Why? I don't want to work when I am at home. Can't you just buy some solar-panels at wallmart and slap them on your garage roof? It's the same thing in the end.
It's not education about operation and maintenance people need, it's education about the consequences of their behavior. Design can make operation automatic and maintenance minimal.
Ns,it's been long.Yes but knowing how to use them efficiently is also good,not only for the environment also for the wallet.The fact is that practices must change.
I am talking about this:one of the fact that makes sustainable housing so abstract for some people,is the distance between occupants and equipments.However they are enough suceptible for it.Just see how new phones work.
Yes Ns.Sustainable housing is a new way of living different from the others,we are not talking about hippies.Understanding what time using equipments and further getting used of them is more profitable.
in germany, folks appreciate what the cost of sustainable building gets them
in the us, folks don't give a shit as long as it cheap, meets minimal code and no more, has a master suite, professional appliances, a hot tub, and a 80" flat screen surround sound theater
Most new houses in the US aren't built by the end users they are built by speculative builders/developers. They don't care about life cycle cost, the environment or quality beyond their warranty responsibility. Code requires a minimum amount of insulation, safety and in some locations aesthetic but it would be unlikely someone doing the building for profit would go beyond these minimums unless it made the house sale quicker. As long as people continue to buy their crap they will continue to make it. I doubt a modern developer house has a lifespan of 20 years before major work has to be done. If you put a house of equal size and style side by side and one was built sustainable but cost $10,000 more most people would buy the non sustainable built house to save $10,000. Even if you told them the payback was only 5-10 years. The technology and products will have to reach the tipping point of being equal or even profitable for the builders or actual immediate savings while no significant difference in cost of the equipment for the home owner before this goes wide spread. Early adopters with money will slowly drive the cost down until it goes mainstream but we are a ways from it on most products.
Yup^ demand is created at the top in a consumer culture. houses must be treated as products if one is to attempt to have any effect on sustainable housing . the 99% do not build custom homes. It is financially, culurally, and strategically way out of reach. The arch industry has really failed society by adhering to an old and tired service based business model.
Dec 3, 14 4:47 pm ·
·
What other business model is there?
Is those other business models "practice of architecture"?
These questions needs to be answered and understood. I'll probably through responses that maybe being a pain in the butt but it will be for sake of being able to answer rebuttal of questions. After all, people will ask them so why not.
The future,sustainability.If business men and developers cared about the link betwixt human,society and environment instead of profits,they would see how it must be cheaper in the time for the custom and gainful for themselves.
This is the business model needed.Practicing architecture by being responsible of each others.Therefore developers making money as they want.The things will change,we are not keeping without doing nothing sooner or later.The society is ready for it,all that's missing is politician decision.
Why do i say it?Nowadays i give that it is expensive if you want.But the danger is real.Potician must impose some decisions in terms of equipment like health assurance,without caring about how much it cost,the aim being a global culture change.
The disciple must refrain taking off the live of any creature.He throws his sword and his stick ,and avoids taking off the live of all human creature.
Reaserchers are clear on this point, not far from 50 years remains to petro.About financially sustainability, nyc and chicago of now does not even constitute 50% of their urban density in 50 years. The politician decision could be enforce for the new constructions.
By enforcing people to get a better way of living,even if they don't care,their acts are good.
There is no future for sustainable housing without a culture change in society.
First,it needs educating dwellers about the operations and maintenance of the housing's features ana equipments.
Why? I don't want to work when I am at home. Can't you just buy some solar-panels at wallmart and slap them on your garage roof? It's the same thing in the end.
It's not education about operation and maintenance people need, it's education about the consequences of their behavior. Design can make operation automatic and maintenance minimal.
Ns,it's been long.Yes but knowing how to use them efficiently is also good,not only for the environment also for the wallet.The fact is that practices must change.
And this is news?
Indeed the consequences of their behaviour.What if people could get used of them as with their computers?That's possible.
What the hell are you saying?
Green Man, plenty of good ideas in this thread:
http://archinect.com/forum/thread/112802715/need-a-master-thesis-theme
I am talking about this:one of the fact that makes sustainable housing so abstract for some people,is the distance between occupants and equipments.However they are enough suceptible for it.Just see how new phones work.
Yes Ns.Sustainable housing is a new way of living different from the others,we are not talking about hippies.Understanding what time using equipments and further getting used of them is more profitable.
the distance is the value of money
in germany, folks appreciate what the cost of sustainable building gets them
in the us, folks don't give a shit as long as it cheap, meets minimal code and no more, has a master suite, professional appliances, a hot tub, and a 80" flat screen surround sound theater
rich people and corporations like to be green now, it's chic...but only if the payback is fast and not too expensive.
Most new houses in the US aren't built by the end users they are built by speculative builders/developers. They don't care about life cycle cost, the environment or quality beyond their warranty responsibility. Code requires a minimum amount of insulation, safety and in some locations aesthetic but it would be unlikely someone doing the building for profit would go beyond these minimums unless it made the house sale quicker. As long as people continue to buy their crap they will continue to make it. I doubt a modern developer house has a lifespan of 20 years before major work has to be done. If you put a house of equal size and style side by side and one was built sustainable but cost $10,000 more most people would buy the non sustainable built house to save $10,000. Even if you told them the payback was only 5-10 years. The technology and products will have to reach the tipping point of being equal or even profitable for the builders or actual immediate savings while no significant difference in cost of the equipment for the home owner before this goes wide spread. Early adopters with money will slowly drive the cost down until it goes mainstream but we are a ways from it on most products.
Yup^ demand is created at the top in a consumer culture. houses must be treated as products if one is to attempt to have any effect on sustainable housing . the 99% do not build custom homes. It is financially, culurally, and strategically way out of reach. The arch industry has really failed society by adhering to an old and tired service based business model.
What other business model is there?
Is those other business models "practice of architecture"?
These questions needs to be answered and understood. I'll probably through responses that maybe being a pain in the butt but it will be for sake of being able to answer rebuttal of questions. After all, people will ask them so why not.
The future,sustainability.If business men and developers cared about the link betwixt human,society and environment instead of profits,they would see how it must be cheaper in the time for the custom and gainful for themselves.
This is the business model needed.Practicing architecture by being responsible of each others.Therefore developers making money as they want.The things will change,we are not keeping without doing nothing sooner or later.The society is ready for it,all that's missing is politician decision.
Why do i say it?Nowadays i give that it is expensive if you want.But the danger is real.Potician must impose some decisions in terms of equipment like health assurance,without caring about how much it cost,the aim being a global culture change.
Sustainablity in the USA: Don't live outside NYC or Chicago. The end.
Wonder how many residents of Chicago think to themselves MAN this place is so sustainable.
^ nyc and chicago are not financially sustainable.
The disciple must refrain taking off the live of any creature.He throws his sword and his stick ,and avoids taking off the live of all human creature.
Reaserchers are clear on this point, not far from 50 years remains to petro.About financially sustainability, nyc and chicago of now does not even constitute 50% of their urban density in 50 years. The politician decision could be enforce for the new constructions.
By enforcing people to get a better way of living,even if they don't care,their acts are good.
Green Man, what the bloody-hell are you trying to say.
he's high I think...too much green
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.