Posted on Thursday 11 December 2008
A quick post of links to three articles discussing the existing building approach to sustainable building.
“Downside of Green Architecture” by Laura K. Zavala & Katie Eggers Comeau
Exerpt:
Preservation has always been a green activity. New construction, no matter how green it is, uses valuable resources and energy and also creates waste. Furthermore, while the value of newer, greener construction can’t be overlooked, it is crucial to understand that many of these technologies are able to be applied to existing buildings. The demolition of buildings in the United States generates at least 124 million tons of debris a year, all which ends up in a landfill. Reusing existing buildings lessens demands and conserves embodied energy in structures.
“The Original Green” by Stephen Mouzon
Exerpt:
Any serious conversation about sustainable buildings must begin with lovability. If a building cannot be loved, then it is likely to be demolished and carted off to the landfill in only a generation or two. All of the embodied energy of its materials is lost (if the materials are not recycled.) Worse, all of the future energy savings are lost too. Buildings continue to be demolished for no other reason except that they cannot be loved. Even a landmark so revered by the architectural profession as the Boston City Hall is now in danger of just such a fate because it is famously unlovable. If it can’t be loved, it won’t last, and is by definition unsustainable.
“Prioritizing Green—It’s the Energy Stupid*” by Joseph W. Lstiburek, Ph.d.,P.Eng., Fellow ASHRAE
Exerpt:
So what’s with all these “green” programs providing “points” for “durability” and “indoor air quality”? I mean it’s pretty pathetic if we have to reward architects and engineers when they provide details and specifications that should be basic to fundamental practice. If you design and install a controlled ventilation system that meets Standard 62 you get points. You get more points if you keep the rain out and design the building to dry if it gets wet. And you get still more points if the occupants are actually comfortable. Aren’t these code requirements? Shouldn’t these be “the standard of care”?
Have we architects and engineers sunk so low that we now get points if we meet basic building requirements that all buildings should meet in order to be called buildings?
Green programs waste a lot of time and money on stuff that is obvious and more time and money on stuff that is irrelevant or unimportant.































