with all the new green technology coming on the market so quickly, there appears to be little testing of these products. The systems that we are using on the houses that I am working on are all crap and break all the time.
I was talking to a large developer in Seattle who doesnt use green technologies in their buildings for this reason as well...they dont want to have to be repairing all of the building systems all of the time in their buildings...
Grenn adhesives are worthless. We are constantly getting calls about delamination in millwork. I watched an laminate edge stipping just slowly peel away one day while on walk through. Water based laminate glues should be avoided.
From an E&O standpoint, designers can face serious liability exposure if we specify green products that do not (or cannot) perform as advertised. Using untried, untested, products can be quite dangerous and can lead to serious claims.
Don't let a product manufacturer's claim about "being green" blind you to how the product might (or might not) perform. Your client looks to you to vette these products before they go into his building.
Here's an article on the subject that you might find useful: Risks in Green Design -- the potential risks attached to sustainable design are quite broad.
Mind you -- I'm not discouraging sustainable design practices ... I'm only urging caution and a "look before you leap" mentalilty.
I work with a gentleman who has worked building ships and oil rigs.
he has samples that he has glued and painted with various coatings and glues sitting in the sun in his back yard. He calls it his Lab.
if it survives a few years in the sun exposed to beach area weather then he feels confident specifying it. He has a large back yard.
if you're constantly having to repair something, is that really a green material/product?? problems like this just make the "green" and "sustainable" monikers a joke…does LEED take constant maintenance into account, or do you only get points for using "green" products, not products that will actually last??
we used some eco-spec paint on a project this summer--the stuff would chip and peel if you looked at it funny; apparently the cure time for it is around 30 days…
I was having a dicussion about this the other day with a friend - Does LEED take away points for anything?
I have been in a "leed certified" building in Phoenix that had a 14' high south facing glass facade. It got CRAZY hot and they had to pump the AC 24/7. I would think that this should be a deduction...
Oh, and I am reading an article on William McDonough in the new issue of Fast Company, if someone doesn't figure out how to put this douche in his place; we're all fucked.
As my professor said to me many times; Kill your heroes.
we work with contractors that refuse to install the stuff because they can't guarantee it.
the ideals of LEED are not necessarily a joke; the administration of it though. . .seems to be more about what you can claim than the actual performance.
if you say your product/building is "green" and have some sort of documentation that "confirms" it, then you're green
betadine, why do you say that about McDonough? His arguments make a lot of sense to me. Not mixing biological and technical materials seems like a no-brainer, no? I don't know....
i just finished the Fast Company article. everything, every-single-fuckingthing he proposes is bullshit, and if not bullshit, he never actually proves that it works. the village in China, an utter failure. the nike project failed. the oberlin building failed. he is all about branding cradle-to-cradle image, selling licenses, trademarking, and patenting things, and never really doing jack. he is extremely protective and claims proprietary rights over some of the most bizarre shit. litigious too. not to mention HE NEVER EVEN CAME UP WITH C2C! some swiss guy did....
he is a charlatan of the first order, nearly everyone he has ever worked with hates his fucking guts.
someone should stop him before he stops the movement.
in fact i have been suspicious of him ever since i laid hands on a copy of cradle to cradle, the book, for it's size weighs a ton! i want to do a real analysis of the book itself, the physical material not the concept. how it's manufactured, how it's packed in boxes, distribution, labor required, etc.
As for the book, it's made from a plastic that can actually be recycled into more books. Yes, it's heavy (increasing fuel use in shipping) so I' with you there, but that doesn't negate the messages in the book.
I just don't understand what he's ever done to you. You sound personally hurt for some reason. Meh.
i hate people that are in it not for the betterment of the world - as they profess - but are in it to have their ego's stroked....he's a dick, short and not so sweet, dick.
Having worked with McDonough as well as MBDC I absolutely disagree that he is only in it to have his ego stroked. Feel free to disagree with the strategies (or even outcomes), but I don't think you are in any position to question his motivation.
don't get your panties all in a wad over what betadineligatures writes on these matters .. he obtains most of his information about the world from the National Enquirer.
I recommend that anyone interested in McDonough read the Fast Company piece. It sheds some light on McDonough's motivations, which have always seemed to me only partly about making the world a better place. More often, they seemed to be about inflating the "cult of personality" around McDonough himself.
I do appreciate some of what he's doing. But purely from a design and sustainability perspective, his work is pretty conservative and not that original. I've always been puzzled that this bowtied purveyor of corporate architecture was considered the voice of the American environmental movement.
People like Renzo Piano, Norman Foster, Richard Rogers, Grimshaw, Sauerbruch and Hutton, Neutelings Reidijk, etc, are doing so much more for sustainable architecture than McDonough is. And doing it more quietly, with better buildings.
...oh i remember now, you got your panties in a bunch because i gave credit to NE for revealing the John Edwards affair. an affair that ALL MSM press avoided writing about the affair.
so, if i am right in citing them, because they got it right that makes me wrong?
please ignore babs, anyone that refers to herself as "babs" is probably a lot like Caribou Barbie. now back to your regularly scheduled programing.
That's not really the issue, Distant. I think Rem Koolhaas is pretty damn great, and I admire his cult of personality, for instance. But I also think he oversells himself and his work. Fine.
The issue is whether McDonough is being disingenuous or even misleading in his practice. The Fast Company article spells this out.
No one is saying don't admire him. But maybe verify his hype before you do.
i will agree that the environmental aspect of architecture that interests me is that of a small handful of firms, mainly foster, kaufmann, disch, kaplinger, renzo, sauerbruch & hutton and some other lesser known firms...
my experience w/ mcdonough is that he likes to talk, but his buildings never live up to his goals. some don't really work as intended, like oberlin - but that is kinda outside his realm as the college cheaped out after cost overruns.
The used the entire fish, tree, goat, etc. to make shelter, provide food, make
weapons, transportation (boats), clothing, etc. etc.
We just stepped into a big steaming pile of bureaucratic b.s. when it comes to using intuitive construction practices.
Low VOC's: makes sense
Recyclable carpet: makes sense at least in theory as well.
What doesn't make sense is the inconsistent way that manufacturers are claiming that their products are green. What also sucks is the additional cash that now has to go into a 'green project' on the admin side (here's where they get you)
It should be intuitive to spec motion sensor lighting, or recyclable carpet, or low VOC paints, bamboos, recycle stone and reclaimed timber for a project, we do it all the time; the sucky part is that now to make it 'certified green' you have to spend more time and money doing it.
Now McDonough effective owns the 'philosophy' of C2C, something alot of us have been thinking about for years and in some parts of the world are practicing second nature.
What really needs to be done is to hold manufacturers to the same standards when it comes to production, post-occupancy maintenance and end-of-cycle management. It's not a truly green product if it ends up in the dumpster after demo/re-fit.
The problem with the comparison of us to native tribes is that it is a fallacious argument. The products of non-western tribes, societies and cultures tend to be "more natural" but that has to do more with aesthetics and traditions.
For instance, a lot of African cultures from Central Africa view the process of decomposition necessary to art-- both economically and spiritually. The death of an object is just as important as the creation of the object. So, in a sense, their lack of need of permanence means they never develop or utilize preservation-based construction and manufacturing techniques.
Most of the arguments here are a purely cultural consideration. I don't get counter tops at all... at least the current cultural tradition of them. From a scientific point, they don't make sense... using the surface in almost any way causes micrometer scratches that harbor bacteria.
When you have to put everything on plates and cutting boards, it completely eliminates the need for a laminate or veneered counter top. At least with solid wood and stone counter tops, you have between 3-12 times you can resurface the counter top completely.
Lastly, in terms of sanitation, granite counter tops (with the possibility of using vaseline tiles or a combination of doped glass and ceramics) tend to be the safest. Not for permeability but for the fact that they emit ionizing radiation and radon gasses!
We do use 100% of a lot of natural and mined products. There's a point of redundancy in the supply chain... like refineries that import gypsum for sulfur scrubbing and plaster factories that make their own sulfuric acid.
But a lot of our 100% use of raw materials is often gross and terrifying.
The problem with cradle to cradle is that it doesn't attempt to even address density, the overall supply and transportation chain, the enormous reconfiguration of cities to be able to net productive quality and industrial symbiosis practices.
There's some glazing over it but nothing worth mentioning. If a lot more industries were to practice waste symbiosis practices, very little would have to change. We'd see increases in efficiency rise from 30-50 percent to 60-80 percent with little cost increase in the baseline.
That means by keeping things "conservative" we'd be doing 0.5 times as much with the same things.
The only issue with symbiotic practices would be the entire reconfiguration of industry in the entire country-- cities would have to be dismantled and moved, populations displace and the entire industrial sector would have to shift towards more urbane practices as waste symbiosis requires industrial sites to essentially be completely intertwined. The spaces necessary to this wouldn't be particularly commuter friendly and every parking lot could be another potential waste exchange point.
Too terrifying. Too corporatist. Too "jewish soap."
However, the creation of a massive mechanical-chemical "life form" would be interesting.
"bamboo ply is a pain in the ass to work with...as is paper stone"
^ How so? You've worked with both? What exactly was the problem?
OP: Yes, there needs to be more testing, etc. but it's also important to start moving these things into the real world ASAP. There is still a ridiculous amount of testing and other bureaucratic stuff in the way of most 'green' products, etc. Of course we need to be sure of things, but too many people that don't actually know anything about the subject are involved and assume that something cannot work due to their ignorance of the subject. What we need (obviously this will never happen) is companies with strong morals and/or a market with a brain so that all of the 'green' products that aren't actually sustainable disappear, and the ones that don't work (your issue) also disappear.
If you actually understand sustainability in its entirety, and are not just an average person who knows the buzz words tossed around in the media (this understanding demonstrated by all those making simple broad claims about LEED), and also have a grasp on the purpose/how it accomplishes that purpose of your product, you shouldn't be spec'ing too many failed technologies.
Regarding LEED: LEED is not a joke. No wonder sustainability struggles so much. This isn't the greatest comparison, but, when the first airplanes were built, did people call them a joke and say we shouldn't bother wasting time/money, or did they get super stoked that progress was made. No, LEED isn't perfect and in no way promises sustainable buildings. It doesn't even claim to be. It's only people that know next to nothing about it that seem to have created this misconception. It recognizes this and spells it out if you actually wanted to do some research and read about it before arguing about it. The purpose is to get people thinking about sustainability, endeavour to offer some sort recognition for moving towards green design and progress the standard (i.e. shift code requirements to what LEED requires, over time). So no, it isn't going to ensure 100% sustainable construction in its first versions, but it will move us at (the ridiculously slow) speed required by all those unwilling to understand what they are talking about (i.e. most people).
Also, the logistics of developing a regulated, standard benchmark for sustainability is amazingly difficult, so again, we cannot expect perfection right off the bat. As was noted by the OP: 'green products suck' and more testing needs to occur. LEED attempts to eliminate those products that suck, or simply claim to be environmentally responsible.
Does LEED deduct points? No, but it does have prerequisites, so in a way, yes, it will deduct all your points if you don't meet every prereq.
Does LEED take into account maintenance/life of products? Not a whole lot right now, but it is starting to move towards it. They are also starting to incorporate the importance concerns other than simply the structure itself (see LEED for Neighborhoods). I haven't read the changes to the newest version of the USGBC's LEED system, as I live in Canada, so I don't know exactly what points are awarded for currently.
I haven't read the article yet, but I will, then comment on it.
On counter tops...I don't see scratch resistance as the main reason they exist. To my mind, it has mainly to do with water resistance/cleanability with impact and scratch resistance taking a back seat.
Granite or other stone/faux stone counter tops have never made sense to me in the least. You're putting a material that could last hundreds of years on top of cabinetry that might have a useful life of 30-50 years, at the most, but generally much less. It's hard to reuse or reclaim granite counters because they're held in place with so much adhesive they usually have to be broken apart to remove. I bet most of the granite counter tops installed today will be in landfills within 30 years. I might feel better about stone counters if people in our culture built for permanence, but we really don't.
I've always thought P.lam was a much greener counter top material than people give it credit for, at least for the way we live right now. It's light, made mostly from renewables, and can be made even greener by using biodegradable glues, resins and substrates.
What I find annoying is that people are starting to say things like "you have to get LEED certified now....it'll be a must for the job industry"
I'm sorry but that is total crap. Forgive me if I don't want to pay 400 plus dollars to take your exam and memorize the submittal requirements and pay your fees to have you "certify" my buildings (there's a lot of certified crap out there), worry about what classification of LEED professional I now am, and all that rigamoral....you can use all of the cost and time associated with gaining LEED status and put it into making a better building.
I believe in designing sustainable buildings but I don't need someone else to check off point boxes for me to design that way.
Glen Murcutt doesn't use LEED and he's one of the best sustainable designers out there...
^ I totally agree. I'm not a huge fan of LEED, but I'm also glad it exists and it is definitely not a joke. I'm also by know means a fan of the CaGBC (haven't dealt with USGBC), but I respect it and am very happy to have it in existence.
Ya, putting the time/effort/money into actually making a good building is by far the better and more admirable option. Unfortunately, many designers, builders and clients don't always have the best motivations, so it is useful to have something to pressure them into not lagging behind too much.
i hope that LEED will be the catalyst...not a goal, not a process, just a catalyst...
getting back to the original intent of the thread, i think this rush to push for innovative but untested green products is the marketing potential for anything GREEN (product, thought, ceritifications, vernacular, accreditations, etc)...i just hope it doesn't go out of "style" because of the quality of said product, thought, certification, vernaculars, etc....(remember all the atkins carb free food products from 10 years ago?)
^ I hate it when people come out with totally unsubstantiated claims or some great corporation, the man or whatever that is this evil entity just using everyone with the sole purpose of money. Not that people aren't greedy, and there isn't a huge amount of abuse of the sustainability trend. As much as I dislike it, it's the only smart thing to do (though I wish companies and marketers would actually put some effort into putting out a decently green product). The point is that, regardless of the subject, false advertising from some brands and your own inability to identify it is the absolute worst reason to denounce an entire movement/type of product.
I realize that false advertising exists and is less than ideal. There is nothing wrong with discussing it. Maybe it is your wording that makes you come of as one of those conspiracy theory, hate-the-institution types (to me).
the carbon release per person is the highest among US & england and europe where ppl build houses & attached with "green products" for them to feel good about themselves...
among the least is city such as hongkong where ppl live at highrise, small apartment units, give birth to 0.8 children per family at highly congested city...
the same report stating that more compact, more high rise minimize carbon release... 1000 folds more efficient than green products.
You realize that LEED is a proponent of density and awards points, etc. to linking with transit, being within a certain density, building on previously contaminated sites, etc. right? Read through the Sustainable Sites credits.
Also, no one is saying it is the best way to reduce carbon footprints of buildings/occupants. The point is that it is attempting to change our current practices. Imagine Hong Kong density done with low-emission finishes, re-used products, high fly-ash concrete, effective HVAC, considerations of occupant transportation, water use (note China's huge water issues, as well as those around the world and increasingly in North America), construction waste, etc., etc.
I really hope you don't actually think it would be possible to up the price of oil to $200/bbl. That is clearly not a realistic option for so many reasons. I'm all for carbon taxes and pushing people a lot harder than we currently are, but just making oil ridiculously expensive will create a lot more problems than it solves. I wouldn't mind seeing it go up slightly, but $200 is unrealistic and not all that we need to do to abate climate change.
Green products is like during a big fire, instead of finding water to put out the fire, they go find ppl with bigger month hoping to blow out the fire!
1. birth control- the earth is not design to sustain that amount of ppl.
2. ban building house- china already did that. ppl shall start living in smaller more dense area.
3. nuclear power- only nuclear power come close to oil in terms of efficiency. the rest are just fancy gadgets for architects to decorate their building.
really? cos a wind turbine doesn't have the potential to kill tens of thousands of people in an accident. or infect hundreds of thousands of people w/ radiation poisoning.
one windmill can power 500+homes. unless it falls on you, it's not going to kill you.
if we lived sustainably, we could maintain larger populations. it would take effective leadership and the conservative party being wiped off the geo-political map... but it could happen.
Camhard, LEED gives you 11 points maximum for situating your project in an urban location-- that is if your property is near "public transportation."
It gives you around 18 for proper landscaping, landscape watering, "energy performance", onsite power production, open space and other things that are completely inappropriate to have or do in the context of an urban lot.
ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) control is mandatory but density is optional. There is no instant disqualification for a completely inappropriately situated project.
I suppose the trade off is the only way to get LEED platinum is by using the density bonus but otherwise... it is up to each individual LEED AP to scrutinize this.
holz> nuclear power doesn't kill, it was the mismanagement of human that kills...
oil is efficient becos its not pending on the weather conditions, n it power up the highest performance/meter cube as to compare with windmill or solar panel, if these things work it would have been used long ago.
Nukes are like guns and drugs, by them selves, left untouched, they won't cause a problem. As soon as humans touch them (and they have to in order for them to work) there will be problems.
Humans make errors, kill each other and themselves and that ain't changing anytime soon.
The was I see it, you make more guns you'll have more shootings, make more drugs you'll have more addicts and if you make more nukes, you'll, inevitably, have a catastrophe at some point (stupidity, terrorism, or whatever).
And that's not to mention the waste.
green products suck
with all the new green technology coming on the market so quickly, there appears to be little testing of these products. The systems that we are using on the houses that I am working on are all crap and break all the time.
I was talking to a large developer in Seattle who doesnt use green technologies in their buildings for this reason as well...they dont want to have to be repairing all of the building systems all of the time in their buildings...
discuss
Grenn adhesives are worthless. We are constantly getting calls about delamination in millwork. I watched an laminate edge stipping just slowly peel away one day while on walk through. Water based laminate glues should be avoided.
From an E&O standpoint, designers can face serious liability exposure if we specify green products that do not (or cannot) perform as advertised. Using untried, untested, products can be quite dangerous and can lead to serious claims.
Don't let a product manufacturer's claim about "being green" blind you to how the product might (or might not) perform. Your client looks to you to vette these products before they go into his building.
Here's an article on the subject that you might find useful: Risks in Green Design -- the potential risks attached to sustainable design are quite broad.
Mind you -- I'm not discouraging sustainable design practices ... I'm only urging caution and a "look before you leap" mentalilty.
I work with a gentleman who has worked building ships and oil rigs.
he has samples that he has glued and painted with various coatings and glues sitting in the sun in his back yard. He calls it his Lab.
if it survives a few years in the sun exposed to beach area weather then he feels confident specifying it. He has a large back yard.
if you're constantly having to repair something, is that really a green material/product?? problems like this just make the "green" and "sustainable" monikers a joke…does LEED take constant maintenance into account, or do you only get points for using "green" products, not products that will actually last??
we used some eco-spec paint on a project this summer--the stuff would chip and peel if you looked at it funny; apparently the cure time for it is around 30 days…
I was having a dicussion about this the other day with a friend - Does LEED take away points for anything?
I have been in a "leed certified" building in Phoenix that had a 14' high south facing glass facade. It got CRAZY hot and they had to pump the AC 24/7. I would think that this should be a deduction...
common sense would tell you to put vents up high.....
i say deduct when you FAIL
almost like winning a car show with big rims and an audio system but yet the body/interior looks like shit
LEED is a joke.
addative
4arch, why do you say LEED is a joke?
because it is...it is a money making scam
Brack grey water systems are shit as well
bamboo ply is a pain in the ass to work with...as is paper stone.
i received some samples of that plybo stuff...... looks like it will splinter real easy if it isnt coated with a few layers of clear.......
mdler, we are in agreement! "Green" products are total crap.
LEED is a joke.
we should model our crap on minergie and passivhaus.
holz
when we going drinkin'?
cryzko
The plybo chips like a bitch when you try to work with it; especially on the corners
Oh, and I am reading an article on William McDonough in the new issue of Fast Company, if someone doesn't figure out how to put this douche in his place; we're all fucked.
As my professor said to me many times; Kill your heroes.
Someone should do that.
don't bamboo floors delaminate pretty fast too??
we work with contractors that refuse to install the stuff because they can't guarantee it.
the ideals of LEED are not necessarily a joke; the administration of it though. . .seems to be more about what you can claim than the actual performance.
if you say your product/building is "green" and have some sort of documentation that "confirms" it, then you're green
betadine, why do you say that about McDonough? His arguments make a lot of sense to me. Not mixing biological and technical materials seems like a no-brainer, no? I don't know....
i just finished the Fast Company article. everything, every-single-fuckingthing he proposes is bullshit, and if not bullshit, he never actually proves that it works. the village in China, an utter failure. the nike project failed. the oberlin building failed. he is all about branding cradle-to-cradle image, selling licenses, trademarking, and patenting things, and never really doing jack. he is extremely protective and claims proprietary rights over some of the most bizarre shit. litigious too. not to mention HE NEVER EVEN CAME UP WITH C2C! some swiss guy did....
he is a charlatan of the first order, nearly everyone he has ever worked with hates his fucking guts.
someone should stop him before he stops the movement.
in fact i have been suspicious of him ever since i laid hands on a copy of cradle to cradle, the book, for it's size weighs a ton! i want to do a real analysis of the book itself, the physical material not the concept. how it's manufactured, how it's packed in boxes, distribution, labor required, etc.
As for the book, it's made from a plastic that can actually be recycled into more books. Yes, it's heavy (increasing fuel use in shipping) so I' with you there, but that doesn't negate the messages in the book.
I just don't understand what he's ever done to you. You sound personally hurt for some reason. Meh.
i hate people that are in it not for the betterment of the world - as they profess - but are in it to have their ego's stroked....he's a dick, short and not so sweet, dick.
Having worked with McDonough as well as MBDC I absolutely disagree that he is only in it to have his ego stroked. Feel free to disagree with the strategies (or even outcomes), but I don't think you are in any position to question his motivation.
don't get your panties all in a wad over what betadineligatures writes on these matters .. he obtains most of his information about the world from the National Enquirer.
I recommend that anyone interested in McDonough read the Fast Company piece. It sheds some light on McDonough's motivations, which have always seemed to me only partly about making the world a better place. More often, they seemed to be about inflating the "cult of personality" around McDonough himself.
I do appreciate some of what he's doing. But purely from a design and sustainability perspective, his work is pretty conservative and not that original. I've always been puzzled that this bowtied purveyor of corporate architecture was considered the voice of the American environmental movement.
People like Renzo Piano, Norman Foster, Richard Rogers, Grimshaw, Sauerbruch and Hutton, Neutelings Reidijk, etc, are doing so much more for sustainable architecture than McDonough is. And doing it more quietly, with better buildings.
hey babs, what's your deal? read the piece, get a clue then give me call. Janosh there is a huge difference, huge, between words and actions.
you know what babs, i hate baiting tools, but you take one post i made and extrapolate to everything i ever post is based on that thing.
since when have we denigrated architects simply because they surrounded themselves with a "cult of personality" or were motivated by personal fame?
if that's suddenly become the criteria used by the thought police concerning who we're "allowed" to admire, then we're in a hell of a fix !
...oh i remember now, you got your panties in a bunch because i gave credit to NE for revealing the John Edwards affair. an affair that ALL MSM press avoided writing about the affair.
so, if i am right in citing them, because they got it right that makes me wrong?
please ignore babs, anyone that refers to herself as "babs" is probably a lot like Caribou Barbie. now back to your regularly scheduled programing.
distant, the problem is the disconnect between what he professes and what gets accomplished. that and READ THE ARTICLE.
That's not really the issue, Distant. I think Rem Koolhaas is pretty damn great, and I admire his cult of personality, for instance. But I also think he oversells himself and his work. Fine.
The issue is whether McDonough is being disingenuous or even misleading in his practice. The Fast Company article spells this out.
No one is saying don't admire him. But maybe verify his hype before you do.
i will agree that the environmental aspect of architecture that interests me is that of a small handful of firms, mainly foster, kaufmann, disch, kaplinger, renzo, sauerbruch & hutton and some other lesser known firms...
my experience w/ mcdonough is that he likes to talk, but his buildings never live up to his goals. some don't really work as intended, like oberlin - but that is kinda outside his realm as the college cheaped out after cost overruns.
toxic products that harm health and environment suck more and are unconscionable
Indigenous people of the world came up w/C2C. Think about it.
Native Americans
Eskimos
Samis
African indigenous peoples
Aboriginal,etc.
The used the entire fish, tree, goat, etc. to make shelter, provide food, make
weapons, transportation (boats), clothing, etc. etc.
We just stepped into a big steaming pile of bureaucratic b.s. when it comes to using intuitive construction practices.
Low VOC's: makes sense
Recyclable carpet: makes sense at least in theory as well.
What doesn't make sense is the inconsistent way that manufacturers are claiming that their products are green. What also sucks is the additional cash that now has to go into a 'green project' on the admin side (here's where they get you)
It should be intuitive to spec motion sensor lighting, or recyclable carpet, or low VOC paints, bamboos, recycle stone and reclaimed timber for a project, we do it all the time; the sucky part is that now to make it 'certified green' you have to spend more time and money doing it.
Now McDonough effective owns the 'philosophy' of C2C, something alot of us have been thinking about for years and in some parts of the world are practicing second nature.
What really needs to be done is to hold manufacturers to the same standards when it comes to production, post-occupancy maintenance and end-of-cycle management. It's not a truly green product if it ends up in the dumpster after demo/re-fit.
The problem with the comparison of us to native tribes is that it is a fallacious argument. The products of non-western tribes, societies and cultures tend to be "more natural" but that has to do more with aesthetics and traditions.
For instance, a lot of African cultures from Central Africa view the process of decomposition necessary to art-- both economically and spiritually. The death of an object is just as important as the creation of the object. So, in a sense, their lack of need of permanence means they never develop or utilize preservation-based construction and manufacturing techniques.
Most of the arguments here are a purely cultural consideration. I don't get counter tops at all... at least the current cultural tradition of them. From a scientific point, they don't make sense... using the surface in almost any way causes micrometer scratches that harbor bacteria.
When you have to put everything on plates and cutting boards, it completely eliminates the need for a laminate or veneered counter top. At least with solid wood and stone counter tops, you have between 3-12 times you can resurface the counter top completely.
Lastly, in terms of sanitation, granite counter tops (with the possibility of using vaseline tiles or a combination of doped glass and ceramics) tend to be the safest. Not for permeability but for the fact that they emit ionizing radiation and radon gasses!
We do use 100% of a lot of natural and mined products. There's a point of redundancy in the supply chain... like refineries that import gypsum for sulfur scrubbing and plaster factories that make their own sulfuric acid.
But a lot of our 100% use of raw materials is often gross and terrifying.
The problem with cradle to cradle is that it doesn't attempt to even address density, the overall supply and transportation chain, the enormous reconfiguration of cities to be able to net productive quality and industrial symbiosis practices.
There's some glazing over it but nothing worth mentioning. If a lot more industries were to practice waste symbiosis practices, very little would have to change. We'd see increases in efficiency rise from 30-50 percent to 60-80 percent with little cost increase in the baseline.
That means by keeping things "conservative" we'd be doing 0.5 times as much with the same things.
The only issue with symbiotic practices would be the entire reconfiguration of industry in the entire country-- cities would have to be dismantled and moved, populations displace and the entire industrial sector would have to shift towards more urbane practices as waste symbiosis requires industrial sites to essentially be completely intertwined. The spaces necessary to this wouldn't be particularly commuter friendly and every parking lot could be another potential waste exchange point.
Too terrifying. Too corporatist. Too "jewish soap."
However, the creation of a massive mechanical-chemical "life form" would be interesting.
"bamboo ply is a pain in the ass to work with...as is paper stone"
^ How so? You've worked with both? What exactly was the problem?
OP: Yes, there needs to be more testing, etc. but it's also important to start moving these things into the real world ASAP. There is still a ridiculous amount of testing and other bureaucratic stuff in the way of most 'green' products, etc. Of course we need to be sure of things, but too many people that don't actually know anything about the subject are involved and assume that something cannot work due to their ignorance of the subject. What we need (obviously this will never happen) is companies with strong morals and/or a market with a brain so that all of the 'green' products that aren't actually sustainable disappear, and the ones that don't work (your issue) also disappear.
If you actually understand sustainability in its entirety, and are not just an average person who knows the buzz words tossed around in the media (this understanding demonstrated by all those making simple broad claims about LEED), and also have a grasp on the purpose/how it accomplishes that purpose of your product, you shouldn't be spec'ing too many failed technologies.
Regarding LEED: LEED is not a joke. No wonder sustainability struggles so much. This isn't the greatest comparison, but, when the first airplanes were built, did people call them a joke and say we shouldn't bother wasting time/money, or did they get super stoked that progress was made. No, LEED isn't perfect and in no way promises sustainable buildings. It doesn't even claim to be. It's only people that know next to nothing about it that seem to have created this misconception. It recognizes this and spells it out if you actually wanted to do some research and read about it before arguing about it. The purpose is to get people thinking about sustainability, endeavour to offer some sort recognition for moving towards green design and progress the standard (i.e. shift code requirements to what LEED requires, over time). So no, it isn't going to ensure 100% sustainable construction in its first versions, but it will move us at (the ridiculously slow) speed required by all those unwilling to understand what they are talking about (i.e. most people).
Also, the logistics of developing a regulated, standard benchmark for sustainability is amazingly difficult, so again, we cannot expect perfection right off the bat. As was noted by the OP: 'green products suck' and more testing needs to occur. LEED attempts to eliminate those products that suck, or simply claim to be environmentally responsible.
Does LEED deduct points? No, but it does have prerequisites, so in a way, yes, it will deduct all your points if you don't meet every prereq.
Does LEED take into account maintenance/life of products? Not a whole lot right now, but it is starting to move towards it. They are also starting to incorporate the importance concerns other than simply the structure itself (see LEED for Neighborhoods). I haven't read the changes to the newest version of the USGBC's LEED system, as I live in Canada, so I don't know exactly what points are awarded for currently.
I haven't read the article yet, but I will, then comment on it.
On counter tops...I don't see scratch resistance as the main reason they exist. To my mind, it has mainly to do with water resistance/cleanability with impact and scratch resistance taking a back seat.
Granite or other stone/faux stone counter tops have never made sense to me in the least. You're putting a material that could last hundreds of years on top of cabinetry that might have a useful life of 30-50 years, at the most, but generally much less. It's hard to reuse or reclaim granite counters because they're held in place with so much adhesive they usually have to be broken apart to remove. I bet most of the granite counter tops installed today will be in landfills within 30 years. I might feel better about stone counters if people in our culture built for permanence, but we really don't.
I've always thought P.lam was a much greener counter top material than people give it credit for, at least for the way we live right now. It's light, made mostly from renewables, and can be made even greener by using biodegradable glues, resins and substrates.
What I find annoying is that people are starting to say things like "you have to get LEED certified now....it'll be a must for the job industry"
I'm sorry but that is total crap. Forgive me if I don't want to pay 400 plus dollars to take your exam and memorize the submittal requirements and pay your fees to have you "certify" my buildings (there's a lot of certified crap out there), worry about what classification of LEED professional I now am, and all that rigamoral....you can use all of the cost and time associated with gaining LEED status and put it into making a better building.
I believe in designing sustainable buildings but I don't need someone else to check off point boxes for me to design that way.
Glen Murcutt doesn't use LEED and he's one of the best sustainable designers out there...
^ I totally agree. I'm not a huge fan of LEED, but I'm also glad it exists and it is definitely not a joke. I'm also by know means a fan of the CaGBC (haven't dealt with USGBC), but I respect it and am very happy to have it in existence.
Ya, putting the time/effort/money into actually making a good building is by far the better and more admirable option. Unfortunately, many designers, builders and clients don't always have the best motivations, so it is useful to have something to pressure them into not lagging behind too much.
i hope that LEED will be the catalyst...not a goal, not a process, just a catalyst...
getting back to the original intent of the thread, i think this rush to push for innovative but untested green products is the marketing potential for anything GREEN (product, thought, ceritifications, vernacular, accreditations, etc)...i just hope it doesn't go out of "style" because of the quality of said product, thought, certification, vernaculars, etc....(remember all the atkins carb free food products from 10 years ago?)
a catalyst for more greed hiding behind green...
^ I hate it when people come out with totally unsubstantiated claims or some great corporation, the man or whatever that is this evil entity just using everyone with the sole purpose of money. Not that people aren't greedy, and there isn't a huge amount of abuse of the sustainability trend. As much as I dislike it, it's the only smart thing to do (though I wish companies and marketers would actually put some effort into putting out a decently green product). The point is that, regardless of the subject, false advertising from some brands and your own inability to identify it is the absolute worst reason to denounce an entire movement/type of product.
I realize that false advertising exists and is less than ideal. There is nothing wrong with discussing it. Maybe it is your wording that makes you come of as one of those conspiracy theory, hate-the-institution types (to me).
Leed is leading ppl at wrong direction...
the carbon release per person is the highest among US & england and europe where ppl build houses & attached with "green products" for them to feel good about themselves...
among the least is city such as hongkong where ppl live at highrise, small apartment units, give birth to 0.8 children per family at highly congested city...
the same report stating that more compact, more high rise minimize carbon release... 1000 folds more efficient than green products.
the most immediate effect is to have Goldman sachs push up oil price to $200, than every country will reopen their nuclear plant and use less oil!
You realize that LEED is a proponent of density and awards points, etc. to linking with transit, being within a certain density, building on previously contaminated sites, etc. right? Read through the Sustainable Sites credits.
Also, no one is saying it is the best way to reduce carbon footprints of buildings/occupants. The point is that it is attempting to change our current practices. Imagine Hong Kong density done with low-emission finishes, re-used products, high fly-ash concrete, effective HVAC, considerations of occupant transportation, water use (note China's huge water issues, as well as those around the world and increasingly in North America), construction waste, etc., etc.
I really hope you don't actually think it would be possible to up the price of oil to $200/bbl. That is clearly not a realistic option for so many reasons. I'm all for carbon taxes and pushing people a lot harder than we currently are, but just making oil ridiculously expensive will create a lot more problems than it solves. I wouldn't mind seeing it go up slightly, but $200 is unrealistic and not all that we need to do to abate climate change.
Green products is like during a big fire, instead of finding water to put out the fire, they go find ppl with bigger month hoping to blow out the fire!
fundamental fact-
1. birth control- the earth is not design to sustain that amount of ppl.
2. ban building house- china already did that. ppl shall start living in smaller more dense area.
3. nuclear power- only nuclear power come close to oil in terms of efficiency. the rest are just fancy gadgets for architects to decorate their building.
really? cos a wind turbine doesn't have the potential to kill tens of thousands of people in an accident. or infect hundreds of thousands of people w/ radiation poisoning.
one windmill can power 500+homes. unless it falls on you, it's not going to kill you.
if we lived sustainably, we could maintain larger populations. it would take effective leadership and the conservative party being wiped off the geo-political map... but it could happen.
Camhard, LEED gives you 11 points maximum for situating your project in an urban location-- that is if your property is near "public transportation."
It gives you around 18 for proper landscaping, landscape watering, "energy performance", onsite power production, open space and other things that are completely inappropriate to have or do in the context of an urban lot.
ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) control is mandatory but density is optional. There is no instant disqualification for a completely inappropriately situated project.
I suppose the trade off is the only way to get LEED platinum is by using the density bonus but otherwise... it is up to each individual LEED AP to scrutinize this.
holz> nuclear power doesn't kill, it was the mismanagement of human that kills...
oil is efficient becos its not pending on the weather conditions, n it power up the highest performance/meter cube as to compare with windmill or solar panel, if these things work it would have been used long ago.
Nukes are like guns and drugs, by them selves, left untouched, they won't cause a problem. As soon as humans touch them (and they have to in order for them to work) there will be problems.
Humans make errors, kill each other and themselves and that ain't changing anytime soon.
The was I see it, you make more guns you'll have more shootings, make more drugs you'll have more addicts and if you make more nukes, you'll, inevitably, have a catastrophe at some point (stupidity, terrorism, or whatever).
And that's not to mention the waste.
Build more windmills and we get...
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.