green building

California, perhaps the most ambitious state with respect to adopting green building standards, can add another feather to its cap. On April 22, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaragos signed an ordinance establishing green building standards designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 80,000 tons by 2012. Approved unanimously by the City Council, the Private Sector Green Building Plan makes L.A. the largest city in the nation to adopt such a program.

The new law requires projects 50,000 square feet and larger and residential buildings with over 50,000 square feet of floor space, 50 or more units, or over six stories high to meet the LEED-Certified standard. The law offers expedited permit processing for projects pursuing LEED-Silver. The law also calls for a slate of other environmentally responsible initiatives, including a review of all city codes to ease the use of environmentally sound materials and processes, the creation of a cross-department Sustainability Team to review and revise green building policies and projects, and staff training and certification in green building methods.

This law follows on the heels of an ordinance introduced last month in San Francisco that would require projects involving more than 25,000 square feet to meet the LEED-Gold standard, which the SF City Council is set to vote on shortly.

While we can quibble with some of the specifics of these laws, there is no doubt that by passing them, it mainstreams green building techniques, something that is good for everyone.

Part 5 of our 15-part Q&A series on all aspects of green building from the publishers of HealthyHouseInstitute.com. Click here for the introductory post and furthur details.

Question: Aren’t wood windows best from a health standpoint?

Answer: Wood windows are usually treated with water-repellent and fungicidal chemicals. So, while wood is a natural material, treated windows can certainly bother some sensitive people. Also, they’re usually made of pine which can have a strong natural odor. Furthermore, wood windows require routine painting. However, wood windows usually aren’t strong outgassing sources. Therefore, these concerns are only important for very sensitive people.

Vinyl windows are a less-expensive option. While they never need painting (a real plus), the vinyl itself can outgas a little—especially when new—which can be enough to bother some sensitive individuals.

Personally, we prefer aluminum-framed windows. Most are available prefinished in white or brown, and they require little maintenance. In cold climates, you should look for frames with thermal-breaks to minimize sweating. Aluminum windows generally have rubber or plastic seals that have a slight odor—but it usually isn’t significant.

Multiple panes of glass are a good idea in harsh climates for energy efficiency. Low-E coatings and argon-filled windows rarely cause health problems, and we think they’re important to conserve energy.

Question: Is there a healthy window putty I can use?

Hi everyone!!!

I am thrilled to announce our prefab Green Cottage Kit design is here!

Although a modern enthusiast, I grew up (and my parents still reside) in a home built in 1801. A Virginia native, I appreciate old farmhouses, Victorian brownstones, colonial and happy, yes, exuberantly happy cottage architecture.

So, when people came to me on GreenModernKits.com asking for a cottage, I understood.

So I kidnapped Eric Drivdahl, an award winning architect with a heart of gold, and he designed a gorgeous, passive solar, SIPs, cottage kit with so many thoughtful details:

- 2,000 sq. ft. (and less: this house has 3 configurations)

- 3 bedrooms (or less)

- Structural Insulated Panels (SIP) for energy efficiency

- Passive Solar

- Trombe Wall

- Nooks and Crannies where you can curl up and read your books!

We haven't even named it yet, but we're so happy.

If you have any names you'd like to suggest, we'd love to hear them!

Sincerely yours,

Copeland

aka Green Modern Kits! : )

Part 4 of our 15-part Q&A series on all aspects of green building from the publishers of HealthyHouseInstitute.com. Click here for the introductory post and furthur details.

Question: We’re considering building a house with steel framing. Does it have any particular advantages?

Answer: Light-weight steel framing is becoming popular with some builders. It consists of C-shaped studs and channels that are usually lighter-in-weight than wood. Everything is held together with self-tapping screws, and the studs typically have holes prepunched in them for electrical wires and plumbing lines. This saves drilling time, but the holes have sharp edges, so they must be fitted with plastic grommets to prevent plastic-jacketed wiring from getting nicked and shorting out. Steel framing is also very uniform in size, it has no knots, and it won’t warp.

The biggest health-related advantage to steel is the fact that it never needs to be treated for termites. So, where toxic chemical use is the norm, or where less-toxic alternative treatments aren’t feasible, steel is a great option.

Although it’s not a concern for most people, some very sensitive individuals are bothered by the natural odor of wood, and steel is odor-free. Most framing lumber is pine or another softwood, and the odor is composed of the same chemicals in turpentine. These sensitive people are just reacting to much lower levels of the same pollutants that have the potential to bother all of us.

They may be. The International Code Council, which establishes model codes for, among other things, energy conservation, has its next meeting in September of this year. The Alliance to Save Energy hopes to convince the ICC to change the modelbuilding code to reduce residential energy use by 30 percent. Branded “the 30 percent solution,” ICC members will have an opportunity to vote on a slate of code changes as well as consider the changes individually if the package doesn’t pass. The Alliance has put together an Energy Efficient Codes Coalition which includes a number of industry and environmental groups. They are hoping to pack the hall with enough members to push the changes through.

Building energy use makes up about 40% of total U.S. energy consumption, so making residential building codes more energy efficient is good place to start. In addition, making buildings more energy efficient, while costing more up front, pays back big dividends over the life of the building. While some groups like the National Association of Home Builders have not supported this measure because it believes that most of the measures would not be paid back within 10 years, one study by the Energy Department’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory found that a 30% increase from ICC’s 2003 model codes would result in annual savings of $723 on utility bills with $4,000 in upfront costs.

If this passes, residential buildings may not only become greener, they will likely become cheaper to operate. That’s a “win-win” in our book.

Part 3 of our 15-part Q&A series on all aspects of green building from the publishers of HealthyHouseInstitute.com. Click here for the introductory post and furthur details.

Question: What is the healthiest type of foundation?

Answer: There are four basic foundation types: concrete slab, crawl space, basement, and pier. In general, pier foundations are the easiest to build in a healthy manner because they lift a house up off the ground. When a house is well separated from the soil, it’s more difficult for radon, subterranean termites, and ground moisture to get into the living space. Pier foundations are often used on hillside lots or in hot/humid climates.

Actually, any foundation can be healthy—if constructed and maintained carefully. You need to be concerned with moisture (both liquid water and relative humidity) which can lead to mold or rot, radon (a cause of lung cancer), subterranean-termite control (toxic chemicals should be avoided whenever possible), energy savings (to minimize heating/cooling expenses, and reduce the potential for condensation), and selecting materials that are inherently healthy.

Question: Don’t concrete slab foundations tend to be damp and moldy?

Although intuitively it would make sense that green buildings are better investments than normal buildings, until now there has not been a lot of data that back this up. The Co-Star Group recently released a report (download here) that analyzed approximately 1,300 LEED and Energy Star buildings. The verdict? Both types of buildings significantly outperform their non-LEED and Energy Star counterparts.

For example, on average LEED buildings sell for $171 more per square foot, while Energy Star buildings sell for $61 more per square foot. Similarly LEED buildings rent for more than $11.25 per square foot while Energy Star buildings rent for more than $2.38 per square foot. Both have an approximately 4% higher occupancy rate than regular buildings. The report also stated that Energy Star buildings had 10-20% lower operating costs compared to regular buildings (it did not offer a similar analysis for LEED buildings).

The report doesn't offer reasons for this difference, but it's reasonable to infer that there is a greater demand from consumers for these buildings and they are in relatively short supply. While LEED is by no means perfect, it's encouraging to know that there are measurable economic benefits to achieving LEED certification.

We are rebuilding a 1940's cabin on a lake in Northern Wisconsin, we considered tearing it down but decided it had too much character. Anyway we created a website for people to watch this project, offer advice, trade materials, etc. Check it out, and tell your friends. http://hippyshack.tripod.com