Green Meanies

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 233 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 12:46 pm:    The LEED people in the office are driving me crazy. Every time I turn around they are demanding that I not specify a product because it is not environmentally friendly. The problem is that they don't tell me what to specify. Let's face it. All building products are environmentally unfriendly. The trick is selecting the lesser of the evils. In fact the best thing we can do for the environment is to not build at all. Another irritant is the knee jerk reaction I get from the "environmentalists" in the office. They don't thoroughly research a product, they just go by what someone or organization has said. Rant over. Your comments please. Ralph Liebing Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 52 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 01:26 pm:    My perception is that LEED is another program, quite valid, but trying to be implemented "on the run". Unlike an edition change for the code, there is no specific point or date on which the new regulations apply; so we are now in a slow process of simple assimilation, of a voluntary program. A few [very few!] clients are beginning to see a competitive edge by "going LEED", which will tend to drive a greater effort. David's point is well taken in that, while casting stones, most of the folks are not able to provide viable or specific alternatives. So!, will the clients stand for the added time/fee for us to research equivalents that are LEED friendly, in lieu of what we have been using. Also, the varied levels of certification,and numerous ways to achieve certification make this a very dicey venture, which cannot be taken-up or adapted overnight. Evidently we have the regulations, but little to compell or facilitate compliance. D. Marshall Fryer Senior Member Username: dmfryer Post Number: 23 Registered: 09-2003 Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 01:30 pm:    Kind of like the "It must be true or they wouldn't put it on the Internet" people (I bet you have some of these in your office, too). I believe the term is "suspension of disbelief." No wonder phishers, trojans, and scammers are having such an easy time. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 234 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 02:18 pm:    I believe that ALL products have environmental impacts. It is way to simplistic to just make a blacklist of all the products we should not use. To clarify my point. Which is better; wood studs or metal studs? Wood studs means cutting down trees and destroying habitat. Metal studs means mining and destroying habitat. Wood studs can grow mold. Metal studs can be recycled but then require a lot of energy to recyle. Wood studs can not be use in all types of construction. Metal studs rust and are noisy. Wood studs and scraps can be burned for fuel, but then that contributes to air pollution. Metal studs are lighter and more compact and require less energy to transport. The list goes on and on. I like the company slogan for Caterpillar Inc. "There are no simple solutions, only intelligent choices." Doug Frank FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 63 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 03:51 pm:    For the longest time my only concession to the Green movement was to offer to print my project manuals on green colored paper. I guess I can’t resist any longer, and my company is becoming more and more interested in LEED. In my experience here, it’s primarily the younger generation (not that I’m old mind you) that seems to be the most interested in LEED stuff so I’m taking advantage of their youth and exuberance. We have formed a Green Committee and I have charged its Intern members with doing product research for me in an effort to discover First, how green our specs already are, and B, what new products are out there that we might consider as replacement products for currently specified non-green ones. It’s a terrific use of young interns’ time and energy since it also educates them about the process of product research and evaluation. That education alone will save me many hours of frustration down the road; hours that I can then use to research LEED stuff if necessary. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 40 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 09:24 pm:    I think Doug put his finger on the solution. We can't expect our young practitioners to be adequate researchers of green building products when they've received no training whatsoever in researching products of any kind. I had to write a memo today to "dampen" a "green" project architect's newfound enthusiasm for blown in cellulose insulation for side wall assemblies. Just what we need in a coastal environment - something else for the mold to feed on. But we have to teach product evaluation. The MOP FF/130 is a pretty good place to start. C. R. Mudgeon Senior Member Username: c_r_mudgeon Post Number: 16 Registered: 08-2002 Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 11:24 pm:    Hey, it's not that difficult. We can't use foam insulation because of the blowing agents, we can't use fiberglass because it might be carcinogenic, and we can't use cellulose because, well, it sucks. We can't use gas, coal, oil, nuclear, or hydroelectric energy because they pollute, we can't use photovoltaics because the production process is less than environmentally friendly, and it won't be long until someone figures out that if we had enough windmills it would stop the earth's rotation. So all we have to do is move to a tropical island, live in grass huts, and eat coconuts and fish. What's the problem? Tracy Van Niel Senior Member Username: tracy_van_niel Post Number: 62 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 07:27 am:    Just so long as the earth stops rotating while my time zone is in the daylight! P.S. You can't eat fish because of the mercury so you're left with coconuts. David Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 08:43 am:    And they're high in cholesterol! Let's face it - we're all doomed. Anonymous   Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 04:19 pm:    There is an obligation to serve the client/end-user/owner. If a LEED-certified building/facility is what a client/end-user/owner mandates (for whatever reasons), then we need to better understand what it takes to obtain that certification. Obtaining LEED professional accreditation would surely be a big step in increasing that knowledge base (this is not a "plug" LEED accreditation, as management has "mandated" for many in our office to obtain LEED accreditation). This profession, as does any other, evolves and those who are resistant to "change", tend to be left behind. Russell W. Wood Member Username: woodr5678 Post Number: 3 Registered: 11-2003 Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 04:49 pm:    Once upon a time, when the world was young, and Autocad was new. Some A/E's would install an Autocad station in their Lobby to amaze their clients and to justify the added fee for such state of the art service (even if most of the drawings were still hand-drafted). Now the new flavor is Green/Sustainable buildings. However, in the not too distance future, Green/Sustainable building design will be a common service by A/E's. So either be there or be square (or both)! Randy Cox Intermediate Member Username: builderrandy Post Number: 4 Registered: 01-2004 Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 05:45 pm:    It is likely that many things the LEED system recommends (sustainability and recycling for two) will probably become standard practice in the future. The question is whether or not the system as currently organized will need to evolve and change to become useable to the wide range of construction in this vast nation. The AutoCad analogy is appropriate. AutoCad became standard because it promised to lower costs for the firms that used AutoCad. The elements of the LEED system that become commonplace will be those that are profitable to one or more of the three legs of the construction triangle. It is beginning to look like there may be a way for the GC to squeeze out a few dollars through well organized recycling programs. It looks like some developer/operators will squeeze out a few dollars through higher energy efficiencies. Although I think this is being driven by the A/E Community, I don’t see how they will benefit. An analogy for things that become commonplace without directly benefit one of the parties, could be environmental remediation. That happens because of legislation and the fear of litigation. Although I am a hippy dippy resident of the People’s Republic of Cambridge (MA), I think that the regulation and litigation approach is undesirable. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 236 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 06:45 pm:    I'm not saying that we should not be concerned about the environment. What I am saying is that it is to simplistict to blacklist products. On guy sent me an e-mail that demanded I not specify PVC roofs. I asked him why not and he said that the Green Building Council says that PVC is bad. Okay so asphalt (which is waste products for petroleum refining) is good? So that rules out mod bit roofs and asphalt shingles. How about coal tar? Nope, cancerous and it involves mining. How about metal roofing? Nope it involves mining and is an energy hog to produce. What about EPDM? Nope that's rubber and we don't want to destroy anymore rainforests. Plus the adhesives contain solvents. How about slate? Nope. That mining thing again. You get the idea. It looks like mud and dung huts are the only true sustainable buildings. David David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 237 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 06:49 pm:    The same guy laughed at me when I sent him an article on bird deaths and glass. http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/02/03/birds.clear.danger.ap/index.html I guess birds don't count as nature and don't have a strong group of lobbyist....except for maybe the spotted owl. Anne Whitacre, CCS CSI Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 79 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 04:18 pm:    I think the "green" stuff has to be balanced with performance, cost and the Owner's requirements (and in our office, whatever the designers want). I have worked with some architects who think that the idea that something is "green" is more important than whether it works or not; my bias is toward performance first, green second. And despite what the green guys say, I have not yet seen a job that doesn't have some cost associated with "going green" -- even if the only (only?) cost is the $50,000 in additional fees it takes to document and fill out all the paperwork. (since we take change orders for $3000 in savings on a job, the easy $50,000 change order is right up front.) There is a cost associated and the client has the right to make that decision. As for the young folks who see "green" as the only product selection criteria... well, there's always something that unknowledgeable people use to sort stuff out, and this is the current method. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 68 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 04:49 pm:    Anne, you hit it right on the head. Every decision we make is a trade-off--what are you willing to give up for what you get? The decision process for "green" and sustainability is no different than for any other criteria we have to sort out--it's simply another ingredient in the mix. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 189 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 10:08 am:    I have only a limited understanding of LEED, but I believe that the program explicitly recognizes that there are many tradeoffs in designing and constructing green buildings. So, I'm skeptical that some products are banned from use. (That is to say, I have not suspended by disbelief!) The very questions that are posed -- such as wood studs versus metal -- are ones that we DO need to explore and understand better if we are to make rational decisions on how we can reduce the impact that building construction has on the environment. I doubt that many who participate in this forum would dispute that basic need. Of course LEED is evolving, since we are still learning, and especially because it is a voluntary standard! Some of the comments here sound like LEED is being treated as a regulation. There are other tools as well, such as BEES, that help to make these apples-versus-oranges decisions. By the way, Europe is way ahead of us on these issues. Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 16 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 12:03 pm:    I am one of several people in our office who are LEED accredited professionals and we have 2 LEED projects out of dozens of our current projects. The only "banned" materials are CFC-based refrigerants and environmental tobacco smoke (i.e. the building must be designated smoke-free). These are prerequisites to LEED certification. Otherwise, there are no lists of required or prohibited materials to follow. You can receive points (credits) toward project certification by choosing materials that are reused, have certain percentages of recyled content, come from renewable resouces, have low/no VOCs, or are locally produced. But, Materials and Resources is just one of 7 credit categories and accounts for just 13 possible points out of a total of 69. There are more credits available in each of the categories of Sustainable Sites, Energy and Atmosphere, and Indoor Environmental Quality categories than for materials. You can even qualify for points by doing things that are not listed for potential points in the guidelines. You decide how many and which credits to pursue. You can go as green as the owner wishes. The path to LEED Certification is full of options. You must decide which points you will pursue to achive the desired rating level. For this process to work, the entire project team has to buy into the goals at the earliest planning stages and continue to work together through project completion. There are certainly added costs to everyone in the planning and documenting of the LEED submittal, but many choices do save the owner money in the form of lower operating and maintenance costs. And some of the trade-offs are initially favorable to the overall project cost. As this is relatively new program, there are many things that seem arbitrary or inequitable. Some of these will be sorted out as the program evolves. Unfortunately, there are some owners out there who think that the design team can "pull a rabbit out of a hat" and give them a LEED certified building at no additional cost or effort to them. All I can say is that they will soon become educated. I was initallly skeptical about the LEED program, but I as I have gained experience, I found that it isn't nearly as cumbersome as I feared. It sure seems to be catching on. I believe that over time it will have an impact on the entire construction industry, and that could be its real legacy.