RESUND BRIDGE

The Øresund or Öresund Bridge (Danish: Øresundsbroen, Swedish: Öresundsbron, joint hybrid name: Øresundsbron) is a combined twin-track railway and dual carriageway bridge-tunnel across the Øresund strait.
The bridge connects Sweden and Denmark, and it is the longest road and rail bridge in Europe. The Øresund Bridge also connects two major Metropolitan Areas: those of the Danish capital city of Copenhagen and the major Swedish city of Malmö. Furthermore, the Øresund Bridge connects the road network of Scandinavia with those of Central and Western Europe.
The international European route E20 crosses this bridge-tunnel via the road, and the Öresund Railway Line uses the railway. The construction of the Great Belt Fixed Link – which connects Zealand to Funen and thence to the Jutland Peninsula – and the Øresund Bridge have connected Western and Central Europe to Scandinavia. The Øresund Bridge was designed by the Danish architectural practice Dissing+Weitling.
The justification for the additional expenditure and complexity related to digging a tunnel for part of the way – rather than simply raising that section of the bridge – was to avoid interfering with airliners from the nearby Copenhagen International Airport, and also to provide a clear channel for ships in good weather or bad, and to prevent ice floes from blocking the strait. The Øresund Bridge crosses the border between Denmark and Sweden, but in accordance with the Schengen Agreement and the Nordic Passport Union, there are usually no passport inspections. There are random customs checks at the entrance toll booths for entering Sweden, but not for entering Denmark.

The Øresund Bridge received the 2002 IABSE Outstanding Structure Award.

Column

A column or pillar in architecture and structural engineering is a vertical structural element that transmits, through compression, the weight of the structure above to other structural elements below. For the purpose of wind or earthquake engineering, columns may be designed to resist lateral forces. Other compression members are often termed "columns" because of the similar stress conditions. Columns are frequently used to support beams or arches on which the upper parts of walls or ceilings rest. In architecture, "column" refers to such a structural element that also has certain proportional and decorative features. A column might also be a decorative element not needed for structural purposes; many columns are "engaged with", that is to say form part of a wall.

Why the D.C. Green Building Act is Fundamentally Flawed and a Solution

I can’t believe it has come to this.
We are just over four months away from January 1, 2012. On that date, the D.C. Green Building Act of 2006 requires that all new construction of non-residential buildings greater than 50,000 square feet be LEED certified. While there are many technical problems with the Green Buildling Act, the very premise of the law is fundamentally flawed. Thankfully, there is a very obvious solution to the Act’s flaws and technical deficiencies.
Why is the D.C. Green Building Act Fundamentally Flawed?
How can I make this claim? Because the D.C. Government does not understand what a LEED mandate actually entails.
I was recently reviewing materials published by the D.C. Department of the Environment (DDOE) regarding the Green Building Act (GBA). One slide caught my attention:

Do you see the problem with this slide? The DDOE views the Green Building Act LEED mandate as a “ceiling.” If the D.C. Government believes it has passed a ceiling then it truly does not understand how the Green Building Act and its LEED mandate will function.
A LEED mandate is not a ceiling. Rather, a LEED mandate is a floor. Because the GBA requires all buildings to obtain LEED certification, it functions as a quasi building code. In other words, LEED certification is a minimum requirement, the very definition of a so-called "floor."
Furthermore, the very premise of putting a "ceiling" on the green building industry is a terrible and nonsensical idea. A ceiling would actually prohibit buildings from being built to be greener or more efficient than LEED. The GBA requires buildings to meet LEED certification and yet there are numerous LEED Platinum buildings in Washington, D.C.. Does DDOE imagine that the GBA will serve as a cap and prevent future buildings from seeking LEED Gold or Platinum certification?
The Solution
The intent of the Green Building Act is to “raise the performance of the District's buildings so that they are environmentally sustainable, healthy, and more efficient to operate” and to “make the District of Columbia a national leader for green building.” The solution to the problems with the Green Building Act seems obvious to me and ensures the intent of the Act is satisfied.
First, the District needs more time to correct the many problems with the Green Building Act. The deadline for implementation of the LEED mandate should be extended to 2013 or later. It is very unlikely that all of the Green Building Act’s deficiencies, which will be discussed in a later post, can be corrected in the remaining four months.
Second, all of the D.C. government’s green building resources need to be applied to green building codes. The International Green Construction Code will be released sometime in 2012. D.C. can be one of the first cities to adopt a mandatory green building code if it starts reviewing IgCC public version 2.0 now. Adopting and implementing this code will raise the performance of District buildings and shine a spotlight on the city as the first to adopt the code.
For those of you interested in learning more about the D.C. Green Building Act, I would recommend that you attend a D.C. Green Codes Working Group meeting next Wednesday, August 24 at 9:30 am. The meeting is at 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue in Room 412. Email if you need more details -- chris@greenbuildinglawupdate.com.

Tags: Codes and Regulations, Green Building Act, LEED bond

The Green Building Code is Too Confusing

The Green Building Code is Too Confusing

I have spent just over a year thinking about the International Green Construction Code (IgCC).  I know it has been one year because I received my first copy of the code at Greenbuild 2010.  My conclusion today about the code is no different than it was one year ago:
The IgCC is unnecessarily confusing. 
Take, for instance, the IgCC's basic setup -- it's two codes in one.  Apparently, trying to figure out one set of building codes is not enough.  Within the IgCC, jurisdictions have the option of adopting either the IgCC code or ASHRAE 189.1.  Yes, I know that that sentence does not make sense, but it is correct.
Other aspects of the IgCC create more confusion.  Not only does it include mandatory code provisions, but it also contains electives that can be selected by a jurisdiction and a project team.  Why would the code writers have included electives in a mandatory building code?  One theory I have heard is that the code writers wanted to mimic the elective credits in the LEED rating system.
I support the creation of a green building code.  Too many jurisdictions were mandating the LEED rating system as a de facto building code.  The IgCC was an attempt to fill that void with a system more appropriately suited to a building code.  However, the current version of the IgCC will create unnecessary confusion that will result in the following:

• Building inspectors will struggle to learn to enforce a complicated building code that changes with each project depending on the electives selected.  This will result in inconsistent building code rulings.
• Design and construction professionals will have to comply with different building codes depending on the jurisdiction.  This means that professionals may have to learn more than one building code to do work in two adjacent communities. 
• Insurance and surety companies will struggle to ensure the risks associated with confusing green building codes.  I have already heard one large insurance company state that the adoption of green building codes will change the standard of care for design professionals going forward. 

The Green Civil Engineer

The 3 R's of Sustainable Site Design

I think just about everyone knows the 3 R's - "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle".  My 6 yr old has been known to recite it on occasion, and to his credit he understands at least the basics of it.  Recycling certainly gets the most air time and for the most part I think everyone associates the 3 R's with trash.  Reducing often requires some sacrifice which most of us don't like and in our expendable society reuse is more often than not ignored.  Recycling our trash is admirable and we should all do our best to do this very simple green task.  But I believe that the 3 R's have merit beyond just our consumables.  As a civil engineer and site designer I started thinking about how Reduce, Reuse, Recycle could be applied to what I do the most - site design.  Here is what I came up with - the 3 R's of Sustainable Site Design.

REDUCE
Reduce is probably the most impactful of the 3 R's - after all it is listed first.  The more we can reduce (consumption, development, etc) the less we will need to reuse and recycle.  This applies to development and construction projects as well.  If we first reduce, then we spend less time, money and energy trying to reuse, recycle, control etc.  In the early phases of our site designs we, as design professionals need to be thinking about how we can reduce:

• Impervious area - Almost always when we develop a previous undeveloped site (more on that below) we increase the impervious surface area.  By replacing pervious areas (grass, forest, brush etc) with impervious area (asphalt, concrete, roofs etc) we increase stormwater runoff, reduce groundwater recharge, increase surface temperatures and create a host of other problems.  If we first focus on REDUCING impervious area we can reduce the amount of work it takes to counteract these effects.
• Disturbance - Land disturbance damages the soil ecosystems, destroys vegetation, alters stormwater patterns and pollutes runoff.  Some of these affects can be remedied or counteracted, but if we first REDUCE the area disturbed we can reduce the impact as well. 
• Runoff - Both of the items listed above contribute to increased stormwater runoff, so the first line of defense it to reduce impervious area and land disturbance.  But you can only reduce those so much and still develop and build, but you can still focus additional attention on reducing runoff.  Many stormwater ordinances and practitioners still focus solely on flow rate reduction and not volume reduction.  To reduce the impact on groundwater resources, erosion and the hydrologic cycle we need to also REDUCE runoff volumes to at or below pre-development levels. 

REUSE

If we are to assume that reduce has the most impact judging by its place in the 3 R's then we can also assume that reuse has the second greatest opportunity for impact - which I believe is true.  In many ways reuse and recycle are interchangeable, but here we are going to consider that reuse does not require re-manufacturing, processing etc.  Can we apply this to site design?  I think so and here's how we can - reuse:

• Development sites - REUSING previously developed sites is one of the best ways to limit the environmental degradation caused by the development process.  In addition to preserving a green field site that would be used for your project you are also able to take advantage of existing infrastructure and hopefully limit the impact associated with transportation to a more remote site.
• Natural features - The natural features of a site; topography, water features, vegetation, etc have been refined over time in a way that is difficult or impossible to replicate.  Rather than working against these natural features we should concentrate on REUSING them for the benefit of the site.  This could include improving and reusing an existing wetland for stormwater management or using existing tree canopy to shade buildings and hardscapes. 
• Artificial features - As with natural features its often possible and beneficial to REUSE any existing artificial features on the site.  If there is an existing farm pond, road or parking lot on site, try to REUSE those features rather than demolishing them and starting over.  Doing this eliminates demolition waste and saves on raw materials and labor associated with rebuilding them.

RECYCLE

Last and maybe least (depending on your viewpoint!) of the 3 R's is recycle.  Recycling is certainly important, it can reduce raw material consumption, energy use and landfill space among other benefits.  It's also one of the easiest and most visible green things that you can do.  There are a lot of things you can do as a designer that the general public won't understand or appreciate but people can relate to recycling and that can propel more people to act sustainably.  So beyond our trash, what can we as site designers recycle?

• Stormwater - Traditional/conventional civil engineering wisdom was/is to get stormwater off site as quickly and efficiently as possible.  But why not RECYCLE it?  Stormwater can be captured and RECYCLED for gray water in buildings, irrigation, fire protection or habitat creation and restoration.  
• Materials - There are a myriad of opportunities for RECYCLED materials use in site development.  Recycled asphalt pavement, fly ash replacement in concrete and recycled rubber and plastic appurtenances are just a few of the products that can be specified and used in the site development process. By doing this we are encouraging recycling of materials and reducing raw material extraction and energy.
• Waste - Almost all site development projects require some sort of demolition or clearing.  Rather than hauling off this waste we should consider the opportunities for RECYCLING that waste on site.  For example, demolished concrete can be used as aggregate base for paved surfaces, cleared trees can be chipped/mulched on site and used for erosion control or landscaping and demolished asphalt can be RECYCLED into new asphalt surfaces.

I am sure that are points that I missed here so please send your ideas my way if you have any thing to add.  Ultimately, I think that the 3 R's are a good example that going green and creating more sustainable spaces doesn't have to be complicated.  In engineering school the most important thing that they teach you is how to break down a problem into simple parts - and that's what the Reduce, Reuse, Recycle mantra helps us do.  And if you're not a civil engineer or site design professional hopefully you can use the 3 R's to make your life and work more sustainable.

Dubai Sports City

Dubai Sports City

Already under construction, Dubailand will encompass 70 square miles of attractions and entertainment venues by 2020.

The various projects being built in Dubailand have been categorized into six immense themed zones, each of which focuses on a different aspect of the Dubailand experience. The zones, referred to as "worlds," include:

1. Attractions and Entertainment World
2. Leisure and Vacation World
3. Retail and Entertainment World
4. Downtown
5. Eco-tourism World
6. Sports and Outdoor World

Now stay with me here. Let's talk just about Sports and Outdoor World. Here's what this World will include:

• Dubai Autodrome (already built)
• Extreme Sports World
• Golf World
• The Plantation Equestrian & Polo Club
• Dubai Sports City

dubai

It is in Dubai Sports City, a $1.9 billion development, that The Bridge condo hotel will be located. Dubai Sports City is under construction and should be complete in 2011. It will contain a combination of sports, lifestyle, leisure and entertainment developments. Permit me to give you a few more stats on Dubai Sports City.

Dubai Sports City will encompass many state-of-the-art stadiums and world-class sports academies