Over the many years my wife and I have owned our Redwood City house, we’ve done what we can to increase its efficiency, both to reduce our utility bills and to make it a more comfortable place in which to live. It took several major projects to get it to where it is today, and during each I found myself wishing we could have just demolished the entire house and started from scratch. I’m happy with the result, but as I watch some of the projects being built around the city — projects designed from the ground up with efficiency in mind and tailor-made for the activities that will take place in them  — I can’t help but think about what could have been with our Redwood City house.

Two Redwood City projects in particular stand out as well-designed for both efficiency and purpose: the city’s soon-to-be-finished Veterans Memorial Senior Center and the county’s latest office building, 500 County Center. I was fortunate to be able to attend the recent ribbon-cutting for the latter. Having watched the evolution of its design and the construction process from start to finish, and now having spent time inside the building, it appears that many of the design choices the county made are really paying off.

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

(1) comment

Terence Y

Thanks for your column today, Mr. Wilson. Although the buildings sound impressive, in the back of my mind are some observations… I would assume if all of us were able to take advantage of someone else’s money, as in taxpayer funds, we’d all renovate/build a home with as many bells and whistles as possible.

You say the new building is the "greenest" civic building in the US but is the building truly green and “net zero energy.”? How much carbon was emitted to obtain the raw materials, manufacture, and transport the solar panels on the roof? How much carbon was emitted to chop down the wood or manufacture the steel and transport various materials to build these structures? How much will it cost to discard the hazardous waste solar panels after they’ve outlived their useful life? I think a question that should be answered is what ROI, if any, when factoring in the cradle-to-grave life of the building? And could we have saved taxpayers 50% or more by erecting a “standard” building with “standard” maintenance costs?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.

Thank you for visiting the Daily Journal.

Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading. To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.

We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.

A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!

Want to join the discussion?

Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.

Already a subscriber? Login Here