Heidi Schwartz, Author at Facility Executive - Creating Intelligent Buildings | Page 377 of 401

This exclusive comes courtesy of CTG Energetics, Inc. Now that the USGBC membership has approved LEED-NC v2.2 (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for New Construction), it’s time to look at some of the most important changes that will impact LEED projects. Some of these changes will make it easier to achieve a credit, some will make it more difficult, and others will affect the documentation. In this article, we’ve review all of the changes in 2.2 and extract those items that change how you approach the credit. For TFM‘s coverage of LEED, see “LEED and LCA” from the archives. SS CREDIT 6 – STORMWATER. You’ll see a lot of new language here, but the stormwater credits will function similarly to v2.1. The new language is more responsive to the intent of the credit and uses clear metrics for calculating compliance. There is also a new option in 6.1 for Greenfield projects that uses stream channel protection as the metric, as opposed to runoff rate and quantity.SS CREDIT 7 – HEAT ISLANDS. Solar Reflectance Index (SRI) takes over for reflectance and emissivity in these credits. SRI values for a few typical pavement types and roof types will be provided, but if you are using a non-typical pavement, you will need to test the material in the field to achieve credit 7.1. Also, since SRI is a relatively new metric, it may take some time for manufacturers to integrate this reporting in their product literature.SS CREDIT 8 – LIGHT POLLUTION. This credit has been reorganized into three major components: interior light spill, lighting power density, and light trespass. You will find more specific requirements for interior lighting, compared to 2.1, and the energy use of the exterior lighting is now regulated in this credit. A new series of zone definitions and light trespass criteria provided that greatly improve the clarity of those requirements compared to v2.1. The lighting power density criteria appear to be a major improvement over the previous limitations on average footcandles and max/min ratios, with respect to clarity and documentation.EA PREREQUISITE 1 – COMMISSIONING. Similar to SS credit 6, you’ll see entirely new language here, but the resultant criteria are pretty close to v2.1. The major clarification is the definition of who is eligible to serve as the Commissioning Authority (CxA)for the prerequisite and EA credit 3. LEED will be more accessible to small projects in v2.2 because the new language includes a clause that, for projects less than 50,000 SF, the CxA may be a member of... ...Read More...


This exclusive comes courtesy of CTG Energetics, Inc. Now that the USGBC membership has approved LEED-NC v2.2 (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for New Construction), it’s time to look at some of the most important changes that will impact LEED projects. Some of these changes will make it easier to achieve a credit, some will make it more difficult, and others will affect the documentation. In this article, we’ve review all of the changes in 2.2 and extract those items that change how you approach the credit. For TFM‘s coverage of LEED, see “LEED and LCA” from the archives. SS CREDIT 6 – STORMWATER. You’ll see a lot of new language here, but the stormwater credits will function similarly to v2.1. The new language is more responsive to the intent of the credit and uses clear metrics for calculating compliance. There is also a new option in 6.1 for Greenfield projects that uses stream channel protection as the metric, as opposed to runoff rate and quantity.SS CREDIT 7 – HEAT ISLANDS. Solar Reflectance Index (SRI) takes over for reflectance and emissivity in these credits. SRI values for a few typical pavement types and roof types will be provided, but if you are using a non-typical pavement, you will need to test the material in the field to achieve credit 7.1. Also, since SRI is a relatively new metric, it may take some time for manufacturers to integrate this reporting in their product literature.SS CREDIT 8 – LIGHT POLLUTION. This credit has been reorganized into three major components: interior light spill, lighting power density, and light trespass. You will find more specific requirements for interior lighting, compared to 2.1, and the energy use of the exterior lighting is now regulated in this credit. A new series of zone definitions and light trespass criteria provided that greatly improve the clarity of those requirements compared to v2.1. The lighting power density criteria appear to be a major improvement over the previous limitations on average footcandles and max/min ratios, with respect to clarity and documentation.EA PREREQUISITE 1 – COMMISSIONING. Similar to SS credit 6, you’ll see entirely new language here, but the resultant criteria are pretty close to v2.1. The major clarification is the definition of who is eligible to serve as the Commissioning Authority (CxA)for the prerequisite and EA credit 3. LEED will be more accessible to small projects in v2.2 because the new language includes a clause that, for projects less than 50,000 SF, the CxA may be a member of... ...Read More...

WEB EXCLUSIVE: LEED update may require new approach to some credits

Heidi Schwartz

WEB EXCLUSIVE: LEED update may require new approach to some credits

WEB EXCLUSIVE: LEED update may require new approach to some credits

This exclusive comes courtesy of CTG Energetics, Inc. Now that the USGBC membership has approved LEED-NC v2.2 (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for New Construction), it’s time to look at some of the most important changes that will impact LEED projects. Some of these changes will make it easier to achieve a credit, some will make it more difficult, and others will affect the documentation. In this article, we’ve review all of the changes in 2.2 and extract those items that change how you approach the credit. For TFM‘s coverage of LEED, see “LEED and LCA” from the archives. SS CREDIT 6 – STORMWATER. You’ll see a lot of new language here, but the stormwater credits will function similarly to v2.1. The new language is more responsive to the intent of the credit and uses clear metrics for calculating compliance. There is also a new option in 6.1 for Greenfield projects that uses stream channel protection as the metric, as opposed to runoff rate and quantity.SS CREDIT 7 – HEAT ISLANDS. Solar Reflectance Index (SRI) takes over for reflectance and emissivity in these credits. SRI values for a few typical pavement types and roof types will be provided, but if you are using a non-typical pavement, you will need to test the material in the field to achieve credit 7.1. Also, since SRI is a relatively new metric, it may take some time for manufacturers to integrate this reporting in their product literature.SS CREDIT 8 – LIGHT POLLUTION. This credit has been reorganized into three major components: interior light spill, lighting power density, and light trespass. You will find more specific requirements for interior lighting, compared to 2.1, and the energy use of the exterior lighting is now regulated in this credit. A new series of zone definitions and light trespass criteria provided that greatly improve the clarity of those requirements compared to v2.1. The lighting power density criteria appear to be a major improvement over the previous limitations on average footcandles and max/min ratios, with respect to clarity and documentation.EA PREREQUISITE 1 – COMMISSIONING. Similar to SS credit 6, you’ll see entirely new language here, but the resultant criteria are pretty close to v2.1. The major clarification is the definition of who is eligible to serve as the Commissioning Authority (CxA)for the prerequisite and EA credit 3. LEED will be more accessible to small projects in v2.2 because the new language includes a clause that, for projects less than 50,000 SF, the CxA may be a member of… …Read More…


Technology is tops, according to IREM predictions

Technology is tops, according to IREM predictions

More than 600 of the nation’s top real estate managers recently set out to help define the future agenda for the real estate management profession. As members of the Institute of Real Estate Management (IREM), this group ranked technology as the number one issue confronting managers of commercial properties that are challenged to stay on the cutting edge. Three other key strategic issues also were identified: development of a qualified work force, particularly in the midst of changing demographics; heightened business competition resulting in declining margins; and managing risk in a post-9/11 environment. For TFM‘s look at how professionals need to prepare for challenges, see “Can Facility Managers Afford NOT To Train Their Staff–And Themselves” by Steven Ford. Consensus was achieved in defining specific needs underlying the four strategic issues facing the industry:* First, operational productivity and strengthening customer relationships through technology are among managers’ priorities. As business pressures rise, real estate managers are looking for ways to utilize technology to create a sustainable competitive advantage. * Next, changing demographics and psychographics as well as declining profit margins are causing managers to focus more on attracting, developing, rewarding, and retaining qualified staff. This requires finding and developing the right people for all jobs as well as retaining them in the face of higher labor costs and competing career options. * Business competition also ranked as a high-priority issue as real estate managers deal with shrinking margins, intensifying competition, and growing owner demands. As well, they must consistently demonstrate the worth of the value-added services they provide to their clients and employers. * Finally, an increasingly critical issue is that of managing risk in a post 9/11 environment. Real estate managers must grapple with rising insurance costs, risk management, liability changes, and security concerns – both for the properties they manage and the businesses they run.


Friday Funny (courtesy of iGreenbuild.com): Visualize this!

Friday Funny (courtesy of iGreenbuild.com): Visualize this!

This is a bricklayer’s accident report, which was printed in the newsletter of the Australian equivalent of the Workers’ Compensation board. This is a true story. Had this guy died, he’d have received a Darwin Award for sure… By: Jon Dougal Dear Sir: I am writing in response to your request for additional information in Block 3 of the accident report form. I put “poor planning” as the cause Of my accident. You asked for a fuller explanation and I trust the following details will be sufficient. I am a bricklayer by trade. On the day of the accident, I was working alone on the roof of a new six story building. When I completed my work, I found that I had some bricks left over which, when weighed later were found to be slightly in excess of 500 lbs. Rather than carry the bricks down by hand, I decided to lower them in a barrel by using a pulley, which was attached to the side of the building on the sixth floor. Securing the rope at ground level, I went up to the roof, swung the barrel out and loaded the bricks into it. Then I went down and untied the rope, holding it tightly to ensure a slow descent of the bricks. You will note in Block 11 of the accident report form that I weigh 175 lbs. Due to my surprise at being jerked off the ground so suddenly, I lost my presence of mind and forgot to let go of the rope. Needless to say, I proceeded at a rapid rate up the side of the building. In the vicinity of the third floor, I met the barrel which was now proceeding downward at an equal, impressive speed. This explained the fractured skull, minor abrasions and the broken collar bone, as listed in section 3 of the accident report form. Slowed only slightly, I continued my rapid ascent, not stopping until the fingers of my right hand were two knuckles deep into the pulley. Fortunately by this time I had regained my presence of mind and was able to hold tightly to the rope, in spite of beginning to experience a great deal of pain. At approximately the same time, however, the barrel of bricks hit the ground and the bottom fell out of the barrel. Now devoid of the weight of the bricks, that barrel weighed approximately 50 lbs. I refer you again to my weight. As you can imagine, I began a rapid descent,… …Read More…


TURIN 2006: GE illuminates Olympic city for Xmas

TURIN 2006: GE illuminates Olympic city for Xmas

By Christmas, the Turin old town centre will have a new illumination system for the Olympics. The new technological solutions will make it possible to save over 235,000kw/h of energy a year. The operation, carried out thanks to a collaboration between General Electric and Aem Torino, will concern 1,400 lights in Piazza Castello -, where the medals ceremonies will take place – Piazzetta Reale, Piazza San Carlo, Piazza Carlo Felice, Via Roma and Via Po. General Electric will supply Aem Torino, which has managed the city’s public lighting system since 1986, with 1,100 light bulbs of between 100 and 250 watts free of charge – CMH Constant color and ceramic burner, currently considered the best technological solutions on the market. It will also provide 300 ‘electronic reactors’ that will make it possible to reduce energy consumption in a major way. “The collaboration between General Electric and Aem Torino will make it possible to improve the efficiency of some of the systems in the centre of the city, improving quality and limiting consumption, so it can only be a source of satisfaction,” says City of Turin Public Lighting Councillor Roberto Tricarico. “For a group whose founder was the inventor Thomas Edison, it is truly an honour to put our best technologies at the disposal of Aem Torino to shed light on the streets and squares of Turin,” says Giuseppe Recchi, the president of GE in Italy. “Our financial and technological commitment to the city and the Games is important and total, and we think it will always be remembered with pride.” “The cooperation with GE will lead to the renewal of a significant number of public lighting systems in some of the most important streets and squares of the old town centre of Turin over the next few weeks, making it possible reduce consumption a great deal” says Aem Torino Director General Roberto Garbati.


Web Exclusive: Can mold be safely left inside walls?

Web Exclusive: Can mold be safely left inside walls?

The following Web Exclusive comes from Dr. Harriet Burge, courtesy of Environmental Microbiology Laboratory, Inc. The removal of mold–under any or all circumstances–ends up being a question of relative risk, and a complicated one at that. First, in the ideal situation, all the mold growth would be removed, either by removal of the growth itself, or of the material supporting the growth. So – what is an ideal situation? Here is where the relative risk comes in. For TFM‘s coverage of this issue, see “Reducing Mold Concerns” from the archives. The ideal situation for complete removal is when the risk of leaving the mold far outweighs the risk of removal. I know some of you will say – “there is no risk associated with removal”. I will say the opposite: there is little risk associated with dried mold in walls, and significant financial and emotional risk associated with its removal. Here are a few examples.1. Penicillium chrysogenum is known to have grown extensively inside and on the occupied surfaces of walls in a school room. All the occupied space mold has been removed, the water problem repaired, a sequence of air samples has documented the absence of culturable P. chrysogenum, and concentrations of Pen/Asp spores are low. Thus, there appears to be little if any health risk, and any risk to the building would require a water event which would precipitate new (possibly different) mold regardless of whether or not the existing mold is removed. The parents and teachers don’t believe or understand this, and want the mold removed. On the other hand, the school board has facts and figures that indicate that undertaking removal of the mold means that the school will have to be closed for the remainder of the year, causing disruption of the children in this and in whatever school they have to move to. It impacts the teachers – no school, no job. The school board, contrary to popular belief, does not have the funds at hand to do the removal job and support all of the other essential school expenses (salaries, supplies, services, etc.). So, who gets laid off? To me, these few statements justify leaving the mold, making sure no new water events occur, and monitoring routinely for several months, looking only for P. chrysogenum or for sharp increases in Pen/Asp spores. 2. Contrary to popular belief, hospitals do have mold, especially behind baseboards and near sinks and other water sources. They are there in most hospitals and present no apparent risk (e.g.,… …Read More…


What’s more important? Construction deadlines or historic artifacts?

What’s more important? Construction deadlines or historic artifacts?

There’s an interesting construction quandary in New York City right now: a stone wall built as long ago as the late 17th century has been discovered…right in the middle of a new subway tunnel being constructed under Battery Park. To find out how project managers are handling the situation, read Patrick McGeehan’s article in today’s New York Times [registration required]. For TFM‘s coverage of another high profile construction challenge, see “Like Building a Ship In a Bottle” from the archives.


What's more important? Construction deadlines or historic artifacts?

What's more important? Construction deadlines or historic artifacts?

There’s an interesting construction quandary in New York City right now: a stone wall built as long ago as the late 17th century has been discovered…right in the middle of a new subway tunnel being constructed under Battery Park. To find out how project managers are handling the situation, read Patrick McGeehan’s article in today’s New York Times [registration required]. For TFM‘s coverage of another high profile construction challenge, see “Like Building a Ship In a Bottle” from the archives.


LEED for Core and Shell public comment period now open

LEED for Core and Shell public comment period now open

The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) is now soliciting comments on the first draft of the LEED for Core and Shell Rating System (LEED-CS). The first public comment period will be open for 42 days, starting Tuesday, December 6, 2005 and continuing through Monday, January 16, 2006 at 5:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time. For TFM‘s coverage of this topic, see “The State of Sustainability” by Heidi Schwartz and Kelly Sterk. The LEED for Core and Shell Rating System is a market-specific application that recognizes the unique nature of core and shell development. Recognizing that some key building areas, interior space layout, building finishes, lighting, mechanical distribution, and plumbing fixtures, etc. are often outside the direct control of the developer, the scope of a LEED-CS project is limited to those aspects of the project over which the developer does have direct control. LEED-CS is designed to complement the LEED for Commercial Interiors Green Building Rating System (LEED-CI). Together, LEED-CI and LEED-CS establish green building criteria for both developer/owners and tenants. Any member of the public can comment on the LEED-CS draft (after registering a site user profile on the USGBC Web site). USGBC will respond to all comments and post the comments and responses (without commenter names or organizations) to the USGBC Web site. If changes are made to the draft after this first comment period, USGBC will conduct a second public comment period on those changes. The resulting draft will then be sent to the USGBC membership for balloting. The official public release of the rating system is expected by late spring 2006.


Hot in ’06: Health care, highways, and higher ed

Hot in ’06: Health care, highways, and higher ed

Health care, highways and bridges, and higher education will be among the hottest markets for design and construction firms in 2006, while the air pollution, solid waste, and telecommunications markets will struggle, according to 2006 AEC Industry Outlook: Strategy and Insight for Design & Construction Firms, a new report from ZweigWhite. The AEC (architecture, engineering, and construction) business has outperformed the U.S. economy as a whole in recent years, including in 2005. For TFM‘s coverage of this topic, see “Conservative Optimism” by Dr. Tim Springer. The general opinion of the design and construction industry is that 2006 will bring similar results. In an exclusive survey conducted in conjunction with the ZweigWhite report, 73% of respondents expect the AEC business will outperform the U.S. economy in 2005, while only 9% expect the design and construction industry to lag behind the U.S. economy. “Despite increasing pessimism about the U.S. economy as a whole, design and construction firm leaders are very optimistic about how their firms– and the AEC industry as a whole– will perform in 2006,” says Christopher Klein, a principal with ZweigWhite. “More than 70% of firm leaders project their business will be “outstanding” or “excellent” next year. Broad-based growth in the design and construction industry should continue into 2006. Residential construction may slow somewhat, but nonresidential construction should continue to rebound and public works should grow as state and municipal budgets improve.” Based on a market-by-market analysis, the 2006 AEC Industry Outlook identifies five hot and cold markets to watch in 2006. The five hot markets projected for 2006 are: HEALTH CARE: The double-digit increases in health insurance costs that are bad news for AEC firm leaders trying to control costs are good news for firms working in the health care market. The increases in health care expenditures will result in additional capital available for health care projects. In addition, an aging population and advancements in technology are increasing the demand for new health care facilities. HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES: The passage of the new federal surface transportation bill, nicknamed SAFETEA-LU, in August 2005 will provide a significant boost to the highways and bridges market. There is a pent-up demand in the market due to the nearly two years that passed before a long-term surface transportation bill could be agreed upon. Now that federal funding is secure through September 2009, project owners have more certainty on long-term funding of projects and will move ahead on them. HIGHER EDUCATION: Higher education construction is at an all-time high, and with the ”baby boom… …Read More…