Talk:Green building

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Environment
Portal		 This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Added Map

I added a map that shows US states that are now requiring or encouraging green building certification. Casey789 03:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?

As much as I agree with the substance of the article, I fear that language like "clearly, our buildings, and how we use them, have a profound impact on the Earth's resources" borders on POV due to its tone but not its content...

--Spindustrious 09:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is clear when you recognize that 40% of energy use (in the US) goes to building construction, operation and maintenance. Buildings are also the most significant land use impact besides agriculture. These are simple neutral observations. --belg4mit 2007-2-08 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.212.241.202 (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

re:NPOV?

Removed section "Enviromental Statistics of Buildings" (or something like that).

Section added no reasoning or value to the topic; tried to advocate green building techniques instead of adding to the explanation of the term. Didn't see any reason to remove the links quoted, page may require a bit of clean up.

  • This article really needs to be more balanced - it needs less of the US and more of a worldwide emphasis. 155.198.78.187 11:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics

(Note: please do not use horizontal bars for new topics, use section titles.)

Statistics backing up evidence of building impact on natural resources are provided in the article, with a linked footnote for more information. Suggestions for wording changes, however, are welcome.

-- KS, 25 Apr 2005

Statistics are subject to interpretation. What is included or excluded from the calculations can have a profound impact on the results. You can get almost any result you want if you work the basis of the statistics around long enough. An extreme example of this type of manipulation is the following question that must be answered yes or no. "Have you stop beating your dog?" If you answer yes, you were beating your dog. If you answer no, you are still beating your dog. Either way the result is 100% of those who answer such a question yes or no have beat their dog and 0% have not beat their dog.

Words like "clearly" and "profound impact" are the problem here. They are subjective and not quantifiable by statistics. Make your point by simply identifying the source of the statistics and eliminating the subjective language.

-- HM, 12 May 2005

I am not really sure what the arguement is here. Areas like clear cut logging, strip mining, and the like tend, without the support of "statistics", to depict "clear" and "profound impacts", thus the need for documents like EIS to government agencies like EPA. -- Hard Raspy Sci 21:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links section?

I don't really understand the point of having a bunch of random interal links. Can someone explain to me the purpose of this section? Could someone (preferably the person who put all the links in) expand this into something more compelling? Velvetsmog 21:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could someone explain why Los Angeles is listed as a "Sustainable Town Development?" 24.215.253.143 01:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess there is some green building somewhere in LA see Playa Vista, Los Angeles, California, but perhaphs a joke - one of the least sustainable places about. It was added by 161.149.63.100 in January http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Green_building&diff=33741141&oldid=32956558, I'll remove the link.

In any case I think sustainable town development should be in its own article rather than here. There is quite a difference in scope between the two. --Salix alba (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links Section

I pruned the External Links section

  • Removed primarily commercial links: specific firms
  • Removed non-notable links: sites of specific buildings, obscure research
  • Retained more general informational links on green building
  • Retained commercial sites which are umbrella groups for industry
  • Categorized links mainly by geography

Prospect77 00:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well done. -- Solipsist 08:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding a link back in

  • s10.invisionfree.com/Alternative_Building Alternative Building Discussion Guide
I believe this is a valuable link to put back into the page. Especially since, it is a moderated discussion with a lot of valuable information. I personally had nothing to do with creating this discussion and am not a moderator. I have just found this to be a valuable resource to ask questions to engineers and designers who frequent the board.

Ecgossett 13:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC) = (UTC)

(I stripped the link because it is on the spam blacklist. --Jorunn 12:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Cleanup

I went through the article bringing it closer in line with our manual of style. This was mainly removing non citation imbedded links. Removing repeat internal links where I noticed them. Removing sections that were promotional or were to do with something mentioned in the article rather than being directly about green building. Some of the links I removed may provide a good springboard for further research. you can check them out from the diff in the edit history.

I believe the edits I made should satisfy the {{advert}} concerns in the Canadian section. If not, please put the tag back and let us know here what specific concerns remain. I'm not sure about the same tag in the Australia section. I wasn't sure how to address the concerns in the australia section without simply deleting it. If someone know more about green building in Australia work on this section would be appreciated.

The external links section is horrendous. We ought to have a manageable set (5, maybe 6) of links that a general reader would find really useful. At the moment it's a messy portal, with most failing our external links guidelines, that someone who doesn't know the sector (and many who do) would have to trawl through to find anything interesting. It could really use a severe pruning if anyone is up to looking through each one.-- Siobhan Hansa 16:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I propose completely removing the 'Designers and Builders' section as it is mostly redundant, copied over from Sustainable architecture and the names are all unqualified. If there's a reason to include this section then each entry should at least include some detail about why they are included. Many entries are probably self-promoting.Mahalie 03:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Remove at will. Sunray 22:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merger with sustainable architecture

Architecture is carried out by architects; green building may involve an architect at some point, or may not. So I guess if it's necessary to clarify definitions, that would make sustainable architecture a sub-set of green building. Gralo 23:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger tag removed after 4 months with 3 views against, non in favor. Gralo 18:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure the tag should come down. I think that a distinction between sustainable architecture and green building can only be made if one insists that architecture must involve an architect. I think that professional associations and their lawyers might want us to beleive this, but historically all buildings are called architecture, even vernacular buildings such as huts or barns. Perhaps if each article had more substance I would say leave well enough alone, but I think the content of each would combine to make a good start on the subject, under the title of Sustainable Architecture. With your support, I'll put the tag back up. --Jrsnbarn 07:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. I thought that the discussion on the Sustainable architecture had pretty well concluded against merging these two articles. The tag suggests merging S.A. into Green building and I had understood you to be against this. As to merging the other way: Green building is an increasingly distinct field and certainly needs its own article, IMO. I really think it is time for the merge tag to come down. However, as I've said elsewhere, this article does need work (and the quality tag should stay). Sunray 07:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
No need to be confused. I had originally approached this as above (with the proposal of reopening the merger), but have changed my thinking. I did not put the merge tag back up. That was Miscreant on 30 March 2007. I'm in favour of taking the merge tag back down and improving the articles as they stand.--Jrsnbarn 11:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rammed earth merger proposal

It seems to me that this section is far larger than is required in an article on Green building, and that the content might be more appropriate in the Rammed earth page. --Jrsnbarn 00:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree about merging. The new material would nicely supplement what's now on Rammed earth, and goes well beyond the basic get-you-oriented goal of a page like Green building. Greener72 15:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge complete as per merger proposal--Jrsnbarn 15:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poll on inclusion of link

We would like to get input on the inclusion of an external link in the article on Straw-bale construction. There is discussion and a poll here. Comments prior to August 3, 2007 would be appreciated. Thanks. Sunray 07:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Designers and builders

Can anyone explain why we would have a section on designers and builders?. It seems like a recipe for a long and unmanageable list. How could we ever adjudicate notability? The other problem is that people and firms are constantly going to try to try to hang their shingle. I suggest that the section be eliminated. Comments? Sunray (talk) 08:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If someone wants to add a link to their favourite designer, the least they could do is find an appropriate part of the article in which to discuss why they are so important to our understanding of the field. Miscreant (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This question was posted over three weeks ago and the only commentary has been in favour of removing the list. I am therefore removing it. Sunray (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello -

I would like to add a link to Low Impact Living in the Green Building page and possibly other relevant topics, but not sure if a for-profit websites would be permitted.

Low Impact Living provides a free home footprint calculator, lots of info on why to green your home, green home improvement project ideas, blog covering green home topics "like straw bale building" and a a directory of green products and services. The directory is not free for businesses, but it's a great resource none the less and it helps sustain the business.

Would appreciate some kind of approval before placing the link, Please see us at www.lowimpactliving.com

Many thanks, 1greenbean —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1greenbean (talk • contribs) 00:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental technology template

I'd like to replace the Environmental technology template with one that matches the standard navbox style, i.e. horizontal instead of vertical, collapsing and typically placed at the bottom of article pages. I've done a mock up of what this would look like at {{User:Jwanders/ET}}. Figured this was a big enough change that I should post before going ahead with it. Please discuss here--jwandersTalk 22:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] External Links

Would anyone object to my adding http://www.motherearthnews.com/Green-Homes.aspx to the external links section of this article? It seems relevant and objective.

Trexitor (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)