Leader of the Pack | OKG Scene.com (http://www.okgazette.com/p/12738/a/5277/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBEAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQB zAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAzADgA)

Speaking of green construction, my house is built with build-block forms, and concrete walls. During the snowstorm, we did not have our heat on for more than an hour or two during the day. At night, I seriously contemplated turning on the air conditioning, because our bedroom was 75 degrees. Our utility bill savings, compared to our last house, have been tremendous. What cost more at first will certainly pay for itself, and will probably save us money in the long run.

So, I would agree with this article. Let's make sure we have sustainable, green buildings during this new phase of construction, to act as a model for the community as a whole.

Well coming from an Environmental Design student, you can imagine my reaction to this commentary..

Since when did using the longest lasting materials and the latest in technology to reduce total cost of ownership become 'green'? American corporations have been doing it this way since day one. Green to me means using materials that don't work quite as well because they are made from recycled material or are some how deemed to be better for the environment. Case in point - Freon.

I don't know that I agree, Kerry - aren't most apartments, strip malls and a variety of other commercial properties designed with only a 20/25 year life expectancy? That definitely is not a green way to go, but in so doing the corporation's balance sheet benefits in the short term?

Mheaton is right. The reason corporations continue to do that is because they fully expect to just renovate the facade every 15 years anyway so it makes no difference to them. That's disposable architecture on exhibit pretty much.. What bothers me a lot more is colleges that are all designing their dormitories to last 30-40 years, only. They actually call it "30 Year Construction" which alone should discourage doing that. OU especially, one of the reasons I no longer go there. If universities don't embrace green building then who will? Oklahoma universities are so behind everyone else in this that it's ridiculous. I'm pretty sure OSU has made twice the commitment to green building that OU, and OSU still has a lot of improvement to make.


Since when did using the longest lasting materials and the latest in technology to reduce total cost of ownership become 'green'? American corporations have been doing it this way since day one. Green to me means using materials that don't work quite as well because they are made from recycled material or are some how deemed to be better for the environment. Case in point - Freon.

Kerry, you're looking at this from a 1990 perspective. The world is looking at this from a 2020 perspective. So while I think some skepticism is still warranted, hence the year 2010, the rest of us have acknowledged how far green building has come in the last 10 years. It's not about just turning the light off after 5 -- it's about sheer cutting-edge design innovation that tends to lend to enhanced sustainability. Sustainability is good for a multitude of reasons.

I don't know that I agree, Kerry - aren't most apartments, strip malls and a variety of other commercial properties designed with only a 20/25 year life expectancy? That definitely is not a green way to go, but in so doing the corporation's balance sheet benefits in the short term?

I think most of those properties are designed to last longer but what usually ends up happening is little to no maintenance is ever performed. That has nothing to do with being green. That is just being cheap.

Not being green is just being cheap..

Why even bother performing routine maintenance on disposable architecture? I wouldn't.

Kerry, you're looking at this from a 1990 perspective. The world is looking at this from a 2020 perspective. So while I think some skepticism is still warranted, hence the year 2010, the rest of us have acknowledged how far green building has come in the last 10 years. It's not about just turning the light off after 5 -- it's about sheer cutting-edge design innovation that tends to lend to enhanced sustainability. Sustainability is good for a multitude of reasons.

..and I am saying that every corporation have I dealt with for the last 20 years with has used the best building materials and finest furnishing money can buy with an eye always toward reducing the total cost of ownership. When did that become green? That is capitalism.

When in the market for a washing machine I always bought the one that used the least energy and water but still got my clothes clean. To me, 'green' would be buying the washing machine that used the least energy, even if didn't get my clothes as clean.

From a tax accounting perspective, if we simply disallowed the capitalization of buildings -- game/set/match. No more incentive to build things which are designed to crumble.

"...a Green Beacon on the Plains." Catchy!

..and I am saying that every corporation have I dealt with for the last 20 years with has used the best building materials and finest furnishing money can buy with an eye always toward reducing the total cost of ownership. When did that become green? That is capitalism.

When in the market for a washing machine I always bought the one that used the least energy and water but still got my clothes clean. To me, 'green' would be buying the washing machine that used the least energy, even if didn't get my clothes as clean.

That's forward-thinking capitalism, not what most business owners actually do. Many companies don't think about the bottom line like that - it's about the short-term cost, which is usually not "green".

That's forward-thinking capitalism, not what most business owners actually do. Many companies don't think about the bottom line like that - it's about the short-term cost, which is usually not "green".

True, but they don't stay in business for long.

If someone is saying that being green is something good businesses have already been doing for decades then they are obviously not aware of all of the features typical LEED-certified green buildings come with these days.

You rarely see a LEED-certified building out in the suburbs, and if you do, typically it's a "compound" site.

I think that Ideal Homes builds a lot of houses that are "green" energy efficient? They only build in the suburbs.

From a tax accounting perspective, if we simply disallowed the capitalization of buildings -- game/set/match. No more incentive to build things which are designed to crumble.

I totally agree with this.

I think that Ideal Homes builds a lot of houses that are "green" energy efficient? They only build in the suburbs.

Those are just "energy star" certified, which is 1990s innovation, not even close to LEED certified. Typical things like using lower power hookups, less light fixtures in rooms, minimize cooling space, etc etc.. a good start.

LEED certified buildings totally remove a building's environmental footprint. The key is the actual building site. You lose points for building on a previously undeveloped site..in fact it makes it nearly impossible to achieve the higher ratings. These sites minimize the impact on ecosystems and waterways by doing more to control runoff, strategically landscaping (which is more than just some pretty flower beds here and nice grass there), stop things like erosion, light pollution and heat island effect, use recycled materials, generate a portion of power on site, and a bunch of other things off the top of my mind..

Another thing you'll notice with LEED projects is that they're integrated with alternative forms of transit. For instance Boldt Construction's HQ off of the Broadway Extension encourages employees to bike to work by providing facilities for storing the bikes and changing out of work clothes into bike clothes, etc. Another thing is that there are "regional priorities" with LEED as well, which are environmental solutions tailored to a particular region of the U.S.

Also the construction phase is required to be environmentally sensitive as well. You'd be surprised how a majority of environmental damage caused by development is actual done during the construction phase.

LEED is so much more than switching to fluorescent bulbs in your office buildings. That doesn't even get a pat on the back from me.

From a tax accounting perspective, if we simply disallowed the capitalization of buildings -- game/set/match. No more incentive to build things which are designed to crumble.

I am not sure but that would probably make downtown development, i.e. sustainable projects, much more difficult as well. I am more vague on financing aspects of development but I can say that if developers weren't allowed to use buildings as capital then Steve Mason would not have been able to do 9th Street. Other historic renovations wouldn't happen either unless they were exempt.

The FASB types would never allow doing away with capitalization of assets. The philosophy behind all of accounting is to take your benefits and your losses in the period that they actually occur. Capitalization is basically buying something now that will have a future benefit, so the net result of doing away with capitalization would be to take 20 years worth of loss today instead of spreading it out. The only way to balance it would be to somehow take 20 years worth of benefit today as well, which is also known as stacking the books. That violates the most fundamental of all accounting rules....

The FASB types would never allow doing away with capitalization of assets. The philosophy behind all of accounting is to take your benefits and your losses in the period that they actually occur. Capitalization is basically buying something now that will have a future benefit, so the net result of doing away with capitalization would be to take 20 years worth of loss today instead of spreading it out. The only way to balance it would be to somehow take 20 years worth of benefit today as well, which is also known as stacking the books. That violates the most fundamental of all accounting rules....

Instead of doing away with the capitalization of buildings as initially suggested, why not extend the period of capitalization to actually encourage the building of high-quality buildings?

Instead of doing away with the capitalization of buildings as initially suggested, why not extend the period of capitalization to actually encourage the building of high-quality buildings?

I like that idea a lot.

Come to think of it, I know why we don't, federal law limits depreciation and capitalization periods. It's because it has a tax implication... the longer the period the more slowly / less income each year the federal government gets. The IRS has suggested periods for various types of assets. I think the maximum period is 40 years by law?

I just looked it up and found something interesting. MACRS gives real property a depreciation period of 39 years.

Maybe it boils down to business tactics. Build something with a 20-year cost, but then depreciate out the taxes over 39 years.

If that is the case then changing the period might not have any effect. Actually maybe that is an issue of the law. Is it legal to depreciate something for 39 years that has a lifespan of 20 years?

My biggest problem with "green" construction is that the architecture ends up looking very bizzare or way too plain most of the time. Most green buildings seem to have the modern look to them. I have yet to see an aesthetically pleasing green building... especially a "green" residential development or house. I have seen some green midrise buildings around the country that arent too bad, but a lot of times, "green" buildings end up looking cheap to me. Maybe im just nuts.

Not a fan of contemporary design?

Usually it just comes down to the client. If the client is interested in cutting edge green technology then he/she is also going to want a design that reflects the technology employed in the building, something fairly avant garde.