Sustained Silliness

The berry-pickers at Google want to build themselves a fancy new "green" campus in -- where else? -- San Francisco:

Central to that vision is interior and exterior design. Indoor workspaces will be open and naturally lit whenever possible—the lighting will be dimmed or off 77% of the year. There will be no recirculated air inside. And indoor spaces will use radiant heating and cooling transmitted via a network of water pipes and warmed in part by waste heat from the buildings’ refrigeration systems. All this will be powered by large scale solar (presumably not exclusively) and aims to be 46% more energy efficient than the San Francisco Bay Area average.

A poorly-lit building filled with hot, stagnant air. That should really boost productivity.

Barton said a big part of the project was “taking the pulse of the site.” According to NBBJ’s Ryan Mullenix, 1/3 of the bay had been filled in by 1960 and 90% of the naturally occurring wetlands destroyed. There’s no going back, but the firm can reverse the hands of time somewhat by reintroducing wetlands onsite.

And in fact, these wetlands will fulfill multiple purposes, creating a positive employee experience, improving the site, and providing sustainable, green water management. Josiah Cain of Sherwood Design Engineers said that together with a series of green roofs and green walls, the wetlands will also act as a natural filter for stormwater and wastewater.

And a wonderfully efficient breeding ground for disease-laden mosquitoes and other flying pests. How 'bout a nice serving of West Nile with your overpriced coffee?

[A] local worker questioned Google’s traffic and parking plans. As many as 4,000 Google employees may descend on Moffett Field, paired with only around 2,200 parking spaces. And although they plan to widen a central access road to the complex, those already working in the area wonder whether it will be enough.

Igoe’s answer? Google doesn’t think the current passenger car paradigm will last. He said the firm wants 50% of its workforce to arrive by bus or bike. In particular, they’d like to up the bike-to-work folks from 5% to 20%, although he didn’t elaborate on how they’ll arrive at that number.

By force, I should imagine. That seems to be the Leftist mantra: do it because it's Good For The Earth and The Right Thing To Do -- OR WE'LL MAKE YOU DO IT!

Let’s just say, not cheap but possibly very cool. And as the years pass, those tech-induced efficiency gains will likely help defray steep up-front costs.

Yeah, that's how it works... Not. Here's what really happens with expensive "sustainable" building projects: long term potential savings are absorbed -- and then some -- by steeply increased maintenance and replacement costs, since the equipment is not adequately tested, often poorly designed, and the manufacturers are not likely to be in business in twenty years when it needs major overhaul. So you replace it with an off-the-shelf, non-green unit -- because that's all you can afford after having spent a fortune up front on a building that has turned into a money pit. "Sustainable construction" is nothing more than the latest buzz phrase for selling snake oil to the gullible. Entropy is entropy and it takes a fixed amount of energy to cool or heat a given volume of air or water. No amount of grass on the roof and mosquito breeding ponds is going to change that fact.