• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

cost of building green - perception vs. reality

Mark - I don't believe you were getting 0.35 air changes per hour leaking (air infiltration) through the homes constructed with the old codes. If the new homes need to be aired out (I agree, they do!), then the older homes did also, if they used similar products inside.

Again the unanswered question is: Even once the chemicals have leached out, how is a tight home beneficial if 15 cfm of outside air per occupant is being introduced into the home (and subsequently, 15 cfm of conditioned air is being purged out of the home as a result).
 
I have no clue. If the building occupants are still getting sick then the ventilation is not sufficent.
 
packsaddle said:
In case you have been living under a rock since Obama was elected, the current administration has clearly stated the real ambition of green technologies: SOCIAL JUSTICE AND REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH.This whole hippie movement has nothing to do with energy efficiency or sustainability....these are just code words for REPARATIONS.

Deny or ignore it at your own peril.
Click to expand...
100% correct.
 
mark handler said:
I have no clue. If the building occupants are still getting sick then the ventilation is not sufficent.
Click to expand...
The ventilation is not sufficient because it is not being supplied. When " a window capable of opening" is counted toward ventilation requirements, then we need to install occupants that know when the window needs to be opened. Ridiculous.
 
One of the biggest problems with requiring tight construction is lack of training the home owner on how to live in the house. There were many home owners who disconnected the whole house fans [which were designed to exhaust and intake fresh air for the required ACH of .35] and then complained about stale air or mold. In the days of the Northwest Energy Code, the best solution was installing 'FreshAire 80s' which were dampers that were almost owner-proof. I say almost, because sometimes they were actually painted shut. Houses do have to breathe, and in tight construction, that should be a part of the plan, not left up to homeowners who don't understand the mechanics. Education of the masses is the only hope. Unfortunately, the masses are not listening. :)
 
Drumming up trouble Dick?

conarb - 07-08-2010 I think a comment from you would be valuable since you are an architect in the green building thread, I'm sure "Mark" is the old "Maniac" from the old bulletin board, and he's an architect. Dick
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The ventilation is not sufficient because it is not being supplied. When " a window capable of opening" is counted toward ventilation requirements, then we need to install occupants that know when the window needs to be opened. Ridiculous.
Click to expand...
One of the biggest problems with requiring tight construction is lack of training the home owner on how to live in the house.
Click to expand...
One of the early draft versions of ASHRAE 62.2 actually required occupants to open the bedroom windows. I guess they couldn't find enough bedroom police to enforce this so they dropped the requirement from the final draft.
 
So because people don't open their windows, green codes are bad. That is the logic of some "self proclained Experts".
 
conarb said:
That will get rid of PEX and OSB. And not just reducing the toxic chemicals, get rid of them.
Click to expand...
And Vinyl windows, their production causes pollution, and their use causes Sick Building Syndrome, then we need to go after all the people that install them….
 
\ said:
And Vinyl windows, their production causes pollution, and their use causes Sick Building Syndrome, then we need to go after all the people that install them….
Click to expand...
I agree, but first give us wood windows that are U-0.18 like we can get from Canada and Germany in PVC, fiberglass won't make the toxic cut in manufacturing, aluminum and steel won't make the U-0.18 cut. In fact let's ban all PVC in homes, siding, wiring, and plumbing like Greenpeace is doing in Europe.

Let's train and arm building inspectors with formaldehyde and mold testing equipment to clear homes before issuing final inspections, and none of this 14-day air-flushing period, these toxics are embedded to come out later. In fact eliminate the 14-day air-flushing period altogether, just let inspectors clear the buildings before any fans are turned on.
 
conarb said:
I agree, but first give us wood windows that are U-0.18 like we can get from Canada and Germany in PVC, fiberglass won't make the toxic cut in manufacturing, aluminum and steel won't make the U-0.18 cut. In fact let's ban all PVC in homes, siding, wiring, and plumbing like Greenpeace is doing in Europe. Let's train and arm building inspectors with formaldehyde and mold testing equipment to clear homes before issuing final inspections, and none of this 14-day air-flushing period, these toxics are embedded to come out later. In fact eliminate the 14-day air-flushing period altogether, just let inspectors clear the buildings before any fans are turned on.
Click to expand...
Finally we agree
 
Even with the new green codes National home price average remains flat in June

July 8, 2010 – Highlights from Altos Research’s June 10-City Composite Price Index include the following:

The Altos Research 10-City Composite Price Index was flat in June and up just 0.2% during the second quarter of 2010.

The Composite - which had shown sequential monthly declines for the past nine months - posted a positive reading during May but was unable to sustain the monthly increase in June.

Asking prices rose in 13 of 26 major markets. San Francisco experienced the sharpest increase in June with prices rising 2.0%.

Listed property inventory jumped in 25 of 26 markets tracked. Inventory increased at the fastest rate in San Francisco and Washington, D.C., up 7.6% and 7.1% respectively during June. During the second quarter, inventory increased by a relatively restrained 5.4% across the Altos Research 10-City Index markets. As of mid-July housing inventory levels are rising significantly, where last year at this time inventory was contracting.

Housing demand has declined as a result of the end of the federal government’s tax credit, inventory is climbing and the effect on prices appears to just begun.

June Home Price Trends

The 10-City Composite Index was flat during the month of June and up just 0.2% during the second quarter of 2010. The Composite Index effectively bottomed out in January 2009 at $470,017, climbed throughout the first half of 2009 to $509,030 in July before returning to a gradual downward trend. The Index stood at $477,937 as of June 2010 reflecting a decline of 6.1% from its 2009 summer high.
 
Don't confuse flat prices with zero cost increase due to greening... The foreclosures have dragged down the prices such that the "averages" remain flat, and comps (for real estate lending) are based on short sales and foreclosures.
 
Paul

If you read the entire thread you know that

This was previously posted:

Average additional construction cost:

• LEED “Certified”: less than 1%

• LEED “Silver”: 1‐2%

• LEED “Gold”: 3‐4%

• LEED “Platinum”: 4‐8%
 
Can New Green Building Codes Clear Up the Confusion?

Tal Pinchevsky on March 13, 2010, 12:05 PM

With billions of dollars already invested in clean-energy jobs and manufacturing, the green revolution remains a work-in-progress. But while plenty of tax credits appear to be going to the right place, the lack of cohesive green regulations is making the whole concept a little elusive. But a new series of green building codes could finally be ushering in the kind of change many people have been waiting for.

The international green building codes just announced by the International Code Council, ASHRAE, the U.S. Green Building Council, and Illuminating Engineering Society of North America are an interesting precedent regarding the LEED standard of green building. The major inclusion in the regulations is Standard 189.1, which involves criteria including water-use efficiency, indoor environmental quality, energy efficiency, material and resource use, and the building’s impact on the community. These types of regulations have been building for some time, in some cases creating problems as well as solutions.

Almost two years ago, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom signed into law what he called the nation’s strictest green building codes. At that time, eight states had already adopted green building codes. By last year, cities like Santa Fe were enforcing residential green building codes and New York had assembled a green codes task force. In 2010, the city of Portland, state of California, and even the emirate of Dubai have enacted specific green building guidelines. But with these regulations have come criticisms, including environmentalists’ claims that California’s statewide regulations don’t meet the standard set by other state jurisdictions, including San Francisco and Los Angeles. The USGBC Northern California chapter even brought up the possibility that conflicting regulations could cause market confusion.

This type of conflict isn’t unprecedented. In 2008, a federal judge stalled Albuquerque’s green building codes after a lawsuit was filed by contractors citing federal statutes. Meanwhile, Boulder County in Colorado is considering changes to their green building codes. On the heels of Wyoming’s governor deciding that his state didn’t require green building codes and with an emerging series of conflicts in regulation, the hope is that these new universal guidelines could provide some much-needed clarity in the industry.

With the new regulations still so fresh, there hasn’t been any real verdict passed by advocates yet. But considering the money is already being invested in green, we may finally have some good sense to govern all these good intentions.

http://bigthink.com/ideas/19064
 
LEED and GREEN may not be the same cost


Greening Costs

Besides soft costs, the main incremental cost component of LEED certified buildings is the cost

to “green” the building. This cost represents the premium over traditional construction that a

green building would have imbedded in its construction costs. The elements of these costs vary

as widely as the LEED certification criteria. They may include additional site work and

structures; additional infrastructure costs related to transportation; different heating, cooling, and

ventilation systems; roofing; lighting; water use; recycling services at the site; and sourcing

specific construction materials (from regional sources, recycled content, or certified forests).

While this is potentially the larger area of incremental costs (sources we consulted variously

estimated these additional costs at up to 30 percent of construction costs), many of the available

examples do not isolate these costs and for those that do the data vary across a large range. We

believe a reasonable estimate is that greening adds between three and eight percent to the cost of

a “typically” constructed building.

Greening is one area where it is particularly difficult to isolate the true incremental costs of

LEED versus other practices and guidelines followed by designers and contractors. Compliance

with local codes may lead builders to exactly the same specifications and practices that the

LEED guidelines do, so in that case we should not attribute any incremental cost to the LEED

process.

​

We lacked adequate data to develop a statistically based value for greening costs. Based on our

judgment of the information we reviewed, we believe that an appropriate range for greening

costs is three to eight percent of construction costs. These costs are particularly susceptible to

​
increases if the LEED criteria become more stringent in future versions of the program.

http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/for_communities/LEED_links/AnalyzingtheCostofLEED.pdf
 
A percent here for this pet social project (dare I say 1% for art) and a percent there for someone else's pet concern du jour. Pretty soon it adds up to some real money.
 
mtlogcabin

I am glad you posted that.

Some need to start to differenciate "LEED" and "GREEN" they are not the same, Nor are they always the same cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top