green-washing. hands down. contractors, owners, my boss... its gotta be "green" though they have no idea what it means. everything is green-washed. everyone wants to appear green, and few really do anything beyond put a good face on for the rest of the world to see.
im still a student, so im only interning this summer; and as a result get to leave this world of phony bull in the fall... for a different type of phony bull.. but for you guys in this for...basically...ever, i feel bad for ya.
while its good to have peoples minds on this type of thing. this "fad" and yes until people get educated on what it really means, it will only remain a "fad", drives me crazy.
it seems that people are overusing and misusing the word "green" in the same way they've overused and misused the word "modern" in the past several decades.
My experience has been that a lot of people are overwhelmed by the green movement. They don't know how to proceed and who to believe. It feels as though everyone in involved has their own agenda to forward and there aren't any accurate metrics to really objectively judge "greenness" yet.
A lot of senior people in our professions are rightfully cautious about the entire matter, I am sure they have seen many young engineers and architects come up preaching the latest "fad". Sometimes these fads catch on and become part of daily practice, othertimes they simply don't.
A certain level of reserved interest is probably appropriate at this point, otherwise you can get yourself so wrapped up in the hole matter that you become brainwashed.
Don't feel bad for us. Some of us are actually trying to learn something, and put all this green hype to good use. I don't care if 95% of it is hype, as long as it makes it easier for the 5% of actual, green projects to make it through the pipe.
Theres no such thing as green - its a marketing tool. You want to be green? Build a building out of shit that will last. News flash - Curtain walls arent green either. Im not sure if giant holes are green, but every one seems to think so. Fuck green.
good design should be "green" by definition. things architects should know and automatically implement as part of good design are inherently green. indirect gains etc...
props to reducing construction waste. ill give it that.
green roofs were cool (academically) just because it was cool to have shit growing on your building before it was chic.
had a meeting this morning that left me with my mouth gaping. hence the topic.
ive actually started to hate the color green, flipping through magazines i automatically skip an article if in the heading i see the word or the color green now.
"I don't care if 95% of it is hype, as long as it makes it easier for the 5% of actual, green projects to make it through the pipe."
I'm with facader on this one. There are certainly poseurs out there who wave the green flag but have no interest in actually designing sustainable buildings. I'm trying to design sustainably, and I don't think it's in vain.
i disagree with evil's comment that green is ONLY a marketing tool. It is used as a marketing tool often, but there are designers that are designing more sustainably than they used to out of a genuine concern for the environment, and out of general integrity.
to say that "there is no green architecture" is overly simplistic and harsh, IMO. there may be no pure "sustainable" and "zero carbon" architecture, but there are certainly are varying shades.
a rammed earth house in the southwest US which uses mass walls or trombe walls is inherently more sustainable/green than the richard meier house in dallas with 3-story glazed walls facing west, with a $3,000/month electric bill.
maybe i'm misunderstanding evil's message, but to me, saying that green doesn't exist smacks of the sort of skepticism of those who say that global warming hasn't been proven. i believe that the environment is indeed under threat, and that architects need to design differently than has been done in the past. Whether we call these new design strategies "green" or whatever is irrelavent.
Did we get off topic, or was this suppose to be a green thread?
If not, the most annoying thing at my office today is the fancy new printer. Its not just plug and play, its figure out how it likes to be set, and then I promise it will be better. But, damnit, I don't want to figure it out. DO MY BIDDING, PRINTER!!
i hate the lighting in my office (coffee house)..... they have those pinpoint halogens that just bug the shyt out of me.....then the wall lights....then the can lights........ and the building is only 30x80ish or so....wtf....
and the loud mouth caffee maker beatch that has to talk on her phone while trying to take your order...then asks to repeat it.....grrrr.....
the word "greening" or "green" architecture should not even be used. That's what makes it a fad to begin with. I think it's important to understand the term sustainability vs. green when thinking about the environment and building communities. I think it's probably LEED who started the whole green thing as a marketing ploy. BS!
"...saying that green doesn't exist smacks of the sort of skepticism of those who say that global warming hasn't been proven. i believe that the environment is indeed under threat"
I think that's the root of the problem. Hey, I'm totally into a lot of what's now called "green"...passive solar....wind...conservation...basic stuff... But in terms of the hard science you're implying? Hmm. A little tougher to flatly state things like you're doing, mation... The whole movement seems to fall apart a bit because there is just so darned much conjecture... Are you sure it's all been proven? Man, i'm not. Right now, it's been equally disproven.
bodz, I would say that both terms have meaning, and should be applied accurately, instead of using either one of them at all times. A "green" project is one that pays attention to resource consumption, while a "sustainable" project is one that pays attention to resource consumption and supports a socially and financially functional community. The vast majority of architecture could not truly be said to be sustainable, so I'm ok when someone just says "green," as it's much more likely to be true.
waiting three hours for your GC tto respond to an email asking the model number of the windows he proposes using b/c the bid package only states the manufacturers name. When you finally get your eagerly awaited email, it states to check the bid package for the information. I ALREADY DID THAT!!!! THREE TIMES!!!!
rationalist...I think they should be separate terms (as you say). But, why make something green if it cannot sustain your economic and social standards? It has always seemed like the easy way out to plop bamboo floors and geothermal into a "green" project but place it in a suburban or even rural location. How can that be green? And in terms of sustainability, what happens when the (green) systems for energy use breakdown and become obsolete?
Not to say that these systems are not vaild but I am just more of a fan of community sustainability (economic, social and environmental) than I am for the greening of homes or buildings per se'.
apurimac...that's definately NOT what I'm trying to say. It's probably more possible to make a 'building' sustainable in a rural setting than in an urban area. My point was that most 'green' projects today are hypocritical to the fact that you have a half hour drive (and back) to wherever you're going. In turns of sustainability, that doesn't work (in my mind at least). I guess if you're willing to live like a tibetan monk or an amish farm hand, your options for sustainable building going through the roof. Otherwise...filler up'!
sitting at my typical table at my "office"..... a person sits at the table across from me and is just staring at me...wtf.......should i get up and do the robot?
Just thinking of all the energy it takes to run New York City makes me shudder. It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that L.A. has a better carbon footprint than NYC does.
ok bodz, but the fact is that if you refuse such a project because it doesn't meet your lofty standards, somebody else will take it. And then they may as well at least make in green, because a lot of sustainability is dependent on the client. If the client has land in the burbs, who is going to convince them not to build anything on it and move to an urban area? nobody. That's an argument you aren't going to win. So while I agree that green<sustainable, I still say green>standard.
most annoying thing, today and everyday: my cube-neighbor has a penchant for blasting metallica on his headphones and banging his wedding band on the desk while he drafts. the desk surfaces here are some kind of laminate and it makes the most piercing sound.
i'm this close to walking up to his cube wall and pushing it on top of him, sending him to the land of silence.
There is an environmental nonprofit near here that was located in a downtown location and relocated to a LEED platinum building they built in a suburban location. It was later discovered that any resources "saved" by the new building were completely obliterated by the increased commuting distances necessitated buy the new location.
that dance floor idea would be cool............but most people dance like trees......feet planted and sway......... unless you want to mosh pit or maybe riverdance............
Podzilla - its 11:30 and Im doing a model at home and will be in on Sunday as well. Some day soon my spine will become permanently disfigured from sitting at computers for the last 8 years
I guess if this conversation were about clients than my statements would be incorrect (not that they are necessarily correct). But, I thought this conversation was more about ethics than capitalism. I will say again that, in fact, rural sites probably have the most potential of being sustainable. But the point is, what percentage of environmetnal harm is currently caused by rural america? Maybe my point isn't very clear but I feel as though we need to build sustainable communities not just buildings whether they be in the burbs or in downtown L.A. Which somehow, Apirimac seems to think is a good place for environmentalism?
the most annoying thing in the office today.
green-washing. hands down. contractors, owners, my boss... its gotta be "green" though they have no idea what it means. everything is green-washed. everyone wants to appear green, and few really do anything beyond put a good face on for the rest of the world to see.
im still a student, so im only interning this summer; and as a result get to leave this world of phony bull in the fall... for a different type of phony bull.. but for you guys in this for...basically...ever, i feel bad for ya.
while its good to have peoples minds on this type of thing. this "fad" and yes until people get educated on what it really means, it will only remain a "fad", drives me crazy.
For me: the bad 70's music the cafe has chosen to play this morning.
Keep on rockin' me baby, while I finish this permit set.
good point.
it seems that people are overusing and misusing the word "green" in the same way they've overused and misused the word "modern" in the past several decades.
My experience has been that a lot of people are overwhelmed by the green movement. They don't know how to proceed and who to believe. It feels as though everyone in involved has their own agenda to forward and there aren't any accurate metrics to really objectively judge "greenness" yet.
A lot of senior people in our professions are rightfully cautious about the entire matter, I am sure they have seen many young engineers and architects come up preaching the latest "fad". Sometimes these fads catch on and become part of daily practice, othertimes they simply don't.
A certain level of reserved interest is probably appropriate at this point, otherwise you can get yourself so wrapped up in the hole matter that you become brainwashed.
Don't feel bad for us. Some of us are actually trying to learn something, and put all this green hype to good use. I don't care if 95% of it is hype, as long as it makes it easier for the 5% of actual, green projects to make it through the pipe.
Theres no such thing as green - its a marketing tool. You want to be green? Build a building out of shit that will last. News flash - Curtain walls arent green either. Im not sure if giant holes are green, but every one seems to think so. Fuck green.
good design should be "green" by definition. things architects should know and automatically implement as part of good design are inherently green. indirect gains etc...
props to reducing construction waste. ill give it that.
green roofs were cool (academically) just because it was cool to have shit growing on your building before it was chic.
had a meeting this morning that left me with my mouth gaping. hence the topic.
ive actually started to hate the color green, flipping through magazines i automatically skip an article if in the heading i see the word or the color green now.
I'm gonna start calling my buildings Blue, as in the Apurimac Blue Planet Initiative or ABPI, because I too am sick of the word green.
NNnnnnnggg. The blue search screen of our new internal company-wide knowledge-hiding system. Never have so few known so little.
"I don't care if 95% of it is hype, as long as it makes it easier for the 5% of actual, green projects to make it through the pipe."
I'm with facader on this one. There are certainly poseurs out there who wave the green flag but have no interest in actually designing sustainable buildings. I'm trying to design sustainably, and I don't think it's in vain.
i disagree with evil's comment that green is ONLY a marketing tool. It is used as a marketing tool often, but there are designers that are designing more sustainably than they used to out of a genuine concern for the environment, and out of general integrity.
to say that "there is no green architecture" is overly simplistic and harsh, IMO. there may be no pure "sustainable" and "zero carbon" architecture, but there are certainly are varying shades.
a rammed earth house in the southwest US which uses mass walls or trombe walls is inherently more sustainable/green than the richard meier house in dallas with 3-story glazed walls facing west, with a $3,000/month electric bill.
maybe i'm misunderstanding evil's message, but to me, saying that green doesn't exist smacks of the sort of skepticism of those who say that global warming hasn't been proven. i believe that the environment is indeed under threat, and that architects need to design differently than has been done in the past. Whether we call these new design strategies "green" or whatever is irrelavent.
green is bullshit
consultants lying about deadlines to get you to (over)work harder
oops OT, hey i live GREEN
i eat green
i am not green, (peachy beige)
dry land is not a myth! I have seen it!
Did we get off topic, or was this suppose to be a green thread?
If not, the most annoying thing at my office today is the fancy new printer. Its not just plug and play, its figure out how it likes to be set, and then I promise it will be better. But, damnit, I don't want to figure it out. DO MY BIDDING, PRINTER!!
printers suck!
that is another thing that is annoying at the office, explaining the color of light vs the color of pigment to people who want that color 'perfect'
Too much work to do.
money is green....
slap some sod on the roof and some ivy on the sides and some water near the front ...then your green.....
i hate the lighting in my office (coffee house)..... they have those pinpoint halogens that just bug the shyt out of me.....then the wall lights....then the can lights........ and the building is only 30x80ish or so....wtf....
and the loud mouth caffee maker beatch that has to talk on her phone while trying to take your order...then asks to repeat it.....grrrr.....
and it's cold outside..... prolly gonna snow too
snow..!!! and here i am, i can't even leave the building for 4 min in 115 degree heat.
so that is annoying too, too cold inside, too hot outside. having to carry winter and summer clothes to work every day.
the word "greening" or "green" architecture should not even be used. That's what makes it a fad to begin with. I think it's important to understand the term sustainability vs. green when thinking about the environment and building communities. I think it's probably LEED who started the whole green thing as a marketing ploy. BS!
crizzle, are you seriously gonna get snow in june in Detroit?
Or am I mistaking you for someone else?
"...saying that green doesn't exist smacks of the sort of skepticism of those who say that global warming hasn't been proven. i believe that the environment is indeed under threat"
I think that's the root of the problem. Hey, I'm totally into a lot of what's now called "green"...passive solar....wind...conservation...basic stuff... But in terms of the hard science you're implying? Hmm. A little tougher to flatly state things like you're doing, mation... The whole movement seems to fall apart a bit because there is just so darned much conjecture... Are you sure it's all been proven? Man, i'm not. Right now, it's been equally disproven.
hey! Fresh and Easy uses 'green' architecture as opposed to sustainable so there is a case to use the term 'green' arch ;) Herb Green in fact
how much older is USGBC than LEED, that they made?
bodz, I would say that both terms have meaning, and should be applied accurately, instead of using either one of them at all times. A "green" project is one that pays attention to resource consumption, while a "sustainable" project is one that pays attention to resource consumption and supports a socially and financially functional community. The vast majority of architecture could not truly be said to be sustainable, so I'm ok when someone just says "green," as it's much more likely to be true.
anything is possible in michigan..... it was hailing on saturday.......
Hmm, maybe you should leave.
working on it.....
good to know
no molson at the office meeting this afternoon...what the hell
Most annoying thing today...
Fatass that rolls his chair over to MY desk area, and doesn't start talking, even after I turn my back to him, and continue on the computer.
losing a Layer mask you worked on for hours because somebody merged it down in PS
waiting three hours for your GC tto respond to an email asking the model number of the windows he proposes using b/c the bid package only states the manufacturers name. When you finally get your eagerly awaited email, it states to check the bid package for the information. I ALREADY DID THAT!!!! THREE TIMES!!!!
rationalist...I think they should be separate terms (as you say). But, why make something green if it cannot sustain your economic and social standards? It has always seemed like the easy way out to plop bamboo floors and geothermal into a "green" project but place it in a suburban or even rural location. How can that be green? And in terms of sustainability, what happens when the (green) systems for energy use breakdown and become obsolete?
Not to say that these systems are not vaild but I am just more of a fan of community sustainability (economic, social and environmental) than I am for the greening of homes or buildings per se'.
thanks for the thought...
...yeah, because nothing built in a rural area could ever be sustainable...
KEXP - enough said. what was once a decent station has begun peddling craptastic shitstained songs. and it sucks.
co-workers who think they are too good to answer the phone. i know you are surfing the web anyway, i've got shit to get out.
employers taking on "get in get out quit fucking about" projects that offer no creativity or potential for future projects. why why why?
not having enough work to hit 40 hours for the last month.
at least your getting a check..........
apurimac...that's definately NOT what I'm trying to say. It's probably more possible to make a 'building' sustainable in a rural setting than in an urban area. My point was that most 'green' projects today are hypocritical to the fact that you have a half hour drive (and back) to wherever you're going. In turns of sustainability, that doesn't work (in my mind at least). I guess if you're willing to live like a tibetan monk or an amish farm hand, your options for sustainable building going through the roof. Otherwise...filler up'!
sitting at my typical table at my "office"..... a person sits at the table across from me and is just staring at me...wtf.......should i get up and do the robot?
Cities aren't sustainable, period.
Just thinking of all the energy it takes to run New York City makes me shudder. It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that L.A. has a better carbon footprint than NYC does.
ok bodz, but the fact is that if you refuse such a project because it doesn't meet your lofty standards, somebody else will take it. And then they may as well at least make in green, because a lot of sustainability is dependent on the client. If the client has land in the burbs, who is going to convince them not to build anything on it and move to an urban area? nobody. That's an argument you aren't going to win. So while I agree that green<sustainable, I still say green>standard.
energy making dance floors for every building!
most annoying thing, today and everyday: my cube-neighbor has a penchant for blasting metallica on his headphones and banging his wedding band on the desk while he drafts. the desk surfaces here are some kind of laminate and it makes the most piercing sound.
i'm this close to walking up to his cube wall and pushing it on top of him, sending him to the land of silence.
There is an environmental nonprofit near here that was located in a downtown location and relocated to a LEED platinum building they built in a suburban location. It was later discovered that any resources "saved" by the new building were completely obliterated by the increased commuting distances necessitated buy the new location.
that dance floor idea would be cool............but most people dance like trees......feet planted and sway......... unless you want to mosh pit or maybe riverdance............
Dance like nobody's watching AND save the planet at the same time!
most annoying thing today... going in on a Sunday
Podzilla - its 11:30 and Im doing a model at home and will be in on Sunday as well. Some day soon my spine will become permanently disfigured from sitting at computers for the last 8 years
back on the green topic i kinda threw up in my mouth a little when i found this page.....
http://www.nbc.com/Green/
I guess if this conversation were about clients than my statements would be incorrect (not that they are necessarily correct). But, I thought this conversation was more about ethics than capitalism. I will say again that, in fact, rural sites probably have the most potential of being sustainable. But the point is, what percentage of environmetnal harm is currently caused by rural america? Maybe my point isn't very clear but I feel as though we need to build sustainable communities not just buildings whether they be in the burbs or in downtown L.A. Which somehow, Apirimac seems to think is a good place for environmentalism?
My C.A. person just emailed me 14 RFIs in three minutes. Slightly overhwelming.
hi n_!
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.