Help! I am overcome with guilt everytime I read the news. The ocean is filled with plastic (of course the firm I last interned for trashed plexi like there was no tomorrow.. not to mention 15hr days full of WeldOn solvent exposure), natural disaster all over the world, the current political climate, and on top of that, the Architecture industry is hugely wasteful and most clients are (or are linked to) the greedy f*ckers who are profiting off of mither earth’s current demise... Can anyone point me towards firms that are actually committed to a sustainable agenda and doing good? Trying to find studios whose culture I truly believe in (and won’t make me feel like fucking hypocrite).
Non Sequitur
Aug 8, 18 6:10 pm
Architecture does not cure cancer or solve political problems. We can barely keep windows from leaking for fucks sake...
delfina
Aug 8, 18 6:24 pm
I get that. I also knew I would get mostly this kind of answers. Still just trying to find firms who are trying to minimize the damage done...
Non Sequitur
Aug 8, 18 6:28 pm
But the vast majority of the damage done is outside of the range of an architecture office.
Dangermouse
Aug 9, 18 2:02 am
sure but we could start by specifying local materials, when available, instead of shipping custom bronze cladding from Germany (for example). you don't have to solve climate change to be part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.
Wood Guy
Aug 8, 18 8:27 pm
Delfina, there are firms doing their best to address the problems you describe, including mine. Everyone I know in the high performance field is extremely busy right now; for better or worse, it's a growth industry. Together we have an effect; it's never enough, but we have to try, and ignore those who say it's too hard. I would suggest looking into Passive House (aka Passivhaus) and/or The Living Building Challenge.
There is a high percentage of architects and designers where I am in Maine doing this kind of work. Some friends, competitors and/or former employers you might find interesting:
op... i would suggest starting by not reading the news... or go build an earthship in your parents backyard... or get an engineering degree and perfect plasma arc waste processing... fuck reading about feel good architecture... cause it's really bullshit.
randomised
Aug 9, 18 3:53 am
Best is to go into the development of projects where you can select the people that work sustainable, circular, CO2 neutral etc. Because if the demand-side doesn't ask for better ways of designing and building there will always be some schmucks that will keep on doing it in a business-as-usual kind of way with their 20th century carbon based attitude that got us into this mess. There are firms that design according to a different philosophy though, that are leading the way, I know a couple in the Netherlands, RAU or Superuse for example, but they can only do so much...But developing projects and demanding high sustainable etc standards on all levels, sets the bar for everyone involved basically.
Volunteer
Aug 9, 18 7:38 am
Some folks here would have been more than happy to flatten the Old Post Office Building in Washington DC and make it a parking lot. The same folks would be equally as happy to flatten the FBI building in Washington DC (completed in 1967) and have that agency move to the 'burbs and spend a billion dollars for new digs. But these same people are all for 'saving the planet'. Go figure.
randomised
Aug 9, 18 9:50 am
Supporting the preservation of Brutalist architecture? Did hell just froze over? ;)
SneakyPete
Aug 9, 18 10:02 am
Nah. Volunteer just wants his assumptions about us all to always be correct. They usually aren't.
Peter Normand
Aug 9, 18 10:35 am
The best thing Architects and allied design professionals can do to save the planet:
1. Encourage density and transit oriented development in existing urban and suburban areas. Increasing the density of the suburbs and restoring the density of our cities (mostly a US, Canada and European problem) is key and fighting the NIMBY folks who wish to stymie new development in existing cities and towns is critical. We need to stop suburban sprawl so we can preserve existing productive farmland and prevent people from developing in the farmland and wilderness. This can also reduce vehicle miles traveled and food miles traveled thus reducing the overall carbon foot print of a given area.
2. Select materials that will have the least possible environmental impacts.
3. design buildings that have as flexible as possible of a floor plan so they can be renovated instead of torn down once the building's original users out grow or no longer need the space.
4. design buildings that last
5. select finishes that don't require maintenance that is chemical dependent.
We have a lot we can still do or do more of to slow the negative effects of climate change and other forms of environmental degradation, but you got to be good at selling this to the client as a direct environmental benefit or by other means such as the cost savings of low maintenance finishes or aesthetics of natural not overly processed materials.
In one or two hundred years, criss-crossed by railways and steamships, covered with factories and workshops, the world will emit billions of cubic metres of carbonic acid and carbon oxide, and, since the forests will have been destroyed, these hundreds of billions of carbonic acid and carbon oxide may indeed disturb the harmony of the world.
Eugène Huzar, 1857
bowling_ball
Aug 11, 18 1:16 pm
If it was that simple, we'd have done it by now. But as others have pointed out, it's incremental, it's piece meal, and it's almost always two steps forward, one step back.
Think about it. How would you even start to calculate the following: a single family passivhaus home built in the suburbs vs a typical densely populated residential high rise in an urban area?
Nobody here wants to look the world, but the undeniable reality is that 99.9% of the world's developers simply don't care, and their budgets and schedules don't allow for it. That's not a bug, it's intentional.
Miles Jaffe
Aug 11, 18 1:35 pm
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. -- Agent K
Is it a comfort or a curse, the knowledge that we could have avoided all this? Because in the decade that ran from 1979 to 1989, we had an excellent opportunity to solve the climate crisis. The world’s major powers came within several signatures of endorsing a binding, global framework to reduce carbon emissions — far closer than we’ve come since. During those years, the conditions for success could not have been more favorable. The obstacles we blame for our current inaction had yet to emerge. Almost nothing stood in our way — nothing except ourselves.
Miles Jaffe
Aug 11, 18 3:55 pm
Bullshit. This was about cashing in and burying any other idea.
Help! I am overcome with guilt everytime I read the news. The ocean is filled with plastic (of course the firm I last interned for trashed plexi like there was no tomorrow.. not to mention 15hr days full of WeldOn solvent exposure), natural disaster all over the world, the current political climate, and on top of that, the Architecture industry is hugely wasteful and most clients are (or are linked to) the greedy f*ckers who are profiting off of mither earth’s current demise... Can anyone point me towards firms that are actually committed to a sustainable agenda and doing good? Trying to find studios whose culture I truly believe in (and won’t make me feel like fucking hypocrite).
Architecture does not cure cancer or solve political problems. We can barely keep windows from leaking for fucks sake...
I get that. I also knew I would get mostly this kind of answers. Still just trying to find firms who are trying to minimize the damage done...
But the vast majority of the damage done is outside of the range of an architecture office.
sure but we could start by specifying local materials, when available, instead of shipping custom bronze cladding from Germany (for example). you don't have to solve climate change to be part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.
Delfina, there are firms doing their best to address the problems you describe, including mine. Everyone I know in the high performance field is extremely busy right now; for better or worse, it's a growth industry. Together we have an effect; it's never enough, but we have to try, and ignore those who say it's too hard. I would suggest looking into Passive House (aka Passivhaus) and/or The Living Building Challenge.
There is a high percentage of architects and designers where I am in Maine doing this kind of work. Some friends, competitors and/or former employers you might find interesting:
http://www.gologic.us/
https://www.ecocor.us/
http://briburn.com/
https://www.kaplanthompson.com...
op... i would suggest starting by not reading the news... or go build an earthship in your parents backyard... or get an engineering degree and perfect plasma arc waste processing... fuck reading about feel good architecture... cause it's really bullshit.
Best is to go into the development of projects where you can select the people that work sustainable, circular, CO2 neutral etc. Because if the demand-side doesn't ask for better ways of designing and building there will always be some schmucks that will keep on doing it in a business-as-usual kind of way with their 20th century carbon based attitude that got us into this mess. There are firms that design according to a different philosophy though, that are leading the way, I know a couple in the Netherlands, RAU or Superuse for example, but they can only do so much...But developing projects and demanding high sustainable etc standards on all levels, sets the bar for everyone involved basically.
Some folks here would have been more than happy to flatten the Old Post Office Building in Washington DC and make it a parking lot. The same folks would be equally as happy to flatten the FBI building in Washington DC (completed in 1967) and have that agency move to the 'burbs and spend a billion dollars for new digs. But these same people are all for 'saving the planet'. Go figure.
Supporting the preservation of Brutalist architecture? Did hell just froze over? ;)
Nah. Volunteer just wants his assumptions about us all to always be correct. They usually aren't.
The best thing Architects and allied design professionals can do to save the planet:
1. Encourage density and transit oriented development in existing urban and suburban areas. Increasing the density of the suburbs and restoring the density of our cities (mostly a US, Canada and European problem) is key and fighting the NIMBY folks who wish to stymie new development in existing cities and towns is critical. We need to stop suburban sprawl so we can preserve existing productive farmland and prevent people from developing in the farmland and wilderness. This can also reduce vehicle miles traveled and food miles traveled thus reducing the overall carbon foot print of a given area.
2. Select materials that will have the least possible environmental impacts.
3. design buildings that have as flexible as possible of a floor plan so they can be renovated instead of torn down once the building's original users out grow or no longer need the space.
4. design buildings that last
5. select finishes that don't require maintenance that is chemical dependent.
We have a lot we can still do or do more of to slow the negative effects of climate change and other forms of environmental degradation, but you got to be good at selling this to the client as a direct environmental benefit or by other means such as the cost savings of low maintenance finishes or aesthetics of natural not overly processed materials.
Over and OUT
Peter N
McDonough + Partners
Be the change you want to see in the world.
This seems to apply to this thread as well:
In one or two hundred years, criss-crossed by railways and steamships, covered with factories and workshops, the world will
emit billions of cubic metres of carbonic acid and carbon oxide, and, since the forests will have been destroyed, these hundreds of
billions of carbonic acid and carbon oxide may indeed disturb the harmony of the world.
Eugène Huzar, 1857
If it was that simple, we'd have done it by now. But as others have pointed out, it's incremental, it's piece meal, and it's almost always two steps forward, one step back.
Think about it. How would you even start to calculate the following: a single family passivhaus home built in the suburbs vs a typical densely populated residential high rise in an urban area?
Nobody here wants to look the world, but the undeniable reality is that 99.9% of the world's developers simply don't care, and their budgets and schedules don't allow for it. That's not a bug, it's intentional.
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. -- Agent K
About 50% correct.
Compulsory reading material:
https://www.nytimes.com/intera...
Excerpt:
Is it a comfort or a curse, the knowledge that we could have avoided all this?
Because in the decade that ran from 1979 to 1989, we had an excellent opportunity to solve the climate crisis. The world’s major powers came within several signatures of endorsing a binding, global framework to reduce carbon emissions — far closer than we’ve come since. During those years, the conditions for success could not have been more favorable. The obstacles we blame for our current inaction had yet to emerge. Almost nothing stood in our way — nothing except ourselves.
Bullshit. This was about cashing in and burying any other idea.
Nope, they tried in the 70's. Agent 99