When it comes to green building, it seems everybody wants to jump on the band wagon these days. The Federal Government has its EnergyStar program, many states have programs, then there’s Passivhaus, and of course LEED. The problem is, the central focus of most of these programs isn’t so much green as it is energy efficiency with a dose of waste reduction on the side. And for desert there’s an offering of green sourcing—so long as it doesn’t conflict with goal number one, that great holy grail of green building: Net Zero!

Which begs the question: At what cost Net Zero? For that matter, is Net Zero even a laudable goal? It does, after all, come with quite a cost. Setting aside the cost of achieving Net Zero, just the mad rush to do blower door testing with all its calculations that ensure every little crack is sealed up tight has led to unintended consequences. Sick House Syndrome is headed in the direction of an epidemic. Therefore, if green building is defined as cost saving, it could be argued that obsessive air sealing isn’t such a great idea. What is saved in energy is more than offset by medical costs. To which the usual rebuttal is: If you’re going to air seal, you have to have properly installed mechanical ventilation. Okay.

To paraphrase a German architect I once met: You Americans are so in love with your technology. Why don’t you just open a window? Which might be interpreted as: When your solution to a problem creates another problem which must then be solved, thus creating another problem, you have no solution at all.

But the obsession with air sealing is only the tip of the ice berg. Net Zero inevitably leads to discussions about solar.

Solar. The new ‘green tech’ darling. Even President Obama got in on the act. The question is: Just how green is solar? Solar systems are constructed of aluminum, which must be mined, glass, the silica for which must be mined, plastic, which comes from oil, and worst of all, rare earth elements, which also must be mined. The environmental consequences of rare earth mining and refining are beginning to raise alarm bells that echo of oil production—or worse. As the New York Times reported earlier this year:

Once little known outside chemistry circles, rare earth metals have become increasingly vital to high-tech manufacturing. But as Malaysia learned the hard way a few decades ago, refining rare earth ore usually leaves thousands of tons of low-level radioactive waste behind.

So the world has largely left the dirty work to Chinese refineries—processing factories that are barely regulated and in some cases illegally operated, and have created vast toxic waste sites.

So our green tech darling, solar, is leaving a trail of radioactive waste behind it. This is green?

It’s beyond time the building industry got out of the kiddie pool and began to think more holistically about green building. We need to be thinking in terms of the environment around the building; we need to be thinking about where the materials we’re building with and finishing with are coming from; we need to be thinking in terms of the environmental cost of the entire production stream for those materials; we need to be thinking in terms of community. Not just the community in which the building will sit, but the communities around the world that manufacture the materials we put into the building—and who have to live with the often toxic refuse caused by that manufacturing.

When we do that, I guarantee Net Zero will become far less important than Environmental Zero, which may make Net Zero of zero importance.

I’d like to thank Philip J. Reed for giving us his opinion on what constitutes green building in the following guest post. Philip works in association with the Daybreak community in Utah. He has a close personal interest in green-friendly practices and sustainable living, and will be happy to follow up on any questions you may leave in the comments below.

Green building is a popular subject these days, but do you know what makes a building green? The concept relies on much more than environmental friendliness; economic development, transportation and infrastructure, land use, and still other ideas are all part all incorporated to promote a balanced, sustainable lifestyle.

At its core, this type of construction emphasizes the smart use of resources and processes to minimize the impact a structure has on the environment. Green buildings may contain products that have been reused, recycled, or made from a renewable resource. They support a healthy indoor environment and also employ smart landscaping, such as the use of native plants that won’t require extra water. Better designs minimize heating and cooling losses in a building, and make better use of energy as well. Even construction processes are more efficient, reducing the waste produced during building.

Spikes in energy prices and a significant environmental push in the 1960s and 1970s prompted early ventures into green building in the United States. The movement was formalized in the 1990s, and has continued to blossom today. To give builders a better sense of how to construct an environmentally friendly and economically smart structure, organizations such as the National Association of Home Builders have created Model Green Home Building Guidelines to provide more understanding of what constitutes green building and techniques to use which will facilitate the process.

Homes in Salt Lake are now constructed with a greener focus, and growing numbers adhere completely to EPA Energy Star® guidelines. Sustainable communities and neighborhoods now keep community gardens, walking and bike trails, activity centers, and community pools in mind. Business owners are incorporating smart principles into the design of their buildings, and several are LEED® certified. Even construction companies are doing their part by recycling a significant amount of their waste.

Those who believe in green building are passionate about the effects these practices can have on improving human and environmental health. Building choices, neighborhood design, and green infrastructure are all concepts which can have many beneficial results reaching far into the future.

References:

Daybreak Utah

U.S. EPA

U.S. Green Building Council

EPA Green Building FAQ

HGTV Pro (Article)

Christopher G. Hill (@constructionlaw) is lawyer and owner of the Richmond, VA firm, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC, a LEED AP. Mr. Hill has been nominated and elected by his peers to Virginia’s Legal Elite in the Construction Law category on multiple occasions. He specializes in mechanic’s liens, contract review and consulting, occupational safety issues (VOSH and OSHA), and risk management for construction professionals.  Mr. Hill authors the Construction Law Musings blog where he discusses legal and policy issues relevant to construction professionals.  Additionally, Mr. Hill is active in the Associated General Contractors of Virginia and the Construction Law and Public Contracts Section of the Virginia State Bar.

First of all, thanks to Michael for the opportunity to guest post. Please check out his post at Construction Law Musings here.

Lately, there has been a lot of news in the green building world relating to law suits and other liability nightmares relating to green building. The Destiny USA debacle relating to the green bonds program and the failure of a contractor to meet its sustainable building promises is one major issue. Another is the collapse of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation HQ in Maryland. All of this sudden liability related activity in the sustainable building area of construction could lead to two possible outcomes.

The first of these outcomes is the doomsday scenario. To wit (yes I said that, I am an attorney after all), the wonderful momentum built up over the last few years will come to a screeching, and unfortunate halt. Despite my Eeyore like tendencies and related posts on the subject, this is the worst possible outcome. Sustainable building is a great idea, liability concerns aside. To stop now because of issues that have always existed, yet have just recently reared their ugly heads would be a mistake.

The second, and healthier (in many ways) outcome is a learning curve and the use of these solid examples to assure that these types of outcomes do not repeat. Smarter folks than I have been screaming from the rooftops that such outcomes could occur if not taken into consideration. The problem has always been that no concrete examples had been available until now.

With these concrete examples we can now examine and better plan for the range of outcomes in a manner that is not merely the speculation of green building attorneys and other advocates who can be written off as a group of chicken littles. My hope is that, far from derailing the entire enterprise, those of us who advocate green building will learn and plan in a manner that can make green building sustainable for the future in a relatively liability free manner.

Of course, in an uncertain world, no such assurance is possible, but we can sure try.

green building, construction law, liability

Powered by ScribeFire.

A couple of weeks ago a chap named Jim Wright wrote a post in his blog titled America: You Keep Using That Word. It went viral. In a followup Jim asked a very good question: So, what do you love about America? No, not as in the usual banal patriotic platitudes that flow so easily from our lips. What makes America a place you would die for? That was his question. And as Jim is a fellow veteran, I must assume he knows something about the question he’s asking, since like all vets, he chose to put it on the line, if needs be, when he swore his oath to flag and country.

I would imagine that for some, trying to discover something about America within themselves that would cause them to lay down their life for their country was difficult. For me, it was actually rather easy.

America loves a good fight. We love to argue and we’ll argue about almost anything. We’ll argue with the last call the ref made at our kid’s ball game. We’ll argue about where the neighborhood skate park should go, how big it should be, what it should look like. Hell, we’ll even argue over what color to paint it. We’ll argue over road repairs, sewer updates, the kinds of trees the city should plant along the roads; we’ll argue with cops and shop owners and our own government. And when we really get cracking, we’ll even throw the bums out – even if that bum happens to be our president. It wasn’t too long ago that some of these fights got physical. A little over a century ago there were actually duels fought right in the Senate Chamber! Duels amongst Senate or House members out on the grounds were not uncommon, and they were legal.

And yet, for all of that, we’re still a nation. I’ll never forget Congressman Tip O’Neil’s comment as President Nixon got on Marine One to leave the White House for the last time. We just impeached a president. The leader of the most powerful nation on earth. And yet there was no gun fire, no riots, and no military coupe. (I’m paraphrasing, I’m sorry. I don’t remember the quote.)

For all our love of a good fight, for all our differences great and small, in the end, somewhere deep down in side know we are one and the same thing: We’re Americans. And I don’t know that there has been another group of people quite like us, who will happily fight and argue amongst ourselves until we’re blue in the face, and yet still stick together like glue when things get tough, since classical Greece.

Yes, it’s true that almost all modern countries now give their citizens a right to politically express themselves. But here, we enshrined it our Constitution. We consider the right to express our opinion, individually and in groups, almost as sacred as life’s breath. And the gods be damned should anyone try to abridge that right! A case in point was the Supreme Court’s recent decision to uphold a church’s right to picket veteran’s funerals. What that little fundamentalist church was doing to those families was horrible. The nation was outraged by their behavior. But I don’t know anybody who couldn’t just shake their head at the Court’s dilemma. They knew the court had no choice. They didn’t like it, but they understood it.

We may not like what that other idiot says. In fact, we may just go punch him in the nose over it. But by god, we’ll fight you to the death if you try to take away his right to say it.

And that, my friends is worth fighting for. That rare gift is worth dying for. That’s what I love about this loud mouthed, scrappy, hard nosed, belligerent country we named the United States of America.

As green building increases in popularity, the importance of good and reliable certification programs also increases. Some would argue that they already exist. I partially agree. Despite the popularity of some programs, I see major flaws in the existing programs. Some flaws are the exact same ones that exist in the normal building inspection process. Others, while epidemic amongst green building certification programs, are less common in the non-profit sector as a whole.

The Fox Guards The Hen House

One major problem with green certification programs is that these non-profit corporations function exactly like for profit corporations. They lobby legislatures to pass laws forcing citizens to use their programs, programs that those citizens have to pay for either directly, as an added project cost, or indirectly as tax payers. (The latter meaning the legislature pays for the program, usually through a rebate program funded by tax dollars or bonds, a cost that still comes back to the citizens.) They charge building owners to pay to enter the program; they require inspectors to pay to go through their training program; and they often hold the purse strings to the property owner’s receipt of monetary benefits (cash rebates or lower interest rates or whatever) for building or renovating green. In some cases they’re empowered to hold the monetary hammer over the contractor’s head, preventing him or her from being paid a bonus until they’re satisfied. Each program is a veritable cash cow for the non-profit. Especially if they can get the program legitimized or mandated by some state legislature – or better yet, a federal agency.

Which brings us to the second problem: The fox guards the hen house. The same non-profit that develops the certification program is the one lobbying for it, providing training certification (a certification that must be regularly renewed, of course), and is responsible for quality control of its own program. It’s an internal system with no external checks and balances. Buyer beware!

A Suite of Solutions

Non-Profits Should Act Like Non-Profits: I spent nearly twenty years on the boards of directors of various non-profit corporations, usually in the capacity of an executive officer of some sort. Some of the non-profits were funded primarily by foundation grants, others by memberships through annual dues. Had we, as a board of directors, attempted to act like the green building certification non-profits and develop an income producing product, our funders would have probably had a fit. Yes, depending on the exact type of 501c3 being created it can be legally done. But in my twenty years of experience in the non-profit community, selling products and services like a for-profit was considered very bad form, at least, and down right rude, at worst.

Green building non-profits could do themselves a world of good by acting a lot more like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and a lot less like Goldman Sachs. Fund your programs the way everyone else does: Via grants and membership dues from the construction industry, not by charging every home owner who wants a certification and every contractor who wants training thousands of dollars. While it might be reasonable, and even good policy, to ask home owners and contractors to become members, those annual dues should be less than three digits. Don’t even talk about making them four digits.

Use Third Party Verifiers and Certifiers: Let’s get the fox out of the hen house, shall we? Program compliance inspectors should be completely independent of both the certifying non-profit and the architectural/engineering/construction (AEC) team. And it is they, not the program creator, that should determine whether or not a project complies with the terms of the certification program being sought – and at what level. Ideally the program inspector will have been brought in on the project early, and so on one level they are as much partner as an inspector. But that is, in my opinion, all to the good. Green certification verifiers are not building department inspectors. They serve a different purpose amongst a group of professionals who, in theory, are all trying to achieve the same goal for the customer.

Certifiers/Inspectors Should Be AEC Professionals: Building science is, well, a science. It takes training, education, and experience to master, and there’s always something new to learn. The notion that you can take some random green activist off the street, put them through a class on some green building certification program or other, and suddenly they’re a ‘building professional’ is rather disturbing. If you’re not a licensed architect, engineer, or contractor, you probably don’t a sufficient background in the building sciences to be an inspector/certifier. In fact, I’ll even go one step further: I think the day is coming when inspectors will have to be specialized, just like contractors and engineers, in order to stay up to date in their field.

Program Creators Should Be Prevented From Lobbying: I know. I’m dreaming, right? If we can’t keep the CEO of GE out of the Oval Office, how can we expect to keep BPI out of Congress? But I’ll continue to dream, if you don’t mind.

It’s A Matter of Trust

Contractors are, of a necessity, a distrustful bunch. They have their ways of doings things. Ways they’ve built up year after year. It may not be the right way – or maybe it is. But one thing is certain: It’s the way they’ve found that doesn’t fail a building department inspection or create call backs. So when it comes to asking a contractor, whose profit margins are already low, to change his ways, the one asking better have some ‘cred’. And you don’t have to wade through too many construction forums to discover that most current green building programs are, to put it mildly, disliked.

Non-profit used to be about public service, about charity, about improving society by solving problems that the for-profits can’t, or won’t solve. They weren’t about making money or market share. They were about getting in and helping folks help themselves. It’s that selfless public service component that gives the non-profit sector a lot of its credibility and makes it a powerful force for good in our society. The sooner green building non-profits get back to those basics by acting like they really care about the building industry and our society, rather than their pocketbook, the sooner they’ll be embraced by the industry they’re trying to change.

Yesterday Michael was “twitterviewed” by the good folks over at Integrity Window. What follows is the twitter transcript of the interview:

Welcome to #buildchat. This week, we're happy to have green builder Michael Matson (@TheGreenBuilder) join us. Hi Michael!

March 9, 2011 3:00 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@integritywindow

Integrity Windows

@integritywindow Greetin'z. Sounds like fun. #buildchat

March 9, 2011 3:03 pm via yoonoReplyRetweetFavorite

@TheGreenBuilder

Michael Matson

@TheGreenBuilder What’s the biggest misconception about green building? #buildchat

March 9, 2011 3:03 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@integritywindow

Integrity Windows

@integritywindow In my particular market: That old building methods R somehow "green" while newer building technologies are not. #buildchat

March 9, 2011 3:06 pm via yoonoReplyRetweetFavorite

@TheGreenBuilder

Michael Matson

@integritywindow I'm often asked to do "strawbale" or "cordwood" or "adobe". #buildchat

March 9, 2011 3:07 pm via yoonoReplyRetweetFavorite

@TheGreenBuilder

Michael Matson

@integritywindow While those methods may (or may not) be green -- depending on sourcing -- they're certainly not as durable. #buildchat

March 9, 2011 3:08 pm via yoonoReplyRetweetFavorite

@TheGreenBuilder

Michael Matson

@integritywindow The other mythoconception is that green = more expensive. It can, but that's not a universal truth. #buildchat

March 9, 2011 3:09 pm via yoonoReplyRetweetFavorite

@TheGreenBuilder

Michael Matson

@TheGreenBuilder You use the phrase “a healthier home.” What makes a home healthy? #buildchat

March 9, 2011 3:12 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@integritywindow

Integrity Windows

@integritywindow Lack of toxins in the environment. #buildchat

March 9, 2011 3:14 pm via yoonoReplyRetweetFavorite

@TheGreenBuilder

Michael Matson

@integritywindow Toxins can come from a variety of sources -- including the inhabitants. #buildchat

March 9, 2011 3:15 pm via yoonoReplyRetweetFavorite

@TheGreenBuilder

Michael Matson

@integritywindow In building 2 of the most common sources of toxins are paint and flooring. But that's hardly an exclusive list. #buildchat

March 9, 2011 3:16 pm via yoonoReplyRetweetFavorite

@TheGreenBuilder

Michael Matson

@integritywindow But pollen & dust mites and other things can also b present in the home. Air flow is critical to a healthy home. #buildchat

March 9, 2011 3:19 pm via yoonoReplyRetweetFavorite

@TheGreenBuilder

Michael Matson

@TheGreenBuilder Which climates provide the best opportunity for green building? And the worst? #buildchat

March 9, 2011 3:19 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@integritywindow

Integrity Windows

@integritywindow Right now the home building market definitely seems short of opportunities - in my market anyway. #buildchat

March 9, 2011 3:21 pm via yoonoReplyRetweetFavorite

@TheGreenBuilder

Michael Matson

@integritywindow Some kinds of commercial building seem to be shaping up, and some of those projects are green. #buildchat

March 9, 2011 3:21 pm via yoonoReplyRetweetFavorite

@TheGreenBuilder

Michael Matson

@integritywindow I kind of touch on that in this article: http://bit.ly/gYgTuT #buildchat

March 9, 2011 3:23 pm via yoonoReplyRetweetFavorite

@TheGreenBuilder

Michael Matson

@TheGreenBuilder With spec homes so scarce, how and when should builders experiment with green building? #buildchat

March 9, 2011 3:25 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@integritywindow

Integrity Windows

@integritywindow That's a tough one in any environment, thanks to our lovely tort system. #buildchat

March 9, 2011 3:27 pm via yoonoReplyRetweetFavorite

@TheGreenBuilder

Michael Matson

@integritywindow My preference has always been to experiment with the customer's permission. #buildchat

March 9, 2011 3:29 pm via yoonoReplyRetweetFavorite

@TheGreenBuilder

Michael Matson

@integritywindow Something they're interested in pushing the envelope on, knowing they're out there, #buildchat

March 9, 2011 3:29 pm via yoonoReplyRetweetFavorite

@TheGreenBuilder

Michael Matson

@integritywindow Pushing the technological envelope #buildchat

March 9, 2011 3:30 pm via yoonoReplyRetweetFavorite

@TheGreenBuilder

Michael Matson

@TheGreenBuilder What drives decision-making for your clientele: Cost or conscience? #buildchat

March 9, 2011 3:33 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@integritywindow

Integrity Windows

@integritywindow In a word: Yes. :) #buildchat

March 9, 2011 3:36 pm via yoonoReplyRetweetFavorite

@TheGreenBuilder

Michael Matson

@integritywindow I haven't had a client yet where vision and cost didn't collide at some point in the process. #buildchat

March 9, 2011 3:36 pm via yoonoReplyRetweetFavorite

@TheGreenBuilder

Michael Matson

@integritywindow Sometimes easily, sometimes grudgingly. #buildchat

March 9, 2011 3:37 pm via yoonoReplyRetweetFavorite

@TheGreenBuilder

Michael Matson

@integritywindow Now more than ever folks in my market R pinching pennies. Green has 2 equal savings 4 it even to be considered. #buildchat

March 9, 2011 3:38 pm via yoonoReplyRetweetFavorite

@TheGreenBuilder

Michael Matson

@TheGreenBuilder Look into your crystal ball: Where is green building in 2021? #buildchat

March 9, 2011 3:41 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@integritywindow

Integrity Windows

@integritywindow Dude! I'll be retired. :) #buildchat

March 9, 2011 3:43 pm via yoonoReplyRetweetFavorite

@TheGreenBuilder

Michael Matson

@integritywindow Seriously tho. It'll be the building standard for all buildings that contain conditioned space I should imagine. #buildchat

March 9, 2011 3:43 pm via yoonoReplyRetweetFavorite

@TheGreenBuilder

Michael Matson

@integritywindow And it will affect those that don't have conditioned space (garages, etc.) to the extent that toxic chemicals, #buildchat

March 9, 2011 3:44 pm via yoonoReplyRetweetFavorite

@TheGreenBuilder

Michael Matson

@integritywindow are, even now, being removed from building materials. #buildchat

March 9, 2011 3:44 pm via yoonoReplyRetweetFavorite

@TheGreenBuilder

Michael Matson

That's it for this #buildchat. Thank you @TheGreenBuilder for taking the time.

March 9, 2011 3:48 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@integritywindow

Integrity Windows

@integritywindow You're welcome. #buildchat

March 9, 2011 3:48 pm via yoonoReplyRetweetFavorite

@TheGreenBuilder

Michael Matson

Okay, I couldn’t read this article in the LA Times without commenting on it. It’s a story book case of what happens when enthusiasm backed by no more than an academic understanding of the building sciences is turned loose on a complex project. This quote from the article says it all:

He overestimated how much power the colleges could generate. He underestimated the cost. And he poured millions of dollars into designs for projects that proved so impractical or unpopular they were never built.

Long time readers of this blog probably know my mantra well: All the college degrees in the world don’t replace experience and bucket loads of common sense. Unfortunately we live in a time where certificates are often considered more important than achievement,  rather than as a foundation for it. I know of one young person who now runs her own sustainable consulting business – right out of college! She has no real world experience working in her field under the supervision of a seasoned veteran. Someone who knows what really works, and what is just, like the case cited above, a utopian pipe dream. And from what I’ve seen of her advice – which her clients pay for, remember – it shows more similarity to the later than the former.

The LEED AP program seems to be another prime example of education trumping real world experience. I can’t think of not one builder who is a LEED AP. I know lots of lawyers, activists, and consultants who have the certificate. I know of exactly one engineer who has the certificate. But I know of not one person whose profession it is to actually construct a building that has bothered to get the certificate. (Okay, I take that back, I know of one “recovering” builder who is a LEED AP.) Is it any wonder then, that LEED found itself the target of a class-action suit?

By contrast, look at what happens when folks with real world experience are both educated and consulted. HERS, RESNET, and Minnesota GreenStar are good (but hardly exhaustive) examples. The latter was cofounded by a builder and has some of the strictest green building standards in the country. But it’s a standard that is entirely achievable because it was designed by people who – surprise! – actually build buildings for a living.

Had Larry Eisenberg implemented “his vision” by hiring professionals to work through the design and regulatory process right from the beginning, the Los Angeles Community College District might have saved $10 million in energy costs, rather than blowing it on an impossible dream.

green, energy, building, consulting

Powered by ScribeFire.

From where I sit, it sometimes seems like little is happening. There are always so many excuses to not do things greener; to take the environment into account as we charge forward into the next project. It’s not just companies, it’s people too. Maybe it’s mostly people. Green repairs or renovations are often seen as expensive, troublesome, time consuming. (At least, that’s what I hear from a lot of customers and prospects.) Sometimes those preconceptions can be changed; often they’re etched in stone.

But there is hope. Slowly things are changing. I recently ran across a list of signs of change. Some of them are small, others a bit more agressive.

• In five years all new homes built in the UK will have to be net zero, according to this CNN article. 
• According to their PR website, Chevron’s new office complex in Lousianna is to be a LEED Gold certified building.
• The LA Times reports that a slew of new environmental laws are slated to hit the books in California this year, many of them promoted and operated by the very industries that will be regulated.
• Proctor & Gamble is now committed to “pursu[ing] LEED certification for all new sites,” according to Sustainable Business.com.
• According to Construction Law Signal, the State of Maryland has awarded $11.1 million for sustainable building on 10 different projects (so far).
• Annarbor.com reports that Mike Mahon, over at Adaptive Building Solutions in Ann Arbor Michigan, has taken his expertise in sustainable building to Haiti.
• Florida Green Building just reported that it certified 74 homes in the first 45 days of 2011!

The Parthenon, circa 2008 Image under the Creative Commons license

You’ve probably been involved in the discussions – or heard about them: Buildings should be built to last thousands of years (or some similar very long period of time). It conjures up images of the Parthenon, or the Roman arenas, one of which is still used to host events today.

The concept here is that, since all building is in some sense or other not green, that the not-greenness can be offset by constructing buildings that last for a very, very long time. If portland cement is on its own a not green product, its longevity might make it not only green, but a preferred product to other less not green building materials with a shorter life span. In fact, in a guest post on his Construction Law Blog, Christopher Hill’s guest writer Kelly McGinnis, from the Portland Cement Association, opens with that very point:

Because of environmental concerns, some dismiss cement products as sustainable building materials. These naysayers, however, are missing the ability of concrete building systems to actually negate the initial impact of cement manufacturing through concrete’s incredible durability and the long-term energy efficiency it provides.

Verona Arena Images under the Creative Commons license

It’s a valid point. And so is the concept of building longevity. Compare the construction quality of ‘tract home with that of a home built even a hundred years ago. Here in Northern California we have hundreds of homes that have gone through floods, hurricanes (though they don’t call hurricane force wind that here), and 7.0+ earthquakes. Most manage with, at worst, minor damage. And it was all somehow managed without permits, building codes, and inspectors. Most “tract-shacks”, by comparison, will be lucky to even be standing in fifty years. The materials they are built with are the cheapest the bid winning contractor could find; speed of construction is valued over quality (it has to be in order to win the contract), therefore every corner that can be cut usually is.

But it’s possible to carry any good idea too far. Just how usable is a Roman arena for today’s sports? Can you even imagine a professional sports team trying to host a game in the arena above? Oh, with the modifications that have already been made the game itself could probably be played there. But how would you support the technology modern sports events require, the vending, the platoons of reporters and broadcasters and their equipment? Even a major retrofit likely couldn’t do it; or if it could, it would cost more than simply building a new stadium and would destroy everything historical about the old building.

Cowboy Stadium Image under the Creative Commons license

Consider this: Cowboy’s Stadium, a marvel of modern building science, replaced Texas Stadium, which was completed only 40 years ago, in 1971. But the economic and technological requirements of a modern stadium venue are so different today than they were forty years ago that even the people of Arlington agreed that a new stadium made sense. Fiber optic conduit the size of steam lines run through the building. The stadium is designed to be modular so that not only can the Cowboys play there, but the venue can also host basketball games, speaking events, and concerts with equal facility. Seating capacity can be varied from 80,000 to a maximum of 110,000 for events like the Super Bowl. Given these necessary changes for such a building to be economically viable, what a waste it would have been for Texas Stadium to have been built to have a serviceable life span of even a hundred years, never mind a thousand.

Even homes are subject to technological obsolescence, and updating their technology can be quite expensive. Forty years ago the idea of double paned “storm windows” was a new and novel idea. Blown in insulation meant something like “popcorn” insulation. Energy saving meant turning the thermostat down to 68 degrees from the normal 70, or up to 74, for the air conditioner. The PC was a novelty, home networking of PCs, the Internet, and home theater systems were still the stuff of science fiction. Microwaves were still a novelty, weighed ten thousand pounds (yes, I’m deliberately exaggerating), and dimmed the lights when you turned them on. Smashing a vent hood and a microwave together to put over the stove would have been a technological nightmare and required the strength of Atlas to install.

So while it only makes sense to maximize a building’s useful life span, at the rate technology is changing, building the modern equivalent of the Parthenon or Verona Arena really doesn’t make a great deal of sense. Rather, we should be asking how long we expect a building to be capable of providing useful service, and then choosing our construction techniques and materials on that basis. Doing so not only allows us to get to the same place on the sustainability scale, but perhaps a little further down that road. Because by picking materials that fit the expected useful service life, we won’t be over building or choosing materials that require a much longer period of time to “pay back” their environmental cost.

Those are my thoughts, what are yours?

building, science, technology, life cycle costing

Powered by ScribeFire.