Page 247 - The Green Building Bottom Line The Real Cost of Sustainable Building

REALIZING THE VALUE OF GREEN FOR KEY USERS 225

what our partners demand. If the institutional capital funding one of our projects has
minimum return expectations, we obviously need to know this. Conversely, our
investment partners need to expect that we are very willing to expend additional funds
and devote additional design time in order to reduce the overall carbon emissions of our
developments. Each of us needs to be very clear about the other’s expectations and to
understand how those expectations dovetail with one another. Clear articulation of
expectations and alignment of those expectations is important. So too are guidelines
that are not so abstract that they lack clarity of meaning and implementation.
For example, according to our guidelines, Melaver does not develop greenfield loca-
tions. And we are rather public about that statement. As a policy, this would appear clear
enough. But what about a site that has already been disturbed, creating a significant
stormwater runoff situation? Such a site exists near Savannah, where the state had
cleared land to attract an automotive manufacturer to Georgia. Ultimately, the auto plant
located elsewhere and Savannah is left with a wide scar on the landscape. Some within
our company argue we should reclaim the land and develop it as a livable, transit-
oriented neighborhood development. The land area is large enough to create a vibrant
community. Others at our company argue that the land never should have been disturbed
to begin with, that if we were to come in now, we’d send a clear message: “Melaver
doesn’t do greenfield unless you cut down the trees before you call us.” Suddenly, the choice
seems more difficult. Our internal debates over the application of general principles (such
as saying “no” to greenfield) to specific projects is ongoing. It sharpens our sense of how
much reflective thinking is required as part of an ethos of integration.

SEEK INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION
It’s not enough to have a set of published standards, and self-monitor (and evaluate)
the standards you put in place. For credibility, a business must have clearly articulated,
independently quantifiable, independently verifiable standards. An excellent applica-
tion of this methodology is the U. S. Green Building Council’s LEED program. While the
LEED program has proponents and detractors, it has created a standard by which suc-
cess is defined, it has quantifiable components, and its components must be reviewed
and verified by a third party.
Why is this an important hallmark of a sustainable business? The logic runs like
this: because if we cannot articulate it, we cannot quantify it; if we cannot quantify it,
we cannot measure it; if we cannot measure it, we cannot determine our ultimate suc-
cess or failure, let alone articulate that success to others; and, without the ability to
articulate our success, capital sourcing disappears and our business is out of business.
This is hardly a sustainable outcome.

ALLOW PUBLIC SCRUTINY
Allowing public scrutiny doesn’t mean getting the PR department in high gear and
putting a shiny gloss on everything. And it doesn’t mean the only way we can allow
scrutiny is if we always have a good story to tell. So we’d better make sure we don’t
make too many mistakes, right? Wrong. A truly sustainable business is always break-