Green Architecture

Unless you’ve been living under a rock somewhere, you would have heard of this term. It seems to be the hottest thing going. You can’t open an architectural journal or read a newspaper article about a new development without seeing the word “green”. Great idea, huh? Frankly, I am sick of it and am generally annoyed how people in the construction and development industries are using the word “green” to justify just about anything.

Real Example A: An architect designs a home in the middle of nowhere, touted for its "green" materials and for the way it “fits in” with the environment. The home is approximately 5,000 sf.

Real Example B: An architect renovates a Chicago Bungalow. The home is given credit because it employs new HVAC systems, windows, walls and insulation, making it energy efficient and protecting the home from any infiltration.

Real Example C: A popular food chain is credited with having a green roof because it will help protect us from warmer micro-climates.

I could go on with another 10 REAL examples that piss me off but frankly, my lunch hour is only so long. The point is: something very wrong and warped has come from a good idea. If we are going to call something "green", I have a few new rules that should apply:

1. New construction can not be considered green. There has been a tremendous amount of energy put forth to date to create buildings. To "throw away" that energy is wasteful. Yes, there are times when we must build new – but those times are rare and we should do it responsibly. Old buildings are a great resource and will save us from producing new: walls, foundations, roof structures, windows, etc. You want to be green? Buy an old home or building and treat it the way you would a national park - as a steward.

2. Any single-family home greater than 2500sf can not be considered green. Anything beyond this is a waste. It is a waste of energy to produce, waste of energy to maintain and condition, and is more likely to contain spaces with "wasteful" appliances and other shit. You want to be green, live modestly and stop buying shit!

3. Any building NOT within walking distance of a public transit line, grocery store, and school can not be considered green. One of the greatest wastes we have going on is the expenditure of fossil fuels moving people around. The further you need to move people, the more waste is going on. There are several rural areas where construction is necessary and there are plenty of great old rural homes and farm houses that could use a new steward. Beyond that, I just don't get it. If you like nature so much, then why the hell would you marring it with your personal modern architectural statement? Get over youself! Fallingwater was built in a different time and place. Hopefully we have learned a few things about architectural responsibility since then. You want to be green? Move to a fucking urban area and walk!

4. Substantial removal of original items from a home or building is not a green practice. Where does this stuff go? To the construction fairy? No, it likely goes to a dump. What replaces it? Likely, this stuff is replaced with industrially produced sub-standard plastic crap. You want to be green? Re-use, renovate and repair instead of replace.

5. Making a building weather-tight is not green. People go to great lengths to insulate, seal, and "protect". Instead of finding ways to "seal" and separate us from our environment, we should be finding innovative ways to live within it. Trapping air, moisture, etc. within the walls of where we live and work will likely cause mold, or worse, disease. You want to be green? Live with the occasional draft or God forbid, open a freaking window if you want to cool down - fresh air never killed anyone.

6. Having a green roof on a building within a sea of asphalt parking is not “green”. You want to be green? Reduce parking and make people walk. It will do them some good to get some exercise before they eat one of your 1000 calorie burgers anyway. With the additional open space, add some trees. You will do more with a few trees on your site than those few blade of grass will ever do on your roof.

As I understand it, a lot of these issues have been taken into consideration in LEED. The problem with LEED is that it doesn’t seam to account for the fact that when a code or recommendation is given, the average person acts like a 3 year old. They will find out how far they can push it until they get a smack on the ass.

If they are going to institute a merit system then they need to conversely administer a demerit system. O.k., you get a point for doing that condenser with a high SEER rating but moron, you built a single family home with a heated indoor swimming pool – bang! Minus 2 points! Great, you located your office building near a transit line, you get a point. But wakeup asshole, you tore done a perfectly fine concrete and brick warehouse building from the 1920’s to do so – bang! Minus 3 points! On the other hand, why do we need a system of merits anyway? Why can't people just be responsible.