One trend that seems to be applied to more and more problems today is underestimation. We as Americans seem to want to deny most of our large issues. Climate change, oil spills, deforestation of rain forests, many environmental conflicts and issues fall into this category, along with the most recent British Petroleum oil leak in the Gulf.  

When the initial explosion occurred off the coast of Louisiana, rough estimates and conjectures determined that the leaks weren’t concerning and it would be fixed promptly. More than a month later, we’re seeing the serious environmental impacts of the oil as well as the efforts used to stem its spread. From 5,000 barrels a day to more than 25,000, the course of time has only underscored the fact that people are willing to overlook serious factors in order to maintain a more optimistic outlook for a very serious problem.

While the timeline is much different, similar problems have plagued the movement against climate change. Though the issue is much more complex, the dilemma has only been hindered by controversial science, calculations, and estimates. The real problem is our own inability as a society to take responsibility for the full brunt of any given complication.

As I’ve stated in the past, to get American citizens to take charge of their own impact on our environment is hard enough, but to take responsibility and be honest about an issue that could potentially change a small economy, entire industries, the survival of dozens of species and ecosystems is hard to imagine — let alone our entire planet and global society.

While animals and plants are dying, people losing their jobs and entire regions being impacted in the Gulf, I think each and every one of us needs to consider what a difference each one of us can make. By simply taking responsibility for our own choices and actions, we can all determine our own futures, including that of our planet.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Over time, these spaces came to hold meaning for us, and we desired to make them more permanent. As we began to form societies and changed from nomadic hunter-gatherers to farmers and eventually expanded to citizens of cities, our architecture became more constructed, invasive. Architecture began to allow mortals to leave an indelible mark upon the earth: the Egyptians and their pyramids, the Greeks and their temples, and the Gothic artists and their cathedrals. There are structures that have lasted thousands of years—and will stand for thousands more.

I don’t want this post to simply be a history lesson. But to understand where architecture is going and what it needs to do, we have to see what it has done.  

Today, while we have almost infinite technological advances at our fingertips, many architects are not changing the real substance of architecture. We’ve been using the same construction methods for over 100 years. While many say that they advocate sustainability, they are not doing enough to innovate their field.

I think that Werner Sobek would agree with me. I had the privilege of seeing Sobek speak at Penn about 2 years ago, and he discussed several of his sustainable projects. He has started a program that he calls Triple Zero, which translates to zeros in each of the most important parts of a building: energy, emission, and waste. Each building (6 to date, all residences) can support itself by creating its own energy, uses materials and construction methods that do not create negative emissions, does not create any waste in construction, and if it’s demolished, can be completely recycled.

This is a relatively radical concept in the field of architecture: creating a building that has virtually no footprint during and after its use.

Others are starting to understand this concept on a larger scale. I just read a review of an exhibit at the MoMA that is a collection of proposals for how the city of New York will deal with the rising water levels in the next century. They foresee a city that has replaced much of its permanent infrastructure with new materials and formats, creating an environment that is largely permeable.

Some designers are now seeing that in order to be more sustainable, we need to be more harmonious with nature. This seems obvious, but there are many cues that we can take from the design of natural things in order to improve the performance of our buildings and environments. If you do the Google search for “biomimicry architecture“, you’ll be surprised at how much comes up. As of yet, it’s mostly an academic and theoretical ideal, but I think that this is where architecture will end up going in the next 50 years.

While the changes that we’re making now are helping us little-by-little to decrease our impact on the Earth, we have to radically shift our modes of thought on how we design and construct our built environment. It’s not enough to merely use thin veneers of sustainable materials. We must rethink the entire precedent of planning, architecture, and design that has gone before us for thousands of years. This is not an easy task, yet we are very capable. We just need to be willing.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

A new program called Earth Aid, however, seems to be a well-planned, well-designed, and well-thought-out program that is simple and easy-to-use, and encourages people to make an impact.  

Two summers ago, I had the privilege to work with a non-profit in Philadelphia called the Energy Coordinating Agency. It seemed to me almost the epitome of the sustainable non-profit. It was housed in an old brownstone building on Arch Street, had many dedicated workers, and was in a fairly consistant struggle for survival. They spearheaded many energy-saving programs in the city by using local, state and federal funds. When I left, they were even working on creating a Green Collor Jobs center to diminish unemployment in the area while also providing a base for sustainable jobs in the future.

ECA’s main goal was to help the citizens of Philadelphia save money and save energy at the same time. Earth Aid seems to have taken this a step in the right direction with their website. While ECA has been working for years in the field to interact with people and get the knowledge about energy savings out there, Earth Aid is now bringing energy savings into the homes of anyone with a computer by offering free energy tracking services for your home and providing easy access to financial incentives from the government for saving energy.

Though ECA provides many in-depth services that Earth Aid does not, I think Earth Aid has the opportunity to get a foot in the door for many homeowners. Once they see what small projects and additions can do to their energy bills, they will be more knowlegable and open to these energy-saving projects. Earth Aid even provides local service provider information once a member on their site.

It would be amazing if two companies such as Earth Aid and ECA could join forces. Not only would their customers have easy access and a great starting point to save energy, but they would have a direct line to people who can provide a wide array of services for those who wish to make a greater impact.

As I have said in many of my previous posts, people need incentives to work towards a more sustainable and energy-efficient world. If we can create services like Earth Aid that make energy saving not only easily understood but also financially smart, the new “green wave” will be a more educated and widespread movement.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Every week, corporations like Apple, Windows, RIM, and other major design players put out dozens of patents. Most of this is under the radar of the general public and the design world (other than those few in the know), thereby taking many design ideas out of general play.  

While I have most certainly expressed my love of Apple and good product design in general, it seems to me that the practice of placing many of these patents is somewhat unfair to the general populace of designers.

While it is understandable that companies would want to take all ideas that they deem potentially valuable and protect them from the use of any other designers, it becomes apparent that this would eventually prevent outside designers (who may have the same or a similar idea) from utilizing and profiting from these ideas because they have already been patented. Many patents that are filed and granted are never even used by companies, even underscoring the unfairness of the situation. There may be many products and ideas out there that are being prevented from entering production because another company has already laid its claim.

While my team did our research for the RIM competition, we came up with a design for a phone that we thought was unique and might be successful, and within the week we found a patent for almost the same idea.

I can’t say that I have any solution to this issue, but it seems that individual designers will have to work on their toes and pursue patents in order to compete with the big dogs out there.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Ecotect Example Output

This is my last semester at Penn, and in the architecture department, that usually means it will be the most difficult and time-intensive semester of your undergraduate career. So while my Econ-major friends are taking 3 credits and having fun on the weekends, I’m spending free time working in teams and learning how to use a new piece of software: Autodesk‘s somewhat unknown Ecotect Analysis.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not bitter about the dichotomy of work vs. play; most of us architecture students would much prefer learning a new piece of software or discussing the latest smart building material over a night of drinking, so this is pretty exciting stuff. I had never heard of Ecotect prior to about a month and a half ago, and what I knew was very limited.  

At first glance, the software allows a designer to input a building model into the program and utilize it to calculate energy loads and see the effect of natural lighting upon the building. Even this limited interpretation of the program’s use is surprisingly important and useful: by simply using a computer program, a designer can make decisions about the efficiency of the building before it even leaves the drawing table. These simulations can allow the designer to make more careful decisions about window placement, sun shading, and other factors that effect the efficiency of the building in relation to its sun exposure.

But Ecotect is not only used for these limited applications. It can calculate wind directions and ventilation for a particular area, aid designers in placing artificial lighting, provide data for acoustical analysis, and it also works almost seamlessly with other modeling and designing programs.

Essentially, a designer can work with this software in order to create a building that is environmentally sensitive with little to now extra work on their part. It will save energy costs in the long run and saves headaches when it comes to construction. This leaves us no excuses for not factoring in these environmental indicators that will help make better living and working spaces and lessen our footprint on the earth.

Ecotest Example Output

I can understand, however, that there is some sticker shock to buying the software: $2400(+/-)  for most firms is a lot to ask. If you’ve read some of my earlier posts, you could probably deduce that I’m a proponent for higher governmental involvement in sustainable building and design. It’s therefore probably easy to understand my solution to this problem: There are plenty of small government subsidies for sustainable projects in both residential and commercial sectors (in PA you can get funding for anything from PV panels to efficient windows), so it’s logical that some sort of subsidy could be set up to help firms pay for this software. In the long run, the efficacy of using this software is well worth its up-front cost, but as always, the issue comes down to motivation: Architecture and design firms need a reason to pay for it.

In the technological age that we live in, we really have no more excuses for not building and living sustainably. It’s really just a matter of choice.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.