Thank you for the feedback. My research question is rather specific, and I believe more people are familiar with the broader subject. It's an area I've been struggling to learn about, and I was hoping that the larger context would provide me with the insights I need.

why should we do the hard work for you?

Haha, yes thank you for your feedback, I totally agree with your last point. I'll dig more into your third point though.

today's sustainable construction projects may be less durable than those from two centuries ago, with historical buildings having a seemingly lower environmental impact

second part. 

I wanted to complement my comment with this; Surviving historical buildings DID NOT have a lower environmental impact, quarries thousand of miles away, entire forests cut down, neighborhoods razed to make room for this and that...to look at the environmental impact  only as resource depletion or carbon emission is quite narrow and misses the historical origins of the disaster we are headed to.

I think a lot of people confuse durable with sustainable. As you've pointed out JLC the one doesn't necessarily equate to the other.

you know where the marble came from for the lincoln memorial? The following copy/paste paragrapgh is from the architect of the capitol 

" Nearly a dozen states have provided marble to help build the Capitol Building; it is used in floors, baseboards, stairs, railings, door frames, wall panels, mantels, columns and cornices. Marble from Massachusetts forms the exteriors of the mid-19th century House and Senate extensions, and Georgia marble clads the East Front connecting corridors. Many of the statues in the U.S. Capitol are also carved from the fine, white marble quarried near Carrara, Italy, which has been favored by sculptors for centuries."

Smaller structures you'd be correct.  Larger structures, kind of. It depends on when they were built.  

I can think of quite a few historic buildings in the US that imported wood, paint, tile, and masonry from various European countries. I'm working on one now in fact. 

Now thinks like large stone or timber, that was typically sourced from the US or Canada. 

In the case of timber it wasn't uncommon for the southern states to import from Canada (aka thousands of miles).  

Take a look at early african huts and even Pueblo houses. I think this is what Frank Lloyd Wright meant when talking about organic architecture in the later stages of his life (with his philosophy of respecting nature and being inspired by it). Here's an interesting quote i found by FLW : 

"No house should ever be on a hill or on anything. It should be of the hill. Belonging to it. Hill and house should live together, each happier for the other.” 

I find that today, sustainability is super technical but could be brought back to the basics of design rather than technological innovation. When you think of it, an ideally sustainable house would be a hobbit hut next to a watermill.

I think the quote from Frank was speaking more to massing and placement than sustainability. The total embodied energy combined with the lifecycle costs of a building are good measures of it's sustainability.

i grew up in northern new england, which was infamously stripped bare of trees by the end of the nineteenth century for construction and firewood. the traditional buildings relied on local materials for construction and heating; neither were likely sustainable. not to deny that modern embodied energy is much higher, just pointing out that the past wasn't necessarily sustainable either - indeed it led to the present.

I definitely will! Although I've conducted prior research on Keil Moe, I have yet to come across any written texts by him; my findings were limited to reviews and comments. I appreciate your help and the specific example you provided! Thank you.

This sounds interesting, mission_critical, thanks for the share. The architect's task is to look at the wholistic impact of buildings, not just in terms of sustainability but also in social impact.

The book I liked the most was Convergence. Here’s a quick takeaway from the major topics. "Convergence: An Architectural Agenda for Energy" by Kiel Moe explores the intersection of architecture and energy through the lens of thermodynamics, durability, and efficacy:

1. **Thermodynamics:** Moe delves into the principles of thermodynamics to understand how energy flows within buildings and ecosystems. He emphasizes the importance of designing buildings that work in harmony with natural processes, optimizing energy exchanges to minimize waste and maximize efficiency.

2. **Durability:** Moe highlights the significance of durability in sustainable architecture, emphasizing the long-term performance and resilience of buildings. He advocates for the use of durable materials and passive design strategies to create structures that can withstand environmental stresses and minimize maintenance requirements over time.

3. **Efficacy:** Moe emphasizes the importance of efficacy in architectural design, focusing on the effective utilization of resources and energy. He promotes an integrated approach to design that considers both energy efficiency and architectural efficacy, aiming to create buildings that are not only environmentally responsible but also functional and aesthetically pleasing.

He also advocates for using more energy when it comes to architecture because when considered over the life span of the building, its impact will actually be less. Basically building cheap bland and ugly (while energy efficient) will get demolished because and will intrinsically have higher energy costs than building something beautiful and durable (higher upfront energy costs) because it’ll be kept around longer because it’s important to the people around it. This was 10 years ago I read this book but basically current architecture is bad because it’s basically sealed by chemicals that won’t last more than 30 years. (Buildings are just big refrigerators) so instead build out of durable materials that can last hundreds of years. Also take advantage of passive strategies because they basically last forever and have 0 use cost once installed (solar gain, heat rising to rooms that need warmth, etc)

I realize my previous message might have been unclear. People automatically think of American 'traditional' architecture. However, my focus is more on regions like Asia, where there were undoubtedly more 'eco-friendly' traditional housing practices 200/300 years ago, or in Europe, where during the Roman empire, constructions could last for centuries with minimal maintenance.

It didn't last for centuries with minimal maintenance though. There was regular, sometimes intensive maintenance.

There's greenwashing, and there's sustainable architecture. You're commenting on the first.