LawArk

By Gary L. Cole AIA, Esq.

Retail Marketing in Taipei

     Shopping and retail development should be fun, right?  That’s what a client who approached me some months ago about a new retail concept believed.  It was based on a very simple premise:  that in the U. S. shopping – a most ancient of human activities – had become over the past couple decades dull, mass-produced, uninspired and cut off from its social foundation.  Understaffed with bored clerks, no energy and no fun.  I agreed – who really looks forward to shopping at the local power center anymore? 

     As we developed the concept’s business model, its legal structure and its architectural design concept – with me wearing both architect’s and attorney’s hats – I suggested we put together a travel blog to chronicle his upcoming two-month trip throughout Asia, India and Europe where he’s meeting with agents and manufacturers to promote his ideas.  That travel blog, launched in late January 2010, can be found at http://www.globalshoppingblog.com/

     My client, Chase A. Wolf, is no stranger to retail or development.  In the 1980s he was Chicago development legend Arthur Rubloff’s protégé and absorbed many of the values his mentor passed on.  And despite his love of all things Apple computer-related, his genial and engaging personality, and his integrity – a very canny, swift and calculating business machine resides and operates between Chase’s ears.  Some of you in my LinkedIn contacts know Chase and have worked with him.  If anyone can make his new retail concept work – on paper and in practice – it’s Chase.     

     Chase’s travel blog – Adventures From Somewhere – is a chronicle of his travels and observations about the cultures and the people he encounters, a way of branding and promoting his new retail concept – which is best expressed in “A Shopping Manifesto” on the site – and a way for the business leaders he’ll be meeting with to understand his ideas before they even meet him.

Chase and Some New Friends in the Markets of Taipei

     LawArk’s readers may enjoy reading Chase’s posts – a blending of business and pleasure. 

     After all, who doesn’t want business to be fun?

The American Association of Insurance Services recently published “Assessing the Impact of Green Construction on Commercial General Liability Exposures,” by Joseph Harrington, which follows two prior articles dealing with the impact of sustainable building practices on property insurance and builders risk coverage. 

The current article contains links to the earlier green insurance-related articles as well as quotes from LawArk’s author, Gary L. Cole AIA, Esq.

By Gary L. Cole AIA, Esq.

          Online virtual worlds, also called metaverses, have been around for some time now, all the while growing in complexity and sophistication, first in gaming and then as online 3D social networking sites.  But the majority of these are fantasy worlds – like the well-known role-playing game World of Warcraft  for sword-swinging gamers, and Second Life  (SL) – a metaverse where social interaction between avatars, not troll bashing, is the primary objective.  

          Freed of annoyances like structural engineering and material specifications, building and zoning codes, weather and oh, yes – gravity – anyone willing to shell out a few Second Life Lindens (SL’s virtual currency), can purchase virtual real estate on Second Life and build a house, a commercial building, a Harvard lecture hall, a floating museum – just about anything.  And businesses are taking note as quite a few corporations and educational institutions have opened virtual operations in Second Life and extended their marketing to the virtual world.

          But as imaginative constructs, fantasy virtual worlds will probably be limited to pretty much what they are now – fun, a little business and education maybe, but mostly a pleasant distraction.  Not that there’s anything wrong with that. 

          Enter now the mirror world – a virtual replication of an actual world – not a fantasy world.  While Second Life members have reproduced certain real world buildings within its servers, mirror worlds take it even further and replicate actual cities.  And these cities are populated with avatars – 3D virtual representations of their users (or who their users want to be) who walk, talk and fly about with other avatars, any one of whom might be a real person sitting at their keyboard on the other side of the world, or your neighbor next door.

          One of the best of these mirror worlds is Berlin-based Metaversum GmbH’s Twinity which currently features mirror versions of Singapore, London and Berlin – with more cities in the works.  After creating an account and downloading their software, Twinity members can beam their avatars to just outside Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate as it looks today – or, back to 1989 as it looked before the fall of the Berlin Wall.  Or teleport to London and stroll around Piccadilly Circus or Trafalgar Square (no virtual pigeons that I could see).  The visuals are very good and the sense of place real within the limitations of today’s computer technology – and we all know how long that stands still.   Read the rest of this entry »

By Gary L. Cole AIA, Esq.

            Note:  Despite its title, this article in no way advocates scrapping the current practice of local landmarking, though it does propose that serious upgrades are not only desirable, but probably unavoidable. 

            Part 1 of this two-part series argues that a combination of possible changes in the historic preservation legal landscape and the certainty of a dwindling supply of properties worthy of landmarking may force the current practice of government-controlled local landmarking to evolve. 

            Part 2 of this series proposes modifying the current practice of local landmarking in a way that addresses both problems raised in Part 1 by shifting landmarking from a government-only practice to one that shares responsibilities with the private business and investment sectors, i.e., those with the capital and the appetite for risk needed to invest in historic rehabilitation – a plan I’m calling here Local Landmarking v2.0.

Part 1 – Possibly –  Maybe – Depends.

“If, one day, for some mysterious reason, all the buildings, settlements, suburbs and structures built after 1945 – especially those commonly called “modern” – vanished from the face of the earth, would we mourn their loss?   Would the disappearance of  the prefabricated tower blocks, mass housing estates, commercial strips, business parks, modular production halls, university campuses, schools and new towns, damage the identity of our favorite cities and landscapes?

If, on the other hand, some parallel phenomenon destroyed in one fell swoop the whole of out pre-World War II architectural heritage, namely all “historic” buildings, hamlets, villages, bridges, and cities, what would be the significance of such an event?  What would be a greater loss?  Replacing all pre-1945 buildings with post-war buildings, or the reverse?”

Leon Krier – Introduction to “The Architecture of Community”

            Since the enactment of the National Historic Preservation Act in 1966, preservationists, including local, state and federal agencies, have been busy promoting the preservation of our nation’s built environment through a number of means, including, legally designating both individual properties and districts as historic via local preservation ordinances, sometimes state landmarking programs, and by listing on the federal National Register of Historic Places. 

            Initially created as a response to the widespread destruction the country’s pre-WW II built environment during the mid-century halcyon days of urban renewal, government-run landmarking has become one of preservation’s most effective tools for achieving its goals.  However, four decades and more into it, historic preservation as a movement is roughly middle-aged and changes generally unnoticed by the preservation community are starting to manifest that could mark the winding down of an era of largely unfettered government-controlled landmarking. 

            The usual justification for local governments to convey landmark status on privately owned property is for the “protection” of the property for the “public good” via restrictive ordinances which, in a broader legislative scheme, are somewhat balanced by various financial incentives for private investment – private investment being the only truly sustainable method of preserving historic properties.  The incentives are tagged, of course, with the usual government oversight and controls during their term.

             But does a recent Illinois case herald the twilight of changes in the public’s taste for government-enforced “protection” of private property, and will this condition become more dire as the ready supply of good candidates for landmarking begins to dry up, forcing preservationists to nominate less-worthy properties, which, of course, would make government-controlled landmarking more vulnerable to successful legal challenges as well as undermine the credibility of local landmarking? Read the rest of this entry »

By Gary L. Cole AIA, Esq.

The Chicago-Midwest Chapter of the Institute of Classical Architecture & Classical America (full disclosure: I am a Board member and its General Counsel) is hosting a lecture and book signing by renowned architect Léon Krier on October 28, 2009, 6:00 p.m., at the Richard H. Driehaus Museum in Chicago.

Mr. Krier will be discussing his latest book – The Architecture of Community.

More information about the event can be found at The Chicago-Midwest Chapter of the Institute of Classical Architecture & Classical America’s website at: http://www.classicistchicago.org/events

[NOTE]: The voice employed in Law/Ark posts is intentionally non-legal. Herein, you will find no wherefores. And, while I welcome and warmly appreciate the readership and comments of my fellow attorneys, these posts are written mostly with Law/Ark’s other readers in mind – those of you out there responding to your passions and answering your callings by designing, building and developing green projects.

And, despite the sometimes playfully polemical tenor of these posts, they’re not intended to discourage you from that pursuit, but, rather, to encourage you to pursue them with the proper forewarning and forearming.

Part 2.1 (Part 1 was posted May 18, 2009)

This is Part 2.1 of the “Green Goblin” Series, of which Parts 2.2 and 2.3 will follow shortly. The series will wind it all up with Part 3, which will address specific legal and design/construction practice approaches for avoiding the pitfalls discussed in the series.

The Green Goblin series can be summarized in one statement: “unsupportable claims about the performance of “green” design and construction may inspire a new understanding of the American legal system by those who make such claims – as defendants.”

 Part 1 of this series touched on something I called “unfulfilled expectations” in green design and construction – essentially, what was expected did not occur, and/or what occurred was unexpected. Unfulfilled expectations is a simplified way of referring to some manifestation of a “breach of contract.” Breaches of contract can arise by violations of express terms – as in writings, or, even by implied terms. Either way, someone’s not happy with an outcome – in this context, most likely a client who believes they were deliberately mislead by the representations of their design and construction professionals about the performance and/or value of their new green project.

But wait! – some readers are thinking indignantly – I would never misrepresent a design! And, as an architect, I agree, you would probably never do that intentionally. Architects and other designers are many things, but charlatans only very rarely – it’s just not in their DNA. But, as this series of posts explores, green design and construction is particularly vulnerable to claim-making on a whole new level –a global level. And, as an attorney, I also know that when the finger pointing starts, what was done intentionally or unintentionally can sometimes matter only slightly under the hairy eyeball of the law. Or, it’s the crux of everything, depending on the facts. But what is deeply encoded in the double helix of most architects and other designers is a yearning to create something wonderful – a longing to make something from nothing and delight the world. And therein lurks the slumbering danger for green design and construction professionals – the desire to please an authority higher than the client and the project’s program – which higher authority may, or may not exist.

It starts in school. Design schools have their shortcomings – most notably in business education – but failing to imbue their acolytes with a sense of unbridled idealism and religious certainty and then cursing them with cynicism isn’t generally among them. That comes later – when rosy idealism runs headlong into the hard, sharp corners of business reality. And when that happens, designers have a choice: retreat into the warm and cathartic refuge of imagination (and blissfully ignore the risk), or, accept that the design profession is like many things – pleasant enough if done right, but always subject to the tedious business of balancing idealism and risk. And, at least as far as construction law is generally concerned – also subject to the requirements of the client and the project first, and other callings second, if at all.

And this is the dilemma for some green design and construction professionals – the ones who are most vulnerable to legal liability – how to achieve a balance between serving the client and the project, while still serving a higher, even global calling?

The problem is in the creative process itself – a way of thinking utterly alien to most in the legal profession – but key to understanding both the problem and its solution.

By necessity, design is often conceived in the haze of the half-waking dream – the fertile ground between mythology and science where nearly anything is possible and the realities of engineering, building codes and especially the law, stand pale and ghostlike in the background, patiently waiting to be acknowledged. By virtue of their academic and professional training, those who enter the design professions have been culled from the many applicants who found this Phantom Zone a bit too, well – ephemeral, for their way of thinking. In over-simplified terms, conceptual building design is a right brain activity, with just enough of the left brain kicking in to make sure that designs can be built, stand up and preferably not kill anyone along the way. All of this, of course, ignores the long-simmering civil war within the design professions – especially in architecture – between the pure designer and the others – those who have sought peace between their warring cranial hemispheres and achieved a sort of balance and détente between the rational and romantic synaptic impulses crackling away in their melons like a tree full of blackbirds. Or, less metaphorically, the conflict between those who regard architecture as merely a poetic thought exercise that sometimes results in buildings, and those who see architecture as a building art necessarily expressed by, you know – real buildings. For purposes of green design and construction legal liability, it’s the former who are most at risk, but in the current state of the green building industry, even the latter need to navigate with caution.

At the same time, speeding along in their different, but often intersecting orbits, and generally unconcerned with romantic sentiments, design theories and ideology – are the lawyers. Much-maligned and often underappreciated, they suffer from a long history of popular distain as evidenced in movies and books populated by two-dimensional stereotypes that only someone who’d never set foot in a court room or who’d maybe spent their first year out of law school as a litigation whipping boy at some hard-charging mega-firm – before fleeing to a less stressful career hauling crab pots in the Bering Sea – would think bore any resemblance to real lawyers and the real practice of law. But, for this series’ purpose, lawyers are just like other people and hardly any fit any of the popular stereotypes – except, of course, in one very important way.

By necessity, the law requires a full-on, highly caffeinated, linear way of thinking by individuals who, from cradle (or law school anyway) to grave are culled from society’s broader and less focused thinkers, and trained to apply their powers of unemotive logical reasoning with the precision of an excimer laser and a rigor that could bring a tear to even Mr. Spock’s stoic eyes. The beautifully creative and impressionistic notions of designers are as incomprehensible to most lawyers’ fast-firing, sixteen-cylinder minds as a description of the aurora borealis would be to someone unsighted from birth. And when, as discussed in Part 1 of this series, that green roof turns from a much-lauded butterfly refuge to a sopping mess in the offices below, any green design or construction professional whose defense is proudly based on idealistic and heroic notions of saving the planet instead of tedious due diligence and observance of a standard of care, may abruptly find themselves in a new line of work. Measuring the Cheshire Cat grin of the plaintiff’s attorney who hears that defense in a deposition or at trial would be done in feet, not inches – as beautiful in its expression of victory as the defense counsel’s involuntary gagging is sudden and violent.

This then, is the essential conflict that can lead to career-ending legal liability: unfulfilled expectations which arise because green design and construction professionals, in their desire to imbue their work with more then mere programmatic compliance, choose – unwisely – to advocate questionable solutions to uncertain problems in a quest for the salvation of the planet – all of which runs headlong into the snapping jaws of a legal system which is generally unimpressed with messianic notions and world-saving idealism, and more concerned with whether proper professional duties and standards of care were observed. In this way, the popular stereotypes of lawyers and the legal profession are not the amusing stuff of popular entertainment – but of a reality that green design and construction professionals either willingly appreciate at the beginning of their projects – or may unwillingly at the end.

[END PART 2.1, PART 2.2 TO FOLLOW SOON]

NEXT: For green design and construction professionals – and green building advocates in general – the following parts of this series may sting a little. But fully addressing the root causes of emerging green legal liability isn’t done through a typical, dry legal discussion about traditional causes of action and contract defenses. It’s done by understanding – really understanding – the reasons why green design and construction professionals passionately (though, perhaps unwittingly) risk their practices to advocate a theory of design and building that relies as much on a currently legally indefensible ideology of global salvation as it does on traditional notions of high-efficiency building design.

But is green design and construction really based just on ideology, theology or even superstition as some have claimed? Or, is energy efficient and human-centered design just the most sensible way for a technologically advanced civilization to design buildings and cities in the 21st century? Have humanistic values finally returned to our way of thinking, living and designing our communities? Do traditional legal causes and effects even apply here or are we into new territory that will require attorneys to reach deep into their right brains and create new defenses to address a new way of designing and building, rather than simply relying on traditional, possibly outdated and even ineffective approaches developed for a different design/construction/law paradigm? Is it time for everyone to bring their A-game to develop a whole new way of thinking about how our values are reflected in the way we design and build and the law’s response to those changes?

Maybe – or not. Maybe green design and construction is just the same old – with a new paint job to match a new vernacular.

But the answers to these questions will not be found by cringing behind delicately minced words and the occasional grand jeté between half-truths – but will be found tackling the issues head on with an unapologetic and sometimes polemical directness that brings the matter into full light for a much-needed objective rational discussion. Even so, it’s likely, as is often said in the law, that reasonable people may disagree – and probably will.

© Copyright Gary L. Cole AIA, Esq. 2009

Law/Ark appreciates the inquiries about Part 2 of the Green Goblin series and humbly apologizes for the unintended delay. Thanks for your patience.

Also, Law/Ark will soon be undergoing significant upgrading and expansion – including web hosting – to address other areas of the law concerning architects and other designers, engineers, contractors, commercial and residential real estate developers, historic preservation (advocates and critics), accessibility (advocates and critics), and, of course – green building and alternative energy (advocates and critics).

Upcoming Series – Architects in Real Estate Development – New Practice Opportunities

Architects especially (and others generally), may find an upcoming Law/Ark series of interest: Architects in Real Estate Development – New Practice Opportunities

Part 1 will discuss how architects (and other construction professionals), can stop waiting for the phone to ring, tap into the right resources, find potential development projects on their own, and prepare the proper feasibility/market studies to select the right developer to partner with and become part of the deal and not just a facilitator of the project.

Part 2 takes it the rest of the way – including how architects form the right legal entities, navigate property acquisition issues, find investors and financing, deal with political and anti-development issues all for greater control over deals and to see their visions completed and greater financial gains realized. Architects can become developers – and even contractors.

The series is intended as a primer for a much more detailed two-day, continuation education-accredited, soup-to-nuts seminar that will leave attendees sweaty, drained, and panting from brain fatigue – but mostly – with the confidence – to take their careers in new directions. No fluff involved and plenty of caffeine will be provided. And, attendees will have follow-up access to online resources and industries that will help them continue their journey to greater self-sufficiency and career satisfaction.

Yes, architects, you can do it. You already have much of the knowledge – you just need the rest delivered in a language you already speak.

The articles and the seminar are being prepared now and Law/Ark reader content comments are always welcome – this is for you and your practice – the time is ripe for change!

© Copyright Gary L. Cole AIA, Esq. 2009

[DISCLAIMER: The following discussion is intended for general informational purposes only and is expressly not offered as legal or architectural advice, nor does it constitute advertising or a solicitation of any kind. And most of all – readers should always seek legal advice about their specific situations only from their attorneys, and architectural advice only from their architects.]

“Green” design and construction legal liability. It was, of course, inevitable that the legal profession would turn its curious eye in that direction – there’s just too much splashing in the water to ignore it. But before panic sets in, the news may not be all that bad, because in the fast-evolving world of “green” and “sustainable” design and construction, Ben Franklin had it right – an ounce of prevention truly is worth a pound of cure.

First the good news: by large, the legal profession hasn’t yet embraced the litigation potential of green design and construction the way it has, say, work-related injuries, deadly prescription drug side effects, or tobacco-related lung cancer – though a caveat to that statement will be discussed later in this post. It’s unlikely that you’ll soon see 2:00 a.m. commercials asking if you or a loved one have been injured or killed by poor site design or the loose prop of a wind turbine.

The bad news is that attorneys, especially those already practicing in construction law, will soon realize that aside from green design and construction’s sometimes specialized and occasionally ill-defined vernacular, there’s no real novelty in the types of claims that might arise. No new frontiers of jurisprudence need be explored – a leaky green roof is still a leaky roof – whether it also requires regular mowing and landscape maintenance changes little from a legal perspective. Green design and construction is novel only in that, unlike traditional design and construction, it serves an environmental urgency beyond a basic programmatic utility. Roofs used to just keep buildings dry, now they cool cities and save polar bears, but they can still leak, and this is familiar territory to construction attorneys, regardless of a roof’s other design intent. But the good news is that the defensive tactics for emerging green design and construction claims are also well-established, though as yet not well vetted in this context.

The purpose of this Law/Ark discussion, which will be presented in several short installments, is to highlight the missteps that design professionals and contractors may make along the green path of good intentions which increase their exposure to later claims of liability when things go wrong – as they often do in construction. It will then look at ways that risk may be mitigated in advance and hopefully prevent green design professionals and contractors from becoming the poster children for precedent-setting lawsuits that could have a chilling effect on public acceptance of sustainable design and construction. There’s always a tipping point where the risk of something new outweighs its potential benefits, and markets are remarkably efficient in sensing when that point has been reached, and the shark, as they say, has been jumped.

And, while still maintaining Law/Ark’s objectivity on the issue, these post installments will also discuss how, contrary to their often unflattering TV and movie portrayals, when it comes to the new world of green design and construction, informed attorneys may be best at doling out Mr. Franklin’s well-known prevention dosage.

Part 1 – What Is Green Design and Construction Legal Liability?

In non-legal terms, most legal liability associated with green design and construction will arise from one issue – though it’s an issue with many faces – unfulfilled expectations. The legal vernacular for expressing this would be something along the lines of: “breach of contract through failure to perform according to express and implied representations and warranties.” But these claims have been made in construction conflicts forever – even the ancient Romans had laws on point. “Green” or not, the problem arises when connected parties in a development’s long chain of events – be it a manufacturer/vendor to an architect/contractor; or an architect/contractor to an owner/developer, represented that taking certain actions would result in certain outcomes – which outcomes did not occur as represented.

Again, there’s nothing novel about these type of design and construction-related disputes and most claims – but not all – boil down to some manifestation of this issue. With respect to any fellow attorneys reading this post, yes, I’m simplifying matters and there are many other types of claims that can arise in construction disputes – so stipulated. But in the case of green design and construction, the many manifestations of claims related to unfulfilled expectations will likely lead the pack if/when this type of litigation gains traction.

Regardless of the prosaic core nature of the claims themselves, getting to that core currently requires navigating a unique combination of broad environmental goals wrapped in the often vague and generalized movement terminology. The reduction of energy usage and carbon footprints to combat global climate change, while certainly worthy macro goals, does not exactly translate well at the micro level that’s required to prepare protective contracts which provide clear, realistic and defensible representations and warranties.

What exactly is “green” design and construction and how can its larger goals be accomplished without giving an old class of legal claims a green paint job and thereby discouraging markets from accepting the challenges of those goals?

Naming the Thing

To start with, a great deal has been written about the need to define “green” and “sustainable” in precise, fully-accepted ways that can be translated into clear contract language. I agree and disagree in part.

I agree that without greater precision in the vernacular of green design and construction, unfulfilled expectations are a certainty. Just naming something doesn’t make it so and fuzziness of expression often belies fuzziness of thought. The less poetically-inclined players in the market – real estate developers, generally – sense that instinctively. Development proformas tend to be unforgiving and are curiously silent in matters of “good intentions.” And fuzziness of expression/thought and well-publicized claims that derive from these shortcomings may lead to a lack of credibility and eventually disinterest in sustainable development – green design and construction could collapse inward upon its own perceived hollowness. Presently unseen by the design and construction industry, the groundwork for that perception may already be in place it might only take a couple successful lawsuits to, at the very least, slow the industry’s momentum. And, since perception is everything, defining key green design and construction concepts and vocabulary in a way that provides better legal protection to design professionals and contractors before the courts do so, is probably wise.

I disagree in part, however, because much of what I’ve read about attempts to define the terms “green” or “sustainable” seems to be relying on the misplaced hope of a successful Grail-like quest for magic words or phrases – an enchantment maybe – that will ward off claims of liability. This is naive and dangerous and the legal community would quickly pierce this verbal sleight of hand, words being the natural playground of attorneys. When a “green” roof leaks, for whatever reason, design flaws, material defects or improper installation – everyone whoever glanced at that roof is likely going to court – at least in the beginning. It won’t matter what color the roof was called or how noble the broader goals of reducing that building’s heat island effect or providing a high-rise downtown nature retreat for the building’s occupants, it’s still a leaky roof and the legal profession will move in swiftly to allocate blame.

A balance between the verbiage used in a project’s green marketing claims (form), and its real performance (substance), is at the core of the high wire act that either strikes that perfect balance between a design professional’s or contractor’s enthusiastic but careless risk, and the proper, responsible promotion of a new way of thinking and building. Using an accurate and supportable vocabulary to promote green design and construction is the first step in sustaining one’s business existence, which is always best way of accomplishing the somewhat loftier goals of the green building movement.

Having generally framed the issues, the next installment of this Law/Ark post will look at the specific causes and consequences of not heeding Mr. Franklin’s wisdom, what “prevention” really is, and how it can be used to reduce the legal exposure of design professionals and contractors in the brave new world of green and sustainable development.

[END OF PART 1 – PART 2 TO FOLLOW SOON]

© Copyright Gary L. Cole AIA, Esq. 2009

Green residential design and construction is quickly finding acceptance in the homebuilding industry. However, defining the amorphous and often interchangeable terms “green” and “sustainable” has frustrated residential developers, architects and builders seeking to address a growing market demand and, in some cases, comply with local building ordinances mandating sustainable residential development. Since green design/construction litigation has not yet achieved sufficient critical mass for attorneys and the insurance industry to provide legally defensible definitions for these terms (though this is fast evolving), the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) has stepped up to address the issue with its recent publication, the 2008 National Green Building Standard.

The 2008 National Green Building Standard was preceded in 2004 by the NAHB’s first green publication – the NAHB Model Green Home Building Guidelines, which defined seven aspects of green residential design and development:

• Lot Preparation and Design
• Resource Efficiency
• Energy Efficiency
• Water Efficiency and Conservation
• Global Impact
• Occupancy Comfort and Indoor Environmental Quality
• Home Owner Guidance on How to Optimally Operate and Maintain the House

To further the NAHB’s National Green Building Program goals and to produce a nationally-accepted definition of “green” in the context of residential design and construction, in 2007 the NAHB teamed up with the International Code Council to produce the 2008 National Green Building Standard. The 2008 publication largely follows the NAHB’s 2004 Model Green Building Guidelines, but in addition to other modifications, an “Emerald” category was added to the existing bronze, silver and gold certification system. A full description of the NAHB’s National Green Building Program and the 2004 and 2008 publications can be found at the above-referenced links.

Like the U.S. Green Building Council’s “LEED” and the Green Building Initiative’s “Green Globe” certification programs, the NAHB National Green Building Standard is an attempt to provide objective clarity and fixidity in the flux of a fast-evolving green residential design and construction market. But it’s a temporary measure at best under current market conditions. Will “green” and “sustainable” residential design and construction be as in demand in three, five or ten years from now – or even more so? No one can predict – advocates say growth is assured as market acceptance grows – skeptics say they’ve seen it all before and we’re fast careening toward a “green” bubble.

But in an attempt to divine the near future anyway, it’s worth noting that as of the date of this Law/Ark post, the NAHB’s 2008 National Green Building Standard is in its second printing – since March 2009 – and is temporarily out-of-stock on Amazon. And that’s without yet being available on Kindle.

© Copyright Gary L. Cole AIA, Esq. 2009