The Cost Comparison- Sustainable vs Traditional Buildings

PintGuzzler

Hi All,

I am currently studying Quantity Surveying and I am in my final year :eek:

I am currently doing my dissertation, entitled the cost comparison- sustainable buildings vs Traditional buildings in which I hope to assess the economics of using sustainable technologies rather than traditional ones and determining are they worth it, using a life cycle costing of 20 years.

Does anyone know of any useful resources and databases regarding the above topic?

If so, it would be much appreciated if you could share them with me

Cheers,
PintGuzzler

Mellor

tbh, I think you've chosen a bad topic.
Firstly, the lifespan could be argued to be longer than 20 years for sustainable/PH dwellings.
Secondly, the ethos behind sustainable design, lower energy costs etc is not related to the cost, but the carbon emissions. The study may show that it takes Xyears to pay back etc, but who cares, the point of lower energy bills isn't to save money.

Just my 2c

may2001

I would respectfully disagree with the second poster, as I think that the topic you have chosen is very apt and topical. From the title, I would think that you are not promoting one technology over the other, but merely trying to carry out a fair comparison between two technologies. This area of sustainability has become increasingly important in recent times and probably will remain so for some time. As this issue becomes more main stream with Local Authorities, Govt Departments and commercial entities examining its potential, a QS with expertise in this area will be much more in demand.

However, I do think that you need to have somewhat more precision in your title. Both terms "sustainable buildings" and "traditional buildings" are very broad terms and you may need to constrict the area of study somewhat.

In the time available, you probably will only be able to study 1 type of building:

- housing
- schools
- offices
- retail units
- etc.

Sustainable could be restricted to:

- Passive
- BER A rated
- straw bale
- mud cob
- etc.

Traditional could be confined to:

- block built
- timber frame
- etc.

I cannot offer any advice on sources of general information but a search in your library facility for terms like "passive house", "mud cob" etc. should throw up some possibilities. The RICS and CIOB websites are also an excellent resource in this respect also. The CIOB maintain that their library is one of the biggest construction libraries in the UK and as a student member you would be entitled to get material on loan.

You could make a case study by costing a typical house in "traditional" construction, examining the differences required for passive construction, including the site implications of re-orientation etc and then trying to establish the costs associated with the changes. I'm sure that firms involved in passive house construction will be very helpful in this respect.

The best of luck with your adventure into the world of sustainability and please do share with us here your conclusions and even the problems that you encounter.

Victor

Sustainability isn't just about using "green" or "new" technologies. There are lots of factors that can affect the financial and environmental sustainability of a project. There is a hierarchy in the efficiency of construction that somewhat mimics efficiency of use:

Most efficient

---

Least efficient
Apartments, terraced duplexes, 3-4 story terraced houses, 1-2 terraced houses, semi-detached houses, detached houses, bungalows

Then there is layout and building shape, shared use of services (electrical, comms, water, drainage, gas, lifts and stair cores, post, service roads, security).

Land use - its generally better to build near an urban centre than in a suburban or rural location - more efficient, especially for transport, utilities and services.

Mellor wrote: »

tbh, I think you've chosen a bad topic.
Firstly, the lifespan could be argued to be longer than 20 years for sustainable/PH dwellings.
Secondly, the ethos behind sustainable design, lower energy costs etc is not related to the cost, but the carbon emissions.

There are various models for the costing of C02 emissions

The study may show that it takes Xyears to pay back etc, but who cares, the point of lower energy bills isn't to save money.

Well, financial sustainability is one factor in sustainability and perhaps the most relevant to a QS.

Poor Uncle Tom

Good design is every bit as important, if not more so, than the actual method of construction, in my opinion. Taking into account the needs of the occupants of a building as well as the needs of the site and making use of the natural elements in orientation and positioning are as much contributing factors in the overall design as incorporating modern high efficient technologies.

sydthebeat

im a bit betwixt with the topic

ok, i understand that you are studying QS and that costs is obviously your main focus, but i think the premise of the topic is incorrect. 'Traditional' can mean the build type ie cavity wall, or it can mean the build ethos ie throw it up for as least expensive as possible. sustainable can mean "with as little impact on the environment as possible" or it can mean "lowest possible use of energy". The common concept of a green building generally means using as much recycled or natural (non-processed) materials as possible in the build, and not really about how to minimise energy usage. Whereas passive houses aim for very low energy usage, but do not focus at all on the energy usage into getting the build to site and finished. You could say that green buildings front-load their energy and co2 savings, whereas passive houses focus more on savings over the life time of the building.
green buildings are highly sustainable, and generally cost efficient at build stage, by definition by may not be low energy in use. Passive houses are also sustainable by definition, but tend to be more expensive at build stage.

sustainable v traditional instantly indicates that the two are separate and distinct, which isnt the case. The vernacular of 100 years ago were probably the most sustainable buildings ever built here.

the very first thing you need to do is either clearly define exactly your definition of 'traditional' and 'sustainable' within quanitive factors; or focus your topic onto much more specific methods of construction ie cavity wall under 2008 part l regs versus passive standard Timber frame builds.

if you dont focus and clearly define your topic you will find yourself brushing across general factors instead of getting into the bones of the subject.

as PUT has stated, design is the one factor which is free (in the sense that bad design can cost as much as good design) and therefore possibly the biggest factor in the energy usage of a building.

My suggestion:
choose a common plan, say a typical 2000 sq ft 4 bed detached rural dwelling. Cost it out at both 2008 regs cavity wall versus passive standard timber frame (or vice versa if you wish). then project running costs forward 50 years... definitely not 20!!! thats not considered an acceptable life span for a dwelling. draw your conclusions from the results.

Mellor

may2001 wrote: »

I would respectfully disagree with the second poster, as I think that the topic you have chosen is very apt and topical.

I never said it was topical, I said they the two area are directly related.

Victor wrote: »

Sustainability isn't just about using "green" or "new" technologies. There are lots of factors that can affect the financial and environmental sustainability of a project. There is a hierarchy in the efficiency of construction that somewhat mimics efficiency of use:


There are various models for the costing of C02 emissions

The "cost" isn't an issue. People building zero carbon houses aren't doing so to have cheap bills.
I admitt i'd be interested to see the final figures, sustainable verses traditional. But that's all it would be the answer. I don't think there is much positive discussion that you could have in between.

may2001

Mellor wrote: »

The "cost" isn't an issue. People building zero carbon houses aren't doing so to have cheap bills.
I admitt i'd be interested to see the final figures, sustainable verses traditional. But that's all it would be the answer. I don't think there is much positive discussion that you could have in between.

I'm afraid that we will have to agree to disagree. Cost may not be an issue for a well heeled client who wants a zero carbon building, but as we edge towards regulations forcing everyone in building to provide zero carbon buildings then the additional costs will become an issue for all sorts of people:

- developers in arriving at prices for housing
- contractors / sub-contractors in caculating the extra charges involved
- Local Authorities and Govt depts who are having to make a case to the Dept of Finance for extra funding because of the additional costs
etc. etc.
- house buyers who will have to find the extra money

imitation

I think you could probably write a paper on what is actually sustainable and what isn't. Just recently I saw that article on eddie hobbs "sustainable" extension. There is nothing sustainable about 6000 sqft of house for a single family. In my books sustainable is something that can be kept up for the majority of the population, in my books this would be a small enough dwelling with renewable materials. I also wonder if the materials, amount of labour and cost required for a passive house make it truely sustainable.

Mellor

may2001 wrote: »

I'm afraid that we will have to agree to disagree. Cost may not be an issue for a well heeled client who wants a zero carbon building, but as we edge towards regulations forcing everyone in building to provide zero carbon buildings then the additional costs will become an issue for all sorts of people:

- developers in arriving at prices for housing
- contractors / sub-contractors in caculating the extra charges involved
- Local Authorities and Govt depts who are having to make a case to the Dept of Finance for extra funding because of the additional costs
etc. etc.
- house buyers who will have to find the extra money

that's true, but how is that relevant. If regs increase, then who good is comparing with "traditional", if traditional no longer complies.
The people who did the min before, will still do the min.

PintGuzzler

Hi All,

I have been up the walls doing projects on other modules of my course and I have finally returned to working on my dissertation.

I have taken in to account all of which ye have said and I am very pleased with your prompt responses.

My topic is not set in stone as being sustainable vs traditional buildings and I have the option of tweeking it to suit.

Consequently, I was thinking of carrying out a case study on standard timber frame construction as compared to passive low energy building techniques and technolgies. I was thinking of doing the case study on two domestic dwellings of around 2500sq/ft and assessing the added cost implications of incorporating passive measures in to the design.

Please feel free to comment on the route I wish to take for this dissertation.

It would be much appreciated.