bodz11....
I will take the bait and disagree with you. i dont think that sustainablity is more likely or easier in rural setting.
It may be easier to impliment "green" systems and agriculture in rural areas but i dont think it is easier to be "sustainable". In a city you already have an existing infrastructure and historicly cities have always formed because it created ease of shared commodities enabling economic advancment to occur and all of the cities inhabitants to live a better life.
Even as they currently exist cities are far more sustainable then any rural area.
kanu...I agree with your comment on the city as the place for sustainability in a variety of ways (eg economic, social, environmental, etc) I was mainly responding to apurimac and rational regarding the meaning of green vs sustainability. I was arguing that a rural/suburban site could less often be considered wholly sustainable due to their need for transportation of building materials.
The comments regarding rural sustainability were in reference to sustainable farms, villages, etc.
That's all...
Kanu, you forget one key thing, cities don't produce anything, they consume. All the food you eat, all the materials we use to build with, they come from the country side. These things have to be torn from the earth and shipped miles into markets in cities, and its always been that way. Sure, a city divides up resources more evenly amongst people, but you have to realize that suburbs are also cities, just at a different scale. Its those small rural communities that mine the ore and grow the food and log the wood and produce the power and pump the oil that make cities even possible.
OK... agreed, cities lack the capabilities of producing the raw materials. I have found some of the urban/vertical farming proposals interesting, though they would never be able to produce the large scale raw materials needed such as steel, lumber and concrete.
But does a city need to have a constant flow of raw materials to be sustainable? For the most part those materials are used to create growth, not maintain the current state of a city.
A city has all of the same raw materials that a rural area has Wind, Sun, and Water. Many recycling techniques can be used to create materials and products needed to "sustain" the city.
A city might not be produced with out the support of rural areas but I think it could very easily be sustained with out them.
Which brings me back to our topic.
Why does everyone preach about wanting to be sustainable and at the same time want to maintain our current growth trends? I’m not sure that economic growth and sustainability go together very well. Perhaps economic change or redistribution is the best that can be achieved in a truly "sustainable" economy.
Well said, kanu.
I think another sustainable aspect of cities is a very literal one. We can occupy buildings that are 100+ years old. Most likely, they've been adapted to provide some modern-day comforts and are excessive energy consumers, but it still seems better to me than cheap and shoddy construction in suburban areas that occupy more land area and don't last.
Recently I visited the suburban town where I went to high school. I moved away about 10 years ago, but it seems to have changed entirely. As I passed by the now-deserted strip mall where I used to work, it was like nothing worth holding on to had been built in that area at all.
Anyway, I think that even though the green marketing thing is kind of annoying and there are plenty of people who are all talk and no do, I do think that positive change is happening gradually and gradually is the only way real change occurs. Good things don't happen quickly (shoddy construction included).
the most annoying thing in the office today.
foamcore mockups to determine the possibility of a line of sight into a ceiling construction through a 1/4 inch gap.
bodz11....
I will take the bait and disagree with you. i dont think that sustainablity is more likely or easier in rural setting.
It may be easier to impliment "green" systems and agriculture in rural areas but i dont think it is easier to be "sustainable". In a city you already have an existing infrastructure and historicly cities have always formed because it created ease of shared commodities enabling economic advancment to occur and all of the cities inhabitants to live a better life.
Even as they currently exist cities are far more sustainable then any rural area.
with a heavy use of if possible 100% local materials
think adobe in the SW
kanu...I agree with your comment on the city as the place for sustainability in a variety of ways (eg economic, social, environmental, etc) I was mainly responding to apurimac and rational regarding the meaning of green vs sustainability. I was arguing that a rural/suburban site could less often be considered wholly sustainable due to their need for transportation of building materials.
The comments regarding rural sustainability were in reference to sustainable farms, villages, etc.
That's all...
Kanu, you forget one key thing, cities don't produce anything, they consume. All the food you eat, all the materials we use to build with, they come from the country side. These things have to be torn from the earth and shipped miles into markets in cities, and its always been that way. Sure, a city divides up resources more evenly amongst people, but you have to realize that suburbs are also cities, just at a different scale. Its those small rural communities that mine the ore and grow the food and log the wood and produce the power and pump the oil that make cities even possible.
OK... agreed, cities lack the capabilities of producing the raw materials. I have found some of the urban/vertical farming proposals interesting, though they would never be able to produce the large scale raw materials needed such as steel, lumber and concrete.
But does a city need to have a constant flow of raw materials to be sustainable? For the most part those materials are used to create growth, not maintain the current state of a city.
A city has all of the same raw materials that a rural area has Wind, Sun, and Water. Many recycling techniques can be used to create materials and products needed to "sustain" the city.
A city might not be produced with out the support of rural areas but I think it could very easily be sustained with out them.
Which brings me back to our topic.
Why does everyone preach about wanting to be sustainable and at the same time want to maintain our current growth trends? I’m not sure that economic growth and sustainability go together very well. Perhaps economic change or redistribution is the best that can be achieved in a truly "sustainable" economy.
kanu
I would have thought that Mandi would have topped your list for this thread
Usually
kanu
we are going to get along...
Well said, kanu.
I think another sustainable aspect of cities is a very literal one. We can occupy buildings that are 100+ years old. Most likely, they've been adapted to provide some modern-day comforts and are excessive energy consumers, but it still seems better to me than cheap and shoddy construction in suburban areas that occupy more land area and don't last.
Recently I visited the suburban town where I went to high school. I moved away about 10 years ago, but it seems to have changed entirely. As I passed by the now-deserted strip mall where I used to work, it was like nothing worth holding on to had been built in that area at all.
Anyway, I think that even though the green marketing thing is kind of annoying and there are plenty of people who are all talk and no do, I do think that positive change is happening gradually and gradually is the only way real change occurs. Good things don't happen quickly (shoddy construction included).
if you wanna be green get one of these...
if they were truly concerned with being green they'd be keeping the old building
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.