Apparently the University of British Columbia is claiming that their new Center for Interactive Research on Sustainability will be the greenest building in North America....but many critics are skeptical. The building will be a net energy producer and upon its completion in 2011, "The building, which will act as a “living lab” for sustainable building technologies, will keep logs of everything that goes on inside–lighting, cooling, heating, occupancy, and so on. UBC’s center will also store and use rainwater and stormwater, completely eliminating the building’s reliance on municipal water systems. And the on-site “Group Decision Environment Theatre” will supposedly “engage participants, including the public, in interactive simulations of building performance and use and alternative sustainability scenarios for the region” using large-scale video and audio displays."

What do you think? To read more or join the discussion, check out: http://www.inhabitat.com/2010/02/10/ubc-claims-to-build
-greenest-building-in-north-america/

I really like everything that this building offers: energy monitoring, rainwater catchment, and building public awareness. I hope that most new buildings will emulate this model when others design sustainable systems.

On the other hand, I wonder how much energy would be used to build this building and to tear this building down. Both construction and demolition can be extremely energy exhaustive, especially with buildings that are more complicated or unique. I imagine a future of buildings made of big legos, where people can reuse building materials almost entirely, and demolition causes minimal noise, air, or energy pollution. Obviously, the "lego" idea would need a little work to make it practical, but I hope you see what I'm saying.

In my opinion, one of the greenest buildings in the world is the yurt. The NYT had a great article about a family that permanently lives in a yurt, even with a baby. It's basically a fortified tent that the couple can set up in 8 hours, and can withstand the harsh Alaskan wilderness. The yurt preserves nature while allows the user to live alongside it with minimal impact.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/garden/31yurt.html

Interesting but for commercial building adoption the payback needs to be very short to gain acceptance. What most do not realize is that if you do in correctly you could retrofi an existing building to be carbon neutral in about a 4-6 year return but even then that is not an easy sell...

sorry but a yurt does not qualify for being a commercial building

I can clarify my comment for you. I believe that a yurt is a very sustainable building, whether or not it actually conforms to modern commercial building codes. I Just think it's a shame that commercial buildings are expected to be in a certain form that is inherently resource-intensive.

Of course, I do applaud the direction that commercial buildings are heading in. I certainly hope that green buildings become more widely and easily accepted as energy prices rise and public interest in sustainability becomes more stable. In addition, I would love to see this pattern continue on, creating even more innovative and sustainable buildings in the future.

Actually the technology is already available to make a true commercial building completely carbon neutral in about a 5-7 year ROI. If you optimize the consumption of the building to world class metrics as we have done which is normally a short 2 year ROI and then combine a tailored type of generation/sustainable technologies that best meet the specific building situation and location then it is possible to become completely carbon neutral but in today's climate very few companies want to even go beyond a two year return.