|
Home > Archive > Architecture > December 2007 > Whether LEED or not...
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Whether LEED or not...
|
|
|
|
| Michael Bulatovich 2007-11-09, 9:25 am |
|
"Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47339c1f$0$26459$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> ...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...utral-building/
>
> --
> Edgar
Very nice. I went to the firm's website. Also very nice. Kubala has the
humility to say. "I have to pinch myself." I should say so.
--
MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca
| |
| RicodJour 2007-11-09, 1:25 pm |
| On Nov 8, 7:21 pm, "Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com>
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...arbon-neutra...
Looks tasty. I'll have to look into the details when I get a chance.
Thanks for posting.
R
| |
| 3D Peruna 2007-11-09, 1:25 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...utral-building/
>
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?
Buildings that use less energy to build, heat/cool, and maintain are
great. Let's just be realistic about building them.
| |
| RicodJour 2007-11-09, 1:25 pm |
| On Nov 9, 11:05 am, 3D Peruna <whar...@weirdness.com> wrote:
> Edgar wrote:
>
>
> 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.
Kind of like AIA on your letterhead? =:O
> Also, from the site: $333.333/sq. ft. Ouch. What's the payback on that?
>
> Buildings that use less energy to build, heat/cool, and maintain are
> great. Let's just be realistic about building them.
? That $333.33(3?)/SF doesn't reflect mortgage costs. It, in and of
itself is a borderline imaginary number. If it's built by an
individual, there will be a mortgage, if it's built by an agency of
some sort, there may be bonds and interest on that. None of that
stuff is ever reflected in the SF costs.
There are also very substantial incentives for going low impact -
state, federal and power company rebates, low cost loans, etc. CA has
a program where you're paid a higher number per KW sold to the utility
than what you pay when you buy a KW. You should not trivialize such
things as they have a major impact on the viability of going green.
Plus the chicks love it!
R
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2007-11-09, 1:25 pm |
|
"3D Peruna" <wharold@weirdness.com> wrote in message
news:Xy%Yi.35$Z%4.24@newsfe05.lga...
> Edgar wrote:
>
> 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.)
--
MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca
| |
| 3D Peruna 2007-11-09, 5:25 pm |
| RicodJour wrote:
> On Nov 9, 11:05 am, 3D Peruna <whar...@weirdness.com> wrote:
>
> Kind of like AIA on your letterhead? =:O
'zactly. Stupid organization.
>
>
> ? That $333.33(3?)/SF doesn't reflect mortgage costs. It, in and of
> itself is a borderline imaginary number. If it's built by an
> individual, there will be a mortgage, if it's built by an agency of
> some sort, there may be bonds and interest on that. None of that
> stuff is ever reflected in the SF costs.
Yes... The total extra cost will probably never be known.
>
> There are also very substantial incentives for going low impact -
> state, federal and power company rebates, low cost loans, etc. CA has
> a program where you're paid a higher number per KW sold to the utility
> than what you pay when you buy a KW. You should not trivialize such
> things as they have a major impact on the viability of going green.
> Plus the chicks love it!
If they are used, then again, the real costs are even more than $333/sq.
ft., so "green" isn't nearly as affordable as they want us to think it
is. You and I are paying these guys to be "green."
I'm married, so I don't care if the chicks love it.
| |
| 3D Peruna 2007-11-09, 5:25 pm |
| Michael Bulatovich wrote:
> "3D Peruna" <wharold@weirdness.com> wrote in message
>
> 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 $333/sq.ft. to me.
>
> I'd rather hear what you think of the design, form what little you can see
> of it. (No plans, etc.)
It's nice enough. But hard to tell with so little info.
| |
| RicodJour 2007-11-09, 5:25 pm |
| On Nov 9, 1:20 pm, "Michael Bulatovich" <Ple...@dont.try> wrote:
> "3D Peruna" <whar...@weirdness.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Xy%Yi.35$Z%4.24@newsfe05.lga...
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/legacyce...irtualtour.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
| |
|
|
| RicodJour 2007-11-09, 5:25 pm |
| On Nov 9, 2:48 pm, 3D Peruna <whar...@weirdness.com> wrote:
>
> I'm married, so I don't care if the chicks love it.
Married Dead! You have to design for everyone, 3D, even the smoking
hot chicks. It's the law.
R
| |
|
| "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...utral-building/
Maybe it was the interior shots....that made me think of FLW....in the 21st
century.
I'll scope it deeper-later.
| |
|
|
"3D Peruna" <wharold@weirdness.com> wrote in message
news:1Q2Zi.86$Z%4.4@newsfe05.lga...
> RicodJour wrote:
>
> 'zactly. Stupid organization.
>
>
> Yes... The total extra cost will probably never be known.
>
>
> If they are used, then again, the real costs are even more than $333/sq.
> ft., so "green" isn't nearly as affordable as they want us to think it is.
> You and I are paying these guys to be "green."
>
> I'm married, so I don't care if the chicks love it.
I care if *wealthy* chix luv it.
'specially if they want one just like it.
I'm happy to oblige the gurlz..........
| |
|
|
"3D Peruna" <wharold@weirdness.com> wrote in message
news:VZ2Zi.87$Z%4.76@newsfe05.lga...
> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>
>
> US, it' would be, um less, in CAN now, than it was before.
>
>
> 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 $333/sq.ft. to me.
Looks can be deceiving.
A home on Useppa Island can look much like a home in Cape Coral but the cost
difference is at least triple.
Technology itself is hugely expensive.
I'd like to see all the numbers, and plans, on this project.
>
> It's nice enough. But hard to tell with so little info.
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2007-11-09, 5:25 pm |
|
"3D Peruna" <wharold@weirdness.com> wrote in message
news:VZ2Zi.87$Z%4.76@newsfe05.lga...
> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>
>
> US, it' would be, um less, in CAN now, than it was before.
>
>
> 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 $333/sq.ft. to me.
If that were the case, and you got all the payoffs for free, then everone
would be doing it.
>
> It's nice enough. But hard to tell with so little info.
Did you go to the architect's site? A principal lectured of Alexander. I
love his (Alexander's) insights.....I don't buy the overarching method, but
he seems pretty good at the details. I guess it dates me.
--
MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2007-11-09, 5:25 pm |
|
"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
news:1194639433.160400.55660@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 9, 1:20 pm, "Michael Bulatovich" <Ple...@dont.try> wrote:
>
> Plans? Plans? We don't need no steenkin' nifonged plans!
> Plans require trees so we did without. I can offer up a virtual tour,
> though.
> http://www.aldoleopold.org/legacyce...irtualtour.html
> Skip the intro and a plan with clickable hot spots magically appears.
>
> I give Google search lessons on the first Noonday of Leap Year. ;)
You get an "I" for Imitative. Thanks for the link.
The building is essentially a showcase for 'sustainability', is that right?
I take it that the energy requirements of the project are slight compared to
other uses on kW/hr/sq.ft. basis.
Speaking of trees...I took note of the fact that mainly bad trees were
killed to make the building, which helps the good trees.
--
MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca
| |
| 3D Peruna 2007-11-09, 5:25 pm |
| RicodJour wrote:
> On Nov 9, 2:48 pm, 3D Peruna <whar...@weirdness.com> wrote:
>
> Married Dead! You have to design for everyone, 3D, even the smoking
> hot chicks. It's the law.
Only if they're really rich! And pay our fees.... Sort of a reverse
"Indecent Proposal".
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2007-11-09, 5:25 pm |
|
"3D Peruna" <wharold@weirdness.com> wrote in message
news:VZ2Zi.87$Z%4.76@newsfe05.lga...
> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>
>
> US, it' would be, um less, in CAN now, than it was before.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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/encycl...ctic_plane.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin-foil_hat
| |
| Secretia Green 2007-11-09, 5:25 pm |
|
"Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in message
news:fh2kqo07pj@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> 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.
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2007-11-10, 5:25 pm |
|
"Secretia Green" <SG@howgreenitis.com> wrote in message
news:zdCdnXVhZND_fqnanZ2dnUVZ_quhnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in message
> news:fh2kqo07pj@news3.newsguy.com...
>
>
> 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
| |
|
| "RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
news:1194639433.160400.55660@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 9, 1:20 pm, "Michael Bulatovich" <Ple...@dont.try> wrote:
>
> 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/legacyce...irtualtour.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
>
Very cool thanks for the link. I was thinking about what Michael said about
the surrounding forest being part of the carbon offset, which I now see that
probably the Subaru plant they are touting in all their commercials probably
uses the same method. They say it is one of the greenest plants in car
manufacturing or some such thing, and in the commercial they show lots of
forests.
Anyways, I really dig the details they used in many places. They mentioned
the fireplace using reclaimed stone, but I didn't see anything about the
rest of the stone and where it came from.
--
Edgar
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| ryan@select-veneer.com 2007-12-15, 3:25 am |
| LEED is growing and we can help. We manufacture FSC cert. Veneer off
of FSC managed Timberlands. We can provide FSC PURE Panels and Plywood
with full service Veneer Management!
http://base.google.com/base/a/29464...578181407770746
On Nov 8, 7:21 pm, "Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com>
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...arbon-neutra...
>
> --
> Edgar
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
| |
|
| I think if you staple a fission reactor to the roof of a plywood
oneholer outhouse it will produce more energy than it consumes.
|
|
|
|
|