As we pursue a model for more sustainable development and construction we have arrived at the point where the discussion has evolved from the creation of rating systems and voluntary programs to actual code development and ordinance. Municipalities and even whole states are now adopting mandatory regulations aimed at ratcheting up green building requirements, reflecting a global trend that has entire countries enacting mandatory measures of sustainability.
As always, the devil is in the details, and no matter what stage of discussion we are engaged in there are some commonly recurring sticking points that reflect the desires and needs of those who represent a variety of special interests. In fairness, we are all motivated by special interests of one kind or another, even if they are simply based on our own values and/or passions, but on these kinds of deliberations it becomes quickly apparent when a participant is advocating on behalf of a particular material type, product suite, trade association, or labor group.
Representatives for building products are often great examples of the point I'm trying to make. A category of material may be noncombustible, structurally reliable, universally available and virtually "infinitely" recyclable and those who promote the products made from that basic material will enthusiastically extol their virtues and the benefits of specifying them. But they are not so eager to engage in an in-depth discussion of the embodied energy, sound and thermal transmissivity, or other less positive characteristics.
Another family of materials may be promoted as a naturally occurring, renewable resource that provides a familiar, easy to use, economical choice for structural and non-structural applications in a variety of building types and which does not require a highly trained workforce to utilize. Again, the pros and cons elicit different levels of response from the proponents of these products. When it comes to environmental concerns related to overharvesting and the resulting issues of erosion, habitat loss, atmosphere degradation as well as susceptibility to structure fires and the potential for mold and/or termite damage the fact are a little tougher to extract in the normal course of conversation.
In the case of yet a third common building materials group, we are regularly reminded of its plasticity, durability, versatility and structural predictability, and yet, when discussions turn to the high level of emissions of greenhouse gases that take place during extraction and production processes, and the considerable embodied energy and water in these products, those supporters of these materials are often reticent to elaborate on the details.
I'm simply using these examples to illustrate the larger problem that we have when we attempt to engage in honest, transparent discussions in hopes of raising the bar and developing better solutions for the built environment. Too many stakeholders are handcuffed by their need to defend their products or services and protect their market share, perpetuating minimum performance levels keeping the industry mired in outdated strategies and technologies rather than helping to bring the business of building into the present and, in fact, advance it into the future through constructive dialogue.
My hope is that our conversations can evolve to a higher level where we can evaluate our options in a way that lays all the cards on the table, face up, and allows us to aggressively pursue building solutions that are superior to anything we have exercised before. It is the only way we will have a chance to follow through on all those good intentions.
Posted: 8/3/2009 12:00:00 AM by
| with 0 comments