Top Story
What Michelle Obama Means to Us
My Journey to the Top
 
 
Latest News
Obama intensifies focus with economy in free fall
 
 
expand
PROJECT GREEN

The Bad News About Green Architecture

Sustainable buildings are virtuous, but they can be ugly. Only a few designs are truly great.

By Cathleen McGuigan | NEWSWEEK
Published Sep 6, 2008
From the magazine issue dated Sep 15, 2008

« Return to Article

 
Discuss
 
Member Comments
  • Posted By: Wagner @ 10/01/2008 6:29:40 AM

    Comment: Interesting article. I recommend that you view the cargo container based work of DeMaria Design in southern California. These architects have appeared to create an innovative structural system that is "upcycled". While most of the container applications I have seen look exactly like rusty old metal boxes, there is far more going on with the work of this office - these containers are appealing. Like Shigeru Ban, DeMaria seems immersed in the exploration of applying new principles to the entirety of design, not just green washing! Quality at an affordable price isn't a new concept but the process by which this architect goes about achieving it is pioneering. I'm interested in relevant comments on this work.

  • Posted By: Wagner @ 10/01/2008 6:29:23 AM

    Comment: Interesting article. I recommend that you view the cargo container based work of DeMaria Design in southern California. These architects have appeared to create an innovative structural system that is "upcycled". While most of the container applications I have seen look exactly like rusty old metal boxes, there is far more going on with the work of this office - these containers are appealing. Like Shigeru Ban, DeMaria seems immersed in the exploration of applying new principles to the entirety of design, not just green washing! Quality at an affordable price isn't a new concept but the process by which this architect goes about achieving it is pioneering. I'm interested in relevant comments on this work.

  • Posted By: techie22 @ 09/28/2008 4:40:38 PM

    Comment: What is more important? Form or Function?

    This is an age old battle between engineers and marketeers.
    Engineers want it to work and marketeers want it to look good.

    The recent influx of branding and "cool appearance" vs an item
    that actually works has created a sense of planned obsolescence.
    This accompanied by reduced cost for that "cool" look and you end
    up with a worthless peice of crap that needs to be replaced often.

    Another example of greed out weighing the benefit to the consumer
    of a quality item. Lack of quality contributes to more waste filling our
    landfills and constant expenditures to replace broken items.

    This is fundamentally wrong for an evolving society that needs to be
    a steward of the earth's ecology as opposed to a destroyer of it.

  • Posted By: David Barrie @ 09/28/2008 1:51:36 PM

    Comment: All true - and well put. But rather than a cute counterblast, outline for us the paradigm shift that needs to take place in order for key strands of sustainable development such as the linkage between transportation systems, food systems and the built environment to happen in a way that is truly 'green'. Then suggest how that might be marketed and turned in to something that we want to buy. No offense but you're tilting at an easy windmill.

  • Posted By: engg @ 09/26/2008 5:20:23 PM

    Comment: After spending almost a year looking at the local real estate market, I bought a 75-year old house, based on its fundamental soundness. Courtesy of its overbuilt sub roof, it now has a 100 year cement tile roof with gutters and downspouts leading into a (restored and expanded) 28000gal. cistern, which supplies 3 acres worth of neighbors (10 households) with irrigation water. None of this is LEED certifiable, it's just a case of 8 years of drought out of the last 12 years and wanting to keep my vegetable garden despite city water restrictions. Oh yeah, and it's a DIY project, but with everything fully inspected and approved.
    It's also a house on its third owner--all of whom have cared enough to avoid bottom-dollar cost-managed look-good crap that passes for "luxury" in this day and age, while ignoring the long game. After all, everyone moves every 5 years, right?

    One hallmark of good design is that you are not aware of it until you find yourself in its absence. We have ignored that for many years, now, and it's good to hear about someone in architecture who has actually grasped the necessity for thinking in a different direction.
    I don't care whether or not anyone in this discussion believes in global warming for any reason, but I do care about how much it costs me to repair and maintain a house.

    Based on this, I will alway take better build quality with less "luxury" over the bleating sheeps' call for granite countertops and bathrooms too big to clean easily. Better insulation translates into lower heating and cooling costs. Sub-floor drainage and ceramic tile surfaces translates into longer service life expectancy and easier clean up when a pipe does blow. We are getting what we have paid for, and the reason behind the "ugly" buildings is because possessing large amounts of money does not imply intelligence about anything but how to get large amounts of money.

  • Posted By: piinalu @ 09/26/2008 1:54:52 PM

    Comment: Thanks for articulating something that's been bugging me for awhile. This typically shallow pop-culture approach that creates fads instead of a trends, is dangerous for something as significant as this. And acerbusiii, I think you're the ridiculous one and have totally missed the point. Making some splashy changes without addressing underlying issues does more harm than good. I think this is an excellent piece that highlights the need for a comprehensive approach to the issue of sustainability.

  • Posted By: justdowd7 @ 09/24/2008 9:31:24 PM

    Comment: This is a very accurate article detailing the "trend" of Sustainable Architecture. Sadly, the market is quite taken with the glamour of the idea but resists the change required to adapt to a more sustainable built environment. Calling something "green" does not make it so; rather it is the result of a nifty advertising campaign. Most green buildings are like Hummer's with a solar panel on top. Yes the radio may be powered by alternative energy, but everything else is the same Hummer, with the same unnecessary consumptive qualities. Piano designs wise buildings, but he is not the first. Architecture is more than a strategy of product placement, which is all the "green" building movement gives credence for. For instance, LEED gives significant points for placing a bike rack outside, rather not if it is possible to ride a bike to the building???s location. Unfortunately, this trend continues our structures down the dreary path of real estate wonder, where by our concerns are kept to maximizing square footage. These are the places we inhabit, live, work, birth, and die. Do we want our lives to be lived only on the basis of quantity with little thought given to quality? Beyond the shiny pamphlets and cool advertising lies a building, which is either pleasant or unpleasant regardless of what products it contains. The architecture if done well will incorporate the experience, the possibilities, be thoughtful and be provocative. Well designed buildings have always been sustainable; this new trend cannot change this fact.

  • Posted By: acerbusiii @ 09/24/2008 6:31:10 PM

    Comment: This article is ridiculous. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You say you would like sustainability to be integrated into normal design, to the point where it is commonplace. Well, unless there are tax credits, LEED, and trumpeting of green features that will never happen. The word needs to get out, people need to get excited, and it needs to stay in our conciousness.

    You bring up the fact that driving or flying to these green structures is not sustainable. So should we not build them green and be even less sustainable? Those are two different issues - you are muddying the waters.

    You are right that we should green up existing structures. We should also re-use materials from a structure when it is torn down and something new is built. We should also build sustainably when building new buildings. All of these things should be done, and each is as important as the other.

    From my perspective GREEN should come first, and then we can learn how to design around that. Not the other way around. I'll take a healthy planet for my kids over you having better curb appeal, thank you.

  • Posted By: acerbusiii @ 09/24/2008 6:30:31 PM

    Comment: This article is ridiculous. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You say you would like sustainability to be integrated into normal design, to the point where it is commonplace. Well, unless there are tax credits, LEED, and trumpeting of green features that will never happen. The word needs to get out, people need to get excited, and it needs to stay in our conciousness.

    You bring up the fact that driving or flying to these green structures is not sustainable. So should we not build them green and be even less sustainable? Those are two different issues - you are muddying the waters.

    You are right that we should green up existing structures. We should also re-use materials from a structure when it is torn down and something new is built. We should also build sustainably when building new buildings. All of these things should be done, and each is as important as the other.

    From my perspective GREEN should come first, and then we can learn how to design around that. Not the other way around. I'll take a healthy planet for my kids over you having better curb appeal, thank you.

  • Posted By: papillon @ 09/22/2008 2:15:38 PM

    Comment: clap clap..c l a p. let's also complain about the resources abound that you and your family can't help not to waste in your fast-paced consumerist mentality that has stricken all americans; a trend that will take a l o n g time to reverse. so, while you and your family are scarfing down fast food, because mommy and/or daddy has a deadline; try looking at yourself in the mirror first before you reveal to the populous just how cynical and petty you really are when you stoop to find the least bit of excuse as to why someone else's efforts toward a more sustainable mentality don't do it for you. yeah, i think about all the fuel it takes for people to fly to vegas, but are you going to think about that on your next trip to europe? instead of dwelling on things that are out of anyone's control, try to focus on how YOU can make a difference, especially by not catching yourself in your own wave of hypocracy. hypocracy IS ugly.

    • Posted By: piinalu @ 09/26/2008 1:57:47 PM

      Comment: Wow... just needed to come to the environmental page to find the lefty version of the political page's Christian fundamentalist. Didn't see that coming...

  • Posted By: greenola @ 09/21/2008 1:49:37 PM

    Comment: Seriously??? Take a look a the evolution of the automobile. Can you imagine somebody actually liking the design aesthetic of a 2008 vehicle back in 1957? I don't think so. They'd want to know why it looked like an airplane. With that being said, even today you probably wonder why electric cars, and the like, looks so funny with their small compact size and their low rear wheel wells. What it comes down to is a new notion designers have today about what they do, and it is called deep design. Usability, efficiency, practicability, and much more are now taken into account. That is why the look of design is evolving. Let me guess, you don't have an appreciation for your children's music either?

  • Posted By: greenola @ 09/21/2008 1:48:46 PM

    Comment: Seriously??? Take a look a the evolution of the automobile. Can you imagine somebody actually liking the design aesthetic of a 2008 vehicle back in 1957? I don't think so. They'd want to know why it looked like an airplane. With that being said, even today you probably wonder why electric cars, and the like, looks so funny with their small compact size and their low rear wheel wells. What it comes down to is a new notion designers have today about what they do, and it is called deep design. Usability, efficiency, practicability, and much more are now taken into account. That is why the look of design is evolving. Let me guess, you don't have an appreciation for your children's music either?

  • Posted By: ZED designs @ 09/21/2008 11:20:29 AM

    Comment: This is America, people are accustomed to comfort in their temperature controlled cars, very little ride bicycles. You would have to change the mentality of an entire population, I personally think that sustainable design not green design (that the commercial term) is a good way to start.

  • Posted By: convex @ 09/21/2008 3:44:33 AM

    Comment: It's funny to me that the things that really make buildings both livable and green-- like tankless water-heaters that double as radiant floor heating systems, and basic insulation and weather-proofing in the rented homes of America-- are so absent from the "green architecture" craze. OK- windows that open are a good start, but as McGuigan points out, driving 40 miles to work from a climate controlled McMansion (or flying to Vegas from same) makes a mockery of the green craze. Real green progress will be more mundane than glitzy, more bicycle than prius, and more kazoo than Piano. Building monuments to green missses the point.

  • Posted By: timothymoriarity @ 09/19/2008 4:51:37 AM

    Comment: [Subject] StateDemocracy.org Equips You for the 2008 Elections

    Dear Citizen:
    Are you ready yet for the November 4th Elections? How about your friends, family, and neighbors?
    More Americans are expected to vote this year than ever before in history, so don???t be left out! Be sure to ask everyone you know the following questions:
    ??? Are you registered to vote? If you moved recently, have you updated your voter registration?
    ??? Did you apply for an Absentee Ballot? Do you know your state may not require any reason?
    ??? Can you find your local Polling Place? Do you know it may have changed from last time?
    The answers to these questions -- and all your voting needs -- can be found at www.StateDemocracy.org -- the FREE 1-Stop citizen empowerment portal that Delivers Democracy to your Desktop! StateDemocracy is among the Internet???s first (since 2001) and most encompassing civic empowerment tools.
    In order to boost voter participation this year, StateDemocracy.org is offering FREE widgets for all 50 states. You can simply download and embed these widgets into your own website so your visitors can register to vote, get an absentee ballot or find their local polling place.
    Lobby Congress Via StateDemocracy
    StateDemocracy.org also equips you to maintain an active dialog with your state and federal lawmakers once they are elected. And RIGHT NOW is an especially opportune time to contact your U.S. Senators and House Member, as Congress takes up major legislation on such issues as offshore oil drilling, another economic stimulus package and all federal appropriations bills over the next few weeks.
    As you lobby your elected officials, remember that lawmakers view your constituent input as reflective of scores of other citizens who felt similarly, but didn???t have (or take) the time to share their opinions.
    LobbyDelegates.com Further Empowered Grassroots Voices
    Over the past 5 months, you may have visited www.LobbyDelegates.com, along with 26,000 other visitors. This latest public interest portal by the StateDemocracy Foundation remained the only online tool enabling rank-and-file Democrats to lobby all 800+ Super Delegates on which candidate to back for the party???s Presidential nomination.
    StateDemocracy Foundation Website Users Unite!
    Many of you have used our StateDemocracy.org and LobbyDelegates.com tools in recent times, and have hopefully found your experience uplifting and empowering. I encourage all of you to help spread the news about StateDemocracy.org to enable more of our fellow citizens to Connect! Engage! And Empower!
    Sincerely,
    Ken Laureys, Executive Director
    StateDemocracy Foundation
    Ken.Laureys@StateDemocracy.org

    P.S. If you are interested in becoming more involved in our StateDemocracy Foundation -- including volunteering as an Advisory Board Member -- please contact me.

  • Posted By: nchacon @ 09/16/2008 3:32:24 PM

    Comment: What surprisingly wasn't mentioned in this article is that the Palazzo in Las Vegas qualified as LEED certified while still allowing smoking indoors. This has set an unfortunate precedent in the city as many other casinos are following suit- becoming green certified, allowing smoking, and collecting tens in millions of dollars in tax rebates from the counties and state of Nevada. The US Green Building Council should end this disingenous practice of allowing smoking, when clean indoor air is supposed to be a requirement for certification, and calling a building green. If casinos really want to qualify, they need to fully commit and end smoking indoors. Until then, let's not pretend that these buildings are actually environmentally clean and healthy.

  • Posted By: nchacon @ 09/16/2008 3:27:13 PM

    Comment: The amazing thing that hasn't been mentioned is that the Palazzo in Las Vegas still allows smoking indoors, even though they qualified as a LEED certified building. This has set an unfortunate precedent in Las Vegas, as other casinos are set to follow suit, while collecting tens of millions of dollars in tax rebates from the state of Nevada. The US Green Building Council needs to put an end to the disingenous practice of allowing buildings to qualify as green despite not meeting one of the mandatory requirements. Surely we all agree that a green building cannot be smoke-filled.

  • Posted By: jath123 @ 09/16/2008 9:20:47 AM

    Comment: Oh thank you, thank you, thank you. I am in awe at how many resources architects are willing to burn to build a "green" building when there are less intensive alternatives (which don't receive a tax credit). What people don't seem to get is that how much energy a house or car uses in only half the equation; the other half is how much energy and and how many resources are used to build it. In that regard, if you want to have a truly "green" impact, then don't buy a brand new house or car. Buy one that is a couple of years old, but in "new" condition more or less. Your purchase of a used Ford Focus is a greener alternative than purchasing a brand new Prius.

  • Posted By: jeanot15 @ 09/14/2008 11:22:16 PM

    Comment: I have taught over 3500 architects and interior designers for CE about the basics of "green architecture" for the past 8 years and what you expressed in your article is what I have screamed and yelled and told those people from the beginning. Everybody and his/hers grandmother is into "green". Just add a bamboo floor and a toilet with dual flush and you are on your way to get LEED certified. Don't worry about using vynil and PVC, because
    the USGBC consider them as safe products although all the studies not controlled by the industry seems to prove otherwise. So anyone can put a green loogo on anything and everyone can feel good.
    Trying to keep it simple doesn't seem to be what people want, trying to look at ancient solutions and adapting to our ways of life sounds to complicated for most and so we continue wasting energy, not knowing anyway how it is made and believing our soon to be out VP, telling on TV that we are going to need between 1300 and 1900 new power plants in the next 20 years which means that we will need to build a new one every week. (Is the guy nutty or what?) and the may be next prez who also want about the same amount. (What kind of maniacs are they?) And we waste water because we are certain there is plenty of it and anyway (as I have heard it so many times) we can alwayas install a desalination plant. Not too many people want to hear that nuclear power plants evaporat several billions of gallons of water everyday. My local paper (Sarasota Herald Tribune) published one of my letters omitting the mention about water for fear of upsetting the power company. So things need to be brought out to the people at large so they will pay attention to the promotiopns and start asking real questions about "how green is this building." So continue your kind of rants, you may wake up so people who look like they have their heads in a very dark place, terribly poluted.

  • Posted By: Ackgas @ 09/14/2008 3:20:39 PM

    Comment: I live in Nantucket and work for the Propane company over here. I've seen the inception of the McMansion 20 years ago to todays' layout of guest cotages, pool houses complete with outside commercial kitchens(for that special event!) heated garages and of course the primary dwelling with a movie theatre and full spa and weight room......Scary.. But the green movement as your article says has captured the most wastefull of people and actually allowed them to appear to be green.. Multi millionares purchase a Smart Car (to go along with all the larger ones they have) and head to town for a 400 dollar meal feeling vindicated while their pool is heating and the AC is on back at the "ranch".......? Ya, going green is really more about feeling good than anything.. Buy yourself some window seal kits this winter and you'll save a bunch of money.. Listen to Al Gore and you'll give up your car while the rich "greens" are seen driving "smart".....

  • Posted By: Skeptic503 @ 09/13/2008 5:03:07 PM

    Comment: McGuigan states that New Orleans shotgun houses "are built high off the ground to resist flood damage." I estimate that the sill plate of the example shotgun house shown in the accompanying picture can't be more than 42" off the ground. As "flood protection" in New Orleans that is laughable.

  • Posted By: Skeptic503 @ 09/13/2008 4:58:35 PM

    Comment: McGuigan states that New Orleans shotgun houses "are built high off the ground to resist flood damage." I estimate that the sill plate of the example shotgun house shown in the accompanying picture can't be more than 42" off the ground. As "flood protection" in New Orleans that is laughable.

  • Posted By: Matt_A @ 09/12/2008 8:40:42 PM

    Comment: I propose that there be a market for LEED points.

    A project may consist of two buildings on a single lot; or two buildings on adjacent lots, or two buildings across the street from each other... or a series of buildings stretched along a transit line.. There should be no impediment, therefore, for a project to consist of two components, one in, say Manhatten, and one in, oh, Bangladesh. The Bangladesh component could certainly furnish sustainable components sufficient to gain the LEED points necessary for the NY component to obtain Platinum certification.

    It would be a simple matter to set up a consortium or brokerage house to act as the exchange agent for LEED points.

    A solution such as this would have the distinct advantage of acquiring LEED points in areas of the world where construction practices are inherently sustainable, and have a great appetite for cash. The disparity between the cost of complying with LEED requirements in such a place, and the marketing value in the other place would certainly support healthy profits for such an entrepreneurial service.

    Saving the planet is a global imperative, is it not? The benefits of such a market are compelling.

  • Posted By: sdesigna @ 09/11/2008 8:03:04 PM

    Comment: It is said that "Green" is the Snake Oil of the 21st century.
    SO much hype about common sense and the practical use of sites and materials.
    SO much hoop-la over "features" when the key component to High Performance Buildings is Integrative Design and Design Honesty. I saw recently that there are Green TV Channels .....mercy.....!!!
    The Life Cycle Costing associated with LEED Certified Buildings will indeed set the bar for REAL and Measurable benefits for the facilities at hand - What needs to be reviewed in the Design Studios is the mandate that "Green is Beautiful" NOW - not that it can be ..............down the line.
    Beauty goes beyond aesthetics though to the quality of the air one breaths in a space and the amount of natural daylight and views each inhabitant has access to - It's a big topic, I'm glad you opened the lid a bit more to entertain discussions along these lines. David K. Sargert,LEED AP - sargertdesign.com

  • Posted By: melmoth @ 09/11/2008 11:56:13 AM

    Comment: Only a few buildings out of any defined subset will be great designs, don't you think? Sustainable features, virtuous or not, certainly do not automatically confer beauty on a building; neither does avoiding them. The whole argument is a red herring. What is more important is a holistic discussion of a building's "beauty", including, yes, a consideration of how long it will remain standing, partially a consequence of its perceived beauty; a consideration of the SERIOUS ugliness associated with many business-as-usual design features- ugliness at the plant that manufactures PVC, the landfill that receives 40% of its waste from construction, and the like; and yes, consideration of the context for the building, witness the tumultuous debate over Britain's proposed eco-towns and the cited silliness of promoting ":green" in Nevada. The asides about LEED leave out any mention of the fact that it is evolving and that its limitations and blind spots are understood, and in the process of being addressed. It will a happy day when every design article or building review comments on these matters, as well as whatever beauty is on display.

  • Posted By: mpariseau @ 09/10/2008 4:23:44 PM

    Comment: "If it isn't appealing no one will care for it. If no one cares for it, it will not last. Beauty is sustainable." Mark Simon, FAIA, Centerbrook

  • Posted By: mpariseau @ 09/10/2008 4:21:58 PM

    Comment: If it isn't appealing no one will care for it. If no one cares for it, it will not last. Beauty is sustainable. Mark Simon, FAIA, Centerbrook

  • Posted By: S. Homestead @ 09/10/2008 5:18:55 AM

    Comment: The problem is twofold. Greedy builders are not going to use ICF construction when it costs 15% more to build that way. Never mind that the Isulating concrete forms quickly pay for themselves in saved energy costs. The uneducated buyers just want a fancy looking house. They don't understand that the cheap "stick built" McMansions end up costing them more while the builders profit.

  • Posted By: goldenmatt @ 09/08/2008 1:33:50 PM

    Comment: This author is right on. The real issue is not fancy new technologies and super houses. It is building smarter and fixing the 107M existing homes in the US that constitute 21% of the US carbon footprint. US homes emit 2x the green house gasses as passenger cars in the US ??? and while new super green homes are sexy, they don???t represent a path to real impact on climate or energy costs to the average consumer.
    By reducing existing home energy use by 20% to 30%, which can be done easily with existing technology such as insulation, lighting, air leakage, bad ducts, fridges , we could have see a 5% drop in US emissions. We would also keep those dollars in our local communities; help the poor who are hit hardest by energy costs, and employee thousands of non-outsourced Americans. Not a bad deal; and we don???t need to wait for the hydrogen highway or nano-solar, we can do it today with every day products and technologies, engineered and installed correctly as part of a system.
    Companies like Sustainable Spaces (www.sustainablespaces.com) in San Francisco, are leading this charge, helping home owners understand their home as a system to make smart choices to have real results on energy, indoor air quality, and comfort. With smart decisions, rather than chasing the next hyped up widget, we can have real improvements in quality of life, while saving energy, with very fast return on investment.
    We have all the knowledge and technologies we need to affordably convert every house into a smart green home, with low energy costs, a healthy environment for our families, and better comfort.

    • Posted By: ReachingHigher @ 09/23/2008 10:56:34 AM

      Comment: I agree 100% with Matt.There is a corporation in Traverse City,Mi. called Corwin Industries found by Tom Corwin that has deveolped products and systems that save 30-40% of your energy charges for residences & commercial bldgs-proven over the last 7 yrs.Tom was a home builder for 40+ yrs. and kept saying -"there has to be a better way.He found it.You can check out his website: www.savingmoneyonutilitybills.com or check out Cowin Industries LLC on Google.The bottom line is that you can recoup the cost of his system in 3 yrs.Thats Revoultionary !!1

  • Posted By: white trash @ 09/08/2008 12:43:45 PM

    Comment: There is and always has been only one green. The label green was seeded the day the father of ecology witnessed a wolf die and then, the subsequent death of an entire ecosystem die in the absence of its wolf. He watched, " a fierce, green fire die" in the fading eyes of the dying wolf. Green Fire signals an ecological consciousness and a comprehension that ecosystems are the living, life-gifting, physical body of ecosystem dependent Earth.

    Today, the only green that matters is the salvation and the conservation of Earth's ecosystems and their biodiversity, like the wolf of long ago. All the green buildings, cars and toilet scrubbers are irrelevant -- if mankind continues on his war path of killing the body and face of Earth and pushing biodiversity extinct. The problems with buildings and renewable energies are, inherently, they still kill the body of Earth. Therein lies the enigma; mankind is slathering Earth with buildings, roads to build windmill factories and bury the face of Earth under solar panels. Attempting to go green while killing ecosystems and pushing the animals and plants extinct that create and govern the very life of the entire system is still, butchering the life of Earth.

    Every foot of natural, wild landscapes and its wild animals and native plants, is one more foot of dead planet, as life-gifting as Mars. Buildings, roads, construction, slathering, paving, burying, parking lots, freeways and cities, i.e., "heat islands" are all dead planet. Building green buildings and churning up the earth and planting ornamental weeds that are all, so-called green, is like trying to squelch a raging fire with a spray bottle.

    The salvation and protection of Earth's ecosystems, and ecosystems' native animals and plants are the only green and will always be the only green. See any green, thriving, life-gifting color of green on Mars? See any wolves? Trees, songbirds, bison, elk, frogs or lizards. Or oxygen? Now, we're talking green. Going, going, going.

  • Posted By: GShorey @ 09/08/2008 3:07:57 AM

    Comment: There isn't a more apt description of the status quo than what you put across. In fact, at a recent exhibition on Le Corbusier's works, i noticed that the one thing common to all his drawings was a little wind-rose diagram in the corner. God alone knows how (ever since the advent of glass clad monstrosities, with artificial space conditioning) those little guiding symbols have disappeared from our minds and resultantly from our designs. Secondly, beauty is a result of a largely accepted architectural aesthetic: a largely notional / interpretational concept. Who knows how the green movement will transform the larger / acceptable ideas of beauty as we accept them today?

  • Posted By: Mwalimu @ 09/07/2008 11:43:45 PM

    Comment: I live in a 3 story walk-up condo in a grungy neighborhood in Los Angeles. My condo is as grungyas the neighborhood, but at least I own the roof over my head. The building my condo is in is not green. (although if I manage the windows and curtains properly I can get by without using heating or air conditioning.) and it fits in with the neighborhood an assortment of an ugly multi-story eye sores. (I can't help that. I have to live where I can afford to live.)
    Granted. green and beauty do not go hand-in-hand, but a lot of ugly buildings are very un-green.

    • Posted By: Juventus800 @ 09/09/2008 11:32:04 AM

      Comment: In reply to Mwalimu, green and beauty go perfectly hand in hand. More perfectly that we could have ever planned ourselves. It is the synthesis of natural, physical law with our needs and requirements in buildings. What is more beautiful than that? If design is the process of synthesis and reconciliation, green parameters only make the designer's job easier, by providing a guide, a restraint, and limit, and thus intensifying the final outcome, resulting in a beauty unmatched by the arbitrary architect's whim of past convention.

  • Posted By: Donza @ 09/07/2008 11:28:07 PM

    Comment: The future is looking fine for Plumbing becoming an exciting feature of the building - it's about time. Sustainable Water Use is more than installing water efficent fixtures and fittings, it takes in a large global view equal to the comments given above. Transport and treatment of water is critical - energy used to transport and treat water is obvious but the GHGs from the wastewater treatment has to be considered (CH3 and N2O). The embodied water of buildings can be equivalent to 20 years of domestic water consumption let alone taking in consideration of replacment of items such as carpet. Studies have show at best there is 15kL to 20kL of embodied water per m2 of a building - the figure is likely to be higher.

    As far as architectual appeal of a building, put the plumbing on the outside!!

  • Posted By: techie22 @ 09/07/2008 3:04:10 PM

    Comment: Beauty in the eye of the beholder

    Maybe some of us see the beauty of High Schools like TC Williams in Alexandria
    that was built green and is reaping the reduced maint cost of that initial investment.
    Home of the mighty mighty Titans, remember?

    Don't let people convince you that the look is more important than the function.
    Haven't we had enough of the empty branding tweak-n-flip house-of cards mentality.

    Don't we just want something that does what it says it's gonna do? For God's sake YES !

 
 
Reply
Cancel
 
 
Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

Cancel
 
The Peek
 
 
STRATEGIES
Daniel Lyons

Isn't it ironic: Xerox is hoping it can profit by teaching companies how to reduce their printing.

Sponsored by
 
 
 
 
JUSTICE
Michael Isikoff

Related Stories

Sponsored by
 
 
 
loadingLoading Menu