Thinking “LIFE CYCLE” as “A GESTURE” to Buildings

by Dmitry Tatarinov | February 13th, 2023

I began to understand the importance of emission control in 2011 during an EIA course in Glasgow. I never imagined that an architect would lead the lifecycle assessment of a green building. In the same city and university, I first explored green initiatives by studying the feasibility of wind farm construction on the Island of Great Cumbrae. I learned some basics: names of turbines manufacturers, types of foundations, aerodynamics, financial models and co2reduction. That was it.

Five years later, I became acquainted with a rating system used to position a large commercial building on the market. It was my second step towards gaining familiarity with sustainability principles and LEED. Back then, I had the feeling that the “greening” of buildings was something to which I should devote my full attention. Another five years passed, and I became certified as a LEED Green Associate. However, these are just the basics. Along the path of self-study, I encountered a new way of thinking—life cycle analysis.

Over the past year, I have delved into this topic: applying for jobs, experimenting with LCA software, and reviewing scholarly works. At this point, I have decided to organize and consolidate my thoughts for architects, and anyone else interested in this fascinating subject. As an architect, I ask myself this question: Why do I need to lead the “greening” process and embrace the whole life cycle to the extent demanded by the market? Am I unintentionally contributing to inconspicuous greenwashing?

The issue of limited natural resources has become a significant concern for many economies and was the driving force behind the life cycle thinking of scientists. This concern eventually evolved into a framework adopted by the construction industry, given that its emissions rank among the highest. Nearly 60 years have passed since this way of thinking emerged, leading to the start of its detailed standardization.

Now, there is potential for this approach to evolve further, supported by relevant legislation. Consequently, we now see LCA methodologies referenced in standards such as ISO 14040 and EN 15978. Many scholars and guidelines discuss this topic, and numerous software tools are available to assess the environmental impacts of products or materials. Examples include Building Transparency with Tally, OneClickLCA, GaBi, Athena, Bees, and many others.

As the flow of information becomes increasingly difficult to track and follow, I have decided, as an architect, to systematize and attempt to define the "shade of green" within the construction industry when discussing the whole life cycle. In other words, listing all the exchanges an architect has with the environment might seem manageable at first glance. Yet, there are certain periods when the architect's role is of no significance.

I am inclined to think that life cycle thinking aligns with integrative design practices, which some companies claim to implement in their work—for instance, ATP Architects and Drees & Sommer. I use the term “integrative” because I agree with the authors of my favorite article, “Integrated Design Meets the Real World”, who argue that integrative processes are inherently dynamic.

Without delving deeper into integrative practice, it becomes clear that this process resembles a vacuuming, in other words, an ideal or even an impossibility. Drawing from my extensive experience working for design and construction companies, I would estimate the chances of achieving fully integrative design as unattainable. However, I speak here not from the position of the Owner, who may have a different opinion. The reason for this is simple: everything ultimately depends on human interaction.

It is clear to me that LCA is only applicable when the design process chosen by the company is integrated. Establishing common ground among all parties is essential to address any green building-related issues effectively. Everyone’s focus should be on reducing environmental impacts, prioritizing those commonly believed to have the greatest effect. For example, Global Warming Potential (GWP) and human health are among the factors that represent more than half of the LEED points allocation framework. While there is no strict rule, the organization’s ability to observe and prioritize impacts is crucial.

Depending on geography, market conditions, codes of practice, and other factors, priorities may shift. The pursuit of unification for LCA implementation, as discussed by various green building councils, is less about sustainability and more about marketing and the desire to standardize sustainability practices. Believing that the entire assessment of a product or assembly will ever be fully achieved based on scientific data is, once again, utopian. While we can strive to make embodied energy calculations as precise as possible, the operational aspect will always depend on local policies and the clever tricks of assessors. Terms like "Industry Average" often sound like one of these tricks.

The responsibilities that #Architects are willing to assume in design, particularly when nature is a consideration, are no longer unclear to me, though they remain open-ended. Incorporating nature into the equation may not always align fully with the rating system applied to a project. The scope of an architect's role in this context can vary depending on the project’s goals. Simply put, when the Owner or Investor decides to pursue green certification for the built environment, their motivations can range from marketing and business benefits to a genuine commitment to sustainability. Of course, they may later proclaim that their design efforts epitomize sustainability.

Yet only time can show what their priority was as there are no instruments to assess it in a practical unified manner equally accepted by authorities regardless of location. It may even appear, that for some “financial potential” and “flamboyancy” are main impact categories and not GWP, Human health, Acidification, Eutrophication. I will explain a bit more.

Recently, I came across one project by COOPHIMMELB(L)AU with an overall area of 80 000 m2 and complex design. Its function is a Cultural Centre, and it is claimed by designer as to be “ecological and environmentally friendly benchmark project”. Holding LCA as an occasion of this writing, I have to mention that an essence of any LCA tool and method is a comparison with a benchmark. There would be no possibility of making an assessment at building level, otherwise. If we consider the building, which I mentioned before, as a benchmark, then I find a problem for an assessor to propose any optimization as a new concept of similar building typology will have to be compared with very complex structures.

Highlighting assemblies which may cause maximum impact is becoming "fairyland" in this example. This is what Architects are for – to have their experienced opinion and explain the story behind, may not necessarily referring to sustainability. This is the time in my writing when I should emphasize that I am not in the position to criticize nor judge any design effort. However, there is only one inconsistency for me arise from this example – positioning of building by means of Life cycle thinking when there are not any efforts made, or evidence provided to call this combination of elements a benchmark. I mean, any sort of evidence would be fine to see it as an attempt.

Good news is – this phantasmagory may escort all people in industry to create their own paradigm and thus making LCA even harder to integrate. Confusion will eventually give birth to realistic perception of what benchmark is. May be dogtrot house will be a base of design from that on for any project.

How does one can refer to innovation and technology now -how applied in design at the same time claiming its sustainability? Unless the building in question is a net-zero or there are different notions of sustainability are given...

Notwithstanding the problem of benchmarking, LCA, as an instrument to reduce impacts has recently become a trend, which is being turned into a race. Particularly this race is between LCA software developers. There are many of those who took GWP category as an impact worth paying greater attention to. Building Transparency has even launched free demo Revit add-in – TallyCAT – embodied carbon tool as part of EC3.

I had a chance to learn it potential and, perhaps, this is the best tool so far, which I would recommend anyone interested in acquiring new dimension of BIM and expanding his interest in how to evaluate and, possibly, reduce impacts. What I really liked about it is a synchronized work between design visualization and assessment of emissions in a simple form. I will not go into details on what the inventories or characterization models are in its mechanics. Have a look yourself.

There is more “extravagant” software such as OneClick, which proclaims simple to use and affordable interface, EPD, footprint, LCA instruments. The company provides all sorts of training and claims that they educate thousands of people. Indeed, I got certified as “LCA specialist”. Although this may sound intriguing, this course, in my opinion, was, of course, also a marketing tool. On successful completion of the course, I applied many times for various roles in this company. Was rejected. The reason behind it was that I had no experience in LCA. Again, inconsistency and utopia, as far as I was concerned.

In general, the difference between LCA tools is in its coverage. Different software can assess life cycles at different levels and across several impact categories. To simplify this writing, I will only pay further attention to building level LCA. Let's leave generations of EPDs and materials assessments to EIA professionals and materials scientists. What architects will be interested in, lays in most cases at building level of LCA understanding. Since Architects will most likely be concerned with available EPDs and averages, they only can be considered as consumers at product level. At least, nowadays.

There are currently some EU initiatives to implement LCA. Nevertheless, I did not find any unambiguous and clear approach on how this should be “implemented” and where. Yet, I assume that any legislation should give clear guidelines as well on the way LCA is to be “integrated” into the work of design or construction companies. Certainly, as I said earlier, successful implementation will only be possible within integrative design practices. To claim integration means that all parties involved in design have a common ground: BIM, system thinking, life cycle thinking.

Imagine, all people including MEP engineers, procurement, project manager – all carrying through exact same understanding of prioritizing of impacts on environment through building life cycle. I cannot comprehend it. I worked for various companies throughout my career and had never witnessed the case of smooth BIM and information exchange between stakeholders. Tricks, backgrounds of people, cultural values, intrinsic motivation – all has an influence on the design management. Trying to integrate another dimension of BIM, in the form of LCA, into design is a task which will require tremendous efforts and will result in many companies not ever willing or able to implement LCA if it is mandatory.

So far, I found green certification as a good and the only extrinsic motivation for the team to optimize the building structure and shape by means of whole life cycle assessment. Points that can be earned to get certification are split across several categories. This is how it works in LEED. DGNB, has a slightly different approach. These categories may require teamwork and harmony from all relevant design departments to achieve prerequisites or points. Although this point allocation process is a good instrument to systemize the information throughout design stages, it does not provide any guidelines on how to achieve these credits. Design teams should come up with the right approach by themselves.

Same applied to LCA, which may earn some green certification credits if it is generated. The way team is reporting GHG or other impacts may vary between projects and software used. Although some developers provide guidelines on how to use their software to achieve Green Certification credits, it remains inconvenient, and it is time consuming to select the right software and integrate it. Certainly, Architects alone cannot be expected to lead this process or get this work smoothly done.

Let's dig further into the mechanics behind. Below is what I have managed to grasp so far. Even though it is superficial it could be further studied or criticized by all concerned or mentioned in this essay. Though, at least, here is another viewpoint.

At first glance, the structure and approach of any LCA is relatively simple and is only based on modules prescribed by ISO or EN. It is split on manufacturing, construction, use and end of life modules. Software developers have these modules as bases and organize the interface accordingly. Navigating through the stages by filling in all the necessary data will lead the assessor to obtain charts with some numbers. This, ideally, should let designers decide on what is worth optimizing of.

Then, someone compares results with a benchmark and claims points for green certification. This is a succinct story. It may sound as if this “someone” is the one who should be involved in all stages of LCA assessment procedure. However, these stages are so much different in terms of understanding and database, that I would assume there should be different professionals involved when working with inventories.

Image by greenbooklive

Having one person responsible for building LCA makes the whole idea of assessment a wonderland. A product or building in question is something what will eventually last for tens of years and thus should involve as many opinions and professional decisions as possible. LCA is a compromise not only between what to optimize but who will implement it considering each stage of life cycle. As I said earlier, this comes down to human interactions.

Currently, LCA is something in the hands of sustainability professionals or software consultants who, as part of a package, provides a service to generate an EPD or make the whole assessment of the building. Nevertheless, in my opinion, the role of sustainability specialists in the context of LCA can only involve coordination, whereas all design management efforts are in the hands of Project or Architectural Manager supervising the whole process including BIM. Therefore, I do not accept the fact that someone, for example, from any external company will do an assessment for the project, which they are barely familiar with. We move further and ask ourselves: “To what extent an LCA can be integrated into design?”.

Nowadays, quantifying emissions or any other release by means of LCA is perceived from the care about nature point of view or merely for the sake of green certification. Both views are being applied on the market, I guess. Yet, again, in my personal opinion, caring about nature does not need to be quantified and has just a common sense, which we can find in works of Alberto Ponis or Fritz Haeg (Thank you apartamento magazine for letting me once know about these masters!).

Once again, I would like to demonstrate that having LCA in hands of software developers and sustainability specialists is too idealistic if they lead the process, unless there is a crucial need for Architects. International companies have professionals who grew up in different geographical regions and may have different perceptions of sustainable life. In my previous essay, I hinted at how architects' professions had been perceived before it was ruined by canons of social construction of technology and arrogant clients. Architect was a master builder.

Society will never ever again have even anything closer resembling those “monsters” of architecture like Le Corbusier . No regrets for that as we have a “breakthrough” in life cycle thinking after all, which we are putting efforts to implement. Yet, we can at least try to learn from the history of “ordering the space” by great minds who would have taken lead in LCA if it had been an issue back then. The role of sustainability specialist would have been an advisor or coordinator. The one who fills out all the necessary data provided by experts in each of all LCA modules: manufacture, construction, use.

We have just reached the point where an architect should, for some reason, integrate quantified environmental parameters in design. Sounds eerie as these terms have never been part of Architect jargon. When was the introduction? Have I missed it? LCA appeared, as we know, in the 1960s. In 2011 I studied EIA in one of the best Universities, where there was not any emphasis on LCA. Now, every single day I see a new post or scholar with terms concerning LCIA, EPD, LCC, functional units, system boundary, characterization method and many others.

I have a luxury to track this trend now as I am currently on freelance and have some more spare time to “enjoy” the race as a spectator. I have further asked myself a question: “What is the approximate boundary for an Architect to be immersed in this subject at the same time not losing the position on the market which has been once “invaded” by LCA experts?”. I am in a forward-thinking state.

Admittedly, the scope of LCA covering the maximum spectrum of environmental impacts is not in the loop of an Architect. It should not be. Leaving manufacturing and operational stage of the product or activity to sustainability specialist, architect can focus on construction modules. Having inventory analysis in the core of assessment, it is essential to transform the design into material takeoffs and then synchronize it with LCA software. For example, Tally CAT is a good instrument for this, and it only covers footprint, leaving architect wondering what are those other impacts which are used in other software. Among them are eutrophication, acidification, Ozon depletion and others.

As was said earlier, by working simultaneously in Revit and EC3 allows us to visualize efforts and optimize structures and material build ups. Yet, having collaborative work in Revit makes it difficult for an architect to be the only one responsible for structures and materials. The structural part may be in the hands of Civil or Structural Engineers. Later, are usually even less familiar with LCA. Who will lead then? BIM manager?

Although, usually, it is only structural part which matters for the buildings with concrete or steel frame in terms of CO2 footprint, there are simpler buildings where there is mainly architects’ scope. However, I doubt that these buildings will ever require any LCA. Reducing 10kg of CO2 may, of course, be helpful in terms of certification points. There is no place for nature in this optimization on a larger scale. To simplify the writing, I will not mention MEP part, which may in some cases be responsible for hundreds of meters of pipelines and associated CO2 footprints. I also intentionally omit possible energy modelling, which may be required and updated every time we optimize the design on completion of another LCA iteration.

Only with material breakdown list is it possible to make an LCA. Once it is uploaded or synchronized with LCA software, the relevant inventory is assigned to materials and activities. Scope of an Architect is predominantly a design and, thus, it involves assigning EPDs or industry averages to his preliminary material selections. If, again, part of the scope is in the hands of Structural Engineers, for instance (concrete and reinforcement), then an Architect should request a person responsible for help. Architects start to coordinate and be mediators. Should this work be done with the help of Sustainability consultants, instead, even though they are less familiar with the design? Most likely, no.

Furthermore, captivating part appears – LCA turns into LCIA with its characterization factors. The algorithms behind, which uses TRACI and other categories, are well explained, in my opinion, by Ecoinvent. Nevertheless, for the sake of clarity, it would be sufficient to understand that there are currently various methods used to come up with the right association for the material selected by designer and impact categories it has effect on.

In other words, severity of impacts we get because of calculations, may vary between software. This is due to local norms and operational standards for energy use or government materials extraction reports or whatever else, which I am not familiar with. Yet, it is claimed by scholars that GWP impact is the one which has less variability between methods. Only considering carbon footprint becomes most reliable scenario for an Architect in this context.

As far as I understood, similar “balancing” is applied to assess credits in LEED certification, where association factors are set according to three lenses: relative efficacy, duration, control. This helps assessors weighing activities across all impact categories. What I would like to demonstrate here, by giving this example, is that all these weighing or methods, characterizations have no common bases (will never be, in my opinion) and cannot be called scientific proof.

Thus, all this exercise with LCA is merely a rough estimation and thus should be adjusted to the needs of different professionals and used easily by architects after a couple of trainings. That what we need environmental specialists and SaaS for. And this should, certainly, not cost thousands of euros. Otherwise, this will only lead to small companies not being able to integrate LCA in their design. Therefore, I would suggest that EU initiatives will go with the same pace Architecture is progressing and not sustainability specialists or SaaS developers want it. The pace could easily be captured by looking at what gestures are made with the buildings scattered across the globe.

Glossary

TRACI - is an environmental impact assessment tool. It provides characterization factors for Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)

Ecoinvent - is a not-for-profit association, dedicated to the availability of high-quality data for sustainability assessments worldwide

EC3 - Embodied Carbon in Construction Calculator (EC3) Tool

LCIA - Life cycle impact assessment

EPD - Environmental Product Declaration

LCC – Life cycle costing

EIA –Environmental Impact Assessment

Inspirational sources

• Energy efficiency of the building stock in the EU by RICS

• Influence of different LCIA methods on an exemplary scenario analysis from a process development LCA case study by Springer

• UPR, LCI & LCIA by Ecoinvent

• Developing Conversion Factors of LCIA Methods for Comparison of LCA Results in the Construction Sector by MDPI

• Whole life cycle environmental impact assessment of buildings: Developing software tool and database support for the EU framework Level(s) by Science Direct

• Allocation Process LEED by Studio4llc

• Museum of contemporary art & planning exhibition by Coophimmelblau

• TRACI by Ecoinvent

• Methodology For LCA of Buildings Using EN 15978:2011 by GreenBookLive

• Sardinia. Alberto Ponis works by Pionira Project

• Salmon Creek. Fritz Haeg by salmoncreekfarmeditions

• Architecture. Very Short Introduction. Oxford Press.

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by EPA