Greening Your House – The Onion Style

Everyone has an opinion on how to make your home more green.  For a different perspective on greening your home (like microwaving food during the off-peak hours of 2 to 3 am) check out this interactive graphic from The Onion.

The Zoo and Mankind’s Influence on the Animal Kingdom

I have mixed emotions about zoos.  On one side I think it’s great that people have the ability to see strange and exotic animals without traveling all over the world, but I also think that the artificial biomes these animals call home are usually on the pathetic side.  What if your entire universe consisted of your bedroom, and one of the walls was transparent so that creatures outside of your universe can stand and stare at you going crazy?

The Schonbrunn Zoo in Vienna has taken another route in showcasing its animals.  Some of the artificial habitats include remnants of mankind’s effects on the environment, including oil derricks, train tracks, pollution, and a stylish red sedan parked partially submerged next to the hippos.  These displays are a deliberate attempt to raise people’s consciousness on how we, the citizens of this planet, are affecting the environment.  It definitely makes you think, and for that I applaud them.  Maybe this isn’t appropriate for every single display, because we as humans have an incredible power to ignore a message if it’s shoved down our throats everywhere we turn.

Retrofitting Suburbia

Just over a week ago I was fortunate enough to attend one of the seminars at the CNU 17 (Congress of New Urbanism annual conference) here in Denver.  The seminar was called Retrofitting Suburbia, and it was given by the co-authors of the Retrofitting Suburbia book Ellen Dunham-Jones and June Williamson.

It’s obvious that suburbia is based on the ease of use for the automobile – the wide streets that allow faster speeds, the ample parking lots that at most times of the year remain for the most part empty, and the ubiquitous driveways that demarcate the garage door as being the new front door into our homes.  Suburbia comes across as a haphazard “train wreck” development that is more driven by the profit margin of a development company rather than creating a livable environment (i.e. an environment that offers any other option other than getting in ones car and driving to a destination) for the populous.

This train wreck development is sorely lacking in any kind of meaningful design.  And by meaningful design I don’t mean implementing an aesthetic that is pleasing (which of course is highly subjective), but instead I mean injecting a sense of purpose into the design, to create connections between buildings and open spaces, and ultimately build an environment that fosters personal interactions and promotes a democratic society.  What suburbia does promote is a reclusive society that travels primarily in their cars and interacts with other people with their car horn and their middle finger.

So why has the last sixty years erased our knowledge of how to create viable communities?  Has capitalism over-reached its bound and become more centralized to our society than democracy?  We as a society are heading into a future where we know the current status quo can not carry us forward.  The solutions for many of society’s problems – a more fuel efficient automobile, urban sprawl, obesity, a failing infrastructure – could be answered by asking one question – what if I could walk to the store?

Design It: Shelter Competition

Architectural competitions are typically aimed towards generating ideas from the architectural community, and if you’ve seen any images from a recent architectural competition you may think that the purpose of these competitions is to answer the golden question – shall the building consist of lots of sharp angles or will it look like a giant blob?

I came across a competition – Design It: Shelter Competition – that I’m confident that anyone (and by anyone I mean any person that is capable of operating a mouse on his or her computer) can participate in.  The goal is to create a 100 square foot shelter with no utilities (meaning no electricity, no gas, no anything), and you can place this shelter anywhere in the world you would like.  It also requires to use Google SketchUp and Google Earth, both of which are programs that you can download for free.

This competition utilizes one of the greatest assets that most people have – their imagination.  This shelter is for studying and relaxing, so where in the world would you like to study and relax – a tropical beach in the South Pacific?  The summit of a mountain in the Andes?  On the steps in front of the Lincoln Memorial?  And how do you like to study – next to a roaring fire?  Laying in a hammock?  Hanging upside down like a bat?

I hope you consider participating in this.  At worse you’ll learn how to use Google SketchUp and Earth, and stretch your imagination.  At best you’ll spend a few days in New York enjoying a few museums and loving life.

Pruitt-Igoe, or Proof that the Flavor of the Month Can Indeed Go Bad

My friend Mile High Pixie has posted an interesting article briefly describing the history of American Modernism (at least in regards to city planning) gone awry – Pruitt-Igoe.  It was a large housing development located near downtown St. Louis modeled after Le Corbusier’s Plan Voison for Paris (which would have required the destruction of large swaths of Paris to implement, if it had ever been built).

There are many reasons why Pruitt-Igoe failed (and by failed I mean that it was almost entirely destroyed within 20+ years after it was constructed – I believe there’s still one or two buildings remaining), and none of those reasons are because of the modern aesthetic.  These buildings could have been built to look like mega-colonial behemoths and the development would have still failed.  Sorry Prince Charles.

And despite the destruction of Pruitt-Igoe (as well as Cabrini Green in Chicago) we are still living with the basic design principles of Corbu’s Plan Voison, which are instilled in most suburban developments.  Here in the Denver Area we have a large corporate development called the Denver Tech Center, and if you squint your eyes you can see the similarities between this and Plan Voison (the DTC lacks the order of Corbu’s plan, but of course suburbia isn’t known for its order).

The history of American Modern city planning consists of many examples of inhospitable spaces that promoted a negative living environment on many different levels.  The future of American Modern city planning is going to require a lot more dynamite.

Shipping Containers Offices

There’s been a lot of talk about shipping containers being used as a residence, but not nearly enough about shipping containers being used as offices.  I came across this project in Rhode Island that is apparently soon to be built.  More examples of this type of approach are Puma City and Container City.

The only things offices and retails spaces need are space to construct the building and space for parking.  Both of these are an ample supply thanks to the antiquated zoning ordinances that determine the amount of parking for retail developments and soon-to-be closing car dealerships.  Of course there are also the empty lots that are prevalent in most cities as well.  These shipping container offices provide a quick means of infilling the no-man’s land we call the asphalt parking lot and begin to create an exterior space more inviting for people.

I know most people are not exactly attracted to the modern industrial aesthetics of the shipping containers, and truthfully I don’t think the aesthetic is appropriate for all applications.  I think it works great for Puma City in that it allows the retail function to be cleverly advertised on the exterior facade, but for some of these offices I think it would be perfectly fine to provide an additional layer to allow more insulation in the exterior wall as well as provide a screen so that the sun is beating down on all of that steel.

Despite your stance on the issue of creating buildings with shipping containers, the truth is these containers are an abundant resource in this country.  What else are we going to create with them?

Quick Sustainable Tip: Digital Magazines

I love looking through magazines, and I’m incredibly moody when it comes to which one I read.  There’s a few I check out relating to architecture (dwell when I’m in the mood for modern residential projects, and Architectural Record to see what’s going on with the same twelve most famous architects in the world [that's a bit of a generalization, but not really]).  When I used to frequent the laundromat I always had to have a car magazine to pass the time away.  Now I have a subscription to Entrepreneur to motivate and hone my business sense, and every once in a while when I visit the bookstore I purchase a magazine that doesn’t mention the word “architecture” just to give some other brain cells the chance to have some fun.

The one thing that I hate about magazines is that they last for a few days before I pitch them.  There are those dwell magazines that I have piled up in one of our closets, but soon after they fall and give my wife a concussion I sort through them and throw away at least half of them.

Recently I’ve been receiving a digital copy of Building Design + Construction.  Definitely not a fun magazine unless you’re addicted to the world of architecture, but the digital format is great.  And there are many other magazines that offer this same digital format.

The Read Green Initiative offers a free one year subscription to a digital format of quite a few magazines.  And the website Zinio even has a few free samples of digital magazines.  Whether you’re into reading Car and Driver or looking forward to the centerfold in the summer edition of Elevator World there’s most likely something there for you.

I succumbed to my inner architectural geek and got a free subscription to Green Source.  To receive the free subscription through The Read Green Initiative (a part of Zinio) all I had to submit was an email address.  And with Zinio I was able to download a free reader program so that I could read my digital magazine without being online.  There are also free issues of magazines, which I’ve got my eyes on one for Motor Trend.  Looks like it’s time to download the free issue and do some laundry.

Lego Architecture

When I played with Legos as a boy I knew I was going to grow up doing one of two things – be involved with creating great cities, or amassing an army of droids and conquering the world.  In hindsight I probably should have gone with the droids.

But now all of you pursuing a career as an architect now have one more set of Legos to fulfill those dreams – Lego Architecture (and some Frank Lloyd Wright).  You’ve always been able to develop grand ideas and design aspirations with any type of Lego set you could get your hands on, but now Lego has created a specific set that embraces the black turtleneck and black-framed glasses in all of us.

As long as you remember that Legos are very much like most things in life – be sure to follow the directions to create something that was intended to be, and then break it apart and create something much better.

Prince Charles, the Environment, and More of that Bad Modern Architecture

I came across this article about how Prince Charles is coming out with a “green” movie (titled Harmony) similar to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.  The article reveals Prince Charles’ willingness to advocate environmental strategies and mentions his commitment to organic farming.  All of this is very commendable and I applaud him for using his influence to promote an obviously noble cause, but I had a very hardy chuckle with the last sentence of the article:

“The publishing house said they expect the book will draw on the prince’s commitment to organic farming, as well as his opposition to genetically modified crops and modern architecture.”

He really dislikes modern architecture.  My previous post gets into that a little.  I’m not too sure what his argument will be in proving how modern architecture lacks the ability to confront our environmental issues.

The truth (dare I say inconvenient truth) about architecture and the environment is that bad architecture is bad for the environment, and by bad I mean a stylized architecture that lacks any reference to the local climate and culture.  I just wanted to share my belief that architecture, despite the style fused into the aesthetics, can easily be made “green” by effectively responding to its specific locale.  Despite Prince Charles’ tastes, a historic architectural style reminiscent of a simpler and more optimistic time in history will not create a simpler and more optimistic contemporary society.  Creating design solutions for our environmental issues will greatly improve our society, whether it’s done with a brick building or a glass and steel building.

Shunning Prince Charles to Save Contemporary Architecture

Apparently Prince Charles does not like contemporary architecture.  He’s one of the leading members of a highly traditional aristocracy, and it just so happens he thinks architectural style peaked around three hundred years ago.  And because of his opinions, combined with his influential power, some “starchitects” (i.e. famous architects) are now asking other architects to boycott Prince Charles’ upcoming lecture at London’s Royal Institute of British Architects .

These architects (which include Norman Foster, Zaha Hadid, and Frank Gehry) claim that Prince Charles’ opinions will highly influence clients and regulatory boards into not accepting buildings of a more contemporary design aesthetic.  They note that the Prince’s influence will threaten the “democratic process” of architecture.

At what point does differing opinions threaten any type of democratic process?  Isn’t that what democracy is built on, the conveyance and sharing of ideas and opinions?  I’d be willing to bet that the majority of people do not fully appreciate and admire  contemporary architectural design (typically designs done by these architects), so I highly doubt if the Prince’s opinions will have much influence over most clients.

These architects have one very important marketing strategy going for them – they’re respective designs are very predictable.  For most of them they had one breakout building design that became very successful, and now most clients that hire these architects want a new building just like that breakout design.  Some of them allow their design aesthetic to evolve based on location and program, while other architects just simply pump out designs that are slightly deviated from their breakout design.  In either case these famous architects are hired because their clients want a signature building – something that will in their minds become a landmark and a monument to them and their cause (both the client and the architect).  And they’re hired because the clients pretty much knows what they’re getting.

The design of architecture involves the implementation of differing points of view.  So if architects are to be boycotting Prince Charles for essentially not liking contemporary architecture, am I to terminate a contract with a client when I’m thinking his house should be more contemporary and he or she wants something colonial?

I look forward to restrictions on my projects because I truly believe that innovation is born from having too many restrictions.  And if those restrictions mean having someone on the project who has a different opinion than me, then bring it on.  So instead of boycotting a lecture from someone who does not like steel and glass architecture, maybe these architects should be formulating why steel and glass buildings are better than aesthetically traditional buildings.