 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Green Building Discussion
Topic: Green From Above - Codes and Specs
Discussion Participants:
- Lisa McManigal wants to know about green codes
- Curtis Seyfried puts forward Vancouver
- David Kibbey with his experience in the Bay Area
- Hal Levin reminds everyone what is sustainable
- David Kibbey responds...and agrees
- John Abrams with some more sources
- Bill Christensen on the Austin Program
- Bion Howard suggests performance ratings
- Jennifer Corson wonders about green specs
- Nadav Malin on "Green Spec"
- Dan Arons on "greenspec" (a commercial spec)
All postings are the opinion of the writer, and BuildingGreen can take no responsibility for their accuracy or appropriateness.
Lisa McManigal wants to know about green codes
From: Lisa McManigal
Sent: Friday, December 06, 1996 7:55 AM
I have two questions, the answers to which would aid me in my research:
1. What cities/municipalities are you aware of that have, or are in the process of establishing, green building codes? I'm interested in both voluntary and mandatory, but please specify which (if you know) Any other information would be helpful, for example, whether it addresses residential, commercial, all buildings, etc. i.e. Austin, TX - voluntary - established - residential and commercial i.e. Santa Monica, CA - voluntary or mandatory? I don't know - in the process
2. What cities/municipalities or states are you aware of that have mandated that their own municipal buildings address sustainability criteria? i.e. Austin, TX
Please don't spend too much time, but any information off the top of your head would be much appreciated. Thank you!
Lisa McManigal Sr. Research Associate Rocky Mountain Institute's Green Development Services 1739 Snowmass Creek Road Snowmass, CO 81654 970/927-3807 phone 970/927-4510 fax lisamc@rof.net
Top of fileCurtis Seyfried puts forward Vancouver
From: Curtis Seyfried
Sent: Friday, December 06, 1996 8:22 PM
Lisa,
I know Vancouver, Canad has changed its zoning laws to allow composting toilets and greywater systems. If you have a www browser search for the "Greater Vancouver Regional District". Great people to talk to.
Curtis Seyfried cseyfrie@ix.netcom.com
David Kibbey with his experience in the Bay Area
From: IAQKibbey@aol.com
Sent: Friday, December 06, 1996 10:22 PM
The Materials/Indoor Air Quality Standards Committee and Energy Design Standards Committee jointly produced a Policy, approved by the Berkeley, CA Unified School District on June 15, 1994. I was a member of the Materials/ Indoor Air Quality Standards Committee. This Policy set out definitions, implementation guidelines, glossary, and references for all construction projects within the school district, both for new building and renovation projects. Design teams were prequalified by an oversight committee at that time. If you are interested in reading this 21 page policy, I can send it to you for the cost of copying and mailing. I believe these guidelines are helpful as a model for other school districts to understand and implement sustainable, healthy school building design and construction practices.
The City of San Francisco, a community collaboration called "Sustainable San Francisco," The Commission on San Francisco's Environment, the City Planning Department, and a number of public and private individuals sponsored a half-year long series of workshops and hearings during 1996 to establish a plan for sustainability called "Sustainable San Francisco." The plan lists short-term (5 year) and long-term goals along with actions and indicators covering 15 different environmental areas. City Circle interest groups met to develop each area independently. I was a member of the "Air Quality Circle." Results were compiled in a Draft Plan for Sustainability in June of 1996. Public hearings were held in June and comments from these hearings were incorporated into the final plan, now awaiting adoption by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
More information and the complete policy are available on the web site: http://www.igc.apc.org/sustainable/index.html
E-Mail for further info: sustainable@igc.apc.org
Phone for further info: Sustainable City, 415-775-0396
David Kibbey, Environmental Building Consultant IAQKibbey@aol.com
Hal Levin reminds everyone what is sustainable
From: Hal Levin
Sent: Saturday, December 07, 1996 4:47 PM
I strongly urge more rigor and caution in the use of the term "sustainable." Under no conceivable definition could the programs of the Berkeley school district or the City and County of San Francisco be called "sustainable." The criteria for measuring sustainability - the indicators in the San Francisco plan - are simply directions of change from the present. Many on this list and elsewhere have questioned whether sustainability can be meaningfully defined. Yes, it can.
I suggest that true sustainability can only be meaningfully evaluated in terms of "distance-to-target" type measurements where the targets are derived from careful analysis and quantification of levels of consumption, pollution, and land encroachment that can be maintained over the long term into the future within the context of population, economic, and technological development projections. Using the term sustainable too loosely by applying it to all effots to reduce environmental impact (more accurately called "lower or reduced environmental impact") is a terrible injustice to ourselves, other people, future generations, and other living things. It does not allow us to advance anywhere near as far or as fast as we must to avoid environmental, economic, political, and military catastrophes. We can ignore the true nature of the changes that must be made to create sustainable human society and keep patting ourselves on the back for being so "green" only at the risk of being regarded historically as having been either very ignorant or very greedy.
Establishing true sustainability goals as targets for measuring and evaluating our environmental impact is not fantasy or "pie-in-the=sky." It has been done and is being used in Europe, especially in the Netherlands. Please, check out a number of publications, reports, articles, etc. from Europe including the following: "Sustainable Netherlands," a report of the Friends of the Earth, Netherlands (known there as Milieudefensie). Also look at the 1992 report by Weterings and Opschoor, "The Ecocapacity as a Challenge to Technological Development." Also, look at (especially at the second half of) my paper, "Best sustainable indoor air quality practices in commercial buildings" presented at the 1996 Green Buildings Conference in San Diego and available on the EBN website (http://www.buildinggreen.com/elists/halpaper.html). The last page of that paper is an appendix with a table from the Weterings and Opschoor report. It shows the percentage reductions from current consumption that would be required to meet specific qunatified environmental goals established in that report. The magnitude of those reductions is sobering, to say the least.
Look also at Mark Goedekoop's two reports on EcoIndicators available from Pre in the Netherlands. Finally, look at Christian Azar et al's article, "Socio-ecological indicators of sustainability" for a somewhat different but also reasonably practical quantifiable approach to evaluating sustainability - from Sweden. (Complete references and contact information below.)
I believe everyone on this list cares about the environment as much as I do and truly wants to do the right thing. I am convinced, however, that we should be dedicated to more rigorous analysis of what we do and more quantitative approaches to evaulating the consequences of our low-environmental impact efforts. What Berkeley schools and San Francisco have done are laudable in the context of current political and economic realities and climates. We can change that climate and, eventually, the realities only by beginning to dialogue seriously about our work and its relationship to truly sustainable building practices and truly sustainable human activity. The quantification must not simply reflect improvement over current practice if we are serious about moving toward a sustainable human society. It must be evaluated against our best assessment of what the planet can support in light of what we anticipate will be future populations, the distribution of wealth and consumption, and the impacts of consumption on the planet. Furthermore, there are some tough moral questions that must be addressed including the true (not just economic or current worth) value of all societies or populations, of all forms of life, and of future generations. When we fail to seriously consider these questions, we tend to undervalue all but our immediate needs and desires.
My apologies to those who might feel I am preaching or criticising. I am trying to articulate some principles that I believe are essential for the benefit of all here now and who will follow and inherit our leavings.
Hal ------------------------------------------------ References and contacts: Sustainable Europe. Friends of the Earth, Netherlands (Milieu defensie) Maria Buitenkamp, Campaignleader Sustainable Europe, Damark 26, P. O. Box 19199, 1000 GD Amsterdam. +31 20 625 65 47, Fax +31 20 627 56 02. Email susteur@foenl.antenna.nl.
Weterings, R.A.P.M., J.B. Opschoor, 1992. "The Ecocapacity as a Challenge to Technological Development." Rijswijk, the Netherlands: Advisory Council for Research on Nature and Environment (RMNO).
Azar, Christian, John Holmberg, and Kristian Lindgren, 1996. Socio-ecological indicators of sustainability. Ecological Economics, 18: 89-112.
Levin, H., 1996. Best sustainable indoor air quality practices in commercial buildings. In Fanney, A. H. and P. R. Svincek, (Eds.), Proceedings of Third International Green Building Conference and Exposition - 1996. NIST Special Publication 908. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. 135-157. Available on the web at http://www.buildinggreen.com/elists/halpaper.html.
Goedkoop, Mark, 1995. "The Eco-indicator 95: Weighting method for environmental effects that damage ecosystems or human health on a European scale; Final Report." NOH Report 9523. National Reuse of Waste Research Programme (NOH), available from PRè Consultants B.V., Plotterweg 12, 3821 BB Amersfoort, the Netherlands, Tel. + 31 33 4555022, Fax + 31 33 4555024, e-mail info@pre.nl, web site www.pre.nl
Goedkoop, Mark, 1995. "The Eco-indicator 95: Weighting method for environmental effects that damage ecosystems or human health on a European scale; Manual for Designers." NOH Report 9524. National Reuse of Waste Research Programme (NOH), available from PRé Consultants B.V., Plotterweg 12, 3821 BB Amersfoort, the Netherlands, Tel. + 31 33 4555022, Fax + 31 33 4555024, e-mail info@pre.nl, web site www.pre.nl ************************************************************ Hal Levin email: hlevin@cruzio.com 2548 Empire Grade, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Tel. 408 425 3946 Fax 408 426 6522
David Kibbey responds...and agrees
From: IAQKibbey@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, December 07, 1996 7:12 PM
Thank you Hal, for your tough, realistic perspective. Those of us who worked on both these plans were well aware of the limitations of our efforts. I do not believe the collaborators were delusional about repairing the imbalance within human presence on this planet. Our attempts were merely to increase awareness of important problems with business-as-usual in light of ecological effects on resources and quality of life. If we can begin the shift in how our cities and our schools function, we have a better chance of beginning to look more deeply at the tough moral questions you enumerate. We attempted to show implementation strategies and indicators which would allow us to better evaluate the effectiveness of our efforts in years to come. We could have used your help in establishing quantifiable assessment procedures. No matter how deeply the SF City Circles looked at each of the issues covered, it is certainly possible to look more deeply. I agree that many of us use the term "sustainability" too loosely. I would also encourage each of us to keep trying, no matter how daunting the task may seem, because the elusive balance we seek will require the maximum effort, global involvement, and cooperation of a massive preponderance of individuals, governmental and corporate entities, and diverse cultures--all doing more than we are now doing.
A friend of mine describes the scenario as one wherein we are slipping down a steep cliff toward sharp rocks. Using HCFCs instead of CFCs as refrigerants, for example, may take a little longer to destroy the ozone layer, but whether we slip faster or slower, landing on the sharp rocks is just as inevitable. Will it be us? Our grandchildren? Their grandchildren? When we see our economies, our consumption, our methods, our systems as being net producers of energy and other planetary capitol--eliminating waste--humans can possibly say we are living "sustainably." I appeal to all of us to work together, in our imperfect ways, asking these critical questions, devising and learning strategies like those now being used in parts of Europe and the Netherlands. This is not a game. It is survival of our species and millions of other species we affect.
There is great danger in "greenwashing" business-as-usual. There is great danger in denying the seriousness of our plight. There is also great danger in overemphasizing any one element in our extraordinarily complex human presence on this planet. More than science is involved!
Thanks for your very thoughtful dialogue, Hal. I consider your work and perspective to be a great resource. I am once again reminded to be careful how I use that "S" word and to never take even the most valiant ecological architecture for granted.
David Kibbey
John Abrams with some more sources
From: John R. Abrams
Sent: Sunday, December 08, 1996 9:54 AM
Hal I think your comments are neither preachy or critical - rather they are apt and essential, and raise the level of dialogue. Several resources I would add:
1) "The Netherlands National Environmental Policy Plan 2", available from the Royal Netherlands Embassy, Wash. DC, PH.(202) 244-5300, FAX (202) 362 -1859; and
2) "Environmental Code of Practice for Buildings and Their Services", from The Building Services Research and Information Association in Great Britain, PH. (0344) 426511, FAX (0344) 487575, reviewed in EBN Vol. 4, Number 1.
I don't have a particular resource (does somebody?) but the New Zealanders are also doing extensive regional green planning that looks at issues in terms of generations rather than four year electoral cycles.
508 / 645-2618 (W) jabrams@smc.vineyard.net John R. Abrams 508 / 645-3182 (F) P O Box 359 Chilmark, MA 02535
Bill Christensen on the Austin Program
From: greenbuilding Conference @ txinfinet.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 1996 10:29 PM
Austin's guidelines may be on the way soon. I just received a print copy of their Sustainable Building Guidelines (Vol 1 of 3) to review for probable inclusion on the Web, either alongside the Sustainable Building Sourcebook (http://www.greenbuilder.com/sourcebook/) or on the City's website.
These guidelines are not codes, but guidelines intended for City facilities, and in the case of the Sourcebook, for residential and commercial construction. Education is a strong theme.
Though Austin has many environmental ordinances, the Green Builder Program is voluntary, so there is no "code" per se.
Volume 1 of these new guidelines (9/96), "Principles of Sustainable Building Design" covers:
The Philosophy: Environmentally Sustainable Architecture (4 pages) Project Phases (5 pages) Goals and Strategies to Achieve Goals (20 pages)
plus 16 appendixes that together take up another 50 or so pages, covering such topics as
Environmental Sustainability Checklist Austin Preferred Plant List Source List of Material Databases (already available at http://www.greenbuilder.com/general/buildingsources.html -- let me know of others) Indoor Air Quality Guidelines 5 Case Studies Cool Communities Lamp Characteristics The CERES Principles
Volume 2, "Specifying for Sustainability", is a guide in CSI format, and Volume 3, "Operation and Maintenance for City Facilities" is intended primarily for City staff that will be taking care of facilities, but will also contain useful and pertinent information for the design team and the contractor.
Perhaps Doug Seiter, Green Builder Program Manager and member of this listserv, can tell you when Vols 2 & 3 will be available. (Sorry to put you on the spot, Doug!)
Bill Christensen billc@txinfinet.com Sustainable Building Calendar at http://www.greenbuilder.com
Bion Howard suggests performance ratings
From: Bion Howard
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 1996 7:38 PM
Green Building Codes ------------------------------------------------------ -- Some leads --
Dade County, Florida is considering one I believe.
Dewees Island, South Carolina (but as a private development it may not really be a "code" per-se)
San Francisco has had form many years an energy retrofit "code" where if an existing property changes hands it must be certified as meeting energy efficiency criteria, or have a retrofit done within 180 days... This type of quasi-voluntary model where the building owner is held accountable might be worth investigation.
Pitkin County (Aspen CO) RMI green building assistance service is working with county officials to develop one (rumor at this stage)
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Discussion --
Building codes as written are very poorly enforced. The average code official does not have the funding or support staff to spend the amount of time necessary to assess "greenness" of any building, let alone set of plans and specs for a new one. Just to enforce energy efficiency standards like MEC or ASHRAE 90.2-1993 at least a 30 minute inspection would be needed -- guess what -- about 30 seconds is typically devoted to energy (like, is the insulation there, are the windows installed, does the furnace have the capacity listed on permit...duh must be OK)
So, I am not sure "codes" are the answer until there is a consensus standard or set of guidelines a large portion of the community accepts. (...probably with the notable exception of home builders, who I have been told "will have their cold dead fingers pried off their power-nailers before 'giving in to needless environmental regulations'...)
A way around this dilemma is to establish a strong voluntary program to verify green home performance via a set of guidelines, that builders and developers can ascribe to because they will then stand out in the market. This concept is not unlike the US EPA EnergySTAR program, except that a green building is alot more than lighting, insulation, refrigerators or a thermostat -- it is a whole system. For commercial buildings -- now representing about 70 BILLION square feet of conditioned floor space in the US, the US Green Building Council has developed a rating system called LEED.
Unfortunately, for residential the progress has been slower, and is mired in the standards consensus process and may prove to be a very tough political fight in terms of dealing with trade associations and labor unions.
I have been working to develop such a standard guideline, with a task group in the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). The guide is now in its second ballot draft, and I am trying to get permission to put it on the Net at our web-site for a more open review.
In the mean time, I too would be interested in any information regarding efforts to adopt "green building codes" so I can find out what the subject jurisdiction may be using as model language; in my mind none now exists.
Also, please be so kind as to review our Green Building "Primer" at:
http://www.nrg-builder.com ---> green building "link"
and submit your comments by E-mail as shown, we would appreciate it. ((To you who have seen something like this posted before, apologies.))
Mr. Bion D. Howard, Principal Building Environmental Science & Technology P. O. Box 1007 Upper Marlboro, Maryland 20773 USA V:(301)627-2780 FAX:(301)627-4735
Jennifer Corson wonders about green specs
From: Jennifer Corson
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 1996 3:00 PM
Question,
Not sure of similarities in the use of the National Master Specification from Canada to the US, though was wondering of any initiatives out there to "green" such a document. Any examples of rewriting sections, or development of add-on sections to the spec?
Such a huge undertaking, but at the same time a major vehicle in delivering better projects.
Jennifer Corson, M. Arch. at Solterre Design, PO Box 36032, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3S9 Phone (902) 492-1215, Fax (902) 425-6795 E-Mail: corson@chebucto.ns.ca
Nadav Malin on "Green Spec"
From: Nadav Malin
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 1996 12:50 PM
The Green Spec by Larry Strain may be what you're looking for. It was reviewed in the most recent Environmental Building News. It's available for $15 from:
Alameda County Waste Mngmt. Authority 777 Davis Street Suite 200 San Leandro, CA 94577 510/614-1699, 510/614-1698 (fax)
Nadav
Dan Arons on "greenspec" (a commercial spec)
From: darons@payette.com
Sent: Friday, December 06, 1996 4:33 PM
You might try "Greenspec, tm" published by Kalin, Associates, Newton, MA.
While not a comprehensive spec, it is a reasonable resource. Of course, as the extensive discussion on this list server suggests, the quality of green-ness is a many splendored thing.
Use this, and all authoritative sources with due caution and critical thought.
Daniel Arons Architect Payette Associates, Inc (617)342-8201 ext. 324 darons@payette.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|