How NOT to Build Green

I would add to his list:

* It ain't green to build homes out of massive quantities of cement (the production of which is highly destructive to the enviroment);

* It ain't green to build retro-modern houses with huge expanses of glass (no matter how well-insulated).

Making anything new is essentially anti-environmental, unless one can reasonably claim that there are absolutely no existing structures that you couldn't adapt to be more eco-sensitive.

I didn't really care for this article because for one there are varying degrees of green and this article is simply stating in a negative manner the 100% green way (if there is such a thing) to do it. Some people in fact go "green" all the way and your article seems some what narrow minded in the way of not considering those who do. In other words this article is a huge generalization.

reduce - do we really need all that space ?
re-use - upgrade space if necesarry
re-cycle - use existing buildings for other purposes.

Don't forget to use salvaged materials whenever possible :)

I'm not "super-educated" in being green yet, but I was recently pondering how un-green housing developments are. There are so many shooting up in my city that I have decided that I will only live in older converted buildings instead of supporting "new" developments. I currently live in an early 1900s factory converted into lofts.

What house is that in the picture? It's beautiful.

Designing buildings for "300 to 500 years in the future" just isn't really feasible. While the "throwaway" mentality of current culture is deplorable, the fact is, in 300 years the needs people require from a building will be very different. The technology the building needs to support will be very different. The relevance of that plot of land to the city containing it will be very different.

In fact, in 300 years, we will probably be able to build a far cleaner, more efficient, and more useful building than anything we can build today.

Demanding that a particular plot of land must support a building that doesn't meet the city's needs *induces* city sprawl, as people are forced to build elsewhere to satisfy the changing requirements of society.

Instead, I think we should focus on reducing the impact of construction (via improved materials and techniques, improved recycling, and cleaner energy sources for the construction equipment, etc) so that we can continuously update our cities to meet our needs. In the long run, that is far more sustainable.

it also ain't green ot price recycles materials so high that only the wealthy can afford to use them.

i have to disagree with that glass thing though. I once lived in a house with 48 south facing windows and concrete floors and our gas bill was a 3rd of what our neighbors used. With extended eves and the help of white mini blinds in the summer it kept the heat out.

Awesome blog and comments everyone!
I am an architect in a very green architectural firm and I agree with many of the comments. I don't agree with a lifespan of 300 years, because as AnObfuscator pointed out, building technology might change to an extend that building new structures would be better for us than retrofitting old ones. This is taking into account all factors, from operational costs (carbon footprint) to hazardous materials. But I would also not support less than 50-100 year building lifespan approaches. The shorter lifespan is acceptable the shoddier the quality - known as spec or investment building quality.
By the way at this point I would add another one of my favorite green strategies:
Build QUALITY not just quantity. Less but well done, can be so much richer than a pumped up cheap shell. Unfortunately the basic premise of the "get rich quick" american ideal has little room for blue collar quality work, because our idols don't toil away in the crafts, they rake in the bucks as stock traders and white collar entrepreneurs.

What the "it ain't green..." list points out is the lack of common sense architecture that has been lost in our rapture of green technological fixes while keeping the same old standards from full air conditioning times.
You can get all your green gizmos in, but if it is a 15,000 sqft residence for 2 people it still probably ain't too green. The more individual space we need, the more
we all need to move around it = suburbia.

Common sense simply says that more compact is less wasteful. That concept works very reliably and is even cheaper and more social.
Same with the big glass areas: it's not a question if that is bad planning, it matters whether it is the right contextual answer in proper execution. If oriented accordingly to result in desired annual net solar gain and good daylight, not a bad thing.

To make it short, look for the obvious and follow your environmental instincts, seek true quality, think of the social implications, and (try to) love your neighbor.

While I agree that Don Fitz does have valid points, esp. that we do have a larger issue here that pols have been ineffective at dealing with, I do think that LEED does address many of the "It ain't Green" contentions that he raises - this is true even of the New Construction version. LEED even goes so far as to encourage the buy-in of 'clean' energy to run a building. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that the voluntary LEED program is intended or capable of dealing with all of the macro issues that development plays in affecting the environment. It is a well thought out start, though. Don't forget that it continues to develop with people's input and experience. And since it is the standard for 'green building' in the US I'd like to hear more about his thoughts on LEED.

I find it ironic that Blue collar quality can't afford Blue collar labor. I like what he's saying, I just don't think it sounds affordable to the masses given current housing costs. If he would propose economic reform and solving a host of other problems then it would be more feasible. Looking to nature most mobile animals habitats aren't permanent. They degrade into the environment they came from. A counter view would be to build houses that are built using materials available on the site of their construction and degrade back into that environment.

The building in the picture is the Ballard branch of the Seattle Public Library.

http://www.spl.org/default.asp?pageID=branch_open_other&branchID=3

I really like the general premise of this article. There is a great need for the green building industry to become genuinely green in it's practice...not just enough to receive LEED recongnition.

I work as an assistant under the principal of of small design firm in Chicago specializing in facilities for non-profit organizations.

Ultimately, the development of new facilities is rooted in the lending and development industries, not with architects and builders as we would like to think. There must be an economical incentive for developers to build green, outside of just good PR.

We need to continue our search for economical solutions to environmental challenges in order to persuade our financers of the economic advantages of environmental responsibility. Good stewardship of our environment must allow for good financial stewardship for investors.

Am I willing to spend a 30% (or more) premium to be a good steward of my enviornment? Honestly, I'd rather have the extra square footage or the better finishes.

I'd love to see an environmentally responsible foundation material other than concrete, but show me a finacially responsible alternative.

How about enviornmentally friendly earthwork equipment? Or environmentally friendly masonry materials. Or the production of steel in a responsible fashion. How about studs for walls made not from lumber or steel heated with coal, but from recycled materials fabricated in an environmentally friendly fashion.

We face many challenges in the building industry - as we work together toward integrating environmentally responsible components with economically responsible solutions. Ultimately we are faced with being good stewards of the environment with which we have been entrusted.

Can we ask the giants of the materials industries to invest towards our collective future in research if our developers and homeowers aren't willing to foot the bill? Should we expect architects and builders to somehow force these industries which they serve to change?

We must affect change at every level of facilities development. Every party with a vested interest in a project must realize their opportunities for good environmental stewardship and maximize it's potential. We must collectively have a vision for change within the building and development industry. With this in mind we have a true hope to cause a positive affect for our descendant's future.

Citing the "cleaner" building methods there may be in 300 years as an excuse for not building to last is folly...if the builders of tomorrow have to rip down our mistakes just because they can build better with their clean and efficient methods still means that they are ripping down buildings and wasting valuable energy in doing so.
Look around at the 300+ year old buildings in your cities and think of how much more advanced the people of tomorrow will be at restoring or rehabilitating these structures without having to start all over again. Building to last MUST be part of our sustainability efforts. Otherwise, we are condemning future generations to an unnecessary clean up and effectively compounding the embodied energy we used to build in the first place.