Showing posts with label green building index. Show all posts
Showing posts with label green building index. Show all posts

Monday, January 24, 2011

The city of the future: It's a story of camels, penguins and cars you don't drive, by NORMAN FOSTER

The city of the future: It's a story of camels, penguins and cars you don't drive, by NORMAN FOSTER






The better city will have low pollution, low energy use, the smallest carbon footprint. Compare a tightly knit metropolis like Copenhagen with the suburban sprawl of Detroit. The Danish city has twice the population density – the number of people per square mile – but uses a tenth of the energy, despite having a similar climate. With everything closer, walking and cycling are possible. 

High-density cities also offer more freedom and are often more prosperous. It is no coincidence that the areas of London with greatest population density – surprisingly, Kensington, Chelsea, Holland Park and Mayfair – are the richest and most sought-after. 

Indeed, Manhattan, one of the most moneyed spots on the planet, also has one of the greatest concentrations of people in its skyscrapers. It’s also, of course, the place where every architect wants to build his tower. (Buckminster Fuller famously wanted to go one step further and cover the whole city with one of his geodesic domes.) 
The good news is that my firm now has a tower in New York. The bad news is that it is a very, very small tower – only 46 storeys –but, I am pleased to say, it consumes much less energy than a conventional Manhattan block of its size. Bucky would have approved.

After 40 years working as an architect, it strikes me that what makes a city agreeable is actually not any one building. It is the way you get about, the public spaces, the streets, walkways, bridges, parks and squares – the things I would draw as I cycled about Manchester as a teenager, at a time when I didn’t even know what an architect was.

It was with this in mind that my firm started work on one of its most futuristic projects – Masdar City in the United Arab Emirates. To look at computer-generated images of it, you might think it was a fantasy from a sci-fi comic. The sort I read as a boy. But Masdar City, a university city and environmental technology park outside Abu Dhabi, is already being built. 
To find new ways to build in the stultifying heat of the desert, we studied the way animals adapt to and exploit their environment. Just as penguins huddle together for warmth in the Arctic, so camels huddle to create shade in the desert. In Masdar City, tall buildings will crowd together to provide shade in narrow walkways, opening into courtyards with fountains.
In my spare time, I cycle, ski and pilot gliders. I need the silence – not to escape, but to reflect, think through solutions. Occasionally when flying I’ve found myself sharing airspace and thermals with birds. These creatures – displaying superior intelligence to the metal-encased human – achieve astonishing flight with minimal energy and effort. Similarly, Masdar City’s wind towers capture air currents high above, bringing cool breezes into the city. The temperature is 37°C, as opposed to 57°C in downtown Abu Dhabi.

Below the walkways is an electric public transport network complemented by small personal robot cars, quiet and pollution free. No railway bridges here.
Energy is provided by solar-cell panels. In most Middle Eastern countries, massive electricity bills are run up by air conditioning, but Masdar is efficient enough to be able to sell its surplus electricity to the Abu Dhabi grid. Water and waste are recycled


Masdar City is an experiment and in its early stages – building only began four years ago. A hundred students are studying at the university so far; there will be 800 when it is finished in 2018. 
I know, of course, that this futuristic vision is not one that chimes with British tastes. Surveys often show people would prefer a detached house with a lawn and driveway to an apartment. 
I understand this. It’s not my place to presume to tell people where they can live. But perhaps that dream will simply not be possible in the future. We have taken up too many green spaces already. The countryside must remain sacrosanct and open to all.

When talking about the future city, it’s all too easy to speak only of China and India. There is good reason for that. Britain and the West are in danger of getting left behind. 

Of course it is easier to build the perfect city if you start with a blank canvas like the desert of Abu Dhabi and have oil money to finance it. Cities like London have evolved over millennia and cannot be changed overnight. 
When the Great Fire of London destroyed most of the medieval city in 1666, Christopher Wren was invited to design a new one. Within days he had drawn up an elegant grid of broad boulevards leading to majestic squares, but it came to nothing – the existing landowners wanted things as they had been. 

But in China if something is needed, it happens. The emerging nations are thinking big, taking the initiative. Businessmen and politicians act as one to get things done, as they once did in Manchester. Getting a project of national importance built in Britain requires time and inordinate amounts of patience. Worse, while we usually know what the outcome will be when we start out, it still takes years for an airport extension or a nuclear power station to be approved by public inquiry. 
Did you know London is the only big city in the world that allows to planes fly right over the centre?

It infuriates people day and night. If a Chinese planner had been in charge of London, a new 21st-century airport would have been designed, approved and built in the Thames estuary by now. London’s current airport, Heathrow, would have been consigned to aviation history, perhaps becoming a new housing or a retail hub. Or, better still, a park.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1348558/Norman-Foster-City-future-camels-penguins-cars-dont-drive.html#ixzz1By47dSvN

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Top 25 Green Cities in US

The Top 25 Green Cities in the U.S.







In recognition of the efforts of cities across the country to provide energy-efficient, least polluting and healthy living spaces, the Green Guide presents the environmental leaders, those cities whose green achievements set the standard for others. As The New York Times has reported, in the absence of federal direction, cities across the country are taking environmental stewardship into their own hands and reducing their burden on the planet.

We asked cities with populations over 100,000 to complete our survey and, in combination with environmental data we gathered from government sources, scored cities on an eleven-point scale. Our results are below and for more information about our criteria, see "What Makes A City Green?"

Highlights of the Top 25 Green Cities

1. Eugene, OR (score 9.0375, pop. 137,893)

- Sustainable business incubator

- Renewable energy supplying 85% of city's power

- Extensive wetlands program

2. Austin, TX (score 8.5325, pop. 656,562)

- Green Builder program

- Smart growth initiative

- Committed to solar power

3. Portland, OR (score 8.24, pop. 529,121)

- Green building

- Excellent public transport

- Smart growth

4. St. Paul, MN (score 7.805, pop. 287,151)

- Green space makes up a quarter of urban area

- Significant greenhouse gas reductions

- Affordable housing

5. Santa Rosa, CA (score 7.785, pop. 147,595)

- Green building program

- Clean air and water

- Bicycle paths and lanes

6. Oakland, CA (score 7.3675, pop. 399,484)

- Building local food production

- Green building ordinance

- Public transport

7. Berkeley, CA (score 7.285, pop. 102,743)

- Green building requirements for municipal construction

- Well used public transport system

- Community gardens

8. Honolulu, HI (score 7.055, pop. 371,657)

- Clean air and water

- Biomass power generation

- Green building standards

9. Huntsville, AL (score 7.035, pop. 158,216)

- Green space makes up one-third of urban area

- High public transport use

- Excellent public education program

10. Denver, CO (score 7.0325, pop. 554,636)

- Greenprint Denver, sustainability initiative

- Large hybrid municipal fleet and nation's largest light rail system

- Clean water and access to wilderness

11. Boston, MA (score 6.99, pop. 589,141)

- Green building

- Excellent public transport

- Smoking ban

12. Lexington, KY (score 6.785, pop. 260,512)

- Comprehensive growth management plan

- Clean air

- Smoking ban

13. Springfield, IL (score 6.7225, pop. 111,454)

- Clean air and good water

- Green design

- Green spaces

14. Irvine, CA (score 6.72, pop. 143,072)

- Comprehensive green building program

- Smoking ban

- Pedestrian oriented

15. Cambridge, MA (score 6.72, pop. 101,355)

- High rate of public transport use

- Green design

- High percentage of green space

16. Anchorage, AK (score 6.705, pop. 260,283)

- Excellent air and water quality

- Smoking ban

- High public health

17. Syracuse, NY (score 6.66, pop. 147,306)

- Good air

- Smoking ban

- Commitment to reduce greenhouse gases

18. San Francisco, CA (score 6.6, pop. 776,733)

- Municipal composting

- Green design

- High percentage of renewable energy use

- Very high public transport use

19. Minneapolis, MN (score 6.58, pop. 382,618)

- City-specific minimum wage

- Smoking ban

- High percentage of renewable biomass energy

20. Milwaukee, WI (score 6.5125, pop. 596,974)

- Green housing development

- Green space

21. Rochester, NY (score 6.43, pop. 219,773)

- High percentage of renewable energy

- Clean air

- Smoking ban

22. Albuquerque, NM (score 6.3475, pop. 484,607)

- Clean water

- Smoking Ban

- Wind power

23. Ann Arbor, MI (score 6.2875, pop. 114,024)

- High percentage of public transport and bicycle commuters

- High yard waste recover

- Green space

24. Seattle, WA (score 6.115, pop. 563,374)

- Large number of green buildings

- Very high percentage of hydroelectric power use

- Clean air and smoking ban

25. Kansas City, MO (score 6.055, pop. 441,545)

- Clean water

- City specific minimum wage

- U.S. Mayors Climate Protection signatory

MISTAKES OF THE MASTERS

Mistakes of the Masters

February 26, 2009





So many times you finish a house-building or renovation project thinking, "If only I knew when I started what I know now." It's the same with green construction projects, especially as new technologies and materials keep changing and being developed. If it's any consolation, when experts in the fields of energy-efficient and green building turn to doing their own houses, they often come away with lessons learned to carry forward to the next project.

Kelly Karmel, an architect and sustainable design and LEED consultant and founder ofdesign balance LLC which offer sustainable design and LEED consultancy: "I had to redesign the plans for the house three times before I built it—and one was a complete redo. I was pretty happy with it, but then I broke my left leg, was on crutches for nine months, and completely changed my mind. I put a bedroom on the ground floor and widened the hallway and stairway. The handles are all lever-style. We don't have grab bars in the bathroom, but I configured things to be able to add them and made the kitchen easily modifiable. Believe me, I have a whole new appreciation for the Americans with Disabilities Act. I've come to feel that truly sustainable building needs to include aspects like accessibility more. I try to design for being able to live in a place long term—and not having to repair things constantly."

Betsy Pettit, FAIA, principal of Building Science Corporation and an architect with over 30 years' professional experience: "In 1996, we renovated an 1850 New England Greek Revival farmhouse and later regretted not using higher R-value insulation in the walls and roof. It's expensive to add more after the fact. That's why we always recommend that if you're replacing siding, you add as much at that time as you possibly can." Betsy Pettit and her husband and business partner Joseph Lstiburek have since renovated two additional houses, both with significantly higher R-value insulation.

Jeff Rogers, owner of the first LEED for Homes platinum-certified project in Massachusetts and owner of New England Green (negreen.com), a green building materials supplier: "My mistake was not putting in an on-demand tankless water heater as a backup to the solar hot water in the coldest months. I had electrodes in the hot water tank, but the electric ran too much and prevented the solar from giving any benefit in the winter. So I've just fixed it. I turned off the electrodes and turned on the new on-demand. I haven't gotten an energy bill yet to see what it's saving. But in theory it should use about a tenth of the energy I was using before."

Frank Wickstead, owner of Wickstead Works, in Atlanta, Georgia, an award-winning remodeler and verifier for the National Green Building Program: "Things I regret about my 2005 home renovation—I made a list. I have a furnace in the crawl space and I need to bring that space into the building envelope and make it insulated (I still haven't and can't wait to). I would have minimized my half-acre lawn. It takes a lot of fertilizer and work that isn't necessary. And I don't irrigate, so it's brown now. There's a neighborhood nearby that has xeriscaping and uses native species and it's wonderful. Here's a big guilt: I put in Brazilian cherry floors. I had some leftover from a project, so I bought more. I know it was probably an illegally poached tree. The floor's gorgeous, but that's a real regret."

Jeffrey Zucker, a principal with the award-winning sustainable design firm Catalyst Architecture in Prescott, Arizona: "In 1993, I built a house which was as close to 'zero energy demand'as possible—air-tight drywall technique, low-e glazing, heat recovery ventilator, in-floor radiant heat, water harvesting, xeriscaping, earth berming, passive solar heat, blower door testing, blown-in cellulose insulation, 2-x-6 construction. My worst heating bills per month were about $50.

So, what was my mistake?

I sold it.

I built a house in the Prescott cohousing community that I founded and it has some efficiencies, such as community water harvesting for our organic gardens. But for some reason I forgot many of the lessons that I had taught myself in the previous house. Now I am paying heating bills for the same sized house of about $250 per month, rather than $50. Fortunately (or, unfortunately, depending on how you look at it)I am an architect, which means that I design and build a new house for myself at the slightest provocation. Next time . . . ."




Alas, most of us don't get that second chance to correct our design or to build another house. But try to remain serene and investigate ways you can improve what you have, accepting the missteps you can't undo. Then tell others what you've found out so at least they can avoid the same blunders.

Wood Furniture: FSC Certified

Wood Furniture: FSC Certified


With a growing population and demand for wood and paper, deforestation continues at alarming rates. Almost half of the planet's original forests, an estimated 7.4 billion acres, have been cut down, and 39.5 million acres of forest vanish every year—reducing plant diversity and wildlife, causing desertification and water pollution and harming the livelihoods of indigenous peoples. 
Because trees store carbon, their loss contributes to global warming. "If consumers are looking to make a better choice, they should consider the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)," says Bill Mankin, Director of the Global Forest Policy Project. FSC has been certifying well-managed forest products since 1993. It requires protection of ecologically valuable forests, limits logging of old growth and sets standards for fair labor and protecting communities and cultures. FSC has accredited both Scientific Certification Systems (SCS) and the Smartwood program of the Rainforest Alliance (RA) to certify that wood meets these standards and can bear the FSC's distinct logo. RA's "Rediscovered Wood" program also certifies salvaged or recycled wood.

In September 2003, Boise Cascade became the first large-scale wood and paper products company to embrace at least some FSC certification, announcing sweeping changes in company policy and winning praise from the Rainforest Action Network. Several specialty companies as well as home-furnishings giant Ikea offer wood furniture made from FSC-certified wood, from dining tables to office furniture. 

A handful of companies also make furniture from salvaged or recycled wood, or from recycled plastic, another forest-sparing alternative:
For FSC bedroom, dining room, living room and office furniture, try:
If you want one distinctive piece, try Berkeley Mills' popular cherry Lambda chair with a low- or no-VOC finish. ($1,600; www.berkeleymills.com, 877-426-4557).
The Joinery's Thomas chairs, made of FSC-certified cherry, are built to order. All finishes are low- or no-VOC, and all furniture can be purchased unfinished ($625; www.thejoinery.com, 503-788-8547).
The Wooden Duck makes a variety of items from recycled teak and Douglas fir, including their recycled fir Dory table ($1,450/7 ft.; www.thewoodenduck.com, 510-848-3575)

Beyond purely ecological concerns, wood furniture can pose human health risks when made with glues or finishes that pollute indoor air. Formaldehyde, a carcinogen, can offgas from some conventional pressed woods, particleboards and veneers. To this end, SCS also certifies wood furniture that is formaldehyde-free or uses recycled or reclaimed wood. For a complete listing of FSC-certified companies, see www.fsc-info.org.

Monday, May 17, 2010

“Future-proof” your property with Green Building Index (GBI)

Chairman of Malaysian Institute of Architects (PAM) sustainability committee and pro tem member of the Malaysian Green Building Council (MGBC) Ar Dr Tan Loke Mun shares his views about future-proofing properties with GBI.

According to the Chairman of the World Green Building Council Tony Arnel, the challenges our planet faces – climate change and sustainable economic development – are global in nature and require global solutions. What is Malaysia’s situation and what is your take on this?
The situation for developing countries such as Malaysia is more acute as we are still in the process of moving from old inefficiencies into new green efficiencies and greener systems. We need to make the transition fast whilst we still have energy resources such as oil and gas, and before the window of opportunity closes on us. Slow transition will be more costly in the long run and also ultimately endanger the current Malaysian way of life.

How can local property developers do their part?
They can start by taking a long term view of the products that they develop. The days of subsidised power, water, cheap labour and other resources are fast coming to an end. Population growth and urban development continues. So it is imperative for developers to start to think about how the end-users are going to enjoy, sustain, maintain and thrive in an era of higher costs. If they lose money from buying inefficient and costly homes or properties, they will not be able to save enough to buy another.

What do you mean by ‘future-proofing’ properties?

‘Future-proofing’ is about the making of properties and buildings that can stand the test of a future where basic utilities such as power, water, transport, maintenance and upkeep will be much higher. Older buildings that do not retro-fit or renew or re-green themselves would be quickly obsolete and be impossible to maintain and operate. They would become unsustainable. The days of designing and constructing a great building and not knowing how much it will cost to run nor whether you are able to maintain that building has come to an end.

What are green buildings then?
A green building focuses on increasing the efficiency of resource use – energy, water, and material – while reducing the impact on human health and the environment. This is achieved through better sitting, design, construction, operation, maintenance and removal. Green buildings should be designed and operated to reduce the overall impact of the built environment on its surroundings. Can the layperson on the street afford to adopt such a technology? Yes. There are many opportunities and many technologies and ways to achieve sustainable buildings. Many are common sense and logical and not costly.

When did the GBI come into place, and was the need seen even at that time?
GBI was developed by the Malaysian Institute of Architects (PAM) from August 2008. PAM worked with the Association of Consulting Engineers (ACEM) and with the full support from the entire building and property industry, was able to complete it within six months. GBI was officially launched by the Minister of Works on the 21st of May 2009.

In 2008, the need for the tool became apparent to architects and PAM because we started to encounter clients and customers who were asking for green buildings. That year also saw an incredible increase in the cost of fuel and power and that also made everyone more conscious of the need to build buildings that would consume less resource.

What is GBI and how is it calculated?
GBI is basically a Green Building Checklist or tool. It can be downloaded for free and anyone with some building knowledge can use it. By going through the checklist, you will be able to make conscious design and development decisions that will determine the end result of how sustainable your building is going to be. You can get more info from the website greenbuildingindex.org.my

You may wish to apply for certification to ascertain the level of sustainability of your building. You can achieve GBI Certified, Silver, Gold and Platinum levels. This will give you an international grading for your building and this helps people to compare based on an accepted benchmarking system.

Which countries in Asia are leading in this area of GBI? And how successful has it been so far?
In the Asean region, Malaysia (GBI) and Singapore (Green Mark) are probably the most advanced in green building tools. There are good green stuff happening in Thailand but they have lost some pace due to internal political turmoil. If we continue to press on at the same pace that it took to develop GBI, we can become a green building leader for the region. We have an advantage in that GBI is driven by both the private sector professionals and also the Government.

With regards to the ‘green practice’, what do you hope to see in the real estate sector? Is the Government doing enough?
Of course we want to see quick and complete change… and adaptation to change. Going GBI Green is a simplified guided approach. Currently the Government at all levels are providing incentives to facilitate this change. Soon it will become mandatory. We are headed in the right direction. We can become regional leaders of this change if we continue to act quickly.

Any message(s) that you would like to impart to the Malaysian public, especially the real estate sector?
We all need to be aware of the constant of change. Failure to change – could result in our demise. We need to realise that all the massive buildings, creating and re-creating must have an effect on the environment, be it climate change or increased calamities on over-urbanised areas. So whilst we have a chance and now the GBI tool, we need to make correct decisions that will result in a better future for all.
http://starproperty.my/REHDA/Interviews/4546/0/0

Monday, January 18, 2010

Green Building Index, Rating for Non-Residential Development



NON-RESIDENTIAL

The GBI Non-Residential Rating tool evaluates the sustainable aspects of buildings that are commercial, institutional and industrial in nature. This includes factories, offices, hospitals, universities, colleges, hotels and shopping complexes.

Of the six criteria that make up the GBI rating, emphasis is placed on energy efficiency and indoor environmental quality as these have the greatest impact in the areas of energy use and well-being of the occupants and users of the building.

By improving on the efficiency of active (mechanical and electrical) systems as well as incorporating good passive designs together with proper sustainable maintenance regimes, significant reductions in consumed energy can be realised. This can lead to a reduced carbon footprint and also offers long-term savings for the building owners.

Further information ; www.greenbuildingindex.org

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Green Building Index



WHAT IS A GREEN BUILDING?

A Green building focuses on increasing the efficiency of resource use – energy, water, and materials – while reducing building impact on human health and the environment during the building’s lifecycle, through better sitting, design, construction, operation, maintenance, and removal. Green Buildings should be designed and operated to reduce the overall impact of the built environment on its surroundings.

WHY GREEN BUILDINGS?

A Green building focuses on increasing the efficiency of resource use – energy, water, and materials – while reducing building impact on human health and the environment during the building’s lifecycle, through better sitting, design, construction, operation, maintenance, and removal. Green Buildings should be designed and operated to reduce the overall impact of the built environment on its surroundings.

1. Green buildings are designed to save energy and resources, recycle materials and minimise the emission of toxic substances throughout its life cycle.

2. Green buildings harmonise with the local climate, traditions, culture and the surrounding environment.

3. Green buildings are able to sustain and improve the quality of human life whilst maintaining the capacity of the ecosystem at local and global levels.

4. Green buildings make efficient use of resources, have significant operational savings and increases workplace productivity.

5. Building green sends the right message about a company or organisation – that it is well run, responsible, and committed to the future.

Further information ; http://www.greenbuildingindex.org

Understanding the Green Building Index (GBI)


GTower located in the heart of KL Golden Triangle area
By Tong Sze Leng | Nov 3, 2009
Understanding the Green Building Index (GBI)

Environmental activists have called us to “go green” for years. The need to save the environment is even more urgent now with the latest finding from UK-based Caitlin Arctic Survey and the World Wildlife Fund that suggests the Arctic ice will melt away within a decade.

The typhoon that recently hit the Philippines and a series of earthquakes that rocked Indonesia are also clear indications that we need to put much more effort into “going green” to ensure Earth’s sustainability.

Events like these have encouraged green building campaigns. Architects from around the world race to build greener, more environment-friendly structures. This worldwide movement is set to minimise our global carbon footprint.

A green building – whether a house, office building or school – follows a simple rule: it must not impose problems on our health as well as the environment.

How to measure a green building?
Three words: Green Building Index (GBI).

GBI is a rating system developed by Pertubuhan Akitek Malaysia and the Association of Consulting Engineers Malaysia, which aims to educate architects, designers, engineers and the public on building sustainable structures.

According to the GBI website (http://www.greenbuildingindex.org/), the rating system provides an opportunity for developers to design and construct green, sustainable buildings. These structures save on energy and water, harmonise with its surrounding environment and use resources efficiently.


For a building to be awarded the GBI rating, it must meet six key criteria. They are:
• energy efficiency
• indoor environmental quality
• sustainable site planning and management
• materials and resources
• water efficiency
• innovation
A structure will first be assessed at the design stage. Once the six key criteria are met, a GBI provisional rating will be awarded. A year after the building is first occupied, another award will be given. After that, an evaluation will be carried out every three years.

Green buildings in Malaysia

To date, Pusat Tenaga Malaysia Green Energy Office (PTM-GEO) (http://www.ptm.org.my/) is Malaysia’s only certified green building.

Launched in July 2009, PTM-GEO nestles on a 5-acre site in Bandar Baru Bangi and is currently operating with an energy index of 65 kWh/m2year. A normal office building in Kuala Lumpur (KL) operates on an energy index that ranges from 250 to 300 kWh/m2year.

Another successful green building is GTower (http://www.gtower.com.my/), which is located at the intersection of Jalan Tun Razak and Jalan Ampang. It is rated A++ by the Green Mark GOLD certification, a provisional rating from the Building & Construction Authority of Singapore. The structure’s green IT solutions gave it its A++ rating.

GTower incorporates IP-based intelligent applications that enable the company to reduce power consumption and carbon emissions while providing optimal power and networking capabilities.

Why Malaysian companies should go green
The Malaysian government has set up a RM1.5 billion fund to encourage more green projects and the use of green technology.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said in his Budget 2010 speech that the fund will offer soft loans to companies that supply and employ green technology. Consumer companies will receive a maximum financing of RM10 million while suppliers, RM50 million.

“The government will bear 2% of total interest rate,” the Prime Minister said.

Datuk Seri Najib also added that building owners will be given tax exemption if they obtain the GBI within Oct 24, 2009 and Dec 31, 2014. Buyers who purchase GBI-compliant buildings within those dates will also be given stamp duty exemption on instruments of transfer of ownership.

With such benefits, companies should consider going green as a green building not only cuts carbon emissions, but also decreases operating costs in the long run. Also, instead of using new materials, old materials can be recycled to construct a building; hence, reducing waste…and increasing Earth’s sustainability.

Interested companies can apply financing through the National Green Technology Centre and the scheme would start on Jan 1, 2010.

As of today, the Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water, the Ministry of Finance as well as the Malaysia Energy Centre are still in the stage of finalising the details of the RM1.5 billion fund.
http://starproperty.my/PropertyGuide/Gadgets/672/0/0

AMAZON