<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19190"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=781160320-26022012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>The 100 Mile Thread,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=781160320-26022012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=781160320-26022012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>There is a design competition every year called "Life Cycle
Building Challenge" that promotes the use of local recycled and repurposed
construction materials.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=781160320-26022012><FONT color=#0000ff
face=Arial><FONT size=2>Here is the link: </FONT><A
href="http://www.lifecyclebuilding.org/"><FONT
size=2>http://www.lifecyclebuilding.org/</FONT></A><FONT
size=2> </FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=781160320-26022012><FONT color=#0000ff
face=Arial><FONT size=2>I've entered it a couple of times. It was a lot of
fun designing under the constraints of "Deconstructionism". The
requirements incorporated into a design submittal are <FONT
face=Calibri><FONT face=Arial>precisely those elements that are</FONT>
</FONT><FONT face=Arial>being discussed here in 100 mile/LCA thread.
The web site is worth a look see and they have a splendid compilation of
directives for recycling and reuse
construction.</FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=781160320-26022012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>From reading the presentations made through this
thread the 100 mile/LCA venture can be hazardous in an antithetical way of
speaking for you practitioners of green construction.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=781160320-26022012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Doug Lamb</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial><A
href="mailto:douglaslamb@columbus.rr.com">douglaslamb@columbus.rr.com</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT size=2 face=Tahoma><B>From:</B>
greenbuilding-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org
[mailto:greenbuilding-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org] <B>On Behalf Of
</B>David Bergman<BR><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, February 26, 2012 2:20
PM<BR><B>To:</B> Green Building; Green Building<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re:
[Greenbuilding] 100 miles builds<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Gennaro brings up a great topic.<BR><BR>"Unbuilding" (as he called
it) is similar to what is known as Design for Disassembly in product/industrial
design. When I talk about DfD in architecture classes and events (and I
have a section on it in my about-to-be-released book -- apologies for plug), I
typically start out with some photos of standard building assemblies and
demolition, illustrating how they make it<BR><BR>1. Difficult -- often near
impossible -- to separate materials for recycling<BR>2. Difficult to upgrade or
maintain buildings without destructive reconstruction.<BR><BR>There are at least
a couple of (non-exclusive) approaches to dealing with this. In the industrial
design version, we focus on using mechanical fasteners and assemblies that allow
easy separation of parts for repair or recycling. The goal is using fewer (often
toxic) adhesives or other methods of attaching disparate materials so that
disassembly -- affecting both repair and recycling -- is made simpler. I'm sure
you can imagine the building construction parallels.<BR><BR>In conjunction with
that, I'm a fan of Open Building (or Shearing Layers), which recognizes that
different building elements last differing amounts of time and that the
arrangement and fastening of building systems should reflect this. For instance,
make it simpler to relocate electrical or plumbing with destroying finished
surfaces. Make it simpler to replace elements that wear out (e.g. windows) or
become technologically outmoded (e.g. lighting) so that a building can more
effectively be upgraded and thereby delay or obviate the point at which it makes
more sense to tear it down than to upgrade.<BR><BR>Gennaro's Lego analogy is
pretty good though Erector Sets might illustrate it a bit better. There are
better yet examples in the natural world. I'm thinking, for instance, of the
processes by which trees grow: layers transforming over time; parts (leaves)
that separate easily to allow growth and replacement, while themselves becoming
nutrients for the growth of trees an other organisms.<BR><BR>From a designer's
point of view, we should not think of our responsibilities ending when the C of
O is signed. (I'm not talking about legal responsibilities.) But instead view
our "children" as growing, evolving creatures.<BR><BR>David Bergman
RA LEED AP<BR><FONT color=#808080 size=2><B>DAVID BERGMAN</B>
ARCHITECT / <B>FIRE & WATER</B> LIGHTING + FURNITURE<BR></FONT><FONT
color=#808080>architecture . interiors . </FONT><FONT
color=#008080>ecodesign</FONT><FONT color=#808080> . lighting .
furniture<BR></FONT><FONT color=#808080
size=2>bergman@cyberg.com <A href="http://www.cyberg.com/"
eudora="autourl"><U>www.cyberg.com</A> </U></FONT><FONT
color=#808080><BR></FONT><FONT color=#808080 size=2>241 Eldridge Street #3R, New
York, NY 10002<BR></FONT><FONT color=#808080>t </FONT><FONT color=#808080
size=2>212 475 3106 f 212 677 7291</FONT><FONT color=#808080>
<BR><BR>author - Sustainable Design: A Critical Guide<BR>adjunct faculty -
Parsons The New School for Design</FONT> <BR><BR>At 08:57 AM 2/26/2012, Gennaro
Brooks-Church - Eco Brooklyn wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite">Something that is definitely not
focused on enough is the art of<BR>building for future unbuilding. If houses
were easilly unbuilt there<BR>wouldn't be this chasm between new construction
and renovation.<BR>Building would be like Lego. My company definitely does
that now, for<BR>example we have YET to buy new wood. We only salvage old. But
it does<BR>mean a lot of denailing and working with odd shapes. But
most<BR>difficult of all it requires more thinking. Is it financially worth
it<BR>after storage and labor (as if that is the deciding factor)? I
think<BR>so. Besides, what are you comparing it to? The dirt cheap 2x4
from<BR>lowes that has more hidden costs to it than a house of horrors?<BR>For
me I see my salvaged wood costs as like paying with cash and the<BR>Lowes wood
as like paying with a credit card that somebody else has
to<BR>repay.<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Greenbuilding
mailing list<BR>to Send a Message to the list, use the email
address<BR>Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org<BR><BR>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change
your List Settings use the web page<BR><A
href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org"
eudora="autourl">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org</A>
</BLOCKQUOTE><X-SIGSEP>
<P></X-SIGSEP><BR></P></BODY></HTML>