IMO a compromise is in order--don't demolish old buildings if we can reuse them, but don't prohibit exterior insulation retrofits either. All too often exterior insulation is prohibited to preserve historical aesthetics, even though 1) stucco on masonry retrofiting is perfectly historical process and 2) exterior insulation protects the structure from the more extreme future climate while interior insulation makes the structure more vulnerable to it. Save the structure, yes, keep it beautiful, yes, but don't insist on keeping the original aesthetics as is.
Whoever designed the proposed new store is obviously a plant from the preservation community. Nobody could seriously suggest replacing the existing, lovely building with that 70s inspired monstrosity.
"Upfront Carbon helps kill replacement of Marks & Spencer's Oxford Street store"
So I'm surprised at this headline for a couple of reasons:
• The new building has a more modern aesthetic, something Lloyd loves and promotes.
• Nicholson "accepted the architect’s statements that the new building would perform better over its lifetime"—which means that energy efficiency and LEED construction standards that reduce operational carbon isn't worth the investment—so by extension, we should consider the same for the much higher upfront carbon cost of EV's compared to traditional ICE vehicles, right?
Then there's this nugget: "As the World Green Building Council notes, if you care about carbon reduction, you first build nothing, and then you build less, maximizing existing assets." So as the world CONTINUES to increase in population and CONTINUES to urbanize, are we to forego building at all? How much are we to build new, or will be allowed to build at all, considering the shortages in housing stock around the world? Should more people be homeless (oh oh oh, wait . . . the new term is called 'unhoused' because "homeless" is insensitive and classist) because it's less carbon-intensive? Literally, how do you "build less" when there are more and more people needing housing and places to work?
IMO a compromise is in order--don't demolish old buildings if we can reuse them, but don't prohibit exterior insulation retrofits either. All too often exterior insulation is prohibited to preserve historical aesthetics, even though 1) stucco on masonry retrofiting is perfectly historical process and 2) exterior insulation protects the structure from the more extreme future climate while interior insulation makes the structure more vulnerable to it. Save the structure, yes, keep it beautiful, yes, but don't insist on keeping the original aesthetics as is.
Whoever designed the proposed new store is obviously a plant from the preservation community. Nobody could seriously suggest replacing the existing, lovely building with that 70s inspired monstrosity.
"Upfront Carbon helps kill replacement of Marks & Spencer's Oxford Street store"
So I'm surprised at this headline for a couple of reasons:
• The new building has a more modern aesthetic, something Lloyd loves and promotes.
• Nicholson "accepted the architect’s statements that the new building would perform better over its lifetime"—which means that energy efficiency and LEED construction standards that reduce operational carbon isn't worth the investment—so by extension, we should consider the same for the much higher upfront carbon cost of EV's compared to traditional ICE vehicles, right?
Then there's this nugget: "As the World Green Building Council notes, if you care about carbon reduction, you first build nothing, and then you build less, maximizing existing assets." So as the world CONTINUES to increase in population and CONTINUES to urbanize, are we to forego building at all? How much are we to build new, or will be allowed to build at all, considering the shortages in housing stock around the world? Should more people be homeless (oh oh oh, wait . . . the new term is called 'unhoused' because "homeless" is insensitive and classist) because it's less carbon-intensive? Literally, how do you "build less" when there are more and more people needing housing and places to work?
Maybe that'd be worth discussing in another post?