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.
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.
? 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!
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.
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.)
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.
If that were the case, and you got all the payoffs for free, then everone
would be doing it.
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.
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."
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....
Plans? Plans? We don't need no steenkin' nifonged plans!
Plans require trees so we did without. I can offer up a virtual tour,
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.
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!
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.