Seattle's new city hall is an energy hog
Seattle's new City Hall was designed with the environment in mind, using the most energy-efficient technologies.This should make an interesting case-study on sustainable design! I've also heard that the new "energy-efficient" downtown library is not as efficient as intended either. Greg Nickels, call your office.But the building acts like an old-fashioned electricity hog. It has lofty public spaces and walls of glass designed to welcome citizens and suggest an open and transparent government. It also uses 15 percent to 50 percent more electricity some months than the older, larger building it replaced, according to Seattle City Light utility bills.
In other Seattle environmental news, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has cited the city of Seattle for illegally filling wetlands.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 06, 2005 09:34 AM | Email ThisRe energy efficient bldgs: Wasn't there just a few weeks ago a big puff piece in the newspapers re Seattle's avant guard archyteks and their GREEN bldgs -- soon followed by an expose of a green - planted roof that failed -- duh -- as for the gov bldgs that are supposedly energy efficient - what they mean is that the design is energy efficient -- not that it provides usable square footage at a more energy efficient rate than the bldg it is replacing - or that could have been built -- as long as the morons in Seattle continue to allow their city to be used as a staging area for weird egocentric designers and their wetdream designs - this crap will happen and guess who gets to pay for all of it -- I for one almost never go downtown anymore - only when I have to and never spend any real money their - except for the occaisional Chinatown dinner -- Hopefully I will never have to work down there again
Posted by: Bill on July 6, 2005 10:02 AMKC's slogan may as well be "Environmental regs for thee, but not for me...."
Posted by: Michele on July 6, 2005 10:09 AMIf Seattle had followed the set back laws and the wetlands laws that "they" forced on the rest of King County, they wouldn't have even been close to the wetland.
How many engineers, inspectors and council members did it take to make this mistake? Or was it just the fault of one ignorant bulldozer driver?
As for the oh-so energy efficient Seattle City Hall, all I can say is, wait until Sims builds his palace. You ain't seem nothin' yet. The new BoE building will be a sure-fire energy hog. After all, do you have any idea how much energy and hot air it takes to manufacture enough phony ballots to get someone like Fraudoire installed in office?! I mean, really, have some pity, these people work hard ginning up all these fraudlent ballots, just "finding" them here and there, and then busting their butts covering it up.
Posted by: Interested Observer on July 6, 2005 11:27 AMBad news... titanium was not used in early Boeing airplanes. Early Boeing airplanes used a structural material called "wood"... which is also an attractive material for interior use.
Titanium is used in supersonic fighters and stealth bombers. Commercial use for titanium didn't even exist when Boeing started.
Posted by: Mark on July 6, 2005 11:40 AMA few years back KVI had a Fourth of July event out at Bereinger Farms. After the event the cleanup crews had little to do...
Posted by: JCM on July 6, 2005 11:54 AMThis is from Drudge about problems with a non polluting energy source:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/timesstar/localnews/ci_2842322
Posted by: SouthernRoots on July 6, 2005 12:40 PMHas no one ever asked what Constitutional authority the Army has to enforce "laws." And, to issue penalties without charges and a court hearing.
This just days after the July 4th when everyone is suppose to have read and understand these things.
Posted by: ipsi-dixit on July 6, 2005 01:04 PMBut it was (is still?) sure as hell is VERY EFFICIENT in sucking dry our public works funds, creative public & private time, resources and creative energies better used elsewhere for practically solving REAL city/regional problems.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on July 6, 2005 02:38 PMThe Army Corps of Engineers owns the nation's waterways. They have jurisdiction over waterways.
Posted by: steve_dog on July 6, 2005 03:00 PMExactly which waterways do they have jurisdition over and why?
I find nothing in the Constitution authorizing the Federal Government to have jurisdiction over any waterways except perhaps involving imports and exports and protecting our shores from invaders. One could make the case for waterways that are state boundaries to regulate interstate commerce.
I think you have made my point. Even "conservatives" don't know or understand
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
No legitimate authority exists as far as I can determine.
No, I know and understand the Constitution, thank you very much. I'm just telling you they have jurisdiction. My dad is a civil engineer in Missouri and has dealt with them for years. Here's some info
http://www.usace.army.mil/who/
The USACE is responsible for investigating, developing and maintaining the nation's
water and related environmental resources.
They have federal jurisdiction over waterways and resources. If you want to get all constitutional over it, the jurisdiction is an extension of equal protection.
Posted by: steve_dog on July 6, 2005 03:36 PM"Really? If this is true, then there is something wrong," Councilman Richard Conlin said. "Maybe it's operational. It was definitely supposed to meet higher standards. Maybe the old building was more efficient than we thought."
As if HVAC is rocket science. Did the architect have to meet energy effeciency requirements? If so, their bonding company should pay to "fix" this. And if not, the city screwed up. This is not high-tech, and there is no reason for any surprises.
Let's see now, under the equal protection clause the USACE owns and has jurisdiction over a little bit of swamp in Seattle.
You make my point very well.
Constitutional ignorance - not stupidity - ignorance. Let's not "get Constitutional?" Why follow the law? Why not let the government take private property for private use? Why not outlaw firearms? Why not give the Army authority over private or city property? Why not let the government censor the press? Don't "get Constitutional" indeed. Let's not worry about the First Ten Amendments called the Bill of Rights!
Your answer screams your lack of knowledge and understanding of the foundational principles of this country.
This is why I am loosing faith in the people of this country. For lack of knowledge they enslave themselves.
There is no Constitutional authority for the Federal Government to control swamps or any other such thing! It does not exist! It is a usupred power.
Posted by: ipsi-dixit on July 6, 2005 04:04 PMConstitutional ignorance - not stupidity - ignorance. Let's not "get Constitutional?" Why follow the law? Why not let the government take private property for private use? Why not outlaw firearms? Why not give the Army authority over private or city property? Why not let the government censor the press? Don't "get Constitutional" indeed. Let's not worry about the First Ten Amendments called the Bill of Rights!
Let's not dive head first off the deep end. It was asked why the Army Corps of Engineers is involved; I posted the answer.
Now, to get to your point, does it or does it not make sense to have one authority in charge of engineering US waterways, yes or no?
I'm asking you a practical question. Try not to invoke John Adams in your response.
Posted by: steve_dog on July 6, 2005 04:27 PMIf you'd like a primer on the US Army Corps of Engineers and the reasons for their existence, why don't you look it up for yourself rather than spewing your "I'm smarter than you and I understand the foundational principles of this nation and you don't" bu!!sh!t.
The USACE has control of the nations waterways because when they were created the nation stretched far beyond the states, okay? When the USACE was created to contribute to both military construction and works 'of a civil nature', Illinois was not yet a state, let alone Washington.
Here's a bit from their website:
"Although its work on fortifications was important, perhaps the greatest legacy the early Corps of Engineers bestowed to future generations was its work on canals, rivers, and roads. America was a young nation, and rivers were its paths of commerce. They provided routes from western farms to eastern markets and for settlers seeking new homes beyond the Appalachian frontier. The rivers beckoned and enticed, but then could treacherously destroy the dreams of unwary travelers and shippers whose boats were punctured by snags and sawyers or stranded by sandbars. Both commercial development and national defense, as shown during the War of 1812, required more reliable transportation arteries. Out of those unruly streams, engineers carved navigation passages and harbors for a growing nation."
Who was going to do this? The individual states? What states? Who was going to map out and improve the navigability of waterways acquired in the Louisiana Purchase? The State of Louisiana?
Maybe you need a lesson in history. The Federal Government existed long before 37 of the 50 states, and had to provide for our growing nation where we only had territories. You call it a usurped (notice the spelling) power - yet it was usurped from NOBODY - so could it really be usurped? The Federal Government assumed responsibility because there was no other governmental entity that could. Now you want that power back in the state of Washington's or city of Seattle's hands - but are you willing to pay for it? With responsibilities come costs.
Remember, the USACE is in charge of Grand Coulee and other large-scale hydroelectric projects throughout the nation. Do you want to wrest this control from their hands? Why on Earth would you want to do that? Do you think the Seattle City Council knows our nations waterways better than the USACE?
Posted by: Larry on July 6, 2005 04:31 PMThe FCC and FAA are involved, all be it overly, since radio waves and airlines do not stop at state lines - interstate commerce and therefor are authorized.
Making comments about clear typos on this, a typical forum, only hurts the individual making the comment.
This is not the time or place to get further into this discussion. I might suggest some of the Constitutional forums where basics are discussed.
Posted by: ipsi dixit on July 6, 2005 07:29 PMIt's interesting that you didn't answer any of our questions. Interesting - and telling.
If one doesn't understand that the US Army and the US Army Corps of Engineers are functionally different organizations, further discussion on the issue is a waste of time.
If one doesn't understand that the US Army Corps of Engineers is made up of 650 military members and 34,600 civilians, further discussion on the issue is a waste of time.
If one doesn't understand that the Chief of Engineers has separate and distinct command and staff responsibilities, and merely advises the Army on engineering matters and serves as the Army's topographer and the proponent for real estate and other related engineering programs, further discussion on the issue is a waste of time.
If one doesn't understand that one mission of the US Army Corps of Engineers is planning, designing, building and operating water resources and other civil works projects (Navigation, Flood Control, Environmental Protection, Disaster Response, etc.), further discussion on the issue is a waste of time.
Better run away, ipsi dixit, because you're in over your head here.
Posted by: Larry on July 6, 2005 08:19 PMWhen Robert E. Lee graduated from West Point, he went into the Army Corps of Engineers. In that capacity he supervised the building of levees that helped hold back the Mississippi at St. Louis, thus keeping the town from succumbing to the river. His work and similar work by other Army Corps engineers over the last 170+ years have made considerable contribution to the growth and maintenance of our country.
Their role has been the same for almost 200 years. I find little reason to question their actions any more than I would question the Coast Guards role in rules, regulations and safety equipment requirements on our internal waterways.
Besides, it’s nice to see that someone has the gumption to tell Seattle when it is out of line.
BUT, as I recall, some 35 years ago emergent environmentalists brought suit in US Federal courts, asking that the Corps take jurisdiction of swamps and wetlands (and the UNNAVIGABLE little ditches, rivulets, freshets and creeks that feed the wetlands) because of migratory ducks and birds, which crossed state lines as they migrated/flew. Their argument was that duck hunting and bird shooting was a viable recreational business (resort owners, duck clubs, etc) dependant upon the wetlands; because these migratory birds crossed state lines that therefore the Commerce Clause of the Constitution should apply:
Article 1, Section 8 ---"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States".
Thus, they argued, the US Goverment could take jurisdiction over the locals re. wetlands and creeks.
The activist Federal court agreed and local counties and cities have had their hands increasingly tied ever since.
You see, the environmental activists couldn't win this point in Congress because they'd have been laughed out of the place (Oh, yes! Duck hunting is interstate commerce because it depends on interstate flight of birds! Brilliant!)----so, they went to the courts, where they've been circumventing the will of the people ever since . . . Kinda makes the stakes for President Bush's nominees to the US Supreme Court rather important, no? Which is why the Left wants War on the nomination, regardless of who it is.
Posted by: LeoR on July 6, 2005 10:55 PMHamm Creek is not navigable. It has no military use. These panty-waist Corps greeners need to get their sorry butts out of Washington State and over to the Shat-Al-Arab waterway and start doing what I pay them to do --- keep military necessary waterways open so that the rest of the US Military can kill people and break things a little bit easier.
Federal nazi pukes keep pushing and there is going to be a real American Civil War, not a War of Southern Secession like last time.
Interesting points though about these eco-tyrants in Seattle - many times individuals have paid enourmous fines and been forced to give up their land for making a similar 'mistake.'
Posted by: Jericho on July 6, 2005 11:11 PM"...interstate commerce and therefor are authorized..."
You explained your own question waterways are a form of interstate commerce and therefore subject to federal rules along with state rules. As stated earlier the USACE has been tasked to control the waterways like the FAA and FCC control their designated areas.
icestorm487 |at| yahoo |dot| com
Posted by: icestorm487 on July 7, 2005 01:16 AMJerico, it appears, has a firm grasp. The 17th was necessary to get rid of states rights and run virtually everything from DC.
I think the telling statement was "don't get Constitutional."
Why don't I answer? Proverbs 26:4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him.
Posted by: ipsi dixit on July 7, 2005 10:29 AM
"Jerico, it appears, has a firm grasp."
-- ipsi dixit
Great minds aren't the only ones that think alike. Feeble minds have much in common as well. Thanks for the reminder.
Posted by: Larry on July 7, 2005 11:01 AMPOPULAR ELECTION OF SENATORS
SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT
Clause 1. The Senate of the United States shall be composed
of two Senators from each State, elected by the people
thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.
The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite
for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
What would this repeal solve?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on July 7, 2005 04:12 PMI figured the TRULY green Seattle folks would have built one in an earth berm--heavily insulated, covered with greenery and energy efficient, but ugly as sin. But then, Ron Sims would only have a dirt mound legacy in his honor reminiscent of his childhood days in a city lot, tossing clods of dirt at his future political opponents.
In addition, the homeless would have rejected the design as being "too earthy" like the caves, tunnels and highway dirt underpasses they love so much. Well, good luck to it. The window cleaning and maintenance contracts alone should provide a nice legacy to the connected contract holders.
What was that old education phrase? "Reading is fundamental?!" Yep--reading who was awarded the contracts.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on July 7, 2005 10:17 PM‘Repeal the 17th Amendment?
POPULAR ELECTION OF SENATORS
SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT
Clause 1. The Senate of the United States shall be composed
of two Senators from each State, elected by the people
thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.
The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite
for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
What would this repeal solve?’
Prior to the 17th amendment, Senators were appointed by state legislatures. This was meant to be a check and balance against the shortcomings of a truer democracy, which our founding fathers feared. The house represented the people and the senate represented the states. The 17th amendment undermined the 10th amendment. By having Senators voted on directly by the people they became more susceptible to corruption via campaign contributions and no longer answerable to the state legislatures. Power that should belong to states (local government) continues to shift to the federal government. This is a simple version of a more complex answer.