To: Russell K. Osgood, President of Grinnell College
From: The Campus Advisory Committee on Environmental Concerns (Vince Eckhart, Biology, committee chair and contact person)
Subject: Comments on the Campus Master Plan
Date: 22 September 1999
______________________________________________________________________________
Dear President Osgood:
The Campus Advisory Committee on Environmental Concerns would like to make the following brief, preliminary assessment of the Master Plan unveiled on 26 August 1999.
Principles
Certain principles of environmental sustainability informed these comments, and it is appropriate to list these at the start. First, a campus designed to be sustainable must hold in very high value the conservation of energy, space, and materials. Resources are finite. They should be consumed judiciously. Second, an accounting of the College's environmental impact must include not only the direct effects of its structures and landscapes but also the indirect impacts of resources the College consumes and discards. Lawns require applications of chemicals that may leach into groundwater and flow into waterways. Energy consumption means fossil fuel combustion and generation of greenhouse gases. Building demolition means accumulation of material in landfills. The College must consume resources, but its consumption should balance educational benefits with these kinds of costs, leaving as small an environmental footprint as necessary to meet its mission. Fortunately, environmental sustainability generates long-term cost savings in resource use, so there is no necessary trade-off between environmental responsibility and financial responsibility. Nor are environmental sustainability and Grinnell's educational mission adversaries, trading off with each other. Quality liberal arts education and the College's commitment to social responsibility are clearly consonant with the principles listed here.
Comments
1. Sustainable design. We are pleased that the Master Plan makes a clear commitment to sustainable design of new structures and of a zero-net-increase policy regarding energy use. The earlier guidelines that Ove-Arup prepared for the Master Plan (on which the Committee has already commented) have substantial merit and should be taken seriously. Resource-use efficiency should be a serious goal of building renovations and upgrades (e.g., of climate control systems) as well as of new construction.
When the time arrives to plan new construction projects, we recommend that the College enlist the services of architects at the cutting edge of sustainable building design (the Committee is currently gathering information to facilitate this), rather than making sustainability a secondary or tertiary consideration. The real value (in cost savings and efficient resource consumption) and symbolic value (i.e., the example set for the community) of Grinnell's commitment to sustainability should not be underestimated.
An important avenue for implementing Grinnell's commitment to environmentally sound design is to pursue the use of alternative energy sources, especially non-polluting sources such as solar energy technology, wind-generated electricity, and geothermal heating and cooling. Emerging technologies and restructuring of public utilities will likely increase the accessibility of environmentally friendly energy over the time span of Grinnell's Master Plan. We advocate strict attention and firm commitment to taking advantage of these opportunities.
2. Demolition. For the reasons given above, we also are pleased that the Master Plan recommends so much less building demolition than did the draft presented last spring. At that time, the consultants proposed demolition of no fewer than six buildings: Burling Library, the PEC, the Forum, the Harris Center, Darby Gymnasium, and Norris Hall. This version halves that number, with Burling, the PEC, and Norris slated for destruction. We recommend that the College take very seriously the environmental costs of demolition in addition to its aesthetic and economic considerations. Creative uses of remodeled buildings should be considered as alternatives. When demolition is deemed the best option, attempts should be made to recycle rather than discard the materials, even if recycling is more expensive in the short term
A related issue is the construction of temporary structures designed for demolition within a short time (e.g., the proposed temporary housing for Computer Services in a "ten-fifteen year life building"). We recommend that short-lifetime buildings be avoided, for two reasons. First, temporary buildings hasten the arrival of the environmental cost of demolition. Second, historical precedents (such as the 1951 wing of the Science Building) suggest that temporary space often becomes inadequate, long-term space, which is a not a wise investment. We suggest that temporary space needs be met by building environmentally sound buildings of long life expectancy, designed with sufficient flexibility that they can accommodate new needs (such as housing emeritus faculty) when their temporary function is complete.
We will speak to one planned demolition in particular. The Plan would sacrifice Burling Library for the sake of a new grand southern entrance to the College, but the entrance (and traffic
turn-around) would not actually lead to significant campus facilities or parking areas. Burling has evidently outlived its useful life as Grinnell's main library, and it may make sense to locate a new library centrally rather than peripherally, but we recommend the consideration of alternative uses of this substantial structure, the demolition of which would generate huge amounts of waste.
3. Transportation . We recommend that non-polluting, non-congesting modes of transportation be encouraged. The campus landscape and streetscape should facilitate the use of feet and bicycles to travel around central campus and between central campus and the community.
4. Space. Like energy, steel, concrete, and fertilizer, space is a resource. We suggest that the our campus' modest size need not signify poverty, but efficiency. (This is not to say that there are no benefits to additional space, particularly open space that does not require large inputs of fertilizer, fuel, and staff time to maintain. Of this sort of space, the College is indeed poor.) Nevertheless, we recommend that the College's plans consider space to be a resource to be consumed as thoughtfully as any other.
