Originally published in the Front Range Voluntaryist, Issue #8, October 2017
By Nick Weber
A new initiative in Denver, CO has edged out the signature requirements and is set to go on the ballot to determine whether or not the government is to forcibly implement green roof criteria for certain building types.
The proposed initiative would require a certain percentage of the roof area of new construction buildings to contain green roof components. Additionally, there are upgrade triggers for existing buildings under certain circumstances. The amount of green roof required is to be based on the gross square footage of the building: twenty percent for buildings between 25,000 and 50,000 square feet and up to sixty percent for buildings 200,000 square feet and larger. As with all things building code related there are numerous tradeoffs, exceptions, exemptions and varying requirements for different building types. For instance, building owners could opt to install solar panels to offset part of the green roof requirements, multi-family residential buildings would be exempt if the building has four stories or less and there are different requirements for industrial buildings versus commercial buildings. The full text of the proposed initiative can be found here. [editor’s note: the proposed initiative website is no longer available, the verbiage from the ballot can be found here] The initiative would trigger existing buildings to be brought up to code if an addition increases the size to 25,000 square feet or more and green roof requirements would also be required if a roof replacement project is undertaken.
Conceptually, there is nothing new about green roofs, they have been around for a long time and are prevalent in all parts of the world, but what is striking is the attempt to impose a costly design decision upon an owner via government enforcement; a design decision that entails significant financial investment far and above the obvious raw costs of design and construction.
Let’s look at a few of big picture items from the initiative that should immediately jump out to you as being problematic: residential exclusions, roof replacements/additions and solar panel tradeoffs.
First off, it is interesting that the initiative specifically excludes multi-family buildings of four stories or less. Investors could very likely only build fours stories or less, which would inevitably drive up housing prices due to decreased availability, especially in a city that is seeing continual housing cost increases. The other alternative is that investors will vacate the city limit in search of property with less stringent requirements, leaving land underdeveloped and underutilized, presenting another lack of housing.
Secondly, the requirement regarding building additions and roof replacements are problematic on several fronts. There are many existing buildings that would meet the 25,000 square foot threshold in Denver proper, many of which are the older warehouse variety. Renovation of those buildings is a trendy and profitable endeavour for many new and existing companies. But these older structures would require significant upgrades to bring them up to code to accommodate a green roof. Growth of the “renovate-and-reuse” types of neighborhoods will be stifled as owners and investors seek out cheaper options in other jurisdictions. This green roof flight will lead to existing buildings that will never be upgraded and will ultimately lead to deteriorating buildings and neighborhoods. Additionally, money spent on green roof upgrades is money not invested back into the company or other ventures. If the returns on investing in a green roof are readily achievable, which they very well could be, building owners and investors will be the first to jump on it, as the life-cycle savings on heating and cooling costs could free up additional capital for investing. These types of business decisions are best left in the hands of business owners, not government. The logical next step is for building owners to pursue buildings outside the city limit rather than deal with the cost-prohibitive upgrades necessary to bring the building up to code.
Finally, the option for installing solar panels as an offset to green roof requirements brings up some concerns. Similar to the arguments presented above, if the life cycle costs make sense, this would be a no-brainer for building owners. One item to consider is who actually owns the panels? Often times, the public-private agreements that are commonplace with solar panel installations present unfortunate problems. For instance, in the aftermath of hurricane Irma in Florida, numerous buildings had solar panels that remained intact and could have provided much needed electricity in times of crisis. Unfortunately, the State code required that the panels be connected to the local grid, and once the grid was damaged in the storm, they were left literally sitting in the dark. Of course, this is an extreme example, but this is indicative of the problems associated when one does not own the building improvements out-right. Additionally, if we are talking about being green, advocates need to address the reality of solar panels in a life-cycle analysis manner. What happens to the panels when they fail or are needing to be replaced? What is the true reality of the extraction process of the panel materials? Is there really a trade off with the claimed positive effects of green roof installation, when taken all in, in relation to the impacts of the extraction, creation, installation and disposal of solar panels?
The initiative writers claim that there will be routine inspections to ensure upkeep and compliance (paid for by of you me, of course) through building department fees – don’t call it a tax – which will be passed onto consumers. My guess is that a whole new department will need to be created and funded and an already understaffed and disgruntled corps of inspectors would love nothing more than to waltz onto your property, write up non-compliance forms and levy fines because, well, that’s what the law says!
Now let’s turn to two other relatively unseen aspects of implementing green roof requirements that need to be addressed: building maintenance and insurance.
Go find yourself any building that has been in operation for twenty years and have a sit down with the facilities manager and ask him what kind of light bulb goes in that fancy wall sconce behind the receptionist’s desk? Ask him what kind of ceiling tile matches the damaged tile in the corner of the break room? If it is difficult to match a ceiling tile out light bulb, how are we expecting the green roof to be maintained? Ask him for a set of drawings for the facility. Odds are, there won’t be any reliable documentation and any repairs are done in a rather patchwork manner. My point is, think about the reality of the green roof, if it requires specialists to design and install it, over the life of the building what is the reality of maintaining it on a day to day basis? This is not a knock on building managers as it is a huge undertaking and is certainly an unenviable task, but an absolutely necessary and often overlooked one, to keep any building up and running on a daily basis.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the costs regarding insurance must be addressed, for they are potentially the most costly and least understood. First, there will be additional insurance costs for design and construction professionals. Second, litigation costs specific to the design and construction defects and the failure of the actual green roof components themselves will increase insurance costs. Thirdly, there will be an increase in building insurance associated with the replacement of the green roof as a result of a fire, natural disaster or some other unforeseen circumstance. Most insurance policies exclude landscaping, so additional provisions must be made to accommodate the green roof. Furthermore, the cost to replace the green roof is likely to cost more than the original installation. How do the terms of the replacement costs factor into the life cycle cost of the building? To continue on, yes, there is more: green roofs certainly can provide heating, cooling and stormwater management benefits. Should the worst happen, will your insurance cover the cost to pay the additional heating and cooling bills while the green roof is revegetated? And to go off into the deep end, courtesy the already existing building and energy codes, the building was permitted with certain criteria regarding stormwater mitigation procedures. These requirements are fulfilled by the green roof installation; now that the green roof is no longer functioning, you can expect to receive a noncompliance notice while the roof is being revegetated. Do you see the vortex of insanity that we have gone down?
The bottom line here is that if a building owner wants to voluntarily take this on, by all means, have at it. There certainly are advantages to green roofs and it could definitely attract people who value that as an addition to the building. Green roofs can help mitigate stormwater runoff, provide roof insulation, help offset heat-island effects, provide for filtering of pollutants, provide sound insulation, and can protect the membrane roof from harmful UV-rays. There is nothing currently stopping an owner from installing a green roof, so what could be the hold up? Of course, these types of “innovations” are always presented as settled science, it always works well and the detailing and products have all been tested and certified. There is some truth to that, but we must take into consideration the impacts of the implementation holistically; all aspects seen and unseen, not just the feel good headline from the local news story.
Considering that we have had little more than four inches of rain over the last two months and we live in a city that averages around 250 days of sun per year, this hardly seems prudent as a mandatory measure. It is worth mentioning that green roofs can be designed for specific climates and can include drought tolerant species. It is also worth mentioning those pesky watering restrictions that are commonplace in this neck of the woods. In the long run, the costs associated with green roof requirements will be passed onto the consumer, there is no doubt about that. Your feel good green roof requirement is nothing more than a tax.
Looking out across my neighborhood, most can’t even manage to keep their small patch of grass in the front yard green and weed free year-round (mine is perfect, right?). The front yard is about as simple as it gets: overwater it first thing in the morning and let it roast in the southern exposure sun all day long, right? ‘Merica. But beyond the initiative bashing, let me present a possible voluntary solution: the best chance for this type of roof to gain popularity and acceptance is to have it come about through the residential world, where the benefits could be seen and experienced at a more human scale. The initiative advocates should take their ideas to new house developers, convince them of all the benefits of the installation, create a whole development, show the people how this could work, prove the idea, turn a profit, and show the heating/cooling savings. The biggest drawback to this idea is that we have all driven around our own neighborhoods and cities, decrepit buildings abound, commercial and residential. It’s always a great idea when someone else is paying for the installation and maintenance, what we fail to see is that we ultimately pay for it and using government to forcibly implement your idea onto an unassuming populace is disingenuous, to put it mildly. One last thing, kudos to the initiative sponsors for getting this onto the ballot in an off-year election cycle, with far lower than usual turnout expected, the odds of passage have certainly increased, hooray democracy?
