Met with David Eisenberg from the Development Center for Appropriate Technology (DCAT) in Tucson on Monday. DCAT does many things, though its focus in the past several years has been in "greening the codes." Instead of speaking of DCAT specifically, I want to post quickly on a few things David said that has gotten me thinking...
1. The way in which we as a society, but also we as builders talk about sustainability in our lives and in the built environment. Ineffectively, really. Many designers/builders that are pushing the envelope that I have talked with have spoken of the permitting office and building codes in a negative fashion. "They won't change, they are so hard to work with, they just don't get it, etc. etc." Instead of reframing how we look at green building and the current codes, we immediately blame a municipality and inspectors for not understanding. Well, building codes are here to stay, and the for the most part there is a reason behind why they were made...so we must rethink the way in which we talk about integrating green building into the codes. David gave a good example: most building codes require a plumbing system to tie into the sewer system, so greywater systems are often illegal. Instead of a knee-jerk reaction of "that's so dumb!" let's analyze this. Why was the code regarding sewage made? Probably because people were getting sick from blackwater. Well...taking relatively benign greywater, of which there is no documented cases of people getting sick from, according to the CDC, and putting it into a blackwater/sewer system...what does it mean? It means you are increasing the amount of blackwater, of which there are TONS of cases of people getting sick from, by requiring that the greywater is added to the blackwater. Instead of reducing a hazardous situation, you are increasing it 20fold. Now think of approaching building code officials with this argument, instead of the response of "that's dumb," and you have a more convincing reason for re-evaluating the code...
We can try thinking of other situations where this is the case, and we'll soon find a new way of thinking about building codes and how to approach thinking about a code...not simply naysaying, but having reasons why and ways to change it to make it more appropriate for modern technology and building methods!
2. Think laterally, not vertically. It seems in talking briefly with David that he has mastered thinking laterally...something I can appreciate, since we are trained in society to be vertical thinkers. What do I mean by this? In typical problem-solving, we tend to think vertically, or step by step to find the solution. ...Like a math problem where you cannot jump around, but must logically solve it step by step. Instead, we should try to think laterally...it is an exercise in increasing the number of potential solutions, trying them all and finding the right one eventually...even if it means you try several wrong solutions first. It is brainstorming different approaches, different ways of thinking about the codes, etc. I am reading a book by Edward de Bono called Lateral Thinking: Creativity Step by Step...a good, very basic read that has exercises in getting your mind away from traditional problem solving...
We of course talked about the progression of "alternatives" in the building codes, and there is some really exciting stuff being looked at nowadays...earthen structures, strawbale, etc. that are being reviewed and possibly added to the Intl Green Construction Codes, though many codes will need to be revised before they enter. I like the way David puts it...
...consider wood. As a material it is susceptible to rot, insects, and structural problems; if we were to introduce it today, there would be a million questions on type of wood, number of knots, age of wood, etc. that would prevent it from being accepted as a "safe" building material. And yet...it is the most widely used building material on the market today! It is only natural that strawbale, rammed earth, etc will take time to become accepted, but we should not rule them out! Considering the amount of research that has gone into wood as a material, we need to consider doing the same with "alternatives..."
No comments:
Post a Comment