AIArchitect

There are certain political views consistently showing up in the AIA blog that are simply polarized beyond reason; the first is the idea that if we do not agree with your version of conservative economic doctrine that we are therefore traitors to freedom and the second is that the best science in the world does not count if it does not fit within the constraints of your political point of view.

This is a recurring theme from certain persons in this forum and it is just obfuscation of reality and less than constructive. It is understood that we will not agree on everything and that lively discourse is valuable in the context of reason and fact.

Mr. Elliot has presented a point of view that is cogent and so has Tom. Clearly the private sector must carry the mission and I agree.

I must also agree with Mr. Rawlings on his points, however; the case has been made, and made again and again, global warming is good science and your denial is total political crap.

Sustainability is necessary to have an enduring future. There it is, I made the case for sustainable architecture.

The government is responding to both an economic crisis and a global climate crisis, which is why we have a government, both crisis exist and a response by government is needed.

Doing nothing is not prudent. Government forcing is appropriate to deal responsibly with real threats. That is not an act of betraying our roots. It is simply not in the best interests of the people to prevent a more sustainable built environment by insisting that government do nothing.

There is this presence here in this forum that is consistently droning on and on in support of policy that has demonstrably failed and generated misery and economic uncertainty that impacts our profession and threatens the welfare of millions of Americans. There is a traitor to reason who voices a sustained rhetoric devoid of actionable values.

There is another voice that keeps asking questions long since answered; "what is sustainable architecture", or, "show me proof of global warming", and continues the monotonous and trailing wail of denial to obfuscate constructive purpose. There is no closure to such argument generated to serve political philosophy and rhetoric.

Your denial of the present disaster is total political crap.

Your comments are all rooted in denial of the facts about our economy and the science supporting the IPCC panels conclusions on Global Warming. Political philosophy is only as good as the results. Empty rhetoric and philosophy is no substitute for fact based reasoning.

Your philosophy is based upon short term self serving profit goals and clearly not the best interests of the future of this nation or it's people. Your self serving political orientation in every single discourse reveals the totality of your distorted point of view.

People who are genuinely concerned about the state of our built environment are not manufacturing stories to bilk money from the government or to drive up the taxes to serve a "liberal agenda". We are now being attacked as if we are somehow enemies of democracy because we do not share your distorted version of conservative politics or free trade.

It is not about political motivations, we are conservative people and serious about architecture and built environment and in this discourse you are the radical.

So please dump the ideology that protecting America by proactively addressing a global climate crisis responsibly, is somehow the act of a traitor or an attack on the civil liberties of the American citizen.

It is impossible to respect any person who is a traitor to fact and to reason!

As I write this we have massive flooding here in my state and NOAA, a federal agency, tells us this is linked to global climate change. The Army Corp of Engineers tells us the same thing. Are they making that up for our entertainment?

There is no conspiracy to perpetrate a global Warming Hoax on the people of the United States by the majority of climate scientists in the world. Your constant insistence that there is no evidence is simply pathetic. I am shocked at the gall you exhibit in declaring the best informed people in the world on the subject of global climate change and architecture to be pandering to a "liberal agenda".

Mr. Rawlings is very politely pointing out that your political ideology as a brand of free market trade driven by greed in the absence of reason has failed. It has crashed hard and the impact has shaken the markets of the free world. It has failed and we are in the middle of very serious economic problems in the architectural profession.

We must wonder exactly what you are trying to accomplish. Come to Seattle I will show you global warming at work. But be sure to bring your boots.

I think we've seen how letting the most greedy people in the country do business on the honor system has worked out. If the world didn't already hate us enough out of envy, now we've screwed up the world economy. Importing 70% of an energy source, a failing economy that's life blood is the before mentioned energy source, a majority of people who live in places where walking to any service is impractical and driving is required for everything, etc. Everything about the way we live cannot sustain itself. The world is comparing us to the USSR falling from super power status. If we continue this behavior it will fall apart, the question is when?

To question sustainability and it's role in the future of Architecture is like questioning global warming and IF the gas will run out. We've had that argument, now it's time for solutions. Further more, we are the sustainability experts and you can't have a proper green building without a good fundamental design specific for it's location. This makes us necessary for a change. Why question an opportunity to make your profession more necessary? Pessimism runs rampant in our profession and it often prevents us from accomplishing the very things that we are pessimistic about.

Where does "purist, unregulated capitalism" exist? Straw man argument

"Government forcing is desirable."

That is a notion contrary to our origin:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

It seems to me that the question of how to mandate or otherwise induce a certain level of sustainability in the things we build, apart from letting clients' demand drive the effort, is the same self-pitying question the profession continually asks itself about its inability to adequately convince the public of the value of design generally.

Make the case for sustainability.
Rise or fall on the strength of the argument.

Sustainability aspects are already part of basic building codes (local and national) and will continue becoming more of the standard practice of Architecture as energy becomes scarce. We are one of the few professions that have taken on the responsibility to do a better job for the future of our children. At a certain point we will find that the expense of energy will easily out weigh the initial cost of energy saving design/ features. Green gadgets will create industry in this country (one day) and the free market will allow sustainability products to thrive as it doesn't have to be a capitalism killer like the oil tycoons make it out to be. You may not be able to put a meter on the sun, but the PV panel has to be manufactured, installed, and maintained (i.e. industry, capitalism). The people are already demanding it and will continue to do so (supply & demand).

We have known for a long time that our way of life is self-destructive and yet we insist on riding it out until the gas tank is completely empty. Will we end up like the Easter Islanders? This country is overdue for major changes which conservatives love to equate as socialism. The same ol' tired ol' scare tactic. The jig is up! Purist, unregulated capitalism has surely proven itself to be more than dangerous, so what's next? Any extreme is never a good thing, so we must find something in between or completely different. The resistance to political/economic change is really no different than a client resisting to pay for the next new and exciting design concept.

Terry,
I beg to disagree. At this time in our history, I'm inclined to believe that anything forced by the government has less a chance to succeed. This is still America, we haven't gone complete socialistic yet ... free market is how we live.
I'm not saying "hands off" is the correct path to walk, but the drive toward more economically friendly buildings must come from good design and Architects using their knowledge and influence to direct good choices by our clients.

Competition drives the market and the future comes to form in it's pattern. At issue is not the financial crisis but the scale of the errors that led to it and the underlying drivers in the matrix of the competition paradigm that made very bad choices appealing.

The issue is not liberal versus conservative political polarity but rather the quality of the choices and the nature of design intelligence. We will not embrace green until green fits comfortably inside of the competition paradigm. Government forcing is desirable.

The hands off approach engaging a let the market place drive the choices philosophy has in fact always failed. That is what generated the existing city despite the fact that we have known better for quite some time. That philosophy is failing again.

Liberals will never grin at selling vacation homes to housekeepers unless we choose to revisit 1917 Russia.

Financial Communities will work themselves out of current credit crunch / liquidity crisis - with or without government assistance: how do they make a living - by lending- no lending - no income. Although there will always be newfangled investments, Financial markets generally do not like poker bets and are conservatively managed. The markets will come out fine - they always have and always will - just be prepared for a bumpy, and prolonged ride.

The Market will work in similar ways for LEED. Government mandates, like wage and price freezes or other similar government actions rarely work. Arhictects who practice the princibles of good design (LEED as applicable)and good business will prosper because they listen to and respond to the market.

What is sustainable architecture? What are sustainable neighborhoods? What backs up USGBC's assertion that "green buildings increase their value by 7.5 percent?" (For that matter, what does the statement mean?)