SUSTAINABILITY TEST CASE
The Sydney Opera House – a Sustainability Rating Test Case?
Paul Osmond
Faculty of Built Environment, UNSW Australia
Introduction
Sydney Opera House (SOH) Chief Executive Louise
Herron argues that while Jørn Utzon may not have set
out to pioneer sustainable architecture, “sustainability
was the eminently practical, supremely functional byproduct of his design” [1]. Aspects which today would
be described as “sustainable” include the building’s
seawater cooling system, minimal finishes and projected
250 year service life.
But what is “sustainability” in the context of an
international icon, or for that matter, a generic opera
house? How well does the Sydney Opera House
respond to commonly recognised contemporary
notions of sustainable design and performance? What
benchmarks or indicators are relevant in this context?
Are biophilia or biomimicry sustainability criteria? How
might Utzon deal with today’s contested territory of
“green” versus “sustainable”? These questions are
explored from the perspective of the emerging
generation of building rating tools, which stretch
beyond purely environmental (“green”) considerations
to address the social, economic and cultural dimensions
of sustainability throughout a building’s life cycle.
Following a brief discussion of green building rating
tools, this paper examines the SOH’s green credentials.
The emerging concepts and tools of building
sustainability assessment are introduced, and the SOH is
re-evaluated from this broader perspective. The
objective is to provide a challenging test case through
which to assess how well the next generation of rating
tools, and not just the SOH, stand up to scrutiny.
Sustainability and “green” building ratings
In December 2013, the Green Mountain Coffee
Roasters plant in Knoxville Tennessee became the
20,000th commercial building in the United States to
obtain Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) certification from the US Green Building
Council (USGBC) [2]. Closer to home, the Green
Building Council of Australia (GBCA) as at January 2014
had rated more than 7,200,000 square metres of
building floor area [3]. Membership of the World
Green Building Council, the peak body to which both
the US and Australian GBCs belong, has grown to
include 94 national GBCs [4]. As well as this growth in
scale there has been a rapid expansion of scope among
rating systems to embrace both additional building types
and new rating types. The GBCA’s Green Star, for
example, now includes tools for seven distinct building
types, a custom tool development service and pilot
Communities tool; rating types include Design, As Built
and pilot Performance (i.e. building operations) rating.
A more recent trend in building assessment has been to
progress beyond purely green criteria towards more
holistic evaluation. This trend underpins the
development of the new, so-called “next generation”
tools [5, 6] discussed later in this paper. A brief
recapitulation of the rationale, origins and methods of
green building rating systems will help set the context.
The United Nations Environment Program points out
that buildings are responsible for more than 40% of
global energy consumption, 20% of fresh water
consumption and generation of close to 40% of landfill
waste [7]. Concerns over these and related issues such
as “sick building” syndrome, use of hazardous
substances in construction and the need to obtain
objective information about such matters – have driven
progress in the environmental assessment of built form.
The resulting assessment tools were initially conceived
(and still largely function) as market mechanisms which
offer building owners a credible basis to communicate
and reward adoption of green building practices [8].
The UK Building Research Establishment Environmental
Assessment Method (BREEAM), launched in 1990 and
targeting office buildings, was the first comprehensive
green building assessment tool. It was followed by the
release of a range of BREEAM lookalikes in the 1990s,
the launch of LEED in 2000 and a plethora of new tools
in the early 2000s. These included Green Star (2003),
which drew on both BREEAM and LEED in its
development, and others whose developers sought to
differentiate their products from their predecessors.
FOURTH INTERNATIONAL UTZON SYMPOSIUM – SYDNEY AUSTRALIA
WHAT WOULD UTZON DO NOW?
A typical green building rating system covers categories
such as energy and water consumption, materials,
waste and emissions, indoor environmental quality
(IEQ) and wider contextual issues such as transport and
impacts on local ecosystems. Predicted environmental
performance is evaluated against benchmarks for
technically defined criteria (for example potable water
consumption, air change effectiveness, recycled content
of construction materials) and a total score is calculated
based on weighted scores relating to the various
category areas. Rating systems typically include an input
module (information about the building); an assessment
module, in which performance scores are assigned to
identified environmental criteria; and an output module,
which involves some form of weighting and integration
of results to enable calculation of the actual rating
(“excellent”, “gold” “5-star” and the like) [8, 9].
It is generally accepted that green building rating
systems have had significant success in directly and
indirectly reducing the environmental impacts of built
form. In part, this reflects their ability to present
complex issues in a manageable way and to respond to
emerging market opportunities and regulatory
requirements.
Specific mention should be made of the Green Star –
Performance rating tool, launched in pilot version (at
the Opera House) in October 2013, and also the
EarthCheck travel and tourism industry benchmarking
and certification program [10]. As at February 2014 the
SOH was engaged in the EarthCheck certification
process, and was also one of the first organisations to
register for assessment, in July 2014, under the Green
Star – Performance pilot [11].
The motivation behind the development of Green Star
– Performance relates to the fact that Australia has
almost 25,000,000m2 of office space, some 9,500
education buildings, 1,300 hospitals, 1,300 shopping
centres and innumerable square metres of other
building types, but less than 2% of this stock is built new
each year [12]. Green Star – Performance is intended
to provide an evidence base for owners, managers and
occupants of these existing buildings to improve
operational performance.
Acknowledging that the concept of sustainability and its
application to the built environment remain contested
ground [13], the World Commission on Environment
and Development (Brundtland) definition of sustainable
development as that “which meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs” [14] is adopted
here. The familiar term “triple bottom line” (TBL)
captures three critical interconnected domains of
sustainability: environmental, social and economic.
Increasingly, either governance or culture – depending
on the particular context – is included as a fourth pillar
or quadruple bottom line. This paper will focus on
environment, society and culture; the economic bottom
line is outside the present scope.
Green Star – Performance concentrates on
environmental issues but also addresses human health
and wellbeing, which arguably intersects the social,
economic and cultural. Nevertheless it is not a
sustainability assessment tool in the TBL/QBL sense.
EarthCheck, on the other hand, explicitly targets
economic and social as well as environmental concerns.
Developed through the former Sustainable Tourism
Cooperative Research Centre, it is now managed by a
spinoff firm, EC3 Global. In addition to measures to
improve performance across energy, water and waste,
corporate social responsibility and community
empowerment are key elements of EarthCheck
certification [10].
The Sydney Opera House and environmental
sustainability
The SOH Environmental Sustainability Plan (ESP) 20142016 contends that “by applying good design principles,
striving for quality, and considering future generations
Jørn Utzon created a more sustainable building” [1].
With reference to the environmental dimension, the
SOH does in fact include a variety of features now
recognised as sustainable design. The building was
designed for a 250 year service life and finishes have
been kept to a minimum, for example through use of
exposed concrete. This means fewer resources are
applied in maintenance, hence lower recurrent
embodied energy. The ESP also flags as green building
features the use of local products such as NSW Brush
Box timber, Lophostemon confertus, and the original
seawater cooling system.
Reference should also be made to Utzon’s Design
Principles [15] which identify the importance of
prefabrication and mass production of building elements
(such as the precast concrete ribs) in relation to
efficient use of materials. Utzon states that: “All the
[external] materials are non-corrosive, weather
resistant, durable and will age and acquire a patina
without changing their character, thereby preserving
the character of the whole building through the ages”
[15]. Arguably too, pioneering use of computer
SUSTAINABILITY TEST CASE
technology in the building’s design and construction
enabled a level of materials and energy optimisation
which otherwise would not have occurred. Indeed the
overall extent of design and construction innovation
associated with the SOH, “nudg[ing] forward the
frontiers of science” (Utzon, quoted in Murray [16]) set
precedents which have indisputably influenced the
environmental design and performance of later projects.
Depending on the service life and purpose of a building,
its inherent energy efficiency, climatic conditions and
occupant behaviour, its operational energy use (as one
key indicator) may be up to an order of magnitude
greater than the energy embodied in its physical fabric
[17]. Hence a building’s operational performance –
particularly that of a building with a projected life span
of centuries – becomes crucial to any evaluation of its
“greenness”. It reflects the complex interaction
between design, management and occupation.
Table 1 summarises the key operational environmental
initiatives implemented by the SOH over the past seven
years. Progress has been relatively consistent, although
clearly significant challenges remain, especially with
respect to energy and water management. As noted
above, the SOH is registered for Green Star –
Performance assessment in the 2014 financial year. A
conservative “back of envelope” calculation of the
building’s environmental performance, based on a
review of Annual Reports and other documentation
and discussion with the Manager, Sustainability and
Energy, Justin Shupe, suggests the potential (depending
on the success of current actions to reduce energy and
water consumption) to achieve at least a 4-Star
Performance rating.
Of course a major dilemma in applying any kind of
benchmark based rating to the SOH is the inherent lack
of buildings to benchmark against. How to apply
conventional environmental assessment criteria to a
building where the cultural and social bottom lines will
frequently override conventional environmental
improvement
practices
represents
a
further
conundrum. These are the types of challenges faced in
developing building sustainability rating tools, discussed
below.
Building rating tools – the next generation
Existing rating systems such as Green Star already
capture some aspects of social sustainability through
credits relating to elements such as IEQ, public
transport, walkability and cycling, although the credit
criteria are generally expressed in environmental terms.
Similarly, building “greening”, whether through initial
design or retrofit, typically provides economic benefits
through life cycle cost savings. And of course the social
benefits of a healthy indoor environment can translate
into reduced absenteeism and productivity gains, which
respond to the economic bottom line [18].
However, based on detailed examination of 14 rating
systems, Poston et al conclude that despite a shift from
“green building” towards “sustainable building” since
2005, most tools still fail to sufficiently cover all three
TBL dimensions, and those that do, typically permit
major trade-offs between them [5]. Cole adds that
rather than simply replacing “green” with “sustainable”,
the issue is one of establishing the extent to which built
form can support sustainable patterns of living [8] This
“new paradigm of sustainable buildings” [13] needs to
address long-term evaluation, multi-scale impacts and
multiple domains (or bottom lines). What it is not about
is merely minimising adverse impacts.
Ideally, building sustainability assessment will integrate
minimisation of environmental impact or better,
environmental regeneration [19]; provision of a healthy
environment for occupants; a positive return on
investment, including benefits to the local community;
and consideration of the building life cycle in planning
and development [18]. The latter includes building
management and maintenance as well as longevity,
adaptability and flexibility in use, to support a resilient
built environment [13].
The relationships and interactions between a building
and its surroundings challenge the definition of
sustainability at standalone building scale [13, 18] and
reinforce the significance of new precinct scale rating
systems such as Green Star - Community, which
characteristically embody TBL/QBL criteria and are in
use or under development across a growing number of
jurisdictions.
Conte and Monno [18] go further, maintaining that the
limitations of the first generation of green building tools
are the consequence of a building-centric approach
which emphasises technological content at the expense
of the social and cultural relationships between people,
space and place. What is missing, they argue, is a theory
of the built environment which relates the assessment
of the building to the characteristics of the wider built
environment which the building itself helps to shape.
This is obviously problematic to achieve for an
individual building.
FOURTH INTERNATIONAL UTZON SYMPOSIUM – SYDNEY AUSTRALIA
WHAT WOULD UTZON DO NOW?
Table 1: Seven years of environmental highlights and general milestones, summarised from SOH Annual Reports [20].
Year
2007
Environmental highlights
Energy efficiency (EE) projects focused on building services help energy consumption to remain static
despite greater building utilisation.
6% “Green Power” component included in SOH energy contact.
Improvements in ratio of recyclable to putrescible waste achieved through source separation.
Milestones
UNESCO
announces
World Heritage
listing.
2008 objective to develop environmental policy and management plan “partially achieved” through
preparation of an Energy Plan, which flagged the creation of the position of Manager, Sustainability &
Energy as well as continuation of EE initiatives.
2008
Establishment of “sustainability group” of building staff, contractors and consultants, focused on technical
aspects of reducing SOH ecological footprint.
Achievements include extension of metering, completion of stage 1 of Lighting Master Plan, initiation of
waste audits and trial of water-efficient shower heads and waterless urinals.
Appointment of Manager, Sustainability & Energy, and stakeholder consultation to inform first
Environmental Sustainability Policy and Plan.
2009
Creation of “Green Team” and launch of internal “Greening the House” campaign to encourage
environmental awareness and educate staff about environmental sustainability.
Implementation of EE actions targeting lighting, air conditioning and office equipment. Additional actions
include waste audits, exhibition to celebrate World Environment Day, development of a Recycling and
Waste Management Strategy and use of biodiesel generators to light the sails for the Luminous festival.
Jørn Utzon
passes away at
90, 29
November ’08;
State Memorial
held at SOH, 25
March ‘09.
SOH Trust signs off and launches first 3-year Environmental Sustainability Plan (ESP) and policy.
Incorporates 11 targets, including to:
2010



Reduce electricity use by 15% by 2013 from the 2000-01baseline;
Reuse or recycle 70% of waste; and
Reduce metered water use by 15% by June 2013 from the 2005-06 baseline.
SOH joins NSW Sustainability Advantage program – includes initial measurement of its carbon footprint
(20,057 tonnes CO2 equivalent).
Refurbished
Western Foyers
opened to the
public.
Other initiatives include development of a “back of house” recycling system, trial of food organics
recycling with restaurant partner Guillaume at Bennelong, and lighting upgrades.
Implementation of ESP 2010-13 begins.
2011
SOH carbon footprint falls by 6% against 2009-10 measurement; this includes office paper consumption,
which was not counted in 2009-10.
Part-time Sustainable Events Project Manager appointed to drive projects across this area.
Purchase of Green Power increased to 10%.
Launch of
Reconciliation
Action Plan.
SOH obtains $890,000 grant to extend lighting control systems.
Continued implementation of ESP 2010-13 and sustainable events management projects.
2012
Energy savings of 11% against baseline year, including significant reduction in lighting energy use through
retrofit projects. Water use down by 8% from the previous year, but 6% higher than baseline, mainly due
to undetected leak.
2% decrease in carbon footprint compared to 2010-11; incorporates overseas flights taken by SOH staff,
which were not counted in 2010-11.
Five new recycling streams introduced over 2010-2012.
ESP 2010-13 set a target of 15% reduction in electricity use; actual saving just 7%. Challenges included
limitations imposed by tenancy contracts. The ESP also set a 15% water saving target, but consumption
up by 46% at year’s end due to a/c system inefficiencies. A cost-effective solution was found using
rainwater harvesting.
2013
9% increase in carbon footprint from 2012 was attributed mainly to increasing robustness of reporting,
inclusion of emissions from major events previously reported separately, increase in energy consumption
and decrease in purchase of green energy.
New 2014-16 ESP endorsed by the Trust. Four focus areas, linked to targets and strategies:




Use resource efficiently and responsibly;
Minimise waste;
Improve environmental risk management;
Embed, engage and inspire change.
Launch of
Access Strategic
Plan.
40th anniversary
celebrations.
SUSTAINABILITY TEST CASE
If expansion of the spatial domain of building assessment
from pavilion to precinct reinforces TBL/QBL thinking,
then expansion of the temporal domain provides the
foundation for life cycle thinking. Cole singles out four
systems which go beyond the conventional green
metrics of resource use, emissions and IEQ [19] to
incorporate aspects of the above – although the list
obviously is not exhaustive:

Arup’s Sustainable Project Assessment Routine
(SpeAR) which organises performance criteria
across four general categories – Environment;
Natural Resources; Economic; and Societal.

The International Initiative for Sustainable Built
Environment (iiSBE) Sustainable Building Tool
(SBTool), which applies seven categories – Site
Suitability & Development; Energy & Resource
Consumption; Environmental Loadings; Indoor
Environmental Quality; Service Quality; Social &
Economic Aspects; and Cultural & Perceptual
Aspects.


The South African Sustainable Building Assessment
Tool (SBAT), which introduces social and
economic performance criteria of particular
relevance to developing countries.
The German Sustainable Building Council’s
Certificate Programme, which assesses five
sustainability “quality” categories – Ecological;
Economic; Socio-cultural & Functional; Technical;
& Process, and a separate Location category.
Cole also acknowledges the Living Building ChallengeTM
(LBC) as a “demanding and complementary
performance aspiration to LEED” which is challenging
existing norms and conventions [19].
Space and time allow for closer examination of just two
of these systems here: SBTool and the LBC. The
penultimate section of this paper will compare the nonenvironmental bottom line attributes of the SOH,
synthesised from the World Heritage nomination and
the Utzon Design Principles, against the relevant criteria
from these two rating systems.
and was adopted by several countries, including
Australia, and adapted into place specific tools. iiSBE,
which was established in 2001, subsequently developed
the SBTool (Sustainable Building Tool). Like its
forerunner, SBTool provides a framework for
developing rating tools, but examines the wider impacts
of buildings within a life cycle context [21].
iiSBE describes the “SB Method” as a toolkit that assists
authorised third parties to develop SBTool rating
systems to suit their own regions and building types.
The system covers a range of sustainability issues, but
the scope “can be modified to be as narrow or as
broad as desired, ranging from 100+ criteria to half a
dozen” [21]. Regional and site-specific context factors
are also addressed through weighting protocols.
The Living Building ChallengeTM
The LBC claims to be the most rigorous built form
performance standard. Certification requires projects
to meet a series of ambitious targets including net zero
energy, waste and water, over a minimum of 12 months
of continuous occupancy [22].
The system comprises seven performance areas, called
“petals”: Site, Water, Energy, Health, Materials, Equity
and Beauty. Petals are subdivided into a total of twenty
Imperatives, each of which focuses on a specific sphere
of influence. There are also four Typologies, or project
categories: Renovation; Landscape or Infrastructure;
Building; and Neighbourhood. As the name suggest, all
Imperatives assigned to a Typology are mandatory, in
contrast to most rating systems which allow “cherry
picking” from potential credits [19].
The idea for Living Building Challenge emerged in the
mid-1990’s, but a codified system was not developed
until 2005. The International Living Building Institute
(renamed International Living Future Institute in 2011)
was founded in 2009 as an umbrella organisation for the
LBC and its auxiliary programs. Since then local LBC
“collaboratives” have spread around the globe,
including in Australia [22].
iiSBE’s SBTool
As at February 2014 only five projects (all in the USA)
had achieved full certification.
The origins of SBTool and the International Initiative for
a Sustainable Built Environment lie in the International
Green Building Challenge, established in 1995 with
involvement from more than 20 countries. The original
rating system was called GBTool (Green Building Tool)
The LBC is the only sustainability rating system known
to this author to introduce a requirement for projects
to include design elements “which nurture the innate
human attraction to natural systems and processes”
[22], i.e. biophilic design.
FOURTH INTERNATIONAL UTZON SYMPOSIUM – SYDNEY AUSTRALIA
WHAT WOULD UTZON DO NOW?
Heritage conservation and sustainable development
Heritage conservation has traditionally been treated as
separate from sustainable development, despite clear
points of intersection with cultural sustainability in
particular. The SBTool references “Culture and
Heritage” as a rating criterion [23], but the LBC omits
specific mention – its strong focus on social and cultural
sustainability is driven from a design rather than
conservation angle.
Gustavo Araoz [24] points out that the near universal
ratification of the World Heritage Convention implies
that “humanity has achieved universal awareness of the
need to care for the cultural heritage of all cultures in
all places”. He observes that heritage has moved
beyond its historical and aesthetic roots to be valued as
an anchor for cultural identity and a factor at the heart
of community development. In other words, heritage is
a contributor to the social as well as cultural bottom
line, and one which responds to the evolving needs of
society – factors which are clearly pertinent to
quadruple bottom line performance in general, and
heritage listed places in particular.
The Opera House and QBL sustainability
The 2006 World Heritage nomination document and
the Utzon Design Principles provide useful summaries of
the core social and cultural sustainability attributes –
although not specifically described as such – of the
Opera House. These are set out below in Table 2 to
facilitate comparison with the relevant criteria from
SBTool and the LBC.
Figure 1 illustrates the word frequency of the World
Heritage document as a WordleTM [25] word cloud.
Table 2: Comparison of key sustainability attributes from SOH World Heritage nomination, Utzon Design Principles with SBTool and LBC.
Design Principles
World Heritage nomination
CRITERIA:
SBTool
LBC
Multifunctionality: “A world-class performing arts centre, a great
urban sculpture and a public venue for community activities and
tourism”.
E4 Flexibility &
Adaptability; F1 Social
Aspects
Equity Petal, Humane Scale
& Humane Places Imperative
Symbolism: “A symbol of its city and the Australian nation”.
F2 Culture & Heritage
Beauty Petal, Inspiration &
Education Imperative
Beauty: “The outstanding natural beauty of the setting ... a
masterpiece of late modern architecture…a great urban sculpture”.
A2 Urban Design; F3
Perceptual
Health Petal, Biophilia
Imperative
Attraction and accessibility: “A vibrant public building and
meeting place…estimated that well over 100 million people have
visited the site”
F1 Social Aspects
Equity Petal, Humane Scale
& Humane Places Imperative
Synthesis of nature and culture: “A masterful synthesis of
architectural ideas… Organic forms… eclectic range of aesthetic
cultural influences”.
A2 Urban Design; F3
Perceptual
Beauty Petal, Beauty &
Spirit Imperative
Responsiveness to purpose: “A brilliant response to the cultural
purpose of a performing arts centre”.
E2 Functionality &
efficiency; F2 Culture &
Heritage
Beauty Petal, Inspiration &
Education Imperative
Cultural heritage: “An outstanding example of 20th century
cultural heritage… it belongs to the world…”
F2 Culture & Heritage
Beauty Petal, Inspiration &
Education Imperative
Inspiration from nature: “Organic beauty…Nature’s
colours…Reflection of sunlight…Hall like cloud in sky… Glass wall
ribs like birds’ wings”.
A2 Urban Design; F3
Perceptual
Health Petal, Biophilia
Imperative
Human experience: “Objective is to bring joy…Succession of
visual and audio stimuli… Neutral and restful atmosphere…”
F1 Social Aspects
Health Petal, Civilised
Environment Imperative
Building as sculpture: “Seen from all sides…captures and mirrors
the city”.
A2 Urban Design; F3
Perceptual
Beauty Petal, Beauty &
Spirit Imperative
Form and function: “Possibilities for all types of cultural
performances...meeting place and auditorium”.
E4 Flexibility &
Adaptability; F1 Social
Aspects
Equity Petal, Humane Scale
& Humane Places Imperative
Orientation and movement: “Approach, openness,
fluidity…Aware of your orientation at all times”.
F1 Social Aspects
Equity Petal, Humane Scale
& Humane Places Imperative
Counterpoint: “Building and surroundings…Open and
closed…Dark and light…Outside and inside”.
A2 Urban Design; F3
Perceptual
Beauty Petal, Beauty &
Spirit Imperative
SUSTAINABILITY TEST CASE
Figure 1: WordleTM word cloud generated from the SOH World Heritage submission.
Conclusions
In conclusion, an answer to the question “What would
Utzon do now?” seems straightforward, at least with
respect to sustainability. As someone who
wholeheartedly embraced opportunities to stretch the
“boundaries of the possible” [26] Utzon would likely
have taken to renewable energy, water reuse and
related technologies in the same way as (with Ove
Arup) he adopted cutting edge computing technology.
Would this have influenced the form and character of
the SOH? Probably not. Sustainability is not merely an
assemblage of ecotechnologies [18], aka “green bling”.
It is the natural outcome of good design, when
approached from an integrated life cycle / QBL context.
From a non-life cycle green standpoint, less than optimal
design aspects of the SOH include importation of more
than six thousand square metres of glass from France
and over one million ceramic tiles from Sweden [27].
From a non-QBL green standpoint, less than optimal
management aspects include an ongoing requirement
for energy intensive external lighting befitting the
building’s iconic status. But such issues fade into
insignificance when compared to the vast store of
“credits” (in building rating system terminology)
accrued from its social and cultural achievements.
The above (and other) environmental problems fall into
the same category as the widely recognised functional
problems concerning the orchestra pits, delivery
facilities, some acoustics and access for disabled patrons
[28]. As Burke explains, resolution of these weaknesses
is a long-term project, and the same applies to
operational environmental issues.
Regarding design issues, the projected service life
means that the embodied carbon associated with
imported materials will be fully amortised long before
the building is renewed.
So while the Opera House cannot be described as
conventionally green, it is surely unconventionally
sustainable in the fullest sense: “an architecture in which
form is generated by life and the generation of form
evolves in step with life” [29]. Measured against two
emerging sustainability rating tools, the Opera House –
and the tools – deliver.
This does not imply acceptance of Diprose and
Robertson’s contention, specifically citing the SOH, that
“Symbolic, monumental and religious architecture,
building types of cultural importance, might reasonably
stand outside ecological critique” [30]. What Poston et
al call realistic sustainability closes ecological and
industrial loops, works within the limits of natural
resources to avoid the need for future intensive
adaptation, and supports sustainment of both quality of
life and environments [5].
This seems like a suitable blueprint for the Sydney
Opera House into the future.
FOURTH INTERNATIONAL UTZON SYMPOSIUM – SYDNEY AUSTRALIA
WHAT WOULD UTZON DO NOW?
Notes
1.
SOH, The Opera House Environmental Sustainability Plan 2014-2016, 2013, Sydney Opera House: Sydney.
2.
Howe, M. LEED Commercial Buildings Now 20,000 Strong in America. Sourceable Industry News and Analysis,
2014.
3.
GBCA, Green Star Project Directory, 2014, Green Building Council of Australia: http://www.gbca.org.au/projectdirectory.asp, accessed 19/01/2014.
4.
WGBC, Member List, 2014, World Green Building Council: http://www.worldgbc.org/worldgbc/members/,
accessed 19/01/2014.
5.
Poston, A., R. Emmanuel, and C. Thomson. Developing holistic frameworks for the next generation of sustainability
assessment methods for the built environment. in Proceedings of the 26th annual ARCOM conference. 2010.
6.
Zuo, J., et al., The future of sustainable building assessment tools: a case study in Australia, in Proceedings of the 17th
International Symposium on Advancement of Construction Management and Real Estate. Springer Berlin Heidelberg,
2014.
7.
UNEP, Buildings and Climate Change: Status, Challenges and Opportunities, 2007, United Nations Environment
Programme, Sustainable Buildings and Construction Initiative: Paris.
8.
Cole, R.J., Building environmental assessment methods: redefining intentions and roles. Building Research and
Information, 2005. 35(5): p. 455-467.
9.
Cole, R.J., Building environmental assessment methods: clarifying intentions. Building Research and Information, 1999.
27(4/5): p. 230-246.
10.
EarthCheck, EarthCheck: Holistic sustainability solutions: http://www.earthcheck.org/, accessed 07/02/2014, 2011.
11.
Shupe, J., pers. comm., 2014.
12.
GBCA, Australia's under-performing buildings set for a green makeover: , 2013, Green Building Council of Australia,
http://www.gbca.org.au/news/gbca-media-releases/australias-under-performing-buildings-set-for-a-greenmakeover/35035.htm?source=rss, accessed 11/02/2014.
13.
Berardi, U., Clarifying the new interpretations of the concept of sustainable building. Sustainable Cities and Society,
2013. 8: p. 72-78.
14.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), Our Common Future. 1987, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
15.
Utzon, J., Sydney Opera House: Utzon Design Principles. 2002, Sydney: Sydney Opera House Trust.
16.
Murray, P., The saga of Sydney Opera House: the dramatic story of the design and construction of the icon of modern
Australia. 2013, London: Routledge.
17.
Junnila, S., A. Horvath, and A.A. Guggemos, Life-cycle assessment of office buildings in Europe and the United States.
Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 2006. 12(1): p. 10-17.
18.
Conte, E. and V. Monno, Beyond the buildingcentric approach: A vision for an integrated evaluation of sustainable
buildings. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 2012. 34: p. 31-40.
19.
Cole, R.J., Transitioning from green to regenerative design. Building Research and Information, 2012. 40(1): p. 3953.
20.
SOH, Annual Reports, 2007-2013, Sydney Opera House: Sydney.
21.
iiSBE, SB Method and SBTool 2009, International Initiative for a Sustainable Built Environment:
http://www.iisbe.org/sbmethod, accessed 15/02/2014.
22.
ILFI, Living Building Challenge 2.1, 2012, International Living Future Institute: Seattle.
SUSTAINABILITY TEST CASE
23.
Larsson, N., User Guide to the SBTool assessment framework, 2012, International Initiative for a Sustainable Built
Environment: Canada.
24.
Araoz, G.F., Preserving heritage places under a new paradigm. Journal of cultural heritage management and
sustainable development, 2011. 1(1): p. 55-60.
25.
Feinberg, J., Wordle: http://www.wordle.net, 2013, accessed 17/02/2014.
26.
DEH, Sydney Opera House: Nomination by the government of Australia for Inscription in the World Heritage List, 2006,
Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage: Sydney.
27.
Smith, V., The Sydney Opera House. 1974, Sydney: Summit Books.
28.
Burke, S. The long and winding road: a challenge to ICOMOS members. in Heritage and Social Change, Proceedings of
the ICOMOS Scientific Symposium. 2010. Dublin, Ireland.
29.
Drew, P., Poetic paradox: Utzon's sources for the Sydney Opera House, in Building a Masterpiece: The Sydney Opera
House, A.J. Watson, Editor. 2006, Powerhouse Publishers / Lund Humphries: Sydney. p. 68-82.
30.
Diprose, P.R. and G. Robertson, Towards a fourth skin? Sustainability and double-envelope buildings. Renewable
Energy, 1996. 8(1–4): p. 169-172.