Shahnaz Jaffari, AIA Associate, LEED AP© PhD Candidate, University of Colorado Boulder Director of Sustainability, Rocky Mountain Masonry Institute

Report to:

13750 Sunrise Valley Drive Herndon, VA 20171-4662 877.343.6268 foundation@ncma.org

Building Green Block by Block March 2010

Photo Courtesy of: Cooperthwaite Photography

Rocky Mountain Masonry Institute 686 Mariposa Street Denver, CO 80204

303-893-3838 www.rmmi.org

Concrete Masonry in Green Buildings: A Study on Perspectives of Award winning Architects

2

Acknowledgements

This work would not have been possible without the support and contribution of National

Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA) Foundation, and The Rocky Mountain Masonry

Institute (RMMI). I would like to thank Erik Absalon of Basalite Concrete Products and

Chairman of RMMI, for putting forward the proposal and Robert Thomas, President of NCMA,

for his help in developing survey questions and for sharing his knowledge and expertise with me.

David Minor of US Mix has helped orchestrate the survey efforts and his volunteer work is

appreciated. Thanks to Diane Travis of RMMI, and Mike Schuller of Atkinson-Noland and

associates, for their technical edit. My gratitude also goes to Nancy Partridge of RMMI who

edited the text for fluency and grammar. Tina Alberico was my partner in gathering the data

and compiling them for this study and her extra effort is acknowledged. In addition I would like

to offer my gratitude on behalf of NCMA and RMMI to our survey participants for their share in

this study.

Shahnaz Jaffari

3

Executive Summary Many studies have been based on energy performance of completed green projects. Other

research has been done on their cost, market value, rate of investment, occupant satisfaction and

the like. There is however a lack of research on building materials and their performance in

these projects. Studies should be done on how existing green measures affect material choice in

new construction, and how these selection criteria have helped achieve green building objectives.

In this Study we interviewed 24 award-winning architects and sustainable building experts to ask

them why they chose to build with concrete masonry. The 30 projects of this survey have

received 17 LEED certifications, 18 AIA awards, 9 masonry awards, 7 energy awards, and 36

other awards. Six of the projects were chosen as one of the top ten green projects of the year by

the AIA Committee on the Environment (COTE).

The interviews showed that architects picked concrete masonry for its inherent green attributes.

Furthermore, the lack of LEED credits for some of its green qualities did not stop design teams

from choosing concrete block. Eighty-seven percent of the architects we interviewed said they

chose to use concrete masonry units (CMU) for its durability, even though there is no LEED

point associated with durability in the United States. Sixty-five percent of the architects chose to

use concrete block because of its beauty and minimal maintenance, and fifty five percent of them

chose it for its reduced cost. This reveals that even though achieving LEED points is important

for the designers, they used their best judgment in selecting the material for its inherent, though

unrecognized green qualities. Johnny Birkinbine, AIA, from Line and Space, LLC. in Arizona

explained his selection of concrete masonry saying:

“In Phoenix, concrete masonry is relatively inexpensive and readily available. Masonry’s low transportation costs, intrinsic quality of thermal mass, natural fire-resistance, long life, flexibility, and low maintenance costs help contribute to environmentally sensitive building.”

LEED gives concrete masonry points for being a regional material that has minimal waste. If

you call for block with recycled content, you can get credit for it. If you replace turf with

4

concrete pavers, you can get credit for saving water. On the whole, however, the LEED system

ignores many of the sustainable benefits of concrete block. The architects we interviewed said

that they value concrete block for its durability and long service life, its design flexibility and

good looks. They also gave concrete block high marks for its minimal maintenance, reduced

cost, low VOCs, impact resistance, fire resistance, noise reduction, and resource efficiency.

Figure 1 shows the percentage of interviewed experts who chose each of the green attributes of

concrete masonry in the design of their project.

Figure 1: Green attributes of concrete masonry as used in the design

5

While many experts have called LEED, and other green rating systems, a first step in the right

direction, a deeper vision is needed in their future revisions. Major concepts such as passive

heating and cooling, durability, resource efficiency and recyclability need to be incorporated into

green codes and standards.

Production efficiency of building materials is an important measure in reduction of resource

depletion, and yet it has been overlooked by green standards and rating systems. On the average

production efficiency is about 25% for steel, about 10% for Aluminum, and less than 1% for

copper. Steel production emits hydrochloric acid, manganese compounds, phenol, naphthalene

and benzene. Aluminum production also results in a toxic by-product called red mud at a rate of

300% of the product weight. Please refer to the section on resource efficiency on page 13 of this

study for more detailed information.

Design teams should note that when they choose a building material with 20% production

efficiency, five times resources need to be extracted from earth. Furthermore as environmental

stewards, they should encourage the use of building materials that do not yield toxic emissions or

by-products, do not help deforestation and do not leave irreversible footprints on our planet. A

survey of about 50 manufacturers of concrete masonry showed that on the average, more than

95% of the extracted material results in concrete block, segmental retaining walls, and concrete

pavers. The same survey revealed that production of concrete masonry does not yield any

toxins.

Those who want designers to utilize concrete masonry in Green buildings should support further

studies that can be used to educate green building advocates of the inherent green qualities of

concrete masonry. Among the studies to be performed could be thermal mass effects on energy

conservation, service life of concrete masonry buildings, load-bearing benefits of concrete

blocks, and its “green” performance relative to other building materials. These and other

environmental considerations will then help define material selection criteria for buildings that

will become our signature for the future generations.

6

Contents Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 2

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 3

Table of Figures .............................................................................................................................. 8

Material Selection for Building “Green” ...................................................................................... 11

Durability .................................................................................................................................. 11

Resource Efficiency .................................................................................................................. 13

At the job site ........................................................................................................................ 13

In Production ......................................................................................................................... 13

Deforestation ............................................................................................................................. 16

Health Hazards .......................................................................................................................... 17

Recycled content and Recyclability .......................................................................................... 18

Regional Material...................................................................................................................... 19

The Present Study ......................................................................................................................... 20

Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 21

Analysis......................................................................................................................................... 24

Question 1 ................................................................................................................................. 24

Question 2 ................................................................................................................................. 24

Question 3 ................................................................................................................................. 26

Question 4 ................................................................................................................................. 27

Question 5 ................................................................................................................................. 28

Question 6 ................................................................................................................................. 28

Question 7 ................................................................................................................................. 29

Question 8 ................................................................................................................................. 30

8a. Aesthetics (Beauty) ......................................................................................................... 30

8b. Durability ........................................................................................................................ 32

8c. Reduced Cost .................................................................................................................. 33

8d. Fire Resistance ................................................................................................................ 33

8e. Impact Resistance............................................................................................................ 34

8f. Acoustics (Sound Absorption)......................................................................................... 35

8g & 8h. Thermal Mass and Passive Design ........................................................................ 35

8i. Resource Efficiency ......................................................................................................... 36

7

8j. Recycled Content ............................................................................................................. 36

8k. Mold Resistance .............................................................................................................. 37

8l. Less Future Maintenance ................................................................................................. 37

8m. VOC Prevention (No Paint) ........................................................................................... 38

8n. Water Conservation in case of concrete pavers .............................................................. 38

8o. Waste Water Management with sand set concrete pavers .............................................. 39

8p. Structural ......................................................................................................................... 39

8q. Other ............................................................................................................................... 39

Question 9 ................................................................................................................................. 41

Question 10 ............................................................................................................................... 42

Question 11 ............................................................................................................................... 43

Question 12 ............................................................................................................................... 43

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 44

Work Sited .................................................................................................................................... 46

Appendix “A” ............................................................................................................................... 52

8

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Green attributes of concrete masonry as used in the design ........................................... 4

Figure 2: Bingham Copper Mine - Provo, UT .............................................................................. 14

Figure 3: Mining waste generated from Aluminum production .................................................. 15

Figure 4: Area of primary forests in the United States (in lower 48 states) ................................ 16

Figure 5: Sources of research and number of projects found ....................................................... 21

Figure 6: Time zones where concrete masonry projects in this survey were located .................. 22

Figure 7: Building types of the 31 surveyed projects .................................................................. 26

Figure 9: Concrete masonry placement in the selected projects .................................................. 27

Figure 8: Where in the project concrete masonry has been used ................................................. 27

Figure 10: Percentage of concrete masonry used in the surveyed green buildings ..................... 28

Figure 11: Green attributes of concrete masonry as used in the design ....................................... 29

Figure 12: LEED points earned by adding concrete masonry into calculation ........................... 41

Figure 13: Other green projects designed by the architects interviewed ..................................... 43

9

Acronyms

AIA American Institute of Architects AIA COTE American Institute of Architects, Committee on the Environment ASTM American Standards for Testing Materials CIR Credit Interpretation Rulings CM Concrete Masonry CMACN Concrete Masonry Association of California and Nevada CMU Concrete Masonry Unit COTE Committee on the Environment ICC International Code Council IEQ Indoor Environmental Quality IGCC International Green Construction Code LCA Life Cycle Assessment LCC Life Cycle Cost LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design LEED AP Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Accredited Professional NCMA National Concrete Masonry Association MII Mineral Information Institute RMMI Rocky Mountain Masonry Institute SRW Segmental Retaining Walls USGBC United States Green Building Council VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

10

Concrete Masonry in Green Buildings: A Study on Perspectives of Award winning Architects

During the past decade owners, developers, designers, and contractors have been faced with the

challenge of choosing the right building materials for their green projects. It has been hard to

prove or disprove industry claims on the newly developed or improved products called “green.”

While bamboo flooring can substitute for tile and stone floors, experts have wondered if that

choice is wise. Some have questioned the import of bamboo flooring from China while others

have wondered about its

performance and service life.

To make the choice of green

materials easier for stakeholders,

experiences need to be shared

across the building industry. In this

study 24 building experts who had

used concrete masonry in their

green projects were interviewed.

Survey results proved that design

teams chose concrete masonry for

its inherent green attributes, some

of which have not been recognized

by LEED and other rating systems.

The preferred qualities that have

been overlooked include durability

and long service life, aesthetics,

minimal maintenance, reduced cost,

thermal mass, impact resistance,

fire resistance, noise reduction, and

resource efficiency.

Johnny Birkinbine, Project Architect for Cesar Chavez Library in Phoenix, Arizona said:

“Predating LEED or “green” projects, our office was founded in 1978 based on the creation of environmentally sensitive architecture. We have used concrete masonry as a primary building material in nearly all our projects since the firm’s inception.”

Architect: Line and Space, LLC Website: www.lineandspace.com Photo Courtesy of: Bill Timmerman Awards and Certifications: Project anticipates LEED Silver Certification NCMA 2008 Project of the Year - Best LEED Valley Forward Association Crescordia Award for Environmental Excellence American Institute of Architects Committee on the Environment (AIA/COTE) Top Ten Green Projects of 2008

11

Material Selection for Building “Green”

The Green building movement has gained momentum within the past decade. Building industry

stakeholders are considering market-driven green strategies, and green codes and standards are

adopted by various jurisdictions at an unprecedented rate. New green guidelines, standards, and

codes are being developed using “lessons learned” in the application of Leadership in Energy

and Environmental Design (LEED) and other rating systems. United States Green Building

Council (USGBC) is trying to harmonize and synchronize its many rating products. In LEED

2009, credits are weighted according to their impact on the environment. The International Code

Council (ICC) has collaborated with American Institute of Architects (AIA) and American

Standards for Testing Materials (ASTM) to develop the first International Green Construction

Code (IGCC). Developers of green guidelines and rating systems are seeking a practical means

to apply Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and passive strategies in their criteria.

Committees developing new versions of green standards and codes have come to realize that

major concepts missing in earlier versions of rating systems need to be addressed. Many

architects who have designed green projects have called LEED a first step in the right direction

and have tried to go above and beyond the identified credits. They often refer to passive

strategies as the easiest and cheapest concepts in design and construction of buildings that have

been overlooked. Proper building orientation for example could save up to 30% in energy at no

additional cost. All it takes is some attention at the programming phase and the design stage.

Another effective passive strategy is to conserve energy with the use of mass walls and proper

detailing. A few other major concepts need to be added to material selection criteria for green

projects.

Durability Due to the short life of buildings in the United States more than a quarter of the existing

buildings in year 2000 are expected to be replaced by 2030.1 Almost half of the resources taken

from nature, including 25% of the wood harvest, are believed to be used in construction.2

1 EPA Life Cycle Construction Resource Guide- February 2008

Also a

2 http://www.flyashconcrete.in/fly_ash_concrete_sustainable/construction_industry.htm

12

With the use of about 50% concrete masonry walls, the Galleries at Turney has achieved LEED for Homes, Eco-Structures “Evergreen” award of 2008, Valley Forward Environmental Excellence Award of 2007, AIA Arizona Sustainable Award 2007, and Southwest Contractor, Best Private Green Project of 2007

Location: Phoenix, AZ Architects: Merz Project Website: www.merzproject.com Photo Courtesy of: Matt Winquist

total of about 40% of the municipal solid waste stream comes from demolition and construction

of new buildings.3 Put into numbers, waste

generated from construction of a new 2000 square

foot home is estimated at 8,000 lbs.4 And

demolition of a 2000 square foot home can

generate 127 tons (280,000 lbs) of debris.5

Would a longer design service life reduce these

and other environmental impacts of construction?

Why is a longer service life missing from the

equation of green building?

Some architects designing with LEED criteria

have had to use an “Innovation in Design” credit

for durability of masonry in their projects. There

is no doubt that longer lasting buildings will help

save virgin materials and reduce construction

waste. Some argue however, that buildings may

not be used for the same purpose over the course

of a century. While this is a valid point, architects

could consider functional flexibility in interior

building design to ensure future adaptive reuse.

Many beautiful old buildings today serve a

different purpose than their design intent more

than a hundred years ago. In fact, adaptive reuse

and historic preservation have not only saved buildings from demolition, they have preserved our

cultural heritage. Historic buildings in Europe and older cities in the United States take us back

through history and provide a connection to our ancestors. Some ancient sites in the Middle East

3http://www.williams.edu/resources/sustainability/student_projects/geos20608/unedited/DeMarchisSeeleyHouse.pdf 4 http://constructionwaste.sustainablesources.com/ 5 http://www.usgbccolorado.com/news-events/documents/LEEDMRCreditsspeech.pdf

13

substitute architecture, and stone reliefs for history books. In designing green buildings

architects should focus not only on the design service life of buildings but also on the historic

context of the site and the surrounding architecture.

Resource Efficiency In the existing green standards more emphasis has been placed on recycled content than

durability and resource efficiency. In defining environmental preferences it is more logical to

start with reducing consumption of virgin resources than recycling them after they have been

used. This can be achieved through two important methods.

At the job site Some building materials have inherent weaknesses contributing to job site generated waste.

Materials that are delivered in larger unit sizes, such as large sheets of drywall, often result in

unused portions when contractors size them to fit. Other products such as wood are unsuitable

for simple methods of reusing or recycling unused portions of delivered shipment. Yet other

materials require complex packaging in delivery that often ends up in landfill. Masonry however

comes in small modular units, using simple recyclable packaging, and generates the least amount

of waste.

In Production Production efficiency is another important method of saving resources. A report by the Mineral

Information Institute (MII) estimates that less than 25% iron results from 100% of iron ore that is

extracted from earth. The report notes: “It is estimated that the United States has 110 billion

tons of iron ore representing 27 billion tons of iron.” 6

Resource efficiency is less than 1% for copper production.7

6

For every 13 lbs of copper one ton

(2200 lbs) of ore is required, and the ore is buried under waste rock of up to three times in

weight. This overburden needs to be removed before the copper ore can be reached. The final

production efficiency- including the overburden waste- would therefore drop to less than 0.5%

for copper. In figure 1 you can see Bingham Canyon Mine in Utah. The scale of vehicles at the

http://www.mii.org/Minerals/photoiron.html 7 http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/330copper.html

14

bottom of the pit can give you a feeling of dimensions and the environmental impact of copper

production with such minimal resource efficiency.

Image courtesy of Dlpool, www.TravelPod.com

Figure 2: Bingham Copper Mine - Provo, UT8

In production of Aluminum the resource efficiency is about 10% and for every one ton of

aluminum up to 3 tons of toxic red mud can result.9

8 http://images.travelpod.com/users/dlpool/1.1245537247.bingham-copper-mine-provox-ut.jpg

Note figure 3 for graphical representation of

aluminum resource efficiency. Responsible use of resources calls for more emphasis on this area

and future green codes and standards can play a major role by giving resource efficiency its

proper consideration. In the map of figure 3 you can also see distances for aluminum to be

shipped from mines to production plants, and eventually to users. Concrete block is made up of

about 10% cement and 90% aggregates. Cement is about 60% resource efficient. The average

resource efficiency of aggregate extraction is about 80%. A survey of more than 50

manufacturers of concrete masonry showed that efficiency in manufacturing plants is more than

9 http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/mining_waste_generated_from_aluminium_production

15

95% for concrete masonry. This brings resource efficiency of concrete masonry units to 75%

which is many times that of metal products.

Designed by: Cécile Marin, Emmanuelle Bournay

Figure 3: Mining waste generated from Aluminum production

16

Deforestation A report by Resource Conservation

Alliance negates claims made by the

United States Timber Industry that

building with wood is an environmentally

sound choice:

“The U.S. timber products industry spends millions of dollars each year promoting the idea that building with wood is an environmentally sound choice. Their ads claim that there are more trees in America today than ever before. The subtle trap is that these statistics do not differentiate between young sapwood trees and high-quality heartwood, or between diverse natural forests and single-species tree farms. In the U.S. today, less than five percent of our original forest cover remains, and the clear cutting of old-growth forests continues.”10

A study released by University of

Michigan refers to figure 4 and states that

about 90% of the forests that existed in the

lower 48 states in the year 1600 have been

cleared away and what remains from the

old-growth forest in these states, and

Alaska are on public land. It also notes

that about 80% of the forestland in the

Pacific Northwest “is slated for logging.”

11

10 http://www.woodconsumption.org/products/annedminster.html

11 http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/deforest/deforest.html

Figure 4: Area of primary forests in the United States (in lower 48 states)

17

Health Hazards

Many kinds of toxins result from mining, production, and installation of building products, while

some materials off-gas toxins through their entire life. In the past decade there has been more

awareness about the effects of these substances on human health. Figure 3, has been released by

GRID-Arendal which is an official United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) collaborating

centre. You can see in that figure, the rate of production of a toxic by-product called the red-

mud which results from aluminum production. This alkaline mud was traditionally pumped into

mined-out ore bodies and resulted in “red mud lakes.” In order to avoid contamination of

underground aquifer, later, sealed ponds have been constructed and filled with red mud. These

ponds never dry out and have to be abandoned in nature.12 In Viet Nam extensive farming land

has been bulldozed to make room for this toxic by-product of aluminum manufacturing. 13

Manufacture of other materials such as vinyl siding results in other types of toxins. A study by

Dovetail Partners, Inc. analyses the latest research done on vinyl siding and criticizes it for

calling the product “maintenance free.” The report notes that vinyl production process emits

many harmful chemicals:

“Health-related concerns involving vinyl products are many and include risk potential at every point in product life from manufacturing to disposal. Chemicals used or emitted in the process of manufacturing include diethylhexyl phthalate, dioxin, lead, cadmium, ethylene dichloride, and vinyl chloride monomer. All of these chemicals are classed as hazardous or extremely hazardous to human health and to the environment in general. Health issues following manufacture relate to persistence of emissions in the environment, emissions from PVC in incineration or in building fires, and continued emissions throughout the life of the product.”14

Similar arguments are held for production of steel products. Environmental Defense in Canada

reports on their website of Toxic Nation: “In the process of producing steel, facilities emit air

pollutants such as hydrochloric acid, manganese compounds, phenol, naphthalene and benzene,

as well as the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.”15

12 http://www1.american.edu/TED/bauxite.htm 13 http://nmr360.com/?p=1163 14 http://www.dovetailinc.org/files/DovetailVinyl1007ku.pdf 15 http://www.environmentaldefence.ca/toxicnation/pollutionInYou/HowYouExposed.htm

18

Referring back to figure 2 of Bingham Copper Mine it is worth noting a statement by Mines and

Communities in their report of 2003: “Rio Tinto once again was the country's biggest single

toxic culprit - due to its huge Bingham Canyon mine in Utah.”16 Besides toxic metal

compounds emitted from ore handling, production process of copper can result in “emissions of

eleven toxic air pollutants, compounds containing antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,

chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium.”17

With the brief discussion of health hazards related to mining and production of building

materials it seems logical for new green codes and standards to emphasize minimizing these

effects. Designers need to gain knowledge on the production process of building materials and

their effects on human health. More importantly they should encourage the use of building

material such as concrete masonry that does not yield any toxic by-products in manufacturing.

Recycled content and Recyclability Recycled content has been one the most emphasized concepts in the existing rating systems. It is

an important tool to utilize in controlling resource depletion by reusing materials as long as

possible. One needs to be cautious, however, to look at the whole picture with a deeper vision.

In recycling, the embodied energy of recycled materials from collection, transportation, and

remanufacturing needs to be accounted for. Remanufacturing of some building materials may be

more energy intensive than manufacture of some other materials in their initial production. Also

collecting waste and transferring it to recycling plants consumes energy. Some steel waste for

example, is transported to China for recycling, and the reproduced material is transported back to

the United States. In this process energy consumption and air pollution resulting from

transportation and waste collection should be calculated and added to the equation.

Another important consideration is that recycling downgrades most materials. Downgrading,

also known as down-cycling, is referred to cases when the recycled material is lower in quality

than the virgin one. Downgrading can limit recycling to the extent that some products can only

be recycled once or twice before the product is not further recyclable. Building products that can 16 http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=472 17 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/copper/copperfs.pdf

19

be indefinitely recycled should therefore be classified as “greener” material. Concrete blocks,

segmental retaining walls, and concrete pavers can be crushed and used as aggregates in the

production of new concrete masonry forever. Besides recycled content for aggregates,

alternative cementatious material can be substituted for cement. Even though the percentage of

cement in concrete block is at a minimal rate of about 10%, a part of this cement can be

substituted by fly ash or slag. There is no downgrading effect in recycling concrete masonry

which means that it is indefinitely recyclable.

Regional Material How important is it to extract, and manufacture products locally? Between the years of 1991 and

1994 we imported about 21% of our iron and steel, 18% of iron ore, 30% of gypsum, 25% of

aluminum, and 12% of our wood and wood products.18

Import of building materials has adverse

affects on our economy, and causes a large carbon foot print from transportation. Regional

materials credit in LEED offers a solution to the adverse environmental impacts of transportation

in the building industry. However the missing factor in our LEED rating system is that it does

not consider larger distances traveled by rail and ship. Trains and ships use less fuel and cause

less air pollution in transportation and their use should be encouraged especially for long

distances.

While development of existing rating systems has resulted in environmental consciousness, they

need to develop further major criteria for selection of building materials. Major concepts such as

durability and service life, production efficiency, recyclability, and use of effective transportation

means, need to be encouraged by future green building codes and standards. Designers need to

pay attention to environmental effects of inefficient mining, deforestation and health hazards

from toxic emissions and by-products of manufacturing. These and other environmental

considerations will help stakeholders choose materials for their buildings that are truly “green.”

18 National Academy of Science, 1997

20

The Present Study Many studies have been based on energy performance of existing green projects. Other research

has been done on their cost, market value, rate of investment, occupant satisfaction and the like.

There is however a lack of research on building materials and their performance in these

projects. Studies should be done on how existing green measures affect material choice in new

construction, and how these selection criteria have helped achieve green building objectives.

Design teams could benefit from clear information to guide future decisions.

In this report, an analysis of interviews with 24 green building experts is presented. In these

interviews, members of design teams have been asked to evaluate how concrete masonry

satisfied their sustainability objectives, and how properly LEED addressed these green qualities.

The intent is to learn from the experience of these experts in using Concrete Masonry Units

(CMU), also called Concrete Block, Segmental Retaining Walls (SRW), and Concrete Pavers.

The question is whether the sustainable qualities of concrete masonry have had a part in its

popularity over time. And if so, are the existing rating systems giving it sufficient credit for its

green attributes.

The interviews showed that architects picked concrete masonry for its inherent green attributes.

Furthermore, the lack of LEED credits for some of its green qualities did not stop design teams

from choosing it. For example, when asked if they received LEED credits for recycled content

respondents gave 45% positive answers. Outside of LEED criteria however, 87% said they

considered durability, and 65% considered beauty and minimal maintenance of concrete

masonry. This result reveals that even though achieving LEED points is important for designers

of these projects, they have used their best judgment in selecting the material for its green

qualities.

21

Methodology A search was conducted to find existing reports on building products and their role in the design

and construction of green buildings. Attempts to find published surveys on this topic were

unsuccessful. It was surprising that no study was found that focused on masonry or any other

building materials in green buildings and how effective they were. Although the hope was to

base this study on previous published papers, the research showed that it needed to start from

scratch.

Figure 5: Sources of research and number of projects found

22

For this survey all apparent sources of information needed to be exhausted. As shown in figure 1

the best available resources seemed to be building industry publications, green rating systems

websites, building industry websites, and architects.

Some masonry green projects appeared in USGBC national and local sites, various masonry

associations at local and national levels, and industry publications. Most of the sites however did

not have any information on building materials. Also most of the case studies focused on

information about energy conservation and other LEED credits. To find projects that had used

concrete masonry on the mentioned websites we had to sometimes look at pictures offered. This

type of search biased towards buildings with concrete masonry as the exterior finish. The hope

is to follow with another study from within the industry to focus on projects where concrete

masonry has been used as load bearing and interior finishing materials. For the intent of this

paper- looking at the product’s green attributes- this bias does not greatly affect the result.

Among the projects there were a few that had been designed as green buildings but had not

applied for LEED or other green certifications. These projects would complement the data

sample not limiting it to LEED projects. The intention was to look at any available green

building that had used concrete masonry and not to be biased toward any one rating system. In

order to avoid any skewed results, effort was put into equally searching the sites for all building

types in different regions of the United States.

Figure 6: Time zones where concrete masonry projects in this survey were located

23

The second step was to find contact information for the person in charge of the green project and

interview them. For better results the building experts were called before sending the survey

questionnaire by e-mail. One interview question asked that building experts list any other

concrete masonry green buildings they had worked on. The search was stopped when 75 green

projects with concrete masonry were located. From the total 75 surveys sent out, 30 responses

were received which made for about 45% return rate and it is considered a good outcome for a

survey of this type.

Before defining interview questions, some thought was given to the possible direction of the

survey. There were two choices: One was to focus on the existing rating systems and what they

considered “green attributes,” and

the other was to go beyond that

and base the study on a

combination of LEED credits and

items that were not recognized by

LEED. Focus on “lessons

learned” and analysis of “what

has worked” and “what has been

missing” could lead to better

results. If this study was to

become a base for further studies

on building materials and their

role in green building

development, it needed to go

beyond LEED, and other rating

systems. In other words the focus

needed to be on a wider horizon

than boundaries set by existing

established standards.

Located in Palm Spring, California, this home was certified Platinum in May 2009. It has received Concrete Masonry Association of California and Nevada Sustainable Design award and AIAIC award.

Architects: o2 Architecture Website: www.o2arch.com Photo Courtesy of: Korab Radoni

24

Analysis The first part of the interview focused on general information, such as the design firm, the

interviewee, their position, project name, and project location. Questions in the second part

focused on green attributes of concrete masonry and how they had been considered by the

respondents. This report will give a summary of responses to each interview question in an

attempt to offer the reader a comprehensive view of the survey. The reader can find more

information about each project from the websites mentioned in Appendix A. Wherever

permitted a photo of the surveyed project has been included.

Question 1: What sustainable awards and/or LEED certification have you achieved for the building?

Of the 30 green projects with concrete masonry, 17 received LEED certifications (Table 1).

These included two LEED certified, four silver, six gold and three rated platinum. Eighteen of

the projects had received AIA awards including a sustainable design award. Seven buildings

won energy awards including the AIA Energy Efficiency Integration Award. Projects also

received nine masonry awards and thirty-six other awards. Six of the projects were chosen as

Top Ten Green AIA COTE projects.

Question 2: How long has it been since the building was completed?

The projects in this study were completed between 2002 and 2010. The buildings ranged in age

from ‘not completed’ up to 8 years. Green building is a fairly recent phenomenon, and future

surveys are yet to perform a long-term evaluation of green building products. This kind of

survey needs to be repeated as these buildings age, the same way post-occupancy evaluations

need to be performed at regular intervals.

25

Table 1: LEED Certifications and awards achieved for concrete masonry green project

Project Type LEED

AIA

COTE Top 10

AIA

Award

NCMA

Award CMACN

Other Masonry Awards

Energy Awards

Other Awards

Housing/ Residential (4 projects)

Platinum 1

1 8 1 8 Gold 1

LEED- H Certified 1

Scho

ols (

12 p

roje

cts)

Elementary (4 total) 1 3 7

Middle (2 total)

Pending Gold 1

High (1 total) Silver 1 1

Higher Education (5 Total)

Gold 1 1 4 1 1 2 5

Silver 1

Hospital/ Medical Center

(2 projects) Silver 1 1 1 1

Library (2 projects)

Gold 1 1 1

Pending Silver 1

Environmental Center/ Visitor

Center (4 projects)

Platinum 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 12

Fire Station/ Training

(4 projects)

Gold 1

Certified 1

Pending Gold 2

Office (2 projects)

Pending Gold 1 1 2 2 1

Police Station (1 project)

31 Projects Total

17 LEED Projects

6 AIA COTE Top

10

18 AIA Awards

2 NCMA Awards 4 CMACN

3 Other Masonry Awards

7 Energy Awards

36 Other Awards

26

Question 3: What is the occupancy classification of the building? The intent of the question was to identify projects in as many categories as possible. The

research showed that concrete masonry was used in a variety of building types including single

family residence, multi-family affordable housing, libraries, office buildings, educational

facilities, and a multi-use assembly building.

Figure 7: Building types of the 31 surveyed projects

27

Question 4: Where in the project have you used concrete masonry (Concrete blocks, Segmental Retaining Walls, and Concrete Pavers)?

Most of the concrete masonry in the surveyed projects was used on the exterior skin of buildings,

followed by load bearing use. As explained in the methodology section this may have been

partially based on the fact that some projects were found from pictures. Other studies that focus

on the use of concrete masonry on the inside of the buildings may show higher percentages for

load-bearing and interior finishes than found in this research. For this purpose concrete masonry

suppliers can be asked to share information on the green projects for which they have supplied

these types of products. It may be worthwhile for industry associations to keep a data-base of

green buildings in their regions with the amount of concrete masonry used in each project.

Figure 8: Concrete masonry pl

Figure 9: Where in the project concrete masonry has been used

28

Question 5: What percentage of the total building is concrete block or SRW? As shown in Figure 5, the green buildings in this survey used anywhere between less than10% to

100% concrete masonry for their walls. This wide range is an advantage in selecting the data

population, demonstrating differing proportions of the product used in conjunction with other

building materials.

Question 6: What percentage of the hardscape is made of concrete pavers?

Only two projects form our sample used concrete masonry as the hardscape. This may have

been due to our selection method using external resources such as case studies and award-wining

projects. Or perhaps water conservation in landscape has not been a design concept in these

projects. As water conservation is being increasingly emphasized new versions of green codes

Figure 10: Percentage of concrete masonry used in the surveyed green buildings

29

and standards will focus on reducing water use for irrigation. Concrete pavers with design

patterns can substitute for turf to reduce the need for irrigation. Due to their light colors they can

also help reduce the site heat island affect.

Question 7: Which of the following “green” attributes of concrete masonry did you consider when choosing the material?

This question asked building experts to pick their favorite from a list of concrete masonry

qualities. The responses showed that interviewed designers used concrete masonry regardless of

the lack of LEED points for some of its green attributes.

Figure 11: Green attributes of concrete masonry as used in the design

30

Question 8: Will you please explain briefly how the qualities above have helped you design a better building? This question helps evaluate the importance of each green attribute of concrete masonry to the

building expert.

8a. Aesthetics (Beauty) About 65% of respondents said that they used concrete block for its aesthetic impacts, and a few

asked what the beauty of the building had to do with “green.” Would you consider demolishing

a beautiful building? Is an ugly building more prone to demolition or a beautiful one? This is

why beautiful buildings have served as cultural heritage of the past for generations. Buildings

with character such as Taj Mahal, Parsa, St. Peters cathedral, and thousands of others around the

world are signatures of the past and will be preserved by the future generations.

“We have received complements on the beauty of the material,” says Joe Mansfield, Principle Architect of Roesling Nakamura Terada Architects, Inc. about concrete masonry used in DMV San Ysidro Field Office.

Location: San Diego, CA Architect: Roesling Nakamura Terada Architects, Inc. Website: www.rntarchitects.com Photo Courtesy of: ZOOM Photography, Satoshi Asakawa Awards and Certifications: 2008 AIA, SDG&E Energy Efficiency Integration Award 2008 AIASD Savings by Design Energy Integration Award 2008 San Diego Architectural Foundation, Orchids and Onions Program, Orchid Award 2007 CMACN, Sustainable Design Honor Award and Public/Civic Design Merit Award 2006 SANDEE Award, Special Achievement in Energy by a Government or Institution

31

Ruth Fajarit-Davis AIA, LEED AP, Project Architect

for San Elijo Lagoon Nature Center in Encinitas, CA

focused on the aesthetic qualities of CMU and related

it to its earthy organic appearance, and flexibility:

“Concrete masonry units were incorporated into the project for their aesthetic qualities, flexibility, durability and affordability. Burnished-face block by a local manufacturer was selected for its exposed aggregate and integral color. The two earth tone colors of CMU were installed in a random pattern for an “earthy organic” appearance complementary to the site. The CMU’s flexibility allowed it to be used for both the straight and angled walls as well as the curved sweeping wall of the entry path. The CMU fin walls provide a contrast to the fluid shape of the metal roof above.”

Similarly Rick Espana, Associate Architect who

designed the DMV San Ysidro Field Office building

in San Diego, California said that his “use of concrete

masonry in a layered, multi-color pattern was a key

design element for conveying the design concept for

representing the geology of a striated cliff.” He

emphasized that the building has “received

compliments on the beauty of the material.” Espana

earned five awards for the building including three for

energy efficiency.

Also for preserving the harmony between new and old

buildings in historic districts architects can benefit the

aesthetic impacts of concrete masonry.

About 70% of the walls in San Elijo Lagoon Nature Center are made of concrete masonry. This building has received LEED Platinum, and 9 awards for sustainable design and construction.

Location: Encinitas, CA Architects: Zagrodnik + Thomas Architects LLP Website: www.ztarc.com Photo Courtesy of: ZTA and photographer Pablo Mason Awards:

- Sustainable Communities Champion from San Diego Gas & Electric

- Special Achievement in Energy by a Government -SANDEE Awards from California Center for Sustainable Energy)

- Honor Award for Sustainable Design from Concrete Masonry Association of California and Nevada

- Green Building of America Award from Green Building of America-Southwest

- Build San Diego Award” Best Unique Small Project - Public Works Project from Associated General Contractors (to Riha Construction)

- California Solar Initiative Recipient (to SD County Dept of Parks & Rec/Riha Construction)

- Award of Excellence for Sustainability from National Concrete Masonry Association

- Associated Builder & Contractors ABC Award (to Challenger Sheet Metal)

- Design Award of Excellence from California Parks and Recreation Society

32

8b. Durability More than 87% of the building experts interviewed said that they chose concrete block for its

durability. Unfortunately LEED-US does not allocate a point for this popular quality of concrete

masonry. The good news is that most new versions of green building guidelines, standards and

codes are defining service life as a sustainable base for green buildings. The hope is that longer

service life provisions will encourage the use of durable materials in future green projects.

Many architects in this survey spoke about the minimal maintenance needed through the life of

Concrete Masonry Units, Segmental Retaining Walls and Concrete Pavers. Low maintenance

cost plays a significant role in minimizing Life Cycle Cost of buildings. It also makes for easier

operation and maintenance of the building over its service life. Some respondents emphasized

the importance of durability- for educational, environments and other building types- in room

separations and exterior cavity wall systems. Steven J Gloyeske, project architect for The Isaac Ray

Treatment Center in Logansport, IN states: “Utilizing concrete brick and block materials for the Isaac Ray Treatment Center provided a material which could withstand the heavy abuse and contact hours of the forensic psychiatric patients; it also provides a crisp and colorful environment. Repair and maintenance costs have been very low in the building due to material selection.”

In LEED Silver rated Isaac Ray Treatment Center 100% of the exterior walls and 95% of the interior walls are of concrete masonry. Recycled content of 46.5% in the material qualified for a LEED point.

Location: Logansport, IN Architects: Scholer Corporation Website: www.scholer.com Photo Courtesy of: Jon Denker, CAPS

33

8c. Reduced Cost Almost 55% of the building experts in the survey stated that reduced cost was a reason for their

choice of concrete masonry. Some mentioned using CMU as a structural element. This

eliminated the need for further finishes and therefore reduced cost. Others called CMU an

affordable material because of its minimal maintenance costs in the future. Jonah Busick,

Director of Merzproject wrote about The Galleries at Turney in Phoenix, AZ:

“We were able to reduce costs by using a structural material as a final finish. We left the blocks with their natural finish (no paint, stucco etc) thus reducing the need for maintenance and increasing durability.”

Along the same lines John Dick,

the architect for Queen Creek

Library in Queen Creek, AZ said:

“Masonry allowed us to use a strong, simple material in a bold statement with feature walls, and simple detailing that helped meet budget. It is a material that helped achieve the LEED Gold certification.”

8d. Fire Resistance About 32% of respondents said

they chose to use concrete block

for its fire resistance. With the

growth of demand for denser

communities this may increase in

the future. Non-combustible

materials help sustain buildings

through fire, and can save dense

neighborhoods and their

occupants. This was the reason

Franklin Elem. School was chosen as one of the Top Ten Green Projects of 2006 by American Institute of Architects Committee on the Environment. David Mount, AIA, LEED AP, Associate Principal, Mahlum says about his choice of material: "CMU delivers the durability and low maintenance required in school buildings. At the same time, it is a simple and textured material that reflects our elemental approach to materials, supports sustainable goals and reinforces our connection with the earth." Location: Kirkland, WA Architect: Mahlum Architects Website: www.mahlum.com Photo Courtesy of: Benjamin Benschneider Awards and Certifications: 2007 Merit Award, AIA Northwest & Pacific Region Design Awards 2007 Award of Excellence, AIA Committee on Architecture for Education (CAE) Educational Facility Design Awards 2007 Walter Taylor Award, American Association of School Administrators (AASA) 2006 Merit Award, AIA Washington Council Civic Design Awards 2006 Honor Award, AIA Seattle Honor Awards 2006 James D. MacConnell Award of Excellence Finalist, CEFPI

34

why many cities required non-combustible construction after disastrous fires in the 1800’s. As

green building codes and standards encourage development of denser communities, fire

resistance of building materials will become more important. Walkable, dense, mixed-use

communities reduce transportation-caused pollution and encourage the use of public

transportation. In walkable communities residential buildings need to be tightly spaced, and

close to jobs, retail, entertainment and educational facilities. Concrete masonry does not burn or

melt in fire. It holds its strength and stays intact. Thus load bearing concrete masonry does not

need sprayed-on fire retardants for fire resistance.

8e. Impact Resistance Close to 60% of the designers

chose concrete block because it is

resistant to damage. Impact

resistance is a factor in minimal

maintenance, particularly in high-

impact areas. Ruth Fajarit-Davis

AIA, LEED AP notes on San Elijo

Lagoon Nature Center in Encinitas,

CA:

“CMU was also selected for low-maintenance and durability to hold up against the constant use by school children and the public visitors to the Center. The burnished-face block provided the look of natural stone without the cost of stone.” San Elijo Lagoon Nature Center

received LEED Platinum

Certification and several different

awards for design, sustainability

and construction.

Fossil Ridge High School has incorporated concrete masonry units both structurally and as veneer for about 30% of the wall surface of the project. Location: Ft. Collins, CO Architect: RB+B Architects Website: www.rbbarchitects.com Photo Courtesy of: davidpattersonphotography.com Awards and Certifications: LEED Silver

35

8f. Acoustics (Sound Absorption) About 13% of the surveyed designers had used concrete masonry for its sound absorption ability.

This is another concept that needs to be followed in future studies. At this point, a limited

number of spaces in some building types require special sound-absorption levels. Green building

experts developing new standards have started to debate over whether or not reduction of noise

pollution is a green concept. If approved, sound absorption will become a priority in material

selection for green projects. Johnny Birkinbine, of Line and Space, LLC., architects for the

Helen S. Schaefer University of Arizona Poetry Center, said: “The west elevation, comprised

entirely of concrete block, is designed with minimal fenestrations providing privacy and a barrier

from traffic noise.”

8g & 8h. Thermal Mass and Passive Design About 32% of respondents said their

projects benefited from the thermal mass

of CMU walls and 20% said they chose

concrete masonry for its passive

qualities. This is another area where

responses may change in future surveys

if rating systems start awarding points

for passive design strategies. Johnny

Birkinbine said of the Cezar Chavez

Library in Phoenix, AZ: “Buildings built in the Sonoran Desert, a climate of harsh extremes, require a special architectural response with proper solar orientation in order to keep energy costs at a minimum. The Cesar Chavez Library is oriented so that the glass primarily faces north and south, allowing natural daylight to fill interior spaces with little or no direct sun. The west elevation is fully masonry with no windows, in an effort to mitigate direct solar heat gain, reducing demand on the building’s mechanical system. Concrete masonry wing walls extend into the

Gateway Medical Center earned Arizona Masonry

Guild Award of Excellence with concrete masonry of about 65% of its walls.

Location: Gilbert, AZ Architects: NBBJ Architects Website: www.nbbj.com Photo Courtesy of: Frank Ooms Photography Awards and Certifications: 1. Honor Award winner, Arizona Masonry Guild Excellence, masonry program 2. AIA Seattle- Award of Excellence

36

landscape to retain earth, serve as a windbreak, and provide critical shade to outdoor areas when the sun is low on the horizon.” He added: “Earth bermed concrete masonry walls provide thermal mass which significantly lessens demand on the mechanical system.”

Allen H. Kachel, AIA, LEED AP, Senior Associate of Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, explained that

they used passive solar heating for the main activity area of the Pocono Environmental

Education/ Visitor Activity Center. He added that mass of concrete block in the southwest wall

helped absorb heat in winter.

8i. Resource Efficiency The second step toward conserving resources is to choose resource-efficient materials.

Production efficiency of some building materials, such as most metals, range from less than 1%

to 30% as discussed on page 13 of this study. A report by the Mineral Information Institute

states that from the estimated 110 billion tons of ore that exist in the United States, about 27

billion tons of iron can be produced.19 Similarly a summary from European Aluminum

Association data shows that in order to produce one ton of Aluminum, 4 to 5 tons of bauxite

have to be extracted, and this results in generation of 10 tons of waste-rock, and 3 tons of toxic

red mud.20 Worse yet, resource efficiency in production of copper is less than 1%.21

8j. Recycled Content

On the

contrary, masonry products are the most resource-efficient building materials. A survey of about

50 concrete masonry manufacturers showed that they use more than 95% of the extracted

material in their production, and almost no waste is generated from their production.

Close to 50% of the participants said they considered recycled content and recyclability of

concrete masonry and about one third said that they received LEED points for this attribute.

Architects had used up to 46.5% recycled content and this was easily achievable through

standard production by their regional manufacturers. Concrete blocks, segmental retaining walls,

and concrete pavers can be crushed and used as aggregates in the production of new concrete

masonry forever. Also regardless of the minimal amount of cement in concrete masonry (about

19 http://www.mii.org/Minerals/photoiron.html 20 http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/mining_waste_generated_from_aluminium_production 21 http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/330copper.html

37

10%), a part of this cement can be substituted by fly ash or slag. There is no down-cycling effect

in recycling concrete masonry which means that these products are indefinitely recyclable.

8k. Mold Resistance Almost 20% of the building experts said mold prevention was an important reason they chose

concrete masonry in their green building. This seems low considering the fact that green

building promotion has greatly emphasized indoor environmental quality. Mold is a major cause

for sick building syndrome that has caused absenteeism in employees. Studies have shown that

in the United States people spend 90% of their time inside buildings, and thus are greatly

affected by indoor environmental quality. Existing codes and standards have encouraged

designers to focus on moisture prevention assuming that they design using products prone to

mold. To eliminate the problem entirely, designers can be encouraged to use building materials

that are not naturally mold and mildew resistant. Masonry products do not provide a food

source, preventing the growth of mold naturally.

8l. Less Future Maintenance Close to 65% of the survey respondents

considered concrete masonry for its little

required maintenance in the future. Allen H.

Kachel, AIA, LEED AP, Senior Associate of

Bohlin Cywinski Jackson said on the Pocono

Environmental Education/ Visitor Activity

Center in Dingmans Ferry, PA: “Materials have been selected throughout the building that are durable, have a long life span, require little or no maintenance and have a low impact on the environment. The masonry used on this project, especially the exposed Ground Face CMU, very much aligned with that intent.”

This building was selected as one of the top ten

projects by the AIA Committee on the

City of Tucson Fire Station 22 was the first LEED Gold fire station in Arizona. More than 30% of wall surfaces in this building are made of concrete masonry. Location: Tucson, AZ Architect: WSM Architects Website: www.wsmarch.com Photo Courtesy of: Cooperthwaite Photography Awards and Certifications: LEED Gold

38

Project Name: Colorado Court Location: Santa Monica, CA Architect: Pugh + Scarpa Architects Website: www.pugh-scarpa.com Photo Courtesy of: Marvin Rand Awards and Certifications: LEED Gold Certified – First in Nation for Multifamily Housing Rudy Bruner Prize, 2003 National AIA Honor Award, 2003S National AIA/COTE, “Top Ten Green Project” Award, 2003 National AIA PIA Award, 2003 AIA/CC Honor Award, 2003 AIA/LA Honor Award, 2003 BHS&F World Habitat Award, Finalist, 2002 Westside Prize for Urban Design, 2002 Exhibited at the National Building Museum in Washington, DC, 2004

Environment (COTE) in 2008. It also received the 2009 Green Good Design Award from the

European Centre for Architectural Art Design and Urban Studies & the Chicago Athenaeum.

8m. VOC Prevention (No Paint) Almost 20% of respondents said they chose concrete masonry based on this attribute. These

were most probably projects that used concrete masonry as an interior finish. Paints, sealants,

and interior finishes that off-gas Volatile Organic Compounds affect the health of building

occupants. Concrete masonry can provide for beautiful

exposed exterior and interior surfaces and thus

eliminate the VOC that is off gassed from finishing

materials. This phenomenon can improve the indoor

air quality. Allen H. Kachel, AIA, LEED AP, said on

the Pocono Environmental Education / Visitor Activity

Center in Dingmans Ferry, PA:

“Throughout the building materials were selected

that did not require a finish, thereby improving the

indoor air quality of the building. The masonry used

on this project, especially the exposed Ground Face

CMU, very much aligned with that intent.”

8n. Water Conservation in case of concrete pavers There were two projects that had used concrete pavers

in this study. Concrete pavers can substitute for turf to

reduce the use of irrigation water. As irrigation water

conservation becomes more important as a green

measure this ratio is expected to rise in the future.

39

8o. Waste Water Management with sand set concrete pavers One out of the two projects that used concrete pavers said they used sand-set pavers to manage

storm water run-off. Gregory Mella stated on Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s Philip Merrill

Environmental Center in Annapolis, MD:

“Concrete Pavers were used for site work”, explained Gregory Mella: “because it provides a solid surface for vehicles that is permeable, allowing storm water quantities to be reduce, and allowing ground water recharge. Storm water management was a key aspect of the project.”

This project was the first LEED Platinum building in the United States, and it received seven

different awards.

Recently permeable concrete pavers have found increase use in waste water management. If it is

set in proper depth of soil base, this material can provide an alternative to retention ponds. It can

help collect, filter, and reduce the amount of particles in the rain water discharge.

8p. Structural More than 20% of the surveyed experts said they used CMU for its structural quality. Some

mentioned in their interviews that this helped conserve building material. They also explained

that the elimination of finishes and paint made for more affordable projects with less future

maintenance. There was a discrepancy between the answers to this question and that of question

4 where 50% of the respondents said they had used concrete masonry as a load bearing material

in their project. In question 4 respondents mentioned the use of concrete masonry as elevator

shafts, exterior wall back up, retaining walls, and site walls. There may have been different

interpretations of structural qualities of concrete masonry for the audience.

8q. Other Designers brought up some interesting ideas on other green attributes of concrete masonry.

Some talked about security measures such as bullet resistance. Others brought up the hurricane

resistance quality of CMU, and others referred to concrete masonry walls as beautiful fencing

material, shading devices, wind breakers, and earth retaining elements. A few architects

40

In the design of walls for Helen S. Schaefer University of Arizona Poetry Center “concrete masonry units were used as the primary building structure and finish at exterior walls,” said Johnny Birkinbine, AIA of Line and Space, LLc. Project Name: University of Arizona Poetry Center Location: Tucson, Arizona Architects: Line and Space, LLC Website: www.lineandspace.com Photo Courtesy of: Robert Reck Awards and Certifications: Project has received local and state American Institute of Architect and masonry guild awards

mentioned concrete masonry as a screen where they could engrave, etch, or reflect artwork,

poetry or animal tracks.

Allen H. Kachel, Senior Associate of Bohlin Cywinski Jackson said that he had found it

interesting to add environmental figures and shapes onto the wall of the Pocono Environmental

Education/Visitor Activity Center in Delaware, PA:

“The Ground Face CMU also gave us the opportunity to etch the blocks with animal tracks, leaf outlines and other images from nature drawn by children, to further integrate the mission of environmental education into the building.”

Michael Bartunek, the designer of Mukilteo Police Station described his use of CMU’s in the

site: “To secure the site, instead of a

chain-link fence topped with barbwire,

split face CMU landscaping walls, a

wrought iron fence with CMU pillars

created a friendlier street image.”

Similarly Johnny Birkinbine said about

the Poetry Center of University of

Arizona, Tucson, AZ: “Concrete masonry was also chosen for one of the most important features of the building the “Binary Wall”, a tall screen wall which shields the east windows and Bamboo Garden from the low summer sun while implementing the abstraction of a Richard Shelton poem into binary code. The center-scored concrete masonry unit was a perfect choice for the wall due to its modularity as it relates to the binary system as well as providing protection from the heat of the sun and the noise of surrounding facilities. The coded message “you shall learn the art of silence,” is fitting for the garden and its significance is realized through the function of the wall.”

41

Question 9: Did you receive any LEED points/ “green” credits for the use of concrete masonry? If yes, for what quality of it?

About 70% of the LEED certified projects in our study achieved LEED points for regional

material. LEED points for recycled content were obtained by 53% of the rated projects.

Energy efficiency was credited for 23% of the projects who applied for LEED certification. It

may be that architects do not take into account the effects of thermal mass in their energy

calculations. Future studies need to focus on the effects of thermal mass and passive design on

energy conservation for concrete masonry buildings.

Figure 12: LEED points earned by adding concrete masonry into calculation

42

Question 10: Have you received any comments from occupants of the building about the use of the concrete masonry? Most respondents said that they had received comments on the beauty of the building as a whole,

and only a couple mentioned that the concrete masonry in particular had been commented on.

With the use of concrete blocks in 100% of the exterior walls excluding glass, City of Tucson Fire Administration Headquarters and Station 1 is anticipating LEED Gold rating.

Architect: WSM Architects Website: www.wsmarch.com Photo Courtesy of: Cooperthwaite Photography

43

Question 11: Did you ask the manufacturer for a custom mix for your concrete block to maximize recycled content (fly ash, recycled glass or recycled aggregate in the mix)? What was the outcome? In most cases the architects said that they did not have to go to a custom mix design and that the

manufacturers had standard material with recycled content. A few responded that they had

specified the percentage of recycled content while ordering the products.

Question 12: Will you please list any other LEED or “green” projects in your office that have incorporated brick, block or stone? Most of the architects interviewed had many other projects that they had built using concrete

masonry. Some architects mentioned that they used green qualities of concrete masonry in the

projects that were not seeking certification from any green rating system.

Figure 13: Other green projects designed by the architects interviewed

44

Conclusions

In the past decade there has been rapid growth in environmental consciousness and the green

building movement. Rating systems such as LEED have served as yard sticks for measurement

of sustainable design criteria. They have helped educate stakeholders and drive the building

industry toward reducing their carbon footprint. Developers of green codes and standards are in

search of improving their newer versions incorporating lessons learned.

Along with the growth of green building movement, research needs to be done on the choice of

“green” building materials and their performance. While post-occupancy evaluations can show

the level of user satisfaction in green projects, evaluation of building materials can guide

architects in their future design.

The present study showed that besides LEED concepts, emphasis needs to be placed on passive

design, long service life, aesthetics, minimal maintenance, fire resistance, noise reduction,

resource efficiency, mold prevention and VOC reduction through material choice. On resource

efficiency both reduced waste at construction site and production efficiency of building materials

should be considered. Impacts of production on the environment include deforestation, and

health hazards from mining, manufacture, and transportation of non-regional, inefficient building

materials. Designers need to pay attention to toxins released from manufacturing, and off

gassing of products during their lifetime. The result of a survey of concrete masonry producers

showed over 95% production efficiency and no toxic chemicals resulting from the manufacturing

process.

Most LEED credits achieved for concrete masonry were ‘regional material’ with about 70%, and

‘recycled content’ around 53% of the LEED rated projects. Surprisingly 87% of designers

considered durability of concrete masonry that was not credited by LEED. Beauty and minimal

maintenance tied around 65% and impact resistance got almost 60% rating. Affordability was

the next most important attribute for concrete masonry with about 55% of the studied green

projects. Fire resistance, thermal mass, and resource efficiency were considered for more than

45

30% of the projects. And about 20% of respondents considered in their choice of concrete

masonry passive design, mold and VOC prevention.

Building experts who participated in this survey have designed green buildings for a long time.

Some of their environmentally sensitive projects date back to 1970’s when LEED and other

rating systems did not exist. Projects surveyed under this report were up to 8 years old and the

same designers received many awards for them. From the 30 projects, 17 received LEED

ratings, 4 were pending LEED registered, and 10 never applied for LEED certification.

As part of their design consideration, respondents named many green attributes of concrete

masonry that have been overlooked in the existing green rating systems. Concrete masonry has

been a popular building material for centuries because of its inherent green qualities, and needs

to be justly recognized for them.

46

Work Sited Bonda, P. (2008). Cesar Chavez Library. Green Source: 92-95. Bowyer, D. J. (October 18, 2007). Vinyl Siding: A Number of Human Health and Environmental Concerns, but at Least It's Maintenance Free, Isn't It?, Dovetail Partners, Inc.: 1-10. Brosnan, D. A. (2002). Selling Brick to Architects and Building Owners Using Sustainability: 1-6. Dell’Isola, Alphonse J. and Stephen J. Kirk. Life Cycle Costing for Facilities. Kingston, MA: Construction Publishers and Consultants, 2003. DeMarchis, A. (2008). Demolition Waste Generated by Old Buildings at Williams College: 1-14. Edminster, A. V. "Using Less Wood in Buildings." 2010, from http://www.woodconsumption.org/products/annedminster.html. Gragg, R. (2008). Pocono Environmental Education Center. Green Source: 96-99. Keoleian, G. S. C. Evaluation of LEED Using Life Cycle Assessment Methods. National Institute of Standards and Technology:1-159. Kieran, C. (2008). Garthwaite Center. Green Source: 100-103. Koerner, P. (2009). "Palm Springs LEED Platinum Contender." 2009, from http://wwwjetsongreen.com/2009/03/palm-springs-leed-platinum-contender.html. Koerner, P. (2009). "Stunning LEED Galleries at Turney." 2009, from http://www.jetsongreen.com/2009/01/modus-development-galleries-at-turney-green-homes.html. Lasch, D. (2008). "Arizona Masonry Guild Announces 2008 Architectural Awards Winners." 2009, from http://www.masoncontractors.org/newsandevents/masonrtheadlines/headline.php?id=20081114073746. Sokol, D. (2008). COTE D'Azure. Green Source: 60-65. White, S. G. a. D. The Skilled Worforce Shortage, National Center for Construction Education Research: 1-8. Wilson, A. (2008). Toward Wiser Water Strategies. Green Source: 108-114. "Architerra Projects, Cambridge School of Weston." 2009, from http://www.architerra-inc.com/ArchiterraHome.html.

47

"Asarco Mining Operations in Arizona." 2010, from http://www.elmhurst.edu/chm/vchembook/330chopper.html. "Ausonio Incorporated." from http://www.ausonio.com/index.html. "Award Winning School Designs." 2010, from http://www.innovativedesign.net/awards.htm. Banner Gateway Medical Center. Gilbert, AZ, NBBJ Architects: 1-2. "Banner Gateway Medical Center." 2009, from http://www.nbbj.com/#work/projects/banner-gateway-medical-center. "Benjamin Franklin Elementary School." 2009, from http://www.mahlum.com/projects/franklin/index.asp#. “Bohlin Cywinski Jaskson." 2009, from http://www.bcj.com. "Boulder Training Facilities." 2010, from http://www.rothsheppard.com/pages/boulder-fire-training. Coconino Community College. Flagstaff, AZ, Jones Studio Inc.: 1-7. "Coconino Community College." 2010, from http://www.jonesstudio.com/16/index.htm. "Colorado Court." 2009, from http://www.pugh-scarpa.com/projects/colorado.court. "Copper Mine." 2010, from http://images.travelpod.com/users/dlpool/1.1245537247.bingham-copper-mine-provox-ut.jpg. "Department of Motor Vehicles, San Ysidro Field Office." 2009, from http://www.rntarchitects.com/design/civic/sydmv.html. "Douglas County Elementary Prototypes." 2009, from http://www.rbbarchitects.com/projects/project.aspx?ProjectID=26. Embodied Energy Considerations in Existing LEED Credits: 1-7. Fact Sheet Proposed Air Toxics Regulation for Primary Copper Smelters, Environmental Protection Agency: 1-7. "Find A Chapter." 2009, from http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=191. "Fly Ash Concrete, Economic Aspects of Construction." 2010, from http://www.flyashconcrete.in/fly_ash_concrete_sustainable/construction_industry.htm.

48

"Ford Center for Environmental and Conservation Education." 2009, from http://www.smithgroup.com/?id=422. "Fossil Ridge High School." 2009, from http://wwwrbbarchitects.com/projects/project.aspx?projectID=5. "Fossil Ridge High School, Project Profile." 2010, from https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=3940. EPA Life Cycle Construction Resource Guide- February 2008 "The Galleries at Turney." 2010, from http://www.merzproject.com/work.php. "Garthwaite Center." 2009, from http://greensource.construction.com/projects/0807_GarthwaiteCenter.asp. "Grand Opening of New Fire Station 67 in Playa Vista." 2009, from http://westcoast911.com/wp/2008/02/13/grand-opening-of-new-fire-station-67-in-playa-vista/. "Green Building Materials." 2009, from http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/GreenBuilding/materials/. "Green Source." 2010, from www.greensource.constuction.com. "Greening Schools." 2010, from http://www.greeningschools.org/. "How you are Exposed to Toxic Chemicals." from http://www.enviornmentaldefence.ca/toxicnation/pollutionInYou/HowYouExposed.htm. "Iron Ore: Hematite, Magnetite, and Taconite." 2010, from http://www.mii.org/Minerals/photoiron.html. "Isaac Ray Treatment Center." 2009, from http://www.usgbc-in.org/projects/?id=17. "Jamaica Bauxite Case." from http://www1.american.edu/TED.bauxite.htm. "LEED Certified Projects." 2009, from http://www.eypaedesign.com/leedprojects. LEED MR Credits: Making a Case for Deconstruction, The Reuse Connection: 1-31. "Legat Architects- Press Release." 2009, from http://www.legat.com/?_p=news,press-release,2009,10-06-09. "Line and Space." 2009, from http://www.lineandspace.com/main/. "Mining waste generated from aluminium production." UNEP/GRID-Arendal Maps and Graphics Library. 2006. UNEP/GRID-Arendal. 26 Feb 2010

49

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/mining_waste_generated_from_aluminium_production Mukilteo Police Station. Mukilteo, WA, DLR Group: 1. "National Academy of Science." from http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer. Northern Guildford Middle School. North Carolina, Innovative Design Inc. : 1-9. "Our Work." 2009, from http://www.o2arch.com/OUR_WORK.html. "Philip Merrill Environmental Center." 2009, from http://www.smithgroup.com/index.aspx?id=637&section=34. "Pocono Environmental Education Center." 2009, from http://greensource.construction.com/projects/0807_PEEC.asp. Pocono Environmental Visitor Activity Center. Dingmans Ferry, PA, Bohlin Cywinski Jackson: 1-41. "Queen Creek Library." 2009, from http://activerain.com/blogsview/1135182/queen-creek-library. "Queen Creek Library." 2009, from http://www.dfdg.com/cultural-a-religious/queen-creek-library. Reedy Fork Elementary School. North Carolina, Innovative Design Group: 1-6. "R.L. Binder, FAIA Architecture and Planning." 2009, from http://www.binderarchitects.com/pages/home-r3.html. "Roy Lee Walker Elementary School." 2009, from http://www.shwgroup.com/portfolio/walker.html. "San Diego Green, San Elijo Lagoon Nature Center is LEED Platinum." 2009, from http://www.sandeigo.com/green/san-elijo-lagoon-nature-center-is-leed-platinum. "San Elijo Lagoon Nature Center." 2009, from http://sdpublic.sdcounty.ca.gov/portal/page?_pageid=93,284203&_dad=potal&_schema=PORTAL. "Step Up on Fifth." 2009, from http://www.pugh-scarpa.com/projects/step.up. "Sustainable School Design." 2010, from http://www.innovativedesign.net/sustainableschools.htm.

50

"Tucson Fire Department Station 22 and Battalion 4 Headquarters." 2009, from http://www.wsmarch.com/publicsafety_firestation22.htm. "U.S. Green Building Council." 2010, from www.usgbc.org. "University of Southern Maine, Abromson Community Education Center." 2009, from http://usm.maine.edu/abromson/. “Wood in Our Future, The Role of Life-Cycle Analysis” (Washington D.C.; National Academy of Sciences, 2007) 23. "Yavapai College ASTC." 2009, from http://www.dlrgroup.com/#/3.16.5/. "Zagrodnik + Thomas Architects, LLP." 2009, from http://www.ztarch.com/. (2003). Coconino Community College. Concrete Masonry Design: 10-12. (June 30, 2003). "Mining- the Biggest Toxic Polluter in USA." from http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=472. (2006). Green Buildings and the Bottom Line, Building Design and Construction: 1-64. (2006). Map of the Nation's Platinum and Gold LEED Certified Projects, The McAdams Group, Funding Green Buildings, and Platinum Development: 1-3 (2007). Department of Motor Vehicles, San Ysidro Field Office. CMU Profiles in Architecture:7 (2007). ICC Green Building White Paper: 1-12. (2008). "AIA COTE Top 10." 2009, from www.aiatopten.org. (2008). "The CBF's Philip Merrill Environmental Center." 2009, from http://leedcasestudies.usgbc.org/overview.cfm?ProjectID=69. (2008). Cesar Chavez Library Concrete Masonry Designs: 6-8. (2008). Lifecycle Construction Resource Guide. Atlanta, Georgia, Environmental Protection Agency: 1- 69. (2008). "Mining Waste Generated from Aluminum Production." Retrieved February, 2010, from http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/mining_waste_generated_from_aluminium_production. (2009). Banner Gateway Medical Center. Concrete Masonry Designs: 6-9. (2009). Brick Brief, The Brick Industry Association: 1-3.

51

(2009). Measures and Verification, Tapping into ARRA Stimulus Funds, On Set: 1-5. (2009). Regional Materials in Green Building Rating System- Calculating Credit, The Brick Industry Association: 1-3. (June 2, 2009). "Vietnam Farming Area to be Transformed into Toxic Red Mud Dump." from http://nmr360.com/?p=1163. (2010). "Construction Waste Recycling." 2010, from http://constructionwaste.sustainablesources.com/. (2010). "Global Deforestation." 2010, from http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/deforest/deforest.html.

52

Appendix “A”

Project Name: Colorado Court Location: Santa Monica, CA Architect: Pugh + Scarpa Architects Website: www.pugh-scarpa.com Photo Courtesy of: Marvin Rand Awards and Certifications: 1. LEED Gold Certified – First in Nation for Multifamily Housing 2. Rudy Bruner Prize, 2003 3. National AIA Honor Award, 2003S 4. National AIA/COTE, “Top Ten Green Project” Award, 2003 5. National AIA PIA Award, 2003 6. AIA/CC Honor Award, 2003 7. AIA/LA Honor Award, 2003 8. BHS&F World Habitat Award, Finalist, 2002 9. Westside Prize for Urban Design, 2002 10. Exhibited at the National Building Museum in Washington, DC, 2004 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Project Name: Step Up on Fifth Location: Santa Monica, CA Architects: Pugh + Scarpa Architects Website: www.pugh-scarpa.com Photo Courtesy of: John Edward Linden Awards and Certifications: 1. Westside Urban Prize, 2007, 2009 2. AIA Los Angeles Design Award, 2009 3. AIA Institute Honor Award for Architecture, 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Project Name: 2299 N. Via Monte Vista Location: Palm Springs, CA Architects: o2 Architecture Website: www.o2arch.com Photo Courtesy of: Korab Radoni Awards and Certifications: 1. Home was certified Platinum in May ’09 2. CMACN Sustainable Design Award; AIAIC Honor Award

53

Project Name: The Galleries at Turney Location: Phoenix, AZ Architects: Merz Project Website: www.merzproject.com Photo Courtesy of: Matt Winquist Awards and Certifications: 1. LEED- H, Certified 2. Eco-Structures “Evergreen” award 2008 3. Valley Forward Environmental Excellence Award 2007 4. AIA Arizona Sustainable Award 2007 5. Southwest Contractor, Best Private Green Project 2007 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Name: Queen Creek Library Location: Queen Creek, AZ Architects: Dick & Fritsche Design Group Website: www.dfdg.com Photo Courtesy of: Cooperthwaite Photography Awards and Certifications: LEED Gold -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Name: Cesar Chavez Library Location: Phoenix, Arizona Architect: Line and Space, LLC Website: www.lineandspace.com Photo Courtesy of: Bill Timmerman Awards and Certifications: 1 LEED Silver- anticipates 2 NCMA 2008 Project of the Year - Best LEED 3. Valley Forward Association Crescordia Award for Environmental Excellence 4. American Institute of Architects Committee on the Environment (AIA/COTE) Top Ten Green Projects of 2008

54

Project Name: DMV San Ysidro Field Office Location: San Diego, CA Architect: Roesling Nakamura Terada Architects, Inc. Website: www.rntarchitects.com Photo Courtesy of: ZOOM Photography, Satoshi Asakawa Awards and Certifications: 1. 2008 AIA, SDG&E Energy Efficiency Integration Award 2. 2008 AIASD Savings by Design Energy Integration Award 3. 2008 San Diego Architectural Foundation, Orchids and Onions Program, Orchid Award 4. 2007 Concrete Masonry Association of California and Nevada, Sustainable Design Honor Award and Public/Civic Design Merit Award 5. 2006 SANDEE Award, Special Achievement in Energy by a Government or Institution --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Project Name: San Elijo Lagoon Nature Center Location: Encinitas, CA Architects: Zagrodnik + Thomas Architects LLP Website: www.ztarc.com Photo Courtesy of: ZTA and photographer Pablo Mason Awards and Certifications: 1. LEED PLATINUM 2. Sustainable Communities Champion from San Diego Gas & Electric 3. Special Achievement in Energy by a Government -SANDEE Awards from California Center for Sustainable Energy) 4. Honor Award for Sustainable Design from Concrete Masonry Association of California and Nevada 5. Green Building of America Award from Green Building of America-Southwest 6. Build San Diego Award” Best Unique Small Project - Public Works Project from Associated General Contractors (to Riha Construction) 7. California Solar Initiative Recipient (to SD County Dept of Parks & Rec/Riha Construction) 8. Award of Excellence for Sustainability from National Concrete Masonry Association 9. Associated Builder & Contractors ABC Award (to Challenger Sheet Metal) 10. Design Award of Excellence from California Parks and Recreation Society

55

Project Name: Helen S. Schaefer University of Arizona Poetry Center Location: Tucson, Arizona Architects: Line and Space, LLC Website: www.lineandspace.com Photo Courtesy of: Robert Reck Awards and Certifications: 1. Project has received local and state American Institute of Architect and masonry guild awards ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10 Project Name: Playa Vista Fire Station #67 Location: Los Angeles, CA Architects: R. L. Binder, F.A.I.A, Architecture & Planning Website: www.binderarchitects.com Awards and Certifications: LEED Certified -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Name: Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s Philip Merrill Environmental Center Location: Annapolis, MD Architect: Smith Group Website: www.smithgroup.com Awards and Certifications: 1. LEED Platinum (v.1) (first LEED Platinum project in the US) 2. Legacy Award of the Year, U.S. Green Building Council - National Capital Region, 2008 3. Livable Building Award, Center for the Built Environment, University of California, Berkeley, 2007 4. 1st Place, North East Green Building Awards, Northeast Sustainable Energy Association (NESEA), 2003 5. NOVA Award, Construction Innovation Forum, 2003 6. Top 10 Green Building Award, National AIA Committee on the Environment, 2001 7. Grand Award, Building Team Project of the Year, Building Design + Construction, 2001 8. Award of Excellence, American Institute of Architects, Washington (DC) Chapter, 2001 9. Award Winner, Business Week / Architectural Record, 2001

56

Project Name: Mukilteo Police Station Location: Mukilteo, WA Architects: DLR Group Website: www.dlrgroup.com Image Courtesy of: DLR Group Copyright: Steve Keating Photography ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Project Name: City of Tucson Fire Station 22 Location: Tucson, AZ Architect: WSM Architects Website: www.wsmarch.com Photo Courtesy of: Cooperthwaite Photography Awards and Certifications: LEED Gold -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Name: Boulder Fire Training Center Location: Boulder, CO Architects: Roth Sheppard Architects Website: www.rothsheppard.com Rendering Courtesy of: Roth Sheppard Architects Awards and Certifications: LEED Gold- Anticipating

57

Project Name: Abromson Community Education Center Location: Portland Maine Architects: Einhorn Yaffee Prescott, Architecture & Engineering, and PC Website: www.eypaedesign.com Awards and Certifications: LEED Gold (first Gold level building in the State of Maine) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Name: Franklin Elementary School Location: Kirkland, WA Architect: Mahlum Architects Website: www.mahlum.com Photo Courtesy of: Benjamin Benschneider Awards and Certifications: 2006 Top Ten Green Project Award, AIA Committee on the Environment ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Name: Fossil Ridge High School Location: Ft. Collins, CO Architect: RB+B Architects Website: www.rbbarchitects.com Photo Courtesy of: Davidpattersonphotography.com Awards and Certifications: LEED Silver ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Name: Douglas County School District Prototype Elementary School Location: Douglas County, CO Architect: RB+B / Hutton Architects, LLC/ Hutton Architects Website: www.rbbarchitects.com Awards and Certification: 1. 2008 CEFPI Impact on Learning Award, Sustainable Category

58

Project Name: Hubble Middle School Location: Warrenville, IL Architects: Legat Architects Website: www.legat.com Awards and Certifications: LEED Gold- Anticipating Photo credit: Legat Architects, Education Planner/Architect, James Steinkamp, Photographer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Name: Reedy Fork Elementary School Location: Greensbro, North Carolina Architects: Innovative Design Website: www.innovativedesign.net -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Name: North Guildford Middle School Location: Greensbro, North Carolina Architects: Innovative Design Website: www.innovativedesign.ne -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Name: Coconino Community College Location: Flagstaff, AZ Architect: Jones Studio, Inc. Website: www.jonesstudioinc.com Awards and Certifications: 1. 2004 - Arizona Masonry Guild - Excellence in Masonry, Honor Award 2. 2003 - American Institute of Architects/ Western Mountain Region, Merit Award 3. 2003 - American Institute of Architects/Arizona, Citation Award 4. 2003 - American Institute of Architects/Arizona, APS Energy Award 5. 2003 - The National Concrete Masonry Association Design Awards, 1st Place – Award of Excellence ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Name: Pocono Environmental Education/ Visitor Activity Center Location: Dingmans Ferry, PA Architect: Bohlin Cywinski Jackson Website: www.bcj.com Awards and Certifications: 1. 2008 Top Ten Green Project - AIA COTE 2. 2009 Green GOOD DESIGN Award – The European Centre for Architecture Art Design and Urban Studies & the Chicago Athenaeum Photographer: Nic Lehoux

59

Project Name: Isaac Ray Treatment Center Location: Logansport, IN Architects: Scholer Corporation Website: www.scholer.com Photo Courtesy of: Jon Denker, CAPS Awards and Certifications: LEED NC Silver, Ver 2.1, awarded August 10, 2006 Project Name: Yavapai College, Chino Valley Agribusiness and Science Center Location: Chino Valley, AZ Architects: DLR Group Website: www.dlrgroup.com Awards and Certifications: 1. LEED Silver 2. 2005 APS Energy Award – Arizona Public Service, 3. 2005 Energy Award – AIA Arizona, 4. Best of 2004 Green Building under $5,000,000 – Southwest Contractor Magazine, 5. Honorable Mention – Institutional, Non-Profit Organization, Educational or Healthcare – ED+C 2005 Excellence in Design. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Name: Roy Lee Walker Elementary School Location: McKinney, Texas Architects: SHW Group LLP Website: www.shwgroup.com Photo Courtesy of: SHW Group Awards and Certifications: 1. 2002 Dallas Chapter of the American Institute of Architects McKinney ISD — 2002 Citation of Honor Award 2. 2002 NSSEA School Equipment Show Architectural Award for School Interiors Winner 3. 2001 American School & University Architectural Portfolio –Citation 4. 2001 School Planning & Management Education Design Showcase — Honorable Mention 5. 2001 CEFPI Exhibition of School Architecture Award of Distinction 6. 2001 TASA/TASB Exhibition of School Architecture Caudill Award Educational 7. Appropriateness, Planning and Innovation Awards 8. 2001 School Construction News & Design Share Awards Citation Award 9. 2001 National School Boards Association Exhibition of School Architecture Citation Award of Architectural Excellence 10 2000 American Association of School Administrators, AIA and the Council of Educational Facility Planners International Shirley Cooper Award 11. 1999 American Institute of Architects Earth Day Top Ten Environmentally Responsible Design Solution Project Name: The Garthwaite Center for Science & Art

60

Location: Weston, MA Architect: Architerra Website: www.architerra-inc.com Photo Courtesy of: Chuck Choi Awards and Certifications: 1. 1. 2009 Beyond Green Academic Building Award Sustainable Buildings Industry Council 2. 2009 Award for Sustainable Design, Boston Society of Architects 3. 2008 AIA Top 10 Green Building Award AIA / Committee on the Environment ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Name: Ford Environmental and Education Center at the Detroit Zoo Location: Royal Oak, MI Architect: Smith Group Website: www.smithgroup.com Photo Courtesy of: Laszlo Regos Photography Courtesy of SmithGroup” Awards and Certifications: Masonry Design Award, Masonry Institute of Michigan, 2007 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Name: Banner Gateway Medical Center Location: Gilbert, AZ Architects: NBBJ Architects Website: www.nbbj.com Photo Courtesy of: Frank Ooms Photography Awards and Certifications: 1. Honor Award winner, Arizona Masonry Guild Excellence, masonry program 2. AIA Seattle- Award of Excellence

61

Project Name: Fire Central Location: Tucson, AZ Architect: WSM Architects Website: www.wsmarch.com Photo Courtesy of: Cooperthwaite Photography Awards and Certification: LEED Gold- Anticipating