Comments on: Seattle’s Living Building Pilot Program: A Case Study in Progressive Divisiveness

By: Seattle’s Yellow Light on Green Building - Seattle Transit Blog

Seattle’s Yellow Light on Green Building - Seattle Transit Blog — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 14:41:08 +0000

[...] will go forward (and it got a 9-0 vote), but the question that many of us had was “why was there so much controversy about that issue in the first place?” Shouldn’t the controversy be about why [...]

By: dan bertolet

dan bertolet — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 04:20:49 +0000

Why don’t you use your real name, House Carl?

I’m not saying the Council should ignore anyone who disagrees with me. Did you click on the links? Do you really think the Council should spend their valuable time listening to a guy who goes on record saying “TOD bad for people, business & environment”? The other examples I cite are similarly nonsensical. Sorry, but those who talk smack like that deserve to be ignored.

By: House Carl

House Carl — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 21:59:51 +0000

Why such a lazy response? And why so militant, single-minded and
overzealous? On the policy I agree with you, the project should
move forward. But on the rhetoric:

” It’s perfectly okay—a good thing, actually—for Councilmembers to
ignore progressives who habitually talk smack, or in the case at
hand, those who howl about “monster buildings in my backyard,”
or grouse that policy promoting a building that reduces energy
use by 75 percent is just a greenwashed developer giveaway.””

You gotta be kidding me? I think you are way over the deep end.
No, it is absolutely not Okay for Council members to ignore
progressives who have seem to have nothing more than the
deeply offensive temerity to disagree with you.

Isn’t it right, Dan Bertolet, that all of this public planning would be
so much easier if we live in a dictatorship? Because a publicly
calling for points of view you disagree with to be silenced is
is exactly that.

Don’t like disagreement over your pet issue? Perhaps you should
think about Dubai, they like green buildings, and your reaction
would be more appropriate there. Otherwise check yourself.

And you should take my advice because your overblown hating on
these critics will only ensure your little corner of the public
planning sphere deservedly remains on the far fringe.

By: Bill Bradburd

Bill Bradburd — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 18:54:46 +0000

Don’t ask for that info, John. Or you’ll be a case in point too.

By: LA Streetsblog: More Rules or More Bikes? | Seattle's Land Use Code

LA Streetsblog: More Rules or More Bikes? | Seattle's Land Use Code — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:07:39 +0000

[...] that means less process. What does less process mean? As my colleague Dan Bertolet pointed out at City Tank, it means less listening and more doing. In Seattle, we now face a thicket of rules we created to [...]

By: Citytank: if Seattleites are so green, why are some fighting against green buildings? : Great City

Mon, 23 Jul 2012 14:22:03 +0000

[...] The value of the long-term public benefit derived from buildings that qualify for the LBPP cannot be understated, particularly regarding energy. We all know about climate change and the harsh realities of an increasingly resource-constrained planet, right? Achieving anything even close to carbon neutrality in Seattle is going to require huge reductions in building energy use, and we need to get on it now because new buildings will be on the ground for decades… (Continue Reading: Seattle’s Living Building Pilot Program: a case study in progressive divisiveness) [...]

By: John of Humdinger

John of Humdinger — Sat, 21 Jul 2012 12:13:19 +0000

Where can one find more details on how the Bullet building will process its sewage, and how much this on-site system will cost? Ditto for the solar panels.

By: dan bertolet

dan bertolet — Sat, 21 Jul 2012 07:13:26 +0000

Case in point: see previous comment.

By: Bill Bradburd

Bill Bradburd — Sat, 21 Jul 2012 04:59:27 +0000

Or maybe “Let’s make a big deal about setting the bar lower”**

No on-site energy production, thousands of gallons of groundwater dumped unprocessed daily into Lake Union, a building too big for the site. A letter of commendation. No wonder ILFI is miffed about having their name slapped onto the project and pilot.

Skanska and Brooks are hardly financially challenged entities. They should deliver more considering the spot-zoned bonuses they are seeking.

** coming to video soon!

By: Dr. Density

Dr. Density — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:27:00 +0000

Dan,
Good for you for pointing this out. Today’s article by the the Seattle Times took up this subject and gave the negative side the usual heavy weighting. Shame on Amanda Sturgeon and Chris Rogers for condemning Stone 34. They gave themselves a big black eye as I find that terribly unprofessional and short sighted.

The Bullit Center’s project is a great experiment that leads by example, paves the way and tests the possibilities. However, as a real risk taking development typology, its marketability is questionable and it will likely be difficult to apply it in many locations. Also, it’s not finished yet and does anyone really know how it will perform both technically and financially?

Good for Richard Conlan for recognizing this by pursuing legislation that encourages more green building, not less. As Lisa Picard at Skanska quoted Voltaire: “Let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good.”