Job Q&A
by Eileen O'Reilly
[ More Job Q&As ]

Gunnar Hubbard is a consultant at Green Development Services in Snowmass, Colorado. GDS is part of the nonprofit Rocky Mountain Institute, founded in 1983 to promote resource efficiency -- conserving energy, water and materials. GDS worked on the greening of the White House, is helping develop housing for the Sydney Olympics, and recently facilitated a workshop for Habitat for Humanity.

Monster.com: How did you get drawn to environmental architecture?

Gunnar Hubbard: When I was 12, my family moved from suburban Tarrytown, New York to Hancock, Vermont, population 350. We lived in the basement of what was going to be our house. The home we created is a log house that's semi-passive solar (the largest surface and largest windows face south). We peeled all the logs for the house ourselves. It has no electricity. There's gravity-fed water -- a tank at the top of a hill provides the pressure, so you don't need electricity to pump water, and there's a compost toilet -- an indoor outhouse with full ventilation.

Mc: Wow.

GH: It made me realize that the whole hands-on process is fabulous. While my Dad designed the house, I designed tree houses. Building the house brought our whole family closer together. We didn't need all the luxuries. It made me understand the value of place-making and bringing the family together without all the needs of our fast-paced society.

Mc: How is environmental architecture different from traditional architecture?

GH: Environmental architects try to satisfy a client's needs by combining function, art and technology, but we also bring in a tier of responsibility not inherent inevery architect's training. We try to be more conscious of

1) Basic resource efficiency -- using fewer materials, asking yourself, "Do I need a house this big?"
2) Choice of materials -- asking where materials come from, asking yourself, "Do I need Italian marble or can I get marble closer to home?"
3) Health issues -- indoor air quality, for example. Things like choosing carpets without formaldehyde, a chemical used in many building materials that puts a lot of toxicity into the air.
4) The quality of light. You try to take advantage of natural light and naturally occurring breezes, as well as using good construction techniques. The end result is a more pleasing building that takes less energy to operate, with a long-term reduction in operating costs.

Mc: What's your average day like?

GH: I have one large project that I'm responsible for, called a performance-based fee contract. It's a new way to manage the cost of putting up a building. The architect and the engineer spend extra time in the design phase so that the building is more energy-efficient once it's up and running. A bonus is paid to the design team once the building proves it's giving a higher performance. This creates a guarantee for the client.

Mc: Where is this being implemented?

GH: In four buildings: a skyscraper in New York City, at 4 Times Square; a high school in Portland, Oregon; a state office building in Austin, Texas; and a federal court house in Fresno, California.

Mc: What is your role in all of this?

GH: I located each of the projects and negotiated each of the agreements. I coordinate the project managers for each building, do publicity and promotion (mainly articles and presentations at conferences), and work with a technical team that does computer modeling.

Mc: Is there anything else you do on an average day?

GH: I also consult on a range of projects around the country. This week I'm consulting on a Mountain Equipment Co-op building in Toronto, Canada. Ideally, this will be the model for all their other stores.

Mc: What kind of experience do you need for this kind of work?

GH: Before getting my master's I worked for two years for architects and builders in Vermont, to make sure I was pursuing the right profession. While I was in architecture school at Oregon, I bought a house and made it cost-effective and environmentally responsible. I ran the Solar Information Center at the university -- a student group that put together lectures and newsletters on using solar, wind and water energy for buildings and cars. As a result of this involvement, I realized there's more to architecture than walls. After that, I worked in Boston at the Union of Concerned Scientists as an intern on a renewable education energy campaign. We gave people all over the country information to educate the local constituencies -- politicians, teachers, etc. -- about renewable energy as a viable resource.

Mc: What then?

GH: After UCS, I was hired to be the executive director of Yestermorrow, a design/build school in Waitsfield, Vermont, (802-496-5545).

It was really the result of good timing ... combined with the work I had done at Oregon. In addition to the Solar Center, I had helped create a design/build curriculum -- getting students out of the classroom and onto a site to swing a hammer.

Mc: Tell me about Yestermorrow.

GH: YM tries to teach people how to design and build their own homes. They've had students from all over the country. A typical course is two weeks of intensive work. Every day, the students go from the studio to a construction site and back to the studio. They build additions to a home or a playground structure. YM educates homeowners and sets up professional classes for architecture students. I pushed the environmental curriculum, I worked a lot of hours and learned a lot and doubled the enrollment of the school. Then I felt I had done as much as I could and it was time to move on.

Mc: Your work sounds ideal -- what are the tradeoffs?

GH: Working for a nonprofit, the pay is lower, but I have a higher quality of life. At YM I sometimes worked 80-hour weeks, but at RMI they promote 40-hour workweeks; you have to put in your time, but then you can take time off.

Mc: Forty-hour workweeks -- is everyone beating down the door to work there?

GH: Yes and no; the low pay rate and high cost of living in the Aspen area make it difficult. And the nature of nonprofits is that you're struggling for funds and you're often pushing to do things based on funding rather then your choice of projects.

Mc: Do you see environmental consciousness in building seeping into the mainstream? Will we ever see malls with passive solar heating?

GH: Yes, it makes sense economically. Architects, builders and manufacturers are getting in on it. It needs to happen even quicker, because it makes so much sense. A lot of bad building is due to the lack of education and people wanting things done quickly at the cheapest price.

Mc: Besides the money, why is green building important?

GH: We've found that employees who like their workplace are sick less and absenteeism is down. They can see out a window, they work in natural light, and they're not coughing and scratching their eyes because of poor air quality. This creates a better working environment, which makes them more productive. The cost of an employee averages $130 per square foot in terms of salary, benefits and insurance. The cost of energy is, let's say, only $1.50 per square foot, so the cost benefits only support the decision to make the workplace more healthy and environmentally conscious.

Mc: What's next for you?

GH: In April I'm moving to San Francisco to direct a nonprofit called the Ecological Design Education Network.