from the ground up - The Tyee

Excerpts from the ensuing discussion in The Tyee’s comment section:Making Green the Normposted by “mikeoregon” on September 21, 2011One obstacle to green building is our cultural acceptanceof “cost effectiveness” as a primary standardfor evaluating energy investment. It’s a crude andwrongheaded concept, but it’s what we use today. Weneed to shift towards a standard based on determiningwhat it will it take for any building, new or existing,to achieve energy and comfort performance that meetsour collective goals for efficiency, health and greenhousegas emissions reductions.How long before home lighting circuits are all 1.5volts?posted by “Fish-counter” on September 21, 2011LED lights are the way to go, and they can be poweredby very low voltages. It would reduce constructioncosts and fire hazard at a stroke.I just heard a presentation on a green wall from a highschool student who wants to build one at her school.Too bad she isn’t on City council or in the planningdepartment yet.I do wish people like Mopled would go away. Theyare only convincing to themselves. Their data suckslike an electrolux.Sustainable Architecture and Designposted by “milkandhoney” on September 21, 2011I think it is excellent to see that the province is startingto fund green projects like the Okanagan Centrefor Excellence. Makes me feel like somebody hasfinally got it right as education is the birthplace ofprogress. I have had a chance to work with the architects(CEI Architecture) behind the Centre for Excellenceon a number of occasions and the excitementaround green building on projects like these is reallynoticeable in the quality of work. I hope to see bothUBC and Okanagan College meet the requirementsof the Living Building Challenge and set the bar forother building projects in BC going forward.paradigm shiftposted by “lessdriven” on September 21, 2011If we are actually looking for a paradigm shift in“building green from the ground up”, why is it thatthe focus is always on various technical improvements,as useful as they may be, but which don’tcome close to energy saving benefits of developingsettlement patterns, that allow us freedom from theautomobile.It doesn’t matter if you live in a PassivHaus. If mostof your regular trips to and from that house require theuse of an automobile, you are probably using up moreenergy than someone living in a denser area in a lessenergy efficient building, where work, shopping andother activities are a short walk or bikeride away. See(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjp5hH4raxA).If the City of Vancouver wanted to change one bylawthat would save a lot of energy, it would be to removethe requirement that every living unit whetherit be apartment, townhouse or detached house comeequipped with at least one off-street parking space.Fish-counterposted by “snert” on September 21, 2011Quote:It would reduce construction costs and fire hazard at astroke.I don’t think so. The theory sounds good but practicallyit’s just not worth it. It creates more complicationsbecause you’re going to essentially have to wirea house twice.As long as an existing/new house is wired to codethere is next to no chance of fire.90