Quote:
Originally Posted by Airboy
I agree with you 240.
The documentation however is the real issue and I believe the cause of increased costs. Having dealt with the mechanical side now for a few years there are some elements of LEED that could be made more functional with regard the installed systems. LEED is starting to address the long term post construction functionality of a building. Educating some contractors and clients and getting them to buy into the process is still an ongoing issue. Some of the most efficient HVAC systems I have dealt with use the KISS system.
|
Yes, I agree. I've spent the better part of my career working with BMCS systems and quite often the most efficient operation of the equipment is also the simplest. There's a reason that when I was in the industry, many engineers called me to write the sequences for them.
I remember working a project down south, located right next to the QE2, that called for natural ventilation through automatic awning windows facing west. The first problem was that the building systems were pressure dependent so every time the awnings would open the bulding would lose all its static, and the second problem was was that grit from the highway was being introduced to the building through the awnings. The FM I was working with the commission the system basically said that as soon as the windows were proven and the point was awarded, they were to be pinned shut... so a LEED point cost a public building $45,000 for a feature that'll never be used.
So Ian, in terms of the argument I think that the point is that following LEED standards + the way the city manages its bureaucracy means that it costs a lot more for civic buildings.. and I'll beleive that 100%
The only thing in the article that really worries me is the issue with the trees.
Prev
)
Linear Mode
