Late last week I got a call from a long time customer who wanted me to give them a second opinion on what needed to be done with the 110 year old farm house on their property. To renovate or rebuild, that was the question.

As usual, another contractor had given them the sage advice: All you gotta do is leave one wall standing and you can put up a new house and call it a "renovation." He then proceeded to tell them that it was going to be cheaper to replace the old house (as a renovation) than to repair it. And as usual, the real answer wasn’t that simple.

In fact, the answer was so complex that, as I drove away from my final meeting with the client, I began to wonder if this complexity (complete with its inherent cost) is the reason so many old houses are simply abandoned; left to rot, rather than being restored or removed.

A thorough nondestructive inspection of the house revealed that it was pretty much as you would expect a house that old to be. The foundation was shot but the old, virgin redwood framing was as solid as a rock. The roof was also shot, as was the siding, the back porch, and many of the soffits and fascia boards. Wiring was, of course, an add on and electrical outlets were sparse and all over the place. The one and only bathroom had been built on top of the back porch, indoor plumbing being another afterthought.

It was a classic case of code requirements causing a cascade sequence: Leveling the house meant it would also have to be bolted to a concrete (or masonry) stem wall, which in turn meant the exterior walls would have to be opened up. That, in turn, would trigger energy efficiency requirements which effected insulation, heating, and the windows. Removing the siding would trigger the need to install shear panels. Replacing the roof would trigger installing roof sheathing. Modernizing the electrical system, of course, meant not only meeting code requirements for electrical and lighting, but opening up all the walls and ceilings to facilitate doing so.

But the building codes, agree with them or not, were simple and straight forward. Then there was the maze of non-building related land use regulations:

The house sits on an old river delta, or "bottom" that, for over a hundred years, has been farm land. Prior to early settlers re-routing a river in the late nineteenth century, it had been a wetland and was, to some, still considered to be so.

So, the house was defacto sitting in a flood plane and, putting a new foundation under it, or building a new house, meant a "hundred year flood elevation" would have to be established. A process that, unless you’re lucky enough to find an established flood elevation close by, can cost $30,000 or more! (Never mind that it’s 110 year flood-free condition is empirical evidence that it has survived all prior floods and earthquakes just fine, thank you.)

The house also sits in the "local coastal zone" and perhaps in a "wetland." Therefore, replacing the house would trigger a whole complex set of reviews and hearings called the CEQA process that would involve four different agencies with associated direct and indirect costs. Going through CEQA can take a year (or more)—and that’s if there’s a project manager on board to keep the process moving. Left unsupervised, CEQA projects can die a slow death from neglect.

Nor is demolition (or deconstruction) a cheap alternative. Because of the location (coastal zone, wet land, etc.), even that option would trigger a CEQA review.

Before I left, the client told me that their accountant had suggested buying another rental property "in town" could be a cheaper alternative. He may be right. And if that’s the course they choose, then yet another old house will be left to rot away in place thanks to the maze of regulations and their associated, astronomical costs.

So the question is: Have we gone too far? Is it time to begin to rethink some of our regulations, or at least the process? Is it time to simplify, to consolidate? Is it time to give more consideration to the growing burden these regulations place on property owners?

What do you think?

You’ve probably heard all about it: The infamous emails that started it all, the gallons of ink spent telling everyone what it meant, the grudging admission of  Phil Jones, the head of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit at the time (the scandal forced him to step down), that there has been no “statistically significant” warming for fifteen years. For awhile it seemed it just went on and on and on, all to the great consternation of green movement activists.

Ironically, I think this might be more of a boon than a bane to the green movement if, and only if, they remember the function, and the limitations of activism. Activism is a catalyst. Without it, society wouldn’t  change. But activism is not change. It’s only the catalyst. From the very founding of the American colonies slavery had been a divisive issue, thanks to abolition activists. And there was much celebration when President Lincoln finally eliminated it. By that time, slavery had already been abolished in the North, thanks to the hard work of activists, who had done an excellent job of changing the social consciousness. But their over-reach in trying to force the south to come along was, to a great extent, what started the War.

In the South the social consciousness had not changed. The population in the southern states was not ready for abolition. So despite the seeming activist victory in getting the President to sign a law abolishing slavery once and for all, institutionalized slavery was simply replaced by the Jim Crow laws and all they wrought: Institutionalized discrimination that fairly served the same purpose. It would take nearly another hundred years for the social consciousness to change enough to put an end to it all, and another very rocky fifty years after that to have the whole mess far enough behind us to elect a black president.

Compared to the span of a human life, social change happens very slowly, at a generational pace. Those with open minds learn the benefits of the change and pass that on to their children. When I was a child, not only were African Americans still routinely referred by the N-word, I was taught the racial names for some equipment and only the racial names. I wouldn’t discover the equipments’ real proper name, and that the name I was taught was racial, until I reached adult hood. But my children, who are now grown, don’t quite grok some older people’s problem with other races.

Alas, when it comes to environmental issues we are not anywhere near so far down the evolutionary path. And just as over-reach by the abolition movement galvanized resistance to racial change, so too have I seen the same kind of resistance to environmental change. The public has become numb to the cry of wolf. Most of the population has now been told the sky is falling for most of their lives. I’m probably showing my age, but I remember how the gas crisis of the ’70s was going to end the world as we know it. I also remember when we were supposedly staring the next ice age right in the face. (A global cooling crisis preceded the current global warming crisis.) One more appeal to “change or the world will end” now elicits more yawns than it does panic.

Now admittedly, I live in a part of the country that’s rather dyslexic. Part of the community is made up of old-time lumbermen. Another part is very progressive. But in my career, I can count the number of jobs I’ve sold on an environmental pitch on one hand. The other green jobs were sold not on the basis of green, but of personal gain: Increased energy efficiency, lower electric bills, lower water bills, lower maintenance costs, better indoor air quality. “Green” never entered the conversation; environmental conservation was not a part of the discussion. But they sure loved the results, which encompassed all of those green, environmentally friendly things. (Or pieces of them, in some cases.)

And there in lays the key. Rather than continuing to try and pitch “the sky is falling” to increasingly skeptical ears, the green movement would be better served by focusing on the personal benefits: No more electric bill, no more fuel oil bill, no more rot in the walls, no more drainage problems that flood the basement, no more toxic off gassing that make grandma’s asthma worse. Those are arguments everybody understands, whether they agree with “green” or not.

climategate, green, environmental

Powered by ScribeFire.

Click on the photos to enlarge

A shot of the expansion area. Some of the trees will stay, some will be removed to make space for the RV stalls. The other plants will be replanted along the edge of the creek.

A lovely view of Widow White Creek. That white stuff way down there is soap, unfortunately.

Here’s a better view of the soap—though the picture is a bit out of focus (especially if you enlarge it).

An old “structure” that was put in decades ago to keep the stream from cutting away the bank behind.

This picture is one frame to the right of the one above (that shows the log structure). This kind of pipe and wire setup is no longer used as fish resting in the pools can get cut up on the wire.

The fish ladders installed by CalTrans in the early ’50s. They’re too high for young fish to jump.

A view through the culvert. A very long swim in swift moving fast water for young fish. Weirs need to be installed to create resting pools and the water depth increased.

One of the most interesting things about projects like The Park Project—or any other project where the use of the land has not been previously defined—is the opportunity it presents to demonstrate how we can blend the project into the land on which it is situated and, in some cases, undo the environmental damage done by previous generations.

It is somewhat ironic that, with this project, the limited amount of damage that’s been done is not in the expansion area itself, but rather in the stream areas adjacent to the project, and North and South of the Park property. As the pictures at right show, someone up-stream is pumping a lot of soap into the creek from time to time; there are lots of invasive species (Eucalyptus and English ivy being the two big ones) in the area that date back to the turn of the last century; and the old weir structures were very poorly designed and prevent young steel head and salmon from making it upstream. (There are still a few about, but not as many as there should be.)

Now-a-days the various agencies that manage our land resources are becoming more pro-active in their desire to at least minimize further environmental damage to sensitive areas, if they don’t outright mandate that steps be taken to reverse it. And most land developers and folks in the construction industry see that stance being an intrusive roadblock to their plans for the property.

Indeed, it seems to me that there is a valid argument to be made against forcing current property owners to foot the bill for cleaning up the mess of prior generations. And in the hands of a different project designer and manager, this project certainly might have quickly gone down a confrontational (and therefore very expensive) road. Fortunately, I didn’t fall off the political turnip truck yesterday. Everything you see here is being funded by, and the work done by, NGOs in collaboration with the California Department of Fish and Game. The Park and its personnel are also volunteering some time to various aspects. The work will benefit the public; it will also benefit the project as a whole.

From the beginning my goal for the expansion was zero environmental impact. That meant no runoff into the creeks; that meant controlling public access to the stream areas, either by blocking it off completely or managing the traffic flow by installing trails. I designed and laid out the expansion accordingly.

The goal paid off in spades with the willingness of State and County agencies and NGOs to eagerly come on board to save the much abused Widow White Creek. As the plan stands now:

• The invasive species will be removed.
• Replanting with local species will take place where needed—mostly to replace removed Eucalyptus.
• The stream will be restored as needed. Old structures will be removed and where needed will be replaced. The culverts on both ends of The Park will have proper fish weirs installed so that young steel head and salmon can make it up stream.
• Fish & Game is eager to improve the upstream area beyond The Park. Something as simple as removing the pollution (especially the surfactants) will help the fish population enormously.
• Interpretive trails will be built, with bridges across the creeks and signs identifying the structural work, plant species, and so forth for Park guests and controlled public tours. (I understand the local high school botany class makes field trips to the creek every year.)

By the time the project is finished it should look as nice as any State or Federal Park, and maybe nicer than some.

Do you have a project like this planned? Let me know!

land use, enviromental restoration, stream restoration, new construction

Powered by ScribeFire.

The following article, written by Michael Anschel, is reprinted from Remodeling with both their, and the author’s permission:

Ah HA!

It came to me over a series of tweets. An epiphany of sorts, if you will.

The problem with all these green building programs (including the one I helped create) is the thought process that the user is asked to engage in. No amount of revisions or point adjustment will solve this problem. LEED, NAHB, EarthCraft, Build It Green, even the amazing MN GreenStar are all handicapped by the same thing, and this handicap may be part of what is keeping them from getting the deep market penetration they all want.

Here it is:

The programs are written kind of like a building code. Do this. Don’t do that. Test those. Guess at what that is supposed to really mean. (The funny thing is that first NAHB and now USGBC are trying to emulate a codes-style process for writing the standards as well!)

Codes are good for certain things, no question, and they are a critical part of our building process. They keep the unscrupulous in check and provide a minimal thinking path to allow construction to continue in a mildly safe manner.

But codes don’t get their users to think.

Likewise, codes, rules, and regulations are good for finite tasks – usually single component or micro-system components such as bearing capacity requirements, nailing patterns, smoke detector locations, handrail heights.

But codes are horrible at addressing complex systems. What made us think we could take a system as huge as nature and bottle it up in code?

If we are asking people to think about how everything is connected, how everything goes somewhere, how their actions impact other people, and about their relationship with nature, then why the hell are we telling them to check their brain at the door and pick up a code book? It is almost as moronic as suggesting the LEED AP test (an exercise in minutia), or the NAHB Certified Green Professional test (a joke) have the ability to turn someone into a green expert!

Green building requires you to think. In green building, there is no easy path or one-size-fits-all solution. The sooner everyone understands this, the sooner we can get back to the business of green building.

Michael has hit upon many of my pet peeves about the various green building certification programs. What he doesn’t touch upon is cost: The cost to me as a design builder in jumping through their various tests in minutia to get certified; the cost to you to have your project certified silver, gold, platinum, or whatever the rating scheme is. And for my money and your money, you’re not guaranteed to get any better performance out of your building than if you hadn’t paid to have your building certified, or I to be certified. (As recent articles about LEED rated building performance have shown.)

I also agree with Michael that green building makes those of us who do it think (which is what I like about it). But there’s something else at work here too. Something that not only cannot be defined by check lists or green building codes, but also can’t simply be thought: You have to want to design and build green. You have to like designing and building green. It has to be important to the designer and builder. It has to be a part of who they are and how they think. The old saw that “I can design/build whatever you want” doesn’t work with green building. Often times green building doesn’t begin with the building; sometimes it doesn’t even begin with the site! It might begin with a good history lesson, sometimes followed by lessons in the biology, forestry, ecology, and hydrology of the ecosystems surrounding the building site. All necessary to understand how the building and site must work together to fit seamlessly into the local environment. All concepts completely foreign to main stream designers who see this site no differently than the last dozen sites: Land to be re-arranged to their liking so that their vision will work.

To be done correctly green building has to be important to the project team; it has to be a part of who they are and so be the yard stick by which they value their craft.

To paraphrase Michael’s closing sentence: The sooner we get the right attitudes in place, the sooner we can get down to the business of green building.

LEED, NAHB, USGBC, green, building

Powered by ScribeFire.