Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
You're right that individuals don't know exactly what challenges they face, but the same problem is magnified in a bureaucracy that any inefficiency that is mandated gets multiplied millions of times rather than just once. The private sector can more quickly adapt to changing technologies too. Just look, we've got laws on the books to require side mirrors in vehicles even though manufacturers already have superior solutions to the problem.
By mandating design, you inevitably create situations where the mandated solution is inferior in certain applications than some alternative.
I'd rather have energy consumption limited than have design dictated to me. Some sort of meter that shuts off for the month once a certain threshold was hit, or at least gets severely throttled back. I could spend my limit on a few inefficient things, or lots of efficient ones. Still hate that idea though because it doesn't take into account the individual. Better to just make things cost more if you don't want people using them.
|
As I mentioned in the post,the premise is 'performance'.The designer is free to do whatever they want as long as the home performs to specification.If they bring in a more efficient design,they're free to go hog wild with the difference.
FDR poured concrete sidewalks in Denton,Texas in the 1930s for the school kids.Local developers never thought to do this for their community.Today,they're still there to walk on,86-years later.Homes are a 200-year proposition.They ought to be as good as they can be.And what's not to like about a more comfortable,less expensive place to live,on a stable planet.