Measuring approximately 38,000m2, Federal square stands out as a masterpiece of architecture. This is a size equivalent to a city block. It lies on top of a fully operational railway and, in contrast to conventional public spaces, it is constituted of interlocked and cascaded spaces. It exits at from all of the city’s angles to produce multiple connections as well as vistas. There is a widely held perception that its design borrows a lot from the concept of a confederation which is all about bringing together (Pierluigi 2006, p. 258).
Interior Space
As Goffman (1959, p. 23) states, buildings always have a way of interacting with their interior. The Federal Square has an open interior and measures 16 by 16 meters. It has a gallery enclosed with glasses which shelter the plazas extension, in addition to acting as NGV’s forecourt as well as a forecourt to other business spaces. Its interior further makes use of multiple non-uniform structural frame shapes. The same is the case with NGV building. This lattice offers the much needed support to the glass panels. Also of interest are the distinct frame density, shades, as well as orientation views that subtly change to create in-built variability along the atrium’s length.
On the other hand, the roof is more pronounced at the Atrium and alters the space from its sensational winter garden look to something more of a greenhouse that is made of glass. However, the area, which could have easily passed off as a botanical glasshouse in the past, appears to be closer to a shaded street that digs deep into buildings’ entire mass/structure (Byrnes 2012, p. 14). Further, there is the sold roof placed on a rather choppy structure according it a unique look. Ultimately, it easily passes of for a mall or a foyer.
Its design extends beyond mere logo representations. The design almost certainly offers more than just a free façade idea but rather stretched beyond the décor (Coslovich 2009, p. 115). The entire design of the space is such that it not only matches its geographical location, but also the décor of Melbourne city. The space is further classified on basis of contextual references rebuff without losing its form and image. Further, it deservedly benefits from the current scenario, location at the city’s edge, infrastructural proximity, as well as topographic land-scape maps that help align two major buildings at the complex. The buildings include “The Ian Potter Centre: NGV Australia” and “Atrium (Brown-May 2003, p. 68).” However, there are also other compositions which offer the space the much needed strong impression and aura reminiscent of classical work of architecture.
Further, note should be taken of the triangular geometry of the shards. This rather unique geometrical alignment regulates the structures as well as aesthetics of various components. The representation of multifarious lines in the building’s body presents multiple and confusing perceptions/views (Shmith 2014, p. 211). However, it could as well be depicted as representative of the composition adopted during construction process. To an extent, this element appears as architectural work’s cover, while to another extent, it can be viewed as claddings not attached to the architectural work’s outer cover (Byrnes 2012, p. 15).
NGV interior is characterized with a double filament galleries composition as expressed.
Atmosphere
The claddings in both the NGV building and the Federal Square allow for camouflage to the space’s enclosure, but leave room for aesthetic glamour associated. The thickened wall, on the other hand, lacks any significant purpose rather than only looking as a mask (Brown-May 2003, p. 71). The enclosures are made in such a way that the area retains its aesthetical appeal. The position of the openings largely depends on contingency of the interior, alongside the immediate space (Coslovich 2009, p. 114). Other than these, the polychromatic nature of the claddings facilitated by a mixture of materials used including sand-stone exteriors, alongside zinc and glass components (Byrnes 2012, p. 16). This is closely in line with topographical motion of various building parts.
The NGV building is a symbolical representation of culture in its polymorphous exterior. Additionally, it offers physical access through its several entrances. The buildings’ major collections are created in a controlled and chronological order and as such offer a platform through which visitors can also inscribe their individual experiences to the galleries’ collection by moving then view-lines to the galleries. In essence, visitors have to engage NGV’s collections.
The approach yields great display in its South Eastern facade, more particularly with respect to its plan. The sectional drawing cuts across the stairway to the south (Shmith 2014, p. 212). Further, the building’s intra-filaments are as intriguing as the entire space within which it lies. The structure is characterized with a kind of volumetric composition, whereby space is defined by both natural and artificial aspects. The extensive and unique tectonic strategy applied in NGV terminates at the Atrium (Shmith 2014, p. 212). Consequently, it falls under classification of architectural realization of the19th century architect’s dream with regard to applicability of steel and glass in areas other than aesthetics in design (Coslovich 2009, p. 113). Further, in the past, public space definition purely encompassed empty spaces representative of commercial or cultural centers.
Also worth mentioning is the Atrium. This is a remarkably excellent gallery structure made of steel and glass. The structure has an excellent indoor also doubling as exhibition stands, allows display of items, and also used for showcasing purposes. This space is, as a matter of fact, home to top galleries in Melbourne and so is NGV building. Other than enjoying constant flow of pedestrians, it has a hanging ceiling. Its central flow is further modified by two galleries, in each case, steel offering good rig locations. It also avails a means for directly accessing the renowned, “Deakin Edge theatre.” All the venues offer huge potential for hosting festivals, exhibitions and other great events. This puts it in a strategic position in terms of usability.
Differentiation
NGV Australia, just like the Federation Square, provides its statement in a discrete manner. Its faceted atrium canopy, outdoor plaza embrace, and/or enormous nature of exhibition hall, that is veiled in darkness, gives unique and discrete statements (Coslovich 2009, p. 114). The line with figure eight architectural across NGV building leads the journey conjuring what appears to be ghostly architectural heritage; sentimental aspirations to cultural insight as well as contemporary utopianism are suggested by elements that include gallery’s scale ascension (Brown-May 2003, p. 77).
The blend, glamour and master-piece have a lot to offer in terms of visual renderings. In deviation from grid, the federal square displays traits typical of contemporary society, thanks to the crystalline patterns visible in the exterior. There is also a distraction of lighting tracks configuration. Additionally, the design calls for temporary display walls placement, such that there is intrusion of architectural design into exhibition meaning (Shmith 2014, p. 213). On the other hand, NGV’s architecture provides curatorial/creative opportunities just like it does constraints.
The basic overlapping galleries’ combination allows a straightforward route across its outstanding layout. Alternatively, there are pathways through which one can opt to traverse the building. Traversing the building is easy, thanks to a range of accessibility options that converge at its central position (Brown-May 2003, p. 73). The section formed at the building’s cross-bar inter-section.
The main exhibition space has dual over-lapping filaments. In their midst, filaments have been formed. The spaces are within enclosures, show calmness, and are darker to the building’s northern area. This opens to the outer landscape which offers a view of Yarra facing the south. However, the internal filament space to the South has continuous glass walls that bridge the levels (Brown-May 2003, p. 74).
Total Design
The Deck
Below the square is a deck upon which it lays. The deck is extremely big and projected to be amongst the largest in the city. It is made of steel and concrete supports. In addition to this, there are spring coils whose functions are more about controlling vibrations than offering support. The deck also has rubber paddings. Its design also makes it suitable for sensitive uses such as radio station transmissions, TV stations, and cinemas (Byrnes 2012, p. 14). Thanks to its ability to seclude vibrations and noise, it is readily usable for such functions.
The Fractal Facade at Federation Square
Other than ability to support sensitive functions, Federal square’s and the NGV building offer plenty of space for galleries. They bring together surface in order to form an outstanding appearance that accounts for a large portion of its uniqueness. The surface geometries also help in maintaining unity irrespective of having different buildings within it. Its façade, rather distinctive, has an outstanding geometry made purely from triangular slabs (Brown-May 2003, p. 56). The slabs are combined into several pieces each to form bigger triangular with the process repeating itself upwards to produce the outstanding triangular pin-wheel grid. The grid is further a product of multiple materials, that is, sand-stone, glass pieces and zinc (Coslovich 2009, p. 114). As already mentioned, the segmental system combines five small triangular shaped slabs to create a bigger triangular slab panel, and so forth until the entire façade is ready (Byrnes 2012, p. 14). The formed slabs are then mounted to steel frames.
Figure 1: Pin-wheel facade.
Federal square’s Edges and centers
Flinders Street marks the end of the square. This is more particularly to its northern side. There is also Seidlers’ Shell Building constituting the space’s edge, which marks a grid corner. It also forms part of the street’s wall and stretches along the Boulevard lane. The joining of the edges is such that they reinforce their point of linkage to the open panorama at St. Paul’s façade (Brown-May 2003, p. 67). Also included in its edges is the Lab architecture studio, a structure that contributes to fine labyrinthine lane dotting the street grid.
The section stretching through the main plaza as one originates from Swanston Street, strikes one with an artificial yet so natural-looking scene reminiscent of desert-like space. This may even pass as a true depiction of surreal geology. However, there is some form of pre-urban landscape in the region between the normal levels and the train’s lanes. This is more like the NGV building which incorporate a modern look that completely alters its environ.
Research notes
In a single definition, despite the fact that the void is of extreme importance to Mies, the architectural input fills the lacking inspirational attractiveness expected of the structure and further offers a reasonable alternative to deal with the dull outlook (Coslovich 2009, p. 113). It should be noted that the Atrium has a lot to offer (Strizic 2014, p. 35). Its elegant and attractive structure stretches and twists, in addition to leaning on the gallery’s wall creating memories of the 19th century approaches. As a matter of fact, the Atrium can be said to sensationalize relationship of organic/mechanic to the traditional distinction between decor and structure. This is achieved effectively such that the structure itself looks more like a decor monument (Brown-May 2003, p. 72). The building confirms unification of tectonics and space and as such, endorses an intrinsic link between decor and structure.
Other than a unique range of spatial features, there is a disappointing abrupt boundary termination. Restoration of Batman Avenue has been done in asphalt, but still fails to front the street as desirable (Coslovich 2009, p. 112). At times there is stepping down into non-existent space. In some areas, the concept backs uncertain of a street’s existence.
Conclusion
In general, the Federal square can be termed as an imaginary urban life vision. In essence, it combines culture, recreation as well as commerce while at the same time maintaining Melbourne’s city glamour (Coslovich 2009, p. 115). The federal square, therefore, stands out as a common public space that brings together cultures, design, people as well as innovative works. It incorporates mixture of attractions which embody Victorian fine arts, acts of hospitality, vibrant events, and boldness, among others.
Similarly, NGV building stands out as symbolic and monumental buildings. Like the Federal Square, it espouses major architectural pillars that help it effectively merge with its surroundings to create a unique and serene environment.
References
Brown-May, A 2003, Federation Square, Hardie Grant Books, South Yarra, Vic.
Byrnes, M 2012, The Best and Worst of the World’s Central Plazas and Squares, The Atlantic Cites, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 13-15.
Coslovich, G 2009, The Square’s vicious circle, The Age, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 113 -117.
Goffman, E 1959, Presentation of self in everyday life, Doubleday, New York.
Pierluigi, S 2006, ‘The Spectacular Form of Interior Architecture Under the New Conditions of Urban Space’ in Fisher, F, Keeble T, Lara-Betancourt, P & Martin, B (eds), Performance Fashion And The Modern Interior, Berg, London, UK, pp. 257 – 269.
Shmith, M 2014, Raising the roof with a glass ceiling, The Age, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 211-215.
Strizic, M 2014, A Journey in Photography, Travelling Exhibitions, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 34-39.
The construction industry helps people to meet their requirements of shelter, investment, and fulfillment of some communal objective. Nonetheless, the realization of such objectives generally leads to enduring damage to the environment. Over the years, there has been a global awareness about such damage and efforts are being made to make the construction industry sustainable and accountable towards the environment. An appreciative effort was made in this field in the year 1987 when the Brundland Report was presented. Since then, there have been various developmental efforts – by way of global conferences – to increase the sustainability of buildings. The thoughts and strategies commenced by these world proceedings have provoked positive actions and many countries have put various strategies (pertaining to sustainable construction) into practice. By adopting the suggestions of sustainable construction, the building industry can contribute in an optimistic and proactive way towards safeguarding the environment. Before adopting any measures for sustainable construction, it is imperative to understand the level to which buildings have an impact on the environment. Environmental performance assessment tools offer such details so that appropriate changes can be made to the design and operation of buildings in order to make them sustainable. In this paper, global environment assessment tools such as BREEAM, LEED, Green Star, NABERS, and SBTool will be discussed.
Body
BREEAM
The Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology (BREEAM) is the pioneer and one of the leading environmental assessment tools in the world. It was started in 1990 in the United Kingdom by the Building Research Establishment (BRE); BRE is a charity organization. To date, more than one million buildings have been registered for certification and almost one-fourth of them have been certified. The system sets standards for best practices during the various phases of construction. The use of low-carbon products is promoted among the designers, owners, and customers. The main aim behind this is to minimize the energy demand even before it is actually put into use. So, minimizing the demand for energy comes before making and implementing plans to conserve it (BREEAM 2014).
Appropriate benchmarks are set for the various phases of construction and are assessed using standard performance measures. Such standards are higher than the government guidelines. Various categories such as ecology and energy are considered while assessing the building. General aspects such as water & energy consumption, wastage, and environment are also considered for the assessment. The system is transparent and simple and has an encouraging impact on the design and other features of the construction process. The certified buildings get market recognition and the clients feel convinced that appropriate testing methods have been incorporated (BREEAM 2014). The rating benchmarks and labeling systems in BREEAM are different for different structures. An example of eco-homes is mentioned below:
Total percentage available: 100%
Pass: 36% to 47%
Good: 58% to 69%
Very good: 58% to 69%
Excellent: 70% and more (Xiaoping, Huimin & Qiming 2009, p. 4).
LEED
The Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) was founded by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) in the United States in 1998 when its first version (V1.0) was launched; USGBC is a not-for-profit organization. Over the years, different versions, such as V2.0 and V3.0, have come into force (Xiaoping, Huimin & Qiming 2009). LEED caters to a variety of projects such as building design and construction, interior design and construction, building operations and maintenance, neighborhood development, and homes (LEED 2014; Barnes 2012). While there may be different inputs required for benchmarking various functions of a building, the generally considered benchmarks are for energy and water use. The annual consumption of energy and water is recorded and compared with the standards that have already been set. Energy Star Portfolio Manager Tool is used to exhibit the outcome. Optional benchmarks include building waste generation and vehicle miles traveled (USGBC 2013). The rating benchmarks and labeling systems in LEED are as under:
Total points: 69
Certified: 26 to 32 points
Silver: 33 to 38 points
Gold: 39 to 51 points
Platinum: 52 or more points (Xiaoping, Huimin & Qiming 2009, p. 4).
Green Star
The Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) was started in 2002 in Australia and is a charity organization. It promotes the acceptance of the green building concept throughout Australia. Its endeavors are supported by the construction industry and government throughout the nation (GBCA 2014a). GBCA caters to the certification needs of varied nature of clients such as healthcare, education, industrial, office, and private buildings. For instance, The Green Star ‘Industrial v1 Rating Tool’ measures the environmental aspects of new and renovated industrial structures. The tool can be put into use at either the design stage or after the construction has been completed (GBCA 2014b). By using the Green Star tool, clients are able to play down the environmental impact of their structures, augment their business performance and staff productivity, develop a long-term investor worth, get recognition, and accomplish cost savings. “Its categories include building management, indoor environmental goals, energy, emissions, and innovation” (Downton 2011, p. 6).
SBTool
The Sustainable Building Tool (SBTool) was initially referred to as GBTool. The launching (in 1996) of this tool (GBTool) was a result of the Green Building Challenge (GBC) that included combined efforts of various groups from across the globe. GBC was the brainchild of Natural Resources Canada. In 2002, the charge was given to the International Initiative for a Sustainable Built Environment (iiSBE). The purpose of this tool is to measure the environmental and sustainable performance of construction structures. The SBTool was formally launched (after the name change) in the year 2007 (Xiaoping, Huimin & Qiming 2009). The rating benchmarks and labeling systems in SBTool are: If the score is ‘-1’, the rating is ‘deficient’. The minimum acceptable performance scoring is ‘0’. The scoring for best practices is ‘+5’ and if the scoring is between ‘1’ and ‘4’, it is considered to be an intermediate performance level (Xiaoping, Huimin & Qiming 2009, p. 4).
NABERS
The National Australian Built Environment Rating System (NABERS) is an Australian environmental assessment tool that gauges the performance of construction structures. The tool is mainly used in Australia and assesses the “energy efficiency, water usage, waste management and indoor environment quality of the building or tenancy and its impact on the environment” (NABERS 2013, p. 1). It awards stars based on the rating of buildings on the basis of their annual performance with regard to energy and water consumption and the generated waste. A building requiring an assessment by NABERS has to match the benchmarks set for other buildings in the vicinity. The benchmarks pertain to the climatic conditions of the structure, the total time that the structure is in use, the standard of services, the sources of energy used, and the structure’s size and tenancy.
Discussion
BREEAM is the leader in environmental assessment in England. LEED is an assessment company based in the United States. Both the systems are being used by clients in the construction industry in the UK. The main difference among these systems is the manner in which the assessment is done. The modus operandi of certification is also different. BREEAM assessors need to undergo appropriate training before qualifying to assess buildings. On the other hand, LEED assessors do not require any formal training. BREEAM is based on best practice standards while LEED has optional standards. The thresholds observed in BREEAM are quantitative while those in LEED are based on percentage. BREEAM is based on CO2 while LEED is based on US dollars. The main concentration of BREEAM is in the UK while LEED is mainly operational in the US. BREEAM encourages assessor involvement while LEED has team involvement (BSRIA 2009).
While both BREEAM and LEED are fully market-oriented, the market orientation of SBTool is moderate. Both BREEAM and LEED have a strong market penetration. BREEAM has increased flexibility in the United Kingdom, whereas LEED has it in the United States. On the other hand, SBTool has high flexibility throughout the world. The usage domains of LEED include home, educational institution, commercial buildings, healthcare, and buildings with several functions. BREEAM’s usage domains include home, office, retail business, industries, educational institutions, healthcare, prison, and buildings with several functions. SBTool has the facility to assess all kinds of buildings. The assessment criteria differ in these assessment tools as under:
LEED: “Sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy & atmosphere, materials & resources, indoor environmental quality, innovation & design process” (Xiaoping, Huimin & Qiming 2009, p. 4).
BREEAM: “Management energy, transport, pollution, materials, water, land use and ecology, health and wellbeing” (Xiaoping, Huimin & Qiming 2009, p. 4).
SBTool: “Site selection, project planning, and development, energy and resource consumption, environmental loadings, indoor environmental quality, social and economic aspects, cultural and perceptual aspects” (Xiaoping, Huimin & Qiming 2009, p. 4).
The life cycle coverage (stages of construction) of LEED, BREEAM, and SBTool are programming, designing, construction, and operation. The weighting system in LEED is provided by LEED V3.0, whereas BREEAM itself has its own weighting system. In the case of SBTool, the weighting system is provided by iiSBE and there is an option of developing a new weighting system as well.
Conclusion
The endeavors of the global community and the construction industry, in particular, show that there is a general awareness about the detrimental effects of the construction industry on the environment. Various steps have been initiated in the past to tackle this problem and as a result, different countries have launched their environmental assessment tools. In doing so, they have set various benchmarks for different aspects of the construction process. It is understood that the global construction industry is adapting to such benchmarks and construction firms are trying their best to achieve better grades. There is public awareness as well about environmental preservation and as such, people prefer buildings that have higher ratings. BREEAM is considered to be the pioneer in such assessment tools.
References
Barnes, L L 2012, ‘Green buildings as sustainability education tools’, Library Hi Tech, vol. 30. no. 3, pp. 397-407.
The Inland Revenue building is a government building that houses many offices in Nottingham. The architects used displacement-pilling method of constructing the building. The displacement piling method is ideal for this location because of the soil texture and the kind of roofing used for the building. Displacement piling allows the foundation of the building to withstand many weights exerted by the steel roof. The water levels as well in the land make the displacement piling method necessary for this location (Friedman 85). Pre-cast concrete driven piling is the most used kind of displacement piling at the Inland Revenue building.
Constructors use different installation processes in construction. It is possible for constructors to use varied installation processes in a single building depending on the condition of the land. At Inland Revenue building, the installation processes used include jetting, vibration and dropping weight. The jetting process helps to take care of the drainage problems. The land surface and the closeness of the foundation to the waterbed make the issue of drainage critical at Inland Revenue (Harter 51). Dropping weight and vibration helps to ensure stability of the building and the ability to withstand physical disruption.
The system is quite essential for this location because of various factors. First, the soil in the area is rather soft; therefore, a replacement piling method would make the foundations weak. Secondly, grilling and other installation techniques are expensive. The piling and installation process used allows fewer disturbances and assures high productivity of the building. Consequently, the displacement piling method ensures that the building has limited access thus raising its security levels (Harter 77). The system also favors the environmental health of the land because it does not produce many materials to dispose. However, this kind of foundation is susceptible to noise and vibration problems. If the foundation were a location one mile north of Inland Revenue, the best piling system would still be displacement method because of the soil texture. However, in this case, the best displacement method to use would be thick walls driven steel tubes.
Works Cited
Friedman, Michael. Kant’s construction of nature: a reading of the Metaphysical foundations of natural science. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Print.
Harter, Susan. The construction of the self: developmental and socio-cultural foundations. New York, NY: Guilford Press, 2012. Print.
Even the common building project requires knowledge of all relevant building regulations. For instance, the Department for Communities and Local Government provides all residents with information about approved documents. Thus, regardless of the type of building, owners should provide documents about structure, fire safety, resistance to sound, and others (“Approved Documents” par. 1-3). Current building regulations and the need for planning permission will be evaluated for the standard house and terrace.
Extensions and Additions. There is no need to apply for planning permission when extensions and additions are going to be built. However, if more than half the area around the house is to be utilized for additions, it is obligatory to apply for permission. According to the guide, the building of extensions and additions to terraces usually requires planning permission (“Interactive terrace” n. pag.);
Garages. It is not required to apply for permission if the garage is to be built around the house. In case the garage should be constructed as an extension to the house, permission is necessary. Besides, there are regulations concerning garage sizes that do require permission. Finally, the conversion of the garage into the dwelling place demands permission too. The provided information concerns the only standard house. No garages are included in the other interactive guide;
Paving the front garden. Paving regulations are the same for both types of buildings. No planning permission is necessary for the replacement or building of the driveway unless it is not permeable or the flow of rainwater is blocked;
Manholes and drains. The very work with manholes and drains normally does not require planning permission for both the standard house and terrace. However, one should clarify details concerning ownership and responsibility. It should be added that permission is not required if the same type of drain or manhole should be fitted. In case any other type of manhole or sewage arrangements (including those using septic tanks) will be installed, the owner has to apply for permission;
Conservatories. Regulations are the same as extensions and additions. Thus, particular criteria concerning the size, form, and position of conservatories predetermine the need to apply for permission. The most challenging thing is to design a conservatory properly. According to the information provided, “a badly designed conservatory can be a huge energy drain for the house as a whole” (“Interactive house” n. pag.). The information refers to both types;
Decking and barbecues. The work connected with electricity and gas systems installation for barbeques requires the exact following of rules. It is better to ask the specialist to conduct all necessary activities. Decking in both standard house and terrace should be no more than thirty cm above the ground for individual building;
Solar panels — roof-mounted and free-standing. The installation of roof-mounted solar panels does not require planning permission but does require checking of building regulations (the condition of the roof). The installation of free-standing solar panels does not require planning permission unless terrace or house is a listed building;
Wind turbines. In case all specific limits and conditions are met, no permission is required;
Ground source and air source heat pumps. Nothing is mentioned about these pumps in terraces. Ground and air source heat pumps do not require permission. However, it is necessary to follow all building regulations using professional assistance;
Fuel tanks. Planning permission is not required for small tanks in both buildings. The installation should meet all building regulations including the proper storage of fuel and efficient protection;
Adverts and Signage. Small signs may be installed in both types of buildings. Permission may be required for large signs with commercial purposes or those that contain electronic elements.
It is not required to apply for permission to install described elements in both types of dwelling. However, all building regulations should be met. When there is a need to work with electricity, it is better to wait for specialists’ assistance. The only variation is that garage is not included in the interactive guide for the terrace.
The need for planning permission and variations between the standard house and terrace will be investigated about the following elements:
Basements. The conversion of the existing basement in the living place does not require planning permission. The permission is necessary if the owner plans to create a new basement or make significant changes. The information concerns only terraces;
Internal Walls. Planning permission is not normally required in a standard house and terrace. Removal of internal walls should be conducted with care as far as it may affect the safety of the whole building;
Floors. Maintenance of floors can be done without permission. The need for permission may be required if house or terrace is listed building;
Stairs. No planning permission for building or repairing stairs. Stairs should be safe for secure movements of people in both buildings;
Boilers, heating, and radiators. Permission is not obligatory for the installation of boilers, heating, and radiators unless the building is listed. The application is usually required if the hot water or heating system has to be replaced;
Circuits, electricity, and lighting. Planning permission is not required for circuits, electric and basic lighting works. When installing external lighting, one should remember that direction and intensity should not disturb neighbors;
Loft conversions — including insulation and unimproved loft space. All types of loft conversions are allowed without planning permission. The owner should address local authorities in case there is a threat to protected species like bats.
One may conclude that there is a slight difference concerning planning permissions for standard houses and terraces. The most important thing is that if maintenance is connected with advanced, unusual works or installation of new systems planning permission may be required. Besides, any works in listed buildings should be agreed upon with local authorities.
The National Planning Policy Framework describes relevant policies and ways of their implementation. The Policy Framework defines twelve planning principles that can be applied to all types of planning processes. For instance, “planning always seeks to secure a high-quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and building” (Department for Communities and Local Government 11).
According to Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990, a person who is interested in particular land for planning enters into the obligation. This obligation presupposes the necessity to conduct specified actions or pay required sums to authorities (“Town and Country Planning Act 1990” par. 1-2).
Other legislation concerning planning includes statutory instruments and Acts of Parliament. For instance, Planning Act 2008 defines regulations concerning the development of infrastructure in the town and country planning (“Acts of Parliament” par. 7).
The most momentous and significant features of the avant-garde in architectural science are practical representation and proliferation of paper design into the actual object. Over the last decade, architectures of different orientations have represented interesting combinations between pictures and objects comprehensively drawn in a blueprint. This argumentative research paper attempts to explore the significance of drawing in the field of architecture in the periods from the ancient era to the present times. Besides, the treatise concentrates on the arguments of Evans on Revit. In addition, the essay is keen on how a graphic presentation is essential in transforming a drawing into a building and what modern architectures are losing by adopting the Revit technique.
Architectural transformation emphasizes translating a drawing idea into a physical structure. Despite the varying opinions over time, technological push and functionalism remain almost the same (Brown 123). Spectacular designs have been embodied in sharp and spectacular blueprint drawings, paintings, and pectoral cuttings as a result of Revit technique. Interestingly, the idiosyncrasies surrounding these pieces of art often make it an uphill task in architectural description (Pérez-Gómez 311). Thus, this has led to much architecture to question relevance, association, and the link between drawing and actual building. By description, drawing is essential in literal architectural essence. Drawing presents the meditation, future vision, medium, and architectural bear (Byron 124). Moreover, it builds auxiliary which constructs design dominion (Evans 31). However, the drawing medium seems to be divorced from the future of architectural construction. It is therefore necessary to conceive visualization before embarking on creation. In my opinion, the art of building is a constituent of scientific architecture, but secondary in reality. Reflectively, drawings of architectural nature reveal stealth reality. In fact, this nature of visualization on paper is sufficient guidance for builders to practice potent and not latent conception (Cheng 145).
Robin’s conceptualization of drawing is particular, is distinct, and resonates generatively on translation without alteration. Evans asserts that drawing is the only unfailing communicant even in pretense of autonomy by architectures (Cheng 321). The only quantifiable variance would be the fact that endeavors are not a direct medium of operation for an architect. Out of this concept, two views emerge. The first would touch on the texture. The predicament is to ultimately relate a two-dimensional blueprint to an architectural inception to distinguish a mere art form construction (Etienne 231). As asserted bluntly by Robin Evans, architectures are mere drawers of blueprints from which actual buildings are derived. Thus, a systematic translation of a blueprint into a building may be challenging, especially under innovation as a condition. Architecture only constitutes drawing as the basis distinguishing physical art of building and drawing. Moreover, architecture discipline is clear on the facets of a representation of expertise visualization on the domain of what is projected to be the outside appearance of the actual construction process (Wojtowicz 88).
As seen in ancient Greek architecture, the initial effects coming out from a blueprint drawing were an increased standardization capacity, regulated reproduction, and precision, despite the complexities across the territories of Greek. On the other hand, Roman architecture completely benefited from this exposure and widened scopes to include by hinting a systematic capacity of invention exploitation afforded by the drawing medium of their time (Evans 156). Factually, a physical proliferation of the Roman typological architecture without drawing is inconceivable. From the era and stages of Renaissance to present that is from the metamorphosis of Mannerism to Baroque, drawing as a speculative moment for transformation, actually has been gathered mass and reinvented with the discovery of Revit, as opposed to what Evan thought would never be possible (Goodman 179).
The full and practical link between drawing and translation into building was only discovered in the early 1920s. As modernism surged upward, the potential and full power of blueprint drawing, as a vital and high economic mechanism for trial and error, facilitated the adoption of effortless series of invention planes (Smith 187). Basing arguments on this basis, it is to quantify the fact that architecture of the modern era is dependent upon visual arts revolution as a constituent of actual representation. This perception and universally accepted belief of modern abstract art have placed a highly integrated architecture into a legacy of total conquest of unimaginable constructive freedom that was common in the past decades. In the past era, hitherto art was only assumed and understood as a reiteration and mimesis of a subject of the argument and not an important element of complete comparison between a mere drawing and translation into a similar physical structure. According to the architecture ancient era, the basis of architectural operation only lay in representation and not creation (Evans 12). For instance, a canvas was often an easily being presented as the original construction field and planes (Wojtowicz 101).
A monumental and universally accepted breakthrough emerged with the identification of a link between pectoral representation and actual building. As a matter of fact, modern civilization demands experimental architecture. This form of architecture demanded that the drawing and actual structure be a blueprint-actualization process. Through the DeStijl movement group, this representation was made possible. My argument is based on the support of the fact that a drawing should be as practical and possible for direct translation into a visually admirable structure with deep architectural precision as represented in a planning blueprint. From the two-dimensional drawings, a physical structure with similar features should be the basis of the architectural design. Thus, the refusal to link the above elements to each other is only a spatial representation of architectural design and may limit the exploitation of full drawing mediums as part of invention medium (Wojtowicz 199).
On the basis of transformation, graphic maneuvers explicitly drawn by an expertise should gain freedom and fluidity to play indiscriminately irrespective of the complexities surrounding its design. Therefore, these graphics shouldn’t be determined, and set loose from the burden and assumption of preset meaning (Walter 432). From this point, the stage of proliferation and play should be immediately accompanied by informed and tenacious selection and interpretation of work at architectural design. If well augmented, this graphic can easily and consistently translate onto an actual building as visualized and predicted (Walter 67). However, this is not the case in all the projects. Some projects of architectural nature cannot be transformed into actual structures and only remain paper projects. The architecture which is restricted to drawing only allows for such occurrences. In fact, the whole idea of Robin Evans may not be practical in the modern architectural design and implementation. What is the way forward then?
The first move would be translating dynamism and fluidity calligraphic hand into fluid tectonic systems of similar and equal magnitude as situation may require, as done by Hadid (Walter 345). Besides, a calculated and timely move should accompany this in order to relocate from the usual perspective and isometric projection into a more defined exploded auxometry, as a means of avoiding literal space distortion. If professionally assembled, literal space explosion can be represented as fragments of fisheye perspectives of superimposition (Evans 15). Consequently, the meltdown and literal bending of these space components would reflect actuality (Palladino 128). Though this view may seem to be impractical and out of logic, surrealists have confirmed that it was achievable and was best among series of architectural models.
As new models of architectural representation drawings emerge, it is now clear that experimentation of transformability of a drawing into a building should be flexible, distinct, and possessive of content and form. Also, graphic manipulation requires a distinctive representation mode and not a mere object of representation as asserted by Robin Evans. In fact, his school of thought left the question of mode unanswered and unclear if it should count in architectural work. In addition, certain components such as bending, twisting, interpenetrating, and fragmenting were left in the dark and assumed to be inconsequential transformation orbits (Palladino 298). Wholesomely, this argument only presented a constricted fisheye and multi-view model based on a number of assumptions. Sadly, it neglected the reality that a series and chains of display graphics reveal a realizable feature of spatial momentum when systematically and slowly configured into a transformation project. Over time, the modern graphic projection and interpretation have disapproved Evan’s leftist argument by the discovery of the mode component as a transformation feature of any visual drawing for projects expected to transform into a final similar building.
The mode component of graphic design is a powerful compositional tool for articulating programs with rigid complexities. When included, movements along dynamic streams of a complex project are legible as fluidity regions of the transformation structure avoid trapezoidal distortions and immediately and thoroughly respond to any consequential non-orthogonal imbalance. From a functional point of focal view, controlled distortions allow for a reflective and perspective element orientation to operate within design logic. Besides, it ensures that over spilling outrageous logic violation becomes a strategic repertoire deployed to articulation and spatial nuance.
Painterly and pointillist techniques of modulating colors and dissolving objects, along with a natural background, are essential in the process of new design articulation, such as threshold morphing of field space as a constituent of graphic space (Simon 198). Different from the traditional and mindless texture graphic sketching, morphing integration separates different forms of texture and color as selected by the architecture. This dialectic and programmatic abstract machine engenders desired conditions and in the process inspires functionality and configuration. Thus, this radical detour succeeds in meeting its target of transformability.
To understand transformability of a drawing into a structure, it is only fair enough to consider relativity of articulated graphic design or picture (Evans 234). Based on an assumption that monstrous aberrations are part of the beautiful and higher graphic organization, relativity is a constituent of the formalism of typologies tested over time proliferation optimality. Each measure commences with a definite array of comparison options and arbitrary forms. This logic of interpretation is based on the fact that mutation is a result of innovation, reproduction, and selection (Mclehan 125). The drawing Hadid is a critical mutation engine to the architecture culture, especially the transformed two-dimensional medium expected to acquire a three-dimensional reality.
Being an active component of visual representation of the actual architecture, drawing is important in graphic connotation of architecture’s expression. It includes at large scale the art of line debarkation and out-of-line framing as the best strategy for comparing light and darkness through shading. Most architectural drawings are complete when inclusive of tonal and color variation to express the mode and forecasted outlook of the actual structure (Evans 154). Thus, discrete drawing is not only an active representation member, but also a strict definition of the metamorphosis of architectural science over the last jaunty years. In the words of a renowned architecture Albwerto Gomez, drawing is a privileged representation of an object before its actualization (Pérez-Gómez 124). Each drawing is very specific to the mood and visualization aim. Unfortunately, the modern architectural design has lost this component due to the inconsistencies of blueprint, presentation and different confusing jargon assumed to be the best tools of imagined transformation (Hays 234). Reflectively, there are numerous conflicting ways of representing a transformation model depending on the magnitude and actualization facets. Specifically, the world is just a coalition of experiences and preciosity in drawing and architectural construction. In fact, the imagined object, as desired by its creator, is more than what is taken as a pictorial detour (Wigley 279).
As related to the arguments of Robin Evans, architectural conceptualization operates best in the communicant elaboration and not perception (Evans 25). The subject of discussion in this case, which is drawing science, is vital in the description and determination of inner mode and texture (Hill 197). Reflectively, to perfect the art of transformational drawing, the architecture must actualize years of experience and creativity and not mere mediocre. As a matter of fact, this re-articulation may accelerate process recycling, especially when pictorial enrichment is the primary aim. To move a complex project from one level to another, the artist should be careful in looking for any compromising scenario. As technology constantly improves, familial and parallel mediums of representation should surround any analogous operation (Elderfield 235). For instance, a connection between a primary and a secondary medium may trigger convention anchoring. Comprehensive knowledge of a medium like painting presents a complete realm of color combination and layout. Understanding these color techniques may ease the usage and modification of brightness and saturation. Color theory as an image tool of drawing interpretation processing is essential in creating rhythm, connections, contrast, and drawing dynamics of transformation architecture.
In learning the major principles of architectural representation, critical thinking and informed argumentation composition influence the nature and base from which a transformational drawing can be derived. In my opinion, flexibility in thinking and ability to make quality and non-discriminative assumptions may facilitate mental organization. To deliver an idea in a blueprint, persuasive presentational augmentation emulates structural persuasion. From the point of view of a listener, a sketcher, and a builder, decency, and accuracy are universally embraced as the means of expressing polemical synchronic. Choice on the media and form depends on the artist’s own impression and preference. However, it is wrong to distance drawing from actual structure transformation. Modern architecture has lost this part of its own expression but rather depend on a machine to express their creativity.
Though Evans thought this transformation was impossible, in my opinion, this is an inverted assumption based on generalization. The intensive application of these techniques is what makes the difference in architectural drawing transformation projects. This transformation relies on specialty, environmental issues and desires of the immediate needs for the structure. Technology has made visualization and modal transformation much easier.
Works Cited
Pérez-Gómez, Alberto. “Architecture as Drawing.” Journal of Architectural Education 36 (2): 1982. Print.
Brown, G. “Modes of Understanding” in G. Brown et al. (ed.), Language and Understanding. London: Oxford University Press. 1994. Print.
Byron, S., L. Goldstein, D. Murphy and E. Roberts. “Interdisciplinary Dimensions of Debate” in Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching. 16 (1993), ISSN 1015-2059. 1993. Print.
Cheng, N.Y. “Linking the Virtual to Reality: CAD & Physical Modeling” in M. Tan (ed.), CAAD Futures ’95, Singapore: National University of Singapore 1995. Print.
Cheng, N.Y., T. Kvan, and J. Wojtowicz. “Place, Time and the Virtual Design Studio” in D. Van Bakergem (ed.), Re-connecting, ACADIA ’94, St. Louis. 1994. Print.
Etienne, Louis. “Architecture, Essai Sûr L’art,” in Boullée & Visionary Architecture: Including Boullée’s Architecture, Essay on Art, ed. Helen Rosenau, New York: Academy Editions; Harmony Books, 1976. Print.
Evans, R. “Translations from Drawing to Building”, in AA Files 12, London: Architectural Association, Summer. 1986. Print.
Goodman, N. Languages of Art, London: Oxford University Press. 1969. Print.
Smith, James. The Panorama of Science and Art: Embracing the Principal Sciences and Arts, the Methods of Working in Wood and Metal, and a Miscellaneous Selection of Useful and Interesting Processes and Experiments, 13th ed., 2 vols., vol. 2, London: H. Fisher, Son, & co, 1832. Print.
Elderfield, John. The Modern Drawing: 100 Works on Paper from the Museum of Modern Art, New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1983. Print.
Hill, Jonathan. Immaterial architecture, New York: Taylor & Francis, 2006. Print
Wigley, Mark. “Paper, Scissors, Blur,” in The Activist Drawing: Retracing Situationist Architectures from Constant’s New Babylon to Beyond, ed. Constant, et al, Cambridge, MA: Drawing Center, MIT Press, 2001. Print.
Hays, Michael. Architecture Theory since 1968, Cambridge, Mass; London: The MIT Press, 1998. Print.
McLuhan, M. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man,New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company. 1964. Print.
Evans, Robin. “In Front of Lines That Leave Nothing Behind,” AA FIles 6 (1984): 482. In Hays, K. Michael. Architecture Theory since 1968, Cambridge, Mass; London: The MIT Press, 1998. Print.
Evans, Robin. Translations from Drawing to Building and Other Essays, AA Documents; 2, London: Architectural Association, 1997. Print.
Swaffield, Simon. Theory in landscape architecture: a reader, Alabama: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002. Print.
Palladino, Susan. Tools of the imagination: drawing tools and technologies from the eighteenth century to the present, Cambridge: Princeton Architectural Press, 2007. Print.
Walter, Benjamin and Thomas Y. Levin. “Rigorous Study of Art,” 1988. Print.
Wojtowicz, J. (ed.) Virtual Design Studio, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University. 1995. Print.
The Indoor Environment Quality (IEQ) of a building has significant influence on its acoustics perception. “IEQ is the totality of the acoustic characteristics of a building interior that impacts the aural perceptions of the occupants” (Paevere & Brown, 2008). This paper focuses on the positive and negative aspects of acoustics in 30 The Bond Building.
Methodology
The methodology of this acoustic evaluation is based on interviews and the author’s observation. The building services manager of 30 The Bond Building was the first respondent to be interviewed in order to get his view of the acoustic environment of the building. In addition, a second nominated interviewee was interviewed with an aim of establishing the users’ and workers opinion of the same.
External noise
As shown in figure 1 below, 30 The Bond Building experiences external noises from two sources which are; traffic and self generated noises. Despite having insignificant impact on the building, the main source of the external noise is considered to be from the traffic (fig. 1). This is according to the building services manager, Bradford Kerr.
Considering the people living in houses and units in the surrounding area, the building is considered as a source of noise. Furthermore, Bradford Kerr asserts that noise generated externally from the ‘cooling tower fans’ (fig. 1) can be heard from within the building.
Figure (1): The source of external noise.
Internal noise
Internal noise in 30 The Bond Building is categorised by sources generated from public and private areas. The public areas (cafes, atrium and building entrance) are affected by noise generated from three main sources. The first source of noise is the large fans (figure 2) located in the atrium roof that aid in ventilating the area. According to the second interviewee (worker), these fans produce very disturbing level of noise especially during break time when they assemble in the public areas. However, many people remain unaffected by the noise generated from the fans since they consider it a low level disturbance. An evaluation of the noise generated from these fans indicated that people were affected most depending on the floor that they existed in relation to the location of fans. Hence, people in the higher levels were the most affected as compared to those in the lower levels. Therefore, in order to have the best noise evaluation of the building, various circumstances affecting different users should be put to consideration.
Figure (2): Fans within the atrium roof.
The power and diesel generators (fig. 3 and 4) located in the basement level accounts for the second source of noise within the public areas of the building. Firstly, the power generator as sown in figure 3 is operated on a daily basis in normal situations. According to the building services manager, this noise affects people using the public areas in the ground floor and basement parking more than people located in the higher levels of the building. Contrary to the effect of the cooling fans in the atrium, people in the lower levels are much more affected by the power generator than those in the higher levels of the building.
Figure (3): Power generator
Secondly, the diesel generator as shown in figure 4 is operated during emergency situations such as power blackouts. According to Bradford Kerr the diesel generator produces the loudest noise that negatively affects the whole building when it is in operation. As a result, the diesel generator negatively affects all people in all the floors unlike the other sources mention which have a localised effect.
Figure (4): Diesel generator
The Billabond Children’s Care Centre accounts for the third source of internal noise within the public areas of the building. This centre provides service for workers who bring their pre-school children for babysitting. Bradford Kerr asserts that, occasionally, children tend to play and make noise when they are with their parents in the Atrium. However, despite being considered as a source of noise, he states that it is usually insignificant and does not affect the commercial business of the building.
The private spaces (offices) in 30 The Bond Building, are generally very quiet as compared to the public spaces. Although some people may think that these quiet places are more comfortable, many of the workers and people, occupying the offices in this building completely differ with them. According to an interviewee, people working in the private places of 30 The Bond building consider the quietness as a problem which makes them feel uncomfortable As a result they use the positive type of noise called “White Noise”. “In the absence of ducts and air handling systems, an electronic sound masking system is used to provide background noise in 30 The Bond Building” (St. Clair, 2008). In addition, Bradford Kerr describes “White Noise” as a non-descriptive noise that supplies a background sound. When people are subjected to audible sensory deprivation they feel very uncomfortable. To counter this, a slight background hiss is made to replicate a modern city environment and thus alleviate this level of discomfort. The White Noise is generated individually through different ways. While some workers use especial devices known White Noise sound machine, others like to use other devices such as mp3 players and especial software in their computers to generate that background sound. While some interviewees state that they like the natural sound, for example, ocean waves and rainfall sounds, others prefer soft music to help them feel more comfortable in their private spaces.
Conclusion and recommendations
In conclusion, the study identifies both negative and positive aspects of acoustics in 30 The Bond Building. The negative aspects include the internal and external noises that affect public and private areas while the positive aspects include the “White Noise” providing positive effect on people working or visiting the private areas. According to the author’s observations in relation to discussions conducted with 30 The Bond Building staff, the private areas acoustic environment was satisfactory. However, the public areas are not acoustically satisfactory and the following recommendations to minimise the effect of related noise are suggested:
The power and diesel generators should be enclosed using sound absorbent partitioning materials.
The atrium fans should be replaced with more efficient and quiet fans.
The Acoustic environment in 30 The Bond Building are summarised in table 1 as shown below.
Table 1: The positive and negative sounds in 30 The Bond
Type
Affected area
Source
Sound level
Effect
Internal
Public/Private
Cooling tower
Low
Negative
Public
Fans within the atrium roof
Low
Negative
Public
Billabond Children’s Centre
Medium (in the morning)
Negative
Public
Power generator
Medium
Negative
All building
Diesel generator
Very High (just works in especial situations)
Negative
Private
White noise
Low
Positive
External
Traffic noise
Low
Negative
Cooling tower
High
Negative
References
Paevere, P., Brown, S. 2008, Indoor Environment & Productivity in Commercial Buildings. Web.
St. Clair, P. 2008, Human Health, Comfort & Productivity in Commercial Office Buildings – An Evaluation of 30 The Bond & Council House 2. Web.
Buildings have to be assessed and rated in terms of their energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions. These ratings help in determining the ways for improving efficiencies of buildings and determining energy performance standards for new buildings (Royal Institute of British Architects 2). The assessment of buildings helps in promoting sustainability.
Houses are rated prior to building them or after building them and the rating depends on the dwelling’s plan; the erection of its roof, walls, windows and floor; and the direction of its windows relative to the light pathway and airstream (Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme 2).
The NatHERS is a major body in Australia tasked with the necessary software tools used for rating energy efficiency of dwellings. The software tools accredited by NatHers are: AccuRate, AccuRate Sustainability, BERS Professional, and FirstRate (Nationwide House Rating Scheme). The energy consumption of a building and its rating are done by an experienced ABSA assessor who does simulations in the software (Northrop 4).
Types of certifications that have to be compliant with the NatHERS protocols are energy efficiency rating and BASIX.
The Energy Efficiency Rating (EER) is controlled by the ACT government and is mandatory when a person or company markets a residential abode. The assessors are tasked with certifying architectural drawings, producing the ABSA certificates and submitting the certificates to ACT for the EER certificate (Northrop 8). It varies from 1 to 6 stars.
BASIX (Building Initiative Index), an online software program, was started by the NSW government. This certificate is required for developing applications and is depended on power, water and thermal aspects of the building. The attesting body is required to confirm the building’s design against the BASIX requisites (Northrop 10).
References
Nationwide House Rating Scheme. House Energy Ratings. 2012. Web.
Northrop. “Residential Green Building Rating Schemes.” Presentation to University of Canberra. 2012.
Royal Institute of British Architects. Sustainability Hub: Rating Systems and Tools, Non-domestic. 2011. Web.
At the start of the 21st century, the western society has obtained greater awareness in the importance of sustainable infrastructure due to the acknowledgment that the sector should not continue to operate “business as usual” in a fashion of neoclassical economics that promotes profit-making and the intensive use of natural reserves without internalizing ecological damage.
Furthermore, recent improvements in the world’s sustainability agenda have set objectives to promote the diminution of Green House Gas (GHG) releases as an urgent concern. To be able to accomplish this, higher building industry principles have been put into practice in regards to building operations, design and performance in order to quantify different grades of sustainability. In this regard, it is important to develop an adequate green building rating tool in Australia in order to be levelled to international environmental building standards.
Green star has an important role to play in helping Australia’s building market to internalize undesired effects on the environment and, consequently, to accomplish more sustainable infrastructures. Furthermore, the strength of the Australian economy, in comparison to the rest of the developed economies, sets favorable conditions to encourage higher levels of capital investment and sustainable development in the infrastructure sector. Consequently, this work will argue that improving the standard for Green Star rating system is fundamental in order to achieve higher grades of environmental performance and speed up competitiveness in a consistently dynamic global economy.
Introduction
Project definition
To be sustainable, buildings should usefully last for many generations without hampering its surrounding environment. The sustainable development is increasingly highlighted because the buildings have a constantly increasing impact on the environment. This project can be defined as an analysis of Green Star rating scheme; which is prepared in order to identify weaknesses (i.e. in comparison to international standards LEED and BREEAM); and to identify course of actions in order to encourage sustainable building practices in Australia.
Project Objectives
To benchmark the rating criteria that Green Star uses in order to assess and grant accreditation in the building stock in Australia. To concentrate specially in the comparative analysis of the major building rating tools: LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design)and BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment) from the United States and United Kingdom Green Building Councils, respectively.
To propose coarse of actions in order to make a significant enhancement in Green Star rating tool. More particularly, to identify weaknesses in Green Star scheme and suggest more adequate responses.
Project Benefits
The project benefits will be on the way that Green Star rating scheme will be enhanced in order to promote leadership in the development of sustainable building stock in Australia. More specifically, benefits for the building industry will be in the shape of innovative design and construction, a boost in the bottom line and environmental performance and a smoother transition towards a demanding regulation that advocates for a low-carbon economy. At the same time, benefits for the Australia community will be economic (i.e. employment, companies bottom line, investment and economic growth) environmental (i.e. reduction on GHG emissions, energy efficiency and use of less damaging construction materials) and social (i.e. healthcare stakeholders, community development)
Project Deliverable
The project deliverable will result in a course of action for Green Star rating towards the development of environmental criteria that favor the reduction in GHG emissions, the execution of a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in construction materials and higher levels in energy efficiency. At the same time, the project will deliver recommendations on Green Star rating in order to produce a more comprehensive assessment based on the consideration of a two staged accreditation process: design review and construction review. On the other hand, improvements in the bottom line for companies under Green Star certification, via reduction in building operation costs and higher return on investment via an increase in property values and more tenant attraction.
In addition, a reduction in environmental and social impacts in the building stock sector in Australia. More specifically, community and workers will have access to healthier places to live and work.
Literature Review/ Research (Rational and Significance of the study with references)
Literature Review
According to Garnaut (2011) the building sector is the largest donor to the world’s Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, utilizing approximately 40% of the world’s energy and producing approximately 30% of the carbon emissions.
At the same time, sustainability has become the “buzzword” of the academic and the business fields. In particular it is possible to identify two large trends in the development of sustainable infrastructure in the last decades (Hall, Daneke, & Lenox, 2010).
The Period 1990 – 2000: the start of the 1990’s puts large emphasis in sustainable design, which was also joined, to the notion of buildings being “eco-friendly”, “environmentally friendly” and “unobtrusive”. A crucial element for building performance during this phase was founded on a “cost efficient” evaluation (Hall, Daneke, & Lenox, 2010).
The Period 2000 – 2010: the start of the 21st century reveals the beginning of “calculating carbon” and “measuring efficiency”. This phase has established the measurements of CO2/m2/year as common factors in environmental evaluation of buildings. The principal indicator on building performance during this phase was based on measuring carbon emissions (Hall, Daneke, & Lenox, 2010).
The sustainability phenomenon has resulted in an abundance of green building rating tools and frameworks around the world to evaluate property development against a collection of “sustainability criteria”. Green Building Councils are members of the World Green Building Council; and on its respective country are conformed by partnerships between government and private organisations that have worked in collaboration to develop Green Building rating tools. Internationally the most widely recognised rating system includes LEED, BREEAM, Green Star, CASBEE, SICES and EEWH. The sustainable building industry is shaped by the influence of the mentioned rating tools, which are mainly endorse and applicable through diverse Green Buildings Councils around the globe. Which are, LEED in the US Green Building Council (USGBC), Canada Green Building Council, Brazil Green Building Council, India Green Building Council; CASBEE in Japan; BREEAM in the UK Green Building Council; SICES in Mexico Green Building Council; EEWH in Taiwan Green Building Council and Green Star in the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA), Green Building Council of New Zealand (NZGBC) and in the Green Building Council of South Africa (GBCSA). Although, there are many others international building tools available, the three larger rating systems in the world are: LEED, BREEAM and Green Star.
As the proposed research will demonstrate on subsequent sections, there is a substantial disparity in terms of the global methodology (i.e. LEED, BREEAM and Green Star) to be applied in order to evaluate sustainability criteria in the building sector. This discrepancy can be explained by several factors; perhaps one of the most influential is the fact that each of the rating systems was conceived and adapted to a specific geographical context that regards unique characteristics in terms of: environmental conditions, politics and legislation, industry sector and socio-economic structures. For instance, BREEAM methodology is tailored, and therefore, better applied and representative when assessing the sustainability performance of the building industry in the United Kingdom than anywhere else in the world (Dirlich, 2011).
Furthermore, the topics for building assessment vary according to different weightings and categories. LEED 2009 grants an overall score of 110 points with a weighting system that considers: 23.6% to sustainable sites, 9.1% to water efficiency, 31.9%to energy and atmosphere, 12.7% to material and resources, 13.6%to indoor environmental quality, 5.5% to innovation and design, and 3.6% to regional priority. The overall score for BREEAM 2011 goes up to 110%and its weighting system considers: 10% to land use and ecology, 6% to water, 19% to energy, 12.5% to materials, 15% to health and wellbeing, 8% to transport, 7.5% to waste, 10% to pollution, 12% to management and 10% to innovation. The overall score for Green Star 2013 is 100 points and its weighting system considers: management, indoor environment quality, energy, transport, water, materials, innovation, emissions, and land use and ecology. These building weighting aspects are not fixed like LEED and BREEAM, as they change according to states and territories in order to consider diverse environmental priorities across Australia. For example, potable water has a high relevance in South Australia than the Northern Territories, and consequently the water category has a higher weighting in South Australia.
Therefore, it can be argue that a customized building rating system will be more representative and meaningful in addressing the specific context and particular requirements of the building sector in a determined country, state or territory. However, on doing this, drawback effects appear as international comparison becomes more difficult because multiple rating tools are built upon different categories and weightings. According Dixon, Colantonio, Shiers, Reed, Wilkinson, and Gallimore, 2008), the proliferation of rating tools around the globe has created market distortions that prevent stakeholders and property investors from having a clear understanding on the implications of different sustainability methodologies. In this regard, Reed, Bilos, Wilkinson, and Schulte (2009) point out that while it is established that states and territories possess unique characteristics, the objective of reaching a global rating tool can be achieved in a similar way. According to him, financial methodology works for analysing property values in different countries: by using a twelve-year discounted cash flow technique that considers exchange rates fluctuations, it is possible to directly contrast the value of an office building in Berlin, London, New York City, or Melbourne. In other words, a straightforward approach that relies on developing a global rating system will deliver important benefits that will facilitate the access to transparent information in the form of sustainability features and building assessment around different countries. The underpinning reasons behind not having a global rating system can be attributed to lack of knowledge and willingness to compromise towards a single rating tool since it may not be the possible best tool applicable to a wide range of states and territories.
In an attempt to attain sustainability in building, the steps have been categorized into the first, second, and the third wave. The first wave is a reference to a group of companies that were opposed to the notion of sustainability. Birkeland (2012) provides the highly effective perspective on the natural environment and the employees. The culture of exploitation was synonymous with the first wave organizations and this was largely to blame for the failure to achieve sustainability during the time. Organizations in this era were opposed to green activists and the government’s attempts to bring about policies that would cater for sustainability in building (Olgyay & Seruto, 2010). The community was distanced from the sustainability debate with its claims being labelled by the organizations as illegitimate; this development reveals the less regard the organizations of the first wave gave to the community and the environment (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2010).
According to Shove (1998), organizations in the first wave were characterized by ignorance in the form of non-responsiveness. This greatly hindered and dissatisfied any attempts to achieve sustainability in building. Primacy was given to technological and financial factors with less regard being reserved for environmental factors. Ignorance came in a higher degree as the workforce was condemned to be compliant of decisions made and business was conducted as usual. In the light of this, organizations during the first wave regarded environmental resources as free goods requiring little attention (Green Building Council Australia, 2008).
Shove, reveals that the motivation to move to the second wave stemmed from the perceived need for organizations to be compliant to legal, environmental, safety, and health requirements and the numerous expectations of the community. Business opportunities during the second wave aimed at avoiding the huge costs of failing to comply with the stipulated standards. Moreover, there was the increased need to create an efficient system to mitigate risk. The objectives of the organizations in the second wave were to eliminate waste progressively and increase efficiency in materials and processes. The second wave was synonymous with increased attempts for reorganization and waste reduction (Harmelink, Voogt, & Cremer, 2006). Three paths catered for efficiency in this era. These were; cost reduction, improving quality through value addition, and flexibility and innovation through the advantage of the first mover (Gann, 2000). An example of efficiency attained in the second wave was eco-efficiency, a concept that converged at the use of fewer resources to attain more. This was attained through the delivery of goods that were competitively priced and services meant to satisfy the numerous human needs and foster equality in living standards (Hawkes, 2010). All these developments were achieved by reduction of ecological impact and the intensity of the resources throughout the life cycle to a level that was in line with the carrying capacity of the earth. Core eco-efficiency principles fostering efficiency in building sustainability during the second wave were reduction of material intensity, minimization of energy intensity, reduction in the dispersion of harmful substances, recycling, capitalizing on renewable resources, extension of product durability, and increased service intensity (R.S. Means Company, 2011).
As opposed to the first and the second wave, the third wave was synonymous with numerous achievements in building sustainability. The companies in this era went ‘green’. The need for understanding the motives behind ecological responsiveness in the corporate domain is for a number of reasons (Bell, 2000). First, such an understanding is vital in helping organizational theorists to predict behaviours related to ecology. For example, if the corporations adopted practices that were ecologically responsive with the view of meeting legal requirements, the firms would engage in activities that would be in line with the legislation (Jaraminiene, Bieksa, & Valuntiene, 2012). Second, the understanding would expose mechanisms that would foster organizations with ecological sustainability. Such an attribute would allow managers, researchers, and policy makers to assess control mechanisms and command efficacy, voluntary measures, and market measures (Roodman, & Lenssen, 1995).
More closely related to the building development sector, in the last two decades there has been a significant evolution in the way rating tool methodologies assess the building sector. In the beginning of the 1990’s, the first rating tools techniques were developed (i.e. BREEAM) with a main focus in design stage, whereas the actual construction was not so important (Sustainability Building Australia, 2013). At the start of the 21st century, this trend has gone in reverse, where most rating tool methodologies show significantly increased concern in the actual construction and a less focus in merely building design (Therivel, 2004). At the same time, since 2006 a new trend in green building rating has risen, where the main focus is now on the form of sustainable performance. This recent performance trend has expanded the implications of sustainable buildings, in an attempt to establish as a common practice for the infrastructure sector the measurement, through international audit and standards, of the levels of Green House Gas (GHG) emissions, energy and water footprint. As the orientation in direction to the construction stage and sustainable performance expands in time, the rating tools methodologies will accommodate accordingly, shifting increasing categories and weighting from building design perspective to building performance. Hence, this will have a powerful effect on the future configuration of the building sector.
In addition, one important issue that also has a significant impact over the lack on global consensus on “sustainable buildings” is that the world most accepted technology rapidly becomes the benchmark and, consequently, there is no much space to include new breakthroughs. In this direction Curwell and Cooper (1998) point out that because the notion of sustainable development is continuously evolving (i.e. in terms of conceptualization, implementation and monitoring) whereas building standards remain within their respective sustainability frameworks, there is an essential constraint to reach global agreement. At the same time, Dovers (2002), Godfaurd (2005), and Kibert (2003) sustain that this quest for global agreement is disregarding insightful knowledge that could be put in practice in the sustainability field,
Research in current solutions
LEED, BREEAM and Green Star are the most accepted and common global rating systems in the current sustainable building industry. In this regard, LEED, BREEAM and Green Star schemes are similar in aims, approach and structure to rate the performance of the building sector and create according grade levels for accreditation (Sustainability Building Australia, 2013). However, the sustainability rating methodology varies considerably, from tool rating system one to another, in terms of measurement of building performance, scope and environmental criteria within the infrastructure sector.
BREEAM is a rating tool introduced in the United Kingdom in 1990 has an extended track record that is mainly applied in the UK. The mentioned system is applied in a number of various building infrastructures such as: retail, schools, industrial offices and homes. Under BREEAM scheme buildings score is categorized as a “Pass”, “Good”, “Very Good” and “Excellent” rating based on the general score.
BREEAM offers a comprehensive approach whose goal is to minimize environmental impacts in the different stages of construction and building operations. This methodology seeks to provide a sustainability strategy that takes into account all areas in the building industry and not just the simple mandate of cutting down on carbon emissions (Sustainability Building Australia, 2013). Hence, there are multiple environmental and economic benefits on adopting the BREEAM system in the building industry such as: access to lower energy requirements and building operational costs, higher property rent value, enhancement in productivity levels due to workers access to a comfortable working environment, improved reputation for the building industry that commits to environmental protection, shorter selling times in buildings, and other publicity benefits. The principal criterions for sustainable design and construction under BREEAM include management, health and wellbeing, energy, transport, water, materials, land use, ecology and pollution.
Although there is an extensive record in the Building sector that is achieving high levels of accreditation in the BREEAM rating systems as their core sustainability strategy, the implications of the rating tool are not considered by U.S. design professionals (Reed, Bilos, Wilkinson, & Schulte, 2009). Perhaps, the major constrain in the BREEAM rating system is that in spite of its contribution towards sustainable design and construction, it is not as widespread as LEED, and only selected as the favourite rating system by the building industry within the boundaries of the UK.
On the other hand, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is a system-rating tool that was created by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) and is more globally recognized as a reference for sustainable building practices. Furthermore, not only in the United States but also in a multiple number of different countries around the world, LEED accreditation is the most commonly accepted standard for assessing building sustainability performance (Lee, & Burnett, 2007).
The LEED green building rating system, developed and administered by the U.S. Green Building Council, is designed to promote design and construction practices that increase profitability while reducing the negative environmental impacts of buildings and improving occupant health and well-being.
The most remarkable economic incentives granted by LEED are among the following: 8% to 9% decrease in building operating expenses, 7.5% increase in property values, 6.6% improvement in return over investment, 3.5% augment in tenancy, 3% rent increase (Skanska, 2013). The construction cost is also an important advantage because the large majority of buildings are capable to achieve LEED certification without requiring additional funding. Some do need extra funding, but only for specific features, such as photovoltaic. In addition, comparative costs advantage in adopting LEED rating systems are given where LEED buildings are globally recognized, hence enjoy a greater reputation, and incurred on a similar cost (i.e. cost per square meter) than what it takes to adopt alternative building system rating methodologies.
LEED scheme provides four accreditation categories for buildings: Certified, Silver, Gold and Platinum. The grade of accreditation depends on the score achieved in five fields of assessment: sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources and indoor environmental quality (Brundtland Commission Our Common Future, 1987).
In particular, the evolution towards the implementation of Green Star rating system in Australia can be regarded as a consequence of the escalating pressure of environmental legislation. In this manner, Warren, (2009) points out that there has been a great response coming from several infrastructure developers in Australia to seek Green Star accreditation for their recent constructions. The fact is that over 4 million m2 have turned into Green Star certified space around Australia.
However, two environmental rating frameworks are present in the building sector of Australia: NABERS (i.e. National Build Rating) and Green Star scheme from the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA). Each of these rating schemes aims to evaluate several parameters in order to reward with a number of stars. The amount of stars awarded is different in the two schemes, with NABERS giving up to 5 stars and Green Star up to 6 stars. The environmental criteria in NABERS include: energy (previously known as the Australian Building Greenhouse Rating), water, waste and indoor environment. On the other hand, the environmental standards under Green Star include: management, indoor environmental quality, energy, transport, water, materials, land use and ecology, emissions and innovation.
Although the council methodology of the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) and the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) varies considerably, their rating systems do allocate a number of resemblances. For instance, both rating systems have minimum eligibility criteria and demand certain prerequisites for certification, both have taken an approach of collecting up credits under a type of category and both institutions have credentials in place to promote the active participation of certified experts in their respective rating systems.
According to Reed, Bilos, Wilkinson, and Schulte (2009) by doing a benchmark analysis on the different categories and weightings parameters for the rating tools LEED, BREEAM and Green Star, the methodologies can be directly comparable. Reed, Bilos, Wilkinson, and Schulte (2009) reach some important conclusions, by analysing different aspects on the rating tools.
Table 1: Comparison Table by Category Weighting. (Source: BRE 2008)
BREEAM
LEED
Green Star
Management
15
8
10
Energy
25
25
20
Transport
25
25
10
Health and Wellbeing
15
13
10
Water
5
5
12
Materials
10
19
10
Land use and Ecology
15
5
8
Pollution
15
11
5
Sustainable Sites
–
16
–
LEED and BREEAM also reach a higher standard than Green Star in terms of energy efficiency (Kirk, 2005). This is because LEED and BREEAM schemes take into account a larger number of parameters for assessing the building performance based on two comparable building models (Sleeuw, 2011). On the contrary, the Green Star scheme predicts building performance from one single building model based on fewer parameters to be assessed; therefore, Green Star is not as effective in the evaluation of energy efficiency rating scores. BREEAM outperforms in the category of building management compared to LEED and Green Star.
Again, in comparison to the other scheme methodologies, Green Star falls behind in the category of Pollution. However, since water scarcity is an important sustainability issue in Australia, the water preservation standards of Green Star are consistently higher than LEED and BREEAM. In regards to land use and ecology BREEAM appears to be setting the greatest emphasis, which is coherent to the current infrastructure scenario in the UK that presents high levels of density population. To some extent, this analysis shows how the major rating tools LEED and BREEAM are better adapted than Green Star to asses sustainable performance in the building sector in terms of energy and emissions, and consequently, offer a better response to this local sustainability issues where the respective frameworks were initially originated.
Another important difference between these three major rating tools (i.e. LEED, BREEAM and Green Star) can be found in terms of category weightings (referenced in Figure 1). This rating methodology gap, based on Green Star categories, is displayed in the figure 1, where the identified areas of contrast that resemble most significant differences, between Green Star and the alternative LEED and BREEAM are: water, materials, emissions/pollution and land use and ecology.
Figure 1: Category Weightings(Source: Green Building Council Australia)
In addition, since the LEED rating system is applied in multiple building project around the planet, it can be argue that this methodology is more adjustable to a broad range of scenarios. For instance, assessing an airport), whereas Green Star requires the development of a custom rating system for project types not covered by their current tools (CSIRO, 2013).
Undoubtedly, there are gradual and significant differences between LEED and Green Star system ratings. For instance, LEED applies an environmentally friendly method (i.e. online system) to submit records and documentation, whereas Green Star initiative for submission is through paper and CD. The submission stage is a long process that can involve thousands of pages of documentation. However, the greatest discrepancy can be found in the technique in which the buildings industry gets accreditation. In LEED, the procedure for accreditation is two staged: design review and construction review. The building projects can obtained expected score at the end of the design stage but will only be given certification at the end of the construction stage. LEED approach secures the execution of the initiatives acknowledged in the design stage. However, in comparison to LEED, Green Star rating system has a “loop hole” in this situation, since it is feasible to obtain accreditation at the stage of design, and then execute the project in an entirely different manner. In an attempt to solve this issue, Green Star now offers a number of ‘As-Built’ ratings (to assess the consistency of the design stage during building implementation). In addition, the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) is also commanding a time limitation on the promotion of design certification (Green Star, 2013).
However, as it is illustrated in the Table 2: Green Star Certified Office Buildings, the introduction of “As Built” ratings is not sufficient to secure sustainable building practices. This premise is applicable for all states and territories except for South Australia, where out of a total of ten design-certified office buildings; four office buildings have passed through “As Built” certification such as 40 per cent rate (Green Building Council Australia, 2008). However, for the states and territories of Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, Australian Capital Territory and Western Australia the situation is more shocking since once that design accreditation has been granted a much smaller proportion (i.e. 5 per cent) of Green Star certified office buildings opt for accreditation at the construction stage (Gifford, 2009).
Table 2: Green Star Certified Office Buildings. Source: Warren, C. M. “Who needs a Green Star?” (2009) UQ Business School.
Office Design
Office As Built
State / Star Rating
4
5
6
4
5
6
VIC
5
16
3
–
–
–
NSW
8
6
3
–
3
–
SA
2
7
1
2
2
–
QLD
10
10
2
–
1
–
ACT
2
2
1
–
–
–
TAS
1
1
0
–
–
–
NT
0
0
0
–
–
–
WA
4
2
1
–
–
–
Total
32
44
11
2
6
0
On the other hand, carbon emissions from building are projected to grow over the next 25 years by an annual rate of over 1% (Garnaut, 2011). The contribution of building to the increase of carbon emissions when combined with other sources of carbon emissions such as industry and transportation result in an even higher rate of carbon emission (United Nation Environmental Program, 2009).
The great concern over carbon in the atmosphere is the characteristic of carbon in the form carbon dioxide to trap heat within the atmosphere leading the phenomena known as global warming. Increased temperature in the atmosphere will result to an increased rate of ice melting at the poles, stronger cyclones, and tornadoes, the faster spread of deserts and ultimately increased emissions as building attempt to maintain a conducive environment for working and living within the building environment. The most significant factor that contributes to the high rate of carbon emissions in buildings is the consumption of electricity (Dunphy, Griffiths, & Benn, 2007).
When other attributes of a building are considered the result is an even higher carbon emission. Buildings have a life span of 50to 100 years and through this period the building emits carbon to the atmosphere. It is estimated that if new commercial buildings are built to consume 50% less energy 6 million tons of carbon dioxide would be reduced from the high contribution of buildings (Shi, 2008). To get a good impression of this, it can be equated to removing 1 million cars from the road annually. Without the considerations of the building environmental performance, and seeking out ways to improve this performance building will be a great contributor to the increasing carbon emissions (Ramanathan, & Carmichael, 2008).
Building more environmentally friendly building is referred to as building green. Building green not only reduces the carbon emissions of the building but also results in savings and the general improvement of the bottom line. Some of the ways that a building can be made more efficient include using the most efficient electronics in the building construction to improve performance. Some of these systems including the building heating and cooling systems, another is taking advantage of the daylight to reduce the need for lighting. The primary ways in which the building meets the minimal carbon footprint emissions is through ecologically responsive design and improved energy competence (Jaraminiene, Bieksa, & Valuntiene, 2012).
The general argument in favour of more energy competent buildings is that greener building ischeaper to run and provide a better environment for the occupants. In Australia, electricity accounts for 89% of the total carbon emissions. Electricity in Australia is produced from brown coal, which is found in abundance in the country. A change from this to using gas as a source of electricity would greatly reduce the carbon emissions. This is however not likely to occur considering the social-political conditions. The current efforts focus on the performance of the building and how specific it utilizes energy. The general consensus is that the improvement in the thermal, day lighting and natural ventilation of a building would significantly improve the energy efficiency of the building and thus the carbon footprint (Wang, Zmeureanu, & Rivard, 2005).
Governments in developed nations have started programs that are geared towards increasing the energy efficiency of existing building and those being built. In order to achieve the best possible standard a comparison of these programs must be done to determine the area each encompasses. Recent research has shown that the Australian program green star is significantly behind those of other developed nations such as the United States and United Kingdom (Shah, 2012). The research however does not specify the sectors in which the program lags behind and how best this challenge can be tackled. Consequently, this research seeks to fill this gap in knowledge (Roodman, & Lenssen, 1995).
The general argument in favour of more energy competent buildings is that greener building is cheaper to run and provide a better environment for the occupants. In Australia, electricity accounts for 89% of the total carbon emissions. Electricity in Australia is produced from brown coal, which is found in abundance in the country. A change from this to using gas as a source of electricity would greatly reduce the carbon emissions (Sabnis, 2011). This is however not likely to occur considering the social-political conditions. The current efforts focus on the performance of the building and how specific it utilizes energy. The general consensus is that the improvement in the thermal, day lighting and natural ventilation of a building would significantly improve the energy efficiency of the building and thus the carbon footprint (Harmelink, Voogt, & Cremer, 2006; Kibert, 2003).
Lighting, air conditioning and ventilation account for 84% of all greenhouse gas emissions. Heating the building takes the largest share of energy but whoever is not the highest production of carbon. This position is reserved for cooling which account for 13% (Roodman, & Lenssen, 1995). A focus on commercial buildings reveals that buildings are used for a number of purposes including commercial, office, recreation and communication. Office buildings are the single largest contributor to the carbon emissions of the building and it is in this section that considerable efforts need to be put (San-José, Losada, Cuadrado, & Garrucho, 2007), 2009). In order to make a substantial impact and reduce the production of carbon building for his purpose need to be built in a more environmentally friendly manner. The focus of the regulating programs is to reduce the energy consumption of the building and the effect is the reduction of carbon emission.
According to Bansal, & Roth (2000), carbon emissions from buildings has been a major source of concern because of increased estimates of energy consumption and carbon emissions by various types of buildings. Reports on this matter have led to increased knowledge of emission of Green House Gases from buildings in the quest to come up with better levels of building sustainability. Pout, MacKenzie, & Bettle (2002) mentioned that in year 2000, CO2 emissions from the use of energy in commercial buildings accounted for a quarter of all UK emissions. This emission included industrial energy use by public sector and commercial buildings. Lighting accounts for a quarter of these emissions (Olgyay, & Seruto, 2010). Space cooling translates to about 5% of commercial and public emissions. Nevertheless, in buildings where there is installation of air conditioning, cooling can account for a large portion of carbon emissions and the use of air conditioning has increased in the recent past (Stern, 2006).
Abatement curves for cost indicate contributions made at national levels with an option that is efficient in terms of energy. Moreover, saving cost to be realized after implementation is also indicated. This form of assessment reveals technical potential of saving carbon in commercial and public buildings across a number of countries. Concisely, this technical potential lies at around 35% although 20% more can be achieved devoid of cost increments. According to UN AGECC (2010) there was a decrease of carbon emissions by 45% during the period between 2000 and 2010. Analogously, there was a 14% increase in consumption of energy.
Research on International Green Building Rating Systems: USA, UK, UAE
The Green Star rating system for building was formulated by the GBCA, the building council in Australia. This rating system is comprehensive in evaluating the environmental performance and design of Australia buildings based on a variety of categories. The categories in the tools for Green Star rating are; management, energy, transport, indoor environmental quality, water, materials, ecology and land use, and emissions (Peters, 2011).
The rating tool in UAE includes a number of systems for rating building sustainability in the global marketplace. Estidama Pearl Rating is a rating system is primarily adopted in assessing building sustainability in the UAE. The UAE has also adopted the use of other building sustainability rating systems such as LEED developed in the United States, and BREAM, established in the United Kingdom (Lee, & Burnett, 2007).
The Estidama rating tool is split into seven categories, vital for sustainable development. These categories include a development process that is integrated. Such a development process aims at encouraging teamwork across all disciplines with the aim of delivering solutions that are environmentally sustainable for the established environment. In addition, the Estidama rating tools incorporate natural systems that conserve restore, and preserve, critical habitats and natural environments (Kibert, 2003). Third, Precious Water is a concept in this rating tool catering for reduction of water demand, and encourages the use of alternative water sources. The concept of Liveable Buildings in the Estidama Rating tool ensures that there are quality indoor and outdoor spaces. Further, there exists the Resourceful energy concept that promotes the conservation of energy via measures of passive design, renewable and energy efficiency (Dixon, Colantonio, Shiers, Reed, Wilkinson, & Gallimore, 2008). Stewarding Materials in the Estidama rating tool is important in catering for the reduction of the impact of extraction of building materials. It also caters for the manufacture, transportation and the disposal of building materials. Through Innovative Practice, the Estidama rating tool encourages cultural expression and innovation in design building and construction in order to facilitate industrial and market transformation (Fowler, & Rauch, 2006).
Methodology
Benchmark: Green Star, LEED and BREEAM
Based on a benchmark analysis between the principal rating tools: LEED, BREEAM and Green Star, the current work has identified the categories and weightings where Green Star rating is falling behind in regards to the other two mentioned schemes. In this regard, this work states that the main two main desired features to be improved in Green Star rating are in the materials and Green House Gas (GHG) emissions/pollution categories.
Currently, the materials category under Green Star is based on specific environmental criteria that encourage the use of recycled and re-used objects and also concentrate on a vast range of material used in the building sector, such as: timber, steel, PVC and concrete. However, Green Star is deficient in not requiring a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to measure the environmental performance of such materials. However, the importance in the implementation of a LCA lies on the fact that construction materials have a significant environmental impact that extend beyond the building itself. In other words, most of the buildings environmental impacts are derived from the materials that are used in construction. Furthermore, according to the 2030 Challenge for Products it is estimated that the environmental impact (i.e. measured by Gas (GHG) emissions and energy usage) from the materials required in constructing buildings will only be equalled after a period of twenty to thirty years of building operations. In addition, the difference between environmental impact of construction materials and building operations will only extend further if the scope of the analysis were to consider the full collateral effects that are involved along the multiple production steps required in the life cycle of construction materials: extraction of raw materials, manufacturing, transportation, use and final disposal. In this regard, one more reason that justifies the execution of a LCA is the need for a coherent Green Star rating system that includes a better measurement in the material category and, therefore, favours the use of environmentally friendly construction materials in the building sector. This will create an incentive for demand and innovation in the use of more sustainable materials across the building industry. A good example of these products can be found in sustainably produced wood and green cleaning products.
Moreover, a LCA on construction materials would generate a comprehensive analysis that includes the life cycle of a product and, in doing so, facilitates knowledgeable decisions that will consequently deliver higher benefits for local communities, the environment and human health. The implications of including a LCA analysis on the Green Star rating has the potential to transform and expand new directions in sustainable building across Australia.
In regards to the Green House Gas (GHG) emission and pollution category Green Star is considerably far behind BREEAM and LEED schemes. This is mainly because Green Star’s attributes are more design-oriented; rather than being a rating tool to be applied for actual performance on sustainable building operations. Therefore, Green Star rating is inefficient in measuring and controlling Green House Gas (GHG) emissions and pollution levels in the building stock. This sustainability issue is addressed in different ways by BREEAM and LEED rating systems: the first scheme directly encourages the reduction in carbon emissions to zero net emissions by granting in this category up to 10.56 per cent of its overall score; whereas the latter is more focused in indoor air pollutants reduction, especially those that are detrimental, scented or irritant to the well-being of occupants. The actual performance sustainability gap in the Australian construction industry is filled by NABERS; which is a national and mandatory rating tool which role is to evaluate performance in terms of energy efficiency and carbon emissions. Consequently, the green building industry in Australia has a high level of dependence in the federal government to establish adequate levels of sustainable performance, through measures that include: the Commercial Building Disclosure scheme and Tax Breaks for Green Buildings program.
In addition, one of the main issues under Green Start that needs to be corrected for achieving a more sustainable building stock in Australia is the fact that most Green Star accreditation occurs under the design stage, where a considerably less amount of buildings undergo through “As – Built” accreditation. Hence, this could potentially lead to developers to execute the project in an entirely different manner. To deal with this issue, Green Star has a number of ‘As-Built’ ratings; which are not necessarily attached to obtaining an overall Green Star rating.
Case Studies
Pixel is the first building in the world to undergo certification in Green Star, LEED and BREEAM. An example on how a perfect score in Green Star may not be reflected in BREEAM and LEED can be found in the Pixel building. This is an infrastructure that was built in Melbourne with the ambitious goal to score every point in the green rating systems. In Green Star this building score a perfect 105, but in so far it has only scored a 99.4% out of 110% in BREAM and 103 out of 110 in LEED. The main difference in the score of Pixel building is explained is that Green Star favors the score of infrastructure within Australia. More importantly many of the things they did to earn credits aren’t very good solutions at all, so it definitely revealed many flaws with Green.
VS1 is a new 35 thousand square meter office building that is based in Adelaide that has also obtained accreditation in Green Star, LEED and BREEM. Due to the local conditions in Adelaide this building is highly efficient in usage of water and energy. The score achieved by this building in the three major building rating tools can be better appreciated in Figure 2: VS1 Building -Points achieved (based on 100 total). In this case VS1 has obtain a higher score in Green Star than in other two rating schemes. LEED rating system has been particularly hard on VS1 mainly because of the difficulty to get score in the construction materials category and because LEED also regards highly the use of renewable green energy.
Figure 2: VS1 Building -Points achieved (based on 100 total) Source: Green Building Council Australia
The 55 St Andrews Place is a refurbished building in Melbourne CBD with a construction area of 6 thousand square meters and granted the BSJ award for sustainable refurbishment of the year 2007. The objective of 55 St Andrews Places was merely in achieving high levels of sustainable design. This building has also taken certification from Green Star, BREEAM and LEED. The results can be appreciated in the Figure3: 55 St Andrews Place Building -Points achieved (based on 100 total). In this case the highest score for this building was achieved under BREEAM, this is mainly because this rating scheme rewards improving existing building infrastructure more than LEED and Green Star and because it gives more points for energy improvement.
Figure 3: 55 St Andres Place (Refurbished) -Points achieved (based on 100 total), Source: Green Building Council Australia
The Cundall office is 4 hundred square meter fit-out project that is based in Sydney. This building project has also been certified in LEED, BREEAM and Green Star. The results can be better appreciated in Graph 4:The Cundall Sydney office (fit-out) – Points achieved (based on a 100 total). In this particular case the methodology of the rating tool systems varies significantly due to the nature of the project (i.e. fit out) the building assessment is done in an entirely different manner. Furthermore, the assessment changes drastically for fit – out furniture where: Green star evaluates furniture piece by piece, LEED adds up all the furniture together and BREEAM doesn’t evaluate. One factor that also explains the considerable disparity in rating building scores is that BREEAM and Green Star are mainly focused on tenancies with formal contracts.
Figure 4: Cundall Sydney office (Refurbished) -Points achieved (based on 100 total), Source: Green Building Council Australia
Assumption Testing and Results
Assumption 1:“Overall the environmental criterion of Green Star rating system is not is as strong as LEED and BREEAM in regards to the assessment of design, actual and performance of sustainable building in Australia”.
Assumption 1 validated by the following tests and results:
Results on Test A: Benchmark analysis between LEED, BREEAM and Green Star tool rating systems
LEED approach secures the execution of the initiatives acknowledged in the design stage. In LEED, the procedure for accreditation is two staged: design review and construction review. The building projects can obtained expected score at the end of the design stage but will only be given certification at the end of the construction stage. Green Star rating system has a “loop hole” in this situation, since it is feasible to obtain accreditation at the stage of design, and then execute the project in an entirely different manner. Except for South Australia, the situation is more shocking in the rest of states and territories since once that design accreditation has been granted a much smaller proportion (i.e. 5 per cent) of Green Star certified office buildings opt for accreditation at the construction stage.
BREEAM outperforms in the category of building management compared to LEED and Green Star.
LEED and BREEAM also reach a higher standard than Green Star in terms of energy efficiency. LEED and BREEAM rating tools take into multiple environmental criteria for assessing performance based on two building references. On the contrary, Green Star scheme predicts performance based on onlyone building reference and considering less diverse environmental criteria to be included in the evaluation; consequently, any modifications can have a significanteffect on the outcome of the energy score.
Green Star falls behind in the category of Green House Gas (GHG) emission and pollution category. Therefore, Green Star rating is inefficient in measuring and controlling Green House Gas (GHG) emissions and pollution levels in the building stock.
Currently, the materials category under Green Star is based on specific environmental criteria that encourage the use of recycled and re-used objects. However, Green Star is deficient in not requiring a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to measure the environmental performance of such materials. LCA evaluation is currently included by BREEAM in the category of construction materials but not yet by LEED.
An overall result derived from the benchmark analysis between LEED, BREEAM and Green Star tool rating systems is that Green Star’s attributes are more design-oriented; rather than being a rating tool to be applied for actual performance on sustainable building operations.Green Star grants the highest scores to building developers that accomplish zero net emissions according to on-site energy calculations. Although energy use in buildings is quite important; environmental impacts beyond energy must be considered by Green Star in order to minimize the carbon footprint in buildings.
Results on Test B
Following case studies in Australian buildings projects that have obtained accreditation in LEED, BREEAM and Green Star ratings.
Pixel is an example on how a perfect score in Green Star may not be reflected in BREEAM and LEED. Pixel is an infrastructure that was built in Melbourne with the ambitious goal to score every point in the green rating systems. In Green Star this building score a perfect 105, but under BREEAM has only scored a 99.4% out of 110% and in LEED 103 out of 110 points.
VS1 achieved a higher score in Green Star than in the other two rating schemes. LEED rating system has been particularly hard on VS1 mainly because of the difficulty to get score in the construction materials category and because LEED also regards highly the use of renewable green energy.
The 55 St Andrews Place achieved a higher score under BREEAM than in the other two rating schemes. This result is mainly explained because BREEAM rating scheme rewards improving existing building infrastructure more than LEED and Green Star and because it gives more points for energy improvement.
The Cundall Sydney office achieved a higher score under LEED rating system. However in this particular case the building score is granted in an entirely different manner, mainly due to the nature of the building project (i.e. fit out)
The results on Test B for the Assumption 1 are not quite conclusive. This is because the case studies vary in the nature of the property project (i.e. new construction, refurbished, fit –out) without doubt the nature of the project plays a significant role in the score granted by the LEED, BREEAM and Green Star rating systems. Therefore, domestic and industrial construction development face different methodologies for green accreditation and this creates further difficulties for comparison purposes around international rating tools.
Future Trends
The Future work to be developed consists in a group of initiatives that will help to expand the body of knowledge towards different goals such as:
To obtain a greater range of case studies where LEED, BREEAM and Green Star are applied in an international context, especially in South Africa and New Zealand. This would generate a larger amount of useful information to have a better understanding on the different scores and underpinning rationality of the major rating schemes that are undertaken in property projects in a scenario where Green Star doesn’t have the upper hand just because the analysis is done in Australia.
To study the significance (e.g. through a cost-benefit analysis) of developing a global rating scheme that is straightforward in terms of environmental measurement and international comparison purposes. This single rating tool could be directly implemented and supervised through the World Green Building Council.
To make an analysis on the future trends of LEED and BREEM schemes, in order to gain higher knowledge on how this rating tools are evolving and are likely to be enhanced in a near future. This information should be taken into account by the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) in order to understand the transition process and fundamentals that are influencing LEED and BREEM environmental assessment for a securing a more sustainable building stock.
Tentative Timeline
To see a detailed list on components tasks and specific duration see Graphic 5: Tentative Timeline Components and Tasks.In a descriptive manner, the project is divided along three components:
Benchmark Rating Schemes
Which will expand further the differences in rating tool schemes (i.e. Green Star, LEED, BREEAM) and also will focus in case studies around Australia. Furthermore, the benchmark component will also analyseother international rating tools systems.
Graphic 5: Tentative Timeline Components and Tasks
Future Trends
This will analyse the future trends of LEED and BREEAM rating tools and will also focus in case studies outside of Australia, especially in South Africa and New Zealand. Furthermore, the future trends component will also consider additional rating tools systems.
Enhancing Green Star
This will analyse weaknesses and, also,potential opportunities forGreen Star rating tool. In terms of Green Star ratingweaknesses, further study will be done in the assessment of Green Star in terms of building performance, especially considering measures that include LCA, energy efficiency and reduction on GHG emissions. In addition, a restructuration in Green Star categories and weightings will be done to include Biomimetic as
The tentative time line is described in the following,Graphic 6: Gantt Chart andGraphic 7: Critical Pathway Network (CPN); which allow a broader perception on the sequence and levels of dependence between multiple tasks that are required along the execution of the project. In this regard, the critical pathway is represented by the shaded areas, which means that any variations on time (e.g. delay) in any of these tasks will have an impact on the total duration of the project.
The green building accreditation given to a project by a single rating scheme (e.g. Green Star) doesn’t reflect with accuracy the sustainability grade (e.g. six stars) of a building. This is proven by the fact that the score granted by LEED, BREEAM and Green Star rating systems could vary significantly under the same building.
The results based on the case studies show that green accreditation levels under LEED, BREEAM and Green Star will vary according to the nature of the property project (i.e. new construction, refurbished, fit –out).
More transparency between rating tools will benefit the development of sustainable infrastructure. Since this will increase property value and market competition, and consequently, generate a more pro-active building industry towards the achievement of sustainable accreditation.
The development of a global rating scheme that is straightforward in terms of environmental measurement and international comparison purposes will, undoubtedly, deliver multiple benefits to the infrastructure industry. However, the main trade-off in doing this is that customized rating schemes are more successful in measuring environmental performance according to the particular needs of a determined country, state or territory.
The economy outlook is an important factor to take into account when it comes to establishing environmental rating policies for the building industry. More specifically, an economic crisis will discourage the infrastructure development market to go through green building accreditation that demands stricter environmental standards.
References
Bell, S. (2000). Logical frameworks, Aristotle and soft systems: A note on the origins, values and uses of logical frameworks, in reply to Gasper. Public Administration and Development, 20(1), 29-31.
Birkeland, J. (2012). Positive development: From vicious circles to virtuous cycles through Built Environment Design. London: Taylor & Francis.
Brundtland Commission Our Common Future (1987). World Commission on Environment and Development. New York: Cengage Learning.
Dirlich, S. (2011). A Comparison of assessment and certification schemes for sustainable building and suggestions for an international standard system. The IMRE Journal, 5(1), 1-12.
Dixon, T., Colantonio, D., Shiers, R., Reed, S., Wilkinson, P., & Gallimore, P. (2008). A Green Profession? A Global Survey of RICS Members and Their Engagement with the Sustainability Agenda. Journal of Property Investment and Finance, 26(6), 460–81.
Dovers, S. (2002). Sustainability: reviewing Australia’s progress, 1992-2002. International Journal of Environment Studies, 59(5): 559-571.
Fowler, M. & Rauch, M. (2006). Sustainable building rating systems summary. Richland: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL).
Gann, D. M. (2000). Building innovation: complex constructs in a changing world. New Yrok: Thomas Telford.
Garnaut, R. (2011). Garnaut Climate Change Review. Web.
Gifford, H. (2009). A Better Way to Rate Green Buildings. Web.
Godfaurd, J. (2005). Sustainable building solutions: A review of lesson from natural world. Journal of Building and Environment 1(40), 319-328.
Green Building Council Australia (2008). Green Star Certified Projects. Web.
Green (2013). Green Building design: Technical aspects: Building shape determines the amount of cooling or heating required by a building. Web.
Green Star (2013). About Green Stater. Web.
Hall, J., Daneke, G., & Lenox, M. (2010). Sustainable development and entrepreneurship: past contributions and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 439-448.
Harmelink, M., Voogt, M., & Cremer, C. (2006). Analysing the effectiveness of renewable energy supporting policies in the European Union. Energy policy, 34(3), 343-351.
Hawkes, N. (2010). Structures: The way things are built. New York: Wiley.
Jaraminiene, E., Bieksa, D., & Valuntiene, I. (2012). Estimating Potential and Costs of Reducing CO2 Emissions in Lithuanian Buildings. Environmental Research, Engineering and Management, 1(59), 23-30.
Kibert, C. (2003). Deconstruction: the start of a sustainable materials strategy for the built environment. UNEP Industry and Environment, 26(3), 84-88.
Kirk, S. (2005). Sustainability/ LEED & Life Cycle Costing -Their Role in Value-based Design Decision-making (VM). Web.
Lee, W., & Burnett, J., (2007). Benchmarking energy use assessment of HK-BEAM, BREEAM and LEED. Building and Environment, 43(11), 2008, 1882-1891.
Olgyay, V., & Seruto, C. (2010). Whole-building retrofits: A gateway to climate stabilization. ASHRAE Transactions, 116(2), 1-8.
Peters, T. (2011). Nature as Measure: The Biomimicry Guild. Architectural Design, 81(6)44-47.
Ramanathan, V., & Carmichael, G. (2008). Global and regional climate change due to black carbon. Nature Geoscience, 1(1), 221-227.
Reed, R., Bilos, A., Wilkinson, S., & Schulte, K. (2009). International comparison of sustainable rating tools. Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, 1(1), 1-22.
Roodman, D., & Lenssen, N. (1995). A Building Revolution: How Ecology and Health Concerns are Transforming Construction. Web.
R.S. Means Company. (2011). Green building : project planning & cost estimating (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Sabnis, G.M. (2011). Green building with concrete : sustainable design and construction. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
San-José, J., Losada, R., Cuadrado, J., & Garrucho, I. (2007). Approach to the quantification of the sustainable value in industrial buildings. Building and Environment, 42(11), 3916-3923.
Shah, S. (2012). Study of life cycle costing for Griha rated green buildings in india. Web.
Shi, Q. (2008). Strategies of implementing a green building assessment system in mainland China. Journal of Sustainable Development, 1(2),13.
Shove, E. (1998) Gaps, barriers and conceptual chasms: theories of technology transfer and energy in buildings. Energy policy, 26(15), 1105-1112.
Sleeuw, M. (2011). A Comparison of BREEAM and LEED environmental assessment methods. Web.
Stern, N. (2006). The Economics of Climate Change. London: HM Treasury.
Sustainability Building Australia (2013). A comparison of building rating systems: Leed, Green Star, BREEAM. A proposal to integrate Biomimicry into Green Star Rating. Web.
Therivel, R. (2004). Sustainable Urban Environment-Metrics, Models and Toolkits- Analysis of Sustainability/Social Tools. New York: Oxford.
Wang, W., Zmeureanu, R., & Rivard, H. (2005). Applying multi-objective genetic algorithms in green building design optimization. Building and Environment, 40(11),1512-25.
Warren, C. M. (2009). Who needs a Green Star? Sydney: University of Queensland.
Warehouses are storage facilities established by companies involved in offering transport for their clients. Such companies are usually involved in long-distance transport of goods and other services for their clients. Through the process of transporting the products, the companies require a lot of facilities, especially the transport facilities such as vehicles, planes, and ships. In addition, they require a very fundamental and important facility that determines the success of the company. This is the warehouse of the company.
A warehouse is a large storage facility that is used for the storage of goods and services either as they await loading onto a vehicle or as they await collection by the client. In most cases, logistics companies usually do not have enough space and hence they are not able to handle all goods for potential customers. This forces the companies to fall below expectations. There is therefore a need for companies to seek ways of inventing warehouse designs that fit their available space and also ensure they can meet with growing demands for logistics and warehouse application (Drickhamer, 2006).
This study seeks to identify the different design issues related to the building g of warehouses. It also aims at identifying the designs involved in the building of modern warehouses which give a provision for growth and expansion with the growing need for more storage space and organization.
Major Design Issues
Different factors should be considered in designing a warehouse to ensure it serves its purpose as much as possible. Proper warehouse designs allow for increased storage space due to the following of an orderly storage pattern which results in to flow of goods into and out of the warehouse. It also increases a company’s effectiveness and efficiency prevents damage to stored goods, reduces the risk of injuries or any other form of hazard. Also, such a design would ensure that the company saves on its spending due to the decreased need for more labor force. In modern-day warehouses, there is also a need for the companies to ensure they adopt a warehouse design that is flexible and allows for an easy expansion of the company (Chua, 2007).
Different issues must be considered in designing a warehouse, especially with a focus on future logistics trends. First, in designing a warehouse, one needs to consider the positions and heights of columns. The racks that are made should allow for a wide range of designs of goods stored to ensure that any future changes in the design of products do not result in a major restructuring of the warehouse. Hence, proper use of rack positions and design ensures that the company can properly utilize the warehouse space and hence accommodate more goods and services. On the other side, the company can adhere to the requirements of everyone since independence hence the information may have resulted in to use of or full view of what we see to increase the participation rates (Chua, 2007).
Another factor to be considered in the design of warehouse structure is the physical location of the warehouse. The warehouse used should always be interconnected to increase the benefits gained from the use of a wall in designing the warehouse. The warehouses should also be easily accessible both for storage and by the clients in the storage of goods. This would help reduce congestion within the warehouse, reduce costs of labor and also reduce the risks of fires or any other hazards hence ensuring only minimum losses are encountered during moments of emergencies or dangers.
Importance of the Location of the Warehouse
A warehouse needs to adopt a design that focuses on the location of the warehouse to a great extent. This is because the location of the warehouse has various effects on the warehouse itself and the company at large.
First, the location of the warehouse determines the accessibility of the products being transported. There is a need for all the goods to be easily and efficiently accessed to carry out their transport more quickly and reliably. Since every client wishes for quicker transport services from the company, a good location and proper accessibility would result in increased customer satisfaction as well as the attraction of new clients. This would especially be so in the cases where the clients collect their luggage from the warehouses (Trebilcock, 2008).
On the other side, the location of a warehouse would determine the availability of space for the warehouse. In some locations, there is readily available space for the establishment and expansion of a warehouse unlike in other locations. There is a need for every warehouse design to take into consideration the location of the warehouse and ensure that the location chosen contains adequate space for the warehouse as required. This way, the warehouse may be flexible and may easily adapt to the future trends of logistics operations and requirements.
Changes Implemented by Kroger
Many grocery companies have utilized different designs in the past, especially for storage and sorting of products received for distribution to different locations. Previously, these companies have utilized traditional methods of operations within the warehouses. This included the integration of intensive labor inputs as well as the use of warehouse management systems, labor-management systems as well as wireless bar code scanners, and voice recognition technology in the operation of a warehouse. However, though such applications helped in ensuring the warehouses were properly designed to maximize the use of space, there was a problem with the collection and offloading of luggage from the warehouses resulting in delays and inconveniences.
Kroger is a company that has invented a new way of integrating technological advancements and creativity in designing warehouses and their operations to increase the effectiveness and reliability of its services. The company which is a market leader in the grocery sector has adopted sophisticated systems and implemented a lot of changes to its systems to ensure that it offers the best services possible. This way, the company has been able to successfully utilize some of the best and most effective designs in its operations. With a sorting and storage system that operates automatically with almost no human intervention, the company can receive, sort, and store large amounts of products packed in pallets compared to the past (Trebilcock, 2009).
The company has been able to increase its productivity tremendously in this way hence its distribution systems have been compatible with the design layouts that attempt to optimize technological convergence. These systems have hence ensured convergence of technology through the utilization of a combination of different technological applications into one cycle of operation to carry out an activity, especially in the building of aisle-aligned pallets.
The use of technology for the operations at the warehouse has ensured that there is quicker, accurate, and effective material flow within the company’s distribution system and throughout the warehouse. This has ensured that reception, sorting, storage, and sending out of goods has been carried out at an increased rate within the company. This has been consistent with the requirements of the design layout (Trebilcock, 2009).
Finally, the changes involving automation of the operations within the warehouses resulted in operations that have minimum human intervention, and in most cases, absolutely no human intervention has been consistent with the design layout since such a layout was focused on increased utilization and application of technology. The changes implemented were hence compatible with the design layout and have resulted in increased effectiveness and reliability of the company helping it maintain its position as a market leader in the grocery sector.
References
Chua, S. (2007). Warehousing: It’s All in the Design. Sydney: MM.
Drickhamer, D. (2006). Changing Venue, Material Handling Management. New York: ACM.
Trebilcock, B. (2008). The Multi-Modal Warehouse, Modern Materials Handling (Warehousing Management Ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
Trebilcock, B. (2009). Kroger Changes the Game, Modern Materials Handling (Warehousing Management Ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
The role of cities in the global economy has been increasing since the emphasis on the globalisation has become heavier (Salama & Shafik, 2016). As a result, the importance of urbanism in not only national, but also global economy has become very high. Consequently, it would be reasonable to assume that the design of the future city will determine the scope and pace of the progress in the specified area to a considerable degree. Thus, the identification of the areas in which the infrastructure of the future cities is going to is going to develop, as well as the analysis of the factors that will shape its evolution, can be viewed as one of the primary needs of Tarmac at present.
The rapid and unceasing development of technology can be viewed as the primary external factor affecting the choices to be made by Tarmac while designing the city of the future. When considering the problem from the engineering perspective, Tarmac will have to view the process of constructing the future city from the perspective of digitality (Dameri, 2013). By definition, the phenomenon of digitality, also referred to as digitalism, implies living in an environment of the digital culture and viewing the corresponding IT developments as part and parcel of the environment (Snieska & Zykiene, 2014). The identified characteristics of the contemporary environment mean that Tarmac will have to focus on some of the innovative aspects of infrastructure development.
Specifically, it will be crucial to make sure that the company should embrace the issues related to energy use in the city of the future. There is no need to stress that the sustainable use of energy, particularly substituting traditional energy sources with solar energy, must be viewed as a necessity (Rashid, 2016). At this point, the social dimension of the needs that Tarmac, as the developer of the city of the future, currently has needs to be addressed. Because of the increasing concern for the sustainable use of resources and the importance of the green economy, the issue of environmentalism appears to have become one of the primary concerns in the modern society. Therefore, it will be crucial to shape the company’s strategy so that the focus on the active promotion of environmentalism and the sustainable use of resources could become a possibility. Particularly, it is necessary to promote the change toward an environmentally-friendly approach not only in the context of the organisation but also in the attitudes of the citizens. The identified task is admittedly challenging due to the rapid increase in the urbanisation rates and, therefore, the inability to find a compromise between the rational use of resources and the need to meet the highest quality standards set.
Furthermore, when considering the social dimension of the city of the future, Tarmac will have to consider the use of the principles of e-governance and e-democracy. By definition, the former implies that the essential elements of communication and innovation technology should be incorporated into the stages of delivering the necessary governmental services (Gustafsson & Wihlborg, 2016). As a result, a rapid increase in the speed and quality of the corresponding services can be enhanced to a considerable degree. E-democracy, in its turn, is referred to as the use of modern technology to facilitate democracy in the society (Anthopoulos & Fitsilis, 2013). Therefore, it will be crucial for Tarmac to make sure that the infrastructure of the future city should include the options for enhancing communication and providing the remote areas with an opportunity to use the Internet and the associated communication technologies. For these purposes, Tarmac needs to focus on creating broadband options for every part of the city, including those that can be deemed as remote and close to rural areas (e.g., the outskirts of the town). As a result, the prerequisites for efficient communication among the citizens can be created. Consequently, the process of receiving feedback from the members of the local population will be simplified significantly. Thus, the e-governance of the city will be executed in the manner that will allow taking the needs of all citizens into account. Furthermore, the use of tools can be considered the primary means of enhancing transparency in the city governance. The challenge described above may be addressed and managed successfully provided that the company focuses on the concepts such as connectivity, innovation, participation, social cohesion, and sustainability.
Needs and Key Factors (Internal)
Apart from addressing the issues identified above, the organisation will also have to handle some of the internal issues associated with the promotion of e-governance and the cohesion of the community with the help of rebuilding the infrastructure. In order to make sure that the company is capable of carrying out the tasks associated with the enhancement of the communication processes and the overall improvement of the city infrastructure, one will have to make sure that the information management framework has been improved accordingly. To be more accurate, it will be necessary to make sure that the employees at Tarmac are capable of carrying out the essential processes associated with data retrieval, its further analysis, its transfer to the remainder of the staff members, and its storage. Particularly, the personnel at Tarmac should be aware of the essential information management principles. In other words, data security and the employees’ proficiency in managing information can be viewed as one of the essential factors that will define the firm’s ability to meet the needs of the target audience by building an appropriate infrastructure for the city of the future.
Apart from the issues associated with the information management and the related issues, one should consider the employees’ ability to understand the significance of the adequate use of the available resources as the foundational quality that will help build the city of the future. As stressed above, sustainability and environmentalism will become the foundational principles on which the functioning of the city will rely. Therefore, it is imperative that the company should be able to allocate the available resources and create the system that will function in a resilient manner. Consequently, Tarmac will have to redesign its current leadership approach by focusing on the transformative leadership style, also shaping its values so that the principles of sustainability and environmentalism could become the foundation for the firm’s resource management policy.
Analysis of Findings
An overview of the possible means of building the city and designing its infrastructure will reveal that it is likely to look very compact and urban. Furthermore, the zoning of the city will imply that it will be divided into the following areas: the business centre, the residential neighbourhood, the commercial area, and the industrial part thereof. Research results point to the fact that the identified arrangement of the elements of the urban environment is likely to lead to the most efficient use of resources (Li, Wang, & Huisingh, 2014).
Moreover, it is crucial that the residential areas should be located in close proximity to the necessary services, such as the shopping area (e.g., groceries), cleaning services, child day-care, etc. Furthermore, it is desirable that the identified elements of the community should be located in the manner that will allow the citizens to pick up their children, make the necessary purchases, etc., on their way from work. Thus, a significant amount of time can be saved. Furthermore, the recreational areas must be constructed in the way that would encourage the community members to engage in the related activities on their day off. Particularly, parks and similar facilities will have to be placed in the vicinity of the residential area (Hoffmann et al., 2015).
Finally, healthcare organisations will also have to be within a relatively short distance from the residential area so that the members of the identified services could reach the citizens and provide the required services, in case of an emergency, within the shortest amount of time possible. Likewise, the organisations such as 911 will have to be located within reach. Thus, the safety levels in the city will remain high, and every member of the population will be provided with enough security (Maligna, Gordon, Lindborg, & Jewitt, 2013).
In order to carry out the identified processes, the company will have to consider shaping its vision and values so that they could be compatible with the requirements listed above. As stressed above, the infrastructure of the city is going to be rather compact. The identified characteristics of the target environment may contradict the size of the target area. Indeed, seeing that the city of the future is most likely to take a significant amount of space, there is going to be an impressive distance between the specified areas, e.g., residential and business. Therefore, it will be crucial to pay an especially great amount of attention to the communication issue. The communication aspect also needs to be addressed as far as the internal elements of the company’s operations are concerned, especially in the domains of logistics and communication.
Despite the fact that the research and analysis techniques used in the course of getting the priorities of the organisation in line have their problems, they can be deemed as rather credible. The first and most obvious, the general review of the available sources, needs to be mentioned as the tool for managing the data. Databases such as ResearchGate, EBSCOhost, ProQuest, etc., were selected to browse for the articles on the identified topic. Afterward, relevant articles were selected with the help of keywords such as “future city infrastructure,” “future city engineering,” “e-government urban development,” etc. As a result, several scholarly articles on the subject matter published in 2012-2016 were selected.
Recommendations
It is crucial that the company should draw a very distinct line between strategic management and leadership. There is no need to stress that management and leadership are very different; indeed, while the former compels the people in charge to assign the participants specific tasks and set measurable and achievable goals, the latter implies that the participants’ perception of the work-related processes should be changed. This approach assume leadership means changing people’s value system and promoting a specific ethical framework according to which they will make company-related decisions and carry out their tasks (Hunt & Fitzgerald, 2013).
The short-term goals that the company will have to meet will, therefore, concern primarily the management-related issues. Particularly, it will be necessary to identify the essential characteristics of the future city, as well as locate the available resources and draft the plan of the further actions to be taken. The specified objectives can be viewed as short-term because they do not require significant changes to the way in which the organisation works and, thus, can be carried out within a relatively short amount of time.
The long-term goals that the firm will have to meet, however, will concern the leadership and the associated issues. Particularly, it will be necessary to alter the firm’s current set of values and the philosophical framework so that the firm may be geared toward a sustainable use of resources. The identified changes will require that the staff members should adopt a more responsible approach toward the decision-making process. Therefore, it is crucial that the promotion of the principles of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) should be considered the first step to be made in shaping the current leadership framework (Tian, Liu, & Fan, 2014).
Speaking of which, the change toward the transformational leadership strategy is imperative for the company. In light of the fact that the firm should promote a sustainable use of resources among the residents of the future city, the focus must be kept on motivation and a change in the system of the target audience’s values. According to the existing definition and the description of its effects, transformational leadership allows altering the participants’ concept of the decision-making process, as well as the concept of problem-solving and the framework of communication (Nazir, Zamah, & Shah, 2014). As a result, prerequisites for enhancing the corporate processes, reinforcing the security of the company’s information, and focusing on the promotion of sustainability in the future city can be created.
Strategy
As explained above, it is crucial to implement the transformational leadership strategy in order to promote a specific concept of the city of the future. The reasons for choosing the identified leadership framework are quite obvious. Given the fact that the current interpretation of the city of the future revolves around the principles of environmentalism, sustainable use of resources, and the associated ideas, it will be necessary to challenge the future population to change their lifestyles (Long, Thean, Ismail, & Jusoh, 2012). For this purpose, however, the organisation will first have to alter the perspective that the members of the company have on the city infrastructure and the communication processes occurring in it. Furthermore, the managers will have to shed light on the importance of e-governance and e-democracy as the foundational pillars of the future society of the city (Long, Yusof, Kowang, & Heng, 2014). In other words, it will be crucial to convey the message that IT tools will be used as the means of helping the members of the community not only to manage their personal life but also exercise their legal rights, work, and participation in the community activities (Girma, 2016).
When considering the leadership frameworks that allow exerting influence that is powerful enough to compel the personnel to alter their perspective of the city of the future, one must give credit to the transformational leadership style. Designed not only to shape people’s vision and values, but also motivate them to excel in the task that they are assigned, the identified framework suits the requirements of the project impeccably (Ahmad, Abbas, Latif, & Rasheed, 2014).
However, as soon as the process of transferring the staff members to a different set of values and decision-making principles is completed, the need to sustain the change, as opposed to reinforcing it, will appear. Therefore, it will be desirable to switch to a different leadership framework. Thus, the approach based on a situational use of the available leadership tools will have to be considered as an integral part of the leadership framework. The identified concept does not imply using a specific set of tools on a regular basis; quite on the contrary, the adoption of the situational framework means that the choice of the leadership tools will hinge on the unique factors that affect the leader’s choices at a certain moment of the company’s progress.
Impact
As stressed above, the leadership strategy chosen for implementing change in the target environment is not the only leadership framework that will be used in the course of building the city. While the transformational leadership principles will have to be used at first so that the staff members could be empowered to make a difference and create the city in which the residents will contribute to the increase in sustainability rates, it will finally have to be substituted with another framework. Even before the process of change ends, the transformation of the staff members and, most importantly, the people living in the target area, will have to be complete. Therefore, it will need to be replaced with the situational approach that will guide the city and its population in case of a specific conflict or a unique dilemma (Yasin, Nawab, Bhatti, & Nazir, 2014).
Therefore, the people’s attitude toward the concepts of sustainability, e-governance, e-democracy, and the overall change in the infrastructure will define the choice of the leadership strategy and the changes thereof. Unless people accept the identified concepts as part and parcel of their lives and learn to follow them, replacing the transformational leadership framework with a different strategy appears unreasonable. For the city of the future to function properly, it is necessary that it should be inhabited by the people of the future, i.e., democracy-driven, technologically advanced supporters of sustainability and active participation in the economic, political, and cultural development of the community (Rijal, 2016).
Vision
The role of leadership in communicating the vision can hardly be overrated. It will be crucial to make sure that the concept of consistent provision and transportation of the building materials should be viewed as a necessity by the personnel. Furthermore, the employees’ concept of the communication processes and information management should be altered. Stressing the significance of efficient and consistent communication and putting a heavy emphasis on the satisfaction of the needs of all stakeholders, the organisation is likely to contribute to a faster and more successful delivery of the necessary materials to the customer. Additionally, the issue of quality is going to be addressed by altering the company’s vision and outlining the significance of keeping the customer satisfaction levels high. In fact, a change in the corporate vision can become the foil for a rapid and significant increase in quality rates. Spurred by the application of the transformational leadership framework and the Six Sigma tools (Pyzdek & Keller, 2014), the process of building the city of the future is likely to become unbelievably successful.
Critical Reflection
In retrospect, the experience gained in the course of providing consultations to the construction company in question allowed for a detailed analysis of the effects that information management has on all domains of public life, personal life, and the performance of an organisation. For instance, the significance of information security was raised as one of the primary concerns in the contemporary business environment. As a result, the need to provide detailed instructions regarding data management issues to the staff members was recognised. It is essential that the loopholes in the security management processes were identified in the course of the analysis. As a result, a safer and a more efficient framework for the company’s operations were designed.
Furthermore, the assessment of the options and the services that the company could offer to the construction organisation mentioned above showed quite graphically that an elaborate choice of a leadership strategy is required to maintain consistent development of the firm. For instance, at the stage of promoting the required behaviour actively, the principles of transformational leadership should be used. However, later on, it will be reasonable to switch to a different strategy that will meet new needs of the target audience. Therefore, the experience with Tarmac has shed a lot of light on the issue of management and leadership in the era of information technology, particularly, the necessity to make sure that every element of the communication system operates impeccably has become evident. Furthermore, it is now clear that the needs of all stakeholders must be satisfied to attain the expected results.
References
Ahmad, F., Abbas, T., Latif, S., & Rasheed, A. (2014). Impact of transformational leadership on employee motivation in telecommunication sector. Journal of Management Policies and Practices, 2(2), 11-25.
Anthopoulos, L., & Fitsilis, P. (2013). Using Classification and Roadmapping techniques for Smart City viability’s realization. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 11(1), pp. 326-336.
Dameri, R. (2013). Searching for smart city definition: A comprehensive proposal. International Journal of Computers & Technology, 11(5), 2545-2551.
Girma, S. (2016). The relationship between leadership style, job satisfaction and culture of the organization. International Journal of Applied Research, 2(4), 35-45.
Gustafsson, S., & Wihlborg, E. (2016). Reflecting on collaborative networking and the roles of municipalities in local sustainable development. The International Journal of Sustainability Policy and Practice, 12(2), 13-23.
Hoffmann, M., Shmarin, S., Denafas, G., Mykhaylenko, V., Ogorodnik, S., & Ludwig, C. (2015). Trends and seasonal patterns in the composition and energy content of waste from three Ukrainian city districts: The influence of commercial and residential areas. International Journal of Energy Engineering, 5(6), 171-184.
Hunt, J. B., & Fitzgerald, M. (2013). The relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership: An Investigation and review of competing claims in the literature. American International Journal of Social Science, 2(8), 30-38.
Li, F., Wang, R., & Huisingh, D. (2014). Call for papers for a special volume of the Journal of Cleaner Production on urban ecological infrastructure for healthier cities: governance, management and engineering. Journal of Cleaner Production, 83(1), 1-4.
Long, C. S., Thean, L. Y., Ismail, W. K. W., Jusoh, A. (2012). Leadership styles and employees’ turnover intention: exploratory study of academic staff in a Malaysian college. World Applied Sciences Journal, 19(4), 575-581.
Long, C. S., Yusof, W. M. M., Kowang, T. O.,& Heng, L. H. (2014). The impact of transformational leadership style on job satisfaction. World Applied Sciences Journal, 29(1), 117-124.
Maligna, R., Gordon, L. J., Lindborg, R., & Jewitt, G. (2013). Using participatory scenario planning to identify ecosystem services in changing landscapes. Ecology and Society, 18(4), 10-31.
Nazir, T., Zamah, S. F., & Shah, H. (2014). Mediating effect of knowledge sharing between participative decision making, transformational leadership and organization performance. Journal of Management Info, 1(1), 1-12.
Pyzdek, T., & Keller, P. (2014). The Six Sigma handbook: A complete guide for Green Belts, Black Belts, and managers at all levels. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Rashid, R. (2016). Towards sustainable energy development in Bangladesh: The perspective of renewable energy technology. Journal of Modern Science and Technology, 3(1), 31-39.
Rijal, S. (2016). The influence of transformational leadership and organizational culture on learning organization: A comparative analysis of the IT sector. Journal of Administrative and Business Studies, 2(3): 121-129.
Salama, H. H., & Shafik, R. S. (2016). Spectacles, themed architecture and urban replicas places shaped for globalization. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 11(9), 6264-6270.
Snieska, V., & Zykiene, I. (2014). The role of infrastructure in the future city: theoretical perspective. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 156, 247-251.
Tian, Q., Liu, Y., & Fan, J. (2014). The effects of external stakeholder pressure and ethical leadership on corporate social responsibility in China. Journal of Management & Organization, 21(4), 388-410.
Yasin, G., Nawab, S., Bhatti, K. K., & Nazir, T. (2014). Relationship of intellectual stimulation, innovations and SMEs performance: transformational leadership as a source of competitive advantage in SMEs. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 19(1), 74-81.