A Place of Sense

Of special note to anyone who been working with facade connections in steel buildings is two documents from AISC. The first is their “Design Guide 22: Facade Attachments to Steel-Framed Buildings” and the other is a recent article in MSC: “Steel Framing & Building Envelopes”.

The Design Guide 22 is free to AISC members (~$60 otherwise) and is probably one of their best. It has a great amount of information about spandrel beams, connections, facade issues, and even backs it up with some FEA work.

The MSC article “Steel Framing & Building Envelopes” by James A. D’Aloisio, PE, SECB, LEED AP should be considered as an addendum to the design guide, specifically dealing with the issues of thermal bridging and building envelope thermal performance. Basically, if an engineer applies the suggestions from DG22 without considering thermal bridging effects, then the R-value of the wall assembly could be halved (!).

D’Aloisio’s has published some interesting details he is experimenting with. His recommendation is to always use a thermal break, and he shows a Fiberglass-Reinforced Plastic shim plate to isolate steel lintels and hangers from the exterior environment. As he points out, many LEED NC buildings are not meeting their expected performance levels. The reason may be because of conventional details used by the construction industry.

This past month I saw a lot of New Year’s articles that addressed going green as a resolution for the upcoming year. Obviously their heart and mind were in the right place. But I wanted to be a bit cynical in this post.

Any home was once an empty piece of land. That piece of land was a special niche in the local ecology. A foot deep of priceless topsoil. Earthworms tilled the soil, butterflies hatching from cocoons on a nearby shrub. All sorts of life forming an interwoven, dynamic web. When you really think about it, that home wasn’t built on an empty piece of land, it was built to replace a grassland or a stand of old hardwood trees.

To build this house, people decided to “improve” the land. They built a shell from the carcasses of trees as a shelter, the inhabitants themselves part of the extinction of half of biodiversity and the spoiling of every watershed on the planet. Mankind’s capacity to upset nature is only matched by their capacity to delude themselves into thinking they benefit the planet by their presence.

It might sound like I am saying all human development is bad. In fact, that’s exactly what I’m saying. But the environment can tolerate a little bad. Just not bad on the scale we’ve been doing. Going green is all about less bad.

So let’s return to the issue of housing. Can going green at home really make a difference? It depends. Housing is a big piece of the puzzle, but the actual houses and what’s inside of them aren’t the problem. The problem is the way we organize our neighborhoods and cities. The built environment in the US forces a huge energy investment to accomplish anything.

The “go green at home” idea implies that we can save the world from climate change by buying products that are better for the environment. This makes the assumption that buying different things will give us different results. The truth is that we can’t buy our way out of this.

Here is a chart showing the best ways to help the environment versus perception:

I’m no environmental saint. My own efforts in this realm pale in comparison to some of my neighbors and family. In reality we all need to go green at home, but it is not the most productive place to start changing. 

The problem is that as a democratic society we are all connected. The choices that people make affect all of us, sometimes in weird ways. When some people stop driving then others are likely to take their place. If people buy a car with a better gas mileage rating then they usually end up driving more miles. On average, its not easy to change social trends in the US through voluntary action.

So without major structural reforms of the built environment I fear that the sacrifices that people make net zero benefits. I applaud all of the efforts that people make, but I believe that going green doesn’t begin at home, it begins with good policies. Now, more than ever before, we need to let science guide our policy making decisions rather than whatever it is that people talk about in media. Get active politically if you want to get active in the environment. Do your research, find and support groups and politicians that build their platform on the issues that matter to the environment. It doesn’t even cost anything.

The fast growing economies of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC) need complex infrastructure solutions and they need them fast. There is a great opportunity for engineers who know how to meet those needs. Considering that these countries are the next dominant world powers based on current global development trends, we had better begin brushing up on our Portuguese, Russian, Mandarin/Cantonese, and Hindi.

A lot of engineers in the US feel threatened by overseas competition. I don’t. I feel that our ethical obligations to “build their professional reputation on the merit of their services and shall not compete unfairly with others” mean that we shouldn’t put up unfair barriers to outside competition. I encourage honest competition, if we can lower prices and maintain safe structures then everyone benefits. Competition for important jobs always inspires creativity.

Let’s not try to hold back our engineering friends from the BRIC countries, I say we welcome them and start working together to solve humanity’s great problems. But seriously, I expect great things to come out of these countries in the next few decades. Russia and Brazil are scheduled to host upcoming Olympic games, China just hosted one itself, and India has been widely acknowledged as one of the new world powers.

These countries are still working through some difficult issues like guarantees of democracy, freedom of the press, and human rights issues, but their own ascension to the world geopolitical stage is not unlike the US or similar countries. It took the US many many years before we met our goals of a society based on equal rights (still an ongoing process). It’s important to look at where these countries will be in 30 years, not necessarily where they are right now.

A caveat remains, however. As the people living there acquire more wealth and seek the luxuries that the US and Europe currently enjoy, then the efforts at preventing climate change could be thrown into disarray. It is important that we get this right, because the BRIC countries represent 40% of the human population! The way to do this correctly is for the US and developed countries to start making serious policies regarding climate change. The time is right for developed countries to save the world, and it is our responsibility because we have been the cause of most of its problems through our centuries of industrial experimentation.

BRIC presents us an opportunity to start a meaningful dialogue about the future of the human condition. It is not just an opportunity to open their markets and sell them gasoline cars, it is an opportunity to raise the quality of life of every person on the planet in a meaningful, and sustainable, way. We have the capability to meet the needs of all people while still preserving a viable future for our later generations.

The BRIC economies have shown off the human ability for innovation. From the bus transit system of Curitiba, Brazil to the speeding bullet trains of China, these countries have no fear of modernizing their transportation systems. Of course, the traditional neighborhoods in these countries are some of the most efficient and low-impact styles of living, so we need to encourage BRIC to retain them. Let’s not export our worst product – suburban sprawl. What we need are ways of accommodating the wants and desires of the middle class with the realities of a world under threat of climate change.

In this sense, the Western countries can continue to develop green designs that will deliver safety under environmental hazards, comfortable climate controls, and continued transit solutions. Working together, BRIC and the US/Europe can accomplish more than working alone. In support of these goals, I am including translation tools for this website. I may speak only one language, but I think if we listen carefully we find ways to understand each other.

(UM LUGAR DO SENTIDO) Portuguese

(भावना की जगह) Hindi

(MECTO SENSE) Russian

(地方的感觉) Chinese

The city of Indianapolis dropped two big reports this week, the state of sustainability report for 2009 and a special report from the Rocky Mountain Institute on the Greening of the CCB.

The 2009 SustainIndy Report details the efforts made to move the City of Indianapolis further towards its goal of becoming “the most sustainable city in the Midwest.” The report includes details on bike lanes, stormwater/CSO issues, and some general feel-good stuff. I think the most important part of this report is that it was produced at all. Sustainability is not an easy thing to argue for in the conservative climate of Indianapolis, so I think the city should feel proud to get this thing off the ground.

The Greening of the CCB report is also great step forward for city. This report lays the foundation for next few decades of operation and maintenance of one the city’s most expensive properties. While I don’t know what exact steps will be taken to make this a “national forerunner in sustainability,” I strongly approve of the report’s goal to make the CCB a “sustainable lab for the Indianapolis” that is “radically resource efficient.”

Looking into the future, I think that the city needs to accomplish some short-term and long-term goals to gain credibility as a green city. The current emphasis on pedestrian accessibility and mixed-mode transportation is a good start. The city needs to continue building on its success with the sidewalk policy, the bike lanes, the cultural trail, greenways, and the ICE commuter buses. Transportation accounts for 30% of emissions, so reducing the need for driving has a big effect on sustainability. Lowering VMT per capita is essential, and the city should make this priority #1 in their quest for sustainability.

Obviously, sustainability should not be an end unto itself. But sustainability efforts can produce enormous life quality improvements. One way to lower per capita VMT and make the city more pleasant and community oriented is to focus on land use reform. I wrote an entry about downtown Indy already, but since urban living is more sustainable than suburban/rural living, I think it fits this topic as well. One important update since that time is a great article “The Legend of the Skyscraper Fairy” that directly addresses the failure of city governments to proactively address urban land use (h/t to Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space).

It seems as if the first objective of every mayor is to create an enormous structure in the Indy skyline and ensure a permanent legacy. I don’t have a problem with this except when it conflicts with the principles of good urban design. A walkable downtown will have no more than 30 feet between storefronts. If the city wants a Market Square tower building, then it needs to have a ground level floor full of small storefronts. The city should concentrate on the experience of pedestrians walking on Alabama Street, not on what a driver sees from I-70.

Managing green assets should be priority #2. Coincidentally, Urbanophile posted a similar entry on this yesterday. This is a long-term priority, but Indianapolis needs to understand that Indy Parks has a much greater role to play in sustainability. The city currently has a goal of putting green roofs on park buildings. This will not provide a systemic benefit, as there is already plenty of green space in those areas. Indianapolis needs to think bigger.

Our city owned parklands can provide regional benefits. For example, the properties can provide stormwater relief and bio-diversity within the city. For this to happen, the parklands need to be proactively managed and carefully preserved. People are not the only animals in this city. Just as pedestrians and bicyclists need continuous paths to maintain a healthy population, the flora and fauna filling our city need corridors to communicate and travel.

In my own neighborhood I see foxes, deer, rabbits, hawks, and all sorts of varied trees. Each of these species has a part in our ecosystem. And don’t worry about wild animals, the most dangerous things in our city will always be the four-wheeled monsters we keep in our garages.

Unfortunately, the Indy Parks budget has been decimated over the past few years. We need the city to commit resources to help manage these lands. One way to save money for the city is to let some areas remain unmowed and untrafficked for the sake of bio-diversity. If the city is uncomfortable with the money required, then maybe a few starter grants should be applied for. To help manage these issues, I think that Indy Parks be given their own director of sustainability, because the goals for urban (human) sustainability are quite different from ecological sustainability.

The city should also use the parks as an opportunity for education and public awareness. The website of Indy Parks can feature stories about how the green parklands affects the sustainability of the city. Currently, there is just no realization that our Parks are major contributors to our welfare. There is also no long-term plan that integrates parkland management into the concept of sustainability. This is an ideal opportunity for Indianapolis to differentiate itself from other Midwest cities and lead sustainability efforts into the next decade.