READERS, if you like this post, subscribe to a free reader to make sure you are alerted whenever there’s a new post to the Green Building Blog. Just click on the ‘Subscribe in a Reader’ link at right!

Green building has many elephants in the room and thanks to the current state of the economy, this is a big one: will green building suffer because of the current state of the economy?

The problem with trying to answer this question is that it all comes down to

The road to market-wide green buildings?

definitions: what do you consider to be a green building? Does it need to be certified by a third party operation? Are you talking about all markets - commercial, homes, mixed use etc.?

Assuming you can answer the definition question, another one immediately presents itself: how do we measure how green buildings are doing? Is there any way to realistically measure the buildings that are putting off plans, and then how green building is a factor in that?

I cannot answer these questions without doing a lot of research with time I frankly don’t have. But in the end, it seems like there are two groups out there:

1. The group that thinks yes, green buildings will take a hit because they’re more expensive.

and

2. The group that thinks green buildings are actually more valuable because they cut down on energy use and electricity bills, and will hold their value better in future markets.

Which group do you belong to? Comment on my new poll at right, or tell me more below, to let me know!

P.S. For great coverage about how the market is affecting the Puget Sound region, check out the DJC. On Oct. 13, we ran a story from local contractor’s perspectives. On Oct. 14, we run a story on local architecture and engineering firm’s perspectives. Don’t miss them!

My recent post called “Is green building dangerous?” raised a number of comments. In the post, I mentioned a project that had won a significant green award but was “poisoning” its inhabitants. One commenter asked for more information on the subject, so I went to Dan Morris, the indoor air quality specialist mentioned, for specifics on the project. Here is his response (WARNING, may be overly technical):

Morris said the problem with the green house in question was the location of things. It had a large gas water heater used to heat the hydronic infloor heating and domestic hot water that was in a small laundry room with a washer, dryer, an exhaust fan and a fixed window. The occupants were not “poisoned” (as I originally stated) but were exposed to somewhat elevated levels of carbon monoxide over long periods in the house (either way though, it’s not good for you). 

Morris said the carbon monoxide and other trace pollutants found in the flue gasses from gas combustion were drawn into the house whenever the dryer or exhaust fan was operated when the water/space heater was operating. The dryer or exhaust fan took air out of the laundry room with no provision for make-up air from outdoors. The only open hole to the outdoors was the water heater flue. The make-up air was drawn down the flue pipe and back drafted the water heater. In short, it was out of balance and pressure.

In Morris’ words: “What was so disturbing about this house was that no one understood the basics of building science, or were not paying attention. This includes the: architect or building designer, builder, homeowners, code officials/inspectors, green building award people.”

Obviously, this isn’t every green designer or builder or award program… but how common is it? And whose responsibility was it to notice that all those things should not have been in the same room?

Another commenter, SteamboatEcoBroker, said with newer green buildings, air quality and ventilation systems are a must because they are much tighter than older buildings. So should more attention be paid to the air quality systems in a green building? Do green building systems focus too much on energy and not enough on other important aspects?

If you have any insights, please share them with me below.

Seattle Public Schools has decided to cut down 92 trees at Ingraham High School in North Seattle. I don’t know much about the politics of the decision. But I do know about the trees and what it meant to grow up near them.

When I was little, I spent eight years on the Madison Mad Dogs (are the best!) swim team directly next to the trees in question. Being an environment reporter, I know the trees are a valuable resource. But looking back in my memories, I remember a sense of horror whenever I got too close to them. The few times I did venture into them (via dares from other children) I found things that no six-year-old should ever find - used condoms, drug paraphernalia, beer bottles etc. After that I took care to stay away from them with super hero-like force.

Even when I got older and worked at the pool, I took care to park far away from the trees when I closed up at 11 p.m. Maybe I was being paranoid, or maybe I was being safe. At the same time, the trees have always been a part of the school, and I don’t remember anything really sinister coming from their existence. In fact all the sinister things seemed to happen in buildings.

It seems a good example of when environmentalism comes face to face with other issues …. like security.  Which one do you think should win out?

For more, visit the PI’s blog here, the Stranger here or Majority Rules here (photo above courtesy of Majority Rules).

Green building is fairly new, so naturally there are a lot of questions about it. But somehow, amidst the excitement of pursuing new technologies and arguing about what works and what doesn’t, it seems a fundamental question has been left in the dust…. is green building dangerous?

Like any good question, it can be answered with another question: dangerous to whom? Dangerous to the developer, the inhabitant, the team members, the insurer, or to the economy? That answer, dear reader, is a mixed bag.

Now, I’ve most likely caused a number of you to see red by even suggesting that green could be dangerous. But remember that other cultural innovations through history - the atomic bomb and nuclear energy to name a few - have been viewed at times with the frenzied level of expected salvation that green building and green products have recently encountered.

Obviously, green building isn’t about to physically blow up and kill people, so it’s not “dangerous” in that way. Theoretically at least, it might even be increasing people’s life spans by taking harmful chemicals out of buildings like volatile organic compounds.

But remember, green building is just a kid. And kids grow up into amazing - or horrifying - adults. What happens when green building suddenly spawns a spate of lawsuits (which local LEED certified lawyers assure me will happen, the only question is when). What happens when someone discovers a green building sacred cow does more harm than good (biofuels anyone?) What happens when the greenest greenie we know inevitable turns out to be clear cutting Amazon forests in their backyard?

Will the increasing green momentum implode or is green building and the ideals behind it stronger than that? It probably depends who you’re asking.

A while back I spoke with an indoor air quality expert who said he’s been in green buildings - LEED, Built Green, etc - that had such bad indoor air quality the house was effectively poisoning the people that lived in it.  While it’s (hopefully) an anomaly, what if it isn’t?

If we look at the legal aspects of green alone, the trial has just begun. I wrote a story in February here about the legal issues facing green buildings. Just getting information for the one article was excruciating because there just isn’t that much information, or people willing, to talk about the subject. In the past few months however, I’ve heard more and more people saying that green developers need to protect themselves in contracts against possible green building issues. Green building, they say, is a whole new ball game. And many clients aren’t aware of what they could be doing for protection. For more on this issue, check out the excellent green liability subject on greenbuildings NYC, especially this post.

So is green building dangerous? You know as well as I there is no answer to that right now. But it’s still a question that can be raised, and often isn’t. If you’ve heard it raised before in any printed form, please comment below to tell me about it, or just tell me what you think.

 I suppose even if there were an answer, it could be answered by yet another: if green building is dangerous, does the good it does outweigh the danger?

I think we can all agree that green is a snowball that is slowly getting bigger and bigger as it rolls down the mountainside.  But contrary to what marketing firms want you to believe, not everybody is on the green bandwagon yet.

So here’s the question: why not? What stops you from going green?

I’ve heard a lot of reasons.

Last week I was talking with Pam Worner of Green Dog Enterprises and she said the economic downturn isn’t helping anything. High-end home builders can still go green because their buyers can afford the premium. But everyday home builders just can’t afford it right now, she said.

Usually, what I hear is that green is too expensive. So I, for one, am surprised by the current results of my poll at right. So far, what stops the majority of respondents from building green is people just aren’t asking for it.

But as you can see, not that many people have answered the poll yet. If you haven’t please choose an answer. If you have more to share, please add your comment below.

I want to know why you’re not building/designing/working green… what stops you, and what, if anything, could convince you to make the jump!

I’ve spent the last week in Boston and New York, riding subways that people in the Pacific Northwest can only dream about.

But while riding those subways (which are largely, at least in NYC, responsible for why the average person’s carbon footprint is so low) it struck me that green is becoming mainstream so quickly, it’s becoming many things to many different people. And often, because the message isn’t defined, it gets lost.

It happens in the definition of a “green building:” really, does LEED make a building green? What about a regular building that uses Energy Star appliances and PVC-free paint…. that’s in the middle of nowhere?

It happens in materials: FSC wood… is it really green to use South American or European wood, ship it to Asia to be milled and ship it back to use in your Seattle home?

And in happens in advertisements. Take the subway in NYC for example. On one train, overhead signs urged riders to recycle newspapers in recycling bins. On another, overhead signs begged newspaper readers to just throw their papers away to keep the subway clean. If you’re going to advocate one message, which is more important? Recycling or cleanliness?

That example represents the entire green movement. There are so many different messages out there, it’s easy to get lost. Especially if you’re a new “convert,” it’s really easy to be misled. Sometimes it’s intentional “greenwashing,” sometimes it’s just plain confusing.

For Earth Day this year, I got a press release from Horizon Air about how flying between Portland and Seattle was more eco-friendly than driving. I got another from Fairmont Hotels and Resorts and Lexus Hybrid Living on eco-friendly luxury suites in San Francisco and Washington, D.C., that are “the ultimate cosmopolitan experience for environmentally aware travelers.” Guests get organic towels, robes and free use of the Lexus LS 600h hybrid.

Is that really green? Who’s to say. The truth is it’s such a new field and word that just about anything can be spun the right way. And often, what really is “green” just gets lost in the spinning.

To learn more about greenwashing, click the tab below. To see what consumers think about “green” products or share your reviews, check out this site.

What’s the point of green awards? I asked that question in a post last week and during an AIA panel discussion the following day,  a number of Seattle architects tried to answer the question (see the post for a list of architects on the panel).

But answers ranged across the board. So I asked, ”If you could boil what you want out of the green awards down to one thing, what would it be?” (One of this year’s award winners is at left - the planned Center for Urban Waters in Tacoma by Perkins + Will).

The response was that you really couldn’t boil it down to one thing. Green awards are supposed to: inspire, train people, get people interested in green buildings, share project information, elevate Seattle’s green building reputation, honor people equally that are pushing the envelope and just beginning to do green work, and change the way design is done.

Whew. Those are a lot of goals for one award program. But OK, assuming one program can achieve it all… how do you do it?

Here are some of the panel’s ideas for making AIA Seattle’s What Makes it Green Awards better, and for extending it’s breadth so that next year, you, Seattle-area-architect-who-is-only-kind-of-interested-in-green-building, will want to go to the event, and begin designing green: (more…)

Of all the things to vandalize in Washington - why choose the lone Douglas fir at Chambers Bay golf course?

The course was otherwise having a good year. In February, the U.S. Golf Association said Chambers Bay would host the 2015 U.S. Open championship and the U.S. Amateur Championship in 2010.  

Throughout 2007, it won awards from Golf Inc., Travel and Leisure Golf Magazine,  Golf Magazine and Golf Week (according to the Chambers Bay Web site).

Its attention to environmental protection had been even been recognized by Audubon International (more on that here). 

Then on April 29, disaster stuck when the symbol of the golf course - an iconic Douglas fir - was attacked overnight. Somebody tried to cut it down with an axe. (more…)

Most everybody agrees that the key to great green buildings is integrated design - where different professional disciplines work together in an integrated way to create a building, rather than cutting a project up into sections and having different companies separately work on those sections.

But when I hear it discussed, people are often doing one of two things: patting themselves on the back for doing such a great, fantastic job on a particular project, or explaining the necessity of the process to newcomers.

Rarely do you hear it criticized or analyzed. But the proof is in the pudding and if you’re really wondering how well the process is working, why not ask your client?

That’s just what Tracy Bowen (right) of The Alice Ferguson Foundation in Maryland is. She’s developing a living building project in Accokeek, (across from Mt. Vernon), and the lady tells it like it is. She chose to go after a living building, rather than LEED because “I felt like LEED was a really good baseline but it was going to create a ceiling… (that) wasn’t high enough.”

Using her experience with integrative design as a baseline, Bowen says the process is in its infancy. In fact, the process was shocking to her. “It’s boxy. It’s very linear.”  - What do you think?

Boiling it down- Bowen said the charette is great because it gets so many minds thinking about the same problems that solutions can actually be achieved - but once it’s done, she said the whole process of design becomes ”less organic” and is dealt with by professional subsection again.
Read more to hear her advice! (more…)

Readers, you liked the post that directly preceded this one, about how Anne Whitacre, a specifier for Gehry Partners in Los Angeles questioned the claims of green products. In fact, you liked it so much that the long version of it (after  you click ‘more’) directly shot up to the most popular post I’ve ever written.

People read it from Lansing, Mich., from Salt Lake City, from Washington, D.C., from Atlanta, and all throughout Washington and Oregon.

We got interesting comments in our mailbox after running the full editorial too. One reader named Jason wrote, “BINGO! I think Anne nailed it. The second Green design became more about paper work and check lists, is the second green design failed.”  

Another said, “Finally, bang on, thanks for posting that.”

A third said, “People need to use intellect and reason to evaluate the results or benefits of these ideas in relation to short term and long term costs. Further ’sustainable’ does not always mean better and certainly does not mean more efficient. These concepts are meant to make us ‘feel good’ and provide comfort for some imagined guilt for having a successful culture.”

Here’s what I have to say: thank you for responding! My job (and the job of any credible journalist) is to report both sides to the best of my ability, though often (in non-DJC publications of course) I see that only one side of the story gets told. Your thoughts help me see the whole story, so thank you for your input in either direction.

READERS: I am more than happy to investigate these topics and sound them out, but I need to know what you care about. If you like (or don’t like) what we’re doing, comment or e-mail me at katiez@djc.com. If you like (or don’t like) parts of green design, green buildings, green products etc., comment or e-mail me at katiez@djc.com. I promise that I read all my comments and all my e-mails, and want to hear what you have to say, both good and bad.

We have been up and running for just over a month now. Thanks for reading and thanks for your comments. Keep ‘em coming!