Tuesday, January 25, 2011

The IGCC is totally unnecessary…there, I said it!

It’s taken me quite a while to formulate my opinion, but after careful review of the first and second drafts of the International Green Construction Code (IGCC), I keep asking, “why?”

Don’t get me wrong. I’m a supporter of sustainability – I’m a LEED AP, and I provide LEED consulting services. I believe strongly that buildings should be site-friendly, energy efficient, water stingy, indoor healthy, and materially responsible; however, I don’t believe that the “building code” is the place to mandate such items – and therein, is the basis of my opinion…

As the “Jackal” once told his employers, “you just can’t afford to get emotional” – I, too, say the same to those who’ll vilify my comments; but, regardless of whether you’re a climate alarmist, denier, or crealist; everyone needs to “get real” about the necessity for another “code” – especially one that:

1. Is a stretch to meaning of “construction / building codes”,
2. Costs Architects in fees,
3. Expands Architects’ standard-of-care,
4. Requires extensive municipal code-effort to comply with, and
5. Financially rewards those who promote its “necessity”…

So, over the next few weeks, I’ll expand on my points…for now, I reiterate my belief that the IGCC is totally unnecessary…

Next: 1 – The IGCC is totally unnecessary – it’s a stretch to the meaning of “construction / building codes”

BTW: LEED is a trademark of the U. S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating system.