Starchitecture and Sustainability...

[Kevin]

Interesting discussion in an article reprinted at Planetizen.... despite "starchitects" in itself being more a media and social creation, than a deep or concrete independent phenomenon....

Starchitecture and Sustainability: Hope, Creativity, and Futility Collide in Contemporary Architecture
by Josh Stephens
http://www.planetizen.com/node/41489

Can today's contemporary architects, schooled in modernism and invention, in fact incorporate the sort of green building materials and techniques that make a real difference? And does design really matter?

"Not so for Frank Lloyd Wright, Philip Johnson, Mies van der Rohe, and the other luminaries of 20th century architecture. And even less so for their successors. But as the green movement builds under the auspices of everything from Al Gore’s We Campaign to the now common LEED certification, architecture finds itself asking how green it can get—and what green should look like.

"'In the last five years, we've been the instigators and the activists, and today a lot of our clients are demanding it,' said Thom Mayne, winner of the 2005 Pritzker Prize. 'We've become kind of 'green architects' all of a sudden.'

"But, said Mayne, 'green is one of a multiple set of issues.'"

[88]

I think the greenest starchitect will be someone who has quitted the profession. He/She will not design and build any chinzty LEED structure. (He/she will not spend endless hours googling and reading forum like this too as many trees are killed to power this internet habit.)
Any act of building anything is not really green no matter how many LEED points you throw at it. Actually the greenest houses are those that are already built... to make them greener..actually all we have to do is to change our habits a little ..like turning off the computer now...and walk to buy the beer instead of driving the hybrid SUV.

[SDR]

Save the planet by ceasing to communicate with each other ? By not building another new (energy-efficient, recycled and recyclable) building, or another (ditto) vehicle ? We should continue to multiply, but withdraw from even the advances we've made so far, as a civilization -- sort of "cut off our noses to spite our faces" ? Hmm. . .


SDR

[Kevin]

I can appreciate the sentiment - when you become really aware of how heavily and really quite blithely our recent mode of dominant civilization has traversed the capacities of our one planet, as brilliantly worked up here, for instance...
http://www.nature.com/news/specials/planetaryboundaries/index.html

...the challenge of low-impact building seems acute, indeed.

But at the same time, we are here, and we are, most of us in these forums, part of the dominant civilization - that we therefore have the responsibility to turn around. If not us - then who?

And we live in buildings - buildings already carry a large share of climate and other environmental impacts, as we've detailed in ArchitectureWeek - and very much to the point, buildings are our realm of expertise.

Keeping in mind full principles like the ArchitectureWeek Four Leaf Green standard, and others, this diagram of the replacement rate of buildings in the US suggests the potential for us to make a great and much-needed positive impact:



From: http://www.ArchitectureWeek.com/2009/0624/index.html

[cousinbirgco]

If I have to walk to get the beer, it's time to
stop walking the dog and eat the little bugger!

Climate change: Time to eat Fido?
A startling new book claims that pet dogs are more harmful to the environment than SUVs—should we listen?
WORLD NEWS & OPINION•THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 5, - forum abuse - PRINT EMAIL


A new book claims dogs are worse for the environment than sport utility vehicles.
(Corbis/Scott Lowden)
BEST OPINION: PITTSBURGH TRIB-REVIEW, NEW SCIENTIST, WASH. TIMES ...


Dogs cause more damage to our planet than SUVs, according to a controversial new book, Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living. The environmental footprint of an average "resource-guzzling" hound is twice that of a typical sport utility vehicle, say New Zealander researchers Robert and Brenda Vale, who note that a surprising amount of land is required to produce Fido's meals each year (roughly 2 acres). The book has caused a ruckus by saying people should go pet-free—and even consider eating strays. Have environmentalists gone too far?
(Watch a CNN report about SUVs becoming more eco-friendly)

So what is acceptable — pet millipedes? The green movement is becoming "progressively batty," says Ralph Reiland in The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. First we have to "shut down our oil, gas, and coal industries, bike to work," and take the briefest of showers. "Now they want us to cook our dogs"? Apparently, a pet "bug" is the only companion these "hysterical" activists would consider guilt-free.
"Gang Green going to the dogs"

The authors' research is sound: OK, eating our pets "is surely a non-starter," say the editors of New Scientist. But the Vales are right about the science: "Man’s best friend, it turns out, is the planet’s enemy." And while giving up Fido might be "a sacrifice too far," we can take smaller steps. The solution might start with "green, eco-friendly pet food."
"Cute, fluffy and horribly greedy"

You can’t quantify a pet's value: Even if we Americans were to adopt "petless lifestyles," says The Washington Times in an editorial, we’d still be "major carbon offenders in the eyes of the green theocracy." Anyone obsessed with sizing up "carbon pawprints" is missing the point: "A pet’s value, like the worth of a human being, cannot be reduced to a rude carbon quotient." They make us happy, and "that is enough to justify their existence."
"Eat your pets, save the planet"

Why not eat pets? "Dogs are wonderful," says Jonathan Safran Foer in The Wall Street Journal, but they’re not any smarter or more affectionate than pigs. In fact, unlike farmed meat, soon-to-be-put-down strays and runaway pets "are practically begging to be eaten" — and "in a sense," we’re already consuming them. Millions of euthanized cats and dogs are already "rendered" into livestock feed each year. Why not just eliminate this "inefficient…middle step"?
"Let them eat dog"

[88]

Wow..Eat Fido ...and recycle the dog house into a compose bin....great LEED ideas.
In general ... I don't trust all those mandated green criteria.. and many green designers are just regurgitating information provided by the big industries.
In the big picture, most of the green ideas are great ..but many cutting edges green products/idea will be as dated as disco balls in a few years. I think it is better to do sustainable design in a grass root / parochial/ volunteer and common sense way instead of trying to achieve points with latest shiny products from the factories and meeting those "manufactured" design standards.... which are probably cooked up by lobbyists from the major building material manufacturers...
As an independent architect/builder, I think all these green issues will greatly increase our liabilities ...and at the same time lower our thin profit margin even more, as now we will have to spend even more non billable hours trying to sort out the various shades of greens to specify so we can offset our clients' big SUV, big screen TV and big axx dogs..

[djswan]

Haven't eaten dog yet, but I did butcher my rooster the other day. Didn't eat him, fed him to the dogs.

on that note...I'm agreeing with about everything said here. The "green" is a scheme.

Want green? I'm designing grow rooms in houses.
How's that for a gimick?

Walking to get a beer now...

[csintexas]

This is why I never really have been able to get into the spirit of the whole green thing. The only real problem with the world is that there are starting to be more people wanting resources than there are resources.

I know how much my dog eats each month -about $15. My car eats about $100.

I think it is a logical conclusion that my car uses more resources and therefor has a larger footprint. Acreage has nothing to do with it.

Architecture is antithetical to green so I would not hold my breath waiting for architects to lead the way.

From the article:

[SDR]

Well that is certainly one way to look at it. But assuming that we want to go on living on this planet, maybe a "let's do what we can, everything that helps has a place" sort of attitude might get us toward the better place -- while we refine what really works and place solutions in some kind of rational order of preference.

It really is disappointing that so many -- including of course a lot of "fat cats" -- are denying there's a problem, or (failing that) denying there are solutions. Aren't these people really saying, to one degree or another, "I want things to stay as they were, and if enough of us get on board that bus, maybe it really will turn out to be 1948 again" ? (I don't think that's what you're saying, Chris -- but do you know what I mean ?)

It's just not going to happen. The future is going to look different from the past. It always has -- except that (as has been noted for decades) the rate of change itself has been accelerating. And why should we expect it to slow down ? Let's design our future, while we have the chance -- before unmodulated, "raw" change catches up with us ?

SDR

[csintexas]

Denying that there may not be a solution may not be any different though.

We all certainly wish the world was a better place and that people would make the logical sorts of decisions which would tend to produce desirable results but people are not that smart and they are very much a product of evolution.

Personally I don't feel like we finished evolving yet and natural catastrophe seems to act as a stimulus toward positive change. So who knows, in a hundred thousand years there may be some great new theory about how the then modern humans owe their existence to this climate change.

People tend to use the "I'll do it if I have to" method to cope with problems. In other words when they have no other choice they will go green.

[SDR]

I can highly recommend this book

http://tinyurl.com/yz2c5k2

if you have not already found it. One of the most telling episodes is the self-destruction of the society that inhabited Easter Island. They might have seen that they were close to cutting down their last tree -- but no. . .

We may be at a similar point, on several fronts: oceans, water, fuels, specie diversity, etc. We do have a choice, if we can see and understand.

Diamond's point may be yours too -- that we do make a choice, either actively or passively.

I agree with you that people as a whole aren't all that bright -- and of course in developed nations we've all hypnotized ourselves with distractions of every kind. But enough people are seeing it now, and there's hope. At least I'd prefer to think so.

SDR

[csintexas]

If we look at all species we see that it is the natural behavior to expand and consume as much resources as nature permits until the inevitable collapse.

I believe this same strategy is buried within our own genes. We do also have a higher intellect which allows us to potentially overcome our basic wiring but I think it would take a pretty compelling stimulus to do so.

The basic desire to expand and consume is devious and inserts itself in all of our decisions. Hence we have LEED -we can have everything we want as long as we make it "Green".

Just our trade deficit alone should alarm us that we are in trouble. Fossil fuel imports are a very large part of that deficit (maybe all of it). Even a country as large as the US can't maintain 40-80 billion per month deficits for long.

[SDR]

I believe that is a correct assessment of the situation.


SDR

[cousinbirgco]

Green can be a scheme, but I think more accurately it has
tremendous implications/possibilities for turning around a bleak
economy and a poorly managed environment.




Green Building to Support Nearly 8 Million U.S. Jobs Through 2013
Green construction to contribute $554 billion to U.S. economy, new report says.
By:Jennifer Goodman

Despite a challenging economic outlook, green building will support 7.9 million U.S. jobs and pump $554 billion into the American economy--including $396 billion in wages--over the next four years, according to a new report.

The U.S.Green Building Council (USGBC) study by Booz Allen Hamilton also determined that green construction spending currently supports more than 2 million American jobs and generates more than $100 billion in gross domestic product and wages.

The economic impact of the total green construction market from 2000 to 2008, the study found, contributed $178 billion to U.S. gross domestic product; created or saved 2.4 million direct, indirect and induced jobs; and generated $123 billion in wages.

The study considered the total impact of green buildings, from the architects who design them to the construction laborers who pour their foundations to the truck drivers who deliver materials, in recognition of how extensive the impact of green building is, says Gary Rahl, officer of global government market for McLean, Va.-based Booz Allen Hamilton.

“The study demonstrates that investing in green buildings contributes significantly to our nation’s wealth while creating jobs in a range of occupations, from carpenters to cost estimators,” said Rahl. “In many ways, green construction is becoming the standard for development. As a result, it is expected to support nearly 8 million jobs over the next five years, a number four times higher than the previous five years.”

The study, which was released at the USGBC’s Greenbuild Conference in Phoenix last week, validates the work that green building pros do every day, said USGBC founder Rick Fedrizzi.

“Our goal is for the phrase ‘green building’ to become obsolete, by making all building and retrofits green--and transforming every job in our industry into a green job,” said Fedrizzi.

The report also lists the types of jobs created as a result of green building spending, the
average salaries for these positions, and the estimated educational attainment required for each position. It can be downloaded here.

[csintexas]

We could produce jobs any number of ways. In itself this is not a reason for being green. Reagan produced jobs by beefing up the military. We could produce far more jobs simply by not allowing international trade imbalance.

It would help us if we are reducing our need for non domestic fossil fuel consumption but since most of these "green" houses still require automobiles they won't do much to reduce oil imports.

The question becomes are we better as off producing windmills and saving coal or putting the resources into other things (like more efficient cars). Only when we feel coal burning is a detriment to society will we feel that the extra cost is justified.

You can't run an economy on good intentions. Resources have to be used efficiently.

Requiring the medical industry to give each person premium service would also produce domestic jobs.