The Cheapest Building Isn’t Always the Least Expensive

Imagine a community is considering two options for a new public building.

What does a municipal building really cost?

One costs $1 million to construct.

Another costs $1.08 million.

At first glance, the choice seems obvious. Why spend an extra $80,000?

But construction is only the beginning of the story.

That building may serve the community for 40, 50 or even 75 years. During that time, residents will continue paying for it through heating, electricity, water, maintenance, repairs, equipment replacement and eventually major renewal.

Suddenly, the cheapest building on opening day may not be the least expensive building at all.

Understanding the life-cycle cost of municipal buildings means looking beyond construction and considering what residents will pay throughout the building’s useful life.

This is life-cycle thinking.

Instead of asking only:

“How much will it cost to build?”

we also ask:

“What will it cost to own?”

That means considering the entire life of the building:

Design → Construction → Operation → Maintenance → Repair → Replacement → Adaptation → End of Life

A slightly larger investment during design and construction can sometimes reduce costs for decades.

A better building envelope can reduce heating and cooling requirements.

Efficient mechanical systems can lower energy consumption.

Water-efficient fixtures can reduce both water use and operating costs.

Durable materials may need replacement less frequently.

Thoughtful design can make a building easier to maintain.

And flexible spaces can allow a building to adapt as community needs change rather than requiring expensive renovations—or premature replacement.

This is where LEED becomes particularly interesting.

LEED — Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design — is often described as a green-building certification system.

But I think there is a more useful way for communities to look at it.

LEED provides a framework that encourages us to consider many of these consequences before they become locked into the building.

It asks us to think about energy, water, materials, site selection, transportation, indoor environmental quality and long-term building performance while we still have the greatest opportunity to influence them.

That isn’t simply environmental thinking.

It is risk management.

None of us knows exactly what electricity, natural gas or water will cost 30 years from now.

We don’t know precisely how community needs will change.

We do know that a building designed today could still be serving residents in 2076.

Efficiency reduces our exposure to future energy and water costs.

Durability reduces our exposure to maintenance and replacement costs.

Adaptability reduces the risk that today’s building becomes unsuitable for tomorrow’s community.

And good design can reduce all three.

The lowest price and the lowest cost are not necessarily the same thing.

That’s an important distinction whenever public money is being invested.

The goal shouldn’t simply be to build something as cheaply as possible.

The goal should be to create an asset that delivers good value to the community throughout its useful life.

Because ultimately, residents don’t buy a municipal building only once.

We keep paying for the decisions made when it was designed for decades afterward.

And that brings me back to one of the ideas at the heart of this LEED series:

Every decision made during design creates a consequence that someone will live with for the next fifty years.

Thinking about those consequences before we build isn’t an added cost.

Links

• LEED Sustainable Sites https://www.sustainablelife.biz/leed-sustainable-sites-part-2-a-tour-through-the-six-credits/
• Sustainable Site Planning https://www.sustainablelife.biz/leed-sustainable-site-planning/
• Canadian Green Building Council https://www.cagbc.org/

It’s part of building wisely.