"Design, Ecology, Ethics & the Making of Things"

[Etta Place]

Designers and architects seem to be on the forefront of the environmental movement. The magazine Dwell showcases many of these design projects. This is truly a free market approach to changing our ecological landscape. One such architect is William McDonough (no relation I don't think!). There was an article about him in the May 2008 "Vanity Fair." Industrial Revolution, Take Two: Entertainment & Culture: vanityfair.com

He designed the roof of the Ford River Rouge plant.

Here's a couple photos:





Completed in 2003, the plant has a living roof.

From the Henry Ford Museum website:

Of all the innovations coming out of the revitalization of the Ford Rouge Center, nothing has attracted more interest than the living roof now growing on top of the new Dearborn Truck Plant final assembly building. At 454,000 square feet, it is the largest living roof in the world, effectively turning the roof into a 10.4-acre garden.

Cleaner storm water
The living roof’s primary function is to collect and filter rainfall as part of a natural storm water management system. Working together, the living roof, porous pavement, underground storage basins, natural treatment wetlands and vegetated swales significantly reduce the amount of storm water flowing into the Rouge River, while also improving water quality.

Cooler surroundings
Planted with sedum—a drought-resistant perennial groundcover also known as stonecrop—the living roof helps reduce the urban “heat effect” created by acres of tarred and paved surfaces. It also insulates the building, reducing heating and cooling costs by up to 5 percent. The sedum traps air-borne dust and dirt, absorbs carbon dioxide, and creates oxygen, all of which help improve air quality. The living roof also creates habitat for birds, butterflies and insects.

Longer roof life
By protecting the under-lying roof structure from ultraviolet radiation and the thermal shock (expansion and contraction) caused by warm days and cool nights, the living roof is expected to last at least twice as long as a conventional roof. This could save millions of dollars in roof replacement costs.

Lightweight design
Sedum on the living roof is planted in a thin, four-layer, mat-like system instead of loose soil. Even when soaked with water, this innovative vegetation blanket weighs less than 15 pounds per square foot.

McDonough has done the Gap headquarters in California as well.




This is one ecologist though who thinks "growth is good." His philosophy is called "Cradle to Cradle."

From the Vanity Fair article:

The three principles of Cradle to Cradle, McDonough says, are really very simple, even if they do require a radical change in the way the world operates. “(1) Waste equals food. So we eliminate the concept of waste. (2) Use current solar income. So rely on natural energy flows—also geothermal and wind—instead of unnatural energy flows. (3) Celebrate diversity. We want to see as many manifestations within the protocol as possible to celebrate human culture—natural culture. We want 400 kinds of French cheese, but we don’t want 400 kinds of French plastic. So within technology, we want coherency; within biology, we want diversity.”

As someone who has tended to think that growth is bad because it's so destructive of our natural environment, McDonough's philosophy that growth is a good thing is a challenge to embrace. But, I guess it's more in line with man's nature. Man is a creative animal, and it is human nature to try to create new and better widgets all the time.

[AZXD]

I agree with the idea of "it is human nature to try to create new and better widgets all the time", and feel this is the salvation of mankind. We are problem solvers, and when things are not going well ... The problem solving abilities can lead to wonderous discoveries.

Nice article

[tbhahn]

Let me first say that I am not in any way on the manmade global warming bandwagon, but I do believe we have an impact on warming at a regional level (Google "urban heat islands"). That larger debate has been beat to death many times in other threads, so I'll get to the point on this one now...

I heard about that fellow and the Ford plant (with plants!) back in architecture school...it's great that some corporations are making investments like the ones above, but until such ideas can be economically integrated into the average strip mall, spec house, and everyday design in general, I don't see these design strategies being adopted by everyday mainstream clients.

I will say that a lot of our federal and (and eventually state) work is moving toward a requirement for LEED certification, but I wish that LEED was not so darn product-based so much as end-result based. As it stands now it is not much more than an ad campaign tied to a some buzzwords and a few fees that end up being thinly veiled taxes.

Sad thing is, if you look back 500 or 1000 years, as a matter of economy architects were designing buildings that did all that LEED aspires to do and more. Technology and all the bells-and-whistles don't necessarily make for a "green" building. If we as a society could focus on designing buildings (and building materials) to possess useful lives longer than a generation or two then maybe the initial impact of using building materials that are not necessarily eco-friendly from the get-go would be mitigated somewhat. That, coupled with the possibility that building materials could be made to have less of an impact bit by bit, then gradual changes would certainly manifest themselves over the long haul instead of sinking a lot of money into a select few "wonder-products". There is no silver bullet to the problem of environmental impact (I am thinking on a regional scale here...sort of like the heat island over Atlanta, GA), but rather it will take a gradual concerted drive to rethink the basic aspects of design (from material to architectural to large-scale urban design) to have a substantial impact on our regional environments. Long story made short, let's clean up our own back yards and the changes will trickle down (or up) to the large-scale.

Just my two cents though...sorry for the rambling

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by tbhahn

Let me first say that I am not in any way on the manmade global warming bandwagon, but I do believe we have an impact on warming at a regional level (Google "urban heat islands"). That larger debate has been beat to death many times in other threads, so I'll get to the point on this one now...

I heard about that fellow and the Ford plant (with plants!) back in architecture school...it's great that some corporations are making investments like the ones above, but until such ideas can be economically integrated into the average strip mall, spec house, and everyday design in general, I don't see these design strategies being adopted by everyday mainstream clients.

I will say that a lot of our federal and (and eventually state) work is moving toward a requirement for LEED certification, but I wish that LEED was not so darn product-based so much as end-result based. As it stands now it is not much more than an ad campaign tied to a some buzzwords and a few fees that end up being thinly veiled taxes.

Sad thing is, if you look back 500 or 1000 years, as a matter of economy architects were designing buildings that did all that LEED aspires to do and more. Technology and all the bells-and-whistles don't necessarily make for a "green" building. If we as a society could focus on designing buildings (and building materials) to possess useful lives longer than a generation or two then maybe the initial impact of using building materials that are not necessarily eco-friendly from the get-go would be mitigated somewhat. That, coupled with the possibility that building materials could be made to have less of an impact bit by bit, then gradual changes would certainly manifest themselves over the long haul instead of sinking a lot of money into a select few "wonder-products". There is no silver bullet to the problem of environmental impact (I am thinking on a regional scale here...sort of like the heat island over Atlanta, GA), but rather it will take a gradual concerted drive to rethink the basic aspects of design (from material to architectural to large-scale urban design) to have a substantial impact on our regional environments. Long story made short, let's clean up our own back yards and the changes will trickle down (or up) to the large-scale.

Just my two cents though...sorry for the rambling

Thanks for your post. Our company is building a LEED certified building. I wasn't aware of the product-oriented nature of the certification process. Can you explain?

[AZXD]

I agree LEED and it's certification appear to be a marketing tool for products. The mentality is correct but the implementation leaves a lot to be desired.

I also agree that "a gradual concerted drive to rethink the basic aspects of design" is needed. I feel it will be a slow process, and will be slowed even further due to the business politicalization of the process. I guess that is the counter to the great problem solver aspect. As people learn more, some view it as nothing more than a way to attain financial profit, and thus lobby for profit rather than the good of mankind.

ETA:

[Etta Place]

Here's a house that uses similar processes that the Ford plant does, but on a small scale.

It's called the Enovo house.

The house was designed around a central courtyard that incorporates nature’s elements. It features a green roof consisting entirely of living plants, the best insulation against cold and extreme heat, radiant flooring that stores calorific energy, as well as vast windows that facilitate closeness to the environment while increasing energy performance through their large supply of natural light. Énóvo is an intelligent house that breathes comfort by perfectly molding itself to the desires of its owner. With its ready-to-assemble modular structures the house not only respectfully melts into its environment but also adapts to the lifestyle, the needs and the evolution of those living in it. Whether you choose cathedral ceilings or low ceilings, open spaces or intimate spaces, small secret rooms or large open concept rooms, it’s all possible, whenever you want it:
That’s the genius of modular construction!

The name Énóvo comes from the Cheyenne language and signifies ‘’your home’’: in homage to the Amerindian peoples’ profound respect for nature. More than ever, architects, real estate promoters and building contractors are undeniably aware of the current environmental stakes and an unavoidable return to nature is imperative. Karl Montgrain, President of IME and Pierre Leclerc, Architect at Lemay et Associés, are part of this elite group of builders. They designed Énóvo so it will adapt to any type of terrain and to any climate condition including blizzards, earthquakes and flooding. From the start, these builders have applied themselves to find out which local resources can be used in an effort to reduce pollution linked to transportation and to cause the least harm possible to the surrounding ecosystem. In addition, the home automation management system designed by IME, offers solutions for optimal use of the available resources. Whether the programming of electrical appliances, the filtering of rainwater, the collection of grey water, heating and ventilation regulation or lighting management is concerned, everything is put in place for intelligent management of energy consumption resulting in improved quality of life and security.

Énóvo, the intelligent home, is without a doubt THE construction of the future available right now. A house that evolves, a house that understands, a house that lives and adapts; a house that suits everyone, all cultures, all horizons, all preferences and all aspirations.

énóvo.ca | homes that are ecological and evolutional through their architectural design

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

Thanks for your post. Our company is building a LEED certified building. I wasn't aware of the product-oriented nature of the certification process. Can you explain?

As tbhahn appears to have left the PV section for a while, I'll give his a shot ...

To quickly clarify my thoughts, I did a quick search and find a Wiki entry to cover this fairly well.
So ...

Although the deployment of the LEED Standard has raised awareness of Green Building practices, its scoring system is skewed toward the ongoing use of fossil fuels. More than half of the available points in the Standard support efficient use of fossil fuels, while only a handful are awarded for the use of sustainable energy sources. Further the USGBC has stated support for the 2030 Challenge, an effort that has set a goal of efficient fossil fuel use by 2030.

It is expected that LEED-NC 3.0 will include a requirement for a carbon footprint (carbon building print) and a significant reduction of GHG (green-house gases) beyond a baseline level. The reduction in carbon dioxide must be measured based on the direct and indirect carbon dioxide and equivalent reductions. These include emissions related to the consumption of grid delivered electricity, on-site combustion of fossil fuels, and fugitive refrigerant emissions.
The efforts to quantify emission and reductions in emissions will be in an effort to monetize the climate change externality in the same way that a Kyoto Clean Development Project (carbon project) does. There has been one green building project in the world to monetize the reductions that acts as the main precedent for this type of project. This was the ITC Hotel Sonar Bangla Sheraton & Towers Kolkata, India.

Because of this ... It takes considerable amounts of money to play in this product field. There is nothing wrong with this. But it does tend to curb development and acceptance by smaller companies who have viable products and limited resources.

This also shows how some groups are using political stances rather than purely environmental stances to push so called environmentally friendly products.

The whole idea behind the process originated as an environmentally friendly alternative to accepted building practices. But it is being skewed by powerful interest groups. This becomes very obvious when one realizes that the majority of products being recommended are fossil fuel based that have more environmentally friendly, but typically more costly alternatives.

Thus, to me, it becomes an argument of ROI and for some the return should be shown as a profit rather than the environment.

I'm not saying the tree-hugger ideas are correct, but thus far the balance IMO is not even.

[KingArthur]

I am by no means fanatical about "going green", but I do see its merit. The earth is more populated now than it has ever been, and the human footprint has gotten enormous and a strain on the environment. I approach it from more of a conservative point of view rather than a liberal one. I don't call the earth GAIA and worship it. However, I firmly believe that the earth was given to "personkind" by God to be it's caretaker, and we will have much to answer for it we wantonly do it harm.

[Frenchy]

Well stated, KA

[tbhahn]

Originally Posted by AZXD

It takes considerable amounts of money to play in this product field. There is nothing wrong with this. But it does tend to curb development and acceptance by smaller companies who have viable products and limited resources.

This also shows how some groups are using political stances rather than purely environmental stances to push so called environmentally friendly products.

The whole idea behind the process originated as an environmentally friendly alternative to accepted building practices. But it is being skewed by powerful interest groups. This becomes very obvious when one realizes that the majority of products being recommended are fossil fuel based that have more environmentally friendly, but typically more costly alternatives.

Yup, that sums what I was trying to get across...if we can find ways (either new or looking back through history) to do things that reduce our negative impact on our environment I am all for it. I (and many clients I do business with) see the sticker price for some of the systems and products that are better alternatives to the status quo, and are in some cases turned away with it. If Joe Q. Public needs a 10,000sf office building, and has a limited budget, then tacking on a "green" premium for materials and systems that are better for the environment might shy him away from taking advantage of those better alternatives. I think in a generation that won't be a problem...folks will just factor in the added upfront costs to their initial investment projections. It's a gradual process of educating clients so they see past the higher initial bid price and instead look toward the lower lifecycle costs (lower energy bills, lower maintenance budget needs, etc) in the long run.

It's a good idea, this new mode of environmental-focused design...we as a society need to relearn the basic adage "don't sh!t where you eat". However, we also need to ensure that the process of moving toward a more ecologically conscious design philosophy is not hijacked by special interests. A regional system would probably be more palatable to the design and construction industry, as different aspects of energy efficiency and ecologically conscious design vary in importance from region to region (keeping heat in is important up north, whereas moisture control is a priority down here in the hot/humid southeast).