[GSBN] Big News!!

Sun Aug 22 01:36:00 UTC 2010

Hello friends on the GSBN,

My voice has been conspicuously absent on this subject, so I thought I would
weigh in.  

First, thanks for the words of appreciation.  I was pleasantly surprised to
hear the news from David on Monday.  I think this strawbale code document is
very good, but there are a number of reasons I didn¹t think it would go
through to the next step.  I thought both the Earthen Materials proposal
(referencing the recently revised ASTM standard that Bruce, David in earlier
years, and others worked so hard on) and the Straw-Clay proposal I
co-authored with Paula Baker-Laporte, had better chances.  I might propose
them again in the upcoming Code Change Proposal phase (once IGCC committee
concerns are addressed).

Much blood, sweat, and a few tears have gone into this SB code since 2003,
when I began writing it at the request of the State of California (they
asked Bruce, Bruce asked me . . .).  I¹ve had very good input from others
along the way, including members of this list (David Eisenberg, Bruce King,
Dan Smith, Bob Theis, Tim Kennedy, John Swearingen, Bill Steen, Kelly
Lerner) (apology if I¹ve missed anyone), and others not on this list,
notably civil engineering professor Mark Aschheim.

Because it started as a California code, and because there are great SB
experts in northern CA where I live, the code might be a bit
California-centric (with particular attention to seismic issues).  However
I¹ve always wanted it to be broadly applicable and I welcome broader, global
input at this time.  I expect to propose adjustments during the next IGCC
review phase.  If it remains in the IGCC and goes the way codes often do,
some version of this might show up at your building official¹s door and then
your strawbale door in Australia, South Africa, or who knows where.  And
although I think there¹s much to like, I can almost guarantee you can find
something you don¹t like.  So . . .

If you want to see and comment on the proposed code you can ask me to e-mail
the proposed SB code (by itself) to you as a word document, and then e-mail
me your comments or send it back with ³track changes².  OR you can go to:
http://www.iccsafe.org/CS/IGCC/Pages/Comments0810.aspx , and download all
Public Comments under the ³Complete Document² subheading (Strawbale
Construction is Comment #5-136).  You can then e-mail your comments to me
(not to ICC).  I¹m also open to comments on #5-134 Straw-Clay, and #5-135
Earthen Materials.  If you want to understand the IGCC process and schedule,
you can go to: 
http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/IGCC/Pages/PublicVersionDevelopment.aspx

In addition, I want to clarify that:

* Strawbale is not yet in the IGCC.  That¹s because it isn¹t finalized (and
SB could even be entirely removed).
* Even if included in the final version, the IGCC applies only to commercial
and high-rise residential, AND only in jurisdictions that adopt the IGCC.
So it would have limited application.

That said, this approval is still a very good thing.  And if it does make it
to the finish line of the IGCC, it would probably then migrate to the IBC in
the next code cycle, and then to a jurisdiction near you.  I even see the
possibility of jurisdictions adopting it or informally using it for all
occupancies, even before reaching the IBC.  John Swearingen¹s report of it
already producing ³instant results² for his project in Stanislaus County
supports that notion, and is both welcome and frightening.

Finally, I want to acknowledge David Eisenberg and Matts Myhrman who
together forged the first SB code in Arizona in the early-mid 1990¹s, and to
David again for speaking so convincingly on behalf of the current proposed
code at the recent hearing in Chicago.  If you read his description of what
he said, you¹ll see that he simply told the compelling truth about the most
relevant issues.  It¹s one of many things David does so well.  It¹s nice
when the compelling truth prevails (at least for now).

Thanks David, and thanks to all.  And thanks to the enduring spirit of
strawbale!

Martin

PS - For a pre-IGCC history of this SB code, see my GSBN post on Dec. 1,
2009.  Reviewing that e-mail might also be used as a natural aid to help you
fall asleep.  However, for me it is a riveting drama (sometimes moving at
the pace of a melting glacier . . . actually that¹s happening quite quickly
these days!)

On 8/16/10 10:13 PM, "strawnet at aol.com" <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 he¹s 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 doesn¹t 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 Martin¹s 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
> You¹ll 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, ³Let thousands of people look at it and help improve it through the next
> round of the code development process!² 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 (they¹re called ³comments²) 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 I¹ve 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 they¹re 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/20100821/a2a4c53c/attachment.htm>