Okay, so what are the core books for this topic, I am not looking for kiddy books that talk about cross ventillation and how to properly shade a building from the sun, but technical books that clearly explains innovative approaches in sustainable design. I like the Earth and believe in saving energy, blah, blah, blah. But most sustainable projects look like crap and are un-innovative, I think a lot of architects (cough, McDunnough) use it as a crutch to mask their bad designs, is this wrong? FL-dubs was able to be sustainable and look cool while doing it, even though he wore a cape, lets talk cool sustainble architecture. Open discussion begin now.
(Disclaimer I am not taking sides, just looking to learn more about sustainable design, whatever that is)
i think if you are able to get crsoo ventilation and orientation to the sun you are doing pretty damn well for yourself. nothing wring with lo-tech solutions, and hi-tech is often bollucks, ennit...
Ive always liked 'architecture without architects' which is not really geared directly at sustainable design, but there are many examples of harnessing the earth and our environments.
'The Nature of Design' by David Orr is also decent, but not technical.
If you haven't read "cradle to cradle", that's a good place to start. I would also highly recommend "Natural Capitalism", which isn't a how-to book per se, but it kind of approaches the idea wholistically. Next on my reading list after that is "The Ecology of Commerce".....if you are looking for some detailed accounts of sustainably designed homes, there are several "Green Houses" type books out there with plans and diagrams. The one curated by the Building Museum in DC is particularly good.....
I have read cradle to cradle and a lot of the other books you mentioned wonderK, they are good books, but I am tired of people with wishy washy visions of the way the world is. I wish cradle to cradle were true and I could imagine that everything I use is 100% recyclable, but that is not the case. Cradle to Cradle especially should be listed in the fiction section, however noble McDunnogh's intentions may be. We need people like McDunnogh, but my problem is I walk into a studio and I see kids with this book on their desk like it actually has answers in it.
I remember reading C2C for the first time, I read it in one sitting, I was so fascinated because McDunnough made it sound as if he had actually found a way to do these things that he was talking about and at the end of the book, I realized that he had merely just asked the question, and had few answers.
I know what you're saying.....and I think that's why I'm going to grad school, to search for the answers....perhaps I will write the book you are looking for :o)
jamez, I think you are being pretty arrogant. What is wrong with McDonough's work? Is it that it doesnt meet your strachitect-masturbatory fashion standards, what qualifications do you have to make that statement? So you want people to post work that you will like because someone else has thought for you that it is good....
I agree, paperharbinger. people are looking for answers to be handed to them, and told that "this is good." sure you need precedents and information about what is going on in the world, but "sustainable design" is in its infancy. if you want innovative, technical solutions, go solve them.
why can't everything be 100% recyclable? it is extremely frustrating to me that people are so unbelievably short-sighted in their visions of a sustainable future. Like solutions should just be developed NOW, and overnight we can be living in a perfectly carbon-free world.
we have to work at it. we probably won't be living in a 100% recycled/recyclable world in our lifetimes but in 10, even 5 years the things that we are talking about and developing today will be like the horse and buggy.
anyway, in response to your original question, I will add Biomimicry by Janine Benyus to the list. not directly architecture-related but interesting nonetheless.
I love how people resort to name calling because they cannot form a coherent arguement.
What qualifications do I have to make that statement? I believe I have a brain, which enables me to ask questions and to question those around me. What qualifications does McDunnough have to ask a question regarding making things 100% sustainable. If you could read you would see that I am not attacking McDunnough but asking the question:
Why isn't there a Sustainable architect that is let's say has the design charisma of a Louis Kahn.
Sustainable design is in its infancy, I think that that statement is absurd.
Also all I am saying is there is a lot of talk.
Also in order to make innovative solutions you need to understand principles of what has been done before, how do you know what has not been done before in a field if you don't know what has been done? I have stepped into buildings before like the Kimbell Art Museum and there is a spirit about the place, this spirit exist in other buildings, when I step into a McDunnogh building that feeling is not there.
As far as McDunnogh he is the superstar of sustainable design would you compare him to Louis Kahn or Mies van der Rohe? His work is good, but it is sloppy and lacks the spirit of other architects of our history and time.
Rule #1: those posting on this forum must refrain from using the term starchitect, because it is almost as cool as blobitecture.
My expertise is in a different area other than sustainability I am trying to gain better insight into the discourse of sustainability and architecture. You want to discuss ornamentation or how to fabricate a bi-directional surface out of gold while making it water tight, you send me an e-mail, but I am trying to gain as much information regarding sustainable technologies so that I can implement those strategies into unique innovative solutions that are consistant with my design intentions.
Let's open the discussion up if you would like to critique the work of McDunnogh.
Sustainable design is in its infancy, I think that that statement is absurd.
I think that statement is absurd.
jamez, part of the beauty of design is that you find out answers while you find out answers. Doing a design project teaches you what the design project could/should be. It's an iterative process, to use the common term.
If you want to do a design with the spiritual largess of Kimball but employing smog-catalyzing concrete, then you need to design it - it's not been done before, but the information is out there for the gathering to then be combined with your vision.
I think there's some confusion here as to what you're asking, as I feel like people are answering your query - what are some core books? - and you're responding with hostility. What exactly are you looking for?
jamez: I don't agree with your opinion of William McDonough (that's the proper spelling by the way......if you're going to critique someone you should at least have the decency to spell their name right). ANYWAY, the above mentioned books are all very good. Two more "technically" related sustainable architecture design books are: Sun, Wind, & Light by G.Z. Brown and Mark DeKay and Sustainable at the Cutting Edge: Emerging Technologies for Low Energy Buildings by Peter F. Smith.
How did I respond with hostility, you guys are too edgy, I was attacked in two posts, and merely responded, no tostility here.
I figured this post would initiate a discussion, I am looking for information and fun in the process. Why is it if two people have differing opinions its considered hostile, that is bull.
Last post of the day, lunch is almost over, sustainable design has been around for many years, to used the arguement that it is in its infancy, to what suggest that that is the reason for the state of sustainability in architecture is absurd. Sustainability has been around for dare I say 100 years, and we as architects have done what with it? Please point out what words and sentences have shown to have a hostile tone and I will refrain from using those words.
second to last post, discussions evolve, I don't go around thinking I want to talk about potatoes and only potatoes you talk about books, and the discussion evolves with a focus on sustainability that is all.
Realize also that McDonough may be the face of sustainable design, but MANY designers are doing better designed work than McDonough.
Look at Norman Foster's work, it's amazing. His books, Works volumes 1-4 have great drawings, and the buildings are great architecture, with or without the sustainable aspects.
Ken Yeang is phenomenal.
And many other young firms are pushing the envelope, especially in the areas of computing and digital fabrication which may or may not be "sustainable" today, but their potential implications for future environmental buildings is amazing.
Take a look around the Sustainability links section on this website.
Well "wishy washy" to describe what is actually a pretty important and groundbreaking book (even if you didn't like it) kinda irked me.
But manners or whatever aside:
As jump said, issues of siting and cross ventilation are ages old (even older than me ha!) But the notion of sustainable design employing modern construction culture AND considering the building in a holistic way - materials used, distribution of goods, off-gassing, HVAC, mass production, glass innovations, greywater, total carbon footprint, etc etc - is barely ten years old.
I'm incredibly optimistic about the advances of even the last decade. But I don't know what to direct you toward in terms of books to read. Some of the recent grads among us might be better suited.
I personally take a different view on this. I do not think sustainability is 100 years old, unsustainability is that old. Before then there was no option other than being sensible to the environment. Ok, this is not in all cases many cultures (like the obvious case of the easter islands, but also most of europe) have really done major damage to their environment. Except in some special cases, people throughout history have found ways to co-exist with their climate and larger environmental conditions. This has shaped architectural decisions at every level form, materiality, light conditions.
To deviate from the original post, I personally think that vernaculars have a lot to teach us. I like High-Tech sustainability, but I think that low tech can work just as well, it is cheaper and easier to do, and in the long range it can be more sustainable (because more construction people are familiar with the tech, or lack there of, needed).
Allow me to clarify my claim that Sustainable Design is in its infancy.
Sustainable technologies into 2 categories: High-Tech and Low-Tech.
When considering "low-tech" sustainability, I think your statement that sustainabilityis 100 years old is equally if not more egregious because if you want to boil sustainability to its absolute basest form, you would realize that the most sustainable building was the first dwelling ever inhabited by human beings... caves, the primitive hut, etc etc. Native American teepees were built thousands of years ago with a hole at the top to suck out the smoke from the campfire and to expel hot air in the summer. Crazy ideas, right? Today, the most "technologically advanced" buildings are those with natural ventilation. It's absurd. Maybe you could study details of cave dwellers (thermal mass) or aforementioned teepees.
Sustainability in its infancy relates to "high-tech" solutions. The buildings of the future will be reconceptualized in their entirety. The problem with sustainability today is that we are adapting green technologies to a system of building that is inefficient and largely obsolete. Greening Louis Kahn's architecture isn't going to work.
This is the short-sighted nature of sustainability today that I referred to. I believe that I am just beginning to scratch the surface of what a truly sustainable building can be. In order to do that, I need to force myself to completely throw out what I know about building conventions and pre-conceived notions of what architecture "should be." It's not easy, but until we change the way we think, true sustainability will not be achieved.
if you want a case study building to go off of
search
UT Nursing School in Houston TX. www.verticalfarms.com
COR building in maimi
the kimble is an amazing example of daylighting and architecture put together.
when you talk about mies, khan, etc. they were
thinking outside the box. i think you should have the
same approach to sustainability. stop looking for answers
in arch. work, and turn to engineers and science. figure
out what the problems are for the site and what potential
reasources you have for that specific location. every place
is different so looking at other peoples work isnt always going
to help you. sustainability relies on the designer's knowledge of
nature and how to design the building around that. some other
good information.
www.harc.edu
thermal dynamics
wind research ( U of H and U Mass are competing for a 15 mil/yr DOE grant into this)
geothermal
what they by mean "infancy"; the people that are paying for the buildings are barely starting to understand that there is
more to Arch the good aesthetics. and when more of these
people start funding sustainable projects you will have better
references
by all means, start off your desing with "zero carbon" look at each material and find the imbodied energy which is stored in
manufacturing, transporting, etc
Good point, Lego. The most important advances right now are being made in the sciences, which will eventually be applied to architecture. Biomimicry provides many good examples of this.
I agree completely with +q. In fact, I might even go as far as saying that technology in the first place allowed us to stray from sustainability that was inherently necessary for a successful building.
You can probably learn as much about sustainable design and nature if not more from indigenous peoples as you would from "engineers and scientists." And its not all about technology and knowledge. It is also lifestyle, beliefs, infrastructure and etc.
No commercial client will ever want their building to be sustainable without any kind of financial incentive (directly or indirectly, such as a marketing or PR). You can develop all the technology in the world but unless it is widely applicable, accessible and economical, it will only serve the minority of rich clients with some notion of responsibility to the environment.
Controlling the development of spec buildings by developers that are only interested in initial cost (instead of long term operating cost which has a linear relationship to energy use - hence towards sustainability) for example could potentially have more impact than the most advanced solar panel. And lets face it, advanced technology usually equals higher costs.
I dream of new sheet materials ,stronger and more longlived than the convensional and Totaly Eco Friendly develobed in a spirit of progress and genourasity Delivering a house at a third acting the exact best auxilery at also a third the cost but this time by digital.
sun, wind, & light (brown & mckay)
passive solar energy book (mazria)
soka bau: utility sustainability efficiency (thomas herzog)
solar energy in arch. + urban planning (herzog)
strategies for sustainable architecture (paola sassi)
many of the major corps are turning to sustainability because of economics and financial feasibility. when
approaching a client you give them the total running cost to maintain a buidling, most projects are for 100yrs. there is a study done by BNIM for the Packard
which show this in detail.
i totally agree with changing ones habits is the most important and easiest step to becoming sustainable.
check out the Walmart in Mckinny TX, outside of dallas. that particular building is incorporating "green" concepts and it total revenue is 4x any other location in the world.
jamez first thing when it comes to sustainability where are you?
the literature differs from place to place, and it would be a mistake to think that they can broad brush the issues and have them be applicable everywhere.
sustainable design is not in its infancy; its just another name for what was best practice before the industrial revolution. The first place to start is our history books about dwellings that kept out the rain but dissolved when the season was over
within a modern tradition of building and architecture it makes that goal of sustainability that much more difficult, hence the challenge and the need for books like cradle to cradle.
Sun, Wind and Light is a great book. Granted I'm biased having had many discussions with G.Z. (Charlie) Brown.
We are currently working on a house as a LEED Homes pilot and I can say that if our client wasn't so passionate, and more importantly financially able to push for it, it would be very hard to get certification. And while I understand the shallowness of flimsyness of LEED certification, the choices made that made this house "high proformance" or "green" were usually the more expensive options.
But it has also shown us that good design can lessen the need to rely on high tech solutions.
Jamez I support your anger that many of the architects arguing | attempting sustainability in the 70s and early 80s were doing crap work. However the rise of bigger budgets, better arguments, faces that could argue the work whilst not coming off as waterboot wearing tree huggers has allowed good work to emerge
meta, does this mean I can't truly care about my husband because my very existence in his life is effecting change on it? That seems like a pretty narrow view of caring.
Recall the case of the Willamette River in Portland. In 1972 it was so polluted that a fish could survie in its water for less than 20 seconds. Through efforts of humans it is now a viable fish habitat. It's not the pristine waters of a million years ago, but it's better than it was.
Do you truly believe that every act of inhabitation on the earth is to its detriment?
the turnaround of the willamette has been phenomenal.
it's great to see some of the projects going up around it...
LEED is trash, anyone think it'll be placed with something more stringent? along the lines of what's going on in europe?
worked with a firm that blew the socks off of LEED - passivhaus, niederigenergiehaus + minergie programs. my only beef with these systems is that the buildings are so tight, that mechanical systems must be utilized. got to work on some really interesting details and strategies.
mostly, it came down to tons of research on front end w/ siting, solar exposure + massing. projects were very strong. lots of consultant fees.
i'm also a huge fan of projects that respond to the climate they are built in - corb + kahn in india come to mind... and kahn's proposal for angola...
mech ventilation did to architecture what cars did to public transportation...
Sustainable Design Let's do it
Okay, so what are the core books for this topic, I am not looking for kiddy books that talk about cross ventillation and how to properly shade a building from the sun, but technical books that clearly explains innovative approaches in sustainable design. I like the Earth and believe in saving energy, blah, blah, blah. But most sustainable projects look like crap and are un-innovative, I think a lot of architects (cough, McDunnough) use it as a crutch to mask their bad designs, is this wrong? FL-dubs was able to be sustainable and look cool while doing it, even though he wore a cape, lets talk cool sustainble architecture. Open discussion begin now.
(Disclaimer I am not taking sides, just looking to learn more about sustainable design, whatever that is)
i think if you are able to get crsoo ventilation and orientation to the sun you are doing pretty damn well for yourself. nothing wring with lo-tech solutions, and hi-tech is often bollucks, ennit...
The HOK Guidebook to Sustainable Design
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0471696137/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-7184408-2890537#reader-link
Ive always liked 'architecture without architects' which is not really geared directly at sustainable design, but there are many examples of harnessing the earth and our environments.
'The Nature of Design' by David Orr is also decent, but not technical.
you can try yeang's books, i've liked his ideas a lot...
jamez, you crack me up.
If you haven't read "cradle to cradle", that's a good place to start. I would also highly recommend "Natural Capitalism", which isn't a how-to book per se, but it kind of approaches the idea wholistically. Next on my reading list after that is "The Ecology of Commerce".....if you are looking for some detailed accounts of sustainably designed homes, there are several "Green Houses" type books out there with plans and diagrams. The one curated by the Building Museum in DC is particularly good.....
i like Norman Foster, I like London City Hall, im not sure anybody else does though.
I have read cradle to cradle and a lot of the other books you mentioned wonderK, they are good books, but I am tired of people with wishy washy visions of the way the world is. I wish cradle to cradle were true and I could imagine that everything I use is 100% recyclable, but that is not the case. Cradle to Cradle especially should be listed in the fiction section, however noble McDunnogh's intentions may be. We need people like McDunnogh, but my problem is I walk into a studio and I see kids with this book on their desk like it actually has answers in it.
I remember reading C2C for the first time, I read it in one sitting, I was so fascinated because McDunnough made it sound as if he had actually found a way to do these things that he was talking about and at the end of the book, I realized that he had merely just asked the question, and had few answers.
p.s. dubK where are you going to grad schooL?
USC.
I know what you're saying.....and I think that's why I'm going to grad school, to search for the answers....perhaps I will write the book you are looking for :o)
jamez, I think you are being pretty arrogant. What is wrong with McDonough's work? Is it that it doesnt meet your strachitect-masturbatory fashion standards, what qualifications do you have to make that statement? So you want people to post work that you will like because someone else has thought for you that it is good....
I agree, paperharbinger. people are looking for answers to be handed to them, and told that "this is good." sure you need precedents and information about what is going on in the world, but "sustainable design" is in its infancy. if you want innovative, technical solutions, go solve them.
why can't everything be 100% recyclable? it is extremely frustrating to me that people are so unbelievably short-sighted in their visions of a sustainable future. Like solutions should just be developed NOW, and overnight we can be living in a perfectly carbon-free world.
we have to work at it. we probably won't be living in a 100% recycled/recyclable world in our lifetimes but in 10, even 5 years the things that we are talking about and developing today will be like the horse and buggy.
anyway, in response to your original question, I will add Biomimicry by Janine Benyus to the list. not directly architecture-related but interesting nonetheless.
jamez you can find some of what you seek here:
http://www.architecture2030.com/case_studies/index.html
a good book for a bigger picture approach:
i'm ready to do it
I love how people resort to name calling because they cannot form a coherent arguement.
What qualifications do I have to make that statement? I believe I have a brain, which enables me to ask questions and to question those around me. What qualifications does McDunnough have to ask a question regarding making things 100% sustainable. If you could read you would see that I am not attacking McDunnough but asking the question:
Why isn't there a Sustainable architect that is let's say has the design charisma of a Louis Kahn.
Sustainable design is in its infancy, I think that that statement is absurd.
Also all I am saying is there is a lot of talk.
Also in order to make innovative solutions you need to understand principles of what has been done before, how do you know what has not been done before in a field if you don't know what has been done? I have stepped into buildings before like the Kimbell Art Museum and there is a spirit about the place, this spirit exist in other buildings, when I step into a McDunnogh building that feeling is not there.
As far as McDunnogh he is the superstar of sustainable design would you compare him to Louis Kahn or Mies van der Rohe? His work is good, but it is sloppy and lacks the spirit of other architects of our history and time.
Rule #1: those posting on this forum must refrain from using the term starchitect, because it is almost as cool as blobitecture.
My expertise is in a different area other than sustainability I am trying to gain better insight into the discourse of sustainability and architecture. You want to discuss ornamentation or how to fabricate a bi-directional surface out of gold while making it water tight, you send me an e-mail, but I am trying to gain as much information regarding sustainable technologies so that I can implement those strategies into unique innovative solutions that are consistant with my design intentions.
Let's open the discussion up if you would like to critique the work of McDunnogh.
Sustainable design is in its infancy, I think that that statement is absurd.
I think that statement is absurd.
jamez, part of the beauty of design is that you find out answers while you find out answers. Doing a design project teaches you what the design project could/should be. It's an iterative process, to use the common term.
If you want to do a design with the spiritual largess of Kimball but employing smog-catalyzing concrete, then you need to design it - it's not been done before, but the information is out there for the gathering to then be combined with your vision.
I think there's some confusion here as to what you're asking, as I feel like people are answering your query - what are some core books? - and you're responding with hostility. What exactly are you looking for?
jamez: I don't agree with your opinion of William McDonough (that's the proper spelling by the way......if you're going to critique someone you should at least have the decency to spell their name right). ANYWAY, the above mentioned books are all very good. Two more "technically" related sustainable architecture design books are: Sun, Wind, & Light by G.Z. Brown and Mark DeKay and Sustainable at the Cutting Edge: Emerging Technologies for Low Energy Buildings by Peter F. Smith.
How did I respond with hostility, you guys are too edgy, I was attacked in two posts, and merely responded, no tostility here.
I figured this post would initiate a discussion, I am looking for information and fun in the process. Why is it if two people have differing opinions its considered hostile, that is bull.
And what does decency have to do with spelling?
So what exactly is the discussion you are looking for? I'm still not clear on what you're after beyond book recommendations.
Last post of the day, lunch is almost over, sustainable design has been around for many years, to used the arguement that it is in its infancy, to what suggest that that is the reason for the state of sustainability in architecture is absurd. Sustainability has been around for dare I say 100 years, and we as architects have done what with it? Please point out what words and sentences have shown to have a hostile tone and I will refrain from using those words.
second to last post, discussions evolve, I don't go around thinking I want to talk about potatoes and only potatoes you talk about books, and the discussion evolves with a focus on sustainability that is all.
Realize also that McDonough may be the face of sustainable design, but MANY designers are doing better designed work than McDonough.
Look at Norman Foster's work, it's amazing. His books, Works volumes 1-4 have great drawings, and the buildings are great architecture, with or without the sustainable aspects.
Ken Yeang is phenomenal.
And many other young firms are pushing the envelope, especially in the areas of computing and digital fabrication which may or may not be "sustainable" today, but their potential implications for future environmental buildings is amazing.
Take a look around the Sustainability links section on this website.
Well "wishy washy" to describe what is actually a pretty important and groundbreaking book (even if you didn't like it) kinda irked me.
But manners or whatever aside:
As jump said, issues of siting and cross ventilation are ages old (even older than me ha!) But the notion of sustainable design employing modern construction culture AND considering the building in a holistic way - materials used, distribution of goods, off-gassing, HVAC, mass production, glass innovations, greywater, total carbon footprint, etc etc - is barely ten years old.
I'm incredibly optimistic about the advances of even the last decade. But I don't know what to direct you toward in terms of books to read. Some of the recent grads among us might be better suited.
Never said I didn't like C2C, but this is good discussion, Blue202, I fully agree.
I personally take a different view on this. I do not think sustainability is 100 years old, unsustainability is that old. Before then there was no option other than being sensible to the environment. Ok, this is not in all cases many cultures (like the obvious case of the easter islands, but also most of europe) have really done major damage to their environment. Except in some special cases, people throughout history have found ways to co-exist with their climate and larger environmental conditions. This has shaped architectural decisions at every level form, materiality, light conditions.
To deviate from the original post, I personally think that vernaculars have a lot to teach us. I like High-Tech sustainability, but I think that low tech can work just as well, it is cheaper and easier to do, and in the long range it can be more sustainable (because more construction people are familiar with the tech, or lack there of, needed).
Allow me to clarify my claim that Sustainable Design is in its infancy.
Sustainable technologies into 2 categories: High-Tech and Low-Tech.
When considering "low-tech" sustainability, I think your statement that sustainabilityis 100 years old is equally if not more egregious because if you want to boil sustainability to its absolute basest form, you would realize that the most sustainable building was the first dwelling ever inhabited by human beings... caves, the primitive hut, etc etc. Native American teepees were built thousands of years ago with a hole at the top to suck out the smoke from the campfire and to expel hot air in the summer. Crazy ideas, right? Today, the most "technologically advanced" buildings are those with natural ventilation. It's absurd. Maybe you could study details of cave dwellers (thermal mass) or aforementioned teepees.
Sustainability in its infancy relates to "high-tech" solutions. The buildings of the future will be reconceptualized in their entirety. The problem with sustainability today is that we are adapting green technologies to a system of building that is inefficient and largely obsolete. Greening Louis Kahn's architecture isn't going to work.
This is the short-sighted nature of sustainability today that I referred to. I believe that I am just beginning to scratch the surface of what a truly sustainable building can be. In order to do that, I need to force myself to completely throw out what I know about building conventions and pre-conceived notions of what architecture "should be." It's not easy, but until we change the way we think, true sustainability will not be achieved.
if you want a case study building to go off of
search
UT Nursing School in Houston TX.
www.verticalfarms.com
COR building in maimi
the kimble is an amazing example of daylighting and architecture put together.
when you talk about mies, khan, etc. they were
thinking outside the box. i think you should have the
same approach to sustainability. stop looking for answers
in arch. work, and turn to engineers and science. figure
out what the problems are for the site and what potential
reasources you have for that specific location. every place
is different so looking at other peoples work isnt always going
to help you. sustainability relies on the designer's knowledge of
nature and how to design the building around that. some other
good information.
www.harc.edu
thermal dynamics
wind research ( U of H and U Mass are competing for a 15 mil/yr DOE grant into this)
geothermal
what they by mean "infancy"; the people that are paying for the buildings are barely starting to understand that there is
more to Arch the good aesthetics. and when more of these
people start funding sustainable projects you will have better
references
by all means, start off your desing with "zero carbon" look at each material and find the imbodied energy which is stored in
manufacturing, transporting, etc
Good point, Lego. The most important advances right now are being made in the sciences, which will eventually be applied to architecture. Biomimicry provides many good examples of this.
I agree completely with +q. In fact, I might even go as far as saying that technology in the first place allowed us to stray from sustainability that was inherently necessary for a successful building.
You can probably learn as much about sustainable design and nature if not more from indigenous peoples as you would from "engineers and scientists." And its not all about technology and knowledge. It is also lifestyle, beliefs, infrastructure and etc.
No commercial client will ever want their building to be sustainable without any kind of financial incentive (directly or indirectly, such as a marketing or PR). You can develop all the technology in the world but unless it is widely applicable, accessible and economical, it will only serve the minority of rich clients with some notion of responsibility to the environment.
Controlling the development of spec buildings by developers that are only interested in initial cost (instead of long term operating cost which has a linear relationship to energy use - hence towards sustainability) for example could potentially have more impact than the most advanced solar panel. And lets face it, advanced technology usually equals higher costs.
save the world. kill yourself.
don't start another wave of suicides!
I dream of new sheet materials ,stronger and more longlived than the convensional and Totaly Eco Friendly develobed in a spirit of progress and genourasity Delivering a house at a third acting the exact best auxilery at also a third the cost but this time by digital.
some of the better books i have:
sun, wind, & light (brown & mckay)
passive solar energy book (mazria)
soka bau: utility sustainability efficiency (thomas herzog)
solar energy in arch. + urban planning (herzog)
strategies for sustainable architecture (paola sassi)
I do some work for the National Park Service, and to them a 'sustainable' material is one that you don't have to paint or maintain.
Sometimes I worry that too much gets lumped in with sustainable.
many of the major corps are turning to sustainability because of economics and financial feasibility. when
approaching a client you give them the total running cost to maintain a buidling, most projects are for 100yrs. there is a study done by BNIM for the Packard
which show this in detail.
www.bnim.com/newsite/pdfs/2002-Matrix.pdf
i totally agree with changing ones habits is the most important and easiest step to becoming sustainable.
check out the Walmart in Mckinny TX, outside of dallas. that particular building is incorporating "green" concepts and it total revenue is 4x any other location in the world.
jamez first thing when it comes to sustainability where are you?
the literature differs from place to place, and it would be a mistake to think that they can broad brush the issues and have them be applicable everywhere.
sustainable design is not in its infancy; its just another name for what was best practice before the industrial revolution. The first place to start is our history books about dwellings that kept out the rain but dissolved when the season was over
within a modern tradition of building and architecture it makes that goal of sustainability that much more difficult, hence the challenge and the need for books like cradle to cradle.
Sun, Wind and Light is a great book. Granted I'm biased having had many discussions with G.Z. (Charlie) Brown.
We are currently working on a house as a LEED Homes pilot and I can say that if our client wasn't so passionate, and more importantly financially able to push for it, it would be very hard to get certification. And while I understand the shallowness of flimsyness of LEED certification, the choices made that made this house "high proformance" or "green" were usually the more expensive options.
But it has also shown us that good design can lessen the need to rely on high tech solutions.
Now, if only we were good designers...
Jamez I support your anger that many of the architects arguing | attempting sustainability in the 70s and early 80s were doing crap work. However the rise of bigger budgets, better arguments, faces that could argue the work whilst not coming off as waterboot wearing tree huggers has allowed good work to emerge
- mcharg
the RSVP cycle - halprin
and any title by malcolm wells for cool 70s radical underground buildings
meta- are turning into a 'scaper?
meta, does this mean I can't truly care about my husband because my very existence in his life is effecting change on it? That seems like a pretty narrow view of caring.
Recall the case of the Willamette River in Portland. In 1972 it was so polluted that a fish could survie in its water for less than 20 seconds. Through efforts of humans it is now a viable fish habitat. It's not the pristine waters of a million years ago, but it's better than it was.
Do you truly believe that every act of inhabitation on the earth is to its detriment?
global warming is NoTaNeWtHaNg!!!
the planet has a fever
and the only solution is ..
the turnaround of the willamette has been phenomenal.
it's great to see some of the projects going up around it...
LEED is trash, anyone think it'll be placed with something more stringent? along the lines of what's going on in europe?
worked with a firm that blew the socks off of LEED - passivhaus, niederigenergiehaus + minergie programs. my only beef with these systems is that the buildings are so tight, that mechanical systems must be utilized. got to work on some really interesting details and strategies.
mostly, it came down to tons of research on front end w/ siting, solar exposure + massing. projects were very strong. lots of consultant fees.
i'm also a huge fan of projects that respond to the climate they are built in - corb + kahn in india come to mind... and kahn's proposal for angola...
mech ventilation did to architecture what cars did to public transportation...
Sustainable Architecture White Papers:
http://www.amazon.com/Sustainable-Architecture-Papers-Foundation-Development/dp/0967509912
i gotta see that capra movie vado posted. i love 50s graphics and the glass bottom boat over miami is classic.
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.