​The Art Gallery of NSW was a great venue for last week’s Green Globe Awards 2015, with winners providing a dazzling display of some of the best in sustainability that NSW has to offer. But was this ‘just another awards night’ or can these accolades tell us something more?
​
As Chair of the three groups of expert judges once again, I had the honour of reading, assessing and discussing many of the submissions, and making recommendations about not just the winners but the ‘winners of winners’. And three things struck me:

1) As I noted in my opening remarks, there has been a lack of leadership at federal level in the sustainability space over recent years - although this is starting to change, with the appointment of Jamie Briggs as Australia’s first Minister for Cities and the Built Environment, and Christopher Pyne’s move to the new position of Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, putting buildings and innovation firmly back on the agenda. However at state and local levels we have been seeing the emergence of true environmental leadership, from the guidance of Rob Stokes, now as NSW Minister for Planning, and Mark Speakman, who hosted the Awards, as NSW Minister for the Environment and Minister for Heritage. The NSW Sustainability Advantage program, the Action Matters campaign, and the Saving our Species program are all great example of leadership in action. And at local government level, it was wonderful to see councils from north to south as well as way inland demonstrate their dedication, from Lismore’s ‘A Model of Sustainability’ to the City of Sydney’s ‘Zero Waste Program’. 

​2) The sheer breadth of the initiatives entered into the Awards this year was amazing – from childcare facilities to university faculties, from food production to transport enterprises, from dust reduction efforts to manufacturing efficiencies, and from heritage buildings to major infrastructure projects. In particular, many of the winners showed how sustainability was part of their DNA, not something that they considered an ‘extra’. The Small Business and the Premier’s Award for Environmental Innovation winner (photo above) showed exactly that:

A family-owned small business based in Byron Bay, Brookfarm produces gourmet macadamia products for local and export markets. Brookfarm has made sustainability the cornerstone of its farm and bakehouse operations, the company's branding, growth and business success. Brookfarm has installed 288 solar panels on its bakehouse, has saved 160 kilolitres of water a year through harvesting and recycling of rainwater and, as part of its rainforest regeneration program, has planted more than 30,000 trees on the farm that have stored over 2,310 tonnes of carbon. The company has now reduced its waste per tonne of product by 25 per cent, increased its waste recycling by 23 per cent, is a pioneer of biological controls in macadamia farming and has eradicated or dramatically reduced chemical, pesticide and synthetic fertiliser use.
​
Don’t forget: this is a family-owned small business showing real leadership in NSW.

3) When you’ve got your head down, and you’re busy looking at your current strategy or the details of a particular project or both, it’s easy to forget just how many people are powering positive change across the state. Minister Speakman, as he thanked the judges and judging chairs for their efforts, noted that each of the judging chairs had probably taken a week of their time to assess, judge, discuss and recommend the entries - and I wouldn’t have changed a single minute of that time, as it is a unique way of seeing what people consider leadership, of finding out what innovation is approaching, and of seeing how many, many small efforts can amount to one huge difference here in NSW. So try to take a moment to keep your head up, read about some of the initiatives that have won awards, and see what you can learn about how buildings can be run, how businesses can succeed, how the environment can be protected, and how both individuals and international enterprises can improve.

My thanks to the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) for running such a great awards program and an exhilarating awards night, and my congratulations to all of the finalists, highly commended entrants, and the winners. The work of the NSW OEH teams keeps the aim of the awards relevant, the dedication of the judges helps to select the cream of the crop, and continued collaboration with industry-leading and industry-benchmarking organisations such as the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) and Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia (ISCA) helps to support, connect and promote the Green Globe Awards.

Be proud of the leadership role that NSW is taking, and celebrate our sustainability successes!

By Tina Perinotto, published in The Fifth Estate, 20th August 2015
After eight-and-a-half years, Robin Mellon, the Green Building Council of Australia’s renowned chief operating officer, is heading off in a new direction.

First stop a long overseas sojourn in Sri Lanka to “see the elephants, the temples and the tea plantations, and do a lot of eating”, relaxing and to undertake a reboot. And then, who knows?

The Fifth Estate wagers he will land somewhere back in the industry, so deeply embedded does he seem to have become in the space.

But before Mellon can reset his internal computer, there’s a bit of defragging that needs to be carried out. Hence an exit interview to get a few things off his chest.

First, to be absolutely clear, now that he’s free from the constraints of the advocacy game, Mellon would like it known that he does not think much of this current federal government. It’s a “pathetic excuse” for leadership, he says. On climate, for example, the government simply “won’t take the lead”.

He says conservative British MP and former Environment Minister in the UK Lord Richard Benyon put it best recently when he said the Abbott government’s response to climate change was “incomprehensible” and “bewildering” (a sentiment the majority of Australian population seems to agree with, given recent opinion polls pointing to a surge in support for climate action).

“Abbott’s dismissal of climate science and his belief that Australia must choose between economic growth and tackling climate change speak to a distorted vision of what it means to be a conservative,” Benyon said.

“True conservative values include distaste for over-regulation and enthusiasm for entrepreneurialism. But they also include a respect for sound science and economics, a belief in protecting the natural world and a responsibility to do the best for the biggest possible number of one’s citizens.”

Mellon would have quite a deep understanding of conservative British politics, perhaps more than the avowedly Anglophillic Abbott could rightly lay claim to.

His background is as a valuer in the Department of Environment and Planning at the City of Westminster in London, marketing and property management at Woodhams London, and policy adviser for the Heritage Lottery Fund in the UK, before moving to Australia fourteen years ago.

Mellon says Benyon is “as blue as they come”, and he’s nailed the issue.

The choice, Mellon says, is not between development and the environment.

“It’s not buildings or green buildings; it’s both. It’s about green building, a productive workforce and a sustainable economy. If you want to, say ‘it’s the economy, stupid’.”

The recent emissions reductions targets announced by the federal government were a “disappointing excuse for emissions reductions, making it 26-28 per cent by 2030 with Abbott’s ‘captain’s pick’ of 2005 when everyone else is at 2000 [levels] because that’s easier.

“When you couple that with the woeful emissions reductions fund, which frankly had nothing in it for buildings…” Mellon trails off.

The ERF could have been good for buildings, Mellon says.

Together with the weakness on same-sex marriage, it all adds up to more reason for people to ignore the federal government and simply “get on with it”, he says.

Certainly local councils are doing that.

Mellon says some are doing outstanding work.

“I take my hat off to them,” he says.

A recent workshop in Melbourne on resilience organised by the City of Melbourne’s new chief resilience officer Toby Kent, who is part funded by the Rockefeller Foundation’s 100 Resilient Cities Network, was particularly inspirational.

“Councils are leading the world, not just in Melbourne,” Mellon says.

In evidence, he says, was a load of commitment.

“Not just admiring the problem, but people putting things together, a spirit of collaboration that together we can achieve something much greater.”

Mellon also liked the broader sense of resilience in the discussion – a sense that a resilient community is critical to bouncing back after a disaster.

“Resilience, not just to floods and so on, but looking to having jobs, and residents and community in the future. It speaks to a better quality of life.”

Brisbane bounced back after devastating floods because it had a resilient community. In some places, such as the poorest parts of New Orleans, the community did not go back.

Mellon loves to visit places such as Gosnells in Western Australia and Melton in Melbourne where “world class buildings” such as civic centres, sports facilities, libraries and learning hubs have been developed by the local councils.

“The point is that Australian councils are really leading the charge now although I have no doubt the Abbott government would use these developments to say it means the market is working perfectly well without any intervention.”

What’s more important, he says, is that “any idiot” would look at these initiatives and say, “How do we create the best policies and market conditions to foster them and spread them around the country?”

There’s another issue he wants to bring up, and that’s the unintended consequence of success of the green building and sustainability sectors.

It’s around the fragmentation that’s happened with a growing host of organisations setting up and competing for the same space.

The industry, Mellon says, “will probably not sustain many more of these organisations.

“It’s not that the GBCA is an early mover and everyone should support the GBCA. But I see more fragmentation. There is a limit to the size of the market.”

If there are 200 organisations all after the same members, and all after the same pot of sponsorship, it’s going to be harder to make progress as a whole.

The answer, he says, is greater collaboration. If organisations are aligned then maybe they should start to work together instead of working on their own small patch.

The fallout is a waste of people’s energy, goodwill and trust.

Division may be what a very conservative federal government is going to rely on.

“I’ve never been prouder of Australia… as when the built environment put in one submission to the Emissions Reduction Fund” under the banner of the Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council.

For the GBCA the path is inevitably one of greater collaboration – with other ratings systems such as Living Building Challenge, WELL and One Planet Living. Each has their own emphasis and part to play, he says.

And on the subject of ratings, Mellon is keen to say how important it is to keep pushing the ratings agenda.

If you design and build to GS standards, he says, “then prove it, otherwise you won’t be believed.”

He thinks verified ratings will be the future, countering the trend for companies to claim they’ve built to GS standards but have saved themselves the expense of official ratings.

In the future we will have more ratings, across a greater range of products, he says. You can already see the strong makings of this trend in third party certification for items such as furniture that is “mainstreaming” sustainability, he says.

As evidence, he points to IKEA, which now claims it will make its entire supply chain green. This means green products will be making their way “through to everyone’s living room”.

Besides, having the ratings is a way to stop accusations of greenwash that can emerge very quickly with items that are not rated.

What about the opposite – having a green building and not promoting your green credentials? This has been a trend picked up by people such as Danielle King of Green Moves Australia in an article penned for The Fifth Estate, There’s great value in green credentials, so why are commercial agents so shy?

That’s changing, Mellon says. Marketing for homes and communities are starting to show Green Star ratings in the collateral, often with descriptors of what a 6 Star Communities rating means, for instance.

What about his move then? We know it’s come about because of restructuring within the organisation.

Mellon totally endorses the evolution of the GBCA.

“Every business goes through a period of reflection and reassessment.”

He thinks what will happen is that the GBCA will increasingly turn outwards. He hopes the industry and aligned interest groups will do the same and be part of greater collaboration.

“Not just in Australia but internationally” in order to achieve greater objectives.

The GBCA is very well positioned for the next stage, he says. It’s strong financially, it’s got good transparency, it’s taking aboard feedback and it’s got good governance.

In fact, “some of the best governance I’ve seen in any organisation,” Mellon says.

That’s an attribute that Mellon has clearly had a role in creating, judging by the comments from industry observers hearing about his departure. And partly the restructure is a function of the leaner more efficient organisation that chief executive Romilly Madew recently cited after the departure was announced.

And that’s not a bad juncture to sign out on.

In late May, the Australian Government released the Infrastructure Australia Audit, which explores how the nation will cope with an expected population of 30.5 million by 2031.

The audit underscores the importance of making our cities work. Cities are expected to contribute $1.6 trillion to the economy by 2031 – a 90 per cent increase on their current input.

The audit also gives us a clear picture of the future we face if we don’t get serious about sustainability, with skyrocketing congestion costs, high emissions and rising inequality just the start.

Over the last year, the Green Building Council of Australia has brought together some of the nation’s ‘city builders’, along with industry leaders and policy makers, for a series of forums which tackle the big question: what makes a city great?

In Sydney, Lord Mayor Clover Moore is proud of the City of Sydney’s efforts to reduce carbon pollution through green retrofits, with vast reductions in energy usage achieved through the installation of solar arrays and efficient LED streetlights, and thousands of square metres of green walls and roof space that is improving air quality across the city.

“Great cities don’t come by accident,” Moore said. “They emerge through choices we make and the commitment we bring to ensuring they are sustainable, equitable, inclusive, stimulating and beautiful.”

In Melbourne, Lord Mayor Robert Doyle is leading an ambitious Urban Forest Strategy – a plan to increase urban canopy cover from 22 per cent to 40 per cent by 2040. Significant investment in street furniture and paving for footpaths and streets is also helping to enhance the pedestrian experience of Melbournians. Doyle argues that “making our city more sustainable is directly connected with our future prosperity.”

In Brisbane, Lord Mayor Graham Quirk is looking at centralisation.

“As our cities grow up and become more dense, we need to embrace opportunities for centralisation - cooling, water, waste, energy,” he explained. “Great cities must also prioritise all four modes of transport – public, pedestrian, cycling and cars – rather than prioritising one at the expense of all others.”

The federal member for Perth and former WA Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, Alannah MacTiernan, stressed that the design and quality of the buildings within our cities would dictate their future success.

“There is a balance we need to achieve between planning regulation and best practice development that will ensure our buildings, streets and open spaces make up a real community and not just a collection of separate assets,” she said.

Great work is being undertaken all over the country, yet all of the leaders highlighted the need for a truly holistic approach to sustainable development in our cities. They also emphasised the importance of creating community within our urban areas.

As federal member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt eloquently put it, “Great cities need to be designed by and for the people that actually live in them, not just by committees or ‘ministers on high’‎ far removed from the effects of what they do. There needs to be control over density and assurances that what actually gets built is appropriate; so that it benefits the many not just the few.”

His comment are reminder of the risks we face in our quest to make our cities both green and great.

The first is the risk of diminished or conditional access. How do we ensure that sustainable cities and their benefits don’t become the exclusive privilege of the wealthy?

Enhancing the efficiency of our existing residential developments, and encouraging people to think beyond the ‘quarter acre block’ is a good start. The City of Sydney’s Smart Green Apartments program and the City of Melbourne’s Smart Blocks initiative both aim to make existing residential buildings more cost-effective and efficient while minimising their environmental impacts.

Another risk for great green cities is our narrow focus of investment. The majority of our Green Star-rated buildings are within in the office sector. While nobody would argue that green offices are a bad thing, creating truly sustainable cities demands green buildings outside office hours. But this is changing; we now have more than 100 Green Star-rated university and school projects, 40 multi-unit residential developments and five community developments - some that will one day have their own postcodes and be home to many thousands of people.

A third risk is disconnected decision-making. We need more connected thinking and a consistent, collaborative approach to city development. The Green Building Council of Australia believes a Minister for Cities would ensure a more integrated approach to the planning and delivery of critical infrastructure for our economic powerhouses, and drive the reforms needed to connect policies and programs across all levels of government.

As our population grows, our nation is changing. We must accept this reality, and embrace the opportunities that bigger cities present. Doing nothing will cost more than the $53 billion annual congestion price tag outlined in the Infrastructure Australia Audit. Doing nothing will mean cities that are less liveable, less productive and less sustainable for all of us.

Our cities are more than a collection of buildings – they are the engine rooms of our nation’s productivity, prosperity and future potential. As Bandt said, “we don't just build buildings, we create communities.”

In an earlier post, I mentioned Billy Wood, the self-styled 'Head Honcho' of Woody Roo. I first met Billy in the Bondi Markets one Sunday a year or two back, and was taken by his traditional styling with modern flair, great materials and quirky touches such as jacket linings, pocket squares and shirt-and-tie combos made from the same material (which I happen to love, despite knowing what some of my colleagues think!).
 
For me, it's the sustainability angle of his designs and clothing that really fascinates me. As his website states:
"WoodyRoo is proud to have every piece crafted in Sydney by Australian hearts and hands. Being 100% Australian made is a huge part of what the label is about. Premium fabrics have been sourced from around the world, including superfine Australian wool suiting sourced from the grazing pastures of New South Wales, Japanese cotton drills, linens, and Italian shirting. WoodyRoo's work is full of pride knowing that the gentleman lives… ". My friend Lisa Heinze, author of 'Sustainability with Style' looks at issues of product, provenance and proof in her book, so it's good to be able to walk the talk just a little bit.
 
Wearing an Australian-crafted suit to represent the Australian green building industry whilst overseas gives me great pride - and they look awesome, too. I've got suits made by Billy in light tan, dark green and navy blue, and ties in pretty much every shade under the sun. Love good suiting, love locally made products, love old styled new!

So many Australians deal with the consequences of poor urban planning every day of their lives: traffic congestion, noise and air pollution, inadequate public transport networks, urban sprawl, lack of access to shops and services … the list goes on. 

A ‘trial and error’ approach to urban development – in which long-term objectives made way for fast-tracked, short-term results – has delivered cities with a host of environmental and social problems with a real economic cost.

If, as Albert Einstein once said, insanity is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”, then the rational approach is to create a new blueprint for best practice. 

That’s what the development industry did.  In collaboration with all tiers of government, industry associations, academia and the community, the Green Building Council of Australia developed a rating tool to guide the development of sustainable, liveable, efficient and productive communities.  That rating tool is called Green Star – Communities.

Around Australia, dozens of developments, from small inner-city infills to large-scale projects that will one day have their own postcodes, are being guided by the Green Star – Communities rating tool to ensure they meet best practice benchmarks for governance, design, environment, liveability, financial prosperity and innovation. 

And yet, sadly, a project which the Victorian Government claims is “Australia’s most significant urban renewal project” is not.

This week, Victorian Planning Minister Matthew Guy approved the final master plan for the development of the 250 hectare Fishermans Bend project – a 40-year development that is expected to generate 40,000 jobs, create billions of dollars in economic benefit and provide homes for at least 80,000 residents.

How we plan, design and build a precinct of this size – one that will double the size of central Melbourne – will have an enormous impact on the Victorian economy.  It will also have an enormous impact on the environment and on people’s lives, health and wellbeing.

In the fastest-growing part of Australia – South East Queensland – sustainability is at the heart of some of the largest new developments.  Caloundra South, for instance, spans 2310 hectares and will one day be home to more than 120,000 people, while Ecco Ripley just outside Ipswich will house 10,000 people over 40 hectares.  Both are applying the Green Star – Communities principles to ensure they achieve long-term sustainable outcomes.  In Sydney, the $1.6 billion Parramatta Square project and the $6 billion Barangaroo South project are both on track for Green Star – Communities ratings.  The University of Melbourne has made a campus-wide commitment to sustainability by registering to achieve Green Star – Communities ratings, as have Bowden and Tonsley in Adelaide, and Alkimos Beach and Waterbank in Perth. 

So, without meeting nationally recognised benchmarks, how will the people of Victoria know that their community – one that will one day be home to tens of thousands of people – is efficient, healthy, productive and sustainable?

Meeting best practice sustainability benchmarks does not need to cost more, as many of the ‘male, pale and stale brigade’ claim it might, but sustainability will deliver massive long-term benefits.  And that’s what is at stake: the long-term value of a well-designed precinct that is both economically and environmentally sustainable; the long-term health and wellbeing of Fishermans Bend residents and workers; the long-term prosperity of businesses that set up shop; and the long-term financial returns for the Victorian tax payer.

In the short-term, the Victorian Government may gain political capital from its announcement – but building communities that are resilient, efficient and sustainable won’t be achieved in a three-year electoral cycle.  Fishermans Bend will take 40 years to complete – in which time governments will fall in and out of favour, philosophies will be embraced and abandoned, and new generations of Australians will be born. 

Building an Australia that is efficient and productive, that can expand to meet a growing and diverse population, that is resilient and adaptable to climate change is not a quick win.  A strategic, sustainable approach to building communities requires an eye firmly fixed on the long game.

This is not to deny the short-term financial realities and responsibilities that guide government decision-making.  However, long-term planning, governance, design and innovation are essential to ensure short-term budgets remain in balance.  A short-term decision can have disastrous long-term financial consequences.  Building cheap now may make a place unaffordable in years to come.

To those who are quick to point out that we have ‘an interest’ in whether projects use the Green Star – Communities tool, I’d say “of course we do – we developed it”. But we’re a not-for-profit and our ‘interest’ is in achieving sustainable places for everyone.

The Victorian Government has the opportunity to lead the way in setting world-leading social, economic and environmental benchmarks at Fishermans Bend – it’s a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that we cannot afford to waste

Article first published on 30 JUL 2014, 9:15 PM
http://www.businessspectator.com.au

When many people hear the phrase ‘green building’ they immediately think high-tech features and high-spec finishes.  They picture advanced low-e glass, blinds that automatically adjust to shield the sun’s rays, blackwater recycling systems, geothermal heating and smart meters that track energy usage.

While green building does embrace and encourage new technologies, new designs and new approaches, many new green buildings are emulating the old designs, the old approaches, the old techniques and nature’s ‘technologies’ to get better, greener outcomes.
 
Take a simple concept like solar orientation.  We have archaeological evidence that the ancient Greeks were building their homes in grid patterns to best access the heat and light of the sun in the fifth century BC.  “In houses that look toward the south, the sun penetrates the portico in winter, while in summer the path of the sun is right over our heads and above the roof so that there is shade,” the philosopher Socrates observed, talking about the Northern Hemisphere’s early green buildings.
 
Greek playwright Aeschylus took his admiration of passive solar design a step further, noting that only primitives “lacked knowledge of houses turned to face the winter sun, dwelling beneath the ground like swarming ants in sunless caves.”

The Ancient Romans developed the first solar-heated bath-houses and access to the sun was made a legal right under the Justinian Code of Law adopted in the sixth century AD.  The earliest green roofs, such as the Hanging Gardens of Babylon in what is now Iraq, date back to biblical times.

Sustainable design is not just a feature of the classics, however.  Many cultures followed simple principles of sustainable design that remain as relevant today as they were thousands of years ago.  Nepalese homes, with their passive solar orientation and shading, high-insulation roofing and rock walls with high thermal mass, have changed little for centuries.  The Cappadoccians in Turkey built thermally-efficient homes by hollowing out soft volcanic rock, in much the way the people of Coober Pedy do today.  In America, the Pueblo Indians built their dwellings with south-facing adobe walls which absorbed the sun’s heat during the day and then warmed the home’s interior at night. 

Indigenous Australians used simple, passive design principles to ensure they gained shelter from our nation’s blazing sun while still allowing air flow, while early colonial buildings integrated elements of passive design.  The magnetic termite mounds of the Northern Territory are miniature ‘termite cities’ aligned north to south to minimise exposure to the heat of the sun, with structures that keep temperatures stable within the mound, allow air flow, and help shed excess rainwater without being washed away. Recall the old Queenslanders perched on stilts to improve air flow, inner-Sydney terrace houses pushed up against each other to provide good thermal mass, and the shade and shelter gained from the ubiquitous verandah.

As these examples demonstrate, until fairly recently human beings were adept at living in harmony with our climate and our environment.  Where did it all go wrong?  The post-war boom required as many homes to be built as quickly as possible.  Later, a focus on minimising costs resulted in suburb-upon-suburb of sealed brick boxes – each designed in a way that ensured they would trap the heat in summer and block out the sun in winter, requiring mechanical air conditioning to assure thermal comfort.  In fact, the invention and commercialisation of air-conditioning led us to lose touch with the concept of building our shelter around the seasons.  When the same building design could be applied everywhere from the Top End to Tasmania, little thought was given to the local climate and ecosystem, not to mention the aesthetics of the suburban landscape. Air conditioning remains a valuable part of indoor environment quality, but should be used to complement good passive design, rather than the starting point of architecture.

So, the shift to sustainable building is not really a progression – more a return to simple, common sense methods of good, green passive design.

Take Australia’s first Green Star-rated residential development, The Summer in Perth, as an example.  The Summer has integrated simple design features that use the ocean breeze and regulate the heat generated by the sun.  The result is a development that has eliminated the need for mechanical air-conditioning, and is estimated to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 88 per cent.

Through passive design strategies, over 90 per cent of units have open floor plans and provide dual aspects to allow for natural cross-ventilation, recirculating air throughout the units and common spaces. The building also incorporates moveable screens on balconies to provide solar shading in the warmer months.

The design principles applied at The Summer evoke the Queenslanders of yesteryear – demonstrating that everything old can be new again.

 

The buildings that we construct may be able to stand the test of time, but are they necessarily suitable for a lifetime?

I was raised in a house in South East England that is now about 410 years old.  It was built centuries before Captain Cook sailed to Australia or before the American War of Independence; before either of the World Wars, the Crimean War, or the Battle of Waterloo; before human beings had seen skyscrapers, railways or even iron bridges.

With a simple timber frame, plaster walls and a tiled roof, it has remained standing through frost, snow, storms and blizzards, despite blinding sun, heatwaves and water shortages. To me, this represents true resilience.

410 year old home in South East England

And yet, while my family home has stood the test of time, its narrow hallways and steep stairs, uneven floors and tiny bathroom now make it unliveable for my mother as she gets older. In this house, ‘ageing in place’ is not an option.

Robin Mellon's old home does not support 'ageing in place'

In Australia, the number of people aged 75 years and over is expected to increase by about four million between 2012 and 2060 — an increase roughly equivalent to the current population of Melbourne.

An even more startling illustration of the ageing population is the number of people who will survive past 100 years of age. The Productivity Commission’s An Ageing Australia: Preparing for the Future (November 2013) states that in 2012 there was roughly one person aged 100 years old or more to every 100 babies.

By 2060, there will be around 25 centenarians for every 100 babies, and with continued small increases in longevity, by 2100, there will be more people aged 100 or more years than babies born in that year.

So will the homes we are building now be suitable to house this growing group of centenarians?

The nature of our ageing population will also have many policy implications – from how governments manage age pensions and health budgets to how we plan, design and build our homes, our communities and our cities. As National Seniors Australia has observed, “the residential environment is closely linked to an older person’s capacity to remain independent, participate in community activities and feel secure and in control of their daily activities.” 


Livable Housing Australia is driving a paradigm shift in the way the residential development industry designs and builds modern homes. The Livable Housing Design Guidelines support the design and construction of homes that can adapt as people age.  And in turn, the Green Star – Communities rating tool’s ‘Accessibility and Adaptability’ credit awards points based on the percentage of dwellings compliant with LHA’s Guidelines. Other GBCA members are committed to creating residential communities that deliver sustainable solutions that save money and ensure good quality of life. 


I’ve been inspired by Whiddon Group’s clever idea to install trickling showerheads with aerators. The water-saving showerheads use just nine litres of water a minute, but the aerators create lots of air bubbles so residents feel they’re not missing out on a hot shower. The feeling of luxury is there, but it is balanced by efficiency – and retrofits of their properties provide a long-term solution rather than a short-term ‘fix’. Stockland achieved the first Green Star rating for a retirement village last year, for Selandra Rise in Victoria, and has two more projects registered to achieve ratings. 


The Green Building Council of Australia worked with Stockland to assess the design, construction and ongoing sustainability of 202 homes, 12 apartments and the community centre, as well as the practical and effective use of open space and residents’ proximity to shops, medical facilities and public transport. Stockland has estimated that the sustainability features will save residents at Selandra Rise an average of $700 each year on their water and energy bills. 


These savings are another measure of resilience, and one which will become increasingly important as energy bills rise and pensions remain static. Financial resilience is an essential part of the overall resilience conversation – our ability to withstand climate extremes is vital but must be considered around long-term economic and social planning. While an ageing population presents challenges, it’s also a blessing. 


After all, it’s the result of people living longer. It’s up to us to ensure we create built environments that are resilient in retirement.

Article first published on http://sourceable.net
28 November 2014

Does living a sustainable life make us happier?

The data certainly suggests so.

A range of studies have found that people are their least happy – regardless of nationality, gender or demographic – at a global average age of 46.  The Economist dubbed it the ‘U-bend of life’.

Curiously, the lowest levels of human happiness occur as we are reaching the pinnacle of our career and influence – and yet that is also the point at which we have accumulated the bulk of our wealth and possessions.

Economist Harry Dent has said that the “average family or household in the US (and similarly in most developed countries) peaks in spending between the ages of 46 and 50, or an average of 48.”  At 48, we hit the crest of what Dent calls the “spending wave,” at which point houses have been bought and furnished, children have schooled, and most consumer ‘must haves’ have been acquired.

However, data also points to a surge in happiness once we hit the big five-oh – not because anything external changes, but because something internal does. We change. We become more accepting, steadier and more patient, and focus less on what we want and more on what we have. We begin to turn our attentions away from the fleeting pleasure obtained in a consumerist society and toward lasting contentment in a sustainable community.

It appears then, that when people transcend the existential mid-life crisis, they learn not to confuse happiness with pleasure.

The pursuit of pleasure – at its worst, embodied in the giddy rush of making an impulse purchase – is rarely sustainable. Nor does it guarantee happiness. Anyone who has felt buyers’ remorse understands this.

Lasting happiness is not built on the pursuit of pleasure – more boats, cars, houses and rooms filled with ‘stuff’ – but has a focus on finding a level of peace or contentment that can be sustained. The idea of being content with what you have is often ridiculed in our society (heaven help those of us who ‘settle’), but it appears that one of the great lessons we learn in life is that stuff doesn’t make us happy.

What does this have to do with the built environment? Certainly, cultivating contentment rests less on what we can get, and instead focuses on appreciating what we have. Contentment lies within taking a long-term approach to what will serve us best – our wardrobes, our buildings, and our cities – rather than merely satisfying our short-term demands. We are bombarded with messages telling us to acquire more stuff – and bigger houses to store it all in.

And yet, if you live in Australia, you’ve already won life’s lottery and are among the richest people in the world. One quarter of the world’s population lives without electricity and one third doesn’t have access to basic sanitation. According to the World Bank, someone earning just US$11,000 a year has more than 87 per cent of the people on the planet. Nearly three billion people live on less than $2 a day, or $730 a year.

When we’re reminded of this, it’s easier to be grateful for what we have, and guided to make more sustainable choices. What the U-bend of happiness hints at is that sustainability is a long-term value that correlates with our contentment, rather than a short-term behaviour. And that’s the same whether it’s personal actions at work or at home, the products and materials we put into our buildings, or decisions by governments to look at long-term investment in the efficiency, wellbeing, health and happiness of our infrastructure, buildings, networks and communities.

So, before we consider upsizing or upgrading our homes, we must ask ourselves the question: will this really make me happy?


Article first published on http://sourceable.net

From Leonardo da Vinci’s bird-like flying machine to biomorphic Art Nouveau designs, for centuries people have been inspired by nature and applied it to their designs.


Nowadays, 21st century scientific knowledge together with cutting-edge technology and design tools enable us to examine nature and apply its genius in new and exciting ways.

This discipline, known as biomimicry, represents a rich and under-explored territory that can provide solutions to design challenges and deliver radical increases in resource efficiency. Biomimicry can inspire imaginative and beautiful architecture and provide solutions to complex issues such as water shortages and waste management.

While people of the past built domes over ecclesiastic structures that mimicked the concentric circles of sea shells, scientists today can examine the composition of these shells to make materials that are tougher and structures that are more enduring, argues British architect and biomimicry specialist, Michael Pawlyn.

The author of Biomimicry in Architecture, Pawlyn will be a keynote speaker at the Green Cities 2015 conference, and will explore his work on projects that take their cues from nature – from roof structures based on giant amazon water lilies to whole buildings inspired by abalone shells.

Pawlyn points to the work of professor Julian Vincent, a member of his design team, who is currently collaborating with company Swedish Biomimetics on a new form of bio sprinkler inspired by the bombardier beetle. This six-legged tank-like beetle fires a fine, high-pressure spray of hot, acrid gas that repels predators.

“Professor Vincent is looking to adapt this to create a fine-spray fire sprinkler that uses far less water, as water damage can far exceed fire damage in offices.  And using less water means buildings don’t need massive water tanks in their basements,” Pawlyn said.

The work with the bombardier beetle also has the potential to help engineers develop more efficient fuel injection systems and medical researchers create super-fine needles.

So, how do we address the fact that many species have different drivers to human beings – such as tiny energy and water requirements or no desire for personal wealth or possessions?

And how do we build on the common sense ideas that we’ve heard at previous Green Cities conferences, including Gunther Pauli’s talk of creating 100 innovations based around materials, structures and resources that we already have – such as recycling coffee waste for mushroom farming or using maggots for wound treatment or animal fodder.

Pawlyn agrees that there are “some things that work in biology, but not in architecture,” pointing to work recently undertaken with world experts on termite mounds.

“We were looking to extract new ideas from the mounds, but found that they weren’t applicable to office buildings because the air quality that termites will tolerate isn’t acceptable to humans,” he said. “Biomimcry is not about slavishly imitating nature, but about looking at how things work in nature, and developing new solutions.”

“Looking at how we mimic entire ecosystems offers huge potential for rethinking the metabolism of our cities. Nature’s examples provide a guide to help us transform our cities from wasteful linear to resource-efficient, closed loop systems. This will help us make the shift from the industrial to the ecological age.”


See more at: http://sourceable.net/design-inspired-by-nature/#sthash.R54ZR1c9.dpuf

Every purchase we make affects human health and the environment in some way.  For facility managers, each procurement decision influences more than the efficiency of their buildings and their company’s bottom line.  Today, there’s growing recognition that purchasing decisions affect the well-being and productivity of employees and, ultimately, global climate change as well.

Facility managers are in a powerful position to shape our environment through the design and implementation of sustainable purchasing policies. This means considering the environmental performance of products and services alongside standard performance and price considerations. ‘Sustainability’, although a word now laden with environmental and social meaning, should also infer that buildings or belongings can be economically sustainable – not just viable but built to last, built to function and built to be recycled.

So, where do you start?

Green, for want of a better word, is good For facility managers, green procurement means more than just purchasing energy efficient globes and recycling bins.  A typical green procurement policy outlines how a company will address environmental goals such as low emissions, forest conservation, recycling, water conservation and energy savings. 

What’s more, a good policy details how an organisation intends to address competing considerations of performance, cost, durability and availability, bearing in mind that an effective policy is an opportunity to impact on the triple bottom line – economic, environmental and social performance.

Once you’ve established green procurement guidelines, it’s simply a matter of applying the same principles to each purchase.  Whether it is a tin of paint or a tin of biscuits, guidelines need to look at the product’s materials, source, packaging and how it will be treated at the end of its useful life.

The most efficient place to introduce a green procurement strategy is at the beginning of a building contract for a fitout, refurbishment or new building design project.  This is when facility managers have the greatest opportunity to influence the building’s lifetime efficiency, but so often are not brought into discussions until further along the project timeline.

If you have the opportunity to get involved with the building contract, negotiate contracts early.  Although green procurement and buying policies, green leases, and water and energy efficiency measures may take some work to establish, they’ll make a major environmental difference and you’ll reap the rewards in the long run.

Apply the ‘Three Rs’ equation Although some organisations aren’t ready to look at the more complex environmental issues such as embodied energy, every company can apply the ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’ equation to their business decisions.  Ask yourself: How can we reduce demand for this product?  How can we reuse the product?  How can we recycle the product?  More importantly, we need to engender a cultural shift that asks: why do we need this product in the first place?

There are simple actions that any company can apply across the breadth of its organisation. Here’s a good example.  To most of us, a battery is a battery – and yet they are most common form of hazardous waste disposed of by Australian households, with 97 per cent of those disposing of them via their usual rubbish collection.  The majority of batteries contain heavy metals that leak into the ground as the battery erodes.  This contributes to soil and water pollution, and endangers wildlife.  Some components in batteries can be toxic to fish and make these fish unfit for human consumption.

At the Green Building Council of Australia’s headquarters in Sydney, aptly named the GreenHouse for its 5 Star Green Star – Office Interiors v1.1 rating, we have obtained a battery recycling box to store old batteries.  Full boxes are collected by a local recycling company, which ensures that the heavy metals don’t end up in landfill.  Such a simple and inexpensive measure - but one which makes an immediate impact, and one which can be implemented in organisations and offices across the country without costing anything extra!

Choosing products with more than one life While owners and operators have begun to consider the long-term sustainability of their buildings and the products within them, the next challenge is choosing products based not only on their first lives, but also with consideration to their second lives.   Organisations such as InterfaceFLOR, which is recognised as the world’s most sustainable carpet manufacturer, has implemented a take-back and recycling program to ensure its products have a useful ‘second life’.

InterfaceFLOR Australia’s Senior Vice President, Clinton Squires, argues that facilities managers are in a prime position to activate a take-back clause in their lease agreements. 

“For new builds, facilities managers should start by looking for products that can deliver the longest possible first life, and then purchase from companies which have active end-of-life take-back and recycling schemes,” Squires says. 

“In the case of refurbishing existing fit outs, facilities managers should ask manufacturers what can be done to take back the existing materials, as this will have an immediate impact on waste-to-landfill reduction.”

Squires clarifies: “It’s important to understand that ‘100% recyclable’ doesn’t necessarily mean the product is part of an active take-back and recycling program. Facilities managers need to look beyond the product marketing and labelling and into the recycling track-record of the manufacturer.”

Facilities managers also have an enormous amount of power to bring about positive cultural shifts in their organisations, Squires argues. “While many companies are refreshing their corporate images every few years, that doesn’t mean the materials in their corporate offices need replacing too.”

Instead, facilities managers need to write their design briefs with the mantra ‘maximise the first life’ in mind.

“Imagination and ingenuity need to be applied to the design brief so that the architect or interior designer may respond with a sustainable solution,” Squires says. “This may mean requesting modular products to allow for selective, rather than complete replacement, and providing greater flexibility to adapt to changing spatial needs.

“These kinds of mind-shifts start to reduce the demand for new products as well as the waste-to-landfill impact,” Squires says.

More than a piece of green paper Now that you’ve started to look at your procurement, Green Leases can help to ensure you get the best value from your tenancy agreements.  Essentially, a green lease outlines the obligations on both the landlord and tenant to achieve targets for energy and water consumption, as well as other environmentally sustainable practices.  This may mean the tenant requires the landlord to provide certification that the building achieves a specified Green Star or NABERS rating, and it may specify the requirements for ongoing upkeep of the building.  A green lease should also address how the costs and benefits associated with a green building will be allocated to both the tenant and the building owner. 

Another way facilities managers can make a significant environmental impact is by negotiating a sensible and sustainable ‘make good’ clause.  This contract clause refers to the process at the end of a commercial property lease where the tenant is required to hand back the premises they are vacating in a particular condition that is established by the terms of the lease. 

“In many instances an incoming tenant wanting to improve the environmental performance of their premises may be keen to install energy-efficient fixtures and systems,” says John Goddard, Chairman of RICS Oceania Sustainable Steering Group, who oversaw the development of Greening Make Good, a guide which outlines how landlords and tenants can work together to eliminate the double layer of inefficiency often inherent in make good clauses.

“Make good clauses are often a disincentive to tenants wanting to ‘do the right thing’ by the environment, as the landlord may require these energy-efficient fixtures and systems to be removed and the old system reinstated to match the remainder of the building which has old and inefficient fittings and equipment,” he explains.

In these cases, the tenant must factor in the costs of the new equipment installed, the removal costs and the reinstatement of the old equipment at the end of the lease.  “This can make the business case for installing environmentally-efficient equipment unworkable, particularly with a trend to short term and flexible leases where the tenant has a limited time to recover expenditure,” Goddard says.

Monitoring performance Above all, facilities managers need to be able to monitor and manage their buildings efficiently.  This means asking: does the building management system track energy outputs and water consumption? Do you have efficient waste management monitoring that enables you to check how much glass, metal, plastic and paper going to landfill each month?  Waste contractors, utility companies and a good building information management (BIM) system will help you to put together a useful picture of your building’s monthly performance. The 2006 Department of Environment & Heritage ‘Water Efficiency Guide for Office and Public Buildings’ showed that over a quarter of water use in office buildings was simply leakage – leaking cisterns, taps and pipes. A proper BIM system can help to monitor and manage such situations, and pinpoint areas of leakage, waste or inefficiency.

The new generation of systems will also examine the carbon implications of transport – such as your fleet and air transport.  Together with an assessment of your energy and water usage, materials management, facility managers can begin to build up an accurate picture of a building’s footprint.

Using such building systems will allow us to examine our picture of the building’s performance in detail and with greater accuracy, and coupled with better procurement guides and cradle-to-cradle thinking, we can look at the lifetime of the products and materials we buy in order to understand the environmental, social and economic impact of each decision. 

So, what’s the next step we can ALL take towards leaner, greener buildings? 

Well, the first step must be towards greater understanding of our options and greater responsibility for our decision-making. Those of us who will be managing our facilities should become more involved in their fit-outs.

I predict a paradigm shift in the way we look at the lifecycle of our building materials.  In the future, we’ll see facility managers involved in negotiating lease agreements with suppliers for not only furniture, but fittings as well.  This will involve leasing carpet, blinds or light fittings from a supplier for just a set time period, before they are removed at the end of their working life to be turned back into new resources once more.

In such an environment, we’ll see manufacturers and suppliers maintain responsibility for their products throughout their lifecycle, and purchasers make buying decisions based on what’s right not just today and tomorrow, but well into the future. Now THAT’S true sustainability.