Talk:Green building

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Green building article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Environment

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Architecture

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 29 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aman-Maryam (article contribs).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MGUY10.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted inappropriate link

I deleted a (second) entry for Australia that pointed to a promotional site not a rating framework. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.113.72 (talk) 09:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added Map

I added a map that shows US states that are now requiring or encouraging green building certification. Casey789 03:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV?

As much as I agree with the substance of the article, I fear that language like "clearly, our buildings, and how we use them, have a profound impact on the Earth's resources" borders on POV due to its tone but not its content...

--Spindustrious 09:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is clear when you recognize that 40% of energy use (in the US) goes to building construction, operation and maintenance. Buildings are also the most significant land use impact besides agriculture. These are simple neutral observations. --belg4mit 2007-2-08 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.212.241.202 (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

re:NPOV?

Removed section "Enviromental Statistics of Buildings" (or something like that).

Section added no reasoning or value to the topic; tried to advocate green building techniques instead of adding to the explanation of the term. Didn't see any reason to remove the links quoted, page may require a bit of clean up.

This article really needs to be more balanced - it needs less of the US and more of a worldwide emphasis. 155.198.78.187 11:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

(Note: please do not use horizontal bars for new topics, use section titles.)

Statistics backing up evidence of building impact on natural resources are provided in the article, with a linked footnote for more information. Suggestions for wording changes, however, are welcome.

-- KS, 25 Apr 2005

Statistics are subject to interpretation. What is included or excluded from the calculations can have a profound impact on the results. You can get almost any result you want if you work the basis of the statistics around long enough. An extreme example of this type of manipulation is the following question that must be answered yes or no. "Have you stop beating your dog?" If you answer yes, you were beating your dog. If you answer no, you are still beating your dog. Either way the result is 100% of those who answer such a question yes or no have beat their dog and 0% have not beat their dog.

Words like "clearly" and "profound impact" are the problem here. They are subjective and not quantifiable by statistics. Make your point by simply identifying the source of the statistics and eliminating the subjective language.

-- HM, 12 May 2005

I am not really sure what the arguement is here. Areas like clear cut logging, strip mining, and the like tend, without the support of "statistics", to depict "clear" and "profound impacts", thus the need for documents like EIS to government agencies like EPA. -- Hard Raspy Sci 21:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links section?

I don't really understand the point of having a bunch of random interal links. Can someone explain to me the purpose of this section? Could someone (preferably the person who put all the links in) expand this into something more compelling? Velvetsmog 21:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could someone explain why Los Angeles is listed as a "Sustainable Town Development?" 24.215.253.143 01:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there is some green building somewhere in LA see Playa Vista, Los Angeles, California, but perhaphs a joke - one of the least sustainable places about. It was added by 161.149.63.100 in January http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Green_building&diff=33741141&oldid=32956558, I'll remove the link.

In any case I think sustainable town development should be in its own article rather than here. There is quite a difference in scope between the two. --Salix alba (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Links Section

I pruned the External Links section

Removed primarily commercial links: specific firms
Removed non-notable links: sites of specific buildings, obscure research
Retained more general informational links on green building
Retained commercial sites which are umbrella groups for industry
Categorized links mainly by geography

Prospect77 00:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. -- Solipsist 08:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a link back in

s10.invisionfree.com/Alternative_Building Alternative Building Discussion Guide

I believe this is a valuable link to put back into the page. Especially since, it is a moderated discussion with a lot of valuable information. I personally had nothing to do with creating this discussion and am not a moderator. I have just found this to be a valuable resource to ask questions to engineers and designers who frequent the board.

Ecgossett 13:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC) = (UTC)[reply]

(I stripped the link because it is on the spam blacklist. --Jorunn 12:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Cleanup

I went through the article bringing it closer in line with our manual of style. This was mainly removing non citation imbedded links. Removing repeat internal links where I noticed them. Removing sections that were promotional or were to do with something mentioned in the article rather than being directly about green building. Some of the links I removed may provide a good springboard for further research. you can check them out from the diff in the edit history.

I believe the edits I made should satisfy the {{advert}} concerns in the Canadian section. If not, please put the tag back and let us know here what specific concerns remain. I'm not sure about the same tag in the Australia section. I wasn't sure how to address the concerns in the australia section without simply deleting it. If someone know more about green building in Australia work on this section would be appreciated.

The external links section is horrendous. We ought to have a manageable set (5, maybe 6) of links that a general reader would find really useful. At the moment it's a messy portal, with most failing our external links guidelines, that someone who doesn't know the sector (and many who do) would have to trawl through to find anything interesting. It could really use a severe pruning if anyone is up to looking through each one.-- Siobhan Hansa 16:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose completely removing the 'Designers and Builders' section as it is mostly redundant, copied over from Sustainable architecture and the names are all unqualified. If there's a reason to include this section then each entry should at least include some detail about why they are included. Many entries are probably self-promoting.Mahalie 03:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Remove at will. Sunray 22:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger with sustainable architecture

Architecture is carried out by architects; green building may involve an architect at some point, or may not. So I guess if it's necessary to clarify definitions, that would make sustainable architecture a sub-set of green building. Gralo 23:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger tag removed after 4 months with 3 views against, non in favor. Gralo 18:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure the tag should come down. I think that a distinction between sustainable architecture and green building can only be made if one insists that architecture must involve an architect. I think that professional associations and their lawyers might want us to beleive this, but historically all buildings are called architecture, even vernacular buildings such as huts or barns. Perhaps if each article had more substance I would say leave well enough alone, but I think the content of each would combine to make a good start on the subject, under the title of Sustainable Architecture. With your support, I'll put the tag back up. --Jrsnbarn 07:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm confused. I thought that the discussion on the Sustainable architecture had pretty well concluded against merging these two articles. The tag suggests merging S.A. into Green building and I had understood you to be against this. As to merging the other way: Green building is an increasingly distinct field and certainly needs its own article, IMO. I really think it is time for the merge tag to come down. However, as I've said elsewhere, this article does need work (and the quality tag should stay). Sunray 07:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be confused. I had originally approached this as above (with the proposal of reopening the merger), but have changed my thinking. I did not put the merge tag back up. That was Miscreant on 30 March 2007. I'm in favour of taking the merge tag back down and improving the articles as they stand.--Jrsnbarn 11:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rammed earth merger proposal

It seems to me that this section is far larger than is required in an article on Green building, and that the content might be more appropriate in the Rammed earth page. --Jrsnbarn 00:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about merging. The new material would nicely supplement what's now on Rammed earth, and goes well beyond the basic get-you-oriented goal of a page like Green building. Greener72 15:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge complete as per merger proposal--Jrsnbarn 15:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poll on inclusion of link

We would like to get input on the inclusion of an external link in the article on Straw-bale construction. There is discussion and a poll here. Comments prior to August 3, 2007 would be appreciated. Thanks. Sunray 07:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Designers and builders

Can anyone explain why we would have a section on designers and builders?. It seems like a recipe for a long and unmanageable list. How could we ever adjudicate notability? The other problem is that people and firms are constantly going to try to try to hang their shingle. I suggest that the section be eliminated. Comments? Sunray (talk) 08:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If someone wants to add a link to their favourite designer, the least they could do is find an appropriate part of the article in which to discuss why they are so important to our understanding of the field. Miscreant (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This question was posted over three weeks ago and the only commentary has been in favour of removing the list. I am therefore removing it. Sunray (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello -

I would like to add a link to Low Impact Living in the Green Building page and possibly other relevant topics, but not sure if a for-profit websites would be permitted.

Low Impact Living provides a free home footprint calculator, lots of info on why to green your home, green home improvement project ideas, blog covering green home topics "like straw bale building" and a a directory of green products and services. The directory is not free for businesses, but it's a great resource none the less and it helps sustain the business.

Would appreciate some kind of approval before placing the link, Please see us at www.lowimpactliving.com

Many thanks, 1greenbean —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1greenbean (talk • contribs) 00:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please include following architects as green architects:

see article

Also include Sen Kapadia, Chamanlal Gupta, and B.V. Doshi (led the sustainable and thinking-out-of-the-box movement in India) see this article

External Links

Would anyone object to my adding http://www.motherearthnews.com/Green-Homes.aspx to the external links section of this article? It seems relevant and objective.

Trexitor (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open Directory Project Links

The DMOZ search template, and by implication all DMOZ search links, is being considered for deletion because it violates WP:ELNO #9. Anyone interested in discussing the fate of Open Directory Project (DMOZ) search links is invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Dmoz2. Qazin (talk) 05:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dual-stage building improvements in Australia

The article I've used as a reference quotes somebody saying "more than 85% of office buildings in Australia are at least 10 years old", and explains that by "retrofitting office stock" they hope to save emissions the "equivalent of taking 6.4 million cars off the road". That would imply they are talking about doing all 85%, right? Bear in mind the total population is only 22 million people. Ottre 05:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't imply that at all to me.You can't take a number for 'office buildings at least 10 years old', and then assume thats their exclusive target for 'retrofitting office stock'. You might retrofit newer buildings, and some older buildings might not need retrofitting. Aside from the fact that trying to substantially retrofit buildings is not something the government can do itself, and thus can not 'plan a number', but needs private companies to do (and pay for) of their own accord.... Miscreant (talk) 10:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is the concept related to the building such as.....

hospitals....??? Please add the info in the section of scope--58.38.46.64 (talk) 12:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No researh has been conducted from the Google scholar point of views--58.38.46.64 (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Practices Revision/Expansion

I am new to editing Wikipedia, and was wondering if the problem with my revisions had to do more with the format in which I presented information rather than the actual content. I recognize that I did not properly cite my 2 main sources. A peer pointed out to me that the bullet format should not be used in Wikipedia. If the content that I added is re-written in prose and cited in APA format, would it still read like a "how-to" and be poorly sourced? My apologies to Johnfos for the misplaced discussion, as I mentioned I am new to the Wiki-community.

Welcome to Wikipedia! Yes, lets open up some discussion on this. Usually if there is to be a major rewrite of an article, it is best to discuss things first, so we all know what is happening and why. Will add a few more comments here as time permits, and hope you will too. And please sign posts with four ~ so we know who has said what. -- Johnfos (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to do some major expansion of this article. In particular, I want to revise the practices section to be a comprehensive overview of green building. In the overview, the previous edit mentions that the green building philosophy applies during the building's entire life-cycle. However, the practices section only goes into detail about green techniques in a few of the areas involved in a building's life. Additionally, I plan to do a minor revision of the overview section, because there is a slight ambiguity as to whether the page is about a "building that is green" or "building green/green construction". It is very similar but if you look at it from the perspective of the construction industry (which I am) and also provides a more complete view of the minimization of the environmental effect of a building since siting, design and construction are the most influential aspects in a building becoming green. I want to highlight the importance that green techniques are applied throughout a building's life and just as importantly can be designed to work together to create a synergy, a cumulative effect that is greater than any individual practice on its own.

More specifically, I plan to expand the practices section to not only include materials, energy, and waste efficiency, but the efficient use of siting and structure design (as with any construction project - these are the most important steps in construction to minimize cost and maximize effectiveness), water efficiency, indoor environmental quality (a newer focus of green building - the more you seal a building to increase energy efficiency, the less a structure can "breathe", and the more pollutants in the air become trapped inside), and operations and maintenance (a major factor in waste efficiency, maintaining the effectiveness of green practices already employed, and implementing new practices as technologies evolve) as well. I will re-iterate several times as to how a green practice may fall under more than one phase of the life-cycle or may affect more than one aspect of green building.

I have three main sources that I am referencing in my expansion and revision - • California Integrated Waste Management Board. (January 23, 2008). Green Building Home Page. Retrieved December 1, 2009, from http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/GREENBUILDING/ ; • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (October 28, 2009). Green Building Home. Retrieved November 29, 2009, from http://www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/index.htm; • WBDG Sustainable Committee. (August 18, 2009). Sustainable. Retrieved November 28, 2009, from http://www.wbdg.org/design/sustainable.php. The first two sources are an umbrella branch of the EPA and the EPA itself. The third is an industry organization comprised of both government and private experts, private practitioners, educational institutions, and non-profit organizations. The collaborative effort is to provide a portal for the most up-to-date information on building related matters. These three separate source corroborate on the most common aspects of green building, which is essentially the optimization of the traditional model of building construction.

I recognize that my previous edit's sources were merely links and not full citations, I will correct that as well as re-write the sections to read more like an encyclopedia - however, it may take me a couple of days to complete this. I am not here to randomly adjust an article that i surfed in to. My interest is in the construction industry, and the fact that green technologies is an exploding field of the industry as well as the world in general. Please leave a comment before reverting any edits I make so that I may re-format the content correctly to fit the Wikipedia style.-- Purenergy (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to present the perspective of the construction industry. In the US or worldwide? If you are looking just at the US, you may be better making additions to Green building in the United States. And please try to think of non-construction industry perspectives so the article is WP:NPOV and not just promotional. Please make sure the content is encyclopedic. The references you suggest are ok, but try to complement them with some published, third party, journal articles and media reports, see WP:RS. Any "how to" material would be better at wikiHow. Johnfos (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to use the perspective of the construction industry to analyze what green building entails since every building built, whether green or not, is a construction matter. I looked at Green building in the United States and it appears to be an article more geared towards the regulatory organizations and standards involved, whereas i'm looking to expand on the goals of the actual processes. I am planning to re-name the "practices" section to either "components," "aspects," or "goals." The practices or technologies used should be a sub-category of the goals. In fact the three sub-headings already in place are not actually "practices", rather they are goals of green building and the examples provided are a means to reach that goal.

I do not believe any of my material is promoting or biased to any construction aspect, technology or product in particular, but i will avoid being too technical so that it does not seem biased towards my industry. I'm simply using the construction perspective to provide the structure rather than content.

As far as reaching a worldwide audience, a building's life-cycle is common worldwide and the essence of green building is to make each step of the cycle more efficient. The technologies(practices) employed to do so may differ from region to region (within the US or otherwise) and with every passing year these technologies evolve. However, the goals of whatever technology is designed into a building remain the same - to increase efficiency in one of the aforementioned components (materials efficiency, siting efficiency, etc.). The differences are usually based in regional needs and standards. For example, California's construction code would be stricter in terms of seismic standards compared to Florida which would undoubtedly carry stiffer wind protection. I am not, however, planning on revising the regulations section as of yet. It is too time consuming for me at the moment to research worldwide regulations.

The strategies and technologies that I will mention are not US specific and may be applied in any country. They are not meant to be an exhaustive list of every possible way of being green. In fact, since this is not a static topic, it cannot be expected to be. I will, however, try to source a published journal to corroborate my content, but it would probably be American in origin as well. It is my understanding that the US helps lead the world in the development of new green technologies, but again I am focusing on the goals that these technologies aim to meet. I will simply provide the technologies as examples. Additionally, most of the stats mentioned on the current page are of US origin. I do not plan on updating that section at the moment either. Purenergy (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed my expansion of the goals section heading (previously practices) for now. Please discuss with me before reverting and I will try to improve on what I had edited. Additionally, I sourced a journal article that does a comparison study of green building rating tools from around the world. Perhaps I will update/ revise that section at some point in the future. Thanks for the guidance Purenergy (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge tag

Is there any genuine reason why we would actually need an independent article on Green Building on College Campuses as a separate topic from this one? Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest keeping it separate as the topic of green buildings is so very large and getting larger. I would recommend there be a collection of articles "Green Schools", "Green Hospitals", etc. Also, green buildings on campuses and other institutional locations are normally quite different than as part of a private development. Rr parker (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bearcat; I think this article can be merged with Green Buildings. Specific buildings demonstrating advancement or notability could have their own entries. Much of the content is redundant. NDSteve10 (talk) 05:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There is sufficient info for the separate Green Building on College Campuses article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Green Building our Colleges

It would seem to me that this kind of article, one that discusses specific campuses and the on-going green building projects, should be a PROJECTS page of its own. Perhaps referenced from the GREEN BUILDING section, like the MIT link. In doing this, you provide the generic information that most people look for and links to specific projects where such information has been applied. It might well serve the public if the Project portions linked from the generic GREEN BUILDING section, held specifics as applied in the project. The PROJECT sections would then serve as a place to find answers and ideas that address specific concerns when applying GREEN BUILDING techniques. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.225.0 (talk) 04:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, think that a green buildings article should include more than campus green buildings and campus green building efforts, often in their institutional sustainability initiatives. MaynardClark (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Green skyscrapers

Perhaps the Ciliwung Recovery Project skyscraper can be mentioned ? Some other green skyscrapers too could be mentioned such as the skyscrapers of the Gwang Gyo Power Center --> http://www.evolo.us/competition/water-purification-skyscraper-in-jakarta/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.227.212 (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Green skyscrapers are an oxymoron.

Olivier SIDLER of ENERTECH a French building services engineering company gathered some data on one of the best performing skyscrapers in terms of energy usage in Europe /the world .. the Post Tower in Bonn, Germany.

www.enertech.fr/docs/Enertech_Tours.pdf

The actual consumption data is 228 kWh/m2.yr. Predicted performance was between 45 to 72 kWh/m2.yr (calculated value by Transsolar engineers)

For contrast the new French thermal regulations in 2012 will require 40 to 75kWh/m2.yr depending on climate zone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.238.220.41 (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If wind tunnels seem to result from high-rises, can the atmospheric pressure of that wind be used passively OR actively?

Quoting:

Wind energy is the kinetic energy of the air in motion. The kinetic energy of a packet of air of mass m with velocity v is given by ½ m v². To find the mass of the packet passing through an area A perpendicular its velocity (which could be the rotor area of a turbine), we multiply its volume after time t has passed with the air density ρ, which gives us m = A v t ρ. So, we find that the total wind energy is:

$E={\frac {1}{2}}\rho Av^{3}t$

Differentiating with respect to time to find the rate of increase of energy, we find that the total wind power is:

$P=dE/dt={\frac {1}{2}}\rho Av^{3}$

We are told that we need to HOUSE the growing number of urban poor who made 2015 the first year that most human beings lived in cities. That means both that massive programs of urban housing construction will be initiated in this decade and next and that urban policy more likely will be driving policy-related research efforts going forward. MaynardClark (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Green building. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121092246/http://www.jgpress.com/inbusiness/archives/_free/000648.html to http://www.jgpress.com/inbusiness/archives/_free/000648.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Green building. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160516212043/http://blog.kmccontrols.com/index.php/2015/09/24/whats-your-iq-on-iaq-ieq/ to http://blog.kmccontrols.com/index.php/2015/09/24/whats-your-iq-on-iaq-ieq/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Green building. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Green building. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why BIM is mentioned?

I am new to Wikipedia, but not to green building. Apologies, but why is there a paragraph on BIM? BIM is building information modeling, which can be done for a brown building as well as a green one. What might be more important in this article is a paragraph on building controls and environmental management. This 2020 article from New Zealand suggests that building professionals who use BIM think it is useful for green buildings, but that is only about 50% of those surveyed had used this product. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103931 I'm not against BIM per se; but I think including it as a feature on green building fosters a sense that green buildings have to be high tech and LEED certified. This is counter to the idea of natural buildings, which are green in a different way. (I think there is another similar comment above). To summarize, I would suggest qualifying the text on BIM (BIM itself is not necessarily green) and adding a section on energy management systems (which are usually separate to BIM).Katyjanda (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103931[reply]

Merge with Green building and wood

I can see no real reason to keep a splinter article with no clearly defined purpose but lots of redundancies separate from this one.

KaiKemmann (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Both articles are of substantial length. I think merging them would make the resulting article too large to comfortably read and navigate. Helper201 (talk) 07:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Comparing the paragraphs addressing waste reduction, for example, I detect no redundancy. Green building and wood stands on its own. -- Paleorthid (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]