the most to gain or lose from integrated

approaches. They hold the keys to facilitating

“green” architecture by requiring third-party

certifications, making decisions on a life-cycle basis,

and by facilitating long-term relationships with the

team after completion to guarantee predicted

performance. This paper does not explore further

Owners’ dedicated sustainability professionals (CSO-

Chief Sustainability Officer); however, there

certainly exists much opportunity and overlap in this

area, and more can be done when a client wills it!

ARCHITECTURE

This paper focuses on emergence in the Boston

metropolitan area of dedicated sustainability

professionals. Several area firms have long-

established dedicated sustainability roles, pulling

from the critical mass of the BSA (the highest per

capital concentration of designers in the country and

oldest professional associationx), academia (the

region boasts over 60 higher education institutions

including MIT and Harvard), and a regional focus on

resource intensive building typologies (higher

education, labs, and healthcare). This synergy has

resulted in a competitive environment where clients

and firms push one another to do the “right thing”

4

while cognizant of manmade climate change

(realizing our close proximity to the Atlantic),

competitive edge, marketability, and long-term

savingsxi

.

Tsoi/Kobus & Associates is a Cambridge-based

architectural practice who promotes sustainability as

a core value of their buildings and business. A

USGBC member since 2000, their portfolio boasts

several LEED-certified higher education, labs, and

healthcare buildings. The creation of a dedicated

sustainability role evolved over eight years.

Originally, interested individuals joined the USGBC,

became LEED AP’s, requested LEED project

experience, and founded an office “green team”

(Core Values Group) to measure impacts on projects

and office culture. Increased demand for “green”

buildings before the 2008 Recession led to the

creation (“up-sourcing”) of a Sustainability Practice

Leader, first held by Sara Mills-Knapp, an

administrative assistant who administered LEED

documentation LEED. This role propelled an

interested administrative assistant with no

architectural background into the face of

sustainability for a firm at the time of 130xii

.

Other firms were doing the exact same thing around

the same time. In 2010, Bergmeyer, a firm in

Boston’s Seaport District renowned for their

architectural interiors was searching for a dedicated

LEED coordinator. With the evolution of LEED for

Retail, demand for “green” buildings skyrocketed.

They eventually hired a new Associate/Director of

Sustainability, Dee Spiro, a planner by training who

had worked with the Green Roundtable (now the

SPI), to meet the demand. Three years later,

Bergmeyer has established a sustainability

department, having recently hired their second

dedicated sustainability staff member, Steven Burke,

who has a background in sustainability management

and business. Sustainability is not a role just for

architects. Actually, firms are finding it difficult to

find architects interested or trained in sustainability

(hardly surprising considering the NAAB-ARE-TAG

triumvirate)! Many licensed architects and designers

see it as undesirable, additional work they would

rather outsource to more focus on design. This

unfortunate viewpoint is actually the Trojan Horse

allowing interdisciplinary professionals penetration

into firms!

Too many firms to name here have followed suit.

Regardless of their “means”, two trends are emerging

the profession and academia should notice:

1. The demand for dedicated sustainability

professionals exists, and firms where they are

have transformed their businesses, products, and

identity towards “greener” outcomes.

2. This movement is not being ushered in by

architects but by those possessing

interdisciplinary skills beyond NAAB and ARE.

Simply put, sustainability is important and should be

evaluated equally as other aspects of building design.

The revolution has already taken place in reverse

order (profession to academia). Instead of a complete

overhaul of NAAB, in addition to referencing LEED,

sustainability must become a core competency in

AEC education to realize the change we need.

ENGINEERING

Engineers, key in realizing deep resource reductions

and who have been at the forefront of the movement,

are learning to work and think more iteratively – like

architects! Historically, architects design alone until

Design Development (DD), where they pass their

design to engineers to make them work, largely

relying on coordination to occur during the

Construction Documentation (CD) phase of a project.

This “caste” system placed the architect in total

control, leaving engineers the job of solving only the

problem given and not informing smarter choices.

This is typically how projects are scheduled and fees

distributed. Can you imagine an engineer, paid a

percentage of the cost of the system they specify,

deciding on a free-running building? Likely not! As

you can imagine, the resultant of this process is

difficult coordination, sick buildings, cost increases,

and no “un-green” buildings. Today, engineers are on

projects earlier, establishing boundaries for architects

to work within to meet rigorous codes and third party

ratings systems, while providing Owners a smooth

landing for Operations and Maintenance (O+M).

Instead of reacting once to a “designed” problem,

engineers are active in the design process (when most

impact comes at lowest cost), working with architects

to generate integrated, innovative solutions. Some

even earn fees based not on systems specifications

but also on realizing predicted performance of

systems, discussed later.

Jacob Knowles (“up-sourced”), Director of

Sustainability for Bard, Rao and Athanas (BR+A) in

Watertown, MA, leads a division working to achieve

third party green certifications on projects all over the

U.S. He is not a professional engineer but an

architect! After undergraduate study at the Rhode

Island School of Design (RISD), he worked as a sole

practitioner and at the Green Roundtable (obviously a

5

local generator of future dedicated sustainability

professionals) prior to transitioning into engineering.

BR+A wanted someone to better communicate their

“green” mission and found Jacob’s skills the right fit.

Since 2011, he has grown a department of seven

dedicated staff and two part-time team members,

focusing on energy modeling, LEED Administration,

and MEP consultation. Interestingly, half his staff

plus some supporting team members are architects!

Similarly to architecture, engineering backgrounds

are not prerequisite for working in dedicated

sustainability roles; BR+A’s impressive sustainability

portfolio testifies to this.

This cross-pollination means teams speak the same

language and equally value aesthetic impacts

(traditionally, solely the architect’s realm) of

engineering solutions, raising them above mundane

problem solving towards being spatially generative.

Other firms have taken similar approaches, such as

WSP Flack+Kurtz’s “Built Ecology”, a sub-practice

of their global presence focusing on innovative

sustainable design solutions, beyond LEED

compliance. This approach is more typical in Europe,

where winning jobs is mostly via design competition.

In competition–based acquisition markets, teams

“charette” ideas, and selection is based on a

proposal’s power to exceed tenets of the brief.

Designers looking for competitive edge often partner

with specialists for advanced ideas to “wow” clients

(“out-sourcing”), often building strong relationships

across entire portfoliosxiii

. Firms in Boston are

increasingly finding it competitive to team up in this

manner to push innovation and “wow” clients,

resulting in more innovative “green” buildingsxiv

.

It is no coincidence this is happening in Boston. AE

firms have long-standing working relationships on

large, complex projects (labs, healthcare, etc.)

resulting in less “silos” due to integration such

typologies require; however, complete inter-

disciplinary industry saturation, even in Boston, is

still not the norm. Sustainability is still an additional

service for firms and bonus for Owners willing to

spend for innovation or to make a built statement.

Despite increasing capabilities, innovation is still

more novel than meeting third party ratings systems,

even in Bostonxv

. Should not all buildings push

beyond basic “greenness”, particularly since Boston

requires all projects to demonstrate such compliance

(the new code minimum)? Yes; however, due to the

growth of LEED/USGBC (now an international

force), this has been the anchor leveraged pushing

innovation and collaboration, for better or worse.

Engineers are commonly asked for proof of concepts

(simulations showing predicted performance) by

Owners and having their design logic scrutinized by

third-party certification bodies. Although the “lion’s

share” of LEED points not awarded by virtue of a

building’s site falls on engineers, architects typically

perform LEED Administration since they are

responsible for synthesis of the whole, involved

longest, bear most of the risk, and have the

perspective to understand projects holistically. The

emergence of dedicated sustainability professionals is

not intended to divorce architecture and engineering;

it is a finer level of integration and quality control

designed to streamline shared processes and

opportunities.

CONSTRUCTION

Typically, in a design-bid-build scenario, architects

(with Consultants) are tied to Owners via separate

contract than that binding Owners and Contractors.

Each contract stipulates both parties obligation to the

Owner by cooperating on their behalf - fertile ground

for disputes to arise with two diametrically opposed

motivations:

1. The architect, responsible for design, not means

and methods, is responsible for maintaining the

integrity of their “vision”, as expressed within

the contract documents.

2. The contractor, reacting to design via means and

methods implied by their interpretation of the

contract documents, is concerned with

constructing their interpretation based on how

little they can spend to maximize profit.

This sounds like a recipe for disaster but is the

balancing beam the industry has long traversed. Note:

the contractor (sole proprietor of construction means

and methods) is typically excluded until all critical

decisions are made! Some Owners are seeking

alternate methods of project delivery where the

contractors are included early, including Construction

Management (CM), Design-Build, and Integrated

Project Delivery (IPD). It is beyond the scope of this

paper to discuss each in detail; however, it is worth

mentioning the industry shifting towards earlier,

front-loaded decision making with all parties present.

Some contracts even stipulate “integrated teams”

share risk (or reward) as a guarantee of predicted

project performance for energy, water, etc. This

defers a contingency of the design fee payable when

at up to or beyond one-year post occupancy proof of

predicted performance in reality is demonstrated!

Such integration is slow to take root across the AEC

industry, particularly since legally, professionals have

shied from sharing risk and because the process is

tied to fees – a hard sell during a recession!

6

Advantages of this approach are continual feedback

loops, improved delivery, and long-term involvement

with buildings and clients.

Norm Lamonde (in-sourced) did not start his career

as an aspiring “green” contractor. He had a project

with an add-alternate for an ice storage system, and

after learning more, he wondered why such a great

technology was not more common. A decade later, he

is Head of Sustainability for Turner Construction

(Boston). This moment transformed his career into a

passion for “greening” construction. Norm’s role on

“green” projects is held to upholding “greenness” of

specifications by other AE professionals - making

buildings as “green” as specified by others; however,

his position and experience allow him a great deal of

credibility as a sustainability advocate, using his

construction waste management experience to

advocate at the state level to ban valuable, recyclable

materials from entering MA landfills. Leveraging

several Boston groups, including A Better City

(ABC) and the MA chapter of the USGBC (both of

which he serves on the Board of Directors), he has

been impactful in eliminating gypsum board and

carpet from MA landfills, as well as achievement of

third party certifications.

SPECIALTIES

Many other fields are exploring synergies with AEC

professionals. A common example is partnering with

utility providers for rebates. Another service,

Demand Response (DR), allows companies to

voluntarily shed energy load during summer peak

periods. DR is currently facilitated between third

parties (such as EnerNoc) and Owners to shift load

for critical uses to avoiding blackouts or demand for

new utility plants. The benefit to organizations using

DR is they save money by cutting peak energy use

and are paid for shed load!

Integrated project teams are getting more diverse and

embracing practices from non-construction

disciplines. Biologists, for example, are beginning to

inspire AEC teams using nature’s billions of years of

R&D - referred to as “Biomimicry”. Timothy

McGee, of IDEO and co-founder of Biomimicry New

England, is one such hybrid, facilitating discussions

and observation sessions which force teams to ask

questions using biological models to solve design

problems. His background is not in design, but as we

have illustrated, this is not a barrier to creative

thinking!

Tim led a team tasked with examining the USGBC’s

organizational structure. The exercise incorporated

“direct observation, abstraction, (and) using stories as

wisdom”xvi

where biological models became

abstractions for new organizational structures. This

resulted in eighty local chapters gaining more

autonomy, while the national office united them

through commonly defined scope and roles. Each

participant (facilitators and participants) had to think

critically to identify opportunities, ask questions, and

confront the limitations of their respective fields to

think outside the box, applying collective knowledge.

PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER:

Designers no longer safely exist within their well-

defined professional silos. Increasing opportunity

exists for those seeking to stoke innovation and

influence better products and business practices.

Architects speak engineering, engineers speak

biology, biologists speak business, owners see

“green” savings from “green” choices, and

contractors are influencing policy! We not only are

working together but are finally leading! As project

complexity increases, specialists will be at the helm

of innovation. Many firms have started, and there is

no single answer for what or how this can manifest.

Every firm’s take on these roles is unique, so, the real

question is, what can firms do get started?

First, they should reflect, realizing their needs not in

comparison to other companies. What is right for one

may not be their ideal fit. They should evaluate

where sustainability is strong or lacking and envision

the competitive edge they seek prior to finding out

how to achieve it. Then, they can identify in-house

champions (in-sourcing), either by creating a group

(“green team”) or a titled role. If firms discover zero

capacity, it is advisable to “up-source” (hire in the

capability) if they are dedicated to allowing the new

person to evolve and define the role for the company.

Firms can also “out-source” if time or desire is to

develop the role in-house is lacking. It is important to

take a risk while also understanding the level of

commitment to be self-sufficiently “green”.

Regardless, the time to start is now! Lastly, the field

of possibility is wide open. Professionals with

different, complementary skills and diverse

backgrounds challenge companies in new ways, bring

new skills, and are not weighed down by historic

perceptions, often encumbering firms using “in-

sourcing”xvii

. Creation of the role is not enough.

Successful roles need managerial support, time

(overhead), resources (funding), and support from

colleagues within their firms. Ironically, these folks

may actually stymie staff sustainable knowledge!

7

Although hired to champion sustainability, they often

become a firm “crutch”, alleviating staff

responsibility for owning sustainability. This is a

constant challenge facing the leaders mentioned

herein, in Boston, and beyond.

CONCLUSION

The emergence of dedicated sustainability

professional roles in the AEC industry is a complex

issue with many players and approaches. What has

been identified is the need for highly specialized yet

multi-facetted practitioners, communicators, teachers,

conjurers, etc. This is partly because of more

stringent energy codes, higher collaborative demand,

increased volume of work designed to meet third

party certifications, increased complexity of meeting

third party certifications, and lastly, the desire to have

a greater environmental impact. Boston has been at

the forefront of this emerging trend in the AEC

industry, as well as in other professions, largely due

to the economic opportunities available locally, a

strong social consciousness, a higher than average

saturation of professionals and academic institutions,

and a spirit currently unfolding which links all

professions and businesses around sustainability as a

core value. This movement will only continue to

strengthen, fortunately so for the enrichment of our

professions, environment, and human enjoyment.

AKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

The 2013 BSA SEC membership and contributors

who have graciously donated their time and energy to

this study are hereby duly recognized:

Contributors:

Norm Lamonde, Turner Construction

Jacob Knowles, Bard, Rao + Athanas

Franziska Amacher, Amacher & Associates

Timothy McGee, IDEO

Lance Fletcher, Boston Architectural College

Troy Peters, Wentworth Institute of Technology

2013 Committee Members:

Blake Jackson, LEED AP, EDAC, GRP (co-chair)

Peter Papesch, AIA (co-chair)

Christopher Haines, AIA

Paul Desjardins, AIA, PE, LEED AP

Bill Grover, AIA

8

i

“People, Planet, Profit”: This realizes true sustainability is a balance of positive impacts in each category.

ii

SmartMarket Report, “World Building Trends – Business Benefits Driving New and Retrofit Market Opportunities in Over

60 Countries” (Feb 28, 2013)

iii

ENR’s Top 100 Green Design Firms for 2013 (July 3, 2013)

iv

Taken from “U.S. Construction spending approaches 4-1/2 year High” (Tuesday, 10-22-2013):

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/22/us-construction-spending-idUSBRE99L0PV20131022

v

Results of a study conducted as part of an annual retreat in 2011, graciously shared by BuildingGreen.

vi

This is reinforced by the AIA dropping ‘Sustainable Design’ criteria from annual continuing education units (CEU)

requirements for licensure, implying that the topic was now mainstream and fully saturated across the industry.

vii

This was a key reason the University of Lincoln (UK) closed their MSc Sustainability program (2007).

viii

In his article “Reclaiming Economic Progress by Limiting Economic Growth” (06,27, 2013 Journal of Sustainability,

author Christopher Haines refers to the architectural studios (academic and professional) as cauldrons where

comprehensive design skills are forged, (yet) rarely can assemble the inter- and trans-disciplinary skills that a real-

world sustainable problem solution requires. For further reading, see:

http://www.jsedimensions.org/wordpress/?s=christopher+haines.

ix

The U.S. Green building Council and the EPA both agree that Americans spend approximately 90% of their time in

buildings, see: “Buildings and their Impact on the Environment: A Statistical Summary” (Revised April 22,2009)

x

See Boston Society of Architects homepage: www.architects.org

xi

MA is the most energy efficient state (ACEEE State Energy Efficiency Scorecard) since 2012.

xii

TK&A eventually experimented with “up-sourcing” when the role became vacant in 2010, by hiring the author. It is of

note that instead of disbanding the position, while the firm experienced a hiring freeze, they chose to remain

dedicated to it by recruiting a person to advance the role.

xiii

See the work of Rogers, Stirk, Harbour and BDSP in the UK/EU. Their partnership has resulted in several cannons of

sustainable design, including the Welsh Parliament and the Bodegas Protos Winery.

xiv

For more, see BR+A’s involvement with the Frauenhoffer Institute in Boston’s Seaport District.

xv

The Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) requires all city projects to submit a LEED Scorecard demonstrating

“certifiability” on the most recent release of the scorecard per the particular project type; however, there exists no

mechanisms to fully vet “certifiability”, and this only represents the minimum threshold (40-49 points out of 110

possible) of the LEED rating system. Owners are not forced to undergo actual certification and third party verification

of the Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) either.

xvi

Excerpt from: http://www.fastcompany.com /1643489/biomimicry-challenge-ideo-taps-octopi-and-flamingos-

reorganize-usgbc

xvii

A major difficulty at TK&A which eventually led them to experiment with “up-sourcing” was the original Sustainability

Practice Leader had difficulty shedding her perception as an administrative support staff.