• 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

OKAY, I Need Advice, Help, Direction on LEED

Mule

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
1,520
Location
Texas
The city wants me to "look into" going green. I have looked through a lot of the threads on this topic and have a lot of good information, or should I say a lot of personal opinions.

What I need is ideas to present to the city council on voluntary vs. mandatory requirements. Links to facts about going green advantages, disadvantages, and any other pertinent information.

I've purchased the

National Green Standards

2006 I-Codes and Green Building

Developing Green Building Ordinances and Programs

and Green Building and LEED

I've read a lot on these but now my brain is in such a foggy state I need help from all of you who have actually gone through the process so I can put it on paper for a presentation.

Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We've gone through the same thing here. We have recommended that it be done only as a voluntary basis, and no need for Village review or approval.

It is my opinion, that there too much ambiguity in the various models to consider any one of them an "authority" on what it means to be green.

Good ideas? yes. Need to be codified? no.

The IECC is going to have 30% efficiency increases in each successive code series, leading to "net zero" requirements in the year 2030. Both ASHRAE and the AIA are on target with these goals.
 
Best left to voluntary compliance... and that's coming from a LEED AP! I don't think that this can be effectively codified, and the ICC's green building code is proof of that. You CAN make policies such as all city/county projects need to be minimum LEED Silver, or something like that (motivational/incentive for bidding on a city project). Additionally, the city could offer tax incentives for certain green certified projects, but that's not the same as making it mandatory.

Just my $0.02.
 
I agree with voluntary compliance do not make GREEN a mandatory requirement. No review by the jurisdictions. Disagree with tax incentives. If GREEN or LEED is something a developer or owner truly believe in and want then they should front all the cost. Their incentive is their reduction in energy bills and a plaque they can hang on their show me walls...
 
mjesse said:
The IECC is going to have 30% efficiency increases in each successive code series, leading to "net zero" requirements in the year 2030. Both ASHRAE and the AIA are on target with these goals.
Thanks for the comments.

mjesse,

Where can I find documentation on your comment above? That may be all I need to satisfy inquiring minds.

EDIT....

Google is amazing. I found more information than I needed.

Now to determine how we are going to address LEED and Green :(
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mule, glad you found what you needed.

I was at a seminar back in February sponsored by the DOE regarding the 2009 IECC. It was pretty informative and eye-opening.

DOE has lots of good info available.
 
Mule:

It is a common misconception that energy conservation and green are one and the same, they are not and in fact are contrary to each other. The studies of Henry Gifford in New York show that green buildings consume 29% more energy than normal buildings, these studies are backed up by the eminent building scientist Joe Lstiburek. The USGBC is a massive money making fraud started by a real estate developer and an air conditioning salesman (see Gifford article linked above).

Many green homes are making people sick, in several Silicon Valley communities that have adopted green codes there are several vacant multimillion dollar homes and people are suing their builders, all the poor builders did was build what their green raters dictated, I sure wish I could come up with a theory (that would pass legal muster) to sue the communities that have adopted these ordinances. Sealing buildings up to save energy while building them with chemically laden junk to clean up the forest floor is crazy. To a large degree it's the formaldehyde in engineered wood that is making people sick, California is forcing them to reduce the formaldehyde content but now we are getting mold growing in new engineered wood products with reduced formaldehyde that have only been exposed to atmospheric moisture.

LEED buildings are costing, on average, three times more than normal buildings, the Town of Portola Valley built a beautiful Town Center but it cost so much that they were bailed out by voluntary million dollar contributions from several billionaires living in town, many of whom are invested in green technology hoping to make fortunes off the fraud. The government can build green buildings becasue it has unlimited funds, the taxpayers' money, San Francisco's new Federal Building is nicknamed Hugh G. Rection and workers work under umbrellas inside.

And finally: First, the big new Federal Building in San Francisco was late and over budget. Then workers complained about needing sunglasses and umbrellas indoors to shield them from the glaring sun.Now comes word about another bit of embarrassment at the $144 million "green" behemoth at Seventh and Mission streets.

Officials recently installed four giant, stainless-steel plaques near the entryway in recognition of the many planners, architects and others who helped make the eco-friendly building possible.

Only it wasn't long before office workers were making pilgrimages to the wall - and snickering at the engraved name of one "Hugh G. Rection."

That plaque is now gone. Of course, so are all the others, temporarily - seems they were installed crooked. ¹
This massive push to green is nothing but a commercial and political movement, much of it financed by venture capitalists, Kleiner Perkins alone has invested a billion dollars, and even hired idiots Al Gore and Colin Powell as "vice presidents" to promote their fraud. Better stop now, I could go on all day about this massive fraud.

¹ http://www.yelp.com/topic/san-francisco-gotta-love-architects-and-their-sense-of-humor
 
I have found that jurisdictions enacting stricter standards for energy compliance never enforced the energy code they had. In the end they are just subbing out the energy inspections to people who are [actually/more] qualified to perform them.

Doesn't 2009 IRC bring a lot of the same requirements to the table?

EDIT: DIdn't mean to imply your jurisdiction was not. However, is the proper manpower, review time, inspection time and training provided to allow your jurisdiction to enforce the energy code?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you see that the "governing body" has been to a Texas Municipal League meeting or the like; and come home with a push for LEED, GREEN, or other "NOT-CODE YET" addiction; you might look to some relief from the guidelines of the NAHB.

As Vegas Paul suggested; you might let them know; first, that the requirements for LEED are not adopted code requirements; and that they could use incentives to encourage the GREEN & LEED MOVEMENT; and, provide them with the NAHB Guidelines, as an example.

There is an antidote that might help there affliction. Suggest that, if they are serious about pushing the LEED and/or GREEN MOVEMENT (beyond adopted code requirements); it would be more effective to make the requirements effective on all permitted remodeling (example: like the smoke alarms upgrade requirements); and, for commercial, upon change of occupancy.

It is not productive to require this on only new construction.

Uncle Bob
 
To build on what was stated above the LEED provisions do not meet the requirement for adoption as an ordinance. I do not believe that they are clear and unambigious. In addition the LEED provisions encourages the use of inovative technologies which would require the building official to make many subjective decisions which would reault in uncertainty for the applicant.
 
Mark said:
In addition the LEED provisions encourages the use of inovative technologies which would require the building official to make many subjective decisions which would reault in uncertainty for the applicant.
And hopefully some liability on the backs of the jurisdictions that mandate green codes without fully understanding the "innovative technologies" being mandated, it's patently uinfair to load liability on the backs of builders being forced into complying with ill-conceived codes.

Shouldn't codes get back to their original mandate to protect the life and safety of the general public and get out of this business of being commercial and political vehicles? Stakeholders should disappear from the process.
 
I believe that the focus of our regulations should be on promoting health and safety.

Sometimes it may be appropriate to adopt regulations to protect the broader public wealfare, but suggest that the further you get from life safety the more restrained the regulations should be. Remember the rule of unintended consequences.
 
This whole "green" movement is the product of the imaginations of hippie political activists who smoked too many left-handed cigarettes in the 1960's.

By accepting the premise of the green movement, you are also, by default, accepting that human activity is destroying the planet, that God is a myth, that war is not necessary, that the peasants (us) are too stupid to take care of ourselves, and that capitalism is a bad thing.

Don't be a hippie.
 
conarb - "Shouldn't codes get back to their original mandate to protect the life and safety of the general public and get out of this business of being commercial and political vehicles? Stakeholders should disappear from the process." I couldn't agree more. Well put.

packsaddle - I accept the premise of the green movement - not the politicizing of it, nor the corporatizing of it - I also accept that human activity is harming the planet. I do not believe that G-d is a myth, nor that war is never necessary. I don't believe the common citizen is inherently incapable of self-preservation, but do firmly believe many are complacent and easily swayed. Capitalism is not a bad thing... Corporatism is, but not capitalism. What passes for 'capitalism' these days is a far cry from what capitalism was meant to be. But that's a rant for another thread.

Being a hippie isn't really a bad thing either. Living in harmony with the world around you? How bad could that be? Not tremendously profitable mind you, but not a bad way to coexist.
 
Guys, lets refrain from statements like - don't be hippie or shifting off topic point of G-d is a myth, yada yada yada. The thread appears to be about asking on advice about LEED. These other topics and points noted above are kinda off topic, anyway.
 
Thanks for all of the information. This info will make it a lot easier for me to report to the differences and give the council options on which way to go!

I wish they would have waited a couple of years.....I'll be retired. :)
 
A wonderful example of a LEED criteria point

Constructing a new multistory office admin building at a waste water treatment facility

requires demolition of 14" thick retainig wall massivly long to make way for new structure.

LEED point to be obtained for recycling of existing materials

Cut wall into 24" square cubes ( heavily reinforced)

stockpile on very limited access site for reuse as patio pavers

contractor offers tens of thousands of dollars credit for wall to be removed and DISPOSED

and will provide really nice new patio of your choice concrete impressioned patio of equal size.

NO the goal is silver LEED and those points are needed.

used ugly concrete with exposed rusting rebar is GREEN but so is money.

On anoter note LEED points were sacrificed by not installing Bicycle racks at a Police Headquarters, (they mostly use fords and suburbans anyway)

Energy efficient well enclosed building envelopes will usually trump feeling good points.

CHPS is a more logical goal than Lets Eat Every Dollar

I have my own system of greeness callede Building Attributes For Future Living & Ecology

GBC and leed is a hourse that won't stop drinking the water

A voluntary system of conservation of better n code incentives is

a far more reasonable approach
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not all LEED buildings perform well.. we have one right now that can't get thru the commissioning process (not my problem as an inspector), but LEED Gold looks unlikely. They took all the crappy thin marble panel skin and recycled it as golf cart path material. Reuse of material does not have to occur on the site. Separating the plastic water bottles used from the food trash gets a project points, too.. ultimately it doesn't have anything to do with improved energy efficiency of the building.

Could go on and on..
 
Top