AIArchitect

Sorry for the huge review, but I'm really loving the new Zune, and hope this, as well as the excellent reviews some other people have written, will help you decide if it's the right choice for you.

Hi, try out buy wordpress themes

k0n8jhcmfsdgsjdr

I believe the question of the definition is not the issue, rather should we use the term.

There are so many different definitions, we employ the use of the term as an umbrella when we lack the vocabulary to properly explain our visions in correct English.

The term sustainable has now become more of a marketing tag line, along with LEED, and Green Building, that we throw them out in conversation w/o really subscribing to their very meaning.

I would suggest that we might subscribe to those principals while at the same time use our skills to be more succinct with our choice of vocabulary, lest we fall into the abyss of the masses who really don't know exactly what those term mean.

Cheers!

Tieing our own hands...

Given the gist of the definitions offered above, A fair cross examination might be:

Does the logical extension of these definitions obligate us to reduce our engagement with the world so much as to have zero net effect on the future? - not limiting in any way the possibilities of how 'our children's children' engage the world? Pardon the long-winded question, but phased another way: Is the ultimate sustainable act suicide? I honestly cringe at the self-loathing, and (suprisingly) nihilisitic tendencies that are present in the background whenever one tries to frame this debate. I.e. "Things would have been better if we had never been born!"

Well, in the ultimate analysis one of two things will occur; Either A) humans will become extinct (probably due to climate change, more likely due to global warming rather than global cooling) thus yielding this planet to new species as so many species have yielded before us, or B) the Eschaton, the rapture, the end of time as envisioned by many of the world religions.

We as architects plan for a future that we can envision. No one in their right mind expects that our species will exist on this earth forever, and I am afraid that this effervescence about green design is just another way of denying this fact - hoping that we can hold death at bay - a futile endeavor which our culture seems incapable of relinquishing. It is like Pilates for some, or Botox for others, or perhaps cryogenics??

My motivation in the pursuit of my vocation is not to rescue the planet, nor endangered species, nor even our own species, but rather I am motivated by direct engagement with the material world in order to improve it for today and the (forseeable) future. I guess I always thought that was what Architects did... If we assume that we are obligated to orient our activities toward an infinite future we are surely kidding ourselves in the worst way - and then all the discussion about sustainability is just the latest architectural plea for relevance, a hefty pendulum swing in what is actually a pretty tragic history of overreaching - recall perhaps urban renewal?

So I tend to identify with those among us who would rather occupy themselves in the pursuit of good design rather than sustainable design. Fortunately in almost everyone's estimation - including my own - the former does always include the latter.

Cheers,

The average person (maybe even the average architect) still may not understand the definition of "sustainable design." What's wrong with a plain English approach, such as: "Designing buildings which require fewer natural resources to construct and operate." One might ask the question "Fewer than what?" The easy answer is "fewer than average," but, as we build more sustainable buildings, the average will continue to change. Ideally, today's sustainable building will become tomorrow's energy hog. Therefore the benchmark for sustainablility will continue to change.

Creating a definition is merely giving us a tangible objective to achieve in the short term, and I don’t think sustainability should be used in that manner. Isn’t this the sole purpose of the LEED rating system? We shouldn’t create a definition that suits the effect and has no relation to the cause, or the root of the problem. I propose we use a definition that is NOT achievable in the short term, yet one that gives us, and generations to come, a goal to solve the source of the issue.

We shouldn’t endeavor to compose the definition into a formula, a checklist, for sustainability, yet a timeless term, that states the final goal of sustainability. Therefore, sustainability to me is to be self-sustaining or to have the ability to provide for itself without help from others.

The Merriam-Webster definition of Sustainability is: of, relating to, or being a method of harvesting or using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged.

These kind of general definitions seem to get at the foundation of the issue.

Regarding sustainability, although I subscribe to the concept in principle,(I am LEED accredited afterall) I challenge its application. How can we create real sustainability without addressing economics and social justice that sustainabiliy implies, yet avoids. Unfortunately this is the preoccupation with a westernized perspective on susatinability.
It is like telling the developing world not to develop- hence not to improve their ecomonies, while ignoring that the environmental destruction has come about primarily by industrialized nations which have taken more than their share of the earth's resources.
However, off my soapbox, to a note closer to home, true sustainability (not a mere marketing catch-phrase)will only occur when the immediate benefits of sustanability come home to the majority rather than the few. That means that the small builder/developer, small client, small home-owner must embrace it as beneficial to their immediate suburban, blue collar, lower middle class, daily existence - not merely a nicity for the priveliged few. Afterall the "American Dream" is still a highly un-sustainable image - but it is the core of most advertising and marketing models. The focus is on acquiring more products (hence more consumption)- be they more "sustainable" products.

At the request of the AIA staff in charge of the Institute Sustainability Initiatives, the AIA Committee on the Environment drafted these definitions (which were circulated amongst hundreds of COTE members for input):

Sustainability envisions the enduring prosperity of all living things.

Sustainable design seeks to create communities, buildings, and products that contribute to this vision.

or, to paraphrase educator David Orr: Sustainable design is the careful meshing of human purposes with the larger patterns and flows of the natural world.’

or, to paraphrase architect Bill Reed: Sustainable design is a process that supports and improves the health of the systems that sustain life.

* * *

We believe that it is important to use language that stresses the importance of doing things that are conducive to life and living systems -- not doing things that are "less bad."

There is probably value in the discussion / attempt at the definition of sustainability or sustainable design even if none of them are perfect. And I do think Michael Adams definition is one of the better ones.

Perhaps it will take ten or more definitions to begin to illuminate this complex and important concept.

I think of it as design that will not diminish but rather contribute to the quality of life of my grandchildren's children.

It is amazing to me that there are some of us[architects/masters of building and science] that are still occupied with the debate over the meaning of the word when the industry of the buildings we produce and the buildings them selfs are one of the largest contribrators to the degradation of the enviornment. The debate is nothing less then the future quality and beauty of our planet, and the lives our childrens chrildren! Even the smallest thing YOU can do is important, do it NOW!
See 2030

Regarding "Just What is Sustainability?", my previously stated concern is unrelated to the term "sustainability" becoming a "buzzword." And, the "sources" cited certainly are not "definitive."

I am not quite sure what the "Hanover Principles have to do with my suggestion and unfortunately, since http://www.fac.unc.edu/eag/Definitions.htm is a broken link, we may never know anything further about its definitions.

If a firm "strives to create a delightfully diverse, healthy, and just world, with clean air, water, soil, and power—economically, equitably, ecologically, and elegantly enjoyed” what does that mean? For starters, what does "just world" mean and who determines this? How would a firm begin to act on creating a "just world?" What does "equitably" mean?

Likewise, what does it mean to define sustainability as "the concept of meeting present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs?" Who determines, in the present, what those needs will be? What does "compromising" really mean? Taken literally, this could be quite constraining on all actions in the present. What assumptions are made as to the creativity of future generations?

I think that the efforts put forth in these "definitions" give us an assortment of very high level and non-specific abstractions that substitute many generalities for a single generality.

Humpty Dumpty was on to something:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,"it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

Either definition ok.
While you are at it give LEEDS and Green Design a simple definition also.

Sustainability is the AIA sending out their holiday cards via email to save trees.

Sustainability is not AIA affiliates (credit cards, life insurance, product info, etc...) sending me wads of junk mail every week that I throw away.

What about those trees?