Re: [GBlist] house thoughts

[Renewable News Network <rnn@rnn.com>]

To:  all

What is not green enough, for you?

> 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?"

Personally, I won't tend to be involved with natural gas fired projects.
Open flame cooking in the kitchen keeps me doing other things.  Its living
dangerously for no reason and potentially hazardous.  Unacceptable risk.
-ross@rnn.com

On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Kirsten Flynn wrote:

> 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
> ______________________________________________________________________
>


______________________________________________________________________
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
______________________________________________________________________