Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

[K1052]

Tax breaks are great for developing technologies that are far more expensive, but as they mature it helps artificially keep the price up. I'd rather see taxes going to more public transportation and to improving the efficiency of older homes and buildings. Increasing housing efficiency can have a major impact on lower income people and dramatically reduce energy consumption. We also need to ban historical perservation laws that ban energy efficient technology like dual pane windows and Low-e roofing.

Given the size of the likely landmarked building stock this isn't a huge concern. Single pane sucks but from a cost effectiveness standpoint money is better spent tightening up the building envelope including the window seals. At least around these parts there are provisions for replacement window units as long as they meet historic appearance standards.

Unfortunately large scale efficiency retrofit programs have proved somewhat difficult to implement in the US. Making only higher efficiency appliances/mechanicals/improved building codes helps though new construction and attrition though.

 

[Zorba]

Given the size of the likely landmarked building stock this isn't a huge concern. Single pane sucks but from a cost effectiveness standpoint money is better spent tightening up the building envelope including the window seals. At least around these parts there are provisions for replacement window units as long as they meet historic appearance standards.

Unfortunately large scale efficiency retrofit programs have proved somewhat difficult to implement in the US. Making only higher efficiency appliances/mechanicals/improved building codes helps though new construction and attrition though.

A lot of the ways to tighten up building envelopes are banned by historical rules here. Doors, windows, removing siding to add barriers, adding roof vents, etc. At least around here the are quite a few "historical" neighborhoods that are only historical because they are 60 years old.

IMHO I don't think there should be barriers to increasing efficiency except in the most extreme historical places, which is not a 1,300 foot house built in 1946.

 

[K1052]

A lot of the ways to tighten up building envelopes are banned by historical rules here. Doors, windows, removing siding to add barriers, adding roof vents, etc. At least around here the are quite a few "historical" neighborhoods that are only historical because they are 60 years old.

IMHO I don't think there should be barriers to increasing efficiency except in the most extreme historical places, which is not a 1,300 foot house built in 1946.

Califorina? Has to be the only place I know of landmarking a meaningful amount of nondescript shitty postwar building stock.

 

[fskimospy]

A lot of the ways to tighten up building envelopes are banned by historical rules here. Doors, windows, removing siding to add barriers, adding roof vents, etc. At least around here the are quite a few "historical" neighborhoods that are only historical because they are 60 years old.

IMHO I don't think there should be barriers to increasing efficiency except in the most extreme historical places, which is not a 1,300 foot house built in 1946.

Yes, I do not understand the desire to freeze society as it was in the 1970's. Did other generations have this widespread approach to neighborhoods and housing?

A building is not historical because it was built in the 50's and a neighborhood is not historical because that's how it looked when you grew up. People need to get over themselves.

 

[Zorba]

Califorina? Has to be the only place I know of landmarking a meaningful amount of nondescript shitty postwar building stock.

Fucking Oklahoma City. I don't understand it myself, but have several co-workers that live in those areas.

 

[K1052]

Fucking Oklahoma City. I don't understand it myself, but have several co-workers that live in those areas.

lol...I would not have expected that in OKC

 

[K1052]

A building is not historical because it was built in the 50's and a neighborhood is not historical because that's how it looked when you grew up. People need to get over themselves.

You have not lived until you've heard somebody passionately argue that a 3/4ths vacant run down strip mall from the 60s is a "historic community resource" thus should not be replaced with contemporary development.

Sit through some community meetings and approval hearings in CA and you'll want to eat a gun.

 

[fskimospy]

You have not lived until you've heard somebody passionately argue that a 3/4ths vacant run down strip mall from the 60s is a "historic community resource" thus should not be replaced with contemporary development.

Sit through some community meetings and approval hearings in CA and you'll want to eat a gun.

If I remember right I saw one where people were vehemently arguing to stop a development and the end result was that it preserved a gas station.

 

[hal2kilo]

Califorina? Has to be the only place I know of landmarking a meaningful amount of nondescript shitty postwar building stock.

It's friggen west. How old can anything be. I ran into this when I moved out here. Old stuff is like just the turn of the century. I went on field trips to Jamestown and Williamsburg when I was a kid.

 

[K1052]

If I remember right I saw one where people were vehemently arguing to stop a development and the end result was that it preserved a gas station.

That's happened a few times. Think the most recent one was in Berkeley.

The same city that's got this going on at one of it's BART stations:

 

[K1052]

It's friggen west. How old can anything be. I ran into this when I moved out here. Old stuff is like just the turn of the century. I went on field trips to Jamestown and Williamsburg when I was a kid.

Yes, people refer to garbage put up in the 50s as historic. I mean the cheapest construction you can possibly imagine simply covered in stucco and it's everywhere. It was never intended to last.