Arkansas school to build ‘green’ dorms

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. – With the environment and sustainability on many people’s minds, housing officials around the nation are “building green,” including those at the University of Arkansas.\nA “green” building is defined as one that incorporates environmentally-friendly design elements that are more water- and energy-efficient, uses recycled materials, sustainable site-development and indoor environmental quality, according to the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design criteria. \nMaple Hill residence hall, scheduled to open next fall, will incorporate some of the categories specified by Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. However, the project acquired 22 of the minimum 26 points for basic LEED certification, said Gary Hume, director of Residential Facilities. \n“Because of the fast-track pace of this project, it is unlikely that we will reach the minimum points for any certification,” he said. \nHousing officials hope phase two of the project, which is scheduled to open in August 2008, will be LEED certified. \nThe “green” features of Maple Hill are based mostly on the construction. The pavement was salvaged from existing concrete and used for fill rather than excavating another site to bring in dirt. The main structural system is fabricated from recycled steel rather than new mill product, Hume said. The gypsum wallboard used throughout the project is primarily manufactured out of recycled material and post-consumer products. Other green points were earned by the University of Arkansas’ policies. For example, alternative transportation methods and the density of the campus environment and campus utility systems earned points. Also, the building earned points for the amount of natural light in primary spaces, which reduces energy load and improves the living environment for residents, Hume said.\nThe mechanical systems are efficient and the exterior walls of the building have almost twice the amount of insulation of a typical residence hall. It is designed to save up to 15 percent of normal utility costs.\nSome other renovations have been done to move in a direction with eco-friendly aspects. \nOne of the renovations is a scald-guard valve to control the pressure in the showers to remove the inconvenience of the scalding hot water when someone flushes the toilet. Also, the change to green-tip fluorescent lamps reduces the mercury in landfills. \nOther housing initiatives include the discontinuance of alkaline powered smoke detectors, recycled nickel-cadmium rechargeable batteries, conversion to a forty-year warranty shingle with a 110 mph wind-rating in Holcombe and incorporating an integrated pest-control management system. \nThe cost difference was minimal, Hume said. \nOne possible reason many college and university officials retract from “building green” is because of the cost. \nBut other officials said the upfront cost is worth the gain later.\nA standard building would need repairs in 15 years, whereas a “green” building is expected to last twice as long, according to an article about Rubloff Hall at Saint Xavier University. \nThe building also saves energy costs in the long run, according to the article. A traditional building would cost $90,000 per year for energy, but annual costs at Rubloff Hall will cost less than $60,000. \nAt Tufts University in Somerville, Mass., a 62,000-square-foot green building is expected to use 30 percent less energy and 30 percent less water, according to the school’s Web site. \n“The cost might be higher, but over time, costs will be less,” Hume said.