[GSBN] Big News!!

[Graeme North]

well done David

  - great news indeed!

Anything we can do to help along the way?



best wishes



Graeme
Graeme North Architects
49 Matthew Road
RD1
Warkworth
tel/fax +64 (0)9 4259305

graeme at ecodesign.co.nz
www.ecodesign.co.nz


On 17/08/2010, at 5:13 PM, strawnet at aol.com wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I want share some great news. Earlier today, here in Chicago,  
> Martin Hammer's "comment"/proposal to include the strawbale code  
> he’s been working on over the past few years in California into the  
> new International Green Construction Code (IgCC) was approved by a  
> committee vote of 8 to 6! The IgCC is the new US code for  
> commercial (and high-rise residential) buildings that will become  
> part of the family of 2012 International Codes (I-codes). It will  
> go through a full code development cycIe with the rest of the 2012  
> I-codes next year and there is work that will need to be done still  
> to make sure it doesn’t get rejected in that process, but getting  
> it into the second public draft of the code now is a very big step  
> forward.
>
> I served on the drafting committee for this code from last summer  
> through the spring of this year. For more information about the  
> IgCC and to download the whole IgCC first public draft and the  
> comments – including Martin’s proposals for strawbale and earthen  
> building and the EcoNest comment in support of straw clay go here:
> http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/IGCC/Pages/default.aspx
> http://www.iccsafe.org/CS/IGCC/Pages/Comments0810.aspx
> You’ll find these listed as comments 5-134, 5-135 and 5-136.
>
> I was the only proponent speaking in favor of it here, and there  
> were others who spoke in opposition. The initial motion was to  
> disapprove but it failed 5 votes to 9 after considerable and very  
> mixed discussion – which surprised me because of the nature of some  
> of the comments – that it was still not ready and needed some  
> technical fixes.
>
> The failure of the motion to disapprove required a new motion and  
> Chris Mathis, an old building science friend from North Carolina,  
> offered a motion for approval. That was followed by more  
> discussion, with more concerns expressed that it wasn't ready.  
> Then, just before the second vote, Chris pressed the committee to  
> push the envelope. He said they should approve it and get it in,  
> and rather than just having the few people who are very  
> knowledgeable about it work on improving the things that still need  
> to be done, “Let thousands of people look at it and help improve it  
> through the next round of the code development process!” He said it  
> was time to start pushing these things through. Then they voted -  
> and it passed 8 to 6! I was amazed and delighted! So it is going  
> into the second public draft!
>
> There were two other similar proposals (they’re called “comments”)  
> that were heard right before the strawbale comment. The first, from  
> Paula Baker Laport and Robert Laport proposed including the straw  
> clay guidelines from New Mexico. Next was the other submitted by  
> Martin, that one in support of earthen construction based on the  
> new ASTM standard for earthen wall systems that I had initiated  
> almost 10 years ago and Bruce King has spearheaded over the past  
> few years. I spoke in support of both, but they were disapproved,  
> though both received encouraging suggestions to bring them forward  
> again after addressing non-mandatory/permissive language and other  
> issues.
>
> Because they were heard one after the other, and I was the only  
> proponent for them, I got to speak first for each one and so I had  
> a total of 6 minutes (2 minutes each) to frame them all in terms of  
> the big issues I’ve been speaking to for all these years, including  
> the coming challenges of ever-more limited and expensive energy,  
> the low-impact, low-tech, climate beneficial, local/regional  
> benefits, the industrial/proprietary bias and difficulty in funding  
> research, testing and development for public domain, non- 
> proprietary materials and systems. I started off by talking about  
> the fact that I had been in buildings in Europe built with  
> materials like straw clay and earth that are twice as old as this  
> country! And to say that these are durable and safe ways of  
> building when done properly. And when talking about the ASTM  
> earthen standard, I said that if they looked at it they might think  
> that it was too low tech to be reasonable compared to the standards  
> that they’re used to for concrete and other industrial materials.  
> But, I said, It was intentionally low tech. That I was involved in  
> initiating that standard almost ten years ago and it was both to  
> enable the use of those materials here and to reverse the outlawing  
> of earthen building in developing countries through the adoption of  
> modern industrial codes. That it was designed to enable people to  
> build safe, durable, healthy, and affordable buildings anywhere in  
> the world—including the in United States. I mentioned that the  
> committee that developed that standard included the leading experts  
> on earthen building and engineering from around the world and was  
> based on reviewing and incorporating the best from international  
> codes and standards for earthen building.
>
> After the first two went down, I was quite convinced because of the  
> comments that the sb proposal would share the same fate and,  
> thankfully, I was wrong!
>
> So hats off to Martin, Bruce, Matts, and many others who have  
> worked so long and hard to develop these codes and to Chris Mathis  
> for his leadership and visionary action on the committee.
>
> Onward!
>
> David Eisenberg
> _______________________________________________
> GSBN mailing list
> GSBN at greenbuilder.com
> http://greenbuilder.com/mailman/listinfo/GSBN

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sustainablesources.com/pipermail/gsbn/attachments/20100819/3ac99e81/attachment.htm>