I write this at 9:11p on May 11 as it is snowing outside and the leaves on the trees have decided they are not ready to emerge into the cold mountain air...and I contemplate this thought...would global warming really be that bad right now?
Well, the argument can be made that the place we live in is all about choices; and I did choose to live in these beautiful mountains. This spring (really?) has extended farther into May than we all (us locals) bargained for. The Rockies game is postponed to a double header tomorrow and the first game is threatened by a winter storm warning (yes - in May)...so I ask again...the rhetorical question as we search for our fleece vests and comforters...would global warming be so bad right now?
The short term answer - of course - is no.
The long-term answer: We all know that answer...
...as the furnace engages!
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
IN SUPPORT OF GLOBAL WARMING
I write this at 9:11p on May 11 as it is snowing outside and the leaves on the trees have decided they are not ready to emerge into the cold mountain air...and I contemplate this thought...would global warming really be that bad right now?
Well, the argument can be made that the place we live in is all about choices; and I did choose to live in these beautiful mountains. This spring (really?) has extended farther into May than we all (us locals) bargained for. The Rockies game is postponed to a double header tomorrow and the first game is threatened by a winter storm warning (yes - in May)...so I ask again...the rhetorical question as we search for our fleece vests and comforters...would global warming be so bad right now?
The short term answer - of course - is no.
The long-term answer: We all know that answer...
...as the furnace engages!
Well, the argument can be made that the place we live in is all about choices; and I did choose to live in these beautiful mountains. This spring (really?) has extended farther into May than we all (us locals) bargained for. The Rockies game is postponed to a double header tomorrow and the first game is threatened by a winter storm warning (yes - in May)...so I ask again...the rhetorical question as we search for our fleece vests and comforters...would global warming be so bad right now?
The short term answer - of course - is no.
The long-term answer: We all know that answer...
...as the furnace engages!
Thursday, May 6, 2010
ARCHITECTURE V. CONGRESS
I had the opportunity to testify before Congress' small business sub-committee yesterday (05.05.10) while on a trip to Washington, DC. It is interesting to hear the questions posed by the legislators and note the perception on capitol hill that our economic circumstances are somehow going to be made better by taxes.
My points:
1. Don't raise taxes now (we have a sluggish economy and are not seeing the tax income from a more robust economic situation - so let's let the engine warm up before going to that solution);
2. Focus on policies that address the credit issue because that is holding people on the sidelines more so than tax issues; and,
3. Don't double tax the S Corporations.
We have a very interesting challenge in front of us as small business people and architects. The challenge: communicate clearly, passionately, and thoroughly that the issue we need, as architects, is not so much tax breaks for small business - although that will be helpful - but to get the policies at the federal government aligned so that we have consistent financial guidelines for our clients.
We need for our clients to feel comfortable about borrowing and understanding the rules of credit.
If you wish to see the testimony I presented as well as the responses to legislators questions feel free to follow the link below:
Opening Statement: http://tinyurl.com/2c34kzl
Question 1 Response: http://tinyurl.com/2f3tofo
Question 2 Response: http://tinyurl.com/2dkt5rg
Question 3 Response: http://tinyurl.com/27ulsqu
Question 4 Response: http://tinyurl.com/27q584s
My points:
1. Don't raise taxes now (we have a sluggish economy and are not seeing the tax income from a more robust economic situation - so let's let the engine warm up before going to that solution);
2. Focus on policies that address the credit issue because that is holding people on the sidelines more so than tax issues; and,
3. Don't double tax the S Corporations.
We have a very interesting challenge in front of us as small business people and architects. The challenge: communicate clearly, passionately, and thoroughly that the issue we need, as architects, is not so much tax breaks for small business - although that will be helpful - but to get the policies at the federal government aligned so that we have consistent financial guidelines for our clients.
We need for our clients to feel comfortable about borrowing and understanding the rules of credit.
If you wish to see the testimony I presented as well as the responses to legislators questions feel free to follow the link below:
Opening Statement: http://tinyurl.com/2c34kzl
Question 1 Response: http://tinyurl.com/2f3tofo
Question 2 Response: http://tinyurl.com/2dkt5rg
Question 3 Response: http://tinyurl.com/27ulsqu
Question 4 Response: http://tinyurl.com/27q584s
ARCHITECTURE V. CONGRESS
I had the opportunity to testify before Congress' small business sub-committee yesterday (05.05.10) while on a trip to Washington, DC. It is interesting to hear the questions posed by the legislators and note the perception on capitol hill that our economic circumstances are somehow going to be made better by taxes.
My points:
1. Don't raise taxes now (we have a sluggish economy and are not seeing the tax income from a more robust economic situation - so let's let the engine warm up before going to that solution);
2. Focus on policies that address the credit issue because that is holding people on the sidelines more so than tax issues; and,
3. Don't double tax the S Corporations.
We have a very interesting challenge in front of us as small business people and architects. The challenge: communicate clearly, passionately, and thoroughly that the issue we need, as architects, is not so much tax breaks for small business - although that will be helpful - but to get the policies at the federal government aligned so that we have consistent financial guidelines for our clients.
We need for our clients to feel comfortable about borrowing and understanding the rules of credit.
If you wish to see the testimony I presented as well as the responses to legislators questions feel free to follow the link below:
Opening Statement: http://tinyurl.com/2c34kzl
Question 1 Response: http://tinyurl.com/2f3tofo
Question 2 Response: http://tinyurl.com/2dkt5rg
Question 3 Response: http://tinyurl.com/27ulsqu
Question 4 Response: http://tinyurl.com/27q584s
My points:
1. Don't raise taxes now (we have a sluggish economy and are not seeing the tax income from a more robust economic situation - so let's let the engine warm up before going to that solution);
2. Focus on policies that address the credit issue because that is holding people on the sidelines more so than tax issues; and,
3. Don't double tax the S Corporations.
We have a very interesting challenge in front of us as small business people and architects. The challenge: communicate clearly, passionately, and thoroughly that the issue we need, as architects, is not so much tax breaks for small business - although that will be helpful - but to get the policies at the federal government aligned so that we have consistent financial guidelines for our clients.
We need for our clients to feel comfortable about borrowing and understanding the rules of credit.
If you wish to see the testimony I presented as well as the responses to legislators questions feel free to follow the link below:
Opening Statement: http://tinyurl.com/2c34kzl
Question 1 Response: http://tinyurl.com/2f3tofo
Question 2 Response: http://tinyurl.com/2dkt5rg
Question 3 Response: http://tinyurl.com/27ulsqu
Question 4 Response: http://tinyurl.com/27q584s
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
CODES: PERFORMANCE V. PRESCRIPTIVE STRATEGIES
I've been working through a couple of different code processes lately, and the issue surfaces regularly of performance versus prescriptive.
Performance: Describing the desired outcome and letting a designer or applicant (owner) figure out how to arrive at the desired outcome.
Prescriptive: Describing the desired outcome and essentially creating a checklist on how to achieve the objective.
It is an interesting philosophical question.
On one side of the discussion is the argument of: I want to spend the least amount of money to develop my building / site / development - just tell me what I need to do to get it built...a prescriptive argument.
The other side: Don't tell us how to get there, let us figure it out. We have the intelligence, resources and capabilities to provide a very well designed, creative solution that meets the stated needs of the design goals...performance.
The performance side requires significant thought and discussion. This was evidenced in a recent discussion with the Town of Avon Community Development Department in review of the proposed new Land Use Code (LUC). I questioned the need for having design guidelines within the LUC which would prescribe things like 30% stone on all buildings. Instead, lets discuss what qualities and character we want in the buildings and then determine if we need to prescribe materials or let the owner/design team determine the appropriate design for their proposed structure. Once we determine what we want, then write guidelines that will allow us to get there.
Within the energy section of the new International Green Construction Code (IGCC) is the same argument: Prescriptive v. Performance. When we set prescriptive tables for window, wall and roof U-values they don't necessarily promote deep daylighting concepts, or management of plug loads on smaller buildings (less than 25,000 SF).
My conclusion is that performance is the best way to proceed. I understand there is more cost associated with the analysis and thus the design portion can be more resource intensive. The result, in my opinion, is better building performance, less consumption of resources, better design, higher quality spaces, and a higher quality more sustainable outcome.
CG
Performance: Describing the desired outcome and letting a designer or applicant (owner) figure out how to arrive at the desired outcome.
Prescriptive: Describing the desired outcome and essentially creating a checklist on how to achieve the objective.
It is an interesting philosophical question.
On one side of the discussion is the argument of: I want to spend the least amount of money to develop my building / site / development - just tell me what I need to do to get it built...a prescriptive argument.
The other side: Don't tell us how to get there, let us figure it out. We have the intelligence, resources and capabilities to provide a very well designed, creative solution that meets the stated needs of the design goals...performance.
The performance side requires significant thought and discussion. This was evidenced in a recent discussion with the Town of Avon Community Development Department in review of the proposed new Land Use Code (LUC). I questioned the need for having design guidelines within the LUC which would prescribe things like 30% stone on all buildings. Instead, lets discuss what qualities and character we want in the buildings and then determine if we need to prescribe materials or let the owner/design team determine the appropriate design for their proposed structure. Once we determine what we want, then write guidelines that will allow us to get there.
Within the energy section of the new International Green Construction Code (IGCC) is the same argument: Prescriptive v. Performance. When we set prescriptive tables for window, wall and roof U-values they don't necessarily promote deep daylighting concepts, or management of plug loads on smaller buildings (less than 25,000 SF).
My conclusion is that performance is the best way to proceed. I understand there is more cost associated with the analysis and thus the design portion can be more resource intensive. The result, in my opinion, is better building performance, less consumption of resources, better design, higher quality spaces, and a higher quality more sustainable outcome.
CG
CODES: PERFORMANCE V. PRESCRIPTIVE STRATEGIES
I've been working through a couple of different code processes lately, and the issue surfaces regularly of performance versus prescriptive.
Performance: Describing the desired outcome and letting a designer or applicant (owner) figure out how to arrive at the desired outcome.
Prescriptive: Describing the desired outcome and essentially creating a checklist on how to achieve the objective.
It is an interesting philosophical question.
On one side of the discussion is the argument of: I want to spend the least amount of money to develop my building / site / development - just tell me what I need to do to get it built...a prescriptive argument.
The other side: Don't tell us how to get there, let us figure it out. We have the intelligence, resources and capabilities to provide a very well designed, creative solution that meets the stated needs of the design goals...performance.
The performance side requires significant thought and discussion. This was evidenced in a recent discussion with the Town of Avon Community Development Department in review of the proposed new Land Use Code (LUC). I questioned the need for having design guidelines within the LUC which would prescribe things like 30% stone on all buildings. Instead, lets discuss what qualities and character we want in the buildings and then determine if we need to prescribe materials or let the owner/design team determine the appropriate design for their proposed structure. Once we determine what we want, then write guidelines that will allow us to get there.
Within the energy section of the new International Green Construction Code (IGCC) is the same argument: Prescriptive v. Performance. When we set prescriptive tables for window, wall and roof U-values they don't necessarily promote deep daylighting concepts, or management of plug loads on smaller buildings (less than 25,000 SF).
My conclusion is that performance is the best way to proceed. I understand there is more cost associated with the analysis and thus the design portion can be more resource intensive. The result, in my opinion, is better building performance, less consumption of resources, better design, higher quality spaces, and a higher quality more sustainable outcome.
CG
Performance: Describing the desired outcome and letting a designer or applicant (owner) figure out how to arrive at the desired outcome.
Prescriptive: Describing the desired outcome and essentially creating a checklist on how to achieve the objective.
It is an interesting philosophical question.
On one side of the discussion is the argument of: I want to spend the least amount of money to develop my building / site / development - just tell me what I need to do to get it built...a prescriptive argument.
The other side: Don't tell us how to get there, let us figure it out. We have the intelligence, resources and capabilities to provide a very well designed, creative solution that meets the stated needs of the design goals...performance.
The performance side requires significant thought and discussion. This was evidenced in a recent discussion with the Town of Avon Community Development Department in review of the proposed new Land Use Code (LUC). I questioned the need for having design guidelines within the LUC which would prescribe things like 30% stone on all buildings. Instead, lets discuss what qualities and character we want in the buildings and then determine if we need to prescribe materials or let the owner/design team determine the appropriate design for their proposed structure. Once we determine what we want, then write guidelines that will allow us to get there.
Within the energy section of the new International Green Construction Code (IGCC) is the same argument: Prescriptive v. Performance. When we set prescriptive tables for window, wall and roof U-values they don't necessarily promote deep daylighting concepts, or management of plug loads on smaller buildings (less than 25,000 SF).
My conclusion is that performance is the best way to proceed. I understand there is more cost associated with the analysis and thus the design portion can be more resource intensive. The result, in my opinion, is better building performance, less consumption of resources, better design, higher quality spaces, and a higher quality more sustainable outcome.
CG
Sunday, March 21, 2010
PURPOSES
I think it is easy to be altruistic when starting and adventure such as this. In this particular case let's start out with an honest set of statements:
1. Will I blog every day?
Answer - no: I'll blog when time, the circumstances of life and the business of architecture permit.
2. Will this be a blog of substance?
Answer - hopefully: Time will tell...stay tuned.
3. What subjects can be viewed here?
Answer: I think I will explore many subjects primarily related to architecture and design, not afraid to offer
cutting edge snippets of thought and concepts, perhaps a few elements of life as an architect, some
philosophical questions, occasionally interspersed with momentary lapses of humor.
...and so it begins...
We shape our buildings, thereafter they shape us.
Winston Churchill
1. Will I blog every day?
Answer - no: I'll blog when time, the circumstances of life and the business of architecture permit.
2. Will this be a blog of substance?
Answer - hopefully: Time will tell...stay tuned.
3. What subjects can be viewed here?
Answer: I think I will explore many subjects primarily related to architecture and design, not afraid to offer
cutting edge snippets of thought and concepts, perhaps a few elements of life as an architect, some
philosophical questions, occasionally interspersed with momentary lapses of humor.
...and so it begins...
We shape our buildings, thereafter they shape us.
Winston Churchill
PURPOSES
I think it is easy to be altruistic when starting and adventure such as this. In this particular case let's start out with an honest set of statements:
1. Will I blog every day?
Answer - no: I'll blog when time, the circumstances of life and the business of architecture permit.
2. Will this be a blog of substance?
Answer - hopefully: Time will tell...stay tuned.
3. What subjects can be viewed here?
Answer: I think I will explore many subjects primarily related to architecture and design, not afraid to offer
cutting edge snippets of thought and concepts, perhaps a few elements of life as an architect, some
philosophical questions, occasionally interspersed with momentary lapses of humor.
...and so it begins...
We shape our buildings, thereafter they shape us.
Winston Churchill
1. Will I blog every day?
Answer - no: I'll blog when time, the circumstances of life and the business of architecture permit.
2. Will this be a blog of substance?
Answer - hopefully: Time will tell...stay tuned.
3. What subjects can be viewed here?
Answer: I think I will explore many subjects primarily related to architecture and design, not afraid to offer
cutting edge snippets of thought and concepts, perhaps a few elements of life as an architect, some
philosophical questions, occasionally interspersed with momentary lapses of humor.
...and so it begins...
We shape our buildings, thereafter they shape us.
Winston Churchill
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
