Was it not like -2c 2 days ago?

I'm no meteorologist but isn't this because of something relating to the polar votex and la nina patterns this winter brought on by climate change?

Even then, this is probably a good point that perhaps the lines don't all move north. Maybe some move south, or east or west to account for these more extreme weather events happening more regularly. Look what happened in TX last winter. Maybe they should be looking at zone 4 for more parts of the state.

-20ish a couple of provinces over today. Will be closer to -40 by Friday. This is normal.

NS...It went up to -14C for a few hours but than right back down to -30C

Love reading your perspectives on these types of things

These are really excellent questions. Like, on a smaller scale, every time I see a house painted black recently I want to scream about how inappropriate it is in a heating climate to invite all that additional solar heat gain through your paint color.

what point is it reasonable and prudent to exceed code minimum? when the client directs and pays you to do so. architect's job is not to design to abstract fears

That's actually a great point, Koww. If we're talking "standard of care" that also applies to project budgets, complexity, and ability of local labor and contractors to execute the work, and you could jeopardize those points by designing to some abstract higher performance guidelines.

We just did our roof, flashing, gutters, etc in the blackest black. In November. The oil canning of the metal work is going to be spectacular!

What I question is when does it no longer become an abstract performance requirement? These abstract events something like the 100-year storm has occurred 3 or 4 times over the last decade and thanks to climate change, appears to be speeding up in the frequency in which it occurs. Keep in mind, those buildings lost to floods, hurricanes, tornados, collapse from snow, water damage from frozen pipes, etc. will be rebuilt. What if that’s happened several times now in that area over the last decade? Do you still design it the same way just because it complies with code? You know, the same way you should reasonably know has failed over and over in its ability to resist these events? Btw; budget doesn’t carry far at all in standard of care when weighed against public safety issues. Also, building codes are not standard of care; those requirements are literally establishing the worst building you can legally design. It is a minimum threshold you must comply with.

Mightyaa, up in Snowmass village, town council passed an ordinance a couple of years ago, right before covid, requiring a lot of mitigation measures for your lot, and adding a 1hr fire rating to all exterior walls and soffits, roofs, etc. I remember this being true in Lake Tahoe as well, doesn't need to be a building code, it can be addressed by towns.

Yes, Not saying there aren't efforts out there. What I am saying is you are a licensed professional with the requisite education, experience, and knowledge to determine for yourself what you think is a bad idea even if it's allowed legally. So, say you are designing a building in Pitkin County (in which the City of Snowmass is located). Because you aren't in city limits, is the risk they thought was great enough to pass into law suddenly no longer a risk once you cross that border? Personally, at a minimum, I'd say the standard of care would be to call this to the attention of your client and let them decide if they are willing to ignore the fire risk to save a few dollars. Or how about you getting hired to design a new building after a major forest fire swept the area... You know rock and mudslides are a issue now; So do you ignore that possibility because there isn't a code or regulation?

mightyaa - I totally agree with you, was just thinking through the different pressures we are likely to face on projects. But always appreciate hearing an experienced forensic architect's opinion on this kind of stuff!

I'm sure your comment is partially in jest (if not entirely), but I've heard people seriously float the idea that we should simply mandate Passive House.

[ducks and runs off stage]

"Although the changes are just showing up in residential energy codes this year, the research behind them is eight years old."

So it's about time to update the research and update them again, no?

Yeah probably. Which will take another eight years...

Do you like pulling stuff out of your ass at your job too? 2021 had the third-highest number of hurricanes on record. Also, John Kerry? Do you mean Al Gore? Or are you trolling?

Plus I thought the latest from the far right is acknowledgement of climate change, but maintain a denial it's manmade. Sort of like "the earth's weather has always changed, hence the ice age, etc." So regardless of what side of the political spectrum you are, I thought it was pretty well known weather/climate events are happening at a higher frequency .

https://ifglobalwarmingisrealwhyisitcold.tumblr.com/

It's a real shame we're not allowed to dislike two people at the same time. A real shame.

You're doing that thing again where you take a thread and make it about the only topic you ever talk about. Kinda annoying.

pReTtY MuCh eVeRyThInG ThAt’s mOdErNiZeD YoUr lIfE HaS CoMe fRoM PrIvAtE InDuStRy.

Was listening to a medical researcher speak last night about a study he did on public funding of medication research. The thing that stood out to me is that he found that 100% of all drugs on the market were seed funded by the government. He couldn't find an exception.

It can be simultaneously true that 100% of drugs on the market were publicly seed funded and that the total share of public pharmaceutical funding is

Anyway, here's some actual research.

"There is little debate that public funding of basic science is a critical enabler of drug development 1, 2. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the world’s largest government funder of biomedical research, and makes financial and practical contributions to all stages of it, including pre-clinical scientific investigations, translational medicine, and clinical trials. Detailed case studies reveal that public support has played at least some role in virtually all of the 26 most clinically and commercially significant drugs and drug classes approved over the past several decades 3. And several important medicines were solely invented by academic researchers, including the lung cancer therapy pemetrexed, the vitamin D analog doxercalciferol, the inhaled pulmonary vasodilator nitrous oxide, and the vaccine for Haemophilus influenzae type b 4.

But in a large majority of cases, the public sector’s contribution to new drugs has been in the form of early scientific findings, unrelated to current or potential applications. The public sector supported key basic research for 19 of the 26 “transformative” drugs and drug classes cited above, contributed to the actual discovery of a new therapy in just 11, and could claim sole discovery credit in only four

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Business is sociopathically self-interested and will not ever drive ethical decision making, whether it be regarding resource use or whatever. Oversight will always be necessary, likely by both regulatory & legislative bodies.

Part of that is that private industry has a self-interest in not eliminating itself by making itself obsolete.

Wasn't this you?

You do this thing (again, you do very few things, and you repeat them so frequently that we all see the pattern coming) where you start with an almost absurdly absolutist position, and then when people come along to point it out, you accuse them of taking the opposite absolutist position and then moderate somewhat to make yourself look reasonable. 

No one is arguing for the abolition of the private sector, simply acknowledging that the public sector plays a significant role.

"Proto, you are describing “business” as if architecture isn’t a business."

Nope. You ever have to deal with a professional license?

I can hear the whoosh from the tumble weeds in Jla’s brain from here.