“How much is sustainability worth?” asks Pulitzer-prize winning reporter Nigel Jaquiss. “Try $65 million in public money.” That’s how much taxpayers will be spending on a $72 million “green” building in downtown Portland. At $462 a square foot, it will be “perhaps the most expensive office space ever built in Portland.”
The director of the Oregon Environmental Council defends the building as something that can “leverage long-term outcomes,” whatever that means. But she would defend it, since the state is promising OEC, 1000 Friends of Oregon, and other left-wing environmental groups office space in the building at low rents that are guaranteed to stay fixed for decades.
It takes around 30- 40 minutes to be effective for 6 hours) Kamagra oral jelly (take 20 minutes to be effective for 4 cialis cost canada hours) Kamagra soft tablets (take 20 minutes to be effective and well tolerated in males with ED. Besides, women can take the discount viagra help of herbal pills for sexual weakness are used to dilate the blood vessels and the penile muscles .It also increases the intensity of extrusion. Caring for the generic cialis canadian bones should start at an early age. Similarly, if you buy 60 pills, you will be able to see the results instantly and consuming these natural medications for longer duration will continue to put you and your partner in the mood Much of the stimulation comes from recreating past moments, eating certain foods, or even relying on science to explain the best chances of being sexually stimulated. raindogscine.com levitra sale
Although the public is paying for most of the building, “tenants will be expected to share a commitment to help advance Oregon’s leadership in sustainable development, collaborate with fellow tenants, and pursue OSC’s standards for energy and water use.” Apparently, people who don’t share those “commitments” won’t be welcome, even if their taxes helped pay for the building and even if they are willing to pay more for office space than the greenies.
Supposedly, this building “will generate all its own electricity, capture and process its own water and leave no carbon footprint.” Even if we assume those are worthwhile goals, we have to ask whether they are worth the cost or if this is the most cost-effective way to achieve those goals. Not to worry: they have a feasiblity study. Unfortunately, that “study” is really nothing more than a PowerPoint show.
The reality is that anything is feasible if you can spend someone else’s money and never have to pay it back. It especially helps if you can use some of that money to buy off some of the noisier interest groups in your community.
A Space Program, for Office Space?
Cost in no object when it comes to saving the world.
The leaders of Portland will do anything to save the Earth. Except study basic science, econ and logic.
Thanks
JK
Interesting idea. Interesting in that it is expected that people will want to spend 2-3 times as much for rent just so they can work using 70+% less energy, pay employees to sort and recycle everything, and probably not having much heat or air conditioning. Maybe some people will enjoy the adventure. But I don’t understand how a government can pick and choose their tenants based on political beliefs or subsidize.
Somehow I don’t think the office building will have showers for bicycle commuters, microwaves and refrigerators for office lunches, or coffee machines for caffeine fixes. A smart entrepreneur would put a Starbucks and sandwich shop across the street from the building (thereby just transferring the carbon impact off-site).
Is it entrepreneurship when you’re living off the dole?
Far better to continue Trash As Usual than to be an early adopter, surely.
DS
Roughly 2.38 square feet of building space to every 1 foot of solar panel. Based on the sample floor plan, most people would be crammed into 1/2 size cubicles. This is just nuts. They will never have enough electricity to operate a business in this building. I hope they connect to the grid!
If they would count the pollution and waste created during the construction of this buidling it sure wouldn’t be a “net zero” building!
I would support this project if the taxpayers did not have to pay to subsidize the project.
To be sustainable this project should also be fiscally self supporting and the tenets should be willing to pay the full cost of renting the space.
Who really knows, what sustainable really means? It seems to have as many meanings and the people using the word.
The Antiplanner wrote:
The director of the Oregon Environmental Council defends the building as something that can “leverage long-term outcomes,†whatever that means. But she would defend it, since the state is promising OEC, 1000 Friends of Oregon, and other left-wing environmental groups office space in the building at low rents that are guaranteed to stay fixed for decades.
I wonder if the Antiplanner’s employer or some of the Antiplanner’s “faithful allies” in Oregon (e.g. the Cascade Policy Institute) would be permitted to rent space in this building?
Like so many businesses in Portland, Cascade Policy moved out of downtown, so they could find a more affordable space, with parking.
Who really knows, what sustainable really means? It seems to have as many meanings and the people using the word.
No. No it does not.
And I find it instructive that Randal must play that there is no feasibility study other than a PowerPoint. The mendacity and deception employed to sow fear and doubt is typical here, yes, but sad as well. This is the best opponents can do, apparently.
And I’m glad I looked at the feasibility study, as one of my old professors landed at PSU & I’m glad they did.
DS
Lewis & Clark College sets out to redefine sustainability
http://tinyurl.com/25ltffs
Right here in sustainable Portland, they are not sure what it really means.
The meaning of sustainable is not sustainable, it is changing all the time.
Dan said
And I’m glad I looked at the feasibility study, as one of my old professors landed at PSU & I’m glad they did.
——————
How feasible was it without the $65 million in public money?
Sprawl, the article you think you like is about metrics. The basic working definition of sustainability has been set for over two decades.
And if you want to find a private project in the US of multiple hundreds of thousands of sf at the cutting edge, let us know what that is.
DS
What about this for a sustainability solution?
What if we shifted the tax burden from the capital phase to the operating phase? Let developers and occupants write off the expenses to design their buildings, but not to operate the buildings. I suppose that’s social engineering, but the current tax structure socially engineers the development process to be hasty and operating inefficiencies to go relatively unaccounted.
What if we shifted the tax burden from the capital phase to the operating phase?
I think that’s a good idea.
DS
sprawl said: “The meaning of sustainable is not sustainable, it is changing all the time.”
As it should. To me sustainability is a philosophy that is fluid in nature. I think to look at it as a a closed loop cycle that perfectly balances economic, environmental and social inputs and outputs is misguided.
While the definition of sustainability may evolve more rapidly compared to other philosophies, one that all philosophies share is the wide spectrum of interpenetration of the definition (see: Capitalism, Existentialism, Hedonism, etc.).
“Right here in sustainable Portland, they are not sure what it really means.”
Nobody is sure what it really means, it’s just another overused buzzword overdue for mocking in “Dilbert.”
Nobody is sure what it really means, it’s just another overused buzzword overdue for mocking in “Dilbert.â€
Ignorance and hasty generalization is rarely compelling.
Not hard to grasp. Not hard at all. Very simple.
DS
The value created by this building is (1) the government pork it might be able to grab over other projects in other states, and (2)the ability for a few people in Portland to have something to brag at cocktail parties as they enjoy imported French wine and Brie in their 5000 sq ft houses.
The first real step in sustainability (whatever that means) would be to not build a new building.
“Nobody is sure what it really means, it’s just another overused buzzword overdue for mocking in ‘Dilbert.'”
Visions of “free market.”
As for the Brundtland definition. Not hard to grasp, just hard to measure. Granted, some instances are obvious. I also think the Brundtland definition forgets the forgotten “E” of the three E trinity.
“The first real step in sustainability (whatever that means) would be to not build a new building.”
While I agree with this statement to some extent, don’t be fooled into thinking that doing nothing is sustainable. Natural systems are not even sustainable.
Sustainability is a means, not an end. To me this is the biggest misconception about the concept. If we are going to think of sustainability as an end, we have to accept the fact that it’s a goal we can never fully achieve.
Bennett made a good point about sustainability being a means and not an end.
I can understand a concept that one way of doing things might be more sustainable than another, at least using the natural sciences. But I can’t see how any limited system is truly sustainable and I find all the definitions of sustainability to be just a bunch of jargon, and if the definitions include social science metrics then the definitions are just a silly joke.
Just step back a little ways and think about it. What is “sustainable” about having each building treat its own sewage? Or gather its own water in a very wet ecosystem? Or pretend to generate its own power, at a cost many times the hydro power the building next to it uses? There is nothing sustainable about this building, other than it proves that when intellectuals spend years defining “sustatainable” they end up with a definition that lacks basic common sense.
I also think the Brundtland definition forgets the forgotten “E†of the three [legged] trinity.
AIUI, your presumed E is the smallest subset in a nested set. Take care of the others and your E will take care of itself, as it is merely one way of keeping track.
But none of this will get us closer to where we need to go until all of us understand and operationalize I = P x A x T. That is the next step after acknowledging the need to be sustainable. You know we aren’t there yet until all our leaders stop fetishizing the empty ‘economic growth’ paradigm.
DS
It is so cute when social scientists do arithmetic and pretend to be a real science.
Mr. Malthus would be so proud that Dan still believes in him, since most of the few idiots that once belied that socialist crap gave it up when the USSR self-destructed. A few of those brain dead people must still exist in the cadre of government planners and in Cuba and North Korea.
” Not to worry: they have a feasiblity study. ”
Page 9 has a very nice section of light rail line. Which just goes to show that there is still a role for light rail and guided buses. It’s quite nice when guided traffic can hand back some of the tarmac to grass.
“Supposedly, this building “will generate all its own electricity, capture and process its own water and leave no carbon footprint.—
A bit too ambitious. Building it to PassivHaus standards, with heat pumps, would be advanced by any standards. Definition of good engineering: doing for $1, what anybody else can do for $2.
“Based on the sample floor plan, most people would be crammed into 1/2 size cubicles.”
It looks like open plan office space.
-pedant-
To be sustainable this project should also be fiscally self supporting and the tenets should be willing to pay the full cost of renting the space.
– pedant –
“I wonder if the Antiplanner’s employer or some of the Antiplanner’s “faithful allies†in Oregon (e.g. the Cascade Policy Institute) would be permitted to rent space in this building?”
“It especially helps if you can use some of that money to buy off some of the noisier interest groups in your community.”
Given this opinion column, I would have to say “I doubt it” on both counts. 🙂
I can’t really advocate for this project, but…
“What is “sustainable†about having each building treat its own sewage?”
It’s a great idea for some buildings. Sometimes a citywide system is best. Sometimes a neighborhood or smaller district system makes the most seance.
“Or gather its own water in a very wet ecosystem?”
Rainwater catchment for potable uses is the closest thing for s sustainability silver bullet for the water crisis in Central Texas. Even in a wet ecosystem it makes sense to me (as long as you treat it on site for potable uses).
While I won’t advocate for this project I’m often finding myself asking questions like:
Why are we defecating in potable water?
Why would I pay the city for irrigating my vegetable garden when 3 rain barrels give me more than enough water to do so for free (after capital costs)?
Why haven I bought a solar water heater for my roof? It doesn’t cost much and I spending $30-$50 per month on propane to heat my water.
This Portland project is a spectacle of many good ideas. That doesn’t necessarily mean the project itself is a good idea. This doesn’t mean that the definition of sustainability lacks basic common sense, it means that it has flaws, particularly when implemented poorly. It’s wrong to isolate this project as case against the definition of sustainability.
What is “sustainable†about having each building treat its own sewage? Or gather its own water in a very wet ecosystem?
Less stress on the public infra.
Or pretend to generate its own power, at a cost many times the hydro power the building next to it uses?
Besides the PacNW having less water (and less reliable delivery) in global change scenarios, early adoption technologies cost more. Those costs come down. They are coming down now.
There is nothing sustainable about this building,… end up with a definition that lacks basic common sense.
False, and it must be a pathetic, lonely world where leaving a sh*tty the bed for the grandkids to clean up is an approach that lacks common sense.
DS
How about the $65 million in public subsidies to builds this sustainable project. Don’t worry the kids and grand kids will pay for it.
I’m sure they have many more planned for the future. Much of the subsidies for these projects in Portland are paid for with urban renewal money. The same money that would have gone to schools and social services if it was not diverted to this project and many others in portland
If you want to find a private project in the US of multiple hundreds of thousands of sf at the cutting edge, let us know what that is.
DS
If Portland cared about grandkids then it would have tried to stop terrorists from blowing them up when they watch the Christmas tree light up. But the Commandant of Portland had his little ego bruised because he couldn’t control federal terrorism officers.
The private sector builds a huge number of costly buildings, laboratories, clean rooms, high tech manufacturing, etc. But Dan is right that only government would waste so much money on a simple office building. Only government.
what is SF?
AP forgot to link to the first article quoted:
http://wweek.com/editorial/3703/14800/
The ‘living building’ concept is pretty interesting. In the case of private development, living buildings would substantially reduce the externalities associated with new buildings, forcing developers to bear the costs of infrastructure such as water & sewer and electrical network and generation. Of course it may be that a ‘net zero’ building would still require an electric grid for those times that it doesn’t generate enough electricity for its operating needs. It might also require water and sewer hookups for times when its internal system is overwhelmed by rain or lack thereof, so It’s not completely clear to me what the net reduction in public infrastructure spending might be.
Additionally there are some aspects of the design that I find troubling. First “green building syndrome” the pervasive symbolism of growing trees on the roof and lettuce on the sides of buildings which has more to do with poetry than sustainability. Second the streetcar alignment costs 4 million dollars and serves little public purpose and simultaneously damages the value of the outdoor space as good public space. As an aesthetic statement, the building is too weak to generate the kind of public enthusiasm that is implied in the public relations materials. They make the fundamental error of using symbolism in plan (birds eye view) as detailed on their design blog.
Early adopters are indeed important for new technology, but they take a significant risk that the new technology will not deliver as expected, have unexpected drawbacks, or in the case of buildings and infrastructure, have large cost overruns. The purported operations cost savings from this kind of building shouldn’t be taken for granted. The complicated and extensive energy and water systems may have considerable maintenance and upkeep costs. This is not addressed in the feasibility study or elsewhere on the project website. Dan if you have access to another feasibility study, please link to it or tell us how you got it.
Anyway, the justification for the project seems lacking. The primary benefit is that it houses a number of already existing thematically connected public and private organizations for ‘synergy’ which may or may not result. There is a tendency in Portland’s government to go for “catalytic” showpiece projects that later prove disappointing. I hope this project does not add to the list.
SF = square feet.
The Portland planners will probably make them post “Don’t Drink from Urinals and Toilets” signs all over the building. I kid you not.
Chandler’s new City Hall comes with some features that have municipal workers and visitors scratching their heads. Like the restroom signs that tell people not to drink out of the urinals and toilets.
And the lights that shut off when nobody flips a switch.
A few employees have been cracking jokes and speculating about what it would take to make them slurp from potties when water fountains and sinks are a few feet away.
“I’m glad that I saw that sign because I was very thirsty and looking for a means to quench my thirst,” Mayor Boyd Dunn quipped. “Seriously, I’m certain there’s some regulation out there that requires that type of sign.”
It’s possible.
The environmentally-friendly five-story building uses recycled gray water from its cooling system to flush the urinals and toilets. The notices disclose that. “There’s a lot in this building that’s so new and different; it’s exciting stuff,” Dunn said. As an aside, he said his private mayor’s office restroom doesn’t have a don’t-drink-out-of-the-toilet sign.
City spokesman Craig Younger said the city had to get a building code variance not to color the reused water and post the signs instead.
Workers also are getting used to the building’s energy-saving “light harvesting system.” It’s set up with light and motion sensors so if there’s enough illumination from the sun or if offices and meeting rooms are empty they shut off. Marian Norris, assistant to the city manager, said the motion detector shutoffs save energy by extinguishing lights when workers leave their offices and forget to flip the switch. But crews are adjusting the system because it has been shutting off lights when people are working but are too still. That happened during a recent City Council subcommittee meeting that prompted one official to jump out of his chair and walk briskly around the table just to bring the lights back.
The new building and all its features will be dedicated by Dunn on Monday before the first City Council meeting there. Free refreshments and entertainment from 5 to 7 p.m. will proceed the formal session.
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/chandler/articles/2010/11/10/20101110chandler-city-hall-toilet-water-warning1112.html##ixzz16oAf6od3
“There is nothing sustainable about this building, other than it proves that when intellectuals spend years defining “sustatainable†they end up with a definition that lacks basic common sense.”
I don’t think that is true. I do agree that sustainability is more about a means than an end. I find that the most prominent misunderstanding about the word is that it is a product–a technological fix to supplement a wasteful lifestyle. On the contrary, sustainability is concept that dictates a lifestyle to create a series of actions (not products) that revolve around a notion of balance through an inflow and outflow of resources.
“This Portland project is a spectacle of many good ideas. That doesn’t necessarily mean the project itself is a good idea. This doesn’t mean that the definition of sustainability lacks basic common sense, it means that it has flaws, particularly when implemented poorly. It’s wrong to isolate this project as case against the definition of sustainability.”
Exactly. I think Bennett is on point here.
It is also a mistake to label sustainability as being illogical based primarily on economic attractiveness in our current marketplace. Our current economic model is based off of a notion of endless consumption and indefinite growth–a stand point that is not only lacking common sense but that reality will certainly catch up to sooner or later. How surprising is it that a method that seeks to curb that mentality would be less economically alluring?
Just because our culture is still in the process of attributing value to the cost of externalities of how we operate or the repercussions of our lifestyle does not mean sustainability is illogical. Quite the opposite.
More people would take sustainability seriously if environmentalists took it seriously.
The only purpose of this building is symbolic and political. Even Portland doesn’t think this building is sustainable or worthwhile. Portland said they would only build it if they get substantial funding from the rest of the country.
If sustainability means anything, then it means you have to be able to afford it. It cannot mean that you have to get money from the rest of the country, then other places can get money from other places — that is as sustainable as a pyramid scheme.
The project’s cool but in terms of financial sustainability it’s not. 65 mil is a lot of money people!
I do believe it’s on site stormwater and wastewater should qualify it from reduced fees and/or taxes as that’s infrastructure it’s not negatively contributing to.
I don’t think there’s anything “sustainable” about building a new building when an older, existing building could be used instead. The most sustainable thing is to not build anything. I would think of it more as a lab for how new development can look like and function like.
I don’t believe in these self-agrandizing statements like “going green” or sustainable, even if I believe that going towards methods of using less or rethinking the way we utilize energy systems is important. We need to question what was done in the past. It’s contradictory to view sustainability in regards to development. The most sustainable thing is to not develop in the first place.
I think this building needs to be 100% public money free, but is very deserving of tax breaks for above reasons.
That is one ugly building. It looks like some combination of a helmet and a toilet.
Be nice if environmentalists could care enough about their principles to spend their own money building such resource intensive structures.
ws,
So to you the only sustainable thing to do is never develop? Are you sure that’s sustainable? Think about it. Again, not advocating for this project, just defending sustainability.