Portland (the #1 most sustainable city) building the greenest large-scale building in the world!

[cascadiance]

Portlanders,

You have a lot to be proud of as being a city that will be the model for others to live by in the future years of our battle against climate change, etc.

First of all, Portland is rated the #1 city by Sustain Lane in the U.S. for sustainability:

http://www.sustainlane.com/us-city-rankings/overall-rankings

http://www.sustainlane.com/us-city-rankings/cities/portland

Given that Seattle is ranked #3, it would seem to be a good plan to push for the Democratic Convention for either 2010 or 212 to be in Seattle (and perhaps partly in Portland) to show the nation where our party will want to lead the country towards as a part of rebuilding it with new jobs and proper direction for sustainability.

There's also a DVD on Portland's passion for sustainability you can get here:

http://www.deepdiscount.com/viewproduct.htm?productId=46830947



Secondly, new article in yesterday's Oregonian about plans for Portland's new Sustainability center being the greenest large-scale building in the world to be built in 2010.

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/08/a_portland_sustainability_cent.html

A Portland sustainability center could sprout in 2010
by Dylan Rivera, The Oregonian
Friday August 21, 2009, 7:52 PM

PORTLAND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
An artist's rendering shows the Oregon Sustainability Center, designed by Portland firms SERA Architects and GBD Architects, expected to break ground next year. Cutting edge among Earth-friendly buildings, the design shows solar panels oriented to the sun and a long-planned Portland Streetcar extension through the block.

After more than a year of technical studies, the greenest large-scale building in the world appears poised to start construction at Portland State University next year.

The $90 million Oregon Sustainability Center -- for several years a gauzy notion but this year funded by the Oregon Legislature -- will be a showcase of the state's green building innovation that draws visitors, researchers and designer-developers from across the world. It will rely solely on its own solar panels for energy and use no more water than falls on the site, among other major environmental feats.

That's according to its many partner-sponsors, among them the Oregon University System, the city of Portland and dozens of nonprofits promoting the green life in all its aspects.

The project could break ground as early as spring -- and has ambitions that extend well beyond Portland.

Those backing it want Oregon to own the green-building industry: Researchers inventing new energy efficiency products, nonprofits that promote those products, and policymakers that push for them would all be housed in the building. The building itself, a glass flower of a tower, would promote real estate-related firms and the companies that supply their Earth-friendly products.

A 'living building' means:

Over the course of 12 months, it produces as much power as it consumes, all from on-site renewable energy.

All the water occupants use comes from rainfall, except as required by local health codes.

All wastewater and storm water are managed on-site.

All occupants have access to operable windows for fresh air and daylight.

It has "design features intended solely for human delight and the celebration of culture, spirit and place," according to the Living Building Challenge of the Cascadia Region Green Building Council.

-- Dylan Rivera

...

[laconicsax]

1. There's nothing sustainable about building something.

Where do the raw materials come from, how are they extracted and processed, how much CO₂ is released in those stages. How do they get here, how much CO₂ is released in transit? How much CO₂ is released during construction?

Where is this building supposed to go? It's not like there's an abundance of space downtown. If another building has to be razed to make way, what happens to the debris? How much CO₂ is released in the entire process?

It's only a sustainable building after everything above is completed.

[cascadiance]

2. You can say the same thing about building wind mills or solar arrays too...

There's the time up front where you're probably wasting energy more. But if the building doesn't consume energy (or even water) for many years after that, it's less of a drag on the ecosphere than other buildings. And if you have enough rooftop greenery, etc. that also helps cut down on the city's C02 from the cars driving around there. A lot of cities are building rooftop gardens on many of their buildings now to help with this.

[laconicsax]

3. With wind mills and solar arrays there's a contribution and real benefits.

The loss of resources is eventually offset by the energy produced.

This 'living building' has no positive contribution. Not continually draining resources isn't the same as contributing resources (just like how reducing cost increases isn't the same as reducing cost). A rooftop greenery is nice, but it doesn't really start make a difference unless it can offset more CO₂ emissions than those generated by employees getting to work.

It's a really cool idea to have a building that acts like it doesn't exist but that doesn't justify building one. Why not work on getting existing structures to be as close to the 'living building' concept as possible and require that any new buildings meet those standards. That's better than arbitrarily building a new structure just to show how cool and sustainable we are.

[quakerboy]

4. There is constant new construction going on in cities

that new construction might as well be in this model. And people respond to symbols and exemplars. I get what you are saying, and if they were talking about knocking down the entire city to build a fleet of these new buildings, that would seem pretty ridiculous. But one building is more an example to prove the benefits than anything else.

And, in the end, reducing cost increases is better than not doing anything. Not as good as reducing cost, but better than nothing.