If you go by the three R's, reduce, reuse, recycle, then you first instinct in moving in a more sustainable direction is to reduce. In the context of architecture that might translate into a more "minimalist" sensibility. Less stuff = less to manufacture, fewer resources consumed and less waste down the line.

So for example in the case of flooring ... do you really need to clad a concrete slab with wood flooring? sure you could use baboo which is more sustainable, but your still consuming resources to harvest the bamboo, transport it to site, does the installation require a glue to lay down ... etc.

@ J-turn,
Exactly,
I am not sayign we should alll design 1920,s
Modernist buildings, with no extraneous elements...
But it seems as if reduce, is the most import and easiest of the three R, to implement.

I agree with that sentiment. However, while Reduce is the easiest to implement physically and from a cost standpoint, I think that it might be the hardest to sell to the American people, among others. There is a lot of debate, as noted, as a lot of people seem to think we can invent and buy ourselves out of our problems. Americans have been packaged and sold a consumer lifestyle, and they are buying it up readily. When you start talking about reducing what you buy and use, it makes people nervous. We don't seem to want to give up any of our comforts and luxuries.

What was one of the first things we were told after 9/11 and as we headed into wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? We weren't told there would be rationing for meat and oil and rubber. We weren't told to ride the bus or plant victory gardens. We were told to go to New York and eat out and see a show, to go to the mall and pump money into the economy. And Americans did it. It's not just us, either. Developing and emerging nations like China have the Western visions presented to them as the standard of success, so that is for what they are aiming - car ownership, shopping at Wal-Mart, taking vacations and moving to the city.

I hope that we can shift the direction of the conversation over time. Use the idea of switching to more sustainable materials to win people over, make it seem painless. Once they are on board and convinced of the importance, we can start changing the focus back to the reduce issue and help people see it can be easy and in the grand scheme of things, not that big a sacrifice.

I agree, sustainabilty should mean a shift in attitude in habit that is counter to our societies "values" of consumerism. I always think of woody allen's bit about "my stuff."

One of the complaints i had with D+S sustainable house in the NY Times last month is that it didn't question these values in a deep way. They proposed a house full of "sustainable" gadgets, but didn't challenge the idea of having a house in a remote location that was only accessible by car. they still had a nasty chloronated pool ...

I think ... and this is me being an idealist, that designers need to think beyond just being designers in this case. It goes beyond problem solving. We need to be advocates for reduction.

Political Design?
Or is should design always be political?

I think the debate is best characterized as Minimalist vs. Consumerist. One side thinks it's enough to consumer better products, while the other recognizes that what we ought to do is reduce our consumption.

How does design fit into this...? That's hard. I think the common fee structure based on a percentage of building cost doesn't help, because like it or not this encourages architects to make it bigger.

Not nessery ,it happened before that new methods or materials suddenly opened a complete new lead. Here it is obvious to be critic towerds the way computers is engaged in architecture ,how newthinking and new technologies before has turned everything head feet. As simple a thing as a new way to put things together,

vs ravers

vind, you're out of your depth on this one. It is absolutely NOT as simple as finding a new way to put things together, it's about us all trying to find a way to live with less things in the first place.

i agree with rationalist - just finding new efficiencies in assembly methods is a marginal sollution vs. the more fundamental change we are discussing.

j- that pool in the NYT D+S house didn't have chlorination, but was filtered by a complex wetland 'living machine'... seethis news post for more info of the concept behind natural pools.

but still, I share the same issues of sticking any house in a exurban fringe in a hot arid environment. the cistern, cool air labyrinth, and mechanized shades all help, but it's still 120 degrees in the shade and 6 inches of rain/year that just doesn't compute as being sustainable to our pampered western lifestyle. to collect sufficient water for the average use of 200-500/gallons/day, they would have to pave several acres for the catchment - that would amplify the heat island impact of any structure in the desert.

less is more, but location may be the biggest factor in changing our footprint.

location - yes it is important.

also - urbanism. urban environments, dense living all contribute to lowering energy use.

location has to imply building strategies. In the southwest you can't live in a glass box, of a timber frame box that needs artificial means to cool it. You need to use thermal mass. you need to tamper sunlight ... etc.

The doctrine of reduction also applies to floor area. Mechanical systems are the single biggest drain on energy, and yet developers continue to insist on maximizing floor plate sizes thus forcing buildings to be heavily reliant on extensive mechanical ventilation systems and artificial lighting strategies. So our advocacy needs to extend beyond consumerism and also challenge real estate developement mindsets.

Ehis might be an area where architects can be more effective. Consumerism is a nebulous concept, but architects do sit across from developers regularly. We also work with city councils that can pressure developments into adopting more sustainable designs. These are avenues through which we should be advocating.

versus reductionists

from a multitude of sources that i can not vouch for: the average American home has swelled from 983 square feet in 1950 to 2,349 square feet in 2004...in 1993 it was 1,875 square feet...

my fear is that "green" is the word of the moment...(remember that atkins diet) i just hope people realize the nature of the problem is serious enough not to take environmental consciousness lightly.

nam..re. your original question, i hope the result of the debate will be a minimalist + brains/brawn discourse.

I do keep seeing these modern....2000+ designs. Which seem to be more expansive than ever and with excessive amounts of glass and I scratch my head and say...LEED? Would someone please explain this to me....I'm totally in the dark.

"less MUST BE more"

especially when placed in conjunction with more is more.

thank you all for responding...
Personally it is heartening to see other people questioning the more is better discourse...
However, can reduce ever gain traction as a design (for either small or mega scale) strategy..
What to speak of a society-wide acceptance of such an answer to our problems...

I too have always wondered how adding more features and tech and thus embodied energy/money can really equal LEED or any other rating method...
The only points that really make sense to me are the ones that look at simple things like sighting or position in relation to sun or trees, etc...

less is more if the more isn't very good.

additivealists in context of getting more LEED points ;)

it is true, to consume less and have the things in life that are truly important make you happier. (I live with no microwave, no TV...) But we have to remember that we have "things" available to us and they are shiny and scream "want us" and a lot of times it's hard to say no.

I feel like within the design community we need to stop making design decisions that make the owners take everything for granted. Even if we design using eco-friendly materials, site orient the building for the best exposure in heating/cooling and provide all of the solutions... where does anyone who uses the building change their habits? What about a compost shoot or built in recycle bins.

I think we have found the answers in minimalism and we need to go beyond that.

@ Jonas77

How did Diogenes get the rest of the world to agreee?

Oh...He didn't?

net, I think that's a point, but it also needs to be taken to a planning level. In one of the coastal communities here, I think it's Manhattan Beach, each house is REQUIRED to have at least a two-car garage. Parking requirements in general sometimes far exceed reality, and certainly exceed what is reasonable. Making parking harder is one of the clearest ways to make our culture less auto-centered. Look at NYC, one of the big reasons that people don't have cars there is because the cost of parking a car is so exhorbitant. Yet our planning regulations encourage personal auto use, so how to we expect people to change?

great question... how do you tell someone they should change? the only way i can solve that is by playing follow the leader. it's like the green movement, all of a sudden every person is trying to get in on the action yet they don't understand what they are doing (buying organic, driving hybrid, etc... because the pressure is there).

it's also the pressure that has resulted in "sustainable" or "green" firms and trying to be LEED certified (not always great design but checking things off a list if you ask me)

I've always thought architects should have a G8 summit to decide how to plan the rest of the world... can you imagine? A global plan? it would probably be chaos and fantastic at the same time

manufactured consent

there is no obligation duty or responsibility

should should , listen to your self , that word is amtsprache