Is anyone looking at the entire lifecycle of whatever structure they're aiming to build? Green building is not just using sustainable materials and energy efficiency, but accounting for the structures impact over its entire life: design, construction, and eventual renovation or removal. By using designing for deconstruction/disassembly building plans are made much more flexible and able to incorporate not only green materials, but also to specify using materials with high potential for reuse or recycling in the future.

Is anyone out there using these principles in their designs, and what success or issues have you had with this process?

I think that approach is trying to cure a symptom instead of a problem. One of the main reasons people have to deconstruct houses in the first place is because certain parts of them break down two quickly, for example the foundation starts to crumble or the roof leaks and rots out the rafters, or particleboard subflooring absorbs water and disintegrates, ect. If you are talking about deconstructing a house, that implies that most of the “parts”(like the actual pieces of wood or concrete) of the house are still good, but for some reason the house is not. Why not design a house where the whole is as strong as the parts. Whoever tries to take the structures that I build apart will be cursing under every breath. Rebar in every piece of concrete, glue and screwed subfloor and plywood, hardened ring shank nails that won't pull, double diaphragm walls that would be a bear to pull the first diaphragm. Advantech water resistant plywood used everywhere, with metal fasteners holding all wooden connections solid. Basically, I build houses that will last until the wood literally breaks down, and as long as I keep a good roof on it and keep enemy number 1 (water) out, that will be a very long time.

This similar idea same can be said for other newer construction techniques, like an ICF house which would be a bear to take back apart(anyone volunteer to remove the reinforced concrete?), but who needs to if it lasts a very long time.

Just think about how much energy goes into taking all the raw materials and putting them into a structure. Even something as simple as the gas burned as all the construction workers drive back and forth to work each day can really start to pile up. Even if you had the greenest materials possible and were able to reuse every single material used in the old structure, not having to build another structure in the first place would still be “greener”.

If there was a way to design for dissasembly alongside designing for ultimate strength, I would be all for it, but unfortunately most of the time those are conflicting goals.

In my opinion from a green design, here is the best in my opinion.

http://www.greenrightnow.com/wabc/2009/06/22/schools-go-net-zero-in-kentucky-and-win-national-award/

Why local, state, and federal government agencies can't follow the blue prints set forth in this story is way beyond me.

Ren,
Thank you for the link. That info is fantastic! I sent it to every member of our county School Board and all the individuals who are Directors of the organization.
If every one who reads this forum sends it to their School Board members it would do so much for so many problems every community faces. To all who read this forum: PLEASE READ the article in the link provided by Ren. You will thank him AND YOURSELF!

http://www.greenrightnow.com/wabc/2009/06/22/schools-go-net-zero-in-kentucky-and-win-national-award/

Bulldozers and wrecking balls quite efficiently can tear down a building he he he. sorry smartaleck comment. Really, though, I think deconstruction is the least of the concerns. If it was built to be easily taken apart, yet not mobile, then your other efficiencies (heating, cost, etc) are non existent. It certainly wouldn't last as long as a house built by aardvarcus

I've read a "Sunny Gunni" proposal from Butch Clark of Gunnison, CO about a low-cost sustainable housing community design that has it's contraction and closure plans developed at the onset. It's geared toward "boom/bust" economies near vital natural resources. I don't have an online version, but I could share with him this forum thread to join if he likes.

This is a smart marketing move. The group probably most concerned with the environment are the parents of your target group and eco-friendly is no longer a fad or a trend but a part of our everyday lives.

roofing contractors

Did they discuss the payback on investment?

I like the passive house type standards better then LEED as passive house seems to be more focused on energy efficiency.

The recycling part get get people off track like Aardvarcus says.

I cringe when I see the "green" shows tear down a perfectly good home to put up a new "energy efficient" home.

Wonder how much this school cost the taxpayers and if it will really pay off in the long run, though the philosophy behind it is spot on. It is easy to be solid green when you have an unlimited budget...

-Rosalinda

rosalinda,
If you are asking about the schools in KY, I can tell you that the cost factors are not that much more than a traditional school, and the payback period is measured in years, not decades.
Several of these schools are in the construction pipeline, from drawing board to in use. And they all have extremely low operationing costs in comparasion to traditional built schools.

Wes,
That is great to hear!!! Hopefully their success will give other states the push to get on board. Our schools seem like an endless money sump, and no matter how much money they take out of our pockets, the net result never improves. Maybe this can turn at least one facet in a positive direction.

-Rosalinda

Good question Rosalind, but the answer may surprise you. The building cost $175.61 per sqft to build. Now they did received a grant for 1.374 million for the solar panel (to take off the grid), but if you add that to the total it comes to $192.36 per sqft to build. In my opinion, I think that price is more than reasonable. Below are links that back up the costs.

http://schooldesigns.com/Project-Details.aspx?Project_ID=3244

http://www.examiner.com/x-8310-Trendy-Living-Examiner~y2010m5d20-Richardsville-Kentucky-may-have-first-elementary-school-off-the-grid

In addition, another school is in design and development in Bowling Green that is suppose to be more energy efficient than Richardsville. The current bid has it at $144.00 per sqft to build.

renangle

That is one very interesting school and what a great group of people making a difference.