Replies

1. 
   DanH | Dec 13, 2007 07:28pm | #1

   Hmmm... You think by being polite you're gonna avoid the hazing?

   If your view never changes you're following the wrong leader
2. 
   razzman2 | Dec 13, 2007 08:33pm | #2

   Paul Shahriari Paul Shahriari has experience working in construction industry for a major construction firm in Atlanta, Georgia. In 2000, Paul founded ConstructGreen, a consulting firm that specialized in providing consulting services for both internal corporate sustainability initiatives and project specific services. He travels around the country assisting clients harness the benefits of Sustainable Design and Construction. His dedication to sustainability and green building has given him the opportunity to be an invited speaker at several domestic and international green building conferences. He has provided Green Building assistance on projects valued at over $4 billion. Paul's diverse experience includes development of corporate sustainability initiatives related to the design & construction process, facilitation of Green/LEED charrettes, Preconstruction Management and Construction Management. He has assisted a wide variety of organizations in green building projects, to include DPR Construction, Inc., Capitol One Bank, Emory University, Oregon State University, Duke University, and WCI Communities. He has developed a wide range of economic analysis tools that assist clients in rapidly making decisions about cost factors in the design and construction process as well as the life cycle aspects of construction.   PDF site: http://www.greentrends.org/Presentations/GT-18-Paul%20Shahriari-FGBC%20Green%20Commercial%20Standard.pdf

3. 
   Tim | Dec 18, 2007 08:08pm | #3

   With access to such "real" green advice, asking the question: "should I discard a perfecly good structure and build a new one?" raises a few more questions.

   You want to consume and build a new and unneccessary house. Nothing could be less green, no matter the methods employed in the new construction.

   Always the first question required of any project that is to be done with the greatest respect for the planet, whether called green or sustainable or earth friendly, is: Is this necessary? Avoiding the obvious is the only way you have a delima. Ask your SIL to explain what "green" means, and you won't have a problem.

1. 
   DanH | Dec 18, 2007 10:08pm | #4

   So a better question would be: At what point is it environmentally more sound to tear down the structure (perhaps recycling some materials) and build new? How should this decision be made?
   If your view never changes you're following the wrong leader

1. 
   Tim | Dec 18, 2007 11:19pm | #5

   That is a good question. Simple criteria probably could be used to make some basic decisions. Whatever the criteria, there will be dissention. I'm sure that Jack didn't look at this the way that I did.

   This raises, at least to me, a great deal of questions concerning building and building  renovation in a way to minimize impact to the planet.

   My understanding of what falls under the heading of "green" is the overall practice of lessening our impact on the planet due to our existence. That practice has to begin with sound and critical decision making. Not over building. Not building a new structure when using an existing one is possible. Not "keeping up with the Joneses". The average home in the Us is 40% larger than it was in 1980, while the average people per houshold has declined.

   If a buildier, using 100% recycled material, builds a 500 sq.ft. addition on an empty nesters too big house, is it a "green" project. No.

   If hippies living in the 900 sf house with a wood burner decide to move up and increase the comfort and appeal of their digs 3x over using "green" construction methods, is it a net "green" change. No. Net change, the world is not better, it is worse for this personal decision.

   Most versions of "green" are window dressing and marketing. Trying to make blatant American consumption something that new age green yuppies (how about we call them Guppies?!?) can feel good about. Its 99.9% mental maturbation.

   I am not a greenie. I don't pretent to be one and I don't intend to be one. I have a hugely oversized house. I freely admit this, that this is the farthest thing from "green". I have double-paned argon-filled low e coating on all 110 widows, I have high efficiency furnaces and high SEER air conditioners (yes I mean that as plural), I have double thick (2x4) R-30 walls and over R-50 in my attic. I have passive solar heating and heat storage mass incorporated into the design. While I have made this house as energy consumption efficient as reasonably possible for the size, it is not Green by a long shot. If it were 1/4 it sized with all of the same features it might approach my definition of Green. Well I take that back, though, the fiber cement lap siding is green, I think the color is actually called mulberry, with forest green on the trim boards.

   Real improvement, real implementation of the true concept of low impact living, requires a paradigm shift in society that the US and maybe the entire western world, may not be capable of. The prevelance of I-Pods and texting teenagers, vinyl coated McMansions and XUVs tells me that this will not happen in our lifetimes. Would I give up my 4500 sf house for two on a 12 acre wooded lot for the 900 sf hippe pad? Not on your life.

   The day when every one of the vinyl-coated cookie-cutter houses going up in every urban sprawl zone in the country is smaller than the houses that most of the boomers grew up in, has the most  efficient appliances available, has a single televion set and no Jaccuzzi tub and doesn't have a 4-wheel drive 10 person transport for a family of four, that's the day when Green will mean something.

   The day when the question raised by the OP is universally answered with a "no, not while its still standing" is when real green can exist.

   Edited 12/18/2007 3:20 pm by Tim

1. 
   DanH | Dec 19, 2007 12:03am | #6

   > The average home in the Us is 40% larger than it was in 1980, while the average people per houshold has declined.Ah, but the average PERSON is 40% larger too.
   If your view never changes you're following the wrong leader

1. 
   Tim | Dec 19, 2007 12:28am | #7

   I have no direct experience with that, though my personal, unscientific observations lead me to be that estimate is on the, er, "skinny" side. Do fat people require more air conditioning? Probably hard to green and large...

2. 
   shawncal | Dec 30, 2007 04:09pm | #11

   Well put, Tim.  Everyone should read this twice, like I just did, then read it again.  Amen!

2. 
   jacko63 | Dec 21, 2007 04:30am | #9

   Thanks Tim, these questions were asked to stimulate opinions from everyone. Lets see if we can all come to some agreements instead of being at opposite poles. Consider this, more people are being born than houses built. If we start building them correctly and energy efficient perhaps we would stay in them longer. Part of green building is also considering your personal enviorment and the health of you and your family. You can certainly remodel a house and make it more efficient, but if you do not consider the air you breath while in that house, you will be leaving out a big part of the picture. This is just one aspect of "Green" people are not aware of.

   Thanks again....Jack 

1. 
   Tim | Dec 21, 2007 09:30pm | #10

   BTW, as other have already, and more graciously than I, have already noted, Wecome to Breaktime.

   Back to our regularly scheduled program. The issue of "Green" (I personally despise the term, like the term "####", it has ruined an otherwise useful word). Regardless of the symantics, my opinion is that good, sound building practices include addressing the indoor air quality of the building. Not doing so is the realm of hacks and incompetents. Therefore, doing so is not superlative. To be green by my standards, superlative must apply.

   To me Green (or Sustainable, or Envirnmentally Friendly, et al) Building is about lessening the impact of our existence on the planet. To categorize all that this entails is beyond my level of interest in this subject, but it does not include covering that which is basic (properly addressing IAQ). A building, or in most cases on this forum, a single family house, that is built to all minimum acceptable building codes, in most cases addresses basic IAQ.

   Back to your dilema, which you have dodged addressing the issue that I raised. Is your present house unhealthy to live in?  If so, you need address the basics before you try to move on to advanced issues, like high performance housing.

   So, do you want a new house because you just do? Or do you need a new house because the one you live in is uninhabitable? The former is certainly justifiable, but just do it and don't pretend to be anything other than an average Amercan consumer. "Green" does not apply to an unnecessary construction. Under no circumstences, ever. Improving an existing house with well thought out, practical improvements is ultimately more responsible than just building new.

   Is this your dilema? Trying to justify an unnecessary construction by appealing to the Guppies and asking for their approval? Or because you have a Guppie in your immediate family that would frown upon your decision if you didn't play the game?

4. 
   mguizzo | Dec 19, 2007 07:34am | #8

   Hi Jack.  Welcome to BT.  As you can see, any questions spark good debate and more questions.  This is the thing that makes this site so good - it makes us think!! 

   ciao.  m.