I'm getting lucky with the news today. I hung off commenting on the H.D. Smith expansion last night, hoping that today's SJR would have more details*, and sure enough: it did! And even better, it crucially converges with one of the Sierra Club's survey questions:
Many cities, including Normal Illinois, have adopted ordinances that promote sustainability, energy conservation and environmental concerns for buildings. Do you think Springfield should promote green building practices such as providing incentives for developers, or rewriting zoning, stormwater management, building, and other ordinances? If yes, what steps should Springfield take to implement these standards?
According to the SJR:
The "green buildings" will be constructed using the latest environmental and energy-efficient technology, according to Smith.
Now, it's unclear whether the "green buildings" means specific buildings on the campus, or everything. And it's unclear how far they intend to go. Hopefully, it's everything and all the way. In particular, it would be great if they pursued LEED certification, which evaluates how "green" they've managed to be, along a range of factors, such as location efficiency (compactness v. sprawl), energy use, materials use and re-use, landscaping, and water use. LEED has several levels: Certification, Bronze, Silver, Gold, and Platinum. The certification process is tough, but it would be wonderful to see an out-in-the-open application in Springfield. It would be a great learning opportunity, especially if HD Smith manages to make it costless (which it can be, but often is not).
Moreover, let me tentatively thank for HD Smith for choosing a reasonable location. It's tough to place a campus-sized complex on an infill site, but if I'm not completely misunderstanding "off Sixth Street north of Stevenson Drive" (and since it's the Fiat-Allis site, I assume it's along Fiat Drive), it looks like it's not just infill, but bus accessible (route 1 and maybe route 10).
Of course, some people might say that HD Smith proves that a city ordinance calling for green buildings is unnecessary--the free market is working successfully. I don't think that's the case, for a couple of basic reasons. First, there's often an incentive split between developers and ultimate property owners/users, which results in focusing on minimizing the upfront construction costs of the development, potentially at the expense of efficient design, which often (but not always) is cheaper over the long-term, but costs more upfront.
Second, most people--developers and architects included--tend to operate on the basis of routines, within realms that they're comfortable. So, if they're used to building a certain way, they'll tend to keep building that way unless something forces them to do otherwise. That something can be community pressure, a persistent client, widespread press, or ... regulations. What we're seeing more and more recently is that LEED certified buildings are getting closer and closer in upfront cost--which means that their long-term savings are just that--savings--and not payback. But until people get used to designing for green status, they'll overlook those savings.**
(As an aside, I think--and I'm sure CWLP would contest this--that this is part of what happened when CWLP commissioned the new power plant. They pursued a typical strategy of looking for emissions reductions, and found something in line with what they were already doing. When pressed, though, they found that they could emit far, far less than that, and because of the emissions market, that cleanliness will pay off to the tune of $38 million.)
* Speaking of which, I am not an SJR subscriber. However, I will happily plug AT LEAST one SJR story a day if they give me full online access to each day's articles and letters to the editor for free. I'm just throwing the idea out there.
** Saying this gives me an opportunity to link to my Favorite Economist Joke Ever.