Re: [GBlist] house thoughts

[Kirsten Flynn <kir@declan.com>]

Hello all,

As a local architect says "If I refuse all projects that are not green
enough, and put myself out of business, How sustainable am I being?"  The
point being, He has lost all opportunity to affect projects.

Keep fighting the good fight,

Kirsten

on 1/10/02 4:39 PM, Ralph Bicknese at ralph.bicknese@christnerinc.com wrote:

> Patricia:
> 
> I understand what you are wrestling with.  These are issues I struggled with
> 20 years ago in school as I aggressively pursued knowledge about what was
> not yet called sustainability or green design.  It took me a while but I
> decided (after backing away from the sustainable movement for some years and
> coming back) I could not cause the world to change to my point of view.  I
> had to listen not only to what the earth was telling me, but also just as
> importantly, what the people in world were telling me.  In short I learned I
> needed to stick to my principles and live the way I felt I should and
> practice architecture the way I felt I should (and could given market and
> employer conditions) and perhaps things would come around.  I think they are
> coming around. But, not by me being overly judgmental about the way people
> live or expecting them to come around to my point of view because it is good
> for others.
> 
> If I can show people how green design and green living is good for them and
> will enrich and IMPROVE their lives they will most often listen and begin to
> act accordingly.  And, once I get their attention they usually are glad to
> be a part of sharing the broader benefits with others. Many even understand
> that if green design is good for the world, it will be good for their
> communities and for themselves.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ralph Bicknese
> St. Louis, MO
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tawney, Patricia - PNG-1 [mailto:pjtawney@bpa.gov]
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 6:14 PM
> To: 'Ralph Bicknese'; deumling@socrates.Berkeley.EDU
> Cc: FUnger@aol.com; hollandfoley@acadia.net; greenbuilding@crest.org
> Subject: RE: [GBlist] house thoughts
> 
> All I meant to say was - The current American cultural paradym is "More
> money entitles a person to more stuff, more trees, more metal, more of
> everything."  The large house, small house discussion appeared to be an
> argument where we were trying to define what we should have.  If we could
> change the paradym for making this decision based more on a resource
> availability and common good (sharing these resources fairly), not rationing
> exactly, but trying to help people understand that even though I might be
> able to afford more, its outside my "share".  I appreciate that determining
> "share" is a terrible and frightful task - but allowing people to just use
> up the world things because they are rich it terrible and frightful also.  I
> don't think you can change people paradym through a comparison with average
> living space.  If someone chooses to live in a small space, why should
> someone else care about that (choice being the key word here).  But if you
> frame the case in terms of the world resources and sharing - I think people
> will be more responsive.  Everything I need to know I learned in
> Kindergarten - right? - well sharing is a big piece of that and you can't
> buy your way out of sharing.  But what do we share and why and when?  Not
> simple question.
> In terms of the world resources, America waste more than any other group not
> just uses more.  We build office buildings that on any given day are how
> empty?  30% - we over build, we over pave, we over eat.  Anyone who ever
> went on a diet can tell you, it won't work to just tell people to stop
> eating because its bad.  You have to give people a framework.  That's all I
> was suggesting...
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Bicknese [mailto:ralph.bicknese@christnerinc.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:14 PM
> To: deumling@socrates.Berkeley.EDU
> Cc: FUnger@aol.com; hollandfoley@acadia.net; greenbuilding@crest.org
> Subject: RE: [GBlist] house thoughts
> 
> 
> Ruebin wrote:
> 
> <I think one of the most creativity-inducing strategies I can think of would
> be to identify what some would undoubtedly consider "unrealistic" or "undue"
> restrictions on one or another parameter (embodied transport energy in
> materials, house size, minimal energy demands, location vis-a-vis
> infrastructure, etc.) and figure out how to design/build/furnish/dwell in
> houses that met those requirements.  How to (why) be creative if there are
> no limits established from the outset?>
> 
> Ruebin, I respect your and others on this lists opinions. I believe in most
> cases you and I and the people on this list agree on the big issues.  The
> differences between my view on this issue of what has become "small size VS
> evil" and some other's views, seems to be a "is the cup half-full or half
> empty" kind of a thing. I choose to act as if it is half full.  In some
> sense we are arguing semantics, in others, not.
> 
> I agree restrictions can indeed be (often are) a catalyst to creativity. The
> scarcity of the earth is causing us all to need to be very creative.  Part
> of my point is that simply limiting square footage is not the answer. We
> have been dwelling (pun intended) on that issue these last several days with
> the practical exclusion of thinking outside of that box (again pun
> intended). While having something to do with material and energy use,
> restricting floor area is far too simplistic a strategy and that strategy
> misses the bigger issue.
> 
> Contrary to the inferences some on this list have made, those that desire
> what some might consider an "opulent" and excessive "creative, personalized,
> self-indulgent, over-sized dream house" at 2500 sq. ft. are not evil. I
> submit that a strategy of green improvement that has as part of its basis
> the ongoing damning of usually well-intentioned, considerate people who are
> usually trying to do their best with the knowledge (and market forces) at
> hand, will fail. Rather than curse them we should unite with them to produce
> what they want in a better, significantly greener way. Many savvy product
> manufacturers have realized their long-term success depends on doing just
> that.
> 
> It is indeed possible to have a 2500 sq. foot house that uses 1/4 of the
> non-renewable materials, leads to 1/4 less pollution and uses 1/4 of the
> energy as the same size house next to it. Such houses are being built in
> North America now. So why should we be trying to tell people they are wrong
> to want a 2,500 square foot house especially when they are using only half
> of what a 1250 sq. foot house, half the size of theirs, might be using? How
> can we be so arrogant?  And if we are intelligent enough to be able to build
> a house that uses 1/4 of what a similar size house uses, how much smarter
> will we be in 10 or 20 years after we have really have some experience and
> market transformation is in steady swing? Could I not have a 3,500 square
> foot house that is more efficient and effective than a standard 1,500 square
> foot house is now? So in this case at least intelligence can be used so that
> size does not really matter.
> 
> With this focus on minimizing square footage we are loosing focus on the
> things that make buildings special.  Perhaps we should be focusing on what
> it takes to make a place humane or inspirational, on what it takes to create
> comfort and provide a sense of well-being, warmth and hominess. That is in
> part what Susanka is talking about. She is showing us a path for people that
> want "the good life" to have many of those things as possible and still
> leave a smaller mark on the earth than before. Are those houses not
> considerably more appealing and effective at providing a humane and
> inspirational domain than typical bigger tract houses? I do not believe
> anybody ever suggested Susanka was professing this to be the answer for
> everybody.  Susanka is making positive steps not negative ones.  She is
> taking but one set of steps that will help lead some people to better
> alternatives. Obviously her ideas are not earth shattering revelations to
> save the world.  But I do think they will help make it a little better.
> 
> And really, some on this list have spent a few days arguing about 6" of
> width in a toilet room.  Should the room be 30" or 36"?  Is green design
> really that mundane? Perhaps I should not have this attitude but who really
> gives a crap (or craper)?  If someone needs 6" more room to function
> comfortably will it kill the whales? There are much bigger fish to fry.
> (Sorry to all those whales I may or may not have offended).
> 
> There is plenty of room for fresh thinking. In that quest, I suggest we
> embrace the bounty the earth and human intelligence provides. We must learn
> from it, and work with it. If we treat it right it will continue to provide
> (unless or until nature plays one of its cosmic tricks on us). (Ouch! That
> is gonna' hurt). If we don't we will not need a cosmic disaster to cut us
> short. (Ouch! That is gonna' hurt a lot sooner).
> 
> I hope people accept my rant in the (generally) good humor that was
> intended. I liked your crack, Ruebin, about "the long hall".
> 
> Cheers,
> Ralph
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: deumling@socrates.Berkeley.EDU [mailto:deumling@socrates.Berkeley.EDU]
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:28 PM
> To: Ralph Bicknese
> Cc: FUnger@aol.com; hollandfoley@acadia.net; greenbuilding@crest.org
> Subject: RE: [GBlist] house thoughts
> 
> 
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Ralph Bicknese wrote:
>> impose unrealistic and undue restrictions on our thinking and ourselves,
>> or we can get creative and work to solve the problems in a way that will
>> allow people to have what they want, including certain 'things", and a
> clean
>> and healthy environment.
>> Let's get those thinking caps cranking on something else other than square
>> footage impositions or restrictions.
> 
> I disagree that we much choose between creativity _and_ restrictions.
> 
> I think one of the most creativity-inducing strategies I can think of
> would be to identify what some would undoubtedly consider "unrealistic"
> or "undue" restrictions on one or another parameter (embodied transport
> energy in materials, house size, minimal energy demands, location
> vis-a-vis infrastructure, etc.) and figure out how to
> design/build/furnish/dwell in houses that met those requirements.  How to
> (why) be creative if there are no limits established from the outset?
> 
> "Square footage impositions," as you put it, are but one way to set
> ourselves the challenge of living within the kind of limits we (will)
> face--either in the long hall* (good chance of encountering such in
> Susanka's houses), or in the long haul (a tougher, if more honest
> spatial challenge--perhaps akin to a journey?)
> 
>> the point is valid that we in North America have outstripped the
>> earth's ability to provide for us over the long hall* and need to change
>> our ways.  Obviously most of us understand that.
>> We are all (on this list) trying to figure out what we are going to do
>> about it.  There are multiple paths.
> 
> Reuben Deumling
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by REPP/CREST, creator of
> Solstice http://www.crest.org, and BuildingGreen, Inc., publisher of
> Environmental Building News and GreenSpec http://www.BuildingGreen.com
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by REPP/CREST, creator of
> Solstice http://www.crest.org, and BuildingGreen, Inc., publisher of
> Environmental Building News and GreenSpec http://www.BuildingGreen.com
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by REPP/CREST, creator of
> Solstice http://www.crest.org, and BuildingGreen, Inc., publisher of
> Environmental Building News and GreenSpec http://www.BuildingGreen.com
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 


______________________________________________________________________
This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by REPP/CREST, creator of
Solstice http://www.crest.org, and BuildingGreen, Inc., publisher of
Environmental Building News and GreenSpec http://www.BuildingGreen.com
______________________________________________________________________