I wholeheartedly agree that it would be good to do a panel on social justice. USGBC and its members have hardly begun to understand how it impacts and is impacted by the building industry. So I'd be totally in for helping orchestrate that.
The postopolis idea...my only problem there is that I feel like the environmental blogosphere is overwhelmed by greenwashing...so somebody there would have to be willing to ask the tough questions.
Here are a few ideas I've had:
-A look at "guerilla" architecture and environmental movements.
-Densifying suburbia.
-Energy independence for the poor.
-The role of cultural and social significance in green buildings.
got some news from archtopus last night that the call for abstracts/schedule will be announced on monday 11/19. So we'll learn more then.
I'm looking for angles and subjects that won't be covered by the typical abstract- so anything with suburbia is out. The other suggestions have potential, just need to figure out who I know that is an expert on the topic and desires to pontificate. there has been a deficit of education sessions aimed at gen-x/gen-y groups, so that is the intended audience (but old fogeys should be interested too).
Social justice/mega-cities concept is fleshing out with trying to line up two of my profs from penn and a few other folks with insight at multiple scales of urbanism & architecture.
A postopolis variation would certainly have to go beyond the greenwashing endemic on the web. finding the right cynical and brilliant voices - like the panel at postopolis is the best route. I'd be happy to pass the baton to those folks to self organize - or I can fill the role of convener.
Infrastructure of the void/networked urbanism is more academic/theoretical and the least appropriate to the greenbuild audience. It is also very much self pandering to my involvement in the book infrastructural city:networked urbanism in los angeles...
tk, I'm right there with you on the idea hunt.....I have to submit thesis proposals today and it looks like a laundry list of concepts that I explored in the previous pages of GTC. I like where you're going with the infrastructure thing.....I need to buy that book that you are published in!!! (great job by the way, if I haven't said so yet)
wK- send me a copy of your thesis proposal if you want some feed back. I can also send you my original thesis proposal/text and all those things if they might help.
check out the latest architecture 2030 ad placed in the NYTs... I love Ed's cojones of takeing on the entire coal and power industry. We need more like him!
Networked urbanism isn't directly green, but as a version of an industrial ecology/infrastructural ecology were the density allows for exchanges of 'waste' products/energy to perform as technological nutrients for urban living and growth - that is a green subject.
my infrastructure of the void concept is exploring how infrastructure is becoming a unintentional force in conservation. Like Quabban Reservoir in MA, or Croton Reservoir in NY which has depopulated several hundred square miles of land that otherwise would have been urbanized. Out west, Denver's water rights have shaped how the entire state has developed. On a smaller scale, military bases and nuclear sites have created technological wilderness areas surrounded by development. Chernobyl has created a 1000 square mile wildlife sanctuary in the midst of ukraine and so on. So the panel discussion would be how to plan for the beneficial growth of these sorts of conservation/wilderness areas that allow for water, energy, and habitat?
of course this is all academic or at the policy level - but greenbuild needs more cerebral discussions.
yeay!!! just got off the phone with the client for the brownfield site, green has gotten the green light! this may become the first 1.5m sf LEED certified 'life-style center'.
For LEED geeks - the USGBC has finally provided sample credit templates (sorry the link is only available to members/registered projects). Oh, they also have a list of low emissions/high mpg vehicles - hah!
Anybody got some favorite reports/papers on the economics of sustainable design or introduction to sustainable design principles that I can send to my client. All the stuff at my fingertips is too hard core to inflict on our client at this point.
Any suggestions for best structural engineers in the north east for sustainable design - diagrids anybody?
i am starting to investigate geothermal options for my home, does any have any good links or thoughts? like would i have a need for tankless water heaters? what should i be thinking about if i want to do a future addition?
beta- instead of investing $$$$ in drilling a dozen wells for a groundsink heat exchange system (the technical description of what your thinking of - real geothermal requires volcanoes and earthquakes), go for solar hot water which is much more affordable. Two options include just heating your domestic water or also heating your home. Both require some storage tanks and plumbing - but even in these northern latitudes, there is plenty of warmth available in the sunshine on those negative 20 days in the depth of winter to make it worth while. I can hit you up with some of the local experts to spec out a system for you...
re: How much CO2 in $1 (1st reply on top, 1st post below)
thanks for the link Barry, but I don't understand. How do you post to the sustainability discussion page if there isn't one? I found the 'Green Central' page you sent, but it looks like a single thread. I’ll post this there too, I guess.
As to how to redirect our dollars, the choices will become more clear when we begin to think in terms of $'s=CO2. There are some obvious exceptions though. When an artist signs a piece of work it's $value increases dramatically without any energy input. The opposite is true for energy intense products. The trick is to factor those exceptions to the average CO2 content in.
To do the math turns out to be like doing your taxes... i.e. not real hard once you have the numbers to plug in but a nuisance. Collecting the numbers, though, can be a real hassle. So the best part of this whole system measurement method? When it's really a hassle to collect the detailed CO2 numbers is when using the easy to calculate average CO2 content is probably going to be more accurate.
Looking at the real CO2 contribution of the whole process of delivering your goods and services includes so many things we've all been leaving out it'll take a little getting used to. My method gives an estimate about 50 times as high as the http://buildcarbonneutral.org/ estimate, for example. That's because my approach is all inclusive, treating both the life cycle building costs and the operating costs. http://www.synapse9.com/design/TBalanceInventory.xls for the template and http://www.synapse9.com/design/ for other stuff
The worst part (which is also where the totally taboo trap door is located) is in the CO2 contribution of the money you don't spend, that you just leave alone to multiply all bye itself... ;-)
....
Yesterday's post
[how about a sustainability conversation category?]
----
A major advantage of taking a whole systems view is that it helps you understand that it takes a whole system to deliver any individual product and make it useful. If you buy an apple, for example, what your $1 pays for is supporting everything in the lifestyles of the many people who helped bring it to you. Unless in delivering a product there is a special low impact 'value added', like an artist's signature, or a special high impact 'value added' like the source cost of fuels, every dollar spent probably has about as much responsibility for the whole system's impacts as any other.
Last Wednesday at the end of the day I finally got to the point in my CO2 inventory templates where I needed to start plugging in the real figures. I'd actually been avoiding looking at that page in the data for a few months, knowing that it would contain something like a secret I'd rather not know about. I was in sort of intentionally avoiding it. It turns out that spending the average $1 (adjusting DOE long term statistics for inflation and efficiency trends) releases about 12oz of CO2. The DOE measurement is .57metric tons per $1000 in 1995$. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/carbonemiss/chapter1.html
When you buy a 12 oz bottle of spring water for $1 the money goes to support all the things the people who brought it to you do with it, simply because that's how they use the money you give them. The water itself is free from nature of course. What you buy is the service of bringing it to you in the altered form you like. That's how an average $1 spent on 12 oz of water also comes to release into the air an equal weight of CO2. Every time you spend $1 on an average purchase it adds another 12 oz to the atmosphere. Every time you spend around a couple hundred bucks, on average, you put your own body weight in CO2 into the atmosphere. Our Thanksgiving dinners last week, including the travel of those coming from some distance, might easily have released a weight of CO2 equal to the combined weight of the attendees.
--
For me the implications of this are rather disturbing, making it clear that just 'pairing down a little' won't accomplish much. The residence time of CO2 is about 380 years, making everything we do a contribution to altering all the balances of nature for more than ten generations. Of course it wouldn't matter if the distortions were small and temporary. All the evidence is that they will be large and accumulating for a very long time. Maybe the valuable thing this information displays is the extreme separation between what our purchases mean to us and what they do in our world. The real direct effects of lots of things simply have no meaning for people at all. Mostly we don't look or care to look, but it seems bound to have evolutionary effect! After today you may never look at a bottle of spring water the same way again, though. Sorry, but we need to know!
I need some quick LEED/green washing advice for a project that has already compelted phase III drawings, and is planned to be submitted for permit by the end of the year.
What are some quick, fairly inexpensive, 'green' elements we can add to the project? The client has, at the last minute of course, asked for some 'green' ideas, presumably for bragging rights. We understand that without redesigning the whole building, there is little we can do, but any suggestions would be appreciated. We do have the interiors contract on the job, so we are planning to suggest fixtures with fluorescent bulbs, and I have mentioned toilet and lavatory fixtures, plus bris-solie to my bosses. Any ideas?
What about the actual finishes themselves? Is it a commercial or residential project? Look into materials that have low emitting VOC count (flooring, wallcoverings, furniture, adhesives or lack thereof), or if its a renovation you could look into the feasibility of reusing/salvaging others. Obviously low flush toilets and waterless urinals are another good thing to look into, but I think you've already mentioned this. I've heard there is a trend for companies to add bike racks and a shower as well. Just some very initial thoughts.
but since you're in texas I'll refrain from greater condemnation... beyond no voc/natural finishes, look into items that only appear in the spec like the glazing, or construction waste management MRc2.1 & 2.2.
the brise-soliel is a good start - more fun are articulated louvers with integrated photovoltiacs. Upgrade all window lites on the east, south and north sides to low-e triple glazed units (with thermal breaks) and just triple glazed on the north facade. (if all sides receive sunlight do low-e all around). Glass ain't cheap but will have a good payback in performance with a simple change in specs without revising the drawings.
Make sure the building has a high-performance insulation/air infiltration/vapor barrier.
change the roofing material to a 'cool roof' material like a white membrane (SSc7.1) or if the loads allow it, do an extensive vegetated roof and earn SSc6.1 as well.
take the LEED-AP exam to qualify for IDc2.
HOK put out a study on LEED costs by credit, but the cheapest time to implement any feature is in schematic design.
if the client really wants LEED certification, you got some hoops to jump through as they play catchup- gotta get cranking on the energy modeling and commissioning process (both are prerequisites) that are gonna cost since they are outside your original scope of services. Its almost too late to be serious about making much difference at this point in the game.
beta, I agree with Barry. Solar water heating is the way to go. Did you know that at the turn of the century - ahem, the 20th century - people used solar water heating on their roofs, and it was new and amazing technology then? Funny how we've come full circle.
Sarah, your best bet, like tuna said, is to look at materials, since it sounds like you are beyond "environmentally responsive" design at this point. Also, if you haven't yet spec'd the windows or the insulation, those are good opportunities for energy savings; I would recommend going with double-paned and/or low-e windows, and use as high of an R value in your insulation as your wall section allows.
Tk, the building is actually in Napa, CA. And it is a funeral home, with a 'french country vineyard' sort of design. Fun, huh? Anyway, I think we could possibly swing the glazing and vapor barrier you mentioned. But we are thinking that the bris-solie and PVs will mean another submission for city aproval, and they've been a pain so far.
We are trying to go with no-VOC paints, and such, and perhaps just scoring and staining concrete instead of tile. Furniture has to be imported from china, or wherever, since local stuff is too expensive. Fabrics appear to be the same way, from what the ID has said.
We all know that this is mostly laughable, and that they wont attain any sort of LEED rating, but we thought as long as they are asking, we might as well throw something in.
I just came across the Guardian's article about the new NY Times Building by Renzo Piano. (http://arts.guardian.co.uk/art/architecture/story/0,,2217157,00.html)
Near the bottom is this pretty incredible quote:
--Is this really the thing to be building, though, in these eco-conscious times? "If you really want to be green," says Piano, "you shouldn't build a tall building in a city in the first place. But the Times wanted to be here, where it belongs, not in some new building on a greenfield site in New Jersey.--
Right, because having all those Times reporters driving to a greenfield in New Jersey would be GREAT for the environment. I would guess this comes from his backround in Italian hill towns, but does he seriously not understand that NYC is one of the greenest places in America?
a leed certified funeral home would be a first. simplest and best environmental thing they can do is stop using formaldehyde as an embalming fluid. there is a reason why it's being banned from all building products... if you can't make them stop, install the biggest exhaust fan possible and go for the maximum number of air changes per hour so the folks going to the funeral home and the employees won't crook from the fumes. napa can be very very hot and dry - so shade and thermal mass make a difference.
i was trying to make you laugh:-) some things are not meant to be, ie LEED certified 'french country vineyard' style buildings. guessing that the roof won't be real thatch or that the stucco will be synthetic - oh horrors even eifs... we all gotta take one for the gipper every now and then.
Yeah that seems like a weird quote, you would hope that Piano would understand "green" better..
How is building on a greenfield site better?...
Also to all my fellow green threaders...
I need advice.
I currently am lucky (and have bene for about a year) enough to be able to bike to work.
However, occassionally (despite my best efforts) it is raining sometimes in the morning.
I don't mind biking home wet, just getting into the office like that.
What are my options..for wet bicycling..
What do others do?
Currently i either tough it out (but only if it is just drizzling) and show up at work slightly damp.
But when it is pouring (which is infrequently i break down and get a ride with a friend...
My bike already has splash fenders/guards on the front and back tire...
I think you should get one of those funny plastic bike bubbles. You know, the kind with windshields and doors? I've seen them on TV, and maybe in Rome, but I can't remember.
nam- beg a ride with the friend, jump on the bus,or bite the bullet and drive. nothing wrong with occasionally surrendering to the instinct to stay dry.
<img src=http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2239/2022546475_049c75cf39.jpg>
We are interested in a new possibility for a future lifestyle that integrates technology, ecology and culture. We are wondering what thoughts other designers and architects have on how ecology engages topics in architecture, urbanism, and life style.
Was looking at amazon for a bit. I'm surprised that the HOK guide book is second on their list under sustainable design. How can a three year old book (2nd ed -2005) still be current in this rapidly changing subject (& will have nothing on carbon emissions) - and from an insipid corporate firm that hasn't shown much leadership beyond sponsoring greenbuild. Especially when compared with the first book on the page.
Maybe we can produce an architect book of sustainable design once wK and Q are finished with their studies ;-)
has anybody read Doug Farr's book on sustainable urbanism? I missed his talk at GB and would appreciate some subjective reviews before I spend my money.
I myself have read much more compelling books. Although, admittedly i haven't read HOKs.
even Drosscape by Alan Berger which i reviewed a while back, is more conceptually revealing, even if it doesn't address application.
Which i think can be found in a variety of locations. Thankfully you and Q are around with the choice info/stats....
I didn't notice your post the other day but after this past Friday, I can empathize! I rode in the rain for the first time that morning....it wouldn't have been so bad were it not for the crazies who don't know how to drive in it here in SoCal. Also, I don't have fenders on my bike! So that was entertaining. Let's just say that I'm thankful my work had a space heater!
A super-size poncho sounds like it would do the trick, and someone suggested to me some tent thing that they sell in Europe (which sounds perfect for the Dutch). I haven't researched it much yet. I already look like a huge bike dork when I ride so a tent would only add to the hilarity. :o)
~~~~~
tk, count me in for the book! Also, I've been hearing a lot about HOK and sustainability lately, I even saw a presentation on a straw bale building they did out here, but my gut tells me that they might embrace green issues more on a "LEED" level, and less on a truly earnest level.
Yes...Big bike dork..People are always yelling at me (on my bike) to get off the road/bike lane...
Don't i know its only for big 4x4..
The fenders are a must..Although they only really stop the rain/mud from splashing up your back on your body...Your feet will still get the splash from the fenders though...
As for a big tent like thang.That may make the bike rider even more adventurous.
I finally read the First draft of the Sustainable Sites Initiative...
I was impressed with its breadth...And yet it managed to convey it in a concise and "simplistic" manner..
It covers from the beginning to the end of a site(s) program and development...
While much of it not new it packaged it in a total package. And i am excited about seeing how this initiative turns out..
As much as I like LEED for popularizing slap em together technological fixes/tools (what i call plug n play Green) i hope it goes beyond that simple approach..
Finally, it seems that even in its draft form this document makes a great reference for total site design in a sensitive and contextual manner.
Your a better man then me. even though I posted the SSI link here I have yet to read more then the intro. It's been a crazy month since greenbuild. Since I'm hopping on a plane next week, i may have a few moments to read it in an airport bar.
Interesting article Beta. Although I don't necessarily agree with many of his arguments, I think he does make a valid point. I'm going to have to sit and "chew" on this one for a while.
ummm, his point is??? man good, nature____? or is that one set of delusional false beliefs has been replaced by another- wait, he didn't say that religion was false (or did he?). OK, so just cause the agnostic/secular believers (strike that) humanists are replacing a shaministic deification of nature above old time religion doesn't give us humans any more right to destroy this planet. Tuna, I didn't see any valid points, other then charlston heston was a good actor.
(did rush limbaugh ghost write the essay?) oh, the fda isn't the model bureaucracy I'd want to hold up as the finest federal institution to rebuild the EPA in that model.
Beta- you've found another great controversy to keep us up at night debating.
(but I did like that novel, umm what was its name?)
Personally, i agree with Mr. Mayne..I kind of hate the whole points approach. At the least the "check-list" will have to be constantly be refined and tested.
Although i do get the whole change in mind-set and codes, argument
As for Crichton...Doesn't he doubt global warming. And to be specific i mean doesn't he characterize the trends as linked to global cyclic changes, and not influenced by the industrial development of man?
Also, there are actually graduate programs and scholars now who study green/environmentalism in the context of religion and religious experience..
The University of Florida recently developed such a program.
I also agree with Mayne on the "LEED doesn't work" approach, which is why I tell people that LEED is good mostly for introducing green design to people who don't have the first clue about it. Once you start to become comfortable with the main principles of designing sustainably, you can throw the points out the door, because frankly they will cost you an arm and a leg!
I completely agree Emily. LEED is good for introducing clients to sustainable design, but the way in which it is implemented completely misses its mark.
As far as the Crichton Article goes... I believe that environmentalism has become a "religion" to some degree, that's all. Unlike him though, I do not see this as a bad thing. But, IMHO there are some way fanatical environmentalists out there and I believe they would get their point across much better if instead of attacking people, they would sit down and discuss the damage we are causing. I think that's one of the reason's Al Gore's book and movie were successful. They opened a lot of people's eyes to what is going on without being so accusatory.
My case in point...I went to a presentation in which this woman talked about when she went to Home Depot and asked one of the kids at the paint desk what was the best the number they could give her for VOC's. When they replied "Well how many do you want?" She said she got totally upset and gave the impression she kinda went off. Obviously the paint desk person knew nothing about VOC's, but was that an appropriate time to go off on the unsuspecting employee? Maybe, maybe not. I would have chosen a different course of action.
Perhaps it's my background in International Relations/Diplomacy that clouds my "vision" but I think you catch a lot more flies with honey.
I've been having a running argument about sensible living ie. a green approach to life consider it a more humane version of no-impact man. One of which has been the argument about a clothes dryer and a dish washer. The first, I see as a total waste as we have nearly 350 days of sunshine and quite frankly sun dried clothes just smell better and are better for you. The second I have proven is actually moot point, as a dish washer limits the amount of times you need to turn your taps on and off as you wash a multitude of dishes together. Also you minimise the detergent run off into your streams etc (although concentrated). But you do have to include electicity which wasn't previously in the formula.
I was at EcoBuild07 in DC this week, sort of the fed's version of GreenBuild. It wasn't so well attended, if you were looking for new products and things, no dinners or parties :-( , but the idea people where there talking about BIM & collaboration strategy and whole system metrics so that suited me just fine. I also got a chance to validate and show off a couple of my cool little inventions.
One of the big subjects was global impact measurement, with the introduction of a new version of Athena, the life cycle whole building impact assessment modeling software authored by Wayne Trusty. My $shadow method for estimating embodied energy gives project whole system life cycle impact measures for energy & CO2 by estimating shares of global fuel use from shares of GDP. From project costs you get what the total building energy use 'should' add up to if you found all the parts. Athena does a marvelous job of adding up thousands of impacts of all the parts of a building, its use and disposal. I don't have a direct comparison for the two yet, but did one for the more popular and easier (and probably nearly as reliable) EnergyStar whole building energy use measure. That measure uses the CBECS survey data for building energy use by building size and type.
The cool but initially puzzling thing is that there's more than a factor of ~10 difference. The total but unaccountable embodied energy of buildings (seen only as a share of world energy consumption implied by the project share of GDP) is 10 or more times larger than the best estimates by adding up the parts. You might ask why, is there a decimal point off maybe? The answer is kind of obvious once you see it. What's missing is the energy consumed by the people who contribute to the building and its services. That's missing from the material take-off's. The $shadow method counts the whole cascade of energy uses that contribute for the building and its services. They're all contained in the 'choice' of making the building, only hidden from the accounting of its direct energy 'uses'. The best part is that it's exactly the most untraceable parts that are most likely to be accurately represented as average spending, so the global share measure can be refined by factoring in known local parts.
Wayne looked at how I did it, and my explanation, and with some surprise said 'Yes that works!" So... I don't know whether other's will learn how to take account of it quickly or slowly. Different measures display different choices, and it's apparent that to be effective for the earth SD needs to somehow start including the 90% of the problem we've been missing. The most surprising, but perhaps the coolest part of having the application work is that it means realizing that $=energy. It's been obvious in the data and to ecologists for years, but people like to think of $'s as only embodying human creativity, not energy and other resources too. In fact the economies treat all resources as being free, and having a $0 value. Now we see there perhaps is some cost to using the earth. It's a bit of a turn-around, but apparently our universal interchangeable resource for making things happen, $'s, is just about the same thing to the economies as nature's universal interchangeable resource for making thing happen too! ;-)
. This seems to be a simpler/similar version of the $shadow. Of course the big question is will washington ever be so bold or independent enough to enact such legislation?
I do like the idea of taxing the consumption of carbon, since it seems less regressive and more universal. Now if they can only finance universal health care with that carbon tax, we might actually achieve a utopia;-)
Thanks for the link, I think the intent is quite similar, but what the Lieberman-Warner bill would use as a measure of carbon is the accountable content, i.e. ~10% of the total, and let all the known but unaccountable carbon off the hook. The Tyndall Center approach, focusing on the need for Americans to pay for the Chinese carbon embodied in the products we buy, is much closer to recognizing the $shadow principle that $ use is energy use, (because of how the effects of each quickly spread throughout the economies and that energy has basically one universal price)
The problem does remain that the $shadow approach will get the scale of embodied carbon consumption right, but not distinguish between small differences for products coming from higher and lower impact parts of economies, different "product spaces". I still think the best reason for a uniform global carbon tax is the automatic data collection benefit. Then the presently unaccountable (~90%) portion would become completely accountable and our choices based on carbon would be 10 times more effective.
Green Thread Central
tk,
I wholeheartedly agree that it would be good to do a panel on social justice. USGBC and its members have hardly begun to understand how it impacts and is impacted by the building industry. So I'd be totally in for helping orchestrate that.
The postopolis idea...my only problem there is that I feel like the environmental blogosphere is overwhelmed by greenwashing...so somebody there would have to be willing to ask the tough questions.
Here are a few ideas I've had:
-A look at "guerilla" architecture and environmental movements.
-Densifying suburbia.
-Energy independence for the poor.
-The role of cultural and social significance in green buildings.
got some news from archtopus last night that the call for abstracts/schedule will be announced on monday 11/19. So we'll learn more then.
I'm looking for angles and subjects that won't be covered by the typical abstract- so anything with suburbia is out. The other suggestions have potential, just need to figure out who I know that is an expert on the topic and desires to pontificate. there has been a deficit of education sessions aimed at gen-x/gen-y groups, so that is the intended audience (but old fogeys should be interested too).
Social justice/mega-cities concept is fleshing out with trying to line up two of my profs from penn and a few other folks with insight at multiple scales of urbanism & architecture.
A postopolis variation would certainly have to go beyond the greenwashing endemic on the web. finding the right cynical and brilliant voices - like the panel at postopolis is the best route. I'd be happy to pass the baton to those folks to self organize - or I can fill the role of convener.
Infrastructure of the void/networked urbanism is more academic/theoretical and the least appropriate to the greenbuild audience. It is also very much self pandering to my involvement in the book infrastructural city:networked urbanism in los angeles...
tk, I'm right there with you on the idea hunt.....I have to submit thesis proposals today and it looks like a laundry list of concepts that I explored in the previous pages of GTC. I like where you're going with the infrastructure thing.....I need to buy that book that you are published in!!! (great job by the way, if I haven't said so yet)
wK- send me a copy of your thesis proposal if you want some feed back. I can also send you my original thesis proposal/text and all those things if they might help.
ok, I'm dense, what are your ideas?
tk, check your email! :o)
wK, check your email! :o)
check out the latest architecture 2030 ad placed in the NYTs... I love Ed's cojones of takeing on the entire coal and power industry. We need more like him!
please explain infrastructure of the void/networked urbanism and how it's green to those of us who haven't read the book.
Networked urbanism isn't directly green, but as a version of an industrial ecology/infrastructural ecology were the density allows for exchanges of 'waste' products/energy to perform as technological nutrients for urban living and growth - that is a green subject.
my infrastructure of the void concept is exploring how infrastructure is becoming a unintentional force in conservation. Like Quabban Reservoir in MA, or Croton Reservoir in NY which has depopulated several hundred square miles of land that otherwise would have been urbanized. Out west, Denver's water rights have shaped how the entire state has developed. On a smaller scale, military bases and nuclear sites have created technological wilderness areas surrounded by development. Chernobyl has created a 1000 square mile wildlife sanctuary in the midst of ukraine and so on. So the panel discussion would be how to plan for the beneficial growth of these sorts of conservation/wilderness areas that allow for water, energy, and habitat?
of course this is all academic or at the policy level - but greenbuild needs more cerebral discussions.
yeay!!! just got off the phone with the client for the brownfield site, green has gotten the green light! this may become the first 1.5m sf LEED certified 'life-style center'.
For LEED geeks - the USGBC has finally provided sample credit templates (sorry the link is only available to members/registered projects). Oh, they also have a list of low emissions/high mpg vehicles - hah!
Anybody got some favorite reports/papers on the economics of sustainable design or introduction to sustainable design principles that I can send to my client. All the stuff at my fingertips is too hard core to inflict on our client at this point.
Any suggestions for best structural engineers in the north east for sustainable design - diagrids anybody?
my green contribution for the night.
https://www.zonbu.com/home/
i am starting to investigate geothermal options for my home, does any have any good links or thoughts? like would i have a need for tankless water heaters? what should i be thinking about if i want to do a future addition?
beta- instead of investing $$$$ in drilling a dozen wells for a groundsink heat exchange system (the technical description of what your thinking of - real geothermal requires volcanoes and earthquakes), go for solar hot water which is much more affordable. Two options include just heating your domestic water or also heating your home. Both require some storage tanks and plumbing - but even in these northern latitudes, there is plenty of warmth available in the sunshine on those negative 20 days in the depth of winter to make it worth while. I can hit you up with some of the local experts to spec out a system for you...
re: How much CO2 in $1 (1st reply on top, 1st post below)
thanks for the link Barry, but I don't understand. How do you post to the sustainability discussion page if there isn't one? I found the 'Green Central' page you sent, but it looks like a single thread. I’ll post this there too, I guess.
As to how to redirect our dollars, the choices will become more clear when we begin to think in terms of $'s=CO2. There are some obvious exceptions though. When an artist signs a piece of work it's $value increases dramatically without any energy input. The opposite is true for energy intense products. The trick is to factor those exceptions to the average CO2 content in.
To do the math turns out to be like doing your taxes... i.e. not real hard once you have the numbers to plug in but a nuisance. Collecting the numbers, though, can be a real hassle. So the best part of this whole system measurement method? When it's really a hassle to collect the detailed CO2 numbers is when using the easy to calculate average CO2 content is probably going to be more accurate.
Looking at the real CO2 contribution of the whole process of delivering your goods and services includes so many things we've all been leaving out it'll take a little getting used to. My method gives an estimate about 50 times as high as the http://buildcarbonneutral.org/ estimate, for example. That's because my approach is all inclusive, treating both the life cycle building costs and the operating costs.
http://www.synapse9.com/design/TBalanceInventory.xls for the template and http://www.synapse9.com/design/ for other stuff
The worst part (which is also where the totally taboo trap door is located) is in the CO2 contribution of the money you don't spend, that you just leave alone to multiply all bye itself... ;-)
....
Yesterday's post
[how about a sustainability conversation category?]
----
A major advantage of taking a whole systems view is that it helps you understand that it takes a whole system to deliver any individual product and make it useful. If you buy an apple, for example, what your $1 pays for is supporting everything in the lifestyles of the many people who helped bring it to you. Unless in delivering a product there is a special low impact 'value added', like an artist's signature, or a special high impact 'value added' like the source cost of fuels, every dollar spent probably has about as much responsibility for the whole system's impacts as any other.
Last Wednesday at the end of the day I finally got to the point in my CO2 inventory templates where I needed to start plugging in the real figures. I'd actually been avoiding looking at that page in the data for a few months, knowing that it would contain something like a secret I'd rather not know about. I was in sort of intentionally avoiding it. It turns out that spending the average $1 (adjusting DOE long term statistics for inflation and efficiency trends) releases about 12oz of CO2. The DOE measurement is .57metric tons per $1000 in 1995$. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/carbonemiss/chapter1.html
When you buy a 12 oz bottle of spring water for $1 the money goes to support all the things the people who brought it to you do with it, simply because that's how they use the money you give them. The water itself is free from nature of course. What you buy is the service of bringing it to you in the altered form you like. That's how an average $1 spent on 12 oz of water also comes to release into the air an equal weight of CO2. Every time you spend $1 on an average purchase it adds another 12 oz to the atmosphere. Every time you spend around a couple hundred bucks, on average, you put your own body weight in CO2 into the atmosphere. Our Thanksgiving dinners last week, including the travel of those coming from some distance, might easily have released a weight of CO2 equal to the combined weight of the attendees.
--
For me the implications of this are rather disturbing, making it clear that just 'pairing down a little' won't accomplish much. The residence time of CO2 is about 380 years, making everything we do a contribution to altering all the balances of nature for more than ten generations. Of course it wouldn't matter if the distortions were small and temporary. All the evidence is that they will be large and accumulating for a very long time. Maybe the valuable thing this information displays is the extreme separation between what our purchases mean to us and what they do in our world. The real direct effects of lots of things simply have no meaning for people at all. Mostly we don't look or care to look, but it seems bound to have evolutionary effect! After today you may never look at a bottle of spring water the same way again, though. Sorry, but we need to know!
pfh
Off, but on topic....
I need some quick LEED/green washing advice for a project that has already compelted phase III drawings, and is planned to be submitted for permit by the end of the year.
What are some quick, fairly inexpensive, 'green' elements we can add to the project? The client has, at the last minute of course, asked for some 'green' ideas, presumably for bragging rights. We understand that without redesigning the whole building, there is little we can do, but any suggestions would be appreciated. We do have the interiors contract on the job, so we are planning to suggest fixtures with fluorescent bulbs, and I have mentioned toilet and lavatory fixtures, plus bris-solie to my bosses. Any ideas?
What about the actual finishes themselves? Is it a commercial or residential project? Look into materials that have low emitting VOC count (flooring, wallcoverings, furniture, adhesives or lack thereof), or if its a renovation you could look into the feasibility of reusing/salvaging others. Obviously low flush toilets and waterless urinals are another good thing to look into, but I think you've already mentioned this. I've heard there is a trend for companies to add bike racks and a shower as well. Just some very initial thoughts.
*sigh*
but since you're in texas I'll refrain from greater condemnation... beyond no voc/natural finishes, look into items that only appear in the spec like the glazing, or construction waste management MRc2.1 & 2.2.
the brise-soliel is a good start - more fun are articulated louvers with integrated photovoltiacs. Upgrade all window lites on the east, south and north sides to low-e triple glazed units (with thermal breaks) and just triple glazed on the north facade. (if all sides receive sunlight do low-e all around). Glass ain't cheap but will have a good payback in performance with a simple change in specs without revising the drawings.
Make sure the building has a high-performance insulation/air infiltration/vapor barrier.
change the roofing material to a 'cool roof' material like a white membrane (SSc7.1) or if the loads allow it, do an extensive vegetated roof and earn SSc6.1 as well.
take the LEED-AP exam to qualify for IDc2.
HOK put out a study on LEED costs by credit, but the cheapest time to implement any feature is in schematic design.
if the client really wants LEED certification, you got some hoops to jump through as they play catchup- gotta get cranking on the energy modeling and commissioning process (both are prerequisites) that are gonna cost since they are outside your original scope of services. Its almost too late to be serious about making much difference at this point in the game.
Good luck!!!!
beta, I agree with Barry. Solar water heating is the way to go. Did you know that at the turn of the century - ahem, the 20th century - people used solar water heating on their roofs, and it was new and amazing technology then? Funny how we've come full circle.
Sarah, your best bet, like tuna said, is to look at materials, since it sounds like you are beyond "environmentally responsive" design at this point. Also, if you haven't yet spec'd the windows or the insulation, those are good opportunities for energy savings; I would recommend going with double-paned and/or low-e windows, and use as high of an R value in your insulation as your wall section allows.
Whoops, I'm a little slow today. What treekiller said.
Tk, the building is actually in Napa, CA. And it is a funeral home, with a 'french country vineyard' sort of design. Fun, huh? Anyway, I think we could possibly swing the glazing and vapor barrier you mentioned. But we are thinking that the bris-solie and PVs will mean another submission for city aproval, and they've been a pain so far.
We are trying to go with no-VOC paints, and such, and perhaps just scoring and staining concrete instead of tile. Furniture has to be imported from china, or wherever, since local stuff is too expensive. Fabrics appear to be the same way, from what the ID has said.
We all know that this is mostly laughable, and that they wont attain any sort of LEED rating, but we thought as long as they are asking, we might as well throw something in.
Any more ideas, anyone?
I just came across the Guardian's article about the new NY Times Building by Renzo Piano. (http://arts.guardian.co.uk/art/architecture/story/0,,2217157,00.html)
Near the bottom is this pretty incredible quote:
--Is this really the thing to be building, though, in these eco-conscious times? "If you really want to be green," says Piano, "you shouldn't build a tall building in a city in the first place. But the Times wanted to be here, where it belongs, not in some new building on a greenfield site in New Jersey.--
Right, because having all those Times reporters driving to a greenfield in New Jersey would be GREAT for the environment. I would guess this comes from his backround in Italian hill towns, but does he seriously not understand that NYC is one of the greenest places in America?
a leed certified funeral home would be a first. simplest and best environmental thing they can do is stop using formaldehyde as an embalming fluid. there is a reason why it's being banned from all building products... if you can't make them stop, install the biggest exhaust fan possible and go for the maximum number of air changes per hour so the folks going to the funeral home and the employees won't crook from the fumes. napa can be very very hot and dry - so shade and thermal mass make a difference.
Tk you make me laugh. And we already use HUGE exhaust and purging systems in the prep rooms, where the bobies are taken care of.
i was trying to make you laugh:-) some things are not meant to be, ie LEED certified 'french country vineyard' style buildings. guessing that the roof won't be real thatch or that the stucco will be synthetic - oh horrors even eifs... we all gotta take one for the gipper every now and then.
@ Archtopus,
Yeah that seems like a weird quote, you would hope that Piano would understand "green" better..
How is building on a greenfield site better?...
Also to all my fellow green threaders...
I need advice.
I currently am lucky (and have bene for about a year) enough to be able to bike to work.
However, occassionally (despite my best efforts) it is raining sometimes in the morning.
I don't mind biking home wet, just getting into the office like that.
What are my options..for wet bicycling..
What do others do?
Currently i either tough it out (but only if it is just drizzling) and show up at work slightly damp.
But when it is pouring (which is infrequently i break down and get a ride with a friend...
My bike already has splash fenders/guards on the front and back tire...
Do i just need a super-size poncho?
Suggestions
I think you should get one of those funny plastic bike bubbles. You know, the kind with windshields and doors? I've seen them on TV, and maybe in Rome, but I can't remember.
nam- beg a ride with the friend, jump on the bus,or bite the bullet and drive. nothing wrong with occasionally surrendering to the instinct to stay dry.
<img src=http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2239/2022546475_049c75cf39.jpg>
We are interested in a new possibility for a future lifestyle that integrates technology, ecology and culture. We are wondering what thoughts other designers and architects have on how ecology engages topics in architecture, urbanism, and life style.
A forum in which you can engage in this possibility is http://www.growhousing.com
*bump* in honor of emily's brunch.
Was looking at amazon for a bit. I'm surprised that the HOK guide book is second on their list under sustainable design. How can a three year old book (2nd ed -2005) still be current in this rapidly changing subject (& will have nothing on carbon emissions) - and from an insipid corporate firm that hasn't shown much leadership beyond sponsoring greenbuild. Especially when compared with the first book on the page.
Maybe we can produce an architect book of sustainable design once wK and Q are finished with their studies ;-)
has anybody read Doug Farr's book on sustainable urbanism? I missed his talk at GB and would appreciate some subjective reviews before I spend my money.
all I want is books, books, books too!
@ treekiller,
I myself have read much more compelling books. Although, admittedly i haven't read HOKs.
even Drosscape by Alan Berger which i reviewed a while back, is more conceptually revealing, even if it doesn't address application.
Which i think can be found in a variety of locations. Thankfully you and Q are around with the choice info/stats....
Hey nam....
I didn't notice your post the other day but after this past Friday, I can empathize! I rode in the rain for the first time that morning....it wouldn't have been so bad were it not for the crazies who don't know how to drive in it here in SoCal. Also, I don't have fenders on my bike! So that was entertaining. Let's just say that I'm thankful my work had a space heater!
A super-size poncho sounds like it would do the trick, and someone suggested to me some tent thing that they sell in Europe (which sounds perfect for the Dutch). I haven't researched it much yet. I already look like a huge bike dork when I ride so a tent would only add to the hilarity. :o)
~~~~~
tk, count me in for the book! Also, I've been hearing a lot about HOK and sustainability lately, I even saw a presentation on a straw bale building they did out here, but my gut tells me that they might embrace green issues more on a "LEED" level, and less on a truly earnest level.
@ WonderK....
Yes...Big bike dork..People are always yelling at me (on my bike) to get off the road/bike lane...
Don't i know its only for big 4x4..
The fenders are a must..Although they only really stop the rain/mud from splashing up your back on your body...Your feet will still get the splash from the fenders though...
As for a big tent like thang.That may make the bike rider even more adventurous.
wK- remember that a bike isn't a sail boat. don't use the poncho in high winds and expect to stay upright...
the book will take a while - just get your thesis into shape and it might be a chapter...
I forgot who originally linked to the file...
I finally read the First draft of the Sustainable Sites Initiative...
I was impressed with its breadth...And yet it managed to convey it in a concise and "simplistic" manner..
It covers from the beginning to the end of a site(s) program and development...
While much of it not new it packaged it in a total package. And i am excited about seeing how this initiative turns out..
As much as I like LEED for popularizing slap em together technological fixes/tools (what i call plug n play Green) i hope it goes beyond that simple approach..
Finally, it seems that even in its draft form this document makes a great reference for total site design in a sensitive and contextual manner.
Nam-
Your a better man then me. even though I posted the SSI link here I have yet to read more then the intro. It's been a crazy month since greenbuild. Since I'm hopping on a plane next week, i may have a few moments to read it in an airport bar.
Barry,
I imagine i have far less on my plate than the average reader/member of this site....
At least for now....
has anyone read this?
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html
Interesting article Beta. Although I don't necessarily agree with many of his arguments, I think he does make a valid point. I'm going to have to sit and "chew" on this one for a while.
ummm, his point is??? man good, nature____? or is that one set of delusional false beliefs has been replaced by another- wait, he didn't say that religion was false (or did he?). OK, so just cause the agnostic/secular believers (strike that) humanists are replacing a shaministic deification of nature above old time religion doesn't give us humans any more right to destroy this planet. Tuna, I didn't see any valid points, other then charlston heston was a good actor.
(did rush limbaugh ghost write the essay?) oh, the fda isn't the model bureaucracy I'd want to hold up as the finest federal institution to rebuild the EPA in that model.
Beta- you've found another great controversy to keep us up at night debating.
(but I did like that novel, umm what was its name?)
I will say this..
Personally, i agree with Mr. Mayne..I kind of hate the whole points approach. At the least the "check-list" will have to be constantly be refined and tested.
Although i do get the whole change in mind-set and codes, argument
As for Crichton...Doesn't he doubt global warming. And to be specific i mean doesn't he characterize the trends as linked to global cyclic changes, and not influenced by the industrial development of man?
Also, there are actually graduate programs and scholars now who study green/environmentalism in the context of religion and religious experience..
The University of Florida recently developed such a program.
I just wanted to be post #1001!
I also agree with Mayne on the "LEED doesn't work" approach, which is why I tell people that LEED is good mostly for introducing green design to people who don't have the first clue about it. Once you start to become comfortable with the main principles of designing sustainably, you can throw the points out the door, because frankly they will cost you an arm and a leg!
I completely agree Emily. LEED is good for introducing clients to sustainable design, but the way in which it is implemented completely misses its mark.
As far as the Crichton Article goes... I believe that environmentalism has become a "religion" to some degree, that's all. Unlike him though, I do not see this as a bad thing. But, IMHO there are some way fanatical environmentalists out there and I believe they would get their point across much better if instead of attacking people, they would sit down and discuss the damage we are causing. I think that's one of the reason's Al Gore's book and movie were successful. They opened a lot of people's eyes to what is going on without being so accusatory.
My case in point...I went to a presentation in which this woman talked about when she went to Home Depot and asked one of the kids at the paint desk what was the best the number they could give her for VOC's. When they replied "Well how many do you want?" She said she got totally upset and gave the impression she kinda went off. Obviously the paint desk person knew nothing about VOC's, but was that an appropriate time to go off on the unsuspecting employee? Maybe, maybe not. I would have chosen a different course of action.
Perhaps it's my background in International Relations/Diplomacy that clouds my "vision" but I think you catch a lot more flies with honey.
I've been having a running argument about sensible living ie. a green approach to life consider it a more humane version of no-impact man. One of which has been the argument about a clothes dryer and a dish washer. The first, I see as a total waste as we have nearly 350 days of sunshine and quite frankly sun dried clothes just smell better and are better for you. The second I have proven is actually moot point, as a dish washer limits the amount of times you need to turn your taps on and off as you wash a multitude of dishes together. Also you minimise the detergent run off into your streams etc (although concentrated). But you do have to include electicity which wasn't previously in the formula.
thoughts
Change of heart by the U.S. government is encouraging.
until they sign Kyoto it is relatively pointless, how much longer must we all wait?
$=energy
I was at EcoBuild07 in DC this week, sort of the fed's version of GreenBuild. It wasn't so well attended, if you were looking for new products and things, no dinners or parties :-( , but the idea people where there talking about BIM & collaboration strategy and whole system metrics so that suited me just fine. I also got a chance to validate and show off a couple of my cool little inventions.
One of the big subjects was global impact measurement, with the introduction of a new version of Athena, the life cycle whole building impact assessment modeling software authored by Wayne Trusty. My $shadow method for estimating embodied energy gives project whole system life cycle impact measures for energy & CO2 by estimating shares of global fuel use from shares of GDP. From project costs you get what the total building energy use 'should' add up to if you found all the parts. Athena does a marvelous job of adding up thousands of impacts of all the parts of a building, its use and disposal. I don't have a direct comparison for the two yet, but did one for the more popular and easier (and probably nearly as reliable) EnergyStar whole building energy use measure. That measure uses the CBECS survey data for building energy use by building size and type.
The cool but initially puzzling thing is that there's more than a factor of ~10 difference. The total but unaccountable embodied energy of buildings (seen only as a share of world energy consumption implied by the project share of GDP) is 10 or more times larger than the best estimates by adding up the parts. You might ask why, is there a decimal point off maybe? The answer is kind of obvious once you see it. What's missing is the energy consumed by the people who contribute to the building and its services. That's missing from the material take-off's. The $shadow method counts the whole cascade of energy uses that contribute for the building and its services. They're all contained in the 'choice' of making the building, only hidden from the accounting of its direct energy 'uses'. The best part is that it's exactly the most untraceable parts that are most likely to be accurately represented as average spending, so the global share measure can be refined by factoring in known local parts.
Wayne looked at how I did it, and my explanation, and with some surprise said 'Yes that works!" So... I don't know whether other's will learn how to take account of it quickly or slowly. Different measures display different choices, and it's apparent that to be effective for the earth SD needs to somehow start including the 90% of the problem we've been missing. The most surprising, but perhaps the coolest part of having the application work is that it means realizing that $=energy. It's been obvious in the data and to ecologists for years, but people like to think of $'s as only embodying human creativity, not energy and other resources too. In fact the economies treat all resources as being free, and having a $0 value. Now we see there perhaps is some cost to using the earth. It's a bit of a turn-around, but apparently our universal interchangeable resource for making things happen, $'s, is just about the same thing to the economies as nature's universal interchangeable resource for making thing happen too! ;-)
http://www.synapse9.com/design/HDS-TotEnergy-Concepts.pdf
. This seems to be a simpler/similar version of the $shadow. Of course the big question is will washington ever be so bold or independent enough to enact such legislation?
I do like the idea of taxing the consumption of carbon, since it seems less regressive and more universal. Now if they can only finance universal health care with that carbon tax, we might actually achieve a utopia;-)
Thanks for the link, I think the intent is quite similar, but what the Lieberman-Warner bill would use as a measure of carbon is the accountable content, i.e. ~10% of the total, and let all the known but unaccountable carbon off the hook. The Tyndall Center approach, focusing on the need for Americans to pay for the Chinese carbon embodied in the products we buy, is much closer to recognizing the $shadow principle that $ use is energy use, (because of how the effects of each quickly spread throughout the economies and that energy has basically one universal price)
The problem does remain that the $shadow approach will get the scale of embodied carbon consumption right, but not distinguish between small differences for products coming from higher and lower impact parts of economies, different "product spaces". I still think the best reason for a uniform global carbon tax is the automatic data collection benefit. Then the presently unaccountable (~90%) portion would become completely accountable and our choices based on carbon would be 10 times more effective.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.