Recommendations!

I had to read this book for my urban planning class, but it actually turned out to be quite amazing. "City Making in Paradise" by Mike Harcourt and Ken Cameron is about the key decisions in planning that made Vancouver one of the most liveable cities in the world. It is about true events, but it reads like a novel. After reading it, I have so much new respect for Vancouver as a city.

The e2 TV series is perhaps one of the best documentaries I have watched. It is a PBS series on the economies of being environmentally conscious. Narrated by Brad Pitt for most, and some by Morgan Freeman (both amazing narrators), this series has 3 seasons on design and architecture, 1 season on transportation, and 1 season on energy. What's great about the series is it is not just environmental propaganda. Each episode the negatives of the episodes focus are also elaborated on. Season 1 of design can be found at Pic-A-Flic, or I own all of the series. ~_^

Innovate or Die

This is a pretty cool innovation/invention that is efficient, ethical and environmental!

Quotes quotes quotes

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. " - Albert Einstein

So simple and yet so genius. In higher education, this is called Transformative Learning Theory (and a group of students and I are trying to get a paper published with this theme). In environmental terms, we as a society cannot expect to stop climate change unless we realize that we haven't changed our lifestyles that created the problem in the first place.


"Good architecture is green architecture, but green architecture isn't necessarily good architecture." - Ken Yeang

Ken Yeang, an environmental architect, notes that in order for a building to be considered good architecture, it must have environmental design. I could not agree more, as environmental buildings (while the upfront cost is more) save money in the long run, tend to have longer lifespans, improve the environment rather than degrading it, and can increase the quality of life for residents (depends on how qualitative one looks at it). However, the context of this quote was on how green buildings tend to be ugly. It seems as though architects who design green buildings simply put no effort into aesthetics. But the way I see it, is there are tons of conventional buildings that are ugly and then there are those that are stunning. It is the same with environmental buildings; there are lots that are ugly, but there are some that are beautiful. It is just the proportion of environmental to conventional that is different.


Pictures: Sculpture Building and Gallery, Yale University (Top right) - bleck!; Hearst Tower, New York (Bottom left) - wonderful geometry compliments the original 6-floors.

The Falls, Victoria, BC

I hate The Falls. And this post fits perfectly after my previous post on LEEDwashing. The Falls is located at 813-843 Douglas St and is currently under construction. I have two major problems with this building.
















1) Architectural style:
Take a look at what the building will look like. Now I am not saying that a variety of architectural styles is a bad thing, but this building looks like it was taken straight out of California or Miami and dropped into downtown Victoria. In no way does it fit in the local landscape, which is an important trait of good architecture.

2) Eco-friendly:
Apparently this building will be LEED Silver rating. After looking at their website, all that is mentioned about this is that it will be rated LEED Silver. In no way does it say how it will achieve this. The two things that it has going for it are green roofs and brownfield development (building on previously used commercial/industrial land - in this case a parking lot). So why do I not believe this is a green development? Let's hit up the sins of LEEDwashing. First, since this is a luxury development, it must be questioned as to whether or not the people living in it will follow through with green principles. Or...will more SUVs hit up the streets? And second, LEED in this case is definitely laughably inappropriate. Where is the energy coming from to cycle the 100ft waterfall (clean water instead of grey water might I add) and all those heated pools? Also, check out the vegetation that makes up the green roofs. Looks quite tropical to me; do we have the climate in Victoria to support these plants, or we tons of energy be wasted in upkeep? I recognize we have an annual palm tree count in Victoria, but who questions the energy that it takes to keep up those plants?

There is much more I can say about this building, but I will let you decide for yourself.

The Four Sins of LEEDwashing

While I am a firm believer in environmental design/architecture, I feel that it is important to note that there are problems with the current in-use system of LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). These problems were highlighted into 4 sins in an article that Treehugger.com presented, which I will briefly discuss:

1) The Sin of Not Following Through: basically, a building is only as green as the people who use it. You can have energy efficient lights, but if they are left on all the time it really defeats the purpose.

2) The Sin of Valuing Gizmos Over Appropriate Design: Going back to basics is a key detail in green architecture. However, humanity loves technological advancements. Simply rearranging buildings to achieve optimal natural light or providing natural ventilation is more efficient (and cheaper!) than including backyard windmills or building solar panels in the shade.

3) The Sin of Laughably Inappropriate Use: This is basically referring to using LEED for landuses/buildings that are contradictory to leadership in the environmental sector. For example, creating a parking lot or airport that is LEED standards. Using a car (since majority are still non-hybrid/electric) or taking a plane promotes environmental destruction rather than protection.

4) The Sin of Wretched Excess: Is a 15,000 sq ft mansion green? Being a leader in energy and environmental design means achieving a minimal impact on the planet. Even though the mansion is green, is it ethical?


I understand the argument of "isn't it better that they are using green architecture over conventional architecture?" Simple, yes and no. While building green is better than conventional methods, the underlying message of how to be eco-friendly does not get across. By building green but not efficiently, a facade (pun intended) is raised. Therefore, building LEED is almost being used as an excuse for building monsters like the 15,000 sq ft McMansion, and that is most definitely not the worldview of being green.

Intro

This 'blog' will be used as a field guide of sorts for architecture and urban design/planning that I encounter through my schooling, career, life. I will post my observations such as rants of buildings and plans that disgust me *coughthefallscough* and praise the successes. To note, I am highly interested in urban environmental design/architecture. Thus, my views are skewed; I am not even going to deny that. This, of course, is my opinion and you are subject to your own. Feel free to leave comments on whether you disagree/agree and we can further a discussion. Cheers ~_^