Home Page link

Whether LEED or not...

Home| Search | About
Login Password
Register Now! Lost Password?

Architecture and Design - Building design/construction and related topics. 

Page 3 of 4       < 1 2 3 > last >> Bookmark this page:  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Whether LEED or not... Edgar 11-08-2007
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Posted by Michael Bulatovich on November 9, 2007, 4:04 pm

> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>
>>> Also, from the site: $333.333/sq. ft. Ouch. What's the payback on
>>> that?
>>
>> US or CAN ? ; )
>
> US, it' would be, um less, in CAN now, than it was before.
>
>>
>> Seriously though, I've done conventional projects with those kinds of
>> budgets. As for the politicization of 'sustainability, well, enough said.
>
> Sure, so have I. But one of the apparent selling points of "green" is
> that doesn't cost extra. Obviously, there isn't much in terms of
> visual/plans/design to see, but the place doesn't look $333/sq.ft. to me.

If that were the case, and you got all the payoffs for free, then everone
would be doing it.

>> I'd rather hear what you think of the design, form what little you can
>> see of it. (No plans, etc.)
>
> It's nice enough. But hard to tell with so little info.

Did you go to the architect's site? A principal lectured of Alexander. I
love his (Alexander's) insights.....I don't buy the overarching method, but
he seems pretty good at the details. I guess it dates me.
--


MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca



Posted by Michael Bulatovich on November 9, 2007, 4:52 pm

> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>
>>> Also, from the site: $333.333/sq. ft. Ouch. What's the payback on
>>> that?
>>
>> US or CAN ? ; )
>
> US, it' would be, um less, in CAN now, than it was before.
>
>>
>> Seriously though, I've done conventional projects with those kinds of
>> budgets. As for the politicization of 'sustainability, well, enough said.
>
> Sure, so have I. But one of the apparent selling points of "green" is
> that doesn't cost extra. Obviously, there isn't much in terms of
> visual/plans/design to see, but the place doesn't look $333/sq.ft. to me.
>
>>
>> I'd rather hear what you think of the design, form what little you can
>> see of it. (No plans, etc.)
>
> It's nice enough. But hard to tell with so little info.

I just noticed the 'carbon neutrality' is based on the sequestering of 8.75
tons of carbon by the surrounding forest. That's great. All we have to do
then, is make sure that every new building is surrounded by enough forest to
sequester the amount the building emits. Problem solved.

Now how 'bout those ultra-high energy cosmic rays?:

"Cosmic rays are energetic particles that are accelerated by magnetic fields
in space. A very small fraction of the cosmic rays that penetrate Earth's
atmosphere have tremendous energies, exceeding tens of EeV (1 EeV is 1018
electron volts). Their presence is puzzling because cosmic rays should lose
energy very quickly as they travel through space, and so these
highest-energy particles would not be expected to survive the journey. The
Pierre Auger Collaboration (p. 938; see the cover and the news story by Cho)
detected 80 of the highest-energy cosmic rays and located their directions
in the sky by combining two detection techniques. The most energetic cosmic
rays originate statistically from areas of the sky that are populated by
nearby active galactic nuclei, which themselves trace galaxy-rich regions
that include the supergalactic plane. Thus, the cosmic rays' huge energies
might be explained if they were accelerated around giant galactic black
holes lying within 75 megaparsecs of the Milky Way."

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/supergalactic_plane.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin-foil_hat



Posted by Secretia Green on November 9, 2007, 5:46 pm

>
> >
> I just noticed the 'carbon neutrality' is based on the sequestering of
> 8.75 tons of carbon by the surrounding forest. That's great. All we have
> to do then, is make sure that every new building is surrounded by enough
> forest to sequester the amount the building emits. Problem solved.
>


That's one difference between LEED's aproach and (if one gives a shit) the
Kyoto protocols. Those tree 'credits' would not count. Existing trees
would have to be removed and saplings put in thier place. One of the
reasons the U.S. was against the treaty was because the they would not allow
credit offsets for the huge amount of forested area that exists here.




Posted by Michael Bulatovich on November 10, 2007, 2:40 pm

>
>>
>> >
>> I just noticed the 'carbon neutrality' is based on the sequestering of
>> 8.75 tons of carbon by the surrounding forest. That's great. All we have
>> to do then, is make sure that every new building is surrounded by enough
>> forest to sequester the amount the building emits. Problem solved.
>>
>
>
> That's one difference between LEED's aproach and (if one gives a shit) the
> Kyoto protocols. Those tree 'credits' would not count. Existing trees
> would have to be removed and saplings put in thier place. One of the
> reasons the U.S. was against the treaty was because the they would not
> allow credit offsets for the huge amount of forested area that exists
> here.

Yabut, the area was forested before we started burning fossil fuels, and
presumably the 'balance' was 'just right' then. Counting existing forests
against future emissions seems like a dodge. The current balance, including
existing forests, is presumably 'not right'.

I could see planted forests against current or future emissions as both are
new inputs. What about future limestone creation under your territorial
waters.... Hey.... I think I just came up with a money-maker....
--


MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca



Posted by RicodJour on November 9, 2007, 3:17 pm
>
>
> > Edgar wrote:
> >> ...it still looks like a beautiful building to me, and produces more
> >> energy than it consumes. What do you guys think?
>
> >>http://www.inhabitat.com/2007/11/08/first-leed-platinum-carbon-neutra...
>
> > We've seriously looked into LEED. It's goals are worthy, but the process
> > is not. It's politicized, expensive and having "LEED" on your building is
> > simply a marketing ploy to get more people to have "LEED" on their
> > buildings. They way the system is set up there are few priorities.
> > Stupid stuff helps you qualify as much as real stuff.
>
> > Also, from the site: $333.333/sq. ft. Ouch. What's the payback on that?
>
> US or CAN ? ; )
>
> Seriously though, I've done conventional projects with those kinds of
> budgets. As for the politicization of 'sustainability, well, enough said.
>
> I'd rather hear what you think of the design, form what little you can see
> of it. (No plans, etc.)

Plans? Plans? We don't need no steenkin' nifonged plans!
Plans require trees so we did without. I can offer up a virtual tour,
though.
http://www.aldoleopold.org/legacycenter/virtualtour.html
Skip the intro and a plan with clickable hot spots magically appears.

I give Google search lessons on the first Noonday of Leap Year. ;)

R


Page 3 of 4       < 1 2 3 > last >>
Similar ThreadsPosted
LEED COMMERCIAL INTERIORS 2.0 August 30, 2007, 12:02 am
True Wood Veneer MGT FSC LEED and PANELS TOO! December 15, 2007, 12:09 am

Contact Us | Privacy Policy

XML SitemapXML Sitemap