Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"Green" design, what do you think

Posted on 05/05/2002 7:32:07 PM PDT by Andrewksu

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-69 next last

1 posted on 05/05/2002 7:32:07 PM PDT by Andrewksu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Andrewksu
Green design means incorporating uneconomic features into your design so that the inhabitants feel good about themselves, even though they are actually proving themselves to be morons.
2 posted on 05/05/2002 7:37:06 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andrewksu
Andrew, What do you mean by "eco-freakishness?" So far as I am aware, green design means taking into consideration the environmental consequences of a project, both long and short term. Makes a lot of sense to me, both environmentally AND economically.
3 posted on 05/05/2002 7:41:56 PM PDT by eagleye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andrewksu
It means equating humanity with the primordial ooze.
4 posted on 05/05/2002 7:42:04 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andrewksu
I have built some buildings using the type of systems you are refering to probably when you say "green design". They can have some intersting features, most of which impact first cost considerably and rarely have the features been pay-out sensible when life cycle costed.

But new systems never become feasible if some don't spend money on giving them a try to begin with.

5 posted on 05/05/2002 7:44:28 PM PDT by KC Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke
Do you work in KC? I am at Kansas State.
6 posted on 05/05/2002 7:46:06 PM PDT by Andrewksu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Andrewksu
When practical and economical I think it is a good idea. Otherwise I think it is more emotional hysteria on the environment...
7 posted on 05/05/2002 7:46:14 PM PDT by ItisaReligionofPeace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andrewksu
You are aware of the Green Building Council Site and the Leeds systems etc?
8 posted on 05/05/2002 7:48:26 PM PDT by KC Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andrewksu
I work all over the region and live in KC
9 posted on 05/05/2002 7:49:19 PM PDT by KC Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Andrewksu
If it means packing the middle and lower classes into Soviet-style dormitories in "transit villages" while the government workers and other elites enjoy the "open spaces", it is doomed to failure.
10 posted on 05/05/2002 7:53:02 PM PDT by BigBobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke
Yes, I am considering taking the LEED cerification test in the near future. Check private reply, and I would like to get more information from you on client reactions and ways to sell sustainable arch.
11 posted on 05/05/2002 7:53:59 PM PDT by Andrewksu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Andrewksu
If a "green" approach is based on common sense, then fine. I doubt that there are any people who are all-out toxic freaks, as the Democrats would have everyone believe. Everyone has a stake in conserving our resources and looking for new ones. I heard just last week that recycling isn't going well and that they are even considering stopping it for a couple of years. It's too expensive and there aren't enough customers who are buying the recycled materials for manufacturing purposes. I wish we had a solar-powered home (or even a wind-mill although the home association would probably object mightily--not even allowed to have a clothesline in the back yard) and a hybrid car, but I certainly can't afford the initial cost.
12 posted on 05/05/2002 7:55:39 PM PDT by skr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andrewksu
I've done some work with William McDonough some years ago.
13 posted on 05/05/2002 7:56:34 PM PDT by KC Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Andrewksu
Nothing wrong with stewardship--that's the ethos I grew up in. And there's nothing wrong with innovation either.

These were considered virtues in the past. The Green Revolution changed this; an ethic has become an ideology, force fed to us.

14 posted on 05/05/2002 8:00:06 PM PDT by tsomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andrewksu
BTTT
15 posted on 05/05/2002 8:00:28 PM PDT by Andrewksu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Andrewksu
I've always liked some of Christopher Alexander's writings. (A Pattern Language and The Timeless way of Building are his two best works.) He has a deep respect for traditional architecture that is the product of centuries, if not millenia, of human experience. In this, he might be considered to be somewhat analogous to Edmund Burke's political and social philosophy.

There is something to be said for building houses the same way that half-milennia-old-and-still-standing houses were built, both from a standpoint of plain old common sense (an important conservative value, by no means to be underestimated) and from the standpoint of this actually being an efficient -- and thus conserving -- use of resources. There is still room for progress, of course, but only for progress that is real and can prove itself to be genuinely "better", and not just "new" and "different".

Where Alexander tends to go wrong is that he seems to be too receptive to heavy handed central government land use regulation to implement his program, and this, of course, goes contrary to conservative ideals of minimum government and property rights. However, one can just ignore this aspect of his thinking, and be left with lots of good ideas that can certainly be implemented on a voluntary, free-market basis.

16 posted on 05/05/2002 8:03:44 PM PDT by Stefan Stackhouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andrewksu
Principles of Architectural firms tell me their greatest concern is that they get few new graduates that are trained in the craft of architecture. The schools concentrate too much on theory, fringe trends and design flights of fancy. Many of the people they hire can't write a simple specification to CSI standards, can't run CAD and check their dimension strings, can't detail in the real world and instead, come out of school wanting to step right into the exotic end of the business. Therefore they can't be valuable staff in a productive business and help earn money.

By the time the new grad is really ready to be a project job captain, trends have changed, or OJT trained staff have left the supposedly brilliant grads in the dust.

That being said, Sustainable Materials and systems, sesitivity to envirmentally sensible products and the use of trends like Earth Coupled Mechanical Systems and Electrical Demand Off-Peak are very interesting techniques.

Many major companies have built projects examining the feasibility of these systems, even at major cost to themselves. Sometimes it is done for political correctness, sometimes for more sensible reasons.

17 posted on 05/05/2002 8:14:33 PM PDT by KC Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Andrewksu
'Green Design' SHOULD mean, basically, Be as self-sufficient as possible, and Clean Up Your Own Mess (or preferably don't make a mess to begin with).

However, under current circumstances, it unfortunately means: enormous government intervention by the Behemoth Bureaucratic Despotism (BBD), and assorted sundry NGOs, therefore rendering life, production, business, and basic survival impossible.

I truly am an 'environmentalist' in the rational sense. But under the current regime of tyranny and junk-science, I am adamantly opposed to what now passes for 'environmentalism'.

Also, Self-Sufficiency is now, to a large degree, being zoned and regulated out of the realm of possibility.

18 posted on 05/05/2002 8:17:03 PM PDT by XLurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andrewksu
I can accept "Green Design", if you mean building fixtures and features that can save energy, like gold tint windows, limited solar, and so forth. Or anything that can conserve water. No silly fountains, if they don't recover 95%+ of the water. I also admire architecture that can blend in with a setting...like a southwestern theme in Sedona, AZ. But setting some sort of limitations on a building that does nothing for the place, or the costs of operating the building, are a waste, IMHO.
19 posted on 05/05/2002 8:21:21 PM PDT by SR71A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke
I just read a couple of blurbs of McDonough's book, and plan on reading a little more.

For sustainable, or "green" design to be successful, it must APEAL to the mass market by way of cost efficency, asthetics, overall qualtiy and comfort, and finally ecological concerns. "Forcefeeding" the idea on people and buisnesses will only hurt the progress of responsible design. Many active solutions for sustainable design are on the verge of being cost effective, such as solar technologies. There are many aspects of sustainable design that are just good design, but have been ignored for various reasons.

A major problem I see is the permanance of things in out life. So many things are designed and purchased that are only temporary solutions and are a fix. For instance, power tools, they are cheaply made and last only a few years and then have to be thrown away and a new one purchased, but this wasn't always so. Here in our woodshop at KSU, we have tools dating back 60+ years, and they work beautifully.

This is also a problem in architecture, people and businsess want something right now, and for next to nothing. They really don't consider the lifespan of the building and the costs that come with it. A well designed building will be cheaper/easier to run will last longer and therfor be less expensive.

Sustainable design in many ways is just going back to principals that have been ignored recently because of our wealth and attitudes that come with that. One thing that has come with that is the decline of valuue of architectural services. I think that most people would be suprised with the average salary for recent architecture grads, here at KSU which is ranked fairly high, is about $28,000. This reflects the cheapest bidder competition that is going on in the field, which has led to the decline of quality in design. Now buisness expect a complex building for next to nothing, and it is hard to inject real quality of design and materials when you are fighting for every penny. Most buisnesses consider real estate in vary short terms, which I believe is a cost inefficent practice.

20 posted on 05/05/2002 8:32:07 PM PDT by Andrewksu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Andrewksu
In my opinion "Compressed Earth Blocks" with engineered soil with the right amount clay/sand/silt/cement and or lime is the way to go...read "Home Power" learn to shoot and plant a "victory garden"
21 posted on 05/05/2002 8:36:53 PM PDT by alphadog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke
I have to agree with you, as a soon to be graduate of the Interior Architecture program, I feel that I am not fully prepaired for the real world. It is much worse in the Architeture program where theory is king, and no project has a base in reality. Most of the projects I have done have real world clients to answer to, and have to be practical in many senses. We also deal with product and furniture design, where marketabilty and produceable design is the main goal.
22 posted on 05/05/2002 8:39:52 PM PDT by Andrewksu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Andrewksu
There are the "environmentalists" and then there are the "conservationists". I am in the latter category. Greens tend to be environmentalists - people are the lowest form of life, in their opinion. People shouldn't have the right to any of the land or natural resources.
But conservationists want to share the planet. High density housing is fine, when it allows large tracts of green space. Energy efficient houses - large windows to get light and heat at the right times, but trees to provide cooling and shade - are conservationist.
An example of what I mean would be a 20 acre tract that would allow 20 homes to be built in close proximity on 5 acres, leaving 15 acres of green space, as opposed to making each home site be an acre. Of course, the 15 acres should be native vegetation, not cultivated lawn.
And, of course, conservationists usually prefer dense cities and open country to sprawling suburbs. So do Greens, but they want to stop the suburbs, and Conservationists just want to plan them.
23 posted on 05/05/2002 8:40:41 PM PDT by speekinout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke
Sustainable Materials, Earth Coupled Mechanical System...

See, I have this theory that without language, thought is not possible. And when we garbage-up the language, we garbage-up our thought processes. That is what destroyed our legal system and our education system. Looks to me that architecture is at risk.

24 posted on 05/05/2002 8:42:08 PM PDT by edger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Andrewksu
Please excuse my spelling and composition, as I am working on three things at once and have had very little sleep (the life of an architecture student).
25 posted on 05/05/2002 8:43:55 PM PDT by Andrewksu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: edger
It is dead! The architecture crits are great abuses of the Eenglish language and thought.
26 posted on 05/05/2002 8:46:21 PM PDT by Andrewksu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Andrewksu
Glad you're getting such informed replies.
But for extra credit, find an opening to tell your professor that if a design is too "Green", the client can end up "Baroque".
27 posted on 05/05/2002 8:52:34 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
That is exactly what I am trying to solve, cost efficent sustainable design. That is the only way it will suceed. I also think that long term costs be considered, as quality cost more, but can pay out over time.
28 posted on 05/05/2002 8:57:09 PM PDT by Andrewksu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
Yeah, great replies. Thanks for the input FReepers.
29 posted on 05/05/2002 8:58:23 PM PDT by Andrewksu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Andrewksu
Green design is not science. its chicanery. Engineers examine choices between competing designs using a cost-benefit analysis. I have yet to hear of a green design that passes a cost-benefit analysis as the least costly alternative. The irrational decision to select a more expensive alternative is a reflection of too much government intervention. The environmental engineering business is the worst abuser of raping the taxpayer. The environmental engineers doing public work command fees about 30 to 50 percent more than other civil engineering disciplines. Why? Because the government redistributes your money into wasteful projects.
30 posted on 05/05/2002 9:07:34 PM PDT by LoneRangerMassachusetts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andrewksu
Green design...... I don't think you can have one without the other, from where I sit, green design is all about environment.
31 posted on 05/05/2002 9:08:04 PM PDT by Great Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skr
Eco-buildings seem to be in the same vein as eco-vehicles. If a design is created, that is cheap and makes us less dependent on Big Business and Big Brother, it disappears into a deep void. If it makes the ecologists and the Powers more money and more powerful, it will be forced upon all of us.
32 posted on 05/05/2002 9:08:10 PM PDT by wizr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts
How do you propose to change this, and what role should Uncle Sam have.
33 posted on 05/05/2002 9:33:09 PM PDT by Andrewksu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Andrewksu
I'm no big fan of those buildings out in CA that have a regular roof, but covered in tallgrass. It's supposed to keep things cool, but I've heard stories about them leaking, or turning the roof into a wildfire when struck by lightning. Ugly too.
34 posted on 05/05/2002 9:35:47 PM PDT by July 4th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andrewksu
How do you propose to change this, and what role should Uncle Sam have.

I thought you were looking for views on what we thought about green design. Well, you have mine. Now you want me to solve it? That's for the next generation. I'm old enough to show you the problem. You're young enough to bang your head against the wall for a few years fixing it.

And what role should the govermnent play? I drink bottled spring water packaged by private industry because government water is only fit to bath in and water my lawn. Ya got it?

35 posted on 05/05/2002 9:47:06 PM PDT by LoneRangerMassachusetts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: July 4th
Not only does it help keep the bulding cool, but it reduce rainwater runoff, and with that, the amount of water that the city has to carry away. this reduces the chance of flooding and reduces load on municipal waste water systems, and therefore CAN reduce tax load. It also helps with the "heat island" effect of large cities, where temp. can increase 10+ degrees in the city.
36 posted on 05/05/2002 9:47:31 PM PDT by Andrewksu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts
I guess I should put it another way, could you be convinced to build a house or building with sustainable features, and what would it take to convince you.
37 posted on 05/05/2002 9:50:54 PM PDT by Andrewksu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
Glad you're getting such informed replies.
But for extra credit, find an opening to tell your professor that if a design is too "Green", the client can end up "Baroque".

*ROTF*

And I am glad, too, that he has found some good "Tudors" on this thread....

38 posted on 05/05/2002 10:01:49 PM PDT by LurkerNoMore!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts
General question for all interested

Would you be willing to pay more initailly, if you were shown that you would retrive the cost over time through reduced utility bills and maintenance costs?
Or are you decisions driven by the initial contruction costs?
What do you feel about tax incentives for using techniques and technologies that reduce your energy consumtion and environmental impact?

39 posted on 05/05/2002 10:03:54 PM PDT by Andrewksu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Andrewksu
"what would it take to convince you?"

Money ..... Cost. Time to build the "new features. Payback. Return on investment for what you pay for the property vs what you can charge for rent. Energy savings vs. cost of building the new features. Looks and access (useability!) vs "architectural touchy-feely feel-good" attitude.

Liability of the "new" features:" You want to be responsible in 5 years, 10 years, and 15 years and 20 years when those lead-acid batteries need to be disposed of .... after not savings ANY money for the past twenty? You going to pay insurance for a potential hydrogen-gas-sufuric acid bomb is sitting in the basement?

Gee.

Those are the ONLY questions my clients ask me about.

40 posted on 05/05/2002 10:07:43 PM PDT by Robert A. Cook, PE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Andrewksu
bttt
41 posted on 05/05/2002 10:22:52 PM PDT by Andrewksu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Andrewksu
This is also a problem in architecture, people and businsess want something right now, and for next to nothing. They really don't consider the lifespan of the building and the costs that come with it. A well designed building will be cheaper/easier to run will last longer and therfor be less expensive.

It's the same old story, isn't it? What's the bottom line for the next quarter, or the fiscal year? That's the picture in the entire business sector, real estate being just one part of it.

You have to put yourself in the "Guccis" of a developer. He gets a prime piece of real estate, in the latest "boom" section of town, so he wants an "out of the box" building design, he doesn't want to wait 6 months for a full blown architectural design. He wants a ground floor with retail space, a fairly snazzy lobby, and X floors of office space, with Y elevators, etc.,etc.

McBuildings, but what can you do? He has to get Return on Investment as fast as possible.

The only exception I can think of to this is design for Government buildings. There you can cost overrun to your heart's content, and the taxpayer's anguish. Send your resumes to companies that specialize in that, if you can find them.

42 posted on 05/05/2002 10:27:38 PM PDT by SR71A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: edger
See, I have this theory that without language, thought is not possible.

I have a complimentary theory: Without a chicken there wouldn't be an egg and without an egg there wouldn't be a chicken. See how much progress we have made? Now to your theory: Words are symbols for thought. With no thought, no words. However, I think that the existence of Helen Keller and others with similar problems, easily proves that thought exists without words. I advise you to go back to the drawing board.

43 posted on 05/05/2002 10:41:52 PM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SR71A
Umm, no thanks, no gubment job for me. I want to be able to show, to those who will listen, that sustainable (good) design is economically efficent, but time has to be taken into account.
This is a major problem, as most want that quick buck, or want that cheap big beautiful house, but it should be seen more as an investment where you actually make uout better, if you are willing to wait.
44 posted on 05/05/2002 10:42:07 PM PDT by Andrewksu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Andrewksu
Green? Not sure what You mean there.
If You mean Politically Correct, I'm generally not for it.

If You mean built to last, simple and inexpensive to maintain, then You've got my vote.

Here's a few things I consider important.
1. Site selection.
I see too many housing developments being built on "bad ground", prone to flooding, or ground displacement due to soft or landfilled ground, also resulting in settling of the foundations, etc.
Trees for shade, proper grade for runoff, proper groundcover to eliminate erosion.

2. No design for the climate.
Someone else mentioned proper shading for the sun. Solar heating can reduce costs in winter, but proper overhang of the roof / eaves, can also reduce cooling costs in summer.
Designing roofs/eaves for latitude allows sunlight to enter homes in the winter but not in summer.
Proper walls can conserve energy.
Since moving to the Kansas City area some 30 years ago, I have seen numerous homes with NO Insulation!
How the (heck) do You save on energy costs when the house isn't insulated?

3. Energy Management
Homes do not utilize energy efficiently.
Aside from Major Utilities like Kitchen stoves, air conditioning, furnaces, most appliances and electric/electronic items run on 110v./120v power, and most are available in 6v.,9v.,12v. versions.
Many, if not most, electronic devices are transistorized today, and actually use step down transformers that provide the low voltages required to run these devices.
The simple step of removing electrical power losses due to transformers could result in 5% or 10% reduction in community energy consumption in this country.
Likewise, incorporation of solar energy for general low power consumption items, like outdoor night lighting would save millions every year.
Ever since the Arab Oil embargo, the means to use alternative energy, incorporated into homes and offices has been available.
Granted, it would not replace oil, but sustained research and development since the Carter administration could very well have put a dent in our nation's energy bills.
Of course, personal energy independence is anathema to the Energy and Power industries, thus legislation promoting alternative energy use is killed in congress on a regular basis.

I spent some time in Germany while in the army.
I was singularly impressed with many of the old homes there, some of which were more than 800 years old.
I was also impressed with the new homes being built.
Solidly framed, built to last, every window containing solid, insulated shutters, warm in winter and cool in summer.
Europe pays a lot more per BTU than Americans do. They have learned to conserve quite a bit over there.

Enough said, I hope my "opinion" is worth something.
If nothing else, it gave me a chance to rave a bit.

45 posted on 05/05/2002 10:48:22 PM PDT by Drammach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Drammach
I'd have to agree with you. i have lived in one of those non-inssulated homes near KC, not fun, and very expensive. I have also spent some time in Germany as an Army brat, and have seen the benifits of PERMANENT architecture.
Thanks
46 posted on 05/05/2002 11:13:45 PM PDT by Andrewksu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SR71A
here's a link to state and fed incentives for use of sustainable designs/tech. A good way to start to make this afforable
DSIRE (Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy)
47 posted on 05/05/2002 11:24:23 PM PDT by Andrewksu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Drammach
The simple step of removing electrical power losses due to transformers could result in 5% or 10% reduction in community energy consumption in this country.

Transformers are not wonderfully efficient, but ohmic losses at low voltage can be devastating. If a device only requires a quarter watt, ohmic losses at 12 volts wouldn't be much of a problem, but even a 50% efficient transformer wouldn't waste much energy. Products that require real power, however, are another story.

Consider a product which requires 112 watts, is located 100 feet from the power supply, and is connected to a 12-volt supply with #6AWG cable (that's like booster-cable wire!). Such cable has a resistance of about 0.0004 ohms/foot, so the total resistance would be 0.08 ohms. With 10 amps flowing through it (as would be the case with a 112-watt load) the wire drops 0.8 volts. Despite the large cable, over 8 watts gets wasted in the wire!

Now consider a 119.75-watt device powered 100 feet away from a 120-volt source. Such a device may be powered with over 98% efficiency using 18-gauge wire (0.0063 ohms/foot, or 1.25 ohms total). The wire would drop 1.25 volts, wasting only 1.25 watts.

As a couple of additional points of comparision, using #6 cable would result in less than 100mW of loss; if 5% loss were acceptable, 24-gauge wire would suffice.

48 posted on 05/05/2002 11:52:41 PM PDT by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Andrewksu
Do you understand cost-benefit analysis. It's an economic study technique where you add up all the ecomnomic costs and weigh them against the sum of all the benefits. The challange is to assign a dollar value to all the factors under study. You need to include interest, cash flow, and inflation factors to make a credible analysis.

If you can show that your green design will return savings then you have a good economic argument. If it shows you that it is not the least expensive system, the you are wasting scarce resources. It is foolish to waste scarce planetary resources in the name of a fashionable fad such as sustainable design.

I don't know many designers who know how to perform a cost-benefit analysis.

49 posted on 05/06/2002 5:14:19 AM PDT by LoneRangerMassachusetts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts
Yes, I have seen a study that was done by BNIM. It detailed the cost analysis for various LEED ratings for a selected building. It was interesting to see the costs and benifits in the different categories. It covered about five different categories from a "standard" design to a very comprehensive, self sustainable building. The options in the middle were the most practical in all terms.
50 posted on 05/06/2002 5:38:40 AM PDT by Andrewksu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-69 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson