Archinect
anchor

Discussion: What are the problems created by architecture?

kapawpav

So often I see people talking about problems that can be solved by architecture but not about the problems created by it. I'll start, I'm not sure if this is more architecture's fault or the society's, but I think it has sort of created ego in humans, especially architects who create obnoxious structures with no care for nature or context. I'm going to leave it at that vague turn. When I started studying architecture, I thought I HAD to only create fancy looking buildings and whatnot, but I've slowly come to realise that I'm more simple-minded and more nature and context-oriented. What do/did you think are problems created by architecture?

 
Jan 24, 21 6:08 am
Non Sequitur

that’s not a problem. You’re focusing on maybe a fraction of 1% of architecture. Not an issue. 

Jan 24, 21 7:54 am  · 
1  · 
apscoradiales

Come down to Toronto. I'd bet that more than 80% of "architecture" in that city is bloody awfull, not 1%.

1  · 
apscoradiales

To add, rampant growth - you can in a way equate that to bad architecture - has created huge congestion, and social problems; from traffic to crime to the ultimate for GTA, cost of living.

1  · 
Non Sequitur

Not architecture problems Aps. Those are zoning and city politics problems. Also, Toronto is a hole anyways.

2  · 
kapawpav

Well, It's my opinion, you're free to disagree. I'm still only a student and haven't seen the whole equation so, ways to go I guess *shrugs*

 · 
apscoradiales

Planners contribute greatly to the ills, no doubt. But, if architects had the balls, they would speak out against such planning. But no, they just bend over, and ignore larger problems and issues. Neither the planners nor the politicians nor the architects should operate in their own little glass bubble. Teamwork, like I said, is required and necessary for the society to function well. We have none of it in GTA, and most other places in Canada as well as USA. I stayed outside of Philly, PA one time. In order to get to the shopping centre that was across the street from the hotel, I had to drive the car. There were no traffic lights, no pedestrian sidewalks, no fuck-all. Hop in the car, and drive for 3-4 miles and make a U turn to get across the street which was no wider than 25 feet! Never occurred to RTKL (the shopping centre architect) to ask the city for a set of lights or a crosswalk so you can get to it from the other side.

4  · 
square.

following zoning and codes makes architects complicit in the problem. they may not be the authors of such ordinances, but they have a deep understanding of them (and continue to benefit financially from that understanding and use), and claiming willful ignorance or impotence isn't credible imo- it only shows how weak architects actually are politically and economically.

however, weakness is no excuse for being complicit.

 · 
x-jla

The most radical act in architecture isn’t convincing a developer to make their project look like the asshole of a xenomorph. It’s convincing them to build in a way that better serves the inhabitants and the ecology. Problem is, sometimes those things aren’t going to get the attention that architects leverage to expand their business. In many cases architects aren’t just complicit, they are accomplices acting out of self interest. This is why its important to make things like sustainability aesthetic and sexy. Elon Musks success wasn’t just designing a good electric car. He made a good and sexy electric car so that the consumer didn’t need to be an environmentalist to appreciate the thing.

 · 
midlander

waste of resources and waste of land, probably these 2 more than anything. but i don't blame architects in general - they're just the instruments satisfying the wasteful desires of society.


you could put bad architecture as a problem, but in most cases bad architecture is what happens when no one in charge wants good architecture, so again it's not useful to fault the majority architects - only the hacks who tolerate taking the lousy work.

Jan 24, 21 8:50 am  · 
2  · 
kapawpav

Agreed, sure I was taught to talk the clients out of bad choices, but I'm sure down the line, I'll inevitably meet some snobs who won't budge.

 · 
x-jla

One could argue that McDonald’s is just satisfying the desires of society too, but what’s been obvious to me is that choice is not really choice when options are so limited.

1  · 
x-jla

And the clients demands are limited by their limo perspective and limited understanding of the possibilities.

1  · 
apscoradiales

Interesting question.

Jan 24, 21 9:07 am  · 
1  · 
Wood Guy

Building construction and operation is responsible for almost 40% of all greenhouse gas emissions. In the long term, buildings that operate efficiently are very important. In the short term--with the climate crisis now here, not a future abstraction--embodied carbon emissions are significantly more important than operating carbon emissions.

Worldwide we are building the equivalent square footage of all the buildings in NYC--all 5 boroughs--every 34 days for the next 40 years. That's just new construction; about 75% of existing buildings will be renovated over the same time period.

As key members of the process of creating buildings, we have a unique responsibility in how fast the climate crisis accelerates. 

Jan 24, 21 10:42 am  · 
4  · 
kapawpav

Oh my, I knew this to some extent but knowing the numbers is making my head spin.

1  · 
x-jla

On top of that, development in many places is causing massive amounts of deforestation. Not only adding gasses, but simultaneously reducing the planet’s ability to sequester gasses and destruction of habitats. Some of the work I do is habitat restoration of land that’s been disturbed by development.

2  · 
x-jla

It feels like doing triage in a war zone with a box of bandaids.

2  · 
randomised

*manmade greenhouse gas emissions

 · 
Wood Guy

Nope, all greenhouse gas emissions.

https://bit.ly/3sU5cIf

1  · 
Wood Guy

kapawpav, I've shared this article I wrote a here before. It's slightly outdated but generally accurate: https://www.finehomebuilding.com/2018/11/02/climate-change-builders-biggest-opportunity

1  · 
kapawpav

Thank you, this is really helpful.

 · 
randomised

Really Wood Guy? Couldn’t find the 40% or more of all global greenhouse emissions (manmade and natural) coming from building construction and operation in your link. Did I overlook it? (on mobile here) I’d love to believe it because it means we have a real opportunity to fix this.

 · 
Wood Guy

Without humans, the climate would be balanced. 


https://www.climate.gov/news-f...


 · 
Wood Guy

Damn, cut off before I could edit. Long story short: the 2018 IPCC report includes the 40% figure I mentioned. It's become a standing joke at climate change conference talks that we all share the same pie chart. I'll concede that it is anthropogenic, but natural greenhouse gas emissions are relatively small in comparison. There are also gray areas--water vapor is rarely included in greenhouse gas discussions, though it's the more prevalent GHG. Like methane released as the tundra thaws, as the climate warms the quantity will increase in a feedback loop. For now the ocean is still absorbing a lot of CO2 but it's acidifying as a result (carbonated seawater, anyone?) and it will eventually stop being able to absorb the excess.

1  · 
randomised

Thanks will dive into that!

 · 
Non Sequitur

WG, those stats were hammered to us back in grad school more than a decade ago (by Dr. Straube, no less). Will check out that link and see what's new. Very few of my non-arch peers agree, mostly because SUVs are easier target to complain about.

1  · 
Wood Guy

SUVs are easier to complain about, and like Aps below, most people are convinced that "green" building is a lot more expensive. Some "green" is expensive, but the important aspects are not. In any case, to mix metaphors, I know I'm tilting at windmills but since I have found myself on a bit of a soapbox I feel a responsibility to do what I can.

2  · 
x-jla

Just proper solar orientation can help, and it costs nothing more.

 · 
b3tadine[sutures]

We spend, as architects, focused on the stupid shit; whether or not NCARB is doing the right thing, software architects, etc...At the end of the day the biggest problem we are failing to tackle; architects are the gotos for Destructive Capitalism - an oxymoron - and horrible anarcho-libertarian thinking. How we separate ourselves from those things, are the most fundamental challenges inside, and outside the profession. I don't have the answers. but perhaps nationalizing some component of the profession might be a start.


Jan 24, 21 11:31 am  · 
2  · 
x-jla

North Korean architecture is so much better.

1  · 
x-jla

What we need is to do something similar to what the food industry did since early 2000’s. They have greatly expanded choice and perspective through media and capitalism. Don’t blame the failings of architecture on clients and capitalism. We are all to blame for doing a shit job. We need an Anthony Bourdain of architecture to take over the HGTV bullshit. Then, we need to reinvent the business model, remove red tape, etc. we need less govt and more choice.

4  · 
Wood Guy

X-jla, that's a really good idea. A Joanna Gaines of sustainable design. A neighbor of mine has a show on her channel now, about food: https://www.housebeautiful.com/lifestyle/a33605390/joanna-gaines-magnolia-network-the-lost-kitchen-erin-french-road-to-launch/. (I've eaten there twice and we get our CSA through her--she's very talented.) Something like that?

1  · 
Non Sequitur

I miss bourdain.

3  · 
square.

i think this could be part of the solution, but it's not enough alone to fundamentally change things. at the end of the day, architects are beholden to where the money comes from, which is clients or developers. that fundamental relationship also needs amending, or we'll continue to be a conduit for their economics.

1  · 
b3tadine[sutures]

What's insufferable is even treating laxative as a rational, and thoughtful person. All anyone needs to do is Google WPA projects. And then take a look at all the North Korean Architecture created during the New Deal. Fuck off magalax.

 ·  1
x-jla

FDR was the closest thing to a dictator we’ve had...he was a more effective and well mannered Trump...but let’s keep that on Politics Central.

 · 
archeyarch

the client just buys whatever architect will fulfill the vision, and its just  some shit architect making a buck.  

Jan 24, 21 1:54 pm  · 
1  · 
randomised

the problem is people, not architecture.

Jan 24, 21 4:15 pm  · 
1  · 
Wood Guy

It's also architects who don't feel any responsibility aside from code compliance and aesthetics.

3  · 
randomised

Because they are assholes not because they are architects

 · 
Wood Guy

Fair enough ;-)

 · 
apscoradiales

Wood Guy,

I am sure you know that "greener" houses, and construction in general cost more, sometimes a lot more than what is currently done.

The additional costs come in simply purchasing the materials and items such as triple or quadruple glazed windows over double or single (as found in Florida to this day). CLT is also very expensive (per sf) compared to simple 2x4 wood framing still most commonly done across North America. Then you have the trades. Absolute majority of them are stuck at doing what they've been doing for the last 150 years. You will not readily find someone who can erect CLT walls, floors, and roofs, and if you do there is bound to be a premium in putting the pieces together - not including a crane to lift them in place. Some of the triple pane windows tend to be considerably heavier than double; to the point were two guys will not suffice to put them in place - you may need four guys to lift them. That, pretty well doubles your hourly rate right there.

I agree with you that we need to look what we are doing to our environment, but we mustn't forget the costs involved. That applies to all aspects of our lives, not just architecture or construction. For example, Canadian Prime Minister is introducing pretty hefty taxes on fuel and other things to reduce CO2 emissions, and other nasties. How does he, though, expect people to cope with it? Does he think we can all ride bikes to work when people don't live around the corner from their office or factory, and where temperatures are really fucking low like they are today - was -27C windchill this morning?

Like I said, we need to think what we are doing, but we mustn't forget that there is a price to be paid for all this, and sometimes the price is too high.

Cheers

Jan 24, 21 5:37 pm  · 
 · 
Wood Guy

Aps, all day every day I deal with the costs of building to better than code-minimum performance. It's my specialty, and a challenge. Have you seen one of my side projects: https://www.prettygoodhouse.org/? The main idea is that a Pretty Good House should cost little more than a comparable conventional house. On every project I do energy modeling and show predicted payback and ROI for energy improvements. So far I have always found going a little above code minimum to have a reasonably good ROI. But it does cost a little more up front.

1  · 
randomised

What’s your price for a liveable planet?

1  · 
apscoradiales

A balance between having a roof over head and food on the table.

 · 
tduds

As a counterpoint, "standard" (in this context, non "green") construction offloads externalities onto future owners and/or other parts of the world. 

Wood Guy makes a good point with ROI + payback, but in addition to that there are difficult to quantify environmental costs like deforestation, water depletion, CO2 load, etc. etc. Shifting costs in time and place does not make them disappear entirely, it only makes them invisible to the buyer. 

1  · 
Wood Guy

Aps, as residential designers and architects we are not simply providing basic shelter, or forcing people to choose between a roof and food. We are primarily serving the wealthy and moderately well-off in their dreams of more comfortable living. Since most of what they want is elective anyway, why shouldn't the global impact of their designs be one thing we consider?

When I realized that my real job was providing entertainment to rich people, my perspective changed, and I stopped worrying about their house costing a few dollars more if there was a significant environmental advantage.

1  · 
apscoradiales

I agree. Those people are few-and-far-in-between in the World. If they can afford to have a "green" house, and if they can afford to hire an architect, well more power to them.

 · 
apscoradiales

Lets try again...I got cut-off,

I agree with that. Those people are few-and-far-in-between in the World. If they can afford to have a "green" house, and if they can afford to hire an architect to design their dream, well more power to them. Unfortunately, vast, vast majority of folks cannot afford such luxuries - they can hardly afford a simple roof over their head and to feed the family. That's a stark reality architects and all the "greenies" , including architects and politicians, have to realise and cope with. If you were to implement just a portion of what ecological and sustainable means to your average dwelling into an average persons house, just in USA and Canada, it would add thousands of dollars to the price of that house. Normal folks cannot afford that - they are already deep to their necks in loans and mortgages. Subdivision developers, largely responsible for housing in North America, look for inexpensive solutions - yes, many times at the cost of quality, and efficiency, to house the masses and make a decent living themselves. ROI for an average person consists simply of market conditions - generally, house prices tend to go up over years, so that to them is THE ROI, not whether the house has triple glazed windows or single, whether it's oriented correctly or not. So, architects and everyone else have to look at this environmental stuff carefully with an open mind and a whole lot of consideration. As NS said, architects cannot fix environmental problems by themselves nor should they try. Keep an eye on it, but don't think you are God who can fix such things.

 · 
bowling_ball

I'm late to the party here but some perspective is needed I think. I don't know exactly where you practice, Wood Guy, but up here in Canada we have a National energy code, which in my zone prescribes effective R-27 walls, for example. That's code minimum, which I think you'll agree is pretty darn good. Going above and beyond that is going to have very limited returns for the planet, vs the cost: our population is relatively small, our materials and labour are much higher than in the US, and there's less competition to drive costs down. I don't know the actual math involved but I imagine retrofitting just 5 or 10% of American housing stock to be better insulated, would actually be much more beneficial to the planet overall than a blanket requirement for all new housing to perform even better than already required. I don't know where I'm going with this except to give a bit of context and backup to what APS is saying. It's really tough to get people up here to pay even MORE when our existing codes are so costly already. You literally can't build a home for less than $300/sf up here, and in some areas that's more like $500/sf. That's just bare minimum based on codes prescribed for ALL new homes.

 · 
Wood Guy

I live in Maine, climate zone 6, and mostly practice here but have done projects in several other states (when legally allowed). Our current code is R-20 walls, U-0.32 windows. Soon our code will require at least R-5 continuous insulation plus R-20 cavity insulation, or the U-factor equivalent.

The kinds of energy improvements I recommend pay for themselves by reducing monthly energy bills and also by allowing for a smaller heating system--in some cases, much smaller. It's not unusual for me to design a house with a single mini-split and a bit of electric resistance backup heat, for example. For some wall systems I find that R-25 to R-30 (whole-wall) is where the cost/benefit curve flattens out, except for double stud walls where it costs almost nothing extra to go to R-40.

I agree that for people who can barely afford a mortgage, spending a few thousand more for energy improvements may not be in the cards. But I work with a lot of people of modest means who prioritize efficiency and comfort over things like granite countertops.

You can respond with market, market, blah blah blah but the fact is with minimal advertising and a crappy website I hear from a good prospect almost every day. I've stopped accepting new work at this point. So please don't tell me it's too hard, not worth it, people won't buy it. People will buy it if they think it's important. If you tell them it's not important, they will either believe you or they will find me. As for costs, it's similar here--good quality homes start at $250 to $350 per square foot. I say "good quality" because the energy improvements and material choices I spec fit into the noise--forgo some fancy trim to pay for a ventilation system, etc..

 · 
bowling_ball

We definitely work in different scales, which is another factor ($30M to $60M is a typical project). It's been 7 years since we adopted the National building code, and my contractors tell me that the costs have gone up on average 13% to 15%. We're not talking about granite countertops here, we're talking the difference between a project happening or not. That doesn't mean we're not trying - we're currently under construction on the largest CLT building in Western Canada ($60M) because the client is dedicated to reducing their carbon footprint. It's not all doom and gloom, I'm just trying to provide context because it matters.

 · 
bowling_ball

*National Energy Code

 · 
Non Sequitur

WG, R5ci? we're at R15ci up here...R20ci for below grade.

 · 
archinine
We’re running out of sand. Concrete isn’t recyclable. We still haven’t been able to match the longevity of (original) Roman concrete. Part of sustainability is building structures that will last. Either because people deem them significant and worth keeping, or because of their undeniable durability. Biomimicry, and merging of biology and structure - in the case of Roman concrete for example - can help in the latter. ROIs, such that wood guy mentioned, help shift new projects in the right direction. It’s taken the industry a long time to get this bad, it’s going to take a while to turn it around - eg tradesmen learning new skills for more sustainable installations.
Jan 25, 21 1:05 am  · 
1  · 
Wood Guy

The sand problem isn't universal, but you're right that it's getting hard to find in many places where there is a lot of concrete used. It doesn't make sense to ship the surplus near me in Maine to NYC, for example.

We can create better concrete by borrowing a tip from the Romans and using Pozzolans or other supplementary cementitious materials such as fly ash to replace some of the Portland cement. They are called densifiers and have much lower carbon emissions than Portland cement.

To be clear, I almost never sell upgrades based on ROI. I use ROI to show my clients that they are making smart decisions.

 · 
Non Sequitur

I think one of the biggest problems created by architecture is making architects and designers think they are able to solve non-architecture problems.

Jan 25, 21 6:09 am  · 
7  · 
randomised

...by using shipping containers!

4  · 
Non Sequitur

modular street furniture is also a popular prescription.

1  · 
apscoradiales

To expand the discussion a bit...City of Toronto renovated Bloor Street East a few years ago; some flower planters, some interlocking paving, some new paint, but not a single fuckin' bench seat anywhere to be seen within miles!!! Nowhere to sit - you're forced to march on, and, on, and on. Oh, this being Toronto (or Ontario), not a single cafe on the sidewalk either like you would see even in the dinkiest little village in any European country. Many reasons why this country sucks, this being one of them. Carry on...

1  · 
x-jla

US be like...yeah but do put spikes on things to keep people from sitting on things that are good for sitting!

1  · 
Non Sequitur

Aps... how much you want to bet that their justification for not including public seating is for the union snow clearing crew who can't be bothered to shovel around the fixtures?

 · 
apscoradiales

I understand the cities concern was the homeless people sleeping on the benches and making the city look bad.

In Canada, a rich, first world country where nobody goes hungry and there are no homeless people with Universal Health Care to boot!

Place makes me want to puke sometimes!

 · 
randomised

carbon taxation could create a true shift towards a more sustainable industry. if the true impact of what and how we design is taken into consideration, it could all easily shift once people pay the “fair” price for materials... 

Jan 25, 21 4:33 pm  · 
 · 
apscoradiales

Here is a breakdown of who is polluting the most. How much of a difference will it make globally if Canadians pay roughly an extra 39.6 cents per litre of gasoline by 2030? Who are we trying to impress? China? US? India?

1  · 
randomised

you shouldn't be using gasoline!

so if you're small enough it doesn't matter what you do...or what happens to you? be careful what you wish for, setting a dangerous precedent there ;-)

 · 
Wood Guy

Carbon taxes are the only way we're going to get where we need to be. Especially since most people will justify not doing what they know is the right thing because "it won't matter."

 · 
apscoradiales

Probably not, but what do we switch to? Electricity? Would be nice, but there are basic fundamental problems with electric vehicles. Basic costs is very high - costs have to be subsidies by governments to make the purchase viable, range is abysmal - keep in mind Canada is not as densely populated as Europe is, and distances are great, plus buying a new battery every 100,000 miles or so can cost you anywhere from CDN$15,000 to 20,000 or more for some models. There are people who commute in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) over 150km TWICE a day from home to work. That wouldn't be so bad if traffic moved steadily. I used to commute exactly 50kms to work and home (for a total of 100km per day). Most of the time it would take me about 2 hours to get to work, then two hours to get back home - IF I was lucky and someone didn't crash - btw, Toronto drivers are THE worst in the World by a country mile. With such commuting times, my car battery would die, and I would have to recharge half way. Where to do that? No recharge stations anywhere to be seen! On top of that, we do not have a public transportation system anywhere near what it is in Europe. You want to be waiting for a city bus for 30-40 minutes when it's Winter and it's -30C windchill out there? I have done it on occasion - it is not fun!

 · 
tduds

Others doing the wrong thing is not a justification for you choosing not to do the right thing.

1  · 
apscoradiales

Unfortunately, I wasn't independently wealthy; had to work.

 · 
Wood Guy

Aps, I wish those of you who say it can't be done would get out of the way and stop shitting on those of us actually doing it. Most of my projects are all-electric homes, net zero energy. Most of my clients drive a hybrid, one has a Tesla and more are sure to follow. They cost a premium but they aren't all that expensive and their range is growing steadily. If you need to drive farther, or don't want a new car, drive a ten year old Prius like I do. It's indestructible and gets 40-50 mpg. We aren't going back to office life en masse anyway; working from home is now normal. I agree about public transportation anyway.

3  · 
Non Sequitur

I'd be fine with a doubling, even tripling, of gas prices. I know it'll trickle down into the cost of a whole bunch of stuff but I'm not like all those fools who stretched themselves to the max to keep up with the jones, so, meh... sucks to be them.

 · 
tduds

I run into this idea a lot, and almost always as a way to make a case against trying harder: that we can't solve all our climate problems by simply making every gasoline car an electric car. Of course we can't, but no one is saying we can.

To me, this mostly reflects a striking lack of imagination.

2  · 
tduds

That said, we do need to make it more expensive to drive, and even more expensive than that to drive a gas powered vehicle. But if we do that without providing reasonable alternatives (mass transit, walkable districts) we just push more costs onto those least able to afford them.

1  · 
apscoradiales

Yes we do, and it ain't the rich folks building McMansions who will suffer.

1  · 
mightyaa

Disposable buildings. I do a ton of repairs. The vast majority of buildings I do investigations on did not last 6 years before I, or someone like me, had to strip and replace most the building shell.  I’m filling landfills. Even with major weather events on the uprise, most buildings are designed the bare minimum; maybe they won’t blow over, but they really don’t survive the event. And you know your regions; You can predict sometime in the next 50 years, “this” (hurricane, flood, heavy snow, heavy rain, wind, etc.) force of mother nature is going to happen. The blame can’t be placed entirely on architects; everyone is trying to build cheaper and cheaper.  The result is literally a house of cards. Something architects should be aware of: The Building Code is the worst building you can legally design and I regularly write reports hundreds of pages long citing non-conforming design with the building code. Meeting those minimums should be a ‘goal’, it should be the bottom line of just barely acceptable work.

Jan 25, 21 4:37 pm  · 
3  · 
joseffischer

heh, sounds like we do a lot of the same work, sigh

 · 
mightyaa

Loss of regional architecture. Seriously, I’m doing a report for a building in Idaho, last week Texas, next week Colorado. Any of them could be “anywhere” USA.  I could knock you out, shove you onto a plane and dump you in any city in a newer developed area inside a building. You couldn’t even tell me what part of the nation you are in. The design, materials, spaces, etc. wouldn’t provide any clues.  Once upon a time when the cost to transport materials was difficult, as an architect you’d recognize certain things like regional stone, or architectural features associated with an area.  Architects have homogenized design.  

Jan 25, 21 4:47 pm  · 
4  · 
apscoradiales

Some blame to be had by the architects for that. Have you heard about Chinese drywall down in Florida - happened a few years ago? Wasn't so much the architects - I hope - it was the developers/builders who went shopping half-way around the World for a garbage product in order to save money.

 · 
mightyaa

That drywall isn't just in Florida. The regionalism I'm talking about is something like SantaFe style... in New Orleans. "Mediterranean" style in Omaha, etc. and worse... the neighborhoods. You will find that exact house design everywhere regardless of climate, regardless of where the materials are sourced, etc. Picture waking up in a kitchen in a large suburban development. Without your smart phone gps or looking at license plates, how long would it take you to figure out what State you are in? How far would you have to drive to find some recognizable feature to narrow the list of possibilities? How many modern strip malls loaded with familiar shops would you pass? The only 'positive' is that there is a comfort level with the familiar and it will all feel very familiar....

 · 
mightyaa

Oh, to add to that... Go into the older historic neighborhoods. Denver will look different than Tulsa, which is different than Atlanta, which is different than Boston. While some things will be very similar, you'll pick up on enough regional differences that made the communities different. Like expansive front patios, or elevated floors, or roof pitches made to handle snowfall (or lack thereof), etc.

 · 
apscoradiales

There I agree with you. Several reasons why that is. Uneducated consumer is one. Complacent developers. Dumb, lazy architects. and planners, City halls that are interested in nothing but collecting taxes. Inadequate building codes, me-first attitude by consumers, this is America - I can do anything i want and to fuck with rest of the world................

 · 
apscoradiales

Wood Guy,

Image the shock Americans would feel, and the American economy as well if your gas went up 35%. Trump messing up with the elections would seem like a picnic. And what would it all for when China would keep on pumping CO2 into the air to satisfy those Walmart customers?

Jan 25, 21 5:24 pm  · 
 · 
Wood Guy

I'm not playing whatabout games Aps. You don't like my approach, fine. I'll save the planet without you.

3  · 
mightyaa

aps... The US has seen worse. Read up on the '70's oil embargos, OPEC, etc. with a 300% increase. Death of the musclecar and land yacht's to ecocrap Pintos, LeBaron's, underpowered, unreliable along with tech advances like fuel injection, emission controls, safety, etc. and the rise of Japanese and Euro brands in the US. We are in better shape now; you can plunk a deposit down on a 1000hp electric Hummer.

 · 
apscoradiales

I know! The World is not coming to an end any time soon no matter how many tonnes of carbon new buildings or private luxury homes contribute to the environment or get "sequestered". Eat, drink and be merry. I do miss the muscle cars, though. FWIW, I lived though the Oil Crisis in the '70. Dad had to sell his Pontiac GTO, and get a Plymouth Duster with a 250ci slant six engine.

 · 
randomised

.

 · 
square.

i don't think architecture creates many problems per se, but it absolutely perpetuates a lot of them.

Jan 25, 21 8:26 pm  · 
2  · 

Block this user


Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?

  • ×Search in: