HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Portland > Parks, Metro, Urban Design & Heritage Issues


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2006, 5:26 PM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,508
Salzman proposes all new buildings in Portland must meet LEED Silver certification

A 'green' light for condos, office towers
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Ryan Frank
The Oregonian

Commissioner Dan Saltzman is back coloring the city green again.

The former engineer is out with an idea to require all major private construction projects -- read condos and office towers -- to be Earth-friendly.

Developers would have to get certified for green features, such as solar power or recycled rainwater in the johns, through the U.S. Green Building Council to the silver level. Already, all city-funded projects must meet gold standards, and ones funded through the Portland Development Commission must get silver. The new rule would affect privately funded projects. If the council agrees to it, the new codes would go into effect in 2010 or so.

The change is part of a $1.5 million sustainable industries project Saltzman is pushing for the next budget year. As part of the work, Saltzman plans a blue-ribbon, er, a green-ribbon task force. The environment, along with children, is one of Saltzman's core issues. This project comes as the council pushes sustainable businesses and biofuels to the top of economic-development targets.

After handing over a copy of the plan, Brendan Finn, Saltzman's new chief of staff, said: "And that's printed on the front and back . . ." before Saltzman picked up with ". . . because that's how we do things around here."
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/o...200.xml&coll=7
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2006, 6:03 PM
Dr. Smoke's Avatar
Dr. Smoke Dr. Smoke is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 126
I can not understand how all these commercial buildings are choosing LEED. I tried to do this with residential, but the ONLY Provider in town wants $2,800 per house minimum, plus uplifts for "additional performance testing credits", whatever that means. (They certainly refuse to explain it)

No homebuyer is going to pay $2,800 extra for LEED yet. What is going on with commercial?
__________________
George the Second, to wounded veterans in the Amputee Care Center of Brooke Army Medical Center, Jan. 1, 2006:
"As you can possibly see, I have an injury myself -- not here at the hospital, but in combat with a cedar. I eventually won. The cedar gave me a little scratch."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2006, 7:10 PM
Urbanpdx Urbanpdx is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 561
LEED was really set up as a commercial certification and it is hard to do it for residential, particularly "for sale" residential. There are changes happening at LEED to address the residential side.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2006, 7:38 PM
Dr. Smoke's Avatar
Dr. Smoke Dr. Smoke is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 126
I know the GBC has received tons of complaints about cost, but you are way too general in your comments to be saying anything.
__________________
George the Second, to wounded veterans in the Amputee Care Center of Brooke Army Medical Center, Jan. 1, 2006:
"As you can possibly see, I have an injury myself -- not here at the hospital, but in combat with a cedar. I eventually won. The cedar gave me a little scratch."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2006, 8:13 PM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,508
LEED homes is a work in progress, to say the least. It is fairly new but communities here in Oregon and elsewhere are pioneering the effort. There is some intereting information about LEED homes from the USGBC here:

http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=147

and some storys about LEED communities here:

http://www.edcmag.com/CDA/Articles/I...100000f932a8c0
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2006, 2:07 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,752
I would love to one day see anything new built in this country to be at least LEED Silver.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2006, 2:38 AM
westsider's Avatar
westsider westsider is offline
Kicking a** since 1907
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Portland
Posts: 437
Don't any of you think this is a little heavy handed and may drive away some development?
__________________
"People should not be afraid of their government; governments should be afraid of their people"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2006, 3:36 AM
roner's Avatar
roner roner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Portland
Posts: 119
^^yes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2006, 5:45 AM
PacificNW PacificNW is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,116
^^Especially for the developers/builders/sellers/buyers who don't have a conscience.

Last edited by PacificNW; Dec 29, 2006 at 6:04 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2006, 6:33 AM
pdxstreetcar's Avatar
pdxstreetcar pdxstreetcar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,300
Yeah I think its well intentioned but not really the right thing to do. Already Portland is one of the greenest cities in the country if not the greenest. It seems the vast majority of new major buildings in Portland are green. Instead of requiring it, it would be better to sweeten the incentives to build green.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2006, 6:57 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdxstreetcar View Post
Yeah I think its well intentioned but not really the right thing to do. Already Portland is one of the greenest cities in the country if not the greenest. It seems the vast majority of new major buildings in Portland are green. Instead of requiring it, it would be better to sweeten the incentives to build green.

Incentive sounds so much better. I think that would be a better idea. We are one of the only cities in this country that actually have developers that care about LEED.

It is just nice to see this city act differently than any of te other cities I have been to.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2006, 8:04 AM
PacificNW PacificNW is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,116
I agree with the incentives idea......maybe a compromise can be in the works....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2006, 8:05 AM
PDX City-State PDX City-State is offline
Well designed mixed use
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: under the Burnside Bridge
Posts: 1,589
I believe that all buildings should meet certain environmental criteria, but just because a building isn't LEED certified doesn't mean it's not a green or sustainable building. In fact, getting the certification can cost a lot of money--which is why smaller firms that do very green work don't always have LEED-certified work.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2006, 3:17 PM
Chicago3rd Chicago3rd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cranston, Rhode Island
Posts: 8,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by westsider View Post
Don't any of you think this is a little heavy handed and may drive away some development?
It will drive away the wrong type of development.

I think though that the plan needs to go hand in hand with incentives. Since this is all new and the prices are higher then these buildings should get price breaks on anything that they effect.....electical use, water & sewer.

As we all know free enterprise...though often cheap on the front side can cost private industry and tax payers a lot of money on the hind side (how much to clean up RiverPlace area?)
__________________
All the photos "I" post are photos taken by me and can be found on my photo pages @ http://wilbsnodgrassiii.smugmug.com// UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED and CREDITED.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2006, 4:29 PM
Dr. Smoke's Avatar
Dr. Smoke Dr. Smoke is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 126
Well, something just has to be done about the cost of LEED-R, or it's not going anywhere. I don't understand how it's economic for commercial.

I'll just go BuiltGreen and EnergyStar. Probably better-known anyway.
__________________
George the Second, to wounded veterans in the Amputee Care Center of Brooke Army Medical Center, Jan. 1, 2006:
"As you can possibly see, I have an injury myself -- not here at the hospital, but in combat with a cedar. I eventually won. The cedar gave me a little scratch."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2006, 4:47 PM
PDX City-State PDX City-State is offline
Well designed mixed use
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: under the Burnside Bridge
Posts: 1,589
Agreed. There is a reason why only large firms are doing it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2006, 4:47 PM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,508
^Eh, when G-E started the Brewery Blocks, they were a small start up development company. They couldn't get banks to buy into the idea of the Brewery Blocks, and even had a harder time finding financing for these...green...features. Look at them today. I don't necessarily agree only large companies can add green features, but by being small and innovative with green features, you can build a company off that, as G-E did.

Dr. Smoke, if you haven't already, you might read up about the OHSU Health and Healing Center in the South Waterfront. After all is said and done, by incorporating the green features into the design and construction of the building, the projects costs actually came up cheaper than traditional construction.
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2006, 5:07 PM
PDX City-State PDX City-State is offline
Well designed mixed use
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: under the Burnside Bridge
Posts: 1,589
Quote:
I don't necessarily agree only large companies can add green features, but by being small and innovative with green features, you can build a company off that, as G-E did.
I'm not sure people here understand LEED. It's not about simply adding green features. All firms should do that. In fact, green building can be a boost to the bottom line given that buyers and leaseholders often like knowing they're supporting a green building. It's become a very marketable attribute--especially in Portland. Works, Holst and host of other firms have built a host of great projects with innovative features and many elements of green design, but the projects aren't LEED certified. Why? Because it costs thousands to go through the certification process. It's simply not an option for small developers and firms. In fact, most architects think it's bullshit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2006, 5:14 PM
Dr. Smoke's Avatar
Dr. Smoke Dr. Smoke is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkDaMan View Post
Dr. Smoke, if you haven't already, you might read up about the OHSU Health and Healing Center in the South Waterfront. After all is said and done, by incorporating the green features into the design and construction of the building, the projects costs actually came up cheaper than traditional construction.
Trust me, I know what it's about, and I know what it saves. I build with ICF, steel interior framing, concrete decks, and an innovative solar/hydronic system, but LEED just doesn't have the throw-weight with buyers to justify its cost, as I say.

The other programs are generally known and are just about as good.
__________________
George the Second, to wounded veterans in the Amputee Care Center of Brooke Army Medical Center, Jan. 1, 2006:
"As you can possibly see, I have an injury myself -- not here at the hospital, but in combat with a cedar. I eventually won. The cedar gave me a little scratch."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2006, 5:30 PM
Urbanpdx Urbanpdx is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 561
The increased costs of energy saving construction are sometimes made up in the operation of the building over the long term Unfortunately, the for-sale market (condos) does not seem to want to pay enough of a premium for them to economically justify the costs. When surveyed, the buyers of the Henry, for instance, were pretty clear. Only four people said the LEED certification and energy savings had a major influence on their purchase. Home buyers and consumers in general, tend to be very short sided in these decisions. It is slowly changing but most people still will buy the location, style, size, floorplan, parking, etc way before they will buy energy conservation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Portland > Parks, Metro, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:48 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.