Solar Decathlon 2011

Gather 'round children.

Try not to get too overwhelmed with excitement.

It's that special time again - that's right. I'm talking SOLAR DECATHLON 2011

For those of you who aren't familiar, the solar decathlon is a bi-annual event where student design teams from all over the world compete to show off innovative sustainable concepts. I have to say, instead of the usual clunky, mechanical attempts, this year there was a much stronger focus on aesthetics and spatial layout. I'm not saying there weren't any cheap tricks or gimmicks, but they seem to have taken on a much more subtle embodiment. Favorites were:

"Brett and Jermaine's Bach Pad"



"Sustainable Design: A new film by Ken Burns"



"Greening Up with the Joneses"



However, there were also some that I think got a little too wrapped up in concept:

"Don't you WANT to live in Ronchamp?"



The winner was the entry from the University of Maryland, which focused mainly on the ecological impacts of the wetlands and water resources in addition to the solar requirement of the competition. Is it beautiful? Sure. Is it well designed? Absolutely. But, I grew up in Maryland, and live here now, so you can't tell me you're putting your house in a wetland with grey water on site and then state that bugs won't be a god damn nightmare. If you have ever spent more than 3 minutes of Assateague Island, you know what I'm talking about. That and the fact that this house is almost entirely custom construction, bringing up the accuracy of calling it "modular". Modular design implies a certain level of production cost, which at the end of the day, is misleading to the viewer (and also probably to a buyer).

So in conclusion: U of M house- winner but not my favorite. Then again it's possible that I was more influenced by the order in which I saw the houses. Or I could just be a hater and haters gonna hate. Decide for yourself:

LEED vs. The Living Building Challenge

I just read (and earned 1 CEU) Architectural Record's "Live | Build | Sustain" article which discusses an alternative sustainable scoring system. I'd recommend you check it out for yourself.

Basically, to summarize, the Challenge is similar to LEED in that it is a system for certifying a building for sustainability. That is about the only similarity. Whereas LEED awards points for using certain green technology, the Challenge requires certain levels of sustainability. It's an ends vs. a means approach, which I think is pretty cool. The point of the system is to have an awesome earth-friendly building. LEED may be intended similarly, but you can have a LEED certified building that draws from the grid, or uses materials with VOCs, etc. The Challenge is more intense tree-hugging, essentially.

Anyway, check it out. I thought I would share this with you since I know our experiences in sustainability tend to be LEED-biased. It's always good to see what's out there. Plus, I was trying to think of other sustainable/green point systems outside of LEED the other day... and I could not think of one. Therefore, I am pleased to have stumbled upon this little ar-tickle!

http://continuingeducation.construction.com/article.php?L=5&C=705

Black Sheep Come Home

Sir Norman Foster (Also known as the Baron Foster of Thames Bank), The Mozart of Modernism, was on Charlie Rose tonight. Why do I know that? For the sake of my wallet, sanity and soul, I have decided to stay in on a Friday night for the first time in about 3 months.

http://www.charlierose.com/guest/view/6986

For the most part, the interview was pretty softball, as most interviews of this nature are. It’s not the blatant pandering you get in the New Yorker, but the tone is something more akin to “How I Spent My Summer Vacation”.

That being said, it’s easy to be impressed with the ego-less nature of Foster, and Charlie Rose at least credits this to his roots. The documentary “How Much Does Your Building Weigh Mr. Foster?” paints him as a local boy who makes good, which while both diplomatic and manipulative, is true. You can sense that guile in Foster’s persona and his buildings. This is a man who comes from the school of Hard Knocks, also Yale. Like a much less depressing Jude the Obscure. (pfft. More like Norman the AWESOME)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6N34a8qk0o

A few years ago, I was in London and was lucky enough to stop by the Gherkin.

It’s a building whose simple brilliant design is painfully obvious afterwards. (Like watching The 6th Sense the second time) By using the wind as ventilation, Foster uses the tribulations that come with the development of an urban high-rise (mostly HVAC) to his advantage. The problem becomes the solution.


He pulls the same tactic in the Sperone Westwater scheme


Art Galleries in Elevators. It’s gonna be big.

For my closing – Here’s an excerpt from the Wikipedia page for the SNF.

“A qualified pilot, Foster flies his own private jet and helicopter between his home above the London offices of Foster + Partners, as well to his homes in France and Switzerland”,

Somehow this movie creeped into my head

Edit: This post has been dedicated to David Z. Sucharski, the man, the myth, the legend.

You should give him a job.

that is all.

RE: "Emerald City"

Emerald City is this month's editorial by Robert Ivy in Architectural Record.  I usually like to read the editorials at the beginning of these journals for two reasons: 1.) they are quick (barely a page) and 2.) they are usually well-written.  Plus, they usually touch on something thought-provoking without being super-saturated with immodest praise (a frequent deterrent of other articles found in the periodical).

This particular article, however, was so cliche to me.  Typical "seasoned" architect downgrading all the research and technological improvements that the younger generation has developed in favor of a "simpler" approach to sustainability: urbanism.

Granted his article is basically an abstract of Green Metropolis by David Owens; it still disturbed me that he would use this introductory article as a soapbox for a seemingly over-exalted, under-scrutinized "solution" to all our problems.

The two major sting-points for me are as follows:

1.)  "Most of the products, technologies, and practices popularly touted as sustainable are not sustainable at all."  (A direct excerpt from the book.)
An example of this is slapping a shit-ton of photovoltaic panels on a rooftop in the name of sustainability.  Ok, fellas, let's take an extraordinary example and misconstrue it as normative.  The point they are making is just because you have these little nuggets of sustainable technology doesn't mean you employ them in sustainable ways.  Yeah, no kidding!  This is the biggest struggle architects and designers face, particularly as programs like LEED become mainstream.  You may have the most sustainable intentions in the world, but if your builder isn't informed in proper installation techniques, or your client can't adjust to the to the lifestyle (or whatever the case may be), it is a futile attempt to sustainability.

2.) City-dwellers don't need cars.  I despise such sentiments because a generality like this taken out of the context of the socially, economically and culturally diverse city population again misconstrues the facts.  Is it that city-dwellers don't need cars or that they can't afford cars (and their inherent fees in cities: cost of parking, gas, insurance rates, likelihood of theft/damage/collision)?  Are cities so populace because people choose to live there or because they can't afford to leave?  How do the poverty rates compare between cities and suburban communities?  What about per capita income vs. cost of living in these urban areas?   It is easy to cite cities as prime examples of successful density when you ignore the heterogenous density map - stuffing a slew of low-income families into close quarters in one neighborhood while in another neighborhood a multi-story billionaire's lavish penthouse trumps the expansiveness of suburban dwellings.

Perhaps I, too, am speaking in generalities and in disproportionate anecdotes.  But I can't help it when urbanism gets all this praise and no acknowledgment, much less criticism, of its shortcomings.

I have been dwelling on this for too long, by now, so I am going to post this and be done with it!  Hopefully the rest of this issue is not an urban jizz-fest else I might reserve it as kindling for the next snow storm of 2010!