I have been working in a firm for the past 4 years since graduating from college. The work that we produce is your slightly better than average typical mimicry, better in that it sort of has a sense of humor. While the work has not pushed any design envelopes, it has been plentiful, providing me with alot of experience and responsiblity in a short period of time.
The owners are kind and patient people but are convinced that green architecture is a silly hippie fad. I have been slipping some green products into construction drawings, but the building ideas and situationa are fundimentally flawed. So slipping in some hardi-trim instead of PVC seems like a good start, but ulitmately it's just trying to make an inefficient thing "less bad".
So, I'm left with a sick feeling in my stomach and some decisions to make. It's one thing to continue to "stylize" buildings, but it is another thing to deny that an energy crisis exists.
Am I lucky to be in a position in which I could really fight to make a difference with a few pieces of hardi-trim surrounding the EIFS facade-or should I run for my life?
I feel like it's a better opportunity to convert a firm that currently has no green agenda than to run to a firm that already has a well-established green agenda.
If you can somehow convince your bosses that this is a worthwhile endeavor (most likely through monetary gains for the firm), then you have greatly succeeded.
I am currently leading the charge at my firm to establish green practices. The firm's leadership backs my efforts, but I fear that it's only from a marketing standpoint. However, it's making a difference in a firm that had not previously thought sustainable architecture was valuable.
If it's truly a dead-end in your firm, you should run for your life, but i would give it a serious effort first.
I agree with Blue. Make the argument to your bosses that at this point it's only a matter of when and not if a lot of green building practices will become required by building code and/or law. Codes are getting more and more stringent with each edition, especially when it comes to energy and water usage. A number of cities/counties/states have recently adopted laws mandating government owned buildings be LEED certified. Some municipalities have even gone so far as to require LEED for ALL buildings over a certain square footage. I would look for any places near you that have similar mandates and show your firm what business they're potentially losing.
I would also try to find some examples of green or LEED certified buildings that have a similar look to the buildings your firm does. I find that a lot of people have very strong preconceived notions of what they think a green building "should" look like. Showing them that's not true can really open their minds
if you have a decent relationship with your employer you could propose that on the next project you design, to try it your way, complete sustaiability - not just products but the real deal...
you could then present the work to the partners and they will either be impressed and decide this is the way to go -or- they will tell you that it sucks and was a waste of time.
be prepared to also present a propable cost estimate, even if only by sf costs.
if they are not receptive to this, you could then propose that the next project that comes into the office, you complete an entirely separate design, on your own time (unpaid) and go to town with the design, then present to them...
this second method, of course would take away your personal time - but if you are dedicated to this particular firm, and your stance on sustainability, it may be the only way...
at least you will bring your true thoughts to the table and will be putting your (their) money where your mouth is...
if they hate the design, or if they hate those suggestions, at least you know that they will never change, and then you can make a complete judgement on if you want to stay, or move onto another firm.
I appreciate your suggestions and I think that ulimately it is a very good idea to give it another shot.
This is the part that hurts though. I had done a fair amount of digging and research into how we could introduce a green housing approach to a "unit" design that will become part of a large development. This particular development is occuring between two large cities in my area, with their own problems regarding affordable housing etc.
So essentially, it's the new old story of the argricultural landscape being eaten up by cheap and cheaply made single family houses, increasing commuter traffic and catalysing further development.
My proposal was dismissed by the principal, insisting that the deveopler/client on the project was loosing money as it was (which I have a hard time believing).
So the single problem of not accomplishing one green house is mutiplied by a hundred, in a development that, if the actual housing problem were addressed, should not exist.
I think you have to get other architects in your office on board with this green thing...establishing yourself as a sustainable firm doesnt mean you need to use LEED! LEED is a name brand...sorta...its a system of montering the design, construction, and maintainance of the bldg - and set up so that a bldg owner can say "i own a LEED certified bldg" and now he/she can sell the bldg for more money.
You can still say that you designed a competely energy efficient bldg - it just doesnt have a fancy stamp on it
- which is widely agreed to be a spreading level of regulation - and make the point that if he doesn't learn to adapt, the buisness itself might sufffer. It would make better *buisness* sense if nothing else to try to be ahead of the trend. One better buisness for him, clear conscience for you. :)
Though I wouldn't push vado's argument too much - he might just realise life's too short and give up architecture all together! :)
it's not a matter of convincing the boss that green is the wave of the future, but that high performance is where it's at. How can a sports car be hippie? talk about creating structures that perform at the next level, that are more durable, more user friendly, more healthy, and more pleasant to inhabit. And if none of these items inspires your boss that they can make more $$$ selling 'higher performance' to the clients, then run away to a new job.
then the boss will realize that they need to become granola to attract and retain talent.
hurting the world
I am pinned under a moral crisis.
I have been working in a firm for the past 4 years since graduating from college. The work that we produce is your slightly better than average typical mimicry, better in that it sort of has a sense of humor. While the work has not pushed any design envelopes, it has been plentiful, providing me with alot of experience and responsiblity in a short period of time.
The owners are kind and patient people but are convinced that green architecture is a silly hippie fad. I have been slipping some green products into construction drawings, but the building ideas and situationa are fundimentally flawed. So slipping in some hardi-trim instead of PVC seems like a good start, but ulitmately it's just trying to make an inefficient thing "less bad".
So, I'm left with a sick feeling in my stomach and some decisions to make. It's one thing to continue to "stylize" buildings, but it is another thing to deny that an energy crisis exists.
Am I lucky to be in a position in which I could really fight to make a difference with a few pieces of hardi-trim surrounding the EIFS facade-or should I run for my life?
I feel like it's a better opportunity to convert a firm that currently has no green agenda than to run to a firm that already has a well-established green agenda.
If you can somehow convince your bosses that this is a worthwhile endeavor (most likely through monetary gains for the firm), then you have greatly succeeded.
I am currently leading the charge at my firm to establish green practices. The firm's leadership backs my efforts, but I fear that it's only from a marketing standpoint. However, it's making a difference in a firm that had not previously thought sustainable architecture was valuable.
If it's truly a dead-end in your firm, you should run for your life, but i would give it a serious effort first.
I agree with Blue. Make the argument to your bosses that at this point it's only a matter of when and not if a lot of green building practices will become required by building code and/or law. Codes are getting more and more stringent with each edition, especially when it comes to energy and water usage. A number of cities/counties/states have recently adopted laws mandating government owned buildings be LEED certified. Some municipalities have even gone so far as to require LEED for ALL buildings over a certain square footage. I would look for any places near you that have similar mandates and show your firm what business they're potentially losing.
I would also try to find some examples of green or LEED certified buildings that have a similar look to the buildings your firm does. I find that a lot of people have very strong preconceived notions of what they think a green building "should" look like. Showing them that's not true can really open their minds
if you have a decent relationship with your employer you could propose that on the next project you design, to try it your way, complete sustaiability - not just products but the real deal...
you could then present the work to the partners and they will either be impressed and decide this is the way to go -or- they will tell you that it sucks and was a waste of time.
be prepared to also present a propable cost estimate, even if only by sf costs.
if they are not receptive to this, you could then propose that the next project that comes into the office, you complete an entirely separate design, on your own time (unpaid) and go to town with the design, then present to them...
this second method, of course would take away your personal time - but if you are dedicated to this particular firm, and your stance on sustainability, it may be the only way...
at least you will bring your true thoughts to the table and will be putting your (their) money where your mouth is...
if they hate the design, or if they hate those suggestions, at least you know that they will never change, and then you can make a complete judgement on if you want to stay, or move onto another firm.
on a cosmic level, the end of the world has no significance.
However on the Comic Level....your real funny!
I appreciate your suggestions and I think that ulimately it is a very good idea to give it another shot.
This is the part that hurts though. I had done a fair amount of digging and research into how we could introduce a green housing approach to a "unit" design that will become part of a large development. This particular development is occuring between two large cities in my area, with their own problems regarding affordable housing etc.
So essentially, it's the new old story of the argricultural landscape being eaten up by cheap and cheaply made single family houses, increasing commuter traffic and catalysing further development.
My proposal was dismissed by the principal, insisting that the deveopler/client on the project was loosing money as it was (which I have a hard time believing).
So the single problem of not accomplishing one green house is mutiplied by a hundred, in a development that, if the actual housing problem were addressed, should not exist.
I suppose I'm just venting now.
all that agricultural land is getting petroleum dumped on it via fertilizer. best bet to save the world is to commit suicide. do it today.
I think you have to get other architects in your office on board with this green thing...establishing yourself as a sustainable firm doesnt mean you need to use LEED! LEED is a name brand...sorta...its a system of montering the design, construction, and maintainance of the bldg - and set up so that a bldg owner can say "i own a LEED certified bldg" and now he/she can sell the bldg for more money.
You can still say that you designed a competely energy efficient bldg - it just doesnt have a fancy stamp on it
You could reference recent news from the UK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6176229.stm)
- which is widely agreed to be a spreading level of regulation - and make the point that if he doesn't learn to adapt, the buisness itself might sufffer. It would make better *buisness* sense if nothing else to try to be ahead of the trend. One better buisness for him, clear conscience for you. :)
Though I wouldn't push vado's argument too much - he might just realise life's too short and give up architecture all together! :)
In case you find yourself going in circles, this should be the link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6176229.stm
If you are using EIFS, run for your life
Have them watch "An Inconvenient Truth"-bring it in one day and set up the DVD player in the break room and start watching...
it's not a matter of convincing the boss that green is the wave of the future, but that high performance is where it's at. How can a sports car be hippie? talk about creating structures that perform at the next level, that are more durable, more user friendly, more healthy, and more pleasant to inhabit. And if none of these items inspires your boss that they can make more $$$ selling 'higher performance' to the clients, then run away to a new job.
then the boss will realize that they need to become granola to attract and retain talent.
belongs on the 'phrases that make you cringe' thread...
Agreed, AP, but I do like the analogy that barry is suggesting very much: green building = high performance automobile.
yes. sorry...the accoutrements of my corporate job (including canned phrases like the one above) are wearing thin on me this week.
barry, that's by far the best angle suggested in this thread so far (it feels wierd to call you barry)...
and i love architecture:cars analogies, especially.
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.