|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Kevin Matthews
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 499
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1739
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 8:41 pm Post subject: |
    |
|
You where right -that is a bold initiative.
I'm feeling like a conservative all of a sudden:)
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1128
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | No credits, just prerequisites |
the Cascadia Region has got it right.
the French HQE (higher environmental quality) is not an after-the-event check to see how many points a buildings has - it is the across-the-board standard to which the building is REQUIRED to be built.
when one looks at the pie-chart in the BBC article about British housing, it is obvious that one of the first priorities in British housing is to stop them being so wasteful of energy. It is ironic that this should still need to be said because when environmental issues first became a direct concern over thirty years ago, British architects were actively and enthusiastically in the front-line.
the logical progression is not only the advantage of clean new buildings, but the disadvantages of "dirty" buildings.
transport is mentioned, but isn't it crucial ?
this is a larger version of the cleaning up of the air in British cities almost half a Century ago. London was suffocated in pollution so thick that it resulted in the "pea-souper" smogs which killed many people each year. What caused it ? Coal.
Kevin's initiative is excellent and it will work if the clients - the building owner and users, the general public - become aware of the issue and want clean-not-dirt.
perhaps the mortgage organisations should be made aware that a "dirty" building will be an unsound investment and may become unsaleable - if a "dirty" building is unsaleable, and "clean" becomes good investment, that should speed things up a bit.
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
birgco
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 302
|
| Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Richard is on track with his point about the necessity of viewing clean buildings as good investments. Energy efficient homes and commercial buildings are increasingly being viewed as more valuable and as this trend continues only the truly energy efficient should be in demand.
There have always been leaders in the quest to demonstrate the wisdom of building with energy efficiency, but the economic benefit may have to be a larger part of the decision making process for the bulk of potential users to come on board. This highlights the need for all levels of government to increase incentives (subsidies and tax breaks) for producers and end users. Only when the general public and business leaders are sufficiently convinced/educated that alternative energy technology is the smart investment, will the benefits of mass production take effect. The mindset of "I can't afford energy efficient technology" is slowly changing as consumers realize fossil fuels are only getting more costly (dollar wise and environmentally) and they can invest now or pay a lot more down the road. The call to achitecture firms around the world is a huge step in the push for leadership with this challenge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lekizz
millennium club
Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 1042
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, we have a world where the major powers are slowly and reluctantly coming to terms with the need for action against climate change. And this article provides a compelling argument for our case backed up with authoritive statistics. And a demand for a month of militant action in 12 months time. I am a great enthusiast for making architecture political, so I have no qualms with this initiative in theory!
But I am wondering who this demand is being aimed at. Who are the partners (or potential partners) in this action? It seems, very evidently by the number of trained architects and the number of architectural bodies 'on side' that the problem is not architects or architecture firms. It seems to me that the barriers we face are from government (lack of) action and client conservatism/apathy. How are these overwhelmingly significant barriers going to be overcome? And how will the architectural practises (such as my own employer) whose bread and butter is very large, £multi-million schemes, going to be in a position to drop these schemes for a month in 2009?
I don't wish to sound negative, I am just asking whether these issues have been considered and what the answers might be. The action will only be a success if it breaks into the conciousness of the big players. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1739
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't see that this is a workable proposal unless all companies would unite and I don't see a possibility of that happening any time soon.
Since the US is generally very big believers in the free market system and non governmental interference (unless it is in our own benefit), I think we will be stuck with waiting for oil to get really expensive (I don't see that taking more than 20 years). My guess is that this will most likely cause a world wide depression that makes the 1930's look like a picnic. That will put the breaks on carbon emissions.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1093
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
| Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Great points expressed and questions raised. There has indeed been some thinking about those "partners" questions - all those players in the building process are indeed the necessary partners for change - we'll be getting more details for all kinds of partners up soon.
In the long run, the participation of big firms is essential for real change. In the short term, to get things rolling a little faster, I think firms of any size can provide leadership.
In the next few days we'll have a web system for firms to register their pledge and start exchanging on what it takes to make this happen.
Truly a big step - and yet small compared to the need - 20 years is so much too long to take, and already even a bunch of slow governments have pledged for real change by 2020. Keep talking it up and over! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1739
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, unfortunately a lot of other countries are smarter than we are. They look to the future to see what is coming and prepare for it. Where as the US uses the tumbling tumbleweed approach. We just let the market take us in any direction it wants.
As long as electricity is cheap we will use it thoughtlessly. I went to a performance at a local church yesterday. Even though it was in the middle of the day and they had adequate day lighting every single light was turned on (probably at least 20,000 watts) The weather was great but of coarse they had the doors shut and the AC blasting.
We can't have waste police running around making sure everyone conserves. The only way is to make energy so expensive that people conserve it for their own benefit.
As I have said and you pointed out in your article "green" isn't often very green anyway. We can build all the LEED, and EnergyStar buildings we want and still not actually reduce our carbon emissions.
Just like the auto industry, gas engines are actually about 30% more efficient than they where 30 years ago but the average car gets 2mpg less.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1128
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 10:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chris
I don't think that it is a question of other countries being smarter (though looking at some of the Yale and Harvard graduates hanging around your government, it does give an unfavourable impression).
the tumbling-tumbleweed approach comes from America having a market-driven economy and a market-driven society. Therefore changes, such as wanting to avoid waste, have to be seen as being advantageous. With a recent history of waste being seen as a sign of wealth, it will not be an easy message to get across - but if "clean" is good and sensible investment then the message may get through faster than expected.
in a country like France, the central influence of initiatives being good for the country, for the people, and so for the family in France is powerful. So in France to have schools, hospitals, social facilities built to a standard which shows a high level of environmental awareness and responsibility is a message which filters down very fast.
and Britain ? Lekizz is right. So many of what were public projects (49% of the architectural workload) are now undertaken in a "privatized' manner that the architects may find it very difficult to get a realistic response in trying to change attitudes. There are a few very good developers in Britain, but the idea that most of them and the contractors will become shining beacons of social responsibility .......
like the 2mpg less, I understand that the average speed of traffic in central London is now several mph slower than it was in the 1890's.
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1093
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1739
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here is something interesting I found which tries to define sustainability.
What is The Natural Step framework?
http://www.ortns.org/framework.htm
This is a pretty good basic framework.
The more I look at programs like LEED and the Living Building Challenge, the more I see how good we are and thinking up complicated and expensive ways of doing nothing. I think that the people who make up these schemes are actually just trying to find a good paying job for themselves and not actually trying to make a better society. We can pay them to tell us that our mega buildings are actually good for the environment. 
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djswan
Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 673
Location: Montana, USA
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
That does look good Chris,
The please please please architects do nice things approach, isn't going to work, when what they need is thier ass kicked and some gold and silver ripped off thier collars. Back to boot camp for you all.
_________________
n/a |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lekizz
millennium club
Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 1042
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Back to opportunistic architect-bashing again ...yawn! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djswan
Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 673
Location: Montana, USA
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It was open. I had to take the shot:D  Opportunity not taken is lost. Sorry for the boring fight. Punch'em in the mouths, while thier yawning and basking in thier own self importance, doesn't make for an exciting fight, but it will wake 'em up or knock 'em out, both will lead to the desired outcome.
Chow. Good luck trying to circle the wagons with those ego's.
_________________
n/a |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djswan
Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 673
Location: Montana, USA
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lekizz wrote: | | Back to opportunistic architect-bashing again ...yawn! |
and respect the fairer species and your elders and eat your vegtables
Derek
_________________
n/a |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
