Z0D17

Dissertation submitted as part of a Bachelor of Arts Degree in k100 Architecture Newcastle University, 2020

-2-

Does BREEAM improve design quality or merely promote box-ticking?

An investigation of its design, its image and its use as process and product.

By Jacob Botting

-3-

-4-

-5-

-6-

Methodology The research I will undertake in this dissertation focuses on analysing the methods, impact and efficacy of Design Quality measurement tools in the built environment through a tight investigation of the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), aiming to identify strengths and weaknesses through analysis, comparison and speculation.

Value of Research The findings of this study will aim to establish a holistic assessment of the value of BREEAM in the Built Environment. Assessment methods will always be an area of controversy due to the variety of weighting, methods and standards that people believe to be correct. I will aim to assess BREEAM objectively as possible, through the use of secondary sources in order to provide a width of perspectives and arguments. I will use a mixture of both quantitative and qualitative research.

Whilst the area of assessment methods has been extensively researched and discussed, often studies focus on a specific impact of BREEAM or other measurement system whereas I wish to study the wider place of BREEAM in the Built Environment.

Research Aims In my dissertation I aim to: • • • •

Acutely define what BREEAM is Investigate how and when BREEAM is used Discuss potential negatives and benefits of BREEAM Identify if and why BREEAM, and other design quality assessments, are useful

Research Objectives To achieve my research aims I will conduct the following: • • •

A review of BREEAM literature, with a predominant focus upon the BREEAM New Construction task documents from 2011, 2014 and 2018 and websites.

Readings around the philosophy and use of design quality measurement systems, such as the Design Quality Indicator (DQI) and the Stirling Prize.

Collate and analyse information from research papers on BREEAM, including the use of case studies to elicit the ‘real-world’ manifestation of the theoretical ideas posed from other sources.

-7-

-8-

-9-

What is BREEAM? BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) was the “first commercially available environmental assessment tool for buildings, established in the UK in 1990 1” which attempts “to set criteria and standards going beyond those required by law and regulations 2” for “master planning projects, infrastructure and buildings 3”. It was developed by the British Research Establishment (BRE) Group which is “an independent private research business originating from a government-funded research laboratory 4” which “initially developed [BREEAM] to assess and certify buildings… [with its] its primary function… to capture and communicate something about the environmental quality of a building to the public and to the property market.

The method involves a series of steps leading to the assignment of a numerical score and certification. 5”

Figure 1

Haapio, A. (2012). Towards sustainable urban communities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 32(1), pp.165-169.

1

Holmes, John & Hudson, Gordon. (2003). The application of BREEAM in corporate real estate: A case study in the design of a city centre office development. Journal of Corporate Real Estate. 5. 66-77. 10.1108/14630010310812019.

3 What is BREEAM?, C80 Solutions. 2019. London. Accessed on: Oct. 12, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.c80solutions.co.uk/service/breeam/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw84XtBRDWARIsAAU1aM0CxsmT6RidGga5ELZDHEk9 av-ZXwICqgeE8d_31Gv9SOgL2AyyHNIaApXBEALw_wcB 2

Wangel, J., Wallhagen, M., Malmqvist, T. and Finnveden, G. (2016). Certification systems for sustainable neighbourhoods: What do they really certify?. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 56, pp.200-213.

4

Schweber, L. and Haroglu, H. (2014). Comparing the fit between BREEAM assessment and design processes. Building Research & Information, 42(3), pp.300-317.

5

-10-

The numerical score comes from developers and architects earning credits, throughout design and construction, of their building as it is assessed in several different topics (Figure 1) BREEAM compresses numerous aspects of technical environmental performance of a building into a single figure, considering ten sub-sections within this, differently weighted to try and give a comprehensive assessment. Percentage ‘credits’ are gained through application to an independent BREEAM assessor who works alongside a company throughout the process, monitoring the evidence of tasks fulfilled, then awarding credits. Because of this on-going process, the BREEAM rating of a building can change from design stage to an in-use evaluation. There are different assessment methods relating specifically to different types of construction “New Construction, Refurbishment and In-Use 6” BREEAM has been growing in popularity throughout its life, now “globally there are more than 562’500 BREEAM certified developments, and almost 2’266’400 buildings registered for assessment. 7” A database of Certified BREEAM Assessments are publicly available online 8, and the building developer may also choose to publish their BREEAM rating. BREEAM therefore allows for the comparison of environmental performance across buildings and can give non-experts an insight into the performance of the construction which is affecting their lives, their local environment and the world.

Sustainable refurbishment – how to better understand, measure and reduce the embodied impacts, BRE Centre for Sustainable Products. BRE Global Ltd. 2015. Accessed on: Oct. 12, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/Briefing%20papers/98660-Sustainable-Refurb-Briefing-Paper.pdf)

6

7 8

Ibid.

Accessed through https://tools.breeam.com/projects/explore/buildings.jsp

-11-

-12-

-13-

Th e Scoring System Classification Although each building gets a distinct percentage score under the BREEAM accreditation, buildings are categorized into groups which are attached to a threshold description (Figure 2). These may help the layman quickly understand the development’s environmental proficiency and provide a target to which clients, developers or architects can strive.

Figure 2

The classifications are arguably a key factor in BREEAM and its success. “As BREEAM has become part of the construction culture, clients, industry and BRE have looked at new ways to differentiate.

The Outstanding rating was introduced to enable this. 9” All the projects are not evenly spread throughout these categories: Outstanding, at eighty-five ‘points’ and greater, “broadly represents performance equivalent to… less than one percent of UK new non-domestic buildings (innovator). 10” and the Rating Descriptors are established as aspirational targets for environmental performance.

‘Very Good’ represents the top quarter of all new buildings, and requires a score of fifty-five percent or greater, and the “government’s Common Minimum Standards… require that an environmental assessment is carried out on all public projects, and states that; '…where BREEAM is used, all new projects are to achieve an ‘Excellent’ rating 11” which demonstrates the feasibility of achieving ratings and the way in which BREEAM can express and facilitate a desire for certain levels of performance.

Parker, J. (2012). The value of BREEAM. BSRIA, [online] (55780). Available at: https://tools.breeam.com/filelibrary/BREEAM%20and%20Value/The_Value_of_BREEAM.pdf [Accessed 17 Oct. 2019].

10 McPartland, R,. What is BREEAM?, National Building Specification. September. 2016,. Accessed on: Oct. 12, 2019.

[Online]. Available: https://www.thenbs.com/knowledge/what-is-breeam 11 Designingbuildings.co.uk. (2019). BREEAM. [online] Available at: https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM [Accessed 20 Nov. 2019].

9

-14-

Not only does the rating system help in client driven specification but “In the UK, the BRE Environmental Assessment Method energy efficiency rating is frequently used to market the building or the brand. 12” The London’s School of Economics’ Saw Swee Hock building “achieved a BREEAM ‘Outstanding’ rating.” and “generated unprecedented publicity for a university building, being featured in no fewer than 52 publications 13”. Having the ‘Outstanding’ benchmark gives a great incentive to meet the threshold of eighty-five percent - in order to attain this fame - and the Saw Swee Hock Centre, in gaining “85.0% 14”, can duly advertise itself as an ‘Outstanding’ building.

Charting BREEAM ratings I am sure that it gained exactly the threshold percentage score is no accident, so that it could reap the subsequent rewards, it is likely that they worked closely with their BREEAM assessor to attain this. In fact, I believe these descriptive thresholds to be so desirable that perhaps the exact reaching of threshold grades is repeated in many other BREEAM cases. To investigate this, I decided to plot a graph using BREEAM’s online database 15 of instances of scores of both Residential and Office buildings (Figures 3 and 4).

12

Spencer, N. and Winch, G. (2002). How buildings add value for clients. London (GB): Thomas Telford Publishing.

Taylor, I,. 2019. Future Campus. London: Routledge.

BREEAM. (2019). Saw Swee Hock Student Centre, LSE - BREEAM. [online] Available at: https://www.breeam.com/case-studies/education/saw-swee-hock-student-centre-lse/ [Accessed 13 Oct. 2019].

15 Tools.breeam.com. (2019). BREEAM Projects. [online] Available at: https://tools.breeam.com/projects/explore/buildings.jsp [Accessed 27 Aug. 2019].

13 14

-15-

Figure 3

Figure 4

-16-

In both graphs there is a much higher frequency of buildings rated just above a threshold percentage, most notably above fifty-five percent ‘Very-Good’ benchmark. Ergo, there is pressure upon BREEAM to responsibly set the benchmarks, as it influences the extent to which developers dedicate resources to environmental performance, if, that is, the developers are using BREEAM as a reference of their design decisions.

Minimum standards This arguable ‘target-mentality’ is compounded by the “flexible system BREEAM adopts 16” where “the majority of BREEAM credits can be traded,” and so projects can offset poor performance in scores elsewhere in order to attain their goal. One way in which BREEAM diminishes the ability for exploitative credit-gaining is by using “minimum thresholds that must be achieved 17”, and for certain sections BREEAM deems imperative, a certain level of achievement must be reached in order to attain the overall accreditation level. (Figure 5)

Breeam.com. (2016). Scoring. [online] Available at: https://www.breeam.com/domrefurbmanual/content/03scoring/02minimum_standards.htm [Accessed 20 Nov. 2019].

17 Designingbuildings.co.uk. (2019). BREEAM. [online] Available at: https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM [Accessed 20 Nov. 2019].

16

-17-

Figure 5

-18-

These minimum standards are clearly those which BRE consider to be essential for all buildings, and uncompromisably so. In order to investigate further, and attain a greater understanding of the BREEAM methodology, I will break down a couple of these sections and attempt to infer why they have been chosen as minimum requirements, and then look at these in a case study example.

Ene 02 Section: Energy Monitoring refers to the sub-metering of energy consuming systems. Submetering is a method by which the electrical systems within the building, such as Lighting or Space Heating, can be monitored as to the energy consumed.

BREEAM’s Scheme Document outlines that “The Building Regulations of Wales, Northern Ireland and England also require energy meters to be provided that enable at least 90% of the estimated annual energy consumption of each fuel to be assigned to the various end-use categories (heating, lighting etc.) with separate monitoring of any renewable systems. 18” and so, for British buildings, it really is not too great a task to achieve it as a minimum requirement, yet even then you only need to attain it to a minimum standard if you are striving for an ‘Excellent’ rating or higher.

BREEAM issue Wat 02: Water Monitoring awards a credit in part when you “Connect it [a meter] to an appropriate utility monitoring and management system, e.g. a building management system (BMS), for the monitoring of water consumption,19” this is a credit which doesn’t necessarily require any environmental performance improvements, but an awareness of the building’s ongoing impact.

Saw Swee Hock Centre The ‘Outstanding’ LSE Saw Swee Hock (SSH) Centre used to great effect and celebrated - even going so far as integrating “a detailed building management system… into data displays on each floor, 20” and “an LED screen in the ground floor foyer displaying dynamic information. 21” The SSH Centre achieved “100% of available credits in Water categories 22” and the displays serve to advertise and “increase awareness of water usage within the building. 23” In SSH’s Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE), one of the “Major Successes…for the office user sample 24” in Facilities Management is that the “Building fulfils your expectations of environmental performance (95%)”. Such relentless awareness of environmental performance can apply pressure onto the building management and the staff however, and, again in the POE, occupants reference a “ ‘lack of cold water’…’the space also lacks a water fountain’…’could do with a water fountain’…’they try to save water’…’the water fountains are crap, too’” and so perhaps the trade off for good environmental performance is hindering the quality of the space and its function, and the end users experience. The celebrated “Environmental features… [such as] taps with flow rate restrictors, showers limited to a maximum flow of 9 litres/minute 25” are diminishing the efficacy of the design and can create “undesirable conditions 26” all in the name of environmental performance and with it that coveted BREEAM rating.

Breeam.com. (2014). Water. [online] Available at: https://www.breeam.com/BREEAM2011SchemeDocument/Content/08_Water/wat01.htm [Accessed 20 Nov. 2019].

19 Ibid.

20 BREEAM. (2019). Saw Swee Hock Student Centre, LSE - BREEAM. [online] Available at: https://www.breeam.com/case-studies/education/saw-swee-hock-student-centre-lse/ [Accessed 20 Nov. 2019].

21 Ibid.

22 Ibid.

23 Breeam.com. (2019). [online] Available at: https://www.breeam.com/NC2018/content/resources/output/10_pdf/a4_pdf/print/nc_uk_a4_print_mono/nc_uk_a4 _print_mono.pdf [Accessed 20 Nov. 2019].

24 Info.lse.ac.uk. (2019). [online] Available at: https://info.lse.ac.uk/staff/divisions/estatesdivision/Assets/Documents/SAW/Saw-Swee-Hock-POE-Report-ZZA-140519.pdf [Accessed 20 Nov. 2019].

25 BREEAM. (2019).

26 Info.lse.ac.uk. (2019) 18

-19-

The SSH Centre has a unique purpose; as it is a Student’s Union it has a constantly revolving and changeable population, and “diverse user groups. 27” It is therefore difficult to determine appropriate performance factors with which to measure this building – however LSE responsibly conducted a POE for the “identification of aspects on which tuning the student centre accommodation through physical, management or usage measures could add value.27” This demonstrates the client’s desire (and arguably need) to measure and then responsibly conduct the buildings operations beyond BREEAM. Under the 2018 scheme document, those projects “pursuing a post occupancy stage certification” require that “The water monitoring strategy used [needs to] enables the identification of all water consumption for sanitary uses 28”. This wasn’t in the 2011 scheme document which SSH was following, which opened in 2013, and at the time, Julian Robinson, LSE director of estates stated that “this building will go through BREEAM In-Use 29,” as he “accept[s] there is a problem with [standard] BREEAM” that it didn’t go far enough in monitoring the building’s operation.

Because of the detail with which BREEAM assesses, there will always be discussions about the standards it asks for, and how much it ‘weights’ them. BREEAM, however, is willing to change, and its numerous updates throughout the years reflects its ability to change with emerging technologies as well as feedback from previous editions.

Ibid.

Breeam.com. (2019).

29 Architects Journal. (2014). Delivering green design. [online] Available at: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/home/delivering-green-design/8662502.article [Accessed 20 Nov. 2019].

27 28

-20-

-21-

-22-

-23-

‘Quick Wins’ What are ‘Quick Wins’?

The notion of “’easy wins’ 30” within BREEAM is a premise which cropped up continually in my research – allegedly not all BREEAM credits are created equal. The UK Green Building Council (Ukgbc) states that “Perceptions of BREEAM in general still remain a stumbling block and many people see any type of BREEAM or indeed any standards assessment process as being a tick box exercise and adding time and cost. 31” The viewing of BREEAM as a ‘tick box exercise’ could arise from the idea of gamification, through a strategic focus on “easy BREEAM credits 32” in order to attain that prized threshold grade (as mentioned in Chapter 2). It seems well known within the industry how and where these points can be attained, in fact, they can be found publicly advertised (Figure 6). This Figure is taken from a website (Adwdevelopments.com) which claims to collaborate with design teams and BRE in order to help their clients achieve their BREEAM targets. It claims that “These credits will be low cost to deliver. However, they offer real cost savings and benefits in financial and environmental behalf. 33” It is intriguing how the “benefits in financial” is placed ahead of the “environmental” in this quote, as it may suggest a focus on the former. It can be argued that outside consultancy is unnecessary to achieve these goals, as “If you have a good Breeam assessor on your job they’ll have an idea of the cost of what’s required, and can tell you the cheapest way of achieving the right credits to get certain ratings,34” and there isn’t a need for outside sources to pitch in with ‘exclusive knowledge and understanding’ of low cost BREEAM credits.

I do, however, believe it to be useful for my investigation that the sections denoted are investigated to try and discover why they might be being targeted and if that therefore denotes a sense of exploitation in the BREEAM.

Figure 6 – adw developments advertises which areas it works with clients in order to help them achieve low cost BREEAM credits Schweber, L. and Haroglu, H. (2014). Comparing the fit between BREEAM assessment and design processes. Building Research & Information, 42(3), pp.300-317.

31 Ukgbc.org. (2019). [online] Available at: https://www.ukgbc.org/sites/default/files/Pinpointing_BREEAM_Communities.pdf [Accessed 4 Dec. 2019].

32 Adwdevelopments.com. (2019). [online] Available at: https://adwdevelopments.com/breeam-credits-2/ [Accessed 4 Dec. 2019].

33 Ibid.

34 Build Energy. (2019). BREEAM. [online] Available at: https://www.buildenergy.co.uk/blog/how-much-does-breeamcost/ [Accessed 4 Dec. 2019].

30

-24-

BREEAM, having released three manuals in the 2010s, the 2011 New Construction Scheme Document and the 2014 and 2018 Technical manuals, are cognizant of and willing to adapt their wording and specification according to feedback. Because of this, it seems right to represent the changes made throughout these documents and will do so for Management 02 – Life cycle cost and service planning. I chose this section as it represents the greatest change in documents out of those sections denoted in Figure 6, the others mainly focusing on changes to the wording, and updating of benchmarks to current standards.

Management 02 throughout the 2010s In the 2011 Scheme Document there are 3 credits total available for Man 02, one is awarded by asking the developer to predict the Construction, Operation and Maintenance costs throughout “a study period of 60 years 35”. The second credit is awarded only if the first has been achieved and if the building’s Envelope, Services, Finishes and External Spaces have been “analysed at a strategic and system level4” throughout its life with a view to “lower[ing] building energy consumption…reduction in maintenance requirement…extended service lives…reuse of building components.4” The third and final credit also requires the preceding credits to be achieved and refers to a self-assessment of the optimisation of operation and maintenance, assessment of major plant replacement/removal and a long term landscaping management plan.

In the 2014 Technical Manual there are 4 credits total available for Man 02, and, unlike the 2011 Scheme Document, each credit is awarded independently of the other. Two credits are awarded for Elemental Life cycle cost (LCC) analysis, and analysis of the building’s basic structure and envelope over multiple time frames, eg. 20,30,50+ years. The 2014 Technical manual awards the second credit the same as it did in 2011. The final credit in Man 02 greatly diverts from the ‘selfassessment’ required in the 2011 document, instead denoting the use of a “BREEAM tool 36” to predict the “capital cost for the building in pounds per square metre (£k/m2 )”. 2014 sees the simplification of the assessment, an increased collaboration with BREEAM and move away from self-assessment. Perhaps the greatest difference in the 2018 document is in the clear declaration of Assessment Criteria (Figure 7), which declares the same Man 02 credits as the 2014 manual.

Figure 7 – The clearly laid-out Assessment criteria of Man 02 in the 2018 Technical Manual

Breeam.com. (2011). [online] Available at: https://www.breeam.com/breeam2011schemedocument/content/resources/output/breeamgeneralprint/breeam_no ndom_2011.pdf [Accessed 4 Dec. 2019].

36 Tools.breeam.com. (2014). [online] Available at: https://tools.breeam.com/filelibrary/BREEAM%20UK%20NC%202014%20Resources/SD5076_DRAFT_BREEAM_UK_Ne w_Construction_2014_Technical_Manual_ISSUE_0.1.pdf [Accessed 4 Dec. 2019].

35

-25-

The visual disparity between the documents is striking, so much so I deem it worth reflecting upon the in this investigation of BREEAM. This I have undertaken in Figures 8 and 9.

Figure 8 – An analysis of the layout of the Man 02 Section in the 2014 Technical Manual

-26-

Most notable is a colourful and diagrammatic transition which eases navigation, this, and clearer headings within the text make the document more succinct and easier to read.

Figure 9 – An analysis of the layout of the Man 02 Section in the 2018 Technical Manual

-27-

Material 05 Returning to the list of “easy BREEAM credits 37”, the next ‘targeted’ section is Mat (Material) 05 – Designing for durability and resilience. Mat 05 seeks to avoid unnecessary cost and material use resulting from operational and climate wear and so promotes material “protection measures 38” from normal and malicious damage to “vulnerable 39” parts of the building, and in “protecting exposed parts of the building from material degradation 40” which all awards 1 credit. This section refers to climate change, making the claim that the “impacts of climate change can be mitigated by good design 41” and BREEAM suggests that construction companies should prepare for the worsening environment; climate change is a thread throughout the 2018 Technical Manual, such as in Hea 02 Thermal Comfort where the projected future of the thermal climate is to be considered in designs.

Waste 05 WST 05 Adaptation to Climate Change is the section last in Figure 6 and is similar in wording to Mat 05. WST seeks to “minimise the future need of carrying out works to adapt the building”, a “systematic risk assessment” should be conducted considering “the impact of extreme weather conditions arising from climate change. 42” What links all these sections – and perhaps reveals why these are the targeted sections – is that they all contain elements of speculation and predictions of complicated issues such as cost or climate change and extrapolate this potentially quite far into the future, something which can arguably never be undertaken accurately.

Health and Wellbeing 06 The final section on this list, Hea 06 Security (Health and Wellbeing Section), seeks to reduce crime and the fear of crime within a building through “an evidence-based Security needs assessment (SNA) during or prior to Concept Design 43” which then develops into “controls…recommendations…[and] proposals”. Depending on the use of the building, this section could be extremely easy, as there may be a low risk of criminal threat. The main barrier to entry may be that the SNA has to be conducted by a ‘Suitably Qualified Security Specialist (SQSS)’ which, as outlined by the Definitions section that the 2018 BREEAM assessment provides, is an individual registered by BREEAM as an SQSS or someone with three or more years’ experience in a relevant profession, holding a relevant qualification and maintaining a full membership to a relevant professional body. What companies such as adw could potentially provide is access to a SQSS who will work according to the needs of the client.

The section also denotes that “If the SQSS is unable to make complete recommendations due to the speculative nature of the assessment, then the credit may still be available 44” – speculative projects are where the people constructing the building do not yet have an occupant or specified use and therefore cannot accurately assess the security risks associated with its usage. Clare Lowe, of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), states that ““With all types

Adwdevelopments.com. (2019).

Breeam.com. (2018). Pg 249 [online] Available at: https://www.breeam.com/NC2018/content/resources/output/10_pdf/a4_pdf/print/nc_uk_a4_print_mono/nc_uk_a4 _print_mono.pdf [Accessed 4 Dec. 2019].

37 38

Ibid.

Ibid.

41 Ibid.

42 Breeam.com. (2018). Pg 283 43 Breeam.com. (2018). Pg 118 44 Ibid.

39 40

-28-

of buildings, ‘outstanding’ is a big ask, particularly for speculative buildings 45” however in this case it seems that speculative projects may benefit as to the credit is attained having “addressed all parts of the project where it is feasible to do so, based on the [potentially limited] information available to them at the time of assessment. 46”

The impact of ‘Easy credits’ Whilst I’m sure many developers strive for both profit and environmental performance, the thought of diminishing the “time and cost 47” associated with BREEAM must surely be tantalising, it’s widely considered that “the focus of corporate strategy… [is gaining] short-term results and quick profitability for investors 48” however with the rise of environmental awareness, Gautam Kaul, Michigan Ross School of Business professor, states that “20 years from now, a typical firm that’s only looking for financial return won’t exist. 49" Money, however, is arguably a large factor in the success of BREEAM, Hans van der Sanden of Sweco states that “‘Increased market demand and clear financial rewards, coupled with mounting government regulations and shareholder pressures provide multiple incentives to own and occupy high performance buildings.’ 50” and it can be seen that there are “large and positive effects on market rents and selling prices following environmentally certification [sic] of office buildings. 51” The ability for a client to ask for a specific level of BREEAM, and specific level of environmental performance, means that the architect and construction teams are not judge, jury and executioner, therefore allowing the power of market forces to drive a rise in environmental performance.

Build Energy. (2019). BREEAM. [online] Available at: https://www.buildenergy.co.uk/blog/how-much-does-breeamcost/ [Accessed 4 Dec. 2019].

46 Breeam.com. (2018). Pg 118 47 Ukgbc.org. (2019). [online] Available at: https://www.ukgbc.org/sites/default/files/Pinpointing_BREEAM_Communities.pdf [Accessed 4 Dec. 2019].

48 Kline, M. (2018). How to Drive Profits with Corporate Social Responsibility. [online] Inc.com. Available at: https://www.inc.com/maureen-kline/how-to-drive-profits-with-corporate-social-responsibility.html [Accessed 4 Dec. 2019].

49 Businessbecause.com. (2019). Is Sustainability Profitable? | BusinessBecause. [online] Available at: https://www.businessbecause.com/news/hear-from-business-schools/6050/is-sustainability-profitable [Accessed 4 Dec. 2019].

50 Tools.breeam.com. (2016). [online] Available at: https://tools.breeam.com/filelibrary/Brochures/BREEAMRefurbishment-and-Fit-Out-Brochure--May-2016-.pdf [Accessed 4 Dec. 2019].

51 Chegut A, Eicholtz P, Kok N. Supply, Demand and the Value of Green Buildings. Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, March 2012 45

-29-

-30-

-31-

The Stirling Prize and Bloomberg HQ Environmental Sustainability To try and define the efficacy of BREEAM as a design quality measurement tool, I intend to compare it with other measurement tools. “Design award schemes are generally accepted by building designers as a standard for assessing quality in architecture 52” and I will consider The Stirling Prize in this chapter.

The Stirling Prize is a greatly different measurement system to BREEAM and claims to be “the most rigorously judged prizes for architectural excellence in the UK, 53”, awarded through ‘judgement’ of a panel rather than the calculation of BREEAM. Although, similarly, in recent years, Environmental Sustainability has seemed to be a driving force behind the awarding of the prize. The Stirling Prize is given to a building shortlisted from all buildings that were awarded a RIBA National Award in that given year. RIBA National Awards “set the standard for great architecture all across the country” and “provide an insight into the UK’s design and economic trends 54” and, with a recent increase in environmental awareness 55, it is perhaps unsurprising that those buildings awarded have a more sustainable focus. That said, those who were shortlisted, and subsequently chosen to win in recent years, are landmark examples of sustainability; the Bloomberg building (2018 winner) and the Goldsmith Street development (2019 winner).

Goldsmith Street in Norwich was “the second year running that the Stirling Prize-winning project has foregrounded sustainability 56” and whilst this is generally seen as a good thing “costly innovations…have drawn criticism.” Goldsmith Street did not participate in BREEAM accreditation, and so relied upon the motivation of City Council and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) instead. Interestingly, David Mikhail, when accepting the prize for the development. “called for better rules on designing in a climate emergency: 'We need the government to legislate, so we are not seen as the crusties in the room.' 57” BREEAM attempts to go “beyond those [standards] required by law58” and has popularised these standards separately from legislation with over half a million BREEAM certified developments 59. In doing so, it allows sustainability to be an increasingly prescient part of the built environment – which I believe disputes the idea that Mikhail is a lone ‘crusty’ in being environmentally responsible.

Perhaps this statement was more directed towards those in the traditional award scheme landscape. As “award systems are based on peer review 60” and the Stirling Prize jury “always

Gann, D., Salter, A. and Whyte, J. (2003). Design Quality Indicator as a tool for thinking. Building Research & Information, 31(5), pp.322.

52

Architecture.com. (2019). RIBA Stirling Prize. [online] Available at: https://www.architecture.com/awards-andcompetitions-landing-page/awards/riba-stirling-prize [Accessed 15 Jan. 2020].

54 Architecture.com. (2019). RIBA announces 2019 National Award winners. [online] Available at: https://www.architecture.com/knowledge-and-resources/knowledge-landing-page/riba-announces-2019-nationalaward-winners [Accessed 18 Nov. 2019].

55 Schmidt, J. (2007). From Intentions to Actions: The Role of Environmental Awareness on College Students. UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research X. 56 Architecture.com. (2019). RIBA announces 2019 National Award winners.

57 Ibid.

58 Holmes, John & Hudson, Gordon. (2003). The application of BREEAM in corporate real estate: A case study in the design of a city centre office development. Journal of Corporate Real Estate. 5. 66-77. 10.1108/14630010310812019.

59 McPartland, R,. (2019). What is BREEAM?. [online] NBS. Available at: https://www.thenbs.com/knowledge/what-isbreeam [Accessed 19 Nov. 2019].

60 Gann, D., Salter, A. and Whyte, J. (2003). Design Quality Indicator as a tool for thinking. Building Research & Information, 31(5), pp.318-333.

53

-32-

includes a representative from the most recent award-winning practice 61” it could be interpreted that the awards are unwaveringly passed around the same sort of practices – in this instance these are usually the practices with the finances, and strong ownership of projects. This is an issue as “The priorities of the judges of such award schemes might differ dramatically to the priorities and requirements of the occupants, users, passersby, neighbours and other end-users of a building 62” and therefore designs – which may try to adhere to the predilections of a panel of peers– might actually have a lower overall design quality.

Bloomberg HQ - cost of performance Foster + Partners’ Bloomberg HQ gained almost the same press for winning as it did for being “certainly one of the most expensive 63” office buildings in the world, and, whilst it was hailed for its 99.1% BREEAM-rating 64 and innovations in sustainable materials and technologies, it was described by the AJ’s Simon Sturgis as “a sustainability laboratory; however… not a truly sustainable building itself nor is it a model to others for the future. 65” One of the reasons it cannot serve as a ‘model to others’ is due to its astronomical cost. Its over 1 billion-pound (GBP) cost garnered the headlines and served as part motivation for me to conduct my research into the potential downsides of the strive for environmental ‘excellence’.

Due to this, and as a facet of my investigation, I wished to investigate the intrinsicality of BREEAM rating and cost. Instead of outright cost, it seemed best to plot cost per square metre due to the varyingly scale of the projects, although because of the variety in function this is not an indisputable measurement to use. Architectural construction is an extremely confidential field, especially in recent projects, and so it was difficult to obtain data, and so I do not have nearly the amount of data I would like – or that would make a rigorous statistical analysis of the trend. It is also worth considering that the BREEAM cases plotted are all high profile ‘Outstanding’ rated projects with publicly available floor sizes and cost; projects of scale and notable expense are more likely to have this data publicised. Due to the outlying nature of Bloomberg, I decided to plot two graphs, one including it and one excluding it from the data set. Nevertheless, I believe this trend was worth exploring.

Architecture.com. (2018). Meet the 2018 Stirling Prize jury. [online] Available at: https://www.architecture.com/knowledge-and-resources/knowledge-landing-page/meet-the-2018-stirling-prize-jury [Accessed 18 Nov. 2019].

62 Gann, D., Salter, A. and Whyte, J. (2003).

61

Wainwright, O. (2017). Bloomberg HQ: a £1bn building that looks like a regional department store. [online] The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/oct/25/bloomberg-london-hq-normanfoster-architecture-review [Accessed 18 Nov. 2019].

64 BREEAM. (2019). Bloomberg London: the world’s highest BREEAM-rated major office building. [online] Available at: https://www.breeam.com/case-studies/offices/bloomberg-london/ [Accessed 18 Nov. 2019].

65 Sturgis, S. (2018). RIBA Stirling Prize 2018: the most sustainable shortlist ever?. [online] Architects Journal. Available at: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/opinion/riba-stirling-prize-2018-the-most-sustainable-shortlistever/10035714.article [Accessed 18 Nov. 2019].

63

-33-

Figure 10

-34Figure 11

What we see from Figure 10 is that there is a logarithmic correlation between the two, the equation of the logarithmic (y = 3.3722ln(x) + 63.845) shows that based upon this data, with zero cost a score of 63.845 can be achieved, which is clearly false. The graphs variability, however, shows that a BREEAM score can be attained with a small(er) cost, The Edge Amsterdam (top left of graphs) attained a 98.36 rating in 2015 at nearly 1/6th the price per square metre to Bloomberg HQ (top right). Despite this, an apparent correlation between cost and BREEAM rating is pronounced, and Foster + Partners project certainly brought that debate into the spotlight. Even without Bloomberg (Figure 11) there is a correlation, albeit a less strong and more linear one with this small sample size.

Bloomberg HQ – material performance Bloomberg was undoubtedly accredited innovation credits due to its expensive, ‘top-shelf’ materials, up to 10% are available in the BREEAM scheme, using new technologies and materials, which often have not been used due to their expense. Whilst it might be argued that Bloomberg HQ serves best as a flagship guiding the path far ahead of other office projects, the sheer scale of the building – which has “500’000 LEDs [which] will conserve around 40% of the energy used by conventional lighting tubes 66” – means that it serves more as an experiment. Bloomberg was able to use vastly expensive materials too, and whilst these represent strong environmental performance in-use, the “embodied energy in the steel frame of Bloomberg have drawn criticism, 67” and BREEAM was similarly criticized for this as “its high BREEAM sustainability rating didn’t consider embodied energy.68” One of other the materials Fosters + Partners used (to fulfil sustainability targets, BREEAM credits or more likely both) is “concrete whose aggregate contains up to 60 % recycled materials.69” Recycled aggregate “reduces the need for virgin aggregates 70” and therefore there are fewer emissions from transportation and decreased need for extraction. “In addition to the resource management aspect, recycled concrete aggregates absorb[s] a large amount of carbon dioxide from the surrounding environment 71” and so it is unsurprising that it is a key implementation in large projects which strive for environmental performance. Regulation change and technological improvements have meant that recycled concrete is becoming more prominent and “It is expected that there will be an increase in the use of recycled aggregates for concrete in the next few years, but currently it is not widely available. 72” and the use of such aggregates is one of the ways that the Bloomberg HQ distinguished itself. Bloomberg may have adopted this due to BREEAMs focus on the material “vital in nearly every construction project. 73”

Schoof, J. (2018). 98.5 % Ecology: Bloomberg Office Building in London. [online] Detail-online.com. Available at: https://www.detail-online.com/article/985-ecology-bloomberg-office-building-in-london-31959/ [Accessed 19 Nov. 2019].

67 Young, E. (2019). Goldsmith Street wins RIBA Stirling Prize 2019. [online] Ribaj.com. Available at: https://www.ribaj.com/buildings/stirling-prize-2019-mikhail-riches-goldsmith-street-norwich-housing [Accessed 19 Nov. 2019].

68 Sayer, J. (2019). Sustainable Architecture Comes Into Focus For This Year’s Stirling Prize. [online] Metropolismag.com. Available at: https://www.metropolismag.com/architecture/riba-stirling-prize-2019sustainability/ [Accessed 19 Nov. 2019].

69 Schoof, J. (2018). 98.5 % Ecology: Bloomberg Office Building in London.

70 Cement.org. (2019). Recycled Aggregates. [online] Available at: https://www.cement.org/learn/concretetechnology/concrete-design-production/recycled-aggregates [Accessed 19 Nov. 2019].

71 Ibid.

72 Collins, M. (2019). Recycled aggregates for concrete. [online] Concrete.org.uk. Available at: http://www.concrete.org.uk/fingertips-nuggets.asp?cmd=display&id=815 [Accessed 19 Nov. 2019].

73 Designingbuildings.co.uk. (2017). Using BREEAM to assess the sustainable sourcing and use of aggregates. [online] Available at: https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Using_BREEAM_to_assess_the_sustainable_sourcing_and_use_of_aggreg ates [Accessed 19 Nov. 2019].

66

-35-

The specification of the section WST 02 “entitled ‘Use of recycled and sustainably sourced aggregates’, branch[es] out from the previous topic of simply ‘Recycled aggregates. 74” In the 2011 Scheme Document, where WST 02 is titled ‘Recycled Aggregates’, it outlines that One credit can be obtained where a project uses >25% recycled aggregate across the entire development, specifies minimum amounts in certain applications that you need to meet either for that individual credit or if you are striving for exemplary performance (Figure 12) , and states where the aggregates are to be sourced from.

Figure 12

The section was updated in 2018 to take a more holistic approach, expanding on the criteria from 2011 and “aims to recognise and minimise social and environmental impacts of aggregate selection, sourcing and use. 75” This includes three criteria, “the local availability of aggregates…social cost of transportation… [and the] carbon footprint 76” and BREEAM references third party tool, the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), and their tool ‘AggRegain’ as points of reference to help firms achieve the level of performance required.

Designingbuildings.co.uk. (2017). Using BREEAM to assess the sustainable sourcing and use of aggregates. [online] Available at: https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Using_BREEAM_to_assess_the_sustainable_sourcing_and_use_of_aggreg ates [Accessed 19 Nov. 2019].

75 Ibid.

76 Ibid.

74

-36-

This section is indicative of how projects such as the Bloomberg HQ can benefit in BREEAM due to their budget and their site – Bloomberg was built upon a previously built upon site, and so could use aggregate from the previous project and less was needed for landscaping or levelling, and they could afford to recycle these aggregates into concrete where others cannot. It is also indicative of BREEAM’s direction towards a more socially-conscious scheme as its second WST 02 criteria – the ‘Social Cost of Transportation’ – attempts to place “a monetary value…based on the cost of…transport…accidents, congestion and noise.” BREEAM is not only trying to assess the global environmental impact of construction but the local and social impact too, something that makes construction companies ultimately more responsible.

By comparing the Stirling prize with BREEAM, it can display the benefits and the negatives of both systems, it might be argued that the subjectivity of the Stirling’s judges was swayed by the dazzling BREEAM score of Bloomberg in 2018, and so the ‘objectivity’ of BREEAM score took centre stage. 2019’s result, Goldsmith Streets, Norwich, of an environmental project unsupported

by BREEAM, would serve to dispute this, BREEAM is not the only way to celebrate environmental proficiency. After all, it has been argued that BREEAM’s rigid objectivity allows it to be exploited by those with time, money and license, whereas the Stirling prize is a prestigiously subjective award, and can instead suffer from a narrow range of perspectives and a disconnection from common construction – although similarly by those with time, money and license.

-37-

-38-

-39-

Is Measuring Design Quality good?

What is Design Quality?

The Sterling Prize and BREEAM are both examples of attempts to assess ‘good’ design – albeit using greatly differing methods and definitions of the meaning of ‘good’ design. What remains to be seen is whether these attempts to measure design positively impact the work produced.

Vitruvius said that “The End is to Build Well. Well Building hath three principles; Firmness, Commodity and Delight, 77” (Figure 13) - so pertinently encompassing the timeless issues architects and designers confront, that it lays the groundwork for generic assessment methods even today such as the Construction Industry Council’s triads of design quality (Figure 14).

Figure 13

77

Wotton, H. (1624). Elements of Architecture. (Vitruvius’De architectura)

-40-

Figure 14 The CIC (Construction Industry Council)’s triads of design quality

-41-

Whilst timeless, not all parties in construction aim to fulfil these neat idealistic triangles in the same way, Spencer and Winch claim that whilst “there is a growing realisation of the importance of good design in construction,” as “[buildings] deliver both tangible and intangible benefits 78” clients can “view good design as an 'add-on' and not as an essential part of the construction process” This is a “frequent barrier 79” where “clients are unaware of the value that good design can add to their organisation,” and while there has been “considerable headway in analysing the attributes of buildings that make them valuable, quite rightly the perception from the majority of clients tends to be radically different… [which] first and foremost…relies almost entirely on financial issues” However, it’s also arguable that “strategically, there should be no conflict anyway between energy efficiency and good business, since both are about the efficient use of resources and the avoidance of waste 80” Realising the benefits of Quality Design Office buildings tend to generate the most focus on aesthetics, spatial design and resource use, as usually the client has great ownership of the project. Here “evidence suggests that there is a positive correlation between energy efficient, well-designed buildings and the comfort and productivity of the users 81.” These benefits translate tangibly and fiscally; “a 1% improvement in staff productivity [reaps financial rewards] …more than the total cost of energy, 82” and therefore adhere to the ‘majorities’ desire for financial success.

However, “for the majority of building types the correlation between spatial quality and productivity is not conclusive, 83” and it is therefore harder to persuade developers to sacrifice financial performance for ‘good’ design over the regulatory level. Spencer and Winch duly claim that “The difficulty in making the tangible and intangible aspects that create the value more transparent in investment appraisals suggests the need for further research into the exact nature of the costs and benefits of design investment.”

The measurement of design quality can be useful for the expression of these aspects: “If something is better, then it is different in some relevant way. If it is different in some relevant way, then it is observable. If it is observable, then it can be counted….Customers are a great place to start to figure out what the “something” is, because it’s customers that ultimately define success.84” This particular methodology comes from a non-construction performance measurement source, and seems to present two separate ideas that built performance measures may operate under. Users are usually the financial motivation for projects, and therefore their satisfaction is the most 78

Spencer, N. and Winch, G. (2002). How buildings add value for clients. London (GB): Thomas Telford Publishing.

79

Ibid.

Lansdown Estates Group. Adaptable buildings and services for improved all round performance proposal. (1996).

Department of the Environment's Partners in Technology Program 1996.

80

Häkkinen, T. and Belloni, K. (2011). Barriers and drivers for sustainable building. Building Research & Information, 39(3), pp.239-255.

81

Browning, W. (1997). A new view of real estate. Rock Mountain Institute Canada.

Spencer, N. and Winch, G. (2002).

82

Clark, D. (2013). What Colour is your Building?: Defining and Reducing the Carbon Footprint of Buildings.

83

Spencer, N. and Winch, G. (2002).

84Barr,

S. (2018). How to Measure Design Success in a Meaningful Way. [online] Stacey Barr | Performance Measure & KPI Specialist. Available at: https://www.staceybarr.com/measure-up/measure-design-success-meaningful-way/ [Accessed 8 Jan. 2020].

-42-

cherished performance factor. The difficulty is in converting the subjectivity of users into something ‘countable’- whilst anecdotes can be useful, it can skew a project to a certain perspective – countable variables allow a data set to be reinforced and have increased reliability.

“People selling commodities typically do a great deal of market research. They ask users what they want and why…This allows the commodity provider to define ‘quality’, but Buildings generally do not behave like commodities. One cannot choose not to have them if one does not like them. 85” and so to a certain extent, the negatives of bad design may be ignorable, as the market is different, and therefore good design is not reinforced as quickly or acutely as it may be in other (smaller and cheaper) commodities.

Holistic measurement systems are important in the development and construction of buildings, as it can provide a voice for intangibilities. And, when conducted accurately and effectively, these measurements can “become a resource… for benchmarking across projects to enable them to match and exceed their own or others' best performance. 86” and impact upon the future of design - not just reflect the past.

Unfortunately, building measurements cannot always be ‘matched’ or ‘exceeded’ as “results are too private. Data are [sic] usually collected company by company, without too much attention to the common good. 87” Companies may not adhere to generic measurement systems, so limiting the ability of them to impact upon the creation of new design. Developers may choose to collect their own data on performance, although this can be “riddled with inconsistency and full of methodological traps. 88” Duffy states that “Data on occupancy costs are an excellent example of this problem. 89” Furthermore, with certain aspects of performance, “there are so many other factors (work/life balance, sense of achievement quality of bosses) [and so] it is difficult to measure accurately and then attribute [established benefits] to specific features of a building 90” and the drivers of design quality are not reinforced.

Schemes, understandably unattached to companies, have attempted to develop universal design quality measurement tools, and usually try to achieve this through quantitative analysis. CRISP (Construction Research and Innovation Strategy Panel) “have developed a framework for consideration of the generic value of buildings 91” and operates with the idea “that some of the value criteria used to measure the quality of the product (such as cost and time) can be easily measured and recorded, 92” however some are less easy. Some aspects of building design such as aesthetics or mood of users may seem unquantifiable however it has been stated that “there are no true ‘immeasurables’ 93”

85

Eley, J. (2004). Design quality in buildings. Building Research & Information, 32(3), pp.255-260.

86

Clark, D. (2013). What Colour is your Building?: Defining and Reducing the Carbon Footprint of Buildings.

87

Hubbard Decision Research. (2020). Risk Modeling and Management | Quantitative Decision Analysis | Value Measurements of Intangibles. [online] Available at: https://hubbardresearch.com/ [Accessed 8 Jan. 2020].

88

Duffy, F. (1990). Measuring building performance. Facilities, 8(5), pp.17-20.

89

Ibid.

Clark, D. (2013).

90 91

Spencer, N. and Winch, G. (2002).

92

Ibid.

Hubbard Decision Research. (2020).

93

-43-

One of the issues with trying to measure design is that “both qualitative and quantitative factors are influenced by viewpoint and power, 94” and those who seek to assess “can serve to bias or change our perception of the quality of any particular design” perhaps through the weighting of these quantities. Duffy demonstrates another issue by stating “the way in which those involved in building measure their output [varies lots]: letting agents by pounds per square foot; builders by rate of construction; quantity surveyors by cost per square metre; architects by design awards or column inches, 95” everyone has a different idea of what quality looks like and how it should be measured.

What is the Design Quality Indicator (DQI)?

The Construction Industry Council (CIC) is a ‘forum’ “established in 1988 to provide ‘…a single voice for professionals in all sectors of the built environment’,” with a “collective membership’ of 500,000 professionals.96” and with this wide collective of opinions and depth of experience it developed the Design Quality Indicator (DQI). “The Design Quality Indicator (DQI) is based on a research project to provide a toolkit for improving the design of buildings.” and does so through “measuring performance” and “providing feedback” on “embodied design quality,97”.

94 95

Duffy, F. (1990).

Ibid.

Designingbuildings.co.uk. (2019). Construction Industry Council. [online] Available at: https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Construction_Industry_Council [Accessed 10 Jan. 2020].

97 Gann, D., Salter, A. and Whyte, J. (2003). Design Quality Indicator as a tool for thinking. Building Research & Information, 31(5), pp.318-333.

96

-44-

It operates under the Vitruvian Principles discussed earlier in this chapter: Functionality, Impact and Build Quality (Figure 15), as it attempts to provide an expansive and conclusive measurement of a building’s ‘design quality’. DQI seeks to capture “different perceptions of the value of design, 98” ‘unvoiced’ benefits (Figure 16) such as hospital recovery times or productivity.

Figure 15

Figure 16

98

Gann, D., Salter, A. and Whyte, J. (2003).

-45-

Established in the research project was that “leading members of the UK building design community…were concerned that the value of building design might be relegated to a secondary issue because the performance-improving agenda focused heavily on the measurement of physical processes 99” “such as cost and time…[which] can be easily measured and recorded, 100” and arguably many of the measurements BREEAM utilises – such as prescribed material performance.

Yet, because of the scope of DQI, it does not have the intricate mechanisms developed in schemes such as BREEAM, and so has to incorporate “existing mechanisms for examining performance” and “the research team [developing DQI] drew on the experiences of initiatives” such as BREEAM. 101” This arguably then absorbs the issues with more focused schemes into the overarching scheme, however, it hopes that through collating of lots of evidence the issues will be diminished.

All these sources discuss the difficulty of comparing the quantitative and qualitative, Duffy makes the critical assessment that “We measure what is easy to measure and ignore what is difficult. Real issues such as the use of space through time, productivity and green responsibility thus tend to be ignored.102” It is worth noting that this was written in 1990, and since there have been great strides in the ability to measure environmental performance and productivity – alongside their rise in marketability and profitability.

99

Gann, D., Salter, A. and Whyte, J. (2003).

Duffy, F. (1990).

101 Gann, D., Salter, A. and Whyte, J. (2003).

100

102

Duffy, F. (1990).

-46-

DQI Method Contemporary issues still sprout from the incompatibility of tangible and intangible measurements, “The DQI tool was conceived of as consisting of three parts: a conceptual framework, a data gathering tool and a weighting mechanism, 103” and, with its data gathering tool, seeks to quantify intangible measurements through asking users to ‘score’ the building by asking them questions.

(Figure 17)

Figure 17

“The DQI tool acts a mediator between the front-line customer or end-user and the producer,22”it is important that DQI doesn’t entirely trust the end user (the customer) as that would mean it solely adhered to “subjective views, experiences and preferences of the people asked.104” One of the drawbacks noted is “it is often hard for users to express their preferences as they do not speak the technical languages used by professionals 105” and Eley notes that in early versions of the tool “translating some designer concepts into lay terms, need[ed] to be considered to address this and extend the tool's usefulness. 106” And Macmillan states that “It was intended that the questionnaire be relatively easy to fill out so that respondents could move quickly through the questions without being overwhelmed by technical terms or jargon… however, [there is] a simultaneous concern that questions should not be simplistic or facile. 107”

103

Macmillan, S. (2004). Designing better buildings. London: Spon.

104

Gann, D., Salter, A. and Whyte, J. (2003).

105

Ibid.

106

Eley, J. (2004). Design quality in buildings. Building Research & Information, 32(3), pp.255-260.

107

Macmillan, S. (2004).

-47-

DQI asks users to answer questions numerically and apply their own weight to it so that misinformed opinions skew the result less. Yet, through this method DQI does not “generate results that could be considered hard and unambiguous,108” but it can serve to identify those intangible effects of good design quality, “For example, lighting in a building can have a functional quality, such as provide a bright and accessible work area, but it can also create an impact on the pleasure in use of the building. The tool was designed to reflect these overlapping qualities 109” It does not just rely upon end-user feedback however and by “[integrating] measures of ‘hard’ physical attributes and ‘soft’ perceptual viewpoints about the performance of buildings” and focusing “on the constraints and enablers of the project… such as the financial resources available to the project and its commitment to sustainability,110” the tool provides a measure of factuality.

The use of this hybrid approach to measure the “overlapping qualities,111” deals with the crux of the Chapter Title – Is Measuring Design Quality Good? Both quantitative and qualitative measurement is undeniably useful, Wangel (et al) put it aptly as they stated that “The quantitative tests are good in providing information about the ‘what’, but they usually can’t give us an answer to the ‘why’. This is exactly where the qualitative side comes in.” What the DQI strives for is that ideal combination of both – which, when combined responsibly, can paint a detailed, useful picture of design quality.

Due to the complexity and breadth of all discussed measurement systems, there is criticism that “the way in which aggregation and weighting is incorporated… risks resulting in lack of transparency. 112” and whilst BREEAM publishes its guidelines publicly, a “lack of information regarding the basis on which sustainability issues are included [in these guidelines] (or not), defined and assigned credits and weights risks giving an arbitrary impression 113” and for those who have not pored over the guidelines, it can be “difficult to understand what the outcome (grade or label) actually means in terms of what has been assessed. 114” BREEAM – A product or a process?

The argument that is then established is ‘Why do we measure the quality of design?’, is it purely a product which recognises the achievements of those who adhered to a specific systems definition of quality – or can it be a tool for comparison, and an in-process guideline towards success. When a measurement scheme becomes prominent enough, it seems to make that transformation from measurement to guideline - BREEAM was “initially developed to assess and certify buildings…however, in the past decade… [it has been] promoted as a design tool. 115” Schweber and Haroglu note that the way BREEAM is used depends on commitment: “Professionals with ‘sustainable’ experience used BREEAM judiciously to support their designs, but less committed professionals tended to treat it purely as an assessment method. 116” Whilst this would suggest an air of responsibility of the architect in the use and value of BREEAM, they also noted that those ‘more-committed’ professionals usually have “a well-thought-out approach to ‘green building’ that

108

Macmillan, S. (2004).

Ibid.

Ibid.

111 Ibid.

112 Wangel, J., Wallhagen, M., Malmqvist, T. and Finnveden, G. (2016). Certification systems for sustainable neighbourhoods: What do they really certify?. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 56, pp.200-213.

109 110

113

Ibid.

Ibid.

Schweber, L. and Haroglu, H. (2014). Comparing the fit between BREEAM assessment and design processes. Building Research & Information, 42(3), pp.300-317.

116 Ibid.

114 115

-48-

extends well beyond BREEAM” and BREEAM , “was never treated as an end in itself” but was a vehicle to guide their design process en-route to their pre-established goal.

As BREEAM’s “certification process is typically very time and resource consuming,” and is detailed and complex means that one does not just happen to ‘stumble’ into a good BREEAM rating. In one case study conducted by Schweber and Haroglu, it is noted that to meet their “ambitious target” of Excellent, “the client/developer not only studied the BREEAM manual, but also brought it to every meeting and consulted it regularly. 117” In a less diligent case study (Bailey Primary School) where “BREEAM fell off the agenda, 118”, the impact of viewing it as a product become evident: “When the assessor did re-engage, he found that a number of credits had been lost. These included relatively ‘easy wins’ such as the user guide and ‘ease of maintenance’ credits as well as more expensive features…in the end, the assessor did a great deal of last-minute chasing and the project scraped through with a low Very Good.” This shows that “In the absence of …level and continuity of assessor involvement and prior experience… BREEAM function[s] purely as an assessment exercise, with little to no impact on the building 119” BREEAM’s impact therefore seems to depend upon the amount of effort put into the system and has morphed since its inception. Whilst there are those who view BREEAM as an ‘add-on’ which merely assesses the building’s environmental performance post-design or construction, a lack of collaboration and engagement with the assessors and the process generally results in a lower grade. Those who commit to using BREEAM as a tool benefit most from it as a product as they have been guided towards the highest eventual accreditation available given the constraints of their unique project.

Ibid.

Ibid.

119 Ibid.

117 118

-49-

-50-

-51-

-52-

Conclusion What remains up for debate is whether the use of BREEAM as a tool is correct. As accreditation schemes gain popularity, it seems inevitable that they cease being an ‘add-on’ or post-construction concern, as the benefits provided by them outweigh the effort required to consider them pre-construction. Ergo, it is not only unsurprising that BREEAM has changed into “a design tool as well as an assessment tool 120” but also surely desirable. As discussed, measurement tools and award schemes are incentives as much as they are tools, arguably until they become incentivising, they are merely interesting and not useful.

Whilst, through my research, I have been convinced by BRE’s willing to adapt and change that their tool is a positive and strong proponent driving some of the environmental performance improvements in the built environment – especially in the UK – it, so far at least, cannot claim to be an unquestionably used in any new construction project. Perhaps it has grown too quickly, and the effort and engagement it now requires reaching any marketable rating, let alone the top echelons of BREEAM performers, is too great for many projects – and so they do not engage with BREEAM as a process because they don’t see that value reciprocated in the product.

Another evaluation gained from my research is that, whilst proficient at promoting clients to think sustainably in terms of material and facilities usage, BREEAM itself cannot be relied upon to give a whole representation of Design Quality – there are far more facets to that idea than environmental performance. BREEAM itself states that “It seems that we have pretty much mastered the art of creating energy efficient, environmentally friendly built environment and now is the time to focus on what has been missing: socially sustainable places that can deliver value to people. 121” This further demonstrates BRE’s desire to adapt and improve, and, if implemented, would serve to fulfil more of the requirements of a good and whole Quality Design measurement tool according to the qualities outlined in Chapter 5. It therefore seeks to find, measure and express ‘intangible’ benefits of architecture – the social and personal value which Quality Design can induce.

Once measured, these benefits can be repeated, and our built environment would improve across the board.

Whilst BREEAM has earned its merit in promoting quality design practice and design in the environmental realm, “a good building does not (necessarily) a good environmental assessment make. 122” Throughout this dissertation I have been diligent in not using the term ‘sustainable’ in place of ‘environmentally focused’, as sustainability is about so much more than expensive LEDs and flagship projects, true “Sustainable development is about achieving human wellbeing and social justice within ecological limitations 123”.

We must not forget the human, in our endeavour to save humankind.

Schweber, L. and Haroglu, H. (2014). Comparing the fit between BREEAM assessment and design processes. Building Research & Information, 42(3), pp.300-317.

120

BRE Group. (2020). Social Sustainability at Masterplanning Stage | BRE Group. [online] Available at: https://www.bregroup.com/buzz/social-sustainability-at-master-planning-stage/ [Accessed 14 Jan. 2020].

121

122

Schweber, L. and Haroglu, H. (2014).

Wangel, J., Wallhagen, M., Malmqvist, T. and Finnveden, G. (2016). Certification systems for sustainable neighbourhoods: What do they really certify?. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 56, pp.200-213.

123

-53-

-54-

Bibliography Adwdevelopments.com. (2019). [online] Available at: https://adwdevelopments.com/breeam-credits-2/ [Accessed 4 Dec. 2019].

Architects Journal. (2014). Delivering green design. [online] Available at: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/home/delivering-green-design/8662502.article [Accessed 20 Nov. 2019].

Architecture.com. (2018). Meet the 2018 Stirling Prize jury. [online] Available at: https://www.architecture.com/knowledge-and-resources/knowledge-landing-page/meet-the-2018-stirling-prize-jury [Accessed 18 Nov. 2019].

Architecture.com. (2019). RIBA announces 2019 National Award winners. [online] Available at: https://www.architecture.com/knowledge-and-resources/knowledge-landing-page/riba-announces-2019-nationalaward-winners [Accessed 18 Nov. 2019].

Architecture.com. (2019). RIBA Stirling Prize. [online] Available at: https://www.architecture.com/awards-andcompetitions-landing-page/awards/riba-stirling-prize [Accessed 15 Jan. 2020].

Barr, S. (2018). How to Measure Design Success in a Meaningful Way. [online] Stacey Barr | Performance Measure & KPI Specialist. Available at: https://www.staceybarr.com/measure-up/measure-design-success-meaningful-way/ [Accessed 8 Jan. 2020].

BRE Group. (2020). Social Sustainability at Masterplanning Stage | BRE Group. [online] Available at: https://www.bregroup.com/buzz/social-sustainability-at-master-planning-stage/ [Accessed 14 Jan. 2020].

BREEAM. (2019). Saw Swee Hock Student Centre, LSE - BREEAM. [online] Available at: https://www.breeam.com/case-studies/education/saw-swee-hock-student-centre-lse/ [Accessed 13 Oct. 2019].

BREEAM. (2019). Bloomberg London: the world’s highest BREEAM-rated major office building. [online] Available at: https://www.breeam.com/case-studies/offices/bloomberg-london/ [Accessed 18 Nov. 2019].

BREEAM. (2019). Saw Swee Hock Student Centre, LSE - BREEAM. [online] Available at: https://www.breeam.com/casestudies/education/saw-swee-hock-student-centre-lse/ [Accessed 20 Nov. 2019].

Breeam.com. (2011). [online] Available at: https://www.breeam.com/breeam2011schemedocument/content/resources/output/breeamgeneralprint/breeam_n ondom_2011.pdf [Accessed 4 Dec. 2019].

Breeam.com. (2014). Water. [online] Available at: https://www.breeam.com/BREEAM2011SchemeDocument/Content/08_Water/wat01.htm [Accessed 20 Nov. 2019].

Breeam.com. (2016). Scoring. [online] Available at: https://www.breeam.com/domrefurbmanual/content/03scoring/02minimum_standards.htm [Accessed 20 Nov. 2019].

Breeam.com. (2018). [online] Available at: https://www.breeam.com/NC2018/content/resources/output/10_pdf/a4_pdf/print/nc_uk_a4_print_mono/nc_uk_a4 _print_mono.pdf [Accessed 4 Dec. 2019].

Breeam.com. (2019). [online] Available at: https://www.breeam.com/NC2018/content/resources/output/10_pdf/a4_pdf/print/nc_uk_a4_print_mono/nc_uk_a4 _print_mono.pdf [Accessed 20 Nov. 2019].

Browning, W. (1997). A new view of real estate. Rock Mountain Institute Canada.

Build Energy. (2019). BREEAM. [online] Available at: https://www.buildenergy.co.uk/blog/how-much-does-breeamcost/ [Accessed 4 Dec. 2019].

Businessbecause.com. (2019). Is Sustainability Profitable? | BusinessBecause. [online] Available at: https://www.businessbecause.com/news/hear-from-business-schools/6050/is-sustainability-profitable [Accessed 4 Dec. 2019]

-55-

Cement.org. (2019). Recycled Aggregates. [online] Available at: https://www.cement.org/learn/concretetechnology/concrete-design-production/recycled-aggregates [Accessed 19 Nov. 2019].

Chegut A, Eicholtz P, Kok N. Supply, Demand and the Value of Green Buildings. Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, March 2012 Clark, D. (2013). What Colour is your Building?: Defining and Reducing the Carbon Footprint of Buildings.

Collins, M. (2019). Recycled aggregates for concrete. [online] Concrete.org.uk. Available at: http://www.concrete.org.uk/fingertips-nuggets.asp?cmd=display&id=815 [Accessed 19 Nov. 2019].

Designingbuildings.co.uk. (2017). Using BREEAM to assess the sustainable sourcing and use of aggregates. [online] Available at: https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Using_BREEAM_to_assess_the_sustainable_sourcing_and_use_of_aggreg ates [Accessed 19 Nov. 2019].

Designingbuildings.co.uk. (2019). BREEAM. [online] Available at: https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM [Accessed 20 Nov. 2019].

Designingbuildings.co.uk. (2019). Construction Industry Council. [online] Available at: https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Construction_Industry_Council [Accessed 10 Jan. 2020].

Duffy, F. (1990). Measuring building performance. Facilities, 8(5), pp.17-20.

Eley, J. (2004). Design quality in buildings. Building Research & Information, 32(3), pp.255-260.

Gann, D., Salter, A. and Whyte, J. (2003). Design Quality Indicator as a tool for thinking. Building Research & Information, 31(5), pp.322.

Haapio, A. (2012). Towards sustainable urban communities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 32(1), pp.165169.

Häkkinen, T. and Belloni, K. (2011). Barriers and drivers for sustainable building. Building Research & Information, 39(3), pp.239-255.

Holmes, John & Hudson, Gordon. (2003). The application of BREEAM in corporate real estate: A case study in the design of a city centre office development. Journal of Corporate Real Estate. 5. 66-77. 10.1108/14630010310812019.

Hubbard Decision Research. (2020). Risk Modeling and Management | Quantitative Decision Analysis | Value Measurements of Intangibles. [online] Available at: https://hubbardresearch.com/ [Accessed 8 Jan. 2020].

Info.lse.ac.uk. (2019). [online] Available at: https://info.lse.ac.uk/staff/divisions/estatesdivision/Assets/Documents/SAW/Saw-Swee-Hock-POE-Report-ZZA-140519.pdf [Accessed 20 Nov. 2019].

Kline, M. (2018). How to Drive Profits with Corporate Social Responsibility. [online] Inc.com. Available at: https://www.inc.com/maureen-kline/how-to-drive-profits-with-corporate-social-responsibility.html [Accessed 4 Dec. 2019].

Lansdown Estates Group. Adaptable buildings and services for improved all round performance proposal. (1996).

Department of the Environment's Partners in Technology Program 1996.

Macmillan, S. (2004). Designing better buildings. London: Spon.

McPartland, R,. (2019). What is BREEAM?. [online] NBS. Available at: https://www.thenbs.com/knowledge/what-isbreeam [Accessed 19 Nov. 2019].

McPartland, R,. What is BREEAM?, National Building Specification. September. 2016,. Accessed on: Oct. 12, 2019.

[Online]. Available: https://www.thenbs.com/knowledge/what-is-breeam Parker, J. (2012). The value of BREEAM. BSRIA, [online] (55780). Available at: https://tools.breeam.com/filelibrary/BREEAM%20and%20Value/The_Value_of_BREEAM.pdf [Accessed 17 Oct. 2019].

Sayer, J. (2019). Sustainable Architecture Comes Into Focus For This Year’s Stirling Prize. [online] Metropolismag.com.

Available at: https://www.metropolismag.com/architecture/riba-stirling-prize-2019-sustainability/ [Accessed 19 Nov. 2019].

-56-

Schmidt, J. (2007). From Intentions to Actions: The Role of Environmental Awareness on College Students. UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research X.

Schoof, J. (2018). 98.5 % Ecology: Bloomberg Office Building in London. [online] Detail-online.com. Available at: https://www.detail-online.com/article/985-ecology-bloomberg-office-building-in-london-31959/ [Accessed 19 Nov. 2019].

Schweber, L. and Haroglu, H. (2014). Comparing the fit between BREEAM assessment and design processes. Building Research & Information, 42(3), pp.300-317.

Spencer, N. and Winch, G. (2002). How buildings add value for clients. London (GB): Thomas Telford Publishing.

Sturgis, S. (2018). RIBA Stirling Prize 2018: the most sustainable shortlist ever?. [online] Architects Journal. Available at: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/opinion/riba-stirling-prize-2018-the-most-sustainable-shortlistever/10035714.article [Accessed 18 Nov. 2019].

Sustainable refurbishment – how to better understand, measure and reduce the embodied impacts, BRE Centre for Sustainable Products. BRE Global Ltd. 2015. Accessed on: Oct. 12, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/Briefing%20papers/98660-Sustainable-Refurb-Briefing-Paper.pdf) Taylor, I,. 2019. Future Campus. London: Routledge.

Tools.breeam.com. (2014). [online] Available at: https://tools.breeam.com/filelibrary/BREEAM%20UK%20NC%202014%20Resources/SD5076_DRAFT_BREEAM_UK_Ne w_Construction_2014_Technical_Manual_ISSUE_0.1.pdf [Accessed 4 Dec. 2019].

Tools.breeam.com. (2016). [online] Available at: https://tools.breeam.com/filelibrary/Brochures/BREEAMRefurbishment-and-Fit-Out-Brochure--May-2016-.pdf [Accessed 4 Dec. 2019].

Tools.breeam.com. (2019). BREEAM Projects. [online] Available at: https://tools.breeam.com/projects/explore/buildings.jsp [Accessed 27 Aug. 2019].

Ukgbc.org. (2019). [online] Available at: https://www.ukgbc.org/sites/default/files/Pinpointing_BREEAM_Communities.pdf [Accessed 4 Dec. 2019].

Wainwright, O. (2017). Bloomberg HQ: a £1bn building that looks like a regional department store. [online] The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/oct/25/bloomberg-london-hq-normanfoster-architecture-review [Accessed 18 Nov. 2019].

Wangel, J., Wallhagen, M., Malmqvist, T. and Finnveden, G. (2016). Certification systems for sustainable neighbourhoods: What do they really certify?. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 56, pp.200-213.

What is BREEAM?, C80 Solutions. 2019. London. Accessed on: Oct. 12, 2019. [Online]. Available:

https://www.c80solutions.co.uk/service/breeam/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw84XtBRDWARIsAAU1aM0CxsmT6RidGga5ELZDHEk9avZXwICqgeE8d_31Gv9SOgL2AyyHNIaApXBEALw_wcB

Wotton, H. (1624). Elements of Architecture. (Vitruvius’De architectura) Young, E. (2019). Goldsmith Street wins RIBA Stirling Prize 2019. [online] Ribaj.com. Available at: https://www.ribaj.com/buildings/stirling-prize-2019-mikhail-riches-goldsmith-street-norwich-housing [Accessed 19 Nov. 2019].

-57-

List of Figures

Figure 1 – Table taken from BREEAM New Construction: Non-Domestic Buildings, SD5073 – Issue: 5.0.

BRE Global Ltd. March. 2016, pp 21. Accessed on: Oct. 12, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.breeam.com/BREEAM2011SchemeDocument/Content/03_ScoringRating/environmental_se ction_weightings.htm Figure 2 - Table taken from BREEAM New Construction: Non-Domestic Buildings, SD5078 – Issue: 3.0. BRE Global Ltd. March. 2018. Accessed on: Nov. 4, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.breeam.com/NC2018/content/resources/output/10_pdf/a4_pdf/print/nc_uk_a4_print_mon o/nc_uk_a4_print_mono.pdf

Figure 3 – Graph created by myself based upon data from the BREEAM online database. [Online].

Available: Tools.breeam.com. (2019). BREEAM Projects. [online] Available at: https://tools.breeam.com/projects/explore/buildings.jsp [Accessed 27 Aug. 2019].

Figure 4 – Graph created by myself based upon data from the BREEAM online database. [Online].

Available: Tools.breeam.com. (2019). BREEAM Projects. [online] Available at: https://tools.breeam.com/projects/explore/buildings.jsp [Accessed 27 Aug. 2019].

Figure 5 – Table taken from BREEAM New Construction: Non-Domestic Buildings, SD5073 – Issue: 5.0.

BRE Global Ltd. March. 2011. Accessed on: Oct. 12, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.breeam.com/BREEAM2011SchemeDocument/Content/03_ScoringRating/environmental_se ction_weightings.htm

Figure 6 – Cropped screenshot of website Adwdevelopments.com. (2019). [online] Available at: https://adwdevelopments.com/breeam-credits-2/ [Accessed 4 Dec. 2019].

Figure 7 – Table taken from BREEAM New Construction: Non-Domestic Buildings, SD5078 – Issue: 3.0.

BRE Global Ltd. March. 2018. Accessed on: Nov. 4, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.breeam.com/NC2018/content/resources/output/10_pdf/a4_pdf/print/nc_uk_a4_print_mon o/nc_uk_a4_print_mono.pdf Figure 8 – Screenshots taken of the Man 02 section of the 2014 BREEAM NC 2014 scheme document edited by myself, from BREEAM New Construction: Non-Domestic Buildings, SD5076 – Issue: 5.0. BRE Global Ltd. March. 2014. Accessed on: Oct. 12, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.breeam.com/BREEAMUK2014SchemeDocument/

Figure 9 – Screenshots taken of the Man 02 section of the 2018 BREEAM NC 2018 scheme document,

from BREEAM New Construction: Non-Domestic Buildings, SD5078 – Issue: 3.0. BRE Global Ltd. March.

2018. Accessed on: Nov. 4, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.breeam.com/NC2018/content/resources/output/10_pdf/a4_pdf/print/nc_uk_a4_print_mon o/nc_uk_a4_print_mono.pdf

Figure 10 - Graph mapping BREEAM rating score against Cost/Space made by myself featuring data from

a variety of online sources. Full data table below

-58-

Figure 11 - Graph mapping BREEAM rating score against Cost/Space made by myself featuring data from a variety of online sources. Full data table below

Figure 12 - Table taken from BREEAM New Construction: Non-Domestic Buildings, SD5073 – Issue: 5.0.

BRE Global Ltd. March. 2011. Accessed on: Oct. 12, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.breeam.com/BREEAM2011SchemeDocument/Content/03_ScoringRating/environmental_se ction_weightings.htm Figure 13 – Figure taken from paper, Spencer, N. and Winch, G. (2002). How buildings add value for clients. London (GB): Thomas Telford Publishing.

Figure 14 – Figure taken from paper, Spencer, N. and Winch, G. (2002). How buildings add value for clients. London (GB): Thomas Telford Publishing.

Figure 15 – Cropped screenshot of website, Dqi.org.uk. (2020). DQI - How does DQI work?. [online] Available at: http://www.dqi.org.uk/howdoesdqiwork.php [Accessed 11 Jan. 2020].

Figure 16 – Cropped screenshot of website, Dqi.org.uk. (2020). DQI - Home. [online] Available at: http://www.dqi.org.uk/ [Accessed 10 Jan. 2020].

Figure 17 – Cropped screenshot of booklet, Construction Industry Council (2003). CIC: Design Quality

Indicator. [online] pp.4-5. Available at: https://www.usablebuildings.co.uk/fp/OutputFiles/PdfFiles/FR7p1www.dqi.org.uk.pdf [Accessed 10 Jan. 2020].

-59-

-60-

-61-

-62-