Previous Page  30 / 100 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 30 / 100 Next Page
Page Background

30

/ BUILDING DIALOGUE / SEPTEMBER 2017

ELEMENTS

Healthy Schools

L

eadership in Energy and Environmental

Design has become a household name in

real estate, design and building circles. An-

other “best practices” program for school design,

which is less widely used but gaining traction in

the industry, is Collaborative for High Performance

Schools (CHPS).

CHPS is a national movement to improve student

performance and the entire educational experience

by building the best possible schools. The goal of

CHPS is to “fundamentally change the design,

construction and operation of schools to: pro-

tect student and staff health, and enhance the

learning environments of school children ev-

erywhere; conserve energy, water, and other nat-

ural resources and reduce waste, pollution, and

environmental degradation.”

We have been working with CHPS for seven

years and truly see the value in an alternative rat-

ing system that helps school districts and the proj-

ect teams design, construct and operate high perfor-

mance schools.

For the current versions of LEED (v4) and CHPS

(2014) and applicable to the construction of new

school buildings, there are several certification thresh-

old levels available:

CHPS & LEED –What’s the Difference?

LEED most heavily prioritizes credits in the Energy

category, whereas CHPS weights Indoor Environmen-

tal Quality Credits most heavily. LEED has a category for

Regional Priority credits allowing the rating system to

address geographically specific environmental priorities.

The Location and Transportation related credits (2 each)

for CHPS are contained within the Sites credit catego-

ry, whereas LEED v4 breaks Location and Transportation

into its own credit category with 8 credits. CHPS has an

Operations andMetrics category, where LEED breaks out

Operations and Maintenance into a separate certifica-

tion altogether.

LEED v4 assigns the highest value to credits that re-

duce contribution of carbon emissions, whereas CHPS

assigns the highest value to credits that enhance student

health and well-being. Both rating systems are instru-

mental in ensuring that our designs are focused on en-

vironmental as well as student health.

CHPS in Colorado

Colorado became the first state in the nation to adopt

the US-CHPS criteria for healthy, high-performance

schools, through an update to the Colorado High Perfor-

mance Certification Program (HPCP).

CHPS Verified denotes a level of CHPS certification

that combines a rigorous standard for

the design and construction of healthy,

green school buildings with a com-

plete third-party review. Achieving

CHPS Verified Leader status demon-

strates that a school has met one of

the most stringent standards for green

school design.

Our firm designed the nation’s first

CHPS Verified Leader certified school,

Alta Vista Charter School (AVCS) in La-

mar, which was completed in 2011.

We reduced energy consumption at

AVCS by 50 percent with significant

savings to this school, as compared to

anaverage school. Ahigh-performance

envelope coupledwith a geo-exchange

ground source loop heating and cool-

ing systemhelped achieve this savings.

In addition, to lower operational costs

the school has utilized exception-

al daylighting strategies, which not

only allows for lights to be turned off

during the day and significant energy

savings, but also helps create a healthy

learning environment fostering in-

creased student productivity andhigh-

er test scores. Rapidly renewable and

recycled content materials were used

throughout the building and during

construction, and over 70 percent of

the construction waste was recycled or

reused within the community. Unique

to CHPS, the team also employed the

Adele Willson

K-12 Studio

Principal,

Hord Co-

plan Macht

Ara Massey

Sustainabil-

ity Director,

Hord Co-

plan Macht

Designing High-Performance, Healthy Schools

36%

45%

55%

73%

guidlines followed, self-certification

guidlines followed, third party verification

36%