GREEN BUILDING IN SOUTH AFRICA GUIDE TO COSTS & TRENDS · [email protected] +27 (0) 11 214 1581 +27 (0) 71 605 0989 MLC Quan ty Surveyors Norval Wentzel Steinberg Quan ty Surveyors

GREEN BUILDINGIN SOUTH AFRICAGUIDE TOCOSTS & TRENDS

COMMEMORATIVEFIRST EDITION

ISBN: 978 0 620 71916 2

U N I V E R S I T E I T V A N P R E T O R I A

U N I V E R S I T Y O F P R E T O R I A

Y U N I B E S I T H I Y A P R E T O R I A

SPONSORS We wish to thank the following organisa ons for their generous support in sponsoring theproduc on of this ground breaking document

mar [email protected] www.aurecongroup.com

+27 (0) 12 427 2000

[email protected]

+27 (0) 11 380 6400 +27 (0) 82 881 1615

[email protected]

+27 (0) 11 689 5400

[email protected]

+ 27 (0) 31 207 1340

Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd

De Leeuw Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd

Koor Dindar Mothei Quan ty Surveyors

LDM Quan ty Surveyors

kdmKOOR DINDAH MOTHEI

[email protected] +27 (0) 11 283 1500

[email protected]

+27 (0) 11 804 6122 +27 (0) 21 852 3240

sampiek@quan cost.co.zawww.quan cost.co.za+27 (0) 011 705 2505

[email protected]

+27 (0) 11 214 1581 +27 (0) 71 605 0989

MLC Quan ty Surveyors

Norval Wentzel Steinberg Quan ty Surveyors

Quan cost Quan ty Surveyors

Turner & Townsend (Pty) Ltd.

This booklet is printed on Cocoon Gloss 100 % recycled (PCW) coated paper which is FSC® Recycled cer fi ed.Cocoon is endorsed by Forest Ethics, NAPM – Na onal Associa on of Paper Merchants. The European Ecolabel, ISO 14001 – Interna onal Environmental Management Standard, ISO9001 Quality Management System and ISO 9706 Age Resistant Standard suitable for archives cer fi ed. It is PCF (Process Chlorine Free) made without the use of chlorine.

GREEN BUILDING IN SOUTH AFRICAGUIDE TO COSTS AND TRENDS

DISCLAIMER: While the Green Building Council South Africa (GBCSA), the Associa on of South African Quan ty Surveyors (ASAQS) and the University of Pretoria (UP) aims to ensure that its publica ons represent best prac ce, the GBCSA, ASAQS and UP do not accept or assume any liability or responsibility for any events or consequences which derive from the use of this GREEN BUILDING IN SOUTH AFRICA – GUIDE TO COSTS AND TRENDS document. This GREEN BUILDING IN SOUTH AFRICA – GUIDE TO COSTS AND TRENDS document is not exhaus ve and is therefore only intended to provide general guidance to those who wish to make use of it. This publica on is provided “as is” without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied including but without limita on to warran es of merchantability, fi tness for a par cular purpose and non-infringement

Copyright © 2016. All rights reservedNo part of this publica on may be reproduced or transmi ed in any form without the wri en permission of the publisher

PUBLISHED BYTHE GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL SOUTH AFRICA (GBCSA)

AND THE ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AFRICAN QUANTITY SURVEYORS (ASAQS)

AND THE UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA (UP)

ISBN: 978-0-620-71916-2Publica on date: 15 July 2016

FOREWORD

1

The establishment of the Green Building Council South Africa (GBCSA) in 2007 introduced a period of increased awareness and educa on in the South African built environment regarding the green building movement. With this emerged the percep on that green building a racts a signifi cant cost premium when compared to conven onal construc on. To address this concern, the Cost of Green Building Study Commi ee was established in 2014.The purpose of the commi ee was to conduct research on the cost of green buildings constructed in South Africa and to determine the costs and trends associated therewith.The commi ee comprised of selected members from the GBCSA, the Associa on of South African Quan ty Surveyors (ASAQS) and the University of Pretoria (UP).

Today, we are proud to say that the research has been thorough, the outcomes have been peer reviewed and validated, and the results are highly relevant to all in the built environment.For this, we extend a vote of apprecia on to all who have been involved in a most meaningful process.The publica on of this fi rst edi on GREEN BUILDING IN SOUTH AFRICA – GUIDE TO COSTS AND TRENDS booklet, is envisaged as the fi rst of many to come. We an cipate it being a regular and sought a er publica on that will keep the built environment updated on green building costs and trends.Please receive this commemora ve edi on with our best wishesGBCSA 2016 I ASAQS 2016

NOTES TO CONSIDER

2

The reader of this report must take note of the following assump ons and/or qualifi ca ons and use the fi ndings of this study with due cau on and discre on.• The cost data used in the report has not been normalised

to allow for diff erences in specifi ca on level required by the specifi c grade of offi ce space provided (i.e. Premium grade, A grade, B grade, etc) other than to evaluate the eff ect of base building cost on green cost premiums;

• The design methodology of the study used es mated cost based on elemental es mates for projects with “Design” Green Star SA cer fi ca on and fi nal cost for projects with “As Built” Green Star SA cer fi ca on. The actual cost data available did not always allow for this methodology (i.e. only fi nal cost data may have been available for a project

with “Design” cer fi ca on). However this devia on is not considered to be of signifi cance as all study projects

with both es mated and fi nal cost available indicated only very minor/insignifi cant diff erences between the es mated and fi nal cost;

• Changes in the Na onal Building Regula ons (SANS 10400) came into eff ect in 2011. These changes directly addressed design aspects of buildings associated with green building design. More exac ng building regula ons set for conven onal construc on should decrease the cost premium of green building. The changes in building regula ons were not specifi cally considered by the report other than the evalua on of cer fi ca on date on green cost premiums.

INTRODUCTION

3

The GBCSA was established in 2007. By the end of May2016 a total of 180 buildings had been cer fi ed by the GBCSA, whilst more than 7000 professionals had enrolled on GBCSA training courses.

The interna onal green building industry has expanded and matured signifi cantly during the past two decades. However a number of factors with the poten al to hamper the growth of the industry have also been iden fi ed during this period. These include the percep on that green building a racts a signifi cant cost premium when compared to the cost of non-green/conven onal construc on. At this point, no data existed in South Africa to prove otherwise.

Therefore a research project was commissioned whichset out to determine the actual costs and trends of Green building in South Africa presented in a credible, unbiased, consistent and user friendly manner. The fi ndings in this report are based on actual case studies of offi ce buildings that have been awarded a Green Star SA cer fi ca on.The report includes cost data on all South African offi ce buildings cer fi ed by the GBCSA up to the end of 2014, which meet the following criteria:• Are 4, 5 or 6 Star Green Star SA cer fi ed buildings• Have either “Design” and/or “As Built” ra ngs• Used the Green Star SA Offi ce v1 ra ng tool

4

The above criteria when applied to the GBCSA’s data base of cer fi ed projects returned a sample of 54 offi ce buildings for study purposes. The buildings are owned by 34 diff erent companies. All the owners were contacted and they agreed to par cipate. Their prior approval was secured before including the fi nancial detail of their buildings in this study.The analysis of the cost data and presenta on of the fi ndings is based on the ASAQS’s “Guide to Elemental Cost Es ma ng 2013” and the GBCSA’s “Green Star SA Offi ce v1” ra ng tool.

The study focused on two primary aspects:

1. THE GREEN DESIGN PENETRATIONThis indicates the extent to which the “Green Star SA Offi ce v1” ra ng tool has introduced green design into the diff erent

elements of a project, expressed as a percentage (%) oftotal project cost. For example a penetra on factor of 45 % would indicate that green design has been integrated into45 % of the total project budget.

2. THE GREEN COST PREMIUMThe green cost premium is defi ned as the addi onal cost of green building over and above the cost of conven onal construc on, expressed as a % of the total cost of theproject. For example, a green building project which costs R100 million in total and includes green building costs ofR3 million over and above the cost of conven onal construc on, is considered to have a green cost premium of R3m/R100m x 100/1 % = 3 %;

THE STUDY

5

The above two primary aspects were then analysed in terms of the following:

• Cer fi ca on level Evalua ng green building costs in terms of the three

diff erent cer fi ca on levels i.e. 4 Star, 5 Star, or 6 Star Green Star SA cer fi ca on;

• Loca on Evalua ng the eff ect of loca on on green building costs.

Building costs o en vary between diff erent provinces in South Africa;

• Construc on area Evalua ng the eff ect of the size of a building on the green

building cost premium (GBCP). Larger projects o en

a ract more compe ve building rates compared to smaller projects, due to economies of scale. Larger construc on companies may achieve higher levels of effi ciency/produc vity. However, mega projects (i.e. major sport stadiums or power sta ons) may restrict eff ec ve compe on which in turn may result in higher building costs;

• Base building cost Evalua ng the eff ect of base building cost (R/m2) on

GBCP. A project with a higher base building cost could expect to have a lower green cost premium. However, a project with a low base building cost could expect to have a higher green cost premium. The study evaluated the eff ect of base building cost on the GBCP;

con nuedTHE STUDY

6

• Ver cal façade ra o Evalua ng the eff ect of the ver cal façade:construc on

area ra o on the GBCP. The interac on between a building and the physical environment takes place to a large degree via the ver cal façade of the building. Therefore, the ver cal façade area is closely

associated with green building design. The study evaluated the eff ect of façade:construc on area ra o

on the GBCP;

• Cer fi ca on date Evalua ng the eff ect of me/maturity of the green

industry on the GBCP. Green building has introduced new concepts to the construc on industry. Over me,

the risks associated with new green concepts are seen to be reducing and is being replaced by greater certainty in terms of green design and costs related thereto. The study evaluated the eff ect of me on the GBCP;

• Tenant mix Evalua ng the eff ect of single corporate vs generic tenant

mix on the GBCP. The majority of the offi ce buildings cer fi ed by the GBCSA were buildings designed for single, corporate tenants. Corporate clients tend to place a high value on marke ng and public image and should therefore be inclined to spend more on their buildings. The study evaluated the eff ect of tenant mix on the GBCP;

con nuedTHE STUDY

7

• Cer fi ca on ra ng The Green Star SA Offi ce v1 tool allows for “Design” and

“As Built” Green Star SA cer fi ca on ra ng. The study evaluated the eff ect of the cer fi ca on ra ng mix on the GBCP.

• Ra ng tool categories Evalua ng the GBCP in terms of the categories of the

Green Star SA Offi ce v1 tool. The Green Star SA Offi ce v1

con nuedTHE STUDY

tool consists of nine diff erent categories and a total of 69 credits. The tool therefore off ers many design

alterna ves when pursuing Green Star SA cer fi ca on. The study evaluated the por on of the GBCP spent

on each of the categories of the Green Star SA ra ng tool.

8

The study sample of 54 projects provides a sample profi le which can be used as a background to provide context for the study results which follow.The study sample is made up of 38 projects (70,3 %) with a 4 Star Green Star SA cer fi ca on, 13 projects (24,1 %) with a 5 Star Green Star SA cer fi ca on and 3 projects (5,6 %)with a 6 Star Green Star SA cer fi ca on (see Figure 1).

GBCSA CERTIFIED PROJECTS 2009 2014FIGURE 1

Num

ber o

f pro

ject

s

Cer fi ca on level

40353025201510

5

34

4 582 1

5 Star4 Star 6 Star0

Cer fi ed, “Design”

Cer fi ed, “As Built”

SAMPLE PROFILE

9

Of all cer fi ed projects in the sample a total of 33 projects(61,1 %) are located in Gauteng with 11 projects (20,4 %) from the Western Cape and 9 projects(16,7 %) from Kwazulu-Natal(see Figure 2).

PROJECT LOCATIONFIGURE 2

Num

ber o

f pro

ject

sLoca on

40353025201510

5

33

11 9

1Western CapeGauteng KZN

0Other

con nuedSAMPLE PROFILE

10

The construc on area of the sample projects varied between 858 m2 and 74,244 m2. To evaluate the eff ect of construc on area on the green building cost premium, a total of fi ve categories were determined to stra fy the sample – projects with a construc on area of:less than 5,000 m2; 5,001 m2 – 10,000 m2; 10,001 m2 – 25,000 m2;25,001 m2 – 50,000 m2 and more than 50,000 m2. The detail of the number of projects in each size category is detailed in Figure 3.

PROJECT SIZEFIGURE 3

Num

ber o

f pro

ject

s

Construc on area

20

15

10

5

16

10

15

9

4

< 5,000 m2 > 50,001 m25,001 -10,000 m2

10,001 -25,000 m2

25,001 -50,000 m2

0


11

The number of projects cer fi ed per year clearly indicates the growth in green building in South Africa(see Figure 4).

PROJECTS CERTIFIED PER YEARFIGURE 4

Num

ber o

f pro

ject

sCer fi ca on date

20

15

10

5

13

6

13

18

13

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 20140


12

The majority (63 %) of cer fi ed buildings in the sample are occupied by single, corporate tenants (see Figure 5).

TENANT MIXFIGURE 5

Num

ber o

f pro

ject

s

Tenant mix

50

34

20

Single tenant Mul ple tenants0

10

20

30

40


13

The study revealed that the applica on of the Green Star SA Offi ce v1 tool to pursue Green Star SA cer fi ca on resulted in the introduc on of green design elements accoun ng for an average of 42,7 % of the budgets of projects included in the sample. For some projects more than 70 % of the budget included green design elements. No clear correla on was apparent between the diff erent levels of cer fi ca on and the green design penetra on achieved (see Table 1).

CERTIFICATION LEVELGREEN DESIGN PENETRATION CERTIFICATION LEVELTABLE 1

Cer fi ca on level –Green design penetra on (%)

73,5 %42,7 %17,6 %TOTAL73,5 %

57,9 %

45,9 %

43,5 %

39,7 %

44,3 %

17,6 %

22,2 %

42,7 %

4 STAR

5 STAR

6 STAR

MAXAVERAGEMIN

GREEN DESIGN PENETRATIONSTUDY RESULTS

14

The average green design penetra on of projects from the Western Cape was slightly higher than that of the projects from other provinces (see Table 2).

LOCATIONGREEN DESIGN PENETRATION LOCATIONTABLE 2

Loca on –Green design penetra on (%)

73,5 %42,7 %17,6 %73,5 %

63,5 %

47,6 %

41,8 %

46,0 %

40,4 %

17,6 %

31,3 %

33,7 %

MAXAVERAGEMIN

TOTALGAUTENG

WESTERN CAPE

KZN

con nuedGREEN DESIGN PENETRATIONSTUDY RESULTS

15

GREEN COST PREMIUM CERTIFICATION LEVELTABLE 3

Cer fi ca on level –Green cost premium (%)

14,2 %5,0 %1,1 %TOTAL14,2 %

11,7 %

11,7 %

4,5 %

6,6 %

10,9 %

1,1 %

2,0 %

10,2 %

4 STAR

5 STAR

6 STAR

MAXAVERAGEMIN

GREEN COST PREMIUMSTUDY RESULTS

The average green building cost premium achieved by the projects sampled (as expressed by the median*) was 5,0 % of the total project cost. The lowest cost premium reported was 1,1 % and the highest was 14,2 %. BothTable 3 and Figure 6 indicate the posi ve correla on between green cost premium and cer fi ca on level.

CERTIFICATION LEVEL

*see note overleaf for defi ni on of median

16

GREEN COST PREMIUM CERTIFICATION LEVELFIGURE 6

Gree

n co

st p

rem

ium

%

Cer fi ca on level

16141210

8642

5 Star4 Star 6 Star0

MinimumAverageMaximum

con nuedGREEN COST PREMIUMSTUDY RESULTS

NOTE: The choice of indicator for the central tendency of the data (to describe the average green building cost premium) was the median. The median is the midpoint of a frequency distribu on or the numerical centre of a set of data. Since the data sample was slightly right skewed (0,389), the median was chosen as the preferred indicator over the arithme c mean as it is less sensi ve to skewed data.

CERTIFICATION LEVEL con nued

17

The average green cost premium of 6,9 % for projects in the Western Cape was slightly higher when compared to the projects from other loca ons (see Table 4).

LOCATIONGREEN COST PREMIUM LOCATIONTABLE 4

Loca on –Green cost premium (%)

14,2 %5,0 %1,1 %TOTAL12,2 %

14,2 %

8,4 %

6,0 %

6,9 %

4,5 %

1,1 %

1,7 %

3,6 %

GAUTENG

WESTERN CAPE

KZN

MAXAVERAGEMIN


18

Both Table 5 as well as Figure 7confi rm the strong nega ve correla on between green cost premium and construc on size. The larger projects managed to achieve a Green Star SA cer fi ca on at a much lower average green cost premium when compared to smaller projects.

CONSTRUCTION AREAGREEN COST PREMIUM CONSTRUCTION AREATABLE 5

Construc on area –Green cost premium (%)

14,2 %5,0 %1,1 %TOTAL12,2 %

14,2 %

11,7 %

5,0 %

3,3 %

9,3 %

6,0 %

6,9 %

3,7 %

2,6 %

3,6 %

1,7 %

2,9 %

1,1 %

2,0 %

< 5,000 m2

< 10,000 m2

< 25,000 m2

< 50,000 m2

> 50,000 m2

MAXAVERAGEMIN


19

GREEN COST PREMIUM CONSTRUCTION AREAFIGURE 7

Gree

n co

st p

rem

ium

%Construc on area

16141210

8642

< 5,000 m2 < 10,000 m2 < 25,000 m2 < 50,000 m2 > 50,000 m20



CONSTRUCTION AREA con nued

20

The base building cost has been calcu-lated as the total project cost minus the basement cost divided by the offi ce construc on area. To allow for the me value of money, all costs were escalated to December 2014. The base building cost of the project sample ranged from R8,220/m2 to R23,431/m2 with an average cost of R12,849/m2. To evaluate the rela onship between base building cost and green cost premium, the base building cost range was split into fi ve categories thatare all defi ned in rela on to the

BASE BUILDING COSTGREEN COST PREMIUM BASE BUILDING COST AT 12/2014TABLE 6

Base building cost (R/m2) –Green cost premium (%)

11,7 %

9,8 %

10,0 %

12,2 %

5,1 %

5,8 %

8,2 %

6,6 %

1,7 %

1,1 %

3,6 %

2,0 %

< R11,560/m2

< R12,530/m2

< R14,140/m2

> R14,140/m2

MAXAVERAGEMIN

…con nued overleaf


21

GREEN COST PREMIUM BASE BUILDING COST AT 12/2014FIGURE 8

Gree

n co

st p

rem

ium

%Base building cost

average cost. The categories are –much lower (< R11,560), lower (R11,561 – R12,530), similar (R12,531 – R13,170), higher (R13,171 – R14,140) or much higher (> R14,141) than the average base building cost.The study revealed a marginally posi ve rela onship between base building cost and green cost premium. Buildings with a higher base building cost also had on average a slightly higher green cost premium (see Table 6 and Figure 8).

Minimum Average Maximum

< R11,560/m2 < R12,530/m2 < R14,140/m2 > R14,140/m202468

101214


BASE BUILDING COST con nued

22

The ra o of ver cal façade:construc on area of the sample projects varied from 0,27:1 to 0,79:1 with an average of 0,47:1. To evaluate the rela onship between façade ra o and greencost premium, the façade ra o range was split into fi ve categories that are all defi ned in rela on to the average ra o. The categories are – much lower (< 0,38:1), lower (0,38 – 0,44:1), average (0,45 – 0,50:1), higher (0,51 – 0,56:1) or much

VERTICAL FAÇADE RATIOGREEN COST PREMIUM VERTICAL FAÇADE RATIOTABLE 7

Ver cal façade ra o –Green cost premium (%)

11,7 %

8,2 %

10,0 %

11,7 %

12,2 %

5,2 %

4,5 %

3,8 %

6,7 %

9,3 %

2,0 %

1,1 %

2,9 %

1,7 %

2,9 %

Much ↓ than average (< 0,38:1)

↓ than average (0,38 – 0,44:1)

Average (0,45 – 0,50:1)

↑ than average (0,51 – 0,56:1)

Much ↑ than average (> 0,56:1)

MAXAVERAGEMIN

…con nued overleaf


23

GREEN COST PREMIUM VERTICAL FAÇADE RATIOFIGURE 9

Gree

n co

st p

rem

ium

%Ver cal façade ra o

Lower than average

(0,38 – 0,44:1)

Much lowerthan average

(< 0,38:1)

Higher than average

(0,51 – 0,56:1)

higher (> 0,56:1) than the average ra o. Table 7 and Figure 9 indicate the correla on between ver cal façade ra o and green cost premium. Buildings with an above average ver cal façade:construc on area ra o also tend to have a higher green cost premium.

Average(0,45 – 0,50:1)

Much higher than average

(> 0,56:1)

02468

101214



VERTICAL FAÇADE RATIO con nued

24

The study points to a maturing of the South African green industry over me. Table 8 and Figure 10 indicate as a general trend that since 2011, green cost premiums appear to be declining.

CERTIFICATION DATEGREEN COST PREMIUM CERTIFICATION DATETABLE 8

Cer fi ca on date –Green cost premium (%)

3,6 %

11,7 %

12,2 %

14,2 %

10,2 %

3,6 %

8,3 %

8,2 %

3,5 %

6,6 %

3,6 %

6,8 %

2,7 %

1,7 %

1,1 %

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

MAXAVERAGEMIN


25

GREEN COST PREMIUM CERTIFICATION DATEFIGURE 10

Gree

n co

st p

rem

ium

%Cer fi ca on date

16141210

8642

2010 2011 2012 2013 20140



CERTIFICATION DATE con nued

26

Table 9 and Figure 11 confi rm that projects with a single corporate client, will on average have a higher green cost premium compared to projects with a mul ple tenant mix.

TENANT MIXGREEN COST PREMIUM TENANT MIXTABLE 9

Tenant mix –Green cost premium (%)

14,2 %5,0 %1,1 %TOTAL14,2 %

9,3 %

8,1 %

3,4 %

2,7 %

1,1 %

SINGLE CORPORATE

MULTIPLE TENANTS

MAXAVERAGEMIN


27

GREEN COST PREMIUM TENANT MIXFIGURE 11

Gree

n co

st p

rem

ium

%Tenant mix

16141210

8642

Single corporate Mul ple tenants0



TENANT MIX con nued

28


CERTIFICATION RATINGAn evalua on of the “Design” versus the “As Built” Green Star SA cer fi ca on ra ng achieved by the sample projects, revealed that projects with a “Design” cer fi ca on ra ng achieved an average green cost premium of 6,3 % compared to the 6,9 % achieved by projects with an “As Built” cer fi ca on ra ng.

AVERAGE GREEN COST PREMIUMFIGURE 12

Gree

n co

st p

rem

ium

(%

)

Cer fi ca on ra ng

8

6

4

2

0

6,3 6,9

Design As Built

29

The alloca on of the green cost premium to the nine categories of the Green Star SA Offi ce v1 tool revealed that almost 58 % of the total green cost premium was allocated to only two categories namely, Energy and Indoor Environment Quality. It is notable that the fi ve categories comprising Energy, Indoor Environment Quality, Management, Materials and Water, made up for more than 88 % of the total green cost premium alloca on (see Table 10 and Figure 13).

RATING TOOL CATEGORIES GREEN COST PREMIUM RATING TOOL CATEGORIESTABLE 10

Ra ng tool categoriesMANAGEMENTINDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITYENERGYTRANSPORTWATERMATERIALSLAND USE AND ECOLOGYEMISSIONSINNOVATION

Green cost premium alloca on (%)11,026,031,63,49,3

10,01,86,80,3


30

GREEN COST PREMIUM RATING TOOL CATEGORIESFIGURE 13Gr

een

cost

pre

miu

m a

lloca

on

(%)

Ra ng Tool Categories

35

WaterManagement IndoorEnvironment

Quality

Energy Transport Materials Land useand Ecology

Emissions Innova on05

1015202530

11,0

26,031,6

3,49,3 10,0

1,86,8

0,3


RATING TOOL CATEGORIES con nued

CONCLUSION

31

• Green Star SA cer fi ed buildings are currently located predominantly in Gauteng, the Western Cape and the Durban/Umhlanga area of Kwazulu-Natal;

• Green building in South Africa is growing exponen ally;• Offi ce buildings of all sizes have successfully applied for

Green Star SA cer fi ca on;• Since 2011, generic offi ce buildings that have been

developed for a mul -tenant mix, make up for 40 % of all Green Star SA cer fi ed buildings;

• Pursuing Green Star SA cer fi ca on through the Green Star SA Offi ce v1 tool, has resulted in an average green design penetra on of 42,7 % of the total project budget;

• Higher levels of cer fi ca on (4 Star, to 5 Star, to 6 Star) has resulted in a progressive increase in the green cost premium;

• The green cost premium appears to be progressively diminishing over me, largely as a result of a growing maturity in the green industry;

• Compared to smaller offi ce buildings, large offi ce buildings generally achieved Green Star SA cer fi ca on with lower green cost premiums;

• The average green cost premium over and above the cost of non-green buildings is 5,0 %;

32

• Offi ce buildings with higher ver cal façade:construc on area ra os tended to have higher green cost premiums;

• Offi ce buildings that were developed for single corporate tenants a racted higher green cost premiums than buildings developed for a mul -tenant mix;

con nuedCONCLUSION

• Offi ce buildings with higher base building costs did not necessarily achieve lower green cost premiums and

• Two categories of the Green Star SA Offi ce v1 tool i.e. Energy and Indoor Environment Quality made up for 58 % of the alloca on of the total green cost premium.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

33

The Associa on of South African Quan ty Surveyors

Mr Nellis Boshoff

Dr Hoffi e Cruywagen

Dr Corné de Leeuw

Mr Larry Feinberg

Mr Len Holder

Dr Deen Letchmiah

Mr Mar n Smith

Mr Karl Trusler

Green Building Council South Africa

Mr Manfred Braune

Mr Jarrod Lewin

Mr Eric Noir

Mr Brian Wilkinson

Par cipa ng property ownersAbland Property Developers Absa Bank LtdA acq Ltd Chevron South Africa (Pty) Ltd Cinzaco 128 (Pty) Ltd City of Cape Town Department of Environmental Aff airs Department of Public Works Eris Property GroupFirst Na onal Bank Growthpoint Proper es Limited

University of PretoriaDepartment of Construc on Economics

Mr Danie Hoff man (researcher)

34

Hyundai Associated Motor Holdings (Pty) LtdIngenuity Property Investments Ltd KZN Department of Public Works Liberty Group Limited Melrose Arch Investment Holdings (Pty) LtdMenlyn Maine Investment Holdings NMS Commercial Proper es Nedbank Limited Old Mutual PropertyRabie Property Group (Pty) Ltd

Redefi ne Proper es (Pty) Ltd Remgro Management Services Ltd Ridgeside Offi ce Park Por on 8(Pty) LtdSage VIP The South African Na onal Roads Agency Ltd Standard Bank Proper es (Pty) LtdTower Property Fund Ltd Uvongo Falls No 26 (Pty) Ltd V & A Waterfront Holdings (Pty) LtdVodacom Group (Pty) Ltd

con nuedACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Wanooka Proper es (Pty) Ltd Western Cape Department ofPublic WorksZenprop Property Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Par cipa ng Quan ty Surveying FirmsAECOM South Africa (Pty) LtdB & L Quan ty Surveyors (Pty) LtdBTKM Quan ty SurveyorsBrian Heineberg & Associates (Pty) LtdBWR Quan ty Surveyors

35

con nuedACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Par cipa ng ESD consultantsAureconLudwig Design Consul ngPJ Carew Consul ngSolid Green Consul ngWSP/Parsons Brinkerhoff

Crane Construc on Consultants(Pty) LtdDe Leeuw GroupGM Quan ty SurveyorsKoch Consul ngKoor Dindar Mothei Quan ty Surveyors (Pty) LtdM&F Giuricich Developments (Pty) LtdMLC Quan ty Surveyors SA (Pty) LtdNarker & Associates ccNorval Wentzel Steinberg Quan ty Surveyors

RLB|Pentad Quan ty SurveyorsQuan cost Quan ty SurveyorsRussell Irons & Associates (Pty) LtdSchoombie Hartmann Quan ty SurveyorsStorm Scioca Quan ty Surveyors (Pty) Ltd

SPONSORS We wish to thank the following organisa ons for their generous support in sponsoring theproduc on of this ground breaking document

[email protected] / [email protected] www.caqs.co.za

+27 (0) 12 663 3300 +27 (0) 83 655 7010 +27 (0) 83 655 4754

[email protected]

+27 (0) 11 492 1237

CAQS cc Quan ty Surveyors

Enumerate Consul ng – Quan ty Surveyors Na onal Associa on of Social Housing Organisa ons (NASHO)

[email protected] www.enumerate.co.za

+27 (0) 83 786 7766

Narker & Associates

[email protected] www.narker.com

+27 (0) 21 462 6223QUANTITY SURVEYORS

Verster Berry in Associa on Inc.

[email protected]

+27 (0) 51 430 8264+27 (0) 82 884 4855

[email protected]+27 (0) 16 423 6422

Quanpro

This booklet is printed on Cocoon Gloss 100 % recycled (PCW) coated paper which is FSC® Recycled cer fi ed.Cocoon is endorsed by Forest Ethics, NAPM – Na onal Associa on of Paper Merchants. The European Ecolabel, ISO 14001 – Interna onal Environmental Management Standard, ISO9001 Quality Management System and ISO 9706 Age Resistant Standard suitable for archives cer fi ed. It is PCF (Process Chlorine Free) made without the use of chlorine.

COMMEMORATIVEFIRST EDITION

www.asaqs.co.za T +27 (0) 11 315 4140/1/2 I F 086 601 7087

administra [email protected] G6, Building 27Thornhill Offi ce Park

94 Bekker Road, Vorna Valley 1686

www.gbcsa.org.za T +27 (0) 11 339 1152 I +27 (0) 21 486 7900

[email protected] Floor, The Old Warehouse Building

Black River Offi ce Park, 2 Fir StreetObservatory 7925

www.up.ac.zaT +27 (0) 12 420 4972 I F +27 (0) 12 420 3598

danie.hoff [email protected] of Construc on Economics

Building 5, South Campus, University of PretoriaLynnwood Road, Pretoria 0002

U N I V E R S I T E I T V A N P R E T O R I A

U N I V E R S I T Y O F P R E T O R I A

Y U N I B E S I T H I Y A P R E T O R I A

Documents

GREEN BUILDING IN SOUTH AFRICA GUIDE TO COSTS & TRENDS · [email protected] +27 (0) 11 214 1581 +27 (0) 71 605 0989 MLC Quan ty Surveyors Norval Wentzel Steinberg Quan ty Surveyors