But LEED buildings aren't built for sustainability. They're built for marketing purposes. LEED is just a game. It's very likely most builders don't care about sustainability, they care about gaming the LEED system to get certified and sell their units to braindead soccer moms.
If LEED were about sustainability, you wouldn't have LEED buildings that cost more to sustain than similar non-LEED certified buildings.
Architects can save a ton of money and build far more sustainable buildings if they did what's right instead of playing a game created by money whores.
Now don't get me wrong. I think sustainability is great -- particularly if there's a ROI. But please tell me why this LEED stuff isn't a joke.
john w. wrote:That's a bit harsh, but I understand your suspicion and therefore rejection of its premise.
Ok, well how about a look at the statistics? I'm a heretic and can spot fraud from a mile away. If people truly cared about the environment, they'd actually do it instead of playing shell games. But they don't and for that they are hypocrites.
[url]http://www.buildingscience.com/documents/insights/mis2014leed2014ing[/url] wrote:
NBI compared the LEED median to the CBECS mean. Big, giant mistake, one that will haunt the report authors for a long time. If you compared means alone (i.e. averages) you could say LEED buildings performed about 15 percent better than typical buildings constructed at the same time. But that is misleading considering the scatter of the data. Let me repeat, LEED buildings are not statistically different than typical buildings, even though their mean is around 15 percent better (kind of like how a political candidate can be 3 points ahead but have it be a statistical dead heat). Aren’t statistics great? Anyway, the number is certainly not 24-to-33 percent better. And even if NBI’s claims for LEED were true, 30 percent energy savings for what is supposed to be the vanguard green program in the US is not very inspiring. Come on folks, we have to do better.
Someone had to play with the numbers to make the storyline work and that is just plain misleading. And, surprise, surprise the guy who blew the whistle is getting trashed.
So what does this mean? Let us translate—the LEED buildings did not conclusively save any energy compared to typical buildings built at the same time.This is not good.
LEED needs to be fixed. Manipulating a bunch of statistics to hide behind does not save any real energy. Let’s fix the problem and save some energy
Where to start? Easy. Ask a few simple questions. How big is my building? Where is it? What is going on inside of it? How much energy did it use compared to a similar sized building in a similar location with a similar occupancy built to standard practice? If you can’t show any energy savings for gods sake shut up and take your points and stick them where the sun doesn’t shine. Okay, that is a little bit harsh. So what do we need to do to make the energy savings real? We have to start making the right design decisions at the front end, but we also have to be keeping track of how well we are doing on the back end so that we can continue to improve. Right now we are doing neither.
I couldn't have said it better, and your screed was indicative of the frustration felt by designers who know better but yet still allow a certain degree of fleecing by a bureaucracy. We M U S T do better or we'll be leading consumers to believe we're actually doing enough. That bit of chewing gum holding the dyke flow isn't going to last very long, and we'd better find a way, fast, to demonstrate the importance of good base form and alert those who might otherwise be distracted by higher indoor air quality by way of installing a walk off mat in your minimum 8' deep vestibule.
like anything in life, there will be variations in opinion. its how we improve if we desire to improve. i don’t worry about those who use the “green movement” to greenwash so that they buy that new jaguar, because history shows that this is the usual human reaction. things move in the direction they were destined to. i can’t change that. what i can do is approach green building in a way that is better than what was done before. for example, my company “flips products green’’. basically, we switch products that are made from non-renewable, unsustainable, toxic, unrecycled, and unrecyclable into materials that are the opposite. it’s what in my opinion should be done because aesthetically, functionally and performance wise, many of these green options meet the bar or exceed it – it’s not like 10 years ago. it’s exciting and we’re seeing a very good response. and I attribute it to our low cost pricing – won’t cost you more to go green. so it leaves you in a place where you decide that you like it or you don’t. we create a level playing field. i think green materials have been terribly overpriced over the years. it hurt the industry. people had that high cost label driven into their heads. industry people were trying to get rich fast and inflated the prices. I work in this industry every day so I know prices don’t need to be where they are. my company has a different philosophy. we are and want to stay a small business - that always shocks people. the overhead savings pass on to our clients. money is great, but it’s not what drives us. as long as we can make a good living in what we do, then we’re happy. we don’t need the salary that 100% mark-ups provide. again, it’s a human issue – greed. it’s funny. every day we have contractors that come in or call and say we have clients who want to go green but can’t afford it. then we show them our prices. lol. now they have no excuse. then we see if what they say was actually the truth or if they’re just trying to be politically correct. companies like mine are introducing materials that are as price competitive and functional as there non-eco friendly counterparts. now, our clients can go green if they choose to without that “oh it costs more” hanging over their heads. with the roberts tower, we hope to provide flooring made from rapidly renewable sources, recycled materials and some other items. but we’ll see what happens because we’re the little guy and usually the big box, conventional distributors that sell devilish products come in. it’s funny how the more money is involved, the more sharks come out to feast. the collapse of our economy will force people to think sustainably and responsibly, and our prices make it that much easier for them to follow thru on that. i believe what we’re doing is diametrically opposed to the usual corporate frame, but that’s what the “green movement” is all about and maybe the roberts tower will implement some of that it this building, with or without us.
i have to get back to work, but innov8ion, i could not agree with you more on LEED. i think on the energy side, it has really dropped the ball. but the blame should also go to those who have abused a well intentioned system - like most systems. energy conservation and sustainable structural design in a building needs greater green oversight for sure. but i prefer to look at our world before there was LEED - not as nice. for all it's missteps, it has still helped to create healthier environments all around the world. i believe the rule of thumb should be that we first encourage and support those who are striving to create healthier communities, then help them correct errors by providing reasonable & smart solutions.
citywatcher wrote:I have determined I dont like this development
and the reason as I look at the pics is its LOCATION
I gotta say, I see no problem with the development. It's a new tower in the heart of downtown. Of course it's never hard to find someone to b****.
citywatcher wrote:WHY did it have to go here? I think it is a poor location for the Robert's to choose..
What are your credentials to make this decision? If we were talking about a new tower sitting on the parking lot of Chesterfield Commons, any idiot could see that. But this is a tower downtown.
citywatcher wrote:
They have plenty of available lots that they could have used
Maybe you should buy the company, scrap the plan, and start clean. You obviously know many things that they don't.
citywatcher wrote:
It is hidden away and will not stand out unless you approach it from the the front
A building like this needs 4 sides..
it would have been better to build this on a free standing lot where you could see 4 SIDES of this building
See above.
citywatcher wrote:
I dont think they really thought out the location on this one, maybe it has been mentioned on why it is going up here...
Nah, they decided they had an extra $100 mil to blow, so they just bought the land and started construction on a whim. I'm sure it didn't take months of thought, meetings, big decisions, board meetings, etc.
They are ruining the view from the hotel by building so close, doesnt make sense to me.
If you get a minute, explain to me why they would give a damn about ruining a hotel's view of downtown. Thanks.
I agree with Juice. Why the hell does it matter that they are blocking the view from the hotel? Would you rather have an empty lot?
Whatever was to be built there would have potentially blocked views, ever been to NYC? Blocked views everywhere!
When views become a problem in downtown, there will be a demand to build higher. Until then we need to try building on ever parking lot downtown and worry about the blocked views later. Also the penthouse suite usually has the best views, because its at the top.
.....and another thing. Everyone on this forum should be ecstatic that this tower is getting built during these economic times. If anything this shows that downtown remains a viable market and we are going to be getting more blocked vistas when the housing market bounces back. I definitely wont be complaining when that happens. Think about all the potential infill and rehabilitation the future holds for downtown, especially once they put that full service Schnucks in.
I can answer that question pretty easily. They owned this lot, so that happens to be the one they selected. Sure, they could have bought another lot. However, they liked the lot they already owned, so they decided it would be a good idea to put a sleek and slender tower up on that site that takes advantage of the I'm sure very impressive views. It gets rid of at least one of the vacant lots downtown, and we get a nice tower as well. The one that somehow survived when none of the others could.
WHY did it have to go here? I think it is a poor location for the Robert's to choose..
A building like this needs 4 sides..
it would have been better to build this on a free standing lot where you could see 4 SIDES of this building
I think the location made a lot of sense to them. Putting the Roberts Tower right next the the Roberts Mayfair and Roberts Orpheum and Roberts Lofts...
And isn't one of the selling points of the tower the access to the amenities of the hotel?
A free standing building with 4 sides would not be very urban or dense.
Another reason I like the site is that it covers up the "ugly" side of the Mayfair.
I could be wrong here, but I don't think that the south side of the Mayfair was intended to be seen. Wasn't there a relatively tall building at 8th & Locust?
steve wrote:Another reason I like the site is that it covers up the "ugly" side of the Mayfair.
I could be wrong here, but I don't think that the south side of the Mayfair was intended to be seen. Wasn't there a relatively tall building at 8th & Locust?
You're right - the St. Nicolaus Hotel used to be there. While it wasn't right up against the side of the Mayfair (at least I don't think it was), it was tall enough to block a good portion of that south wall.
I'm really excited about this project. It's one of the few things we have to be excited about these days.
when the housing market bounces back. I definitely wont be complaining when that happens. Think about all the potential infill and rehabilitation the future holds for downtown, especially once they put that full service Schnucks in.
