Comments on: CH2: Australia’s greenest building

By: sakredcow

sakredcow — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 02:30:29 +0000

what are the foundations made from? what is the structural framework made from? If the answer to the first question is portland cement based concrete, then has the ecological impact of such a product which is well documented to be highly energy inefficient not to mention just plain nasty with the additives combined with portland cement, been factored into the ecological impact of this building? If the answer to the second question is steel (I’m assuming it’s a post and beam steal fabrication, is that correct?) then the energy of producing and transporting the steel would need to be factored in to the overall energy rating of the building. Incidentally, there is a product that has the tradename HL5 or something similar which is none other than lime, with some additives, but nonetheless a much more environmentally sound product than portland cement. It can be used to form a lime-crete, though for the stresses of a high rise building, I’m not sure if it would be suitable. There are other alternatives to concrete footings, which sadly is an art that is long forgotten and inevitably lost.
This brings to mind a 5-storey rammed earth building I once read about, with an initial “footing-wall” 600mm thick! gradually reducing as the building gets higher to about 250mm at the top. I must research the footings used for this building!

By: marionlawson1

marionlawson1 — Tue, 27 May 2008 09:59:06 +0000

Wow! I was listening to a BBC radio 4 programme and just had to see it for myself. It looks very striking and set against the backdrop of the surrounding multi glazed buildings it shows just how much further things have to go. But what an inspiration! Marion from Otley,West Yorkshire, England

By: Dane Nolan

Dane Nolan — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 04:29:11 +0000

Paul: This project is a world leader and one of the best steps forward for ESD in commercial buildings, why look for problems? lets see your name next to a better project. good work Mick and DesignInc.

By: meef

meef — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 08:06:17 +0000

nicee….

By: anna

anna — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:24:50 +0000

the wood is on the outside so is far less of a fire hazard than if it was inside, and yes it is probably treated, but the benefits it offers in terms of shading and resultant energy saved is worth it.

another really good thing about this building is how much it adds to the streetscape. the facade is constantly changing thanks to the sun shades and the bright yellow turbines add a bit of humor and make a nicely oblique referene to a contentious sculpture that used to live just down the street (it is also bright yellow). the slabs are really nice too, they give the space inside the building a more engaging quality because of their wave like section.

it’s a cracker of a building, Melbournians love it :)

By: Jorge Chapa

Jorge Chapa — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 04:02:01 +0000

Paul: I’m sure that you are probably right and that they have to retreat the timber every once in a while. I do believe that they designed them to be easily dissassembled, so at the very least the maintenace cost will likely be lower. As for the fire retardant chemical, looking at all the resarch work that was done for the building, I’m sure that they chose the least environmentally damaging one.

Burt: The overall cost of the building was higher than that of a standard office building. However, they did a cost study which showed that the sustainability features, all 11.3 million australian dollars worth of them, would pay themselves back in about 10 years, and this is just on energy savings. Do read the whole thing as it is fairly well documented as to what measures they took when designing and constructing the building.

By: Burt TUNZI

Burt TUNZI — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:32:42 +0000

Looks great,

As usual, it relates to cost.

Fixed costs, and variable costs.

No mention of ground source energy? Efficiency, air filtration, etc.

Will have to read the full feature about the building.

B.T.

By: PaulS.

PaulS. — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 05:13:06 +0000

Hmm, that wood exterior passed their fire code requirements? I would expect the wood would have to be treated with a fire retardant chemical, which might, over the years leach out and need to be replenished periodically.

By: Katasha

Katasha — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 00:03:23 +0000

Nice… green… post :)

By: Nick Simpson

Nick Simpson — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:18:07 +0000

This looks bizarrely like a uni project I did last semester! All public buildings should be doing this and taking the lead…

By: Preston

Preston — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 14:19:29 +0000

Cool post Jorge, real nice…