2010 California Green Building Standards Code: Nation’s First Mandatory Statewide Standards Code to Green Construction and Fight Climate Change
Continuing to lead the way in the fight against climate change and protecting the environment, California adopted mandatory building regulations for all new construction in the state that will achieve major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, and water use. The CALGREEN Code is the nation’s first statewide green building standards code and will take effect January 1, 2011.
Having a mandatory code will allow California’s builders to build to a certifiable green standard without having to pay costly fees for third-party programs. In addition to the mandatory regulations the CALGREEN Code also includes more stringent additional provisions that will help every builder, owner or local government to go even further. While the mandatory regulations will now be the law, local communities can take additional action to green their buildings that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy efficiency and conserve our natural resources.
You can download the draft (it's still a draft from this page .
I took a quick stroll through the draft. It's 190ish pages long, but most of the information is in table/checklist format. Observations:
-There are 3 levels of compliance: mandatory, tier1 and tier 2.
-Mandatory level seems very weak. It deals with water conservation, air quality, and all kinds of things LEED talks about as well. Goals set by mandatory code seem to be modest at best. You would have to go out of your way not to meet them. 1 gallon/flush urinal standard sounds in tune with the plumbing industry lobby's demands.
-Tier 1 and 2 require you to surpass mandatory part by 15 and 30% respectfully.
-Tier 1 and 2 have some very specific benchmarks since previous statement is vague at best.
-Just like LEED, there is a checklist matrix for tiered certification.
-Some of the stiffer requirements are bizarrely specific, like the types of shading devices to be used on south and west elevations (very 19th century in my opinion). There is also a bizarre fixation with code dealing with multi-showerhead baths (number of heads is inversely proportional to each head becoming a mist maker). Your tear 2 kitchen faucet will gently drip on your hands, your building must be oriented in a specific way. Spacing of doors and windows in a wood framed house has to follow a 2-foot modulus....
-There are way too many standards relying on ENERGY STAR. Any law that relies on a volunteer, proprietary, commercial industry standard is asking for trouble.
-Code provides all kinds of helpful checklists and is fairly easy to follow.
-Compliance will be enforced through building inspections. Additional cost of inspections to be covered by CA's state budget surplus :)
Conclusions:
-As an architect in CA, be prepared to file additional paperwork during permit approval process. It appears standalone documentation is required.
-Installers may require additional certification requirements. I expect a number of certification programs to spike come January.
-I like the overall 'green code' initiative, and starting off with very lax mandatory requirements may be its biggest strength. There's always room for improvement down the line...
-The code doesn't address anything more than what LEED has done, and as such brings no additional value to green architecture (no reward for urbanism or construction quality/longevity).
-Since California market is so huge, decisions made by construction industry manufacturers will have far reaching effects on states completely disinterested in environmental issues.
-Construction waste requirements may be very hard to enforce. In other news Tony just opened a chain of construction surplus retirement homes in adjoining states of Oregon and Nevada!
You know the only thing about this green movement, is that everyone jumped aboard the bandwagon, and has totally forgotten how to build a good building with a good floor plan.
I say site specifics (access to infrastructure, property type, density) are probably more beneficial when it comes to macro environmental and macro economic considerations.
Sadly though... California and all of its West Coast wonderment is about manufacturing destinations for new people to come to.
You guys (DisplacedArchitechtoid and Unicorn Ghost) are such defeatists!
This initiative by California government appears genuine (as much as it may be flawed), and deserves a closer critical look.
"totally forgotten how to build a good building with a good floor plan. " and "West Coast wonderment is about manufacturing destinations for new people to come to".
Come on!! Stop with this armchair activism. I've seen both of you contribute some very informative posts.
This 'green' code may seem unimportant in greater scope of things, but ultimately this is forward thinking. Lots of errors need to be ironed out. Intelligent input is openly welcomed.
@Union Ghost: What do you mean when you use the term 'macro'? I ask since I believe efficiency should be a strong consideration regardless of the scale of a project.
@DisplacedArcitect: here are the floor plans that you asked . What's up with your fascination with floor-plans given the current discussion? Weird.
@holz.box: passivhous is a relevant concept to most places excluding California. Heating/cooling requirements in CA are secondary compared to issues of water conversation and terrifying sprawl. What works in Germany may work in Maine, but not in Arizona...
what makes it green:
-no energy (or economic) costs for heating or cooling, recovers waste heat from industrial processes.
-no CO2 emittance for heating or cooling, saving 31t CO2/year
-adequate daylighting
-no petroleum used to insulate the building (rigid)
-no plastics used for air barrier, vapor barrier, building wrap
-building maintains a comfortable interior in winter
-durable: should last for decades or longer, won't suffer any rot issues
-rubber balls cast in floors allow for longer spans with minimal material/effort
plus it's got an elegantly minimal plan and looks friggin amazing.
greenline has a pretty good writeup on the free heating system, saving 31tons of CO2 a year
steel, northern ca gets cold enough that passivhaus does make sense. socal, not so much and san diego can get by without much insulation and proper solar shading, orientation and ventilation.
also, passivhaus could be done in arizona, but i think you'll find that vernacular answers may be more relevant.
Where a North arrow? need to know the program, and client goals too. Window placement is arbitrary. Since you are so fascinated with CO2 how much do u figure was produced by all that concrete? very sculptural, was form a goal? Does this building say or show our epoch to its full potential? Very symbolic, are we painters now as well as architects? and remember this building was built in Europe, where Building codes allow much more flexibility than in the USA. It does succeed in showing the arbitrary spirit that prevails today in architecture.
@DiplacedArchitect: you are being a one line internet troll. Try harder...
@holz.box: Passivhaus gets major props no matter how you look at it. Original topic discusses code law drafted by well meaning policy makers, for better or worse. The question at hand is : now what?....
i would continue ripping this building apart, but right now I'm feeling very upset at a profession that eats its young. I'm going to join the rest of my colleges who are unemployed and looking for a job.
@DisplacedArchitect: This is a horrible time to be trained in a skill nobody desires. Things will pick up eventually, you will find yourself in a situation where you hate your life for being overworked, and eventually the profession will collapse yet again.
In the meantime laws and regulations will shift to reflect public good/private interests. I suggest staying on top of it all.
i've posted before (towards bottom) the issues of CO2 in relation to concrete v. steel (steel ends up being worse in long run, energy wise, unless net zero). transsolar has done work w/ concrete that's 'greener' than most by a significant portion (with werner sobek) - so there may be some of that in this project. the 12" thick concrete walls @ exterior are about 1,900 cubic yards. that's roughly 380 tons of CO2, so in 12 years and a spring, CO2 neutral for heating/envelope.
building is a school for a design-oriented MBA, Zollverein School of Management and Design. saw a transsolar lecture, client goals were high design, high performing, low energy usage building.
form is derivied from dimensions of the zollverein mine, compact volume allows for less heat loss.
i think this building is more '21st century' than most, and fairly representative of the graphical nature of projects in the last decade.
regarding california's mandatory green building code i think it should be up to the owner/client how green they want to go. at least with leed you have a choice if you want to do it or not .. calgreen will just add to construction cost as well as require an expansion of government plan check review and inspections. not a good thing to do during this recession that has hit the construction industry harder than most.
and this will do nothing to 'fight climate change' as calgreen claims.
i think it should be up to the owner/client how green they want to go.
i have no issue with minimum mandatory requirements that by only adding a few hundred dollars will save significantly more than that in energy costs alone.
because of the scale of shift this will introduce, big inefficient companies will be forced to make better products.
regulation pushes industry, not the other way around. all you have to do is look at what's been happening in europe the last 20 years (due to passivhaus and EnEv, among others) - government mandates have forced advances and innovation in building technology by leaps and bounds.
FRaC, purpose of this legislation isn't to fight climate change (read the legislation) it is to improve public health, safety and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a reduced negative impact, or positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practice
building efficieny saves money, energy CO2, water, construction waste, etc.
Exactly. As far as I am concerned, individuals can omit all the life-safety features they want as long as they are the only ones that will occupy the building. However, when it comes to sustainability, I have to inhabit the same earth as the dudes who think minimum environmental performance should be elective. They are my polar bears too.
I'm afraid that like regulating traffic, this is a case where collective rights trump individual rights.
Incidentally, I'm unaware of any provision of CalGreen that will significantly increase the cost of construction.
When I used the term macro, as in macro environmental, the meaning is more infrastructural and regional.
As in... stilted highrises, although consuming far much more water, often have a far less macro environmental impact.
Two reasons: the roof area is minimal for the amount of floor space produce and the interaction between foundation and topsoil is drastically reduced.
In a "macro" sense, a loss of permeability leads to losses of aquifer recharge and can also lead to 'migration.' Migration in this sense being that the water table is actually shifting away from development altogether.
So, you can have 300 low water consumption houses... but unless you plann them just right to utilize natural draining and build them perfectly aligned to hydrological concerns, they will technically waste more water in the macro sense of things.
also, one consideration here:
Energy efficient buildings and eliminating excess fuel consumption can be viewed a means of slowing our gradual progression into universal entropy!
Remember that folks! We have a finite amount of energy that is slowing becoming neutralized!
You pick what you want but when it is gone, it is gone! I'd take fancy meals and designer wares over being stuck in rush hour!
Jul 25, 10 1:18 am ·
·
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.
California's new Green Building Standards Code: HOORAY!!!! They will even certify your building!
Great news from the state of California:
http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/14186/
2010 California Green Building Standards Code: Nation’s First Mandatory Statewide Standards Code to Green Construction and Fight Climate Change
Continuing to lead the way in the fight against climate change and protecting the environment, California adopted mandatory building regulations for all new construction in the state that will achieve major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, and water use. The CALGREEN Code is the nation’s first statewide green building standards code and will take effect January 1, 2011.
Having a mandatory code will allow California’s builders to build to a certifiable green standard without having to pay costly fees for third-party programs. In addition to the mandatory regulations the CALGREEN Code also includes more stringent additional provisions that will help every builder, owner or local government to go even further. While the mandatory regulations will now be the law, local communities can take additional action to green their buildings that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy efficiency and conserve our natural resources.
No more LEED? I think that's great!!!!!
This is good stuff... The rest of the blue states will be sure to follow californias leed. (no pun)
You can download the draft (it's still a draft from this page .
I took a quick stroll through the draft. It's 190ish pages long, but most of the information is in table/checklist format. Observations:
-There are 3 levels of compliance: mandatory, tier1 and tier 2.
-Mandatory level seems very weak. It deals with water conservation, air quality, and all kinds of things LEED talks about as well. Goals set by mandatory code seem to be modest at best. You would have to go out of your way not to meet them. 1 gallon/flush urinal standard sounds in tune with the plumbing industry lobby's demands.
-Tier 1 and 2 require you to surpass mandatory part by 15 and 30% respectfully.
-Tier 1 and 2 have some very specific benchmarks since previous statement is vague at best.
-Just like LEED, there is a checklist matrix for tiered certification.
-Some of the stiffer requirements are bizarrely specific, like the types of shading devices to be used on south and west elevations (very 19th century in my opinion). There is also a bizarre fixation with code dealing with multi-showerhead baths (number of heads is inversely proportional to each head becoming a mist maker). Your tear 2 kitchen faucet will gently drip on your hands, your building must be oriented in a specific way. Spacing of doors and windows in a wood framed house has to follow a 2-foot modulus....
-There are way too many standards relying on ENERGY STAR. Any law that relies on a volunteer, proprietary, commercial industry standard is asking for trouble.
-Code provides all kinds of helpful checklists and is fairly easy to follow.
-Compliance will be enforced through building inspections. Additional cost of inspections to be covered by CA's state budget surplus :)
Conclusions:
-As an architect in CA, be prepared to file additional paperwork during permit approval process. It appears standalone documentation is required.
-Installers may require additional certification requirements. I expect a number of certification programs to spike come January.
-I like the overall 'green code' initiative, and starting off with very lax mandatory requirements may be its biggest strength. There's always room for improvement down the line...
-The code doesn't address anything more than what LEED has done, and as such brings no additional value to green architecture (no reward for urbanism or construction quality/longevity).
-Since California market is so huge, decisions made by construction industry manufacturers will have far reaching effects on states completely disinterested in environmental issues.
-Construction waste requirements may be very hard to enforce. In other news Tony just opened a chain of construction surplus retirement homes in adjoining states of Oregon and Nevada!
What? Who's Tony?
Tony the opportunist! Any change in legal code inevitably spawns an army of bottom feeders...
On other words, bad joke. Sorry!! Ignore that part...
You know the only thing about this green movement, is that everyone jumped aboard the bandwagon, and has totally forgotten how to build a good building with a good floor plan.
Good points DA and steel.
I say site specifics (access to infrastructure, property type, density) are probably more beneficial when it comes to macro environmental and macro economic considerations.
Sadly though... California and all of its West Coast wonderment is about manufacturing destinations for new people to come to.
You guys (DisplacedArchitechtoid and Unicorn Ghost) are such defeatists!
This initiative by California government appears genuine (as much as it may be flawed), and deserves a closer critical look.
"totally forgotten how to build a good building with a good floor plan. " and "West Coast wonderment is about manufacturing destinations for new people to come to".
Come on!! Stop with this armchair activism. I've seen both of you contribute some very informative posts.
This 'green' code may seem unimportant in greater scope of things, but ultimately this is forward thinking. Lots of errors need to be ironed out. Intelligent input is openly welcomed.
@Union Ghost: What do you mean when you use the term 'macro'? I ask since I believe efficiency should be a strong consideration regardless of the scale of a project.
really? show me one good building?
just one?!?
OK this thread just went to (water efficient) crapper.
@DisplacedArchitect: Please rephrase. Your question(s) are hard to put in context of the current discussion.
@holz.box: Way to bring in a random project built in Germany. The Germans are coming! The Germans are coming! Is that your answer to everything? :)
you think that is good? why?
and explain how that building incorporates green building methods? show us a floor plan?
uh, random project in germany has a zero CO2 heating system and is a pretty phenomenal project.
are you saying the passivhaus institut and transsolar are moving in the wrong direction?
standing on the shoulders of giants is a good thing. i'm just trying to move the discussion beyond
yay! i used bamboo floors and CFLs
is that it? that's your explanation?
@DisplacedArcitect: here are the floor plans that you asked . What's up with your fascination with floor-plans given the current discussion? Weird.
@holz.box: passivhous is a relevant concept to most places excluding California. Heating/cooling requirements in CA are secondary compared to issues of water conversation and terrifying sprawl. What works in Germany may work in Maine, but not in Arizona...
A good building should have a good floor plan, or do you disagree?
that was my response to steelstuds.
what makes it green:
-no energy (or economic) costs for heating or cooling, recovers waste heat from industrial processes.
-no CO2 emittance for heating or cooling, saving 31t CO2/year
-adequate daylighting
-no petroleum used to insulate the building (rigid)
-no plastics used for air barrier, vapor barrier, building wrap
-building maintains a comfortable interior in winter
-durable: should last for decades or longer, won't suffer any rot issues
-rubber balls cast in floors allow for longer spans with minimal material/effort
plus it's got an elegantly minimal plan and looks friggin amazing.
greenline has a pretty good writeup on the free heating system, saving 31tons of CO2 a year
steel, northern ca gets cold enough that passivhaus does make sense. socal, not so much and san diego can get by without much insulation and proper solar shading, orientation and ventilation.
also, passivhaus could be done in arizona, but i think you'll find that vernacular answers may be more relevant.
Where a North arrow? need to know the program, and client goals too. Window placement is arbitrary. Since you are so fascinated with CO2 how much do u figure was produced by all that concrete? very sculptural, was form a goal? Does this building say or show our epoch to its full potential? Very symbolic, are we painters now as well as architects? and remember this building was built in Europe, where Building codes allow much more flexibility than in the USA. It does succeed in showing the arbitrary spirit that prevails today in architecture.
@DiplacedArchitect: you are being a one line internet troll. Try harder...
@holz.box: Passivhaus gets major props no matter how you look at it. Original topic discusses code law drafted by well meaning policy makers, for better or worse. The question at hand is : now what?....
i would continue ripping this building apart, but right now I'm feeling very upset at a profession that eats its young. I'm going to join the rest of my colleges who are unemployed and looking for a job.
@DisplacedArchitect: This is a horrible time to be trained in a skill nobody desires. Things will pick up eventually, you will find yourself in a situation where you hate your life for being overworked, and eventually the profession will collapse yet again.
In the meantime laws and regulations will shift to reflect public good/private interests. I suggest staying on top of it all.
For self preservation sake.
displaced,
i've posted before (towards bottom) the issues of CO2 in relation to concrete v. steel (steel ends up being worse in long run, energy wise, unless net zero). transsolar has done work w/ concrete that's 'greener' than most by a significant portion (with werner sobek) - so there may be some of that in this project. the 12" thick concrete walls @ exterior are about 1,900 cubic yards. that's roughly 380 tons of CO2, so in 12 years and a spring, CO2 neutral for heating/envelope.
building is a school for a design-oriented MBA, Zollverein School of Management and Design. saw a transsolar lecture, client goals were high design, high performing, low energy usage building.
form is derivied from dimensions of the zollverein mine, compact volume allows for less heat loss.
i think this building is more '21st century' than most, and fairly representative of the graphical nature of projects in the last decade.
regarding california's mandatory green building code i think it should be up to the owner/client how green they want to go. at least with leed you have a choice if you want to do it or not .. calgreen will just add to construction cost as well as require an expansion of government plan check review and inspections. not a good thing to do during this recession that has hit the construction industry harder than most.
and this will do nothing to 'fight climate change' as calgreen claims.
i have no issue with minimum mandatory requirements that by only adding a few hundred dollars will save significantly more than that in energy costs alone.
because of the scale of shift this will introduce, big inefficient companies will be forced to make better products.
regulation pushes industry, not the other way around. all you have to do is look at what's been happening in europe the last 20 years (due to passivhaus and EnEv, among others) - government mandates have forced advances and innovation in building technology by leaps and bounds.
FRaC, purpose of this legislation isn't to fight climate change (read the legislation) it is
to improve public health, safety and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a reduced negative impact, or positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practice
building efficieny saves money, energy CO2, water, construction waste, etc.
Exactly. As far as I am concerned, individuals can omit all the life-safety features they want as long as they are the only ones that will occupy the building. However, when it comes to sustainability, I have to inhabit the same earth as the dudes who think minimum environmental performance should be elective. They are my polar bears too.
I'm afraid that like regulating traffic, this is a case where collective rights trump individual rights.
Incidentally, I'm unaware of any provision of CalGreen that will significantly increase the cost of construction.
Also: that's a pretty rad building.
When I used the term macro, as in macro environmental, the meaning is more infrastructural and regional.
As in... stilted highrises, although consuming far much more water, often have a far less macro environmental impact.
Two reasons: the roof area is minimal for the amount of floor space produce and the interaction between foundation and topsoil is drastically reduced.
In a "macro" sense, a loss of permeability leads to losses of aquifer recharge and can also lead to 'migration.' Migration in this sense being that the water table is actually shifting away from development altogether.
So, you can have 300 low water consumption houses... but unless you plann them just right to utilize natural draining and build them perfectly aligned to hydrological concerns, they will technically waste more water in the macro sense of things.
also, one consideration here:
Energy efficient buildings and eliminating excess fuel consumption can be viewed a means of slowing our gradual progression into universal entropy!
Remember that folks! We have a finite amount of energy that is slowing becoming neutralized!
You pick what you want but when it is gone, it is gone! I'd take fancy meals and designer wares over being stuck in rush hour!
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.