A side entry corridor of the new Biosciences Building at Central Michigan University seconds as a study space for students, made attractive by various biophilic elements, such as vast natural light and a living wall.
Thanks to the emergence of the U.S. Green Building Council, founded in 1993, we’ve witnessed an incredibly fast transformation of building design and construction—probably the most rapid market transformation since the industrial revolution. Sweeping innovations in materials science, systems efficiencies, and technology have fueled the changes. Designers and builders have adapted their processes and delivery models—but the goal post has consistently and rapidly moved further downfield.
The most prescient end zone in the marketplace lexicon is the “zero-net-energy” building. A natural evolution of closing the “efficiency gap,” it takes the end game to its natural destination: a building that produces as much energy annually as it consumes.
However, just as quickly as this goal post emerged in the lexicon, it was viewed as woefully insufficient—which isn’t necessarily out of the norm in the sustainability movement. Net-positive, Living Buildings, and Well Buildings have already stepped in to argue that zero-net is simply not enough. Keeping up? Good.
While these new benchmarks nobly look to flip the efficiency gap on its head, pushing building performance past the apex of zero-net and into areas of building health, human wellbeing, and regeneration, they miss the fundamental convergence of where our cultural, technological, and sociological arcs are trending: which is toward a future where buildings and infrastructure are, and must be, 100 percent utilized and 100 percent responsive.