|
Posted by Michael Bulatovich on November 9, 2007, 4:14 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. ;)
You get an "I" for Imitative. Thanks for the link.
The building is essentially a showcase for 'sustainability', is that right?
I take it that the energy requirements of the project are slight compared to
other uses on kW/hr/sq.ft. basis.
Speaking of trees...I took note of the fact that mainly bad trees were
killed to make the building, which helps the good trees.
--
MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap