According to the EPA, the Living Building Challenge is "A certification system that advocates for transformation in the design, construction, and operation of buildings. In addition to encouraging improved environmental and health performance, it supports the building of structures that are restorative, regenerative, and an integral component of the local ecology and culture."
The standard promotes "good" in building through 3 main tenets: 1) connecting inhabitants with nature and community, 2) resource and energy self-sufficient, and 3) leave a positive impact on their surroundings. It requires its adherents to follow through on all 20 of its provisions.
image via Living-Future.org
As with any rating system, there are pros and cons:
Pros of the Living Building Challenge system:
- Requires actual demonstration of results over a 12 month period. That is great because there is no assumptions or anticipated results - practitioners have to show performance for a substantial period of time. Ensures that energy consumption and footprint of the building is actually low and stays low.
- Holistic approach, which requires all stakeholders to examine the impact of a project during the entirety of its life and encourages transparency.
- Unlike LEED, the system is very hard to "game", because requires adherence to all twenty standards outlined by the system, rather than general areas of focus.
- It does not dictate a specific equilibrium of water, energy or resource usage. This enables designers a little bit more flexibility in selecting how to optimize resources and the building's environment.
- Investment into LBC buildings has been shown to have higher returns.
Cons of the Living Building Challenge system:
- Widespread adoption might be difficult, especially in areas with wide variety of weathers and climates. Because of the high stakes, practitioners are more likely to go after the "quick wins".
- Not as well-known as LEED certification or other systems. The growing number of standards is also a problem as new systems are introduced and lead architects may become overwhelmed as to what to follow.
- Adoption may be further hindered by the fact that LBC aims for commercial buildings to be completely transparent and reveal a lot of information that commercial buildings A) may or may not have and B) may not want to reveal.
- Large upfront investments and ongoing operational and maintenance costs are often required to ensure continued success of LBC buildings (and adherence to the code).
- It may not be feasible to incorporate these ideas into every project, as it's simply too much for many projects, even large commercial buildings. So a reality of all buildings being this way someday is very doubtful.
The verdict:
Overall, this system is best suited for very modern buildings that are built completely from scratch. It would be very hard and potentially cost prohibitive to apply this system to improve existing structures. New corporations, or designers working on big-name projects are most likely best suited for this type -- at least at first. If this catches on, eventually it could spread and the lessons from the big project can be taken and applied to smaller and smaller projects, potentially spreading the trend and transforming what "architecture" means and looks like today.Sources:
https://www.bdcnetwork.com/blog/living-building-vs-leed-platinum-comparing-first-costs-and-savings https://sites.williams.edu/kellogg/articles/leed-vs-lbc/ https://www.metropolismag.com/architecture/sustainable-architecture-design-standards/ https://www.architectmagazine.com/technology/finding-hope-after-the-death-of-sustainability_o http://www.dlrgroup.com/media/729842/lbc_master_final_cc.pdf https://living-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Living-Building-Challenge-Framework-for-Affordable-Housing.pdf http://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB21720.pdf
