Go beyond rewards in push for green buildings

The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) wrote that Singapore's building regulations require developers and key stakeholders to meet the minimum standards for thermal performance and effective natural ventilation performance, and that the BCA's Green Mark scheme encourages building projects to minimise energy use ("Efforts towards green building movement"; last Thursday).

If this so, then why have so many condominiums been built that do not meet the requirements?

It does not help for the BCA to reward building projects that achieve the Green Mark standard, if other projects that do not conform to this standard continue to be built.

It is not logical to expect home owners and buyers to support the green building initiative when we are at the mercy of the developers.

Show-flats do not provide any clues on the window designs.

When I first entered my condo unit after it received the Temporary Occupation Permit,

I discovered that there was poor provision for natural ventilation.

Had I known that this unit had such poor airflow, and that I would need to constantly rely on fans or air-conditioners for thermal comfort, I would not have bought it.

My applications to convert my fixed glass panes to normal windows were rejected on grounds that they disrupt the uniformity of the facade.

It is not healthy to live or sleep in air-conditioned stale air.

How are the many residential buildings with such poor natural ventilation design going to benefit from the "green building" movement?

Lim Siat Foong (Ms)

A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Straits Times on November 09, 2015, with the headline 'Go beyond rewards in push for green buildings'. Print Edition | Subscribe