Studio Launch

Hmmmmm

"Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realize we cannot eat money." ~Cree Indian Proverb.

In my backyard

I often end up passing this power plant on the way to quiet county roads. Cycling that is.  Exercising... breathing deep.  The power plant above, the one I cycle by, was ranked as the 11th dirtiest coal plant in the nation.

And just last week, I read this headline, "Huge Drop in Chinese Birth Defects After Local Coal Plant Closes." Kenny Luna wrote in the article "...Chinese children born after the closure of a local coal plant have found themselves with 60% less development problems such as motor skill coordination than those born prior to the closing."  Anecdotal connection, for sure.  But, wow, that's pretty good.  I think most people would take those results any day.

Arguments against addressing global warming echo in my head...thanks Fritz. Coal plants are obviously polluters in more locations than China and Lawrence. Such plants are the target for many of the suggested actions attempting to deal with global warming.  The famous case of the denied coal plants in our state of Kansas is only one famous example.  Many people are outraged.

Outraged about what?  Those kids in China are the recipients of a coal plant closure that it appears will improve, sorry, already has improved their health and quality of life; and will for years to come.  And likewise, if we, in Lawrence, Kansas could be so lucky to find our air, water and environment healthier for our children would we not find that a good thing as well?

I know what the outcomes of fighting global warming can be: clean air, clean water, healthy environment. Better lives for our children. Even if we are wrong about global warming in the end...wow, the outcome still seems pretty good. I wonder, what outcomes the anti-global warming folks see as a result of their efforts to fight against taking action. What qualities of life on earth are they finding desirable in a world where they are right?

architecture has become a commodity

Richard Farson claims that “Architecture has commoditized itself.”

...gone and done turned itself into a commodity. It is our fault he says. His presentation late last year, passed on to me by Barbara Hendricks and called “Embracing the Paradoxes of Sustainability” blames Architects for taking on a “vendor” mentality. And as a psychologist he encourages our profession to simply think differently.

We are not alone he suggests pointing to commoditization in journalism. And tells how the three major TV networks presented a total of 6 news segments on the Downing Street Memo on intelligence leading up to the Iraq war. At the same time they produced a total of 465 segments on the Michael Jackson trial. Farson says, “That is commoditization.” Doing what sells, not necessarily what’s right. Architects today, are enthusiastically and prolifically creating Michael Jackson-like architecture. This needs to stop.

Why?

Take the need for sustainability; not a new issue, but green buildings are still a rarity. According to Farson, there are only 60 buildings on the globe that meet the Green Building Council’s gold standards. Is that real progress towards sustainability?  No. Farson states, “The fact that occasionally a green building happens has actually made matters worse because it reinforces our belief that we are on the right track, when we are not.”

We’ve placed our bets on serving business, the private sector, developers, corporations. Money and success comes from selling these folks what they want. But since architects only design 2% of the buildings in US it’s a bit of a stretch to say that big business, the private sector, has been all that supportive. And he adds that business leadership and social responsibility are necessarily incompatible anyway and suggests that we give up the expectation that individual business leaders will see the light and become environmentally or socially responsible. Or even that they should. Sustainability, he says, is a public concern.

Most damning, he argues, is that our success as architects in areas of sustainability and leadership has become very limited precisely because we are selling a commodity and subsequently then, we are now dominated by our clientele. Farson stresses it is extremely dangerous for our society to let that happen. In its orientation toward the private sector, architecture has become a commodity.

…his straight forward advice, “…it boils down to a rather simple choice you must make—you can develop the leadership that will enable you to build a better world, achieve real progress toward sustainability and meet the other goals you have cherished since you were students, OR you can continue the protectionism and commoditization and demeaning practices that now characterize the profession. I don’t see how you can have both leadership and the status quo.”

get the article here...Download farson_on_sustainability.pdf

Counting Down

Here's a counter you can get, great for a Monday, to remind us of our human connection to the global community...

Poodwaddle.com

Credits, credits everywhere

“If you buy organic fruit, you also presumably get something you can eat.” So Kathrine Ellison states. So when you by “carbon credits” or “offset credits” or “energy credits” what do you get exactly?

OK, I have to admit it. I felt guilty too. My spending for “offsetting” my energy usage remained at zero. The pressure to participate has been increasing from all directions. The offset market is thriving. The Discovery Cycling Team is doing it. IKEA is doing it. Starbucks even says they are doing it. Our local newspaper is doing it. So where is the list of energy credits we are buying? Why are we dragging our feet? Why do we hate the environment?

Have no fear, an enviro-mom helps us through the confusing world of offsets. Katherine Ellison does a wonderful job outlining her thinking on a very complex and confusing issue for us environmental types. And basically proves what we already knew. At this point in the game, one does what one can…the guilt, well its extra. And I love her conclusion…

Read her article here >

Green design discussions

Got back not long ago from two visits to the Tampa office. We had some good discussions about design quality and then also about sustainability. The discussion board of that office has recently bent towards the sustainability questions. So I thought I’d give it some thought. First, I applaud the idea that folks are pushing us on both sides of the discussion. It is wonderful to have that level of dialogue about important issues.

Lance Hosey with William McDonough + Partners framed the discussion beautifully. He said, “Architects…complain that the most familiar goals of ‘green buildings…’ do not exactly ignite the soul or excite the spirit.” And later, “…the work is not always easy on the eyes. The ugly truth about green buildings is that much of it is ugly.” He quotes Nikolaus Pevsner who said that “The term Archiecture applies only to buildings designed with a view to aesthetic appeal.” And goes on to argue that aesthetic delight is an environmental imperative and finishes by paraphrasing David Orr, “’If it’s not beautiful, it’s not sustainable.” A lot to chew on there.

For me, there may be a bigger question. Are we putting our effort, and eventually our money and resources towards the right changes? Some ask if making small advances in how we design buildings, given the effort required, is misguided. That possibly we should be working on the bigger picture. Perhaps we should be working the political scene to force change. Perhaps we should put our efforts towards change in developing alternative fuels if that's the main accomplishment we need to make happen. Perhaps that would be much more effective than worrying about small gains in energy efficiency of buildings. Seriously…should we be that worried about plastic spoons, LEED exams, and bike racks in front of our buildings? This is a question I’ve asked before on this blog and I think I know the simple answer after pondering the discussions we had in Tampa. Yes, we should be worried about those things simply because, well, it’s what we do.

Are we doing enough? Are we focused on the right battles? Thanks to the folks in the Tampa office for asking all the right questions. Our professional “activism” to do the right thing begins with the right questions.

a community’s future & thoughts on cross-discipline collaboration

A week ago, a team of architects and planners came to Lawrence to assess its “sustainability” and to frame some visioning goals for the city with an outside perspective. It was an interesting process to witness as this little blue city in a small red state tried to paint its own portrait (which of course is really purple, like most places) for a group of architects and planners from around the country. Lawrence is in some ways an embarrassment of riches: the university keeps it vital, proximity to Kansas City has kept it growing, and there is a strong arts community. Community residents are active and vocal; there are many who care deeply about this place. How those many define “healthy community,” however, varies widely. A public dialogue can be time-consuming, but it’s critical, whether it’s the future of a street, a city, or a country, and the conversation that was going on in Lawrence was a vibrant one that I think you’ll hear rising in volume in cities around the country. Already, many cities are looking at the concepts of sustainability and (a more inspirational term) regeneration, and beginning to think about true social, economic, and environmental health.

That triple bottom line thinking is likely to change things in some places; it’s already happening. For design and planning firms, the question has to do with what part of the game we want to play and who we’re willing to play with. In my opinion, we have to collaborate across disciplines to craft and retain the “conductor” or leadership position that we want in this symphony. I think the firms that demonstrate how to do this in a truly integrated and collaborative way—not just the lip service—will see big rewards. Within our office, there have been some projects where that kind of collaboration has worked. Sometimes this is almost an accident or a happy outcome of personalities. But I think we need to examine those cases and pull lessons and patterns to follow for other projects. Got an example? Let me know …

some thoughts on LEED

The process of studying the LEED system for this test, had the contradictory but interesting effect of impressing me about the detail and breadth of the framework as well as heightening my skepticism about the nature of that particular beast. There are plenty of things to point to in LEED as being limited, annoying, or exceedingly proscriptive. That said, I have become convinced that many of the complaints about LEED are somewhat misguided. Kristin Ralff Douglas, a green consultant who was the dynamo behind the scenes when David Gottfried set up the USGBC, during an interview I had with her that turned into a discussion of LEED, suggested to me that LEED opened the door to conversations between owners and their design consultants. That characterization has stuck with me, perhaps in part because it seems to understand LEED for what it is and is not. It is not a design tool, or the path to understanding sustainable design. It is a market transformation tool, and a baseline education tool that has allowed hundreds of building owners and developers understand how sustainability might find a place in their vocabulary and business plan. It opened the door and now the conversation is spreading. Some owners and their designers are talking about carbon neutrality and net zero. They are even talking about how the architecture expresses its sustainability and how to run businesses and create communities in ways that are  triple-bottom-line accountable. More interesting than LEED? Absolutely. As those activities become more robust, LEED could even fade away (not that planned obsolescence is exactly what the USGBC has in mind.) But something had to open the door. Our context is a capitalism that handicaps itself and limits us by ignoring social and environmental assets. LEED elbowed in on that in a way that the mainstream market could not ignore. That can’t be all bad.

Holl - Greener Than Green

If you are interested in sustainabliilty and good design, this is one model to be familiar with. The official residence for the Swiss Ambassador in D.C. is worth a look. For starters, it was NOT designed to the USGBC’s LEED standards. Instead, the team designed the residence in accordance with the Swiss “Minergie Standards.” A step above LEED. And for what it is worth, and possibly even because of the green push, the design is of it’s time. How refreshing.
> swiss residence by steven holl

Nature Deficit Disorder

One of my favorite reads from this summer was this book from Richard Louv. Its theme continued my growing concern over the last few months; that the more I consider what sustainability really means the more I get the sinking feeling that a part of what we do as designers is incompatible with that true meaning. Are we mostly creating antiseptic spaces for future generations?

We give children what, designer playgrounds, fenced yards and structure, safe and isolating. What of outdoor play spent digging forts, climbing trees and catching frogs? According to Louv, the replacement of open meadows, woods and wetlands by manicured lawns, golf courses and housing developments has led children away from the natural world. Instead of passing summer months hiking, swimming and telling stories around the campfire, children these days are more likely to attend computer camps or weight-loss camps. Louv claims kids have come to think of nature as more of an abstraction than a reality. Indeed, a 2002 British study reported that eight-year-olds could identify Pokémon characters far more easily than they could name "otter, beetle, and oak tree." Have we played a part in that?

“I like to play indoors better — cause that's where all the electrical outlets are," says a fourth grader. Oh my…

It is in Our Books or you can find it here > Last Child in the Woods