the reason solar and wind are not good options is they don't produce enough energy to be worth the effort. It can work for 10 % maybe but we need a real solution to the oil problem. Is it worth the effort? is the question- solar panels are expensive. do you have a completely solar or wind powered home? are you off the grid? the tech is available. There are even tax breaks to help. The individual must take more responsibility- ie reduce use from 300 barrels a year per person. Also each state needs to decide. Solar power in Massachusetts doesnt make much sense so why should i pay for national funding to be wasted on it? Arizona? of course it makes sense.
We must change our values first- we are a consumer society and selfish as you said. I wouldsay its ok to have a personal agenda but not a selfish one- the project must be for the best of the client- if we believe great design is best for the client that then it is persuable.
It depends what you mean by design. The functional aspect or the asthetic aspect or both. Is it the creative aspect you are referring to?
individual transportation is a huge problem and transport for business- and and ground like trucking. These are the 2 areas that affect our wallets the most.
there needs to be a realistic incentive.
How specifically did the republicans kill 20 years of research? Is there any real tangible examples or is it just a generalized anti- republican statement? Republicans believe in non governmental solutions - ie private sector competition produces a better product because of the desire for monetary gain- The problem is the individual and businesses do not see it as economical and dont see opportunity for profit. You might say the oil business suppresses any opportunity for it to happen but thats how the system works- its all about money and profit- the one who makes the biggest profit rules the roust- they risk their bank on a product- The Republicans believe the Govt is wasteful and the private sector can do a better job.
we are not a socialist society where govt pays for everything. start a nonprofit and give up your salery and savings. Vote, lobby. but general statements that "those people are just bad" does nothing to solve the problem.
you say its ok if architects have aopersonal and selfish agenda but big oil cannot? its a double standard. The only difference is you feel you are right and they are wrong. But where is the incentive for them to do it differently.
Other groups have very strong lobby groups but what environmentalist are whining about is they are loosing the battle- but chiefly because individual voters think other issues are more important- like the value of human life- If there was a democrat who valued family, didnt support the gay agenda, and didnt support abortion- and who also was for the environment most Christians would vote for that person.
Its about votes- nobody wins a campaign on the environment. We have to save people before whales.
Clients do not dictate good or bad architecture so much- the building industry tells us what products and technologies we can use according to the size of the profit they can gain.
innovation- necessity is the mother of all invention- actually war has produced alot of inovation- so maybe fear produces it as well. We are getting there "oh no gas is $10 a gallon"
the [ulr=http://www.princeton.edu/~cmi/resources/stabwedge.htm]solution to global warming is simple[/url] but requires political and economic shifts for implimentation to start.
Architect are can influence 70% of all the energy usage in the u s of a (similar levels in e of u)- so our professional mandate is clear. That's why I get pissed off when stephen holl fucks up and ignores the clients request for a green building.
All building should be green- no ifs, ands, or buts... The AIA needs to ammend the ethics code to include high performance buildings as an ethical resposibility- the COTE is slowly rising to power, but we need to push harder. California, Minnesota, and a few other states have taken the initiative to legislate minimum energy standards (ie title 24) that are a great first step. (for all those leedsters out there- CA title 24 = ASHREA 90.1 in the eyes of the usgbc).
Architects typically educate a client as part of the design and documentation process- we need to start educating about energy perfomance and sustainable sites too.
I'll predict that in the next 10 years, that low performance building will become as obsolete as pen plotters and parallel rules. CAD destroyed hand drafting as viable model for practice - so too will energy modeling/bims replace basic cad and how we think about buildings.
Integrated design gives architects a great leadership platform - our egos tend to be bigger then most of the consultants we hire - and more often then not, we're the project lead anyways.
man, hilldomain, i disagree with you on everything it turns out...
The US has amazing opportunities and money available to encourage small business.
this is one of the greatest myths of our time. the us looks at its poor as being underacheivers and lazy. and beyond that, the government through its laissez-faire capitalist philosopy is focused on protecting big business and the wealthiest individuals, not the middle class or small business, let alone the poor. google and microsoft, which you cite, are exceptions to the rule.
The Republicans believe the Govt is wasteful and the private sector can do a better job.
we are not a socialist society where govt pays for everything.
conservatives (and americans) in general love to say that communism failed, and it did. communism does not work. but neither does capitalism. it is failing miserably. democratic socialism, which allows for regulated private investment and wealth, works. furthermore, there is nothing that is inherently capitalistic about america. america could become a social democracy tomorrow without losing our fundamental values. in fact, it would more closely align with our original american ideals as the modern, largely unregulated corporation is a sick perverted result of big business hijacking the 14th amendment.
Its about votes- nobody wins a campaign on the environment. We have to save people before whales.
are you really still spewing this bullshit? environmentalism is about humans! if we don't change our habits and our sources of energy soon not only will we lose our way of life, but eventually human life will be increasingly likely to headed for extinction.
the reason solar and wind are not good options is they don't produce enough energy to be worth the effort. It can work for 10 % maybe but we need a real solution to the oil problem.
yes, we need more than one alternative to oil. even if solar and wind are only viable for 10% of demand, that's 10% less oil demand.
The individual must take more responsibility- ie reduce use from 300 barrels a year per person.
history and current trends prove individuals are not being responsible enough... another failing of laissez-faire capitalism. the government must step in and regulate this. america was not founded on property rights (the phrase, "life, liberty, property" was very intentionally changed to "life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness"), but the protection of individual liberties and the common good, while allowing private wealth to exist within and after that framework.
Also each state needs to decide. Solar power in Massachusetts doesnt make much sense so why should i pay for national funding to be wasted on it? Arizona? of course it makes sense.
why? because this is a global issue requiring global solutions!
If there was a democrat who valued family, didnt support the gay agenda, and didnt support abortion- and who also was for the environment most Christians would vote for that person
jesus said not one word about homosexuals according to the bible, which mentions the poor and downtrodden hundreds if not thousands of times more often than the passing references to gays, yet "christians" focus on controlling the truly private lives of americans (something for which they often, as neo-cons, claim to stand). don't forget also that according to the bible, humans were created to be stewards of the earth--stewards not master; we're supposed to take care of it, not destroy it, for you literalists.
people need to see through the selfish myth created by republicans, neoconservatives and the religious right that america was founded on the protection of private property and wealth, and realize that this is a hinderous to the great problems of our day.
oh and as it turns out, the solar panels reagan removed from the white house were not only functioning just fine in 1986, but were still in use elsewhere in 2004.... just more evidence that reagan was a typical shortsighted, self-righteous neo-con prick with no regard for societal wellbeing.
FLM -of course we disagree on most things because i am right and you are wrong- just kidding - we have to look for the common values if you can stop with the rhetoric
again i think you are generalizing according to your world view-(at least you are consitant) there seem to be only 2 sides- us and them- its over simplistic-
"just more evidence that reagan was a typical shortsighted, self-righteous neo-con prick with no regard for societal wellbeing."
that type of political rhetoric gets us nowhere- and is easy to write on a forum where you have no accountability for what you say.
Just say you disagree- You sound like a neo-lunatic
"people need to see through the selfish myth created by republicans, neoconservatives and the religious right "
selfishness has been around forever and nobody needed to create that- we have an abundant supply just waiting to be exposed. sounds like your taking the holier than thou road- just from the other side of the fence.
it just seems like name calling- with no real examples of solutions
Capitalism is not a perfect system- but to say the government should step in to curb individual consumption is a rediculous solution.
first of all people dont like the govt telling them what to do.
we need to convince people that they personally can alter their lifestyle to change the environmental problem- which is exagerated anyway.
a nation is simply a collection of individuals-
its easier to just point the finger at the side that is in power.
the solution or solutions have to be cost effective- bottom line
people, businesses, govt need incentives besides "the Earth is dying" vague argument.
we should concentrate on values
the groups you mention- if asked- would agree with your value of the environment and that we should take care of the Earth- no question.
so lets stay focussed on the issue-
HOW? can we agree it needs to be a solution that is cost effective? That the solution actually will solve the problem and not just be a political pacifier to get votes for the Democrats? that popularity should not be the driving factor?
if we can't then there is nothing to discuss- and we agree to disagree but first help me understand your point of view and give some solutions of what your view can bring to the table.
you also say it is a global issue- so why should we be the pioneers? beacuse we consume more- thats why- but who consumes the most? not big business- who drives big business? who drives Walmart? our lust for cheaper gadgets and underwear. I live in Tokyo and we often complain about the high prices but higher prices might be better because business can pay workers more (if the money gets to them).
The problem is not government primarily- yes policy can change- but people need to change their value systems. If there is a demand for somthing business will respond- when i was akid we heard nothing about the environment or how bad smoking was - then we started to hear about aerosol cans for hairspray being related to the ozone.
You are talking about sociology here. The environmentalists are seen as nature nazis by alot of people- earthy crunchies at best. Why? because they are extreme is there speech and becaue they say things the way you said them- in that tone and with that rhetoric-
before people take that side seriously people have to calm down and stop believing in conspiracy theories, and change their personal habits.
how can people take anyone serious if they are driving an SUV and complaining about oil usage?
other issues you brought up:
i said this and you missed the point so let me clarify.
"If there was a democrat who valued family, didnt support the gay agenda, and didnt support abortion- and who also was for the environment most Christians would vote for that person"
whether you agree or not is not the point- THERE ARE OTHER MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES than just the environment - Christians are not anti democrat or anti- environment - but they do have strong beliefs on other issues and that is how they choose candidates.
Below are my personal opinions related to issues Frank Lloyd Mike brought up as a response to my comment and have nothing to do with the topic: if you want read on
first of all it is not my right to force people to do things because i believe in them- even God doesnt do that. If you are interested in my personal view on the gay issue read on if not dont.
Jesus never mentioned the gay issue or many other issues because they were not the main issue and still are not- and it was understood in the culture that it was wrong- just like sleeping with your family members was understood as wrong.
I dont want to get too far into the issue- but personally i believe its wrong because my God says it is wrong- i have little choice in the matter- i cannot pick and choose on each issue based on some of my friends being gay. i either follow God or not- there are alot of other issues i have no choice over either- whether i fully understand or not- this issue i do understand though-
I dont care if a guy loves another guy- love for the same sex is not wrong at all- even if you want to form a special bond with that person- but the action of expressing that love through sexual intercouse is wrong just like if i were to have sex with my friends wife- on a sanitary basis anal sex is dangerous- sodomy is a law for a good reason not just to spoil someone's fun. I realize that not all gay people even have sexual intercourse at all.
I believe all people should have the tax breaks and that it shouldnt be based on marriage or not- so let them do what they want as far as rioght are concerned.
But i believe marriage is between a man and a woman- it always has been-
the Gay Agenda is to change an established social institution- That is wrong -They are trying to make the gay issue a politicalone by changing the law through the courts i might add. It should be done -if at all through the legislature- that way we can all have our democratic say- we vote in this country- The abortion issue snuck by us in the courts and that was wrong- it should be voted on. they are doing what you say christians are doing- Christians are trying to protect what is established.
marriage is also not a right but a privilage. So why should gay people not be allowed that privilage? because it is same sex- and the definition of marriage prohibits it-thats it- I cannot go into the female bathroom because i am male- is that discrimination? I am also not able to be a girl scout- is that discrimination? no you just have the boy scouts and.
its not an issue of one citizen being more or less valuable that the other-
so here is my solution dont change somthing just because you dont belong- start a new institution like civil union- i am all for gay people because they are people not because they are gay- getting rights and even privilages
They are a minority- they should be treated as PEOPLE not GAY PEOPLE. it is a distinction that does not need to be made-
which bathroom should they be allowed to enter? if they have a penis should they be allowed in the male bathroom- issues come up- because they are a sexually oriented group- based on their sexual allignment- we dont allow men in the womens bathroom for that reason- so should we create a new set of bathrooms for them.
they are not a race, religios group, nation, etc. is their distinction based on creed? I have gay christian friends- let me define that term- they agree that their tendancy to act out their homosexual impulses are wrong acoording to the Bible and God, but they still have the impulses.
anyway you should not be able to dictate and CHANGE what the rest of the country defines as marriage because of your personal belief that being gay is right and good and acceptable- we should put these matters to a vote. regardless the issue has exposed a govt flaw - the connection of tax breaks, property rights, next of kin issues, that are connected with Marriage. that we can both agree on needs to change- if other cHristians disagree on that issue they are wrong in my opinion.
the other i am asking non- christians to do is respect our beliefs and not try to change or convert us- or force us to be subject to your political views- which in America are the minority right now. Use the process by all means but please stop with the anti- christian rhetoric simply because they are the majority- for some insight rpleace some of the staement tyou would say with the word jew, or black, or hispanic, or muslim and maybe you can understand the impact of your statements. you cant just generalize just because it fits your argument.
hilldomain, i don't have enough time right now before work to read all that, but i started and here are just a few remarks... what i said before was in the heat of the moment and i strongly believe that reagan's policies are and will continue to hurt america domestically for quite sometime. furthermore, i strongly believe, as cynical as it may be, that unfortunately many of the folks who consume the most will never be swayed individually; and that democratica socialism, which is largely a capitalist-socialist hybrid, is a good way to regulate private industry, redistribute wealth to a degree (don't forget there are very wealthy people in all social democracies), and improve society on a large scale. i'm also sorry if i sounded upset merely at the republican party or the republican party as a whole. there are many fine and good republicans, but more importantly the democratic party is just barely better than the republican party in terms of its willingness to put the interests of the american people above those of corporations. americans have looked favorably--or at least acceptingly--on moderate democratic socialism of one sort or another throughout our history until very recently, namely the post-war red scare. from an armed farmers uprising in 1786 to huey p. long in the 1930s, america has a had a long, proud tradition of people and movements concerned with putting the common good before private propety interests. and i stand by my previous statement, unapologetically, that neoconservatives (without outcry from members of either parties or the media) crafted a false history and value of america that says that ultra-individualism trumps collectivism every time.
anyway, sorry if i was vicious at all before. we have very different world views, and i suspect you are only kidding on the fly when you say, "of course we disagree on most things because i am right and you are wrong," which is fine, because in reality, you are right and i am left, and there doesn't seem to be much of a middle ground in this country anymore.
also, hilldomain.. crap, i'm going to be late for work... i am in favor of civil unions for straights and gays, with marriages being a religious institution. however, while marriage may have initial been a religious institution, the minute religious groups decided to allow the state to regulate, define and certify marriages they surrendered their control of it. still, i do not believe that any religious group or otherwise needs to accept "marriages" and so on that contradict their beliefs, so that's the basis of my argument. i also believe it should be a local or state issue. it's the neoconservatives who are trying to change that in congress these days, not liberals.
i also think the activist court thing is a big myth. if we had had a vote on slavery in 1840, slavery would have passed. not all things deserve a vote, some things need to be protected by the body designed to ensure the preservation of the constitution, the courts. that's my view.
also, i am certainly not "anti-christian," no more so than you are "anti-gay." you mention the "gay agenda," i am simply refering to the fundamentalist or literalist or evangelical christian agenda. i have no problem with christians, but i do take issue with much of the political agenda that a minority of them (most catholics and non-evangelical protestants are not on board) support.
I remember reading an interview with Richard Serra. He was recalling working in a steel mill with these guys, bearing out the incredible heat and noise and physical stress, how just the raw danger of the environment wore down their bodies, each looking about 10 to 20 years older than they were. He talked about how much pride they took in their work, about how small their view of the world was, how tragic they were. Not even human beings, just, industrial components under stress.
can and should architects be an "agent of change" in the building industry? do they have the power? or is the power with the one with the money? or should they just do what the client says?
i dont believe government alone can solve the problem and i have not seen a social democratic system work- I live in Japan and thats basically what they have- they use coercion- guilt, and manipulation to get people to do what they want.
are you thinking of Canada?- the economy isnt so greatand the population doesnt compare nor the diversity. England? Taxes are rediculous.
healthcare is a major problem for businesses and individuals- In japan we have socialised health care which has major problems namely quality- if you go to aclinic you willmost likely have to go 2-3 times sothat the doctor can make some money- and the quality is questionable.
Also Japan is cluttered with big business- they monopolize the industry- they each have a market share and they collectively control prices- they use peoples willingness to serve the machine to steal from them.
Chairman Mao had good intentions BUT he had farmers in the operating room.
You cannot legislate selfishness-it is inborn- yes it needs to change we need to consider our neighbors- but i dont think we can look any farther than the mirror for blame.
i believe in the past americans understood that personal rights and social responsibility went hand in hand- but i believe that was because of the Judeo-Christian value system- we used to call hard work the "Protestant work ethic" lookat the Shakers. Anyway i agree we have to be more socially thoughtful.
FLM- you come from an extreme Democrat commonwealth- i know because i was born there.
You dont help poor people by enabling them and simply giving them food- you teach them how to feed themselves-
so how do we teach the building industry, individuals, and politicians to build smarter structures? How do you change peoples minds? Creatively you have to show them what the future could be like- get them to desire it at any cost- then in small steps give them examples-
MacDonalds has changed because of people desiring healthier food. We need to get people to desire healthier buildings but to do that the buildings MUST be cost effective.
skyscrapers are towers of Babylon really- they are the opitomy of arrogance and excess- they haven't prevented urban sprawl at all.What is the purpose- to stop planes? if so the Empire State Blg. did a better job.
personal ownership is a great motivator- when people are homeowners they feel more grounded and want to take care of their neighborhood.
Japan is "the construction nation" - there are even roads that go nowhere just to keep the industry moving- Mori- the company in Tokyo is trying to get people to move back into Tokyo- 33 million people in the Kanto area. They have this site with all these maps about what Tokyo was and what it could be. Ropponghi Hills is a huge city in a building basically- Mori- bought all the old peoples traditional housing and promised them a new condo in the building. The building has a shopping area with high end fasion etc. here is a link http://www.mori.co.jp/en_index_f.html
they are planning more city buildings but i dont think i like the weirdness of it all- living 50 stories in the sky. anyway they are using beautiful images to get people used to the idea and change their minds.
a bad example would be, big tabacco making us think putting toxins in our body is a good thing.
So what is our purpose: If we know a better way our purpose is to educate and be patient along the way and maybe sometimes saying no to jobs that go completely contrary to our values- Integrity, patience, and creativity.
You cannot legislate selfishness-it is inborn- yes it needs to change we need to consider our neighbors- but i dont think we can look any farther than the mirror for blame.
I'd say, when we look at this mirror, we are talking about culture... When you look at this mirror, you can see things as they are, flaws and beauty, all...
In many ways, I really respect your views, hilldomain (even if I don't agree with all of them). What I do think is important, is that we aggressively engage our realities. I would say that I have liberal tendencies, but quite often both conservatives and liberals tend to spout rhetoric at one another and it goes nowhere. I think both you and FLM are basically on the same boat somewhere, critical of the blind rhetoric in american politics these days... In some ways, that is the problem: political agendas glaze over problems.
I like this: If we know a better way our purpose is to educate and be patient along the way and maybe sometimes saying no to jobs that go completely contrary to our values- Integrity, patience, and creativity."
But I think the issue then is social... Values are culturally defined, this all ties into how we relate socially, how we work... The jobs around us are products of a market which is in turn defined by a culture of consumption that drives jobs that feed this consumption that reinforce more of these kinds of jobs. How is a culture of integrity, patience, and creativity fostered? It's difficult to say "no to jobs that do shit" simply... We are talking about changing culture. You have a point that I can say "be environmental" and that has about as much effect as shouting at a wall...
Another good point that you made was about making environmental choices cost effective... How do you make them work within the market... (This is assuming that the market is working... There is always the issue of market manipulation...) Sometimes change does not occur because the money doesn't want change.
maybe we don't disagree on everything after all. you did make some wonderful points there, hill, and while i disagree on some key points, i think we are seeking the same thing. i really like the quote brink posted, as well. and in my defense, i am from and remain a citizen of new hampshire, which i consider a great example of a progressive state with limited government, though still flawed of course. i'm just in boston for school. i do think we need more government regulation, but more personally responsibility as well--both in architecture and in general. anyway, i'm glad to come to some common ground with you, hill. hope life is well on the other side of the globe.
oe -- love that description.
Won't resonate with many here, as most followed the high school-college-internship-office path, which was, probably, a nicer way to go.
It reminds me of the best people I've known. What a humbling thing it is to work in those sorts of situations, which I've done, alongside people who aren't ever in this life going to move on to jobs with crisp white shirts and air conditioning. But a "small view" of the world, per Serra? Oh, I don't think so. I think the other way.
But now let's get back to gay marriage and Carter's solar panels.
sometimes the high school-college-internship-office path also includes construction work, working in malls, being a trash collector, etc. none of these paths deserves to be dismissed as lesser than any other, imo.
I dont have the article in front of me, but he did say something to that effect. I do specifically remember him referring to the pride they took in their work, calling it "tragic", which surprised me to read.
At any rate, I didnt mean to demean either physical labor or the white-collar path. I have a romantic envy for guys who work with a material like that, but I wont pretend Id last a day in a steel mill or on an oil platform. In the end, whether its a mine shaft or a cubicle, the monotony is the real killer.
Sometimes I feel like the best architecture can do is to make better jail cells. America is the just the cushiest prison in the world.
But maybe that wasnt my point either.
I think its just a function of these needy and aggressive bodies of ours. Our function is just to survive. We are born into families, find loved ones, bear children, and those relationships demand a level of commitment to provide existence for ourselves and those connected to us. There really is nothing more to it. Everything else is just pleasant accidents.
Im sure many of us have a compulsive desire to apply a craft, to contribute to the collective wellbeing in a way for which we are uniquely suited. Sometimes we are able to convince ourselves that this is so, but more and more I fear the terrifying reality is that this is just a product of ego. Like the pleasure of sex, the satisfaction of accomplishment is a biological reward.
I like Samurai manuals. There is just such a raw, guttural, earnestness to their state of mind. They stand with such solidarity, right there on the knifes edge of morality, of life and death. They save nothing for themselves. They have such a real understanding of their role and their usefulness. I feel like there is wisdom in that, to apply oneself headlong in the moment, to learn to appreciate it fully.
What's our REAL purpose ?
perhaps "our great consumption" is the problem.
its like fat people eating allot
why is consumption so much a part of society?
have our needs (real needs) changed so much over history we need so much consumption?
the reason solar and wind are not good options is they don't produce enough energy to be worth the effort. It can work for 10 % maybe but we need a real solution to the oil problem. Is it worth the effort? is the question- solar panels are expensive. do you have a completely solar or wind powered home? are you off the grid? the tech is available. There are even tax breaks to help. The individual must take more responsibility- ie reduce use from 300 barrels a year per person. Also each state needs to decide. Solar power in Massachusetts doesnt make much sense so why should i pay for national funding to be wasted on it? Arizona? of course it makes sense.
We must change our values first- we are a consumer society and selfish as you said. I wouldsay its ok to have a personal agenda but not a selfish one- the project must be for the best of the client- if we believe great design is best for the client that then it is persuable.
It depends what you mean by design. The functional aspect or the asthetic aspect or both. Is it the creative aspect you are referring to?
individual transportation is a huge problem and transport for business- and and ground like trucking. These are the 2 areas that affect our wallets the most.
there needs to be a realistic incentive.
How specifically did the republicans kill 20 years of research? Is there any real tangible examples or is it just a generalized anti- republican statement? Republicans believe in non governmental solutions - ie private sector competition produces a better product because of the desire for monetary gain- The problem is the individual and businesses do not see it as economical and dont see opportunity for profit. You might say the oil business suppresses any opportunity for it to happen but thats how the system works- its all about money and profit- the one who makes the biggest profit rules the roust- they risk their bank on a product- The Republicans believe the Govt is wasteful and the private sector can do a better job.
we are not a socialist society where govt pays for everything. start a nonprofit and give up your salery and savings. Vote, lobby. but general statements that "those people are just bad" does nothing to solve the problem.
you say its ok if architects have aopersonal and selfish agenda but big oil cannot? its a double standard. The only difference is you feel you are right and they are wrong. But where is the incentive for them to do it differently.
Other groups have very strong lobby groups but what environmentalist are whining about is they are loosing the battle- but chiefly because individual voters think other issues are more important- like the value of human life- If there was a democrat who valued family, didnt support the gay agenda, and didnt support abortion- and who also was for the environment most Christians would vote for that person.
Its about votes- nobody wins a campaign on the environment. We have to save people before whales.
Clients do not dictate good or bad architecture so much- the building industry tells us what products and technologies we can use according to the size of the profit they can gain.
innovation- necessity is the mother of all invention- actually war has produced alot of inovation- so maybe fear produces it as well. We are getting there "oh no gas is $10 a gallon"
Hill-
Well said.
the [ulr=http://www.princeton.edu/~cmi/resources/stabwedge.htm]solution to global warming is simple[/url] but requires political and economic shifts for implimentation to start.
Architect are can influence 70% of all the energy usage in the u s of a (similar levels in e of u)- so our professional mandate is clear. That's why I get pissed off when stephen holl fucks up and ignores the clients request for a green building.
All building should be green- no ifs, ands, or buts... The AIA needs to ammend the ethics code to include high performance buildings as an ethical resposibility- the COTE is slowly rising to power, but we need to push harder. California, Minnesota, and a few other states have taken the initiative to legislate minimum energy standards (ie title 24) that are a great first step. (for all those leedsters out there- CA title 24 = ASHREA 90.1 in the eyes of the usgbc).
Architects typically educate a client as part of the design and documentation process- we need to start educating about energy perfomance and sustainable sites too.
I'll predict that in the next 10 years, that low performance building will become as obsolete as pen plotters and parallel rules. CAD destroyed hand drafting as viable model for practice - so too will energy modeling/bims replace basic cad and how we think about buildings.
Integrated design gives architects a great leadership platform - our egos tend to be bigger then most of the consultants we hire - and more often then not, we're the project lead anyways.
Welcome to the new world of practice!
man, hilldomain, i disagree with you on everything it turns out...
The US has amazing opportunities and money available to encourage small business.
this is one of the greatest myths of our time. the us looks at its poor as being underacheivers and lazy. and beyond that, the government through its laissez-faire capitalist philosopy is focused on protecting big business and the wealthiest individuals, not the middle class or small business, let alone the poor. google and microsoft, which you cite, are exceptions to the rule.
The Republicans believe the Govt is wasteful and the private sector can do a better job.
we are not a socialist society where govt pays for everything.
conservatives (and americans) in general love to say that communism failed, and it did. communism does not work. but neither does capitalism. it is failing miserably. democratic socialism, which allows for regulated private investment and wealth, works. furthermore, there is nothing that is inherently capitalistic about america. america could become a social democracy tomorrow without losing our fundamental values. in fact, it would more closely align with our original american ideals as the modern, largely unregulated corporation is a sick perverted result of big business hijacking the 14th amendment.
Its about votes- nobody wins a campaign on the environment. We have to save people before whales.
are you really still spewing this bullshit? environmentalism is about humans! if we don't change our habits and our sources of energy soon not only will we lose our way of life, but eventually human life will be increasingly likely to headed for extinction.
the reason solar and wind are not good options is they don't produce enough energy to be worth the effort. It can work for 10 % maybe but we need a real solution to the oil problem.
yes, we need more than one alternative to oil. even if solar and wind are only viable for 10% of demand, that's 10% less oil demand.
The individual must take more responsibility- ie reduce use from 300 barrels a year per person.
history and current trends prove individuals are not being responsible enough... another failing of laissez-faire capitalism. the government must step in and regulate this. america was not founded on property rights (the phrase, "life, liberty, property" was very intentionally changed to "life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness"), but the protection of individual liberties and the common good, while allowing private wealth to exist within and after that framework.
Also each state needs to decide. Solar power in Massachusetts doesnt make much sense so why should i pay for national funding to be wasted on it? Arizona? of course it makes sense.
why? because this is a global issue requiring global solutions!
If there was a democrat who valued family, didnt support the gay agenda, and didnt support abortion- and who also was for the environment most Christians would vote for that person
jesus said not one word about homosexuals according to the bible, which mentions the poor and downtrodden hundreds if not thousands of times more often than the passing references to gays, yet "christians" focus on controlling the truly private lives of americans (something for which they often, as neo-cons, claim to stand). don't forget also that according to the bible, humans were created to be stewards of the earth--stewards not master; we're supposed to take care of it, not destroy it, for you literalists.
people need to see through the selfish myth created by republicans, neoconservatives and the religious right that america was founded on the protection of private property and wealth, and realize that this is a hinderous to the great problems of our day.
oh and as it turns out, the solar panels reagan removed from the white house were not only functioning just fine in 1986, but were still in use elsewhere in 2004.... just more evidence that reagan was a typical shortsighted, self-righteous neo-con prick with no regard for societal wellbeing.
because you asked
FLM -of course we disagree on most things because i am right and you are wrong- just kidding - we have to look for the common values if you can stop with the rhetoric
again i think you are generalizing according to your world view-(at least you are consitant) there seem to be only 2 sides- us and them- its over simplistic-
"just more evidence that reagan was a typical shortsighted, self-righteous neo-con prick with no regard for societal wellbeing."
that type of political rhetoric gets us nowhere- and is easy to write on a forum where you have no accountability for what you say.
Just say you disagree- You sound like a neo-lunatic
"people need to see through the selfish myth created by republicans, neoconservatives and the religious right "
selfishness has been around forever and nobody needed to create that- we have an abundant supply just waiting to be exposed. sounds like your taking the holier than thou road- just from the other side of the fence.
it just seems like name calling- with no real examples of solutions
Capitalism is not a perfect system- but to say the government should step in to curb individual consumption is a rediculous solution.
first of all people dont like the govt telling them what to do.
we need to convince people that they personally can alter their lifestyle to change the environmental problem- which is exagerated anyway.
a nation is simply a collection of individuals-
its easier to just point the finger at the side that is in power.
the solution or solutions have to be cost effective- bottom line
people, businesses, govt need incentives besides "the Earth is dying" vague argument.
we should concentrate on values
the groups you mention- if asked- would agree with your value of the environment and that we should take care of the Earth- no question.
so lets stay focussed on the issue-
HOW? can we agree it needs to be a solution that is cost effective? That the solution actually will solve the problem and not just be a political pacifier to get votes for the Democrats? that popularity should not be the driving factor?
if we can't then there is nothing to discuss- and we agree to disagree but first help me understand your point of view and give some solutions of what your view can bring to the table.
you also say it is a global issue- so why should we be the pioneers? beacuse we consume more- thats why- but who consumes the most? not big business- who drives big business? who drives Walmart? our lust for cheaper gadgets and underwear. I live in Tokyo and we often complain about the high prices but higher prices might be better because business can pay workers more (if the money gets to them).
The problem is not government primarily- yes policy can change- but people need to change their value systems. If there is a demand for somthing business will respond- when i was akid we heard nothing about the environment or how bad smoking was - then we started to hear about aerosol cans for hairspray being related to the ozone.
You are talking about sociology here. The environmentalists are seen as nature nazis by alot of people- earthy crunchies at best. Why? because they are extreme is there speech and becaue they say things the way you said them- in that tone and with that rhetoric-
before people take that side seriously people have to calm down and stop believing in conspiracy theories, and change their personal habits.
how can people take anyone serious if they are driving an SUV and complaining about oil usage?
other issues you brought up:
i said this and you missed the point so let me clarify.
"If there was a democrat who valued family, didnt support the gay agenda, and didnt support abortion- and who also was for the environment most Christians would vote for that person"
whether you agree or not is not the point- THERE ARE OTHER MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES than just the environment - Christians are not anti democrat or anti- environment - but they do have strong beliefs on other issues and that is how they choose candidates.
Below are my personal opinions related to issues Frank Lloyd Mike brought up as a response to my comment and have nothing to do with the topic: if you want read on
first of all it is not my right to force people to do things because i believe in them- even God doesnt do that. If you are interested in my personal view on the gay issue read on if not dont.
Jesus never mentioned the gay issue or many other issues because they were not the main issue and still are not- and it was understood in the culture that it was wrong- just like sleeping with your family members was understood as wrong.
I dont want to get too far into the issue- but personally i believe its wrong because my God says it is wrong- i have little choice in the matter- i cannot pick and choose on each issue based on some of my friends being gay. i either follow God or not- there are alot of other issues i have no choice over either- whether i fully understand or not- this issue i do understand though-
I dont care if a guy loves another guy- love for the same sex is not wrong at all- even if you want to form a special bond with that person- but the action of expressing that love through sexual intercouse is wrong just like if i were to have sex with my friends wife- on a sanitary basis anal sex is dangerous- sodomy is a law for a good reason not just to spoil someone's fun. I realize that not all gay people even have sexual intercourse at all.
I believe all people should have the tax breaks and that it shouldnt be based on marriage or not- so let them do what they want as far as rioght are concerned.
But i believe marriage is between a man and a woman- it always has been-
the Gay Agenda is to change an established social institution- That is wrong -They are trying to make the gay issue a politicalone by changing the law through the courts i might add. It should be done -if at all through the legislature- that way we can all have our democratic say- we vote in this country- The abortion issue snuck by us in the courts and that was wrong- it should be voted on. they are doing what you say christians are doing- Christians are trying to protect what is established.
marriage is also not a right but a privilage. So why should gay people not be allowed that privilage? because it is same sex- and the definition of marriage prohibits it-thats it- I cannot go into the female bathroom because i am male- is that discrimination? I am also not able to be a girl scout- is that discrimination? no you just have the boy scouts and.
its not an issue of one citizen being more or less valuable that the other-
so here is my solution dont change somthing just because you dont belong- start a new institution like civil union- i am all for gay people because they are people not because they are gay- getting rights and even privilages
They are a minority- they should be treated as PEOPLE not GAY PEOPLE. it is a distinction that does not need to be made-
which bathroom should they be allowed to enter? if they have a penis should they be allowed in the male bathroom- issues come up- because they are a sexually oriented group- based on their sexual allignment- we dont allow men in the womens bathroom for that reason- so should we create a new set of bathrooms for them.
they are not a race, religios group, nation, etc. is their distinction based on creed? I have gay christian friends- let me define that term- they agree that their tendancy to act out their homosexual impulses are wrong acoording to the Bible and God, but they still have the impulses.
anyway you should not be able to dictate and CHANGE what the rest of the country defines as marriage because of your personal belief that being gay is right and good and acceptable- we should put these matters to a vote. regardless the issue has exposed a govt flaw - the connection of tax breaks, property rights, next of kin issues, that are connected with Marriage. that we can both agree on needs to change- if other cHristians disagree on that issue they are wrong in my opinion.
the other i am asking non- christians to do is respect our beliefs and not try to change or convert us- or force us to be subject to your political views- which in America are the minority right now. Use the process by all means but please stop with the anti- christian rhetoric simply because they are the majority- for some insight rpleace some of the staement tyou would say with the word jew, or black, or hispanic, or muslim and maybe you can understand the impact of your statements. you cant just generalize just because it fits your argument.
hilldomain, i don't have enough time right now before work to read all that, but i started and here are just a few remarks... what i said before was in the heat of the moment and i strongly believe that reagan's policies are and will continue to hurt america domestically for quite sometime. furthermore, i strongly believe, as cynical as it may be, that unfortunately many of the folks who consume the most will never be swayed individually; and that democratica socialism, which is largely a capitalist-socialist hybrid, is a good way to regulate private industry, redistribute wealth to a degree (don't forget there are very wealthy people in all social democracies), and improve society on a large scale. i'm also sorry if i sounded upset merely at the republican party or the republican party as a whole. there are many fine and good republicans, but more importantly the democratic party is just barely better than the republican party in terms of its willingness to put the interests of the american people above those of corporations. americans have looked favorably--or at least acceptingly--on moderate democratic socialism of one sort or another throughout our history until very recently, namely the post-war red scare. from an armed farmers uprising in 1786 to huey p. long in the 1930s, america has a had a long, proud tradition of people and movements concerned with putting the common good before private propety interests. and i stand by my previous statement, unapologetically, that neoconservatives (without outcry from members of either parties or the media) crafted a false history and value of america that says that ultra-individualism trumps collectivism every time.
anyway, sorry if i was vicious at all before. we have very different world views, and i suspect you are only kidding on the fly when you say, "of course we disagree on most things because i am right and you are wrong," which is fine, because in reality, you are right and i am left, and there doesn't seem to be much of a middle ground in this country anymore.
also, hilldomain.. crap, i'm going to be late for work... i am in favor of civil unions for straights and gays, with marriages being a religious institution. however, while marriage may have initial been a religious institution, the minute religious groups decided to allow the state to regulate, define and certify marriages they surrendered their control of it. still, i do not believe that any religious group or otherwise needs to accept "marriages" and so on that contradict their beliefs, so that's the basis of my argument. i also believe it should be a local or state issue. it's the neoconservatives who are trying to change that in congress these days, not liberals.
i also think the activist court thing is a big myth. if we had had a vote on slavery in 1840, slavery would have passed. not all things deserve a vote, some things need to be protected by the body designed to ensure the preservation of the constitution, the courts. that's my view.
also, i am certainly not "anti-christian," no more so than you are "anti-gay." you mention the "gay agenda," i am simply refering to the fundamentalist or literalist or evangelical christian agenda. i have no problem with christians, but i do take issue with much of the political agenda that a minority of them (most catholics and non-evangelical protestants are not on board) support.
"What's Our REAL Purpose?"
Well it can't be found so far on this thread.
if it was it would be too simple.
we each have our own purpose.
cheese machine i know.
I remember reading an interview with Richard Serra. He was recalling working in a steel mill with these guys, bearing out the incredible heat and noise and physical stress, how just the raw danger of the environment wore down their bodies, each looking about 10 to 20 years older than they were. He talked about how much pride they took in their work, about how small their view of the world was, how tragic they were. Not even human beings, just, industrial components under stress.
Thats all any of us will ever be.
The flowers are gone. We can no longer afford them.
can and should architects be an "agent of change" in the building industry? do they have the power? or is the power with the one with the money? or should they just do what the client says?
i dont believe government alone can solve the problem and i have not seen a social democratic system work- I live in Japan and thats basically what they have- they use coercion- guilt, and manipulation to get people to do what they want.
are you thinking of Canada?- the economy isnt so greatand the population doesnt compare nor the diversity. England? Taxes are rediculous.
healthcare is a major problem for businesses and individuals- In japan we have socialised health care which has major problems namely quality- if you go to aclinic you willmost likely have to go 2-3 times sothat the doctor can make some money- and the quality is questionable.
Also Japan is cluttered with big business- they monopolize the industry- they each have a market share and they collectively control prices- they use peoples willingness to serve the machine to steal from them.
Chairman Mao had good intentions BUT he had farmers in the operating room.
You cannot legislate selfishness-it is inborn- yes it needs to change we need to consider our neighbors- but i dont think we can look any farther than the mirror for blame.
i believe in the past americans understood that personal rights and social responsibility went hand in hand- but i believe that was because of the Judeo-Christian value system- we used to call hard work the "Protestant work ethic" lookat the Shakers. Anyway i agree we have to be more socially thoughtful.
FLM- you come from an extreme Democrat commonwealth- i know because i was born there.
You dont help poor people by enabling them and simply giving them food- you teach them how to feed themselves-
so how do we teach the building industry, individuals, and politicians to build smarter structures? How do you change peoples minds? Creatively you have to show them what the future could be like- get them to desire it at any cost- then in small steps give them examples-
MacDonalds has changed because of people desiring healthier food. We need to get people to desire healthier buildings but to do that the buildings MUST be cost effective.
skyscrapers are towers of Babylon really- they are the opitomy of arrogance and excess- they haven't prevented urban sprawl at all.What is the purpose- to stop planes? if so the Empire State Blg. did a better job.
personal ownership is a great motivator- when people are homeowners they feel more grounded and want to take care of their neighborhood.
Japan is "the construction nation" - there are even roads that go nowhere just to keep the industry moving- Mori- the company in Tokyo is trying to get people to move back into Tokyo- 33 million people in the Kanto area. They have this site with all these maps about what Tokyo was and what it could be. Ropponghi Hills is a huge city in a building basically- Mori- bought all the old peoples traditional housing and promised them a new condo in the building. The building has a shopping area with high end fasion etc. here is a link
http://www.mori.co.jp/en_index_f.html
they are planning more city buildings but i dont think i like the weirdness of it all- living 50 stories in the sky. anyway they are using beautiful images to get people used to the idea and change their minds.
a bad example would be, big tabacco making us think putting toxins in our body is a good thing.
So what is our purpose: If we know a better way our purpose is to educate and be patient along the way and maybe sometimes saying no to jobs that go completely contrary to our values- Integrity, patience, and creativity.
In many ways, I really respect your views, hilldomain (even if I don't agree with all of them). What I do think is important, is that we aggressively engage our realities. I would say that I have liberal tendencies, but quite often both conservatives and liberals tend to spout rhetoric at one another and it goes nowhere. I think both you and FLM are basically on the same boat somewhere, critical of the blind rhetoric in american politics these days... In some ways, that is the problem: political agendas glaze over problems.
I like this: If we know a better way our purpose is to educate and be patient along the way and maybe sometimes saying no to jobs that go completely contrary to our values- Integrity, patience, and creativity." But I think the issue then is social... Values are culturally defined, this all ties into how we relate socially, how we work... The jobs around us are products of a market which is in turn defined by a culture of consumption that drives jobs that feed this consumption that reinforce more of these kinds of jobs. How is a culture of integrity, patience, and creativity fostered? It's difficult to say "no to jobs that do shit" simply... We are talking about changing culture. You have a point that I can say "be environmental" and that has about as much effect as shouting at a wall...
Another good point that you made was about making environmental choices cost effective... How do you make them work within the market... (This is assuming that the market is working... There is always the issue of market manipulation...) Sometimes change does not occur because the money doesn't want change.
maybe we don't disagree on everything after all. you did make some wonderful points there, hill, and while i disagree on some key points, i think we are seeking the same thing. i really like the quote brink posted, as well. and in my defense, i am from and remain a citizen of new hampshire, which i consider a great example of a progressive state with limited government, though still flawed of course. i'm just in boston for school. i do think we need more government regulation, but more personally responsibility as well--both in architecture and in general. anyway, i'm glad to come to some common ground with you, hill. hope life is well on the other side of the globe.
oe -- love that description.
Won't resonate with many here, as most followed the high school-college-internship-office path, which was, probably, a nicer way to go.
It reminds me of the best people I've known. What a humbling thing it is to work in those sorts of situations, which I've done, alongside people who aren't ever in this life going to move on to jobs with crisp white shirts and air conditioning. But a "small view" of the world, per Serra? Oh, I don't think so. I think the other way.
But now let's get back to gay marriage and Carter's solar panels.
sometimes the high school-college-internship-office path also includes construction work, working in malls, being a trash collector, etc. none of these paths deserves to be dismissed as lesser than any other, imo.
I dont have the article in front of me, but he did say something to that effect. I do specifically remember him referring to the pride they took in their work, calling it "tragic", which surprised me to read.
At any rate, I didnt mean to demean either physical labor or the white-collar path. I have a romantic envy for guys who work with a material like that, but I wont pretend Id last a day in a steel mill or on an oil platform. In the end, whether its a mine shaft or a cubicle, the monotony is the real killer.
Sometimes I feel like the best architecture can do is to make better jail cells. America is the just the cushiest prison in the world.
But maybe that wasnt my point either.
I think its just a function of these needy and aggressive bodies of ours. Our function is just to survive. We are born into families, find loved ones, bear children, and those relationships demand a level of commitment to provide existence for ourselves and those connected to us. There really is nothing more to it. Everything else is just pleasant accidents.
Im sure many of us have a compulsive desire to apply a craft, to contribute to the collective wellbeing in a way for which we are uniquely suited. Sometimes we are able to convince ourselves that this is so, but more and more I fear the terrifying reality is that this is just a product of ego. Like the pleasure of sex, the satisfaction of accomplishment is a biological reward.
I like Samurai manuals. There is just such a raw, guttural, earnestness to their state of mind. They stand with such solidarity, right there on the knifes edge of morality, of life and death. They save nothing for themselves. They have such a real understanding of their role and their usefulness. I feel like there is wisdom in that, to apply oneself headlong in the moment, to learn to appreciate it fully.
Anyway Im rambling..
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.