Is BREEAM good good?

This blog has now moved. Please visit Zerochampion.com and update your bookmarks

Quick thought struck me, probably not that original, during a shortlisting session for the upcoming Building Sustainability Awards that will be handed out later this year. Is BREEAM good rating really that good? The one I saw was rated 48%. To my simple brain that equates to a pass in an academic exam so would be a C. Would you then call that average? To introduce another analogy it's similar to when London Underground proudly declares that its tube lines are experiencing 'good' levels of service, when it really means normal. It may be a minor point but I wonder whether such a language shift would change attitudes and demands amongst the industry for better performance and delivery.

Comments

[Andrew]

Phil

Bear in mind it is still a voluntary system. It's better than nothing - the fact that the design team or whomever have bothered to get some kind of rating through a rigourous QA process ought to count for something, so it's probably "good" to have done this.

We're currently working towards getting a good rating for a management and operation assessment breeam assessment on a building we renting some floors in. This will be an achievement as we have limited control/say on how the building is run - the aim is to establish a benchmark against which we can improve (either through dialogue with the existing landlord, or move elsewhere to a building with a better rating).

Another point worth noting, is that ratings achieved a few versions ago will have generally been much easier/cheaper than current and future versions. Also BREEAM for different building types can be more difficult (for example there are are 9 management credits in BREEAM for Offices 2006, whereas there are 20 in the Schools version.)

This makes it impossible to judge ratings from different BREEAM schemes for different building types and/or for the same building types assessed under different versions of the method.

[Phil Clark]

Good points Andrew. Your final comments on the impossibility of judging BREEAM ratings for different building types will make my shortlisting for the project categories for the awards even more difficult. I think this underlines that BREEAM is a very useful and valuable tool but broader consideration have to be taken into account.

[Andrew]

Phil

Dont use BREEAM as a proxy for sustainability. It's good but there are some strange and perverse outcomes somtimes. The introduction of innovation credits in the 2008 versions is a step in the right direction, but all too often when BREEAMing we get bogged down in arguing over seemingly minor trivia and niff naff issues that do not make a whole heap of difference.

There are many issues not considered by BREEAM properly or in some cases at all. In judging your submissions, I think you should look at the rating achieved as just one factor or measure.