Current Events > The Green Roof initiative actually passed in Denver yesterday

(+) Yeah! (+)

Pretty much requiring new building to have a combination of solar panels or rooftop gardens. Can't say I agree with it.

I would have voted but apparently where I live couldn't vote. Like, my section of the area weren't involved in any voting last night for some reason.
Looks like it only won by about 2k votes as well

If approved, the Denver Green Roof initiative would give the city some of the most stringent and far-reaching green-roof requirements in the nation.

Size-based coverage requirements would apply to most new buildings with at least 25,000 square feet of gross floor area beneath the roof, as well as to existing buildings above that threshold when their roofs are replaced or when building additions push the floor area above the threshold.

The green-roof coverage requirements would start at 20 percent of the roof area and ratchet up to 60 percent, depending on a buildings total square footage and type. The initiative exempts residential buildings of four stories or less.


---

Why do you disagree with it?
---

_OujiDoza_ posted...

Why do you disagree with it?

While I feel for those wanting it because of global warming concerns, I don't feel confident that this would have that much of an impact. Not much that I've read really show that green roof is that impactful.

It's one of those things that just seems like it will have unintended consequences.

Increases in construction costs, price of housing, cost of living, etc. I mean, if housing increases in the city because of this, people will move further to the suburbs, which means more driving and more pollution. It just seems like a feel good measure.

In addition, I generally don't like forcing companies in things like these. If we're gonna say we want to do more for global warming, I'd rather maybe incentivize them and give them broad requirements and have them choose what they think is the best way. Why should I think green roof is the best way to achieve what it's meant to do?
---

Hmmm, interesting.
---

It won't harm big companies that want to move to Denver or that are already here, but what about places like libraries, community centers, homeless shelters, etc.
They already don't have much money and I'd rather them build a center without the green roof, than not build one at all because they of added costs

But to be honest, I don't know the exact cost of something like this. Maybe the costs end up cancelling out someway or it's not even a big deal.
---

emblem boy posted...

It won't harm big companies that want to move to Denver or that are already here, but what about places like libraries, community centers, homeless shelters, etc.
They already don't have much money and I'd rather them build a center without the green roof, than not build one at all because they of added costs

But to be honest, I don't know the exact cost of something like this. Maybe the costs end up cancelling out someway or it's not even a big deal.

I would imagine places like libraries and community centers could possibly qualify for grants that cover the costs; right now solar paneling is still pretty pricey but is coming down as the practice is becoming much more popular and the overall energy cost-savings are there for reference.

I could especially see libraries benefiting from the policy based on the education of it alone, but I don't know how popular libraries are in Colorado; that sort of thing would really take off here where I live in VA.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

Seems like a good way to make new buildings unaffordable for lower/middle class people.

What does the cost of living look like in Colorado to begin with? I do wonder what the booming marijuana industry has done to that aspect of the economy.
---

_OujiDoza_ posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

Seems like a good way to make new buildings unaffordable for lower/middle class people.

What does the cost of living look like in Colorado to begin with? I do wonder what the booming marijuana industry has done to that aspect of the economy.

I moved here 2 years ago from Dallas.
Housing is definitely more expensive and is a big thing that people complain about. Renting and home ownership.

In other aspects of cost of living, I didn't find it much more expensive than Dallas
---

shockthemonkey posted...

Forcing roof gardens are weird.

Yeah I'm not sure about that one myself, unless they're pushing better overall air quality...I suppose I kinda get it.
---

Oh no, think of the cost of hous . . .

The initiative exempts residential buildings of four stories or less.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Oh no, think of the cost of hous . . .

The initiative exempts residential buildings of four stories or less.

Yes?
---

_OujiDoza_ posted...

Why do you disagree with it?

Do you have any idea how expensive this makes basic roof maintenance?

If you get your roof repaired (something generally required every 30 years or so), you now have to cover it in solar panels.
---

darkjedilink posted...

_OujiDoza_ posted...

Why do you disagree with it?

Do you have any idea how expensive this makes basic roof maintenance?

If you get your roof repaired (something generally required every 30 years or so), you now have to cover it in solar panels.

Why do you sound so defensive? I was legit asking a fairly benign question.
---

emblem boy posted...

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Oh no, think of the cost of hous . . .

The initiative exempts residential buildings of four stories or less.

Yes?

seems you forgot to post that on the OP
---

More info I guess

https://www.denverite.com/initiative-300-need-know-denver-green-roof-initiative-44520/

http://www.denvergreenroof.org/the-project/

marc55 posted...

emblem boy posted...

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Oh no, think of the cost of hous . . .

The initiative exempts residential buildings of four stories or less.

Yes?

seems you forgot to post that on the OP

It's in the op. Last sentence.

I get what anarchy is trying to say, but it doesn't somehow remove all concerns. There are residential building more than 4 stories.

That exemption helps yes, but it doesn't remove all concerns someone would have about housing costs.
---

are you sure is about global warning ?

what type of plants green roofs have ?
---

marc55 posted...

are you sure is about global warning ?

what type of plants green roofs have ?

Global warming might have been the wrong choice of words to use. I've heard others mentione that as the reason, but I should probably be more specific.

http://www.denvergreenroof.org/the-project/

. Denver currently ranks third highest in the United States for Urban Heat Island. Falling behind Las Vegas and Albuquerque. An Urban Heat Island absorbs warmth from the sun and raises a citys temperature much higher than surrounding areas, making Denver nearly 5 degrees hotter. By adding green space at roof level, plants and growing media are absorbing the suns rays, helping to keep the building cool through a process called evapotranspiration. A Green Roof can reduce heat-flow through the roof by 70% to 90% in the summer and 10% to 30% in the winter (National Research Council of Canada). Lowering the citys Urban Heat Island effect would promote cooler days and less energy consumption throughout every building in Denver.

Denver is 11th worst in the nation for air quality. Specifically for particulate and ozone pollution. This places the citizens of Denver at risk for premature death and other serious health effectssuch as lung cancer, asthma attacks, cardiovascular damage, and developmental and reproductive harm.


---

emblem boy posted...

I get what anarchy is trying to say, but it doesn't somehow remove all concerns. There are residential building more than 4 stories.

That exemption helps yes, but it doesn't remove all concerns someone would have about housing costs.

yes, especially because building up (like Manhattan or Miami) is socially preferable to building out (like Houston or Atlanta) in most ways

tbh I don't think this is that big of a deal either way -- there are many other regulations that could be implemented or eliminated that would have bigger positive impacts on the environment and on housing affordability.

but I generally don't like ordinances I feel will be ineffective at best
---

_OujiDoza_ posted...

darkjedilink posted...

_OujiDoza_ posted...

Why do you disagree with it?

Do you have any idea how expensive this makes basic roof maintenance?

If you get your roof repaired (something generally required every 30 years or so), you now have to cover it in solar panels.

Why do you sound so defensive? I was legit asking a fairly benign question.

You honestly didn't see the most obvious problem here?
---

emblem boy posted...

marc55 posted...

are you sure is about global warning ?

what type of plants green roofs have ?

http://www.denvergreenroof.org/the-project/

. Denver currently ranks third highest in the United States for Urban Heat Island. Falling behind Las Vegas and Albuquerque. An Urban Heat Island absorbs warmth from the sun and raises a citys temperature much higher than surrounding areas, making Denver nearly 5 degrees hotter. By adding green space at roof level, plants and growing media are absorbing the suns rays, helping to keep the building cool through a process called evapotranspiration. A Green Roof can reduce heat-flow through the roof by 70% to 90% in the summer and 10% to 30% in the winter (National Research Council of Canada). Lowering the citys Urban Heat Island effect would promote cooler days and less energy consumption throughout every building in Denver.

Denver is 11th worst in the nation for air quality. Specifically for particulate and ozone pollution. This places the citizens of Denver at risk for premature death and other serious health effectssuch as lung cancer, asthma attacks, cardiovascular damage, and developmental and reproductive harm.

so there is more to it than global warming

not sure if all green roofs have trees but those help reduce air polution too

i asked because i noticed many connect everything to climate change and forget there is more
---

darkjedilink posted...

You honestly didn't see the most obvious problem here?

I asked the OP so that I could be more informed; you seem to have an issue with education.
---

marc55 posted...

i asked because i noticed many connect everything to climate change and forget there is more

You're right.

I edited that post you quoted
---

That's a pretty cool idea. Hope it catches on elsewhere.
---

emblem boy posted...

It's one of those things that just seems like it will have unintended consequences.

Increases in construction costs, price of housing, cost of living, etc. I mean, if housing increases in the city because of this, people will move further to the suburbs, which means more driving and more pollution. It just seems like a feel good measure.

This is the norm when it comes to policies designed to force compliance with something. It drives costs up and makes people miserable without achieving anything. But people never learn, so they let themselves become naive ideologues, paving the road to hell with their numerous good intentions.

It's why the far left is cancerous. The best way to combat climate change is to continue to allow the free market to reduce the costs of renewables like solar, wind, and water. And then people will adopt those freely because of their superior aspects to old ways of generating energy.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

emblem boy posted...

It's one of those things that just seems like it will have unintended consequences.

Increases in construction costs, price of housing, cost of living, etc. I mean, if housing increases in the city because of this, people will move further to the suburbs, which means more driving and more pollution. It just seems like a feel good measure.

This is the norm when it comes to policies designed to force compliance with something. It drives costs up and makes people miserable without achieving anything. But people never learn, so they let themselves become naive ideologues, paving the road to hell with their numerous good intentions.

It's why the far left is cancerous. The best way to combat climate change is to continue to allow the free market to reduce the costs of renewables like solar, wind, and water. And then people will adopt those freely because of their superior aspects to old ways of generating energy.

We should just leave it all in God's hands.
---

_OujiDoza_ posted...

Why do you disagree with it?

Things like this cost money, money most people don't have.
---

_OujiDoza_ posted...

We should just leave it all in God's hands.

No ones saying that
---

Tropicalwood posted...

_OujiDoza_ posted...

Why do you disagree with it?

Things like this cost money, money most people don't have.

He's pretty much explained his reasoning, but thanks for your input.
---

_OujiDoza_ posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

emblem boy posted...

It's one of those things that just seems like it will have unintended consequences.

Increases in construction costs, price of housing, cost of living, etc. I mean, if housing increases in the city because of this, people will move further to the suburbs, which means more driving and more pollution. It just seems like a feel good measure.

This is the norm when it comes to policies designed to force compliance with something. It drives costs up and makes people miserable without achieving anything. But people never learn, so they let themselves become naive ideologues, paving the road to hell with their numerous good intentions.

It's why the far left is cancerous. The best way to combat climate change is to continue to allow the free market to reduce the costs of renewables like solar, wind, and water. And then people will adopt those freely because of their superior aspects to old ways of generating energy.

We should just leave it all in God's hands.

Thanks for confirming that you really are illiterate. *tags*

shockthemonkey posted...

This should actually help the cost of living since people will need to spend less on energy. The main costs seem like theyd be upfront although I wonder about maintenance costs.

We sure haven't heard this one before!

Short term bad, long term good
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Thanks for confirming that you really are illiterate. *tags*

How so? Dunno what you're on about, sir.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

Seems like a good way to make new buildings unaffordable for lower/middle class people.

...you realize this is only for > 25,000 sq ft buildings right
---

Bio1590 posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

Seems like a good way to make new buildings unaffordable for lower/middle class people.

...you realize this is only for > 25,000 sq ft buildings right

does it not apply to apartment complexes?
---

Balrog0 posted...

Bio1590 posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

Seems like a good way to make new buildings unaffordable for lower/middle class people.

...you realize this is only for > 25,000 sq ft buildings right

does it not apply to apartment complexes?

It does

. Shall the voters of the City and County of Denver adopt a measure that requires every building and any roof replacement of a building with a gross floor area of 25,000 square feet or greater, or a building addition that causes the building to become 25,000 square feet or greater, constructed after January 1, 2018, shall include a green roof or combination of green roof and solar energy collection; while also requiring proper permits and maintenance plans, establishing construction standards and a technical advisory group, and publishing construction guidelines and best practices; also allowing for exemptions and requiring enforcement with violations and penalties?[3]




https://ballotpedia.org/Denver,_Colorado,_Green_and_Solar_Roof_Requirement,_Initiated_Ordinance_300_(November_2017)
---

shockthemonkey posted...

Bio1590 posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

Seems like a good way to make new buildings unaffordable for lower/middle class people.

...you realize this is only for > 25,000 sq ft buildings right

Nah I didnt realize it at first, skimmed while half asleep, but someone else already pointed that out

but literally the most affordable options for low and middle income people are not single family houses, especially not in hot housing markets like Denver
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

emblem boy posted...

It's one of those things that just seems like it will have unintended consequences.

Increases in construction costs, price of housing, cost of living, etc. I mean, if housing increases in the city because of this, people will move further to the suburbs, which means more driving and more pollution. It just seems like a feel good measure.

This is the norm when it comes to policies designed to force compliance with something. It drives costs up and makes people miserable without achieving anything. But people never learn, so they let themselves become naive ideologues, paving the road to hell with their numerous good intentions.

It's why the far left is cancerous. The best way to combat climate change is to continue to allow the free market to reduce the costs of renewables like solar, wind, and water. And then people will adopt those freely because of their superior aspects to old ways of generating energy.

Funny thing is that the mayor doesn't even support the measure. It actually seems like the government people don't agree with it at all. It's purely a small group of people that are pushing this.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

This should actually help the cost of living since people will need to spend less on energy. The main costs seem like theyd be upfront although I wonder about maintenance costs.

We sure haven't heard this one before!

Can you factually prove that despite lower energy costs this will increase the cost of living long term?

1) The costs of installing that hardware are still going to exceed the savings from lower energy costs, in most cases by several decades before breaking even.

2) There are states that are levying taxes or considering levying taxes on people who use solar panels to have free electricity, because they don't want people being able to live off the grid.

emblem boy posted...

While I feel for those wanting it because of global warming concerns, I don't feel confident that this would have that much of an impact. Not much that I've read really show that green roof is that impactful.

You clearly haven't read anything. When an entire neighborhood is outfitted with solar panels, it actually provides more energy than it uses, meaning it's a net positive source of energy to the grid that it's connected to.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

emblem boy posted...

While I feel for those wanting it because of global warming concerns, I don't feel confident that this would have that much of an impact. Not much that I've read really show that green roof is that impactful.

You clearly haven't read anything. When an entire neighborhood is outfitted with solar panels, it actually provides more energy than it uses, meaning it's a net positive source of energy to the grid that it's connected to.

About that.

https://thinkprogress.org/solar-companies-sue-over-new-rooftop-solar-tax-in-arizona-13a16311331d/

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/solar-industry-budget-2017-800-per-cent-tax-increase-green-renewable-energy-a7618191.html

Never underestimate the stupidity of government schemes that are designed around keeping people enslaved.

ChromaticAngel posted...

emblem boy posted...

While I feel for those wanting it because of global warming concerns, I don't feel confident that this would have that much of an impact. Not much that I've read really show that green roof is that impactful.

You clearly haven't read anything. When an entire neighborhood is outfitted with solar panels, it actually provides more energy than it uses, meaning it's a net positive source of energy to the grid that it's connected to.

I think there are some that would disagree with that assessment. Mainly when it comes to how those savings end up being passed to the people.

Also, the green roof isn't solely about solar panels. It's about plant life and/or solar panels
---

shockthemonkey posted...

Soure for both these things

I dunno about "in most cases several decades" but it is at least plausible

https://evergreensolar.com/cost-savings/the-nitty-gritty-of-roi/

with respect to the making people who use solar pay for the privilege:

https://thinkprogress.org/new-fees-on-utah-solar-customers-e4c7c2507008/

I dunno how prominent this is, but it is one of those ALEC-style bills that has been attempted in many states
---