Depends on the building.

Many 'historic' buildings can actually be quite green:

-- Sunken windows with pediments and decent curtains control light rather well, stop drafts and allow for ventilation despite weather.

-- Copper, tin, aluminum, zinc and especially gold leaf roofs are nearly impermeable thermal barriers. In the case of aluminum and gold leaf, they reflect nearly 99.0 to 99.9% of electromagnetic radiation. But almost all metal roofs, even those that have oxidized, have superior albedeo ratings.

Both tile and terrocota roofs have albedo ratings nearly double those of sophisticated shingled.

-- Many historic buildings are massive both in scale and construction. This mass allows them to have relatively impressive heat capacities. This, itself, regulates internal temperatures quite well.

-- The standard roof height in many historic buildings is anywhere from 10' to 18' for ceilings. High ceilings allow for a natural 'air stack' effect keeping hot air off inhabitants.

-- Many historic buildings generally have fully-finished attics. While these are generally not insulated, the finishing and their existence does create its sort of own insulating space. Many historic buildings also have excessively complex roofs often over-sized for the building.

-- Many historic buildings also utilized, either directly or indirectly, many green roof and green wall approaches whether it is gardened terraces, plant cover walls or lax maintenance that has lead to an overgrowth of lichens, mosses, ferns and weeds.

-- Many historic buildings also have covered entrances and exits that further help with both pollution and temperature controls.

yikes... hardly.

first, many 'historic' buildings were built w/ 'green' strategies - local materials, siting building to take advantage of solar gain, thermal storage, daylighting.

operational energy dwarfs the energy needed to retrofit. there's foster's reichstag. mies's crown hall was recently updated. there have been tons of renovations in EU (DK and DE, especially) in working to significantly reduce CO2 emissions and thermal comfort of historic buildings (waterborne cooling, glazing replacement, etc)

there have been several church remodels that left exterior, retrofit scope was on interior - utilizing solar gain and process energy to significantly reduce space heating needs.

making corb's villa savoye a passivhaus might be an interesting undertaking.

also, don't chastise the unemployed when a simple google search would have gone a long way to jumpstarting some decent ideas.

I actually typed all of that out... and was like, "wait, leave it to Holz!"

Cheers guys, the info is extremely helpful for the project.

for the record, I was never claiming that historic buildings were not inherently 'green', I just need to focus on one that isn't and improve upon its design using current technology and knowledge.

"operational energy dwarfs the energy needed to retrofit" - that's exactly the type of situation I'm looking for! it's tougher than I expected to get empirical data on the environmental impact of the retrofit process, but I'm going to look into those examples.

also, don't worry, I always Google first. also also, I'll be unemployed soon so jokes on me I guess.

This is going to sound quiet generic... but perhaps you might consider the Pantheon.

It's one of few buildings I can think of, despite extensive renovations, that's pretty much the same hunk of concrete it's always been for 2000 years.

i don't have a specific building in mind, but i do know that i've worked on a lot of early 60s masonry buildings that are one wythe block and one wythe brick with only an air-space - no insulation. i expect this was a common approach and ripe for (fairly easy) renovation.

also, these buildings had un-insulated single-pane glass windows. easy fix.

the buildings on which i've worked were pretty anonymous but - given the technology - 'famous' buildings of the period are likely similarly constructed.

i was recently called in to look at some dorms done by perkins&will in the 60s and it made my mouth water. very cool buildings with lots of problems because of their use of what was then the best technology: limited insulation, thermal bridging all over, etc - but good orientation and overall passive solar design potential. i couldn't wait to work on them...but then the client decided to tear them down instead and we couldn't convince them not to do it before the deed was done.

non-masonry buildings, too: early curtain wall construction is something that could be addressed. of course, they may also have already been retro-fitted: the van nelle in rotterdam, the lever house, and howe/lescaze's psfs are examples i can think of.

i understand your project is about sustainability, but the biggest impediment i've seen to reusing older class b/c office space is the configuration of the floor plates and the ability to retrofit for current MEP and IT requirements. to me, reuse of older buildings is about as "green" as you can get and if you can crack the retrofit-to-current-market-needs nut, you will have done more to improve urban sustainability than you would by simply adding insulation or swapping out glazing, fwiw.

isn't that already kind of assumed, won? he's already proposing reuse of an existing building. i'd take the idea that it needs to work for contemporary needs as a given and then see what you can do to make it better...

figuring out to work reasonable/marketable spaces within weird floor plates and meet current egress requirements is a tricky space-planning problem, but something you just have to do.

IT and MEP is often solved through a raised floor system in historic buildings - at least if you've got the floor-to-floor height to work with.

i disagree with that, sw. it sounds to me like the project started out as a lesson in sustainability, or simply correcting original design flaws to make a building more sustainable, but i think the real reason why more of these projects aren't taken on in the development world is owners find too many obstacles to making these buildings functional. it's easier and cheaper to do greenfield development new construction than work within the constraints of an urban fabric. therefore if you can address the functional issues associated with retrofit in a meaningful and thoughtful way, and not simply poo-poo them as a given, but take them on as the real problem above standard detailing questions, i think you've done far more to address issues of sustainability.

Can you infuse the building with a program or purpose which might guide an intelligent approach for renovating the building, as opposed to sustainability for the sake of sustainability?

Oh and if your professor will be using the LEED check list to grade your project then DROP THE CLASS NOW!

agreed, won.