<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The bad green project examined</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.djc.com/blogs/BuildingGreen/?feed=rss2&#038;p=236" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.djc.com/blogs/BuildingGreen/?p=236&amp;owa_from=feed&amp;owa_sid=</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:25:53 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Charles Redell</title>
		<link>http://www.djc.com/blogs/BuildingGreen/?p=236#comment-480</link>
		<dc:creator>Charles Redell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:12:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.djc.com/blogs/BuildingGreen/2008/08/13/the-bad-green-project-examined/#comment-480</guid>
		<description>whoops, sorry for the messed up HTML in my last post. If I could edit it, I would.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>whoops, sorry for the messed up HTML in my last post. If I could edit it, I would.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charles Redell</title>
		<link>http://www.djc.com/blogs/BuildingGreen/?p=236#comment-479</link>
		<dc:creator>Charles Redell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:12:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.djc.com/blogs/BuildingGreen/2008/08/13/the-bad-green-project-examined/#comment-479</guid>
		<description>I'm staying on the side of "isolated occurrence" here Katie (see my comment on your "Is GB Dangerous" post) because, while this is obviously a serious problem for this building, it is really only one building that we are talking about. And it is a problem that could have happened in any building constructed today. After all, a tighter envelope is hardly a groundbreaking green building technique. In fact, as building codes change, tighter envelopes are becoming more and more common.

That said, I wonder what role building codes and inspectors played in all of this? I just wrote an article in Sustainable Industries on the &#60;a href="http://www.sustainableindustries.com/greenbuilding/26191524.html"intersection of building code and green building called "Cracking the Code." The story is about efforts to "green" the code and issues builders have with the code but some of my interview subjects told me that they are available and willing to talk with build teams from the very start of a project to help them deal with all sorts of issues green and not before any concrete is poured.

This problem, it seems to me, is something that should have been caught by one of the members of the build/design team, yes, but failing that, where was the inspector?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m staying on the side of &#8220;isolated occurrence&#8221; here Katie (see my comment on your &#8220;Is GB Dangerous&#8221; post) because, while this is obviously a serious problem for this building, it is really only one building that we are talking about. And it is a problem that could have happened in any building constructed today. After all, a tighter envelope is hardly a groundbreaking green building technique. In fact, as building codes change, tighter envelopes are becoming more and more common.</p>
<p>That said, I wonder what role building codes and inspectors played in all of this? I just wrote an article in Sustainable Industries on the &lt;a href=&#8221;http://www.sustainableindustries.com/greenbuilding/26191524.html&#8221;intersection of building code and green building called &#8220;Cracking the Code.&#8221; The story is about efforts to &#8220;green&#8221; the code and issues builders have with the code but some of my interview subjects told me that they are available and willing to talk with build teams from the very start of a project to help them deal with all sorts of issues green and not before any concrete is poured.</p>
<p>This problem, it seems to me, is something that should have been caught by one of the members of the build/design team, yes, but failing that, where was the inspector?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anne Whitacre</title>
		<link>http://www.djc.com/blogs/BuildingGreen/?p=236#comment-478</link>
		<dc:creator>Anne Whitacre</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:52:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.djc.com/blogs/BuildingGreen/2008/08/13/the-bad-green-project-examined/#comment-478</guid>
		<description>I'm not sure there is any excuse for the building official in this instance,  (or the mechanical engineer if there was one); but this is an example of what happens when one thing (in this case "green"  but sometimes its "design" or "cost" ) overshadows the complexity of a project.  Architecture is hard.  complicated architecture is even harder.  Balancing multiple conflicting requirements requires an understanding of what they all do, and learning how to do that takes time in the business.  in most cases the Owner is not knowledgeable enough to question what is occurring on their house, and has to rely on the licensed professionals to make good decisions.

that being said, the "basics of building science" aren't readily understood in most of the offices I've worked in.  there aren't any unyielding rules (except "water runs downhill") for most of the interplay of systems, and understanding the subtleties of the interplay usually requires someone who makes an effort at that part of the build process.  As more practices try to place an emphasis on "green" they are going to have to equally place an emphasis on understanding how systems work together.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not sure there is any excuse for the building official in this instance,  (or the mechanical engineer if there was one); but this is an example of what happens when one thing (in this case &#8220;green&#8221;  but sometimes its &#8220;design&#8221; or &#8220;cost&#8221; ) overshadows the complexity of a project.  Architecture is hard.  complicated architecture is even harder.  Balancing multiple conflicting requirements requires an understanding of what they all do, and learning how to do that takes time in the business.  in most cases the Owner is not knowledgeable enough to question what is occurring on their house, and has to rely on the licensed professionals to make good decisions.</p>
<p>that being said, the &#8220;basics of building science&#8221; aren&#8217;t readily understood in most of the offices I&#8217;ve worked in.  there aren&#8217;t any unyielding rules (except &#8220;water runs downhill&#8221;) for most of the interplay of systems, and understanding the subtleties of the interplay usually requires someone who makes an effort at that part of the build process.  As more practices try to place an emphasis on &#8220;green&#8221; they are going to have to equally place an emphasis on understanding how systems work together.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Green Builder Frank McKinney Builds Largest Green House &#124; Real Estate Windfall</title>
		<link>http://www.djc.com/blogs/BuildingGreen/?p=236#comment-477</link>
		<dc:creator>Green Builder Frank McKinney Builds Largest Green House &#124; Real Estate Windfall</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:16:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.djc.com/blogs/BuildingGreen/2008/08/13/the-bad-green-project-examined/#comment-477</guid>
		<description>[...] The bad green project examined -&#8230; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The bad green project examined -&#8230; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: McBuild &#187; Blog Archive &#187; The bad green project examined</title>
		<link>http://www.djc.com/blogs/BuildingGreen/?p=236#comment-476</link>
		<dc:creator>McBuild &#187; Blog Archive &#187; The bad green project examined</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 06:50:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.djc.com/blogs/BuildingGreen/2008/08/13/the-bad-green-project-examined/#comment-476</guid>
		<description>[...] My recent post called =93Is green building dangerous?=94 raised a nu= mber of mryuk.jpg comments. In the post, I mentioned a project that had won= a significant green award but was =93poisoning=94 its inhabitants. = One commenter asked for more &#8230;Posted from By Katie  [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] My recent post called =93Is green building dangerous?=94 raised a nu= mber of mryuk.jpg comments. In the post, I mentioned a project that had won= a significant green award but was =93poisoning=94 its inhabitants. = One commenter asked for more &#8230;Posted from By Katie  [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Chee</title>
		<link>http://www.djc.com/blogs/BuildingGreen/?p=236#comment-475</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Chee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 05:42:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.djc.com/blogs/BuildingGreen/2008/08/13/the-bad-green-project-examined/#comment-475</guid>
		<description>I'm not sure we have enough information here to really make a thorough analysis of the problem.  In my projects, it really is a team effort with the Architect, mechanical engineer, electrical engineer, plumber, project manager, and general contractor.  When building any structure, we have to work as a team to make sure that we're not implementing a design that doesn't make sense or is not optimal.

In the scenario that you have described above, you've mentioned so many different systems that different trades are responsible for.  You've mentioned half a dozen systems like the gas hot water heater for the hydronic in-floor heating, domestic hot water, washer dryer, exhaust fan, fixed windows, there's definitely coordination that needs to occur between these trades.  Perhaps this specific occurrence is a break-down in communication between the trades and general contractor.  Perhaps lack of experience.

As for too much focus on energy, well, certainly when looking at the bottom line, the single largest operating expense for a building is the electrical bill.  It would not surprise me one bit that there's so much emphasis on this area.  As that's one area that drives ROI for a green built project.  Sometimes business decisions over shadow the big picture.  I think that all projects that are managed in a good way should be looked at in a holistic manner.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not sure we have enough information here to really make a thorough analysis of the problem.  In my projects, it really is a team effort with the Architect, mechanical engineer, electrical engineer, plumber, project manager, and general contractor.  When building any structure, we have to work as a team to make sure that we&#8217;re not implementing a design that doesn&#8217;t make sense or is not optimal.</p>
<p>In the scenario that you have described above, you&#8217;ve mentioned so many different systems that different trades are responsible for.  You&#8217;ve mentioned half a dozen systems like the gas hot water heater for the hydronic in-floor heating, domestic hot water, washer dryer, exhaust fan, fixed windows, there&#8217;s definitely coordination that needs to occur between these trades.  Perhaps this specific occurrence is a break-down in communication between the trades and general contractor.  Perhaps lack of experience.</p>
<p>As for too much focus on energy, well, certainly when looking at the bottom line, the single largest operating expense for a building is the electrical bill.  It would not surprise me one bit that there&#8217;s so much emphasis on this area.  As that&#8217;s one area that drives ROI for a green built project.  Sometimes business decisions over shadow the big picture.  I think that all projects that are managed in a good way should be looked at in a holistic manner.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
